Non Aligned Room

[AdminSTB]

I have considered setting up a Non Aligned Room. This has occurred to me a few times in the past.

At present, people are only allocated to a room on request. One has looser rules than the others. It might be beneficial to add people who are specifically non aligned to their own discussion space.

My concerns are that this might be so big that is an alternative to the main forum, or that it might be moribund.

Please vote and offer thoughts.

[bjornhattan]

The issue with a non aligned room is that there wouldn't be the same coherence as our current rooms, which in my view somewhat defeats the point. You're right that some discussion rooms are more lax about who they let in than others, but as far as I know access to all rooms is only for fellow travellers.

There might be some benefit to having some kind of a moderate or centrist version of the current private rooms, but it should be something that people with moderate views opt into - a new member who isn't affiliated with any party but could be clearly left or right of centre is very different from an established non-partisan contributor who genuinely doesn't fit any party ideologically.

[johnhemming]

I have voted yes on the basis that if there are people who wish to be associated with "non aligned" then let them do so. From the perspective of ideology "non-aligned" is broader than the other rooms, but that is an issue for the people who wish to be "non aligned".

[mrpastelito]

Independent isn't the same as non-aligned.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

The way I would do this would seriously (and not just as a blatant pisstake of the Brussels-Strasbourg Parliament) be to create a technical group room, so that those non-aligned/independent/one-man-band-party people who want to have a room can have one, however useless it may be. But they'd have to ask to join the technical group to get it, and not just be non-aligned or whatever.

[swanarcadian]

Not keen on the idea. A large percentage of this forum’s membership is non-aligned, I’d guess about 70 percent without checking. It would be like creating a big forum within a slightly bigger forum, about 70 percent of the size of the one we already have, of people without common or discernable characteristics or beliefs.

[carlton43]

The existing rooms are for people who have an expressed affinity for a certain world view and certain common assumptions, really as givens within their politics. So these places can be anythng from comfort blanket and safe space through to echo chamber and self appreciation society.

There is nothing at all that links or binds the Non Aligned. It is all in the term of 'Non-Aligned'. There is no common assumption, no pivotal idea or ethic. There is no common world view. They are very different indeed to one another. This would be a Forum within a Forum. It would be an irrelevence or a huge mistake sucking the oxygen out of the original Forum.

Daft idea.

[John Chanin]

To be honest I think there would be little or no interest or participation

[Deleted]

It's a no from me.

We have many lurkers and non posters who are technically nonaligned. They will be from the extreme left, far right, soft middle and genuinely non-aligned. They'll all have the keys to the door. It'll grow into a "forum within a forum", a hiding place, with no real scrutiny.

The European Parliament attempted a "technical group of independents". It did not work.

[YL]

Like many others I don't think "Non Aligned" is a coherent enough group for this to be worthwhile.

It might be worth considering whether the other groups should follow the Blue Room (which as I understand it is the one with the looser rules) in being a little more open to those ideologically adjacent but not members.

[pl]

To be honest, I'm not sure there are that many genuinely non- aligned on this forum. Several non-aligned members here known to me personally are party political councillors for instance.

I've voted no.

[greyfriar]

Fair points made that the lack of defining ideology amongst non-aligned. Perhaps the existing party groups could advertise their closed area somewhere visible on the forum and the terms of entry e.g. do some expect formal party membership, others perhaps more broad affiliation?

[J.G.Harston]

Dec 22, 2022 20:08:07 GMT AdminSTB said:

I have considered setting up a Non Aligned Room. This has occurred to me a few times in the past.

At present, people are only allocated to a room on request. One has looser rules than the others. It might be beneficial to add people who are specifically non aligned to their own discussion space.

My concerns are that this might be so big that is an alternative to the main forum, or that it might be moribund.

Please vote and offer thoughts.

As long as it is correctly spelled. It's non-aligned not non aligned. Non is not a word (in English).

[riccimarsh]

Dec 22, 2022 23:12:53 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Dec 22, 2022 20:08:07 GMT AdminSTB said:

I have considered setting up a Non Aligned Room. This has occurred to me a few times in the past.

At present, people are only allocated to a room on request. One has looser rules than the others. It might be beneficial to add people who are specifically non aligned to their own discussion space.

My concerns are that this might be so big that is an alternative to the main forum, or that it might be moribund.

Please vote and offer thoughts.

As long as it is correctly spelled. It's non-aligned not non aligned. Non is not a word (in English).

I would argue that "non aligned" is mis-punctuated rather than mis-spelled... though as ever my knowledge of the rules of the English language may be lacking.

[nyx]

As a relatively new user here I’m not sure how to vote thanks to having no idea which rooms already exist– the FAQ doesn’t shine any light on this!

[Forfarshire Conservative]

Dec 23, 2022 1:13:08 GMT nyx said:

As a relatively new user here I’m not sure how to vote thanks to having no idea which rooms already exist– the FAQ doesn’t shine any light on this!

They're based on parties. So there's a Labour room, Tory room, SNP room, Green room, Lib Dem room, Reform room etc.

[Forfarshire Conservative]

I voted yes because if there's non-aligned's that want it, I won't stand in their way. Whether and how it can work is something they'd have to figure out.

[yellowperil]

I have voted for the third option, which I regard as close to a no, but leaving the door open a little bit if there are non-aligned people out there who want it and think they could make it work. I am doubtful on both counts. I am not even that keen on the existing party rooms, and use the yellow room pretty sparingly.

[matureleft]

I haven’t voted, and won’t. If a board is set up its membership is voluntary. Non-aligned people aren’t corralled into it. But it isn’t for me to dictate the spaces people choose to have to themselves. I’ve been mildly surprised that there isn’t a railway enthusiasts room, or a real ale room. Within what is a political site both seem to have a strong cross-party followings.

[r34t]

Having a political home is a choice, you can’t just lump people together because they haven’t given themselves a label. Personally I am politically ‘aligned’, just not here. So it would be a no from me, if I voted.