Note that Jordan Peterson is Canadian (still a separate country and not just a hat for the US), and became famous because of his commentary on a Canadian law. The OP in the thread is from the UK, and specifically mentions the context as being more than just a single country's politics. But yet because the concept of left vs. right, a concept that exists in a lot of places outside the US, it was locked and redirected to the US politics thread. This is pretty absurd, the discussion would be off-topic in the US politics thread because it is not about US politics. It's bad for the people who care about the US politics thread because it adds even more posts to a thread that already moves too fast and across too many sub-topics, and it's bad for the people who want to discuss a subject outside of US politics without immediately getting it buried under all of the US politics posts. And this is hardly the first time I've seen a thread that was maybe tangentially at best related to US politics locked and redirected there, as if the thread is just a dumping ground for any thread a moderator doesn't want to read.
Still open, still not dumped into the US politics thread, despite being about a US military aircraft and its associated political issues along with general commentary on things like "is the US obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan in a war with China, and should they do it".
OP is complaining about political bias of American media, a longstanding and I daresay ubiquitous claim among American conservatives. OP's own nationality is irrelevant as is the nationality of the alleged target of political bias of US media. I'm not convinced we can have a non-political discussion of media bias. Perhaps if some users from neither the US or UK wanted to start one about media bias where they live? Or people wanted to talk about media bias in countries other than the Us or UK? And also such a thread was not hijacked by people who want to discuss media bias in the US or UK? But that seems rather ... hypothetical.
Now on to the question of whether a thread debating the legitimacy of Jordan Petersen's ideas should be locked and funneled to US Politics: So long as the discussion hewed closely to that topic, I believe it would not be locked as duplicative of US Politics. But I'm skeptical that would be the case, given the "culture war" flavor. I can imagine it being locked for other reasons, too.
Finally, the F-35 thread essentially qualifies as a "specific event." As explained here:
Manchu wrote: As you will recall, the ban on discussing US Politics did not automatically forbid discussion of specific events (like massacres, terrorits attacks, etc). Although, as explained above, those threads may eventually need to be locked/merged into US Politics on a case-by-case basis, there is still no (and there never was a) blanket ban on starting a thread to discuss a specific current event that touches on, as many things in some way do, US politics.
That thread may eventually need locking/funnelling to US Politics but that would probably entail it going well off the rails and it is reasonably focused as of now.
It's also important to remember that the US Politics thread is in fact a dumping ground. The goal of the policy is not to encourage or facilitate discussion of politics on a miniatures gaming website. The idea was to grudgingly tolerate it. The current policy replaces a policy of totally banning discussion of US politics.
By the logic of moderation and US politics thread, any discussion about Jordan Peterson would inevitably end up funneling into US politics thread because it requires a deep dive into psychology, psychiatry, neurosciences and eventually into history of philosophy and discussion about marxism/critical theory vs positivism/scientific method which is basically left/right debate at philosophical level. Or, as you yourself have proven, it can take a shortcut through complete inability to contemplate levels of serotonin in lobsters and end up locked right away.
So I find it funny, that is you Peregrine who whines about closing it, as I'm fairly certain, that it would be because of your style of "discussion" that any of such threads be locked fast...
Err, no, the OP did not complain about the bias of US media. In fact they specifically stated that they were looking at non-US/UK sources (German, French, etc) when they were inspired to post about it. And the first reply in the discussion is a link to a UK interview with the subject of the thread. And I have no idea why you'd insist on a discussion that excludes media bias in the UK, as media bias in the UK is very obviously also not about US politics. In fact, the only relation to US politics is the fact that people from the US are able to comment on their opinions/portrayals of a Canadian political figure. Is that the general rule now, that Canadian political discussion goes into the US politics thread because US posters/media comment on their neighbor?
As for the F-35 thread, I'm failing to see how anything in there qualifies as a "specific event" in a way that discussion of a specific Canadian political figure doesn't. Nothing new has happened with the F-35, politically or otherwise. It hasn't been in the news any more than its average (minor) presence. And the extended discussion of US political issues involving Taiwan and foreign relations/war in general certainly is not new. There is no consistency at all here.
It's also important to remember that the US Politics thread is in fact a dumping ground. The goal of the policy is not to encourage or facilitate discussion of politics on a miniatures gaming website. The idea was to grudgingly tolerate it. The current policy replaces a policy of totally banning discussion of US politics.
And this is a problem. Your personal dislike of the subject, even when no rules are being broken, is getting in the way of proper organization of the forum and constructive discussion of even subjects with minimal, if any, relation to US politics.
TBH there are ways of conceiving of conflicting ideologies other than the superficial (and frankly unhelpful) "left-right"/"red-blue" dyad. As far as I have seen, however, Mr. Petersen himself is pretty committed to that worldview. That's what makes me skeptical that Dakka Dakka is a suitable forum for discussing his views.
nou wrote: Or, as you yourself have proven, it can take a shortcut through complete inability to contemplate levels of serotonin in lobsters and end up locked right away.
The lobster debacle was junk science, period. People with far better qualifications than me have comprehensively explained why it is junk science, the same sort of superficially media-friendly nonsense that taints most of the field of evolutionary psychology. Which is the problem with Peterson, completely unrelated to any US politics issue: he may have some professional competence in there somewhere, in some specific field, but he frequently speaks nonsense about subjects he very clearly does not understand. So why shouldn't we mention the lobster nonsense?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: TBH there are ways of conceiving of conflicting ideologies other than the superficial (and frankly unhelpful) "left-right"/"red-blue" dyad. As far as I have seen, however, Mr. Petersen himself is pretty committed to that worldview. That's what makes me skeptical that Dakka Dakka is a suitable forum for discussing his views.
Whether or not that is true it's still unrelated to US politics. The left/right division is present elsewhere, including in Canadian politics (where, again, Peterson first became famous). The mere mention of left/right politics does not make it American.
First, you might want to read deeper about serotonin levels in humans, and especially the role of amygdala in human aggression/iritation mechanism (I strongly advise on having a read of "Behave" by Sapolsky, a left leaning affective neuroscientist, so it might be easier to swallow for you than following a suposedly alt-right figure in his thought process) and then come back and talk more about those lobsters "nonsense". Or if you don't like to read, you might find it interesting to listen to an interview with Sapolsky on Radiolab podcast, where he talks about differences between sentencing of judges before and after lunch... This might, just might change your view on what exactly fundaments of society really are.
Every "better qualified" article about those lobsters I've seen is written from a "tabula rasa society" Maxist POV (as in critical theory and dialectics meaning, not as in "alt right conspiracy" theory). You mentioning evolutionary psychology instead neuroscience is also typical way of trying to discredit anything biologically related in explanations of human behavior.
The problem with Peterson in this context, is that he is a PHD in psychology but has only recently dwelled deeper into brain biochemistry and he does not have the same proficiency in building an argument in this area, on that I agree - he pretty much is just above a layman level in understanding neuroscience, but it does not mean, that what he talks about is fundamental nonsense.
The one-thread-each policy for US and UK politics is a settled mattered. It works as intended and does not require fixing. It could break down if, for example, users consistently refused to abide by the basic tenants of the site rules when discussing politics. The "fix" in that case would be to go back to a total ban on the topic. The staff will not put into effect any approach to discussing politics that requires either strict, rule-heavy moderation or no moderation at all.
I don't doubt that the goals of this site misalign with those of some of its users. Frankly, posters who crave political discussion should look to a different venue. Dakka Dakka is a website for discussing miniatures gaming. The Off Topic subforum exists because people who share a niche hobby are likely to share other, unrelated interests. But when those off-topic interests veer into territory that is almost by its nature hostile and even confrontational (see, e.g., off topic posts ITT), the discussion will be curbed. Politics generally falls squarely into that category.
At the same time, not everything that touches on politics is necessarily so toxic. The geopolitical context of developing and deploying a speciifc weapons system - and many war gamers are quite interested in military hardware - is a great example of how discussion around politics can be relatively benign. The ideology of a public figure who has made his career engaging in culture war is basically the complete opposite. (I'll note, however, that we've left unlocked the thread on the recent alleged battery at GenCon, as it has obvious bearing on the interests of table top gamers. But it's not hard to imagine that it could easily go off the rails and require locking/funneling.)
To be clear, I am offering explanation - not soliciting debate.
Manchu wrote: The one-thread-each policy for US and UK politics is a settled mattered.
Apparently not, because you yourself just stated that there can be multiple threads on US/UK political issues as long as you feel like having the extra thread(s).
The staff will not put into effect any approach to discussing politics that requires either strict, rule-heavy moderation or no moderation at all.
You know my thoughts on that in general, but it's not relevant to my complaint here. Not dumping unrelated threads (such as discussion of a Canadian political figure from the point of view of non-US media) into US politics does not require changes in moderation style. It only requires keeping the US politics thread for US politics, not using it as an excuse to kill off threads that might be, by a very generous interpretation, somewhat kind of tangentially related to US politics.
At the same time, not everything that touches on politics is necessarily so toxic. The geopolitical context of developing and deploying a speciifc weapons system - and many war gamers are quite interested in military hardware - is a great example of how discussion around politics can be relatively benign. The ideology of a public figure who has made his career engaging in culture war is basically the complete opposite.
This is just your personal biases showing. Military hardware is interesting to wargamers, therefore it is acceptable, but political issues you don't want to talk about aren't acceptable despite clear evidence that many wargamers are quite interested in them? Why is political discussion not considered an example of a shared hobby that wargamers want to discuss? If political discussion is outside the mission of the site then the excuses for having all that other off-topic stuff (sports, guns, etc) are flimsy at best.
And of course this is a separate issue, really. The excuse for locking the thread was "discussion of a Canadian political figure in non-US media is US politics because it mentions left vs. right divisions" with a statement that the discussion can happen in the US politics thread, not an order to refrain from discussing Jordan Peterson. If the subject is explicitly stated to be an acceptable topic of discussion then why can't it have its own thread? Why must it be dumped into an unrelated thread?
To be clear, I am offering explanation - not soliciting debate.
And that is the problem. You've made poor decisions on policy, and declared that they aren't open to debate.
As explained, the thread RiTides locked was directly relevant to US Politics. OP posted a US media source, complaining that it was politically biased. General discussion of political bias of US media should happen in the US Politics thread. If it's UK media, the UK Politics thread is where it goes. If it is neither US nor UK media, it may merit its own thread to the extent it doesn't function as a proxy for US or UK politics - which, on an English-languge forum, is pretty likely (but will of course be judged on a case-by-case basis). I understand that OP wanted to talk about political bias in (western) media generally but the immediate discussion was US and UK politics - which is why it was properly locked/funneled. Defaulting to funnelling to the US Politics thread rather than the UK Politics thread is reasonable given Mr. Peterson is likely more relevant to the former than the latter. This is also potentially one of those awakward "Canada isn't America eh" moments but while Mr. Peterson is Canadian he has quite a following among conservatives in the United States (e.g., his involvement with PragerU.)
I did not draw a distinction between politics and military hardware in terms of being interests gamers are likely to enjoy. I distinguished between general politics as an almost unavoidbly toxic subject and military hardware as an innocuous one. There is no question that discussing planes and tanks is OK on Dakka Dakka. The relevant issue is, discussing them in context means some incidental discussion of politics that (unless it gets severely derailed) doesn't necesarily qualify a thread for locking/funnelling because politics is context rather than subject.
Don't be too hasty to assume things you don't like/understand/agree with are "problems" resulting from "poor decisions" and "personal dislikes" that need to be "fixed."
Peregrine PM'ed me about this, but I'm not sure if he's seen my reply yet as I just got to it this morning. Since we're discussing this here I'll copy my text below:
RiTides wrote:I think discussion of Canadian political figures can jump in either the US or UK politics thread (We could even rename US to North America if it became prevalent enough), but we are trying to keep these discussions to the minimum number of threads possible. Similarly, we get a lot of EU politics in the UK politics thread (and could also eventually rename it if discussion merited it).
That thread had also already generated 3 alerts in its infancy when I checked last night. So, given our current policy Jordan Peterson and his views would belong in one of the existing politics thread (whichever is closest to being appropriate).
I've just gone ahead and updated the title of each thread, to make it clear that North American political discussion should go in the US & NA thread, and anything across the pond should go in the UK & EU thread. Hopefully this is a lot clearer now!
It still leaves our rather large Australian contingent without a home to discuss their politics, so maybe we eventually need a "RoW" politics thread if use merits it . But I think this should cover almost everything people have been discussing currently.
-----
The goal here, in general, is for all political discussion to happen in just a few threads, so as not to overwhelm OT into just a political fight forum. So, given what I laid out above, we should only ever need 3 threads for all political discussion (and at the moment, just have 2). The idea that every political issue / figure / etc that is not in the US or UK gets their own thread is definitely not what we're aiming for.
So on Dakka, right now all political discussion goes in those threads. I could see considering changing the policy (with my preference being, no politics or religious threads at all but the opposite is also possible) but that's the rule as it stands. Given how terribly polarized online discussion of these issues has become, I think this really helps keep the rest of OT (and the site in general) from being inundated with really divisive issues / threads, on a forum meant for discussing wargaming.
