"Bill's Politics: Bad for TMP Business?" Topic

The rest of your post is a mixture of factual error, conspiracy theory and asking questions easily available on the net.

I'd like a poll run to make this the official slogan of TMP

The issue is whether or not Bill's clear right wing bias on the forum is good or bad for his business.

Wasn't this the OP topic?

Wasn't this the OP topic?

The problem is it's a question loaded with untried and ambiguous assumptions. It's almost in the "when did you stop beating your wife?" mold. To address it first you need an agreed definition of what 'right wing' means. Then you would have to demonstrate a consistent bias on the part of the Editor. Finally you would have to have an agreed definition of what good or bad means in reference to business and make it clear whether this is by the respondents' standards or the Editor's.

Without this groundwork everyone is not answering the same question but only their interpretation of it. The net effect is if you had asked not "Is the Editor's clear right wing bias on the forum is good or bad for his business" but something like, "Do you feel bad because people disagree with you on TMP?"

My personal experience and that which I have seen in regard others, is that the Editor is extremely unfair, very right wing biased as well and picks and chooses what is Dawghousable based on his own political agenda and personal bias at any one given time.

It is Irrelevant if he belongs to a funny religion…or a religion at all…or what his political opinions are etc.

What counts and should be relevant is what is FAIR and even handed in respect of people holding a contrary view point. In that regard he has regularly shown himselve quite incapable of respecting other opinions. Indeed he does not seem to hold to any of the much lauded American principles of free speech and freedom of opinion.

You either express the same line of thought as himself, or you are dawghoused. There is nothing fair or balanced about it.

An example is of my own experience a few months back. Individuals raised the issue of carrying guns in public…indeed in a public restuarant….and of their rights under the 2nd ammendment of the American Constitution. They were not dawghoused or in any way censured. I mentioned that NRA had far too much influence on gun control….and was immediately Dawghoused for 'Politics'.

A Laughable level of bias as obviously he did not consider any discussion of the American Constitution and the right to carry offensive weapons in public as 'Political' because that suited his own views. Whereas mentioning the NRA, which he supports, was political.

That sort of thing has become far too common in recent years and it is the reason why I now only occasionally visit TMP.

True, after I was notably absent for some months, (During which time there were some more gun massacres) and replied why to various people asking, I was offered some free membership….but I have a paid one and wasnt looking for some free membership…I was looking for an apology for unfair treatment and such obvious bias and suppression of my right to hold an opinion contrary to the Editors own, and of course the gun advocates I was commenting on.

I was not just annoyed about being Dawhoused in that instance, I was deeply and personally offended by the sheer depth of bias.
It was a breach of my right to free speech one might expect in North Korea or some tin pot dictatorship, not something inflicted by someone from the so called 'Land of the free'.

It is a sad day when regard the TMP one has to recall the old saying that 'the guards are watching….but who is watching the guards?'

Gray Ghost has it right.

@Meier…What prompted this thread was Bill's DHing of one member and not DHing another both of whom were involved in the same incident.

The DH'd member expressed the sentiment that Oil/gas industrialists use their wealth to spread misinformation about climate change. The non-DH'd member, to whom the DH'd member was responding, had asserted a much discredited conspiracy theory that climate researchers were getting rich off climate change science (no, you won't find university professors spending millions of dollars in this year's election).

Bill chose to ignore the political comment by the nonDH'd member while DHing the other member for stating the obvious (funding by the oil and gas industry for climate change misinformation is a matter of public record…meanwhile the Pentagon, insurance companies, and real estate investors are all operating on the realities of climate change.. Even the oil/gas industry is preparing for an ice free arctic!)

Therefore, Bill's decision was clearly political in nature. And as I noted in my OP the issue isn't one of which side are you on wrt climate change. The issue is whether or not Bill's decision was good for business.

In another recent example a question arose as to whether or not the US was at war in a given country. I noted that only congress can declare war, so, technically, no. Bill snipped my comment because, for many on the right who like to talk about preserving the constitution, the inconvenient fact that a GOP president launched two wars without following the constitution is very inconvenient. Even the "authorization to use force" in Iraq wasn't legally executed since it included a provision requiring full UN approval which never came.

