Switch Theme:

U.S. Politics forum  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Janthkin wrote:
"We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?"


That's not really what I'm talking about here. There is plenty of room for legitimate disagreement on things, and I'm certainly not suggesting that people should be banned for being wrong about something. But I've noticed a common trend in the US politics thread getting moderator attention where someone makes a terrible argument, several different people politely point out why it is wrong (with long explanations and references), and the original person responds with something on the intellectual level of "nuh uhh lol IM RIGHT UR A COMMIE TRAITOR/HITLER-LOVING FASCIST". This cycle goes on for a while until people get frustrated with the troll and say something a bit impolite, at which point it's considered a rule #1 violation and the moderators jump in. And, often, the person who started the whole mess will later come back with the exact same thoroughly-debunked argument as if nothing happened, to the point where people are openly saying "don't engage with {person}, it's just going to get the thread locked". But from the moderator's point of view the problem is the lack of superficial politeness, not the fact that someone came in and all over the thread.

The transphobic example I mentioned really highlights this point. Saying "you aren't a real man/woman" (or whatever exactly it was) is incredibly rude and insulting and hurtful, but because it was superficially polite and didn't include any bad words it wasn't considered a rule violation. Telling the person directly that they're a bigoted was considered the greater offense, because politeness is more important than the actual harm being done. And that's a major problem.

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. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

 Janthkin wrote:
"We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?"
No Andrew Lloyd Webber fans in here? The next line is "Crucify him!"
 Peregrine wrote:
That's not really what I'm talking about here. There is plenty of room for legitimate disagreement on things, and I'm certainly not suggesting that people should be banned for being wrong about something. But I've noticed a common trend in the US politics thread getting moderator attention where someone makes a terrible argument, several different people politely point out why it is wrong (with long explanations and references), and the original person responds with something on the intellectual level of "nuh uhh lol IM RIGHT UR A COMMIE TRAITOR/HITLER-LOVING FASCIST". This cycle goes on for a while until people get frustrated with the troll and say something a bit impolite, at which point it's considered a rule #1 violation and the moderators jump in. And, often, the person who started the whole mess will later come back with the exact same thoroughly-debunked argument as if nothing happened, to the point where people are openly saying "don't engage with {person}, it's just going to get the thread locked". But from the moderator's point of view the problem is the lack of superficial politeness, not the fact that someone came in and all over the thread.

The transphobic example I mentioned really highlights this point. Saying "you aren't a real man/woman" (or whatever exactly it was) is incredibly rude and insulting and hurtful, but because it was superficially polite and didn't include any bad words it wasn't considered a rule violation. Telling the person directly that they're a bigoted was considered the greater offense, because politeness is more important than the actual harm being done. And that's a major problem.
Okay, 3 things here which most of you should already be well aware of:
1) Moderators are like vampires: we usually don't come into your threads unless invited in, and that goes 4x in the OT. So if the first time we encounter a thread is because someone hit the Yellow Triangle of Friendship on a particular post, odds are good we're going to deal with that particular post. (Corollary: if you see a post that's a problem, DON'T RESPOND TO IT, and instead invite a friendly Mod in to deal with it.)

2) Most moderation happens behind the scenes.

3) If a post is bad, but has got 3+ freakin' pages discussing it and quoting it ad naseum, then our choices are essentially: a) nuke the thread; b) yell at the thread to move on; or c) spend an hour or so manually clearing each post that is quoting the bad post. If a post is bad, but not quoted extensively, we tend to edit (or delete) the bad post. (Exercise for the reader: figure out which categories the posts Peregrine is referring to fall into.)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/25 22:50:47


Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Janthkin wrote:
Okay, 3 things here which most of you should already be well aware of:
1) Moderators are like vampires: we usually don't come into your threads unless invited in, and that goes 4x in the OT. So if the first time we encounter a thread is because someone hit the Yellow Triangle of Friendship on a particular post, odds are good we're going to deal with that particular post.
2) Most moderation happens behind the scenes.
3) If a post is bad, but has got 3+ freakin' pages discussing it and quoting it ad naseum, then our choices are essentially: a) nuke the thread; b) yell at the thread to move on; or c) spend an hour or so manually clearing each post that is quoting the bad post. If a post is bad, but not quoted extensively, we tend to edit (or delete) the bad post. (Exercise for the reader: figure out which categories the posts Peregrine is referring to fall into.)


