Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.
I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.
It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.
You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.
You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.
Edit: Maybe it's time to set aside a board for such discussion. Cooking scored one and this must be at least as deserving given the nerve it seems to have struck.
I repeat, the community here has voted down this idea multiple times over the years, the majority do not want a free-for-all section.
It wouldn't be a free for all section. It would be for topics like this one. Not strictly technical electronics chat but equally of interest to those interested in electronics. Just like cooking isn't a free for all section.
You'd be happy to not have trump and covid discussion in the general electronics section, those who want to avoid non electronics discussion would like it and those who like to stick to their knitting can frequent the knitting section.
You could even make it a permission based section for those who request admission to it and then you could keep it well confined to only those who are interested in such topics.
One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members. Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.
It can also attract, the wrong sort of members. Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
But more importantly, Lineker is back.
One of the major reasons, is it is believed to cause (political discussions), potential major tensions between members. Bad disagreements, which can spill over to the normal forum threads, and lead to dramatic increases in the need for mod/admin attention.
It can also attract, the wrong sort of members. Who, rather than discussing Electronics and related subjects, come here with other agendas, and who may not be anything at all to do, with any technical subjects.
Yes, I don't disagree with that. But the thread is on the forum now anyway. If the wrong sort of member can post in section A then they can post in section B. I don't see how the section the thread/topic resides in changes anything. Except that those who think it doesn't belong in a technical electronics section won't have anything to complain about.
Let's put it another way. It can be done, and there are example(s), where other forums have done it. But, they seem to (in my, limited experience of it), lay down very strict rules, and have lots and lots of moderators and administrators on hand, to deal with any difficulties.
I perfectly understand what you're saying. But whatever moderation the thread needs it will need wherever it sits. As long as the same members can post in it. I'm just saying put non electronics topics in a special "of interest to engineers" section for non-electronics discussion. I don't want trump and covid and gender discussion period but moderating that out still needs to be done as Dave has had to request repeatedly in this topic. And those who don't want any of that even to the extent it would be of general interest to engineers in an "electronics" board will also be satisfied. The reason is really the same as the reason for putting Cooking outside the General Technical Chat. And don't forget the General Technical Chat" was once simply "General Chat" so there was a thought at one time to tighten down what is considered topical for this board. That's all I'm saying.
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.Jesus Dave, just close the thread. It lost is purpose after the first few posts.
No it hasn't, it's a place to talk about Dilbert and Adams and what's happening, and cancel culture. As I said before, it potentially impacts all of us. Things could always evolve in the Dilbert universe, so best to keep it open.
Please define "cancel culture".
Please define "cancel culture".
If you have to ask that then I'd prefer that you not particiate in this thread. You are clearly not here to talk about Dilbert and Adams.
The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]
There are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.
The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules [...]
That's the gist of it, in my view, and this is not the first thread where that happens. The related forum rule should be amended to something like: "Discussions of politics are allowed if, and only if, the topic is close to Dave's heart."
For the Diversity/Equity/Inclusion thread, one could at least argue that it was workplace-related. For this thread, "it may affect all of us" is the only justification I have read from Dave as to why this topic would qualify for a technical forum. Spoiler alert: That justification would apply to any political topic.
If this is how Dave wants to run the forum, that's up to him of course. But I would suggest amending the rules as suggested above to stay honest. The rule as it stands does not seem to reflect reality:QuoteThere are a couple of pet topics that always get out of control on forums, namely, religion, politics, guns, war, conspiracy theories, and the latest Current Thing that's happening or being championed by the public. They are not welcome here.
One could argue that community moderation is also cancel.
It's clearly justified by the size, a very little amount of total collective.
Obviously being private can't be it so not much else left.
It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).
The more times a theory holds up to being tested, the more confident we can be that the theory is truth, but it's never really 100% proven. Science encourages continuous testing and questioning of everything, and occasionally things long believed to be true turn out to be incorrect.
Just to add, often people will constantly raise the bar for "proof" if they don't believe in a finding, or lower the bar to ridiculousness if they want something to be true. Because you cannot really prove a negative, cognitive bias skews peoples views on what constitutes evidence so if a study is negative - it just wasn't precise enough, or wasn't large enough. If its positive - no matter how small or poorly designed - it must prove my theory right! Case in point the whole silly hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin debacle - where people are still quoting obviously fake studies.Face masks are another one. The evidence now points in the direction they're completely ineffective, yet many still hold onto bad studies which state otherwise. Heck I was one of those who thought they were effective, yet my opinion has changed, in light of new evidence.
The evidence doesn't point in that direction at all. Sources?
Ok, Just STOP IT with the covid posts.
I'm deleting any further posts.
And it'll either turn into a free-for-all, or there are dozen reports every day because someone hurt someone's feelings. And then that animosity spreads into other areas of the forum.
People have voted no many times before, and it remains no.
The solution we came upon was to create a “political lounge” where special (looser) rules were in effect. It was spectacularly effective at being a lightning rod for the political discussion.
It would actually seem to be a framework, modified in any form you wish to avoid the subject that shall not be talked about, except that it also is an invitation to define "cancel culture", "woke", etc. The point being that while you have repeatedly tried to narrow the discussion to the only Dilbert and Scott Adams, you yourself keep using politically-charged and subject-that-shall-not-be-named-charged terms like "cancel culture" and "woke". Therefore you are breaking your own rules; put in engineering terms, you have a case of bus contention. Mismatched impedances. while(1).
Well the alternative would be to lock the whole thread, which I suppose may be your goal? Personally I don't see why people that are not interested in the thread don't just exit and ignore it? Nothing exists in a vacuum and to some degree it is impossible to completely and totally separate politics from everything else. Corporate politics are a real thing we all have to deal with, politics are everywhere.
Dave can do whatever he wants, it has been stated in the past this is his sandbox and it isn't a democracy.
There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.
Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.
There have been a few eye openers here, such as the guy that claimed questioning something is the same as advocating for it, a truly bizarre (in my mind) logical conclusion that could explain some of the reactions that occur in the world these days.
Are you doing this for manipulative purpose or due to a cognitive limitation?Questioning whether a law that bans X should exist, is the same as advocating for X.