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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


What you're describing here, however, is the exact problem of the existing politics threads. That solution, removing the offending people who are arguing in bad faith or dragging to topic to a place that it should not be going, apparently didn't work, hence the politics discussions being banned.

So why will it work now?

1) Because the subject itself is banned the chances of people getting into a long heated argument relating to it is VASTLY reduced. It's like a bull and a red flag; by removing the red flag we are reducing the chances of the bull charging - thus the china is saved!

2) Because it will stand out far more so as an outlier comment in otherwise non political threads - and yes whilst we can argue that everything is political it really isn't. The examples above of things like safe spaces are not political they are social.


Honestly give it a week or two and it will all settle down. Those who really want to talk politics will move to other sites or will adapt to talk about other things on Dakka.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political? This is where what other users touched on earlier comes into play, namely moderator bias. A thread discussing ways to make the tabletop gaming community more welcoming is going to be political.

The irony being that this thread is in itself political and everyone is involved so maybe everyone here should be banned including the mods?

However more seriously I the board wording isn't helping and reasoning doesn't help. Every topic is potentially political (a WFB vs AoS topic is political). I think what you really mean is that there are no discussions on state politics. Otherwise we can't discuss a report on climate change, environmental issues and so forth

Well, I will miss the politics thread. Yeah, we fell out a lot, but there was some funny times as well with the banter.

I'm glad to say that most people were good, decent folk, and I'd happily buy them a pint if ever we met up. Just don't talk about the EU.

I've had some run ins with mods over the years, but I do appreciate the valuable time you guys put into this, so good on you.

Dakka is one of the best sites out there, and I'm not saying that to blow smoke up somebody's rear, but the fact that the mods for the most part tend to be firm, but fair, makes it unique in that regard. Some other forums are hell holes in comparison to dakka.

But at the end of the day, it's yakface's forum, and ultimately, it's yakface's rules. If he don't want politics or religion on dakka, that's his call, and we just have to go somewhere else. I have no problem with that.

Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion

Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.

After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion

Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political? This is where what other users touched on earlier comes into play, namely moderator bias. A thread discussing ways to make the tabletop gaming community more welcoming is going to be political.

The irony being that this thread is in itself political and everyone is involved so maybe everyone here should be banned including the mods?

However more seriously I the board wording isn't helping and reasoning doesn't help. Every topic is potentially political (a WFB vs AoS topic is political). I think what you really mean is that there are no discussions on state politics. Otherwise we can't discuss a report on climate change, environmental issues and so forth

I always thought the OT forum was a Mod trap to lure us in and then expel the lot of us.

 Hordini wrote:
For anyone interested, I've started a thread in the Wasteland for Dakka political refugees here.

I don't think this will work, because there is no admin, no moderators and so forth. It is also has a reputation apparently. Additionally for it really to get a head of steam it will need an active sticky link from dakka (and back again) to allow both to support each other. I've asked this but it's getting no response?

I don't think anyone is really asking for such an uncontrolled environment. Just a place where heated debates can happen where there is protection against abuse. Sometimes I think the two can be easily confused because people have different points of view and people can become very uncomfortable when they have to shine a spotlight not heir views that they don't want to uncover.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So now users will be removed for pointing out that political threads are political?

I either missed this comment before, or it was edited in later... But no, users won't be 'removed' for pointing out that a topic is political. They might be removed for posting inappropriately in an attempt to shut down threads they disapprove of, however, as has been the case previously.

Again, as Overread said, give it a chance to shake out, we've only had the policy in place like 36 hours now

We specifically have this section of the site to discuss how the forum is working, and we'll certainly be open to discussing how we're implementing this change in the future as questions arise. But I really don't think the scenarios being considered will be a problem, as we've had no trouble making distinctions for wargaming topics in the past.

In Dakka Discussions right now, there's a topic on how to be an environmentally friendly wargamer. This thread hasn't, and won't, need to be locked. However, if someone started posting threads for political candidates who are green, that would almost certainly be locked. It'll be case-by-case, but again, this is a distinction we've had no problem making with something like nudity for years. Just PM a mod if you're unsure!

