"Why has Civility and Respect for Others' POV's Declined?" Topic

To all of the TMP community:
Why have civility and a respect for each other's points of view in public discourse been on the decline of late? Why do we feel that we can attack peoples' characters, reputations, beliefs and motives just to further an argument or to promote an idea? Why has such negativity become ascendant in this forum and in society in general?
Civility is important because it enables a community to tolerate dissent, to reconcile conflicts or differences and to find common ground through dialogue and compromise. This allows communities to remain peaceful and stable. It also facilitates the philosophical, ethical, ideological and societal evolution and renewal that keep the community vibrant and healthy. Without civility there cannot be rigorous dissent and debate. Without civility there cannot be compromise and the reconciliation of opposites or profoundly different values. Without civility there cannot be diversity and respect for others. Without civility there cannot be respect. Without civility there cannot be renewal, evolution and change and thus long-term stability in a community.
Can we not as a community make a better effort to respect the views and values of others, even if we do not agree with them? Can we not limit discussions to the point at hand and argue the merits of the case? Why, if we disagree with a position, must we attack the person making the argument rather than the argument being made? Why is it acceptable to attack and impugn someone's motives, ideology, values, religion, integrity, reputation or humanity just to advance a point or win an argument?
While I understand that we can be passionate about our convictions and beliefs, does that give us license to publicly attack the convictions and beliefs of others; convictions and beliefs which are just as passionately held as our own? Is it too difficult to make room for differing points of view and differing opinions about the topics being posted? Why must there be only one right answer and no other. We don't live in a binary world, so why do we impose such a right/wrong duality on the issues we discuss?
We are doing real damage to each other personally and to the community as a whole by abandoning civility and respect in our discourse. Can we not rise above our more base impulses and lift the discussions here to a more civil level. This does not mean that we must be dull or abandon humour or passion. All we need do is remember we are part of a community of people with different view points and different values. We must try to make our points without trampling on others and when we err, as we all do, we must have the courage to admit our error publicly and the humility to apologize for the injury we have caused.
It's not that hard to do and it would go a long way to making this forum, our hobby and perhaps even this world more enjoyable and rewarding.
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

There have been many studies done addressing issues like this. With face to face communication we use body language, intonation and facial expression to allow us to communicate far more than the words we say, so it is easier to pick up on the fact we may be offending people. Also face to face communication tends to be with people you see often so if you do offend them you will have to deal with the "fallout" from that week after week.

The internet connects people from many different cultures and communities, many of whom won't speak English/American as a native language and allows them to communicate with a huge degree of anonymity. Initially this wasn't a problem as most people still showed the same good manners as they would in person. We now have generations of people who use the web and portable gadgetry for almost all their communication even if talking to somebody the other side of the same room. As our pace of life gets ever more rushed these web communication get ever more brief and contracted which further adds to the perception of dis-interest in other people.

The inevitable outcome is that more and more people don't have good manners or the ability to properly express an idea in writing. Sadly many of the younger generation see this as normal and acceptable so don't take offence at things an older generation may view as inconsiderate or down right rude.

Both good posts. I have never seen personal attacks, uncivil behaviour or other unpleasantness on the Lead Adventure Forum. Perhaps restricting the content of this forum to miniature figures and wargames would help.

Sadly many of the younger generation see this as normal and acceptable so don't take offence at things an older generation may view as inconsiderate or down right rude.

The older generation is every bit, if not more so, capable of displaying your "bad manners". I keep hearing this hoary old refrain that "things were more civil/better/politer in the old days". And that, frankly, is a crock. Any examination of contemporary newspapers going back 200+ years will give many examples of your "uncivil discourse". Its a fact of life when passionately held points of view collide. My advice: Get over it (our forefathers did)… Better advice: Leave race/religion/politics at the door (and if you don't, then you get what you deserve)…

This may sound odd given my comments elsewhere but I actually agree, especially with Legatus.

Most of us have an issue or a cause we hold dear – or do so latently and only realise that we do so when we encounter something that makes us think, "I really disagree, I'm not standing for this". That applies across the social and political spectrum. That's fuel eneough, add the accelerators of subtle cultural mismatch and difference in phrasing and wordplay and you have a toxic mix.

