"All right. WHY is "politics" bad on TMP?" Topic

If *I* ran TMP I would not punish "politics". I would punish bad behavior.

As the OFM and I have admitted many times I am a raving right wing nutjob. I is what I is.
Yet I have many good friends who are polar opposites of me. Do we get along? Of course we do because we do not let that insignificant factor get in the way of gaming, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes. And farting. That's what life is about, hainna?
The key is that we can insult Hillary or Reagan (the greatest man of the last 50 years) and it does not affect our friendship. What WOULD affect it would be bad behavior.

So I suggest to my good internet friend who I will probably never meet in person Don Kyoteblue that he abandon his crusade against "politics" and instead crusade for punishment of bad behavior.

Throw open the gates, and if you insult people, go to jail. Do not collect $200. USD

In the present climate, I cannot call into question the accuracy of FOX News. Yet MSNBC or the New York Times is a valid target. That is crazy.
Let people say what they want to say but if they act like s (rectums or cloacae) throw them in the hoosegow.

Yea or nay?

Not my call but it seems to me it can get into vicious name calling usually having no other point other than to knock the other person down without anything to do with point they are countering with.

Then lock them up if it goes to name calling. 10 days.

This is a wargames site. War is the pursuit of state policy by other means. War is political. I've never been able to understand the rather fuzzy way the no politics rule is enforced around here. I think folks ought to be able to discuss whatever they like. But bad behavior, name calling and the like, can and should be punished.
As many have pointed out in the past, we tend to be older folks around here. Kind of strange some of us seem unable to act like it at times…

All right. WHY is "politics" bad on TMP?

Because people take things to extreme levels, in part because few people outside of fanatics really care enough to spend time on a gaming website to argue politics. And in part because there tends to be vitriol against people who are outside of the mainstream (and those of us outside of the mainstream see that as personal attacks). And in part because the big issues in current American politics revolve around the treatment of minorities, which always leads to name-calling.

War is the pursuit of state policy by other means.

True, and (for example) the politics of Climate Change can be transformed into games and scenarios related to wars over resources or newly thawed territory. But what about the politics of gay rights? How could that be turned into a game?

PUNISH BAD BEHAVIOR.

People have no sense of humor?

In the present climate, I cannot call into question the accuracy of FOX News. Yet MSNBC or the New York Times is a valid target. That is crazy.

Actually, the TMP FAQ says…

Can I question the reliability of a news source?

Yes, if the criticism is fact-based and not based on politics. Saying "The National Enquirer is only a tabloid." would be OK. Saying "Don't trust The New York Times, they're so left-wing" would not be OK.

I should stay out of this but WTH this is a recurring issue. Hopefully I won't comment again.

All Fine and Dandy but, guess what, the problem (lack of balance) is, IMHO, right wing or whatever label you want to stick on me, the "current administration" aka Bill.

If one person has a problem with you it probably is them. Two still could be them. When so many of different views seem to see you as the problem it might be time to talk, a long honest talk, to your priest/pastor/bishop/old friend who calls you out when you are wrong. You might be right but when attacked it can be hard to be objective about one's own part in a fracas.

Bill is a fine person from what I can see but it does seem he has some blind spots about certain issues.

My personal preference is to avoid politics in my war-games as much as I can because… I really don't see any difference except degree between Fredrick the Great, George III, Emperor Napoleon, or fricking Charlemange. Royals = bad until proven otherwise. And maybe not even then…

Of course I despise Andrew Jackson (Father is mixed/Cherokee) too but that is my personal peccadillo.

When it gets into my personal time line it is hard to not feel more connected and personal which Is why between the fall of Nixon (roughly 1974 AD) and 2300 AD I don't tend to war game. I figure 2300 AD is about as close to current politics as I want to get.

I don't think you can keep politics of the fiery kind out of current wars and I don't think you can make people behave. But you can punish rudeness.

Would/Could I do better than Bill? I don't know TBH.

