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 this is the most appropriate forum to post this. If not, I apologise.
I would like to protest against the locking of the Ukraine thread, but that is kinda hard to do since it was locked without reason. I think it would be nice that when a mod locks a thread, he posts his reason for doing so. Locking threads without reason seems like a case of bad moderation imho.
So now why did the Ukraine thread get locked without any warning or reason given?
The thread had been going on like this for years, and while discussion often got heated or strayed somewhat off topic it usually resolved itself or sometimes with help from a moderator comment. Overall, I feel that the thread was informative and enjoyable and often served as a platform for good discussions. I would like to use this opportunity to say that the thread has always given me a lot of fun and has been a very educational experience on many occasions. Some of the people that regularly posted in it were very knowledgeable and good at discussions, and I really liked exchanging arguments with them. I also feel like I have learned a lot from them. I am sad to see it go like this and hope that the moderators will reconsider their decision. If not, I will probably see you guys in the next Ukraine/Russia thread that will inevitably spring up at some point.
The last mod edit was over a poster arguing against facts and being told to stop it. Subsequently the thread was closed without comment.
I doubt it was closed for going off topic, as the topic at hand was Victory parades in the region, which tangentially moved onto the US' involvement in similar ones? The thread had somewhat shifted topic to Ukraine/ tensions in Eastern Europe as a subject matter,
If its too off topic, and people would refrain from splurting out white noise when it comes to discussions ("wraagh everything's the CIA and Western propaganda!") then create a Eastern Europe thread.
...I put forward plagiarizing the title "Cold War The Reimagined Series" again.
As a side note, while the discussion about if the Soviet Union could have won WW2 on it's own or not was wholly and totally off-topic, I did find that fascinating and you guys know a lot more than I do about it. I personally would enjoy reading that discussion as a new thread, ideally with less of the personal insults and invective that was starting to taint it.
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
It was reopened then locked again to provide some clarity as to why it was locked. Basically, the level of discussion in that thread verged towards the ridiculous, rude, spammy and off topic pretty consistently. Eventually it had to stop.
As to why it was closed without comment in the first place, I don't have a good reason, sorry. We have lives outside of dakka, and mine caught up with me between locking it and posting ha, apologies. That doesn't normally happen.
You can feel free to make threads about similar topics/an Eastern Europe amalgamation thread in a similar vein to the US politics threads, but ensure that the tone of discussion abides by the rules of the forum. This topic seems to bring out the worst in some posters.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/11 10:02:10
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
motyak wrote:It was reopened then locked again to provide some clarity as to why it was locked. Basically, the level of discussion in that thread verged towards the ridiculous, rude, spammy and off topic pretty consistently. Eventually it had to stop.
As to why it was closed without comment in the first place, I don't have a good reason, sorry. We have lives outside of dakka, and mine caught up with me between locking it and posting ha, apologies. That doesn't normally happen.
You can feel free to make threads about similar topics/an Eastern Europe amalgamation thread in a similar vein to the US politics threads, but ensure that the tone of discussion abides by the rules of the forum. This topic seems to bring out the worst in some posters.
Thanks for clarifying Motyak. No need to apologise. The thread was indeed degrading somewhat (and I may have let myself get caught up in that at times ), altough it could still be fun at times. To be honest I am kinda surprised it lasted as long as it did.
Politics are always a heated topic, especially when there is so much nationalistic tension involved. I will make sure to watch my behaviour better when the new thread comes about. Maybe putting some kind of discussion rules in the OP would help. In any case, I hope it is going to be fun. Now I just need an excuse to start the new thread. Maybe I should ask Putin to annex something again...
Maybe we'll just have to monitor that (as of yet not launched?) new thread a lot closer this time around, and really drop the hammer on the line-toers and rule-breakers?
What annoys me about political threads being locked is you can have dozens of people having an interesting (albeit contested) debate and then all it takes is 1 hothead jumping down someone's throat or someone trying to shut down a discussion because it offends them, and then bam its gone.
The one which springs to my mind was entitled "political correctness in wargaming" or somesuch, it got shut down when the topic got onto WW2 attrocities.
I believe if people want to discuss something (assuming its not off topic) then let it be discussed. And While I appreciate that modding is a thankless and difficult role, I don't think everyone else's debate should be cut short because 1 or 2 people get oversensitive or start a tantrum. That's playing into the hands of opponents of free speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 17:33:21
Alpharius wrote: But I'm also not sure why people would come to Dakka Dakka to really get into arguing politics, religion, etc.
I doubt many people do with that original intent.
I think the people that wind up as OT regulars started out as wargamers who came to Dakka for wargaming related interests, became enmeshed in the community, and then lost interest in whatever game they used to be interested in. Having been in the habit of visiting Dakka, they then wind up the only place that now fits their interests - the OT.