I intend to meet anything I find offensive with irony and mild, absurd humour, if I'm not able to just ignore it. The alternative is to take the LAF approach and restrict the subject to gaming only and to be honest, that's my preference.

And on that note, if you add some GW cloaks to Perry WOTR men at arms, you get really good Kingsguard for Westeros.

Good points well made. I would contribute that much of it is because of anonymity. Hence posters can hide and hope not to be identified. It is rare to see a heated argument at a show or convention because there might be consequences. Not so if you hide behind a deniable tag. respect to those posters who do use a real name!

martin

No Coastal2, our forefathers did NOT get used to it. Yes, you can go back and look at political discourse in newspapers of the past, but that was politics and the public world.

But THIS is NOT the public world. This is merely an electronic extension of what 200 years ago would be a gentlemen's club, or a lodge, or a social gathering or private society of interest. In such social organizations the rough and tumble dog-eat dog language and conduct was strictly taboo. Strict rules of decorum were observed and those who did not toe the line were at first just ignored with a pained expression, tolerated for a bit, but if it persisted they were asked to leave or completely ignored.

"Getting used to it" merely legitimizes it and begs for more.

Go read a book on Victorian manners and etiquette and you will see that to the Victorians we all were gutter trash.

This did not mean that they did not discuss politics and religion within these societies, and heatedly too! They did but the rules of decorum ruled that too within these societies, but they were more educated in the formal rules of discourse, such as agreed upon authorities, framing the question etc. Within those bounds they debated.

What you have here is not that, but identity politics pure and simple. "I believe this, and if you don't agree with me 100% and laud and magnify me for believing it, you are the great Satan and must be destroyed."

What has happened here has been informative. A year ago all the boards were to some degree nasty, contentious and adversarial. One couldn't put up a question like "Was Napoleon a demon or a saint" without it going on for six pages and 600 posts.

Then Bill made the Ultra-Modern Board and it became one of the most posted on boards but not for anything to do with wargaming, but simply as a venue for presentist issues and identity politics. It produced only a tiny discussion of gaming but dawghousings aplenty.

This then catapulted the more or less somnolent TMP Talk List to high gear as these dawghousings were debated and remonstrated about.

The rest of the lists dried up and little posting was done, but that which was done was on war games. Someone even started a list on Napoleon's Character and it's been quiet, polite, restrained, and quite acceptable.

So I for one applaud Bill's putting on the ultra modern board. It has, like a bug zapper drawn the people who seem to want to indulge in controversy to it. Granted the number of posts and activity on the normal war game boards has gone down, but on the other hand one can post a topic about one's Imagi Nation or fixing swords without fearing to start a firestorm of animosity.

It seems from this that a fair number of people come on these lists (here, frothers, everywhere) just to be nasty and make controversy and whether it's the fall of Rubbadubdub in Irnaq or what "Pantone" number Prussian blue really was make no never mind.

I agree with RodIRobertson on civility and Aiden Campbell on the web, and I want to add one point, which is perfectly idiotic and stupid given the context.

TMP represents a society, a body of interest in a topic in which people can indulge that COMMON interest. I emphasize "common" because while some people can come from far right and far left, in the context of TMP they have a large shared common interest.

If there is that common interest, is it possible then to totally demonize the other side? Does he not have some parts of him congruent with you? if you can find common ground in war games, is that not an indication that common ground can be found on others?

More important, if the other guy can be understood from the stand point of war games, can there not be other areas in w which understanding can be had? Rather than demonizing the other side, we might try understanding their philosophy and world view and the premises that lay behind it.

Try thinking about the other side as "He's a war gamer, he can't be all bad."

There's a great opportunity here, given the immense amount of time and mental energy we devote to the hobby, that building on that we can come together even across bitter political divides to see a common humanity.

I know, that's idiotic --right."

Oh well, that's why I do only Imagi-Nations.

Great post so far, especially OttoatHome's. We tend to pooh pooh the rules of debate as a society these days but they were developed for good reasons.

