I’m serious. There’s a place and necessity for heated debates, maybe more than ever, but that place is probably not this forum. The reason why each and everyone of us came here is to share a passion for writing, to get help with the software we love, and discuss writing related topics.
Since it’s impossible to not piss off this or that group over any controversial topic, and I also don’t like it if prolonged reading (and writing) sessions here leave me with feelings like “oh fuck off, you godamn prick…” – for the sake of peace and our collective nerves, I propose:
Ban political topics on the Scrivener forums. It won’t always be possible do draw a precise line, but I think we all know it when we see it. The added benefit is that the moderators don’t have to take any sides, which always alienates the one at the receiving end of any measures.
If you are proposing a change to the forum guidelines, could you take a look at this current version and clarify exactly what you would change? Thanks. https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/faq
Add: “Don’t discuss politics / contemporary controversial topics here UNLESS they directly affect our products (e.g. legislation regarding platforms, operating systems, cloud storage, Internet, cryptography, yadda yadda)”.
I don’t see how heated debates about “race”, “sex”, “gender”, this or that ideology, climate, pandemics, Trump, Biden, Putin or the tooth fairy help to improve the overall mood here.
ADD: This also means I won’t be able to enjoy those debates with you. But I’ll sacrifice my personal pleasure for the greater good.
I’d be fine with it.
But could we at least preserve the right to discuss the tooth fairy ?
I mean, would it truly need to be that extreme ?
I agree with the rest.
I’m not taking a public position on the suggestion: I’d like to see what the member consensus is.
I do want to encourage anyone dissatisfied with the content or tone of the forums generally, or the And Now for that Latte section in particular, to be the change you want to see. Post/respond to threads that you’d like to see more of, ignore threads that you think are out of line with your idea of “good” forum topics.
@kewms This is wonderful advice at large, and I have a follow-up question:
How? The change I want to see is an unbiased discussion and moderation culture (within the limits of your forum rules). That’s completely out of my control.
Well, the specific change that you suggested would eliminate six of the top eleven threads in the And Now for that Latte forum. (Yes, that’s my subjective estimate, but remember that I’m one of the people who’d be responsible for enforcing the rule.) And you’re a contributor to five of those threads.
You are not proposing a change to the moderation culture. Your proposal simply places the topics that are most challenging to that culture off limits.
I’m just pragmatic. How much moderation time do these threads eat up and how does this time compare to all the other threads that are actually relevant regarding Scrivener and writing. After all, this is the Scrivener forum, not the rednecks vs. social justice warriors forum.
And I’m not merely talking about quantity. These threads are often indistinguishable from trench warfare, with about the same outcome. Minimal gains (if any), lots of casualties, many of them “collateral damage”.
You can’t leave them unmoderated, of course, and you can’t be unbiased, the same way I feel the urge to drop my two cents and have my own biases and ideas, just as anyone else. In an ideal world, those heated debates would achieve anything (for instance mutual understanding, etc.), but I don’t really see this happen.
So at the end of the day the question remains: Is it worth it?
Well, there’s the real conundrum. The state of the media is unquestionably relevant to a forum full of writers. And four of the six threads I mentioned are about publishing or other media.
That’s impossible to answer unless I know which threads specifically you’re referring to. If you read my follow-up post, I specified “UNLESS they directly affect our products”. So while a lot of topics (if not all) affect writers, I doubt that they also affect Scrivener in the same way.
While most living writers have certain traits (“race”, “gender”) and are affected by politics, environmental issues and the world in all – that’s not related to Scrivener. It’s partially related to writing, in the sense that you can’t write without being alive and affected by everything.
What affects Scrivener and related tools, however, are things like (I hate to quote myself, but you made me do it!): “legislation regarding platforms, operating systems, cloud storage, Internet, cryptography, yadda yadda”.
Great analogy. And that’s why I typically don’t participate in those threads, and I can almost always tell from a thread’s title whether it’s going to be one of “those threads”.
In a sense, I’ve already banned politics at the L&L forums–for myself. The internet is full of other sites for when I feel like rolling around in the muck.
The threads I was thinking of concern diversity (or lack of it) in media, steps that publishers are (or aren’t) taking in response to social justice concerns, and how those steps are interpreted (accurately or not) by authors.
Those are definitely related to publishing, which affects writers (of course), no question. But they’re also exactly that kind of “emotionally charged” topics I had in mind. Counterexamples of topics that would also be related to publishing, but not start a war, are: “How to submit?”, “How to work with editors / incorporate feedback?”, etc.
The forums have been going for years without major issues.
Long may that continue, with the moderators rightfully moderating out anything offensive, bigoted, ad hominem, etc.
If some people don’t like ‘political’ topics, they can easily avoid those topics (as @JimRac has already pointed out) or accept any moderation deemed necessary.
And if they don’t like the moderation, they can (again as @JimRac has already pointed out) find plenty of other outlets for their ideas on the internet.
The forum isn’t broken. Topics in themselves don’t cause offence; only people do. So don’t ban anything just because some people get emotionally charged, don’t like being moderated, etc.
Let the moderate, empathetic, humanitarian, humane, benevolent, accommodating voices continue to enjoy the space they have enjoyed for years, where they can share and challenge ideas in the knowledge that the moderators will act in the best interests of the wider community.
To ban political topics now would be to allow a minority to ruin a space that has worked well for a long time. It would be censorship: one element of the community closing down all debate just because they don’t like their ideas being challenged or removed if deemed offensive.
As I acknowledged right from the start. Sometimes it won’t be easy to draw a line. Other times it will, but the actual question is, if this approach in general is beneficial or not.
In short: Let Good triumph over Evil. Hallelujah! I suspected it would be that simple, but couldn’t quite figure out how.
I myself use a simple solution: If I feel that a thread is wasting my time / destroying my serenity / etc. I use the control at the bottom of the thread and change its status to “muted.” I also use this status for certain forum members (none who has posted on this thread so far!) whose posts never fail to tick me off.
In short, let those whose entertainment is argument, argue. The forum has already provided the means to protect my sanity, and I use it regularly.
I am not a fiction writer or political cartoon satirist so the controversy reflected in those articles have no bearing on me what so ever. But as public service, I thought that it may be a heads up to the other writers on this forum to let them know what is going on out there in the publishing world. A world that they will have to interact with at some point, rather than go in blind and get a rude shock.
for you.