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.
Peregrine wrote:Like I said, everyone but you seems to understand it. You can come up with as many philosophical arguments as you like about the nature of rules, but you aren't going to change anything.
1. I don't expect to change anything in concreto. I only wish to draw attention to the absurdity of moderator practice. If even a single person reads what I am saying, agrees with me and considers the moderation practices as shameful/abhorrent, then mission accomplished.
2. Philosophical = attendant to the nature of reality. "You can come up with as many arguments about how things actually are, but you aren't going to change anything." Iow: "You can argue on the basis of how rules actually are supposed to operate and show how the current practices diverges from this, but it's not like the mods will care."
True enough. But so what?
The forum rules as they are now are pretty concrete. You might be able to rules lawyer your way into finding some loopholes, but most people can figure it out just fine.
Please explain to me how the OP of a thread can derail that thread.
I'll be waiting.
And? The fact that an Australian didn't care enough about your US politics test to provide the proof you want doesn't prove anything. I can entirely understand his lack of interest in dealing with it.
Anyway, here's an example of a Trump supporter, just so we can be done with this absurd test:
Seaward wrote: The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.
While I can't prove that Seaward hasn't been warned for anything he's been posting from a conservative point of view for a long time and the post in question has not attracted any moderator attention. Nor has the post from cuda1179 agreeing with Seaward's argument.
Three points:
1. Gary Johnson is a libertarian. A libertarian by definition is a social liberal.
2. There's nothing about this posting which favors or argues for a truly conservative point of view.
3. You yourself admit that you've failed to meet the criteria that I've set.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:06:27
IOW, "pass my impossible test or concede that I'm right". You know perfectly well that I (just like every non-moderator/admin member) can not see who has warnings, and your test would exclude a Trump supporter who has received a warning for a YMDC flame war that had nothing to do with their political views.
It's not impossible for Insaniak. He failed to provide such an instance.
How is Insaniak meant to know which posters support Trump off hand like that. He'd have to search posts in various threads to find posters mention that they're going to support Trump and then spend time looking to see if they've received warnings related to flame wars based on their political views, and I'm pretty sure if warnings are easily tracked (and I'm not sure if they are at all), they wouldn't also be tagged with such a specific reason for the warning. At most it'd probably say 'Broke Rule #1 and Rule #2'.
So yes, it might be (and is highly likely to be) impossible for Insaniak to answer you, and even if it was possible it wouldn't be worth his time to search through all that information just to try and answer a random poster on a forum.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:How is Insaniak meant to know which posters support Trump off hand like that. He'd have to search posts in various threads to find posters mention that they're going to support Trump and then spend time looking to see if they've received warnings related to flame wars based on their political views, and I'm pretty sure if warnings are easily tracked (and I'm not sure if they are at all), they wouldn't also be tagged with such a specific reason for the warning. At most it'd probably say 'Broke Rule #1 and Rule #2'.
This only strengthens my point. That only shows that rules 1 and 2 are so broad/vague as to be utterly meaningless.
That translates, in practice, to moderators silencing political opposition.
I am a Ph.D. student in philosophy who am working on a dissertation and am banned from the off-topic forum. Just food for thought.
Anyone else in this thread given college lectures?
Anyone?
On the assumption that we do in fact believe you are a Ph.D student studying Philosophy, and giving lectures: What bearing does that have on whether or not you're banned from the Off-Topic forum? I'm a mathematics student, but that doesn't mean that I am entitled to participate in any thread, forum, or sub-forum that pertains to mathematics. So why does you apparent education status entitle you to comment on threads in the Off-Topic Sub-Forum?
Traditio wrote: You might be one of the more lightly moderated liberal forums, but that doesn't really say much.
Err, lol? Dakka is not a political forum, and has plenty of discussion from conservative points of view. I don't think there's any credible way to argue that this is a liberal forum, especially if you try to force all the non-US posters into a US-style concept of liberal vs. conservative.
