About Hyde Park

[loopytheone]

So, some people may have noticed that Hyde Park is back in Archive-only mode despite me saying it wouldn't be coming back. I understand that there is confusion over this so here is an explanation for you all.

The site owner contacted me yesterday to tell me that I cannot mass delete/hide threads permanently like that for technical reasons. As such, I have to make the Hyde Park board visible again.

Hyde Park is closed and will not be open to new posts ever again, hence its 'archive' status. This wont impact the running of the Soap Box in any way.

Hope that clears some things up for everyone and sorry about the lack of warning.

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by loopytheone

So, some people may have noticed that Hyde Park is back in Archive-only mode despite me saying it wouldn't be coming back. I understand that there is confusion over this so here is an explanation for you all.

The site owner contacted me yesterday to tell me that I cannot mass delete/hide threads permanently like that for technical reasons. As such, I have to make the Hyde Park board visible again.

Hyde Park is closed and will not be open to new posts ever again, hence its 'archive' status. This wont impact the running of the Soap Box in any way.

Hope that clears some things up for everyone and sorry about the lack of warning.

Well it has a sort of nostalgic ring to it - we get to see the origins of things and such....

[Tracii]

I wonder how much of the HP archive will spill over on the soap box in future threads.
How would you police that?

[loopytheone]

Do you mean people taking content out of Hyde Park and putting it in the Soap Box? Because that wont be tolerated at all.

[Tracii]

By taking the idea out of a HP post not an exact lifting of a post from HP.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by loopytheone

Do you mean people taking content out of Hyde Park and putting it in the Soap Box? Because that wont be tolerated at all.

Why? As others have pointed out Dims is a private network and laws concerning civil rights don't apply. (Ironically, it was those same civil laws that were cited in closing Hyde Park.)

Basically the question is: Why do the Mods favor censorship? They want the ability to tell posters what they can say and how they can say it. Is that the working definition of a debate by the Mods?

[agouderia]

Originally Posted by Tracii

By taking the idea out of a HP post not an exact lifting of a post from HP.

No Mod Team can control where an idea originally comes from.

As long as they concurr with the rules of The Soap Box, there are no restrictions as to mining Hyde Park for ideas.

In practice, I personally don't see it as much of an issue. In a political forum, most topics are current agenda driven - so reviving issues, situations of months or years gone by will be of limited interest.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Basically the question is: Why do the Mods favor censorship? They want the ability to tell posters what they can say and how they can say it. Is that the working definition of a debate by the Mods?

We don't favor censorship. We actually find it disappointing and superfluous work that we needed to draft and discuss such a finicky set of rules to keep political discussions here on Dims half-way civil and on a fact-base somewhat in alignment with reality.

At this point, we will not re-open the debate as to the rules of The Soap Box. Posters who agree to these rules and set-up can participate - those who reject them don't have to as all of this here is voluntary.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by agouderia

As long as they concurr with the rules of The Soap Box, there are no restrictions as to mining Hyde Park for ideas.

Does that mean the ability to lift a quote from Hyde Park will be restored? Or, does that mean quotes will have to be manually re-typed into new posts? (With the risk of errors.)

Originally Posted by agouderia

In practice, I personally don't see it as much of an issue. In a political forum, most topics are current agenda driven - so reviving issues, situations of months or years gone by will be of limited interest.

On the contrary there is an old saying: “Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The point is issues like taxes, foreign policy and national defense are timeless.

Originally Posted by agouderia

We don't favor censorship. We actually find it disappointing and superfluous work that we needed to draft and discuss such a finicky set of rules to keep political discussions here on Dims half-way civil and on a fact-base somewhat in alignment with reality.

Are you suggesting the Soap Box is not “half-way civil?” So far there have been only a limited number of formal Mod interventions. Which must be considered remarkable in the deeply polarizing environment of the day.

