Now that political and religious discussions have been finally banned in OT (I think it is good for Dakka as a whole, but it sure is going to get quiet in there ), it may be handy to post a little update/guideline on what constitutes a political or religious discussion and what not. For example, would a discussion about the civil wars in Syria or Ukraine be considered political (and therefore banned) or not? Would a discussion about Islamic extremism be considered religious etc.?
And what if a discussion includes both political and non-political aspects (like the F-35 thread)?
I am not expecting a 200-page rulebook or anything, but I do feel a short clarification/guideline of what sort of threads the mods would or would not like to see in OT would avoid future frustrations and confusions regarding grey areas. "Politics and religion" is a rather broad subject after all.
Cheers and thanks for dedicating your time to running this site for all of us,
Kirya
I don't get that TBH, when I wasn't in the mood to deal with the politics threads in OT, I just didn't go to the politics threads in OT. And as the OP points out, now we either need explicit guidelines on what constitutes "political" and to what degree, or we get to enjoy more happy funtime ambiguity where whether your post falls foul of the "rules" depends entirely on which mod happens across it and what kind of mood they're in at that moment.
I mean pretty much every forum I'm on/moderate which has a "no religion/politics" rule basically has just that as the rule. The rest is moderator/admin interpretation of that rule. And most sites get along fine with it.
They don't have to go into minute detail as to what it means or how much political commentary is needed before it counts or such.
Dakka might have a little period of adjustment as people get used to the new limit, but in general I can't see a need to get really specific with the rule beyond the general.
I think that was my take, too, Overread - as a bit of a forum junkie, there were quite a few others I heavily participated in. B&C, Privateer Press, some video game ones, etc. And I never expected to be able to debate politics or religion at any of those sites - it's par for the course that gaming sites just don't want that, even in their "off topic" areas.
Obviously, Dakka was an exception and adjusting to this might take some time, but I don't think it should be that hard since I see it this way so many other places.
Really appreciate the level-headed and reasonable response from folks on this so far, too. We talked and debated this a Lot in the mod forum, and incorporated prior N&B thread feedback, too. In the end, this is the kind of site we'd like Dakka to be - as close as we can get to an online FLGS. Here's hoping it goes smoothly - I think you're right that it will be quiet for a bit, but hopefully pick back up as folks get used to it.
I dont think the rules and guidelines should be for the posters, but more for the mods. We do still have mods that lock threads "because they are stupid" and we should try to avoid that in the future.
I mean pretty much every forum I'm on/moderate which has a "no religion/politics" rule basically has just that as the rule. The rest is moderator/admin interpretation of that rule. And most sites get along fine with it.
They don't have to go into minute detail as to what it means or how much political commentary is needed before it counts or such.
Dakka might have a little period of adjustment as people get used to the new limit, but in general I can't see a need to get really specific with the rule beyond the general.
It is necessary. We are near the point where everything, literally everything, can be considered politicized.
Setting up specific examples just encourages people to try to game the system. If you're not sure a post would be appropriate, PM a mod and ask. Or just leave it, and stick with talking about toy soldiers.
As others have pointed out, plenty of forums out there get along just fine with a simple 'Don't discuss religion and politics' statement. There's no need for more explicit rules beyond that... Anything borderline will be sorted out if and when it arises.
Now that political and religious discussions have been finally banned in OT (I think it is good for Dakka as a whole, but it sure is going to get quiet in there ), it may be handy to post a little update/guideline on what constitutes a political or religious discussion and what not. For example, would a discussion about the civil wars in Syria or Ukraine be considered political (and therefore banned) or not? Would a discussion about Islamic extremism be considered religious etc.?
And what if a discussion includes both political and non-political aspects (like the F-35 thread)?
I am not expecting a 200-page rulebook or anything, but I do feel a short clarification/guideline of what sort of threads the mods would or would not like to see in OT would avoid future frustrations and confusions regarding grey areas. "Politics and religion" is a rather broad subject after all.
Cheers and thanks for dedicating your time to running this site for all of us,
Kirya
Since this is an international board, and political battles are often a big part of U.S. weapon systems programs, I would say that those definitely fall under the category of politics. Plus, Islamic fundamentalism is just as much political as religious, if not more so. But that is just my opinion. Others will differ.
That's definitely not what we're aiming for, and will be trying really hard to avoid!
People who have gotten a lot of warnings in politics threads often do really well on the rest of the site, and don't get any. So the hope here is that this will result in less mod intervention being needed, not more!
What's the point? If you make guidelines, the mods aren't going to stick to them. We already have no accountability or public record of moderation actions and mods applying the rules differently to different people, so why on earth do you think that even if we had rules they would stick to them, or apply them fairly?
Setting up specific examples just encourages people to try to game the system. If you're not sure a post would be appropriate, PM a mod and ask. Or just leave it, and stick with talking about toy soldiers.
As others have pointed out, plenty of forums out there get along just fine with a simple 'Don't discuss religion and politics' statement. There's no need for more explicit rules beyond that... Anything borderline will be sorted out if and when it arises.
It's not about "choosing to do so".
Here's an example - one of my favourite Black Library series is the Forges of Mars trilogy, in which the author makes really interesting points about(among other things) collective bargaining and labour rights using servitors & bondsmen and their relationship to their Mechanicus overlords. Those are explicitly political subjects, but they're also unequivocally part of a GW-published, 40K-set novel and they're something I would consider integral to any discussion or review of the books. I also know that I wouldn't discuss the books at all on the mentioned "other sites", because I don't want to have to deal with their nebulous, vague, undefined "rules" and how any given mod might choose to interpret them, which I suppose is wonderful if you're a mod who doesn't want to have to deal with political discussions but is a bit gak if you're a punter who wants to discuss the more mature parts of their hobby.
Which is the point really and why explicit rules *are* necessary: there are countless "borderline" subjects out there, but people don't want to deal with "sorted out if and when", so they just stop discussing the borderline stuff as well.
Dakka was appealing exactly because I didn't have to step on eggshells constantly every time anything more controversial than "should I paint my Blood Angels this red or that red?" came up.
What's next, adopting the standard from a lot of the GW-adjascent facebook groups mandating everyone take their Joy and refrain from "negativity" and discussing prices or business decisions?
It's actually quite depressing that at this rate the only place online that will actually let you discuss the totality of the hobby rather than just the context-free kiddy table version is that awful cesspit over on 4chan.
Here's an example - one of my favourite Black Library series is the Forges of Mars trilogy, in which the author makes really interesting points about(among other things) collective bargaining and labour rights using servitors & bondsmen and their relationship to their Mechanicus overlords. Those are explicitly political subjects, but they're also unequivocally part of a GW-published, 40K-set novel and they're something I would consider integral to any discussion or review of the books. I also know that I wouldn't discuss the books at all on the mentioned "other sites", because I don't want to have to deal with their nebulous, vague, undefined "rules" and how any given mod might choose to interpret them, which I suppose is wonderful if you're a mod who doesn't want to have to deal with political discussions but is a bit gak if you're a punter who wants to discuss the more mature parts of their hobby.
Your're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Discussion of the themes in the book, within the context of that book and its setting is fine. Having that discussion veer off into a debate of real-world politics would not be... and that would have been the case even before the new rules.
In all seriousness, we're never going to get down to the proverbial molecular boundary between what is and isn't political in the unacceptable sense. It's just not that precise of an issue.
As to your example, discussing the in-universe political aspects of a 40k novel is certainly fine.
And we're certainly not going to adopt the "fan page" alignment of certain Facebook groups where anything but unalloyed delight in re: GW seems to be a bannable offense. But that isn't even germane to the issue of Off-Topic discussion as pretty much anything at all to do with GW, especially complaining about products or even business practices, is clearly On-Topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Iron_Captain
Yakface's update to the OT subforum sticky might be helpful, particularly this bit:
yakface wrote: Of course, people who happen to share a hobby still like to chat about other common interests unrelated to that hobby. And of course there are many topics, far too many to attempt listing them, that inevitably touch on politics without necessarily being political in themselves. The Off-Topic forum is therefore not going away nor is any thread that could have some political implication going to be immediately locked on sight. There is not a simple black and white distinction to be drawn here but common sense will suffice in almost all cases. Consider what most people would find appropriate to discuss in a game store open to the public, where you are likely to be around people you don't know very well. People go there to relax and have fun. If saying something about politics or religion in that situation would make it awkward and uncomfortable for others (for example, causing a heated argument likely to get personal) then don't post it on Dakka Dakka.
In effect, this isn't an exact science and it will probably take some time for all users, including us moderators, to adjust. In the meantime, we mods will likely have to discuss particular instances a bit. Frankly, you raise a very good question as to the ISIS thread in particular.
So, when is the Firearms thread being closed? Firearms are inherently political, thus the thread must be closed. Or are we going to swan-dive into the double standards?
The F-35 thread, about the American Air force, is also inherently political.
The real answer on when it is politics to be locked is "when a mod disagrees with what someone says and locks it to shut them up." Expecting consistency in politics bans is hopelessly naive.
How about political statements in people's sigs? Should they be reported to mods? There's an example right in this thread, BTW. EDIT: Two examples, actually.
Is "GW should increase the racial and gender diversity of its characters/models!" a political statement?
Is "Arglebargle stupid SJW agenda is ruining my hobby!" a political statement?
insaniak wrote: The F35 thread is fine so long as it sticks to discussing the F35, rather than the politics behind its creation and deployment.
This just highlights the absurdity of the ban. Without the political aspects of why the F35 exists and how it will be used all you have is inane recitations of specs from the manufacturer's press releases and maybe spamming some pictures.
FWIW, I think all the examples BCB listed above are political. And not just kinda-sorta-maybe political, but so obviously, unambiguously so that they should have been locked already if the mods are serious about this new policy.
If you suspect you'll have trouble figuring out how to abide by the ban on politics and religion, it may be a good idea to stick to discussing miniatures gaming, at lesst for a while, on this miniatures gaming forum.
The case of the F35 thread has been discussed at length elsewhere and there's no need to cover the same ground again. The ISIS thread is the most likely candidate for corner case.
Manchu wrote: If you suspect you'll have trouble figuring out how to abide by the ban on politics and religion, it may be a good idea to stick to discussing miniatures gaming, at lesst for a while, on this miniatures gaming forum.
The case of the F35 thread has been discussed at length elsewhere and there's no need to cover the same ground again. The ISIS thread is the most likely candidate for corner case.
No-one is saying they have a problem abiding by the ban, they are pointing out threads that should, under this new policy, be locked, but because of double standards are not.
That's the problem when you decide to censor. Either everything is ok, or nothing is.
Of course, if it were upfront and explicit that the mods don't intend on enforcing the ban fairly, then that would be ok too. Just as long as we're all clear.
As I explained, the staff will have to talk over which further threads need to be locked under this policy. Only the explicitly political threads (the ones marked POLITICS) have been locked at this time. You're welcome to post your suggestions here, as you already have. But it's going to be a matter of judgement for the staff in the end, and going forward. As always, some posters will be dissatisfied, others will agree, and most will not care.
Of course, if it were upfront and explicit that the mods don't intend on enforcing the ban fairly, then that would be ok too. Just as long as we're all clear.
Given that you've already made up your mind on how it's going to go, I would recommend you just pretend we said that and then you won't be disappointed when the mods make decisions you disagree with.
Ultimately, whether or not a topic is suitable for the forum is up to the moderators. You're welcome to point out threads you feel are a problem, but we're not always going to agree with you. That's nothing to do with 'double standards' , just different opinions on what is appropriate.
It's also worth pointing out that the ban's only been in place for a very short time, and it's the weekend. Existing threads will be reviewed as and when we have time to do so.
As is said in my sig file, tight rules lead to people seeking out loopholes (and then going all barracks room lawyer when they attract moderation despite staying within the letter of the rules.
I still mantain that this is the right thing to do and we’ll all be better off for it in the long run. In fact, I’m so pleased with this development I’m now swinging back towards renewing my dmc come February.
Kilkrazy wrote: As is said in my sig file, tight rules lead to people seeking out loopholes (and then going all barracks room lawyer when they attract moderation despite staying within the letter of the rules.
Your sig is also very explicitly political after taking a look to see what that said.
Guys, as insaniak said I'd just like to point out - we've only had the policy in place for 24 hours! There will definitely be a bit of a transition period while we look through existing things and posters adjust, too.
Please have a little patience with us, and if you think we've got something wrong in our implementation in a few weeks, just let us know
I'm honestly surprised at some comments who seem to be focusing on how impossible its going to be or how heavy the moderation is going to have to be to enable this. I think many forget that no religion and no politics is pretty standard on most forums on the net (which are not focused on those subjects).
In fact the vast majority of 40K/Fantasy forums do fine without both those subjects and without obscene moderator work loads. Heck many sites also have no guns policies and they get along fine too.
I think people just need to cool off and step back for a moment and realise that there is more to the site than those two topics and that whilst it is sad to lose something that was once allowed and part of the site; no one can deny that both topics (esp politics at present) did result in most conflict between members and between mods and members. Increased conflict is never good and it sours the sites community (this thread is a very fine example of it).
A clean slate and removing topics that cause these specific problems is FAR easier.
Heck many photography forums banned Film VS Digital debates/arguments because they could get very heated (most have relented now and the rule is often gone or no longer enforced). You could try prising the fighters out and dealing with them and such ;but it puts loads of pressure on mods; esp when they end up having to ban or suspend active members who they might have known for years; risking losing active contributing members of the site due to what are honestly minor arguments or semantics. Plus lets not kid ourselves; we are not going to change the course of international politics or even national politics on Dakka.
Replying to a statement in the other thread, per Mod’s request.
“If I start a forum, no one will be there and it will be hard to keep it from becoming polarized.”
Well, all forum start somewhere, and you’re in control of the ship. You choose how to market the site. You choose whom to allow. You set the rules. You are RESPONSIBLE for it. You can deal with the sense of accomplishment and sense of futility all wrapped up at once.
So you may not have 10 people there every day for a while, but it can grow. Really, maybe 20 people were regulars in the NA Politics thread, and you already knew what most would say before you read the reply.
If you genuinely miss it, do something about it. You can set up a free forum in under an hour. I tried it. Advertise.
Perhaps, if asked nicely, a thread could be opened to create a list of outside locations where prohibidabido topics such as politics and religion could be discussed? That would allow Dakkites to have a way to advertise places to go share their views together without taking on responsibility for that discussion? Just a thought and not attempting to challenge current governance.
Someone with skin in the game could make such a forum, request to link to it, and then manage it. Fueling the effort with their own sense of righteousness. That’s just a cheap shot, I would genuinely encourage someone to make that effort.
How will this ban affect discussion in geek media, considering the political themes and commentary of much of the media discussed within?
As an example, the new series of South Park is starting soon. Will discussion of the series be effectively banned as any discussion of the themes and topics being satirised will be political by its very nature?
I only post on two other forums on the Internet: Badger & Blade (a shaving forum) and GameFAQs. B&B has a "no religion/politics" rule and is quite a civil place most of the time, capable of discussing guns as a hobby and paying tribute to John McCain without problems. The GameFAQs Politics subforum is, well, a cesspool of barely literate trolls. I'm sad to see politics go from Dakka, but I can certainly understand why.