Heck, you could expand it beyond Bill and ask whether ANY wargaming company should get involved in this stuff. One TMP advertiser chimed in along those lines.

I agree with Bill that purely political discussions are not appropriate for TMP. OTOH, war and military history are shaped by politics and things get even messier in colonial wars and the Orwellian "Global War on Terror" (it's Orwellian because it can go on forever and we often side with terrorists operating in various countries or work closely with governments who terrorize their own citizens, such as Saudi Arabia and China, when there's money to be made).

Maybe TMP's scope creep is to blame. A company such as Battlefront/FoW and even Ambush Alley can keep their forums pretty well focused on their game systems and wargame stuff. Here on TMP things too often move off wargaming and that's where Bill's bias can lead to business problems for him and maybe even advertisers eventually.

For another example of bias check out the section on Khursans' new 15mm fleeing scientists.

The post mentioning the scientists are simply running for 'climate science gravy train money' is left untouched.

The one mentioning the Koch Brothers are paying top dollar for scientists (again, matter of factual record) is deleted and the author Dawghoused.

So, the anti-GW post remains, the 'pro' one is deleted.

Blatant biased editing.

"purely political discussions are not appropriate for TMP."

Sure….but when people have corresponded back and forth for many years there will always be a certain amount of exchange of opinion and ideas. I Think it is quite unavoidable. But it if goes too far, that could be dealt with via a simple note on the posts and the parties requested to stop.

And by too far, I mean if the discussion moves away from polite chat.

Removing politics entirely is impossible. Warfare itself is merely a projection of the political aims of a state by other means than negotiation.

The invasion of Iraq is now already history and some wargames game it. Yet I noted not long back that any mention at all of the political background was not permitted. It would seem at the time that it was OK to discuss the political failings and illegal behaviour of Sadam Hussien, but not the actions of the US and its allies that went against world opinion, the UN and etc.

These are just as relevant to discussion of the Iraq campaign, as the legality of the Nazi party actions were at the Nuremberg trials in relation to WW2.

And yet when the same thing occured around the same topics in the Plus Boards (which at least kept it off the main boards) you sent a slew of folks to the Dog House.

Hooray for consistency.

Then let me explain further, for those who didn't understand the first time. In order to permit a free discussion of the topic raised by the original poster, which pertains to the moderation of TMP, I am suspending normal forum rules for this topic.

There were no such grounds for suspending forum rules in the previous discussion you cite, and those who broke the rules were subject to regular forum penalties.

An example is of my own experience a few months back. Individuals raised the issue of carrying guns in public…indeed in a public restuarant….and of their rights under the 2nd ammendment of the American Constitution. They were not dawghoused or in any way censured. I mentioned that NRA had far too much influence on gun control….and was immediately Dawghoused for 'Politics'.

As I recall the discussion, someone mentioned bringing their weapon into a restaurant. Nothing political there. You were the one who turned it political by bringing in the NRA.

Whereas mentioning the NRA, which he supports, was political.

Where have I ever endorsed the NRA?

The issue is whether or not Bill's decision was good for business.

Then why not let 'business' decide? If you're right, TMP will go out of business.

In another recent example a question arose as to whether or not the US was at war in a given country. I noted that only congress can declare war…

Which is a political comment, right? Congress = politics

Here on TMP things too often move off wargaming and that's where Bill's bias can lead to business problems for him and maybe even advertisers eventually.

A large portion of the TMP readership enjoys discussing "off topic" subjects with fellow wargamers; another portion wishes TMP to "stay on topic" exclusively. Fortunately, there are many settings available to TMP members to allow them to select which portions of TMP to view on their homepage.