One reason these scenarios will not be a problem is because many of them have nothing to do with banning explicit political and religious discussion in the Off-Topic subforum.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I always thought the OT forum was a Mod trap to lure us in and then expel the lot of us.

Hmmmm, I'd better not comment on that... To be honest I will miss our discussions, even if we disagreed on a lot of things!

As a scientist I'd actually like to see what the statistics information that these decisions were based on. But I'm a scientist so these sort of things intrigue me! It's generally male human nature to over exaggerate things as an evolved trait. For example did you know that if you had a room with 75% men and 25% women, that most men if asked to estimate would say it was a 50:50 split.

To be fair I would be willing to try and start a new forum for the politically inclined wargamers but am unsure as to exact interest in both supporting it and helping out?

Okay, I have a question about the politics ban.
If political discussions are not allowed anymore, does it means that the use of very politically loaded, very adversarial/provocative expressions like "SJW" is not allowed anymore? Finally?
Or is "SJW" somehow still allowed, and what's the reasoning behind this decision?

[edit]Do I need to change the first line of my sig? Is that politics?[/edit]

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Speaking from past experiance, this is not entirely true. Sock puppets can be linked to main accounts via IP.

Don't want to give hints on how, but it is possible to bypass that in a fairly efficient way.

Could I have some clarification please as to what would be considered political?

Because some historical topics obviously have a lot of politics in them. Is it just contemporary politics this ban applies to? I have no interest in religion, so that ban doesn't bother me.

Here's an example:

I'm collecting an army of Northern Virginia for Civil War games. So posts on collecting, painting, and tactics in the game would be fine.

I also assume that discussing the battle of Gettysburg in the OT forum would be fine? Tactics, what ifs, command, leadership etc etc

But here's the rub: could you discuss causes of the ACW in OT? Becuase that would obviously have a political element to it.

In short, are historical political discussions allowed? French Revolution, WW2 etc etc

Thanks.

We won't be censoring the term SJW. Certainly, using that term pejoratively is a red flag that the poster using it is spoiling for a fight and doesn't mind derailing a thread to do it. And we take that into account.

Given the aggressive sloganeering that "EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL" it is probably worthwhile to clarify - as already clarified in yakface's post - that we very clearly aren't talking about EVERYTHING. Even ITT posters have already had to invent the phrase "state politics" to refer to what has actually been banned.

And again, there is NO CHANGE at all with regard to how we're moderating on-topic discussions. The change is about the Off-Topic subforum.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Don't want to give hints on how, but it is possible to bypass that in a fairly efficient way.

Even without deliberate tinkering, unless you have specifically set up a static IP address it will change periodically anyway, although the exact triggers for that will vary from provider to provider. Ultimately, IP addresses by themselves aren't the most useful tool for finding linked accounts.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Or is "SJW" somehow still allowed, and what's the reasoning behind this decision?

I think I'd be flattered if someone called me a social justice warrior, not insulted, even if it was meant to be aimed in that way. After all you are probably being called out for something you want to be seen as anyway.

I do sometimes wonder if Politics (and religion) is such a heated subject because it's banned in so many places, and thus because there aren't any open forums to discuss politics with people of differing opinions, we end up with this isolated echo chamber idea where things become so polarized.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Again, that is a political statement. You can't say "leave politics at the door" and then tell everyone about how you think the ranking of priorities should be.

Of course you can. This is a forum for discussion of toy soldiers. Therefore, the priority is the discussion of toy soldiers. That's no more a political statement than stating that a football field is intended for playing football on.

But people playing toy soldiers are likely to be more interested in history and therefore politics.

Gak, it's very hard to play any game without some kind of politics in any back story/objectives, beyond "smash the alien". It's even worse if you're involved in any kind of historics. Why did X invade Y? What was that battle all about? Why did that unit change sides mid way?
Even Warhammer/40K is based on a very politicised history, though it'd be an indirect discussion at best.

So a ban on politics and religion almost completely results in a ban on history.

Herzlos wrote:



Gak, it's very hard to play any game without some kind of politics in any back story/objectives, beyond "smash them because difference". It's even worse if you're involved in any kind of historics. Why did X invade Y? What was that battle all about? Why did that unit change sides mid way?

