Every so often I think it's important for all of us to be reminded of why this board exists. It goes without saying, that since my last message to this forum, our societal discourse surrounding politics has not gotten much better. But even so, I still believe this board can be a productive place for these important conversations. To that end, here a few updated thoughts:
TL;DR
Do you disagree with an idea you've read here? Welcome to the club! Come persuade others with better ideas!
Setting Expectations for the Politics Board
The purpose of the Politics Board flows from the broader mission of TexAgs--to provide a space where Aggies can discuss topics they care about in a meaningful way. Our role as administrators is to create an environment where productive discourse can thrive.
The Nature of the Board
It's no secret that this board leans conservative. That's not by design, but it's also not surprising given the demographics of TexAgs--primarily Texas A&M alumni, mostly male, many over 40. We have no issue with the board leaning this direction or any other direction. We're not here to artificially balance perspectives or ensure that every viewpoint gets equal traction. Instead, our goal is to have a place where national and state politics can be discussed or debated in a way that is interesting, constructive, and relevant. Given the nature of politics we also see this as the board to allow discussion and debate on breaking world news events and cultural issues.
We understand that, depending on your position along the political spectrum, your experience on this board might differ. That's due to a number of factors, some of which we are able to influence and some we are not. That said, we put a meaningful amount of time and effort into clearing the way for as many ideas and perspectives to have a place at the table as possible. As a result, you will likely find that - if you engage with this forum in a good-faith effort to persuade others - your interactions will be more productive and rewarding regardless of your political leanings. The key is to engage here "in good faith" - which means to do so with sincerity and genuine intent. If you do not, all bets are off and things will probably go sideways in short order.
Our Approach to Moderation
If we're going to err, we will err on the side of more speech rather than less. We allow this board to have our widest "window of discourse." That means you will inevitably encounter ideas you dislike, disagree with, or even find offensive. But our response to bad ideas should be better ideas, not censorship. Healthy discourse isn't about silencing viewpoints--it's about learning to persuade others over time through logic, reasoning, and thoughtful argumentation. There is no improving our society through idea suppression and censorship--that's not a thing.
However, that doesn't mean anything goes. This wide "window of discourse" among a group of users allowed to exist here anonymously, has higher expectations in how they engage with each other and the board in general. These expectations have nothing to do with trying to silence viewpoints. Remember, the board exists to discuss and debate politics, news, culture, and ideas surrounding those topics. When the subject of your post or thread becomes another user, the window of discourse starts to narrow considerably and all users must tread lightly or risk moderation.
We get it. This board is talking about subjects where the stakes can feel very high--and sometimes they are. The moderators don't expect users to respond to politics and news of the day without the spectrum of emotions. When instances arise where boundaries are crossed within the community, and these instances are brought to our attention either through user reporting or through the routine monitoring conducted by our moderation team, they will always try their best to take appropriate action to address the situation. Our moderators are dedicated to upholding the standards of our community when they find something or when something is reported. However, it is important to remember that moderation is not an exact science, and there may be times when different individuals have varying interpretations of what constitutes acceptable behavior. We ask for your understanding and patience as our moderators work to navigate what can often be complex situations surrounding the exchange of political ideas and viewpoints. Every single circumstance of a user crossing the line with another user is not going to be rooted out, discovered, or reported. We do not consider this as a failure to moderate or moderator bias. There is a lot of discussion here and sometimes it will get messy, the important thing is that discussions move forward in the healthiest ways possible.
Again, our moderators' aim is to point all users to a set of standards we believe provide the best environment for healthy discussion and debate on difficult topics. Our hope is to see users take ownership of fostering healthy discussion. When we believe it is being hindered we will step in and help discussions get back on track. The higher the number of users not meeting the expectations on a particular topic the more often we will employ a "Public Service Announcement" approach and post messages into a thread as guidance. If the problem exists among just a few users we will employ a more direct approach with those users and their posts. However, a good thread is a thread with no moderator actions, a good day is when users notice little to no moderation on this board.
The Politics Board can be a high volume posting environment at times. When threads are started on a topic that draws enormous interest or multiple news stories break and the board has a high volume of new threads and high rates of posting, the moderators are not going to be able to read every word of every thread. This is just not possible. If users decide to let the rhetoric get personal, posting policy violations will get missed. This is not evidence of viewpoint bias or moderators accepting personal attacks on users. They will do their best to respond to the situation, but they will miss things and in circumstances where the volume of posting is so high, they will focus their attention on how users are engaging with each other at the moment. A review of exchanges multiple pages or even days back is not a guarantee. Our team will do its best to make sure the present discussion is on track and if there is time to go back and review, they will.
