[dabigv13]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

Unless s/he is a mod, this board has a poster who paternalistically presumes to unilaterally "lock" conversations or designate them as being 'of high risk' when he deems them worthy of such action, as s/he did a few days ago. IMO it is preferable to let the mods do their jobs, in accordance with the rules that govern participation on this site. They have standing to do so.

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

Whoever you're referring to is a mod/admin, since regular posters cannot lock threads. And if you think the moderation here is paternalistic, there are many other forums where you can go instead.

And FWIW I think that the issue of transgender athletics at Stanford is within the purview of this board and worthy of discussion.

[dabigv13]

Stanford has no practical way of isolating its sports enterprises from politics. I would imagine that under refined moderation rules a board such as this could be a useful way for folks to share information, ask questions, and advance arguments when Stanford sports and politics intersect in a meaningful or significant way, without the discussion devolving into a stupid, pointless, or mean-spirited debate about political personalities.

Oh, you sweet innocent child.  Yes, I would love to hear a useful and mature discussion where sports, politics, and Stanford interact.  For better of for worse, despite best efforts, people naturally have strongly held beliefs on controversial, and often cannot hold back from sharing those views in such a way that polarizes the readers, which we don’t want.  Affiliation past or present with Stanford doesn’t seem to inoculate against this behavior.  I wish it weren’t so.

So far, there is nothing in this thread that would make me lock it; I just flagged it as high risk because the topic is polarizing and the event that spawned it was an executive order by the administration.

BC

Unless s/he is a mod, this board has a poster who paternalistically presumes to unilaterally "lock" conversations or designate them as being 'of high risk' when he deems them worthy of such action, as s/he did a few days ago. IMO it is preferable to let the mods do their jobs, in accordance with the rules that govern participation on this site. They have standing to do so.

P.S. That "Oh, you sweet innocent child" comment strikes me as being condescending and uncalled for.

Whoever you're referring to is a mod/admin, since regular posters cannot lock threads. And if you think the moderation here is paternalistic, there are many other forums where you can go instead.

And FWIW I think that the issue of transgender athletics at Stanford is within the purview of this board and worthy of discussion.