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.

That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.

If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
And yep that would include the posters of those threads.

Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.

And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.

But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.

This kinda nonsense has to stop.

Agreed, it does seem to be the same posters making these posts and yes I agree it does seem that they are doing to so to bait others in and then they can use underhand tactics to try to shame them or shut them down, I know a few of these people have views that are rather extreme.... no I have put that the wrong way, they express their views in an extreme way and then are playing victim when you call them out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:
That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.

If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.

Along the same vein as "Female marines" debate me alt right sexist racists.

We all need to reach a common ground here, if its not ok for clearly political threads to be started outside of the OT forum, then its all of them, not just the ones we dont support.

I am for this.

Our common ground is interest in miniatures gaming. Politics is divisive in the best of times. These are not the best of times.

It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.

 Formosa wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
And yep that would include the posters of those threads.

Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.

And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.

But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.

This kinda nonsense has to stop.

Agreed, it does seem to be the same posters making these posts and yes I agree it does seem that they are doing to so to bait others in and then they can use underhand tactics to try to shame them or shut them down, I know a few of these people have views that are rather extreme.... no I have put that the wrong way, they express their views in an extreme way and then are playing victim when you call them out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:
That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.

If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.

Along the same vein as "Female marines" debate me alt right sexist racists.

We all need to reach a common ground here, if its not ok for clearly political threads to be started outside of the OT forum, then its all of them, not just the ones we dont support.

I am for this.

Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.

 ScarletRose wrote:


Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.

If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...

 Manchu wrote:
Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.

Indeed.

I wonder what a poll on this subject would get from the forum community.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's not really a good showing that there has to be a quarantine thread rather then dealing with the ones who are causing problems outside of it.

It really is educational, though. Many of the posters bring reasoning and information sources that you might never see in an echo chamber. For the most part, the thread goes through cycles of productive discussion and heated arguing. I find the former is worth the latter.

I do think it's great that a wide cross section of people that all share a common interest in gaming can discuss different things outside of gaming. It's helpful to have a pool of people similar enough to yourself that you can identify with them but different enough to have very different takes on other things. It's unfortunate that politics is such a personal issue for some at times because I have enjoyed and benefited from reading different views from people about political topics. It's all just mental exercise, just like I'm not going to go to somebody's house and make them play monopoly with the auction rule if they don't want to play that way, I'm not going to force anybody to change their views on anything, it's just good to see different views presented.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
And yep that would include the posters of those threads.

Certainly, without really trying to stoke the fires- and I can say with absolute certainty that I'm not the only one to have noticed this... but many of those posts almost seem like deliberate 'baiting' for a forum-fight. It can be no mystery that many people disagree on the topic, and it seems that without failing, every time- the topic is posted deliberately to see who will disagree, so that the inevitable name-calling and thinly-veiled accusations can begin- and some believe this behavior is entirely justified. While I can't completely confirm it's just a baiting topic, it's too common for it to be dismissed as a possibility.

And I say this knowing that I've been no saint in the past, either.

But this ties directly back to people suddenly realizing that not everyone thinks the same way they do, and coming to the realization that despite what ideas they've formulated in their own little isolated internet bubbles, that you can't simply treat someone like they're 'evil' because you believe that your ideas are objectively and universally righteous.

This kinda nonsense has to stop.

Agreed, it does seem to be the same posters making these posts and yes I agree it does seem that they are doing to so to bait others in and then they can use underhand tactics to try to shame them or shut them down, I know a few of these people have views that are rather extreme.... no I have put that the wrong way, they express their views in an extreme way and then are playing victim when you call them out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:
That's the issue, and why I think the thread that started this one should have been locked earlier, is bait isn't being cleaned up often enough.

If someone starts a thread with "Richard Spencer is mainstream. Debate me librals!" it's not a serious discussion, it's just a very obvious ploy to get replies. I don't think that should be taking up space, in OT or out of it.

Along the same vein as "Female marines" debate me alt right sexist racists.

We all need to reach a common ground here, if its not ok for clearly political threads to be started outside of the OT forum, then its all of them, not just the ones we dont support.

I am for this.

Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.