I'll add in 24 hours news cycles where actual news has been replaced with pontification and "screaming heads", this has been an ongoing process since at least 1980 (I can't go back any further since I was not paying attention to the news before that). The changes wrought there have been slipping over into other forms of communication.

"He's a war gamer, he can't be all bad

Good thought.

To use a phrase pioneered in football but used recently elsewhere (in politics, for example) comments should be aimed at the ball not at the man.

John T

Many thanks to Rod for taking the time to write such an eloquent plea, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Good points all by respondees.

'Perhaps restricting the content of this forum to miniature figures and wargames would help.'

Legatus, a truly great comment but I suspect a cause long lost…

John, dam' right (can I say 'dam'' or is it going to upset some sad git?). It's all about the toys.

I agree with martin goddard in that much of the bad behaviour has to do with anonymity on the web.

A little while ago someone here was quite rude and patronising towards me. He clearly didn't know who I was and obviously thought it OK to behave so. But I know him, and have met him several times. He's a 'nice chap' in person and probably wouldn't dream of treating me like that face to face or in the full knowledge of my identity. But the 'imagined' protection of anonymity allowed him to write what he did with what he thought would be no personal consequences. "I don't know him therefore he cannot know me."

Most of us can talk the talk. It's the other half of the cliché that many find difficult.

Some people need rules spelled out & enforcement to be swift, impartial & just.

Someone (John the OFM?) suggested some time ago that Bill appoint some members of the site as moderators. Choosing a selection of members, who'd communicate via PM with each other, would send a clear message to the more unruly elements, guarantee timely enforcement of the rules & take the heat off Bill (who could then concentrate on TMP 4: that mythical beast).

How about it, Bill?

Very good points made so far and very interesting insights by all! It may be pie-in-the-sky thinking but I hope more read these comments and think about whom they are attacking and whom they are hurting.

Ottoathome wrote:

…and I want to add one point, which is perfectly idiotic and stupid given the context.

TMP represents a society, a body of interest in a topic in which people can indulge that COMMON interest. I emphasize "common" because while some people can come from far right and far left, in the context of TMP they have a large shared common interest.

If there is that common interest, is it possible then to totally demonize the other side? Does he not have some parts of him congruent with you? if you can find common ground in war games, is that not an indication that common ground can be found on others?

More important, if the other guy can be understood from the stand point of war games, can there not be other areas in w which understanding can be had? Rather than demonizing the other side, we might try understanding their philosophy and world view and the premises that lay behind it.

Try thinking about the other side as "He's a war gamer, he can't be all bad."

Hardly idiotic and stupid! Three excellent points and spot on analysis in my opinion. We are a commonwealth promoting a shared love of the hobby and we do ourselves, our community and our hobby harm when we slip into acrimony. So Ottoathome, well said, sir!

Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson

Excellent posts. Especial thanks to Rod for taking the time and effort to bring some civility to the place.

Ill be honest the last few days was the first time Ive ever really considered leaving TMP for good. Not for any other reason than it seems to be becoming such an unpleasant place.
In my opinion the problem lies in the fact that Bill not just tolerates these divisive and inappropriate topics but seems to encourage them.
The internet is a cowards paradise and the lack of proper leadership means that a minority can drag the entire site into the gutter.
I for one intend to boycott and ignore any threads like we ve seen in the past few dayséweeks

Go back and read what Hamilton and Jefferson Burr and their cronies wrote about each other in the newspapers they controlled, and then get back to comment on how things have changed for the worse.
As far as I know, no duels have been fought among TMP members. Or between TMP and Frothers.
Yet.

This is merely an electronic extension of what 200 years ago would be a gentlemen's club, or a lodge, or a social gathering or private society of interest. In such social organizations the rough and tumble dog-eat dog language and conduct was strictly taboo. Strict rules of decorum were observed and those who did not toe the line were at first just ignored with a pained expression, tolerated for a bit, but if it persisted they were asked to leave or completely ignored.

My, what rose colored glasses we have. Reality was quite different, BTW (small problem with settling disputes by duels, don't you know). And, no, I'm not going to get into a discussion of etiquette since we live in 2015 and not 1815.

