"Reminder: The "No Politics" Rule" Topic

Since I've just received a "I won't be visiting your website again!" message from a disgruntled member whose political post was removed from the forum, perhaps it's time to remind people that the forum rules – which can be found here: TMP link – include a rule against political discussion.

More specifically, it's a "no current politics" rules (nothing within the past ten years) – if you want to discuss WWII or Napoleonic politics, go right ahead.

Also, since wargaming is military-related, we do allow discussion of current military activities, but ask participants to avoid the political side of those topics. So, for instance, it is OK to discuss the civil war in Syria, but not to discuss the war policies of political parties.

Which is a difficult line to follow…

Some might even say that ANY discussion of current MILITARY topics is an open invitation to discuss the politics behind them. It's pretty hard to separate the two.

Difficult indeed.

Some might say an impossible dichotomy.

"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

Carl von Clausewitz

Indeed. "What rules would you use, and who makes _________ in 15mm?" That covers a multitude of sins. Until it doesn't.

Huh, weird rule…

I'm curious as to who left in a huff, and why they didn't wait a minute and a huff…

It's pretty hard to separate the two.

As a general rule, if you're mentioning the name of a current politician, you've broken the rule.

There is plenty of room for discussing the wargaming-related issues of modern warfare.

I'm curious as to who left in a huff…

I don't remember his membername (he's changed it now), but he was the fellow promoting Scottish independence recently on the forum.

I dunno, Bill. I can barely think about the Copplestone barbarians and Prussian jagers on my painting table without feeling an overwhelming urge to discuss issues of Scottish internal politics.

Oh wait, that's not right. I can.

And that's why I can get along perfectly well with people whose politics I don't often agree with (Hey John!) because we talk about toy soldiers instead.

I think I am safe if I say the idea of a drone launched off an aircraft carrier is a bone head military move in the wrong direction. BUT if I say So and So political person who sponsored the idea was a bone head I would be crossing the line. Not that they are mind you.

VR
James Mattes

Hey, Jack!

Let's put this another way: Bill does not want the IRS auditing him, m'kay?

I think the rules are pretty clear and easy enough to adhere to if you want to. If you are of the mind to push the envelope and drop not very subtle inferences about one ideology or another, then you are breaking the spirit of the rule, if not the letter. Take it to the Blue fez.

So call me a brown nose. But that's my story and I'm stickin to it.

If you want a heavy dose of political discussion, then go to Face Book where the chat break down is about

50% politics
25% dog and cat pictures
15% pictures of your children
10% all other topics

. Word!

I've been married to my wife for 18 years; we are complete opposites when it comes to our political orientations. If I can't change Mrs Fritz's point of view after 18 years of trying, then what makes me think that I can get some complete stranger to change hs opinion after reading a few thread messages?

"So call me a brown nose."

Reminds me of the joke…

The difference between a brown nose and an ass kisser?

Depth perception. ; )

Well Fritz after the first 5 years you should have realized that you where wrong!!!!

William

Need to encourage more fez use.

To outweigh some of the posts of the bash bash variety.

I assume, though, that one can discuss military policy even when it directly affect or stems from political division? Example: the US has long maintained a "two war" military. In the past decade it has been allowed to decline to a 'war and a half" and may be eroding further below that level. I assume that debate is allowable for the Modern boards.

One major US party tends to favor a stronger military, while the other does not. But it is easy enough to discuss the issue without naming the parties.

Bill, suggestion from me would be to make it more obvious where the Blue Fez is and make it easier to join :-)

Jaz
revolutionaryroads.com – affordable, durable, pre-coloured wargaming roads

Blue Fez: thebluefez.com

To join: PM me.

I think the rules are pretty clear and easy enough to adhere to if you want to.

"IF" being the operative word.
However, some of us are so brilliant that mere rules are for the "others" to follow.

This is true.

I believe the quote is war being a progression of diplomacy. The man answered to a king. No political parties allowed. What is ironic is the politics that go into and during war. Always amazed by the opposition supporting and denouncing a war when it is about political expedience.

You do a difficult job Bill. Keep it up!

Thanks

martin at PP

Aside from getting the IRS onto him, I believe back in the days when the political flame wars surged back and forth across TMP, advertisers (yes folks, this is a business) became uncomfortable. Thus the no-politics rule. I prefer it this way. Isn't it possible to keep your opinions about politics off a site devoted to TOY SOLDIERS? I recall those wars; my outhouse was burned to the ground.

