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.

Since the mods seem to be struggling with politics, again, and issuing bans, and I'm seeing politics turning up over and over again because, let's be honest, 'little plastic men is now political' no matter how hard we try to deny it, since GW and people like Arch have made it so. I understand the forum's position, but we're reaching the 'head in sand denial of reality' level now.

So, A suggestion on dealing with this:

Send them to the Wasteland. FFS that forum *exists* to take Dakka political BS overflow, but mods cannot seem to be bothered to use it. BrookM had a nice long post in a locked thread about this issue, but completely forgot that this tool exists, and it was specifically created as a solution *for this problem*.

So, might I suggest that we have a politely worded cut-and-paste that the mods apply to political locks/post deletions that contains a link and a 'helpful suggestion' that this line of discussion is better taken to an appropriate forum, as we would any other OT commentary, and ship them over to Wasteland.

I don’t disagree with redirecting people. The issue of people bringing up politics is against the rules of the establishment.

If someone posted *lewd* photos, would the reaction be to suggest they instead post on Lewdhub instead? Or would a “stop it or you get the boot” be appropriate?

And because I’m a bad person, were this to unfold without said lewd photo being deleted, and instead the mod posted a, “Hey, have you heard of Lewdhub before? You should check it out!” Message, I might lose control of my bladder.

From what I've seen, there haven't been a lot of issues with politics, and there certainly haven't been many suspensions. If something is getting too political (usually in OT) just hit the mod alert button.

A cut-and-paste message isn't a bad idea, there were some real gems that old-school mods used back in the day . But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?

I'm genuinely curious for myself as well - with the administration change in the US, I'm hoping it will be possible to have civil discourse about certain social issues again, and would like to find a place to do so. Facebook isn't a good fit for it, imo, but there must be a Dakka-like alternative geared specifically for politics somewhere. Suggestions very welcome!

The internet is full of debate forums, I'm sure you can find a few political ones.

That being said, civil discourse regarding the current American politics? they are so polarizing that one of the forums I'm a member already had a schism that produced a smaller forum of the opposite political wing.

 RiTides wrote:
From what I've seen, there haven't been a lot of issues with politics, and there certainly haven't been many suspensions. If something is getting too political (usually in OT) just hit the mod alert button.

A cut-and-paste message isn't a bad idea, there were some real gems that old-school mods used back in the day . But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?

I'm genuinely curious for myself as well - with the administration change in the US, I'm hoping it will be possible to have civil discourse about certain social issues again, and would like to find a place to do so. Facebook isn't a good fit for it, imo, but there must be a Dakka-like alternative geared specifically for politics somewhere. Suggestions very welcome!

I would like to know this too!

 RiTides wrote:
From what I've seen, there haven't been a lot of issues with politics, and there certainly haven't been many suspensions. If something is getting too political (usually in OT) just hit the mod alert button.

A cut-and-paste message isn't a bad idea, there were some real gems that old-school mods used back in the day . But the Wasteland, while I was one of the main proponents of having people migrate that discussion over there early on, doesn't seem like the best fit to direct people to due to its majorly NSFW environment. Is there another good political discussion site someone could suggest?

I'm genuinely curious for myself as well - with the administration change in the US, I'm hoping it will be possible to have civil discourse about certain social issues again, and would like to find a place to do so. Facebook isn't a good fit for it, imo, but there must be a Dakka-like alternative geared specifically for politics somewhere. Suggestions very welcome!

That is the magic question. Most of the forums I've seen that permit that also permit the NSFW stuff as well. Maybe we should start a new forum for this? Or if Wastelands mods were more active we could do something about it, but atm...

I bring it up because I keep seeing Necromunda threads dipping into it over what minis are getting reprinted from classic Necromunda.

I'll say this, people are right that american politics is too toxic now. We have people on one side openly calling for the extermination of huge segments of america's population, and not being investigated for incitement too violence or charged with it.

In most countries this speech gets you in custody and blocked from media.

I'm ok with Dakkadakka doing a total clamp down on politics when you look at how another game board handled it.

The largest rpg net site (Mostly due it snagging an easy to remember domain name early on) allows ONE side of social, political and economic issues to be discussed and promoted while instantly silencing the other side completely. Dakkadakka is doing it better than that. A total shutdown is far better than a totally one sided biased site based on the mods personal biases.

