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.

 Talizvar wrote:

<edit> Maybe make the OP a MOD and have them moderate OT for a year or so?

The back and forth on the previous page just demonstrated that the OPs vision for how this site should be run does not align with how Yackface wants this site to be run.

 kronk wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
<edit> Maybe make the OP a MOD and have them moderate OT for a year or so?

The back and forth on the previous page just demonstrated that the OPs vision for how this site should be run does not align with how Yackface wants this site to be run.

But then he can be enlightened on what it is like to work for a "higher power".
I do not always agree with my boss: I will tell him my opinion and my reasoning but always have to end it with "but I will do as you direct.".
That is the only way you can be trusted to act on someone else's behalf.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This raises an interesting idea; no generic US politics thread, but ones devoted to specific issues. When confined to a certain sub-topic rather than the free range of all US politics things have been (and are)much more civil.

The civility is because we're a year from mid-terms and three years from presidential elections. When there's elections on the most partisan, most aggressive and typically worst informed posters sign up to the board, and that's when things get ugly.

In the past there's been election campaigns where there were threads for lots of different political issues and events. A lot of those threads ended up as ugly as the single politics thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I remember the multiple topic days. I will say, one thing I liked about that arrangement was that I could avoid a topic easily if it didn't interest me, and engage in topics that did interest me more easily.

With the megathread you often had multiple discussions going on at once, so it was harder to stay on point, harder to keep up with a conversation if the thread had jumped a few pages and moved on to a new topic, and harder to avoid topics I wanted to avoid because they were all being discussed in one location.

The issue I found with the megathread is it moved so much faster, often there'd be a half dozen or more pages posted in between visits to dakka. Most people don't go and read threads from where they finished off, most seem to just start reading from the current page. I think this is because time spent reading is time they could spend giving their own opinions

The problem with this is many conversations just kind of got lost. And with many posters this wasn't an accident, they were happy to just stop responding when they were getting pinned down on a specific point, only to come back a while later repeating the original claim they couldn't back up.
And of course, it also meant lots more drive by posts.

When there were different topics for different parts of the debate then those things still happened, but they weren't as common. It was certainly a lot more obvious in a smaller, slower moving thread when someone had a pattern of dropping a debate when they couldn't respond, only to come back with their original claim a little while later.

The flip side is that during US political seasons we'd often see 9 of the first 10 threads about political issues. So I understand why the change was made.

 kronk wrote:


Hahahahaha!

Yeah, Alpharius and Lorek! Do your fething jobs, losers!

You tell them, Peregrine!

What a goddam joke of a post...

There is no need to be a dick about it.

 kronk wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

<edit> Maybe make the OP a MOD and have them moderate OT for a year or so?

The back and forth on the previous page just demonstrated that the OPs vision for how this site should be run does not align with how Yackface wants this site to be run.

honestly anyone who spend more than an occasional glance at the US politics mega thread should never be a mod. Big flag that we are too committed to something to carry the necessary impartiality.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Hahahahaha!

Yeah, Alpharius and Lorek! Do your fething jobs, losers!

You tell them, Peregrine!

What a goddam joke of a post...

There is no need to be a dick about it.

The amusing thing is that Peri is the one championing the idea that the mods should enforce some nebulous concept of quality rather than politeness, so bluntly pointing out it's a joke to tell the mods they don't know their own job is appropriate.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Hahahahaha!

Yeah, Alpharius and Lorek! Do your fething jobs, losers!

You tell them, Peregrine!

What a goddam joke of a post...

There is no need to be a dick about it.

The line at Alpharius and Lorek is a joke and they know it.

 kronk wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 kronk wrote:


Hahahahaha!

Yeah, Alpharius and Lorek! Do your fething jobs, losers!

You tell them, Peregrine!

What a goddam joke of a post...

There is no need to be a dick about it.

The line at Alpharius and Lorek is a joke and they know it.

I am aware.

I don't really have a dog in this fight as I am not American and never posted that much in the thread when it was up, but I can see Peregrine's point even though I only partially agree; I think both a modicum of politeness and constructive posting should be the enforced standard.

