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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wolf blade, your quote tags are messed up.

Thanks, missed a bracket.

I used to enjoy the political discussions here, but the ones I enjoyed the most were the abstract ones. The ones on questions of economics, or foreign policy, or the like; rather than red v blue of whatever country or hot issue.

Why?

Because I had the best chance of learning something rather than having an argument. There are some very intelligent or experienced people on this board, and it was useful/nice to be able to tap that. Sebster, nfe, even the superbly obstinate Dogma. It would be nice to have a way to sift such users into one forum for discussion, but the problem is, for every one of those? There are five more people with hearsay-based opinions, and at least one or two people intent on dragging their own politics over everything like a bad smell. Which inevitably damages the forum community, and that's where it crosses a certain line which I feel should be clarified here.

Dakka's operational model is the way it is not by deliberate moderator planning or organisational inertia. It's been constructed instead to resemble a community that the owner has some fond memories of from a game store he used to frequent. One where civility was the most important social factor, and toy soldiers the primary subject of discussion. And he's been quite clear that anything which detracts from those two niches and instigates community unrest, whether in moderation style or board content, gets the chop.

That's his decision on his web forum's priorities. He wrote the cheque to buy the website. He writes the cheques which pay the hosting. So his vision is how things are and how they will continue to be. It's his back yard, and so long as I play in it, I'll respect his rules (much as I may miss those chats!). He's happy to give us some leeway in what we play, and how we do it, but they minute something starts fudging or erasing those two key points (civility/toy soldiers), it's out. Simple as.

Politics, sadly, turned out to be one of those things. So there's not really much else to be said on the matter.

 Ketara wrote:

Dakka's operational model is the way it is not by deliberate moderator planning or organisational inertia. It's been constructed instead to resemble a community that the owner has some fond memories of from a game store he used to frequent. One where civility was the most important social factor, and toy soldiers the primary subject of discussion. And he's been quite clear that anything which detracts from those two niches and instigates community unrest, whether in moderation style or board content, gets the chop.

It's funny then that I can look through NnBs and find several threads about how "usual suspects" are derailing threads, and others agreeing. Some of those users are here in this thread, but some are not. Ironically, to maintain "civility" you have to actively moderate users, prune the problems which... just doesn't happen. Not enough to make any noticeable difference. I mean, the Geek threads are pretty bad. New releases do seem to be filled with people complaining X army didn't get a release instead (which was the topic of the most recent thread).

Basically, civility is more than using nice words.

edit: I'm not blaming any mod in particular for these failings, but the mod team as a whole, including yakface. What they want is nice, but their method of attempting to get it is not working.

Ketara, thanks for "elevating" the conversation a bit. Forgive me that I forget at this exact moment what your PhD is in but I know it's something impressive. The other user I was referring to last page was Wehrkind, who has a PhD in economics.

With the userbase we have here, we have the opportunity to have some awesome and interesting discussions. The types of threads I most enjoyed reading are similar to yours, and similar to what I'd considered "seeding" an unofficial forum for this with - "Why is the minimum wage an effective or ineffective policy?", "Is universal free trade something we should still strive for, or have things changed globally?" etc.

That's what I'd want, and the real purpose of such a space. Maybe it's not what I'd get, though

Wolfblade, you've mentioned we tend to have a light hand here and the post you pointed out last page, while using strong language, is the kind of thing we generally allow. If people want to talk about big things, there's going to have to be a certain level of thick skin. I don't know if I'd even have a mod alert button, and I certainly wouldn't want to foster the dynamic we've ended up with here in these types of discussions - basically complaining to the mods until they discipline the opposing party. Defeat them with your argument! Or heck, listen to their argument to understand why they think they way they do.

You can say that it's impossible, but just to use my own experience - the other day I met a Literal flat-earther in the park. While my kids played on the playground, I listened to this person for an hour describing how he came to believe it, and some common answers to the very obvious questions I had about how he explained certain things. I found it fascinating. Why can't you listen to someone you disagree with? Why can't you try to engage them in a debate?

If you say they're posting in bad faith, as I can see many people here are, it's a fair statement and not much I personally think there is much to be done about (other than a "slow mode" to avoid someone dominating a conversation). But I'm tired of people shouting down others just because they disagree. The fact is, no one here is right about everything. An open space to talk about things would be awesome. If we can't handle it, we can't handle it... but I personally don't believe that. Maybe I'd have to drop the hammer, but my hope is we really could talk about examples like I gave above. We'll see...

