# What exactly is the politics/religion rule?



## Olive (Apr 6, 2005)

Ok, there's been a few times in the last week where people have been discussing politics (to my mind) on the boards.

Now I _never_ post in a thread where there's political content. My position is that there are a lot of gamers who I like as gamers but would really dislike if I knew more about their politics, and I'm sure vice versa, and so it's better for everyone that we don't disuss it here. When I have seen stuff in the past I've emailed the mods.

The way that this has been moderated seems to be that if people say nice things it's ok, but if people dissagree, then it gets closed. This seems to me to favour the people who are willing to bend/break the rules first rather than those respond. And that seems unfair to me.

So can we get some more guidence on this please? I don't want to link to specific examples, cos that's not really going to help. Anyway, if mods would rather discuss this in private, please email me and close the thread.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 6, 2005)

that it should not be on the site.  but in the past few weeks it has been tolerated a little more it seems.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 6, 2005)

As a practical matter, I don't think the rule is a hard and fast thing.  In general, we aren't supposed to bring up politics. However, what qualifies as "politics", and what gets moderator action are somewhat fuzzy.  And that is as it should be.  It isn't like there's a clear definition of "politics" in teh real world.  

The point of the rule is to avoid argument and acrimony.  Things that look like they are bound to degrade will usually receive attention - when the moderator becomes aware of it, and if they think it's likely to cause a problem.


----------



## Mark (Apr 6, 2005)

Olive said:
			
		

> Moderator! - What exactly is the *politics/religion* rule?





_Uh Oh!  Mentioned `em both!  Shut `er down!_


----------



## diaglo (Apr 6, 2005)

the rulz have definitely been more lax lately.

i'm not sure why.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Apr 6, 2005)

In my case because I don't always see everything.  

Just don't bring it up.  If you see it in a thread, report it.  I'd rather have a thread be reported 10 times than have it go below moderator radar, as these things sometimes do.  I know that I closed my first thread in months just the other day for breaking this rule.  

So again, just don't.  You're not going to accomplish anything useful here.  Worst case is that people will use your personal political/religious beliefs as a reason to disregard other arguments you have.  Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but it does happen.


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 6, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> In my case because I don't always see everything.




As an ex-mod, I can say this is exactly why it happens.  Someone will gripe that "Gosh, the moderators are allowing XYZ to happen all of the sudden" when in fact it's almost always the case that it just flew under the radar.  They don't read every thread; they can't; and they shouldn't have to.  So as Dinkledog says, report a thread that you think crosses the line.


----------



## diaglo (Apr 6, 2005)

what is involved with the mods not removing the politics?

are they only removing ones they disagree with?


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 6, 2005)

Your brand of humor often eludes me, diaglo.  At least I hope it's humor!


----------



## diaglo (Apr 6, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Your brand of humor often eludes me, diaglo.  At least I hope it's humor!





i wish i was being funny.  

i just had a post edited for being too political. and the one i reported wasn't.

i'm guessing my politics don't swing the same.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 6, 2005)

I'm not familiar with your political situation, diaglo, but maybe the mod in question thought your post was too political, and the other post wasn't.

We don't care about the flavour of the politics, or the political opinion being expressed. Heck, 90% of the time I don't even understand the issues involved, especially if it's US politics. That's irrelevant, though - the content of the political message isn't the problem; it's the very existance of a political message of any stripe that's a problem.

Sure, we aren't perfect.  We'll get it wrong from time to time; that's just something people will have to accept.

The reason for the stance is very simple. We want to prevent arguments on the boards; it's that simple. Therefore we take action if we see potential for an argument; we know from bitter experience that people can't be trusted to "debate" politics or religion politely: they will always argue bitterly.

A mod action is intended to prevent that; nothing else. Sure, you might not agree with the method sometimes (in fact, that's always the case of the person whose post is moderated - they never, never agree! - and the accusations that inevitably arise from that is something we mods and admins have to accept to an extent), but there's no motive other than the one stated.

I would like to add, though, that I do take offence to an implication that we attempt to moderate posts based on whether we agree with them. It's an old, old argument: "I was speaking the truth and you're trying to censor me!", and has been used by people in the past. It has never washed with me or any of the other mods.

[Edit - incidentally, I decided to allow a _little_ leeway in the Pope thread in OT, hoping that nobody would take advantage of that leeway.  Someone did, and won't be around any more; this person, also, is of the blatantly false opinion that this is to do with his politics and not his demeanour.]