"Sleeping with the devil" is the bane of modern discussions of war and politics (that's a the title of a book on the USA's politico-economic relations with Saudi Arabia). Where this is supposed to be disconnected from the (recent) past is impossible to say: i.e. where/when is the discussion of politico-religious topics allowed on TMP? There is no disconnect; history is all one skein as far back as we have any known history to discuss, ergo politico-religious topics are inevitable: which places us all in Bill's power to discriminate malefactors from innocent bystanders in such discussions. As for this inconsistency being good or bad for business: individually determined answers will either result in continuing business as usual, or an increase or diminishing of Bill's customer base. Even the great kahuna of TMP can't know the future of how he individually affects his own business interests….

Hooray for consistency.

I am suspending normal forum rules for this topic.

So it occurs to me that (whilst of course you have the right to do so and with no implication as to whether I think it wrong or right) to justify inconsistency you have a selectively suspended a forum ruling for a single topic…?

Well done bangorstu, you win first prize in the "tick all the boxes" competition.

Yes, while positioning himself as the champion of disinterested scientific logic bangorstu has offered no actual arguments to demonstrate the theory of global warming preferring instead to alternate between the ad hominem and ad verecundiam fallacies or implying ownership of a BMW is a sign of moral corruption.

And now he seems to be implying that the British government confiscating a greater proportion of its citizens wealth in order to give it to third world governments than the US government does gives him some sort of moral superiority. British and US citizens also donate privately to charities which operate in the third world – a genuine moral actsince it is predicated on choice.

I wonder how much of his own GDP bangorstu voluntarily donated in the last year?

In another recent example a question arose as to whether or not the US was at war in a given country. I noted that only congress can declare war…

Which is a political comment, right? Congress = politics

Nope. Not even close.
Article I, section 8 enumerates the Powers of the Congress, among them being "The Congress shall have power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
Note that the Constitution was adopted in 1789, thus being older than the TMP Statute of Limitations.

The FACT that only Congress can declare war is not a political opinion. If I were to assert that Congress has been spectacularly spineless in asserting this duty, now THAT would be "political", again taking into account the TMP 10 Year Rule.
Voting on resolutions to "authorize the use of force" can be spineless, particularly if the current Secretary of State whined after force WAS used. "But I never thought he would actually do it!"
((I am assuming the blanket amnesty offerred to this thread only is in affect. Besides, I THINK the 10 year applies…))

If I were to say that electing Wilson in 1912 was a disaster, but at least it spared us the horror of a born-again Progressive Constitutional nihilism from Roosevelt, now THAT would be political. Up to 1922, that is. After that, it's fair game.

I am assuming that since The Editor brought this up, that my post is fair game. I am NOT going to take it as license to comment on the current election, though. I am not THAT dumb. Unless The Editor mentions it, of coure.

The FACT that only Congress can declare war is not a political opinion.

Seconded.

Much of this thread merely demonstrates the mutual bafflement with which we view the antics of our transatlantic cousins.

Two countries separated by a common language and all that.

The Editor wrote:

(Government funding = gravy train) is a pretty common opinion, and an apolitical one.

It is a profoundly political opinion.

That the editor doesn't think it is says quite a lot about the nature of his political beliefs.

Much of this thread merely demonstrates the mutual bafflement with which we view the antics of our transatlantic cousins.

Back at you, dude!

Derek, I agree with you, even while agreeing with The Editor, at least up to the comma.

me likes poler bares.
regards
Russ Dunaway

Alex – look at the Met. Office website on Climate change.

link

Knock yourself out. government scientists who do NOT rely on coming up with odd ideas to get their money.

As they say, scientists have looked for all kinds of explanations as to why the climate is changing and only one – human activity – fits the bill.

As for the percentage of my own income which I donate to charity – more than the UK does as a percentage of my taxes for sure since you ask.

And yes, given the amount of pain and trouble the First World visits on the Third, I do consider giving them a hand-up as a moral objective.

Obviously as an economist you regard balance sheets as more important than morality, but many of us don't.

That Mormons think of themselves as Christians is kinda irrelevant.

Christians don't regard them as Christians – at least outside America.

Okay, now I'm really disappointed in you, Stu.
You use bigotry as a counterargument against facts?

