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.

This is the edited, mod reviewed form of a post on a news and rumors thread promoting a product.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The dude used his Official Store Site to support an anti-democratic coup attempt, a traumatic event for many Americans. Pretending it was nothing but a harmless difference of opinion is embarrassing. Pretending the guy who put it on his company FB site (rather than keeping it personal) wasn’t the one who made his company political is embarrassing. Some of the people giving cover to this are the same who complain about GW getting political for putting out a statement on inclusivity. The hypocrisy is embarrassing.

It is absolutely political and frustrating to me personally that any refutation or engagement with it is not allowed. To save the thread starter from getting locked again I've made a new post here letting the mod team know the problem will not go away with half measures.

People may diagnose the problem differently and certainly the solution differently. But we still have a problem.

I submit letting this level of political commentary sit after moderation is part of the problem.

It's not a "smear job" to point out basic facts.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
It's not a "smear job" to point out basic facts.

Sure. Will you grant me the post is political at least?

It was related to politics, yes, and I would love to see this site get rid of its ridiculous politics ban. But it's not accurate to call that post a "smear job" even if it technically violates the no politics rule.

Title corrected for your benefit.

Edit: The : D is a laughing ork, I changed it to a : )

I saved warboss' based reply to that (which was deleted). I do agree this is a better venue for it - thanks for making the thread Scrabb!

 warboss wrote:
Will this new dakka standard be evenly applied to other companies? For example, threads about companies that openly supported and fundraised for anarchocommunist movements that organized riots across the country that left dozens of cities burnt and looted and resulted in dozens of murders? Every time product news is posted from those companies, will posters be able to bring up those actions and state their personal objections as well?

While the above post was deleted, insaniak's guidance directly addresses it:

 insaniak wrote:
I have pruned out the off topic discussion once again from this thread.

It seems there is still sore confusion about discussion of politics on Dakka. The politics ban on OT was never intended to stop actual, relevant miniatures related discussion, just discussion of politics. If a business makes a political statement in a public forum, that's going to shape people's perception of that business. Expressing an opinion of the business as a result of that statement is therefore on topic. Debating the politics behind the statement, however, is not.

And yes, that's a fine line, but it's one that is intended to allow for relevant discussion while avoiding everything going too far off the rails.

Please keep it on topic moving forwards.

So, it seems the answer to warboss' question is a resounding "Yes". Feel free to bring up relevant political statements or actions by any company in their N&R threads.

You are not allowed to debate the details, but you can call them out on it, and say why you won't be supporting them as a result.

From his earlier guidance, this also isn't considered cancel culture:

 insaniak wrote:
Keep it civil, folks.

Someone expressing an opinion on the actions of a business is not 'cancel culture'... it's an opinion. Let's leave that tangent at the gate, please.

Basically, go for it!

Obviously, I disagree, but I stepped down and the owners are completely MIA, so this is what the current mods have come to. I know them all, have gone to conventions with them, and consider them friends.

But this is a mistake (one I'm partly to blame for, really, as the "ETC forums" ended up riling up our politically liberal members, banning or running off our conservative ones, and many of the political issues on Dakka have resulted from these ETC members. Bob, for instance, is ironically the one I passed voluntarily ownership to, and he's quoted in the OP by Scrabb here!). So, I don't escape blame for this, and I love the mod team here (even those who participate both places!), but this is just plain wrong.

Mark Mondragon's treatment was wrong. This policy is wrong. And eventually, if people follow your above guidance, I think the outcome of it will make that really, extremely obvious, as it could literally make any (every?) company thread as horrible as the one we just experienced.

This approach as I understand it, encourages negative interaction with content creators exclusively and prevents them from protecting themselves in the court of public opinion.



This is just another example of the stratification of society across political lines. At this point it would save companies and creators a lot of time to put their political identities on their sleeves because they WILL be attacked for their politics and they CANNOT redress the grievance of being what they are. IIRC Mark has deleted the political posts he is being flagellated for.