For the vast majority of topics (even those that fall into the religion/politics/race category and have nothing to do with gaming) your discrete civility can and should apply (the 'we agree to disagree' kind). But on more than one occasion, someone has dropped an A-Bomb of a subject that ABSOLUTELY falls outside the bounds of 'civil discourse'. Like it or not, there are subjects that cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged and must be repudiated. And in a 'uncivil' manner, if it comes to that. (For example, if you think you can have a 'civil discourse' that ends with 'we agree to disagree' with a Holocaust Denier, then you are naive and deluded).

Blunt and simple: Have better moderation and have people show better judgement in what they post.

I dont see it but that's just my opinion.

Winston beat me to it--Adams vs Jefferson--nothing new under the sun! Curse you for your swiftness, OFM! :-)

coastal2 wrote:

But on more than one occasion, someone has dropped an A-Bomb of a subject that ABSOLUTELY falls outside the bounds of 'civil discourse'. Like it or not, there are subjects that cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged and must be repudiated. And in a 'uncivil' manner, if it comes to that. (For example, if you think you can have a 'civil discourse' that ends with 'we agree to disagree' with a Holocaust Denier, then you are naive and deluded).

Why must we abandon civility in the face of denial or even the most controversial topics? If someone is a marginal denier then reasonable argument and persuasion are the best ways to move them to re-think their position. If they are a hard-core denier with immoveable convictions than no amount of attack and vitriol is going to move them off their position, no matter how deluded that position might be. By getting angry and using attack rather than reason and persuasion you achieve nothing but to diminish your own position and undermine your own case, thus making it easier for marginal deniers to dismiss your arguments too.
I agree that such denial must be confronted but I wonder at the efficacy of personal attacks and character assassination even in these extreme situations. Deniers are sovereign people too and have a right to hold such unrealistic positions. It is our responsibility to argue against their positions and to prevent the spread of their ideas so dismissing them and calling them names is not the solution. Engagement and vigorous argument of the position is the only way to contain such toxic ideas from spreading and taking wider root. I think it is prudent for a society to engage such people is a civil but very firm way and to do its best to disprove their conviction so that others can see it for the the folly it is. This is neither naive nor deluded.
Too many people focus on civilization as a noun and forget that to civilize is also a verb. Civilization is the dialogue between people in a society, and if we wish to have a civil society we must have and practice civil discourse. To do otherwise is a recipe for disaster in my mind. Civility is a discipline which must be learned and practiced and I wonder if that is why things are getting as nasty as they are here and everywhere?

Winston Smith:
Why must we accept such low standards of behaviour as that of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Even by the standards of the day their behaviour and homicidal desires were unacceptable and illegal (at least the dueling bit). Let us set the base line higher and strive to be better. Should we all descend to the behaviour of the lowest common denominator then we are doomed to a future of intolerance and bigotry. If we hold ourselves up to a higher standard then at least we can say we did contribute to such a fall.
Cheers gents and thanks for your points.
Rod Robertson.

This is merely an electronic extension of what 200 years ago would be a gentlemen's club,

I've always thought TMP more like a city centre pub. By closing time someone has usually had his lights punched out. T'was ever thus.

Private members clubs are something completely different. You don't get DH'd for an offence in such clubs – you just get kicked out, for good, and you lose your membership fee.

The problem with most internet groups is that you don't need to show your face at the door (you just create a new ID if you get kicked out), or pay a non returnable membership fee to contribute. Until that changes I don't see a solution.

There is a Monty Python skit with the Prince of Wales, Shaw, Whistler, Wilde, etc insulting each other.
It is searing in its raw…. Oh, who am I kidding. It's a hoot.

Anyone who thinks that people were more "civil" in ages past is projecting their dreams into the past. It's the desire to see a past Golden Age and that we are Fallen Angels. Past all hope of redemption.
People are now miserable bastards towards each other. They always have been. They always will be.
The only thing that the Internet has done is to make it possible to be instantly rude to a gentleman in Latvia, instead of waiting for it to be published in the Letters column.