Peregrine is right in this. You should listen to them, Traditio.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:How is Insaniak meant to know which posters support Trump off hand like that. He'd have to search posts in various threads to find posters mention that they're going to support Trump and then spend time looking to see if they've received warnings related to flame wars based on their political views, and I'm pretty sure if warnings are easily tracked (and I'm not sure if they are at all), they wouldn't also be tagged with such a specific reason for the warning. At most it'd probably say 'Broke Rule #1 and Rule #2'.
This only strengthens my point. That only shows that rules 1 and 2 are so broad/vague as to be utterly meaningless.
That translates, in practice, to moderators silencing political opposition.
Rules 1 and Rules 2 aren't entirely as vague as you make them out to be either, and are explained fairly well. Sure, they might be broad, but there isn't much of a point in making them less broad. 'Be polite' and 'Stay on Topic' are also fairly obvious and easy to understand even without having to read the explanations beneath them.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Rules 1 and Rules 2 aren't entirely as vague as you make them out to be either, and are explained fairly well. Sure, they might be broad, but there isn't much of a point in making them less broad. 'Be polite' and 'Stay on Topic' are also fairly obvious and easy to understand even without having to read the explanations beneath them.
1. I once received a warning for asserting that I could not trust a Muslim to tell the truth who asserted that he was loyal to the United States constitution, and this, on the grounds that Muslims believe in taqiyya. Please explain to me how an obvious reading of "be polite" would prevent this. Nor, upon request, was I offered any suggestion of how to express the same sentiment in a more polite manner.
2. Please explain to me how the OP of a thread can be off-topic with respect to that thread.
They aren't just broad. They are meaningless.
I received an infraction for "politely" suggesting to a Tau player that he should expand his collection by purchasing the Ork codex and ork boys. I even attempted to make this task easier by providing him the links whereby he might make the purchases!
Apparently, this is trolling, and all trolling is impolite.
That's far from apparent from a simple, fair reading of the rules thread.
But of course, the moderators dare not make their rules more specific.
Then they couldn't engage in such jack-booted practices as they do now, at least, not with any credibility.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:15:57
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Rules 1 and Rules 2 aren't entirely as vague as you make them out to be either, and are explained fairly well. Sure, they might be broad, but there isn't much of a point in making them less broad. 'Be polite' and 'Stay on Topic' are also fairly obvious and easy to understand even without having to read the explanations beneath them.
1. I once received a warning for asserting that I could not trust a Muslim to tell the truth who asserted that he was loyal to the United States constitution, and this, on the grounds that Muslims believe in taqiyya. Please explain to me how an obvious reading of "be polite" would prevent this.
2. Please explain to me how the OP of a thread can be off-topic with respect to that thread.
They aren't just broad. They are meaningless.
I received an infraction for "politely" suggesting to a Tau player that he should expand his collection by purchasing the Ork codex and ork boys. I even attempted to make this task easier by providing him the links whereby he might make the purchases!
Apparently, this is trolling, and all trolling is impolite.
That's far from apparent from a simple, fair reading of the rules thread.
But of course, the moderators dare not make their rules more specific.
Then they couldn't engage in such jack-booted practices as they do now, at least, not with any credibility.
So if it is that big of a problem for you just quit the forum and join GLP then no one is keeping you here
I am a Ph.D. student in philosophy who am working on a dissertation and am banned from the off-topic forum. Just food for thought.
Anyone else in this thread given college lectures?
Anyone?
No one cares who you are or what you do. You aren't special.
Also, given your current trajectory, I wouldn't be surprised a permaban isn't in your near future.
Ustrello wrote: Silencing political opposition...man I better tell whembly he is being silenced
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Traditio wrote: Please explain to me how the OP of a thread can derail that thread.
I start a thread in the painting section on a painting technique I'm working on. A few posts later I reply to a random comment and start a discussion about what everyone's favorite pizza topping is. The thread is no longer about painting, and is therefore derailed.
1. Gary Johnson is a libertarian. A libertarian by definition is a social liberal.
2. There's nothing about this posting which favors or argues for a truly conservative point of view.
3. You yourself admit that you've failed to meet the criteria that I've set.
...
