The Off-Topic forum is a place for you to discuss non-wargaming related topics, something that is not normally allowed in the rest of the forums.
HOWEVER, please be aware that all of the other normal rules for the site apply. In particular that means you still need to be polite and friendly at all times.
In addition, please note that discussions involving politics and religion are not allowed. What exactly do we mean by that? Read the spoilered text below:
Spoiler:
However else we are different, what brings us together on Dakka Dakka is our shared interest in miniatures gaming. Logically, this forum is meant to be enjoyed in the good natured spirit of a fun hobby. Whenever people are passionate about something, the conversation can get heated. That's where it is crucial to keep perspective. It's only toy soldiers, after all!
When the discussion turns to more serious matters, such as what's going on away from our table tops and work benches in the "real world," what divides us can all too easily overwhelm the hobby we share in common. Drawing lines in the sand, calling each other out, failing to see an issue from another perspective, rejecting the notion that doing so is even desirable - this spirit of hostility is directly contrary to what Dakka Dakka is really about. Conventional wisdom holds, and experience confirms, that politics and religion are topics often best avoided outside of a venue specifically designed, usually with very strict rules, to accomodate sober, formal discussion. As a site devoted to playing games with toy soldiers, Dakka Dakka is not meant to be, has never been, and will never be such a forum.
Originally, we attempted to cordon off political and religious debate away from the main content of the site, relegating it to the Off-Topic forum. However, as the years passed, it became increasingly apparent that these types of discussions, even limited to just a single forum, were a huge time sink for our volunteer moderators to have to deal with. More recently, we tried to further contain the acrimony by limiting this type of discussion into to just a handful of threads. But the arguments are so entrenched and vitriolic as to spill over, most often in the form of resentment between posters, that they are poisoning even on-topic discussions. So going forward, we have decided that political and religious debates will no longer allowed at all on Dakka Dakka.
Of course, people who happen to share a hobby still like to chat about other common interests unrelated to that hobby. And of course there are many topics, far too many to attempt listing them, that inevitably touch on politics without necessarily being political in themselves. The Off-Topic forum is therefore not going away nor is any thread that could have some political implication going to be immediately locked on sight. There is not a simple black and white distinction to be drawn here but common sense will suffice in almost all cases. Consider what most people would find appropriate to discuss in a game store open to the public, where you are likely to be around people you don't know very well. People go there to relax and have fun. If saying something about politics or religion in that situation would make it awkward and uncomfortable for others (for example, causing a heated argument likely to get personal) then don't post it on Dakka Dakka.
And if you are not sure about whether posting a certain thread or comment violates this policy, please keep in mind that it always OK to send a private message to a moderator asking for guidance.
Also, even though this is a forum for discussion about non-gaming topics, any thread started must still contain an actual topic for discussion. So for example, the following types of threads (and posts) would not be acceptable, even in this off-topic forum:
• Spam thread (or post) that is essentially gibberish.
• General thread asking what other users are doing today/this week, etc. or
• 'Blog'-style thread about random things happening in your life.
Just remember that even though this is the off-topic forum, it is still a forum designed for topics of discussion. If you do not have an actual topic of discussion and instead you are just looking to vent/share or post something random for your own amusement, that is not allowed.
Users who continually break Dakka's rules will have their account suspended temporarily and eventually permanently if they continue to do so.
We try to keep Dakka's content at about a PG/13 "rating" with regards to content. This might well mean that certain topics, comments or jokes, whilst perhaps pertinent or even funny, are not suitable for posting. If you do post something that steps over the line then there is every chance it will be deleted and you may well receive a warning and/or a suspension for doing so.
On a related note we prefer it if people do not swear or use offensive language on the site. Many of the more common words like this are filtered out automatically by the site. We take a very dim view of attempts to circumvent this, and this includes putting *** or similar in words as well.
Of late we have seen an upsurge in people using Dakka's built in picture hosting to post non wargaming images. We don't allow this either, if you wish to post such an image then you'll need to use image tags/similar. Non wargaming pictures will be deleted and, again, action may be taken against repeat offenders.
Intelligent discussion is not something I would associate 4chan with, I think childish, low, brow, tacky, unsubtle, rude, gross, mean spirited, ignorant, trollish, uninspiring, uninteresting, insincere, forced, etc would be better descriptions of the site.
sluggaslugga wrote: So... no posting about Harry Potter in a spacemarine suit killing off millions of green Hitlers?
(Lol just made it up)
You may be joking, but I actually read Harry Potter/40k crossover fiction a while back. It started with a psyk-out bombardment from orbit and ended with Hermione being captured by the Inquisitor for his "personal retinue".
Just a quick question: Are MODS supposed to just delete posts that they themselves don't like and find offensive, or is there some kind of actual criteria?
I'm just curious as I had a post removed recently. No swearing, no accusations, nothing political or religious, nothing risqué, nothing illegal.
Yes, it was borderline macabre, but that's about it.
cuda1179 wrote: Just a quick question: Are MODS supposed to just delete posts that they themselves don't like and find offensive, or is there some kind of actual criteria?
I'm just curious as I had a post removed recently. No swearing, no accusations, nothing political or religious, nothing risqué, nothing illegal.
Yes, it was borderline macabre, but that's about it.
Moderators are tasked with making judgement calls about what posts are appropriate and inappropriate, so it goes without saying that something that offends a particular moderator is much more likely to be noticed and potentially removed by them.
Ideally, a moderator will send you a PM letting you know why your post has been removed (often that will come along with a warning and/or suspension), but if they are too busy at the moment, the most important thing is to remove the inappropriate post, so a notification is not always forthcoming (although like I said, that type of action without a notification is less than ideal).
If you would like to discus the particulars of why your post was deleted, feel free to PM me.
There are posters here who seem to swing way in one direction, making some pretty outrageous accusations against groups and people, who seem to move on unscathed, but in an attempt to create a thread that is literally free of political content about science fiction robots of the future, someone mentions the word ginger and it gets locked. Is there a serious ruleset so people can know where the "line" is? I am all for rules, but #1 and #2 are quite ambiguous and it would be nice to know where to step, and what standard we are being held to.
I want to ask a question about how everyone uses the Internet (I'm taking a Grad class) and wanted to use Dakka to help me work through my topic and put together a survey (about Internet use). Can I do that here in Off-Topic? Can I also post the link to the (Google) survey that I put together after I get comments and discussion about Internet use?
I have to admit that whilst in a hobby hiatus, the political can't is the only reason I visit dakka on a daily basis. It had the highest calibre of discussion I'd encountered on both sides, and it was great having that level if intelligent discussion.
Can we have a politics subforum or can anyone recommend anywhere with decent political discussion?