In an ideal world, that is. Lack of time on the moderators' hands are of course a concern. As mentioned I never used that thread very much so it's not a core topic for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

The amusing thing is that Peri is the one championing the idea that the mods should enforce some nebulous concept of quality rather than politeness, so bluntly pointing out it's a joke to tell the mods they don't know their own job is appropriate.

If Peregrine is so bad, then don't stoop to his level maybe?

I don't come into the forum a lot, usually I just lurk and steal other peoples army lists. I have to say that in US politics it's almost impossible for people to treat each other with respect right now. It really is toxic and it doesn't seem to matter who's spouting off (left/right/whatever) they cannot, not, be a jerk bout it. That said I am against any restriction on speech in any forum. This is the whole point of an off topic forum area. THAT SAID, please be aware that many sites like Dakka get infiltrated by people who have no common interest whatsoever and are simply here to troll actual users. If you notice someone is ONLY posting negative scurrilous things in the OT forum with no other activity maybe they should be politely shown the exit. Just my 2 cents. Thank you.

I enjoyed talking (well, reading, mostly) politics on this forum because there is usually a common ground among posters (plastic army mens) that is lacking on other forums. It helps humanize people who have views that are otherwise alien to me. There's a chap posting about wild conspiracy against his homeland and making ominous statements about the future direction. I was ready to dismiss him as a dangerous loon. Imagine my surprise to find him giving very good modelling advice in the tutorial thread! Ok, he's now a real person, just with a totally different set of values from me.

The problem with US politics in the Dakka OT is the trolls.

 Ashiraya wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

The amusing thing is that Peri is the one championing the idea that the mods should enforce some nebulous concept of quality rather than politeness, so bluntly pointing out it's a joke to tell the mods they don't know their own job is appropriate.

If Peregrine is so bad, then don't stoop to his level maybe?

Well...

1. I never said Peri was bad, maybe you're projecting a bit there?

2. You don't see the further irony that you yourself chose to point out someone was being unkind in a way that was itself rather impolite? Like, you could have said "wasn't very friendly", no, you chose the wording "be a dick about it". What was that you said about stooping to levels?

Come on, I can't be the only one who finds this hilarious, Peri says he wants mods to worry less about being impolite, another poster bluntly tells him that one of his points is a joke, then you choose an unfriendly wording to tell that poster they're being unfriendly?

At the end of the day this thread just shows me why we can't have a US politics thread without it being horrible. Not that people have been particularly horrible in this thread, but it shows why a thread like US politics is always going to be horrible. Firstly people can't agree on what acceptable discourse would look like to begin with, secondly people choose either intentionally or accidentally snarky/unfriendly/impolite/inflammatory wordings to make a point (I guess because they feel simply expressing the point without the snark wouldn't have the necessary impact).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

If Peregrine is so bad, then don't stoop to his level maybe?

Well...

1. I never said Peri was bad, maybe you're projecting a bit there?

Apologies, I should have specified that that was directed at Kronk.

At then end of the day, it boils down to would we accept or want a Disney version of political discourse? I say no. Our politics have always been vitriolic, vile and crass. That is sort of the way the system works. Putting an artificial system in place, which I totally understand, to limit that sort of defeats the purpose. In other words, as much as I like the people here, and as much as I would want to agree/disagree with them about issues that actually matter, the structure of the boards doesn't really allow for it. That said, PM the person you want to discuss issues with. They aren't regulated, as far as I know, unless the mods are directly drawn to the issue. A "PM me" button would actually work well for this. Wait, there's a button for that. I dislike it, but that's the system.

You don’t have to “accept” a Disney version of politics. But people should be able to talk politics at a Disney level without name calling and vitriol if they want to. It’s not part of politics, some people just see politics that way.

If people could keep it friendly, they should be able to have that thread. And people who think politics is based on vitriol and name calling can stay the heck out of it. But we know that they won’t, and then the heat will rise, and even more people will slip and cross that line.

So it’s best to keep it gone.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
At then end of the day, it boils down to would we accept or want a Disney version of political discourse? I say no. Our politics have always been vitriolic, vile and crass. That is sort of the way the system works. Putting an artificial system in place, which I totally understand, to limit that sort of defeats the purpose.

