Political/religious discussion clarification question

[ek]

Split from this topic by moderator

I have a clarification question. Can any of the moderators please explain the meaning of "No political or religious posts of any type are allowed on Cavechat"?

I don't want fake answers like "it's self-explanatory" or "what part of 'of any type' don't you understand?" I want a real answer that addresses the dividing line between (a) overt discussions of general politics distracting from focus on caving-related topics and (b) discussions of caving-related topics, even when they become politically (or religiously) charged.

I do not believe that this term of service was ever intended to be taken literally. If it is to be taken literally, then that would mean that no policy of any government could be discussed on Cavechat. Including governments of non-governmental organizations--for instance, discussion of the NSS BOG election would be prohibited. Discussion of WNS policy would be prohibited.

Political concepts are essential to every aspect of life. While I could be wrong, I do not believe that anyone on Cavechat wants to prohibit people from bringing up political values--e.g., freedom, equality, rights, accountability, and environmental conservation--in posts on this forum.

The post that sparked this discussion of permitted and prohibited speech on Cavechat is a post I would regard as a statement on the way that governments work when faced with crises, which quotes a high-ranking member of our government to make a point. But the post is about WNS, and policy made in view of WNS. I see nothing in this post that would go against a sane interpretation of the Terms of Service. batrotter's reply invokes general politics in a way that may violate the ToS, but I believe that tncaver's post brings highly valuable ideas to bear in thinking about WNS policy. Personally, I think that it is useful to understand that crises are opportunities for people who have or wish to have power. They are not always opportunities in the negative sense--for instance, crises can be harnessed to produce durable change that prevents future crises--but they are opportunities nonetheless and it is foolish to assume that people and organizations are agendaless.

I understand that the answer to my question may not be perfectly precise. But just as there is a fine line between appropriate and inappropriate discussion on this forum, I believe there is also a fine line between a policy being vague enough to be practically applied, and vague enough to give unlimited discretion to its implementors to curtail any behavior that they personally don't like. To clarify, please understand that I am not accusing any moderator or any other person of such action, but rather implicitly (and now explicitly) suggesting that the function of a policy follows its form more than its intent.

To add a bit more charge to my question, I will say that the term of service prohibiting political and religious discussion, if interpreted literally, is totally unacceptable for the official web forum of the NSS. The NSS itself has internal politics--and I'm not just talking about bickering but rather about the fact that we have a governmental structure. The NSS also has official positions on and public statements regarding state and federal level government policy. The NSS enters into formal discussions of government policy with policymakers, especially now with the advent of WNS. I believe that Article II of the NSS Constitution cannot be fulfilled if discussion of the full implications and mechanisms of caving and cave science, including and especially organizational and governmental policy (i.e. politics), is not fostered. I believe that as a member of the NSS, it is appropriate for me to demand that Cavechat, as an instrument of the NSS, foster (or at least not prohibit) those discussions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Perhaps discussion of this issue should be moved to its own topic in a different Cavechat forum.

[NZcaver]

Eliah,

You've stated your case and provided your own opinions on some of these questions already. Rather than responding directly, I will ask you this. Can you suggest a more appropriately-worded rule pertaining to political and religious discussion? A short paragraph which the forum staff could consider as a possible modification to the current TOS. Something fairly concise would be good.

[graveleye]

Eliah, I'm not going to get into a debate with you here because there is no need for a debate. One poster made reference to the "resident liberals" and there was some obvious political trolling going on. I find it ridiculous that anyone would find it anything less than obvious where the discussion could have gone along those lines.

I've said it before I do not have a problem with questioning the motives and machinations of government entities. That is not politics. Referring to someone by a political term in what was obviously a negative attempt at trolling is political in nature.

Understand this - government agencies are not political. Political parties and terms like "resident liberal" or "hard-nosed conservative" are politics. Political issues that fall along party lines can be considered politics. If the WMA decides to close all the caves in Katmandu, it is not a political. If you guys want to sit and moan about the various WMA's and so forth knock yourself out.

I spoke out and moderated as I saw fit. If you notice, all I did was issue a public warning to not let the discussion turn into a political bait-fest and request to stay on the topic. Nothing more than that, and certainly not enough to warrant a huge issue out of.

If you don't like the way I handled that, then talk to my foreman and have them dock my pay. I stand by my warning and would do it again in a heartbeat.