Genuinely enjoyed UK politics, whether watching or sparring. Everyone there was civil and even though a lot of the time it was DINLT against the world, he all took it in his stride.
Herzlos wrote: I have to admit that whilst in a hobby hiatus, the political can't is the only reason I visit dakka on a daily basis. It had the highest calibre of discussion I'd encountered on both sides, and it was great having that level if intelligent discussion.
Can we have a politics subforum or can anyone recommend anywhere with decent political discussion?
I'd say I would be in the same position. I have very little patience for GW fantasy or 40k these days but having politics thread did mean I interacted more. However with very little on the games I'm interested in I guess my interaction will diminish because I won't need to visit as often because it is easier to catch every couple of weeks or so. It's unlikely that you'll find a good dedicated political forum somewhere because they are either generally populated by people from one side or another and are more echo chambers or very hostile. There's evidence to show people generally move to groups they are comfortable with so that real debate doesn't happen. That's where dakka had an advantage - it is primarily a war-games forum and that brought together people with diverse political views which in the long term can result in a more compromising consensus in moving forward. Keeping groups divided makes each group more hostile to the other. That wargaming could bring people together with different views is, I would argue, a reason to keep it going.
However this sort of action is not uncommon. It takes time and effort to manage such highly charged topics and if finding volunteers becomes more difficult (or they simply don't want to deal with it) then the easiest route is just to ban it altogether. However there is the argument that by doing so there is a desire to wash hands of some social responsibility by trying to ignore it. So perhaps we could have an off topic conversation on whether dakka is being socially irresponsible for banning political and religious discussion?
Sorry to see it go - I enjoyed the discussions, but shame on you dakka!
However this sort of action is not uncommon. It takes time and effort to manage such highly charged topics and if finding volunteers becomes more difficult (or they simply don't want to deal with it) then the easiest route is just to ban it altogether. However there is the argument that by doing so there is a desire to wash hands of some social responsibility by trying to ignore it. So perhaps we could have an off topic conversation on whether dakka is being socially irresponsible for banning political and religious discussion?
No, that would be considered discussing moderation and we know what a hot button with the mods that can be. Though we can always complain that yakface's icon is too political at this point, what with Connery and Scotland and all.
I'm just gonna sit back, and watch the mods go mad trying to play whackamole with all the threads that currently are political, let alone the ones that will inundate the site when plastic SoBs come out.
Is a forum I just started, with absolutely no intention of following up with. So if you want a political forum, it’s rather easy to do and won’t cost you a thing if you don’t want it to.
PS: No challenge is being made towards Dakka with this. Just trying to prove a point. If anyone is upset, I can apparently shut it down at any time and I would happily do so... but hopefully a joke is just a joke.
(I hope that this doesn't mean the famous Dakka Dakka relaxed, polite and friendly moderation style is giving way to a more authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation though! )
Anyway, I suppose there really are plenty of other places out there were everyone can get their fill of Politics, Religion, etc.
How about we also introduce a rule that if more than 20% of your total posts are in Off Topic, then you're banned from Off Topic until you've talked about actual wargaming to get your percentage below 20%?
Probably because it's a giant pain in the ass to handle it?
It's a volunteer position. If your volunteer position involved being, I don't know, hoofed in the gonads 5 times a day, would you keep that volunteer position?
What if you could make it so instead, you were only hoofed once per day? And all it took was making it so people couldn't discuss something that's generally considered poor form in mixed company anyway?
That's why, I'd guess.
PS: Hey, Porcupine, you could hit up notdakkapolitics and be miserable to the mod over there. I bet he'd let you have the run of the place!
I have to say I'm disappointed to see the political and religious discussions go away. While I understand the point that Dakka is a wargaming forum and we want to be able to talk about wargaming primarily, OT is OT. We are living in an extremely divisive and politically charged world right now, with factions that struggle to find common ground with each other. Having a place where everyone already has common ground (wargaming) and can also engage in respectful discussion of challenging topics is something we need more of, not less.
I understand that allowing political and religious discussion brings challenges with it. It's hard. But sometimes those things are the most worthwhile. Sometimes we won't know how much of a positive effect that kind of thing can have.
Some people might wonder what the point is - people will discuss politics and religion and nobody will change their views. But it's not just about what opinion people hold. It's about interacting with other people with opposing viewpoints, interacting other people with different religions, learning about different views and religions, and understanding that it's not us versus them and that we in many cases have a lot more in common than we have differences.
Not to mention, a lot of topics have elements that could be considered politically related or religion related. How much good discussion are we willing to give up for that kind of nitpicking?
At the end of the day it's not my decision, but I would certainly encourage the owners, admins, and mods to reconsider this one.
Azreal13 wrote: How about we also introduce a rule that if more than 20% of your total posts are in Off Topic, then you're banned from Off Topic until you've talked about actual wargaming to get your percentage below 20%?
The fact that a number of posters have a disproportionate number of their posts in OT is something that has come up more than once in our discussions about the OT forum over the years. The thing is, for many of them OT is simply the section where they feel they have something to contribute. They may well get value from the rest of the site, without necessarily feeling the need to join in actual hobby discussions, or they may be 'lapsed' gamers who still hang around because they know people here... Requiring these people to have a set percentage of their posts elsewhere would either drive them away entirely, or result in a lot more spam to inflate post counts.
Not to mention, a lot of topics have elements that could be considered politically related or religion related. How much good discussion are we willing to give up for that kind of nitpicking?.
There will obviously need to be a certain amount of flexibility where topics like that are concerned, but the ideal is to remove the overtly political or religious chatter.
Azreal13 wrote: How about we also introduce a rule that if more than 20% of your total posts are in Off Topic, then you're banned from Off Topic until you've talked about actual wargaming to get your percentage below 20%?
I actually thought about something like that more than once.
Remember, "part of the community" =/= "post count". People can be very interested in part of the site and read lots of stuff, but it won't show up in their post count of if they have nothing to add to the discussion. So a person with 30% of their posts in OT doesn't necessarily spend 30% of their time there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, like, I'm confused, why delete and ban the whole topic and instead punish the bad Eggs?
Because certain people don't understand the concept of "if you don't like politics don't read it" and get outraged that other people are talking about something they hate. Add in smug superiority over refusing to accept that "keep politics out of the hobby" is itself a political statement and you get the current ban.
Peregrine wrote: Remember, "part of the community" =/= "post count".
There's no need to weigh the pros and cons, we're not going with a percentage-based access limit. In light of the ban on politics and religion, the sole justification for such a scheme, independent of its faults or merits, is no more.
Because certain people don't understand the concept of "if you don't like politics don't read it" and get outraged that other people are talking about something they hate. Add in smug superiority over refusing to accept that "keep politics out of the hobby" is itself a political statement and you get the current ban.
