Should the Political Arena and politics in general be banned from d-m.com?

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
Thank you, Max, for taking time out of what I'm sure is a busy day to do the research.

However, based on the examples cited, while at least one is clearly out of context, and ambiguous at best, it does not appear that there is any evidence of an elevated coefficient of snippiness in the other forums.

Did you even look at the two Kobe threads in the NBA section?

On the contrary, it these offerings are typical of the roughest exchanges to be found, it would appear far more plausible to posit that the Policital Arena is having a benign effect on the other forums in that it provides the fiestier participants of the site a safety valve from which to vent their aggressive posting tendencies before wandering off into the far-less trafficked forums of the site.

Again the Kobe threads are pretty bad. There were so many nasty posts in it that I didn't bother to go through them. There are also bad threads in the Mavs section but I didn't have time to look for them. Honestly I picked the two easiest sections to look through and were still a lot more nasty posts than I expected.

You should certainly not allow the rejection of your thesis to dampen your enthusiasm and passion for research endeavors of this nature. In any case, from what I understand, it would appear to be a moot issue, since the decision appears to have been made to reserve the Political Arena for the fiestier intellects of Dallas-mavs.com.

It's not really their decision. The decision is in the hands of one man - dj (you know, the actual owner of the site). The moderators are consulted I'm sure but the decision is dj's because he bears the financial obligation of maintaining the site.

Now there could be a case made that the people who have made financial contributions to the site should have some say in the matter but that would leave you out, wouldn't it?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: Max Power

Here are a few examples from THIS month. I haven't checked the Lounge or the Mavs section.

MaxPower, I agree that some of the things said in that forum are unacceptable. However, is not the fault of the forum or the idea of the forum. It is the fault of the posters.

[MavKikiNYC]

Now there could be a case made that the people who have made financial contributions to the site should have some say in the matter but that would leave you out, wouldn't it?

Incorrect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary, it these offerings are typical of the roughest exchanges to be found, it would appear far more plausible to posit that the Policital Arena is having a benign effect on the other forums in that it provides the fiestier participants of the site a safety valve from which to vent their aggressive posting tendencies before wandering off into the far-less trafficked forums of the site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again the Kobe threads are pretty bad. There were so many nasty posts in it that I didn't bother to go through them. There are also bad threads in the Mavs section but I didn't have time to look for them. Honestly I picked the two easiest sections to look through and were still a lot more nasty posts than I expected.

No evidence is presented that posts in the alluded-to Kobe threads are any worse post-Political Arena (hereinafter 'PA2') than discusssions of Mr. Bryant pre-Political Arena (hereinafter 'PA1'). In order to support such a thesis, a comparison of discussions from both PÁ1 and PA2 epochs would have to be proffered, with a mechanism for assessing nastiness. Nonesuch is offered.

A cursory preliminary analysis offers no evidence that such a line of inquiry would prove fruitful. Indeed, substantial anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the issue of Mr. Bryant's extra-marital conduct has long been a divisive, nay polarizing, issue, pre-dating the creation of a forum dedicated to political discussion.

In addition, this researcher has further substantial anecdotal recolletions of numerous other issues which illicited a series of rather rancorous exchanges, some of which he himself may have participated in.

Conclusion: Based on the examples cited, there is insufficient evidence to support a difference in civility PA1 v. PA2.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Incorrect.

Ahh - an anonymous donor. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it since there is is insufficient evidence to support the theory that you've donated a dime.

On the contrary, it these offerings are typical of the roughest exchanges to be found, it would appear far more plausible to posit that the Policital Arena is having a benign effect on the other forums in that it provides the fiestier participants of the site a safety valve from which to vent their aggressive posting tendencies before wandering off into the far-less trafficked forums of the site.

No evidence is presented that posts in the alluded-to Kobe threads are any worse post-Political Arena (hereinafter 'PA2') than discusssions of Mr. Bryant pre-Political Arena (hereinafter 'PA1'). In order to support such a thesis, a comparison of discussions from both PÁ1 and PA2 epochs would have to be proffered, with a mechanism for assessing nastiness. Nonesuch is offered.

A cursory preliminary analysis offers no evidence that such a line of inquiry would prove fruitful. Indeed, substantial anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the issue of Mr. Bryant's extra-marital conduct has long been a divisive, nay polarizing, issue, pre-dating the creation of a forum dedicated to political discussion.

In addition, this researcher has further substantial anecdotal recolletions of numerous other issues which illicited a series of rather rancorous exchanges, some of which he himself may have participated in.

Conclusion: Based on the examples cited, there is insufficient evidence to support a difference in civility PA1 v. PA2.

I've done research that shows the board is not being civil in other areas. I see no reason to do further research just to satisfy you. I can't imagine that anything would change your mind.

But obviously there are quite a few people who believe politics aren't appropriate on this board. Why don't you explain that?

[Murphy3]

I actually believe that the rest of the board is more civil than usual since the inception of the Political Arena. Perhaps it's just coincidence....maybe so..maybe no. But, I don't think that anyone could argue that the 'other sports' forum is anything other than less verbally abusive over the past couple of months...

[MavKikiNYC]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there could be a case made that the people who have made financial contributions to the site should have some say in the matter but that would leave you out, wouldn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh - an anonymous donor. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it since there is is insufficient evidence to support the theory that you've donated a dime.[b]


I say this as civilly as I can, but if I were to produce a PayPal receipt verifying a donation, would you permanently adjourn to Mavstalk?

<u>Better yet, would you care to match the donation, dollar-for-dollar?</u>

I offer you this dare as an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, not just so you won't look like a jackass, but just as a civil, sporting gesture; half of a gentlemen's bet, if you will.

You have made a rather radical, some might even contend 'hysterical', proposition; namely the elimination of a forum that generates an immense amount of traffic to the site.

It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce conclusive evidence that such a move is warranted. So far, you have not, and it is my opinion, that you will be unable to.

[Rhylan]

Fellas.... chill a little.

The political forum is not going away, if for no other reason than to serve as a black hole for negativity that would otherwise end up in the Lounge.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
I say this as civilly as I can, but if I were to produce a PayPal receipt verifying a donation, would you permanently adjourn to Mavstalk?

Better yet, would you care to match the donation, dollar-for-dollar?

I've been here awhile - I'm not leaving.

I will match any reasonable donation (up to $50 or so). I'd go higher but I do have a sick wife and we've had a run of extremely high medical bills recently. Not making excuses, just reality.

You have made a rather radical, some might even contend 'hysterical', proposition; namely the elimination of a forum that generates an immense amount of traffic to the site.

It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce conclusive evidence that such a move is warranted. So far, you have not, and it is my opinion, that you will be unable to.

It isn't that radical of a proposition. The board lived for a number of years without the section and in a couple of months it will be dead anyway. It is hardly vital to the well being of dallas-MAVS.com

There aren't more than 10 to 12 people who post in the Political section with any degree of regularity. It isn't THAT busy. Mostly it is the same people posting the same opinions over and over again.

[Chiwas]

Should the Political Arena and politics in general be banned from d-m.com?

Total Votes: 34


Yes
17 (votes) 50.00 (%)
No
17 (votes) 50.00 (%)

Deuce.

[MavKikiNYC]

Max, we can settle up via PMs.

A $50 donation will be fine.