But, I really, really, like to piss and moan about how something isn't perfect by my own standards. If I were to simply accept that sometimes other people's ideas work in the real world, despite not being perfect in my mind, I might have to face the insurmountable possibility that I might be *wrong* about something.
Which is impossible because I'm better than everyone! I know best! Why won't people just do what I tell them to? It would clearly be for the best. Other people are just unreasonable.
It still leaves our rather large Australian contingent without a home to discuss their politics,...
Most of us don't care enough about Australian politics to bother discussing it, frankly. Aside from whatever current craziness Pauline Hanson is up to, there's not a lot that's worth the effort.
It still leaves our rather large Australian contingent without a home to discuss their politics,...
Most of us don't care enough about Australian politics to bother discussing it, frankly. Aside from whatever current craziness Pauline Hanson is up to, there's not a lot that's worth the effort.
Well nothing that will change by discussing it on dakka. We may agree or disagree with whatever the latest refugee policy is, but we don't tend to want to get online here and scream at each other about it. We save that for the Facebook comment section of ABC articles
And another thing... Canada doesn't want to be part of that <REDACTED - please do NOT circumvent the swear filter> that is the US politics thread, and Mexico is also refusing to pay for any incidentals required to merge the countries, particularly after having to pay to put up that damned wall.
I mean, the biggest problem most Canadians have is that our Prime Minister seems unable to stop himself from looking like a goof a solid 25% of the time. Which is a solid 75% better than our Southern counterpart's.
In conclusion, Canada respectfully wishes to distance ourselves from the complete and utter moronocity that is US politics.
(I get why. I'm just being a turd. Canadian politics is pretty boring, it doesn't need a thread of it's own.
"I like centrist, progressive, responsible government. Come at me bro!" Abosolutely no one challenged him, and the thread died. )
I feel Canadian and Mexican politics need a wall to keep them clear of US politics.
Australian politics, not even Australians care about Australian politics. The last time I heard about Australian politics was when that sleazy dude had an affair and got his secretary pregnant, and it took me all of 5 minutes to get sick of hearing about that too.
But really the politics of most countries don't generate the same vitriol nor the sheer volume of subforum overwhelming posts as US politics, so it's not really an issue if they live separately and have individual threads when some event occurs that actually makes them worth discussing.
At the end of the days I see the off topic rules not as some strict code that must be rigorously enforced but rather a tool to keep things civil and discussion flowing. If things remain civil and the forum isn't getting clogged up with threads the rules don't need to be enforced at all, they just exist as a fall back for when things aren't going smoothly.
Just for clarification: is the "UK and EU politics" thread about "UK and rest of EU" or "UK and European Union as an entity"? Say I wanted to make a thread on the political situation in Poland, would that go in that thread or in its own?
As I posted above, in general we would like all political discussion kept to 2 - 3 threads. I enjoyed the posts above about how even Aussies don't care about discussing AU politics but until if/when we do start a third "catch all / RoW" politics thread, everything should go in the two existing threads.
If there is enough demand we can certainly start a third, though! But right now US / NA and UK / EU politics are affecting each other so much that they can be discussed in the same place, since there would be crossover discussion even if they had their own thread (like the thread this N&B discussion was a result of).
Note that Jordan Peterson is Canadian (still a separate country and not just a hat for the US), and became famous because of his commentary on a Canadian law. The OP in the thread is from the UK, and specifically mentions the context as being more than just a single country's politics. But yet because the concept of left vs. right, a concept that exists in a lot of places outside the US, it was locked and redirected to the US politics thread. This is pretty absurd, the discussion would be off-topic in the US politics thread because it is not about US politics. It's bad for the people who care about the US politics thread because it adds even more posts to a thread that already moves too fast and across too many sub-topics, and it's bad for the people who want to discuss a subject outside of US politics without immediately getting it buried under all of the US politics posts. And this is hardly the first time I've seen a thread that was maybe tangentially at best related to US politics locked and redirected there, as if the thread is just a dumping ground for any thread a moderator doesn't want to read.
Still open, still not dumped into the US politics thread, despite being about a US military aircraft and its associated political issues along with general commentary on things like "is the US obligated by treaty to defend Taiwan in a war with China, and should they do it".
Given that I hear more discussion about Peterson from Americans than I do from anyone else, I have to say, what? The dude, whether or not we like it is deeply ingrained with the current politics and social commentary in the US.
Also, why do you care so much? There is such a thing as over moderation.
Heh.
Seems like we need a "Outside of US politics thread."
What has the thrashing about from that country entails to yours?
Canada seems to be everyone's dog to kick: how to make a statement to warn others and see little of consequence to yourself pissing them off. Heck, the UK with the Trump/Queen visit has me all upset for them. I am waiting to see China finally lose their minds any day now. Mexico... oh my. Is it just me or is Trump doing the dictator world tour to compare notes?
Anyway, there you go.
I feel it is a whole different perspective being stuck in the middle of the US politics vs the outsiders looking in and seeing occasional collateral damage spin out of there. It is like family friends seeing a domestic dispute (run away or watch and dodge thrown objects).
Togusa wrote: Also, why do you care so much? There is such a thing as over moderation.
Over-moderation is exactly the problem! Rather than take a hands-off approach where if people want to talk about politics a bunch there are multiple political topics certain people have decided that they don't like politics discussion therefore it's going to be shut down and dumped into a pair of excessively broad threads where the discussion moves too fast to really talk about a specific issue. I mean, when a moderator explicitly describes the thread as a dumping ground for subjects they don't want then what else can you call it besides over-moderation?
Moving garbage to the dump. That's pretty much exactly what I'd call it. Just keeping the place clean. The weekly pickup. Flushing the John before it overflows.
I'm fine with whatever rules Dakka and the mods want to have for the OT and the US Politics thread it's your website. If the US Politics ban came back into force tomorrow it wouldn't be a big deal to me because it wouldn't impact the utility and enjoyment of the site for me.
I do think that you guys should revisit the current policy. If you want to make one giant thread to be a dumping ground for every controversial political topic that involves the US in some way then it's going to get locked a lot. All kinds of stuff is going to come up in it, it's going to be difficult to maintain cohesive discussion about any particular topic because new unrelated stuff will constantly get posted creating a lot of simultaneous discussion.
Given the breadth of topics, opinions and viewpoints that will come up things will get heated and alerts will go out and moderation will be needed and we'll have a cycle of thread locks. It's also pretty clear that regardless of what gets discussed in the thread that feuds between certain posters are just going to keep coming up and getting rehashed over and over again which is only going to make Rule #1 violations more prevalent. While I've found the thread to be entertaining and informative at times I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to have the thread when everybody knows it's constantly only a few posts away from being locked again.
Personally I kinda like the current thread. It mostly moves along, people argue, something else comes up, it moves along again, something sparks a flame war, it gets locked, tempers die down, new thing comes up and the conversation moves on again. People are getting better about the rules and I think the mods are handling it well. It's not perfect, the thread definitely had instances where being out of the loop for an evening takes it strange places, but I think its worth keeping, especially if it cleans up other threads.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm fine with whatever rules Dakka and the mods want to have for the OT and the US Politics thread it's your website. If the US Politics ban came back into force tomorrow it wouldn't be a big deal to me because it wouldn't impact the utility and enjoyment of the site for me.
I do think that you guys should revisit the current policy. If you want to make one giant thread to be a dumping ground for every controversial political topic that involves the US in some way then it's going to get locked a lot. All kinds of stuff is going to come up in it, it's going to be difficult to maintain cohesive discussion about any particular topic because new unrelated stuff will constantly get posted creating a lot of simultaneous discussion.
Given the breadth of topics, opinions and viewpoints that will come up things will get heated and alerts will go out and moderation will be needed and we'll have a cycle of thread locks. It's also pretty clear that regardless of what gets discussed in the thread that feuds between certain posters are just going to keep coming up and getting rehashed over and over again which is only going to make Rule #1 violations more prevalent. While I've found the thread to be entertaining and informative at times I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to have the thread when everybody knows it's constantly only a few posts away from being locked again.
Hi Prestor Jon,
I appreciate this view (as well as Vaktathi's), and am actually going to bring this up in the mod forum for a renewed discussion on the policy.
Obviously, if folks were watching just now they saw that I had to lock the thread, remove / edit most of a page of discussion (and follow up with posters via PM), and just now re-opened it. However, here's my questions for you guys to consider:
1. Would the heated topics necessarily get less heated in having their own threads - if anything, then wouldn't they be more highlighted, and thus attract more fire-balling back and forth? As Vaktathi says, things just kind of move along now, to the next hot topic in the big thread. This makes for less in-depth discussion, but also reduces the possible "flame points" by having it all in one place (there's only so much that can go wrong in one thread, and it can always be locked while it's dealt with, as I just did). What are your thoughts on this?
2. Do we really benefit from having these politics thread? Would OT have enough content to function if politics and religion were removed, and would the site (intended for discussing wargaming) be better off overall?
I personally am genuinely starting to wonder about option #2, given what a charged political climate we find ourselves in, and also just Dakka's role in general. As a miniatures discussion site, we can all agree on talking about wargaming, and can good naturedly debate things like whether TLJ movie is completely awesome or an aberration on the franchise. Do we need to continue bashing each other over politics here, when we can do that literally anywhere else?
Talizvar wrote: Heh.
Seems like we need a "Outside of US politics thread."
What has the thrashing about from that country entails to yours?
Canada seems to be everyone's dog to kick: how to make a statement to warn others and see little of consequence to yourself pissing them off. Heck, the UK with the Trump/Queen visit has me all upset for them. I am waiting to see China finally lose their minds any day now. Mexico... oh my. Is it just me or is Trump doing the dictator world tour to compare notes?
Anyway, there you go.
I feel it is a whole different perspective being stuck in the middle of the US politics vs the outsiders looking in and seeing occasional collateral damage spin out of there. It is like family friends seeing a domestic dispute (run away or watch and dodge thrown objects).
People should not pick a fight with the the only nation that never lost a war ...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: to the question, I think the modding and the one thread policy is working well. It keeps all that in one thread, much like OT for the rest of Dakka. Obviously I do not know how many alerts are popping up.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm fine with whatever rules Dakka and the mods want to have for the OT and the US Politics thread it's your website. If the US Politics ban came back into force tomorrow it wouldn't be a big deal to me because it wouldn't impact the utility and enjoyment of the site for me.
I do think that you guys should revisit the current policy. If you want to make one giant thread to be a dumping ground for every controversial political topic that involves the US in some way then it's going to get locked a lot. All kinds of stuff is going to come up in it, it's going to be difficult to maintain cohesive discussion about any particular topic because new unrelated stuff will constantly get posted creating a lot of simultaneous discussion.
Given the breadth of topics, opinions and viewpoints that will come up things will get heated and alerts will go out and moderation will be needed and we'll have a cycle of thread locks. It's also pretty clear that regardless of what gets discussed in the thread that feuds between certain posters are just going to keep coming up and getting rehashed over and over again which is only going to make Rule #1 violations more prevalent. While I've found the thread to be entertaining and informative at times I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to have the thread when everybody knows it's constantly only a few posts away from being locked again.
Hi Prestor Jon,
I appreciate this view (as well as Vaktathi's), and am actually going to bring this up in the mod forum for a renewed discussion on the policy.
Obviously, if folks were watching just now they saw that I had to lock the thread, remove / edit most of a page of discussion (and follow up with posters via PM), and just now re-opened it. However, here's my questions for you guys to consider:
1. Would the heated topics necessarily get less heated in having their own threads - if anything, then wouldn't they be more highlighted, and thus attract more fire-balling back and forth? As Vaktathi says, things just kind of move along now, to the next hot topic in the big thread. This makes for less in-depth discussion, but also reduces the possible "flame points" by having it all in one place (there's only so much that can go wrong in one thread, and it can always be locked while it's dealt with, as I just did). What are your thoughts on this?
2. Do we really benefit from having these politics thread? Would OT have enough content to function if politics and religion were removed, and would the site (intended for discussing wargaming) be better off overall?
I personally am genuinely starting to wonder about option #2, given what a charged political climate we find ourselves in, and also just Dakka's role in general. As a miniatures discussion site, we can all agree on talking about wargaming, and can good naturedly debate things like whether TLJ movie is completely awesome or an aberration on the franchise. Do we need to continue bashing each other over politics here, when we can do that literally anywhere else?
Thoughts appreciated!
@1: In-depth can in fact cool threads down as it rises entry level point if there is a valuable back-and-forth going on. This happened before in various politics related threads. And today's story in "US&NA" shows that current policy does not stop bans or locks...
@2: the longer I think about it the more I'm inclined that it would indeed be a good idea. I mean - those thread are monopolized by relatively small group of very vocal people anyway.
