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.

I think that people should be polite and generally nice to each other (i.e. complying with Dakka's Rule #1), but I do not condone censorship of ideas and topics in the Off-Topic section, even if they are of a political or religious nature, or otherwise controversial. If religious and political discussions are to be banned from the Off-Topic section of Dakka, I would prefer to see the entire Off-Topic section eliminated from the board.

In the long run though, I am not hugely concerned by Off-Topic section of Dakka, it's more a matter of principle.

I praise Chinesus that no matter what happens to the Dakka Off-Topic section, we will always have the OT Zone.

Manchu wrote:(1) This is a wargaming site. Go somewhere else to talk about politics and religion.

I don't think anybody (or at least not many of them) were saying that the site has to be wargaming only.

The point being made was simply that when a particular topic is causing an inordinate number of problems, and that topic has nothing to do with the site's main purpose, is it worth the effort to police it when it could simply be removed?

Mods don't have the time to monitor OT religion/politics threads.

This is tied into my answer above. It's not about mods not having the time. It's about mods not being forced to waste an inordinate amount of time policing something that has nothing to do with why they spend time on this site in the first place, and why they chose to be moderators.

If it is the case that there needs to be someone devoted to OT in order to prevent a ban on discussions of politics and religion then I again volunteer to do so.

You don't see it as just a little bit silly that there would be a need, on a site that is ostensibly a wargaming site, to have a moderator on hand specifically to deal with religious and political wars in the OT forum?

Saying that the problem of mods being overworked in more "on point" sections of Dakka can only be solved by banning discussions of politics and religion is weak on its face.

It's also not what I said.

What I said was that more time in OT means less time elsewhere. There are other solutions than banning political and religious discussion. But banning such discussion is an easier solution than some others, particularly when you consider the number of problems these discussions cause.

There's never any middle ground in such debates. They always end in fire.

No place for it here...

There are people on this forum, who could start an arguement in an empty room.
If you ban religion and politics in the off topic section, they'll just move to another.

Insaniak, I wasn't responding directly to you and so I was not trying to misconstrue your points into strawmen. I just set up those three generalized arguments to get the discussion rolling in a more focused way. Now that you have responded directly to me, I'll riff off of your actual words.

insaniak wrote:The point being made was simply that when a particular topic is causing an inordinate number of problems, and that topic has nothing to do with the site's main purpose, is it worth the effort to police it when it could simply be removed?

As Orkeosaurus has pointed out, we are not talking about banning a particular topic (say, Dark Eldar greens or Deff Rolla quibbles) but rather an extremely broad swath of ideas that cuts into many potential particular topics that would not otherwise be unacceptable. At what point, for example, would a thread on veganism be locked? When someone mentions religious-based dietary proscriptions? When someone mentions the political ramifications of raising enough beef to meet consumer demand? Or would such a thread be locked as political on its face under this prospective ban? You seem to be alternately minimizing ("a particular topic") and maximizing ("mods wasting an inordinate amount of time," "when you consider the amount of problems these discussions cause") the scope of this issue to suit your argument. It is a large enough problem to require a ban and yet at the same time small enough so that a seemingly simple solution of a ban would work. I disagree with both claims--whether you mean to make them or not--for reasons that I have already outlined. Namely: from a regular user's perspective (that is, my own), political and religious threads do not pose such a major problem -and- trying to get rid of such threads, however they are defined, will likely be as much if not more work as is already required to police OT as it stands. It's not a slippery slope argument to comment that a ban on religious and political discussion would eventually lead to the closing of OT (which would be a disaster in my view) because there is no easy way to sort out the political/religious content from the rest in most serious discussion (a.k.a., thread that are not about your favorite music, etc).

It's not about mods not having the time. It's about mods not being forced to waste an inordinate amount of time policing something that has nothing to do with why they spend time on this site in the first place, and why they chose to be moderators.

In this light, I can understand and empathize with why you and perhaps other mods would find monitoring OT to be a waste of time. But there are plenty of users who stick around primarily for the comradeship of OT. To use myself as an example, I sometimes find that my interest in 40k (which no one can deny is really what this site is about) and wargaming more generally declines. But my acquaintanceship with other Dakka users combined with the space to speak about non-wargaming topics--including the most interesting if also most potentially troublesome ones--keeps me coming back even through these doldrums. And there are even a handful of regulars that you will almost never see outside of OT, where they quite often discuss politics and/or religion. So while you may find involvement in this part of the site to be wasteful that is certainly not the only sentiment. Which takes me to . . .

You don't see it as just a little bit silly that there would be a need, on a site that is ostensibly a wargaming site, to have a moderator on hand specifically to deal with religious and political wars in the OT forum?

No, I don't see it as silly at all. Actually, I see it as the obvious solution to religion/politics threads needing more attention. How could this be silly given there are people (a) who do not feel that this kind of work impinges upon their enjoyment of the site and (b) who, as I have described above, continue to spend time in part because of OT and its sometimes provocative discussions? To me, this suggestion epitomizes practicality although I realize that as a user I do not have all the pieces of the puzzle in front of me.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There's never any middle ground in such debates. They always end in fire.

