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.

Hiya mods,

Now that political and religious discussions have been finally banned in OT (I think it is good for Dakka as a whole, but it sure is going to get quiet in there ), it may be handy to post a little update/guideline on what constitutes a political or religious discussion and what not. For example, would a discussion about the civil wars in Syria or Ukraine be considered political (and therefore banned) or not? Would a discussion about Islamic extremism be considered religious etc.?
And what if a discussion includes both political and non-political aspects (like the F-35 thread)?
I am not expecting a 200-page rulebook or anything, but I do feel a short clarification/guideline of what sort of threads the mods would or would not like to see in OT would avoid future frustrations and confusions regarding grey areas. "Politics and religion" is a rather broad subject after all.

Cheers and thanks for dedicating your time to running this site for all of us,
Kirya

Perhaps to add to this, will it still be necessary to maintain Geek Media as a separate subforum?

This was a good call you made today guys. The politics threads were pure poison, and we’ll be so much better off without them.

I don't get that TBH, when I wasn't in the mood to deal with the politics threads in OT, I just didn't go to the politics threads in OT. And as the OP points out, now we either need explicit guidelines on what constitutes "political" and to what degree, or we get to enjoy more happy funtime ambiguity where whether your post falls foul of the "rules" depends entirely on which mod happens across it and what kind of mood they're in at that moment.

Is it really needed though?

I mean pretty much every forum I'm on/moderate which has a "no religion/politics" rule basically has just that as the rule. The rest is moderator/admin interpretation of that rule. And most sites get along fine with it.

They don't have to go into minute detail as to what it means or how much political commentary is needed before it counts or such.

Dakka might have a little period of adjustment as people get used to the new limit, but in general I can't see a need to get really specific with the rule beyond the general.

I think that was my take, too, Overread - as a bit of a forum junkie, there were quite a few others I heavily participated in. B&C, Privateer Press, some video game ones, etc. And I never expected to be able to debate politics or religion at any of those sites - it's par for the course that gaming sites just don't want that, even in their "off topic" areas.

Obviously, Dakka was an exception and adjusting to this might take some time, but I don't think it should be that hard since I see it this way so many other places.

Really appreciate the level-headed and reasonable response from folks on this so far, too. We talked and debated this a Lot in the mod forum, and incorporated prior N&B thread feedback, too. In the end, this is the kind of site we'd like Dakka to be - as close as we can get to an online FLGS. Here's hoping it goes smoothly - I think you're right that it will be quiet for a bit, but hopefully pick back up as folks get used to it.

I dont think the rules and guidelines should be for the posters, but more for the mods. We do still have mods that lock threads "because they are stupid" and we should try to avoid that in the future.

We'll work on that Dreadwinter, but I think that's separate from the politics and religious debate issue

 Overread wrote:
Is it really needed though?

I mean pretty much every forum I'm on/moderate which has a "no religion/politics" rule basically has just that as the rule. The rest is moderator/admin interpretation of that rule. And most sites get along fine with it.

They don't have to go into minute detail as to what it means or how much political commentary is needed before it counts or such.

Dakka might have a little period of adjustment as people get used to the new limit, but in general I can't see a need to get really specific with the rule beyond the general.

It is necessary. We are near the point where everything, literally everything, can be considered politicized.

Only if people choose to do so.

Setting up specific examples just encourages people to try to game the system. If you're not sure a post would be appropriate, PM a mod and ask. Or just leave it, and stick with talking about toy soldiers.

As others have pointed out, plenty of forums out there get along just fine with a simple 'Don't discuss religion and politics' statement. There's no need for more explicit rules beyond that... Anything borderline will be sorted out if and when it arises.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Hiya mods,

Now that political and religious discussions have been finally banned in OT (I think it is good for Dakka as a whole, but it sure is going to get quiet in there ), it may be handy to post a little update/guideline on what constitutes a political or religious discussion and what not. For example, would a discussion about the civil wars in Syria or Ukraine be considered political (and therefore banned) or not? Would a discussion about Islamic extremism be considered religious etc.?
And what if a discussion includes both political and non-political aspects (like the F-35 thread)?
I am not expecting a 200-page rulebook or anything, but I do feel a short clarification/guideline of what sort of threads the mods would or would not like to see in OT would avoid future frustrations and confusions regarding grey areas. "Politics and religion" is a rather broad subject after all.