Second, what does “fact-based somewhat in alignment with reality” mean? There is a story that a scientist that worked for the US government as part of NOAA; claims the Obama Administration “cooked” the books concerning global temperatures to promote their climate change agenda.

Source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/13274/...-aaron-bandler

So what are the facts and what are not?

Originally Posted by agouderia

At this point, we will not re-open the debate as to the rules of The Soap Box. Posters who agree to these rules and set-up can participate - those who reject them don't have to as all of this here is voluntary.

What rules? It seems like the Mods are making up the “rules” as they need them. Further, the Mods in the past have said they want the Soap Box to be like the other forums. Yet, the other forums are not debate forums. (Recall how a thread in the “safe space” GLBTQ forum was closed when the subject became political.)

[agouderia]

Deli - you are free to have your own understanding and personal interpretation of everything.

Only question - if you disagree so profoundly with the framework here regarding political debates - why are you so insistent on participating?

[loopytheone]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Does that mean the ability to lift a quote from Hyde Park will be restored? Or, does that mean quotes will have to be manually re-typed into new posts? (With the risk of errors.)

What rules? It seems like the Mods are making up the “rules” as they need them. Further, the Mods in the past have said they want the Soap Box to be like the other forums. Yet, the other forums are not debate forums. (Recall how a thread in the “safe space” GLBTQ forum was closed when the subject became political.)

No, quoting from Hyde Park is not allowed. The Soap Box is its own board, not "Hyde Park part 2".

If you have issues with the rules and how we enforce them, you need to tell us. I can't think of an occasion where we have been unclear or inconsistent in our enforcing of the rules in the Soap Box.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by agouderia

Deli - you are free to have your own understanding and personal interpretation of everything.

Yet, that is not the issue. The rules of this site are.

Originally Posted by agouderia

Only question - if you disagree so profoundly with the framework here regarding political debates - why are you so insistent on participating?

What a strange suggestion. For example, Donald Trump won the 2016 general election for president. On January 20, 2017 he was sworn in as our 45th president.

Yet, there are people that claim he “is not my president” and don't consider him to be legitimate. Should these people not express their point of view since Trump was elected president as prescribed under the constitution? Should these people opt-out since they disagree with the outcome of the “framework here regarding political debates?”

Frankly, I must profoundly disagree with such a point of view. I would defend the right to protest and question President Trump, the Republicans or conservatives. Even when I think they are wrong.

Perhaps the real question is just what do the Mods consider “legitimate” debate? The free-flow ideas with respect to the others? Or, authoritarian dictatorship?

In my opinion any real debate must involve discussion and dialog.

[agouderia]

I fail to understand your line of argument with reference to the debates in The Soap Box.

Stating "Trump is not my President" there is allowed since it most obviously is an opinion depicting personal sentiment. After all Pres. Trump has been sworn in as the 45th President - which is an easily verifiable fact.

The statement "President Trump's tax policy is the right one because a) b) c)..." is just as accepted. Since it too is an individual interpretation of verifiable actions.

All opinions are welcomed as long as they are stated in polite form and differentiate clearly between opinion and facts.

Which fourth debating dimension do we possibly need?

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by loopytheone

No, quoting from Hyde Park is not allowed. The Soap Box is its own board, not "Hyde Park part 2".

Which still does not address the issue of why? I can recall writing a rather long post concerning the political future of what another poster called “black” and “brown” people. He warned current conservatives that their political future was bleak. I suggested as more Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans become the mainstream the political divisions among them would only grow. Just as there are political divisions among Caucasians.

So why can't I cite and post my own Hyde Park post?

Originally Posted by loopytheone

If you have issues with the rules and how we enforce them, you need to tell us. I can't think of an occasion where we have been unclear or inconsistent in our enforcing of the rules in the Soap Box.

The issue above is a good example of what I was alluding to. I recall there was a vague reference to bringing back Hyde Park. Yet, I don't recall a discussion of what that meant. Also, it seems to me that many of these “rules” seem to be unwritten.