The issue with politics threads is nothing to do with those who don't want to discuss politics, it's with those who refuse to discuss politics in a civil fashion. And there are enough of those to make it simply not worth the effort to moderate politics discussion.
Because certain people don't understand the concept of "if you don't like politics don't read it" and get outraged that other people are talking about something they hate. Add in smug superiority over refusing to accept that "keep politics out of the hobby" is itself a political statement and you get the current ban.
The issue with politics threads is nothing to do with those who don't want to discuss politics, it's with those who refuse to discuss politics in a civil fashion. And there are enough of those to make it simply not worth the effort to moderate politics discussion.
Unfortunately you tend to find that more rules means more work rather than less. Now you have to monitor every thread for two additional infractions (politics and religion) which at best are fluid in interpretation as to what is acceptable (is discussing, for example, a religiously motivated terrorist attack acceptable or not?). By having the discussions focussed in two places it is easier to monitor and can generate less work, even if the work in that specific forum is higher.
I can't also say I'm slightly confused as to the reasoning. Having looked through the last 20 pages of the US politics thread I can't see any moderator warnings on what people were saying (and the UK one I can't remember the last time it happened). Either then people are being warned offline or the topics are generating complaints but that are not actually justified (effectively you are managing 'sour grapes'). The former is possible but without any guidance as to what may or not be acceptable (as it is generally the grey areas that are problematic). Temporary/permanent bans and a public demonstration of why something wasn't acceptable and that someone was banned may have been a better method of both recognising valid complaints and providing a better a steer as to where the lines are with the aim of long term improvement of the standards of conversation. If the latter then it would be fairer to explain this rather than a loose hand waving explanation saying that there are too many people that aren't civil which could be any number from zero to one thousand.
I could have understood better such a restriction after the previous US topic was closed because that had become an area where people were just throwing insults at each other. However there seems to be much less evidence this was going on recently.
However as an aside question is it acceptable to have a "UK and EU news and events" topic as an alternative. A place where people can post current news/facts on events but can't discuss the politics of the issues. So as examples:-
a) the actual events surrounding the recent issues with scallop fishing (but not the political issues surrounding the EU fisheries legislation)
b) The Prime Ministers comments today that she does not accept the call for a new referendum and variation on the EU proposals (but not a political discussion on whether that is viable or not)
c) The events of a royal wedding (but not the political discussion of who should pay for this)
etc.
This would allow relevant news and events to be highlighted to other users but wouldn't stray into political/religious discussion. In effect just reporting on actual events and facts that have been released by outlets but it would all be in one place rather than individual posts on news items?
No, we won't allow a hub thread discussing news items about, for example, a political leader's public comments about ongoing political issues. That would basically be exactly what we have just banned.
As to news items more generally, the same leeway that has always existed will likely remain in place. The only change will be that a news thread that becomes a political debate will no longer be locked and redirected to the relevant political hub thread but will instead only be locked. (An example would be when a thread about a public shooting becomes a thread about gun control.)
As to the reasoning - I would really recommend you take a look at the message yakface posted in the OP. I feel like quite a few posts ITT demonstrate the truism that no one reads stickies.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, like, I'm confused, why delete and ban the whole topic and instead punish the bad Eggs?
It doesn't help that they keep letting reoffenders come back, rather then choosing to ban them as a whole. Time out doesn't work when people just come back and do the same thing over and over again, insulting other posters but trying harder to make sure to slyly do so.
I think it'll be impossible to talk uk/EU news because a lot of it political in nature. We'd be condemned to stating facts and not engaging in any discussion or analysis, and that sounds like a fate worse than death for the UK and EU politics thread.
greatbigtree wrote: I just checked, and there are free forums that you can host. As a silly example...
Is a forum I just started, with absolutely no intention of following up with. So if you want a political forum, it’s rather easy to do and won’t cost you a thing if you don’t want it to.
PS: No challenge is being made towards Dakka with this. Just trying to prove a point. If anyone is upset, I can apparently shut it down at any time and I would happily do so... but hopefully a joke is just a joke.
The problem with starting yet another forum is getting anyone yo use it, and getting a mix of people from both sides. I'll miss the political/economic news from the largest event in my lifetime, but it being made of calls members is what made it unique and high quality. I doubt we could reproduce that on another site as people just wouldn't join/check in.
Having a certain ratio of on / off topic news would kill participation off for me - I'm not currently playing any games calls has boards from, don't do any painting, and not vastly bothered about news. So I only really visit off topic and general gaming discussion. Rather than contribute more to the rest of the forum, I'd just contribute less to the bits I'd need a ratio for.
If this place turned into some elitist not-the-right-type-of-gamer place then I'd leave in a heartbeat and not return even when I start gaming again.
On the plus side, I've probably got an hour a day of my life back to do something more productive, or look at bewbs or something.
Would there be any interest on the part of the administration and moderators of making a link to the Wasteland a sticky somewhere? Like a "Want to discuss banned topics? Go here!" kind of thing?
Hordini wrote: Would there be any interest on the part of the administration and moderators of making a link to the Wasteland a sticky somewhere? Like a "Want to discuss banned topics? Go here!" kind of thing?
I think it might be just worth posting a separate post on the OT to see what attention it gets. I keep asking the same question and a lot of tumbleweed blows through. However how are you expecting to manage it if there is no admin/mods to control things?
Hordini wrote: Would there be any interest on the part of the administration and moderators of making a link to the Wasteland a sticky somewhere? Like a "Want to discuss banned topics? Go here!" kind of thing?
I think it might be just worth posting a separate post on the OT to see what attention it gets. I keep asking the same question and a lot of tumbleweed blows through. However how are you expecting to manage it if there is no admin/mods to control things?
There is at least one administrator and a few mods. I know a few of them at least are still around. It won't be that bad. Trust me. It's all part of the fun!
Just wanted to reiterate that the above is not connected to Dakka in any way! I personally think it's well worth checking out, but that's just my (RiTides) opinion
Just wanted to reiterate that the above is not connected to Dakka in any way! I personally think it's well worth checking out, but that's just my (RiTides) opinion
You can't trick me, it was the original OT thread for Dakka.
In light of today's hiccup, I'm curious, when politics and religion were allowed to be discussed, how bad actually was it and could something be done to mitigate the old problems with these kinds of topics in the future?
It was horrific, it let to lots of bad blood and ill feeling which is why it got shut down in the first place. This is, quite simply, a forum for discussing toys and painting and playing with them, neither religion nor politics has any place in it. The internet is filled with forums/blogs etc. where people can discuss those topics until they are blue in the face but this is not the venue for it.
In the last few years, it got progressively worse, and it reached a point where there were more posts requiring moderator attention coming out of OT than the rest of the site combined.