Most people may be otherwise normal when politics/religion is not involved and can be disagreeable in a civil manner. However, the unfortunate truth is that there will still always be naturally toxic people who, when disagreed with, simply cannot "keep it in their pants", so-to-speak, regardless of the subject matter. Rule 1 means nothing to them when that happens, although some may simply see Rule 1 as a challenge to see just how sarcastic, caustic, snide, and/or passive-aggressive they can get without specifically being directly insulting.
greatbigtree wrote: Replying to a statement in the other thread, per Mod’s request.
“If I start a forum, no one will be there and it will be hard to keep it from becoming polarized.”
Well, all forum start somewhere, and you’re in control of the ship. You choose how to market the site. You choose whom to allow. You set the rules. You are RESPONSIBLE for it. You can deal with the sense of accomplishment and sense of futility all wrapped up at once.
So the question is whether there would be interest in going to another forum for the specific purposes of talking politics with wargaming. And on that basis would dakka provide a sticky link so that people that did want to discuss it can be redirected to the other site. That way it scratches the itch of those that do think it is an important issue whilst keeping this forum clean of clashes on political issues (as they have somewhere else to do that)?
I move that if politics is banned, then Yakface must change his avatar to a non-political figure.
Let me underline why a politics thread is necessary: It ties up all the wandering politics in every other thread and has a place that mods can refer posters to without seeming like... well...
Particularly since 40k is a hotbutton political issue on Youtube and other sites right now. No offense, I don't see Privateer press have a dozen screaming videos a week about how it is/isn't/shouldn't/has caved to atl right/SJW/Brexit... the list goes on.
We have whole subjects of our own game that we cannot discuss without raging political trolls storming the thread and screaming politics and ignorance at us. Banning politics has done nothingin the past to stop this, but it almost always ends in a threadlock due to people just going there to post violations of rule one, get banned for a while, and post more trash when the threads come around again. These posters rarely post in ANYTHING but to enter specific thread subjects and trash the thread. One was so bad that I pointed out to the mods that he had under 200 posts in a decade, and according to his history every one of them was to trash specific threads.
You know if we read into everything too much we can presume that anything said done or thought is politically or religiously motivated! Therefore the only solution is a ban on all conversation and content posting!
No avatars, signatures or post content!
Or you know we could use our heads and not be petty
Overread wrote: You know if we read into everything too much we can presume that anything said done or thought is politically or religiously motivated! Therefore the only solution is a ban on all conversation and content posting!
No avatars, signatures or post content!
Or you know we could use our heads and not be petty
It doesn't matter if we're being petty or not, that train has already apparently left the building. Already seeing my posts disappear, so it's clear that conversations have ended,
BaronIveagh wrote: I move that if politics is banned, then Yakface must change his avatar to a non-political figure.
Let me underline why a politics thread is necessary: It ties up all the wandering politics in every other thread and has a place that mods can refer posters to without seeming like... well...
Particularly since 40k is a hotbutton political issue on Youtube and other sites right now. No offense, I don't see Privateer press have a dozen screaming videos a week about how it is/isn't/shouldn't/has caved to atl right/SJW/Brexit... the list goes on.
We have whole subjects of our own game that we cannot discuss without raging political trolls storming the thread and screaming politics and ignorance at us. Banning politics has done nothingin the past to stop this, but it almost always ends in a threadlock due to people just going there to post violations of rule one, get banned for a while, and post more trash when the threads come around again. These posters rarely post in ANYTHING but to enter specific thread subjects and trash the thread. One was so bad that I pointed out to the mods that he had under 200 posts in a decade, and according to his history every one of them was to trash specific threads.
Or we can simply do the smart thing and if people cannot be civil and will not act in accordance to the rules.. They take a permanent leave from the forum. I genuinely do not know why some people have not been banned from this forum for constant insult slinging to begin with.
Though that'd depend on the mods actually starting to ban people I suppose.
Or we can simply do the smart thing and if people cannot be civil and will not act in accordance to the rules.. They take a permanent leave from the forum. I genuinely do not know why some people have not been banned from this forum for constant insult slinging to begin with.
Though that'd depend on the mods actually starting to ban people I suppose.
I suspect that the accounts in question are disposable accounts, made for purpose. Rather than get their mains banned, they use these.
That's one thing that I think gets overlooked in the "Just ban the worst offenders" argument. While we have a lot of tools at our disposal thanks to legoburner, people can and do get around them. Compared to a platform like Facebook, which has had tons of problems with fake accounts, this is even more wide open - every account is anonymous.
I've actually been looking for a site that does more screening to consider talking politics on - I'd be very open to suggestions!
Lorek mentioned that the old no-holds-barred spinoff forum from Dakka (called "The Wasteland") is still active, too, although if memory serves me right you've got to have really thick skin to participate over there (Rule #1 is Definitely not a thing on the platform ).
If you google, “Political Forum” there are several options that immediately pop up. You don’t need to start your own, you could just join one. PoliticalForum.com has, as of my just checking, 145 active members, 365 guests, and 85 “robots”... for whatever that means.
RiTides wrote: That's one thing that I think gets overlooked in the "Just ban the worst offenders" argument. While we have a lot of tools at our disposal thanks to legoburner, people can and do get around them. Compared to a platform like Facebook, which has had tons of problems with fake accounts, this is even more wide open - every account is anonymous.
I've actually been looking for a site that does more screening to consider talking politics on - I'd be very open to suggestions!
Lorek mentioned that the old no-holds-barred spinoff forum from Dakka (called "The Wasteland") is still active, too, although if memory serves me right you've got to have really thick skin to participate over there (Rule #1 is Definitely not a thing on the platform ).
That's difficult to do because there are so many ways to remain hidden, create new IP addresses and so forth if you are that way inclined. On the other hand the deliberate trolling or antagonistic can be spotted a mile off. Most people aren't overly combative when they first join; the ones deliberately trying to upset things come straight in guns blazing. Self policing is probably the best way (as in reporting) because it encourages everyone to help. However it does come at a price that mods and admins are fair and make evidence based reason for their decisions and explain that as well as provide an opportunity for the perpetrator to explain themselves. Otherwise people think that they are being unfairly criticised or no action is being taken. That subsequently starts to lead to dissent and reduced respect for mods and admins making those decisions.
I haven't heard of the wasteland, is there a link?
Otherwise any thoughts on allowing a sticky to another forum in the off topic as a directed place to talk war gaming politics?
RiTides wrote: this is even more wide open - every account is anonymous.
Speaking from past experiance, this is not entirely true. Sock puppets can be linked to main accounts via IP. I know this because not only did I run DarkReign and crush quite a few sock puppets myself, but also tried it on the dakka mods once, many a long year ago. So I know that at some point it worked here too.
Speaking from past experiance, this is not entirely true. Sock puppets can be linked to main accounts via IP. I know this because not only did I run DarkReign and crush quite a few sock puppets myself, but also tried it on the dakka mods once, many a long year ago. So I know that at some point it worked here too.
Sometimes, yes, although IP addresses change, and many people these days have multiple devices. There are also other ways to link them, but it can quickly turn into a game of whackamole, so it's generally our preference to encourage the poster to alter their behaviour to fit into the site rather than banning them and hoping that being banned will suddenly make them start respecting the rules ...
It died off considerably when Dakka added its own OT section, as that had been the main purpose of the Wasteland to begin with. And I think most of the regulars over there have long since moved on.
insaniak wrote: It died off considerably when Dakka added its own OT section, as that had been the main purpose of the Wasteland to begin with. And I think most of the regulars over there have long since moved on.
It just makes the earlier comments a bit weird, making it sound like it was some pit of scum and villainy whereas in reality it's just barren. I suppose everything dies eventually.
Anyway any thoughts on advertising another forum as a sticky to support some people's desire to talk politics?
insaniak wrote: It died off considerably when Dakka added its own OT section, as that had been the main purpose of the Wasteland to begin with. And I think most of the regulars over there have long since moved on.
Some of us are still around, but it's true that there isn't much going on in the Wasteland these days. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be happy to see it revived, if there are enough people who are interested.
insaniak wrote: It died off considerably when Dakka added its own OT section, as that had been the main purpose of the Wasteland to begin with. And I think most of the regulars over there have long since moved on.
It just makes the earlier comments a bit weird, making it sound like it was some pit of scum and villainy whereas in reality it's just barren. I suppose everything dies eventually.
Anyway any thoughts on advertising another forum as a sticky to support some people's desire to talk politics?
It was a very active forum in its time. It never had a ton of members, but those it had posted quite regularly.
Overread wrote: I think many forget that no religion and no politics is pretty standard on most forums on the net (which are not focused on those subjects).
The fact that it is standard is why we are objecting. It's not like politics bans are a new thing, they're almost always implemented poorly and involve excessive moderation and the personal biases of the moderators. It is extremely disappointing to see dakka fall to that level too.
Increased conflict is never good and it sours the sites community (this thread is a very fine example of it).
Disagree completely. If I can't discuss politics with someone then I don't want them in my community. Hiding that conflict doesn't change the fact that they're a horrible person, it just means that I'm ignorant of their true character. Disagreement is a sign of a healthy community, one where everyone isn't obsessed with false politeness and never daring to say anything remotely controversial.
Plus lets not kid ourselves; we are not going to change the course of international politics or even national politics on Dakka.
We also aren't going to change anything that GW is doing, and yet we have countless "what should GW do" threads discussing the subject.
Peregrine wrote: It's not like politics bans are a new thing, they're almost always implemented poorly and involve excessive moderation and the personal biases of the moderators.
I might remind the mods and everyone else that this, right here, has been an issue on dakka during previous politics bans. Along with confusion and mods using posters as pingpong balls between differing threads due to differing ideas of what was 'politics'.
Overread wrote: I think many forget that no religion and no politics is pretty standard on most forums on the net (which are not focused on those subjects).
Increased conflict is never good and it sours the sites community (this thread is a very fine example of it).
Disagree completely. If I can't discuss politics with someone then I don't want them in my community. Hiding that conflict doesn't change the fact that they're a horrible person, it just means that I'm ignorant of their true character. Disagreement is a sign of a healthy community, one where everyone isn't obsessed with false politeness and never daring to say anything remotely controversial.
I can say I safely disagree with this statement then straight out, and false politeness? Insincerity is an issue, but then again having people bitterly at throats, cursing each other is still worse. Both for the community and those looking into said community.
When you have mods like Kilkrazy showing how they are biased by default, how can we trust the mod team to remain neutral and fair? If you want to be fair, either ALL politics or NO politics should be allowed. There is no in-between.
Again, if you just come out and officially say that you're not trying to be fair or neutral, it would be appreciated.
BaconCatBug wrote: When you have mods like Kilkrazy showing how they are biased by default, how can we trust the mod team to remain neutral and fair? If you want to be fair, either ALL politics or NO politics should be allowed. There is no in-between.
Again, if you just come out and officially say that you're not trying to be fair or neutral, it would be appreciated.
And to add to this: "we shouldn't have politics in our game" is itself a political statement, taking a position that things are pretty ok and other political issues are less important than maintaining unity in the hobby and maximizing the number of members. There isn't really such a thing as a general politics ban, only banning political positions that certain moderators disagree with while smugly maintaining their own positions as the only acceptable ones.
If I can't discuss politics with someone then I don't want them in my community.
This statement is a pretty good summary of exactly the opposite of what this site is about and why there is now a politics & religion ban.
Well that's kind of dishonest, trying to present the bolded words as statements of ownership rather than membership. And I note that you didn't quote the rest of the statement, explaining why I don't want those people around. If I can't discuss politics with someone because they think I deserved to be tortured in hell for eternity then why should I want to associate with that person? Why is it a good thing to remain ignorant of their beliefs? It's completely incomprehensible to me that the goal of maximizing the member count of a group takes priority over all other things, including maintaining a level of basic decency in its members.
BaconCatBug wrote: When you have mods like Kilkrazy showing how they are biased by default, how can we trust the mod team to remain neutral and fair? If you want to be fair, either ALL politics or NO politics should be allowed. There is no in-between.
Again, if you just come out and officially say that you're not trying to be fair or neutral, it would be appreciated.
And to add to this: "we shouldn't have politics in our game" is itself a political statement, taking a position that things are pretty ok and other political issues are less important than maintaining unity in the hobby and maximizing the number of members. There isn't really such a thing as a general politics ban, only banning political positions that certain moderators disagree with while smugly maintaining their own positions as the only acceptable ones.
Well.. Yes, not every single person dedicates their entire life to politics. It is genuinely surprising that people can't realize people don't have the same positions they do, nor that they think the exact manner.
You can infact leave politics at the door. It's only political to those who cannot turn it off.
Manchu wrote: Actually, the in between stuff makes up the greater part.
And that's the problem. Banning politics without just turning the OT section into a trash can of inane small talk where nobody is allowed to say anything remotely controversial means having gray areas where the politics ban becomes a de facto case of "political discussion I don't agree with is banned, people agreeing with me is fine" and moderators lock a thread as a means of getting the last word on a subject.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Well.. Yes, not every single person dedicates their entire life to politics. It is genuinely surprising that people can't realize people don't have the same positions they do, nor that they think the exact manner.
You can infact leave politics at the door. It's only political to those who cannot turn it off.
Did you actually read what I said? "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement. If you say "leave politics at the door" then you are not leaving politics at the door, you are insisting that only your personal political opinion is valid and all others must be excluded.
BaconCatBug wrote: When you have mods like Kilkrazy showing how they are biased by default, how can we trust the mod team to remain neutral and fair? If you want to be fair, either ALL politics or NO politics should be allowed. There is no in-between.
Again, if you just come out and officially say that you're not trying to be fair or neutral, it would be appreciated.
I've pointed out in the past that being neutral arbitrators is not the job of forum moderators. We're here to keep the forum running in a way that meets the requirements of the site's owners, not to be impartial adjudicators. Moderators will have their own opinions on topics. What keeps things 'fair' is the oversight of the mod team as a whole, and the fact that the mod team were chosen based on their 'fit' with the style of site that Dakka's owners want to see.
I personally disagree with the sentiment that politics can't be discussed and shouldn't becin polite company. The idea that we are blanket banning the problem is wrong. There are a few bad apples in those and we should just ban them.
Peregrine wrote: It's completely incomprehensible to me that the goal of maximizing the member count of a group takes priority over all other things, including maintaining a level of basic decency in its members.
That's a pretty gigantic logical leap from what's actually happening here.
The ban is nothing to do with 'maximizing the member count'. It's about keeping the site the sort of place that people will want to keep returning to. You may personally want to establish the political and religious beliefs of every person you meet before choosing to have anything further to do with them, but from my experience that would put you in a very, very small minority. The vast majority of gamers don't care in the slightest which political party the guy standing on the opposite side of the table voted for, they just want to play toy soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: . If you say "leave politics at the door" then you are not leaving politics at the door, you are insisting that only your personal political opinion is valid and all others must be excluded.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
If I ask people to leave their politics at the door, that does nothing more than ask them to leave their politics at the door. That's not a declaration that my opinion is correct, because I left that at the door as well. It's nothing more than a request to leave the political discourse for somewhere better suited for such things.