RiTides wrote: 1. Would the heated topics necessarily get less heated in having their own threads - if anything, then wouldn't they be more highlighted, and thus attract more fire-balling back and forth? As Vaktathi says, things just kind of move along now, to the next hot topic in the big thread. This makes for less in-depth discussion, but also reduces the possible "flame points" by having it all in one place (there's only so much that can go wrong in one thread, and it can always be locked while it's dealt with, as I just did). What are your thoughts on this?
A particular discussion might get more heated because it's actually possible to have a discussion without the thread moving on and burying it several pages back because you stepped away for a few minutes. But separation would have three advantages:
1) The flame war is limited to the people interested in that specific sub-topic. If you aren't interested you don't click on the thread and you never have to see any of the drama. If, to use the example that started this thread, you aren't interested in Jordan Peterson and the associated issues you don't click the Jordan Peterson thread. You don't have to see it just because you want to comment on the latest news about the Trump/Russia investigation.
2) If/when an argument gets out of control (and we'll have to agree to disagree on what that point is, for now) it doesn't take the rest of the thread down with it. One US politics thread means that any discussion even tangentially related to US politics getting out of control means locking the single thread, disrupting every other parallel discussion happening next to it, and frustrating everyone else in the thread who had no part in the flame war. It's the same general problem of punishing non-involved people whenever a thread is locked because of specific people, but now it covers more sub-threads at once.
3) A single fast-moving thread encourages sniping at political enemies instead of constructive discussion. If you know the thread is going to be 5 pages longer by the time you get back to continue the discussion then why bother posting a detailed reply to someone and expecting to read their responses? Just drop Your Team's talking points and maybe some thinly-veiled insults about Their Team, and a few pages later you can do it again. Obviously not everyone does this or the thread would be gone by now, but it's bad behavior that is encouraged by the format. And when you get that kind of hit-and-run partisan sniping it's more likely to generate angry and frustrated responses that lead to escalating the argument. As we saw around the election the thing that got the thread locked most frequently wasn't people arguing over beliefs, it was over a perception (an accurate one IMO) that certain posters were just dropping Their Team's statement into the thread over and over again while ignoring any responses or explanations of why they were wrong.
2. Do we really benefit from having these politics thread? Would OT have enough content to function if politics and religion were removed, and would the site (intended for discussing wargaming) be better off overall?
Of course we benefit. What exactly is the point of having a forum at all? To discuss things that people in the community want to discuss. If people want to discuss politics and religion then the function of the site is to have those discussions. If people don't want to discuss politics and religion then there is no need for a rule against it because nobody will make posts about those subjects. Banning discussion of particular subjects only "improves" a site if you only consider improvement from the point of view of one particular person and their individual interests, not the collective desires of the community. Moderators exist to allow the conversation the community desires by handling spam removal/banning trolls/etc, not to script out the acceptable conversations and decide that only the things they want to read are allowed.
They kind of do have that exact power, though. It is their sandbox. We get to play in it, so long as we don't get kicked out. Kicked out being a nebulous term that could encompass warnings to suspensions to banning.
If you want to start Porcupine's Forum devoted to Political discussion, and whatever else I'm interested in... go do that. Be the site owner, appoint minions, set your own rules. Be king of your own castle. Attract your own crowd of devoted peasants.
I'm certain that your charming personality will woo many suitors to your forum, wherein you may put your money where your voice hole is. You can take the glory, the gold, the dragon's scale, as well as the responsibility, the misery, the putting up with gak from people that you don't owe a thing to. It can all be yours!
And if that happens to take up all your forum time, and you're unable to post on Dakka, due to your responsibilities as Regent of www.percivalspoliticalpodium.com , we'll all have to soldier on, ignorant of how terribly we understand life, the universe, 40k, and the intricacies of scatapulting the opposing side in a political "debate".
greatbigtree wrote: They kind of do have that exact power, though. It is their sandbox. We get to play in it, so long as we don't get kicked out. Kicked out being a nebulous term that could encompass warnings to suspensions to banning.
If you want to start Porcupine's Forum devoted to Political discussion, and whatever else I'm interested in... go do that. Be the site owner, appoint minions, set your own rules. Be king of your own castle. Attract your own crowd of devoted peasants.
I'm certain that your charming personality will woo many suitors to your forum, wherein you may put your money where your voice hole is. You can take the glory, the gold, the dragon's scale, as well as the responsibility, the misery, the putting up with gak from people that you don't owe a thing to. It can all be yours!
And if that happens to take up all your forum time, and you're unable to post on Dakka, due to your responsibilities as Regent of www.percivalspoliticalpodium.com , we'll all have to soldier on, ignorant of how terribly we understand life, the universe, 40k, and the intricacies of scatapulting the opposing side in a political "debate".
You made me spit out my tea... you owe me a new cup good sir!
greatbigtree wrote: They kind of do have that exact power, though. It is their sandbox. We get to play in it, so long as we don't get kicked out. Kicked out being a nebulous term that could encompass warnings to suspensions to banning.
If you want to start Porcupine's Forum devoted to Political discussion, and whatever else I'm interested in... go do that. Be the site owner, appoint minions, set your own rules. Be king of your own castle. Attract your own crowd of devoted peasants.
I'm certain that your charming personality will woo many suitors to your forum, wherein you may put your money where your voice hole is. You can take the glory, the gold, the dragon's scale, as well as the responsibility, the misery, the putting up with gak from people that you don't owe a thing to. It can all be yours!
And if that happens to take up all your forum time, and you're unable to post on Dakka, due to your responsibilities as Regent of www.percivalspoliticalpodium.com , we'll all have to soldier on, ignorant of how terribly we understand life, the universe, 40k, and the intricacies of scatapulting the opposing side in a political "debate".
It's a sandbox...run on ad revenue and member contributions. If the mods remove enough of the parts of the sandbox that they don't like but others do, soon they will find that the sandbox is losing customers. If the mods run the website strictly to benefit their own tastes, they will be the only ones using it before long.
TLDR: you wanna get Warseer? 'Cause that's how you get Warseer.
At some point, at your convenience- you're going to have to explain this issue with 'Warseer' to me. I'm not familiar at all, my first foray into the online community of 40k wasn't until a few years ago, and I never went to this site at all. I hear a few things here and there, but I'm interested in knowing what the big deal about this is.
I'd prefer you PM it to me, though- just to keep things like that from clogging other topics.
Warseer was a heavily moderated 40k/GW site. I don't know about their policies on OT/politics stuff, but they'd ban people for being anything less than 100% positive towards 40k/GW or anything else that went against the script for how the moderators wanted the discussion to go. "Banned from Warseer" was an expected status for most people in the community, followed shortly after by moving to a different site. The end result, helped by some poor handling of server failures, was that Warseer lost a ton of its members and descended into irrelevancy (if it still exists at all?).
Now, banning politics is short of Warseer's sins, of course, but it's an example of how the mindset of "the forum is for what the moderators want, not what the community wants" leads to people leaving for a place that treats them better.
greatbigtree wrote: They kind of do have that exact power, though. It is their sandbox. We get to play in it, so long as we don't get kicked out. Kicked out being a nebulous term that could encompass warnings to suspensions to banning.
If you want to start Porcupine's Forum devoted to Political discussion, and whatever else I'm interested in... go do that. Be the site owner, appoint minions, set your own rules. Be king of your own castle. Attract your own crowd of devoted peasants.
I'm certain that your charming personality will woo many suitors to your forum, wherein you may put your money where your voice hole is. You can take the glory, the gold, the dragon's scale, as well as the responsibility, the misery, the putting up with gak from people that you don't owe a thing to. It can all be yours!
And if that happens to take up all your forum time, and you're unable to post on Dakka, due to your responsibilities as Regent of www.percivalspoliticalpodium.com , we'll all have to soldier on, ignorant of how terribly we understand life, the universe, 40k, and the intricacies of scatapulting the opposing side in a political "debate".
Peregrine, you make some great points, I just wanted to clarify one thing about why I was asking for feedback:
I would never want to stop political discussion because it's what "the moderators want", but was wondering if this might actually result in a better environment for discussing everything else / be what the community (overall) wants. It would basically be the next step after restricting political discussion to just a few threads, as we are currently.
I definitely appreciate the multiple views posted here, they are all helpful! We're having quite the lively debate about it in the mod forum, ourselves
I check in on the US Politics thread, and see nothing but bitterness and blind anger... both sides. I see that develop in any thread with any kind of left / right potential. I'm so many ways, the civil war never really ended. US politics is not politics, it's warfare. It doesn't matter what's right, or wrong, or anything. It's "I want to win and I want the other to lose."
And it's frankly off putting. "If you don't like it, don't look." Fair enough, that works for me. But if we want to hang ourselves on crosses over defending the "public interest" then I'll say this part of the public would prefer that this place be for gaming.
I don't ask a homeless guy for financial advice. I don't ask a Catholic priest for sex advice. I don't ask a Prohibitionist about whiskey. I don't ask my Dad about weed. (I don't smoke it, but the point stands.) I don't ask a gaming forum for their thoughts on politics.
Why not?
Because they don't have experience. All they have are half-baked opinions tainted by whatever idiocy they believe. If we want to hold some kind of "quality" in the posting content, then this place is just not the right place. The US politics thread generates misery and discontent that flows over into unrelated threads. It worsens the site experience of anyone that posts, reads, or in any way interacts with that thread.
So... I think getting rid of Politics threads in their entirety would be in the benefit of the site. It would be like removing an unsightly but benign tumour.
greatbigtree wrote: So... I think getting rid of Politics threads in their entirety would be in the benefit of the site. It would be like removing an unsightly but benign tumour.
I can't even manifest a reason to argue against this. I don't see it as a bad idea at all.
Regardless of what it is, any time political discussion is involved, the bitter fruit of that weed will poison an entire community. I can open up my social media page and see plenty of non-stop political mudslinging. At this point in my life, it amounts to little more than tribalism at best... very few people are genuinely concerned about these issues, they're just choosing them as a battleground. At this point, I visualize these people as primitive cave-people, howling and throwing rocks. "My politics man better than your politics man! You wrong, me right. Me smart, you dumb! My politics man tell me so!"
Because God forbid we take a minute and actually acknowledge the fact that these problems are concerns for both sides of the fence and the key difference for people who do care about the issue is just the manner in which we want to solve them, that's all. The fact that we all want to fix our problems and make our society better should be at least something to work with, but at this point I'm convinced too many people are too far gone within their brand of political hysteria.
FFS, some of these people need to find a sports team to root for or something. Because that's really all they're doing. It's not about the issue, it's about whatever tribe stroked their ego a little bit and made them feel like they needed to defend it.
I'm disgusted with seeing this kinda stuff poison literally every single aspect of life. A lot of people don't have opinions, their opinions have them. I'd like to enjoy some things without this sort of bickering being crammed into it and used to kick off witch hunts and attempts to disrupt one another's recreational time.
FFS, I'm not asking everyone to be friends... but this is supposed to be dedicated to a pastime we enjoy, and it's flat-out poisoned. Like literally everything else. We can't enjoy a damned thing without people trying to stake their claim on what political cult should be able to enjoy it with impunity and which political cult should be ran out of it. And I mean that because I've seen attempts to do that to both left and right wingers, and I've seen it stated openly that those people shouldn't be tolerated in the gaming communities. At the point where people got the idea that it was acceptable to openly say we should keep left or right wing people out of gaming and gaming discussions, we've crossed a line of decency that is by all reasonable standards, abhorrent.
If you're asking a serious question, I've experienced loss of respect for other posters, related to their activities in Political threads. It's hard to take someone's opinion on matters of gaming seriously, when you can see their "logic" on display in a Political thread. It has absolutely tarnished my opinions of people, that bleeds over into other threads. It is ugly. It does nothing positive, and I experience a net negative from its inclusion on this site. I doubt I'm the only one.
The question is whether the net positive (Is there ever a positive from those threads? Really?) of including / allowing Political discussion is greater than the net negative of including / allowing political discussion on a gaming forum.
- In they eyes of the Owner / Mods -
These people don't owe us anything. We aren't consumers that have paid for a service... at least I haven't. I guess there are DCM but their paid service is to be allowed access to the members only board, from what I understand. Probably a *wee* bit of extra leniency, because this place is run by humans and not robots. I don't think.
My vote, not that it counts or means anything at all, would be to be rid of the toxicity. Good fences make for good neighbours, and that's a fence I'd like to see put up. "Here be Dragons. Stay out!" There are other places for the age old pastime of primates flinging feces at each other. Go to those places for that. I'd prefer if the guano stayed on the ground around here.
When the politics was banned... it certainly did spill over to other threads as posters where *tip toeing* right at the edge. Furthermore, it does spill over in other threads a bit, which is counter-intuitive in those threads.
At least the OT Politics thread exists to keep the other thread from being... what's the word... infected.
greatbigtree wrote: If you're asking a serious question, I've experienced loss of respect for other posters, related to their activities in Political threads. It's hard to take someone's opinion on matters of gaming seriously, when you can see their "logic" on display in a Political thread. It has absolutely tarnished my opinions of people, that bleeds over into other threads. It is ugly. It does nothing positive, and I experience a net negative from its inclusion on this site. I doubt I'm the only one.
