# Politics And Gaming Subforum or Tag?



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2020)

We're getting a lot of threads which are about the politics of gaming, or political issues and how they come in contact with gaming and/or gaming products and companies.

There is nothing wrong with these threads (at least in my view) but I do think they're starting to become their own "thing". They're not really "D&D" threads, and they're not really "Pathfinder" threads, they're more "Politics & Gaming" threads. The theme of the thread, however it starts out, pretty rapidly veers into a discussion of the political aspects of that gaming topic rather than the game discussion itself. 

So I'd propose either there be a new sub-forum which would include those threads, or in the alternative a meta-tag that would label them as politics and gaming (or whatever term people think is best - "politics and gaming" doesn't seem precise enough but my imagination is failing me on a better name) so that when someone clicks on "5e" they don't get "5e as it relates expressly to political issues" but instead get "5e rules" or "5e upcoming products" or other more direct 5e game-related topics, as opposed to how the game comes in contact with political topics.

Is this something the admins would consider? What do others think, or is there a better way to do this that I have not thought of, or is this a silly idea that is trying to solve for an issue that does not exist?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 30, 2020)

I love the idea, but I worry that any invocation of politics (even Gaming and Politics) would invariably weaken the already-permeable barrier.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 30, 2020)

I’m of two minds, unhelpfully. 

On one hand, a toolbox is a nice place to put tools. Without a designated space for it, you get tools everywhere and that’s not ideal. At least with a toolbox, you know where to go. Likewise a forum for the subject may help properly contain it. 

On the other hand, I kind of like the “No politics” rule. I can’t remember the last constructive discussion I had on the subject. 

Hm. I lean toward not having it. Or not participating in it if it exists. But with full knowledge I might fail that and get sucked in.


----------



## Retreater (Jun 30, 2020)

I like the idea of separating it out. However, individual posts (and their responses) sometimes break out in otherwise threads intended to be non-political. Maybe we could just redirect those posters to duke it out in the Politics subforum?
However, I think such a subforum dedicated to solely such posts would quickly devolve into a place I wouldn't want to visit.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 30, 2020)

They're bloody exhausting me, I'll tell you that. They ruin every day when I have to wade in and moderate and then get subjected to a barrage of PMs and emails and insults and accusations and lectures, and there seems to be a new thread every day right now.

I think a subforum or tag for them would actively encourage them. And a forum with a politics subform -- as I have learned -- is not a forum I want to be part of.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 30, 2020)

I’ve been avoiding those threads, but if they’re causing grief to the moderators, I’d rather see a topic ban than a sub forum.  Moderator’s decision, of course.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 30, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I’ve been avoiding those threads, but if they’re causing grief to the moderators, I’d rather see a topic ban than a sub forum.  Moderator’s decision, of course.




I've been mostly avoiding these forums until today. I was happier that way.

It seems hard to avoid entirely, given that WoTC and others are doing a lot of things right now (and rightfully so).


----------



## aco175 (Jun 30, 2020)

I started a time clock before I post in these.  I try to wait 24 hours, but then I cannot read all the pages that have come up.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 30, 2020)

Create a new user group and sub-forum for politics, let anybody join who wants to, then after six weeks delete the forum and all the users; sort of like a roach motel.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2020)

Morrus said:


> They're bloody exhausting me, I'll tell you that. They ruin every day when I have to wade in and moderate and then get subjected to a barrage of PMs and emails and insults and accusations and lectures, and there seems to be a new thread every day right now.
> 
> I think a subforum or tag for them would actively encourage them. And a forum with a politics subform -- as I have learned -- is not a forum I want to be part of.




I had not considered the possibility it would increase the number of these posts rather than decrease them. When "Warlord" discussions were given their own sub-forum it decreased the number of those discussions. But maybe that was the nature of that topic, and a political topic would result in just more of those posts since it would seem a tacit endorsement of posting about politics if it gets a special label. 

Well, darn.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2020)

dragoner said:


> Create a new user group and sub-forum for politics, let anybody join who wants to, then after six weeks delete the forum and all the users; sort of like a roach motel.




I guess you could move all those threads to CircvsMaximvs.com.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 30, 2020)

Mistwell said:


> I guess you could move all those threads to CircvsMaximvs.com.



I'm so left I bleed red, except in facebook sfrpg group I admin, I'm strictly no politics, where even friends have been angry at me for ruthless deletion of political posts and threads. IME, forums that allow politics like tarnowski's cesspit, just become a confederacy of shtbags, after the culling of one side.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 1, 2020)

dragoner said:


> I'm so left I bleed red, except in facebook sfrpg group I admin, I'm strictly no politics, where even friends have been angry at me for ruthless deletion of political posts and threads. IME, forums that allow politics like tarnowski's cesspit, just become a confederacy of shtbags, after the culling of one side.




