Folks, there have been too many discussions lately that veer off-course to politics. While we don’t desire to be heavy handed and stop all discussions that have intersections between food and politics, this is a food forum first and foremost, so the focus should be on food. If the discussions head to a place where it has nothing to do with food any more, it will be stopped. And posts that intentionally take a discussion in a political direction will be looked at much more closely before, no matter the viewpoint- liberal, conservative, its irrelevant.
We are a team of volunteers with full time jobs that helps maintaining the site on the side. And hence, just like you, we have very limited available resources and time during the day. We are not able to spend a disproportional amount of time moderating political discussions, often hours at a time. Hence I ask for your understanding.
Since our site is small and close-knit enough, we look at ourselves more as hosts of a social gathering, and would like everyone to have a good time, and conducts any discussions civilly and respectfully.
Please note our site rules:
Excluded discussions – Please no discussions on the following topics: Policies, politics, racism, disability, religion, sexual orientation, discrimination.
Harters
(John Hartley - a culinary patriot eating & cooking in Northwest England)
2
Mea culpa.
I’m aware that, in recent weeks, I have started two threads in the Media & News sub-forum which, on reflection, cross the no policies/politics discussion line. Of course, both of these were “news stories” that I thought may have been of general interest, but I now appreciate that, if someone wishes to take a contrary view to that of the article’s thrust, then it becomes a contentious issue. I’ll try and remember to restrict my posting about such matters, however much of general interest I might think they would be. I’ll also restrict my contribution to such threads as the “Are you going to stock up with food for Brexit” which was live during the summer, having been started by another contributor. Difficult to avoid the politics in such threads, unless one’s answer is simply “yes” or “no”.
Looks to be the case. Seems any conversation that becomes a personal textbox crosshair it’s likely going to chg the original topic. It’s unfortunate how quickly the tone of detailed debate swings from general understanding to preachy pulpit. I enjoy reading diff pov very much. slogging thru fingers wagging is not very conversational in a tiny txt box. But boy would it be interesting over drinks in a local joint.
Please keep your discussions on food, HO is a principally a food forum. Recently, we have got a rising amount of flags from various members on threads going off topic and political. Moderators are trying to be tolerant and avoid to lock topics. Please be reminded that site rule excludes talks on policies, politics, racism, disability, religion, sexual orientation, discrimination.
Feel free to contact any of the mods if you have any issues.
Hi there! Not quite sure where this belongs or if it even does, but could I also humbly propose that “Keep it friendly” might serve as a guideline for the community?
I really enjoy and value HO—almost daily. But when I have been away for a bit and I happen across a discussion that has taken a bad turn my heart sinks. I come here because HO has been a friendly place that offers a helpful, interesting, fun, and safe way to discuss food-related topics.
So grateful for HO and all that the moderators do to keep this a useful and welcoming place.
Thanks for hearing me, all.
7 Likes
Harters
(John Hartley - a culinary patriot eating & cooking in Northwest England)
9
As I suggested on my contribution upthread in 2019, it is easy to find you have crossed the “no politics” line, particularly with many news stories. I’m not talking about threads which are deliberately provocative in those respects.
It was only a couple of months ago, I started a thread on the UK board with a link to a news report that a restaurant was stopping its lunch service because of staff shortages. The owner said the main problem was XXX. The thread quickly descended into the political arena and, by post 17 (of 55) I said I regretted starting the thread.
Yes, it makes HO more banal if we can’t discuss the issues that surround the restaurant/food industry. But better banal than the unpleasantness.
I’ll add my mea culpa to John’s @Harters upthread. I’ve added a couple of threads and contributed to a couple of others that went South. Sometimes a topic seems like it could foster interesting discussion and goes sideways.
I do think that contention is not always political and can be interesting. It also becomes a burden on moderators which isn’t fair to them. Sometimes “politics” becomes an easy out for “too hard” which is okay. I prefer “uncivil” but I don’t choose the vocabulary.
I suspect there are discussions among the mods behind the scenes about such things - they are on boards I’ve been part of. I think it’s worth noting that Kim @gaffk seems to have drawn the short straw recently and we should thank her specifically for helping keep us on the rails.
ETA: I do think a warning before locking a thread would be a useful policy. We could be more self-policing that way.
Thanks for your understanding Dave. As the mod for the not about food and culture and media boards (i.e., those most likely to go off the rails) it is indeed a challenge at times. I try to let things roll, but when the flags start flying . . .
I’ll try to issue a warning in the future after the first flag or two is received.
the policies regard topics/subject matter are clear - and violations should be immediately deleted.
a more troublesome issue is people getting nasty / personal / whatever.
everyone is entitled to their opinion - they are not entitled to bash other members. those violations should be immediately deleted.
people who can’t take the hint will not react to warnings.
public “warnings” only turn off new members, who are left wondering “what the heck…?”
if you have rules and policies, enforce them. don’t bother telling the Forum at large there are rule violations here . . .
1 Like
Harters
(John Hartley - a culinary patriot eating & cooking in Northwest England)
13
I contribute (or lurk) on a couple of other forums (not food related). Both take prompt action to enforce their rules. Posts which infringe are deleted. People are suspended or, occasionally, banned. One makes suspension/banning a public matter with its own discipline sub-forum. So, for example, a moderator may say “I have suspended Harters for one month for abusive language towards another member”. The other just acts privately and makes no announcement - so no-one other than the parties involved knew I had been suspended for a month for abusive language towards another member. I was offered the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension. The guy deserved every expletive ridden description of him, so I was content to take the suspension.
I’m really not sure which is the better practice bt the important thing is fast action on enforcing the rules
We’re not that big a place. I prefer to think of us as a coffee klatch rather than Bob’s Country Bunker, where problems can be solved with gentle persuasion instead of a sledgehammer.
My $.02
a board that is littered with personally insulting/attacking messages and threats / announcement from the staff of suspensions and banning . . . . don’t encourage newcomers to participate. in my experience - I started sysoping / wizoping at Compuserve in 1991 - with forums ranging to 600 messages per day - been there done pretty much all of that.
I can’t swear to the number. definitely 5 x 2 dating back to the mid 80s. Very early adopter and lived in Northern Virginia so a strong target market. Dial-up to CIS and to ARPA Net back then. Could it be 61409? My paper/electronic trail doesn’t go back that far any more and my memory for numbers that old isn’t great. I do remember my very first car payment was $255.49. grin