Sigh... we both know that is not what its about, we both know based on context and poster that is not what happens, I have made an honest attempt at reaching a common ground and you have decided it dishonest, I think that clearly shows why ALL such posts should be deleted or moved to OT forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:


Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.

If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...

He is being disingenuous Nou, we both know it, its not about the models, its about a political ideal disguised as wanting a model, I just want it where it should be and it can still be discussed in the OT forum as a clear topic on gender Politics.

 Manchu wrote:
It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.

Disagree on this. Talking about politics is perfectly acceptable in a store or club. Why exactly would it be unacceptable? Because people are stubbornly determined to live in blissful ignorance that their fellow gamer is a horrible person that they want nothing to do with? Because discovering someone's political beliefs might make you feel like removing them from the group, going against the (TBH absurd) goal of maximizing the size of the group? If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.

Also, as I've been saying, if you don't want to participate in politics discussion then don't do it. With the offline situation there's the weak argument that people who don't want to participate are forced to listen, the same is not true of a forum. The thread is clearly labeled "US politics". If you feel that political threads are too divisive or you don't want to learn anyone's political beliefs or whatever then don't click on the politics thread. It's ridiculous that we're giving credit to the idea that, rather than the anti-politics side using some self control and not clicking on the threads, we need to ban political discussion for those of us who want to have it.

nou wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:


Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.

If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...

It wouldn't surprise me or bother me if GW retconned Sisters into becoming full on superhumans in power armor like SM, they've already changed pretty much every aspect of the game since Rogue Trader came out. Although they might be holding off doing it out of fear of the Sisters being implanted with geneseed memes breaking the internet.

In my ignorance, I don't know how to setup / request a poll. Something like,

Question: What is your experience with Political threads on Dakka?

1: Distictly positive! Perhaps consider loosening the rules.

2: Neither distinctly positive, nor negative. Rules are ok as is.

3: Distinctly negative. The site would be better off without them.

4: Other? You can't commit to the non-commitment answer #2? If you insist.

5: Turing testing. I am not an AI.

It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It wouldn't be appropriate to talk (nevermind rant) about politics in a game store or a gaming club, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread. Perhaps that ought to be the standard on Dakka Dakka as well.

Disagree on this. Talking about politics is perfectly acceptable in a store or club. Why exactly would it be unacceptable? Because people are stubbornly determined to live in blissful ignorance that their fellow gamer is a horrible person that they want nothing to do with? Because discovering someone's political beliefs might make you feel like removing them from the group, going against the (TBH absurd) goal of maximizing the size of the group? If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.

Also, as I've been saying, if you don't want to participate in politics discussion then don't do it. With the offline situation there's the weak argument that people who don't want to participate are forced to listen, the same is not true of a forum. The thread is clearly labeled "US politics". If you feel that political threads are too divisive or you don't want to learn anyone's political beliefs or whatever then don't click on the politics thread. It's ridiculous that we're giving credit to the idea that, rather than the anti-politics side using some self control and not clicking on the threads, we need to ban political discussion for those of us who want to have it.

Given the amount of thread locks, mod alerts and warnings, and subforum bans issued due to the US Politics thread is the topic of US politics really being discussed appropriately? If any other thread in a different subforum on Dakka required the same level of mod interaction as the US Politics thread would those threads and topics be allowed to stay open?

Prestor Jon wrote:

nou wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:


Sorry, but there's nothing controversial about "why isn't [type of miniature] available?". Maybe it's those seeing the feminist boogeyman around every corner that need to rethink things on that one instead of going for the fake compromise of getting the stuff that hurts their feelings banned in return for reducing their trolling antics.

If people repeatedly cannot get into any agreement on the matter then it's by very definition controversial...

It wouldn't surprise me or bother me if GW retconned Sisters into becoming full on superhumans in power armor like SM, they've already changed pretty much every aspect of the game since Rogue Trader came out. Although they might be holding off doing it out of fear of the Sisters being implanted with geneseed memes breaking the internet.

YES!!

I have been saying that for ages, if they made an elite unit of super sisters, no one would bat an eyelid. it wouldnt even need to be a retcon, they could literally add enhanced sisters as an elite choice.

 greatbigtree wrote:
In my ignorance, I don't know how to setup / request a poll. Something like,

Question: What is your experience with Political threads on Dakka?