I'm guessing from posts subsequent to the third warning post that the number of times you can "express a personal opinion" that derails the thread is dependent on the affiliation of the poster and the intended target. Of course, I'm just basing that off of the proportion of removed posts arguing against the derailing of the thread (many of which disappeared) versus those attacking the OP (which mostly if not all stayed in unless they quoted a post arguing with them using facts and logic). Just observations though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:

This is just another example of the stratification of society across political lines. At this point it would save companies and creators a lot of time to put their political identities on their sleeves because they WILL be attacked for their politics and they CANNOT redress the grievance of being what they are. IIRC Mark has deleted the political posts he is being flagellated for.

Not good enough. The mob will determine your affiliations and the relevant punishment for you. Your participation is not warranted or appreciated.

 RiTides wrote:
Mark Mondragon's treatment was wrong.

Why? If he wants to defend "free speech absolutism" then that includes people criticizing his comments and talking about choosing not to do business with him. He hasn't even faced very strong criticism by the standards of the internet as a whole!

This policy is wrong.

And what would you propose as an alternative? The the actions of a company and/or its owners are not relevant for discussion, no matter how objectionable they may be? That companies are entitled to have sales and not be judged for their choices?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Not good enough. The mob will determine your affiliations and the relevant punishment for you. Your participation is not warranted or appreciated.

So ignore the mob then. I have no idea why people are so hysterical about the idea of people saying "I don't like you" on the internet. But it is funny that the complaints about "cancel culture" and "woke mobs" and such seem to inevitably come from the same people who also complain about "safe spaces" and such.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Mark Mondragon's treatment was wrong.

Why? If he wants to defend "free speech absolutism" then that includes people criticizing his comments and talking about choosing not to do business with him. He hasn't even faced very strong criticism by the standards of the internet as a whole!

This policy is wrong.

And what would you propose as an alternative? The the actions of a company and/or its owners are not relevant for discussion, no matter how objectionable they may be? That companies are entitled to have sales and not be judged for their choices?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Not good enough. The mob will determine your affiliations and the relevant punishment for you. Your participation is not warranted or appreciated.

So ignore the mob then. I have no idea why people are so hysterical about the idea of people saying "I don't like you" on the internet. But it is funny that the complaints about "cancel culture" and "woke mobs" and such seem to inevitably come from the same people who also complain about "safe spaces" and such.

I would respectfully suggest that you make an effort to keep such a post on topic ie “I won’t be purchasing this product because of the creator’s expression of their support for X.” You should avoid dragging in your personal political opinions regarding whir and what is or isn’t worthy of support and you shouldn’t try to make a thread about a new product in N&R become your personal hobby horse to rant about frozen peaches.

Don't take the bait lads. Aecus wants political discussion number forty thousand.

I want policy change on what political content gets to stand or not stand in an advertisement thread for miniatures.

Specifically, whether the party aggrieved by the politics of the OP gets to be more political than the supporters of the OPs politics.

 RiTides wrote:
From his earlier guidance, this also isn't considered cancel culture:

Of course it isn't.

Saying 'I choose to not support this company because they did [thing]' is not 'cancelling' anything. It's expressing an opinion

Saying 'This person should not express their opinion because I disagree with it!' - that would be an attempt to 'cancel' them.

Basically, go for it!

Obviously, I disagree, but I stepped down and the owners are completely MIA, so this is what the current mods have come to.

You seem to be inexplicably under the impression that this is a new policy. It's not. The OT Politics ban was always intended solely to keep politics out of the OT forum. That's not just my interpretation, it's the specific guidance we were given by the site's owners back when the policy was implemented.

For the most part, discussing politics elsewhere on the site was already not allowed by simple virtue of being off topic for the rest of the site... but where something political is directly relevant to the topic at hand, it would be irresponsible to not allow it to at least be mentioned.

So posts arguing over the correctness of the characterization of [Thing] ARE on topic as soon as [Thing] is brought up?

