"Current Affairs Count from When?" Topic

TMP has a forum rule: "no politics".

This has also been defined as "no discussion of current affairs, unless wargaming-related."

Which raises the question: when is "current"? Within the last ten years? 20 years? Is arguing about the U.S. election of 1947, or the Vietnam War, allowed?

What do you think?

Current political atmosphere. Such as discussion of the health care debate in the U.S. However, discussions of Zombie Doctors that are working under a one payer health care system attacking insurance company execs and doctors not wanting to be under said plan may be in the grey zone.

Current affairs is just that -- current. Sorry, but what happened 20 years ago just isn't going to wash as 'current', unless it has direct ties to what is going on politically or militarily around the world.

With the caveat that if you're gaming it, you have to be able to discuss it.

Discussions about anyone who is presently in office or now running for office. An exception would be a historical discussion of someone who has been in office a long time but may still be in power.

Castro in the Bay of Pigs would be historical.
Castro and the embargo now would be current events.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
hystericalrightwing.blogspot.com

What is the reason for the rule in the first place?
To avoid controversy and argument?
To avoid de-railing threads into pits of off-topic bickering?
To avoid having the participants here break into camps that have no relation to their interests in miniatures/gaming(and having a bunch of them jump ship to more agreeable shores)?

Any time limit seems arbitrary.
There are plenty of people nowadays happy to kill each other over incidents from centuries ago… and it would be pretty draconian to bring the hammer down on off-topic posting.

I vote for allowing open discussion and letting the tea-cozy and doilies crowd take cover. (I know, no one is asking for votes…)

Today is current.

Yesterday is history, not that it really matters.

Just to be complete, tomorrow is the future.

However, discussions of Zombie Doctors . . . may be in the grey zone.

What a coincidence! I received a coded message, smuggled to me on the backside of a license plate, from a certain "Overly Famous Man," who asked me to mention "liberal zombies" on TMP. I was stunned by this request. I had no idea that zombies held differing political and philosophical viewpoints. I thought they basically shared the same goals: shuffle around, moan, and eat brains. Zombie intellectual activity seemed fairly simplistic. And now you inform me that there are in fact zombie doctors? Apparently there are whole depths to zombie society of which I was completely unaware! I am learning so much today!

Mostly I agree with the above. If it no longer triggers immediate responses (responses without the benefit of thinking) then it's probably history.

So if we paint up figures of political persons in the US Congress and have a pie throwing game with them, then we can talk about the healthcare debate since it is related to our wargame?

100 years, at least! Some people are still easily upset by discussions regarding Woodrow Wilson.

@Parzival:
The issue is not whether Zombies are liberal but rather what form of Liberalism they adhere to. Get one of those neo-classical liberal zombies vs. retro-progressive liberal zombie fights started and it would be easier for Bill to just shut down the whole board for a week than to Dawghouse everybody. And I shudder to thing what would happen if paleo-neo-retro-postmodernist anarcho- zombie liberalism get thrown in to the mix.

So here's the game. Obama's motorcade is attacked by a militia group armed with up to date weapons as it heads into Boise. The President's car has to remain on the road. The militia has one honkin' IED, but only one. At least three Suburbans of Secret Service are with the motorcade, and they have the ability to call in an air strike through AF1.

The reasons given to the players: Obama is attending a town hall meeting on health care. Militia has decided the only way to stop a Socialist takeover is to off the President.

So, can I discuss this game or not?

And all war is based in the failure of the political masters to avoid it.

Here's my take.

It's nothing to do with the date of the topic supposedly at hand. It's to do with connecting that topic – usually unnecessarily – with present day hot button issues.

Some people do this almost as a reflex.

And spotting politics is a little like spotting indecency. We know it when we see it. We all see it a bit differently.

So, if I tell you that the fall of the Roman Republic (which was not all that recent an event) was the consequence of a failing political system with influential men putting factional alliances and their own personal interests above the good of the country, frequently swaying the populace to their side by the worst kind of cynical manipulation, I'd be telling you the broad historical truth.

If I chose to compare any of those people, actions and events to current day equivalents (or not, because it must be no more than not-especially-well-founded opinion) I'd be bringing in politics and crossing the line.

Example 1 (OK) Napoleon spent far too much money on bricoles, funny hats, and cheap floozies.

Example 2 (Not OK) Napoleon, being a big-government statist, spent far too much of taxpayers' hard earned money on socialized bricoles, funny New York Times hats, and cheap liberal floozies from Hollywood.

"So, can I discuss this game or not"?

Yes, I assume some gentlemen, and women, with dark sunglasses, and black helicopters, or other official vehicles shall be along to collect you at length, for "discussions".

I recommend lawyering up, if you are smart…..

While my previous comments were obviously meant in jest, there is a degree of seriousness behind them. Point is that some "historical" discussions can devolve in to political slug-fests regardless of how long ago the incident in question occurred. For example, discussions about the roles played by various Allied nations during WW2. How often here or on other boards have you seen these turn in to petty, nasty "throw downs" with overt political, social and nation elements brought in to play? Even though we're talking about things that happened nearly 3/4 of a century ago and are obviously historical in nature, they still conjure up strong emotions in the present day.