1) Libertarians are generally part of the conservative end of the simplified conservative/liberal scale. And Gary Johnson in particular has served as a republican governor and run as a republican presidential candidate, arguing for tax cuts, small government, no gun control, etc, things that are standard republican positions. His only real "liberal" policy arguments (allow gay marriage, etc) are in line with standard small-government conservative ideology, and only conflict with the republican party because of their pandering to the religious right even in contradiction with their other principles.
2) What's your point here? Seaward is a conservative and would gladly tell you that himself, regardless of whether or not this particular post is "CONSERVATIVES ARE THE BESTEST EVAR!!!!". And he's explicitly endorsing the republican presidential candidate out of opposition to the democratic (liberal) candidate.
3) Only because your criteria is absolute nonsense. I've provided you with a Trump supporter who shows no sign of being excluded from the forum or suffering any punishments based on his political beliefs. The fact that I can't prove that he hasn't ever been warned is irrelevant. You know perfectly well that this is an impossible request to satisfy, because non-moderators can not see warning information and moderators do not discuss warnings with anyone but the person they have warned.
So, your test is met. Any further refusal to acknowledge that I provided your requested Trump supporter is blatant "do the impossible or I'm right by default" stubbornness.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Traditio wrote: Apparently, this is trolling, and all trolling is impolite.
I'll hand it to you though, you're definitely one of the better trolls to come through Dakka in a while.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
1. Framing all Muslims as untrustworthy because of a single part of their belief system that's only tangentially related is pretty unpolite. Taqiyya only applies if the Muslim in question is in fear of their life or persecution for their belief and even then any human being would probably lie to save their own skin or so that other people wouldn't make their life a living hell.
That's fairly obvious to everyone. Painting an entire group of people with a broad brush with a negative trait (such as being untrustworthy) is quite impolite.
2. The original posts creates the topic, yes. However it's pretty self explanatory that discussing something that isn't the topic of the thread itself is off-topic no matter who posts. If you make a thread about liking cats, and then start a discussion and try to change it into a thread about how Trump is now the only running Republican candidate you are no longer on the original topic of the thread at all. That should be obvious to everyone.
EDIT: Also in regard to the Ork/Tau post... you went to a thread where a person was asking how to expand their Tau army and then linked them to a bunch of ork related stuff. You might have been entirely serious about it, but it was unrelated and such posts are typically attempts at trolling or making a bad joke by being intentionally off topic ad by adding nothing of value to the conversation. Also the fact that you used "polite" as such with the quotation marks shows you know yourself that you weren't being polite and were intentionally being the exact opposite.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:32:00
Traditio wrote: I received an infraction for "politely" suggesting to a Tau player that he should expand his collection by purchasing the Ork codex and ork boys. I even attempted to make this task easier by providing him the links whereby he might make the purchases!
Apparently, this is trolling, and all trolling is impolite.
Yes, of course it was trolling. Given your openly-stated belief that all Tau players are WAACTFGs, Tau should be banned, etc, it's pretty clear that you were just taking another "buy a different army and stop playing Tau" shot at someone you disagree with, not offering constructive suggestions that they would like to see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:25:05
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
1. I once received a warning for asserting that I could not trust a Muslim to tell the truth who asserted that he was loyal to the United States constitution, and this, on the grounds that Muslims believe in taqiyya. Please explain to me how an obvious reading of "be polite" would prevent this. Nor, upon request, was I offered any suggestion of how to express the same sentiment in a more polite manner.
2. Please explain to me how the OP of a thread can be off-topic with respect to that thread.
1, Being polite would mean respecting other people and not making broad statements that you don't trust someone you don't know. So being polite would be to not say anything.... I would have thought anyone could work that out.
2. So your saying i can make a thread on painting 15mm models and then talk about how orks need better rules and the amount of overweight people in the world? lol.
Noting however these are my views, and wow this thread has gone so off topic lol.
Our reality does not have a wacky magical parallel twin universe made of 'emotions' that reflects back and amplifies the worst impulses of people in the 'real' world.
Peregrine wrote:I start a thread in the painting section on a painting technique I'm working on. A few posts later I reply to a random comment and start a discussion about what everyone's favorite pizza topping is. The thread is no longer about painting, and is therefore derailed.