I should clarify that I'm usually not talking about single posts that generate that much discussion, I'm talking about ongoing arguments where the same person keeps making terrible posts. Example:

Troll: "THE EARTH IS FLAT."
Everyone: "No, see proof otherwise. {links}".
Troll: "NO, THE EARTH IS FLAT".
Everyone: "No, here's some more proof otherwise. {links}".
Troll: "NO, THE EARTH IS FLAT".
Someone: "Oh FFS, read the proof please."
Moderator: THREAD LOCKED, Someone is temp banned for Rule #1 violation.
Troll, a week later in the next thread: "THE EARTH IS FLAT".

The problem is not that a moderator stepped in to say "enough of this tangent", it's that there's a lot of attention given to the superficial lack of politeness by the people getting frustrated with the troll but the person who started the whole mess by posting infuriatingly bad arguments (which didn't use any bad words) is allowed to keep ing all over threads. And rather than deal with the specific person making the poor arguments the thread gets locked for everyone, even the people who were making constructive contributions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Janthkin wrote:
(Corollary: if you see a post that's a problem, DON'T RESPOND TO IT, and instead invite a friendly Mod in to deal with it.)


This doesn't always work. There was an example around election season where a particular person was openly posting racist stereotypes about Jewish people, the posts were reported, and nothing happened for a long time (IIRC about a week). It was only after people got warnings/bans for not being polite enough in responding to the racist garbage that someone finally went back and looked at the original posts that started it all (which were, to be fair, finally deleted once they got attention). And I know I've personally reported various racist/homophobic/etc comments and nothing has happened to them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/25 23:04:11


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. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I would rather ignore a troll post than read 20 replies. And people becoming rude donkey-caves is what the troll wants, so being allowed to tell them to feth off because they are fething stupid just lets them win the same as them banning you for cursing them out. They want to piss you off, and you getting pissed off means they win, regardless of the consequences.

And honestly, troll or no troll, I much rather deal with a polite person who is completely wrong than a person who is right but aso an obnoxious donkey-cave.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Peregrine wrote:
This doesn't always work. There was an example around election season where a particular person was openly posting racist stereotypes about Jewish people, the posts were reported, and nothing happened for a long time (IIRC about a week). It was only after people got warnings/bans for not being polite enough in responding to the racist garbage that someone finally went back and looked at the original posts that started it all (which were, to be fair, finally deleted once they got attention). And I know I've personally reported various racist/homophobic/etc comments and nothing has happened to them.


This is what got the second to last (maybe it was third to last?) politics mega thread locked, and it was ridiculous that it took so long for that user's behavior to be addressed but I find that to be an exception rather than the standard. The worst that comes to my mind is several years ago someone made a very disgusting slur towards Arabs, but unless you knew a little Arabic yourself the slur looked like a "funny name." I assume that when I reported it mods looked, didn't get it and did nothing which I can understand, but I think Peregrine is getting at what I'm getting at. You can tell us to ignore bad posts over and over, but Janthkin, I know you and the other mods know that isn't going to solve the persistent problem.

I've grown fed up myself and have withdrawn, but that's nothing new. There's a laundry list of users who have already done that, because participating isn't worth it. The bar is too low, and the work it takes to be a patient and constructive user is demolished regularly at the roots by the body of problem posters complaining about dictionary definitions, or just posting straight up flame bait. The way things are currently enforced participating in a flame war is against the rules, but instigating one is allowed. Even when someone ends up like me and decides to quit of their own volition, you'll have dozens of others who haven't reached that point yet and all you need is one or two of them to take the bait to create a problem. There's one regularly OT poster in the Politics thread who might as well rename themselves "bait" and use this as their avatar, because more often than not that's what their "contributions" are. Numerous users already ignore him, but it only takes three or four people to bite the bait to drag the thread down and there's always a new users entering the board. To which I again say, there is little point to allowing ongoing discussion of US politics if superficial politeness is enforced but bad posting is allowed so long as it can cruise under the civility radar.

And honestly, to be blunt, what is it worth it to enforce the rules in the current status quo when it results in a ever constant stream of users leaving the topic area out of frustration? EDIT: Seriously for all the people I've seen quit or semi-quit OT in the decade I've been around I could have an entire board of my own called "DakkaDakka OT Expatriates" where we all sit around and work through our collective frustration like a creepy internet therapy group! If the goal is to have a good community rather than just a rules lawyer one that skirts under the radar of the rules, a stricter enforcement plan for OT seems appropriate and lacking such a plan then a blanket ban because why are we setting the bar at skirts under the rules? This isn't a knock against the mod team. I think the DakkaDakka mod teams is one of the best I've ever encountered. It's a knock against the current policy that the mods enforce, and how that policy has become inadequate to deal with the persistent problem that keeps popping up in the OT.