Based on past experience, no.

Well John the OFM and Winston Smith, we both seem to think that The Editor(s) could be more balanced in their Moderation and punish both left and right equally when they behave badly.
Will The Editor(s) do that ????

Based on past experience, no.

Because it reminds us of what divides us. The hobby should be something that brings us together as a community and as folks with shared interests.

Politics isn't bad. Just THEIR* politics.

* Meaning anyone who disagrees with US** at the time.

** Meaning everyone who agrees with me.

Nothing is more polarizing these days than an attempt to discuss politics on the internet. No one is listening, few bother to actually read, its just shout my point of view and belittle your point of view if it doesn't agree with mine till another argument arises, then rinse and repeat. Plenty of places to do that on the interwebs, we don't need it here.

I have a political view and those who know me know what it is. Like Winston and OFM I have plenty of gaming friends who are my polar opposites politically. When we are together we don't talk politics, we talk gaming or other things since we have long ago agreed to disagree on that front. Almost impossible to reach that kind of accord on a web forum or blog. Political discussions breed bad behavior plain and simple so lets not go there in the first place and let the dawghouse stand empty a few days.

Just one man's opinion…YMMV

I go to reddit for politics. The down vote is my friend.

Yet I have many good friends who are polar opposites of me. Do we get along? Of course we do because we do not let that insignificant factor get in the way of gaming, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

And

Like Winston and OFM I have plenty of gaming friends who are my polar opposites politically. When we are together we don't talk politics, we talk gaming or other things

reflects my view on this pretty accurately. Iīm usually staying out of this debate, but the issue has reached dimensions that let me feel like TMP is suffering from it.

I donīt need to discuss politics to play games. Iīm playing Ultra Modern and I donīt need to debate on wether the current affairs surrounding it and interventions are meaningful or not.

If Iīm using what-if scenarios, Iīm working from assumptions to possible outcomes – thatīs never an exact science, but it doesnīt matter here as long as it provides a fun and interesting background. Again, I do not need to infer any debate about why my imagined events transpire or even if they SHOULD transpire.

Thus, I don not need to (and donīt want to) discuss if "Putin needs to be stopped now", "US military cuts will kill the nation" or "Climate change is a lie and your scenario is wrong"

Please keep in mind that we are a very diverse group with many different interests but ONE common hobby: Wargaming.
Instead of raving about the things that divide us and driving away part of the audience that does not share certain views, we should focus on the common interest we share.

Please also keep in mind that TMP has become somewhat international, so discussing politics in US-centric terms doesnīt make sense. Especially with foreign moderators who do not have the background to judge certain debates!!
And donīt forget us europeans (or canadians, australians, etc.), who have no conception of US mistrust and rejection of government services (especiall social and health care) – do you really think itīs meaningful to discuss politics on such a diverse background of cultural and personal experiences without focusing on a clear outcome or decision to be made?
What do you hope to achieve? There are no benefits, people are usually not that easy to convince or your opinion.

Letīs just leave this contentious topic and move on to the meaningful stuff: Wargaming.

I try to be a devout Catholic. I'm a fanatic Liverpool FC fan. When I go onto a Liverpool fan site I'm not expected to engage in religion. If it ever did come up I'd be extremely non confrontational about it. It obviously wouldn't be the place to impress my beliefs on anyone else.

Is the question of politics being tolerated on a wargames site as straight forward? Well probably not since there are those who believe and argue that it's integral to understanding warfare or national or international conflict. But if it is mentioned or discussed surely it should then only be done in the context of wargaming and without subjective opinion.

If I do insist on discussing my Catholicism on the Liverpool "Red or Dead" forum within the context of the site (remembrance service held at Anfield for those who died at Hillsborugh for example) then I'm an idiot to start arguing theology with a Liverpool fan who happens to be a Muslim . There are more suitable places to do that.

Some forms of entertainment are very polarizing.