At that point, it just wasn't worth the effort required to allow it to continue. This isn't a site for discussing politics, it's a site to talk about games of toy soldiers. So if a topic not related to toy soldiers is soaking up an inordinate amount of moderator time and energy, it makes far more sense to get rid of that topic than it does to waste resources trying to keep it contained.
The Off-topic area is an optional extra, included to allow people to connect with other gamers on non-game-related topics. But as such, it's only of any value so long as it builds the community, rather than causing division.
ArcaneHorror wrote: In light of today's hiccup, I'm curious, when politics and religion were allowed to be discussed, how bad actually was it and could something be done to mitigate the old problems with these kinds of topics in the future?
It was bad because of dakka policies. The problem is that dakka's most important rule is "be polite", not "be correct" or "be honest" or anything like that. So the people who were parroting extremely partisan and factually questionable (to put it politely) sources and ignoring any evidence proving them wrong were ok, because they didn't use any bad words in their posts, but when someone would finally get frustrated at dealing with their dishonesty and constant bad-faith arguing and throw in a or two that's when it was considered a ban-worthy offense. Throw in some fairly ridiculous ideas about the importance of maximizing the number of people in the community being more important that maximizing the quality of people, divisions being something to avoid at all costs, etc, and it was decided that politics didn't fit with the goal of superficial politeness at all costs. A more reasonable policy would have been to acknowledge that political discussion is of interest, that people who aren't interested in reading it are free to not click on the clearly labeled politics threads, and handle it with a proper moderation policy instead of only caring about who said too many times. But instead politics is banned, and we have to just pretend that anything "too political" is not relevant. But hey, at least is being said fewer times and superficial politeness is maintained!
Of course in the context of the present debacle there was zero sign that the person demanding the ability to talk about politics had any interest in constructive discussion, or anything outside of getting to post their fringe lunatic political rants. Nothing whatsoever was lost by not allowing them to post.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is that dakka's most important rule is "be polite", not "be correct" or "be honest" or anything like that.
For sure. Speaking as a moderator on a forum primarily devoted to the discussion of games involving toy soldiers, I can't think of anything I would rather do with my free time than fact-check every post in the Off-topic section to determine whether or not the poster is factually correct.
Oh, wait... yes, I can. Like, practically anything else would be a more productive and more enjoyable use of my time.
So the people who were parroting extremely partisan and factually questionable (to put it politely) sources and ignoring any evidence proving them wrong were ok, because they didn't use any bad words in their posts, but when someone would finally get frustrated at dealing with their dishonesty and constant bad-faith arguing and throw in a or two that's when it was considered a ban-worthy offense.
As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, you always have the option to just not respond when you are sick of the other party in a discussion refusing to acknowledge your clearly superior and inherently correct stance on the issue.
You can stick your nose up at Dakka's primary rule all you want, but the simple fact is that expecting polite behaviour from members is hardly a revolutionary concept. Common courtesy is a pretty fundamental underpinning of the society we live in, and is what makes social groups of any kind actually function.
Facilitating your penchant for correcting people you think are wrong doesn't inherently make for a better community, particularly when the issues you're correcting them on have nothing to do with the primary purpose of this site, and when the bad blood resulting from that sort of nonsense spills over into other areas of the site.
Yes, political discussion may be of interest to a certain segment of the forum community... but when the work involved in keeping that from being detrimental to the site as a whole becomes more effort than is sensible to throw at it, it's just not worth keeping it.
insaniak wrote: For sure. Speaking as a moderator on a forum primarily devoted to the discussion of games involving toy soldiers, I can't think of anything I would rather do with my free time than fact-check every post in the Off-topic section to determine whether or not the poster is factually correct.
Oh, wait... yes, I can. Like, practically anything else would be a more productive and more enjoyable use of my time.
Yes, because fact checking literally every post is an accurate portrayal of what would be required and not a blatant straw man.
PS: if moderating properly is too difficult you're always free to stop being a moderator.
As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, you always have the option to just not respond when you are sick of the other party in a discussion refusing to acknowledge your clearly superior and inherently correct stance on the issue.
And this is why the rule is a problem: your best solution is to ignore the problem post/poster, which means that the conversation is dominated by low-quality posts from dishonest/ignorant/etc posters and the signal to noise ratio gets worse and worse. That may be a useful approach to not getting banned but it sure as hell doesn't lead to a well-run forum.
You can stick your nose up at Dakka's primary rule all you want, but the simple fact is that expecting polite behaviour from members is hardly a revolutionary concept. Common courtesy is a pretty fundamental underpinning of the society we live in, and is what makes social groups of any kind actually function.
The point is that superficial politeness is not real politeness. Lying, bad-faith arguments, parroting partisan clickbait, drive-by rants, etc, are all rude behavior. But if they don't contain the word they don't get banned, because the only thing superficial politeness cares about is that you don't use any bad words. And you end up building a toxic community where bad behavior is tolerated as long as the problem people can hide behind a superficial shield of not using the word .
Facilitating your penchant for correcting people you think are wrong doesn't inherently make for a better community, particularly when the issues you're correcting them on have nothing to do with the primary purpose of this site, and when the bad blood resulting from that sort of nonsense spills over into other areas of the site.
You're making the mistake of assuming that the most important thing is to avoid divisions in a group. In reality having some "bad blood" between people is a healthy state, it means that it's more likely that you have honest relationships with other people instead of this shallow nonsense where people that would passionately dislike each other pretend to be best friends. And if that honesty means that people I disagree with on some of these issues feel unwelcome and leave the community? Good. They don't belong in my community, and I won't miss them one bit.
And this is why the rule is a problem: your best solution is to ignore the problem post/poster, which means that the conversation is dominated by low-quality posts from dishonest/ignorant/etc posters and the signal to noise ratio gets worse and worse.
Your alternative, to insult the person you disagree with, doesn't actually improve the situation. You call them names, they call you names, and it goes from a discussion to mud-flinging.
So yes, if you have reached the point where you are unable to carry on a civil discussion, leaving the discussion is the best recourse.
If that means that someone you disagree with gets the last word, that doesn't actually bring about the end of civilisation as we know it.
But if they don't contain the word they don't get banned, because the only thing superficial politeness cares about is that you don't use any bad words.
You keep repeating this as if it's actually true. 'Did they use rude words' is not our sole criteria for determining whether or not a post is rude.
What isn't a deciding factor, though, is 'Does peregrine think this statement is factually correct?'
And if that honesty means that people I disagree with on some of these issues feel unwelcome and leave the community? Good. They don't belong in my community, and I won't miss them one bit.
And this is really what it comes down to. You're not actually interested in what's best for the Dakka community, you're interested in what's best for you.
Frankly, it sounds like you would be far better off with a personal blog, where you can keep things confined to what you agree with, rather than continually tilting at this particular windmill.
insaniak wrote: Your alternative, to insult the person you disagree with, doesn't actually improve the situation.