To link this directly to the OP's original post and as final words on my part; I think the administration of Dakka needs to either make the choice to step up enforcement and raise the bar of discussion in OT (particularly where politics especially American politics are concerned), or simply blanket ban consistently problematic topics for the sake of the board itself. Otherwise OT will just keep being dragged down as YMDC 2.0, except completely lacking the underlying utility that makes YMDC useful to users.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/25 23:56:25


   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 d-usa wrote:
I would rather ignore a troll post than read 20 replies. And people becoming rude donkey-caves is what the troll wants, so being allowed to tell them to feth off because they are fething stupid just lets them win the same as them banning you for cursing them out. They want to piss you off, and you getting pissed off means they win, regardless of the consequences.


The problem is that, as was mentioned earlier, convincing people in internet arguments is hard and the primary value comes from third parties reading the argument and being persuaded. Letting a blatantly false claim go without comment leaves it there for someone reading the thread to be convinced by it, not knowing that it's a garbage post that the potential critics are all ignoring because they don't want to deal with the person making it.

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. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

If people read a troll post that gets ignored in a threat full of actual discussion, and they think the single ignored troll post is the correct answer, they are beyond saving by engaging the troll.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Don't look at me I didn't get it locked, but then not sure why it got locked since I avoid the off-topic section like the plague these days, it brings too much ugliness out of me

What it comes down to is off-topic is evil, but its a necessary evil, it allows an easier moderation of the rest of the site since most of the heated debate and such could be found in off-topic(except the new 40K rules coming out might change that ), some moderators will allow some posters to continue till they burn themselves out, some will act, others are not sure if rules are broken (the site rules do need to be a bit more concise and such).

then you have those who are offended by what one person says and others who are not, the problem is who is right? and who is wrong? or are either right or wrong? then too top it all off you have like the past elections, probably one of the biggest most mudslingiest elections ever, and it brought the ugliness out in everyone, problem is we are but a small fraction of the real world which is getting even uglier.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 00:28:48


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




There's a sentiment running through these comments that seems to rest on a faulty assumption.

Examples such as "the earth is flat" are given, followed by evidence presented to the original poster, which is ignored, and the original poster continues to say the earth is flat. The naysayers then break forum rules out of frustration. The thread gets locked, or individuals get suspended, and so forth.

But when we are talking about politics, the subjects are almost never (if ever) as simple as the flat earth theory, but rather issues with many more levels of nuance, and where no one person's point of view can be convincingly proven as right or wrong, but rather matters of opinion and legitimate divergent viewpoints.

If the idea here is that certain posters who pretend to some claim of infallibility get to arbitrarily label any objection as trolling to be banned, then we will quickly enter the realm of the echo chamber, which is one of the worst and most harmful features of modern politics, especially in the US. There are far too many sites on the internet that have devolved into impenetrable echo chambers. It would be sad, at least to me, if OT went that route.

And perhaps it's much to do about nothing pertinent to the purpose of this site, which is wargaming.

But I'll mention this again. If an outlet for US politics is removed from this board, it's almost inevitable that US politics will creep into other threads, so long as Americans are permitted to post here. Moderate it here, or you will have to moderate it everywhere. I wouldn't envy either job.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 01:08:52


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 jasper76 wrote:
If the idea here is that certain posters who pretend to some claim of infallibility get to arbitrarily label any objection as trolling to be banned, then we will quickly enter the realm of the echo chamber, which is one of the worst and most harmful features of modern politics, especially in the US. There are far too many sites on the internet that have devolved into impenetrable echo chambers. It would be sad, at least to me, if OT went that route.


That's not the idea at all. Nobody is suggesting that any disagreement be labeled as trolling. There are people I disagree with quite strongly who still make constructive posts, and I don't think they should be banned or restricted at all. I'm talking about the situations (and I'm sure we can all think of people) where the evidence is overwhelmingly favoring one side, multiple people are posting convincing explanations of why the argument is wrong, but the person still keeps going because of trolling and/or partisan loyalty to Their Team. The example that comes to mind is the whole "the electoral college gives a voice to smaller states", an argument that was thoroughly demolished by counter-arguments supported with hard evidence that the value of a vote in those smaller states is actually diminished by the electoral college system. And yet the same person kept making the same argument (over weeks/months of multiple separate tangents) as if none of the proof existed, without ever providing any evidence of their own to support their claims. At that point it's no longer about disagreement, it's about it being so impossible to have a constructive discussion with someone that multiple people are openly saying "don't engage with them, they aren't listening".