I wonder if all those people calling for users to be pruned and who have actively violated rule #1 realize where the best place to start would be? Its amazing I can sit down and shoot the breeze including about politics with an acquaintance of mine for hours who is so far left he would make most of the people here look like right wingers but try to have lightly political conversations here and ferget about it. Everyone should walk in to the restroom and look at that thing over the sink and then think real hard about how they can do better and stop trying to make everyone else behave like them. (Yes I know that's unlikely but just imagine).

 Wolfblade wrote:

edit: I'm not blaming any mod in particular for these failings, but the mod team as a whole, including yakface. What they want is nice, but their method of attempting to get it is not working.

You are of course, entirely free to perceive that as being the case. Other people (including the mod team) will naturally agree, agree partially, or disagree with you.

But frankly put, that's entirely beside the point. This is how the owner wants his website run. There have been cases where he has prodded moderator action in one direction, reined it back in others, and he has generally laid out in very clear and precise terms to the mod team the specifics on how he wants business conducted here. He's not involved on a day to day basis, and he tends only to keep half an eye on the forum more recently; but it's still his back yard, and his rules are still in force.

Politeness/civility. And miniature wargaming. That's what he wants. That's what he's structured Dakka to achieve. And by and large, it does. We have a thriving, coherent message board centred around miniature wargaming which functions in a mature, yet PG-13 format. That's certainly worth something, I think, especially as so many other forums have crashed and burned. You might think it would work better with some tweaks in one direction, I might think it would work better adjusted in another; but the long and short of it is that we're not the owners.

I for one, am just thankful that I have a place that isn't facebook or reddit to pursue my hobby. I'm very explicitly not implying that you or anyone else is not, but what I am emphasising that I do personally value what the owners policies and opinions have shaped over time. Is it to my ideal? No, probably not quite, but then again, what is in this world?

 RiTides wrote:

You can say that it's impossible, but just to use my own experience - the other day I met a Literal flat-earther in the park. While my kids played on the playground, I listened to this person for an hour describing how he came to believe it, and some common answers to the very obvious questions I had about how he explained certain things. I found it fascinating. Why can't you listen to someone you disagree with? Why can't you try to engage them in a debate?

If you say they're posting in bad faith, as I can see many people here are, it's a fair statement and not much I personally think there is much to be done about (other than a "slow mode" to avoid someone dominating a conversation). But I'm tired of people shouting down others just because they disagree. The fact is, no one here is right about everything. An open space to talk about things would be awesome. If we can't handle it, we can't handle it... but I personally don't believe that. Maybe I'd have to drop the hammer, but my hope is we really could talk about examples like I gave above. We'll see...

Because the bad faith here wasn't ever designed to encourage a discussion. It was designed to rile people up, and dominate the conversation. If you maintain the same rules, with the same people, on the same subjects, you're going to get the same results. We've seen that for over two years now in the Wasteland alone. You're willing to draw an arbitrary line about civility, but not good faith participation which is the lifeblood of successful political discussions. I'm not sure if this is naivety or something else.

 Ketara wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

edit: I'm not blaming any mod in particular for these failings, but the mod team as a whole, including yakface. What they want is nice, but their method of attempting to get it is not working.

You are of course, entirely free to perceive that as being the case. Other people (including the mod team) will naturally agree, agree partially, or disagree with you.

But frankly put, that's entirely beside the point. This is how the owner wants his website run. There have been cases where he has prodded moderator action in one direction, reined it back in others, and he has generally laid out in very clear and precise terms to the mod team the specifics on how he wants business undertaken here. He's not involved on a day to day basis, and he tends only to keep half an eye on the forum more recently; but it's still his back yard, and his rules are still in force.

Politeness/civility. And miniature wargaming. That's what he wants. That's what he's structured Dakka to achieve. And by and large, it does. We have a thriving, coherent message board centred around miniature wargaming which functions in a mature, yet PG-13 format. That's certainly worth something, I think, especially as so many other forums have crashed and burned. You might think it would work better with some tweaks in one direction, I might think it would work better adjusted in another; but the long and short of it is that we're not the owners.

I for one, am just thankful that I have a place that isn't facebook or reddit to pursue my hobby. I'm not implying that you or anyone else is not, but what I am emphasising that I do personally value what the owners policies and opinions have shaped over time. Is it to my ideal? No, probably not quite, but then again, what is in this world?