A bar owner I knew a few years ago mentioned this with regards to country music. He noted that he had a number of customers who really liked Country Music. But when they came in and started playing it on the juke box, his over all crowd would dwindle. If you don't understand this with Country Music, than use Rap music as your point of reference.

In my experience, discussing politics is on par with Rap Music. First, it is rarely much of a discussion, and typically, regardless of whether it is on the right, the left, or somewhere else, relatively few folks have the time to learn the nuances of the subject. Think how many people are clueless about military history, and realize that politics (beyond emotive defenses of one tribe) is every bit as complex. Unless you research your politics as closely as you do your favored military period, you likely have some serious holes in your knowledge.

Lots of sound comments here politics by its very nature tend to be divisive. Best dealt with on a politics site rather than a wargames one. Hordes of the former not so many of the latter.

Yep. I have plenty of places online to discuss, politics, and I take full advantage of them. I have only one good site for discussing miniatures, and having to plow through certain political views or puerile, sexist yukfests (wudja do this one or that one?), while I'm on it, without being able to respond is a negative.

Let's continue to keep this site as focused as possible on what it does best.

The problem is few people can really debate. They know how to scream and insult and rant and name call, but that's because that's what they see as examples from their leaders and late-night celebrities.

To debate you have to carefully define your terms, you have to carefully define your questions, you have to carefully define the context of the debate, and most of all have agreed upon "authorities." That is, authoritative sources accepted by both sides. The best example of this last problem, which is really the most important, I can muster is the debate between evolution and creationism. The problem is neither side is going to accept the "authority" of the other side. The evolutionists won't accept the Bible and the creationists won't accept Darwin. At that point debate is pointless. Bring on the calumnies, innuendo and name calling.

A "discussion" is something different. It's a debate without a conclusion, that is an exposition of the opinons of both sides so that each side understands and is conversant with the opinion of the other.

THAT however means an genuine desire to understand, not just wait till the other side stops talking to begin the innuendo, name-calling and ranting. To understand the other side you have to be able to credit that the other side has an opinion worth knowing and that might indeed be valid. You have to accept the other side as an intelligent, valid human being.

I say again, a valid human being. That is that within the bounds of polite society the person is worthy of consideration, respect, and given the benefit of the doubt that they might just be right.

But then again, dehum0minizing the enemy is all part of modern political (or religious) discussion.

In Society of Daisy, even though it's about Humor and Whimsy in Wargames and Imagi-Nations, the topics range widely over all sorts of things, from the most ethereal to the gutter. If I was to characterize the Society it's like a bunch of guys who meet at a basement group for a game without the game. The discussion occasionally turns to religion and politics. There's no dawghouse.

There's me.

Once the personal innuendo starts I land and pick apart the arguments or worse, enforce the discipline of debate above.

No politics. I want to talk gaming not listen to crap.

Politics would be fine if folks were mature enough to leave it on whatever board is consigned to be the garbage dump. However, the last time we allowed free-for-all political discussions it spilled over into every other forum. It was getting impossible to hold a discussion on any topic, no matter how obscure or apolitical it might seem, without some chuckle heads dragging their disagreement from the political board over into the current topic. Anyone who claimed they couldn't see a problem was one of the bastards causing it. I basically swore off TMP since the signal to noise ratio was dropping right down to zero. I'd hate to see it return to that, and people have definitely not gotten more mature in the meantime.

As for the 'just report them if it gets nasty , it will be taken care off', the Editor was flooded with too many complaints to handle before and it will happen again. Besides, I have zero interest in policing the discussion topics I'm interested in; I just want to read them. If banning politics is what's required for that to happen, then I'm content with that solution.

-Will

The main issue is that Dear Editor in Chief does a rather fair job punishing personal attacks. He does a very poor job of keeping "politics" out of TMP. Just look at who gets away with what on Ultramodern and who doesn't. The only place politics would crop up would be on Ultramodern and that can be turned off.
All I am asking is that we acknowledge facts.