Manchu wrote: Actually, the in between stuff makes up the greater part.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Well.. Yes, not every single person dedicates their entire life to politics. It is genuinely surprising that people can't realize people don't have the same positions they do, nor that they think the exact manner.
You can infact leave politics at the door. It's only political to those who cannot turn it off.
Did you actually read what I said? "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement. If you say "leave politics at the door" then you are not leaving politics at the door, you are insisting that only your personal political opinion is valid and all others must be excluded.
Sure, call it political if you want. But if you cannot abide by the rules of the community because you cannot stop making everything political, you are very free to leave. It is not your community, it is everyone else's as well.
"Ownership rather than membership" is really well put. That is exactly what the problem is. Membership is not about controlling, it's about participating alongside others, which includes restraining oneself. IRL this is why we say avoid politics in polite company. In the political realm, it is about controlling, and polarizing, and dividing everything up between us (right side of history) and them (wrong side of history). And that's contrary to the spirit of this site. Whether or not that is even the appropriate way to conceive of politics, it's certainly not appropriate for a discussion forum about miniatures gaming.
People who argue that everything is political are doing so as part of an agenda to ensure that everything is politicized.
insaniak wrote: The ban is nothing to do with 'maximizing the member count'. It's about keeping the site the sort of place that people will want to keep returning to.
These are completely contradictory statements. You can't claim that maximizing the member count has nothing to do with it and then, in your very next sentence, state that it's about maximizing member count (via keeping people returning).
The vast majority of gamers don't care in the slightest which political party the guy standing on the opposite side of the table voted for, they just want to play toy soldiers.
And the vast majority is free to not click on threads with "politics" in the title. A ban is not necessary to achieve their goal of not caring about politics. A ban has the sole purpose of establishing the political beliefs of certain moderators as the only acceptable ones to hold.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: "Ownership rather than membership" is really well put. That is exactly what the problem is. Membership is not about controlling, it's about participating alongside others, which includes restraining oneself. IRL this is why we say avoid politics in polite company. In the political realm, it is about controlling, and polarizing, and dividing everything up between us (right side of history) and them (wrong side of history). And that's contrary to the spirit of this site. Whether or not that is even the appropriate way to conceive of politics, it's certainly not appropriate for a discussion forum about miniatures gaming.
IOW, your political argument is "other political issues are less important than my desire to maximize the number of people I can play a game with". Where does that line get drawn? Would you happily welcome a Nazi into your gaming group so long as they leave the swastika flags at home?
People who argue that everything is political are doing so as part of an agenda to ensure that everything is politicized.
And people who argue otherwise are doing so as part of an agenda to ensure that everything is politicized, just in a different way. At least the people who argue openly that everything is political are being honest about it, and not smugly insisting that their political beliefs are just the normal default and therefore don't count as politics.
These are completely contradictory statements. You can't claim that maximizing the member count has nothing to do with it and then, in your very next sentence, state that it's about maximizing member count (via keeping people returning).
Just as well I didn't do that, then.
There's a difference between giving my house a complete makeover in order to make it cosmetically appealing to the widest possible audience, and locking the cranky old dog in the back yard so it doesn't bite people when they open the front gate...
A ban has the sole purpose of establishing the political beliefs of certain moderators as the only acceptable ones to hold.
Repeating this claim doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Sure, call it political if you want. But if you cannot abide by the rules of the community because you cannot stop making everything political, you are very free to leave. It is not your community, it is everyone else's as well.
You are missing the point, and it's starting to seem deliberate. Everything is already political. "Leave politics at the door" is a political statement. People saying "leave politics at the door" are inherently violating their own rule, and it's a blatant double standard to say that this particular political statement is ok but all others must be silenced.
insaniak wrote: The ban is nothing to do with 'maximizing the member count'.
This is an ongoing theme with Peregrine. He wants all political views on full display so the 'undesirables' can be discovered and eliminated. He believes the only reason not to purge the 'undesirables' is privileging the number of posters over their ideological purity.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Sure, call it political if you want. But if you cannot abide by the rules of the community because you cannot stop making everything political, you are very free to leave. It is not your community, it is everyone else's as well.
You are missing the point, and it's starting to seem deliberate. Everything is already political. "Leave politics at the door" is a political statement. People saying "leave politics at the door" are inherently violating their own rule, and it's a blatant double standard to say that this particular political statement is ok but all others must be silenced.
Why yes it's deliberate, because I don't push everything through a lens of politics. I literally cannot understand your view aside from you trying to force something to ensure everything is politicized. Except that you cannot seem to understand that not everyone has this self-given agenda to try and pin everything down through politics.
The fact that you seem to want to have everything controlled, sectioned off in such a manner is something I cannot understand.
insaniak wrote: There's a difference between giving my house a complete makeover in order to make it cosmetically appealing to the widest possible audience, and locking the cranky old dog in the back yard so it doesn't bite people when they open the front gate...
"Don't lock political discussion" is not a complete makeover.
Repeating this claim doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
It is not nonsense, it is simple truth no matter how much you don't like it. "Leave politics at the door" is a political statement, and a politics ban enforces that position as the only acceptable one. No other goal is accomplished by banning politics, because no ban is required to accomplish those other goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Why yes it's deliberate, because I don't push everything through a lens of politics. I literally cannot understand your view aside from you trying to force something to ensure everything is politicized. Except that you cannot seem to understand that not everyone has this self-given agenda to try and pin everything down through politics.
Ok, let's give an example of a gay person in a group where a right-wing anti-gay Christian is present. Saying "leave politics at the door" is telling that person that their desire to feel safe is less important than your desire to have more players in the group. You're expecting them to just shut up and accept the bigot, and any attempt to object to the bigot's beliefs is not welcome. Or there's the popular topic of minority representation in miniatures. Saying "leave politics at the door" is a statement endorsing the status quo, banning any objections to the current (perceived or real) lack of representation and insisting that everyone accept what we have now without complaint.
insaniak wrote: There's a difference between giving my house a complete makeover in order to make it cosmetically appealing to the widest possible audience, and locking the cranky old dog in the back yard so it doesn't bite people when they open the front gate...
"Don't lock political discussion" is not a complete makeover.
I think you lost track of the metaphor, there.
It is not nonsense, it is simple truth no matter how much you don't like it. "Leave politics at the door" is a political statement, and a politics ban enforces that position as the only acceptable one. No other goal is accomplished by banning politics, because no ban is required to accomplish those other goals.
This is a wind up, right?
Removing political discussion is not political. If you remove the political discussion, what you have is by very definition a lack of political discussion. There is no political statement being made.
All that is happening is that we've asked for people to not talk politics or religion in our house. That's not a political statement, it's a request for people to adhere to an extremely common social convention to help avoid potential unpleasantness. You can try as hard as you want to turn that into some sort of massive political statement, but frankly you're nailing jelly to a tree.
Manchu wrote: This is an ongoing theme with Peregrine. He wants all political views on full display so the 'undesirables' can be discovered and eliminated. He believes the only reason not to purge the 'undesirables' is privileging the number of posters over their ideological purity.
And, I ask again: do you feel that Nazis should be welcome in our community as long as they leave the swastika flags at home?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: I think you lost track of the metaphor, there.
No, you just used a poor metaphor that exaggerates one side way beyond reason.
Removing political discussion is not political. If you remove the political discussion, what you have is by very definition a lack of political discussion. There is no political statement being made.
All that is happening is that we've asked for people to not talk politics or religion in our house. That's not a political statement, it's a request for people to adhere to an extremely common social convention to help avoid potential unpleasantness. You can try as hard as you want to turn that into some sort of massive political statement, but frankly you're nailing jelly to a tree.
Like I said, it's about enforcing your particular beliefs. Repeating over and over again that you have those beliefs is not changing the fact that it is a political position, one you have declared to be the only acceptable one.
Removing political discussion is not political. If you remove the political discussion, what you have is by very definition a lack of political discussion. There is no political statement being made.
All that is happening is that we've asked for people to not talk politics or religion in our house. That's not a political statement, it's a request for people to adhere to an extremely common social convention to help avoid potential unpleasantness. You can try as hard as you want to turn that into some sort of massive political statement, but frankly you're nailing jelly to a tree.
Like I said, it's about enforcing your particular beliefs. Repeating over and over again that you have those beliefs is not changing the fact that it is a political position, one you have declared to be the only acceptable one.
Sounds like you are the one who is trying to dictate the position of what is acceptable in this community.
By trying to enforce the idea that everything is political, you can infact try to dictate the idea and keep everything political. It does not work like that.
Ok, let's give an example of a gay person in a group where a right-wing anti-gay Christian is present. Saying "leave politics at the door" is telling that person that their desire to feel safe is less important than your desire to have more players in the group. You're expecting them to just shut up and accept the bigot, and any attempt to object to the bigot's beliefs is not welcome.
No, what it's saying is that there is no reason for the bigot's beliefs to be relevant to that setting to begin with.
He can think what he wants in private. He can go home and hate gay people, or cats, or pistachio ice cream all he wants, and it won't make a lick of difference if he's not airing those views in the group venue.
There is simply no other feasible way for this to work in a public setting. Allowing people to air their views on that subject isn't going to flush out all of the bigots so that you can show them the door, it's just going to flush out the ones who choose to speak up about it. You can show the outspoken bigot the door, assuming that's your prerogative to begin with, but you're still not going to have the faintest idea of the feelings of the rest of the group without hooking them up to lie detectors and subjecting them to an interrogation on the topic.
Allowing free discussion isn't giving you a safe space, it's just creating an environment where conflict can flourish.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Sounds like you are the one who is trying to dictate the position of what is acceptable in this community.
By trying to enforce the idea that everything is political, you can infact try to dictate the idea and keep everything political. It does not work like that.
Uh, no. "Everything is political" doesn't dictate any acceptable content because I am not in favor of any ban on politics. People are free to say (or not say) whatever they want.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Sounds like you are the one who is trying to dictate the position of what is acceptable in this community.
By trying to enforce the idea that everything is political, you can infact try to dictate the idea and keep everything political. It does not work like that.
Uh, no. "Everything is political" doesn't dictate any acceptable content because I am not in favor of any ban on politics. People are free to say (or not say) whatever they want.
Except it's quite obvious you do. After-all if you cannot discuss politics with someone you literally said "If I can't discuss politics with someone then I don't want them in my community."
It sounds as if you want people to be forced to speak up about politics so you can instead shame them for not having the views you hold.
insaniak wrote: No, what it's saying is that there is no reason for the bigot's beliefs to be relevant to that setting to begin with.
He can think what he wants in private. He can go home and hate gay people, or cats, or pistachio ice cream all he wants, and it won't make a lick of difference if he's not airing those views in the group venue.
So I'll ask you the same question: are you happy to allow Nazis to be part of the community as long as they never bring any swastika flags to the game store?
And do you honestly think that a person like that is keeping their beliefs 100% silent? What a ban on politics inevitably means is that the bigot is free to say "you deserve to be tortured for eternity in hell" (though in polite terms, of course) and the thread will be locked before other people can counter their argument. Now the information on their beliefs is public knowledge, but the gay person is supposed to just forget that it happened and pretend that everything is ok.
There is simply no other feasible way for this to work in a public setting. Allowing people to air their views on that subject isn't going to flush out all of the bigots so that you can show them the door, it's just going to flush out the ones who choose to speak up about it. You can show the outspoken bigot the door, assuming that's your prerogative to begin with, but you're still not going to have the faintest idea of the feelings of the rest of the group without hooking them up to lie detectors and subjecting them to an interrogation on the topic.
Of course it isn't going to reveal anyone, but that's not the point. The original claim was that politics generates arguments and divides people, and this is a bad thing. It isn't. A bigot revealing their beliefs and getting removed (and their arguments being comprehensively refuted) is division, but it is good division. It's like dealing with cheaters: you might never catch them all, but it would be absurd to suggest that cheating can never be a permissible subject of discussion because it divides the community when someone is caught cheating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Except it's quite obvious you do. After-all if you cannot discuss politics with someone you literally said "If I can't discuss politics with someone then I don't want them in my community."
It sounds as if you want people to speak up about politics so you can instead shame them for not having the views you hold.
There is a distinct difference between me as an ordinary member saying " you GTFO" and a moderator hitting the lock/ban button to remove statements they don't agree with. I can refuse to associate with someone once their beliefs are known, but I can't remove them by force.
Peregrine wrote: What a ban on politics inevitably means is that the bigot is free to say "you deserve to be tortured for eternity in hell" (though in polite terms, of course) and the thread will be locked before other people can counter their argument.
Yes, occasionally someone on the internet will say something that you disagree with, and you will not have the opportunity to correct them.
That doesn't make their stance the 'right' one by default. It just makes them someone who said something on the internet.
And I'll also note that when I say "people I can't discuss politics with" I'm referring to people who are so far over the line that no discussion is possible. An alt-right member arguing for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to create their white utopia is not going to have a productive discussion with me because the only answer to that level of hatred and ignorance is "WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU." A person who disagrees with me over what insurance rates the federal government should set to best drive economic growth is not going to have the same problem because their beliefs are within the limits of sanity and do not require crossing any moral lines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Yes, occasionally someone on the internet will say something that you disagree with, and you will not have the opportunity to correct them.
That doesn't make their stance the 'right' one by default. It just makes them someone who said something on the internet.
It does make it that way when the moderators are biased in deciding what gets locked/deleted, as they inevitably are when sites are foolish enough to have politics bans. Their stance is not factually the correct one, but is treated as the only acceptable one by the moderators. And it does demonstrate that "leave politics at the door" is inherently not leaving politics at the door, as it is a statement that the fight over LGBT rights (and associated issues) is less important than your desire to not have arguments about things unrelated to toy soldiers.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If there are no political discussion here, how are you going to even know they are an Altrighter.
Because, as I said, these things inevitably come out. A ban on politics doesn't stop people from making political posts, as has been demonstrated over and over again on countless other forums and even on dakka when bans have been in effect. It just ends the discussion early, usually involving a moderator locking the thread as a way to get the last word.
And yet, on other forums, people are perfectly capable of acting with civility, dignity, and honor without any mention of politics. Boggles the mind, it does.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If there are no political discussion here, how are you going to even know they are an Altrighter.
Because, as I said, these things inevitably come out. A ban on politics doesn't stop people from making political posts, as has been demonstrated over and over again on countless other forums and even on dakka when bans have been in effect. It just ends the discussion early, usually involving a moderator locking the thread as a way to get the last word.
That sounds like a measure for "Why are there rules? People will inevitably break them". Which the counter is that if they cannot behave, they will be forced from said community.
Peregrine wrote: ... it is a statement that the fight over LGBT rights (and associated issues) is less important than your desire to not have arguments about things unrelated to toy soldiers.
See, that might be where your disconnect is coming from. On a site that is devoted to discussion of toy soldiers, the fight over LGBT rights is less important than not having arguments about things unrelated to toy soldiers.