I've said frequently that the OT should be closed, and I mean it. I totally 100% mean it. It eats up bandwidth both literal (for serving pages) and figurative, in terms of moderator attention. Some threads which crop up there are pretty reliable flamebait yet show up all the time. I have to imagine some moderators literally get burned out from constantly going into the OT and shutting down the 5,000th thread that morphed into an argument about guns. More to the point, none of these things have anything to do with being the best tabletop wargame site on the internet.
Since I don't really play anymore, if the OT was closed I would probably taper off visits, then quit coming completely. But so what? What value do I, and people like me, really add anymore? 55% of my posts are in the OT at this point. I pay for DCM and have for years but in terms of wargaming in 2016, my posts - even the polite friendly ones - add negative value, ultimately, because the virtually never have anything to do with wargaming anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 17:38:44
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
Alpharius wrote: There certainly seems to come up quite a bit...
Remember, there is no right to 'free speech' here on a privately owned forum.
You agree to follow the rules of the site when you sign up, and none of those rules includes a guarantee to 'free speech'.
I do believe we're one of the more lightly moderated forums out there though.
But I'm also not sure why people would come to Dakka Dakka to really get into arguing politics, religion, etc.
I get it really. I wasn't being entirely serious! Also there are practical limits to free speech. After all neo-Nazi demonstrations etc are also free speech and who wants them. And you could tell someone you dislike what you think of them and that would also be free speech, yet that wouldn't go down well in most social situations.
When the conversation turns into a p**sing contest and half the posts are redded out, I can well see why you'd shut it down.
My issue is threads being closed just because one or 2 people are getting ratty or don't want others talking about something. That just gives licence to those certain people to play the "I'm offended" or "I'm going to rage" card whenever they don't like what's being said. So why indulge that kind of carry on? Why not just let the conversation run its course?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/13 18:00:00
Alpharius wrote: But I'm also not sure why people would come to Dakka Dakka to really get into arguing politics, religion, etc.
I doubt many people do with that original intent.
Definitely true for me.
I came to Dakka to talk about how totally awesome Space Wolves are.
Then someone started a thread about Ukraine... The rest is history.
Dakka is a site that I think generally attracts people with above average intelligence and education. So that means that despite all the flamebait and rules violations, there is a lot of intelligent people in OT too. That makes it a fun place to discuss politics and such that is much more friendly and better moderated than places like reddit, 4chan or God forbid, Youtube Here on Dakka, only 50% of discussions devolve into WW2 mudslinging. Outside of Dakka, it is more like 98% Plus, it saves me from having to find a seperate forum to chat about politics. Here, I can chat about 40k fluff and rules, plastic toy soldiers and politics all on one forum. Yay Dakka!
thegreatchimp wrote: What annoys me about political threads being locked is you can have dozens of people having an interesting (albeit contested) debate and then all it takes is 1 hothead jumping down someone's throat or someone trying to shut down a discussion because it offends them, and then bam its gone.
The one which springs to my mind was entitled "political correctness in wargaming" or somesuch, it got shut down when the topic got onto WW2 attrocities.
I believe if people want to discuss something (assuming its not off topic) then let it be discussed. And While I appreciate that modding is a thankless and difficult role, I don't think everyone else's debate should be cut short because 1 or 2 people get oversensitive or start a tantrum. That's playing into the hands of opponents of free speech.
1. Free speech is a between a citizen and the government. Your ability to express yourself on Dakka goes as far as the rules/guidelines permit
2. With respect to the Moderator staff here it usually takes more than "1 hothead", and most locked threads are locked for obvious reasons. Quite often those locked threads have numerous in thread warnings that have not been heeded.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 2. With respect to the Moderator staff here it usually takes more than "1 hothead", and most locked threads are locked for obvious reasons. Quite often those locked threads have numerous in thread warnings that have not been heeded.
Pretty much this. A single user, or even two, is easy to correct - some quick edits, a few deletions, perhaps an admonitory PM, and a thread can be put to rights. Locked threads tend to have a lot more going wrong than that.
Any time that we'd have to delete a page+ of posts to recover the thread, it's a good sign that the thread has gone terminally off-course.
Alpharius wrote: You agree to follow the rules of the site when you sign up, and none of those rules includes a guarantee to 'free speech'.
None of those rules expressedly forbids it. If anything, the rules implicitly gaurantee a "right" of free speech, presupposing that none of the stated rules are violated.
The problem with the rules is that they are so vague as to be practically meaningless.
Insaniak (all due respect, of course, being extended to the same), maintaining what I can only believe to have been a straight face, seriously (I can only assume) argued that I violated the "no spam" rule, which explicitly states that it can only apply to comments which derail threads, to the OP of a thread that I created. Because, apparently, the OP of a thread can derail a thread. Go figure.