We already have a 10 year statute of limitations. Vietnam is fair game as are the Falklands for political discussion and no problems.
Lincoln's politics are often discussed, as they should be.

We can't handle politics because there are far too many "adults" who get their feelings hurt and complain to the Editor.

It tends to pop up in threads that have nothing to do with the topic.

Personally, should I ever want to read about how [insert president here is satan] and how Hitler did nothing wrong, I have reddit and youtube.

Irish Marine, the problem is that "politics" is a sin here. Take away that, and your "adults" have nothing to complain about. Now, if you called him an idiotic leftist, that would be bad behavior. Saying his politics are misguided would not be.

What would lead you to believe that we would have even-handed moderation?

I shall remind you that this is the site where saying that a TV network is garbage is punished by suspension but holocaust denial was a matter that should be discussed and reviewed.

Two things that need to stay out of TMP and historical wargaming in general are politics and religion. We have an unspoken rule in our club. We do not bring those two topics up. The few times we have, demonstrates how it can get way out of hand.

It is the same reason that CNN has cut back on their comment section of a story. No matter the topic it turns into politics and gets ugly real fast. Let's just stick to gaming.

You can't put everyone in the DH which is exactly what will happen. I know the lay of the land and those of us who are not right wing nut jobs will feel unwelcome and leave.

Sorry about the deletes, the edit function isn't working.

IMO … the bottomline is if you don't like or are not interested in a topic or the way a thread is going … Don't go to or read the thread. If you don't like what I have to say stifle me … And if things get too mean spirited, etc. … Dawg House or ban the offender(s). Why is this subject worth all this consternation, etc. ? I'm not a Harry Potter fan … so guess what ? I don't watch the movies. For example …

The 'don't read political threads if you don't like political threads' answer isn't an answer, since every thread will turn into a political thread.

-Will

There are two basic problems with OMF's(and his sock puppet account's)proposal to do away with the "no politics rule" and simply punish bad behavior.

The first is the simple fact that a minority of people simply are not adult enough to handle the voicing of any sort of opposing view. This is made even worse when you add in the nature of the medium we are communicating on….which brings up my second point.

The very nature of the internet means that it has a kind of "disconnect" that lessens the real world consequences of one's actions. Allow me to use a personal example. I'm one of the people that "Don't Fear Da Reaper" is talking about. We're long time friends, but we don't agree on a number of issues. I respect the guy's views, but we just differ on a few key issues. He's what I would classify as center-left and I'm undeniably far right. Yes, we tend to avoid political discussions as a whole, but when they DO inevitably occur we can read each other's discomfort and we can "agree to disagree" and pull the plug on a conversation that is going too far. It's much, much harder to get a good read for were that line is with the disconnect of the 'net in place. It's one of the big failings of the medium as a whole.

And it's not just political issues that cause this sort of thing. For example, I know a gamer (no names, now..) in another part of my state. I don't know him well enough to call him a "friend", but when I have been around him he's always been a decent and polite guy. But when he gets behind a computer he turns into a insufferable, opinionated jerk. As a result he's been banned from more forums, Yahoo groups, etc than I could ever count. I once heard this odd phenomenon described very well: "Far too many people use the internet to get in touch with their inner nut, and when they sit down in front of a keyboard they get a visit from Mr. Hyde."

This sort of thing is made even worse when inherently divisive issues like politics are permitted to be discussed. So no. The "no politics" rules is for the best.

Martin

Lets look at the elephant in the room. A few want to have political discussions and present pie in the sky solutions to allow it. Most of us don't want it here, we want to talk about our hobby here, we have other places to go to scream into the night about politics. Allow political discussion and it will quickly get out of hand as predicted and many subscribers will stop spending our money to support the site. I will be one of them. So its a fairly simple equation for Bill the site owner and businessman. Allow politics = loss of revenue. No one will subscribe to this site to talk politics but its a lead pipe cinch that there will be those who will stop subscribing to avoid it.