Some Tips on Engaging Here
-When posting viewpoints that run counter to a prevailing view, that viewpoint might receive significant pushback by a large number of users. Don't be surprised if some of the pushback comes across as adversarial. Initially it might feel like users are dogpiling. Be patient and focus on engaging good faith responses to your arguments. Typically the thread debate becomes a good exchange between those users genuinely wanting to discuss the issue in good faith.
-Generally speaking, people are not persuaded through name-calling and insults. Dismissing opposing viewpoints in this way adds nothing to the discussion and often leads threads off a productive course. See opposing viewpoints as opportunities to sharpen your argument and not your name-calling skills. That said, it is going to happen at times in a fastpaced forum dedicated to discussing and debating politics, so do your best not to answer in kind.
-There is a history of trolling on this forum. Meaning, over the years, there have been many posters that have engaged in a provocative manner with the purpose of getting a reaction, causing conflict, and/or derailing conversation. No one likes that, nor does it tend to lead to productive discussion.
-Not everyone that has an opposing view is a troll. Reacting to other viewpoints as if they can't possibly be real or honestly held by someone else is also not a good faith effort at discussion. When users focus on addressing opposing viewpoints with their own, healthy debate and discussion happens. Don't make your posts a judgement on another user's posting intent.
-Rhetoric matters when it comes to fostering healthy discussion and debate. Once you build a reputation for trolling behavior it is much harder for your threads and posts not to be seen as attempts at trolling. Discussions and debates digress and derail when there are trolls, personal attacks, disrespect, insults, pettiness, and passive aggressive behavior toward each other. When this happens moderation will step in trying to preserve actual viewpoints as best as we can.
Moderation Isn't Perfect and We Do Not Expect Perfection
Our moderation team is made up of real people doing their best. It won't always be perfect, and it won't always align with how you think it should be handled. But our guiding principle is simple: to create a space where meaningful discourse can happen. If you think insulting or trolling another user or group of users is meaningful discourse, you run the risk of being moderated.
The Aggie network has amazing breadth and depth of knowledge from every sector of our economy as well as government and military. This forum has been in the past and can be in the present and future, a great place for smart and experienced people with differing viewpoints to gather together and talk freely about politics and difficult cultural issues. Having a space to speak freely about politics, culture, news, and ideas among Aggies and non-Aggie visitors to our platform should be a fun and exciting opportunity, even when we have differences of opinion on these issues.
At the end of the day, the quality of discussion on this board depends on all of us. If we want this to be a place where real debate happens, it starts with how we choose to engage with each other. Please help to keep this the best political discussion forum on the internet.
Gig'Em!
Brandon Jones '95
President & CEO
TexAgs.com
TL;DR
Do you disagree with an idea you've read here? Welcome to the club! Come persuade others with better ideas!
Setting Expectations for the Politics Board
The purpose of the Politics Board flows from the broader mission of TexAgs--to provide a space where Aggies can discuss topics they care about in a meaningful way. Our role as administrators is to create an environment where productive discourse can thrive.
The Nature of the Board
It's no secret that this board leans conservative. That's not by design, but it's also not surprising given the demographics of TexAgs--primarily Texas A&M alumni, mostly male, many over 40. We have no issue with the board leaning this direction or any other direction. We're not here to artificially balance perspectives or ensure that every viewpoint gets equal traction. Instead, our goal is to have a place where national and state politics can be discussed or debated in a way that is interesting, constructive, and relevant. Given the nature of politics we also see this as the board to allow discussion and debate on breaking world news events and cultural issues.
We understand that, depending on your position along the political spectrum, your experience on this board might differ. That's due to a number of factors, some of which we are able to influence and some we are not. That said, we put a meaningful amount of time and effort into clearing the way for as many ideas and perspectives to have a place at the table as possible. As a result, you will likely find that - if you engage with this forum in a good-faith effort to persuade others - your interactions will be more productive and rewarding regardless of your political leanings. The key is to engage here "in good faith" - which means to do so with sincerity and genuine intent. If you do not, all bets are off and things will probably go sideways in short order.
Our Approach to Moderation
If we're going to err, we will err on the side of more speech rather than less. We allow this board to have our widest "window of discourse." That means you will inevitably encounter ideas you dislike, disagree with, or even find offensive. But our response to bad ideas should be better ideas, not censorship. Healthy discourse isn't about silencing viewpoints--it's about learning to persuade others over time through logic, reasoning, and thoughtful argumentation. There is no improving our society through idea suppression and censorship--that's not a thing.
However, that doesn't mean anything goes. This wide "window of discourse" among a group of users allowed to exist here anonymously, has higher expectations in how they engage with each other and the board in general. These expectations have nothing to do with trying to silence viewpoints. Remember, the board exists to discuss and debate politics, news, culture, and ideas surrounding those topics. When the subject of your post or thread becomes another user, the window of discourse starts to narrow considerably and all users must tread lightly or risk moderation.