As much as I dislike not being able to discuss issues of science, economics, society, etc because they have ALL become totally politicized, I gotta say the mods here are doing a decent job dealing with a total gakstorm situation. So,

There is a reason encampments build latrines, and why even 4chan uses containment boards. If you need to poo, do you poo into a latrine pit, or just walk into the middle of the encampment and drop trow right there, then spread it around the entire camp? Setting an arbitrary rule about politics, especially for GW games, is never going to work because people will ALWAYS skirt the line, and GW themselves put political content in the games lore. 40k, while not intended to be a satire of 80s British Politics, did incorporate some aspects of it and it permeates the work as a whole, no matter how much you put your hands on your ears and go Do-da-lalala!

Just make a containment forum, the latrine, and FAIRLY (and I mean the actual definition of fairly) enforce the rule that all political topics go in the latrine. Make it clear that the mods will not care about Mean Words On The Internet in the latrine, if you choose to roll about in the latrine, you're going to get covered in poo, and cover everyone else in there in poo. The only things mods will take action on in the latrine is spam and actual (as in actual, not twitter-grade) harassment (as well as the usual legal stuff like piracy).

If you want to talk about politics, or whatever arbitrary topic the God-Moderators decide should be banned this month, you go to the latrine.

If a thread turns political because people think fictional government system Zingiberales is similar to real world government system Ortervirales when Bananas have about as much in common with a Soymovirus, and can't stop arguing about how because Andy Chambers used an errant comma in one ancient fluff piece it means he wants to wipe out all dolphins who are within three shades of a specific pantone shade of grey, delete the posts, tell them to take up the topic in the latrine.

Want to talk about how the alt-right conservative centrist communist fascists have infiltrated some aspect of a hobby that has a place on this forum? To the latrine.

Keep spreading poo outside the latrine? Keep bringing poo FROM the latrine outside? You get locked in the latrine for a while to ponder on your life choices.

To carry on the latrine vibe... people come out reeking of poo.

And the people that fought in the latrine tend to bring their ill-will with them. So Abe and Bill argued from opposite sides of the latrine, and both pasted each other with that which comes from the south end of north bound creatures.

Are they physically, mentally, emotionally, and dare I say spiritually capable of leaving their poop at the door? Is it possible they will let bygones be bygones? Yes. It is *possible*. But it is not *probable*. It isn’t uncommon. It isn’t even rare... we’re talking Mythic level improbable. Plot armour level isn’t gonna happen.

That’s what goes down. I’ve been a flinger. I used to think people, exposed to my “truth” would see the error of their ways. Turns out, other people think the same thing. And sometimes it works. I’m fortunate to have had many conversations in my life where I’ve changed a fundamental part of myself. And I think I’ve done the same for others.

But a *solid* 95% of such conversations never had a chance to change the mind of either engaged person. I love a good argument / debate... but that’s not what happens 80% of those 95. It turns into poop flinging. And it feels great to get your stinger out and poke holes in your opponent. Few things feel as incredible as being *right*. But that type of exchange is damaging to the community. It’s selfish. It’s destructive to the purpose of growing a community that has nothing to do with politics. I’ve met so many people through this hobby that I enjoy playing games with that I would *never* talk religion or politics with. That’s ok. We have other shared interests.

That’s why containment doesn’t work... not because it can’t, but because it doesn’t.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Setting an arbitrary rule about politics, especially for GW games, is never going to work because people will ALWAYS skirt the line, and GW themselves put political content in the games lore.

If you define 'working' as eliminating any and all mention of politics on the boards, sure.

That was never the goal, though, because it wouldn't have been a realistic one. Nobody expected the politics ban to stop there from ever being people making post that mentioned politics, and the occasional political post is not in itself any worse, or any more difficult to moderate, than any other inappropriate post.

The intention of the rule was to remove the extra hostility that political discussion was bringing to the forums, which was spilling over from the OT area and affecting the way people were interacting elsewhere on the site. Having a corralled area for that sort of discussion doesn't work. We had an area where political discussion was allowed, and the result was that people took disagreements resulting from that discussion, and fostered grudges against other posters, and then started fights with those posters in other areas. Allowing unmoderated discussion of political topics wouldn't fix that... it would make the problem worse.

Yeah unmoderated political discussion has the risk of escalating very badly.