 Scrabb wrote:
So posts arguing over the correctness of the characterization of [Thing] ARE on topic as soon as [Thing] is brought up?

Expressing a relevant opinion is on topic. Debating the politics behind that opinion is not.

 insaniak wrote:

Saying 'I choose to not support this company because they did [thing]' is not 'cancelling' anything. It's expressing an opinion

Just to clarify regarding your red text post in the original thread, how many times are we allowed to express in thread the same political opinion based on the public official statements or actions of a company when it is obviously antagonistic and proven to be derailing? Ideally, it would seem that if you really oppose the actions of a company that posting it once and then leaving the thread would be more consistent with "walking a fine line" but I figured I'd ask for clarification.

 insaniak wrote:
Saying 'I choose to not support this company because they did [thing]' is not 'cancelling' anything. It's expressing an opinion

Then why was my post saying "I am not buying from OP because of {things they stand for that I object to}" deleted?

 warboss wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Saying 'I choose to not support this company because they did [thing]' is not 'cancelling' anything. It's expressing an opinion

Just to clarify regarding your red text post in the original thread, how many times are we allowed to express in thread the same political opinion based on the public official statements or actions of a company when it is obviously antagonistic and proven to be derailing? Ideally, it would seem that if you really oppose the actions of a company that posting it once and then leaving the thread would be more consistent with "walking a fine line" but I figured I'd ask for clarification.

Spamming any thread repeatedly with the same comment would potentially be inappropriate. But as with so many things, it's going to come down to context and the specific discussion at hand.

I know you're looking for a nice, neat 'gotcha' response here, but moderating is rarely that neat and tidy.

TLDR:

You can;

1) I will not support Lord of Hats' new model line. He mocks PETA on a regular basis and I care about the animals.
2) I don't really like PETA either so w/e. New models are lit.

You cannot;

1) But he's right to mock PETA on a regular basis. PETA is awful and they kill animals all the time!
2) If you're buying Hat's models because he mocks PETA then you mock PETA too!

Is that the right read here?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Saying 'I choose to not support this company because they did [thing]' is not 'cancelling' anything. It's expressing an opinion

Then why was my post saying "I am not buying from OP because of {things they stand for that I object to}" deleted?

Because that post also contained an extended diatribe about free speech arguments, which was off-topic.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Saying 'I choose to not support this company because they did [thing]' is not 'cancelling' anything. It's expressing an opinion

Then why was my post saying "I am not buying from OP because of {things they stand for that I object to}" deleted?

Was the previous post comparing him to nazis and clansmen not enough that you needed another dozen in between and after three mod posts stating much of the same? Or is your baseline to financially support those types of alleged people and you wanted to clarify why THIS particular time you wouldn't?

 insaniak wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
So posts arguing over the correctness of the characterization of [Thing] ARE on topic as soon as [Thing] is brought up?

Expressing a relevant opinion is on topic. Debating the politics behind that opinion is not.

Right. So those for whom the political actions a company, or hobbyist, engage in are relevant to their engagement level with said company or hobbyist a statement apologizing to the forum for their inability to interact with [Company or Hobbyist] due to [political reason] is acceptable.

This is a bad policy if no political discussion is allowed.

It hamstrings [Company or Hobbyist] from clarifying/pushing back on [political reason] and encourages sniping.


When is the political inclination of any random poster relevant and when is it not relevant? Or is it I'll know it when I see it stuff?

 LordofHats wrote:
TLDR:

You can;

1) I will not support Lord of Hats' new model line. He mocks PETA on a regular basis and I care about the animals.
2) I don't really like PETA either so w/e. New models are lit.

You cannot;

1) But he's right to mock PETA on a regular basis. PETA is awful and they kill animals all the time!
2) If you're buying Hat's models because he mocks PETA then you mock PETA too!

Is that the right read here?

That's a fairly good summary, yes.

 insaniak wrote:
Because that post also contained an extended diatribe about free speech arguments, which was off-topic.

How is it off topic when the free speech argument made by the owner of the company is literally the specific reason I am refusing to buy from him?