I think McWong73 said it best and most succinctly.

And, even when bad behavior is punished (DH, etc), the HARM has already been done. "X" may be DH'd for saying something that deeply offends or hurts "Y," but the DH'ing doesn't erase the pain, hurt, offense--and desire to hurt back at the next opportunity.

I'm not sure it's Bill's responsibility (generally) to limit the freedom of expression here, but in an ideal world--that doesn't exist--we the membership would recognize that controversial subjects breed controversy and simply concentrate on the original, genuine purpose of TMP.

Which is not to persuade--least of all bully--anyone else into thinking as we want him to.

Let's talk toys, games, and good times, and if we can keep it to that, I don't really want to know what your politics are--nor you mine.

TVAG

did not we all come here to share our hobby?
was it not supposed to be fun…or now has it evolved to making a 'statement'?

historical respect once was revered here. sadly, with the impersonality and the opportunity of faceless cowardice the internet offers and welcomes,political rants, attitude, lack of manners and other behavioral issues have become rampant.

If this is a trend. let it end now. shame for the loss of what once was a brotherhood.

It is entirely possible to have a reasoned discussion. A while back I made a sweeping stement about Climate Change Alarmist types and ticked off a couple of people. We went back and forth and I ended up amending my statement to the (preceived) satisfaction. Fact is I was wrong and they were right--about the broad generalization, not the debate itself. Too many people have to BE right don't try to GET IT RIGHT.

LOL. I like what the CJ character says several times on the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead":

"bleeping nursery school!"

Just create a Near Future Discussion Board like we requested long ago, and get on with it!

It should allow any and all discussions on possible warfare – including, but not limited to, political environments, financial motivations and commercial and military strategies behind the actual battle scenarios you plan to "recreate" on the gaming table – that are projected or simply possible in the next couple of decades, from 2016 to, say 2036!

Just let people know ahead of time, perhaps in the board's description box, that the discussions are for those who can handle opposing views, and keep the discussions civil, without any personal attacks.

Just like the suggestion to have two Ultramodern Boards (one for politics, the other politics-free) is ridiculous. Each will be incomplete:

TMP link

None of the other historical boards have that restriction, because everything that happens before an actual battle can, and usually does, affect what you end up with on the gaming table. Then you'll have to do also for every single period in the history boards!!!

I just don't think how you can deny the discussion of something so integral to warfare on just the Ultramodern Board, when politics becomes completely acceptable, even necessary, for the discussions on other periods, even when we don't share the same opinions either about what happened back then.

I'd love to see a discussions in the Napoleonics board that omitted all references to who was allied with whom, and why, who declared war because of perceived transgressions, what propaganda was used by each side to gain supporters, what dissenters there were in each kingdom, who double-dealed and so on.

You won't find a single historical thread politics-free, because you can't simply put two armies against each other without discussing background, motivations and behind the scenes dealings (politics)!

Same goes for Ancients, Medieval, Renaissance, ECW, American Revolution, ACW, WW2, Cold War, Vietnam, etc.

I dare anyone to limit themselves to discussing only uniforms, arms, armor, tactics, terrain and rules – and nothing else – in every one of their posts from now on, on each of those other historical boards!

TMP link

----------------

However, if the Editor and the rest insist to keep the discussion of events of the last 10 years absolutely politics-free, I'm fine with the Ultramodern Board being limited solely to tabletop matters. And simply click on the complaint button on all transgressors, and enforce it equally.

But I guess my interests are more about the immediate future, the next 20 years or so, in all its many forms, both the obvious and the behind the scenes ones.

Just view having a new board, a Near Future Discussion Board, as SF discussions about future projections for modern governments and armies, including technologies planned for release in the next few years. Then discuss how you would implement that new tool on the tabletop.

And, in a few years you can even go back to the threads there and see how your overall predictions panned out.