By setting an arbitrary near-term date to define a "Current Affairs" topic, we potentially create an environment for "rules lawyering". Better to say that whether discussing a topic that happened last week or a few centuries ago, members should attempt to be mature and not engage in trolling. Also, people shouldn't be so quick to hit the "report" button over every slight perception of possible offense. But hey, I guess I can be idealistic sometimes! LOL

Its quite simple.
Waterboarding in 1947 labeled as torture is history.
Waterboarding in 2003 labeled as torture is current affairs.
;-)

TMP has a forum rule: "no politics".

A recent addition if memory serves correctly,
but; IIRC;
a hard decision arrived at through trial & tribulation.
Kaizen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen

This has also been defined as "no discussion of current affairs,
unless wargaming-related."

A different thing altogether,
at best: a much smaller subset of same.

Based on my admittedly limited observation over the current policy,
it would appear to be the case that 'Current affairs'
means any situation where "WE" are the "bad guys"…
(If you take my meaning).

For the sake of discussion:

Here are Games I am interested in playing in 15mm:
Tehran, 1941 -> Raid on Iran scenario
Tehran, 1979 -> Raid on Iran scenario
Tehran 1980 ->Raid on Iran scenario
Tehran 1988 ->Raid on Iran scenario
Tehran 2008 -> Raid on Iran scenario
Tehran 2010 -> Raid on Iran scenario

I am guessing only the 2010 scenario would cause red flags…

Korea 1950 ->'Battle' of Kwangju
Korea May 1980->'Battle' of Kwangju
Korea 2011 -> 'Battle' of Kwangju

I suspect only the 2011 scenario would _not_ cause red flags

Cold War Campaign game of CIA and US Marines in Central America

Yah, right.

For what its worth
I agree strongly with venusboys3 and Mlatch221
(and mildly with Mexican Jack Squint)
TMP policy may have been too 'open' in the past, but it is too restrictive now.

To wit:

It is much preferred (if admittedly more difficult) to encourage civility
rather than enforce an arbitrary "line in the sand" of historicity
(which, it amuses me to no end to say: is basically Political.)
Kaizen.

For the sake of the Poll, a less philosophical answer:
Only the current administration & office-holders of
a given members _Home Country_ should be "off limits"
everything else should be fair game for discussion.

There goes that white rabbit again

I think we'd better draw the line before 1690, just to be on the safe side.

When James half a bigot, and more of a knave
With masses and Frenchmen the land would enslave
The Protestant Boys for liberty drew
And showed with the Orange the banner of Blue
And Derry well
Their might can tell
Who first in their ranks did the Orange display
The Boyne had no shyers
And Aughrim no flyers
And Protestant Boys still carried the day.

Oh man. We need a bigger popcorn machine.

But anything involving ZOMBIES (or bacon!) is always 'current'…….

I've not had any 'current affairs'…Lady Merrit would kill me…and besides…if you've been watching SPIKE tv or 'The Khardasian Sisters' going wild in Miami….well, let's just say moving to a mountaintop in TIBET and contemplating my multiple navels sounds better all the time!

and as to the DEFINITION of 'current' or OTHERWISE politics, like sex, is in the EYE of the Beholder…or ear or other….nevermind! (hey, how about that new monster figure from Reaper with it's own 'orifice?'
yea-hawwww!)

as far as 'politics, corruption, sex, religon' and other stuff being 'current'….

Aristotle? basically said the world was going to 'heck in a hand basket' 3000 years ago and it's STILL going….(both to heck in a handbasket, and folks are still doing the same dance, to a different tune?) and as such should be fodder for both wargaming and in discussion of the wargame or role-playing game!

I'm still waiting for the 'Play at Home Edition' of LET'S make a TRILLION-DOLLAR DEAL or 'Politics makes Strange Bedfellows'….

It was Hillary in the Library (of Congress) with a Lead Gavel! or Michele in the ROSE GARDEN with the Pruning Shears…(ouch!) with the Libyan! Or maybe MJ's doctor in the West Wing Snack Bar with the RED BULL or MONSTER drink???

Me, 'political' (correct or otherwise?)…I SLISH in their general direction….how can I comment on what THEY are doing when I'm not sure any of them know either????

I'm going to get a couple of chocolate fudge pop-tarts and see if I can finish transferring the 23GB of data from my old PC to the new, 1/3rd the size, external 250GB portable HD before the old one 'croaks'…(and then I see the 1 TERRABYTE unit is going on SALE this weekend!!! AAAARRRRGHHHHHH!!!!)

Frog-nog-grogs anywonton????

Slishfully,

"Luis Wingnut and the Funkymonkey Banjo-pickers"
(aka Sgt DWW-BTOD with PTSD/ODING)

I'm with Pol – 1690 onwards is the troublesome period in this corner of the world, so ban anything from 1690 to present….