I think you are referring to TheRPGSite.com? CircvsMaximvs is owned by Morrus.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 1, 2020)

Yes, though I have briefly looked at CircvsMaximvs once.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 1, 2020)

Bawylie said:


> I’m of two minds, unhelpfully.
> 
> On one hand, a toolbox is a nice place to put tools. Without a designated space for it, you get tools everywhere and that’s not ideal. At least with a toolbox, you know where to go. Likewise a forum for the subject may help properly contain it.
> 
> ...



A thing I've noticed with political discussions is that while people don't change their minds _in the course of the discussion_, they do change their minds later. Not usually to exactly what the other people tried to convince them of, but people inevitably affect eachother by interacting, and we don't just filedump all the information we are given in a discussion. 

We just don't process it while we have our hackles up.


----------



## Bawylie (Jul 1, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> A thing I've noticed with political discussions is that while people don't change their minds _in the course of the discussion_, they do change their minds later. Not usually to exactly what the other people tried to convince them of, but people inevitably affect eachother by interacting, and we don't just filedump all the information we are given in a discussion.
> 
> We just don't process it while we have our hackles up.



Yeah that’s fair. There’s some perhaps involuntarily reactions (certainly speaking for myself, here) where someone might say “Hey this there’s a problem with this thing.” And I’ll go “wait I own that thing - they have a problem with me? Oh Hell Naw! I’m not the problem!” And that’s not close to what was said, but the defenses go first on initiative. 

And I have to wait that out and deliberately envision the best version of the original argument. And that’s tiring but I can’t figure out how to beat the auto-defenses on initiative. 

But ultimately, I agree that I have been persuaded or come around sometime after the heat dies down.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 1, 2020)

Morrus said:


> They're bloody exhausting me, I'll tell you that. They ruin every day when I have to wade in and moderate and then get subjected to a barrage of PMs and emails and insults and accusations and lectures, and there seems to be a new thread every day right now.
> 
> I think a subforum or tag for them would actively encourage them. And a forum with a politics subform -- as I have learned -- is not a forum I want to be part of.



This is one of those things where it's hard for people to contextualize their actions in a broader context, like when people pile on on twitter and refuse to see their tweet as part of a pile on just because they didn't intend to be part of a tweet mob. 

In other words, I apologise for my part in that. I do disagree vociferously with certain aspects of the moderation here, and care about being part of this forum to much to just leave over it, but perhaps a better way to deal with that is to collect my thoughts over time, and post a meta thread when I can speak to trends and patterns rather than recent and specific instances.


Mistwell said:


> I had not considered the possibility it would increase the number of these posts rather than decrease them. When "Warlord" discussions were given their own sub-forum it decreased the number of those discussions. But maybe that was the nature of that topic, and a political topic would result in just more of those posts since it would seem a tacit endorsement of posting about politics if it gets a special label.
> 
> Well, darn.



The warlord discussions were decreasing by the time the subforum was made for them, anyway, to be fair. I remember thinking it was much too late to make a subforum by the time it was announced. 

But yeah I think Morrus would have to either moderate that sub less, or convince someone to become a mod, and even as someone who values political debate regardless of the angry jerk posts, it's probably not worth it either way. Which is a bummer. I've rather enjoyed whole pages of the recent discussions! lol but seriously the bad pages probably do outweigh the good ones.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 1, 2020)

Bawylie said:


> Yeah that’s fair. There’s some perhaps involuntarily reactions (certainly speaking for myself, here) where someone might say “Hey this there’s a problem with this thing.” And I’ll go “wait I own that thing - they have a problem with me? Oh Hell Naw! I’m not the problem!” And that’s not close to what was said, but the defenses go first on initiative.
> 
> And I have to wait that out and deliberately envision the best version of the original argument. And that’s tiring but I can’t figure out how to beat the auto-defenses on initiative.
> 
> But ultimately, I agree that I have been persuaded or come around sometime after the heat dies down.



That reminds me of something, and I've got to go make a thread now! Thanks!


----------



## ccs (Jul 1, 2020)

When reporting gaming news that you know have political aspects?  Report it, maybe sticky it for a period so it gets seen, but do not leave it open for replies.
After all, there's a No Politics rule.  So why bait people into violating it?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2020)

ccs said:


> After all, there's a No Politics rule.  So why bait people into violating it?