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a bad policy if no political discussion is allowed.

It hamstrings [Company or Hobbyist] from clarifying/pushing back on [political reason] and encourages sniping.

I would point out that Mark's post attempting to clarify his position is still right there in the thread in question.


The goal here is not to allow people to randomly dunk on miniature manufacturers they don't like, merely to allow people to express their opinion without the discussion turning into a political debate. If a potential customer has an issue with a business' actions, that's both relevant to the forum and potentially useful feedback for the business. It would absolutely be acceptable for that business to respond to that feedback if they feel it is inaccurate or needs clarifying in some way.

 insaniak wrote:

Spamming any thread repeatedly with the same comment would potentially be inappropriate. But as with so many things, it's going to come down to context and the specific discussion at hand.

I know you're looking for a nice, neat 'gotcha' response here, but moderating is rarely that neat and tidy.

Nah, not looking for a gotcha but rather a guideline for this seemingly new IMO baseline for politics in gaming discussion. I'm not talking about literally copy and pasting the same thing but rather expounding on the same topic and arguing with others about its merits repeatedly over the next couple of pages. If the folks that expressed dislike of NoseGoblin's views had just posted once each and then left the thread then it wouldn't have devolved as it did but they refused to allow others to just discuss the actual topic at hand. I know moderating frequently involves threading needles (or walking a fine line as you posted) but frankly the time for either should have been over with ideally after the first completely ignored post but most definitely after the second IMO.

I'm not a mod, but if I were to asked for a quick heuristic about what kind of post is "allowed" and what kind of post is off topic, it would be this: if the post could be fairly simply copied and pasted into a political debate unrelated to the miniature topic, it's probably no longer about minis, but just about politics.

Every poster in these threads seem to think they are incredibly clever, and don't understand that the mods on this site have years to decades of experience sifting through posts to sniff out posts that have real content, partisan posts that are at least in good faith, and troll/flamewar/shitposting.

Really this thread once again demonstrates what an utter farce the politics ban is. Just get rid of it, permit political discussion, and we can all stop trying to pin down just exactly where the precise line is on every single sub-topic.

 insaniak wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
This is a bad policy if no political discussion is allowed.

It hamstrings [Company or Hobbyist] from clarifying/pushing back on [political reason] and encourages sniping.

I would point out that Mark's post attempting to clarify his position is still right there in the thread in question.


The goal here is not to allow people to randomly dunk on miniature manufacturers they don't like, merely to allow people to express their opinion without the discussion turning into a political debate. If a potential customer has an issue with a business' actions, that's both relevant to the forum and potentially useful feedback for the business. It would absolutely be acceptable for that business to respond to that feedback if they feel it is inaccurate or needs clarifying in some way.

This is really mature and a good response.

I'll just add the post I quoted in my OP, to me, is across that line of getting into political argument and I'm disappointed it's been allowed to stand in that form.

but, w/e, sucks to be me I guess. How dare this site not meet with my personal approval on every call.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Really this thread once again demonstrates what an utter farce the politics ban is. Just get rid of it, permit political discussion, and we can all stop trying to pin down just exactly where the precise line is on every single sub-topic.

Or just not allow any real world political discussion and just (re)open up the cesspit that was off topic to politics in years gone by for those who want to wallow in the muck? That way everyone wins. You get to scream into the void and those who don't want to be forced to listen won't. It's a win, win!

 insaniak wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
TLDR:

You can;

1) I will not support Lord of Hats' new model line. He mocks PETA on a regular basis and I care about the animals.
2) I don't really like PETA either so w/e. New models are lit.

You cannot;

1) But he's right to mock PETA on a regular basis. PETA is awful and they kill animals all the time!
2) If you're buying Hat's models because he mocks PETA then you mock PETA too!

Is that the right read here?

That's a fairly good summary, yes.

Seems like a straightforward line to me then.

I also just assumed it's fairly safe to mock PETA at this point because I haven't seen anyone who likes PETA in years XD