That doesn't mean that it isn't more important out in the real world... it just means that this isn't the venue for that fight, just like you don't go onto Coca Cola's Facebook page to fight for human rights violations in Tibet.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And yet, on other forums, people are perfectly capable of acting with civility, dignity, and honor without any mention of politics. Boggles the mind, it does.
And yet, on other forums, politics bans are laughably ineffective and 95% of the time consist of the political discussion continuing until a moderator sees something they disagree with and locks the thread.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And yet, on other forums, people are perfectly capable of acting with civility, dignity, and honor without any mention of politics. Boggles the mind, it does.
And yet, on other forums, politics bans are laughably ineffective and 95% of the time consist of the political discussion continuing until a moderator sees something they disagree with and locks the thread.
I've seen the opposite, most forums with political bans tend to be quite civil, with only a few near-do-wells attempting to try and needle things up.
insaniak wrote: See, that might be where your disconnect is coming from. On a site that is devoted to discussion of toy soldiers, the fight over LGBT rights is less important than not having arguments about things unrelated to toy soldiers.
That doesn't mean that it isn't more important out in the real world... it just means that this isn't the venue for that fight, just like you don't go onto Coca Cola's Facebook page to fight for human rights violations in Tibet.
There are appropriate venues for that discussion.
Again, that is a political statement. You can't say "leave politics at the door" and then tell everyone about how you think the ranking of priorities should be.
And the comparison with human rights violations in Tibet is nonsense. Coca Cola is not responsible for those (or, if they are, then going on their facebook page to give them bad PR is 100% justified), while LGBT rights and the gaming community are not separate things. It isn't just a thought experiment, there are LGBT members of the community and a "no politics" rule directly translates into "don't stand up for yourself or express your disagreement with the bigot". TBH, your insistence that you can separate the two is the kind of thing that people with the privilege of not having a personal stake in the matter tend to say, minimizing the concerns of those who do. It's nice to be able to treat the subject as a fun debate club activity, but for some of us it's more than that.
It isn't just a thought experiment, there are LGBT members of the community and a "no politics" rule directly translates into "don't stand up for yourself or express your disagreement with the bigot".
..Except rules against politics tends to block the bigot from speaking as well. Also once again, I literally cannot understand your thought process on this.
Again, that is a political statement. You can't say "leave politics at the door" and then tell everyone about how you think the ranking of priorities should be.
Of course you can. This is a forum for discussion of toy soldiers. Therefore, the priority is the discussion of toy soldiers. That's no more a political statement than stating that a football field is intended for playing football on.
... there are LGBT members of the community and a "no politics" rule directly translates into "don't stand up for yourself or express your disagreement with the bigot".
If you want to view it that way, sure. Just as the forum rule #1 about being polite could be read that way when someone insults you. The appropriate thing to do in that case is to refer to to a moderator, not to escalate things on the forum.
greatbigtree wrote: Sounds like someone has had experience with politics becoming a banned subject, in several places.
Is the common denominator a certain someone?
Maybe the grass is greener on the other side of the fence because you aren’t over there fething things up. Maybe.
Sounds like you're just taking an opportunity to continue your weird obsessive vendetta against me, apparently not being too concerned with that pesky rule #1 thing in the process. But no, I'm thinking of forums where I wasn't a very active participant, so you'll have to find a better objection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Of course you can. This is a forum for discussion of toy soldiers. Therefore, the priority is the discussion of toy soldiers. That's no more a political statement than stating that a football field is intended for playing football on.
And yet you have an entire OT section for things unrelated to discussion of toy soldiers. Don't pretend that dakka's rule is "only discussion of toy soldiers".
If you want to view it that way, sure. Just as the forum rule #1 about being polite could be read that way when someone insults you. The appropriate thing to do in that case is to refer to to a moderator, not to escalate things on the forum.
You mean the same admin who explicitly told me that they would not be deleting a particular bit of transphobic garbage or banning the person who posted it because the statement was "within the scope of a party's platform"? The moderators who refused to deal with blatant anti-Semetic statements until several people pointed out in public over a period of weeks? You'll have to understand if I don't trust the moderators here one bit on this.
It's not that weird. Some people like to bully others. Some people like to stick it to bullies. You have your axe to grind, and I have mine.
Frankly, I admit it's a direct call-out. But honestly, if you, personally, were capable of handling the responsibility of civil discourse, you might find that your ability to grind said axe might be tolerated a bit better.
You've admitted to actively searching out bigots to expose, and you then go on to provoke them. I search out people that seek to aggrandise themselves at the expense of others.
It's really not that weird. And it's not obsessive. When you aren't being an active... difficulty... I have nothing to say to you. But then you get all huffity and self-important and start selfishly putting your desires ahead of the community you claim to champion. Which is absurd. So I give you a shot. You like to expose biggots. I like to point out your flawed, self-entitled activity.
OT is for when people want to talk about something other than toy soldiers. Like when your at the Anime clib and start talking about like Cage or something. Their related and you share the interest, but you came there for anime.
And yet you have an entire OT section for things unrelated to discussion of toy soldiers. Don't pretend that dakka's rule is "only discussion of toy soldiers".
I wasn't pretending that the site is only for discussion of toy soldiers, I was pointing out that the site's primary focus is toy soldiers, and that pointing that fact out is not a political statement.
You'll have to understand if I don't trust the moderators here one bit on this.
Then, to be blunt, you would probably be happier on a different site. Most likely one that you were the admin of.
I'm gonna be blunt. peregrine wants politics so he can then do a witch Hunt of anyone in a community for exposing their views and ostracize them. He keeps bringing up Nazis, but he would do it for alot less.
Peregrine, I'd like to make a point regarding your last statement (referring to homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, and other horrible language).
This is all language we do not want to have on Dakka, which is actually in part the point of something like the politics/religion ban. You have a view of wanting to seek out and expose people who you find intolerant - but even with the broader scope of OT, that's not what this site is for. We don't want that kind of language (or having to determine when someone is tip-toeing around it) on our site at all.
Does that make sense?
I'd also point out that, the negative side of your approach is that it can easily lead to witch hunts. This is evident all through history, of course, but is a much bigger problem in the online world recently, where a certain percentage of people get called out incorrectly, but are never exonerated, as all the attention is on the process of calling them out.
This just isn't what Dakka is for, and trying to navigate it puts us in the middle of that huge, ugly mess!
The Wasteland was never somewhere I braved myself, but I know Lorek did (and still does, it seems!). Always thought it was cool that it was basically an ex-pat community of Dakkanauts, and of course the zero filter part
The Wasteland was never somewhere I braved myself, but I know Lorek did (and still does, it seems!). Always thought it was cool that it was basically an ex-pat community of Dakkanauts, and of course the zero filter part
Happy to be of service! The Wasteland is/was a very unique community of Dakkaites. It filled an important niche before Dakka had its own dedicated OT subforum, and died out with the rise of Dakka OT and Facebook. Maybe now it's time for it to fill that niche again.
What I will say though: In its prime, the Wasteland was a pretty tight knit community, and while we certainly didn't always agree with each other on every issue, and while it was most definitely no holds barred, when it came down to it everyone who posted there was a good dude (or dudette). So if you're going to post there, be a good dude (or dudette).
Just a point but Perigrin you keep saying that if there are not dedicated political discussions then "bigots and nazis will not be uncovered".
However you also state that without political discussions the insulting/abusive viewpoints of such individuals will appear anyway in their posting.
So considering that the result of both would likely be a ban from moderators due to abusive/insulting behaviour I fail to see why political discussion is needed if both having and not having it will result in the same expression of viewpoints and behaviour and thus similarly both result in social exclusion.
Especially since political discussion allowed would only accelerate such a process if those people took part in the political discussions themselves.
So by your own admission we don't "need" politics to "flush these people out".
Really the only risk I see is that without politics you can't as quickly add people to your own ignore (either the website or your own mental list) list or try to get them removed from the social group. So there's a terrible risk that you could be talking toy soldiers or anime or movies or the latest hobby interest with someone who you might politically disagree with - without ever knowing about it!
RiTides wrote: Peregrine, I'd like to make a point regarding your last statement (referring to homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, and other horrible language).
This is all language we do not want to have on Dakka, which is actually in part the point of something like the politics/religion ban. You have a view of wanting to seek out and expose people who you find intolerant - but even with the broader scope of OT, that's not what this site is for. We don't want that kind of language (or having to determine when someone is tip-toeing around it) on our site at all.
Banning politics and religion isn't going to make those disappear.
Whenever a thread opens asking about the disconnect in GW artwork and model lines compared to their lore (such as asking where the women Imperial Guard models are), which is a perfectly valid topic of discussion for a toy soldiers forum, you're going to have people complaining about SJWs trying to ruin the game and how politics shouldn't be in the game etc. They'll be using veiled language and dog whistles to avoid saying it outright, much like the current problem users in the political threads but the meaning is still there.
And they will use the no politics rule to shut down those perfectly valid toy soldier discussions about toy soldier model lines or artwork of toy soldiers. The no politics rule potentially gives such people more power to shut down topics they don't like (women guard, femmarines, how to make the hobby more welcoming for women or minorities) by giving them the argument that such topics are innately political. And they are right, representation in media is a political subject. And this kind of thing will target the people in minority groups who want to discuss more representation much more than those who are already represented. The misogynist won't be making threads about how there shouldn't be representation of women in the hobby, they'll just be trying to get threads arguing for the opposite closed for political discussion. And when we as a community cannot discuss how to make ourselves more welcoming, as that is a political discussion, we cannot grow our community into what it can be.
Those who would keep using banned topics to get discussions closed down are few and far between and honestly such behaviour should get spotted as a pattern and that user removed/dealt with by the mods.
There are other banned topics and we don't have a deluge of people swearing/insulting/posting porn just to get topics locked so politics/religion is going to be the same.
Overread wrote: Those who would keep using banned topics to get discussions closed down are few and far between and honestly such behaviour should get spotted as a pattern and that user removed/dealt with by the mods.
There are other banned topics and we don't have a deluge of people swearing/insulting/posting porn just to get topics locked so politics/religion is going to be the same.
So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political? This is where what other users touched on earlier comes into play, namely moderator bias. A thread discussing ways to make the tabletop gaming community more welcoming is going to be political. It is going to involve discussing such topics as safe spaces, gender, acceptable language, how to deal with problem players etc. But it is also a subject that should be discussed if you seriously want to make the wargaming hobby as welcoming and fun for everyone that most of us believe it should be. So does it get banned or not? That is entirely up to each individual mods own feelings on the thread. So a discussion which is important for our community might get shut down because someone doesn't like the phrase "safe space", or thinks discussing how you should use the pronoun of an LGBTQ person that they are comfortable with is too political. And once one thread has been closed for that reason, it can set a precedent that the users who do not want such discussion can point to.
Alternatively, nobody will even begin such conversations as to how make our community the best it can be as they do not want it to be shut down. And so that discussion never happens because the person who would like to discuss it doesn't want to break the rules of the site.
What other topics are banned but are also going to crop up anyway, as political discussion cannot be entirely separated from toy soldier discussion unless you are willing to ban any discussion of topics such as greater diversity in model lines, the issues with problem behaviours in the wargaming community (which is an important subject to discuss if you want to make wargaming more welcoming for more people)?
Banning politics and religion isn't going to make those disappear.
Nor did we expect that it would. It's a big step in what we feel is the right direction, though, for the reasons mentioned in yakface's post.
Whenever a thread opens asking about the disconnect in GW artwork and model lines compared to their lore (such as asking where the women Imperial Guard models are), which is a perfectly valid topic of discussion for a toy soldiers forum, you're going to have people complaining about SJWs trying to ruin the game and how politics shouldn't be in the game etc. They'll be using veiled language and dog whistles to avoid saying it outright, much like the current problem users in the political threads but the meaning is still there.
And they will use the no politics rule to shut down those perfectly valid toy soldier discussions about toy soldier model lines or artwork of toy soldiers. The no politics rule potentially gives such people more power to shut down topics they don't like (women guard, femmarines, how to make the hobby more welcoming for women or minorities) by giving them the argument that such topics are innately political.
It doesn't give any poster any more 'power' to do anything. They can report the thread as a politics discussion, in which case we can assess the thread and either post a reminder in the thread or prune the thread to remove anything that's a problem, or they can gakpost in the thread to try to get it locked, in which case the sooner someone reports their posts the more likely we'll get to them before the thread has progressed much further and delete them so the thread can continue unmolested.
And when we as a community cannot discuss how to make ourselves more welcoming, as that is a political discussion,
Not as far as I can see, it isn't. or doesn't have to be, at the very least.
Again, the point of the ban isn't to stifle genuine hobby-related discussion, and we'll take that into account when moderating hobby-related threads. The bigger issues with political and religious discussion are to do with how those discussions affect the OT area, and the way that spills over to the rest of the site.
Ironically the start of 40 k was a Satire of all human ideologies and societies there are.(Brown orkz anyone? Ghazkulls name eerily close to thatcher? Imperial heraldry close to fascisct/ imperialist symbols? Collectivistic caste faction which has only one hirarchical relevant class based mostly on new speech and want to look like good guys?)
I wish you good luck trying to stop any and all discussion of politics, since satire is always political.
Alternativly you could, probably, kinda make a cloaka maxima, a thread were all this stuff could go you know?
For genuinely wargaming-related discussions, we always allow more leeway, since that is the primary purpose of the site.
A good example is as Overread posted. Posting pics of nudity is generally not allowed on the site, but things like daemonettes are perfectly fine, and we've had little trouble making that distinction for years.
So the same would apply here, but we avoid making a hard and fast rule to keep people from trying to sidle up to the line. If you're unsure, just ask a mod (I've got a PM query in my inbox right now actually ) and we'll point you towards what likely is/isn't OK to post.
It doesn't give any poster any more 'power' to do anything. They can report the thread as a politics discussion, in which case we can assess the thread and either post a reminder in the thread or prune the thread to remove anything that's a problem, or they can gakpost in the thread to try to get it locked, in which case the sooner someone reports their posts the more likely we'll get to them before the thread has progressed much further and delete them so the thread can continue unmolested.
What you're describing here, however, is the exact problem of the existing politics threads. That solution, removing the offending people who are posting in bad faith or dragging to topic to a place that it should not be going, apparently didn't work, hence the politics discussions being banned.
And when we as a community cannot discuss how to make ourselves more welcoming, as that is a political discussion,
Not as far as I can see, it isn't. or doesn't have to be, at the very least.
You may not regard discussions of topics like safe spaces, gender pronouns, unacceptable language etc. as political, but many do. Just look back through any of the threads which touched on those topics to see that.
What you're describing here, however, is the exact problem of the existing politics threads. That solution, removing the offending people who are arguing in bad faith or dragging to topic to a place that it should not be going, apparently didn't work, hence the politics discussions being banned.
So why will it work now?
1) Because the subject itself is banned the chances of people getting into a long heated argument relating to it is VASTLY reduced. It's like a bull and a red flag; by removing the red flag we are reducing the chances of the bull charging - thus the china is saved!
