StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think it is long past time to review the I-P Moratorium policy. I can't speak for anyone else on this subject, but I think it is preposterous that a board which claims to champion rational discourse, continues to hold the door open on Star Trek vs. Star Wars (a debate which has even less to say any more about than I-P, or just about any topic really), and pines for the days when huge arguments would rage over various subjects, would continue to outright forbid discussion of a topic which is at once complex and stimulating - intellectually and emotionally. (and sexually if we want to make the tired old "lol Shep likes to bomb brown people" joke.)


If "there isn't much left to say on the subject" was really the benchmark then STvSW should have been closed years ago. I don't buy it. It's been over five years and the board membership has changed substantially. If nothing else I think the people who have come in since then should be allowed to take a crack at the topic and attempt to present their own insight on the issue.


Seriously, what's the worst that could happen? A huge screaming match erupts, a few people get butthurt for a few days, and if it's really too awfully disruptive we just clamp down on the topic again. Then when newbies come around and ask about it we can say that we're just too god damn stupid to handle certain topics.


But, maybe I'm wrong.

We've danced around the IvP moratorium many times and managed to demonstrate maturity (at least, of sorts, heh). I think the problem is not that there's nothing that can be added, it's that there's nothing that can be added that is likely to sway anyone's opinion, so it ends up being an excersise in frustration.

I think we could lift it, but mods would have to keep an eye on things and be quick to HoS as needed, or send folks to the Coliseum.

Coyote wrote:We've danced around the IvP moratorium many times and managed to demonstrate maturity (at least, of sorts, heh). I think the problem is not that there's nothing that can be added, it's that there's nothing that can be added that is likely to sway anyone's opinion, so it ends up being an excersise in frustration.

I joined after the moratorium and I don't have any opinion yet, let alone one that can be swayed. I don't really know anything about the conflict or it's history especially since neither side can agree on the facts of it's history. Furthermore, I'm sure there are dozens (probably hundreds if you count the lurkers) of people just like me who don't have an opinion.

I'd be willing to take a chance, but I am one of the reasons why there's an IvP moratorium in the first place! So, that's full disclosure; I'm not wholly unbiased.

The arguments frequently broke down into a lot of historical things, who hit who first, etc.

Coyote wrote:I'd be willing to take a chance, but I am one of the reasons why there's an IvP moratorium in the first place! So, that's full disclosure; I'm not wholly unbiased.

The arguments frequently broke down into a lot of historical things, who hit who first, etc.

Then let's have a partial lifting of the ban. Concentrate on the current IvP conflict and ban anything before that? This way we can have a constructive debate without falling into chaotic squabbling?

I think we can rely on judgement to see us through. I mean, some historical stuff is unavoidable, given the topic. But bogging down in stuff like "why didn't Hertzl take Madagascar?" would certainly be going too far out in left field, I think...

The emphasis should not be on forbidding certain subjects, the emphasis should be on keeping threads on-topic. A thread titled "Israel Invades Gaza" doesn't necessarily need to explore the merits of some incident forty years ago; moderators can exercise the "split thread" power in such cases. On the other hand, a thread titled "Where It All Went Wrong" or "Who Is The Most Culpable" should certainly include discussion of the past and how it contributed to the present situation.

And, frankly, it might be better to start off with a big "Who Hit Who First?" topic just to get the biggest slugging match and loudest shouting done and over with. Otherwise I suspect we could see people sniping off snide remarks as to who hit whom first, and someone trying to respond either gets shut down themselves or gets the whole thread locked, which is counterproductive and inappropriately rewards those who get in the first one-liner shot against the other side.

Lift it.

I agree with the OP. Its no more tired or deadlocked than other issues we allow, and stopping it permanently, especially despite new membership and new devellopements all the time on the issue, is foolish. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this board is stagnating. I think its far past time to review this moratorium.

I think the IvP moratorium is Mike's thing is it not? If he says it is OK to lift it then go ahead, but more Mods need to be added to N&P before that happens, because it will turn into a flame fest.

havokeff wrote:I think the IvP moratorium is Mike's thing is it not? If he says it is OK to lift it then go ahead, but more Mods need to be added to N&P before that happens, because it will turn into a flame fest.

Of course everything on this board is ultimately "Mike's thing." That needn't stop us from making respectful recomendations.

And their's already talk of increasing the number of Mods across the board, right? I haven't been following closely, but the consensus seems to be that such action is nessissary.