Just because US politics are vitriolic, vile and crass doesn't mean a discussion of them has to be. People both get too emotional and either intentionally or otherwise don't express their points in a polite and respectful way.

 feeder wrote:
The problem with US politics in the Dakka OT is the trolls.

And as we all know, the trolls are the ones who disagree with me.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
At then end of the day, it boils down to would we accept or want a Disney version of political discourse? I say no. Our politics have always been vitriolic, vile and crass. That is sort of the way the system works.

Real political discussion can be heated and irrational, but what we saw here was far worse. It was more like a ritualised combat, where insults are slung, no opinions are changed and it's just a way for everyone to get their fix of righteous indignation at how unutterably stupid the other side is.

 Elemental wrote:
....it's just a way for everyone to get their fix of righteous indignation at how unutterably stupid the other side is.

That's one of the better descriptions I've heard.

 insaniak wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
When regular users and mods all agree that a particular thread is for mudslinging,...

Except that wasn't 'agreed' at all.

There's a distinction between 'keep the discussion in one place to contain the nonsense' and 'this place is for nonsense'...

Is there? To me acknowledging that one thread, or one forum, is the dumping ground to "contain the nonsense" is a tacit agreement that nonsense is tolerated in those places. Sorry that is how I see it, and I think a lot of other members saw it that way too. I don't have the energy to sift through hundreds of posts to demonstrate where such statements were made, but let's agree to disagree on this.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Is there? To me acknowledging that one thread, or one forum, is the dumping ground to "contain the nonsense" is a tacit agreement that nonsense is tolerated in those places. Sorry that is how I see it, and I think a lot of other members saw it that way too. I don't have the energy to sift through hundreds of posts to demonstrate where such statements were made, but let's agree to disagree on this.

I suppose a way to look at the Megathread is like this:

I have a house that people are allowed to walk around in. Sometimes, it's rainy/muddy outside and anyone walking into the house will track in water/mud. Knowing that this occurs on occasion despite peoples' best intentions, I designate one room in the house for people to walk in with their shoes/coats on and have people leave those things in that room so that any mud/rainwater that is tracked in will be limited to that room.

There is a sort of implicit notion that people won't get that room as muddy/wet as possible just because it's there to contain any mud/rain that may occur.

That's very well said, Jin.

Another thing to keep in mind is, the megathread was for containing [discussion of US politics] not [rude behavior]. The conflation is understandable but incorrect all the same.

 Jin wrote:
I have a house that people are allowed to walk around in. Sometimes, it's rainy/muddy outside and anyone walking into the house will track in water/mud. Knowing that this occurs on occasion despite peoples' best intentions, I designate one room in the house for people to walk in with their shoes/coats on and have people leave those things in that room so that any mud/rainwater that is tracked in will be limited to that room.

There is a sort of implicit notion that people won't get that room as muddy/wet as possible just because it's there to contain any mud/rain that may occur.

To extend your metaphor, though, consider someone's behaviour when they go in to that room. There's dried mud on floor, on the furniture, and even on the lower parts of the wall. A person won't consciously think to take their boots off with less care, but they're likely to do so on a subconscious level. And if you are next in line behind that person, and you see them acting carelessly and making more of a mess than they should, you're likely to follow suit and also be more sloppy as well. And if you're sloppy as well, imagine what the guy after you thinks?

Now I'm not saying the problems with debating US politics was due to that single thread, I don't believe that was the case. But I've probably read a lot more US politics threads than anyone else, and I think there were a lot of feedback mechanisms in place, where negative behaviour caused negative behaviour, back and forth, and frequently that pattern only ended when one or more people in the feedback were banned or chose to leave.

 sebster wrote:

 Jin wrote:
I have a house that people are allowed to walk around in. Sometimes, it's rainy/muddy outside and anyone walking into the house will track in water/mud. Knowing that this occurs on occasion despite peoples' best intentions, I designate one room in the house for people to walk in with their shoes/coats on and have people leave those things in that room so that any mud/rainwater that is tracked in will be limited to that room.

There is a sort of implicit notion that people won't get that room as muddy/wet as possible just because it's there to contain any mud/rain that may occur.