Because, treating our fellow gamers - of any origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender - with proper respect is not politics.  It is basic human decency.  It is making our hobby as welcoming to others as it was to us.  Forbidding discussion of the fact that within our hobby they don't always get the respect they ought is harmful, and doing harm to gamers is not our thing.

That some folks call this politics is really not our problem.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jul 1, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Because, treating our fellow gamers - of any origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender - with proper respect is not politics.  It is basic human decency.  It is making our hobby as welcoming to others as it was to us.  Forbidding discussion of the fact that within our hobby they don't always get the respect they ought is harmful, and doing harm to gamers is not our thing.
> 
> That some folks call this politics is really not our problem.



I could not agree more with this than I already do. I hate that it's somehow considered politics to talk about the inclusivity of RPGs.

Edit: I understand it's a nightmare to moderate these threads. They're too drawing for the people who want to stir the pot and troll. People have very differing opinions on the topics, and it doesn't seem to do much good talking about it online, as no one's mind seems to be changed. I apologize for this, but I personally do hope the threads remain open until this topic dies down or is resolved.


----------



## Eltab (Jul 1, 2020)

It occurs to me that drawing attention to the Be Polite rule would allow EnWorld Moderators to shut off a lot of _Fireballs_ being aimed at the guests.  Including those launched during discussions of politics-adjacent subjects.

I have been an infrequent participant in those threads because I don't want to drop a comment from 10 or more pages back and discover (the hard way) there was a Red Ink post to drop the matter, somewhere in between.


----------



## Todd Roybark (Jul 1, 2020)

Can we tent the site for racists like a house from termites?  Sigh, someone just stated that Asian Americans don’t count as Asian.

Sorry gallows humor.  I would never say a differing viewpoint is illegitimate, but when you ask some the posters to explain their viewpoints...their intent seems to provoke and incite, and not engage.


----------



## Lem23 (Jul 1, 2020)

Perhaps posts that don't treat other posters with respect with regards to origin, gender, sexual orientation, whether individually or as a group, and other such bigotry and safekeeping, should be labelled politics, deleted, and their posters warned?


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 1, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Because, treating our fellow gamers - of any origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender - with proper respect is not politics.  It is basic human decency.  It is making our hobby as welcoming to others as it was to us.  Forbidding discussion of the fact that within our hobby they don't always get the respect they ought is harmful, and doing harm to gamers is not our thing.
> 
> That some folks call this politics is really not our problem.




I think you're using "politics" in a different way than the poster you're responding to.

If there were a thread about Thomas Hobbes' book Leviathan, it would be a political thread. The thread wouldn't be about choosing sides between two competing political parties, it would probably not resemble traditional American politics, but it would 100% be a political discussion. It's a foundational book in political science.

And it might also be discussed by way of comparison with modern politics, because that's the easiest comparison basis people have to draw from in their experience. I mean, it might also be compared to people's experience with watching Gilligan's Island or something like that, but in all likelihood you'd get people drawing comparisons to modern political topics.

Discussions about how a society should treat different groups of people and individuals, about what natural rights should and do look like and the social contract regarding natural rights of groups and individuals (which you termed "human decency") which exists on this board and in the gaming hobby, those are all political discussions. They're core political science topics. You will find those topics in every philosophy of political science course in any country where that degree is taught in universities.

And because they're core political science topics, people will frequently turn to comparisons with current more trending political topics and even the political parties which disagree about those topics. Because it's the closest basis for comparison, and a shared experience which relates to those conversations and serves as a common language to talk about them.

If you don't want people to be drawing on those modern political discourse topics to relate to a news item that's posted which is about social contracts in our community or natural rights of groups and individuals, then you probably should express that in a different way than its been expressed so far. Tell people they can relate to the topic with something fairly benign, like a comparison to Gilligan's Island would be for a discussion of Leviathan. Tell people they cannot refer to the more modern and more controversial and competitive comparisons to modern politics and political parties.  And give examples of how someone can approach the topic which would be OK, and ways which would not be OK.

That, or like ccs said, just don't allow comments on topics which you know are likely to result in people reacting in a controversial and competitive way with each other where they use modern politics as a shared language to talk about that topic.

Or keep going like we're going, which sounds like it's a source of wretched daily grind for the moderation staff which will eat away at the morale of the people who run this place, and hopefully all of this will just burn itself out over time.

Or maybe there is a different way I have not considered.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 1, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I hate that it's somehow considered politics to talk about the inclusivity of RPGs.