Cheers and thanks for dedicating your time to running this site for all of us,
Kirya

Since this is an international board, and political battles are often a big part of U.S. weapon systems programs, I would say that those definitely fall under the category of politics. Plus, Islamic fundamentalism is just as much political as religious, if not more so. But that is just my opinion. Others will differ.

The F35 thread is fine so long as it sticks to discussing the F35, rather than the politics behind its creation and deployment.

Relaxed, polite and friendly - say hello to a strict, more authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation!

I'm off to find Konrad Curze, as he owes me a drink now!

That's definitely not what we're aiming for, and will be trying really hard to avoid!

People who have gotten a lot of warnings in politics threads often do really well on the rest of the site, and don't get any. So the hope here is that this will result in less mod intervention being needed, not more!

What's the point? If you make guidelines, the mods aren't going to stick to them. We already have no accountability or public record of moderation actions and mods applying the rules differently to different people, so why on earth do you think that even if we had rules they would stick to them, or apply them fairly?

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to start your own forum, if you're unhappy here.

 insaniak wrote:
Only if people choose to do so.

Setting up specific examples just encourages people to try to game the system. If you're not sure a post would be appropriate, PM a mod and ask. Or just leave it, and stick with talking about toy soldiers.

As others have pointed out, plenty of forums out there get along just fine with a simple 'Don't discuss religion and politics' statement. There's no need for more explicit rules beyond that... Anything borderline will be sorted out if and when it arises.

It's not about "choosing to do so".

Here's an example - one of my favourite Black Library series is the Forges of Mars trilogy, in which the author makes really interesting points about(among other things) collective bargaining and labour rights using servitors & bondsmen and their relationship to their Mechanicus overlords. Those are explicitly political subjects, but they're also unequivocally part of a GW-published, 40K-set novel and they're something I would consider integral to any discussion or review of the books. I also know that I wouldn't discuss the books at all on the mentioned "other sites", because I don't want to have to deal with their nebulous, vague, undefined "rules" and how any given mod might choose to interpret them, which I suppose is wonderful if you're a mod who doesn't want to have to deal with political discussions but is a bit gak if you're a punter who wants to discuss the more mature parts of their hobby.

Which is the point really and why explicit rules *are* necessary: there are countless "borderline" subjects out there, but people don't want to deal with "sorted out if and when", so they just stop discussing the borderline stuff as well.

Dakka was appealing exactly because I didn't have to step on eggshells constantly every time anything more controversial than "should I paint my Blood Angels this red or that red?" came up.

What's next, adopting the standard from a lot of the GW-adjascent facebook groups mandating everyone take their Joy and refrain from "negativity" and discussing prices or business decisions?

It's actually quite depressing that at this rate the only place online that will actually let you discuss the totality of the hobby rather than just the context-free kiddy table version is that awful cesspit over on 4chan.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Here's an example - one of my favourite Black Library series is the Forges of Mars trilogy, in which the author makes really interesting points about(among other things) collective bargaining and labour rights using servitors & bondsmen and their relationship to their Mechanicus overlords. Those are explicitly political subjects, but they're also unequivocally part of a GW-published, 40K-set novel and they're something I would consider integral to any discussion or review of the books. I also know that I wouldn't discuss the books at all on the mentioned "other sites", because I don't want to have to deal with their nebulous, vague, undefined "rules" and how any given mod might choose to interpret them, which I suppose is wonderful if you're a mod who doesn't want to have to deal with political discussions but is a bit gak if you're a punter who wants to discuss the more mature parts of their hobby.

Your're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Discussion of the themes in the book, within the context of that book and its setting is fine. Having that discussion veer off into a debate of real-world politics would not be... and that would have been the case even before the new rules.

Good heavens Yodhrin, are you a Downer??

In all seriousness, we're never going to get down to the proverbial molecular boundary between what is and isn't political in the unacceptable sense. It's just not that precise of an issue.

As to your example, discussing the in-universe political aspects of a 40k novel is certainly fine.