To extend your metaphor, though, consider someone's behaviour when they go in to that room. There's dried mud on floor, on the furniture, and even on the lower parts of the wall. A person won't consciously think to take their boots off with less care, but they're likely to do so on a subconscious level. And if you are next in line behind that person, and you see them acting carelessly and making more of a mess than they should, you're likely to follow suit and also be more sloppy as well. And if you're sloppy as well, imagine what the guy after you thinks?

Now I'm not saying the problems with debating US politics was due to that single thread, I don't believe that was the case. But I've probably read a lot more US politics threads than anyone else, and I think there were a lot of feedback mechanisms in place, where negative behaviour caused negative behaviour, back and forth, and frequently that pattern only ended when one or more people in the feedback were banned or chose to leave.

I've been involved in political forums for 16ish years now, used to be a lot more heavily then I do now, as I just find it exhausting lately, but in my experience of moderating a few of them (some with a couple hundred posters, some with thousands), banning doesn't seem to do much. You remove one foul element, but there is no shortage of them out there. People just seem to gravitate to the extreme on this topic for some reason. About 12 years ago I was actually targeted by an elaborate hoax, where a poster faked his death, went to the extent of even having his family involved with it, and it was blamed on me causing him a heart attack because I gave him a temp suspension for his negative behavior (This was all on Military.com's forums, which they seem to have wisely disposed of). That same mod job even led to members forming a "cult" to try find and harass family members of moderators they took issue with. Honestly, I was glad to be done with that place...

The internet is just a venue for some sick fething people, and politics is just a flame that they're drawn to. Honestly, I've felt that what we see here has been pretty tame, which I feel is mostly because the primary purpose of this forum doesn't seem to attract the more hardcore psycho's out there.

 djones520 wrote:
About 12 years ago I was actually targeted by an elaborate hoax, where a poster faked his death, went to the extent of even having his family involved with it, and it was blamed on me causing him a heart attack because I gave him a temp suspension for his negative behavior (This was all on Military.com's forums, which they seem to have wisely disposed of).

I've got some pretty crazy internet stories and you just beat every single one of them... holy gak

 LordofHats wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
About 12 years ago I was actually targeted by an elaborate hoax, where a poster faked his death, went to the extent of even having his family involved with it, and it was blamed on me causing him a heart attack because I gave him a temp suspension for his negative behavior (This was all on Military.com's forums, which they seem to have wisely disposed of).

I've got some pretty crazy internet stories and you just beat every single one of them... holy gak

I've been to some corners of the internet that make this place look like a subsidiary of the Lollipop Guild.

You know, present conditions of US politics is pretty absurd as it stands.
Digging a bit into my "feelings" I think I would be happy not discussing US politics ever again... until it can get to something more "normal" at least as much as things in the US can get.
We got enough of our own issues and really need our fearless leader to man-up a bit, he at least is a heck of a contrast anyway.

Should change name of thread to

"Why the US Politics is absurd and needs to go."

I like OT. I think it really adds something to the site to be able to chat about a variety of subjects with fellow wargamers from across the world.
But I also understand if the mods want to ban topics that come up often and consistently get heated and toxic. They are just people after all, and moderating such threads probably takes up a lot of time, and yakface can't just recruit infinite mods to take care of it.
So not being able to discuss certain subjects is a valid sacrifice for keeping open OT, I feel.
I do feel that maybe it would be handy to make a sticky in OT to explain the rule. I imagine it could be confusing for people who are new to the site or do not frequent OT.

I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

Or people who want to call people idiots can go to a forum where that's allowed, rather than changing the rules here.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

It's less about individuals crying over being called an idiot and more about how dakka wants to present itself to the world.

At the end of the day, IMO, I think this forum wants to remain a friendly forum.

Less a place for gak slinging and more a place for friends to get together and have a chat, primarily about toy soldiers but occasionally about other stuff.

In my observations when I was living in the US when friends or colleagues who have different political views get together they tend to self-censor on political topics so that they can actually remain friends or colleagues

Since Dakka is a forum full of randoms, if it wants to remain a friendly place it needs rules as people aren't likely to self-censor.