It's been a slow process. My point is it shouldn't be enacted until there are more mods because those threads fucking fly and they need to be watched over. Just the nature of that particular beast.

havokeff wrote:It's been a slow process. My point is it shouldn't be enacted until there are more mods because those threads fucking fly and they need to be watched over. Just the nature of that particular beast.

I wouldn't worry to much. By the time a motion on lifting the moratorium goes through the Senate, some progress should have been made. In short, I expect it to take as long to make this change as to get new mods (if not longer, since pretty much everyone seems to think we need more mods).

havokeff wrote:I think the IvP moratorium is Mike's thing is it not? If he says it is OK to lift it then go ahead, but more Mods need to be added to N&P before that happens, because it will turn into a flame fest.

That was also over five years ago (so everything from back then would be "Mike's thing"), and the impression I get is that there had been a slew of threads which went nowhere and accomplished nothing. I don't think there's much wrong with saying "okay we're just repeating the same thing over and over again, let's take a break from this one for awhile", but I do think that saying "no we can never discuss this topic ever again" is absurd. Would we do the same for "laissez faire vs. government regulation" or "pro-life vs. pro-choice"? If so, I think the board needs to seriously re-examine whether or not it's actually as different from other forums as it believes itself to be. If not, then why is I-P so special and different a topic as to warrant a permanent prohibition?


I think it's been well long enough to try re-opening the subject. And it's not like we have to open a whole subforum dedicated to the subject; we can just say "okay it's no longer a forbidden topic", a couple of threads will pop up, and meanwhile other topics will continue to be discussed.


But obviously if the board owner says 'no' then that's that.

IVP is a subject around here that has caused a great deal of grief in years past. I would advise caution on this course of action.

Uraniun235 wrote:That was also over five years ago (so everything from back then would be "Mike's thing"), and the impression I get is that there had been a slew of threads which went nowhere and accomplished nothing. I don't think there's much wrong with saying "okay we're just repeating the same thing over and over again, let's take a break from this one for awhile", but I do think that saying "no we can never discuss this topic ever again" is absurd. Would we do the same for "laissez faire vs. government regulation" or "pro-life vs. pro-choice"? If so, I think the board needs to seriously re-examine whether or not it's actually as different from other forums as it believes itself to be. If not, then why is I-P so special and different a topic as to warrant a permanent prohibition?


I think it's been well long enough to try re-opening the subject. And it's not like we have to open a whole subforum dedicated to the subject; we can just say "okay it's no longer a forbidden topic", a couple of threads will pop up, and meanwhile other topics will continue to be discussed.

As I recall, the problem came about that, since it is pretty much one nasty cycle of hate over there, arguments were not about recent actions, but about which side was "worse". Which meant instead of the standard logic and rationalism that the board was trying to promote, both sides were posters utterly convinced they held the moral high ground and making appeals to emotion for their arguments. And of course, when you get extremely emotionally involved in a subject (like those arguments did) and held a position of "who has the moral high ground" things got EXTREMELY personal and very nasty with great speed. This lead to vendettas, IRC nonsense, etc.

Basically, it was what we trying to stamp out in N&P now, on crack. Given that we are trying to get rid of that kind of behavior, I can't see lifting it as a good thing. I suppose you could try a Coliseum debate for it, with extra rules to reign it in from the boards usual style to keep it from going down that road (eg "entries must be rated PG"), but that doesn't strike me as a very good plan.

Unlock IvP and you will scatter at least 5 30-page threads into N&P, 2 more into the HoS, and probably you'll create a few new vendettas, possibly a ban. And nothing terribly productive will result.

Frankly, the best way to do this would involve a Collesium debate. It's one-on-one, no peanut gallery and with the understanding that it's all in the name of sport. As a result, things are less likely to heat up.

I'd volunteer for this myself, but:

A - I don't have the time to commit to the debate.

B - I have a tendency to take IvP debates a bit too personally.

Faqa wrote:Unlock IvP and you will scatter at least 5 30-page threads into N&P, 2 more into the HoS, and probably you'll create a few new vendettas, possibly a ban. And nothing terribly productive will result.

Frankly, the best way to do this would involve a Collesium debate. It's one-on-one, no peanut gallery and with the understanding that it's all in the name of sport. As a result, things are less likely to heat up.

I'd volunteer for this myself, but:

A - I don't have the time to commit to the debate.

B - I have a tendency to take IvP debates a bit too personally.

I was thinking, is it possible for people to argue against their personal belief and stance in regards to the IvP issue? There are a number of legitimate supporters from both sides of the camp who are capable of making viable arguments.