And we're certainly not going to adopt the "fan page" alignment of certain Facebook groups where anything but unalloyed delight in re: GW seems to be a bannable offense. But that isn't even germane to the issue of Off-Topic discussion as pretty much anything at all to do with GW, especially complaining about products or even business practices, is clearly On-Topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Iron_Captain

Yakface's update to the OT subforum sticky might be helpful, particularly this bit:

 yakface wrote:
Of course, people who happen to share a hobby still like to chat about other common interests unrelated to that hobby. And of course there are many topics, far too many to attempt listing them, that inevitably touch on politics without necessarily being political in themselves. The Off-Topic forum is therefore not going away nor is any thread that could have some political implication going to be immediately locked on sight. There is not a simple black and white distinction to be drawn here but common sense will suffice in almost all cases. Consider what most people would find appropriate to discuss in a game store open to the public, where you are likely to be around people you don't know very well. People go there to relax and have fun. If saying something about politics or religion in that situation would make it awkward and uncomfortable for others (for example, causing a heated argument likely to get personal) then don't post it on Dakka Dakka.

In effect, this isn't an exact science and it will probably take some time for all users, including us moderators, to adjust. In the meantime, we mods will likely have to discuss particular instances a bit. Frankly, you raise a very good question as to the ISIS thread in particular.

So, when is the Firearms thread being closed? Firearms are inherently political, thus the thread must be closed. Or are we going to swan-dive into the double standards?

The F-35 thread, about the American Air force, is also inherently political.

The thread about Zakharchenko is also political.

The Harvey Weinstein thread is also political.

The ISIS thread is political.

Please see above.

The real answer on when it is politics to be locked is "when a mod disagrees with what someone says and locks it to shut them up." Expecting consistency in politics bans is hopelessly naive.

How about political statements in people's sigs? Should they be reported to mods? There's an example right in this thread, BTW. EDIT: Two examples, actually.

Is "GW should increase the racial and gender diversity of its characters/models!" a political statement?

Is "Arglebargle stupid SJW agenda is ruining my hobby!" a political statement?

 insaniak wrote:
The F35 thread is fine so long as it sticks to discussing the F35, rather than the politics behind its creation and deployment.

This just highlights the absurdity of the ban. Without the political aspects of why the F35 exists and how it will be used all you have is inane recitations of specs from the manufacturer's press releases and maybe spamming some pictures.

FWIW, I think all the examples BCB listed above are political. And not just kinda-sorta-maybe political, but so obviously, unambiguously so that they should have been locked already if the mods are serious about this new policy.

If you suspect you'll have trouble figuring out how to abide by the ban on politics and religion, it may be a good idea to stick to discussing miniatures gaming, at lesst for a while, on this miniatures gaming forum.

The case of the F35 thread has been discussed at length elsewhere and there's no need to cover the same ground again. The ISIS thread is the most likely candidate for corner case.

 Manchu wrote:
If you suspect you'll have trouble figuring out how to abide by the ban on politics and religion, it may be a good idea to stick to discussing miniatures gaming, at lesst for a while, on this miniatures gaming forum.

The case of the F35 thread has been discussed at length elsewhere and there's no need to cover the same ground again. The ISIS thread is the most likely candidate for corner case.

No-one is saying they have a problem abiding by the ban, they are pointing out threads that should, under this new policy, be locked, but because of double standards are not.

That's the problem when you decide to censor. Either everything is ok, or nothing is.

Of course, if it were upfront and explicit that the mods don't intend on enforcing the ban fairly, then that would be ok too. Just as long as we're all clear.

As I explained, the staff will have to talk over which further threads need to be locked under this policy. Only the explicitly political threads (the ones marked POLITICS) have been locked at this time. You're welcome to post your suggestions here, as you already have. But it's going to be a matter of judgement for the staff in the end, and going forward. As always, some posters will be dissatisfied, others will agree, and most will not care.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Of course, if it were upfront and explicit that the mods don't intend on enforcing the ban fairly, then that would be ok too. Just as long as we're all clear.

Given that you've already made up your mind on how it's going to go, I would recommend you just pretend we said that and then you won't be disappointed when the mods make decisions you disagree with.

Ultimately, whether or not a topic is suitable for the forum is up to the moderators. You're welcome to point out threads you feel are a problem, but we're not always going to agree with you. That's nothing to do with 'double standards' , just different opinions on what is appropriate.


It's also worth pointing out that the ban's only been in place for a very short time, and it's the weekend. Existing threads will be reviewed as and when we have time to do so.


Edit: ninja'd

As is said in my sig file, tight rules lead to people seeking out loopholes (and then going all barracks room lawyer when they attract moderation despite staying within the letter of the rules.