If you are going to have political discussion, you will need some superb moderating team and a very strict rule-set of what is and isn't acceptable political discussion.

You don't leave the poo alone. You supervise it, analyse it, categorize it and finally process it into acceptable political debate or unsalvageable poo that must be jettisoned into the sun alongside the poolord that produced it.

Or if you aren't feeling up to the unrewarding, unappreciated and herculean task of moderating poo, just ban it. Which is what Dakkadakka decided to do, a very valid choice.

Yes, the problem now is that anything is'political" in america.

I mean, the science about human influenced climate change. 97% of world scientists agree human activity is aggravating and accelerating climate change, but you can't discuss it because "it's political."

So we can't discuss it because basically some people claim 97% of the world's scientists are in a vast scheme to destroy capitalism and replace it with argle bargle rant rave.

Can't discuss going beyond fossil fuel power because again, some people claim it's a political issue not a matter of scientific fact and technological possibilities.

Saying that people should practice recommended precautions against covid? that;s not a medical science issue, it's a political and religious issue now so a double no on that.

Banning all political and religious discussion has unintended consequences I'm sure the mods didn't really foresee or want, because they seem to be fairly intelligent reasonable people and just don't get how matter of fact issues are now smeared with politics and religion. At least they're fair about it unlike some boards, and i respect fair.

But that's what we've become in modern america sadly. We've entered the world of "alternative facts" and the "post truth era", where empirical data means nothing and beliefs matter more than hard data.

This is all very interesting, and graphic, but also not germane to my proposal. Anyone have a viable reason why the dakka mods should not forward posters to the Wasteland when deleting/locking Political posts/threads as a way to remind dakka posters that there are appropriate forums to discuss this that are, in theory, set up for that purpose, just like they do for OT posts, etc.

RiTides observation on wasteland having NSFW content is noted, but as I pointed out, some of those threads are a decade old, or older. I gave putting up a new one a whirl, and the mods disappeared it immediately.

The mods at The Wasteland? Did some thing ...at all? Huh.

BaronIveagh - thing is when mods point people toward other forums or resources if they do so then that is putting their seal of approval on that site. If the site is conducting itself in a poor manner and is generally a toxic place then its not really going to have constructive input. It's giving those people somewhere to go but its like saying "ok don't poop in the middle of the convention - go outside and do it in the toxic waste dump outside".

Sure it works but no one is going to like that suggestion and will think poorly of the staff for even suggesting it.

Also its my experience that few people are actually willing or desiring to take their conversation elsewhere. I've seen threads shut down due to a fight or otherwise and an offer made that anyone can restart the original subject. Yet almost every time I've never seen a discussion restart after that. It's very rare that it ever happens.
So many times even giving people somewhere else to go is not going to be taken up on that offer. It's a nicety and every so often a core of people might splinter off; but by and large people won't take up the offer.







Also I've even seen calm reasoned mods fall into insane fights over politics even when those political conversations were in an isolated area and between mods who otherwise got along perfectly fine and were normally more level headed. Politics (and religion) have that power and right now the situation in the USA in particular is so hot that its really causing a lot of additional strife in such discussions.

Shutting it down is the best course of action and despite some peoples desperation; yes you can talk about hobby stuff without political discourse. It's a shame to lose something the site once supported, but you can't deny that without it a lot of fights and ill feeling have settled on their own.

 Matt Swain wrote:

Banning all political and religious discussion has unintended consequences I'm sure the mods didn't really foresee or want, because they seem to be fairly intelligent reasonable people and just don't get how matter of fact issues are now smeared with politics and religion.

No, we get it. But politics being pervasive right now doesn't change the fact that allowing discussion of overtly political topics almost never ends well. And despite being so pervasive out there in the real world right now, the board has been ambling along much more happily without that discussion happening here.

The OT area is included as an optional extra, and it has some limitations placed on it in order to make sure that it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the rest of the site. Ultimately, this is a forum about toy soldiers. If you can't discuss global warming here, that really shouldn't be a big deal... there are other places more suited to that discussion.

People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".

Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".

Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?

Once again, the problem is that the 'mean words' don't actually stay in the latrine. The leak out into the rest of the site, which has a detrimental effect on the site for those who just come here to enjoy their hobby.

And that's ignoring the fact that 'mean words on the internet' have a very large impact on the lives of a great many people. Particularly when someone is feeling bullied or harrassed.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
People here talk about "additional strife" and "escalating".