This is not at all my experience. To me, this seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy and--without pointing a finger at H.B.M.C. or any other user or mod--a rationalization for bad behavior.

I vote another section of the forum is made for political and religious discussions, if you dont want to be offended then dont go there.

40k itself has pretty strong Religious and Political themes, a lot of which are based in historical allegory. I think that discussion of those topics would go hand-in-hand with discussion of the game itself. YMDC gets every bit as ugly as OT, and I feel that that is worse because people are on YMDC to ask for help and often get trolled! I think more focus should be put on the offending users, not the topics themselves.

If there's not enough staff to police the OT forum why not appoint another moderator, then?

Oddly, part of what I like about Dakka is the relatively laid back moderatorship though. I don't know why I'm suggesting more of "the man."

Manchu wrote: It's not a slippery slope argument to comment that a ban on religious and political discussion would eventually lead to the closing of OT

I've come across a few forums over the years that actually did (and always had done) have a ban on such discussion in their OT sections. Can't say whether it ultimately caused more issues, as I've never been a big OT fan on any of the forums I've visited... but it's not an unheard of idea.



It's also possibly worth pointing out that for a great many years Dakka didn't actually have an OT board (Other than when a handful of posters highjacked the CCG forum for a while...) and most users didn't really notice its absence.

Intense faith can often lead to intense intolerance... tread carefully beneath the banner of angels...

I've never even went in to the OT forums, but if people are bickering in there it is fine by me, it would seem to be the place for it and it does not seem to impact the rest of the site... Why not just let them go nuts on each other in there as long as they stay in their area? In addition, closing that forum may cause people to pick those kinds of fights in normal threads impacting the rest of us, closing it could do more harm than good.

Either way though, it doesn't really bother me.

Political and religious topics should have their own forum so those that are genuinely interested in discussing such would have to click elsewhere than seeing them in the OT.

The Dakka mods have done an excellent job and imo this might make the work easier for 'em.

I nominate dogma as a mod for a political/religious section

Cane wrote:Political and religious topics should have their own forum so those that are genuinely interested in discussing such would have to click elsewhere than seeing them in the OT.

Why is "seeing them in the OT" such a big problem? We don't need another subforum. They can see them in the OT section, and if they're not interested, they simply don't click on the thread. It's just like not clicking on the section, except instead they just don't click on the thread.

Either or...

It matters not to me

Hordini wrote:

Cane wrote:Political and religious topics should have their own forum so those that are genuinely interested in discussing such would have to click elsewhere than seeing them in the OT.

Why is "seeing them in the OT" such a big problem? We don't need another subforum. They can see them in the OT section, and if they're not interested, they simply don't click on the thread. It's just like not clicking on the section, except instead they just don't click on the thread.

Politics and religion imo do warrant their own subforum and on most discussion boards that allow users to engage in those topics they do have such. A good chunk of P&R threads pop up in the OT forum and I wouldn't be surprised if those posts outnumbered a few subforums already present. It could also help mods funnel those threads and possibly help moderation. These topics also have a tendency to dominate the OT subforum which doesn't seem to be what was it was intended for.

Cane wrote:Political and religious topics should have their own forum so those that are genuinely interested in discussing such would have to click elsewhere than seeing them in the OT.

The Dakka mods have done an excellent job and imo this might make the work easier for 'em.

I nominate dogma as a mod for a political/religious section

Don't you think there'll be enough dogma in there allready,
without him

I agree with most of you that this is a place for Wargaming and the like. If you wanna debate about politics or religion I am sure that there are better places to vent!! I for one say leave this forum to Wargaming, I go here to escape reality and relax!!


Mike

There are forums for such discussion, this isn't one.

Why allow what inevitably will become a flame war...nobody screams til they're red in the face (or types for this matter) about how the latest Command and Conquer game sucked/was amazing.

I think that every single topic should be a valid form of discussion, and that the idea that politics and religion are somehow subjects that are too controversial is absurd.

Surely if a subject is considered important and/or controversial by people, its exactly what they should be talking about.

Regardless it is the internet, so all of this sort of discussion will end in pointless bickering, so really, why not let them talk about it.

Freedom of Speech should be allowed , but sensitive topic might bring it some bad taste.

Why not just put the person on ignore that is bothering you? That seems like a common old remedy to problems.

Zoring wrote:I think that every single topic should be a valid form of discussion, and that the idea that politics and religion are somehow subjects that are too controversial is absurd.

Surely if a subject is considered important and/or controversial by people, its exactly what they should be talking about.

Regardless it is the internet, so all of this sort of discussion will end in pointless bickering, so really, why not let them talk about it.

This

I would either get rid of it or make a specific sub-forum and leave it entirely unmoderated, with the understanding being that if you go there, you asked for it. It's unnecessary, taxing, and unpleasant work for the mods, having to play referee in a flaming-poo-flinging fight. It increases the likelihood that hard feelings and/or flamers/trolls will spill over into other threads.

In the religious/political debates I've seen in the OT forums on several sights, all my preconceived notions of how things would go down were spot on. No one goes into it expecting to change their mind. No one wants to, either. The only thing they can do is try to convince others who are just as staunchly biased as they are not that they are right, since that's so hard to do, but that everyone else is wrong. Flaming ensues and escalates.

