"Iron Law proposal" Topic

1) Considering that this is supposed to be a website devoted to gaming with toy soldiers, including interpreting history through the use of toy soldiers and miniatures

2) Considering that multiple members have shown incompetence in separating the hobby from politics

3) In order to save item 1) from item 2)

I propose an Iron Law

All discussion of politics or expression of political ideas pertaining to events of the last 100 years on the forums and boards pertaining to item 1) is to be banned with any such expression or start of any such topic to be punished by dawghousing, and branding as a "fool" on their profile for as long as said profiles are active.

Your resident autocrat.

Sound idea, but the crazies would still be able to fight about who was responsible for the outbreak of WWI…just.

Considering that warfare is the continuation of diplomacy / politics by other means I think that might be difficult. History being what it is, and all.

Talking about historical politics isn't a problem. It is using historical politics to propose a contentious modern stand point that usually presents the problem.

Here's a crazy idea: If you don't like a thread stop reading it and don't participate.

tberry7403 for the win.

Here's a crazy idea: If you don't like a thread stop reading it and don't participate.

But…but…I have so many opinions!

I would much prefer complete freedom to discuss the politics of international conflicts, with TOTALLY IMPARTIAL EDITORIAL punishment of those who start to make personal attacks or get out of line in any rude fashion.
Unfortunately, the Editor has NOT been impartial, favoring right of center views. And I say this as a resident of the far right. My side gets away with far too much here and it's not fair to the lefties.

Since I am also the person who proposed the original 10 year Statute of Limitations, confirmed by a Poll, I still favor that.
How can we discuss Vietnam without politics? Tactics in the Vietrnam were totally defined by politics, on both sides.
Or Korea?
How can we discuss the runup to WW2 without politics? That is what Churchill's history is all about, practically minutes of Parliamentary debate.

100 years is too arbitrary. We can discuss Balkan crises, but not the Great War itself.

My preference is simply to punish bad behavior, of whatever stripe.

Has anyone checked the ice?

I think this is John the OFM's best ever response and I agree entirely with his approach.

Yep, the OFM has it to a T. Don't like the discussion, don't read it…

Ktravlos, branding them a fool seems a little strong. Could we just go with a milder tone, say "buffoon"? oilicana, there appears to be either too much, or not enough, ice – but there is slime in the ice machine!

I agree with kyoteblue, costal2 and Broglie – there now, that should be safe from the house of horrors. I concur with tberry7403 and Mserafin, too, but since I am reading and commenting, Bandolier's point is well taken.

clibinarium, we all know who started The Great War! It was Hearst!

As to OFM, well, my sentiments are echoed above most eloquently by articulate and debonaire posters. Although, rather than a statue of Limitation, I prefer a column. It would come right after the fourth.

Which brings us finally to the truth – inescapable as absolute zero – expressed by Terrement.

My apologies if you post after this post. Just say something nice, remain calm, and…well, you know the rest.

My preference is simply to punish bad behaviour, of whatever stripe.

I think that's the definition of 'forum moderation'.

I don't believe that there are very many "fools" on TMP. Most of us are reasonable & polite. With some timely action by the editors, we shouldn't lurch from crisis to crisis.

Yep, as mentioned, warfare is just an extension of politics, so it is hard to remove from the discussions.

So, some seem to be trying to remove the War from Wargaming. War and Politics go hand in hand. One cannot have the one without the other. Seems there was an old German guy that said it best…

Well, a hundred year rule would let us argue about the beginning of WW1 already but NOT the unrestricted submarine warfare just yet.

Hmmm, hang on while I grab my popcorn…

Talk about contemporary events blew up several years ago and lead to the creation of the CA board. That lasted a few years until it blew up and was banished to the other side of the internet and has blown up several times since. Then the relative calm around around current events on the main boards was shattered when people began to mass post articles that were pure political bait.

In short, we managed to skirt the issue for a few years and now it's back, uglier than ever.

As for a solution, my suggestion would be to take what would constitute CA to the Blue Fez, and that we continue to DH those who get carried away when discussing politics (and bricoles) that predates this millennium, just like all other infractions on this site.

I was partly tongue and cheek, but it is not as simple are ignoring. Some of these the things said are illegal, and frankly the kind of things that close down places.

I like this website, I would not want it wrecked because of a bunch of facist and nazi dogs.

Dear KTravlos

You cannot solve this with rules.

It is a matter of personal conduct and manners.

Gentlemen should be able to discuss any subject with civility. This includes inconsequential matters as well as deep and weighty subjects.

Obviously on TMP there is no separation and people debate the saintly or demonic nature of this set of rules or that with a bitter heat that is usually seen only demonstrated between Shiite and Sunni.

That they do so is no wonder. They are given such horrible examples by their leaders, and largely taught so in their schools, and there is no sanction when they do.

If this is to change people must be responsible and muzzle themselves and discourse in a civilized way. Speech should be free, but that does not mean that one has to accept an opinion that is evil or idiotic. The means to respond against that is to let the evil or idiocy be demonstrated for itself, and to greet it with silence, for the person who advances an evil and idiotic opinion is obviously evil or an idiot. Again the gentleman does not call the person evil or an idiot, they simply ignore the person and do not respond to them, again, ever.

In this case silence does not imply consent, it signifies contempt.

Well done that OFM. Ditto OSchmidt.

LT

Hmmm…OS has it right but should follow his own rules: check the DH.

IMHO, being DH'd on this site doesn't count for much. The DH'd is not informed about being DH'd beforehand and does not get the option to retract, or apologise, beforehand (which might stop lots of bad feeling). If you get DH'd on TMP, it's akin to being lynched.

It's Bills's house so it's his rules. If he comes round to my place I'll treat him with the same regard. I understand that now and will conform. BTW, my offence was to denounce Catholic church authority and organised religion in general (I'm an atheist) – so beware.

How on earth did you imagine that wasn't going to fail the NO RELIGION rule? It's not a lynching if you get punished by the authority for breaking a well-established rule. A rule was enforced, that's the very opposite of extra-legal punishment like lynching.

And your particular religious beliefs (or lack thereof) aren't what determines whether or not you can post about it. The rule is pretty clear:

Can I discuss religion here?
No. [RELIGION RULE]

For what it's worth, I'm not a believer either, and I practice my lack of faith by NOT PREACHING!

At the risk of hijacking this thread, does a discussion about atheism invoke the no religion rule?

I'd say yes. Belief, or a lack of belief, falls within the topic of religion.

YMMV.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, does a discussion about atheism invoke the no religion rule?

I'd say it depends on what you mean by "discussion."

Simply stating that you're an atheist in the course of a discussion probably wouldn't get you DHed, any more than stating that you're a Presbyterian or a Hindu.

Discussing why or how you became an atheist, or claiming that atheism is better than belief in any deity or deities, would probably result in a quick trip to the hoose-gow.

I might also be skating close to the "Shut Up" rule… as long as we're finding all the errors in my posts, lets have credit where credit is due… :)

Hey, no harm, no foul, as far as I'm concerned.

Any member's opinion on the DH is their own. If some feel it "doesn't count for much" then being DH'ed should never come as a surprise and therefore be nothing to complain about.

My original point: looking at the current members in the DH (and why, links, etc.) I think anyone would be hard pressed to state that they should have been surprised and or they thought that what they typed was not breaking the rules.

Agreed, they're all pretty blatant.