"Delete 'Korea 2013' Threads." Topic

No politics, no religion on TMP…

Discussing current affairs, even if everyone is attempting rationality, is always going to be tricky. The threads (in Modern Discussion) on the current situation in Korea contain views that are patently not suitable for the WARGAME side of TMP. Some of the views are distasteful for website devoted to a hobby.

Surely TMP's own boundaries should limit any discussion to 'Which rules/figures'. Whether such a discussion is distasteful is another matter: however it would relate to wargaming, and not the personal political views of posters.

Agree, and is it about time we agree a five year rule about current issues – (I am not against a longer time either)

My dad still doesn't talk about the last one.

Totally disagree here. Current Military contingency plans and possible military actions are fair game. talking about the political considerations is also fair as warfare is an extension of politics. Talking about the political parties is not.

VR
James Mattes

So I cant talk about gaming a possible war in 2014 or 2015 since it would be within the 5 year rule and it might offend someone or some country?

I think in general we have far to many thin skinned people around here. You can't talk warfare and leave out the politics not all the time.

OP may have a point as even something not quite modern and current affairs (Falklands as an example) brought out a few heated comments.
Some remarks were not related to wargaming in the end, no matter how innocent they may have been (clever fire lighting perhaps?).
May be a case of riding the storm aswell .These topics often blow over with no damage after.
Plus as mentioned before many times if anyone goes all 'tricky' with some comments you can always go into Stifle mode.

Then delete the offending comments, not the thread.

If someone says "I think that the N. Korean P-76 tankoplane will kick the crap out of anything America can put into the sky" that is about the military nature of the conflict.

If someone says "I believe that China will enter the war but will push through N. Korea and occupy it then call an armistice effectively taking N. korea" that would be about the political aspect of it.

If someone says "I can't wait for the Americans to get theirs when the war starts" that is their own political opinion.

Clearly the first two examples are relevant to anyone wargaming the conflict while the third is not.

We could delete comments like the third while leaving 1 and 2 intact within the thread.

A five year ban is arbitrary. Why can't I be offended about a war that happened 20 years ago if it happened in my country and no war has happened since.

I think in general we have far to many thin skinned people around here. You can't talk warfare and leave out the politics not all the time.

Not ever. Remember what Clauswitz said – Warfare is an extension of politics by other means.

Agree with the thin-skinned people thing. They should take up knitting – but then again I have a friend who said those knitting forums get a bit tetchy at times – so they probably wont even get the relief they seek there.

I've never stifled anyone. I don't intend to start- why invalidate someone's knowledge of WSS because of their opinions of 2013.

We all know that North Korea's ruling classes are "odd"- no one would deny that. There are interesting discussions to be had on the North Korean psyche- and if those discussions are well informed and well reasoned they go beyond the pantomime villainy it is easy to paint of the leadership. I could easily play devil's advocate, presenting the case for N.K. attitudes. The State Department and the FCO certainly employ people who could robustly defend NK's position, and make some posts look childish.

That is not a discussion for TMP. No Politics, no Religion. Bill deleted 'Current Affairs' for a reason. 'Moderns' should therefore not be a cloak for 'CA'. Even if a 'CA' style post is accurate, it could still bring forward the opinions of someone who is opposed to the argument it lays out. Things can only go bad from that point.

What Brian said.

So I would vote to keep them.

DM

"Bill deleted 'Current Affairs' for a reason."

I believe that Bill deleted it so that things would not veer too far away from miniatures and wargaming on none related topics. I don't believe that he deleted it so that we would not talk about issues related to wargaming, like political and religious aspects of war where relevant.

" Things can only go bad from that point."

Not true. It could lead to discussion or it could be ignored. Or even if it does go bad to some degree people could ignore the people who are causing it to go bad and continue talking about the relevant things.

If shrinking violets, and folk uneasy about their positions, don't like it, don't click on the thread title, FFS.

I disagree, but of course I thought silly to delete CA boards in the first place. Never felt offended by them, and only participated when I wanted. Nobody put a gun in my head to read them or to intervene. At least, we have The Blue Fez. It's refreshing not to need to walk on your tiptoes to avoid offending someone' "sensibilities".

I was one of those who supported deleting the CA board as a pointless distraction from wargaming, but I don't think a '5 year rule' on military conflicts makes sense; recent conflicts or potential conflicts are definitely valid wargame material. If some of the threads veer off into pure political material, well that's why we have The Editor….

