Chat Rules

Currently "hot button" topics are not allowed in the chatroom because users tend to turn into buttheads when they start discussing them, and it tends to result in people becoming angry with nobody's opinions actually changed. However, there is a segment of our users who wants to allow that sort of discussion in the chat. Their view is they want to be able to talk about anything they want to with their friends, and that it will increase users in the shoutbox instead of off-site channels. My worry is that it might drive people apart from each other or make some groups feel unwelcome because they're not part of the majority viewpoint.

So, do you guys think that the "no politics or religion" rule in the Shoutbox chatroom rule is a good for the community, or a burden?

 

[Eistheid]

Discussing IRL stuff on SARP isn't something I need or want, since there are plenty of other avenues to pursue that elsewhere.

 

[Edto Xar'Sivaree]

You're right. This is a touchy subject. However, it's only a touchy subject if it is allowed to go too far. If the staff are going to allow this, then the staff also have to know /when/ something is getting too hot and shut it down. Take a debate format for instance. If someone can back their point up with a rational, thought out response that not only answers ay give questions but also furthers the position they are taking then the response is allowed. However, if the users are starting to use Ad Hominem ((Direct attacks against opponent,)) then the response is considered void and worthless because it is.

You can say 2+2 doesn't equal three because if I have two pears, and I get two more pears I now how four pears.
You can't say 2+2 doesn't equal three because you're an idiot

That was just an example, and there are more complicated moments as well. The staff have to also have to make judgment on if someone is fighting for the sake of getting a rise out of someone. These discussions can be had safely and without anyone getting hurt. We just need to make sure that they are constructive and not hostile. I the end though, people really just need to learn to agree or disagree.

TL;DR
If people can Agree to Disagree should a hot topic get A) To heated or B) No construction is being made with the topic then it should be fine. If you don't think enough people can do this, then it shouldn't be allowed. We are a community and the Shoutbox is sometimes the best method available for people to talk.

Really this wouldn't be a problem if we could have a PM system within the Shoutbox. I'm not going to cast a vote because I don't have a strong enough opinion on either of the two options to pick one.

 

[Wes]

Future Shoutbox chat will include the ability to make multiple rooms and to whisper people, which should help.

I hope to set an install date soon. We're currently waiting on some performance improvements by the add-on author.

 

[Rhysis]

I don't have any issue with it whatsoever. I'm an actively practicing Christian and I very much enjoy the opportunity for discussion about my faith. I've gotten pretty good at seeing an opportunity to mention how my faith in Jesus' teachings has influenced my life, and how I feel it can influence others. I also have a rather specialized political view that, if discussed, usually leads to fairly intelligent conversation.

There are, however, a good number of people who have a very difficult time distinguishing between reasonable conversation and an attack. A lot of the time people will feel like, just because someone disagrees with them on a particular topic automatically means that person is attacking them and/or hates them. I disagree with my wife on a lot of things. I don't attack her or hate her. I disagree with my children quite a bit. I don't attack them or hate them. Nevertheless, that viewpoint exists, however flawed it may be.

With maturity and patience, it shouldn't present a problem. So, ultimately, my vote would be. Yes, allow them, but with a few assigned moderators to make sure things don't get out of hand. If a conversation begins to degrade into nothing more than an argument, it needs to be ended. Nobody wins when tempers are flared.

 

[Kyle]

Personally, I've been in some chatooms elsewhere where the discussion of IRL stuff has been done in a rather mature manner (where if people disagree, that's that, and no one causes issues with it) however, I've also seen cases where when two people disagree a fight will break out, or worse, name calling and insulting toward a person's intelligence all because they are part of one thing or another and the opposition disagrees.

Because of this, these kinds of discussions can be rather touchy and can lead to quite a fwe problems. In regards to our shoutbox, I think it should be allowed so long as proper steps are taken to ensure that people DO act in a mature and respectful manner during such discourse.

There's a motto I often go by: 'He who insults first, has lost all credibility'. Because insulting, name calling, and other things aren't needed during such discourse

 

[Moogle]

I don't come here for discourse. I come here for robots and tits. Keep the damn rule.

 

[Lamb]

"users tend to turn into buttheads when they start discussing them"

My philosophy is that you should punish the wicked, not the pass-times of wicked men when they're shared by the decent. Ban the buttheads, remove the rule.

 

[Nashoba]

Bottom line its about maturity and respect. But as has been said, always a tricky wicket. Of course one of the issues we have is a wide range of demographics. I'm for letting the discussions take place, but with the provision that if it degrades into a shouting match it gets ended.

 

[ArsenicJohn]

Keep the rule as far as the main chat. If people want to discuss sensitive topics, there could be a chat for that. In my experience many people lack the ability to discuss serious topics without getting emotional.