The weirdos that like arguing with strangers on t'internet after a hard day's graft at work about bozzas big water cannon can always set up a WhatsApp group. You can even do video calls and show you really mean business.
The weirdos that like arguing with strangers on t'internet after a hard day's graft at work about bozzas big water cannon can always set up a WhatsApp group. You can even do video calls and show you really mean business.
This is part of the problem. Why call people weirdos? That is why it is closed. Too much playing the man, or woman, and not the ball by some.
Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
Were there really many neutrals looking into the HoC thread on CL with an open mind in the first place though? I didn't sense that. Those with intransigent views, at both ends of the spectrum btw, were far more dominant and frequent contributors to it.
Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
Oh dear.
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
Well I enjoyed reading it, if not posting. I liked that we had such a varied set of posters - different backgrounds, views and levels of political knowledge. Quite hard to find!
Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
Oh dear.
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
Some of the most extreme right wing and left wing people I have met in my life has been at Charlton. I would have no wish to engage with them on politics on a forum that is about our club, and providing a lot of unnecessary aggro for the mods who do a great job, voluntarily.
Out of interest (and i say this as someone who probably looked on that part of the forum twice in my life) why does it need to be moderated? I'd imagine there's quite a few people on here who probably didn't even know it existed.
If a select few want to waste their days arguing amongst themselves on a part of the forum that hardly anyone goes to, then why not just leave them to it?
That's what I've been wondering. As someone who enjoyed and participated in the HoC, I've never felt the need to involve a moderator in any of the discussions.
Those who moaned the loudest were those who wouldn't accept evidence that contradicted their world view, no matter how much it it stacked up.
If people who presented opinion as fact, people who pretended those with an opposing view had said something they clearly hadn't and people who made stuff up to "back up" their opinion had been stopped from doing so, it would have been better.
Sadly they are not used to their opinion being contradicted because of the media they consume (although they often lied about that too).
It was nice to have a platform to contradict the bullshit that many people believe without question. For me, it was never about persuading the entrenched to change their minds, it was about showing the neutral where and why the entrenched were wrong.
Oh dear.
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
And those people weren't usually on the right.
Interesting then that it is mainly those with ‘rightish’ views that are the most keen to have the HofC part of the forum closed. Alternative views indeed.
Some of the most extreme right wing and left wing people I have met in my life has been at Charlton. I would have no wish to engage with them on politics on a forum that is about our club, and providing a lot of unnecessary aggro for the mods who do a great job, voluntarily.
Ftr this would be the case at virtually any football club forum. Maybe not Dulwich Hamlet. Or Chelsea
I can't think of a place online where people talk about politics like civilised ladies and gentlemen. Social media and the depersonalisation of the internet has polarised us. It's not a CL problem, a moderation problem or an issue with any of the individuals on here, it's bigger than that. This is just the way it is now. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and start shaking hands and having a nice chat over the internet about immigration. Call me a pessimist but it's futile to expect it to change on here or anywhere else.
I must admit, I never posted on there to persuade right leaning people to come over to my way of thinking. It was more to discuss the mess the Government has done with like minded people. What I don't like is name calling and labelling. That happened from both sides. I have a bit of an annoyance personally about people who don't engage in politics and try to undermine those who do. I think, no wonder the country is in a mess if so many people are not engaged in the things that determine what sort of lives we have.
Part of the reason I liked HoC (bar one or two posters) is that it's hard to find places online that have a wide variety of views like they do on here, as this is a specific interest forum. Specific political forums are usually echo chambers with little tolerance for different views
Part of the reason I liked HoC (bar one or two posters) is that it's hard to find places online that have a wide variety of views like they do on here, as this is a specific interest forum. Specific political forums are usually echo chambers with little tolerance for different views
Yeah. I know I am (and jacob is) usually typecast as being very much on one pole of political arguments, but trust me, I've been in plenty of online lefty bubbles and you get a lot less insight into political reality and possibility in such spaces (although you DO still get violent disagreement; if you can imagine it, there are places online where I'm regarded as suspiciously centrist). I appreciated how on the HOC I was able to see what the entire spectrum of society thinks, and why it thinks it. I don't think it should be scrapped. Possibly it should have its own dedicated moderation crew - I see we have some volunteers already.
I wrote a private message to a senior moderator when the HOC was closed suggesting I would be blamed. It is not etiquette to post a private message, but from the reply it was made explicit that it wasn’t down to me. I was given a reason why the HOC was closed. I still have the message in my inbox. For those who purport to know why it was closed perhaps they will share that knowledge with the rest of us backed up by evidence. Everything else is speculation. Posters who feel the adversarial nature was the problem have a point as do those who feel it was toxic to get into differences with others. However politics and similar discussions are always adversarial. The key point for me is when it comes to personal attacks, which with one exception in 2019 I was not guilty of. I would always fight back when attacked. I don’t have the strength of character of Ronnie Moore of this parish who never responds to the personals.
