A simple suggestion

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

LordofHats wrote:
Basically all but four people ignore you, and only one of those four people even tries to give you a chance.

As that one person, I can't upvote your post enough.

Also, regarding the idea that the Wasteland is somehow an "echo chamber" that's only really true when it comes to one subject in particular: the US Republican party. Even then, there is dissent (see the relatively recent debate on what post-inauguration strategy Biden should pursue in regards to the Republicans (conciliatory vs. throwing the book at them). Hell, even myself and FutureWarCultist, who more or less despised each other, managed to apologize to each other and agree that whembly's being crazy (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the sentiment I've gotten at any rate). Is it an echo chamber when people tell Flat Earthers to get lost? When anti-vaxxers are shut down?

Which neatly brings us back to the concept of "problem posters". For the second part of the Obama administration, whembly's Benghazi posts were a fixture of the Politics threads in the OT forum. The slow decline of quality in political threads is not the blame of any one poster, but if one poster had to be chosen as the avatar of what politics became on Dakka it is impossible to nominate anyone other than whembly.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite for civil discussion. Remember when you linked half a page's worth of articles that supposedly backed your views on climate change and I actually read them, pointing out that you'd included, among other things, an article critisizing people doing what you were doing? What about claiming that Bush would've won Florida even after recounts in 2000 and then linking a page that says literally the opposite?

You keep making claims and linking articles, pages, or other sources that back up the complete opposite. It's not just once, it keeps happening. Explain again how this is the behaviour of someone interested in civil discourse? If it walks like a duck...

**AlmightyWalrus**

whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite for civil discussion. Remember when you linked half a page's worth of articles that supposedly backed your views on climate change and I actually read them, pointing out that you'd included, among other things, an article critisizing people doing what you were doing? What about claiming that Bush would've won Florida even after recounts in 2000 and then linking a page that says literally the opposite?

Those were my sourcing mistakes.

Yet, you'd handwaved other sources substantiating my arguments as well.

Your efforts were to point out my mistakes instead of engaging the merits of the arguments.

Whembly, one of the links you linked literally said, and I quote verbatim:

The naysayers on climate change typically begin with appeals to the evidence. Lots of evidence. Ironically, they seem to revel in long lists of obvious counterexamples, “embarrassing predictions” (Newman, 2014), “admissions” of earlier errors (Dixon, 2013), Al Gore’s mis-takes (Terrell, 2014), simple facts about carbon dioxide (http://www.iloveco2.com/), and graphs, graphs, graphs.

You linked this article in a list that looked like this:

Spoiler:

The merits of your arguments do not exist, there is no argument to be had unless you argue in good faith. Tell me again how this list of *checks notes* one hundred and thirty four (!) sources where the result of a "sourcing mistake"?

You'll also note that the statement that I handwaved your other sources after that monster of a self-own was a l̶i̶e̶ sourcing mistake, as the debate continued after that point. I thus argue that I have amply proven that you're not, in fact, all that bothered about actually having a civil debate. QED.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Slipspace wrote:

Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?

If they keep doing it after being called out repeatedly? Absolutely.

**AlmightyWalrus**

In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.

**AlmightyWalrus**

To borrow a turn of phrase: it's a forum for toy soldiers. Why are you so deathly afraid to draw a line and tell people misbehaving to feth off? Would it be subjective? Yes, to a certain degree, but as we're often reminded it's your (well, Yakface's) forum. You already make subjective decisions; it's part of being a moderator.

**AlmightyWalrus**

If I want to argue for the extermination of all Danes, would that be fine as long as I do so in a civil manner? As long as I treat any Danes that are part of the debate in a professional and friendly manner? I imagine such a view would be unpopular, but as long as I'm civil we're all Gucci, right?

Unless I'm mistaken Martin Luther King had some choice words for this civility fetish.

**AlmightyWalrus**

RiTides wrote:
No. You'd be removed for such an argument, as I think you would be in any similar setting.

My hope is certainly that the mature adults I'm inviting to participate in this forum, both here and from my local gaming group, won't make such an argument. If they do, that's why you have an admin.

Why, though? I'm being civil, aren't I?

Or is it the case (as I would argue) that there something inherently uncivil about calling for the extermination of an entire nationality, and that the very act of making this argument is uncivil?

You already make arbitrary judgment calls on what is and isn't acceptable all the time. Using that as an argument against moderating certain behaviours seems strange to me.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Ketara wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it's also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.

If you feel that the current (clearly delineated) policies laid out by the site owner to the forum members and moderation team are inadequate or generally faulty; that's entirely your prerogative. Likewise, you are entirely free to approach him and try to convince him that his rules (if this is what you are saying) promote the appearance of civility over the reality of it. He might even agree with you. Then again, he might not.