Dan

Look, it's not about being offended. I really could not give any less s about anyone else's political views than I do now. The problem is everyone else who won't be able to help themselves and drag their ing contests with guys 'on the other side' into every single thread on this site. I was here during the Current Affairs board era and it made this site entirely and completely useless. Anyone who thinks otherwise is experiencing a weird and selective amnesia.

-Will

Wminsing +1.

Really, just read some of the replies on this thread and you can sense the venom lurking just under the surface.

I also agree with TVAG that, even if the offenders get Dhed, the damage will have been done, to the lasting detriment of he site as a whole, as has been demonstrated time and again. How many "good posters" have we lost as a result of needlessly hurtful posts by others?

I'd love to see a discussions in the Napoleonics board that omitted all references to who was allied with whom, and why, who declared war because of perceived transgressions, what propaganda was used by each side to gain supporters, what dissenters there were in each kingdom, who double-dealed and so on.

Yes and what is stopping you? These are very legit historical topics. Doesn't have anything to do with this issue. I see it all the time here. That is not what this thread is about.

We are talking about current political and social discussion. I don't want to discuss current politics. But I will discuss how isolationist politics affected diplomacy prior to World War II. I would think discussing the fact that the U.S. almost won every battle in Vietnam but lost the war at home is a legit topic. It is almost impossible to talk about past wars without discussing the politics at the time.

How do you discuss the fall of France in 1940 without mentioning the politics of the time. I don't think you can talk about the ACW without at one point mentioning politics in both the North and South.

I don't have a problem with any of that. But I am not interested in getting involved with current politics. I don't even like having links to Fix News. I hate it when I click on a link and it takes me to Fix News.

I think a lot of people are under the impression that it will only be their specific brand of politics being discussed.

I'm with Rallynow.

In the Renaissance Discussion Board a guy got really offended when I casually brought up the point that, although English seamen were called Sea Dogs by their compatriots, the Spanish called them "Hijos de la Perra", which meant that the Queen was the "Perra".

I just thought it was something that might give that discussion a little more perspective and shed light on behind the scenes twists, but the guy really took offense. And that was legitimate propaganda back in the 1590s!

Thin-skinned people just can't handle sitting and listening to discussions at the adult table.

Dan

Weasel,

So TRUE! You've hit it right on the nail.

If you want do dish it out, then you should be able to handle whatever is dished back.

Dan

Truly historical topics, even those where emotions still run high (hello American Civil War) are legit fodder for discussion, no one would deny that, even if folks sometimes go off the reservation (and get DH'd for it). It's contemporary issues, particularly contemporary domestic issues, that caused all of the problems back in the CA board days and will cause the same sort of problems today. The situation has gotten worse, if anything.

-Will

I guess my modest proposal fell on dry ground.
If it ever comes to a vote in a poll, I will of course vote that way. So will the OFM, as he informs me.
But it will fail. I understand why.

I have suggested in the past that the Ultramodern board is incomprehensible without politics. It's a shame that some politics are ok while others get the hook.
Turn Ultramodern off it if offendeth thee.

And, as I've just discovered, if you post a picture of a sign calling whiners in general "princess", not only will your post be deleted, but you'll get a cool PM from the Editor as well.

Thanks, whoever you are, for pushing the button and proving my point so well!

Dan

I tend to see the same members DH'ed for "Politics" over and over. So it doesn't work for some.

"Turn Ultramodern off it if offendeth thee."

An eminently sensible suggestion and one I concur with.

If UM is the new CA, then so be it.

As mentioned somewhat earlier, one source of all the contention is that TMP is an international community and there is something of a cultural disconnect between what are taken as mainstream views in different countries. Gun control, gay marriage, state provided healthcare, climate change, invading other peoples countries and being baffled when they are curiously ungrateful?

Oh what fun.

Can you still crosspost to and from Ultramodern? If so, that could be part of the problem, as it circumvents the whole "turn it off" approach.