2) Because it will stand out far more so as an outlier comment in otherwise non political threads - and yes whilst we can argue that everything is political it really isn't. The examples above of things like safe spaces are not political they are social.
Honestly give it a week or two and it will all settle down. Those who really want to talk politics will move to other sites or will adapt to talk about other things on Dakka.
So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political? This is where what other users touched on earlier comes into play, namely moderator bias. A thread discussing ways to make the tabletop gaming community more welcoming is going to be political.
The irony being that this thread is in itself political and everyone is involved so maybe everyone here should be banned including the mods?
However more seriously I the board wording isn't helping and reasoning doesn't help. Every topic is potentially political (a WFB vs AoS topic is political). I think what you really mean is that there are no discussions on state politics. Otherwise we can't discuss a report on climate change, environmental issues and so forth
Well, I will miss the politics thread. Yeah, we fell out a lot, but there was some funny times as well with the banter.
I'm glad to say that most people were good, decent folk, and I'd happily buy them a pint if ever we met up. Just don't talk about the EU.
I've had some run ins with mods over the years, but I do appreciate the valuable time you guys put into this, so good on you.
Dakka is one of the best sites out there, and I'm not saying that to blow smoke up somebody's rear, but the fact that the mods for the most part tend to be firm, but fair, makes it unique in that regard. Some other forums are hell holes in comparison to dakka.
But at the end of the day, it's yakface's forum, and ultimately, it's yakface's rules. If he don't want politics or religion on dakka, that's his call, and we just have to go somewhere else. I have no problem with that.
Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.
After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.
So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political? This is where what other users touched on earlier comes into play, namely moderator bias. A thread discussing ways to make the tabletop gaming community more welcoming is going to be political.
The irony being that this thread is in itself political and everyone is involved so maybe everyone here should be banned including the mods?
However more seriously I the board wording isn't helping and reasoning doesn't help. Every topic is potentially political (a WFB vs AoS topic is political). I think what you really mean is that there are no discussions on state politics. Otherwise we can't discuss a report on climate change, environmental issues and so forth
I always thought the OT forum was a Mod trap to lure us in and then expel the lot of us.
Hordini wrote: For anyone interested, I've started a thread in the Wasteland for Dakka political refugees here.
I don't think this will work, because there is no admin, no moderators and so forth. It is also has a reputation apparently. Additionally for it really to get a head of steam it will need an active sticky link from dakka (and back again) to allow both to support each other. I've asked this but it's getting no response?
I don't think anyone is really asking for such an uncontrolled environment. Just a place where heated debates can happen where there is protection against abuse. Sometimes I think the two can be easily confused because people have different points of view and people can become very uncomfortable when they have to shine a spotlight not heir views that they don't want to uncover.
So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political?
I either missed this comment before, or it was edited in later... But no, users won't be 'removed' for pointing out that a topic is political. They might be removed for posting inappropriately in an attempt to shut down threads they disapprove of, however, as has been the case previously.
Again, as Overread said, give it a chance to shake out, we've only had the policy in place like 36 hours now
We specifically have this section of the site to discuss how the forum is working, and we'll certainly be open to discussing how we're implementing this change in the future as questions arise. But I really don't think the scenarios being considered will be a problem, as we've had no trouble making distinctions for wargaming topics in the past.
In Dakka Discussions right now, there's a topic on how to be an environmentally friendly wargamer. This thread hasn't, and won't, need to be locked. However, if someone started posting threads for political candidates who are green, that would almost certainly be locked. It'll be case-by-case, but again, this is a distinction we've had no problem making with something like nudity for years. Just PM a mod if you're unsure!
One reason these scenarios will not be a problem is because many of them have nothing to do with banning explicit political and religious discussion in the Off-Topic subforum.
I always thought the OT forum was a Mod trap to lure us in and then expel the lot of us.
Hmmmm, I'd better not comment on that... To be honest I will miss our discussions, even if we disagreed on a lot of things!
As a scientist I'd actually like to see what the statistics information that these decisions were based on. But I'm a scientist so these sort of things intrigue me! It's generally male human nature to over exaggerate things as an evolved trait. For example did you know that if you had a room with 75% men and 25% women, that most men if asked to estimate would say it was a 50:50 split.
To be fair I would be willing to try and start a new forum for the politically inclined wargamers but am unsure as to exact interest in both supporting it and helping out?
Okay, I have a question about the politics ban. If political discussions are not allowed anymore, does it means that the use of very politically loaded, very adversarial/provocative expressions like "SJW" is not allowed anymore? Finally? Or is "SJW" somehow still allowed, and what's the reasoning behind this decision?
[edit]Do I need to change the first line of my sig? Is that politics?[/edit]
BaronIveagh wrote: Speaking from past experiance, this is not entirely true. Sock puppets can be linked to main accounts via IP.
Don't want to give hints on how, but it is possible to bypass that in a fairly efficient way.
Could I have some clarification please as to what would be considered political?
Because some historical topics obviously have a lot of politics in them. Is it just contemporary politics this ban applies to? I have no interest in religion, so that ban doesn't bother me.
Here's an example:
I'm collecting an army of Northern Virginia for Civil War games. So posts on collecting, painting, and tactics in the game would be fine.
I also assume that discussing the battle of Gettysburg in the OT forum would be fine? Tactics, what ifs, command, leadership etc etc
But here's the rub: could you discuss causes of the ACW in OT? Becuase that would obviously have a political element to it.
In short, are historical political discussions allowed? French Revolution, WW2 etc etc
We won't be censoring the term SJW. Certainly, using that term pejoratively is a red flag that the poster using it is spoiling for a fight and doesn't mind derailing a thread to do it. And we take that into account.
Given the aggressive sloganeering that "EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL" it is probably worthwhile to clarify - as already clarified in yakface's post - that we very clearly aren't talking about EVERYTHING. Even ITT posters have already had to invent the phrase "state politics" to refer to what has actually been banned.
And again, there is NO CHANGE at all with regard to how we're moderating on-topic discussions. The change is about the Off-Topic subforum.
Don't want to give hints on how, but it is possible to bypass that in a fairly efficient way.
Even without deliberate tinkering, unless you have specifically set up a static IP address it will change periodically anyway, although the exact triggers for that will vary from provider to provider. Ultimately, IP addresses by themselves aren't the most useful tool for finding linked accounts.
Or is "SJW" somehow still allowed, and what's the reasoning behind this decision?
I think I'd be flattered if someone called me a social justice warrior, not insulted, even if it was meant to be aimed in that way. After all you are probably being called out for something you want to be seen as anyway.
I do sometimes wonder if Politics (and religion) is such a heated subject because it's banned in so many places, and thus because there aren't any open forums to discuss politics with people of differing opinions, we end up with this isolated echo chamber idea where things become so polarized.
Again, that is a political statement. You can't say "leave politics at the door" and then tell everyone about how you think the ranking of priorities should be.
Of course you can. This is a forum for discussion of toy soldiers. Therefore, the priority is the discussion of toy soldiers. That's no more a political statement than stating that a football field is intended for playing football on.
But people playing toy soldiers are likely to be more interested in history and therefore politics.
Gak, it's very hard to play any game without some kind of politics in any back story/objectives, beyond "smash the alien". It's even worse if you're involved in any kind of historics. Why did X invade Y? What was that battle all about? Why did that unit change sides mid way?
Even Warhammer/40K is based on a very politicised history, though it'd be an indirect discussion at best.
So a ban on politics and religion almost completely results in a ban on history.
Gak, it's very hard to play any game without some kind of politics in any back story/objectives, beyond "smash them because difference". It's even worse if you're involved in any kind of historics. Why did X invade Y? What was that battle all about? Why did that unit change sides mid way?
So a ban on politics and religion almost completely results in a ban on history.
Clearly the rule is about REAL world politics and religion. We can go to the ends of the earth debating the politics of the Imperium and the Religious values of Orks....
Herzlos wrote: I do sometimes wonder if Politics (and religion) is such a heated subject because it's banned in so many places, and thus because there aren't any open forums to discuss politics with people of differing opinions, we end up with this isolated echo chamber idea where things become so polarized.
Again, that is a political statement. You can't say "leave politics at the door" and then tell everyone about how you think the ranking of priorities should be.
Of course you can. This is a forum for discussion of toy soldiers. Therefore, the priority is the discussion of toy soldiers. That's no more a political statement than stating that a football field is intended for playing football on.
But people playing toy soldiers are likely to be more interested in history and therefore politics.
Gak, it's very hard to play any game without some kind of politics in any back story/objectives, beyond "smash the alien". It's even worse if you're involved in any kind of historics. Why did X invade Y? What was that battle all about? Why did that unit change sides mid way?
Even Warhammer/40K is based on a very politicised history, though it'd be an indirect discussion at best.
So a ban on politics and religion almost completely results in a ban on history.
Good post. and I'm with you on this one.
I think we'll be alright discussing battles, weapons, tactics etc etc
and even though, say, somebody like Ronald Reagan was POTUS in a lot of people's lifetimes (including my own) I think we'd be on safe ground discussing his Cold War policy, or foreign policy or whatever
I think it's the here and now politics that bothers the Mods, rather than the past. I could be wrong
Honestly give it a week or two and it will all settle down. Those who really want to talk politics will move to other sites or will adapt to talk about other things on Dakka.
And the trolls will abuse the gak out of it, dragging down conversations that otherwise have nothing to do with politics. Since it's clear that we've clearly learned zilch from the last few times it's been banned.
We've been down this road before, it's caused nothing but more problems than the politics thread has, with trolls and mods using it to close threads for... spurious reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.
After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.
Manchu, we tried this before, it did not work, why are we doing this over again? I mean, I hate to cast shade on my fellow posters, but we both know that there are posters who will revel in this, and the tremendous tool this gives them to be disruptive.
Or should we wait till Relapse sits around baiting people in twelve different threads again to get them locked?
Well I see, I guess some politics (of the most inflammatory kind, too) are okay then .
Think of all the high value discussions that would be lost if we censored the term SJW! All of those very interesting, not at all adversarial discussions where new ideas emerge! Those! That will never exist! They are totally worth saving!
Though I guess that means I can keep my sig.
Whirlwind wrote: I think I'd be flattered if someone called me a social justice warrior, not insulted, even if it was meant to be aimed in that way. After all you are probably being called out for something you want to be seen as anyway.
That's not how it generally happen, it's usually more of a "If we have high school clubs it's totally going to paint a big target on our back for the SJWs!!!! to come ruin our thing! We need Warhammergate now!", than targeting a specific poster.
And the trolls will abuse the gak out of it, dragging down conversations that otherwise have nothing to do with politics. Since it's clear that we've clearly learned zilch from the last few times it's been banned.
We've been down this road before, it's caused nothing but more problems than the politics thread has, with trolls and mods using it to close threads for... spurious reasons.
And trolls can abuse anything else they want. They don't need politics or religion to take a thread off the rails or troll other users. They can do it with other mundane subjects; snide remarks, veiled threats and all the rest. Adding a topic to the ban list won't give them any more power than in the past; it just makes that subject a little more overt when its noticed because people are more aware and looking for it.
Also lets be honest are we really saying that we shouldn't ban something that causes disruption and strife because of a tiny handful who will complain about this by causing strife in the community? That's kind of saying lets just hand the site to the trolls and walk off.
Also lets be honest are we really saying that we shouldn't ban something that causes disruption and strife because of a tiny handful who will complain about this by causing strife in the community? That's kind of saying lets just hand the site to the trolls and walk off.
I'm saying that in the past, the 'cure' is worse than the disease. I mean, last time, someone even used the 'tiny minority' argument. It turned out to not be a tiny minority, and it got bad enough that they dropped the ban because of how bad it got. Not just from the trolls, though that was apocalyptic, but also from the mods, who turned super heavy handed on anything that remotely smelled of politics they did not like. Not all politics, though that was the rule, just the ones they did not like. And it got pretty blatant.
So, pardon my pessimism, but it has been a mess every time it's been done here, so I don't see it working this time either.
Manchu wrote: Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
...
After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
...
This makes me feel much happier about this decision, and pretty much answers my questions from a couple pages back.
I feel like a lot of strife could have been avoided if a mod had issued this clarification back on page 1.
Glad that helped! As Manchu said in his full quote, this basically leaves the rest of the forum unaffected from how its always been.
As for the previous politics temporary bans mentioned above - obviously perspectives differ, but many posters told us they thought it worked quite well (we even had a thread in N&B getting people's takes). Unfortunately nothing we decide on this can satisfy everyone, but overall I think the site functioned much better during those temporary locks, so that's how we're going to function in OT going forward.
But the rest of the site is the same (politics has Always been off limits there), so the scenarios people are asking about, or the selective enforcement of tighter rules, are not something we're planning to do at all. Business as usual, talking miniatures - just no politics threads in OT. Simple
That's not how it generally happen, it's usually more of a "If we have high school clubs it's totally going to paint a big target on our back for the SJWs!!!! to come ruin our thing! We need Warhammergate now!", than targeting a specific poster.
Why would people object to playing games at a school? Now I know my grandmother use to say it was devil worship or worse drug taking because of the glue. But I haven't seen that attitude for a long time. However it's been many years since I went to school!
That's not how it generally happen, it's usually more of a "If we have high school clubs it's totally going to paint a big target on our back for the SJWs!!!! to come ruin our thing! We need Warhammergate now!", than targeting a specific poster.
Why would people object to playing games at a school? Now I know my grandmother use to say it was devil worship or worse drug taking because of the glue. But I haven't seen that attitude for a long time. However it's been many years since I went to school!
Yes, but you live in a civilized and sane part of the world in South Africa, whereas two weeks ago my nieces got rounded up for having DICE upon their persons. And worse, a PHB and DMG! SATANISM! My brother in law and sister were not amused (since it was his DMG) to be called in for the parent/teacher/local pastor meeting. And since my sister is Catholic and my Brother in law Atheist, this went about as badly as can be imagined.
Whirlwind wrote: Why would people object to playing games at a school?
Don't ask me, and especially don't ask me here . If you want the link: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/763061.page#10133130 (The SJW part and subsequent discussion has been removed by the mods, but imagine if it had not happened in the first place because SJW was a banned expression. So much of value would have been LOST! That's the kind of discussion we apparently need to protect by allowing the SJW expression...)
But the rest of the site is the same (politics has Always been off limits there), so the scenarios people are asking about, or the selective enforcement of tighter rules, are not something we're planning to do at all. Business as usual, talking miniatures - just no politics threads in OT. Simple
At first I wondered if you and I were on the same site, but then I checked and you mostly post in the crunch and OT sections, so... yeah...
Come on down to 40k Background sometime (particularly if other sites are running FSM articles, it's a thread deletion marathon). Or 40k General. Or OT Video Games.
In sane times, you're right, there can be a division of subjects, but these are hardly sane times.
Whirlwind wrote: Why would people object to playing games at a school?
Don't ask me, and especially don't ask me here .
If you want the link:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/763061.page#10133130 (The SJW part and subsequent discussion has been removed by the mods, but imagine if it had not happened in the first place because SJW was a banned expression. So much of value would have been LOST! That's the kind of discussion we apparently need to protect by allowing the SJW expression...)