So a ban on politics and religion almost completely results in a ban on history.

Clearly the rule is about REAL world politics and religion. We can go to the ends of the earth debating the politics of the Imperium and the Religious values of Orks....

Herzlos wrote:
I do sometimes wonder if Politics (and religion) is such a heated subject because it's banned in so many places, and thus because there aren't any open forums to discuss politics with people of differing opinions, we end up with this isolated echo chamber idea where things become so polarized.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Again, that is a political statement. You can't say "leave politics at the door" and then tell everyone about how you think the ranking of priorities should be.

Of course you can. This is a forum for discussion of toy soldiers. Therefore, the priority is the discussion of toy soldiers. That's no more a political statement than stating that a football field is intended for playing football on.

But people playing toy soldiers are likely to be more interested in history and therefore politics.

Gak, it's very hard to play any game without some kind of politics in any back story/objectives, beyond "smash the alien". It's even worse if you're involved in any kind of historics. Why did X invade Y? What was that battle all about? Why did that unit change sides mid way?
Even Warhammer/40K is based on a very politicised history, though it'd be an indirect discussion at best.

So a ban on politics and religion almost completely results in a ban on history.

Good post. and I'm with you on this one.

I think we'll be alright discussing battles, weapons, tactics etc etc

and even though, say, somebody like Ronald Reagan was POTUS in a lot of people's lifetimes (including my own) I think we'd be on safe ground discussing his Cold War policy, or foreign policy or whatever

I think it's the here and now politics that bothers the Mods, rather than the past. I could be wrong

 Manchu wrote:
Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
...
After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
...

This makes me feel much happier about this decision, and pretty much answers my questions from a couple pages back.

I feel like a lot of strife could have been avoided if a mod had issued this clarification back on page 1.

 Overread wrote:

Honestly give it a week or two and it will all settle down. Those who really want to talk politics will move to other sites or will adapt to talk about other things on Dakka.

And the trolls will abuse the gak out of it, dragging down conversations that otherwise have nothing to do with politics. Since it's clear that we've clearly learned zilch from the last few times it's been banned.

We've been down this road before, it's caused nothing but more problems than the politics thread has, with trolls and mods using it to close threads for... spurious reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion

Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.

After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion

Anyone can start a thread in General Discussion regarding whether our hobby needs to be more "inclusive" (where that implicitly refers to females generally, non-white people, etc). Such a thread will be locked if it devolves into hard-edged ideological bickering and personal attacks. Posters who break rules will receive warnings and some might even have their accounts temporarily suspended.

Manchu, we tried this before, it did not work, why are we doing this over again? I mean, I hate to cast shade on my fellow posters, but we both know that there are posters who will revel in this, and the tremendous tool this gives them to be disruptive.


Or should we wait till Relapse sits around baiting people in twelve different threads again to get them locked?

 Manchu wrote:
We won't be censoring the term SJW.

Well I see, I guess some politics (of the most inflammatory kind, too) are okay then .

Think of all the high value discussions that would be lost if we censored the term SJW! All of those very interesting, not at all adversarial discussions where new ideas emerge! Those! That will never exist! They are totally worth saving!
Though I guess that means I can keep my sig.

 Whirlwind wrote:
I think I'd be flattered if someone called me a social justice warrior, not insulted, even if it was meant to be aimed in that way. After all you are probably being called out for something you want to be seen as anyway.

That's not how it generally happen, it's usually more of a "If we have high school clubs it's totally going to paint a big target on our back for the SJWs!!!! to come ruin our thing! We need Warhammergate now!", than targeting a specific poster.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

And the trolls will abuse the gak out of it, dragging down conversations that otherwise have nothing to do with politics. Since it's clear that we've clearly learned zilch from the last few times it's been banned.

We've been down this road before, it's caused nothing but more problems than the politics thread has, with trolls and mods using it to close threads for... spurious reasons.

And trolls can abuse anything else they want. They don't need politics or religion to take a thread off the rails or troll other users. They can do it with other mundane subjects; snide remarks, veiled threats and all the rest. Adding a topic to the ban list won't give them any more power than in the past; it just makes that subject a little more overt when its noticed because people are more aware and looking for it.