1: Distictly positive! Perhaps consider loosening the rules.

2: Neither distinctly positive, nor negative. Rules are ok as is.

3: Distinctly negative. The site would be better off without them.

4: Other? You can't commit to the non-commitment answer #2? If you insist.

5: Turing testing. I am not an AI.

It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.

"Do you believe Political and Religious Discussion belongs on Dakka?"

Discuss in that relevant thread.

 greatbigtree wrote:
It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.

It would, however, be useless. It doesn't matter how many people aren't interested in discussing politics, they are free to not discuss politics. Even if it's 90% that doesn't mean they should be allowed to shut down discussion for the 10% that do want those threads, not when they have the option to not click on clearly labeled threads they do not enjoy reading or participating in. It would be like taking a poll in the 40k section on banning AoS threads, even if you can get a majority vote to say "ban AoS" that doesn't make it a reasonable idea.

It's odd that this particular thread exists at all - I would have thought OP would have been banned from OT or Politics threads.
____

 greatbigtree wrote:
3: Utter gakshow. The site would be better off without them.

FTFY. You're welcome.
____

 RiTides wrote:
It still leaves our rather large Australian contingent without a home to discuss their politics, so maybe we eventually need a "RoW" politics thread if use merits it .

Isn't the Oz/NZ "problem" primarily an issue of economics, where GW still treats them as a colony to extract money from? Part of the UK national consciousness, so it's not really politics per se.

* "AP Politics" for Asia Pacific - i.e. the non-problem with China returning to being *the* dominant global power
* "ME Politics" for Middle East - i.e. the problem with Israel & Syria & everybody else due to British Colonialism. Oh wait, it's really UK & EU.

African Politics is kind of a non-starter, as RealPolitik demonstrates that Afrika doesn't matter.

 Formosa wrote:
He is being disingenuous Nou, we both know it, its not about the models, its about a political ideal disguised as wanting a model, I just want it where it should be and it can still be discussed in the OT forum as a clear topic on gender Politics.

I think the issue is as you say, for this discussion.

The only validation that is required for wanting or not wanting those particular models is "preference". That's literally all the justification either side needs. Attempting to saturate either end of that argument with some sort of sociopolitical commentary to support it is comical at best. People don't have to dress up their preference as a major social issue to make it a valid desire. Just be straightforward and say you want it, and if people don't want it- well, that's their preference.

And the topic is completely absurd at this point, and should be squashed out- especially considering that there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating specifically what they want. This is, of course, a hobby miniatures game and making conversions to your models to suit your personal preferences is part of it. In fact, my position is: "Do what you want to do with your models, they are your property, and support third party companies that make components for those models and everyone will win."

Given that, this is exactly why the debate should be nuked on sight- because inevitably, it will always turn into an argument when there is no argument. Just go do whatever you want with your models, and don't worry about having someone else's approval. If this is not enough, then you're not approaching the discussion in good faith- you're looking for a fight.

And to skirt too close to actually igniting a fire, I'll actually say that I'm genuinely sick of people turning a simple difference of opinion or preference into a hyperbolic crisis. A rational and well-reasoned argument against something, or even something as simple as "I like/dislike that" is not something that should be lumped in with the most extremist, irrational, and stereotypical variation of the individuals that also hold that opinion.

don't bypass the language filter like this.
Reds8n

And I say this, again with the full admission that I have not been the best about this in the past and I am working on myself as well. I don't want to seem hypocritical. I'm fully aware.

I seem to recall someone wanting to get certain wargaming related threads / posters banned. Any recall on that, Per, Par, Pour... I'm tired, I don't have anything good right now. Per-ticular? My kung-fu is weak.

So if those should have been banned, and had at least tangential relation to wargaming... why should Political threads not get the axe? They have nothing to add to a Wargaming site?

And it wouldn't matter about AoS, because AoS is about gaming. Wargaming. Not insult flinging. Nobody is stopping you from engaging in your filthy politics habit. Just don't do it here, in public.

Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.

Scene: A rainy night, dark city, muted streetlights. A few young teens are walking home from watching the local PG movie, dressed in bright colors with hi-top sneakers. In the alley, a shady character tries to get their attention.