(What are PHB and DMG???)
Or they could've used the yellow triangle of friendship, pointed out the error, and gone on their way rather then.. You know, taking a topic off-topic, continuing against moderator results, and overall making a ton of fuss that generally wasn't even close to being on topic.
Baron, you do me a great injustice, sir . Only 1% of my posts are in OT (some sections you can't see as they're moderator-only, etc, so I'm not sure how these show up )
But the rest of the site is the same (politics has Always been off limits there), so the scenarios people are asking about, or the selective enforcement of tighter rules, are not something we're planning to do at all. Business as usual, talking miniatures - just no politics threads in OT. Simple
At first I wondered if you and I were on the same site, but then I checked and you mostly post in the crunch and OT sections, so... yeah...
Come on down to 40k Background sometime (particularly if other sites are running FSM articles, it's a thread deletion marathon). Or 40k General. Or OT Video Games.
In sane times, you're right, there can be a division of subjects, but these are hardly sane times.
What about the Anita Sarkeesian gets a spot at the convention one we had in Dakka discussions. It was about the hobby during the ban on politics. It was an absolute gakfest of flaming and downright abuse of rule #1, it got shut down because it became 'too political' in the end. I mean the whole thing started off political and gak, but only got closed down when the side showed up arguing the hobby has always been political. Where do you draw the line on this sort of thing.
Baron has a point about sane times, I can't remember a time the hobby 'became' this overtly political about the most minor of things.
Bringing up terms like SJW instantly turns things political, might be better to start adding terms like that to the filter as they are used for no other purpose.
My 2 cents, I like the political parts of off topic, I kinda fell out of the hobby because of family issues and the off topic kept me in the loop and made me browse other parts of Dakka. It had some great quality posters lile Sebster and LoH who made some great posts, its sad it went the way of the dodo.
RiTides wrote: Baron, you do me a great injustice, sir . Only 1% of my posts are in OT (some sections you can't see as they're moderator-only, etc, so I'm not sure how these show up )
My main point still stands though, that we have very different posting habits, and where you would, indeed see little change, I on the other hand would see quite the shake up.
Though, as BrookM says, it's only been two days, and has not even been enforced yet in many areas I've seen. Maybe when enforcement actually starts in some places, we'll see a very different tune from the posting base. and mods who think that this is the easier path.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Or they could've used the yellow triangle of friendship, pointed out the error, and gone on their way rather then..
Sure. "Hey mods, I'm letting you know through the yellow triangle of friendship that this guy is using the expression SJW!" "Yeah, we know, but we think this should totally be allowed, we'll only come back to it if (i.e. when) the thread has already degenerated".
They could have just used the yellow triangle of friendship, sure. Not sure why they'd do that, given it wouldn't change anything, but they could.
About fething time on the politics ban. Arm-chair political pundents can feth off to Facebook, InstaGram, Twitter, or political discussion forums. I am surprised it took this long to fething get done. The OT had become a fething cesspit.
Edit: it’s a shame about the UK discussion being lost, as I did follow that civil thread. However, if the trade off is hard stop on the fething donkey-cave posters, I will say “Fair trade, sorry.”
Let’s get back to discussion on miniatures, Star Wars movies, and gakky GW rules.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If there are no political discussion here, how are you going to even know they are an Altrighter.
Don't worry, it's not like there needed to be any real reason to call someone that. You'd just have to not agree with certain types and they'll eagerly apply a dismissive/hateful label to you.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whenever a thread opens asking about the disconnect in GW artwork and model lines compared to their lore (such as asking where the women Imperial Guard models are), which is a perfectly valid topic of discussion for a toy soldiers forum, you're going to have people complaining about SJWs trying to ruin the game and how politics shouldn't be in the game etc. They'll be using veiled language and dog whistles to avoid saying it outright, much like the current problem users in the political threads but the meaning is still there.
Except 'where are female guard' is never the topic, now is it? It's always "WE NEED [You-know-what]", and I've tested the theory- all you have to do is disagree and then you're getting a barrage of insinuations that you hate women, you're some kind of bigot, etc.
There's no 'dog-whistles'. That's just a weasel-phrase that means "That person didn't say something wrong but I want them to". How people purposefully elect to misinterpret an argument is not on the speaker.
That topic gets shut down because for every "Muh SJWoowoo" there's someone who has to weigh their desire for a model toy with a heap of sociopolitical commentary, and suddenly "I disagree because I like the current lore" is on par with "Women belong in the kitchen with babies in their guts".
My opinion? Good riddance to the Politics. It was seemingly just a pit for people from all over the world to whinge about Bad-Hair Orange Man. A lot of interesting restrictions there, too- but I'll keep that to myself.
Every FLGS I've been to is pretty strict about political discussions. If you can't discuss the game without getting hyper-political, I've got a pretty strong feeling you're not getting much table time in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: About fething time on the politics ban. Arm-chair political pundents can feth off to Facebook, InstaGram, Twitter, or political discussion forums. I am surprised it took this long to fething get done. The OT had become a fething cesspit.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Or they could've used the yellow triangle of friendship, pointed out the error, and gone on their way rather then..
Sure. "Hey mods, I'm letting you know through the yellow triangle of friendship that this guy is using the expression SJW!" "Yeah, we know, but we think this should totally be allowed, we'll only come back to it if (i.e. when) the thread has already degenerated".
They could have just used the yellow triangle of friendship, sure. Not sure why they'd do that, given it wouldn't change anything, but they could.
Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down. Yes, they'll post warnings or lock a topic for being 'heated', but don't appear to care about who was dancing around with a can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.
Like I said earlier, some people are perfectly capable of discussing toxic topics with civility, dignity, and honor. It isn't toxic topics, but the toxic posters who are incapable of that civility, no matter what the subject may be. There is already extant proof of that in this very thread. The problem isn't whether there is a ban on political discussion, the problem is that some people simply cannot abide by Rule 1 in their daily online lives.
kronk wrote: Let’s get back to discussion on miniatures, Star Wars movies, and gakky GW rules.
Did you miss the political/culture wars trainwrecks that the Star Wars movie threads became? Mention movie number 8 and some already start frothing at the mouth (regardless whether they think it was good or bad).
Disciple of Fate wrote: Did you miss the political/culture wars trainwrecks that the Star Wars movie threads became? Mention movie number 8 and some already start frothing at the mouth (regardless whether they think it was good or bad).
Discussing those movies isn't a safe bet anywhere any more. I've found that out the hard way. I'm not sure if it was the fans or the media, or just enough of both- but I've been really getting away from everything tied to Star Wars because I've seen people get into bickering matches in person and that's too much for me. My current opinion is that the movies are 'bad' but I'm not going to why any more. "I don't like them" is about all people get from me in person, and I start looking for a direction to walk.
On one hand I personally prefer a more wide open ability to discuss and I worry the contentious discussions are just going to bleed in to other conversations. However it can work, my second favorite wargaming site has a no politics religion rule and it works pretty well although there's probably a small size difference between the two. One item that's been brought up multiple times but not addressed is if you cant have a discussion about a topic then it shouldn't be in someones sig block (And I'm not just talking about the Mod other people were)
A Town Called Malus wrote: Whenever a thread opens asking about the disconnect in GW artwork and model lines compared to their lore (such as asking where the women Imperial Guard models are), which is a perfectly valid topic of discussion for a toy soldiers forum, you're going to have people complaining about SJWs trying to ruin the game and how politics shouldn't be in the game etc. They'll be using veiled language and dog whistles to avoid saying it outright, much like the current problem users in the political threads but the meaning is still there.
Except 'where are female guard' is never the topic, now is it? It's always "WE NEED [You-know-what]", and I've tested the theory- all you have to do is disagree and then you're getting a barrage of insinuations that you hate women, you're some kind of bigot, etc.
There's no 'dog-whistles'. That's just a weasel-phrase that means "That person didn't say something wrong but I want them to". How people purposefully elect to misinterpret an argument is not on the speaker.
That topic gets shut down because for every "Muh SJWoowoo" there's someone who has to weigh their desire for a model toy with a heap of sociopolitical commentary, and suddenly "I disagree because I like the current lore" is on par with "Women belong in the kitchen with babies in their guts".
I think not. I think pointing out the problem with the thread devolving into a pointless argument is hardly your 'case in point'. I'm also having difficulty seeing what part of my statement would rub you the wrong way.
My 2 cents, I like the political parts of off topic, I kinda fell out of the hobby because of family issues and the off topic kept me in the loop and made me browse other parts of Dakka. It had some great quality posters lile Sebster and LoH who made some great posts, its sad it went the way of the dodo.
Yeah, I somewhat feel that way as well. I originally lived almost exclusively in the 40k background and general boards here on Dakka, but slowly migrated to the OT board over time, having been drawn in by threads over Ukraine and Crimea. I eventually got burned out on posting in 40k background (I almost exclusively posted in OT for the past year or so), but I kept visiting Dakka because of interesting discussions in OT, which also kept me still reading the other boards. For all the times that political and religious threads in OT became cesspits, there were also times when there was a civil, intelligent, thought-provoking and highly enjoyable discussion going on (whether the debate was intelligent or toxic usually depended on the presence or absence of individual posters). Over the years, Dakka OT has definitely helped shape the way I think and reason, it has helped me improve my debating skills, it has learned me lots of things about a wide variety of subjects (though mostly related to UK and especially US politics and society) and all-around I think it has been important in my development and made me a better person. And if not, than it has at least massively improved my English language skills. All my friends are wondering how I got so good at it.
That being said, I do think this a chance for the better. Political and religious threads in OT often also brought out the worst in people, including me at times (OT threads about Crimea or US-Russia relations where the only places where I got warnings and bans). Banning politics removes the biggest source of toxicity on this forum, but it also bans some engaging discussion, which is probably one of the reasons why the mods took so long to make this decision. But if the mods show a bit of leniency (regarding politics ban, not regarding other rule violations) in some threads, I think we can still have plenty of engaging discussion about subjects that are (partially) political but generally a bit less toxic (such as the ISIS thread or the F-35 thread) than US or UK politics are in general. And otherwise I guess I will just migrate back to 40k Background
I think not. I think pointing out the problem with the thread devolving into a pointless argument is hardly your 'case in point'. I'm also having difficulty seeing what part of my statement would rub you the wrong way.
This is where I get to say "Case in point".
So you barging into the thread and responding to my post about how some people cannot civilly discuss issues which are related to gaming but are still political, such as representation in gaming media, by strawmanning the argument:
Except 'where are female guard' is never the topic, now is it? It's always "WE NEED [You-know-what]"...
then moving on to deny that dog-whistles exist:
There's no 'dog-whistles'. That's just a weasel-phrase that means "That person didn't say something wrong but I want them to".
and capping it off with this:
That topic gets shut down because for every "Muh SJWoowoo" there's someone who has to weigh their desire for a model toy with a heap of sociopolitical commentary
where, in response to a post about how discussing more representation in media is a sociopolitical topic but also one that is important to have due to the impact discussing such issues can have on the environment of the hobby, you decry people posting sociopolitical commentary and equate it to the people who attack other posters with terms like SJW in order to silence their criticism.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So you barging into the thread and responding to my post about how some people cannot civilly discuss issues which are related to gaming but are still political, such as representation in gaming media, by strawmanning the argument:
Except 'where are female guard' is never the topic, now is it? It's always "WE NEED [You-know-what]"...
I mean, I'm not wrong. Plenty of people here have seen it. And I think you saw how I pointed out that there were two sides of the argument.
There's no 'dog-whistles'. That's just a weasel-phrase that means "That person didn't say something wrong but I want them to".
'Dog Whistles' are most of the time exactly what I've said. Yes, of course there are people who'll use not-so-clever code to reference certain things, but I believe in your case you're trying to say "He's actually being a bigot, if you twist his words". I don't think you have any right to determine someone else's intent. It's a cheap way of saying exactly what I said- "He didn't say that but I want him to".
Anything else?
Because you seriously jumped right back into doing the exact thing that gets threads locked and shut down. Like, I'm almost sure you had this copy/pasted ready to go.
Self-awareness. I'm really working on mine, and I recommend you doing the same.
Elemental wrote: Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down.
Honestly, the magic of "completely opaque moderation" is that you don't know if they do. Maybe that person got a temporary ban because of their message. Just that they took a week of debating what was the appropriate sanction, sent them a PM, and noone was ever aware that they were banned. Which makes people believe that if they act the same way, they won't be banned. Which leads to more people acting this way.
kronk wrote: About fething time on the politics ban. Arm-chair political pundents can feth off to Facebook, InstaGram, Twitter, or political discussion forums. I am surprised it took this long to fething get done. The OT had become a fething cesspit.
Can you not see however that this type of language can escalate tensions when there doesn't have to be. The above statement is overly combative and although may not break any rules raises the temperature of any discussion. Barring I disagree with the statement and that we should all be "armchair political pundents" all the time, the above statement is so broad that anyone that talks about politics could be deemed to need to "feth off".
You could have quite easily stated instead:-
"It is my view that political discussions are better discussed in wider forums, such as Facebook, instagram or twitter rather than on this site. Those that deliberately provoke unnecessary tensions through personalised or generalised attacks could be better dealt with there".
You would be saying the same thing but people are likely to respect that wording much more and it won't escalate tensions by taking a scattergun when really you need a scalpel to remove the tumour. If someone on the other side bites back because they are 'hit' by the scatter gun approach and they respond likewise then the temperature increases again; it repeats until most people are in a tit-for-tat argument/row rather than ahead debate.
This ends up with situation we are in now where mods feel that have to close the topics. The only people that win are thoe the deliberately want to troll or cause eruptions and the disruption that causes to everyone.
Hordini wrote: For anyone interested, I've started a thread in the Wasteland for Dakka political refugees here.
I don't think this will work, because there is no admin, no moderators and so forth. It is also has a reputation apparently. Additionally for it really to get a head of steam it will need an active sticky link from dakka (and back again) to allow both to support each other. I've asked this but it's getting no response?
I don't think anyone is really asking for such an uncontrolled environment. Just a place where heated debates can happen where there is protection against abuse. Sometimes I think the two can be easily confused because people have different points of view and people can become very uncomfortable when they have to shine a spotlight not heir views that they don't want to uncover.
There actually is an admin and a few mods there, and there has been at least one occasion where a member was banned.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So you barging into the thread and responding to my post about how some people cannot civilly discuss issues which are related to gaming but are still political, such as representation in gaming media, by strawmanning the argument:
Except 'where are female guard' is never the topic, now is it? It's always "WE NEED [You-know-what]"...
I mean, I'm not wrong. Plenty of people here have seen it. And I think you saw how I pointed out that there were two sides of the argument.
There's no 'dog-whistles'. That's just a weasel-phrase that means "That person didn't say something wrong but I want them to".
'Dog Whistles' are most of the time exactly what I've said. Yes, of course there are people who'll use not-so-clever code to reference certain things, but I believe in your case you're trying to say "He's actually being a bigot, if you twist his words". I don't think you have any right to determine someone else's intent. It's a cheap way of saying exactly what I said- "He didn't say that but I want him to".