Tell me, what effect do Mean Words On The Internet have in real life? Does your monitor come to life and punch you? If you don't want to see the Mean Words On The Internet, just don't go to the latrine, go to a different one?

Once again, the problem is that the 'mean words' don't actually stay in the latrine. The leak out into the rest of the site, which has a detrimental effect on the site for those who just come here to enjoy their hobby.

And that's ignoring the fact that 'mean words on the internet' have a very large impact on the lives of a great many people. Particularly when someone is feeling bullied or harrassed.

And like I said, if you take the mean words out, you get punished.

Also, maybe I am just old, but last I checked, no-one forces you to read forums or messages from people you don't like or who are mean to you. What's wrong with just blocking people you don't like and moving on? If you're feeling "harassed" by a message on an internet forum, either block the person, don't go to that forum, or seek therapy because that isn't a normal thing to feel, imo.

Hey BCB, you ever play Dungeons and Dragons?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And like I said, if you take the mean words out, you get punished.

Also, maybe I am just old, but last I checked, no-one forces you to read forums or messages from people you don't like or who are mean to you. What's wrong with just blocking people you don't like and moving on? If you're feeling "harassed" by a message on an internet forum, either block the person, don't go to that forum, or seek therapy because that isn't a normal thing to feel, imo.

There are a couple of things here -
For one, telling people who are feeling bullied that they should just ignore it is right up there with telling people suffering from depression they should just try not being depressed. Many people can't just shrug off the these things, and telling them that they're doing it wrong won't change that.

For two, that's still only a part of the problem. The other part, which arguably creates a bigger mess to keep cleaning up, is those aforementioned grievances spilling out from OT into other areas. Even if we could magically 'fix' bullying and harrassment by telling people to just not feel bullied or harrassed, it's not going to change the fact that allowing discussion of politics here just makes a mess.

greatbigtree wrote:Hey BCB, you ever play Dungeons and Dragons?

Yes.

insaniak wrote: For one, telling people who are feeling bullied that they should just ignore it is right up there with telling people suffering from depression they should just try not being depressed.

No, it's not. Depression is a mental illness, it's real, and is a serious medical condition. Using Facebook or Dakka is a choice, and you have the ability to block people who you don't want to interact with, you can choose to not interact with them. You don't have the ability to just choose to not have depression or other mental illnesses, and for you to insinuate I was saying that is downright insulting.

If you block me because I think <Common sense opinion>, there is nothing I can do to unblock myself from you, so I can no longer say "Mean" Words On The Internet to you.

@BCB: If you were to suppose your personal “alignment”, would you consider yourself to be Lawful Neutral?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
...and for you to insinuate I was saying that is downright insulting.

But that's ok - you can choose to not read it. It's just words on the internet.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@BCB: If you were to suppose your personal “alignment”, would you consider yourself to be Lawful Neutral?

The entire concept of the DnD alignment chart is stupid and not helpful. Trying to pigeonhole yourself along those 2 axes is reductive at best and harmful at worst.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
...and for you to insinuate I was saying that is downright insulting.

But that's ok - you can choose to not read it. It's just words on the internet.

I fully agree. I am still going to reply to you, and let you know my disagreement with your point, but I'm not going to block you, or use my moderator powers to ban you, or give out veiled threats to use said powers, or use my moderator powers to ban every single person on the forum from discussing certain topics. You're free to insult me, and I am not free to insult you back due to the difference in power, so the most I can do is tell you that you are insulting me, I agree with your right to insult me, and that I disagree with your insinuation.

I fully agree. I am still going to reply to you, and let you know my disagreement with your point, but I'm not going to block you, or use my moderator powers to ban you, or give out veiled threats to use said powers, or use my moderator powers to ban every single person on the forum from discussing certain topics. You're free to insult me, and I am not free to insult you back due to the difference in power, so the most I can do is tell you that you are insulting me, I agree with your right to insult me, and that I disagree with your insinuation.

All of which completely misses the point.

You were insulted by a comment that wasn't even intended to be insulting, right after claiming that people shouldn't take mean words on the internet seriously. You can't have it both ways.

This is why we moderate 'mean words on the internet'... because a lot of people don't have the filter that lets them just ignore those mean words. 'Mean words on the internet' have the power to end lives. And insisting that this shouldn't be the case won't fix that.