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. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
If the idea here is that certain posters who pretend to some claim of infallibility get to arbitrarily label any objection as trolling to be banned, then we will quickly enter the realm of the echo chamber, which is one of the worst and most harmful features of modern politics, especially in the US. There are far too many sites on the internet that have devolved into impenetrable echo chambers. It would be sad, at least to me, if OT went that route.


That's not the idea at all. Nobody is suggesting that any disagreement be labeled as trolling. There are people I disagree with quite strongly who still make constructive posts, and I don't think they should be banned or restricted at all. I'm talking about the situations (and I'm sure we can all think of people) where the evidence is overwhelmingly favoring one side, multiple people are posting convincing explanations of why the argument is wrong, but the person still keeps going because of trolling and/or partisan loyalty to Their Team. The example that comes to mind is the whole "the electoral college gives a voice to smaller states", an argument that was thoroughly demolished by counter-arguments supported with hard evidence that the value of a vote in those smaller states is actually diminished by the electoral college system. And yet the same person kept making the same argument (over weeks/months of multiple separate tangents) as if none of the proof existed, without ever providing any evidence of their own to support their claims. At that point it's no longer about disagreement, it's about it being so impossible to have a constructive discussion with someone that multiple people are openly saying "don't engage with them, they aren't listening".


then ignore them, plain and simple. its real easy to put someone on ignore and ignore them.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

One last bit because honestly, its just comically case and point;

jasper76 wrote:If the idea here is that certain posters who pretend to some claim of infallibility get to arbitrarily label any objection as trolling to be banned, then we will quickly enter the realm of the echo chamber, which is one of the worst and most harmful features of modern politics, especially in the US. There are far too many sites on the internet that have devolved into impenetrable echo chambers. It would be sad, at least to me, if OT went that route.


Except no one has made that claim. While the posts here have been particularly focused on US Politics discussions in the OT, no one has made the claim that simply offering opposing views is worthy of a ban. Literally no one.

This is what I'm talking about.

Did you not read anything posted in the thread thus far? It's one thing not to read all 500 pages of the Mega Thread because Jesus by the time you read all 500 it would probably be locked already, but this is two pages long and you've already wholly failed to respond to anything anyone has actually said.

But I'll mention this again. If an outlet for US politics is removed from this board, it's almost inevitable that US politics will creep into other threads, so long as Americans are permitted to post here. Moderate it here, or you will have to moderate it everywhere. I wouldn't envy either job.


And this was given a very good answer on page 1 by another user, which unless you posted without reading anything I assume you read. You've made no attempt to address the previous users point in response to this idea, and have simply word vomited it back into the topic with no attempt to further the discussion.

Asterios wrote:then ignore them, plain and simple. its real easy to put someone on ignore and ignore them.


And I offered a response for this as well.

Now as an example I could just ignore both of you, which might keep me from gradually becoming increasingly annoyed by your pointless posts that clearly were made while not understanding or not caring to read the rest of the thread until I say something incredibly rude. Then again, me ignoring someone I find irritating doesn't save me from having to watch that person drag the thread into a repetitive and tiring display. It certainly doesn't save the topic in general from being a constant rehash of the same people constantly talking past everyone else in what is less a discussion and more of a constantly repeating blog of users who aren't really talking to each other. It certainly doesn't address User8561, who upon reading these responses has the same annoyed reaction as me but hasn't put anyone on ignore and says something rude, or a proactive optimist from thinking every bad post should be responded to. This can happen in nearly any topic, but in the politics threads it is particularly egregious made worse by the same culprits being the ones doing it every single time.

No matter how you cut it "ignoring" either of you (again an example), might work for my personal convenience but it doesn't redress the underlying problem that the discussion has been stifled by bad responses that not only ignore previous posts, but are bad rehashes of tired posts that have already been addressed and make no attempt in themselves to redress those criticisms. It's frustrating. It's annoying. Nothing I personally can do will make bad posting not bad or not exist, and so the topic becomes mired in the proverbial toilet swirl that doesn't end until everyone quits out of mutual frustration, has ignored one another completely defeating the purpose of being here at all, or the mods lock the topic and hand out bans.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 02:23:06


   
Made in us
[DCM]
Sentient OverBear






Clearwater, FL

To build on what Janthkin has said, much of it is a matter of time for the mods. The Off-Topic forum, as mentioned before, is a spill-over forum so that people don't bring that nonsense into the rest of the forums. I have a history of being very heavy-handed in the OT Forum, where I'll lock a problem thread without wading through the past eight pages of insults mixed in with the normal stuff.