"Hey, kids... c'mere... hey, check it out... I got some fresh hot CNN talkin' points. Don't like that? Then right here, I got some from Fox News. And if you really wanna party, I got some old Infowars stuff but that ain't for the faint of heart and it'll really mess you up. Look, I'll cut you a deal- the first sample is free..."

Cue Saturday morning cartoon hero character, give spiel about staying away from political discussions- especially from strangers.

EDIT: I'll also be perfectly honest, while I'm fully capable of leaping into the OT section and doing so, I have absolutely no desire to discuss politics here on this page. People repeating their arguments over and over again, using their side of a topic to launch vitriol at someone else, and all that jazz... I'd rather not. And in truth, I've found the best way to discuss politics itself is to sit down with a person and speak with them. You would be amazed at how differently that goes and how much more courteous people are that way. Perhaps seeing the human that holds beliefs different to your own in person, it unlocks a degree of empathy and willingness to understand their perspective. Arguing with faceless text on the internet, in my opinion, has never done anything more than scratch my itch for a flame war with someone. It's all fun and games in its place, but you're not really achieving much other than getting a chuckle out of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.

It would, however, be useless. It doesn't matter how many people aren't interested in discussing politics, they are free to not discuss politics. Even if it's 90% that doesn't mean they should be allowed to shut down discussion for the 10% that do want those threads, not when they have the option to not click on clearly labeled threads they do not enjoy reading or participating in. It would be like taking a poll in the 40k section on banning AoS threads, even if you can get a majority vote to say "ban AoS" that doesn't make it a reasonable idea.

I agree polls wouldn’t carry any weight but that’s because this is t a democracy. If the site owners and mod team decide that the inclusion of US politics discussion has more negatives than positives then they can add it to the list of things we can’t post about here and that’s fine with me. When the US Politics thread was banned did site traffic decrease much? I still visited just as much because I still wanted to check in on news and rumors, KS projects that I backed or was just interested in and look through P&M threads for inspiration. There’s already rules in place that limit what I can post about, like I can’t cuss, which is fine because I can post without cussing just like I can enjoy the site without politics. I don’t feel any sense of entitlement to be able to discuss whatever I want however I want on somebody else’s website. I’m a guest so I’ll abide by the rules set by the host.

For what it's worth, I didn't expect public opinion to carry much weight, but if there's an overwhelming majority of Dakkites that desperately need political content, I suppose I'd drop the matter and just snipe from the shadows.

PS: Exalted, Master Dorito!

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Respect the shame of others, and politic in some dark corner in the back alleys of the internet. Not here. Not in our forum.

Scene: A rainy night, dark city, muted streetlights. A few young teens are walking home from watching the local PG movie, dressed in bright colors with hi-top sneakers. In the alley, a shady character tries to get their attention.

"Hey, kids... c'mere... hey, check it out... I got some fresh hot CNN talkin' points. Don't like that? Then right here, I got some from Fox News. And if you really wanna party, I got some old Infowars stuff but that ain't for the faint of heart and it'll really mess you up. Look, I'll cut you a deal- the first sample is free..."

Cue Saturday morning cartoon hero character, give spiel about staying away from political discussions- especially from strangers.

EDIT: I'll also be perfectly honest, while I'm fully capable of leaping into the OT section and doing so, I have absolutely no desire to discuss politics here on this page. People repeating their arguments over and over again, using their side of a topic to launch vitriol at someone else, and all that jazz... I'd rather not. And in truth, I've found the best way to discuss politics itself is to sit down with a person and speak with them. You would be amazed at how differently that goes and how much more courteous people are that way. Perhaps seeing the human that holds beliefs different to your own in person, it unlocks a degree of empathy and willingness to understand their perspective. Arguing with faceless text on the internet, in my opinion, has never done anything more than scratch my itch for a flame war with someone. It's all fun and games in its place, but you're not really achieving much other than getting a chuckle out of it.

I am thinking of setting up a discord for just that reason mate, so people can get around and chat about all kinds of things, some of it political, most of it game related or whatever, movies too.

