Politics

[jaybo41]

With all of the recent political "discussion" here lately causing a stir and threads to be locked....I've got some thoughts and or suggestions...

Define a policy that either includes or excludes politics. Either we discuss it or not. No gray areas, all in or all out.

If there is a place here for politics or politically themed topics regarding fly fishing, why not isolate them to a politic specific forum here. This way issues such as these can be kept away from the general fly fishing discussions.

I belong to another BB and politics are kept seperate from the rest of the topics. I really think it adds to the overall experience of the forum because it keeps politically charged topics in one place. Either you enter or not. And in order to do so, you must sign up for it and be approved by a mod. Maybe that won't work here, I'm not sure.

I've always been told that 2 things that you don't discuss are politics and religion. I'd almost prefer to see politically themed posts removed and keep with the specific topic of fly fishing. I'm only one voice though. What's everyone else's opinion?

 

[tomgamber]

I disagree. I think this is what is supposed to separate us from the apes. The ability to discuss in a reasonable manner. The problem comes when someone's entire argument is that "so and so" is a jerk. Gov. Bubba is stupid. Senator Yada is a nincompoop. These are the kind of responses I see on sunday's from guys like Colin McNickle. This is why political discussions fail. People argue their emotions rather than the facts. If you keep your arguments based on tangibles, you won't get censored. So if you say that sen. Blort has a poor voting record on environmental issues you may have an argument. If you say Sen Blort is a doodyhead, well...you get the idea.

 

[Wulff-Man]

To add to what Tom said, I think the discussion also goes out of bounds if you get totally away from the fly fishing-related topic (which may also include environmental and conservation issues) and just start arguing back and forth about conflicting politics or about politicians. You can get enough of that on many other web sites, on TV, etc. I come here to discuss fly fishing, and to get away from that stuff. And of course, the general rules about treating each other with respect also apply. I bring this up because those rules tend to be violated when arguing over politics.

 

[jayL]

Almost all of the political stuff is conservation related. We already have a conservation forum, but I've found that a lot of the conservation threads stay in general. Quite frankly, I'm fine with that, but it could solve this "problem" if anyone's offended by it by moving threads there more agressively. I use quotes around the word 'problem' because I'm not bothered by it and enjoy the discussion, but I can see where some do get bothered as well.

Perhaps change "conservation" to "conservation and fly fishing politics" for semantics' sake?

That's all I got...

 

[JackM]

Keep these comments coming, it will help us formulate a plan. A few weeks back, we did move a potentially inflamatory thread into the conservation forum and it quelled the "problem" but in reality it accomplished it because the conservation forum is probably read very rarely by most posters.

Just for your edification, tomgamber's take on how to handle political topics is pretty close to how we're leaning, but it is hard to develop a written policy around concepts such as "poopyhead."
😛

 

[Wulff-Man]

To be clear, and I'm not sure if I was misunderstood here or not, I don't think there's any problem with heated debates that involve the "politics of conservation." If someone thinks a particular government representative or party is totally screwing up when it comes to particular conservation or environmental issues, that should be open to debate and discussion (beyond mere "poopyhead" invectives, of course). I was saying that it should be out of bounds if the discussion gets away from the conservation issue and gets into arguing about all the reasons that one or the other political party sucks or how liberals or conservatives are total morons.

 

[albatross]

I'm glad to see everyone here trying to be proactive. I agree with TomGamber's perspective on allowing a little spirited debate, but drawing the line at personal attacks and senseless mudslinging. There seems to be an influx of unfamiliar posters since the closure of FFP. I hope we can welcome the refugees without allowing the plague to spread.

 

[ryanh]

I'm w/ Tom. I mixxed it up with him and some others in the past about politics but it has always been above board. I like it and I grow from it.

 

[buckbarrett]

My vote is to never have political discussion unless it pertains to flyfishing.

 

[Chaz]

On one hand posts that are purely political should not be allowed. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to separate politics from fishing, there are just to many political issues involved in keeping our streams clean enough for trout. Our streams are under assault every day. I'd like to see purely political posts locked up as I don't believe they have a place on a Fly-fishing message board, however, if it is a political issue that directly impacts Fly-fishing then we should be discussing it.