----------



## diaglo (Apr 6, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> A mod action is intended to prevent that; nothing else. Sure, you might not agree with the method sometimes (in fact, that's always the case of the person whose post is moderated - they never, never agree! - and the accusations that inevitably arise from that is something we mods and admins have to accept to an extent), but there's no motive other than the one stated.





i actually agree with the moderation of my post.

what i don't agree with was leaving the post that got me fired up.

heck, it was quoted and replied to after my post was moderated by someone else.


----------



## Henry (Apr 6, 2005)

An extra word on what Morrus said:

We don't quash every single mention of every single political or religious term uttered - taken to that extreme, it would eventually lead to what amounts to a combination rules forum & Weather Channel that would be quite boring to be around. We also don't quash every current event for fear of it leaning into something political or religious - some things impact people deeply, and recognizing that is part of what makes it a community: Witness both the 9/11 tragedies and the 2004 Asian Tsunami. What we remove is usually someone's statements trying to make something a debate, or someone posting something so open-invitation that a debate and resulting attack is inevitable. Often, the existance of "politics" or "religion" is not the problem; debating it is. It's one thing to say that my campaign setting has undertones based on the Marxist Communist pamphlets I picked up in college; it's another to tell me that they suck because they're based on flawed teachings, etc. etc. etc. One's a fact, the other's a launchpad.

-------------------------

Diaglo, in regards to your situation, I'd e-mail the mod in question to clear it up; it's not as helpful to air it in general on the forums, than it is to take it directly to us and get the 411 on why we perform a given action.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 6, 2005)

I think it goes beyond politics and religion. *Anything* that can become inflammatory will eventually get closed. Regardless of how insightful, or interesting the discussion is. Even on-topic stuff.  Case in point, "cross-gender role-playing" or any edition war*.  The current thread about spanking your children will likely end up closed. Likely because it will end up pissing me off. 


* You can slam 2nd edition and 3rd edition, and even D&D in general, but say even one bad thing about 1st edition, and thread will get closed in a heartbeat.


----------



## Darkness (Apr 6, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> The current thread about spanking your children will likely end up closed. Likely because it will end up pissing me off.



 I won't even read it.

On an intellectual level, I realize there's a difference between spanking as a disciplinary tool and random physical abuse because someone has a bad day (or a bad _century_) and the child happens to be nearby.

On an emotional level, I don't care.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> We don't quash every single mention of every single political or religious term uttered - taken to that extreme, it would eventually lead to what amounts to a combination rules forum & Weather Channel that would be quite boring to be around.




To avoid boredom, just avoid the Weather forum 

-Hyp.


----------



## Michael Morris (Apr 7, 2005)

Did somebody request the creation of a weather forum??


----------



## Olive (Apr 7, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Just don't bring it up.




Hey, I don't! That was, sort of, the point.

Ok guys, thanks for the clarification, and expect to see an increase in my pointing out stuff.


----------



## Olive (Apr 7, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I would like to add, though, that I do take offence to an implication that we attempt to moderate posts based on whether we agree with them. It's an old, old argument: "I was speaking the truth and you're trying to censor me!", and has been used by people in the past. It has never washed with me or any of the other mods.




Hey, just for the record, I've never seen this happen. What I do think happens is what I said above - threads close when someone disagrees, not when the original opinion gets posted (unless it's REALLY offensive). But I certainly don't think that the secifics of the opinions are what's at stake.



> [Edit - incidentally, I decided to allow a _little_ leeway in the Pope thread in OT, hoping that nobody would take advantage of that leeway.  Someone did, and won't be around any more; this person, also, is of the blatantly false opinion that this is to do with his politics and not his demeanour.]




Morrus, I've sent you an email about this, and I'd love to hear your thouhts. But I couldn't think of a way to post it with out being out and out political.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 7, 2005)

Olive said:
			
		

> Hey, just for the record, I've never seen this happen. What I do think happens is what I said above - threads close when someone disagrees, not when the original opinion gets posted (unless it's REALLY offensive). But I certainly don't think that the secifics of the opinions are what's at stake.




That's because you don't see the resultant emails.


----------



## Olive (Apr 7, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's because you don't see the resultant emails.




 :\ I'm sure people think that's what happens to them. But people are dumb.