So, let me get this straight: you know that reading politics threads makes you lose respect for people, you consider your experience with those threads a net negative, and yet you keep doing it. It sounds like the issue here is your lack of self control, not the politics threads. Stop reading them and all of your problems here go away.
(Is there ever a positive from those threads? Really?)
The net positive is that some of us enjoy political discussion. You don't have to understand it, if you don't like political discussion then don't click on the clearly labeled politics threads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: I would never want to stop political discussion because it's what "the moderators want", but was wondering if this might actually result in a better environment for discussing everything else / be what the community (overall) wants. It would basically be the next step after restricting political discussion to just a few threads, as we are currently.
If it isn't about what the moderators want then why does there need to be a rule? If it's what the community wants then the community can choose not to click on politics threads, nobody is forcing anybody to participate in them. If a sufficiently large majority of the community doesn't want to participate in politics discussions then few people will post in them and they'll get buried by all of the other, more active threads or even disappear entirely. The only reason to have a rule banning them is if the community wants to discuss politics but the moderators don't want to allow them to do it.
I'm a curious cat. Also, I sometimes smoke cigarettes. Sometimes, I drink alcohol. Sometimes, I eat at a fast food restaurant. Sometimes, I do something I know is bad for me, because I disregard the known negatives and think, "You know what, this seems like a good idea at the moment."
And just like feeding birds, I usually feel like I've wasted my time afterwards. It's not just me that's having a net negative. It's on the front page. People are gonna click on it. People may come to Dakka (Won't somebody Please! think of the children!) see that, click it, determine that this site is just another backwater and move on.
If you want to have a circle jerk, and I'm not saying you do, but hypothetically if you wanted to have a circle jerk, you could do that. But it doesn't help the community here, if you were to do that *here*. Same deal with political threads. I'm not saying you want to have a political discussion, but hypothetically if you wanted to have a political discussion, it doesn't help the community *here* when that happens.
Take that stuff to a seedier part of the internet. Let us clean living folk live our lives in peace and less sticky / politically ragey times.
[Yes, I am equating the US political thread as a giant circle jerk in which opposite sides try to tear off their opponents' rage boners, only to find the action is simply encouraging the rage boners, and the random flailings of their opponents are further engorging their own rage boners. Until the only thing that can stop the ripping and tearing is someone releasing the tension... by closing the thread. Yes, political discussion here is nothing more than frustrated people trying to get off on each other's hate. This seems like a good idea at this moment.]
If people who dislike politics so strongly and still click on a thread that is clearly labeled "US politics" get mad about it and ragequit they have only themselves to blame. I fail to see why the rest of us who do want to have that discussion have to give up our conversation to protect you from your own poor impulse control. If you don't like politics then don't click the thread. Or just accept that, like getting lung cancer if you're dumb enough to smoke, you will pay a price for your poor decisions.
Peregrine wrote: If people who dislike politics so strongly and still click on a thread that is clearly labeled "US politics" get mad about it and ragequit they have only themselves to blame. I fail to see why the rest of us who do want to have that discussion have to give up our conversation to protect you from your own poor impulse control. If you don't like politics then don't click the thread. Or just accept that, like getting lung cancer if you're dumb enough to smoke, you will pay a price for your poor decisions.
Me and peregrine very rarely agree on anything, but we agree on this, yes the politics thread gets heated and needs a cool off every now and then, but by god it’s informative, I can stir up the hornets nest every now and then and just see what people ACTUALLY think on a subject in a way that the media refuses to give me, sure there are a couple of extremists in there but even some of the things they say can be useful.
So while I don’t agree the talk on media bias and jordon Peterson should have been moved to the US thread, I can understand why it was done.
I think you guys overstate how much "people" (in the collective) want to talk about politics on Dakka. I know there'd be a subset of folks who do, but as a percentage of the wider Dakka community. Politics threads tend to consist of the same handful of folks and if you follow the politics thread for a few days you'll know who those posters are, what their stance is and probably guess with reasonable accuracy what they're going to say about a given topic before they've even said it.
With multiple threads you'll have the same people saying the same or similar things in different discussions which clogs up the forum more and is harder to moderate because they inevitably devolve in to unfriendly exchanges.
Keeping it one thread leaves things cleaner for all the other folk who are happy to avoid politics in the OT forum and is easier to moderate.
If political discussion was completely banned I think it'd have very little effect on the wider dakka community.
On the flip side I think if political discussion were freely allowed with no moderation it would bring down the tone of the place.
At the end of the day it is a forum about toy soldiers, if you are unhappy that you can't discuss politics in the way you'de like in a forum that is not about politics, go somewhere else. It'd be more of an issue if discussion of, for example, a particular war game were limited to a single thread, because that is the actual purpose of the site, to discuss war games.
The politics discussion being limited to one thread, I interpret that as the thread owners saying "we tolerate but do not encourage this discussion on our site".
I know I wouldn't be here without the politics thread. I've lost interest in warhammer after they changed the rules to make it less fun for me. I find the politics thread a useful source for current events and insights into them.
It's nice that the OT exists and I enjoy the one stop shop kind of convenience that Dakka provides with the opportunity to discuss hobby stuff and non hobby stuff. In theory we should be able to discuss politics in the OT. However, it does seem difficult for everyone to do so. I'd be curious to know just how the amount of mod alerts, warnings, thread locks and subforum bans generated by the US Politics thread compares to the rest of Dakka. If the OT generally and the US politics thread specifically is generating a significant portion of the mod work for the site then that problem is on us not the mods.
It feels like in a different subforum we could have a discussion about opinions/views like KoW vs WHFB or KoW vs AOS and opposing views would be better respected and acknowledged than the old (R) vs (D) fights in the US politics thread. Too often disagreements become focused on posters not just having different subjective viewpoints but being wrong and not just wrong but intolerably wrong, intolerably wrong to the extant that they need to be repeatedly chastised until they recognize just how horribly wrong they are and agree to adopt a more correct opinion/position. It typically escalates into some kind of sado masochistic roleplay of the Chain of Command episodes of ST:TNG with posters metaphorically poking each other with cattle prods until they agree on how many lights there are but the thread will usually get locked before a consensus can be reached.
I'd like to do a social experiment and get a bunch of Dakkaites from the US Politics thread together for a game, a board game (definitely NOT Munchkin) or an RPG session or a big game of 40k or KoW or whatever. Let everybody play and likely have fun, I know I'm confident I could have a fun time playing a game IRL with anybody from Dakka. Would the vibe changed if at the end everybody revealed their Dakka usernames? Would it become awkward? It would honestly bum me out if it did.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's nice that the OT exists and I enjoy the one stop shop kind of convenience that Dakka provides with the opportunity to discuss hobby stuff and non hobby stuff. In theory we should be able to discuss politics in the OT. However, it does seem difficult for everyone to do so. I'd be curious to know just how the amount of mod alerts, warnings, thread locks and subforum bans generated by the US Politics thread compares to the rest of Dakka. If the OT generally and the US politics thread specifically is generating a significant portion of the mod work for the site then that problem is on us not the mods.
It feels like in a different subforum we could have a discussion about opinions/views like KoW vs WHFB or KoW vs AOS and opposing views would be better respected and acknowledged than the old (R) vs (D) fights in the US politics thread. Too often disagreements become focused on posters not just having different subjective viewpoints but being wrong and not just wrong but intolerably wrong, intolerably wrong to the extant that they need to be repeatedly chastised until they recognize just how horribly wrong they are and agree to adopt a more correct opinion/position. It typically escalates into some kind of sado masochistic roleplay of the Chain of Command episodes of ST:TNG with posters metaphorically poking each other with cattle prods until they agree on how many lights there are but the thread will usually get locked before a consensus can be reached.
I'd like to do a social experiment and get a bunch of Dakkaites from the US Politics thread together for a game, a board game (definitely NOT Munchkin) or an RPG session or a big game of 40k or KoW or whatever. Let everybody play and likely have fun, I know I'm confident I could have a fun time playing a game IRL with anybody from Dakka. Would the vibe changed if at the end everybody revealed their Dakka usernames? Would it become awkward? It would honestly bum me out if it did.
To be fair I've already seen this 'experiment' performed in reverse. One of the more satellite communties I game at had a pretty solid group of 10 or so routine players. Than one day one of the younger players comments on how 'republicans are a dead party ruled by nazis'.
Someone took exception and dropped the word 'social justice warriors'
In the end two people were banned from the store. Someone pointed out that the two people were from the same side of the political divide and then the inevitable boycott started. Now a once healthy playgroup is near death because some young gun forgot one of the key rules of FLGS etiquette - never, ever, mention politics.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's nice that the OT exists and I enjoy the one stop shop kind of convenience that Dakka provides with the opportunity to discuss hobby stuff and non hobby stuff. In theory we should be able to discuss politics in the OT. However, it does seem difficult for everyone to do so. I'd be curious to know just how the amount of mod alerts, warnings, thread locks and subforum bans generated by the US Politics thread compares to the rest of Dakka. If the OT generally and the US politics thread specifically is generating a significant portion of the mod work for the site then that problem is on us not the mods.
It feels like in a different subforum we could have a discussion about opinions/views like KoW vs WHFB or KoW vs AOS and opposing views would be better respected and acknowledged than the old (R) vs (D) fights in the US politics thread. Too often disagreements become focused on posters not just having different subjective viewpoints but being wrong and not just wrong but intolerably wrong, intolerably wrong to the extant that they need to be repeatedly chastised until they recognize just how horribly wrong they are and agree to adopt a more correct opinion/position. It typically escalates into some kind of sado masochistic roleplay of the Chain of Command episodes of ST:TNG with posters metaphorically poking each other with cattle prods until they agree on how many lights there are but the thread will usually get locked before a consensus can be reached.
I'd like to do a social experiment and get a bunch of Dakkaites from the US Politics thread together for a game, a board game (definitely NOT Munchkin) or an RPG session or a big game of 40k or KoW or whatever. Let everybody play and likely have fun, I know I'm confident I could have a fun time playing a game IRL with anybody from Dakka. Would the vibe changed if at the end everybody revealed their Dakka usernames? Would it become awkward? It would honestly bum me out if it did.
To be fair I've already seen this 'experiment' performed in reverse. One of the more satellite communties I game at had a pretty solid group of 10 or so routine players. Than one day one of the younger players comments on how 'republicans are a dead party ruled by nazis'.
Someone took exception and dropped the word 'social justice warriors'
In the end two people were banned from the store. Someone pointed out that the two people were from the same side of the political divide and then the inevitable boycott started. Now a once healthy playgroup is near death because some young gun forgot one of the key rules of FLGS etiquette - never, ever, mention politics.
Interesting, I must wonder if that would have eventually happened anyway, I have firmly stated many many times that "leave your politics at the door" when it comes to gaming, with the exception of online gaming, I find that a good place to hear others views in a relaxed manner.
I am serious. When the US politics thread was gone, there seemed to be just as many if not more threads hijacked by discussions on feminism, diversity, Trumpism, etc.. With the US politics, the discussion can be sent somewhere else instead of left stewing under the surface of threads for pages. It's the difference between telling someone "keep it in your pants" and "restroom's down the hall". One of those approaches leads to a big mess.
If you're asking a serious question, I've experienced loss of respect for other posters, related to their activities in Political threads. It's hard to take someone's opinion on matters of gaming seriously, when you can see their "logic" on display in a Political thread. It has absolutely tarnished my opinions of people, that bleeds over into other threads. It is ugly. It does nothing positive, and I experience a net negative from its inclusion on this site. I doubt I'm the only one.
that happens over YMDC threads, recasting is/isn't a crime threads, pricing threads, and all other threads. The only way to keep a good opinion of everyone is to avoid talking to them. The whole internet has this problem.
it sounds like you might be happier at Warseer.
The question is whether the net positive (Is there ever a positive from those threads? Really?) of including / allowing Political discussion is greater than the net negative of including / allowing political discussion on a gaming forum.
- In they eyes of the Owner / Mods -
These people don't owe us anything. We aren't consumers that have paid for a service... at least I haven't. I guess there are DCM but their paid service is to be allowed access to the members only board, from what I understand. Probably a *wee* bit of extra leniency, because this place is run by humans and not robots. I don't think.
My vote, not that it counts or means anything at all, would be to be rid of the toxicity. Good fences make for good neighbours, and that's a fence I'd like to see put up. "Here be Dragons. Stay out!" There are other places for the age old pastime of primates flinging feces at each other. Go to those places for that. I'd prefer if the guano stayed on the ground around here.
We are consumers, and many of us have paid. Dakka is funded by ads that generate nothing without our attendance. For many of us, being able to discuss the issues of the day with people with whom we share at least one affiliation (gaming) is far more valuable than an echo chamber or an attempt to broach complex subjects on a site with no nonpolitical commonality or shared experience among the posters. For many gamers, ours is a social hobby, and discussing a wide range of topics, including controversial ones, is an important part of healthy social interaction.