Nor was he even the moderator to have issued such a ridiculous (in, of course, the etymological sense of the term, i.e., laughable) ruling!
I do believe we're one of the more lightly moderated forums out there though.
Lol no.
You might be one of the more lightly moderated liberal forums, but that doesn't really say much. I'm sure that Fidel Castro was probably much more lenient than Joseph Stalin.
And even here, it's really only per accidens. Most of the topics on the board don't really have the proximate potency for serious controversy.
But I'm also not sure why people would come to Dakka Dakka to really get into arguing politics, religion, etc.
If you don't want people arguing politics, religion, etc. on dakka fora, then there should be a rule which states this. Otherwise, etc.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 02:22:56
Traditio wrote: None of those rules expressedly forbids it. If anything, the rules implicitly gaurantee a "right" of free speech, presupposing that none of the stated rules are violated.
No such "right" is guaranteed, explicitly or implicitly. You're making the mistake of treating the forum rules as some kind of binding contract, rather than a general guideline for what things might go into a moderator decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:04:52
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.
Peregrine wrote:No such "right" is guaranteed, explicitly or implicitly. You're making the mistake of treating the forum rules as some kind of binding contract, rather than a general guideline for what things might go into a moderator decision.
If you give the above a fair reading, you may end up finding that Peregrine disagrees with Peregrine.
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.
I extended the challenge against Insaniak, a while back, to offer me even a single example of a Trump supporter in good standing on the off-topic forum. Such a reasonable answer, other than "none," has yet to be issued. Coincidentally (*coughcough*conveniently*coughcough*), the thread was locked before Insaniak could offer such an answer, and he seems to have "forgotten" the challenge, thus the reason that my PM box appears to be devoid of any such answer on his part.
To be clear:
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?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:13:29
If you give the above a fair reading, you may end up finding that Peregrine disagrees with Peregrine.
Yes, those are the rules. Nowhere in there does it say that the explicitly stated rules of the forum are a binding contract and anything else can not be enforced. "The rules didn't say I can't do this" is not a convincing argument, just like "but you didn't say I couldn't do this" is not going to prevent someone from kicking you out of their house if they think you're behaving badly.
I extended the challenge against Insaniak, a while back, to offer me even a single example of a Trump supporter in good standing on the off-topic forum. Such a reasonable answer, other than "none," has yet to be issued. Coincidentally (*coughcough*conveniently*coughcough*), the thread was locked before Insaniak could offer such an answer, and he seems to have "forgotten" the challenge, thus the reason that my PM box appears to be devoid of any such answer on his part.
I really don't see your point here. Perhaps the reason Insaniak can't give you any names of Trump supporters is that you're asking an Australian to comment on US politics, combined with the fact that Trump is an unpopular candidate, even among US conservatives. Several people have expressed their intent to vote for Trump, if not their enthusiastic support, and not been subject to any moderator punishment. And there are plenty of posters who are conservative, even if they don't like Trump, and post freely without any moderator punishments. Do you actually have any evidence for anti-conservative bias, other than one person's failure to pass your weird test?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: 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?
I don't see why you think this is relevant. Being a PhD student in philosophy doesn't mean you can't break forum rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:19:41
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.
Peregrine wrote:Yes, those are the rules. Nowhere in there does it say that the explicitly stated rules of the forum are a binding contract and anything else can not be enforced. "The rules didn't say I can't do this" is not a convincing argument, just like "but you didn't say I couldn't do this" is not going to prevent someone from kicking you out of their house if they think you're behaving badly.
It's implicit in the notion of rules as such. There are three, and precisely three, modalities of law: forbidden, permitted and commanded.
Necessarily, anything which is not forbidden is, at the very least, permitted.
Your point about someone kicking you out of their home is quite dis-analogous to the point at hand for the precise reason that such a person does not give you a set of rules in the first place, nor does he insist that you read/obey said rules prior to entry into his home, nor does he make violation of these rules a condition for ejecting you from his home.
Fact is, for every single "violation" I've committed, a mod has cited a specific rule that I've allegedly broken. I have yet to receive a banning/warning on the basis of: "It's not covered in the rules, but I disagree with this kind of behavior!!!111eleventy!"
That, ipso facto, makes violation of the rules the sole and necessary requirement for moderator intereference.
Yet, and here is the rub, the rules are positively meaningless, which goes against the very nature of rules as such.
Which makes me wonder: why have rules at all? Why not make one, and precisely one, rule: "We may ban you for whatsoever reason we want. If we don't like you or your behavior, you are gone. All rights are belong to us."