One idea that comes to me after following this thread - if moderation decides on keeping to existing policy of "OT dump threads", wouldn't it be sufficient to just add a third one: "general dakkanauts world views clash", as many of singular topics transcend not only US/UK politics but even politics at all. As it is now, if I wanted, for the sake of example, discuss Peterson further on the grounds of scientific debate rather than political debate, there is absolutely no place for it, as UK/US threads are predominantly "current news/current climate" threads. And there are multitude of interesting topics that do not really fit in those two "legal" threads.

But that is only if moderation do not decide to leave all non-wargaming, non-geek topics out of this forum, which I'm personally totally ok with.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.

Er... To play games of toy soldiers...?

nou wrote:
One idea that comes to me after following this thread - if moderation decides on keeping to existing policy of "OT dump threads", wouldn't it be sufficient to just add a third one: "general dakkanauts world views clash", as many of singular topics transcend not only US/UK politics but even politics at all. As it is now, if I wanted, for the sake of example, discuss Peterson further on the grounds of scientific debate rather than political debate, there is absolutely no place for it, as UK/US threads are predominantly "current news/current climate" threads. And there are multitude of interesting topics that do not really fit in those two "legal" threads.

But that is only if moderation do not decide to leave all non-wargaming, non-geek topics out of this forum, which I'm personally totally ok with.

Ah yes, our failed attempt at talking about peterson and media bias... I really wanted to see that mega post you were prepping too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If you can't discuss politics in your gaming group then you should probably be asking yourself why you're associating with those people at all.

Er... To play games of toy soldiers...?

Insanity !!!! reporting for being a trollzorgs!!

I'm of the opposite mind from some i here, it seems. I've seen posters make what I consider truly god awful statements in the Politics thread, stuff that would make me write them off as people altogether, but then see them in other subs posting their latest model, and I am reminded that The Other Side are still just people trying to make their way like me.

To be fair, I do discuss politics with my buddies when I play 40k. That said, we've all been friends for 20 years, so we kind of already know what the other is going to say. I take the sane and reasonable track and other people are heartless monsters.

But I generally don't crack open that can of worms with strangers. Usually.

At this point I think you should nuke all of the political threads and stick by it, if for nothing else to put and end to the endless will-they-won't-they vaccilating that has been going on about the subject for a year and a half.

Maddie and David, Mulder and Scully, Sam & Diane, the mods and the US politics thread - just bang it out already.

There's two types of people in gaming stores/clubs/whatever, the ones who think it's fine to talk about politics and the ones who wish first group was would shut the feth up about politics already.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
It would be a way to get the pulse of Dakka, so there would be a measure of public opinion.

It would, however, be useless. It doesn't matter how many people aren't interested in discussing politics, they are free to not discuss politics. Even if it's 90% that doesn't mean they should be allowed to shut down discussion for the 10% that do want those threads, not when they have the option to not click on clearly labeled threads they do not enjoy reading or participating in. It would be like taking a poll in the 40k section on banning AoS threads, even if you can get a majority vote to say "ban AoS" that doesn't make it a reasonable idea.

I agree polls wouldn’t carry any weight but that’s because this is t a democracy. If the site owners and mod team decide that the inclusion of US politics discussion has more negatives than positives then they can add it to the list of things we can’t post about here and that’s fine with me. When the US Politics thread was banned did site traffic decrease much? I still visited just as much because I still wanted to check in on news and rumors, KS projects that I backed or was just interested in and look through P&M threads for inspiration. There’s already rules in place that limit what I can post about, like I can’t cuss, which is fine because I can post without cussing just like I can enjoy the site without politics. I don’t feel any sense of entitlement to be able to discuss whatever I want however I want on somebody else’s website. I’m a guest so I’ll abide by the rules set by the host.

The value of a poll is that it'd let the site owners know what people feel about it. It seems the owners/mods don't have a strong opinion on whether political talk is good or bad as they haven't come up with a good clear strategy for dealing with it. Knowing how the users of the site view it may swing the powers that be to just put their foot down with a consistent way of dealing with it.

Even though the site isn't a democracy, the site owners clearly don't want it to be an oppressive dictatorship either.

I'm genuinely now of the opinion that it might be fine if it stays, but I'm sure the mods are more than aware of the animosity that's going to spill out of there.