-Will

And if anyone thinks five years--or any number at all--means strong feelings and emotions might be reduced need only ask here "What Caused the American Civil War?"

If you don't want to read the rational/irrational heat, stay out of that kitchen.

The First Amendment doesn't gave a rodent's sphincter about peoples' "feelings," just the right to free expression. YOU are responsible for what you "feel," not anyone else.

TVAG

"Which set of rules most accurately reflects the war-gaming effects of US war crimes in modern (Vietnam onward) Counter-insurgency warfare?"

How about

"What would the course of the Iraq War be if the US hadn't committed war crimes?"

This thread should be deleted!!!!!!

Some folk just like to act like the Alternative World of Adventure Gamers they are especially figures that live under engineering structures over watercourses.

FWIW I would love to see a computer or board game of modern air war in Korea.

Of course you have to question the historical knowledge of anyone who classifies KJU as "odd". Now you want to throw in what you called "US War crimes Vietnam to the present.

Not going to take your bait.

VR
James Mattes

Don't read them. Seriously. Are you children that need to be protected from being offended by the editor?

If anything, I think it's a good argument for bringing the CA board back. Is no one to discuss any conflict currently or hypothetically happening? Shouldn't such a ban be extended less it offend others? Maybe the last two decades should be off limits. Surely we should extend that to the Falklands, people still get worked up about that and the issue still appears in current events. How about WW2 -- one side was executing one of the most evil agendas in history, what is more offensive than turning them into toy soldiers?

What's the Blue Fez?

Isn't Kim Jong Un the current free fire target now that Osama is dead?

You have your Seal Team X scenario to take him out.

Oh and the Larry Bond Red Phoenix stuff.

Let's all sing: I'm a little despot short and stout…

The Editor will decide what is appropriate. That's his duty.

Warfare is the only Human endeavor to fully encompass all aspects of Faith, Art and Science. It better be discussed.

Any dictator that threatens to nuke a city needs to be discussed.

We are all veterans or have close relatives that are veterans. We know better than NOT discuss it.

I always have either a '1933' feeling or a '1938' feeling.

Something is going to happen. Have'nt felt this way since the Wall came down.

""Which set of rules most accurately reflects the war-gaming effects of US war crimes in modern (Vietnam onward) Counter-insurgency warfare?"

How about

"What would the course of the Iraq War be if the US hadn't committed war crimes?""

These are good examples of how invalid your point is. Both of those questions could be asked about Vietnam, the first Gulf War and any other wars that wouldn't be covered by your five year censorship. They would still generate animosity.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Last Hussar. I believe that it is extremely necessary to include political and possibly religous references to many discussions on war, even non-current actions. Take for example the various iterations of the Anglo-Irish wars. Forget anything fro the 1990's back to say the early 1700's. Is it wrong or out of place to mention the role and nature of religion in that discussion? Now, the question is going to be can you do it in, shall we say a clinical way, divorced from emotional or obvious, or blatant inflammatory comments and statements. Likewise the rise of Communism in Latin America, definitely wouldn't be under the aegis of a five year rule but still has the potential to inflame or incite people.

The trick, indeed if it is so is to be as, non-incediary as possible. It's one thing to say something like "Leader 'X' isn't in touch with events and happenings in his region and the world." and saying "Leader 'X' is a complete nutjob and I hope he dies under an avalanche of incendiary lemmings!"

If worded as I first did, the message conveys a calm, neutral tone that can advance the discussion. The second might be acceptable without the last comment. Let's face it we all think our own leadership is a bit nutty, even if we did vote for them. Is it a job you'd want? Anyway, the point of the previous illustration is tro show that the discussion can be continued in a rational, logical manner. We just need to avoid OBVIOUS inflammatory rhetoric when doing so.

I think in general we have far to many thin skinned people around here. You can't talk warfare and leave out the politics not all the time.

Agreed on both counts.

I'm offended that you're offended

War is politics.

If politics offends you than you need a different hobby or you should stick to science fiction and fantasy.

These are good examples of how invalid your point is. Both of those questions could be asked about Vietnam, the first Gulf War and any other wars that wouldn't be covered by your five year censorship. They would still generate animosity.

Hell, I've seen those questions asked about the ACW!

-Will

If one is going to have modern war games one needs to keep up.

Then we should not even have a forum for miniature WARgaming. Someone, somewhere will always be offended by something. People should stop looking for reasons to be offended.

Perhaps Last Hussar just needs to go play with his own toys by himself since he doesn't seem to want to play nicely with others.