NEW SECTION RULES

[AyaKara 2,271]

Due to an influx of questionable threads as of late, we are now implementing some rules for this section.

1) Blogs, satire, and hazing articles are no longer allowed in this subforum. Any threads of these types will be locked immediately. This counts anecdotes too -- there is nothing to be gained by 'So I met some <Candidate> supporters today . . . '. Opinion-editorials (op-eds) can also turn into these, so be wary; it's flamebait and we're not having it.

2) Threads that will be allowed: political news; interviews; media (video and photos); opinion-editorials (op-eds); and prediction-based articles. These may be posted freely as long as they do not bash candidates. You can disagree strongly with a candidate's beliefs without instigating an argument.

3) Please be respectful of one another. You have your own lives outside of political interests. You all need to remember, before you divide yourselves into in-groups and out-groups, that you're all human beings first.

Thank you.

Edited June 14, 2016 by AyaKara

[Himeros26 1,688]

YAS!

[Sizzily 14,543]

Thank you so much!  

[crisTEAne 21,059]

@AyaKara be like: this subsection is not your fun station anymore. good-fücking-bye!  

[Didymus 31,633]

 

Though a bit late  But better late than never.

[Antonio 27,719]

lmao finally

[Morphine Prince 94,072]

I refuse! The establishment will not bring me down! 

Spoiler

Kidding. Thank God for these rules. It was getting out of hand.

 

[Azor Ahai 18,861]

Its going to hard to find articles that take no side. Why write an article if you take no sides? 

[Bloody 64,631]

any time I see a political related thread I try to avoid it

those rules were needed

Edited June 14, 2016 by Bloody

[MJHolland 12,723]

Why no op-eds? We can't share opinions in an OP? I hardly see how that's "flamebait", but I also don't systematically make rules to oppress free speech. 

[ryanripley 86,575]

finally  

[AyaKara 2,271]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Why no op-eds? We can't share opinions in an OP? I hardly see how that's "flamebait", but I also don't systematically make rules to oppress free speech. 

I meant an op-ed posted from another site. For instance, there was an article posted the other day about two white Bernie supporters standing in line, and how they represent all Bernie supporters and are x y z insults here. What the hell is that?

You can share your opinions -- please do!! -- but please don't do it how the example listed does. That's why I mentioned anecdotes as well; people will use their own highly-specific experiences to claim anything is true, and this always turns into people nitpicking each other.

I'll clarify the OP.

Edited June 14, 2016 by AyaKara

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, AyaKara said:

I meant an op-ed posted from another site. For instance, there was an article posted the other day about two white Bernie supporters standing in line, and how they represent all Bernie supporters and are x y z insults here. What the hell is that?

[AyaKara 2,271]

3 hours ago, Azor Ahai said:

Its going to hard to find articles that take no side. Why write an article if you take no sides? 

Articles will always take sides. But, people can take sides without bashing. Many of the articles that have been posted as of late bait people into arguing rather than discussing. I gave the example above of 'two white people standing in line represent all of Bernie's supporters' from the other day.

[GloZell Green 11,723]

 Thank you, these are the rules we needed. Will there be WP distributions for flamebait comments?