But until he does, I'm afraid that the status quo is how this website is going to function. He pays the bills. He makes the rules. To paraphrase a quote, 'this is Yakface's world, we all just live in it'.

'

But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else. The fact that Yakface's rules apply on Dakka is wholly irrelevant, with Dakka only serving in this case as an example of what not to do on a board about politics.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Ketara wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.

I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.

Frankly, both your answer to wolfblade and the one I've just quoted read as complete non sequiturs to me. Wolfblade was clearly not arguing to change Dakka's policies in the present and I didn't give any indication that I was bored of anything (as far as I'm aware) so I'm struggling to see where that came from. I'm drawing a blank, could you help me out here? It's kidna coming across as "we're the mods, suck it up" which, while true, isn't exactly conductive to a meaningful discussion, especially when the discussion is about what the moderation should and should not look like.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Fair, I missed that part. Makes more sense with that context in mind.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Didn't we already establish that posters who called for the extermination of all Danes would be banned, even if they sincerely held that belief? The notion that someone should not be censured for arguing something abhorrent isn't true in the first place, so why are we arguing as though it is?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Clearly such a person is suffering from severe problems IRL that aren’t going to be fixed by a message board.

That's completely subjective. Which is my entire point: you're already comfortable with making completely subjective judgments about banning subjects for the health of the discussion, you just disagree about where that line should be drawn.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Prestor Jon wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Clearly such a person is suffering from severe problems IRL that aren’t going to be fixed by a message board.

That's completely subjective. Which is my entire point: you're already comfortable with making completely subjective judgments about banning subjects for the health of the discussion, you just disagree about where that line should be drawn.

That’s a valid point. The person detailing a thread with off topic posts about the need for genocidal programs may not be suffering from anything other than a different view of what is funny or appropriate. Regardless of the motivation blatant off topic detailing posts should be discouraged. The content of such posts is irrelevant beyond identifying them as non sequiturs to the thread topic. I don’t think that is a controversial or difficult to codify and enforce position to hold.

...so we should ban people who blatantly argue in bad faith. If "blatant" is good enough for excluding people in case A, it should also be good enough for excluding people in case B, no?

If I make the thread "Should we exterminate the Danes?" it is a political question, it's my topic so by definition on topic, and I argue my sincere belief that Denmark should be destroyed, should that thread be allowed? The blatantly obvious answer is "no, what the heck are you smoking?" or some variation thereof, as already established in this thread.

Why, though? It can't be because the question is off topic, because genocide is most certainly a political question and it is the topic the thread is intended to discuss. It can't be because it isn't my sincerely held belief, because in this hypothetical scenario it is. In this case, why do you ban such a thread?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Prestor Jon wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

Clearly such a person is suffering from severe problems IRL that aren’t going to be fixed by a message board.

That's completely subjective. Which is my entire point: you're already comfortable with making completely subjective judgments about banning subjects for the health of the discussion, you just disagree about where that line should be drawn.

That’s a valid point. The person detailing a thread with off topic posts about the need for genocidal programs may not be suffering from anything other than a different view of what is funny or appropriate. Regardless of the motivation blatant off topic detailing posts should be discouraged. The content of such posts is irrelevant beyond identifying them as non sequiturs to the thread topic. I don’t think that is a controversial or difficult to codify and enforce position to hold.

...so we should ban people who blatantly argue in bad faith. If "blatant" is good enough for excluding people in case A, it should also be good enough for excluding people in case B, no?

If I make the thread "Should we exterminate the Danes?" it is a political question, it's my topic so by definition on topic, and I argue my sincere belief that Denmark should be destroyed, should that thread be allowed? The blatantly obvious answer is "no, what the heck are you smoking?" or some variation thereof, as already established in this thread.

Why, though? It can't be because the question is off topic, because genocide is most certainly a political question and it is the topic the thread is intended to discuss. It can't be because it isn't my sincerely held belief, because in this hypothetical scenario it is. In this case, why do you ban such a thread?

I think the justification would come from the personal conduct policy. If we don’t want posters insulting, denigrating and demonizing other individual posters then we also don’t want anyone to deliberately attack, insult, denigrate and demonize a specific group of people. Same as if I started a thread titled Women are Terrible Drivers: Let’s Mock Them for It, that thread would get locked because regardless of my honesty or lack of profane language it would still be a thread whose sole purpose is to denigrate others and that to type of behavior is bad for the forum community. We could find other ways to discuss the history and future of Denmark and Danish culture without advocating for a genocidal pogrom. Same as we could discuss When is violence justified? But a thread called Nazis should be beaten to death on sight Prove me wrong would not be acceptable.

Which, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, is banning people for not posting in good faith.