And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and is now more about RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.

 Wolfblade wrote:

And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it's also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.

If you feel that the current (clearly delineated) policies laid out by the site owner to the forum members and moderation team are inadequate or generally faulty; that's entirely your prerogative. Likewise, you are entirely free to approach him and try to convince him that his rules (if this is what you are saying) promote the appearance of civility over the reality of it. He might even agree with you. Then again, he might not.

But until he does, I'm afraid that the status quo is how this website is going to function. He pays the bills. He makes the rules. To paraphrase a quote, 'this is Yakface's world, we all just live in it'.

 Ketara wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

And this has kind of evolved past yakface's dakkadakka, and RiT's hypothetical political forum at this point, but the same things apply to miniature wargaming. Bad faith isn't limited to just logical fallacies, it's also includes, for example, people whining about how X didn't get a release in a thread devoted to Y getting a new release.

If you feel that the current (clearly delineated) policies laid out by the site owner to the forum members and moderation team are inadequate or generally faulty; that's entirely your prerogative. Likewise, you are entirely free to approach him and try to convince him that his rules (if this is what you are saying) promote the appearance of civility over the reality of it. He might even agree with you. Then again, he might not.

But until he does, I'm afraid that the status quo is how this website is going to function. He pays the bills. He makes the rules. To paraphrase a quote, 'this is Yakface's world, we all just live in it'.

'

But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else. The fact that Yakface's rules apply on Dakka is wholly irrelevant, with Dakka only serving in this case as an example of what not to do on a board about politics.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.

I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.

Would it help if I made a separate thread? The idea kind of just came up in this one but obviously I can see why that's confusing!

One really good idea that I think comes up from the above discussion - we could have a separate section for, say, economics. Maybe a handful of sections with distinctions like that (obviously not too many or else there's not even traffic to support even a slow conversation of them).

Anyway, I could probably make a structural ideas thread in OT (I think it might get off the rails to discuss moderation in there, though). Thoughts?

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.

I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.

Frankly, both your answer to wolfblade and the one I've just quoted read as complete non sequiturs to me. Wolfblade was clearly not arguing to change Dakka's policies in the present and I didn't give any indication that I was bored of anything (as far as I'm aware) so I'm struggling to see where that came from. I'm drawing a blank, could you help me out here? It's kidna coming across as "we're the mods, suck it up" which, while true, isn't exactly conductive to a meaningful discussion, especially when the discussion is about what the moderation should and should not look like.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

But the discussion isn't about Dakka per se, it's about a hypothetical separate forum for political discussion, whether that be the Wasteland or somewhere else.

I think that there are sufficient mentions of Dakka's system and conflation of the two topics together on the previous page that isn't unreasonable to make a statement or two on the mechanics behind the system here. If my posts bore you, you can always skip them and continue addressing the alternative facet which interests you more.

Frankly, both your answer to wolfblade and the one I've just quoted read as complete non sequiturs to me. Wolfblade was clearly not arguing to change Dakka's policies in the present and I didn't give any indication that I was bored of anything (as far as I'm aware) so I'm struggling to see where that came from. I'm drawing a blank, could you help me out here? It's kidna coming across as "we're the mods, suck it up" which, while true, isn't exactly conductive to a meaningful discussion, especially when the discussion is about what the moderation should and should not look like.

Just to take a single quote from the prior page from Wolfblade:-

TL;DR: We're not looking for arbiters of truth. We're not asking you to read minds or be omniscient. We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action. I cannot figure out a better, more direct way to express this. It's great if it happens now, but it certainly didn't fething happen enough back when the politics thread was around.

Clearly about Dakka, clearly about moderation policy. I've also been really quite clear that existing Dakka policy in that regard (civility/politeness as opposed to 'good faith') is really ultimately not down to what the mods want 'so suck it up' (as you put it), but rather the owner's desires and wishes on his own web forum. Not sure how I could be more explicit in that regard.

I could quote more from the prior page, but really, having to justify the existence of my post is dragging the entire thread well off topic now. So it's the last I'll say on it.

Fair, I missed that part. Makes more sense with that context in mind.

Alright, I've got a separate thread up for structural ideas on the space here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/794616.page

I do think it's probably asking a bit much of Dakka to have a debate about how to moderate the space in that thread, since we'll inevitably get into exactly the things we're generally not allowed to talk about in here. But I'd love ideas on how to make the space most effectively, if anyone is willing to share on the logistics!

I posted in there, but just to note here as well - I'd likely step down as a mod when launching the space, just to make it truly clear it really is a separate thing and not official in any way. Again, really appreciate any input over there on the structure... cheers guys

 RiTides wrote:

You can say that it's impossible, but just to use my own experience - the other day I met a Literal flat-earther in the park. While my kids played on the playground, I listened to this person for an hour describing how he came to believe it, and some common answers to the very obvious questions I had about how he explained certain things. I found it fascinating. Why can't you listen to someone you disagree with? Why can't you try to engage them in a debate?

And yet, there was this exchange between you and Walrus just a page or two back:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If I want to argue for the extermination of all Danes, would that be fine as long as I do so in a civil manner? As long as I treat any Danes that are part of the debate in a professional and friendly manner? I imagine such a view would be unpopular, but as long as I'm civil we're all Gucci, right?

 RiTides wrote:
No. You'd be removed for such an argument, as I think you would be in any similar setting.

As demonstrated, some beliefs/opinions really are just straight up wrong and cannot be reasoned with. I've said it before in previous politics threads: politics is religion for some people, in which people believe without proof, and you cannot reason with such people. I think that's going to be one of your biggest stumbling blocks in any political discussion, is separating the political zealots from those who act rationally.

It's also worth noting that the nature of the person I disagree with determines whether or not I can listen and engage with them. I can handle opposing viewpoints, but I cannot handle someone who is dishonest, dishonorable, and amoral, which are the traits precisely displayed by someone who is on my ignore list both here and on the Wasteland. So it is the person I ignore, not their viewpoints.

 Ketara wrote:

TL;DR: We're not looking for arbiters of truth. We're not asking you to read minds or be omniscient. We're saying that when you (as in, the mod team) see a consistent pattern of bad faith behavior from a user, you (as in, the entire mod team) take some form of action. I cannot figure out a better, more direct way to express this. It's great if it happens now, but it certainly didn't fething happen enough back when the politics thread was around.

Clearly about Dakka, clearly about moderation policy. I've also been really quite clear that existing Dakka policy in that regard (civility/politeness as opposed to 'good faith') is really ultimately not down to what the mods want 'so suck it up' (as you put it), but rather the owner's desires and wishes on his own web forum. Not sure how I could be more explicit in that regard.

I could quote more from the prior page, but really, having to justify the existence of my post is dragging the entire thread well off topic now. So it's the last I'll say on it.

That specifically, was in response to a mod making hyperbolic statements, and I will admit I have been jumping back and forth a bit between dakka and the hypothetical forum seem to be about to use the exact same ruleset which will not work as demonstrated in the past. I'd argue they barely work now if that, but I understand it's not your system per say.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As demonstrated, some beliefs/opinions really are just straight up wrong and cannot be reasoned with. I've said it before in previous politics threads: politics is religion for some people, in which people believe without proof, and you cannot reason with such people. I think that's going to be one of your biggest stumbling blocks in any political discussion, is separating the political zealots from those who act rationally.

It's also worth noting that the nature of the person I disagree with determines whether or not I can listen and engage with them. I can handle opposing viewpoints, but I cannot handle someone who is dishonest, dishonorable, and amoral, which are the traits precisely displayed by someone who is on my ignore list both here and on the Wasteland. So it is the person I ignore, not their viewpoints.

This is a great point, Tannhauser. To be honest, we've got a lot of "zealots" currently, which is part of the reason it's so hard to have a discussion... things quickly go to the extreme (there's "Godwin's Law" about how long a discussion takes to go to Nazis... and the one you quoted above went there pretty much instantly!).

I think your comment about the nature of the person is also important (but also the hardest thing to judge/moderate from the outside). If people are willing to entertain a different view, but just don't like the way it's being made, that to me is quite different than not being willing to entertain that view at all. But I have seen quite a lot of the latter recently, and it's a reason I want to at least try making a space for this. But I'll be honest, I haven't been thrilled about how things went on Dakka for this, and I would certainly be open to doing them differently depending on how things go. It's kind of impossible for me to predict at this moment, though... so part of it I will have to figure out by doing, I think.

This is also to Wolfblade's point - I don't want to have the exact same ruleset, that's part of the reason I want to make my own space! Maybe my first draft of rules wasn't nearly complete enough... I'll be thinking about it a heck of a lot between now and launching, and if I need to make changes after launching, I'll do that, too.

