Guys, in light of the topic "Obama budget would shut down trout hatcheries" and the political discussion that goes along with it, I thought maybe there should be a sub-forum under Conservation and Ethics for ecological politics and what not. I'm not saying a flat out politics forum, but I think we're all mature enough to discuss policy making,etc reasonably as it is an important part of our interest. Then again, I'm one of the new guys, so my recommendation should probably be taken at below face value.
Andrew
Politics sub-forum?
Started by
Guest_pylodictis_*
, Jun 30 2011 12:14 PM
10 replies to this topic
#4
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 June 2011 - 03:49 PM
Yes, but if we argue about whether or not government fish hatcheries pave the path to "socialism", etc., we quickly get away from fish. It's a fine line to walk sometimes but we really don't want to become an old-style Usenet .alt group, I'm sure most of us would be gone in a hurry.
#5
Guest_haruspicator_*
Guest_haruspicator_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 June 2011 - 05:23 PM
Then again, I'm one of the new guys, so my recommendation should probably be taken at below face value.
Absolutely not! It is often the new bodies that give the refreshing ideas!
I've been thinking of it since my last post on that thread. In a perfect world it will work, and I think the subjects are intertwined (how political ideologies potentially affect native fish is pretty important), and people who don't want to see it wont look at that forum. But in reality I think the trolls would win, it will end up in a constant flame war and require too much work for the moderators. It will distract from NANFA. Unfortunately it will not work.
#7
Guest_Irate Mormon_*
Guest_Irate Mormon_*
-
- Guests
Posted 30 June 2011 - 11:40 PM
As much as I would love to talk politics, I agree with Matt and others. Nothing good can come of it.
Sometimes I just can't help myself. That's where the moderators come in. It's also part of the reason why I'm the most "edited" person here!
Sometimes I just can't help myself. That's where the moderators come in. It's also part of the reason why I'm the most "edited" person here!
#9
Guest_pylodictis_*
Guest_pylodictis_*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 July 2011 - 06:10 PM
No offence to anybody, but isn't this a sad state of affairs? We cannot even talk fisheries politics because people will be offended. I, at least, can have a civil conversation about politics with someone without being offended and hope not to offend the other party. Politics is a part of life and is very important to all of us regarding our mutual hobby, and should be discussed. Actually, I can immediately remember several great talks with people at the Convention about politics.
Also, Matt, I think a "General Crap" area would be great.
Also, Matt, I think a "General Crap" area would be great.
#10
Guest_gzeiger_*
Guest_gzeiger_*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 July 2011 - 07:57 PM
Meh. Law by definition is using the threat of force to coerce someone whom you haven't been able to convince of your opinion to comply with your conclusions. Politics is the act of discussing whose conclusions shall be enforced upon whom. It's perfectly reasonable that those suggested as targets should take offense to some degree.
#11
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 03 July 2011 - 08:10 PM
Andrew, a politics sub forum is like a religion sub forum. It will be undoubtedly inflammatory. No matter how civil, and responsible we are, some will be offended. It will detract from the high quality content, that our moderators try so hard to provide us. Speaking as a former moderator, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes here. Their job is not always easy, and the pay is horrible. Then there is the the problem of a moderator to moderate such a forum. It really would be a very difficult job. I guarantee nobody currently moderating would sign up for it. As much as it sound interesting, it is not a good idea. Believe me I love the opportunity to slam the government, but there are other forums for that.
And to answer your question. No, it is not a sad state of affairs. The political aspect is an extremely slippery slope. Talking politics face to face at a convention is a whole different ballgame than talking politics via a forum. Those little smiley face icons are not going to get point across as intended.
And to answer your question. No, it is not a sad state of affairs. The political aspect is an extremely slippery slope. Talking politics face to face at a convention is a whole different ballgame than talking politics via a forum. Those little smiley face icons are not going to get point across as intended.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