When the politics was banned... it certainly did spill over to other threads as posters where *tip toeing* right at the edge. Furthermore, it does spill over in other threads a bit, which is counter-intuitive in those threads.
At least the OT Politics thread exists to keep the other thread from being... what's the word... infected.
I'm with Whembly on this one. His recollection matches mine.
ChargerIIC wrote: In the end two people were banned from the store. Someone pointed out that the two people were from the same side of the political divide and then the inevitable boycott started. Now a once healthy playgroup is near death because some young gun forgot one of the key rules of FLGS etiquette - never, ever, mention politics.
I wouldn't have gone as far as banning them. I'd have gone as far as pulling them both aside, together- and letting them know what the establishment is dedicated to and what kind of environment we're looking for. A policy at the place I play at and work at from time to time is that if you can't speak without bringing up something that is obviously divisive or disagreeable, then only speak about games and stuff. If that's too hard, we're more than happy to ask you to leave the gaming area. We're not keen on refusing to sell products to people, but using the gaming area is a privilege to our customers and it can be removed- it's not a free service.
One of the flaws we've developed with the internet era is that we've created pockets of people who think that spewing hateful rhetoric about other political ideologies is just perfectly acceptable and normal, simply because they've spent so much time in areas where 'the opposition' is unwelcome or forbidden. I've encountered individuals that appeared to be confused when I explained that being "right wing" or "left wing" isn't a justification to mistreat someone openly. And please note that I said "confused", because this individual couldn't understand how it was possibly a bad thing to openly declare their hatred for the _____ wing. To them, it was as normal as saying "terrorists and child molesters aren't welcome here". That's the sort of mindset they'd developed. And you can see it when they finally do cross paths sometimes, because if you take a step back you'll see people arguing, but they're not even having the same argument at all. As if they've expected something completely different- and it's funny to watch them keep going with it sometimes, too.
On the internet, we can all create little echo chambers. You can click a little button and never have to deal with someone again. You can lock yourself down and shut out different opinions and well-reasoned arguments, isolating yourself in a little bubble of people just like you and easily forget that "those ____-wingers" are people, too- and almost reduce them to some kind of stereotypical caricature or faceless villain.
And then, suddenly, you find yourself in a social environment with other human beings. Right wing. Left wing. Chicken wings. Lo and behold, you will quickly discover that this 'real world' outside the internet does not have a mob of people you can tag to come to your aid, or an 'ignore user' feature, or a clever meme you can throw in front of you. And you will quickly realize that not everyone thinks like you do, and you will be shocked to discover that they are another person very much like you and now you have to deal with that. So you either need to grow up and maybe accept that the politics and ideology don't need to be broached in an environment of recreation, or you can take the idiot's approach and piss off the entire local community- including the ones that share your beliefs- and be labeled as a disruptive child that couldn't keep their opinions to themselves.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's not really a good showing that there has to be a quarantine thread rather then dealing with the ones who are causing problems outside of it.
It really is educational, though. Many of the posters bring reasoning and information sources that you might never see in an echo chamber. For the most part, the thread goes through cycles of productive discussion and heated arguing. I find the former is worth the latter.
Along with a heavy dose of sarcastic insults, passive aggressive insults, overall insults, and other things that if it were to occur in any other section would result in a topic lock.
My point is that a few tended to be the ones who spread politics outside of politics when the US politics thread was prohibited. They should have clamped down on those posters rather then given them a free pass.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Along with a heavy dose of sarcastic insults, passive aggressive insults, overall insults, and other things that if it were to occur in any other section would result in a topic lock.
My point is that a few tended to be the ones who spread politics outside of politics when the US politics thread was prohibited. They should have clamped down on those posters rather then given them a free pass.
Got to be real careful here as I dont want to actually start an argument, but would that include all the thinly veiled feminist comments that always turn up during "female marines" threads, basically I am saying if we should stop all political comments happening outside of the OT forum, then all of those threads needs to go straight to that forum.
And yep that would include the posters of those threads.
Formosa wrote: And yep that would include the posters of those threads.
Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.
And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.
But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.
That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.
If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.
Formosa wrote: And yep that would include the posters of those threads.
Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.
And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.
But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.
This kinda nonsense has to stop.
Agreed, it does seem to be the same posters making these posts and yes I agree it does seem that they are doing to so to bait others in and then they can use underhand tactics to try to shame them or shut them down, I know a few of these people have views that are rather extreme.... no I have put that the wrong way, they express their views in an extreme way and then are playing victim when you call them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScarletRose wrote: That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.
If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.
Along the same vein as "Female marines" debate me alt right sexist racists.
We all need to reach a common ground here, if its not ok for clearly political threads to be started outside of the OT forum, then its all of them, not just the ones we dont support.
Our common ground is interest in miniatures gaming. Politics is divisive in the best of times. These are not the best of times.
It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.
Formosa wrote: And yep that would include the posters of those threads.
Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.
And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.
But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.
This kinda nonsense has to stop.
Agreed, it does seem to be the same posters making these posts and yes I agree it does seem that they are doing to so to bait others in and then they can use underhand tactics to try to shame them or shut them down, I know a few of these people have views that are rather extreme.... no I have put that the wrong way, they express their views in an extreme way and then are playing victim when you call them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScarletRose wrote: That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.
If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.
Along the same vein as "Female marines" debate me alt right sexist racists.
We all need to reach a common ground here, if its not ok for clearly political threads to be started outside of the OT forum, then its all of them, not just the ones we dont support.
I am for this.
Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.
Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.
If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It's not really a good showing that there has to be a quarantine thread rather then dealing with the ones who are causing problems outside of it.
It really is educational, though. Many of the posters bring reasoning and information sources that you might never see in an echo chamber. For the most part, the thread goes through cycles of productive discussion and heated arguing. I find the former is worth the latter.
I do think it's great that a wide cross section of people that all share a common interest in gaming can discuss different things outside of gaming. It's helpful to have a pool of people similar enough to yourself that you can identify with them but different enough to have very different takes on other things. It's unfortunate that politics is such a personal issue for some at times because I have enjoyed and benefited from reading different views from people about political topics. It's all just mental exercise, just like I'm not going to go to somebody's house and make them play monopoly with the auction rule if they don't want to play that way, I'm not going to force anybody to change their views on anything, it's just good to see different views presented.
Formosa wrote: And yep that would include the posters of those threads.
Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.
And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.
But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.
This kinda nonsense has to stop.
Agreed, it does seem to be the same posters making these posts and yes I agree it does seem that they are doing to so to bait others in and then they can use underhand tactics to try to shame them or shut them down, I know a few of these people have views that are rather extreme.... no I have put that the wrong way, they express their views in an extreme way and then are playing victim when you call them out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScarletRose wrote: That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.
If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.
Along the same vein as "Female marines" debate me alt right sexist racists.
We all need to reach a common ground here, if its not ok for clearly political threads to be started outside of the OT forum, then its all of them, not just the ones we dont support.
I am for this.
Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.
Sigh... we both know that is not what its about, we both know based on context and poster that is not what happens, I have made an honest attempt at reaching a common ground and you have decided it dishonest, I think that clearly shows why ALL such posts should be deleted or moved to OT forum.
Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.
If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...
He is being disingenuous Nou, we both know it, its not about the models, its about a political ideal disguised as wanting a model, I just want it where it should be and it can still be discussed in the OT forum as a clear topic on gender Politics.
Manchu wrote: It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.
Disagree on this. Talking about politics is perfectly acceptable in a store or club. Why exactly would it be unacceptable? Because people are stubbornly determined to live in blissful ignorance that their fellow gamer is a horrible person that they want nothing to do with? Because discovering someone's political beliefs might make you feel like removing them from the group, going against the (TBH absurd) goal of maximizing the size of the group? If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.
Also, as I've been saying, if you don't want to participate in politics discussion then don't do it. With the offline situation there's the weak argument that people who don't want to participate are forced to listen, the same is not true of a forum. The thread is clearly labeled "US politics". If you feel that political threads are too divisive or you don't want to learn anyone's political beliefs or whatever then don't click on the politics thread. It's ridiculous that we're giving credit to the idea that, rather than the anti-politics side using some self control and not clicking on the threads, we need to ban political discussion for those of us who want to have it.
Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.
If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...
It wouldn't surprise me or bother me if GW retconned Sisters into becoming full on superhumans in power armor like SM, they've already changed pretty much every aspect of the game since Rogue Trader came out. Although they might be holding off doing it out of fear of the Sisters being implanted with geneseed memes breaking the internet.
Manchu wrote: It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.
Disagree on this. Talking about politics is perfectly acceptable in a store or club. Why exactly would it be unacceptable? Because people are stubbornly determined to live in blissful ignorance that their fellow gamer is a horrible person that they want nothing to do with? Because discovering someone's political beliefs might make you feel like removing them from the group, going against the (TBH absurd) goal of maximizing the size of the group? If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.
Also, as I've been saying, if you don't want to participate in politics discussion then don't do it. With the offline situation there's the weak argument that people who don't want to participate are forced to listen, the same is not true of a forum. The thread is clearly labeled "US politics". If you feel that political threads are too divisive or you don't want to learn anyone's political beliefs or whatever then don't click on the politics thread. It's ridiculous that we're giving credit to the idea that, rather than the anti-politics side using some self control and not clicking on the threads, we need to ban political discussion for those of us who want to have it.
Given the amount of thread locks, mod alerts and warnings, and subforum bans issued due to the US Politics thread is the topic of US politics really being discussed appropriately? If any other thread in a different subforum on Dakka required the same level of mod interaction as the US Politics thread would those threads and topics be allowed to stay open?
Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.
If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...
It wouldn't surprise me or bother me if GW retconned Sisters into becoming full on superhumans in power armor like SM, they've already changed pretty much every aspect of the game since Rogue Trader came out. Although they might be holding off doing it out of fear of the Sisters being implanted with geneseed memes breaking the internet.
YES!!
I have been saying that for ages, if they made an elite unit of super sisters, no one would bat an eyelid. it wouldnt even need to be a retcon, they could literally add enhanced sisters as an elite choice.
greatbigtree wrote: It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.
It would, however, be useless. It doesn't matter how many people aren't interested in discussing politics, they are free to not discuss politics. Even if it's 90% that doesn't mean they should be allowed to shut down discussion for the 10% that do want those threads, not when they have the option to not click on clearly labeled threads they do not enjoy reading or participating in. It would be like taking a poll in the 40k section on banning AoS threads, even if you can get a majority vote to say "ban AoS" that doesn't make it a reasonable idea.
It's odd that this particular thread exists at all - I would have thought OP would have been banned from OT or Politics threads. ____
greatbigtree wrote: 3: Utter gakshow. The site would be better off without them.
FTFY. You're welcome. ____
RiTides wrote: It still leaves our rather large Australian contingent without a home to discuss their politics, so maybe we eventually need a "RoW" politics thread if use merits it .
Isn't the Oz/NZ "problem" primarily an issue of economics, where GW still treats them as a colony to extract money from? Part of the UK national consciousness, so it's not really politics per se.
* "AP Politics" for Asia Pacific - i.e. the non-problem with China returning to being *the* dominant global power * "ME Politics" for Middle East - i.e. the problem with Israel & Syria & everybody else due to British Colonialism. Oh wait, it's really UK & EU.
African Politics is kind of a non-starter, as RealPolitik demonstrates that Afrika doesn't matter.
Formosa wrote: He is being disingenuous Nou, we both know it, its not about the models, its about a political ideal disguised as wanting a model, I just want it where it should be and it can still be discussed in the OT forum as a clear topic on gender Politics.
I think the issue is as you say, for this discussion.
The only validation that is required for wanting or not wanting those particular models is "preference". That's literally all the justification either side needs. Attempting to saturate either end of that argument with some sort of sociopolitical commentary to support it is comical at best. People don't have to dress up their preference as a major social issue to make it a valid desire. Just be straightforward and say you want it, and if people don't want it- well, that's their preference.
And the topic is completely absurd at this point, and should be squashed out- especially considering that there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating specifically what they want. This is, of course, a hobby miniatures game and making conversions to your models to suit your personal preferences is part of it. In fact, my position is: "Do what you want to do with your models, they are your property, and support third party companies that make components for those models and everyone will win."
Given that, this is exactly why the debate should be nuked on sight- because inevitably, it will always turn into an argument when there is no argument. Just go do whatever you want with your models, and don't worry about having someone else's approval. If this is not enough, then you're not approaching the discussion in good faith- you're looking for a fight.
And to skirt too close to actually igniting a fire, I'll actually say that I'm genuinely sick of people turning a simple difference of opinion or preference into a hyperbolic crisis. A rational and well-reasoned argument against something, or even something as simple as "I like/dislike that" is not something that should be lumped in with the most extremist, irrational, and stereotypical variation of the individuals that also hold that opinion.
don't bypass the language filter like this.
Reds8n
And I say this, again with the full admission that I have not been the best about this in the past and I am working on myself as well. I don't want to seem hypocritical. I'm fully aware.