Agreed. Though it can not be rationally engaged with, as there is no reason to be against it, as the ideology against inclusion does not come from a place of rational thought, it is merely reactionary. Any attempt to engage it merely erodes the stamina of those fighting it, as well as giving the anti's a platform for their irrationality.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2020)

Mistwell said:


> I think you're using "politics" in a different way than the poster you're responding to.




Mistwell, thank you for your input. Please be aware that it comes across as if it were based on a fundamental assumption of our ignorance, and our inability to think through our own statements in the current socio-political context.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 1, 2020)

A helpful reminder: some of us don't get to choose. My mere presence, my_ existence_ is considered political in some corners (most, honestly). Deciding that we should "ignore politics" is an inherently political choice, and one that frankly requires quite a bit of privilege.

I'm personally grateful that the moderators have done what they can to make this a place that's welcoming and inclusive and have done so while remaining relatively light-handed.


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 1, 2020)

This is only the discussion for this week. It may be heated now, but it will cool down.

On the whole I like the no politics rule.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 1, 2020)

Mistwell said:


> I think you're using "politics" in a different way than the poster you're responding to.




FWIW, we use the term "religion" in a very specific way, too.  There's a no religion rule.  But we still talk about the Satanic Panic, the Crusades, or the influence of Mormonism in Dragonlance without to many issues.  I think Umbran was doing a good job explaining what "politics" means here.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jul 1, 2020)

I’m trying to be constructive here as there’s very much I disagree with but will refrain from commenting on. So constructive suggestion:  Perhaps it would help if what politics and religion meant to this site was spelled out somewhere, because the definition being used is not at all obvious to many people here IMO


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 1, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I’m trying to be constructive here as there’s very much I disagree with but will refrain from commenting on. So constructive suggestion:  Perhaps it would help if what politics and religion meant to this site was spelled out somewhere, because the definition being used is not at all obvious to many people here IMO




People would then just argue over the definition provided, or try to find loopholes. I think people understand the gist well enough, and if you keep wanting to touch the fire, eventually you'll get burnt.


----------



## Eltab (Jul 1, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> People would then just argue over the definition provided, or try to find loopholes. I think people understand the gist well enough, and if you keep wanting to touch the fire, eventually you'll get burnt.



Add an addendum to the Terms of Use - or re-write a few existing sentences if need be - so a new poster can read The Rules and afterwards 'what you expect is what you get'.  RAW vs RAI vs RAE (rules as experienced) should align.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 1, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Mistwell, thank you for your input. Please be aware that it comes across as if it were based on a fundamental assumption of our ignorance, and our inability to think through our own statements in the current socio-political context.




If you had responded to the rest of my post, I would appreciate that sentiment better. What I wrote to you was thoughtful, and I took time and care with it.  It looks like you hand waived it and dismissed it with this response.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 1, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> FWIW, we use the term "religion" in a very specific way, too.  There's a no religion rule.  But we still talk about the Satanic Panic, the Crusades, or the influence of Mormonism in Dragonlance without to many issues.  I think Umbran was doing a good job explaining what "politics" means here.




But if it doesn't mean that to the person he was replying to, then it's not meaningful communication.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 1, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> I’m trying to be constructive here as there’s very much I disagree with but will refrain from commenting on. So constructive suggestion:  Perhaps it would help if what politics and religion meant to this site was spelled out somewhere, because the definition being used is not at all obvious to many people here IMO




That was my point.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jul 1, 2020)

Mistwell said:


> That was my point.




Sorry, wasn’t trying to steal your thunder!


----------



## FrogReaver (Jul 1, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> People would then just argue over the definition provided, or try to find loopholes. I think people understand the gist well enough, and if you keep wanting to touch the fire, eventually you'll get burnt.




Some would sure. Some people will argue with anything.  I don’t think those are the only people that don’t currently get it though.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2020)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> People would then just argue over the definition provided, or try to find loopholes.




This is _exactly_ correct, and why the rules are constructed as they are.  We are a community full of rules lawyers, after all.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 2, 2020)

Off topic forum and just ban whatever subject you like.


----------



## Rygar (Jul 7, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Because, treating our fellow gamers - of any origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender - with proper respect is not politics.  It is basic human decency.  It is making our hobby as welcoming to others as it was to us.  Forbidding discussion of the fact that within our hobby they don't always get the respect they ought is harmful, and doing harm to gamers is not our thing.
> 
> That some folks call this politics is really not our problem.




The problem with ENWorld right now, and the problems that Morrus is encountering repeatedly, is perfectly summed up in this post I'm quoting.

This site is running articles repeatedly to fulfill their political need to "Change the world" and then thread banning or site banning people who don't share the political motivations behind the articles when they disagree or fail to meet the moderator's expected declarations of political alignment.  Often with the moderators posting long dissertations about how misguided the people who didn't align with their politics are.