This isn't aimed at you necessarily Eliah, but I used to be very proud to call myself a caver, but lately I am beginning to realize that cavers can be some of the whiniest, sniveling, nit-flicking, pouty, self-righteous, indignant bunch of trolls I've ever seen. And frankly it pisses me off when someone gets onto ME when I try to help guide a conversation that has the potential to unravel into something ugly, and bring it back around to a civilized topic. If I didn't say anything, then someone would have cried about that too.

[wyandottecaver]

Well,

I'll jump on the snivelly whiny bandwagon. I am familiar with the parent thread and I think EK makes a very valid point. I'll go further and confirm graveleye's suspicions While the context of the thread was being maintained, Graveleye was correct in that a violation of the TOS occurred based on it's current wording. However, While I don't think the response to WNS represents any agenda beyond taking the easiest and most politically expedient route, I don't think others who disagree with that should be censored because they see political agendas behind every tree.

Batrotters post which broadly referred to liberals as being opposed to politics was questionable...

I, like EK, do think the TOS should be reworded.

Specifically, it should:

1)prohibit discussions of politics/religion where the post is intended to be broadly derogatory or supportive, independent of a specific action or topic, to an entire political/religious entity or viewpoint.
2)does not contribute materially to the parent thread and/or does not contribute materially to discussions about caves, caving, or a related topic.

so, to say that (example) "republicans suck" would not be allowed. To say that " the republican response to WNS sucks" would be allowed. (phrases used for demonstration purposes only)

[tncaver]

lately I am beginning to realize that cavers can be some of the whiniest, sniveling, nit-flicking, pouty, self-righteous, indignant bunch of trolls I've ever seen. And frankly it pisses me off when someone gets onto ME when I try to help guide a conversation that has the potential to unravel into something ugly, and bring it back around to a civilized topic. If I didn't say anything, then someone would have cried about that too.

graveleye,
Unfortunately, I came to the same conclusion as you several years ago, and that hypothesis has been confirmed several
times since then. The sad thing is that cavers are not a united, fun loving, group with the same ideologies. They are as
diverse and disagreeable as any group I've ever encountered. I would give some examples for comparison, but that would
require the mentioning of religious groups and politics so I will refrain.

Just keep on trucking dude.

[David Grimes]

While some people on this forum can see fit to continue a civilized conversation about political issues (whether that is what they are or not) some people cannot. I believe that thread would have quickly been locked for TOS violations if a moderator did not step in. I have asked the same question concerning NSS politics on this forum myself but the fact remains that this is the official NSS Forum and NSS politics is official business and that is the only reason those posts are allowed. Everyone can see how quickly even those topics get out of hand. By simply not allowing any posts relating in any way to religion or politics (other than NSS politics) it saves allot of time and headaches for the volunteer moderators of this forum. The bottom line is we all volunteer our time to this forum and all the moderators do an excellent job monitoring for TOS violations and spammers.

[Bill Putnam]

I believe the section of the TOS that Eliah is referring to is this one:

No political or religious posts of any type are allowed on Cavechat. Any posts violating this rule will be immediately removed and the author will be issued a warning.

I would offer the following as a possible substitution:

No posts relating primarily to political or religious topics or issues unrelated to caves and caving, including the use of non-caving-related political or religious stereotypes, generalizations, or labels in a discussion of caving-related topics, will be permitted on Cavechat. Any posts violating this rule will be immediately removed and the author will be issued a warning.

I think it captures the spirit and form of the policy as implemented better than the present overly-broad wording. Of course, I am happy to offer it to the group as a starting point for discussion leading to the development of a better alternative.

Bill

[wyandottecaver]

EDIT: after Bill's post



Actually the thread had already begun to veer back off politics into outlandish humour before graveleyes post and was probably near death anyway Whether it would have stayed that way graveleyes post itself sparked EK's response.

nonetheless, the current situation (like many in the NSS it seems) is that we have a rule that says one thing and a history of implementation that says another. I strongly agree with the way the TOS has generally been implemented. The fact remains that this is NOT what the "book" says. I think EK was simply suggesting we make the rule match the reality.

[Scott McCrea]

If you think more or better rules can make your life better, check out this 15 minute TED presentation about wisdom. It's good. I promise.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barr ... isdom.html