So if two posters engage in a long discussion of an issue while maintaining a civil dialog; why is that against the rules?

[agouderia]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

So if two posters engage in a long discussion of an issue while maintaining a civil dialog; why is that against the rules?

Etymology answers your question:

discussion - Latin "discutio" - to tear apart, dissect, shatter, dissipate

dialog - Greek - literally - two speaking

These forums here are for interaction, exchange and yes, discussion, between more than 2 individuals. Because just watching 2 going back-and-forth might be interesting for the 2 parties involved - but is pointless to annoying for everyone else.

Dialogs can be held in private, either somewhere else or here as PMs.

This post by the way ends the dialog between you Deli and the Mod Team.
Views have been exchanged, we agree to disagree. You will receive no further communication on this issue from us.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by agouderia

Etymology answers your question:

discussion - Latin "discutio" - to tear apart, dissect, shatter, dissipate

dialog - Greek - literally - two speaking

These forums here are for interaction, exchange and yes, discussion, between more than 2 individuals. Because just watching 2 going back-and-forth might be interesting for the 2 parties involved - but is pointless to annoying for everyone else.

Dialogs can be held in private, either somewhere else or here as PMs.

This post by the way ends the dialog between you Deli and the Mod Team.
Views have been exchanged, we agree to disagree. You will receive no further communication on this issue from us.

So the Mods have decided to end the dialog. OK … but that will not stop me from expressing the final thought.

I am mystified how the Mods can refer to a debate where discussion and dialog among the debaters is restricted.

BTW: There is always more room for debaters that wish to express themselves in any thread. It is analogous to people that complain about our elected officials, but admit they never voted in the last election. So if you don't add your voice to a debate; then you can't complain there are only two voices.

[Tracii]

Deli it all goes back to " that depends on what the meaning of the word is is".
The free discussions of idea as long as they fit the mold of which ever mod is working at the time.
Liberalism has everything twisted 180 degrees out of whack.

[CleverBomb]

Which means that liberalism takes that which is whack, and twists it 180 degrees so as to remove it from whacktitude.

Back to the topic -- it's nice to have it as an archive.

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by CleverBomb

Which means that liberalism takes that which is whack, and twists it 180 degrees so as to remove it from whacktitude.

Back to the topic -- it's nice to have it as an archive.

think of this thread as sort of a HP Purgatory- you are not in HP ; but, you are not in the Soapbox either ... kind of an "oasis" .....

[CleverBomb]

Originally Posted by tonynyc

think of this thread as sort of a HP Purgatory- you are not in HP ; but, you are not in the Soapbox either ... kind of an "oasis" .....

For now. *chuckle*

It's a meta thread; not political discussion, but discussion about political discussion.

The useful thing about having it as an archive is that, honestly, much of the philosophical stuff has been bashed around quite a bit previously. I don't think I have any need to re-post any of my old comments verbatim, but they do contain information and references that I might lack the google-fu to drag back out of the internets again. Mind you, some of the references in my case go back ten years... and link-rot is a real thing. I expect that sort of thing is tolerable under the current rules, which seem mostly intended to prevent reviving old arguments.

[Green Eyed Fairy]

I really enjoyed seeing Agouderia post definitions.... that is all.

</wicked wicked fairy>

[Tracii]

BTW: There is always more room for debaters that wish to express themselves in any thread. It is analogous to people that complain about our elected officials, but admit they never voted in the last election. So if you don't add your voice to a debate; then you can't complain there are only two voices.[/QUOTE]

If you don't actually vote then you have no right to complain IMO.
Why would you bitch about it when you couldn't take time out of your day to do your duty to be part of the system.

[Kristal]

Tracii, that sounds like my next door neighbor - lol

(this thread told me that it wants to be locked). Lolol *hint*

from KristalKlear on Tapatalk

[Tracii]

I think so too Kristal.

[VVET]

How are you doing Tracii?