If the problem is the fact that people may get too personal when they are being attacked on a personal stance, let this be an academic exercise.

Let people know that whoever that wins the debate isn't necessarily correct. Instead, the winner won this debate BECAUSE he is a better debate, and made better arguments even when he is arguing against an issue that is important to him.

If IVP were to be thrown out in the Coliseum, how would the participants be selected? There's no shortage of people to debate the idea, and I imagine that scads of people want their very specific two cents.

ray245 wrote:I was thinking, is it possible for people to argue against their personal belief and stance in regards to the IvP issue? There are a number of legitimate supporters from both sides of the camp who are capable of making viable arguments.

Won't work. The two essentially opposing positions start from premises that cannot be reconciled in a manner that solves the debate with a decisive victory for one side. On one side you have the premises from an ethics based argument, on the opposite end the "might makes right" and then you have the practicality argument on what can and cannot be done with the current situation and they all trample all over each other. The might makes right argument is simply ethically bankrupt and addresses no opposing points. The ethical argument may address some opposing points, but does nothing for the practical issues and the practicality argument can lean one way or the other based on a mix of principles and expediency that has its own holes.

It will simply go nowhere at all, even if sent into the Coliseum. For the same reason, the moratorium should stay in place. Otherwise we'll just get more or less the results Faqa predicted.

Uraniun235 wrote:A thread titled "Israel Invades Gaza" doesn't necessarily need to explore the merits of some incident forty years ago; moderators can exercise the "split thread" power in such cases.

It's impossible to honestly discuss the ethics and morals of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict without reference to the foundational events. It's like discussing whether it is okay to wave the Confederate battle flag around, only you're not allowed to mention slavery.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:A thread titled "Israel Invades Gaza" doesn't necessarily need to explore the merits of some incident forty years ago; moderators can exercise the "split thread" power in such cases.

It's impossible to honestly discuss the ethics and morals of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict without reference to the foundational events. It's like discussing whether it is okay to wave the Confederate battle flag around, only you're not allowed to mention slavery.

No, it would be like discussing who shot first in Bloody Kansas. Which is irrelevant to the Civil War.

Ender wrote:And of course, when you get extremely emotionally involved in a subject (like those arguments did) and held a position of "who has the moral high ground" things got EXTREMELY personal and very nasty with great speed. This lead to vendettas, IRC nonsense, etc.

Faqa wrote:Unlock IvP and you will scatter at least 5 30-page threads into N&P, 2 more into the HoS, and probably you'll create a few new vendettas, possibly a ban. And nothing terribly productive will result.

This is ridiculous. This may have been the case 5 years ago, but what makes you think absolutely nothing has changed on the board since then? I've seen loads of debates where things got heated, but nothing like this happened. I don't think we need to worry as much about vendettas anymore, people know better, and there aren't many other posters who will stand for it, nevermind the mods.

Phantasee wrote:

Ender wrote:And of course, when you get extremely emotionally involved in a subject (like those arguments did) and held a position of "who has the moral high ground" things got EXTREMELY personal and very nasty with great speed. This lead to vendettas, IRC nonsense, etc.

Faqa wrote:Unlock IvP and you will scatter at least 5 30-page threads into N&P, 2 more into the HoS, and probably you'll create a few new vendettas, possibly a ban. And nothing terribly productive will result.

This is ridiculous. This may have been the case 5 years ago, but what makes you think absolutely nothing has changed on the board since then? I've seen loads of debates where things got heated, but nothing like this happened. I don't think we need to worry as much about vendettas anymore, people know better, and there aren't many other posters who will stand for it, nevermind the mods.

Phant, I've been arguing in another thread how I think automatically assuming flames and dogpiles will erupt in a discussion is stupid, however, on this topic, it can almost be ensured.

It basically, to me anyway, boils down to finger pointing about who did what horrible thing to who first, and it is just an endless cycle of this that has no real beginning that anyone can pinpoint, or worse, both sides think they can and that makes anything further they did justified.

So we're all big and growed up in every area except this? Maybe it's because we haven't been allowed to develop in this area for the past 5 years?

Oh wait, no, you're right - everybody knows everybody else is a douchebag with a vendetta when it comes to Israel-Palestine, right?

Believe me, I see your point. I am also for giving it a go like I said, with heavy mod oversight. I'm just saying, that no matter the venue, this is an argument that gets heated. Not that the people here can't handle the argument. Although from past reading, the track record isn't very good.

And for the record, I think this is maybe, the second worthwhile topic this place has spawned. Good job Uraniun.