"Basic human decency" is ejecting people who attack others with slurs, or who demonstrate prejudices against other groups for the items you listed.  That's literally not what you're doing.  You literally just thread banned me for asserting that you cannot sell far left politics to conservatives.  You literally quoted those 5 words as you announced you were thread banning me.  Not one single word I posted denigrated anyone, and you're aware of that.  I wasn't violating the "No Politics" rule anymore than every other poster on the thread, including yourself, and you're aware of that too.

Shutting down comments because people dared to suggest that law enforcement should handle accusations of sexual assault and not an internet forum based on RPGs, allowing people to demand social security numbers and photo IDs because they might be a sexual abuser for suggesting your articles are missing details (which we'd find out years later they were missing very relevant details) but banning people for suggesting something was off, allowing attacks on posters who demonstrate moderate or conservative values but banning anyone who uses "SJW" immediately, and myriad other examples.

So at least be honest about it.  The moderation and permitted content on this site is based on the politics of the moderators, and anyone who makes the mistake of failing to uphold those politics is ejected.  That's _very_ different from a moderation policy of basic human decency.

I'll also point out, in closing, that your moderation policies are doing more to harm the hobby than anything else right now.  All you're doing is entrenching people in their values, and costing RPG companies sales as they opt-out because the community is so _exclusive_ towards those who don't share far left politics that they decide the hobby isn't worth pursuing.  When they leave, they take multiple people with them, their whole gaming group will go.

So really, my advice is, pick one:  Either this is an RPG site with a No Politics rule and start shutting down _all_ political discussion, or update the rules to make it clear that this is a left wing RPG site that doesn't welcome conservative or moderate view points and continue on your present trajectory.

Your site, your rules, your choice.  I'll respect your decision either way, as I firmly believe you have the right to decide either way.

But make it clear to me and others what this site is about.  Because it's _really_ unfair to claim it's a No Politics site while moderating very politically.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 7, 2020)

Rygar said:


> "Basic human decency" is ejecting people who attack others with slurs, or who demonstrate prejudices against other groups for the items you listed.  That's literally not what you're doing.  You literally just thread banned me for asserting that you cannot sell far left politics to conservatives.  You literally quoted those 5 words as you announced you were thread banning me.  Not one single word I posted denigrated anyone, and you're aware of that.  I wasn't violating the "No Politics" rule anymore than every other poster on the thread, including yourself, and you're aware of that too.




I'm not a mod, obviously, but I could instantly see where you crossed the line in that thread and knew you would be moderated.

The thread you were in is one of the borderline cases here at ENWorld (just like Satanic Panic threads that I mentioned earlier).  It's literally straddling the line of where the current state of WotC and the current climate meets up with a pure political discussion.  They're always touchy.  However, your comment, "You cannot sell left wing politics to conservatives and the further left you go, the fewer moderates you can sell it to" was purely political.  You may have thought you were putting it in the context WotC, but you didn't.  It was way too general of a statement, and directly named political groups.  That's going to get you every time.  If you had instead said something like "You cannot force inclusivity on old school gamers, and the more extreme you go, the fewer gamers you can sell it to", it would have meant a similar thing.  But it would have been in context of RPGs, and not named specific political sides.  It would have probably been safe (ignoring the rest of the post, obviously).



> I'll also point out, in closing, that your moderation policies are doing more to harm the hobby than anything else right now.  All you're doing is entrenching people in their values, and costing RPG companies sales as they opt-out because the community is so _exclusive_ towards those who don't share far left politics that they decide the hobby isn't worth pursuing.  When they leave, they take multiple people with them, their whole gaming group will go.




Oh, come on.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 7, 2020)

Rygar said:


> The problem with ENWorld right now, and the problems that Morrus is encountering repeatedly, is perfectly summed up in this post I'm quoting.
> 
> This site is running articles repeatedly to fulfill their political need to "Change the world" and then thread banning or site banning people who don't share the political motivations behind the articles when they disagree or fail to meet the moderator's expected declarations of political alignment.  Often with the moderators posting long dissertations about how misguided the people who didn't align with their politics are.
> 
> ...




Dude, this thread is not for you to complain about moderators. Take it up with them in a PM if you must.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Jul 7, 2020)

Rygar said:


> But make it clear to me and others what this site is about. Because it's _really_ unfair to claim it's a No Politics site while moderating very politically.



Wow. Your post, just a dumpster fire of breaking site rules and offensive language and challenging moderation. 

I have not seen a single thread that is political or pushing a political agenda.


----------