The OT Forum is sort of a like a free luxury on Dakka (unlike the DCM program, which has its own awesomeness). Moderating this carefully doesn't really benefit the forums much, as this isn't our main draw (notice that it's WAYYYY down at the bottom).

I'm not here to talk about politics, current events, or the best way to manscape (everyone knows that electro-waxing is best anyway). I want to talk about Maelstrom's Edge, Warhammer 40k, or just some sweet new miniature that came out. Miniature wargaming is the core of this site, and that's what we cater to. If you really do want to have a serious political discussion, there are any number of other available discussion forums out there, and the same can be said for any other OT conversation.


DQ:70S++G+++M+B++I+Pw40k94+ID+++A++/sWD178R+++T(I)DM+++

Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1
- BBAP

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 LordofHats wrote:

Asterios wrote:then ignore them, plain and simple. its real easy to put someone on ignore and ignore them.


And I offered a response for this as well.

Now as an example I could just ignore both of you, which might keep me from gradually becoming increasingly annoyed by your pointless posts that clearly were made while not understanding or not caring to read the rest of the thread until I say something incredibly rude. Then again, me ignoring someone I find irritating doesn't save me from having to watch that person drag the thread into a repetitive and tiring display. It certainly doesn't save the topic in general from being a constant rehash of the same people constantly talking past everyone else in what is less a discussion and more of a constantly repeating blog of users who aren't really talking to each other. It certainly doesn't address User8561, who upon reading these responses has the same annoyed reaction as me but hasn't put anyone on ignore and says something rude, or a proactive optimist from thinking every bad post should be responded to. This can happen in nearly any topic, but in the politics threads it is particularly egregious made worse by the same culprits being the ones doing it every single time.

No matter how you cut it "ignoring" either of you (again an example), might work for my personal convenience but it doesn't redress the underlying problem that the discussion has been stifled by bad responses that not only ignore previous posts, but are bad rehashes of tired posts that have already been addressed and make no attempt in themselves to redress those criticisms. It's frustrating. It's annoying. Nothing I personally can do will make bad posting not bad or not exist, and so the topic becomes mired in the proverbial toilet swirl that doesn't end until everyone quits out of mutual frustration, has ignored one another completely defeating the purpose of being here at all, or the mods lock the topic and hand out bans.


problem is usually arguments will only be between 2-3 posters, if one or two just ignore the third, the third will have no one to argue with and the discussion will end.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Asterios wrote:
then ignore them, plain and simple. its real easy to put someone on ignore and ignore them.


I already addressed this a couple posts ago. Ignoring someone isn't a solution because it leaves the incorrect information out there for people to be persuaded by, not realizing that it's garbage that everyone else is ignoring because they don't want to deal with the person posting it. That might not be a problem if the garbage is something like "LOL YOUR A COMMIE TRAITOR/HITLER-LOVING FASCIST", but if someone (to give a completely made-up example) posts "economic growth was X% this year as a direct result of {my side's tax proposals}" that's a plausible thing to say even if the X% number is a blatant lie.

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. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
then ignore them, plain and simple. its real easy to put someone on ignore and ignore them.


I already addressed this a couple posts ago. Ignoring someone isn't a solution because it leaves the incorrect information out there for people to be persuaded by, not realizing that it's garbage that everyone else is ignoring because they don't want to deal with the person posting it. That might not be a problem if the garbage is something like "LOL YOUR A COMMIE TRAITOR/HITLER-LOVING FASCIST", but if someone (to give a completely made-up example) posts "economic growth was X% this year as a direct result of {my side's tax proposals}" that's a plausible thing to say even if the X% number is a blatant lie.


but the thing of it, have faith people will be able to discern the truth from the bull.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Asterios wrote:
but the thing of it, have faith people will be able to discern the truth from the bull.


What reason would I have for believing that, especially on complex issues where the truth isn't immediately obvious? Giving people complete freedom to post misleading arguments without any response is not a good situation.

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. 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Side note, it makes little point to ignore someone if that person is still being engaged over and over again by 3 or 4 people, quoting them over and over again.

I'm not saying there is a systemic or moderator fix to that, but that ignoring isn't in any way a fix-all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lorek wrote:
I'm not here to talk about politics, current events, or the best way to manscape (everyone knows that electro-waxing is best anyway). I want to talk about Maelstrom's Edge, Warhammer 40k, or just some sweet new miniature that came out. Miniature wargaming is the core of this site, and that's what we cater to. If you really do want to have a serious political discussion, there are any number of other available discussion forums out there, and the same can be said for any other OT conversation.