Not at all what I asked for. In your example, the OP is on topic, but your later posting is off-topic.
I am asking for you to explain to me how an OP can derail the topic begun by that OP.
I made a thread which included a poll gauging various psychological traits of 40k players.
Motyak closed that thread.
Insaniak agreed with the closing of that thread on the grounds that it was spam and ridiculous.
I appealed to the rule itself which forbids spam.
Suffice to say, the fact that the rules agree with me was utterly irrelevant to the case.
1) Libertarians are generally part of the conservative end of the simplified conservative/liberal scale.
By "conservative," I understand social and economic conservative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dodgemetal wrote:1, Being polite would mean respecting other people and not making broad statements that you don't trust someone you don't know. So being polite would be to not say anything.... I would have thought anyone could work that out.
Iow: Don't express such views.
That's censorship.
That's unacceptable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:28:17
Traditio wrote: I received an infraction for "politely" suggesting to a Tau player that he should expand his collection by purchasing the Ork codex and ork boys. I even attempted to make this task easier by providing him the links whereby he might make the purchases!
Apparently, this is trolling, and all trolling is impolite.
Yes, of course it was trolling. Given your openly-stated belief that all Tau players are WAACTFGs, Tau should be banned, etc, it's pretty clear that you were just taking another "buy a different army and stop playing Tau" shot at someone you disagree with, not offering constructive suggestions that they would like to see.
I freely admit that I was trolling. The precise nature of my contention is whether all trolling constitutes being impolite. In point of fact, though I was indeed trolling, there was nothing inherently impolite about what I wrote.
There's nothing intrinsically socially unacceptable/repugnant about recommending that somebody play orks.
In fact, he need not even stop playing tau.
Tau fire warriors with ork allies? Totally within the realm of possibility.
Traditio wrote: Not at all what I asked for. In your example, the OP is on topic, but your later posting is off-topic.
Yes, which is what "derailing" means. At this point I have no idea what you're arguing about, you asked for an example of the OP derailing their own thread but now you're talking about a thread that was immediately locked for being spam and ridiculous.
By "conservative," I understand social and economic conservative.
Gary Johnson is an economic conservative. And this is now getting into absurd nitpicking. You asked for an example of a Trump supporter in good standing, I gave you one. Please stop trying to come up with flimsy excuses for why they don't count.
That's censorship.
That's unacceptable.
If you want to call it that, I guess. But every single forum I've ever posted on has "censorship" by this standard.
And this is all that needs to be said. You were warned/temp-banned for trolling, and you admit that you were trolling. The forum rules explicitly state that trolling is not acceptable and will be punished. So what exactly is the problem here?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:35:20
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
dodgemetal wrote:1, Being polite would mean respecting other people and not making broad statements that you don't trust someone you don't know. So being polite would be to not say anything.... I would have thought anyone could work that out.
Iow: Don't express such views.
That's censorship.
That's unacceptable.
I think you need to sit down and review the differences between censorship and someone withholding their views, statements and/or questions because they're impolite, because they are two very different things. Censorship implies suppression. Withholding as a result of the rules is not suppression, it's following the rules.
In addition to the occasional loss of temper, there are a few folks out there who seem to enjoy causing trouble. This behavior is known as "trolling" and can take many forms. In some cases, the behavior is blatant, such as spam or inflammatory comments. Other times, the content posted is seemingly innocuous at first glance but is designed to incite a negative response from other users and create a flame war.
To keep such occurrences to a minimum Dakka Dakka has moderators who frequent the site and try to keep things polite, appropriate, and on topic.
If any posted content breaks any of the three above rules the moderators may take some or all of the following actions, often without warning. Please note that users who repeatedly break these rules will eventually have their account either temporarily or permanently suspended and in extreme cases this may occur without warning.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: 1. Framing all Muslims as untrustworthy because of a single part of their belief system that's only tangentially related is pretty unpolite. Taqiyya only applies if the Muslim in question is in fear of their life or persecution for their belief and even then any human being would probably lie to save their own skin or so that other people wouldn't make their life a living hell.
Except, it isn't.
It would be impolite to make a personal attack against a Muslim.