That's not the point. You have two choices: engage with the conversation even though you may get frustrated and slip in one too many, or step away and ignore it. Ignoring it may be the best choice if you don't want to risk a two-day vacation from the forum, but when people are consistently stepping away from certain topics/posters because they don't want to risk having the conversation turn too hostile you get a terrible signal to noise ratio. And sure, you can talk about some fantasy world where people never get frustrated and always obey the rules, but in the real world dealing with a person who is infuriatingly dishonest and stubbornly immune to facts leads to hostility.
I've said it before but I'll say it again: some of the best and most constructive discussion I've seen has been on forums where superficial politeness is irrelevant and dishonesty/posting factually incorrect statements after they've been shown to be wrong/etc are ban-worthy offenses. They recognize that lying, thinly-veiled personal attacks, etc, are worse than the word and deal with the problem appropriately.
You keep repeating this as if it's actually true. 'Did they use rude words' is not our sole criteria for determining whether or not a post is rude.
That's sure a surprise, given the number of blatantly rude/dishonest/etc posts I've seen (and even reported) that got zero moderator attention. If the millionth variation of "Peregrine sucks" is rude even if it doesn't contain the word then you sure aren't doing a good job of acting like it. And going back to the politics threads it was well known, to the point of people saying "don't engage with {poster}, they're not arguing in good faith", that certain people were behaving poorly even if they never used the word but their posts were left untouched and the only people who ever got moderator attention were the people who finally got sick of the rude behavior and said .
And this is really what it comes down to. You're not actually interested in what's best for the Dakka community, you're interested in what's best for you
What's best for me is what's best for the dakka community. You can disagree that those things are in fact best, but please don't post rude accusations of dishonesty.
Frankly, it sounds like you would be far better off with a personal blog, where you can keep things confined to what you agree with, rather than continually tilting at this particular windmill.
Now whilest i can agree with your sentiment, this here easily is also the perfect exemple of a covert rule 1 break, peregrine dislikes so much.
You know what you could've done? You could've made an clearly unsupervised / moderated off topic place for politics.
Probably better a minimalistic moderated one to get rid of extremists conspiracy, etc.
Also considering that 40k as a satirical setting is always political Constantly leads to fringe cases where you have to constantly decide.
The problem with it being unmoderated is it will quickly turn I to 4chan lvls of discussion. Not fun 4chan with all the gifs, but 4chan with racism, sexism and alot of stuff
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what you could've done? You could've made an clearly unsupervised / moderated off topic place for politics.
No, nonononono, nope. It will spill over to the regular forums, as some people cannot keep the politics and the poster separated from one another, dragging it out of OT into other places of the forums. It happened in the past when we still had political discussion and if one is to remove the rules from the equation, it'll only get worse.
If one wants to discuss politics in an unsupervised environment, go to the Wasteland, plenty of Dakkanauts have taken root there to discuss these things.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what you could've done? You could've made an clearly unsupervised / moderated off topic place for politics.
No, nonononono, nope. It will spill over to the regular forums, as some people cannot keep the politics and the poster separated from one another, dragging it out of OT into other places of the forums. It happened in the past when we still had political discussion and if one is to remove the rules from the equation, it'll only get worse.
If one wants to discuss politics in an unsupervised environment, go to the Wasteland, plenty of Dakkanauts have taken root there to discuss these things.
Fair enough, however this wasn't my only suggestion.
Also what about the highlighted Post, or is gaining free passes a privilege of mods?
Because i find it highly impolite to Attest someone Don quichote syndrom.
Fair enough, however this wasn't my only suggestion.
Also what about the highlighted Post, or is gaining free passes a privilege of mods?
Because i find it highly impolite to Attest someone Don quichote syndrom.
Just let it drop. The mods are never wrong, the mods are never rude, and the mods have never, ever, EVER broken their own rules and pointing out evidence to the contrary is a bannable offense.
Fair enough, however this wasn't my only suggestion.
Also what about the highlighted Post, or is gaining free passes a privilege of mods?
Because i find it highly impolite to Attest someone Don quichote syndrom.
Just let it drop. The mods are never wrong, the mods are never rude, and the mods have never, ever, EVER broken their own rules and pointing out evidence to the contrary is a bannable offense.
They don't just like 40k, they live it!
Reminds me off "Geistige Landesverteidigung".........
Peregrine wrote: And if that honesty means that people I disagree with on some of these issues feel unwelcome and leave the community? Good. They don't belong in my community, and I won't miss them one bit.
Roflmao. Your community? Okay I'll humour you and ask...How is this YOUR community? You own this site? You pay the bills and set the policy? Obviously not but if you aren't owner of this it isn't your community any more than it's mine. If it would be mine I could say you don't belong in it so off you go. See how ridiculous that claim is?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what you could've done? You could've made an clearly unsupervised / moderated off topic place for politics.
Probably better a minimalistic moderated one to get rid of extremists conspiracy, etc.
Where though? Inside dakka? What that helps when it damages whole dakka community then though? It wouldn't be just left in that area but damage community outside that unmoderated area.
Where though? Inside dakka? What that helps when it damages whole dakka community then though? It wouldn't be just left in that area but damage community outside that unmoderated area.
You know what I want to talk about photography I might throw a thread up here in general off-topic and it might get a little attention here and there.
However its never really that hot a topic here and if I really want to talk about it I go to a photography forum where there are others really keen to talk about photography and we can all talk about apertures and stuff till the cows come home.
Dakka is about wargames and miniature model hobbies, its not a political forum. Politics has been proven to cause strife and trouble and division within the community and isn't its primary focus. I fail to see why some people are so against it being a banned topic; why they can't just go register on a politics forum (such as one suggested earlier in this thread) and take it over there to a separate community with its own mods, rules and policies and members all setup and focused round that topic and prepared to deal with it.
Also when members start to stamp about saying how they don't want "certain people" in a forum or those who "don't agree with them" - in my experience this is often a sign that those members have outgrown the forum and need to at least move on and try another community or hobby for a while. In general once you're at the point where you don't like a community and are aggressive or hostile or negative in your means to desiring to change it then it means its time to step away from that community and get a breather. Because that's a very negative association to have with a community and if its your outlook then you're only reinforcing the negative by being active within the community - which only reinforces all the negativity the person feels which normally build and builds and then boils over one day and they get banned.
I've seen it happen dozens of times to really nice people who have nothing wrong with them save that they and the site community changed and took different pathways and they cannot see a positive way to change the path so they fight against it.
The net is huge there's always another home to find to chatter. Plus sometimes all you need is a break and coming back weeks/months later things feel all the better
Where though? Inside dakka? What that helps when it damages whole dakka community then though? It wouldn't be just left in that area but damage community outside that unmoderated area.