If you want some intelligent debate on the matter, go to your local library/bookstore and pick up some philosophical/theological works on the subject. Want something more current or active? Plenty of other places specifically geared towards that, either with mods that have no other duties and are therefore quite strict or mods with extremely limited involvement - whichever you're looking for.

I'm still doubtful of the claim that banning political discussions would lighten the moderators' workload. Currently they need to intervene whenever a thread gets hostile; with the ban in place they'd not only need to continue doing that but also trawl through threads where there is no hostility and make sure that the thread hasn't become "political".

Manchu wrote:I can understand and empathize with why you and perhaps other mods would find monitoring OT to be a waste of time. But there are plenty of users who stick around primarily for the comradeship of OT. To use myself as an example, I sometimes find that my interest in 40k (which no one can deny is really what this site is about) and wargaming more generally declines. But my acquaintanceship with other Dakka users combined with the space to speak about non-wargaming topics--including the most interesting if also most potentially troublesome ones--keeps me coming back even through these doldrums. And there are even a handful of regulars that you will almost never see outside of OT, where they quite often discuss politics and/or religion. So while you may find involvement in this part of the site to be wasteful that is certainly not the only sentiment.

This. Also, has anyone considered that determining whether or not the religious or political content/theme of a given thread is suffient to warrant an instant lock could actually result in MORE work for the MODs? The focus should be on upholding Dakka Rule #1 - that would solve more problems than trying to eliminate specific topics. Consider how nebulous the meaning of the word 'politics' is! It's easy to determine that someone is being rude, not so easy to determine that someone is being too 'political'.

EDIT: Gah! Ninja'd by Orkeosaurus!

IMHO, a solution which could work would be to appoint dedicated OT MODs to lessen the workload for the regular MOD team - I would support Manchu as a potential candidate, and would humbly submit an offer of assistance myself. There are several other OT regulars who would do an excellent job.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm still doubtful of the claim that banning political discussions would lighten the moderators' workload. Currently they need to intervene whenever a thread gets hostile; with the ban in place they'd not only need to continue doing that but also trawl through threads where there is no hostility and make sure that the thread hasn't become "political".

This was my first thought upon seeing this thread, and one of the primary reasons that I voted to continue the permission of political and religious discussion.

Kill it with fire!

In terms of raw post count, off topic is #3. It would be ill-advised to close it.

I once opened a thread about Religion in OTH and I had to ask Frazzle two or three times to re-open it. Still, it was a very interesting discussion, at least as long as I followed it.
I'm not that interested in Politics but in my opinion banning the topic is NOT the right idea.

This is the Internet. People get upset or offended quite easily. But restricting the topics that can be talked about in an off-topic forum is not the right way to handle this.

Please don't do it Yak.

I try and steer clear of political and religious discussions, in the OT forum but have voted to keep them.

It is hard not to have a 'political' and therefore emotive view in most OT threads.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm still doubtful of the claim that banning political discussions would lighten the moderators' workload. Currently they need to intervene whenever a thread gets hostile; with the ban in place they'd not only need to continue doing that but also trawl through threads where there is no hostility and make sure that the thread hasn't become "political".

On the Mod front, frankly, that board is not modded heavily. There are less reports from there then other sections (YMDC...). having said that, most Mods tend to steer clear of that forum unless there is a report. KK, manny, reds8n, and I are the obvious exceptions.

I am more than happy for political and religious threads to be on Dakka.

For me the Off-Topic forum represents school break time or the works canteen, whilst not being the primary reason for the site it is no less important than any of the other forums. Banning certian areas of discussion will frustrate users and ultimately lead to them moving away from the site as they may feel like they are being treated like children. Even the most avid gamer has other interests and I feel that for Dakka to remain a well rounded forum members should be able to discuss whatever they wish as long as it is done in a muture manner.

However, I can appreciate that these types of discussion can get very heated and potentialy difficult to moderate effectively without offending. Perhaps a seperate sub-forum could be introduced, which allows the mods to ban specific users from entering that area should they not be able to contribute in a constructive manner?

I have to weigh in in favour of keeping poltical and religious discussions in OT.
Really, it's not as bad as many posters in this thread make it out to be, I find it to be a really interesting place to talk to a wide variety of people about these topics. On a board where you only discuss religion or politics, you tend to get clusters of viewpoints and dramatic polarisation. While a little bit of this goes on in OT, I found it really great that I knew some of the posters for a different reason than discussing politics, so I found it made me more willing to listen to them and engage.
I note that many of the people who want OT locked don't actually post regularly there. Do you read OT regularly but not post? Or are you speaking from a position of ignorance?
I feel for the mods who may feel that OT is not their business and who may be uncomfortable dealing with it. I'm sure however there would be no shortage of people willing to help out if it meant we could keep discussion open- Manchu has volunteered and I think he'd do a grand job, if you needed someone to cover this end of the timezone I could help out.
All of this said if the decision is to stop that sort of debate in OT I'll respect it, but dakka will get less traffic from me as a consequence I'd say.