We get it. This board is talking about subjects where the stakes can feel very high--and sometimes they are. The moderators don't expect users to respond to politics and news of the day without the spectrum of emotions. When instances arise where boundaries are crossed within the community, and these instances are brought to our attention either through user reporting or through the routine monitoring conducted by our moderation team, they will always try their best to take appropriate action to address the situation. Our moderators are dedicated to upholding the standards of our community when they find something or when something is reported. However, it is important to remember that moderation is not an exact science, and there may be times when different individuals have varying interpretations of what constitutes acceptable behavior. We ask for your understanding and patience as our moderators work to navigate what can often be complex situations surrounding the exchange of political ideas and viewpoints. Every single circumstance of a user crossing the line with another user is not going to be rooted out, discovered, or reported. We do not consider this as a failure to moderate or moderator bias. There is a lot of discussion here and sometimes it will get messy, the important thing is that discussions move forward in the healthiest ways possible.
Again, our moderators' aim is to point all users to a set of standards we believe provide the best environment for healthy discussion and debate on difficult topics. Our hope is to see users take ownership of fostering healthy discussion. When we believe it is being hindered we will step in and help discussions get back on track. The higher the number of users not meeting the expectations on a particular topic the more often we will employ a "Public Service Announcement" approach and post messages into a thread as guidance. If the problem exists among just a few users we will employ a more direct approach with those users and their posts. However, a good thread is a thread with no moderator actions, a good day is when users notice little to no moderation on this board.
The Politics Board can be a high volume posting environment at times. When threads are started on a topic that draws enormous interest or multiple news stories break and the board has a high volume of new threads and high rates of posting, the moderators are not going to be able to read every word of every thread. This is just not possible. If users decide to let the rhetoric get personal, posting policy violations will get missed. This is not evidence of viewpoint bias or moderators accepting personal attacks on users. They will do their best to respond to the situation, but they will miss things and in circumstances where the volume of posting is so high, they will focus their attention on how users are engaging with each other at the moment. A review of exchanges multiple pages or even days back is not a guarantee. Our team will do its best to make sure the present discussion is on track and if there is time to go back and review, they will.
Some Tips on Engaging Here
-When posting viewpoints that run counter to a prevailing view, that viewpoint might receive significant pushback by a large number of users. Don't be surprised if some of the pushback comes across as adversarial. Initially it might feel like users are dogpiling. Be patient and focus on engaging good faith responses to your arguments. Typically the thread debate becomes a good exchange between those users genuinely wanting to discuss the issue in good faith.
-Generally speaking, people are not persuaded through name-calling and insults. Dismissing opposing viewpoints in this way adds nothing to the discussion and often leads threads off a productive course. See opposing viewpoints as opportunities to sharpen your argument and not your name-calling skills. That said, it is going to happen at times in a fastpaced forum dedicated to discussing and debating politics, so do your best not to answer in kind.
-There is a history of trolling on this forum. Meaning, over the years, there have been many posters that have engaged in a provocative manner with the purpose of getting a reaction, causing conflict, and/or derailing conversation. No one likes that, nor does it tend to lead to productive discussion.
-Not everyone that has an opposing view is a troll. Reacting to other viewpoints as if they can't possibly be real or honestly held by someone else is also not a good faith effort at discussion. When users focus on addressing opposing viewpoints with their own, healthy debate and discussion happens. Don't make your posts a judgement on another user's posting intent.
-Rhetoric matters when it comes to fostering healthy discussion and debate. Once you build a reputation for trolling behavior it is much harder for your threads and posts not to be seen as attempts at trolling. Discussions and debates digress and derail when there are trolls, personal attacks, disrespect, insults, pettiness, and passive aggressive behavior toward each other. When this happens moderation will step in trying to preserve actual viewpoints as best as we can.
Moderation Isn't Perfect and We Do Not Expect Perfection
Our moderation team is made up of real people doing their best. It won't always be perfect, and it won't always align with how you think it should be handled. But our guiding principle is simple: to create a space where meaningful discourse can happen. If you think insulting or trolling another user or group of users is meaningful discourse, you run the risk of being moderated.
The Aggie network has amazing breadth and depth of knowledge from every sector of our economy as well as government and military. This forum has been in the past and can be in the present and future, a great place for smart and experienced people with differing viewpoints to gather together and talk freely about politics and difficult cultural issues. Having a space to speak freely about politics, culture, news, and ideas among Aggies and non-Aggie visitors to our platform should be a fun and exciting opportunity, even when we have differences of opinion on these issues.
At the end of the day, the quality of discussion on this board depends on all of us. If we want this to be a place where real debate happens, it starts with how we choose to engage with each other. Please help to keep this the best political discussion forum on the internet.
Gig'Em!
Brandon Jones '95
President & CEO
TexAgs.com