A read both suggestions, B that is not a fact
Not fact based on what? We have actual evidence of it happening. What evidence you have AGAINST it?
Actual in practice evidence>theoryhammering.
Minimalist moderating isn't viable either. You need to stamp down on the offensive behaviour. That's not minimalist moderation. It's actually what there was. Which was still not enough.
Where though? Inside dakka? What that helps when it damages whole dakka community then though? It wouldn't be just left in that area but damage community outside that unmoderated area.
A read both suggestions, B that is not a fact
Not fact based on what? We have actual evidence of it happening. What evidence you have AGAINST it?
Actual in practice evidence>theoryhammering.
Minimalist moderating isn't viable either. You need to stamp down on the offensive behaviour. That's not minimalist moderation. It's actually what there was. Which was still not enough.
Have you actual evidence, please enlighten me then, if not then i stand by my point.
Because you saying it happened is neither valuable for statistics nor correct in a perspective of the philosophy of running a Forum.
I love discussing politics. But, like Dakka, I have found over the last several years it has become impossible to do so in the US. So I continue to support the ban and our mods.
EDIT: Banning our mods is a completely different topic...
If the “discussion” of the P-word was ever a discussion, I wouldn’t be so adamantly opposed to it being here.
Instead, we get the left calling the right “Devils” and the right calling the left “Demons”. Any D&D geeks get the reference? Anyhow, when people reduce their opposition to irredeemable evil they give themselves a pass to treat the other terribly.
Discussion generally occurs due to disagreement, but can only exist while respecting the other as being capable of reason. When an arguer stops respecting the other, discussion ends.
And that’s what happens here. And then it bleeds over into all other parts of the site. Like Peridot (August’s sickly-green birthstone) proves again and again, lack of respect for the other just results in ongoing antagonism that, while occasionally entertaining, is generally a negative for the site’s general population. That generally doesn’t happen over liking one faction over another. It doesn’t usually happen over paint scheme preferences. People can “discuss” the merits of potential upgrades without calling each other Demons and Devils.
Again and again, Dakka can’t do that with politics. There are sooo many other places to talk about that. Drink your poison there. I don’t talk about the potential societal benefits that some users could create through vigorous auto-erotic stimulation using sand, salt, or pine cones. I want to, but it’s inappropriate for this forum. I don’t generate a thread every week to complain about not being allowed to do that. I can go elsewhere and discuss those things.
Be like Tree. Head elsewhere to perform vigorous auto-erotic activities, instead of requesting that politics return to Dakka.
The proof is in several years worth of interpersonal interaction on the forums. The moderation team saw the impact that politics discussion in OT was havng on the rest of the site, and we saw the difference it made during those periods were it had previously been temporarily banned. I'm not going to go digging up specific examples, because that would serve no purpose. If you can't take the word of the people who actually had to deal with the fall-out from it, then I'm really not sure what you are trying to achieve here.
also still condescending and still missing the second suggestion.
I suspect you're imbuing tone in my response that isn't actually intended, as my post was not intended to be condescending at all.
Your second suggestion was overlooked because it's essentially what we already had, just with less moderation. And as was already pointed out, less moderation is the opposite of what political discussion on this forum needed in order to not cause problems.
Dakka doesn't have a long history of discussion about the use of pine cones for auto-erotic purposes, but it does have a long history of pretty decent political debate, which went downhill and collapsed. As an example, I'd called for the Muslim population of the UK to be put in concentration campsback during the time period I first joined Dakka I would've been perma-banned faster than you could say "specific>general". From my perspective, what changed was an unwillingness or inability of the moderators to stop people dragging down threads with insane arguments, many times blatantly using the heckler's veto to shut down discussions they didn't want people having. Instead of permabanning repeat offenders, the mods axed politics as a subject.
The proof is in several years worth of interpersonal interaction on the forums. The moderation team saw the impact that politics discussion in OT was havng on the rest of the site, and we saw the difference it made during those periods were it had previously been temporarily banned. I'm not going to go digging up specific examples, because that would serve no purpose. If you can't take the word of the people who actually had to deal with the fall-out from it, then I'm really not sure what you are trying to achieve here.
also still condescending and still missing the second suggestion.
I suspect you're imbuing tone in my response that isn't actually intended, as my post was not intended to be condescending at all.
Your second suggestion was overlooked because it's essentially what we already had, just with less moderation. And as was already pointed out, less moderation is the opposite of what political discussion on this forum needed in order to not cause problems.
I wasn't the one talking about windmills here.
You tell me.
And whilest i can understand your frustration with peregrine, that still doesn't give you the right point to rule 1 when your answer also can be interpreted as a rule 1 problem, this is the issue i wanted to point at.
But if this here:
Dakka doesn't have a long history of discussion about the use of pine cones for auto-erotic purposes, but it does have a long history of pretty decent political debate, which went downhill and collapsed. As an example, I'd called for the Muslim population of the UK to be put in concentration campsback during the time period I first joined Dakka I would've been perma-banned faster than you could say "specific>general". From my perspective, what changed was an unwillingness or inability of the moderators to stop people dragging down threads with insane arguments, many times blatantly using the heckler's veto to shut down discussions they didn't want people having. Instead of permabanning repeat offenders, the mods axed politics as a subject.
I've been here a long time...and I've never seen a hot OT forum discussion spill over to the other forums really. Hell, me and Peregrine/Ouze/dusa would butt heads in OT, but then have cordial conversations about the hobby in the hobby subforums or PMs.
I'm not saying I don't believe you... I just find it a strange justification to kill politics/religion topics, as to me allowing it only in the OT forum would effectively quarantine these discussions from the rest of the sections.
HOWEVER, I can totally see killing these topics due to disproportionate modding needs over the OT subforum where your energies ought to be used on the actually hobby subforums.
In the end, this is yakface's house and he has laid down the law. The mods are following his directives, so any desires to re-open these topics would need to come from him. Until then... we'll need to get our political discussion fix elsewhere.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dakka doesn't have a long history of discussion about the use of pine cones for auto-erotic purposes, but it does have a long history of pretty decent political debate, which went downhill and collapsed. As an example, I'd called for the Muslim population of the UK to be put in concentration campsback during the time period I first joined Dakka I would've been perma-banned faster than you could say "specific>general". From my perspective, what changed was an unwillingness or inability of the moderators to stop people dragging down threads with insane arguments, many times blatantly using the heckler's veto to shut down discussions they didn't want people having. Instead of permabanning repeat offenders, the mods axed politics as a subject.
