Just because somebody's talking about things that make you uncomfortable does not give one the right to ban them. Especially when it just seems like you're making a fuss because their opinions annoy you, and you don't want to "talk about it" anymore.
Look, I like talking about politics... on occasion. But I can disagree horribly with someone and comparmentalize it. That's just a single facet of their person. They also probably have different experiences and information from mine which form the basis of their differing opinions. I could also be quite wrong. I know my opinion has changed drastically on occasion. Just because we are getting political and heated doesn't mean there's going to be some big personal feud. At least, not from my end. We can have our tiffs and still have our jollies too. It's just verbal rough housing to me.
If a few people are having a conversation about something "political" on IRC, then I think its best for the annoyed party to just enjoy a separate conversation in the channel.
The idea the political arguers should be tossed somewhere else, or to a private convo is sort of rude. Especially given IRC's communal facets. Anyone interested can join in, anyone not interested can leave it alone and carry on their own thread. Some may not like the topic, but other people may. If a certain party doesn't want to listen to them, then they can just easily place the folks they dont want to listen to on ignore. There is no reason to demand that arguers take it elsewhere or change the subject, and thus make a big fuss about a minor issue.
This is all to say little of the idea of Keenchat having "taboo" subjects which oughtn't be discussed. I certainly never wanted there to be restrictions on what people could discuss or say. Perhaps that's fine for other sorts of channels, which have specific focuses, but Keenchat for me was always meant to be liberating. You could talk about anything. For better or for worse.
At the same time, I agree for completely different reasons political debate is not really fit for IRC. Not because it stirs the ires or because no one's mind will change(though that may be); but because it's fast paced and you often step on each other's toes. Fora and other systems where things can be sensibly thought out and responded to work much better. (Though I usually still look like an opinionated ass there too. ) But if people are not to discuss certain subjects, it should be because they voluntarily agreed not to.
Now, I also have had incidences in the past, where a certain topic annoyed me and I demanded "NO POLITICS" or what have you. Usually because the opinions tossed around were annoying to me. Frankly, and perhaps others disagree, but I think I was being a jerk. I shouldn't shut down people's conversations because the subject matter annoys me. Obviously, my demeaner has changed over time. I'm somewhat more "thick-skinned" to those things as I was.
But I still do understand how one can come to demand that. There are particular topics which just tend to get to some people. One can suggest that we should talk about something else, and maybe if certain people persist despite that suggestion they're being inconsiderate or rude. Maybe the anoyee should just extract themselves and ignore the bickering. That's what I tend to do. That or join in. But I don't think it would be appropriate for me to kickban anyone over it. That's an abuse of authority.
In any case, I'm disconcerted by what happened. It feels a bit like someone stepping into your own little conversation with someone and preventing you from speaking about what you both seemed to want to speak or whine about. However I apologize if the perception was one of rudeness on my part or anyone elses. But its difficult to "demand" a ceasefire to these situations and expect it to immediately work, I think.
The dynamics are such that if one says something you disagree with, one feels the need to reply... and they feel the same need in turn and so on. Thus are born flame wars. Perhaps it would be the Ghandi-esque thing to do to ignore their statements and change the subject, and that may very well be. It's difficult to fully sort out one's stance in these issues of ridiculous internet drama. However, all this aside, I possess a general feeling of discomfort with the course of action. I'm at odds with the reasoning behind it as well. It seemed a bit overkill for the circumstances.
Especially as I feel the last lines of the "political" conversation were rather light-hearted, or less heavy-hearted, and it was becoming a more jovial discussion. I felt the argument was pretty well whithering away at the time. I may be wrong. But the kickban seems to be a product of "Who made you President of IRC", which was just a tongue in cheek reply to the demand we not mention politics. Double entendre and all that.
I'm rather aghast that it was taken seriously. In any case, what I'm trying to say is; I'm sorry for my part in the arguments for anyone who feels they were an inappropriate topic for the Keenchat. Sorry as well for being my usual smarmy, jerkish self (I honestly thought you'd be used my hyperbole!). However, I also personally think we should just let folks bicker if they want to bicker. If you don't want to hear it, use ignore. Don't go all nanny-state on them and force them onto the preverbial reserves.
So I repeat my position: kickbans are far too drastic and did not at all fit the situation.
As a final thought: I politely ask that no one tries to rekindle any dead arguments in this thread. Let us not err twice. This is of course, a suggestion. If it does turn into that, I wouldn't want anyone banned or the thread locked. Obviously.
