What exactly is the politics/religion rule?

[Morrus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Did somebody request the creation of a weather forum??

 

[Olive]

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]

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]

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.