Let's not forget Lincoln's enemies.
And let's not say "That's politics! That's different!"
Really? How is it different? Because it matters?

There was never an age where people were nice to each other. Particularly in duels. Despite all the bowing and flourishes and flowery talk, let's not forget that the object was to kill the other guy, powdered wig and beauty spot and all that.

Oh. A solution?
Equal enforcement of Forum Rules.
DHing one person in an argument while "talking to" the other is a joke.

olicana and Kyoteblue:
I apologize if I have conflated your points but they seem linked to me.

One solution is not start the fight in the first place. In a pub where alcohol is served there may be an explanation (not an excuse) for this kind of behaviour. On a wargames forum there is not, unless you're sitting in a pub with your laptop ignoring your friends and typing on a thread here.

If you go to restaurant or a movie and misbehave where there is an expected code of conduct, long before a waiter or usher comes to kick you out, those around you will let you know of their displeasure with your breaking of the social contract there. Likewise on TMP we should not rely on the editor(s) to be the nanny-leviathan that keeps us on the straight and narrow. That is our own responsibility and we must expect no one else to do it for us. We should also help each other to remain respectful and civil. Only after our cautions and admonitions have been ignored by a rogue poster should the editor have to step in to censure and censor unacceptable remarks. But the responsibility for civility lies solely with us.
Olicana, are you suggesting that we all post a peace-bond (or some such mechanism) before we can participate in a forum or are you saying that that won't work? I am not sure I understood your point – my fault I'm sure!
Good points and I must admit, short of a conscious effort by most members to show self control and the discipline of restraint, I don't see an easy answer either.
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Interesting for a hobby that involves history there are those that believe the elite minority of days past were more civil because they used nice manners.

Hi Rod,

I think you got it. Without a proper penalty people will always go to far. On TMP, unless you truly love your TMP 'name', what have you got to lose – especially if you are not a full member.

I don't think there is a solution to the problem. Most people wouldn't post a bond and some people really couldn't afford one if there was one, so it wouldn't be fair.

One day, I foresee a regulated internet where your 'base ID' is known to any forum you sign up to. It would be like an internet passport. Then, if you got kicked off for bad conduct you could be kept off for ever; you couldn't just get a new email account and sign up under an alias, because it would need to be linked to your 'base ID'. Until then, I guess we just suck it up.

Winston Smith:
Why do you cite the worst behaviours of the past rather than perhaps trying to demonstrate a mean (average) behaviour. I don't think anyone is saying that people were better or nicer in the past, only that in public discourse they usually exercised more restraint. Part of that may be that families were held collectively responsible for the actions of their members so there might have been a self-policing mechanism at work. Religion may also have played a role in such restraint some of the time. You can cherry-pick duels, speeches and riots galore from the past where social constraints broke down, but you cannot deny that the tone of public intercourse has become far more vulgar and intolerant in the last 35-40 years. The way my students speak to each other and their parents appalls me. (My students don't dare do that in my classroom so they are not not without the capacity to behave respectfully to each other, they just choose not to). The way adults whine and bicker in public is shameful and please don't get me started about cell-phone etiquette. The way we in this community turn fratricidal and swarm each other when someone makes an unpopular or unwise remark depresses me (especially when I realize that I myself was part of that swarm). I would like to think that there is somewhere where people with a common interest can come together and talk (not necessarily agree, but talk) in a civil and respectful manner. Along with the anger and division, there is a great deal of wisdom and learning represented by the membership of TMP and I would like to have access to that without having to sprint across streets raked by social machine-gun fire and angry sniping.
So yes, I will concede that the past was not the golden age which we sometime think it was, but I also know in my own lifetime that the civility of social interaction has eroded and been polluted with more rudeness and invective. I would like to start reversing that trend and I would like to start here.
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

A big part of it is that people are eager to "win points" rather than actually have an interesting discussion.

So you see the cheap rhetorical tricks being unloaded so one can earn the most internet points and prove ones worth over some random dude from Minnesota.