FWIW I still strongly agree with this sentiment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 05:07:10


 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
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ouze wrote:
Side note, it makes little point to ignore someone if that person is still being engaged over and over again by 3 or 4 people, quoting them over and over again.

I'm not saying there is a systemic or moderator fix to that, but that ignoring isn't in any way a fix-all.


of course there is no fix-all option, just that ignoring the argument and the argumentor does end it most times.

 Ouze wrote:
 Lorek wrote:
I'm not here to talk about politics, current events, or the best way to manscape (everyone knows that electro-waxing is best anyway). I want to talk about Maelstrom's Edge, Warhammer 40k, or just some sweet new miniature that came out. Miniature wargaming is the core of this site, and that's what we cater to. If you really do want to have a serious political discussion, there are any number of other available discussion forums out there, and the same can be said for any other OT conversation.


FWIW I still strongly agree with this sentiment.



so you agree Electro-Waxing is the best way to manscape ?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 05:09:26


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Peregrine wrote:

What reason would I have for believing that, especially on complex issues where the truth isn't immediately obvious? Giving people complete freedom to post misleading arguments without any response is not a good situation.

Trying to rebut every 'wrong' argument on the internet is an excercise in futility.

If someone is inclined to form a viewpoint on a complex, important, real-life issue based on an unsubstantiated post on the off-topic board of a forum about toy soldiers, they have bigger problems than whether or not the board is sufficiently moderated, I would think.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 insaniak wrote:
Trying to rebut every 'wrong' argument on the internet is an excercise in futility.

If someone is inclined to form a viewpoint on a complex, important, real-life issue based on an unsubstantiated post on the off-topic board of a forum about toy soldiers, they have bigger problems than whether or not the board is sufficiently moderated, I would think.


Of course no single person can rebut everything, it's a collective responsibility thing. You can only get away with never responding to bad arguments if other people are doing that responding, whether in that particular instance or everywhere else, often enough that people eventually see the right answer even if it doesn't come at that moment. But if everyone says "this is futile, people have problems if they form an opinion based on this one post" to every example you end up with a serious problem. So you can't rebut every argument, but you should do it when you have an opportunity right in front of you.

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. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Sure. So rebut it, and then move on.

If you're banging your head against the wall for long enough to lose your temper about it, you're not actually achieving anything other than potentially amusing a troll.

A post isn't more right just because it was the last post.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 06:32:37


 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

Well I'm not in the DCM, MOD or ancient posters of the pre 2010 line but I do seem to like some of the different perspectives on OT, and yes its abit of the rough bar of dakkas forums but its also nice in a sense it has no preset opinion mods or admins try to enforce.

Its miles from a echo chamber as it seems to have a pretty wide view from right to left and inbetween.

I can understand its a point of hostility on a polite forum but I can also see its also brought together inyresting persectives on issues from around thr globe.

(this is also most mod, DCM heavy thread I ever seen)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 08:30:26


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Janthkin wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
IMO the real problem is that, under dakka's moderation policy, it's more important to be superficially polite than to be right.
"We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?"

Yakface's policy on moderation is pretty straightforward: he doesn't require users to have the same beliefs as he does, but he does require them to be polite to the other people in his virtual living room, even if it is just superficially.


And yet the transgenderism thread (in which I gave extended, well formulated, precise arguments) I wrote was locked, even though I violated none of the rules (and even though the thread was flooded with rude replies), I was banned from the OT forum when I complained about the locking of the thread, and the entire thread was deleted from the site entirely when I later mentioned its very existence (presumably out of sheer embarrassment on the part of the moderation staff?).

No. Yakface's policy on moderation is pretty straightforward: not only must users have the same beliefs as he does, but they must ALSO be polite to the other people in his virtual living room, even if its just superficially.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 09:14:14


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Traditio wrote:
And yet the transgenderism thread (in which I gave extended, well formulated, precise arguments) I wrote was locked, even though I violated none of the rules (and even though the thread was flooded with rude replies), I was banned from the OT forum when I complained about the locking of the thread, and the entire thread was deleted from the site entirely when I later mentioned its very existence (presumably out of sheer embarrassment on the part of the moderation staff?).


Your thread wasn't polite or reasonable, it was blatant flamebait disguised as a question. And it was an offensive question on the level of "I'm not saying black people are inferior, but what if they were?", even if it didn't use any bad words in asking the question. And finally, you posted the thread immediately after the previous discussion of the subject was locked, which clearly violates the "don't repost locked threads" rule regardless of its content.