Anything else?
Because you seriously jumped right back into doing the exact thing that gets threads locked and shut down. Like, I'm almost sure you had this copy/pasted ready to go.
Self-awareness. I'm really working on mine, and I recommend you doing the same.
I think part of the problem is that the mods deleted your posts where you explained yourself (and, again, I owe you an apology for getting you confused with someone else)
We'd like to thank Mod BrookM for having made the situation WORSE rather than BETTER.
Ok, politics folks, we're packing the old Politics thread off to HERE:
Honestly I can see why the mods would want to shut down the thread and ban politics and religion.
Though they now have to be very careful because as was seen in the past if there is not a united front definition (which was heavily lacking before the ban and in all honesty seems like it still is) on what is and is not okay it will go downhill very quickly.
In the end I can see this either working out well or creating much more work than what the pre-ban was, not much in between.
I still have no idea what the rational for not banning the use of inflammatory expressions like “SJW” is. Got sanctions for using inflammatory language, notably when I criticized Saudi Arabia for “spewing hate”, but somehow “SJW” is… not inflammatory enough? Or, the kind of inflammatory that Dakka mods think is okay? Not sure.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I still have no idea what the rational for not banning the use of inflammatory expressions like “SJW” is. Got sanctions for using inflammatory language, notably when I criticized Saudi Arabia for “spewing hate”, but somehow “SJW” is… not inflammatory enough? Or, the kind of inflammatory that Dakka mods think is okay? Not sure.
SJW doesn't have to be inflammatory. In some cases it's an apt description.
Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down. Yes, they'll post warnings or lock a topic for being 'heated', but don't appear to care about who was dancing around with a can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.
As has been pointed out above, a lot of moderation is carried out privately. But it also often depends on the situation. If someone gakposts in the thread, and someone reports it rather than escalating it so that we can deal with that one poster and that one post, we'll generally do that. If everyone else in the thread has promptly run around throwing the furniture on top of the burning heap, it's more likely to wind up with a general warning to the thread or a threadlock, because by that point who started the fire is largely irrelevant. It's up to everyone to follow the rules, and 'He started it!' doesn't work as an excuse for anyone over the age of 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I still have no idea what the rational for not banning the use of inflammatory expressions like “SJW” is. Got sanctions for using inflammatory language, notably when I criticized Saudi Arabia for “spewing hate”, but somehow “SJW” is… not inflammatory enough? Or, the kind of inflammatory that Dakka mods think is okay? Not sure.
The rationale is that the term itself is fine, but if it's used in an inflammatory way, then it's a problem.
BaronIveagh wrote: I think part of the problem is that the mods deleted your posts where you explained yourself (and, again, I owe you an apology for getting you confused with someone else)
No worries, man. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has bad days, and only absolute losers dip Wendy's fries in a Frosty.
insaniak wrote: The rationale is that the term itself is fine, but if it's used in an inflammatory way, then it's a problem.
How can it be used in a way that isn't inflammatory? I mean, sure, even “miserable pile of gak”, "son of a female dog” and, well, [see forum posting rules], can be used in non-inflammatory ways. Won't stop all of those from being automatically censored by Dakka. So I'm going to ask: which valuable post will be lost of “SJW” become a forbidden word? I want to weigh in with all the flame wars that this will prevent. Just to weigh in the good and the bad that would come from the decision. But the problem is that I literally cannot think of even one worthwhile post that this would prevent, now that politics are a forbidden subject.
[edit]feth, gak, that middle one wasn't censored by Dakka, had to censor it myself!!![/edit]
Hordini wrote: SJW doesn't have to be inflammatory. In some cases it's an apt description.
It is always inflammatory, even when it's an apt description.
I disagree. It certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be. That's like saying the terms activist, or alt right, or antifa are always inflammatory. They all could be in certain circumstances, but it's context dependent.
As much as me and Hybrid may be different and disagree, this is one thing he's correct about. No one uses SJW as a compliment or a descriptor. It was created for the sole purpose of being a pejorative. The idea is that the 'warrior' part of it is like calling some stupid person a 'genius'.
It's also something that gets thrown around where it shouldn't, for things not even remotely 'SJW'. Oh, main character of a video game is black? MUH SJW! Woman on the front of a game book? MUH SJW!
Like a whole lot of other names that people get labeled with in the 'culture war', it's pretty much diluted to mean 'anyone who does things I dislike'. Because both sides have no shortage of idiots.
Hordini wrote: That's like saying the terms activist, or alt right, or antifa are always inflammatory.
No that's not. Alt-right, and Antifa is how some people decided to brand themselves. Activist is a term with usually good connotations. SJW is a derogatory term that was introduced to brand others, in a dismissive way. You would maybe have a point if you compared it to terms like tankies, or TERF. And TERF isn't even that clear, because it really is more descriptive than anything.
Hordini wrote: That's like saying the terms activist, or alt right, or antifa are always inflammatory.
No that's not. Alt-right, and Antifa is how some people decided to brand themselves. Activist is a term with usually good connotations. SJW is a derogatory term that was introduced to brand others, in a dismissive way.
You would maybe have a point if you compared it to terms like tankies, or TERF. And TERF isn't even that clear, because it really is more descriptive than anything.
Except that alt right and antifa are also often thrown around and used to label people who aren't actually associated with either group/movement.
Hordini wrote: Except that alt right and antifa are also often thrown around and used to label people who aren't actually associated with either group/movement.
Yes. They are sometime used in incorrectly. “SJW” is inflammatory even when used correctly. I think this is a big difference, worth making one banned and not the other.
insaniak wrote: Right off the top of my head, someone self-identifying with it, for starters.
Seen that happens often on DakkaDakka? As someone who is basically always on the side of the “SJW” when this kind of topics pops up, I would be all in favor of the term being banned, and I don't remember ever seeing someone identifying as such other than as a throw-away line to provoke ideological opponents. Anyone wants to chime in to say how they wouldn't want “SJW” usage to be banned because they want to be allowed to identify as SJW? What do you think, Peregrine?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: As with anything else, though, we'll review it if and when it becomes a problem.
I think it's already a problem. Every time I see it I naturally tend to write more heated answers, and I'm realistically far from the only one. Because that's what inflammatory language do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adeptus Doritos wrote: As much as me and Hybrid may be different and disagree, this is one thing he's correct about. No one uses SJW as a compliment or a descriptor. It was created for the sole purpose of being a pejorative.
Out of curiosity, is there another expression from the other side of the culture war that is similar and that you'd like to see banned too? Tried to think of one but couldn't, because stuff like “sexist” or “racist” has much more legitimate uses totally outside of the scope of this current culture war.
I think it's already a problem. Every time I see it I naturally tend to write more heated answers, and I'm realistically far from the only one. Because that's what inflammatory language do.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Out of curiosity, is there another expression from the other side of the culture war that is similar and that you'd like to see banned too? Tried to think of one but couldn't, because stuff like “sexist” or “racist” has much more legitimate uses totally outside of the scope of this current culture war.
I'd like to see 'Nazi' banned, unless someone is an actual literal Nazi or Neo-Nazi. Nothing irks me more than that word being abused and cheapened to mean 'someone who disagrees with me'. Because when you pair that with 'we should punch Nazis', that gets really dangerous. One particular Youtuber that I dislike (I think he's a whiny little butt-hurt pansy that let his snark and gakposting wreck his entire channel's purpose), as much I can say bad things about him- isn't a 'Nazi' by any stretch.
I'm part Jewish, non-practicing. My Grandfather shot Nazis. I grew up hearing my Nanny- a German woman with a number on her arm- telling me how awful they were. I think it's the equivalent of spitting on her, my grandfather, and my family to call someone like Jeremy Hamby, some troll using a Pepe meme, or someone who voted for Trump a 'Nazi'. We can argue what level of 'bad' or 'offensive' those people are, but you wouldn't stand in front of the people who faced ACTUAL NAZIS and tell them "Yeah, those are the exact same thing" because I can promise you, YOU would be the one getting punched.
I think it's a disgusting label, and there are places it belongs, but it's often not on places like Dakka.
I'll likely sticky the thread links in the OT forum eventually, too. We have absolutely no problem with Dakkanauts taking the political discussion elsewhere together, and that's actually how the OT forum got its start (before Dakka had an OT board)
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'd like to see 'Nazi' banned, unless someone is an actual literal Nazi or Neo-Nazi.
I'd be 100% fine with Nazi being used to describe someone who isn't literally a neo-Nazi or an actual Nazi being banned. Saying things like “The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville had Nazi” would be fine (literal Nazi flags being carried around), and “Ernst Röhm was a gay Nazi” (historical figure that was part of the Nazi party even before it rose to power, and literal homosexual) would be fine, but “Trump is a Nazi” or “ICE agents are Nazi” wouldn't be fine. Not sure how to deal with corner-case like people who actually argue for a white ethnostate while refusing the label (say, Richard Spencer), but if them not being called Nazi is the price to pay for more civil discussions, would be 100% worth it.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'm part Jewish, non-practicing. My Grandfather shot Nazis. I grew up hearing my Nanny- a German woman with a number on her arm- telling me how awful they were.
My grand-mother fled from Germany to Italy, France, back to Italy and then Switzerland, part of my family ended up in the camps too.
I got some beef with them too, obviously.
RiTides wrote: Okay guys, Baron has started two general politics threads in the OT Zone, and this has our (the mods) full blessing!
I imagine it does, since it's a forum where they post pics of dicks chained together. It pains me to say it, but I don;'t think it;'s going to be a viable solution.
Please no more discussion of individual political terms (that you'd like banned / not banned) in this thread. We'll keep a close eye on all of these, and any other inflammatory language, but will not be making hard and fast rules on each. However, using any of these terms can easily violate rule #1 (Be polite!) so by far the safest thing is to avoid them altogether.
At this point we've well and truly covered that idea, and we'd like this thread to remain open a bit longer in case folks have other questions about the forum change.
I think this is for the best. And I also think it'll calm down in a few days. And I also think it doesn't need any more clarification than what yakface posted; if it was something that previously would have been allowed outside the OT forum, it's still fine, if it's something that previously would have been "take it to OT guys" it will now be "take it somewhere else".
In spite of the comments in this thread, I think the majority of people know what "no politics/religion" means and are fine with that.
I'm sure a few folk spent a decent chunk of their day reading/replying to the political threads and are now at a loose end, but I'm also sure they'll be able to adjust hopefully with minimal crapping up of other threads and moderator intervention.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Or they could've used the yellow triangle of friendship, pointed out the error, and gone on their way rather then..
Sure. "Hey mods, I'm letting you know through the yellow triangle of friendship that this guy is using the expression SJW!" "Yeah, we know, but we think this should totally be allowed, we'll only come back to it if (i.e. when) the thread has already degenerated".
They could have just used the yellow triangle of friendship, sure. Not sure why they'd do that, given it wouldn't change anything, but they could.
Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down. Yes, they'll post warnings or lock a topic for being 'heated', but don't appear to care about who was dancing around with a can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.
That would seem to be a good idea, especially when it seems to be the same usual (and well known) suspects.
But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.
So instead, no more Politics or Religion in the OT, which on the surface seems kind of an obvious and overdue 'solution'.
Maybe now the same usual (and well known) suspects will drift away to other places?
Elemental wrote: Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down. Yes, they'll post warnings or lock a topic for being 'heated', but don't appear to care about who was dancing around with a can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.
That would seem to be a good idea, especially when it seems to be the same usual (and well known) suspects.
But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.
So instead, no more Politics or Religion in the OT, which on the surface seems kind of an obvious and overdue 'solution'.
Maybe now the same usual (and well known) suspects will drift away to other places?
It's not just politics threads though (that was just where the process was most noticeable), it's something you'll see from time to time in pretty much every forum. Actually, the US Politics forum was partially self-regulating, since a majority of posters had realised not to engage with low-quality drive-by posters like whembley.
If people see other posters getting a thread temp locked virtually single-handedly and then, when it's purged and re-opened, resuming as if nothing had happened, that sends a message about what you can get away with on this forum.
Elemental wrote: It's not just politics threads though (that was just where the process was most noticeable), it's something you'll see from time to time in pretty much every forum. Actually, the US Politics forum was partially self-regulating, since a majority of posters had realised not to engage with low-quality drive-by posters like whembley.
You know, it's counter-productive to flame someone outside of Politics when the whole point it seemed people were trying to make is that 'the toxicity stayed there and was self-regulating'.
Elemental wrote: Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down.
Honestly, the magic of "completely opaque moderation" is that you don't know if they do. Maybe that person got a temporary ban because of their message. Just that they took a week of debating what was the appropriate sanction, sent them a PM, and noone was ever aware that they were banned. Which makes people believe that if they act the same way, they won't be banned. Which leads to more people acting this way.
I have been moderating on this board for about 10 years and have been a member for about 15 in total. Not everyone agrees with my style or decisions, and I am as capable as any human of making mistakes.
I think the moderation policy of handing out sanctions in private is a good one. I also agree with the policy of not permanently suspending members until they are about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability.
I believe these two policies are helpful in converting some "bad" posters into better ones, and that is a good objective. We want people to come to the forum, contribute, and help make it a fun place to hang out.
All the above being said, there is no doubt in my mind that discussion has become generally more politicised and polarised in the past five years compared to the previous five years. The manifestation is trigger events like Gamergate, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, Trump, and Brexit. There are several factors behind this, which I won't go into because they are obvious from the events or movements I have mentioned, and because clearly it takes us into the forbidden realms of politics and religion.
In the current climate, where trivial discussion of pop culture games and films is fraught with social angst, the banning of P&R from the OT Forum is designed to make the forum a nicer place to be, and lighten the load on the moderation team through reducing the necessity of interventions.
Hopefully in the long term the social situation will stabilise and people will stop biting each other's heads off for disagreeing with them.
Mysterio wrote: But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.
How exactly is that any more authoritarian or punishment-heavy than locking any thread that contains political content and banning anyone who posts it? I find it absurd to argue that a properly-moderated political discussion is somehow more strict than a complete ban on the subject. And insisting on collective punishment and "both sides are bad" nonsense creates more conflict. When everyone is equally bad and responsible then the troll lighting the world on fire is no worse than anyone else and gets to feel justified in their actions, making it more likely that they continue their poor behavior.
And I think it's worth noting that some of the highest quality of discussion (both political and otherwise) I've seen on a forum/blog has been in places where enforcement of superficial politeness is nonexistent and stupidity and dishonesty are bannable offenses. Refuse to provide evidence for a claim you made or concede defeat and drop it permanently? Spam inane memes instead of legitimate discussion? Goodbye, gone forever. People who make low-quality posts and all over the discussion get told, in explicit terms, to off and if they don't improve their posting quality they get banned. So despite the absence of a language filter the discussion ends up being fairly polite and reasonable with all of the passive-aggressive sniping and thinly-veiled hate speech and such kept to a minimum. People who cross the line are smacked down hard and either do better or stop posting.