Also, I feel like the HOC has had a moderating effect on certain behaviours of mine and perhaps others too. I'm now far less likely to rip into someone about their views, unless on very specific topics that concern actual close friends and family of mine
I think a heated debate is healthy as long as it stays on the subject matter and doesn't get personal. Seth got a lot of snide personal attacks which was wrong. Others would accuse people of being this or that (I won't go into details) which is wrong. It is different to critcising a position or a political party. We are all Charlton fans at the end of the day. I think if the HoC had a rule, no personal attacks and immediate banning when that happened, it would work. That doesn't include attacking Sunak, Farage or Starmer. They should be fair game, but not fellow lifers.
I think a 'no personal attacks' hardline would leave a lot of grey areas, myself.
I'd rather a very light moderation policy with intervention only in obviously extreme cases or persistent trolling. Everyone gets to roast everyone else, everyone shakes hands at the end. Everyone learns to ignore the obvious troll. A lad can dream
I don't think there would be grey areas. I can say your views are wrong IMO but I can't call you a fascist or an anti semite or even an idiot or similar word. I can't tell you to stop posting or imply you are a winker like some did to Seth. Just ignore him or disagree him if you don't like what he is saying. Sorry to highlight Seth, I am using him to make a general point.
I wrote a private message to a senior moderator when the HOC was closed suggesting I would be blamed. It is not etiquette to post a private message, but from the reply it was made explicit that it wasn’t down to me. I was given a reason why the HOC was closed. I still have the message in my inbox. For those who purport to know why it was closed perhaps they will share that knowledge with the rest of us backed up by evidence. Everything else is speculation. Posters who feel the adversarial nature was the problem have a point as do those who feel it was toxic to get into differences with others. However politics and similar discussions are always adversarial. The key point for me is when it comes to personal attacks, which with one exception in 2019 I was not guilty of. I would always fight back when attacked. I don’t have the strength of character of Ronnie Moore of this parish who never responds to the personals.
I don't think there would be grey areas. I can say your views are wrong IMO but I can't call you a fascist or an anti semite or even an idiot or similar word.
There's a difference between calling someone something socially unacceptable like a 'fascist' or an 'antisemite', and calling someone something colloquial and commonplace, like an 'idiot', you silly fool!
I don't think there would be grey areas. I can say your views are wrong IMO but I can't call you a fascist or an anti semite or even an idiot or similar word.
There's a difference between calling someone something socially unacceptable like a 'fascist' or an 'antisemite', and calling someone something colloquial and commonplace, like an 'idiot', you silly fool!
There is indeed a difference and neither are acceptable you ...........
Those that think the forum is better off without the HOC have no need to look at it, that would leave it free for those of us who do.
There are many topics on the forum that I have no interest in, so I don't bother looking at them. I would never suggest that those threads be closed.
But why do you want to comment on politics on what is essentially a Charlton specific/football general forum?
There are other forums you can use for your political chat.
Because, one of the beauties of this forum is that it's a broad church and much more than a Charlton/Football forum.
I've just scanned the first page of topics and there are discussions on - Running, Films, Road Fines, Ofsted, Word Game, Cricket, Heart Disease, Wrestling, Savings & Investments, RIPs, Photos, Dogs, Formula 1, NFL and even the demise of hourly pips!
So why not a politics thread?! I found it very informing and would like to see it returned. If you're not interested don't open it. Or, if it should be taken off because it's not Charlton/Football then take all of the above off too.
What stopping someone starting a forum.charltonlifepolitics.com as a totally separate entity with its own rules and if required moderation, I don’t know if this is possible, but also with say the only way of accessing the new forum is via the main forum, therefore they would have to be registered with charltonlife, and would be known participants. I’m sure the more technically knowledgeable could work it out. Probably a load of rubbish and just a thought, but not thought through.
Comments
There were a little cadre of people who used to post on there who were convinced that they were so morally superior and that their view of the world was absolutely right that they would not countenance any alternative view because they couldn't possibly be wrong.
And those people weren't usually on the right.
That is the post of the year so far...Bang on.
It is not etiquette to post a private message, but from the reply it was made explicit that it wasn’t down to me. I was given a reason why the HOC was closed.
I still have the message in my inbox.
For those who purport to know why it was closed perhaps they will share that knowledge with the rest of us backed up by evidence.
Everything else is speculation.
Posters who feel the adversarial nature was the problem have a point as do those who feel it was toxic to get into differences with others.
However politics and similar discussions are always adversarial.
The key point for me is when it comes to personal attacks, which with one exception in 2019 I was not guilty of.
I would always fight back when attacked. I don’t have the strength of character of Ronnie Moore of this parish who never responds to the personals.
Yes mate all good here...just seeing whether we can avoid the drop....very embarrassing if we don't.
I'd rather a very light moderation policy with intervention only in obviously extreme cases or persistent trolling. Everyone gets to roast everyone else, everyone shakes hands at the end. Everyone learns to ignore the obvious troll. A lad can dream
I've just scanned the first page of topics and there are discussions on - Running, Films, Road Fines, Ofsted, Word Game, Cricket, Heart Disease, Wrestling, Savings & Investments, RIPs, Photos, Dogs, Formula 1, NFL and even the demise of hourly pips!
So why not a politics thread?! I found it very informing and would like to see it returned. If you're not interested don't open it. Or, if it should be taken off because it's not Charlton/Football then take all of the above off too.