No. Yakface's policy on moderation is pretty straightforward: not only must users have the same beliefs as he does, but they must ALSO be polite to the other people in his virtual living room, even if its just superficially.


The diverse range of political beliefs among people who have posted here without getting banned would rather conclusively disprove your theory. Unless Yakface is simultaneously more liberal than the democrats, more conservative than the republicans, and more libertarian than any of them I think it's pretty obvious that you do not have to have the same beliefs that he does as long as you participate in political discussions in a constructive manner.

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. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Peregrine wrote:
 Traditio wrote:
And yet the transgenderism thread (in which I gave extended, well formulated, precise arguments) I wrote was locked, even though I violated none of the rules (and even though the thread was flooded with rude replies), I was banned from the OT forum when I complained about the locking of the thread, and the entire thread was deleted from the site entirely when I later mentioned its very existence (presumably out of sheer embarrassment on the part of the moderation staff?).


Your thread wasn't polite or reasonable, it was blatant flamebait disguised as a question. And it was an offensive question on the level of "I'm not saying black people are inferior, but what if they were?", even if it didn't use any bad words in asking the question. And finally, you posted the thread immediately after the previous discussion of the subject was locked, which clearly violates the "don't repost locked threads" rule regardless of its content.

No. Yakface's policy on moderation is pretty straightforward: not only must users have the same beliefs as he does, but they must ALSO be polite to the other people in his virtual living room, even if its just superficially.


The diverse range of political beliefs among people who have posted here without getting banned would rather conclusively disprove your theory. Unless Yakface is simultaneously more liberal than the democrats, more conservative than the republicans, and more libertarian than any of them I think it's pretty obvious that you do not have to have the same beliefs that he does as long as you participate in political discussions in a constructive manner.


1. The fact that you personally think that my opinions are impolite or inherently objectionable doesn't, in fact, make them so. And if we take the moderators at their words (you can say what you want so long as expressed in a formally polite way), then the thread that I wrote met this criterion. Unless you want to say that all right-wing social views are inherently impolite, but then, you've only proven my point.

2. The thread wasn't locked, nor was I subsequently banned from the OT, because it was a "repost" thread (and it wasn't). It was evidently locked, if you would have viewed the in thread posting by the moderator, because the moderator found the content of the thread offensive, and he later contacted me and asserted that his reason for banning me from the OT forum was because regardless of what I wrote, I would be viewed as a troll. Note, not because I had actually violated the rules. No: sheer PC outrage.

3. I am sure that there is a broad range of political opinions expressed, so long the social views are center to center-left. I'm sure that there can be a wide range of disagreement about economics and foreign policy.

But fact is, Peregrine, I've spoken with Yakface via PM, and he was very clear: any point of view which he and the mods consider "extreme," whether far left or far right, are considered inherently offensive and are not given public forum on this website.

Now, you can agree or disagree with that way of administering things. That's certainly his right. But let's be honest about what that really is.

And note, I'm not the only person who feels or has felt the impact of this political censorship. At least one other person who, so far as I am aware, still posts in the OT forum perceives himself as needing to moderate, not the way that he expresses his views, but the very views that he expresses, because it is clear that the moderation team has a bias against right-of-center social views.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 09:37:36


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Traditio wrote:
1. The fact that you personally don't think that my opinions are impolite or inherently objectionable doesn't, in fact, make them so. And if we take the moderators at their words (you can say what you want so long as expressed in a formally polite way), then the thread that I wrote met this criterion. Unless you want to say that all right-wing social views are inherently impolite, but then, you've only proven my point.


I'm not interested in dragging this thread off-topic into a discussion of exactly why your views are objectionable and your post was blatantly inappropriate and offensive, especially when the original thread has been deleted and I can't quote from it. So I'll just point out that there are people with right-wing social views that manage to continue posting without any problems, so there is no blanket ban on right-wing views.

2. The thread wasn't locked, nor was I subsequently banned from the OT, because it was a "repost" thread (and it wasn't). It was evidently locked, if you would have viewed the in thread posting by the moderator, because the moderator found the content of the thread offensive, and he later contacted me and asserted that his reason for banning me from the OT forum was because regardless of what I wrote, I would be viewed as a troll. Note, not because I had actually violated the rules. No: sheer PC outrage.


It was locked for exactly that reason. I remember reading it (and being disappointed that I arrived too late and couldn't get my share of tearing it apart) and seeing the moderator note that said "repost of a locked thread, also locked". And I also remember the previous thread that had just been locked, along with you starting your thread with your claim that it somehow wasn't a repost because the wording of the question was very slightly different.