I seem to recall someone wanting to get certain wargaming related threads / posters banned. Any recall on that, Per, Par, Pour... I'm tired, I don't have anything good right now. Per-ticular? My kung-fu is weak.
So if those should have been banned, and had at least tangential relation to wargaming... why should Political threads not get the axe? They have nothing to add to a Wargaming site?
And it wouldn't matter about AoS, because AoS is about gaming. Wargaming. Not insult flinging. Nobody is stopping you from engaging in your filthy politics habit. Just don't do it here, in public.
Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.
greatbigtree wrote: Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.
Scene: A rainy night, dark city, muted streetlights. A few young teens are walking home from watching the local PG movie, dressed in bright colors with hi-top sneakers. In the alley, a shady character tries to get their attention.
"Hey, kids... c'mere... hey, check it out... I got some fresh hot CNN talkin' points. Don't like that? Then right here, I got some from Fox News. And if you really wanna party, I got some old Infowars stuff but that ain't for the faint of heart and it'll really mess you up. Look, I'll cut you a deal- the first sample is free..."
Cue Saturday morning cartoon hero character, give spiel about staying away from political discussions- especially from strangers.
EDIT: I'll also be perfectly honest, while I'm fully capable of leaping into the OT section and doing so, I have absolutely no desire to discuss politics here on this page. People repeating their arguments over and over again, using their side of a topic to launch vitriol at someone else, and all that jazz... I'd rather not. And in truth, I've found the best way to discuss politics itself is to sit down with a person and speak with them. You would be amazed at how differently that goes and how much more courteous people are that way. Perhaps seeing the human that holds beliefs different to your own in person, it unlocks a degree of empathy and willingness to understand their perspective. Arguing with faceless text on the internet, in my opinion, has never done anything more than scratch my itch for a flame war with someone. It's all fun and games in its place, but you're not really achieving much other than getting a chuckle out of it.
greatbigtree wrote: It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.
It would, however, be useless. It doesn't matter how many people aren't interested in discussing politics, they are free to not discuss politics. Even if it's 90% that doesn't mean they should be allowed to shut down discussion for the 10% that do want those threads, not when they have the option to not click on clearly labeled threads they do not enjoy reading or participating in. It would be like taking a poll in the 40k section on banning AoS threads, even if you can get a majority vote to say "ban AoS" that doesn't make it a reasonable idea.
I agree polls wouldn’t carry any weight but that’s because this is t a democracy. If the site owners and mod team decide that the inclusion of US politics discussion has more negatives than positives then they can add it to the list of things we can’t post about here and that’s fine with me. When the US Politics thread was banned did site traffic decrease much? I still visited just as much because I still wanted to check in on news and rumors, KS projects that I backed or was just interested in and look through P&M threads for inspiration. There’s already rules in place that limit what I can post about, like I can’t cuss, which is fine because I can post without cussing just like I can enjoy the site without politics. I don’t feel any sense of entitlement to be able to discuss whatever I want however I want on somebody else’s website. I’m a guest so I’ll abide by the rules set by the host.
For what it's worth, I didn't expect public opinion to carry much weight, but if there's an overwhelming majority of Dakkites that desperately need political content, I suppose I'd drop the matter and just snipe from the shadows.
greatbigtree wrote: Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.
Scene: A rainy night, dark city, muted streetlights. A few young teens are walking home from watching the local PG movie, dressed in bright colors with hi-top sneakers. In the alley, a shady character tries to get their attention.
"Hey, kids... c'mere... hey, check it out... I got some fresh hot CNN talkin' points. Don't like that? Then right here, I got some from Fox News. And if you really wanna party, I got some old Infowars stuff but that ain't for the faint of heart and it'll really mess you up. Look, I'll cut you a deal- the first sample is free..."
Cue Saturday morning cartoon hero character, give spiel about staying away from political discussions- especially from strangers.
EDIT: I'll also be perfectly honest, while I'm fully capable of leaping into the OT section and doing so, I have absolutely no desire to discuss politics here on this page. People repeating their arguments over and over again, using their side of a topic to launch vitriol at someone else, and all that jazz... I'd rather not. And in truth, I've found the best way to discuss politics itself is to sit down with a person and speak with them. You would be amazed at how differently that goes and how much more courteous people are that way. Perhaps seeing the human that holds beliefs different to your own in person, it unlocks a degree of empathy and willingness to understand their perspective. Arguing with faceless text on the internet, in my opinion, has never done anything more than scratch my itch for a flame war with someone. It's all fun and games in its place, but you're not really achieving much other than getting a chuckle out of it.
I am thinking of setting up a discord for just that reason mate, so people can get around and chat about all kinds of things, some of it political, most of it game related or whatever, movies too.
One idea that comes to me after following this thread - if moderation decides on keeping to existing policy of "OT dump threads", wouldn't it be sufficient to just add a third one: "general dakkanauts world views clash", as many of singular topics transcend not only US/UK politics but even politics at all. As it is now, if I wanted, for the sake of example, discuss Peterson further on the grounds of scientific debate rather than political debate, there is absolutely no place for it, as UK/US threads are predominantly "current news/current climate" threads. And there are multitude of interesting topics that do not really fit in those two "legal" threads.
But that is only if moderation do not decide to leave all non-wargaming, non-geek topics out of this forum, which I'm personally totally ok with.
Peregrine wrote: If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.
nou wrote: One idea that comes to me after following this thread - if moderation decides on keeping to existing policy of "OT dump threads", wouldn't it be sufficient to just add a third one: "general dakkanauts world views clash", as many of singular topics transcend not only US/UK politics but even politics at all. As it is now, if I wanted, for the sake of example, discuss Peterson further on the grounds of scientific debate rather than political debate, there is absolutely no place for it, as UK/US threads are predominantly "current news/current climate" threads. And there are multitude of interesting topics that do not really fit in those two "legal" threads.
But that is only if moderation do not decide to leave all non-wargaming, non-geek topics out of this forum, which I'm personally totally ok with.
Ah yes, our failed attempt at talking about peterson and media bias... I really wanted to see that mega post you were prepping too.
Peregrine wrote: If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.
I'm of the opposite mind from some i here, it seems. I've seen posters make what I consider truly god awful statements in the Politics thread, stuff that would make me write them off as people altogether, but then see them in other subs posting their latest model, and I am reminded that The Other Side are still just people trying to make their way like me.
To be fair, I do discuss politics with my buddies when I play 40k. That said, we've all been friends for 20 years, so we kind of already know what the other is going to say. I take the sane and reasonable track and other people are heartless monsters.
But I generally don't crack open that can of worms with strangers. Usually.
At this point I think you should nuke all of the political threads and stick by it, if for nothing else to put and end to the endless will-they-won't-they vaccilating that has been going on about the subject for a year and a half.
Maddie and David, Mulder and Scully, Sam & Diane, the mods and the US politics thread - just bang it out already.
There's two types of people in gaming stores/clubs/whatever, the ones who think it's fine to talk about politics and the ones who wish first group was would shut the feth up about politics already.
greatbigtree wrote: It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.
It would, however, be useless. It doesn't matter how many people aren't interested in discussing politics, they are free to not discuss politics. Even if it's 90% that doesn't mean they should be allowed to shut down discussion for the 10% that do want those threads, not when they have the option to not click on clearly labeled threads they do not enjoy reading or participating in. It would be like taking a poll in the 40k section on banning AoS threads, even if you can get a majority vote to say "ban AoS" that doesn't make it a reasonable idea.
I agree polls wouldn’t carry any weight but that’s because this is t a democracy. If the site owners and mod team decide that the inclusion of US politics discussion has more negatives than positives then they can add it to the list of things we can’t post about here and that’s fine with me. When the US Politics thread was banned did site traffic decrease much? I still visited just as much because I still wanted to check in on news and rumors, KS projects that I backed or was just interested in and look through P&M threads for inspiration. There’s already rules in place that limit what I can post about, like I can’t cuss, which is fine because I can post without cussing just like I can enjoy the site without politics. I don’t feel any sense of entitlement to be able to discuss whatever I want however I want on somebody else’s website. I’m a guest so I’ll abide by the rules set by the host.
The value of a poll is that it'd let the site owners know what people feel about it. It seems the owners/mods don't have a strong opinion on whether political talk is good or bad as they haven't come up with a good clear strategy for dealing with it. Knowing how the users of the site view it may swing the powers that be to just put their foot down with a consistent way of dealing with it.
Even though the site isn't a democracy, the site owners clearly don't want it to be an oppressive dictatorship either.
I'm genuinely now of the opinion that it might be fine if it stays, but I'm sure the mods are more than aware of the animosity that's going to spill out of there.
And lo! Did the prophet Formosa descend from the mountain, sight in his eyes, understanding in his mind, “BEHOLD!!, For I bring news of events not yet past!”
Degenerated in politics in the first post, I stand by my statement previously in this thread, all such threads should be moved to OT, repeat offenders who don’t listen get the usual punishment.
greatbigtree wrote: I seem to recall someone wanting to get certain wargaming related threads / posters banned. Any recall on that, Per, Par, Pour... I'm tired, I don't have anything good right now. Per-ticular? My kung-fu is weak.
So if those should have been banned, and had at least tangential relation to wargaming... why should Political threads not get the axe? They have nothing to add to a Wargaming site?
There is a huge difference between banning based on content and banning based on behavior. The people/threads I advocated banning are spambots, different from the usual spambots only in that they spam links to things that are technically hobby related instead of fake IDs and cheap kitchens. None of the content is a problem, if it was posted by people who are actually part of the community and not spambots.
And it wouldn't matter about AoS, because AoS is about gaming.
You're missing the point. AoS is about gaming, but it's a trash game. The models suck, the rules sucked (and probably still do), the fluff sucks. Everything about it is terrible and it should die. I have zero interest in anything to do with AoS. But do you see me posting demands for AoS discussion to be banned just because I don't like it? Do I complain about how I hate reading those threads but can't stop doing it? Of course not. Because I am an adult with at least a minimal level of impulse control. I simply don't click on threads related to AoS and leave that section for the people who want to discuss AoS.
Nobody is stopping you from engaging in your filthy politics habit. Just don't do it here, in public.
Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.
Once again, if you don't like politics you are free to not click on those threads. The fact that you don't want to participate in them doesn't mean you get to take them away from the people who do.
Peregrine wrote: If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.
Er... To play games of toy soldiers...?
But why would you want to play games of toy soldiers with them? If someone is so far into disagreement with you that you can't bear to know their political opinions why would you want to associate with them? It's like saying you'd rather be ignorant of the fact that another player is a racist so you can keep playing with them. I don't get that at all. If they're a racist then I want to know so I can refuse to have anything to do with them. Letting them hide their beliefs and keep playing is not an improvement. On the other hand, if they're reasonable enough people that I would want to associate with them at all then politics discussion shouldn't be a problem.
Formosa wrote: And lo! Did the prophet Formosa descend from the mountain, sight in his eyes, understanding in his mind, “BEHOLD!!, For I bring news of events not yet past!”
Degenerated in politics in the first post, I stand by my statement previously in this thread, all such threads should be moved to OT, repeat offenders who don’t listen get the usual punishment.
Oh hey, you're still allowed on the forums. That's surprising.
Formosa wrote: And lo! Did the prophet Formosa descend from the mountain, sight in his eyes, understanding in his mind, “BEHOLD!!, For I bring news of events not yet past!”
Degenerated in politics in the first post, I stand by my statement previously in this thread, all such threads should be moved to OT, repeat offenders who don’t listen get the usual punishment.
Oh hey, you're still allowed on the forums. That's surprising.
No more surprising than the others that are still kicking around here, but none of them have my pezaz and charm
But why would you want to play games of toy soldiers with them? If someone is so far into disagreement with you that you can't bear to know their political opinions why would you want to associate with them? It's like saying you'd rather be ignorant of the fact that another player is a racist so you can keep playing with them. I don't get that at all. If they're a racist then I want to know so I can refuse to have anything to do with them. Letting them hide their beliefs and keep playing is not an improvement. On the other hand, if they're reasonable enough people that I would want to associate with them at all then politics discussion shouldn't be a problem.
We're talking about playing a game of toy soldiers, not asking them to be your children's godparents. Their political beliefs are completely irrelevant to that, and I don't need to discuss them any more than I need to know about their family, or their job, or what they had for breakfast.
Yeah, I work with a lot of old white dudes... for whom concepts like equality are more abstract ideas being forced on them, rather than ideals.
When I rarely play games with strangers, the last thing I want to be part of my game is awkwardly deflecting attempts to get me to agree with some kind of asshattery. The moment it's broached I say, "I'm ok with people being who they want to be." And if it continues I usually have to say, "I'd rather talk about the game."
Even when it comes to someone with similar political leanings, I don't enjoy vehement intolerance. A comfortable agreement, sure, but I have no interest in listening to a stranger grind an axe. I'm there for a game, not awkward conversation. If I enjoy the game, maybe I'll get interested in your life outside the game, but not guaranteed by any means.
Seriously. Misery machines don't belong in fun-town. The politics threads are just misery machines. You can, and should, politic elsewhere. I don't understand the need to have a sewage treatment plant in a recreational facility. Take it elsewhere.
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I work with a lot of old white dudes... for whom concepts like equality are more abstract ideas being forced on them, rather than ideals.
When I rarely play games with strangers, the last thing I want to be part of my game is awkwardly deflecting attempts to get me to agree with some kind of asshattery. The moment it's broached I say, "I'm ok with people being who they want to be." And if it continues I usually have to say, "I'd rather talk about the game."
Even when it comes to someone with similar political leanings, I don't enjoy vehement intolerance. A comfortable agreement, sure, but I have no interest in listening to a stranger grind an axe. I'm there for a game, not awkward conversation. If I enjoy the game, maybe I'll get interested in your life outside the game, but not guaranteed by any means.
Seriously. Misery machines don't belong in fun-town. The politics threads are just misery machines. You can, and should, politic elsewhere. I don't understand the need to have a sewage treatment plant in a recreational facility. Take it elsewhere.
Otherwise the recreation areas get covered in crap?
Let’s not pretend we haven’t seen these posts pop up outside the off topic Forum, people are going to inject thier politics into any discussion they can, did you see the “40k gamers a weird bunch” thread, couple of pages in and it happened, same with this weeks usual fem marines thread, it’s going to happen so why not put it where it needs to be, off topic.
You can have the waste disposal outside of the park.
I work with the waste industry. You don't put a transfer station in a residential area. You just don't. And if people feel the need to drop politics into other threads, report it and no-politics becomes part of the culture. Because it's poison, and we don't want poison where we're trying to have a good time.
Hobbying is niche enough, we don't need to be subdividing based on stupid things like politics. Nobody changes any minds, there is simply no perceptible benefit, to justify the negative.
At best, a poster gets a thrill out of posting a zinger to upset someone else... that's trying to do the same to them. You get to cheer for your team. You get to continue the circle of being a jerk.
greatbigtree wrote: Yeah, I work with a lot of old white dudes... for whom concepts like equality are more abstract ideas being forced on them, rather than ideals.
When I rarely play games with strangers, the last thing I want to be part of my game is awkwardly deflecting attempts to get me to agree with some kind of asshattery. The moment it's broached I say, "I'm ok with people being who they want to be." And if it continues I usually have to say, "I'd rather talk about the game."
Even when it comes to someone with similar political leanings, I don't enjoy vehement intolerance. A comfortable agreement, sure, but I have no interest in listening to a stranger grind an axe. I'm there for a game, not awkward conversation. If I enjoy the game, maybe I'll get interested in your life outside the game, but not guaranteed by any means.
Seriously. Misery machines don't belong in fun-town. The politics threads are just misery machines. You can, and should, politic elsewhere. I don't understand the need to have a sewage treatment plant in a recreational facility. Take it elsewhere.
Otherwise the recreation areas get covered in crap?
Let’s not pretend we haven’t seen these posts pop up outside the off topic Forum, people are going to inject thier politics into any discussion they can, did you see the “40k gamers a weird bunch” thread, couple of pages in and it happened, same with this weeks usual fem marines thread, it’s going to happen so why not put it where it needs to be, off topic.
Or simply enough you could deal with the people dumping it everywhere?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Or simply enough you could deal with the people dumping it everywhere?
I say this knowing full well I'm no saint, but we have forum members with blatant political messages in their signature. We have forum members that have put, in their signature, lamentations of someone disparaging an ideology. We have forum members who seem to be overwhelmingly provocative and inflammatory and seem to want nothing more than to instigate fights with everyone no matter what the topic is. We have some that it seems like every single post they make is just deliberately volatile.
When they deal with the usual suspects, I'll have a bit more faith. But if the usual suspects need a 'containment area' to wave about their ideologies and raise hell to keep it from destroying every single conversation, then so be it.
And that one particular topic, 'Female Space Marines', is always bait. At this point anyone who's been here for at least a year should be fully aware and it should be considered trolling the forums and dealt with.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Or simply enough you could deal with the people dumping it everywhere?
I say this knowing full well I'm no saint, but we have forum members with blatant political messages in their signature. We have forum members that have put, in their signature, lamentations of someone disparaging an ideology. We have forum members who seem to be overwhelmingly provocative and inflammatory and seem to want nothing more than to instigate fights with everyone no matter what the topic is. We have some that it seems like every single post they make is just deliberately volatile.
When they deal with the usual suspects, I'll have a bit more faith. But if the usual suspects need a 'containment area' to wave about their ideologies and raise hell to keep it from destroying every single conversation, then so be it.
And that one particular topic, 'Female Space Marines', is always bait. At this point anyone who's been here for at least a year should be fully aware and it should be considered trolling the forums and dealt with.
Hey guys, we're reading this thread, but let's make room for some others to share their views, too (and not get distracted with a tangent like "female marines", please).
Overall, we're looking for feedback on if folks think the OT forum could function well without politics, and what people's preference might be.
The period of time where the US Politics thread was locked seemed to go quite well, so I wonder if we might get on just fine without it... and maybe have a bit less infighting with folks who feel really strongly about that, but could otherwise get along really well discussing wargaming (or even other nerd stuff) on the site.
RiTides wrote: The period of time where the US Politics thread was locked seemed to go quite well, so I wonder if we might get on just fine without it... and maybe have a bit less infighting with folks who feel really strongly about that, but could otherwise get along really well discussing wargaming (or even other nerd stuff) on the site.
Went well, according to who? It seems like a biased view where you only see the positive feelings from people who don't like politics and don't consider the frustration of the people who do want to discuss it because they aren't defying the ban and spamming politics threads anyway. The fact that the politics discussions came right back the moment the ban was lifted pretty strongly suggests that people weren't happy with the ban, and it "went well" in much the same way that there would be no apparent conflict if we banned discussion of Tyranids and then banned anyone who tried to violate the ban. So you have to ask who exactly the ban benefits and went well for:
The people who like discussing politics? Of course not.
The people who don't like discussing politics? No, because the ban didn't change anything for them. They weren't involved in any of the discussions, so their presence or absence has zero effect on them.
The people who don't like other people being allowed to discuss politics? Here we see the only group who benefits, and why should their inappropriate desires be acknowledged? Why should "YOUR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY STOP IT NOW" be something we listen to, when anyone who isn't interested is free to not participate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: We're talking about playing a game of toy soldiers, not asking them to be your children's godparents. Their political beliefs are completely irrelevant to that, and I don't need to discuss them any more than I need to know about their family, or their job, or what they had for breakfast.
Their political beliefs are potentially relevant because "is this person a complete who I do not want in my community" is a question I am entirely in favor of asking. If a person is a KKK member I don't want them in my community just because they haven't said anything racist at that particular moment, they're still a complete who should be thrown out. If someone doesn't believe in my right to exist then them, get out.
I would vote (yeah, yeah) that politics should stay on dakka but the rules should be more clearly defined and ruled with an iron fist. Although I don't post in the political sections I do read them and find it both interesting and useful to keep update with the goings on in those nations (often with a wealth of sources I would not otherwise come across) and would be sad to see it go.
However I feel that their should be some more specific rules that are clearly spelt out, like no blanket statements against supporters/detractors of various beliefs, parties, ideologies etc. No attacking the poster just their argument etc. No politics outside of the designated threads (maybe expanded to half a dozen to cover the world, military and cultural current events). etc.
After such a list had been drawn up a three strikes system should be implemented, first breach one receives a sternly worded message and loose their quick reply access for a month, second banned from OT for an month (or other ban depending upon specifics of poster/post) third banned for good.
Just my two pence for what its worth (ie. nothing)
What I find funny about this thread is that you, Peregrine, seem to actually believe, that you are an example of a mature political disputant that makes political/ideological threads on dakka worth it.
So let me just quote you as an answer:
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, NO"
ingtaer wrote: I would vote (yeah, yeah) that politics should stay on dakka but the rules should be more clearly defined and ruled with an iron fist. Although I don't post in the political sections I do read them and find it both interesting and useful to keep update with the goings on in those nations (often with a wealth of sources I would not otherwise come across) and would be sad to see it go.
However I feel that their should be some more specific rules that are clearly spelt out, like no blanket statements against supporters/detractors of various beliefs, parties, ideologies etc. No attacking the poster just their argument etc. No politics outside of the designated threads (maybe expanded to half a dozen to cover the world, military and cultural current events). etc.
After such a list had been drawn up a three strikes system should be implemented, first breach one receives a sternly worded message and loose their quick reply access for a month, second banned from OT for an month (or other ban depending upon specifics of poster/post) third banned for good.
Just my two pence for what its worth (ie. nothing)
I genuinely doubt that will happen, given that is one of the biggest occurrences of insults within the thread proper. It has even been used by one of the frequent moderators that post there.
The fact that the politics discussions came right back the moment the ban was lifted pretty strongly suggests that people weren't happy with the ban
That isn't an argument for it, just that certain individuals would gleefully charge headlong to a politics post and discuss there. It also tends to be a very specific crowd of posters that look for it as well.
The people who don't like other people being allowed to discuss politics? Here we see the only group who benefits, and why should their inappropriate desires be acknowledged? Why should "YOUR HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY STOP IT NOW" be something we listen to, when anyone who isn't interested is free to not participate?
It's nice to believe that this is the only issue going on or a disingenuous showing that you don't want to acknowledge the negatives of the post , but it's quite clear that the post contains quite a few overall rule breaking, insults, and generally vitriol that if it was in any other section of the forum it would have been closed long ago. I mean this certainly can be fun to you, but it's a cesspit showing on the forum.
Their political beliefs are potentially relevant because "is this person a complete who I do not want in my community" is a question I am entirely in favor of asking. If a person is a KKK member I don't want them in my community just because they haven't said anything racist at that particular moment, they're still a complete who should be thrown out. If someone doesn't believe in my right to exist then them, get out.
By that logic Peregrine anyone that is a far left extremist should have the same treatment, see this is one of my biggest bug bears when it comes to this subject, I have and will again freely admit I have said some purposefully provocative things just to shine a light on this exact kid of hypocrisy, and its always played out exactly how I intended it, Every.Single.Time
You say that they dont believe in your right to exist, but what about their right to exist, you say they dont respect your view while not respecting their view, its double standards and you are one of, if not THE worst offender on this forum for disrespecting others views.... I dont want this to degenerate into an argument, I admit my faults, I have on this very thread and other places... I just honestly hope you can do the same and try to modify your behaviour as I am currently trying to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ingtaer wrote: I would vote (yeah, yeah) that politics should stay on dakka but the rules should be more clearly defined and ruled with an iron fist. Although I don't post in the political sections I do read them and find it both interesting and useful to keep update with the goings on in those nations (often with a wealth of sources I would not otherwise come across) and would be sad to see it go.
However I feel that their should be some more specific rules that are clearly spelt out, like no blanket statements against supporters/detractors of various beliefs, parties, ideologies etc. No attacking the poster just their argument etc. No politics outside of the designated threads (maybe expanded to half a dozen to cover the world, military and cultural current events). etc.
After such a list had been drawn up a three strikes system should be implemented, first breach one receives a sternly worded message and loose their quick reply access for a month, second banned from OT for an month (or other ban depending upon specifics of poster/post) third banned for good.
Just my two pence for what its worth (ie. nothing)
A very fine point well put, I have fallen into the pitfalls you describe and I should not have done.
nou wrote: What I find funny about this thread is that you, Peregrine, seem to actually believe, that you are an example of a mature political disputant that makes political/ideological threads on dakka worth it.
So let me just quote you as an answer:
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, NO"
I'm pretty sure he knows he's just trolling the mods at this point. The idea that anyone could have such a low level of self awareness boggles the mind.
nou wrote: What I find funny about this thread is that you, Peregrine, seem to actually believe, that you are an example of a mature political disputant that makes political/ideological threads on dakka worth it.
So let me just quote you as an answer: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, NO"
He's/She's actually one of the more articulate and insightful debaters on here, just he/she won't mince words. You're almost always guaranteed a quality post from Peregrine, whether you like it or not.
Formosa wrote: By that logic Peregrine anyone that is a far left extremist should have the same treatment
I'm not really sure what the far-left equivalent to the racists/anti-LGBT bigots/misogynists/etc would be, but sure, if someone has appalling beliefs on that level I'd be in favor of banning them. So far though I've met plenty of people in the former category, but none in the latter.
Edit: the weird super-anarchist who insisted that we all go back to being hunter-gatherers and destroy modern society (along with most of the people in it, to cut down the population) and was morally opposed to using soap might count as an extreme leftist? She wasn't in a gaming context, but I suppose if someone like that showed up at a gaming store I wouldn't be terribly interested in associating with them either.
You say that they dont believe in your right to exist, but what about their right to exist, you say they dont respect your view while not respecting their view, its double standards and you are one of, if not THE worst offender on this forum for disrespecting others views.... I dont want this to degenerate into an argument, I admit my faults, I have on this very thread and other places... I just honestly hope you can do the same and try to modify your behaviour as I am currently trying to do.