----------



## reanjr (Apr 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> As a practical matter, I don't think the rule is a hard and fast thing.  In general, we aren't supposed to bring up politics. However, what qualifies as "politics", and what gets moderator action are somewhat fuzzy.  And that is as it should be.  It isn't like there's a clear definition of "politics" in teh real world.




I think discourse over whether something falls under politics or not is a political discussion, and so the point can't be argued without breaking the rule.

Hah! You can't disagree now!

...I'm sleepy...


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 7, 2005)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Did somebody request the creation of a weather forum??




He said *avoid*, not create...


----------



## diaglo (Apr 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Diaglo, in regards to your situation, I'd e-mail the mod in question to clear it up; it's not as helpful to air it in general on the forums, than it is to take it directly to us and get the 411 on why we perform a given action.





i did.

i got a reply 4 or so hours later.

the reply mentioned why my post was moderated. which was not the topic of my email. nor the question i asked. nor was i even arguing that my post wasn't in need of moderation.

i'm not gonna get into the whole. did not. did too.

i'll just take it as the mod and i don't have similar politics. (s)he can't understand what upset me.

in the thread the person whose post got me inflamed, did apologize later on.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 7, 2005)

reanjr said:
			
		

> Hah! You can't disagree now!




Self-referential logic is fun, but I'll have to burst your bubble - Having a disagreement and _voicing_ the disagreement are not the same thing.  Unless/until Morrus allows me to deploy the IP-tracking orbital mind-control lasers, the board rules don't apply to the inside of poster's skulls


----------



## nothing to see here (Apr 7, 2005)

The funny things is -- the few studies that have tried to quanitfy the impact of high engagement communication forums...like internet message boards...phone-in radio shows...or even letters to the editor, have found their impact as a persuasive tool to be negligible.  The only people who bother to read an openly political or religious posts are those engaged enough to already have a rather firmly set opinion...therefore openly political or religious contributions to open-source high engagement forums are not only bound to offend, or incite...they're basically worthless as well (there are exceptions, but in each case they require a concentrated degree of organization the likes of which we'd be fortunate to never see on these boards).  

In general, when you post political, you're either preaching to the converted...or just infuriating those who are inclined to disagree...you're not likely to shift a single opinion in doing so...

...makes you wonder why people bother.


----------



## Darkness (Apr 7, 2005)

I improved some of my political viewpoints by reading the Werewolf: The Apocalypse boards, of all places. In their time, they had the best debates (RPG and non-RPG) of all White Wolf boards.

I didn't post to political threads there, though - I just read them.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Apr 8, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> what is involved with the mods not removing the politics?
> 
> are they only removing ones they disagree with?




I should just point out here that were this the case, then nearly everything would be removed, as the politics of the various moderators varies wildly.  There are places where one could have seen this blatantly, but not so much lately.  So, if we were just removing things we disagreed with, ultimately everything more controversial than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich would have been removed.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 8, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> ...therefore openly political or religious contributions to open-source high engagement forums are not only bound to offend, or incite...they're basically worthless as well...




Worthless?  I dunno.  I think that really depends upon what you find to be of value.  

If your goal is to try to convince a significant number of other people, then perhaps such discussion is of little value.

If your goal is to brush up your rhetorical skills, or to get an idea examined from more than one point of view, or to vent some frustrations, then perhaps they have worth.

Which is moot, because just as you don't shop for toys in a shoe store, you don't go looking for arguments here.  There are other boards to shop for such goods.


----------



## Xen155 (Apr 8, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I should just point out here that were this the case, then nearly everything would be removed, as the politics of the various moderators varies wildly.  There are places where one could have seen this blatantly, but not so much lately.  So, if we were just removing things we disagreed with, ultimately everything more controversial than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich would have been removed.



mmmmmm..... peanut butter and jelly....


----------



## Olive (Apr 8, 2005)

I think I got the answer I needed, so mods, I can't see this going anywhere useful. Shut it down I reckon.


----------



## Mark (Apr 8, 2005)

Olive said:
			
		

> I think I got the answer I needed, so mods, I can't see this going anywhere useful. Shut it down I reckon.





_Hmmm...  Is that a religious or a political reckoning...?_


----------



## Darkness (Apr 8, 2005)

Olive said:
			
		

> I think I got the answer I needed, so mods, I can't see this going anywhere useful. Shut it down I reckon.



Ok, done.


----------