I imagine part of it is self-affirmation and part of it is that many of us have stupid opinions that we are all too keen to inflict on a world that by and large does not care about them.

As far as solutions? Solid enforcement of whatever rules there are (whether said rules are many or few).

Realization that controversy is not always a positive and that certain discussions, if allowed to continue unmoderated, will have a negative effect on the site as a whole.

Bandolier:
This thread is not about the manners of the elite but of the common folk. Nobody here is wearing togas or pinching snuff from jeweled boxes. This is not a French parlour nor an English pub. This is about the general tone of discourse both here on this forum and in the real world. But, having said that, your point is well taken that some of the manners which I expect of others may have had their roots in upper-class parts of past societies. But so what? What does it matter if a viscount or a sharecropper determined a bit of etiquette so long as we use it today to maintain civility and respect in our community. That was a good observation so thank you and if I'm coming over as more "upstairs" than "downstairs" then please kick me in the arse!
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Weasel:
I agree with your analysis but in the absence of solid enforcement it falls upon us to police ourselves. The police can only police the masses because of the masses consent to be policed. We must resell the incentive for civil discourse or the police authority will be overwhelmed and made even more impotent. Good points made and lets get that skunk from Minnesota you mentioned! What's his name?!? : )
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

A great deal depends on what is at stake. If I think that XYZ rules are best for whatever period and someone else explains that ABC rules give a better game, cost less and the armies are based the same as thingy rules, I am open to ideas. That's a debate and one side may well say, heck, yes, I'm going for ABC – you've persuaded me.

Now, what we are looking at, the stuff that has caused the dissent – in which I openly admit, I played a part – was down to social politics, issues, call it what you will. Those are the topics where positions are I think less likely to be changed and that's where it gets heated and it all goes horribly wrong.

I'd like to think that thread like this, reasonable in tone, widely supported by people from across the spectrum should be a message that this is where it stops. Ideally, more people post in support and the other posters and the Editorial Staff take note.

If that doesn't work, as Rod says, self policing is called for, I'm not sure how that would work but it has to be worth a go even it's mass posting of applicable Monty Python quotes such as "is the right room for an argument?" by all and sundry when something starts. Ridicule is always an option?

All that said, defining that "something starting" moment is another issue.

"So you see the cheap rhetorical tricks being unloaded so one can earn the most internet points and prove ones worth over some random dude from Minnesota."

Couldn't agree more. I see more and more of these exchanges. There's a discussion on another interesting (if not a little absurd) thread where I would enjoy the chance to discuss the topic if it wasn't for the less than civil behaviour on display.
I think normally I'd have continued to argue my points but the whole atmosphere here recently has made me less tolerable to such attitude. I don't suffer it in the real world and I'm not going to waste my time suffering it online.

TMP link

The real shame for me is that while I'm here it seems that I'm reading less wargaming, engaged in less wargaming discussions and spending less and less time with real wargamers.

I think its about time we reclaimed the streets of Gotham. (I'm sorry I couldn't resist…I almost named one of our boys "Gotham" just so in answer to our baby's crying I could say to my wife "Gotham needs you Honey"

Love your neighbour as your self. End of story.

Code Duello, it's the only way. Rawther That.

This is a problem that affects TMP more than any other forum I'm part of. The tone at the other miniatures blogs and websites, the RC quadcopter forums, the scale model forums, and my wife's favourite knitting sites that I have looked at (Ravelry, anyone?) are so far removed from this place it might as well exist on another planet.

I have mostly stopped coming here and usually post miniatures-related stuff at LAF instead, where the environment is much more welcoming and the discussions are dominated by the subject, not the personalities involved. I don't know if this is a function of the forum, its moderators, the people who frequent it, or what. Having the site owner participate in public drama explosions with other forums, and his decision to create an "ultramodern" subform here that's basically a fountain of right-wing pro-war politics, and which almost never touches on miniatures at all (unfortunately, because I game ultramodern conflicts and it would be nice to have a place to talk about the games) doesn't help. I also don't care enough to dig into the matter – I'd much rather spend my time painting figures and playing games (and I say this with full awareness of the hypocrisy of saying so in a long-winded post about it). In the end, I'd rather spend my limited internet hobby time somewhere I don't have to wade through endless hurricanes of anger and acrimony. Many of my friends and fellow game club members agree.

tl;dr version: there's a real sickness here, and somebody better fix it if they want this place to survive as a miniatures page, rather than a flamewar page.