It is not impolite to point out that a given doctrine that a person believes precludes him from credibility on a certain matter.
How am I supposed to know whether or not a Muslim is lying about his fidelity to the US constitution to avoid religious persecution?
At any rate, you might indeed say that it's false that a Muslim would lie about such a thing.
But it's impolite even to raise the possibility? Really?
That's fairly obvious to everyone. Painting an entire group of people with a broad brush with a negative trait (such as being untrustworthy) is quite impolite.
It's not impolite if there's a reasonable possibility of its being true. Is it impolite to suggest that African Americans disproportionately have sickle cell anemia?
I'm sorry to tell you this: but reality itself is impolite. Sorry to say, but it's true.
2. The original posts creates the topic, yes. However it's pretty self explanatory that discussing something that isn't the topic of the thread itself is off-topic no matter who posts. If you make a thread about liking cats, and then start a discussion and try to change it into a thread about how Trump is now the only running Republican candidate you are no longer on the original topic of the thread at all. That should be obvious to everyone.
Again, that doesn't satisfy my criteria. That's posting an OP, and then posting a later posting which has nothing to do with the OP.
I'm asking how the OP of a thread can derail the OP.
In fact, it's quite impossible.
It's ridiculous even to suggest that such a thing can be done. It's a flat out contradiction.
EDIT: Also in regard to the Ork/Tau post... you went to a thread where a person was asking how to expand their Tau army and then linked them to a bunch of ork related stuff. You might have been entirely serious about it, but it was unrelated and such posts are typically attempts at trolling or making a bad joke by being intentionally off topic ad by adding nothing of value to the conversation. Also the fact that you used "polite" as such with the quotation marks shows you know yourself that you weren't being polite and were intentionally being the exact opposite.
Absolutely not. The Tau player didn't specify that he only wanted comments about how to expand his tau army with more tau units. I offered a suggestion on how he might expand his tau army...with orks.
It's completely in line with what he asked for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:40:36
Traditio wrote: Name a trump supporter who is currently in good standing (i.e., has yet to receive a warning).
Jihadin has been a Trump supported since the beginning, and I can't imagine he has ever had any warnings since I've never even seen him begin to skirt any rules.
Traditio wrote: I freely admit that I was trolling. The precise nature of my contention is whether all trolling constitutes being impolite. In point of fact, though I was indeed trolling, there was nothing inherently impolite about what I wrote.
You should consider which is more likely: there is a far reaching political conspiracy on a toy soldiers forum to silence conservative views, or that you are freely admitting to breaking rules and now tasting the fruits of your endeavors.
The problem with getting into this debate is that it was very clear by like your third post here that you are almost certainly going to be permanently banned from this forum and so any effort is wasted. It's been explained numerous times that the rules are guidelines, that the moderators are free to be as ambiguous or biased if they want to if they so choose, and that it's not some kind of binding contract. This seems to work very well for the thousands of users of this site, and only you seem to have a really hard time with this. This suggests the problem isn't with the rules.
What is about the Ukraine topic that leads to these weird heated tangents though? That's the real question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 04:43:59
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
IllumiNini wrote:I think you need to sit down and review the differences between censorship and someone withholding their views, statements and/or questions because they're impolite, because they are two very different things. Censorship implies suppression. Withholding as a result of the rules is not suppression, it's following the rules.
If your views are being withheld because of coersion, then that's censorship.
IllumiNini wrote:I think you need to sit down and review the differences between censorship and someone withholding their views, statements and/or questions because they're impolite, because they are two very different things. Censorship implies suppression. Withholding as a result of the rules is not suppression, it's following the rules.
If your views are being withheld because of coersion, then that's censorship.
It's that simple.
Nobody is coercing you, though. We're simply saying "Here are the rules, and one of the is Be Polite. Please follow them."
That's not coercion, that's trying to get you to follow the rules.
[i]In addition to the occasional loss of temper, there are a few folks out there who seem to enjoy causing trouble. This behavior is known as "trolling" and can take many forms. In some cases, the behavior is blatant, such as spam or inflammatory comments. Other times, the content posted is seemingly innocuous at first glance but is designed to incite a negative response from other users and create a flame war.