Because the moderators wish to present the appearance of fairness, lawfulness, justice, etc...without actually having to act in any such way. The sheer vagueness of their rules ensures this. The words mean nothing; therefore, they can be used to apply to everything.
"But of course, Traditio, the spam rule clearly says that you can't act this way!" *Traditio reads the spam rule* "Er...it doesn't say that. It says quite the opposite." "BUT YOU JUST READ THE RULES! YOU JUST SAW IT FOR YOURSELF! ROFLCOPTER!"
It's positively disgusting/offensive to the sensibilities of any reasonably educated/cultured person.
I really don't see your point here. Perhaps the reason Insaniak can't give you any names of Trump supporters is that you're asking an Australian to comment on US politics, combined with the fact that Trump is an unpopular candidate, even among US conservatives. Several people have expressed their intent to vote for Trump, if not their enthusiastic support, and not been subject to any moderator punishment.
Traditio wrote: It's implicit in the notion of rules as such.
No it isn't. The moderators here are pretty clear that the rules are not a comprehensive list of every possible thing you can be punished for, and every forum I've ever posted on has worked the same way.
Which makes me wonder: why have rules at all? Why not make one, and precisely one, rule: "We may ban you for whatsoever reason we want. If we don't like you or your behavior, you are gone. All rights are belong to us."
Because it helps keep things organized if people have a general idea of what the standards are for a particular forum.
Name one.
Name one what?
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.
Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. The moderators here are pretty clear that the rules are not a comprehensive list of every possible thing you can be punished for, and every forum I've ever posted on has worked the same way.
Where? Show me anything in the rules section which asserts this.
And again, I have yet to receive a banning/infraction for anything which was not allegedly rules related.
Because it helps keep things organized if people have a general idea of what the standards are for a particular forum.
Bull puckey. That's bull puckey and you know it.
If that were the case, then they wouldn't bother with these vague rules. They would give a listing of things that they generally consider to be appropriate to their forum. E.g.: no personal attacks, no racial slurs, no expression of non-liberal views, the discussion of topics other than toy soldiers must be kept to a minimum, etc.
And at the end, they would include the caveat: "Furthermore, this is not an exclusive list. Please review the postings of our moderators for a general sense of what constitutes acceptable behavior...though we do reserve the right to ban you for any reason whatsoever."
They don't.
Name one what?
Name a trump supporter who is currently in good standing (i.e., has yet to receive a warning).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:38:42
Traditio wrote: Where? Show me anything in the rules section which asserts this.
It doesn't need to be asserted, because everyone but you seems to understand it. Alpharius has already given you an explicit statement that dakka works just like every other forum I've ever heard of in this way.
If that were the case, then they wouldn't bother with these vague rules. They would give a listing of things that they generally consider to be appropriate to their forum. E.g.: no personal attacks, no racial slurs, no expression of non-liberal views, the discussion of topics other than toy soldiers must be kept to a minimum, etc.
And at the end, they would include the caveat: "Furthermore, this is not an exclusive list. Please review the postings of our moderators for a general sense of what constitutes acceptable behavior."
They don't.
Wait, what? What are you even arguing here? Are you really objecting to the fact that the forum rules offer more detail on what content is not acceptable than the bare minimum?
PS: your "no expression of non-liberal views" continues to be absurd given the fact that plenty of people express non-liberal views here.
Name a trump supporter who is currently in good standing (i.e., has yet to receive a warning).
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:43:14
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.
Peregrine wrote:It doesn't need to be asserted, because everyone but you seems to understand it. Alpharius has already given you an explicit statement that dakka works just like every other forum I've ever heard of in this way.
Again, it's implicit in the notion of a code of rules as such. The public nature of written statute, as such, overrides the personal, individual, contingent, temporal assertions of comments made "by the way."
Wait, what? What are you even arguing here? Are you really objecting to the fact that the forum rules offer more detail on what content is not acceptable than the bare minimum?
I'm saying that instead of meaningless rules, they should include more concrete rules (you know, of the variety that actually mean things), and, at the end, should say something like: "This is not an inclusive list; we reserve the right to ban you for any reason whatsoever."
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:45:39
Traditio wrote: Again, it's implicit in the notion of a code of rules as such. The public nature of written statute, as such, overrides the personal, individual, contingent, temporal assertions of comments made "by the way."
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.
I'm saying that instead of meaningless rules, they should include more concrete rules (you know, of the variety that actually mean things), and, at the end, should say something like: "This is not an inclusive list; we reserve the right to ban you for any reason whatsoever."
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.
It's not impossible for Insaniak. He failed to provide such an instance.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/15 03:53:44
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.
), altough it could still be fun at times. To be honest I am kinda surprised it lasted as long as it did.