Sticks and stones will hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me.



Is one of those things we teach children, yet its a lie. Words have phenomenal power. To deny that is folly.

And sure you can say that everyone should be able to debate politics, religion and other such topics without getting emotional; heated or taking insult. Without feeling slighted or insulted; without feeling saddened, angered, happy, gleeful or anything else.
Heck if that were possible moderators would hardly be needed.


However the opposite is true, we do care what words mean; even in meaningless discussions online. Heck people have come to blows and fought duels over insult and words said in the not that distant past (and heck some do still do that today - though its more of a brawl than a duel and the weapons might be a broken bottle or knife instead of sword or pistol).



In the end what does bringing Politics here gain us? What's the net benefit? Freedom to express our political views and discuss it - but what's the net loss? Social stability, friends, key members, new members, free time (for mods who have to resolve things).

The net gains are few and the net losses are great; especially when its all just an exercise in expression of viewpoints - we aren't changing the political world here. So the chance to share your political world view is measured up against the preservation of the membership as a functional friendly and welcoming community

 insaniak wrote:

I fully agree. I am still going to reply to you, and let you know my disagreement with your point, but I'm not going to block you, or use my moderator powers to ban you, or give out veiled threats to use said powers, or use my moderator powers to ban every single person on the forum from discussing certain topics. You're free to insult me, and I am not free to insult you back due to the difference in power, so the most I can do is tell you that you are insulting me, I agree with your right to insult me, and that I disagree with your insinuation.

All of which completely misses the point.

You were insulted by a comment that wasn't even intended to be insulting, right after claiming that people shouldn't take mean words on the internet seriously. You can't have it both ways.

This is why we moderate 'mean words on the internet'... because a lot of people don't have the filter that lets them just ignore those mean words. 'Mean words on the internet' have the power to end lives. And insisting that this shouldn't be the case won't fix that.

Dude, as I said, I'm not taking it "seriously", but it's still an insult. Instead of screeching on twitter that you should be demodded, lose your job, become a pariah, and die, I am just telling you that I feel insulted, then move on with my day. By your own logic, you should now ban yourself for Mean Words On The Internet, but I know you won't because you're a hypocrite. Either live by your own standards, or admit your hypocrisy. Which one is it?

That is my main issue with such heavy handed moderation. Those in power, without fail, are not subject to the same rules as the unwashed masses. Whether it's forums, IRC chats, Discord servers, or real life.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Dude, as I said, I'm not taking it "seriously", but it's still an insult. Instead of screeching on twitter that you should be demodded, lose your job, become a pariah, and die, I am just telling you that I feel insulted, then move on with my day. By your own logic, you should now ban yourself for Mean Words On The Internet, but I know you won't because you're a hypocrite. Either live by your own standards, or admit your hypocrisy. Which one is it?

Ah. You're not taking it seriously, but are going to continue arguing the point. That seems like a productive use of both our time.

For what it's worth, intent matters. You found my comment insulting because you don't think bullying on the internet is a real problem. It wasn't intended as an insult, just an illustration of the point.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Dude, as I said, I'm not taking it "seriously", but it's still an insult. Instead of screeching on twitter that you should be demodded, lose your job, become a pariah, and die, I am just telling you that I feel insulted, then move on with my day. By your own logic, you should now ban yourself for Mean Words On The Internet, but I know you won't because you're a hypocrite. Either live by your own standards, or admit your hypocrisy. Which one is it?

Ah. You're not taking it seriously, but are going to continue arguing the point. That seems like a productive use of both our time.

For what it's worth, intent matters. You found my comment insulting because you don't think bullying on the internet is a real problem. It wasn't intended as an insult, just an illustration of the point.

But you are the one who is claiming that "bullying" on the internet is a real problem. By your own definition, intent of the "bully" doesn't matter, only the feelings of the one being bullied. Ergo, you must ban yourself now. So, are you going to ban yourself? I wouldn't ban you if I had the power, but I don't have that power, you do.

Let's say, for arguments sake, I now take the position that your comment horrifically hurt my very soul and the only way this can be rectified is for you to be banned, will you ban yourself? If not, why not?

And since you seem to be under the impression that it's the "bullying" part I care about, I don't. What I do care about is the hypocrisy of heavy handed moderation.