I also recall that a helpful forum called Wargames Digest had to cease business after a couple members went on a flame war and started threatening lawsuits against all and sundry. They should just have called for pistols at 10 paces. Or maybe 5.

"… maybe 5."

Pistols?

It's a simple rule and easy to follow.

No, really it is! If you really want to discuss a current war then before you press the submit button, check to see if you have mentioned anything political…..simples

You can discuss modern tactics and technology, no problem. Military strategy, pretty much okay too. But GRAND strategy? Hard to avoid politics in that.

It's a simple rule and easy to follow.

No, really it is! If you really want to discuss a current war then before you press the submit button, check to see if you have mentioned anything political…..simples

Maybe in your eyes. In my view, Doc Mcb brings up a good point. Another example, would be discussing the school board hearings on evolution, in the Science board. What I think is a Science topic, some one else thinks is a political topic, and someone else thinks is a religious topic. See….. not so simple.

I have to say I'm a firm believer in "Bill"s site, Bill's rules". As a moderator, he has been very fair. It's just too bad that adults can't discuss adult topics in the appropriate places without needing a "safe-zone" to protect others.

….when the political flame wars surged back and forth across TMP, advertisers (yes folks, this is a business) became uncomfortable. Thus the no-politics rule…….

With all due respect, are you suggesting that political statements on a forum hurt the sales of the advertisers?

I seem to remember that just prior to the ban, there was one bloke who believed that 'Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed' was a legitimate political and moral stance…

@ Bowman – more likely that the advertisers withdrew their advertising spend from TMP, as they didn't want to be associated in any way with those political statements. That would have then had a financial impact on Bill's ability to maintain the site.

……more likely that the advertisers withdrew their advertising spend from TMP, as they didn't want to be associated in any way with those political statements. That would have then had a financial impact on Bill's ability to maintain the site.

I understand the reason given, just not the logic. So a manufacturer of toy soldiers would withdraw advertising on the world's biggest toy soldier board because of the possibility of something being said that they personally disagree with? Why would any manufacturer or vendor seriously care what the personal political or religious viewpoints of their prospective customers might be?

First off, it's "gaming miniatures". Pure "miniatures" is more the province of CMON or Frothers. And "toy soldiers" is an entirely different aesthetic. And yes, TMP is probably bigger than Lead Adventure, but it's not very big in the grander scheme of things.

Second "possiblity" is the wrong word because things _were_ being said that angered many members, manufacturers or not.

Third, no one said anything about a manufacturers worrying about things they personally or impersonally disagree with. They may very well not wish to be associated with things they do agree with. A trader on Consimworld lost much of their business when a connection with the Storm Front forum was pointed out. TM's gun advocacy on Frothers will affect my purchase decisions.

Fourth, any citizen likely seriously cares about other people's extremist, racist, or bigoted views, and might well care about lesser disagreements. However it's a non-sequitor. Not wishing one's advertising to be associated with certain publicly expressed viewpoints (for whatever reason) has nothing to do with the viewpoints of one's customers.

The problem with discussing politics on TMP is not only that it's divisive, but that _any_ discussion on TMP is often shallow. Anytime you get a discussion on Napoleonics with someone who actually knows his stuff, you get a great deal of hooting and hollering from the know-nothing crowd about a "trainwreck".

Me, I'm still trying to figure out if the party that "favors a stronger military" is the party of Ron Paul or the party without Ron Paul?-)

HJ

I actually miss the CA board, but I understand the reasons why it had to die, so it's all good.

I might be mistaken about this, but the thread that broke the camel's back was that one about the FLDS, just about the time Warren Jeffs was arrested. The topic veered off into a discussion of child abuse (middle-aged polygamist men marrying teenage girls) and one of the members appeared to be advocating child molestation*. That's when everything imploded. So, I don't think it's politics, per se, but I think some of the advertisers became understandably worried that they might be associated with a site where discussions like that were taking place. Maybe by enforcing the no-politics rule, Bill is drawing the line far enough back that no one steps over into the REALLY bad stuff. Just a guess.

*The thread in question was thoroughly nuked within hours, so I don't recall all of the precise comments, but it was never clear to me that the person was actually advocating child molestation or not, but that was the general perception. Maybe I missed something.

the line can be blurred when discussing current events but scottish independence? that has zero chance of any wargaming potential even in the increasingly unlikely event of a yes vote….

But, they have Sean Connery, he's got to be worth two, three English regiments by himself…

I would use Kiss Kiss Bang Bang figures for this conflict.

Seems simple enough to follow…

Regards,

J. P. Kelly

Everything seems to lead to politics lately, it's nice to go somewhere were they don't.