Also lets be honest are we really saying that we shouldn't ban something that causes disruption and strife because of a tiny handful who will complain about this by causing strife in the community? That's kind of saying lets just hand the site to the trolls and walk off.

 Overread wrote:

Also lets be honest are we really saying that we shouldn't ban something that causes disruption and strife because of a tiny handful who will complain about this by causing strife in the community? That's kind of saying lets just hand the site to the trolls and walk off.

I'm saying that in the past, the 'cure' is worse than the disease. I mean, last time, someone even used the 'tiny minority' argument. It turned out to not be a tiny minority, and it got bad enough that they dropped the ban because of how bad it got. Not just from the trolls, though that was apocalyptic, but also from the mods, who turned super heavy handed on anything that remotely smelled of politics they did not like. Not all politics, though that was the rule, just the ones they did not like. And it got pretty blatant.

So, pardon my pessimism, but it has been a mess every time it's been done here, so I don't see it working this time either.

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Before the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
...
After the Off-Topic Subforum Ban on Politics & Religion
...

This makes me feel much happier about this decision, and pretty much answers my questions from a couple pages back.

I feel like a lot of strife could have been avoided if a mod had issued this clarification back on page 1.

Glad that helped! As Manchu said in his full quote, this basically leaves the rest of the forum unaffected from how its always been.

As for the previous politics temporary bans mentioned above - obviously perspectives differ, but many posters told us they thought it worked quite well (we even had a thread in N&B getting people's takes). Unfortunately nothing we decide on this can satisfy everyone, but overall I think the site functioned much better during those temporary locks, so that's how we're going to function in OT going forward.

But the rest of the site is the same (politics has Always been off limits there), so the scenarios people are asking about, or the selective enforcement of tighter rules, are not something we're planning to do at all. Business as usual, talking miniatures - just no politics threads in OT. Simple

We'll see? It's hardly been two days since things have been implemented at this point.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

That's not how it generally happen, it's usually more of a "If we have high school clubs it's totally going to paint a big target on our back for the SJWs!!!! to come ruin our thing! We need Warhammergate now!", than targeting a specific poster.

Why would people object to playing games at a school? Now I know my grandmother use to say it was devil worship or worse drug taking because of the glue. But I haven't seen that attitude for a long time. However it's been many years since I went to school!

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

That's not how it generally happen, it's usually more of a "If we have high school clubs it's totally going to paint a big target on our back for the SJWs!!!! to come ruin our thing! We need Warhammergate now!", than targeting a specific poster.

Why would people object to playing games at a school? Now I know my grandmother use to say it was devil worship or worse drug taking because of the glue. But I haven't seen that attitude for a long time. However it's been many years since I went to school!

Yes, but you live in a civilized and sane part of the world in South Africa, whereas two weeks ago my nieces got rounded up for having DICE upon their persons. And worse, a PHB and DMG! SATANISM! My brother in law and sister were not amused (since it was his DMG) to be called in for the parent/teacher/local pastor meeting. And since my sister is Catholic and my Brother in law Atheist, this went about as badly as can be imagined.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Why would people object to playing games at a school?

Don't ask me, and especially don't ask me here .
If you want the link:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/763061.page#10133130
(The SJW part and subsequent discussion has been removed by the mods, but imagine if it had not happened in the first place because SJW was a banned expression. So much of value would have been LOST! That's the kind of discussion we apparently need to protect by allowing the SJW expression...)


(What are PHB and DMG???)

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

(What are PHB and DMG???)

Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide.

 RiTides wrote:

But the rest of the site is the same (politics has Always been off limits there), so the scenarios people are asking about, or the selective enforcement of tighter rules, are not something we're planning to do at all. Business as usual, talking miniatures - just no politics threads in OT. Simple

At first I wondered if you and I were on the same site, but then I checked and you mostly post in the crunch and OT sections, so... yeah...

Come on down to 40k Background sometime (particularly if other sites are running FSM articles, it's a thread deletion marathon). Or 40k General. Or OT Video Games.

In sane times, you're right, there can be a division of subjects, but these are hardly sane times.