Lots of white people didn't used to think black people were people, but that DID NOT make them other than people…

I'm not of the religionist flavor myself, but if you look in the Bible, Jesus' description of what makes a Christian covers the LDS Church just fine… I'm unsure of what other yarsdtick could possibly be legitimately used.
-Kle.

But back to the original point of the thread.

"Is the perceived political bias of The Editor having a negative impact on the business side of TMP?"

How in the heck would any of us be in a better position than Bill to know his business? And even if our opinions were equally valid, the subsequent data is fatally flawed. The very fact that they are reading this thread means that participants in this discussion are obviously not offended enough to simply avoid TMP. In other words, the "votes" of those who are bothered enough by Bill's perceived bias to boycot the site will logically not be counted.

But if your true objective was to circumvent Bill's anti-political discussion policy by disgusing your ad hominem jihad under the altruistic guise of looking after Bill's interests, you've succeeded.

If Bill really wants to make money, he should suspend the gag rule but charge members for each person they 'stiffle'.

Obviously as an economist you regard balance sheets as more important than morality, but many of us don't.

I'm not an economist, I'm a businessman. I just happen to have an advanced degree in economics.

Jolly well done for putting your money where you mouth is. I just wish you weren't so keen on putting everyone else's money there too whether they want to or not.

As they say, scientists have looked for all kinds of explanations as to why the climate is changing and only one – human activity – fits the bill.

Actually "scientists" hold a number of conflicting views on global warming. Here's one:

link

Rather than engage in a pointless tit for tat linkfest to scientific papers online the point is that – as others here have pointed out and then been insulted by you – the cast iron consensus you insist on doesn't exist. And nor should it since science is a method, not a position.

Alex – that study doesn't debunk the idea of AGCC at all.

As the author himself states here –

link

It just means (if he is correct) that on current trends it'll take us longer to screw the pooch than we think.

Which is good news, but (as Schwartz himself says) it doesn't mean we can ignore the problem.

So – can you find me any other global climate scientists who agree with my position? It's rather gratifying that you're finally quoting people who agree with me….

After the first page, I mostly skipped the rest of the discussion, but I think I've got the gist of it.

Bottom line: Bill's doing a great job. There are policies I disagree with on this site, but overall I'm pretty happy with TMP.

Arguments about politics (like most of this post) are for Blue Fez. I know there are some people who think their opinions are just so awesome that they don't even count as ideological. No matter how indignant your tone, it's still ideology you're spouting, and reasonable, good-hearted people can (and do) object. They're are often right.

The complaint doesn't seem to be that TMP has an ideology, it's that it isn't their ideology. Boo hoo. I see every ideology on the boards I frequent, and we get along because we mostly stay out of politics.

Some gaming discussions have a political dimension and so belong here. Some political discussions are just political and belong on Blue Fez. In between, necessarily, is a grey area and Bill does a good job policing it.

Bill's comments in this thread have done more to prove my point than anything I could write.

He selectively edits TMP with an extreme right wing perspective and is incapable of seeing the irony of his comments (eg his declaration that noting the fact that only congress can declare war is "political" while he allows others to make absurd claims that professors are getting rich off climate research). Yes, he is of the school that facts and reality (eg the text of the constitution) is biased against right wingers.

Remember, TMP's product is NOT the posts we write or the ads. We, the membership, are the product sold to advertisers. The advertisers are the customers. We're the eyeballs.

Over the long haul the question will be this: do members really want to frequent and participate in a wargaming forum with an extreme right wing perspective?

I'm getting tired of all the right wing stuff personally and would rather just read about wargaming. Is there another forum more focused on wargaming other than those run by manufacturers?

The complaint doesn't seem to be that TMP has an ideology, it's that it isn't their ideology. Boo hoo.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.

No, the observation is that the stated TMP policy is no politics but then, in action, there's clearly an extreme right wing perspective when it comes to editing and treatment of members.

Maybe someone should start a forum that's less political and more focusedon toy soldiers?

Plenty of them out there – including the one I spend most time on.

I note bill didn't comment on my observation that he lets climate-change denial posts stay but deletes those who support climate change as 'political'.

to say this board has no bias is to be blind to the evidence.