But fact is, Peregrine, I've spoken with Yakface via PM, and he was very clear: any point of view which he and the mods consider "extreme," whether far left or far right, are considered inherently offensive and are not given public forum on this website.


I fail to see the problem with a policy of "If your political views are 'you know, that Hitler guy may have had a point' you aren't going to be posting them here". Whatever conversation you claim to have had, the evidence is clear: people with a diverse range of political views, including right-wing beliefs that I disagree with very strongly, are able to continue posting here without getting banned. The definition of "extreme" is clearly limited enough that very, very few people are ever going to be covered by it and it isn't a meaningful obstacle to political discussion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 09:41:03


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. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Peregrine wrote:I'm not interested in dragging this thread off-topic into a discussion of exactly why your views are objectionable and your post was blatantly inappropriate and offensive, especially when the original thread has been deleted and I can't quote from it. So I'll just point out that there are people with right-wing social views that manage to continue posting without any problems, so there is no blanket ban on right-wing views.


Can you give specific examples? Because I do occasionally peruse the OT forums. Not often, but sometimes. And I don't see many people expressing right-of-center social views. I can think of at least one person, again, who posts in the OT forum who apparently has right-of-center social views. And he also perceives the pressure not to express them.

So please. Give examples.

It was locked for exactly that reason. I remember reading it (and being disappointed that I arrived too late and couldn't get my share of tearing it apart) and seeing the moderator note that said "repost of a locked thread, also locked".


If the moderator note said anything of the sort, I'm unaware of it, and it was added after the initial locking of the thread. As I recall, the moderator posting in thread said something to the effect of: "If you're interested in the topic, then read a book on the subject."

I fail to see the problem with a policy of "If your political views are 'you know, that Hitler guy may have had a point' you aren't going to be posting them here". Whatever conversation you claim to have had, the evidence is clear: people with a diverse range of political views, including right-wing beliefs that I disagree with very strongly, are able to continue posting here without getting banned. The definition of "extreme" is clearly limited enough that very, very few people are ever going to be covered by it and it isn't a meaningful obstacle to political discussion.


Apparently, at least some of my right-of-center social views count as extreme-right, since Yakface apparently felt the need to use those terms in reference to my views.

And go figure, I haven't gone around on the dakka OT forums talking about how Hitler, in fact, perhaps had a point. I have some right to far-right social views, but most of them well within the range of US political discourse. And the rare exception is well within the range of ancient Greek, Roman and medieval European political discourse.

Also, does anyone here remember that moderator threatening to hand out bans simply for using the term "SJW"? How about the time that a thread got locked simply because people raised the possibility of the possible harms that could ensue if transgendered people...but I'm sure you remember.

That's right up there with Naziism, is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I leave this final piece of evidence, Peregrine:

If the mods felt justified in locking the thread and banning me for my complaint, then why on earth would they have felt the need to delete it?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/26 09:49:13


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Traditio wrote:
Can you give specific examples?


No. I am not going to cite specific people because I don't feel like digging through old (and locked) threads, and I'm not going to drag them into the discussion. If they want to be identified by name they can post here. But I have certainly argued with people who have right-wing social views, about their right-wing social views, and they were not banned for it. In fact, I've probably had more bans for arguing from the left-wing position but not being polite enough in doing so.

Also, does anyone here remember that moderator threatening to hand out bans simply for using the term "SJW"?


Probably because "SJW" is an insulting term that violates Rule #1, just like calling someone a WAAC TFG. And there's a high correlation between people using the term "SJW" and people making low-quality and/or trolling posts with it.

How about the time that a thread got locked simply because people raised the possibility of the possible harms that could ensure if transgendered people...but I'm sure you remember.


Well, since you didn't complete your sentence, I have no idea what you're talking about here or if the locking was justified.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/26 09:53:08


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. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Traditio wrote:

But fact is, Peregrine, I've spoken with Yakface via PM, and he was very clear: any point of view which he and the mods consider "extreme," whether far left or far right, are considered inherently offensive and are not given public forum on this website.

Evidently he wasn't clear enough, because that wasn't actually what he told you at all.

The issue isn't with having extreme views. The issue is with how you choose to present them.


And the reaction to those views may vary, depending not just on that presentation but also on history of previous similar discussions or any number of other factors that we may feel could affect the way the community will react to said airing of views. So, yes, we may 'censor' more extreme views where we deem that to be appropriate. Not because we disagree with them, but because of the mess that they are most likely going to cause on the forum.

 
   
 
Forum Index » Nuts & Bolts
Go to: