Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it possible for mods to make a post outlining what behaviours on a thread they find problematic, rather than just posting something like this:

This thread is closed. Many of the statements are borderline racist and the level of vitriol is not acceptable on a board that is fundamentally about toy soldiers (or historical miniature gaming if its ever brought up in court-just fyi).

If you find this decision unacceptable, you have the option to find other websites to post on.

with no previous warning that parts of the discussion were out of bounds, and locking the thread? It's pretty annoying when you're following it to have it be closed, especially when conversations on YMDC regularly become more full of vitriol than the thread in question was, and threads with more racist content regularly go by with very little comment from the moderation team.
The statement about finding other websites to post on is some icing on this particular cake.

I liked that thread.... :(

Swearing, racism, libel, persistent antagonism towards other users, trolling, flame-baiting, repeated circular arguments and so on -- the usual kind of things.

Mods will also lock a thread which throws up too many alerts, because it becomes such a hassle to deal with.

I too thought the conversation was relatively civilized.

I appreciate that moderation is a chore. I'm sorry to be complaining about it. But I felt I should make it known that a warning before a lock is much better than a sudden lock like that, and any lock is better without the "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" tag.
Thank you for replying, Killkrazy.

Yeah other than Shuma it was civil, it seems odd to me that people take dakkadakka so personally. Me and Oly are on opposite sides of the fence there, but i dont see why it makes people fall out. Its just like supporting another football team...

Well... a heavily armed football team..

With automatic weapons...

Ok its nothing like that. But still...

mattyrm wrote:Yeah other than Shuma it was civil, it seems odd to me that people take dakkadakka so personally. Me and Oly are on opposite sides of the fence there, but i dont see why it makes people fall out. Its just like supporting another football team...

Well... a heavily armed football team..

With automatic weapons...

Ok its nothing like that. But still...

You've never been to North Carolina have you ;P. It's actually Basketball that they do this with in North Carolina, college basketball.

There was substantial flaming and attacks on a particular nation in the thread. Attacks on a particular nationality are not permitted either.

Generally if it can get you in trouble with the EEOC its generally right out. Plus there were personal flaming going on.

I mean, I expressed a distaste for Israeli actions in general as did several others,but I don't recall myself or others saying anything racist.

There was a bit of flaming but nothing too bad compared to any other OT thread.

once the word "zionist" starts being thrown around...

In other forum I post, when someone opens a thread to ask about a closed thread, sometimes gets banned.

So I wouldn't worry too much, the Modquisition is not a democracy xD

Frazzled wrote:once the word "zionist" starts being thrown around...

What's wrong with the word Zionist?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:What's wrong with the word Zionist?

sA

He said it again!

George Spiggott wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:What's wrong with the word Zionist?

sA

He said it again!

Bring MEE...a SHRUBBERY!!!

smiling Assassin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:once the word "zionist" starts being thrown around...

What's wrong with the word Zionist?

sA

It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

A burning shrubbery?



That's a Zionist allusion of a divine illusion.

Gitzbitah wrote:A burning shrubbery?



That's a Zionist allusion of a divine illusion.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but you've left me with no choice.

Frazzled wrote:once the word "zionist" starts being thrown around...

So you don't believe that there are Zionists in the current Israeli administration? Or that the foundation of the state of Isreal was based (in part, at least) on Zionist principles? Is that not something to be taken into consideration?

'Zionist' is not a racist term.

Kilkrazy wrote:I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but you've left me with no choice.

Also, Talking about mods generally leads to pissed off mods.

Just sayin!

Ahtman wrote:

It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

I assume the word to refer to a type of Israeli nationalism

indeed that would appear to be so

Fail to understand any loading of meaning
am genuinely baffled here because this is the only meaning I have known

This thread makes me feel like asking...

Wait, wut?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:This thread makes me feel like asking...

Exactly.

That cockatiel sentence is brutal. I wonder if it was constructed by chance, or by somebody trained in linguistics well enough to know exactly how to make a brain damaging verbal construct.

Regardless, I was made very sad by the locking of that thread, and I wish it had not happened.

Full disclosure: ShumaGorath responded to me in so stupid a fashion, I wanted to yell at it.

So maybe closing it was a good idea. But, honestly, can we close every thread ShumaGorath posts on? Doesn't that mean that the terrorists win?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

I assume the word to refer to a type of Israeli nationalism

Well you know what they say about making assumptions.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Fail to understand any loading of meaning
am genuinely baffled here because this is the only meaning I have known

It is bandied around a lot by Neo-nazi's, Nation of Islam, and others (such as Iran's current President) to mean much more then just reference to religious geographic history. Finding one definition on the internet doesn't mean that is the only way a word is used, or how it is wielded politically.

I've never seen Zionism referred to as a pejorative. Yeah, people use it that way, but people also use Nazi that way. Are we really at the point where description is insulting?

M: You're a good Catholic.
O: You take that back, charlatan!

Frazzled wrote:once the word "zionist" starts being thrown around...

What of it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

smiling Assassin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:once the word "zionist" starts being thrown around...

What's wrong with the word Zionist?

sA

It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

You cannot debate from a point of assumed ignorance. Shutting down debate on account of fear of that is retrograde.

Frazzled wrote:There was substantial flaming and attacks on a particular nation in the thread. Attacks on a particular nationality are not permitted either.

Generally if it can get you in trouble with the EEOC its generally right out. Plus there were personal flaming going on.

Yeah, this is what I suspected. There's a peculiar sensitivity in the US that a criticism of Israeli policy is an attack on the state itself. It's very odd considering Israel itself has no such sensitivity, if you ever get a chance you should read some of the debate that goes on amongst Israelis over their foreign policy.

Both sides of the debate actually know what they're talking about.

Ahtman wrote:It is a loaded word that means different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation.

I agree that the term has been used by anti-semitic groups, and it needs to be used carefully. But there are Israelis who self-identify with the term, what word should we use when we talk about them?

sebster wrote:

I agree that the term has been used by anti-semitic groups, and it needs to be used carefully. But there are Israelis who self-identify with the term, what word should we use when we talk about them?

Emphasis, Mine.

I think you answered your own question.