Oh. Well in that case, I most certainly wasn't trolling.
My posting certainly was not designed to create a flame war.
In fact, the very sentiment expressed in this passage violates the very nature of human law/statute. It's not your job to try to estimate my intentions, motives, etc. Human law only is competent to judge deeds/actions, not thoughts, motives, etc.
Traditio wrote: If your views are being withheld because of coersion, then that's censorship.
It's that simple.
Ok, then every single forum I've ever posted on has censorship. The view "ALL OF THE MODERATORS HERE ARE ING S WHO SHOULD GO A " is being withheld because of the "coercion" of "if you post this you will be banned". I don't think very many people have a problem with this situation.
Please don't spam the forum with posts like this, thanks
This comment says nothing about derailing the thread, it simply calls it spam. And I think most people will agree that this is a fair criticism given your poll was full of obviously silly answers like "I play one of these factions, and I do not have a soft spot for kitties, puppies or bunnies" and "I play one of these factions, and I cry at weddings". It was incredibly unlikely that any constructive discussion was going to happen in that thread, and it had no apparent purpose besides increasing your post count by +1.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
IllumiNini wrote:Nobody is coercing you, though. We're simply saying "Here are the rules, and one of the is Be Polite. Please follow them."
That's not coercion, that's trying to get you to follow the rules.
It's that simple.
Ok. How about this:
Illuminini, I am going to make a pact with you. I am not going to put you on my ignore list, presupposing you follow this rule:
"Do not post anything which is potentially offensive to Traditio. PS: Only Traditio can guage what is potentially offensive to Traditio. Furthermore, I refuse to tell you, in advance, the sorts of things that Traditio finds offensive."
Peregrine wrote:I start a thread in the painting section on a painting technique I'm working on. A few posts later I reply to a random comment and start a discussion about what everyone's favorite pizza topping is. The thread is no longer about painting, and is therefore derailed.
Not at all what I asked for. In your example, the OP is on topic, but your later posting is off-topic.
I am asking for you to explain to me how an OP can derail the topic begun by that OP.
I made a thread which included a poll gauging various psychological traits of 40k players.
Motyak closed that thread.
Insaniak agreed with the closing of that thread on the grounds that it was spam and ridiculous.
I appealed to the rule itself which forbids spam.
Suffice to say, the fact that the rules agree with me was utterly irrelevant to the case.
You mean this thread? I'm not sure what has to do with your "How can an OP ever make a thread off topic" argument, but yes that thread was clearly spam. You have a poll with a ridiculous number of options that aren't entirely related at all to... what little of a topic the thread itself has. What is the purpose of an option such as "I play one of these factions, and I would not consider a position as a business CEO or manager" or "I play one of these factions, and I cry at weddings"? You yourself know there isn't one and you just added it because you were spamming the forum. The thread offered little to no topic of discussion and had 0 purpose.
dodgemetal wrote:1, Being polite would mean respecting other people and not making broad statements that you don't trust someone you don't know. So being polite would be to not say anything.... I would have thought anyone could work that out.
Iow: Don't express such views.
That's censorship.
That's unacceptable.
I mean, yes it is censorship in a way (they're censoring impolite statements), but so is bleeping out swears in television shows. Is that unacceptable too?
If you had said "I personally don't trust Muslims" nothing probably would have happened, however because you then went a step further and tried to justify your views by saying all Muslims are inherently trustworthy because of one small part their belief system which is only tangentially related... yeah that's going to be removed as it's painting an entire group of people with a negative trait.
If I said something along the lines of "All Americans are racist bigots who are all terrible people because [insert some terrible, nonfactual reason here] and as such I hate them all" or "All African Americans deserve to be in jail or die because they're all criminal scum", and it was then censored, would you consider that unacceptable? Is so, why is it wrong if one calls all Americans or African Americans bad names or paint them broadly with bad traits, but apparently perfectly fine to do the same to Muslims?
And yes, I half expect to either get a warning and have the examples in this post removed by the mods, and I don't mind at all because it would help solidify my point that such views are unacceptable and impolite.
ING