That's often because the list of members to be perma banned often starts to become quite a significant list of very active members of the site who; outside of the politics chat; put in good advice and content and help along newbies and the like. Ergo yes they can perma ban everyone with an ego problem; then also deal with the fallout of banning a significant number of active and popular members; and then also deal with the fallout of losing active contributors. It's not as simple as banning spambots which no one likes - banning members can always run the risk of fallout and banning a significant number due to arguments in one single topic, that isn't the primary focus of the site (and isn't even needed on site); its just adding problems
Also many times the arguments get nightmarish to moderate - you quickly end up with the facts and discussion wrapped up in posts with the insults all in one. So to remove the insult you have to either dump the whole post; which by the time a mod appears might then be part of a long discussion; or you have to try and edit it out. In my experience neither works and once your'e editing lareg content out of a thread the thread either turns utterly hostile to everyone including the mods; or it just up and dies because the discussion got gutted (locking is actually just quicker and gets to the same end result).
Plsu don't forget whilst many mods can be objective many in heated arguments can't be; BOTH sides think the other is in the wrong; both think the other should be punished (banned) and both won't be happy unless its done without being punished themselves.
It's just a ball of stress, anger and problems that serves no purpose other than entertaining a few who want political discussion; who can quite freely take it to other sites dedicated to it .
whembly wrote: I've been here a long time...and I've never seen a hot OT forum discussion spill over to the other forums really. Hell, me and Peregrine/Ouze/dusa would butt heads in OT, but then have cordial conversations about the hobby in the hobby subforums or PMs.
It wasn't that the specific discussion would spill over, it's that the attitude resulting from it would do so. And yes, we saw it many times. The most common fallout was just general sniping, but that still leads to less cordial discussion overall. The more extreme cases led to silliness like 'This guy disagreed with me on politics, so now I'm going to go and report every post he made elsewhere on the forums...', or people 'following' other posters around specifically to disagree with them.
And to be clear, that wasn't the justification for killing politics discussion, just a contributing factor. The bigger issue was the continual drain on moderator time resulting from that discussion within the OT forum.
whembly wrote: I've been here a long time...and I've never seen a hot OT forum discussion spill over to the other forums really. Hell, me and Peregrine/Ouze/dusa would butt heads in OT, but then have cordial conversations about the hobby in the hobby subforums or PMs.
It wasn't that the specific discussion would spill over, it's that the attitude resulting from it would do so. And yes, we saw it many times. The most common fallout was just general sniping, but that still leads to less cordial discussion overall. The more extreme cases led to silliness like 'This guy disagreed with me on politics, so now I'm going to go and report every post he made elsewhere on the forums...', or people 'following' other posters around specifically to disagree with them.
And to be clear, that wasn't the justification for killing politics discussion, just a contributing factor. The bigger issue was the continual drain on moderator time resulting from that discussion within the OT forum.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Dakka doesn't have a long history of discussion about the use of pine cones for auto-erotic purposes, but it does have a long history of pretty decent political debate, which went downhill and collapsed. As an example, I'd called for the Muslim population of the UK to be put in concentration campsback during the time period I first joined Dakka I would've been perma-banned faster than you could say "specific>general". From my perspective, what changed was an unwillingness or inability of the moderators to stop people dragging down threads with insane arguments, many times blatantly using the heckler's veto to shut down discussions they didn't want people having. Instead of permabanning repeat offenders, the mods axed politics as a subject.
In the last 5 years, Dakka has a record of political topics devolving into jackassery 95% of the time, +/- 10%. Yes, 105% is within the realm of possible due to the severity / trickle down effect.
Whereas there have been no instances of the discussion of auto-eroticism involving nature’s love-bristle devolving. We are indeed doing so right now in a civilized manner. Which kind of goes to show why if this topic can be discussed with civility, and is inappropriate for this site, that a topic that generates actual hate between users should be left elsewhere.
PS: If you’re looking for some stimulating coniferous fanfic (generic you, not specific) I know a guy that knows a guy that knows a tree that writes stuff that will spark your timber, if you catch my drift. Send me a PM.
Any one ever thought that it might be a good idea to have some sort of system similar to what they do in parliaments, but this would require probably a few moderators. If some one says some thing offensive or seemingly trying to cause an argument instead of a civil polite discussion, they could have the opportunity by a moderator to say they Withdraw there statement, and unless they type that they withdraw what they said, they get banned from the politics section for X amount of time?
Lol just a suggestion. Not a conspiracy
Edit - Not that i care, because i believe the admins are correct that politics should not be allowed. But i just thought i should make this suggestion, i don't care what happens.
Why is it so hard to accept the people running the site do not want to allow politics? Their house, their rules. They could give any reason and it would be a valid one because they are running it and honestly at this point I would not even be surprised if they banned discussing the ban because some people are just being a pain about it.
Maybe a six-month hiatus on discussing the ban? That way we can all save up our best material for a semi-annual cluster-coning? I call the Coulter Pine cones. Google them. They’re mine.
Kilkrazy wrote: This thread is not for discussion of moderation policies, it is for the site management to state the policy regarding this section.
Where then?
In the nuts and blocked Departement?
Nuts and Bolts would be a valid place.
The point is that sticky type threads placed by the moderation team to explain rules and policies need to be kept clear so that the rules and policies can be easily referred to by users.
Where though? Inside dakka? What that helps when it damages whole dakka community then though? It wouldn't be just left in that area but damage community outside that unmoderated area.
A read both suggestions, B that is not a fact
Not fact based on what? We have actual evidence of it happening. What evidence you have AGAINST it?
Actual in practice evidence>theoryhammering.
Minimalist moderating isn't viable either. You need to stamp down on the offensive behaviour. That's not minimalist moderation. It's actually what there was. Which was still not enough.
Have you actual evidence, please enlighten me then, if not then i stand by my point.
Because you saying it happened is neither valuable for statistics nor correct in a perspective of the philosophy of running a Forum.
Evidence is that it already has happened showing it can happen.
Have YOU got any evidence it will not happen period? What happened? Did humanity in the between get their genes rewritten? That's neccessary to ensure it's 100% sure to NOT happen again when it already happened.
Please. Show your evidence that shows it's 100% sure to not happen what already happened. I'm waiting. Not holding my breath though as I'll be waiting infinitely so would be dead.
I will say that because of the politics discussion, I have lost all respect for certain posters. I would likely not give them any sort of a benefit of the doubt that they are posting in good faith somewhere else.
Well, if we want to keep things simple, the mods just do a ritual that if someone gets out of control in the politics section or lets political arguments spill over into other sections of the forum, Kairos Fateweaver sticks the Staff of Change through your monitor and turns you into a Chaos Spawn.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Why is it so hard to accept the people running the site do not want to allow politics? Their house, their rules. They could give any reason and it would be a valid one because they are running it and honestly at this point I would not even be surprised if they banned discussing the ban because some people are just being a pain about it.