Still, it's been an interesting discussion – if only to realise how few people actually understand anything about science except what Fox News tells them.

And for the revelation that selling M1s to Egypt counts as 'humanitarian aid'….

You either express the same line of thought as himself, or you are dawghoused. There is nothing fair or balanced about it.

Respectfully Mal, I would have to disagree. I have differed with him many times in opinions, and it's not what I say but how I say it and how I conduct myself. When I step over the line, I find myself in the slammer.

An example is of my own experience a few months back. Individuals raised the issue of carrying guns in public…indeed in a public restuarant….and of their rights under the 2nd ammendment of the American Constitution. They were not dawghoused or in any way censured.

For those of your reading this….
That was me that OC'ed into the restaraunt.
The article was completely pulled by Bill because it degenerated into a "People shouldn't own guns" and "Americans are all gun happy nuts!" vs "Yes we should" and "No we aren't"…arguments.
The entire OP that was mentioned had to do with the fact that I had a young lady in her 20's that was an American citizen that had never even HEARD of "The Second Amendment", and was unfamiliar with her own state laws on personal protection, plus being in a business, she should have a basic idea what the laws were on OC/CC carry.

Respectfully Mal felt that the idea of me "carrying a gun into a restaraunt" was a bit "too much".
We disagreed to the point where he even assumed that I was trying to insinuate that I would've shot the person in the grocery store that had stolen my wallet, had I been him.

Did it go over the line? Yes…Had we discussed the concept of educating people on what they should know vs the tired old "Guns are bad! You Americans are crazy for owning them!" mantra, it would've been a more interesting conversation.

I had and have no ill feelings towards Mal…I simply think that he was wrong in his assumptions and I do believe that he overreacted on the posts and the discussions.

I mentioned that NRA had far too much influence on gun control….and was immediately Dawghoused for 'Politics'.

I agree with Mal..it does…and it's a lobby organization…like so many others…I should've been in there alongside of him for that.

A Laughable level of bias as obviously he did not consider any discussion of the American Constitution and the right to carry offensive weapons in public as 'Political' because that suited his own views. Whereas mentioning the NRA, which he supports, was political.

Bill supports the NRA? I didn't know that….Is that true Bill?

As far as I know, The Editor has never stated his political opinions, overtly.
One is reduced to trying to "interpret" what his opinions are by what he deletes, and who he Dawwghouses. Or bans.

He is very human in how he bans and DHes. You have a better chance of getting the hook by being obnoxious than "wrong" or "incorrect". At least, that is how HE sees it. You may disagree, and as one who claims to be a "victim" of his rather whimsical and arbitrary sense of justice, I OFTEN disagree.

Plenty of them out there – including the one I spend most time on.

So Stu….if you are so dissapointed in this site…why aren't you at that other one instead then?

Let me just throw out a few talking points…

1. There are no innocent governments, only innocent people.

2. Please ask the Romans how well using renewable energy worked for them, or the Celts, or the Mongols… I for one, appreciate the standard of living that fossil fuels have allowed us to attain.

3. Polar Bears… Like

4. Pumpkin Pie…

5. Evolution vs. Creationism… I don't understand. If one believes God is all powerful couldn't He make the rules for evolution? Bible literalists scare me.

6. Climate change? Yes. Man's responsibility… Debateable.

7. Wargames Foundry, AB, Perry, Heroics and Ros. My favorite figure manufacturers.

8. TMP – made many friends, no enemies. Love the ads.

9. I refuse to feel guilty about events that happened before my birth.

10. I believe in truth but I practice deception.

11. I would gladly jump in front of the bus to save my kids, but some days I think I would rather be the bus driver.

12. No matter how many books are written, how many new revelations are found, re-assessments made, Napoleon still lost at Waterloo. But I thank God for Madame Mere for Napoleonic wargaming is a great joy in my life.