Maybe I'm being a little conservative here but I had a thought just now that we should extend that back a couple of centuries or so, as we don't want to upset the Richard III Society nutters.

No, you've got to draw the line somewhere – otherwise we'll all end up playing bronze age games only, as anything pre-Aristarchus will be out, so as not to offend the flat-earthers….

1690' is no good Mr P, you miss the Glorious Revolution and such a late cut-off date will give rise to obnoxious posters like myself comparing Judge Jeffries and the Bloody Assizes with the Whore on Terra/ Whoarrr!!!! ont Error.

Terrible puns, that have instantly left me thinking GW should do a 40K campaign where the Orks invade earth, aka the Waaaaagh On Terra….

No, you've got to draw the line somewhere – otherwise we'll all end up playing bronze age games only

I would think that some people would manage to find something to be offended in the bronze age warfare.

Never mind that the classical bronze age setting tends to center on the Middle East – and some people might manage to draw quite some analogies about that (probably disregarding all the cultural developments that have taken place in the area in the last 3000 years or so).

Which raises the question: when is "current"?

Within one calendar year.
-Kle.

1690? Hmm, I'd go for 1588 myself (with some thought to 1066). Mind you, apparently in the midele east thyey still trade insults about stuff form biblical times, so perhaps 3000BC or earlier would be OK. Those Steve Barber caveman models look handy….

Good thought – it'd also put paid to people upset at the number of boards:
- Prehistoric Gaming
- Talk About TMP

If it's on the news, it's current

"Oh! the Duchess, the Duchess! Oh! won't she be savage if I've kept her waiting!"

I'm not having a affair with anyone at the moment. Why would you guys wanna talk about it? Don't you have toys to talk about? Jeez…

I blame Hobbes.

And here I thought nothing came between you and your Calvins.

Mlatch221

---100 years, at least! Some people are still easily upset by discussions regarding Woodrow Wilson.---

! Some folks around the world are still violently upset about things that happened thousands of years ago.

Pro…

I am so glad we got rid of CA so things like this would not happen.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
- C.S. Lewis, In Freedom

LLC aka Ron

'Oh my fur and whiskers' said the White Rabbit, 'she'll have me executed.

we don't want to upset the Richard III Society nutters.

Group attack, reported

Yours sincerely

The Forum Stasi*

*They haven't existed since the Berlin Wall came down. I think I may be safaarrrrrrrrrrggggghhhhhhh!

If you're wargaming a modern period and discuss the gaming aspect it's ok. If it's about today's politics, it's not.

About 5 years. Then some things may still be current…

9am this morning. Every morning it resets.

No matter what time frame you decide upon, people see things in ways that that you can't predict. In the recent Poll topic, "How Cool is the Assyrian Army?" this was one of the replies:

Nazis of the Ancient World. No thanks.

AC current or DC current? It makes a difference when you plug in your electric devices.

It's really all very simple; Current Affairs start right where History stops and vice versa!

Donald~
glad to be of help

Inspirational Idea
for a decent, completely and totally arbitrary line of demarcation:

As everyone knows,
it is impossible for an event happening before one's own birth
to be at all considered a "current event".

Therefore, in regards to TMP;
'current events' are those happenings
only within the lifetime of TMP's youngest active member
(at a guess: 10 years).

I like the rule from Stuart Little: No being mean.

So, if you're in a frothing rage over something that you read on TMP, back off and calm down. We're all just a bunch of nuts who play with toy soldiers. Walk away from the discussion and grow a thicker skin.

If you're thinking, "This will show them!," then there's a good chance we don't really need to be shown. You're not discussing, you're ranting. Walk away from the discussion and calm down with your favorite beverage.

If you're thinking, "I'm going to say something that will really offend them!" stop and ask yourself whom you are wanting to offend, and why. A bunch of nuts who play with toy soldiers? What good will that do? Save "offending" statements for people who truly need to be offended (i.e. those with authority and the power to abuse it), and show respect to the rest. Walk away from the keyboard and develop some maturity.

All ^ of which has exactly what to do with current affairs?

Let's cut to the chase stick with the current rule. It's considered a political statement and punishable only when it conflicts with the editors' own politics and those he favours, otherwise it's just fine.

I have a strong suspicion that's how it will work out anyway.

All ^ of which has exactly what to do with current affairs?

It has to do with what the problem really is, which isn't that politics are discussed, it's that people get their knickers all in knots and forget what it means to engage in civil discourse. Instead of reasoned debate, we get insults and vitriol. If we could refrain from these, then all would be fine.

Is that a group attack Parzival?

I suggest that Bill simply eliminate the posts instead of DH'ing the individual. DH'ing is a bit of a win for the fellow. Eliminating the post so it never was gets the point across better, I think. Post the wrong stuff, and no one shall see their scintillating comeback. Nothing like having your scintillating comeback not comeback.