Finally, I want to say a word about yakface here, since it came up above - I think in no way is the current politics policy indicative of what he wanted, but more simply that he has a lot of responsibility (both career and family) and Dakka has in some ways taken a backseat to that. He took the moderator team's suggestions regarding the current politics ban - he did not suggest it. He basically has not been involved very much on that front at all recently, and so shouldn't be blamed other than for, perhaps, not having time to deal with this kind of thing which is completely understandable, imo. Anyway, just wanted to add that!

On the point of advocating violence not being allowed. How do you square that with the fact that one side of the political aisle in the US had violence perpetrated by the state against people as a core policy?

If you are unsure what I am referring to then it is the child separation policy of the Trump administration. Don't know about you but I'd class a country's government forcibly separating children from their mothers and fathers, locking them in cages without basic supplies such as soap and toothbrushes, and then deporting their parents with no plan as to how to reunite them with their children as violence.

There's so much dishonesty in your statement but rather than get into a political back and forth that isn't supposed to be happening on this forum I'll point out that technically any time a government is enforcing its laws it involves violence or at least the threat of violence.

Malus - A national policy like that would likely be something we'd want to allow discussion of, I think. I.e. it would be very useful and germane to the purpose of the site. With such an incendiary topic, obviously that would be one I'd keep a close eye on. However, I think there's an important distinction to be made there - despite debating that issue (in-person) with quite a few Republicans, I actually didn't come across anyone who directly supported that implementation. In the debates I've seen, it was mostly used as a stick by opponents - basically, if you're in favor of tough immigration rules you must be in favor of that implementation, to which the other person would say "No."

All that to say, for important things like that I would want to allow as much discussion as possible and avoid labeling it was equivalent to the example of exterminating a people group above (which would, obviously, result in an instant ban). I want conservatives in there, and I want them to be able to post freely and have a robust debate - and they would absolutely need to deal with the fact that that was the implementation of policy under this administration, but discussing such a thing would not put them in danger of being banned. Does that make sense? I think a similar sentiment would apply to war... technically, it is the absolute largest form of violence, but it's the kind of thing we need to be able to discuss. Most people would make a clear distinction between the example given by Almighty Walrus above, and these, I think.

In the end, you want these discussions. Obviously, we can't have them here, that's the whole point of my wanting to set up a place for it. But it's the exact kind of thing we'd want to be talking about over there.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
On the point of advocating violence not being allowed. How do you square that with the fact that one side of the political aisle in the US had violence perpetrated by the state against people as a core policy?

If you are unsure what I am referring to then it is the child separation policy of the Trump administration. Don't know about you but I'd class a country's government forcibly separating children from their mothers and fathers, locking them in cages without basic supplies such as soap and toothbrushes, and then deporting their parents with no plan as to how to reunite them with their children as violence.

How is this even applicable to a policy regarding posters advocating violence in a discussion thread? This type of extreme guilt by association is another reason why political discussion is so difficult currently. I don't want to start a tangent on US immigration policy from previous and current administrations, I'm just using this example because it was posted. Having strong negative opinions for the child separation policy is a valid defensible position to hold and I have no problem with people who feel that way but I don't see how that opinion connects to dakka posters advocating violence. I highly doubt anyone on dakka is in a position in the DoJ or Homeland Security or presidential administration to dictate immigration policy. It is extremely unproductive to take extreme examples of bad policies and hold them up as defining political positions of people even tangentially supportive of a political party or politician. If a dakka poster voted for Trump would that mean that person also avidly supports violent child separation at the border? Does it make that poster a terrible person that shouldn't be allowed to post in political discussions? What about a poster that believes child separation policies are bad but not bad enough to dissuade that person from voting for Trump or considering the administration to be more good than bad? What about posters that just lean Republican? How strong does the connection have to be to make that person evil?

I don't mean for this to come across as an attack on Malus, I have no animosity towards Malus whatsoever. I also have strong negative opinions about federal polices and I've posted about them in the old politics threads. I vehemently oppose the extra judicial kill list of Americans that Obama had and murdered with drone attacks, the no fly list is a clear violation of constitutional rights to due process, and I also posted about how I believed Trump's immigration policies were ineffective, hypocritical and dumb. I'm happy to discuss policies on an internet forum. I believe you can support a politician or administration without supporting everything they do. It's just internet discussion, I think we can enjoy the interaction without needing to otherize people or condemn them for opposing our own views.