This just goes back to the biggest problem with dakka's moderation policy: that it's almost entirely based on superficial politeness. You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words. It doesn't mean you're actually polite, or a good person, or contributing anything of value to the site, but the superficial appearance of politeness is enough. That's why dakka policy as presented here by the moderators is that a Nazi would be welcome in the community as long as they leave the swastika flags at home, while someone saying " off Nazi" to them would be banned for violating the superficial politeness rule. It's why a moderator (admin/owner?) explicitly told me that they would not be deleting transphobic garbage or banning the person who posted it, because it didn't use any bad words. And it's why they're so concerned with the existence of political discussion. The fact that it reveals existing disagreements and breaks the illusion that everyone in the community is one big happy family is unbearable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: Okay guys, Baron has started two general politics threads in the OT Zone, and this has our (the mods) full blessing!
Sorry, but this is just insane. You're providing official endorsement of a political discussion, linking it to dakka as semi-official section of the forum, involving the same members, and somehow this is a fine idea just because the URL doesn't have "dakka" in the name? FFS, at least with political discussion actually posted on this site there's moderation authority over it. If you're genuinely concerned about conflict coming out of political discussion then the last thing you'd want to do is to encourage everyone to go have a flame war somewhere else and then carry their grudges back to the official forum.
Peregrine wrote: . You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words.
This is not, and has never been, Dakka's moderation policy. People have been shown the door in the past for behavior that didn't just involve 'bad words'.
The real problem is simply that you disagree with where Dakka's administration draws the line, and so therefore Dakka's administration is clearly wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: the current climate, where trivial discussion of pop culture games and films is fraught with social angst
This is an argument against banning politics! When everything, even pop culture discussions, is tied to political issues then a ban on "politics" becomes an excessively broad ban on practically anything that isn't inane small talk. Want to discuss the new Star Wars movie? Better limit it to "OMG I LOVED THE NEW X-WING" and not say anything of substance about it because then you might get into politics.
And of course the bias issue appears here as well. A ban on politics doesn't remove the politics from the subject, it just establishes the status quo as the only acceptable position to discuss. For example, discussion of female marines is banned (and will inevitably lead to politics) but discussion of male marines is not. The absence of female miniatures in GW's most important product line is taken for granted by forum policy, and dissenting voices are told to shut up or get out. And that "shut up or get out" policy is almost certainly going to be biased, with locking/bans done primarily to threads/posters who disagree with a moderator's opinion on the subject. There is no such thing as neutrality here, the only question is which side of the issue you're on.
Peregrine wrote: . You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words.
This is not, and has never been, Dakka's moderation policy.
In official words, no. In practice that's exactly what it is. I can't even count the number of times I've seen appalling things said and not deleted as long as there aren't any bad words included. And that's not even counting the lying, straw manning, etc, that goes completely un-punished as long as it doesn't use any bad words.
Peregrine wrote: . And that's not even counting the lying, straw manning, etc, that goes completely un-punished as long as it doesn't use any bad words.
No, no, lying is absolutely punished, with a good paddling. We just keep a list on the off chance that those responsible end up all enrolling in the same primary school so we can sort them all out at the same time.
Of course the problem with "be polite" is that one half of the political discourse (which some of the moderation team are explicit in belonging to) considers assaulting people for doubleplusungoodwrongthink to be "polite".
BaconCatBug wrote: Of course the problem with "be polite" is that one half of the political discourse (which some of the moderation team are explicit in belonging to) considers assaulting people for doubleplusungoodwrongthink to be "polite".
That's an impressively huge generalization you've got there, Pardner.
Peregrine wrote: . And that's not even counting the lying, straw manning, etc, that goes completely un-punished as long as it doesn't use any bad words.
No, no, lying is absolutely punished, with a good paddling. We just keep a list on the off chance that those responsible end up all enrolling in the same primary school so we can sort them all out at the same time.
Glad to see you responding to the substance of the criticism instead of making a bad joke about it...
BaconCatBug wrote: Of course the problem with "be polite" is that one half of the political discourse (which some of the moderation team are explicit in belonging to) considers assaulting people for doubleplusungoodwrongthink to be "polite".
So your argument in defence of allowing politics is that the mods ban one half of the political membership in order to ensure that discourse is polite and respectful. And of course without quite stating which half we might have to assume it could be both halves! So the solution is simple - allow politics but ban the membership!
The mods absolutely were biased in the politics threads. Look at the posts of Kilkrazy and Reds8n in those threads and tell me that they were impartial. Posters on one side of the divide, like DINLT, would get publicly reprimanded for the smallest reason while others like Mad Doc Grotsnik can outright call another poster a “bell end” without consequence. And of course, in a thread about this kind of thing they outright admitted that they’re under no obligation to be impartial.
I’m happy that the politics threads are gone, and that’s one reason why. The other being that they were just pure poison. But those of you on my ignore list as a result of politics won’t be coming off it anytime soon. I won’t forget all of the patronising condescending put downs and insults, nor will I be forgiving them anytime soon either.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the moderation policy of handing out sanctions in private is a good one.
Well, I explained what I thought were the problems with it. You obviously don't have to answer, but I'd be surprised about why you believe it to be a good one. I mean, you do say later than it can convert a bad poster into a good one, but I'm failing to see how the sanctions being private help. It definitely generate a lot of frustration for users who feel like they were abused with no consequence, but get punished if they answer in kind.
Kilkrazy wrote: I also agree with the policy of not permanently suspending members until they are about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability.
I apparently was about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability then, because I'm permanently banned from Off Topic. Nice to know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey, good illustration, thanks FWC.
Future War Cultist wrote: Posters on one side of the divide, like DINLT, would get publicly reprimanded for the smallest reason while others like Mad Doc Grotsnik can outright call another poster a “bell end” without consequence.
Maybe Mad Doc Grotsnick was reprimanded. If not that time, maybe other times. You'll always see when you are reprimanded, you will often hear it when someone on your side gets reprimanded because you communicate more with them, and it's very easy to miss when those on the other side get reprimanded.
Unless it's not that and the moderation actually did only reprimand people on your side, I'll let them tell us if they gave the illusion of acting only on one side, or if they did act only on one side, they are the one who know!
Guys, as you can see above, BaconCatBug and Future War Cultist both posted about moderation being biased about politics - but in opposite directions!
As an independent, I've found this time to be really trying as far as having polite political discourse, not only on Dakka but in general. People are fired up, on both "sides", and the idea of having a beer with someone on the opposite side of the aisle has given way to much of what Peregrine has alluded to in this thread - that is, wanting nothing to do with someone whose beliefs are on the other "side" of the political spectrum.
This is just not a fight we want to be a part of on Dakka. The longer we've tried to find a balance in the middle, the more people on both "sides" have begun to resent both each other and the mods. We've decided that it's just too toxic for the site right now, and have gotten quite a lot of messages supporting this conclusion.
In the end, I'm sorry we can't find a solution to make everyone happy, but this is our best shot between what we see as two bad choices. We're not going to change the style of moderation to fit in politics - rather, we're hoping that by removing politics we'll be able to keep things how they've always been on the rest of the site. User alerts are already Way down, as the vast, vast majority were generated from just a few politics threads in OT.
As for where to go talk about it now, The Wasteland is a great option imo (for the thick skinned!) but there are lots of others, too. If another one also gets traction I'll be happy to post up links in the locked threads! But The Wasteland US Politics thread is already quite active for those interested
Ditching the politics threads is what swayed me back towards renewing my DMC come February. Before, I was honestly considering leaving Dakka altogether. But you listened, and I appreciate that.
Future War Cultist wrote: Ditching the politics threads is what swayed me back towards renewing my DMC come February. Before, I was honestly considering leaving Dakka altogether. But you listened, and I appreciate that.
If a thread you could easily ignore was the reason you didn't renew a DCM then you have problems, not the mod team.
Kilkrazy wrote: I also agree with the policy of not permanently suspending members until they are about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability.
I apparently was about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability then, because I'm permanently banned from Off Topic. Nice to know.
I'm sure now that Politics and Religion are a no-go, they'll rescind that OT Only Ban and you'll be free to wander back in there and talk about whatever else.
BaconCatBug wrote: If a thread you could easily ignore was the reason you didn't renew a DCM then you have problems, not the mod team.
I don’t pay money towards something I don’t like. Being insulted by other posters including mods is something I don’t like. I can ignore the thread but the damage is done.
But another advantage of the politics threads going is that I don’t have to talk to posters like you as much anymore; ones who can’t resist the urge to get a little dig in against others because they’re that full of themselves. So goodbye.
RiTides wrote: Guys, as you can see above, BaconCatBug and Future War Cultist both posted about moderation being biased about politics - but in opposite directions!
Which, again, is certainly at least exacerbated by them seeing only the actions the mods take at their expense, and never those taken at someone else's expense.
Silent moderation make this (more of) a problem!
Mysterio wrote: I'm sure now that Politics and Religion are a no-go, they'll rescind that OT Only Ban and you'll be free to wander back in there and talk about whatever else.
Can't tell if you are serious or not .
I don't think they will.
Mysterio wrote: But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.
How exactly is that any more authoritarian or punishment-heavy than locking any thread that contains political content and banning anyone who posts it? I find it absurd to argue that a properly-moderated political discussion is somehow more strict than a complete ban on the subject. And insisting on collective punishment and "both sides are bad" nonsense creates more conflict. When everyone is equally bad and responsible then the troll lighting the world on fire is no worse than anyone else and gets to feel justified in their actions, making it more likely that they continue their poor behavior.
And I think it's worth noting that some of the highest quality of discussion (both political and otherwise) I've seen on a forum/blog has been in places where enforcement of superficial politeness is nonexistent and stupidity and dishonesty are bannable offenses. Refuse to provide evidence for a claim you made or concede defeat and drop it permanently? Spam inane memes instead of legitimate discussion? Goodbye, gone forever. People who make low-quality posts and all over the discussion get told, in explicit terms, to off and if they don't improve their posting quality they get banned. So despite the absence of a language filter the discussion ends up being fairly polite and reasonable with all of the passive-aggressive sniping and thinly-veiled hate speech and such kept to a minimum. People who cross the line are smacked down hard and either do better or stop posting.
This just goes back to the biggest problem with dakka's moderation policy: that it's almost entirely based on superficial politeness. You can be as much of a as you want, as long as you don't use any bad words. It doesn't mean you're actually polite, or a good person, or contributing anything of value to the site, but the superficial appearance of politeness is enough. That's why dakka policy as presented here by the moderators is that a Nazi would be welcome in the community as long as they leave the swastika flags at home, while someone saying " off Nazi" to them would be banned for violating the superficial politeness rule. It's why a moderator (admin/owner?) explicitly told me that they would not be deleting transphobic garbage or banning the person who posted it, because it didn't use any bad words. And it's why they're so concerned with the existence of political discussion. The fact that it reveals existing disagreements and breaks the illusion that everyone in the community is one big happy family is unbearable.
The politeness rule is important because this is a site dedicated to the TTG hobby that wants to be welcoming to all hobbyists. The owners and mods of the site have stated that the type of no holds barred political discussion forum that you want is t ever going to happen on Dakka. The argument you make against the ban, that people not interested in politics can ignore the thread undercuts your argument against politeness. If you don’t like what a poster posts then put that person on ignore. If you don’t like the site rules regarding political discussions then discuss politics somewhere else. There was never going to be a special dispensation to allow posters to aggressively and maliciously harass and harangue other posters in a Politics thread in a profane and insulting manner with the intent to drive that person away from ever posting in a Politics thread ever again because they don’t meet your personal standards because that level of personal animosity is never going to be welcome at Dakka under the present ownership and moderation. Arguing for less civility to be allowed in a discussion that has been repeatedly ban for failing to maintain civility is a poor argument. If we wanted to be able to discuss politics and religion on Dakka we should have been doing so within the boundaries of the site rules but we weren’t we were creating more mod alerts, warnings and bans than any other topic so we lost that privilege and have only ourselves to blame.
Mysterio wrote: I'm sure now that Politics and Religion are a no-go, they'll rescind that OT Only Ban and you'll be free to wander back in there and talk about whatever else.
Can't tell if you are serious or not .
I don't think they will.
100% serious and they certainly should!
I mean, I can't imagine you were banned from the OT for anything other than politics, so now that it is gone, there's no reason to keep you out of there anymore, right?
Mysterio wrote: I mean, I can't imagine you were banned from the OT for anything other than politics, so now that it is gone, there's no reason to keep you out of there anymore, right?
I remember getting a message from a mod about how "before it was preventive, now the sanctions are going to be punitive", so I'm not holding my breath .
If the reasons for the ban is punishment, after all, then the reason for the ban is still there: they still want to punish me.
Don't worry though, I'll be allowed back in "2100/01/31 00:00:00". Should come faster than it seem.
I will say this though, I am not sure what triggered those thread closings, I took a quick look and couldn't find anything, but I have mixed feelings.
For one, I absolutely hate censorship. Censorship is for pussies. I wouldn't dream of blocking out text someone else has written and hate it when it is done to me. If its purely offensive to the point where its just malicious, then fine I guess. But if there is one thing I can't stand about dakka its all the thread closing and editing posts. I mean, good conversations evolve, and if posters want to talk about Land Raiders that some how turns into cup cake recipes than so be it. I don't need a Mod coming in and reminding me that the topic is about Land Raiders. I can see that when I click the link. However, we are talking about cup cakes now. At some point we'll go back to Land Raiders. Who are you filing all this for anyway? Its not like anyone is going to go back and dig one of these old threads up anyway. And god forbid if they should necro it.
I do think that the way dakka is managed leads to a lot of passive aggressiveness that actually sets people off a lot more than if there were less interference. You have someone digging into someone, then the retort, and the one hitting back is the one that gets suspended while the other carries on to do more. I see it all the time on here. I have learned just roll my eyes at the BS. If the mods really want to create an environment in which people weren't so quick to be set off on here, they would do more about that. But I don't see that they do. And I feel hitting that report button is a waste of time.
Its going to be fun watching topics get locked all over the place around here when someone mentions anything political about any event going on in the world. Our world is deeply affected by politics, so if you are trying to segregate dakka from it, well, you might as well shut down Off Topic, Geek Media, and anything else not related strictly to gaming. 'Hey guys, just saw a great film on JFK' oops JFK was a democrat and its just set off a whole bunch of republicans so that's too political.
So I guess rather than one politics thread, it will be replaced by a whole bunch of other threads that get locked for mentioning anything political. Should be funny.
There is snark and passive aggressiveness all over Dakka yes. It’s pretty much a feature of the site. But I’ve found the majority of it comes from politics threads in OT. I’d say 95% of my ‘enemies’ list originated from OT.
Any questions going forward about what is/isn't OK to post, please feel free to PM any mod, or even start another thread in here if it's a more general discussion.
), it may be handy to post a little update/guideline on what constitutes a political or religious discussion and what not. For example, would a discussion about the civil wars in Syria or Ukraine be considered political (and therefore banned) or not? Would a discussion about Islamic extremism be considered religious etc.?
you GTFO" and a moderator hitting the lock/ban button to remove statements they don't agree with. I can refuse to associate with someone once their beliefs are known, but I can't remove them by force.
.