Because, when someone is doing a poor job of running a site, they get feedback on it. The fact that they want to do something one way does not mean that they are immune to criticism. In fact, there is an entire section of the forum for providing feedback and suggesting that the people running the site change their rules for their house.
If you wanna talk politics, why not go to a place to talk politics?
Why is it so hard to just accept it, move on and just get your fix somewhere else.
I personally and happy, politics infect everything now and I want a place where it doesn't and this place is among the closest.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you wanna talk politics, why not go to a place to talk politics?
Why is it so hard to just accept it, move on and just get your fix somewhere else.
I personally and happy, politics infect everything now and I want a place where it doesn't and this place is among the closest.
Yes politics infects every thing, that's why its hard not to talk about it, and being that this website is a place where we all share similar interests, its interesting to hear others dakka users opinions related to politics. Most of us i would say dont want to open up another website and start discussing stuff where you don't really know any thing about the population that is participating in the discussion. Its just nice to discuss among fellow wargamers, and for some one like my self, i like to stick to one website, and its kind of hard to talk in-depth about alot of issues with no politics. But this is just my opinion and thoughts. No offense to any one. But i do agree it should not be allowed based on what admins have said ( causes to much ill feeling between users ).
Like i mean, can you start talking about fascist space marines and homophobic policy's that one may interpret in 40k? And then continue with theory's of this or that regarding ones own perceived perspective of politics in 40k.
Or was that some of the most dumbest gak i have ever said on this website?
The ban on politics and religion applies to the OT section. Topics that are relevant to 40K are fine for the appropriate 40K sections, provided they stay civil and on-topic (ie: away from modern-day, real-world politics).
insaniak wrote: The ban on politics and religion applies to the OT section. Topics that are relevant to 40K are fine for the appropriate 40K sections, provided they stay civil and on-topic (ie: away from modern-day, real-world politics).
hotsauceman1 wrote: If you wanna talk politics, why not go to a place to talk politics?
Why is it so hard to just accept it, move on and just get your fix somewhere else.
I personally and happy, politics infect everything now and I want a place where it doesn't and this place is among the closest.
Interestingly, a similar argument was made in another forum I'm a member of regarding posting guidelines that the staff were considering.
Someone saying pretty much that kicked off the biggest flame war in the history of the site and the staff could not bring it under control short of shutting the forums down.
So, always be careful telling people you disagree with to GTFO and respect rule 1. Because otherwise it could be you that leaves.
While it is definitely a more civilised place now, I do have to admit I miss the old OT. It is honestly kinda boring now.
Anyways, there were very valid reasons for shutting it down, and I don't think lifting the ban would be a good idea unless the mods feel like putting in overtime again or decide to turn OT into a total wasteland.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: That last thing we need is our own Horus Heresy... and I do not regret that joke.
These are extreme predictions and i don't think realistic in the sense of having a few threads with a few heated discussions easily moderated by some willing volunteers.
"Easily moderated by some willing volunteers?"
Who are these willing volunteers, exactly? Because from what I've seen, the existing Mods are not exactly jumping at the idea.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: "Easily moderated by some willing volunteers?"
Who are these willing volunteers, exactly? Because from what I've seen, the existing Mods are not exactly jumping at the idea.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: "Easily moderated by some willing volunteers?"
Who are these willing volunteers, exactly? Because from what I've seen, the existing Mods are not exactly jumping at the idea.
Well that's because the mods don't want politics, so there not going to jump at any idea, there are many people who are qualified who would accept the role in a heart beat.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: "Easily moderated by some willing volunteers?"
Who are these willing volunteers, exactly? Because from what I've seen, the existing Mods are not exactly jumping at the idea.
Well that's because the mods don't want politics, so there not going to jump at any idea, there are many people who are qualified who would accept the role in a heart beat.
Yes but it still won't work. Even with its own moderator or two you will still get fallout from the arguments that will arise which will spill into other sections of the site.
Plus why should Dakka use its resources and those willing to moderate just to allow politics? Many wargame forums exist without any sniff nor whiff of politics ever needing to rear its head as a topic at all. It's not required nor needed. The best thing is for those who seriously want to do it to go to a forum dedicated to the topic. Which has the resources focused around the subject, rather than try to force Dakka to be something its not and to have to deal with the social fallout of bruised egos and arguments that will arise.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: "Easily moderated by some willing volunteers?"
Who are these willing volunteers, exactly? Because from what I've seen, the existing Mods are not exactly jumping at the idea.
Well that's because the mods don't want politics, so there not going to jump at any idea, there are many people who are qualified who would accept the role in a heart beat.
Yes but it still won't work. Even with its own moderator or two you will still get fallout from the arguments that will arise which will spill into other sections of the site.
Plus why should Dakka use its resources and those willing to moderate just to allow politics? Many wargame forums exist without any sniff nor whiff of politics ever needing to rear its head as a topic at all. It's not required nor needed. The best thing is for those who seriously want to do it to go to a forum dedicated to the topic. Which has the resources focused around the subject, rather than try to force Dakka to be something its not and to have to deal with the social fallout of bruised egos and arguments that will arise.
I understand your point, but its not "just for politics" its to discuss many subjects that can't be discussed thoroughly and in a in-depth manner with out mentioning politics. Another thing, is this political ban for ever?, or just until there is a different president? )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: If people want to discuss politics so bad, they shouldn't have any issues going elsewhere. And that's where it ends. Take it or leave it.
Its not about wanting to discuss politics so bad on this website, it is about the fact politics is generally been on this website, and now its not. And as i have said, its a community of similar interests, so that's why we want to talk about it among st each other on the same website we use to discuss all other interests.
There is nothing to be gained by further discussion on this right now. As I already said, the decision was made, and it's not going to change any time soon. The pros and cons of not allowing political discussion were all hashed out thoroughly by the mod team before the decision was made, and then on the forum when the decision was announced.
It's well past time to just move on from the topic.
There is nothing to be gained by further discussion on this right now. As I already said, the decision was made, and it's not going to change any time soon. The pros and cons of not allowing political discussion were all hashed out thoroughly by the mod team before the decision was made, and then on the forum when the decision was announced.
It's well past time to just move on from the topic.
Thanks for replying, that in it self is worth more then any discussion on the political ban.
much appreciated!
or two that's when it was considered a ban-worthy offense. Throw in some fairly ridiculous ideas about the importance of maximizing the number of people in the community being more important that maximizing the quality of people, divisions being something to avoid at all costs, etc, and it was decided that politics didn't fit with the goal of superficial politeness at all costs. A more reasonable policy would have been to acknowledge that political discussion is of interest, that people who aren't interested in reading it are free to not click on the clearly labeled politics threads, and handle it with a proper moderation policy instead of only caring about who said 