One final note on advocating violence in discussion threads. In the final politics thread Peregrine and I had a discussion about whether or not it's ok to punch a Nazi which I think was a good discussion even if it pushed that envelope a little bit.

Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.

 ScarletRose wrote:
I mean the thread may as well be locked at this point since we're at maximum mod-shrug.

There's obvious problem posters, multiple users can point them out, but since the problem posters are only trying to hijack a toy soldier forum to be a rightwing propaganda platform *politely* it's fine.

How about we ban future appeals of the politics ban rule? That way mods wouldn't have to bother retyping "we're not going to do our jobs" over and over.

No one is actually appealing the politics ban. Please take the time to actually read, if not the whole thread, at least the OP. Further, as the Mods have pointed out, they're actually working on the problem, and posting in this thread about what they're working on.

However, I believe this discussion is moving to another thread.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.

Ok. Why would supporting a policy that they don't have any say in creating or enforcing be a reason for removing them from a thread about politics? The poster's approval or disapproval of the policy has no bearing on the policy itself or it's implementation. How do you attribute to that poster any actual responsibility for the violence to justify taking punitive action against them. I don't understand why political opinions disqualify people from discussing political opinions. What is the point of having a discussion if we're only allowing people who have the same opinion to participate in it?

This whole thread seems to be a growing list of minutia in regards to limiting the participation of people in RiTides' future website and what gets posted and how it gets posted. It all strikes me as excessive. Have an ignore function and encourage people to take personal responsibility to use as appropriate to avoid becoming obsessive rageaholics with an axe to grind. I realize we're all wargamers here but we really don't need to construct a detailed rulebook to govern the simple act of having a conversation.

Prestor Jon wrote:
]Prestor, I think Malus is using that as an example because there is, in fact, a current poster who is fully in support of that policy. Not tangentially or indirectly because they voted for the political party in question, but because the poster in question has specifically stated they support that policy.

Ok. Why would supporting a policy that they don't have any say in creating or enforcing be a reason for removing them from a thread about politics? The poster's approval or disapproval of the policy has no bearing on the policy itself or it's implementation. How do you attribute to that poster any actual responsibility for the violence to justify taking punitive action against them. I don't understand why political opinions disqualify people from discussing political opinions. What is the point of having a discussion if we're only allowing people who have the same opinion to participate in it?

You know the problem with having a political discussion with wargamers, too many of them are just as WAAC with political arguments as they are at the games themselves. So since you win a wargame by vanquishing your foes, you've got to have a rulebook that allows you do it, otherwise you cant win. Unless you're having a debate to get into office, people would be better served by using the political discussion to learn but I guess I'm just old school like that.


I use to belong to a large gaming board that had much more active moderators and a much more extensive set of rules than dakka. Disagreements became an experience in learning how close to the line you could get without going over and triggering your opponent to slip up and of course that line was drawn inconsistently. Got disgusted with it and left.

Appealing to higher powers to silence people who disagree with you is never a way to encourage discussion.

Jerram wrote:
Appealing to higher powers to silence people who disagree with you is never a way to encourage discussion.

I believe you are confusing "silencing people who disagree with you" with "silencing people who are deliberately trying to stir gak/not engaging in good faith."

Ironically, you're currently being an example of bad faith. No one here has advocated silencing the other side solely because they're "the other side." Instead, people want bad faith punished.

To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."

You do realize you just went from

ban anyone who supports such a violent policy

to

ban anyone who supports the policy because "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."

Save that though for ETC....

Bad faith has become a buzz word that people use to silence discussion they don't like. I've seen on this thread it be thrown around so much so broadly that no I truly do believe its just being used as an excuse by the usuals to silence others.

 Wolfblade wrote:
To use the example before about the immigration policy, there's a discussion that could be had in good faith about the merits, or lack thereof, but there cannot be a discussion if the starting point is "I like it because it hurts people who are different than me."

You preach on about certain posters commenting in bad faith... but what I just highlighted is the all-time-high of bad faith arguments as no one in that conversation articulated that, either here or in Wasteland.

I mean, it makes sense why you have such a visceral response to this topic, but it was coming from a flawed premise.

I can only hope in RiTides forum, the conversation can be teased so that both sides have clarity on each participant's positions.