There is a difference between "your views are awful and/or factually incorrect and therefore I don't respect them" and "you deserve to be tortured for eternity because of who you are". Or, to name one I haven't personally heard, "your entire race is inferior and the cause of the decline of society". Or there's the (former, IIRC) dakka poster who posted blatant anti-Semetic comments in the politics thread. Etc. That's well beyond, say, disagreement over tax policy.
I'm not really sure what the far-left equivalent to the racists/anti-LGBT bigots/misogynists/etc would be, but sure, if someone has appalling beliefs on that level I'd be in favor of banning them. So far though I've met plenty of people in the former category, but none in the latter.
Oh thats quite easy, de platforming, condoning violence, claiming people are Nazi or alt right, which is just a veiled way of calling them a nazi, the racist, sexist and prejudiced comments that they are known for making, its quite easy to spot as long as you are not blinded by those ideals and see it as "ok to do to them, but not ok to do to me", I am not accusing you of such behaviour, I am pointing out the issue as I see it.
Edit: the weird super-anarchist who insisted that we all go back to being hunter-gatherers and destroy modern society (along with most of the people in it, to cut down the population) and was morally opposed to using soap might count as an extreme leftist? She wasn't in a gaming context, but I suppose if someone like that showed up at a gaming store I wouldn't be terribly interested in associating with them either.
that.... that is pretty out there
There is a difference between "your views are awful and/or factually incorrect and therefore I don't respect them" and "you deserve to be tortured for eternity because of who you are". Or, to name one I haven't personally heard, "your entire race is inferior and the cause of the decline of society". Or there's the (former, IIRC) dakka poster who posted blatant anti-Semetic comments in the politics thread. Etc. That's well beyond, say, disagreement over tax policy.
You have condoned punching a nazi, people on here have been called nazis, therefore you condone violence against them, I know this is a slippery slope fallacy and I am just pointing it out to illustrate my point, I agree anti semitic statements should result in a ban, I think such racism should be applied across the board, my problem is that, as I said before, "its ok to do it to them, but its not ok to do it to me" happens on this forum.
remember that white priviledge thread, well, that was full of anti white racism, but its ok, because it was the left that was doing it, and if you disagree, your a racist transfobe nazi... this is not Hyperbole, this ACTUALLY happened.
So I am in favour of your princible of banning people for such acts, I just want to make sure the mods and others apply it to EVERYONE regardless of personal political stance or views.
I think the politics thread should be closed and the topic banned. It's almost impossible to have these discussions without it devolving, if not in to personal attacks then in to group based attacks that are almost as bad but rarely moderated.
The usual suspects who cause the discussions to degrade just learn the maximum level of asshattery that won't get them warnings/bans and dance around that line, but it is still so often asshattery.
I think the political threads are just toxic discussions and bring down the tone of the forum as a whole.
No, I don't read the politics threads anymore, but their existence is still part of the face of dakka, and not a good part.
The only good part about them is (maybe?) they generate more hits for the site and more revenue, but although it's a fast moving discussion with a lot of hits I'd be surprised if it's more than just the same handful of people that were in those threads years ago when I was still following them. The megathread moves so fast that it'd be hard for anyone new to get involved anyway.
If folk are so desperate to chat about politics it's not like there isn't other places on the internet they can do that.
The only concern is if by closing the megathread the usual offenders just go posting their rhetoric in other threads that aren't anything to do with politics.
Formosa wrote: Oh thats quite easy, de platforming, condoning violence, claiming people are Nazi or alt right, which is just a veiled way of calling them a nazi, the racist, sexist and prejudiced comments that they are known for making, its quite easy to spot as long as you are not blinded by those ideals and see it as "ok to do to them, but not ok to do to me", I am not accusing you of such behaviour, I am pointing out the issue as I see it.
It is difficult to find someone on the left that is quite like a KKK racist or Neo-Nazi in those exact terms- but even on the right, people know those individuals are disgusting and they hate them. I have, however, found no shortage of persons on the left that through lowered expectations seem to believe that other races are inferior (Those poor X people can't help but do Y, unlike us white people). I've also seen racism against white people, which is still racism no matter which way you slice it- and have actually seen outright discrimination and targeted actions against those people. So they are out there. And they're all stupid and should all just go away. All of them. Just, stay in their houses and not bother the rest of the world with their childishness.
I don't bother with questioning whether someone's beliefs are as bad as others. What I concern myself with is someone's actions. They can keep their beliefs to themselves and I'd never know one way or another, and as long as they're doing that I don't care.
I don't like a bully. I don't like intolerance. That means if you're going to mistreat someone because of who they cast their vote for, or where they stand on a political issue- you're just another brand of bully and bigot and you just need to go away. You're not welcome around me. And I'm happy to say that most of the country, at least the sane parts of it, feels exactly the same way.
The best part of this thread is the desperate virtue-signalers who brought up SJWS, feminism, and fem marines out of the blue despite it not being referenced in any way, not being on topic, but they just can't stop bringing it up even after being directly told not to by a mod.
The most heated topics are never going to work well here because of some of the core, structural problems with the community. Maybe in a few years when some of these elements wander off, or there is some kind of a moderation shift, but I don't see it happening.
In the meantime the best you can do is cordon off chat elements that reveal who some of us really are, I guess.
Ouze wrote: The best part of this thread is the desperate virtue-signalers who brought up SJWS, feminism, and fem marines out of the blue despite it not being referenced in any way, not being on topic, but they just can't stop bringing it up even after being directly told not to by a mod.
I would like to point out the irony here is that we all agreed that those topics were disruptive because individuals cannot seem to see someone disagree with them on these topics without running into the threads and insulting other posters. I specifically mentioned name-calling, in fact.
I think you could have chosen a better way to say this, because despite how correct you think your own beliefs are in the matter- it does not grant you any sort of right to go about insulting people on the forum. Otherwise, you have simply proven a point made by myself and others.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It's odd that this particular thread exists at all - I would have thought OP would have been banned from OT or Politics threads.
That is one of Dakka Dakka's enduring (but certainly not endearing) mysteries, isn't it?
Manchu wrote: Our common ground is interest in miniatures gaming. Politics is divisive in the best of times. These are not the best of times.
It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.
Probably?
But these topics are easy to avoid. They clearly must serve some purpose other than just corralling off the undesirable element so...
Ouze wrote: The best part of this thread is the desperate virtue-signalers who brought up SJWS, feminism, and fem marines out of the blue despite it not being referenced in any way, not being on topic, but they just can't stop bringing it up even after being directly told not to by a mod.
The most heated topics are never going to work well here because of some of the core, structural problems with the community. Maybe in a few years when some of these elements wander off, or there is some kind of a moderation shift, but I don't see it happening.
In the meantime the best you can do is cordon off chat elements that reveal who some of us really are, I guess.
I think you have missed the irony of your own statement and ignored the context, they were mentioned (apart from SJW, not sure why that came up) because of how disruptive and and divisive they are, and almost on que someone posted up a thread, almost as if they were baiting the mods... we also said that such threads should just be moved to off topic or the political thread since they ALWAYS split along ideological lines.
Ouze wrote: So thanks but I'll pass on your lessons on forum morality (or at least consistency).
Well, I was hoping to share a lesson I'd learned in being outright rude and insulting to others. Recently I decided to re-evaluate the way I deal with other posters here and just help the mods find the problems rather than try to take them on myself and make the place less pleasant for others.
I wouldn't be too bothered if you tried to emulate that, but I understand if you'd prefer not to. It doesn't seem to have caused you much concern, so to each their own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Here's something for you to consider: the guy who compared feminists to ISIS is now saying stuff like this:
I'm quite intrigued why after what has been what, a year? This bothers you quite a bit. Enough that you put it in your signature, even.
One would consider that some degree of harassment, I believe.
Huh, odd that we're talking about the more toxic and volatile actions on the forums spilling out and disturbing others.
You know what? Here, I'll say it like this: Would you like me to apologize? Would that please you and help you let go of that, if I said "I was wrong I should not have said that"?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'm quite intrigued why after what has been what, a year? This bothers you quite a bit. Enough that you put it in your signature, even.
Oh, you think that's for you. No, that's not for you, that's for me. I keep that there as a reminder of that time a moderator picked sides.
I mean, I've been here 10 years now, and toxic posters come and go. The nature of online forums, you get anonymity with the internet, you know what you get. What changed is when - for reasons I don't understand and can't speculate on - a mod decided to look the other way when you repeatedly referred to the wargaming community as pathetic incels, suggested they were possibly pedophiles, had a lot in common with Elliot Rodgers, and then suggested they were as bad as ISIS. And why not? Once you had free reign, why not spike the ball? No one was stopping that particular end-zone dance.
So no, that reminder is for myself, to continue to vote with my wallet, just as I said I would.
And moderation is really what this whole thread is about. Now we have growing tranche of topics that are essentially not allowed on Dakka Dakka "because they get toxic". This list of topics you can't discuss here is going to continue to grow as long as the heckler's veto is successful, as long as the philosophy is that there are "toxic topics" and not "toxic posters".
Ouze wrote: Oh, you think that's for you. No, that's not for you, that's for me. I keep that there as a reminder of that time a moderator picked sides.
Then allow me to be blunt with you.
I will admit in retrospect, without reading the original material, that I was unwise in saying that. Even if I didn't say it specifically like that, whatever I said was at least worded in such a way that you took that impression from it, so it was either malice or recklessness on my part, and I admit fault there.
I will only attempt to clarify that there are some extreme variables that tend to crop up with everything, and those variables are divisive. They are hardly ever even the majority, but they are the 'village idiot' and the village idiot is always the loudest and very disruptive. So, I will say I dislike the village idiot of any form of village, and I am vigilant to see if the person from said village is the idiot that causes the problems. I think this is fair.
But now I will be honest, you state that you believe mods 'picked sides'. I have seen you and a few others, seemingly get a blank check to hurl names and insults at others. I have seen some posters outright condone violence and despite using all means provided to me to help the moderators deal with these behaviors, I saw no changes or adjustments to the posts and the posters continue to carry on with their forum activities.
And I say this full well knowing that in the past, I have been at fault for being rude to others. I know I did it, I did it willingly, and I own that. For whatever it is now, that's mine. But because I've done that, I've become more than a little familiar with moderator action- and, from my perspective, I've seen persons get away with it and continue on. And it was not the first, second, or tenth time they were reported to mods by more than one person on here. So the report function seems to either be defective, or there's more lenience toward some.
So, the mods aren't perfect and I'll give them that. But don't think for a moment you're entirely a victim here. I've seen you call names repeatedly, or at least deliver rude and insulting responses and nothing has changed.
But then again, you could be as stubborn as I am.
I'm not insulting you here, I'm just being honest. If there's a grudge here, I'm willing to bury it if you are and just drive on focusing on things we enjoy. We don't have to be friends or anything, we can just drop this nonsense. I've been stupid, but I'm not the only one.
Ouze wrote: ...when you repeatedly referred to the wargaming community as pathetic incels, suggested they were possibly pedophiles, had a lot in common with Elliot Rodgers, and then suggested they were as bad as ISIS...
Vague recollection here, but for what it's worth- I'm pretty sure that throughout wargaming there's quite a bit of really scummy people (as there is with most anything), and if the internet stories are to be believed we have all of these 'social problems' with various types of people (unless those stories aren't true, which could be the case sometimes). I'm pretty sure that's hard to argue with, and I'm pretty sure that it's on both sides of the ideological fence.
I mean, if you're asking me to see some fault in saying there's awful people that do this hobby, and just enough of them to make their hobby communities unbearable... I'm just... not.
I appreciate the honest posts here, but I think we've illustrated the problem:
More than anywhere else on the site, the politics debates engender hard feelings, a feeling of not having been moderated fairly, and escalating issues between users that seem to continue over time. This bleeds into other areas of the site (the incident that Ouze is referring to isn't even from the OT, but touches on all the same topics).
Ouze, I can only say I'm sorry if we missed something egregious previously - we're certainly human, and sometimes don't run a tight enough ship here when an obvious "ism" comes up.
Adeptus Doritos, you make some fair points as well, and I'll follow up via PM.
Overall, as I said, I think this illustrates just why we're considering pulling the plug on political discussion - we'd really love everyone, as much as possible, to get along here and enjoy discussing our hobby (and sometimes other nerd) passions. When politics is causing folks to have long-term, significant issues with both the site and each other... it seems to be counter-productive to what we've got this message board here for.
I'll lock this up for now, as we've gotten a lot of useful feedback, but are probably at the end of where this thread can remain useful... if someone wanted to share their opinion but didn't get a chance to feel free to PM me and I will pass it along to the rest of the mods.
. But I think this should cover almost everything people have been discussing currently.
but the opposite is also possible) but that's the rule as it stands. Given how terribly polarized online discussion of these issues has become, I think this really helps keep the rest of 
so you can keep playing with them. I don't get that at all. If they're a racist 