OBVIOUSLY, this turncoat has been paid off by Big Oil.
link

He was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary, for three years. Now he is the CEO of the electric power company RWE subsidiary RWE Innogy,

One is reduced to…

Precisely, I do not question the idea the Editor has bias, I have never met a human being who does not and so it would be strange to me if he were an exception. I do not understand precisely what 'right-wing' means, I suspect there is no objective definition, only Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, 'I know it when I see it', which disallows any rational agreement. The only kind of agreement you can have about this kind of characterization is the sort of agreement that forms mobs, irrational tribal conviction.

They say as soon as you mention a certian former chancellor of Germany you have lost the argument, for me as soon as you use the words right-wing or left-wing to describe something as complicated as a human being you have signaled you are not interested in rational discussion.

"They say as soon as you mention a certian former chancellor of Germany you have lost the argument, for me as soon as you use the words right-wing or left-wing to describe something as complicated as a human being you have signaled you are not interested in rational discussion."

Beautifully put.

Willy Brandt?

Pretty sure he was referring to Prince Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst

"Mako – in what way is military aid "humanitarian"?".

Ah you're right. Should have let the Germans take over back in WWI, and/or WWII (could have been the Russians too, afterwards), instead of fighting in those wars, which weren't really our fight, and in providing lend-lease equipment.

Then no doubt, assuming your relatives, and/or others would have survived the massacres and purgings, you'd be speaking German or Russian, and we might not be having this discussion today.

I guess our Trillions of $ spent to provide a nuclear umbrella over your islands were wasted too, during the Cold War.

Oh wait, no all-aspect Aim-9Ls either provided, for that Falklands Islands dustup, so your Sea Harriers can't down all those Argentinian bombers as effectively as they did, and you lose more ships, men, and possibly a carrier or two, and maybe even the war there.

No military interventions/assistance in the Balkans, Indonesia, Kuwait, Haiti, Japan, and/or other regions either, to try to save people, after during and after genocide, tidal waves, earthquakes, floods, rogue dictators, etc.

Don't forget, CO2 is a pollutant, so best to get rid of all things that put that out, since it might kill the trees……

Perhaps the Daleks have it right. Exterminate, exterminate…..

Oh wait, that doesn't sound right (heavy sarcasm above, if you can't tell), since I seem to recall trees and plants like CO2.

Oh, and just to be clear, I support both the 1st and 2nd Amendments to our constitution, since free speech, and the guns to protect from oppressive governments and criminals is a good thing.

@bangorstu – sorry, bit of a shoot self in foot moment. Google did throw it up at me with quotes saying it was more critical of global warming than your link makes out. My fault for doing things in a rush and not really checking properly. And he does say things aren't as bad as many claim which is, actually, evidence of a plurality of opinion even if it's not quite what I had in mind.

So, here you go. link

Anyway – I'm not going to change your mind by nattering on TMP Talk and you won't change mine so, y'know. Just don't assume people who don't hold your opinions on such matters are ill educated or non educatable.

Ciao. It's been enlightening but I'm back to the miniatures boards.

I'm just glad the Editor is perceived consistent about /something/!

Cherry-berry pie is absolutly to die for. The filling to my taste is 50% cherry and the other half is blue berrys, raspberrys and blackberrys.

Oh wait, that doesn't sound right (heavy sarcasm above, if you can't tell), since I seem to recall trees and plants like CO2.

Sarcasm on TMP!!
This is a new low

Mako – sorry, military spending is required, but in no way is it 'humanitarian'.

In any case, you'll notice that the UK has it's own nuclear deterrent….

Actually, given your comments elsewhere, perhaps you don't know.

After all, you think giving the Bahrainis the muscle to imprison doctors for having the nerve to give medical treatment to unarmed wounded democracy protestors equates to vaccinating babies….

Incidentally Mako, even by your own twisted definition, there was no aid to Britain in WW2.

We paid for every last bloody bullet we got from you.

Which is more, I'm guessing, than the Egyptians and Israelis have done….

This isn't going to end well.

It didn't start well. Robert

It's like a trainwreck…but I can't look away.

I think you are confusing this

link

with this
link
link
link

CACA has never left our soul. We want it. We miss it. TBF is a mere shadow world compared to the vibrancy that was the old CACA….