Just another criticism: people at TMP post a lot at each other but rarely talk to one another.

There is very little acknowledgement of previous posts.

This is often alienating & encourages the type of toxic comment Rod is talking about, just to get a response.

I fully expect this post of mine (like the earlier one above) to receive no response.

It's part of the "shouting into the void" effect I think (Hah! I replied to you!)

People are eager to shout their opinion because the rest of the board is an audience that exists for their amusement.

I see it a lot when people ask for game recommendations and half the suggestions are completely unrelated.

"Hey, I am looking for a game where each stand is a squad at most" and the first recommendations will be Spearhead and Command Decision.

Amazing.

A talk and plea for civility has already begun degenerating into the first stages of incivility catapulted there by those who do not want civility in the first place.

Regardless of the past, who in their right mind can argue AGAINST civility. Regardless of the nature of people and their vices and peeves, are we then to abandon any attempt to raise ourselves above the muck and do better than our baser nature? Are we to simply abandon ourselves to the beast? Again, if that's the case, why are you not petitioning bill to remove ALL rules? If civility is impossible, why even attempt it.

These people cannot even manage hypocrisy, which is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. They do not even want to SEEM to be civil.

Arguing that it cannot be seems to me to be a statement that they do not WANT it to be, and prefer incivility.

hs is a game of "Let's you and him fight so I can enjoy the blood letting (your blood mind you)."

ochoin:
people at TMP post a lot at each other but rarely talk to one another.

There is very little acknowledgement of previous posts.

That's a great point. It's only in the past few years that I've been posting on sites. I was never that interested until I began with a hobby where no one I knew was interested; The internet was a perfect place to discuss with like minded people.

But I can still remember when I started posting here. I posted as if I was carrying on a real conversation but I quickly felt that this didn't seem to be how everyone else posted. My posted gradually became less personable. I do try to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.

(see that's two people have now responded ;)

"Better advice: Leave race/religion/politics at the door (and if you don't, then you get what you deserve)…"
Absolutely!
Since when has the discourse on any of these topics been civil? When the church used to burn you alive for disagreeing? When white colonists were slaughtering the locals or the lynch mobs were out and about, or when you were blacklisted under McCarthy?
This is a site about toy soldiers. I don't particularly want to hear about your views of the supernatural, mass slaughter of civilians or what politics you follow. However, if you post it on here, then expect a response. That response will often say "You are Wrong!" Get over it.

@ War Panda

Should we take this relationship to the next level? 87))

On WD3, a much smaller forum, you actually form 'virtual friendships'. Outside TMP's Lounge, this doesn't seem easy. Maybe I want too much?

Why do you think that this is new to TMP?

I nearly walked away from TMP after I first joined up because a now deceased personality and a prominent trader, decided it would be fun to wind up the new guy. Several others piled in leaving me to believe that TMP was composed of ers. My club members said they would never join the site as it was too unfriendly.

I believe that now there are more eyes monitoring the threads that rudeness has been nearly eliminated to a certain degree. Maybe the staff being away at the moment leaving Bill on his own has allowed the problem to resurface.

Knight of St. John, wise words to live by!
Skippy0001, good codes to die by!
Goonfighter:
I am not sure that this is a top down problem but rather as others have said a function of anonymity disconnecting posters from the consequences of their posts and thus creating a perceived impunity. I do hope others including the Editor(s) take note of this and move to try and reestablish better decorum and civility to the forum. But ultimately it is us, the members who are responsible for our statements. I'm sounding like a broken record here but what is needed is a shift in the micro-culture of TMP and that can only really come from the bottom up.
Snodipous:
I think you hit it on the nail when you said:

…there's a real sickness here, and somebody better fix it if they want this place to survive as a miniatures page, rather than a flamewar page.

However the "somebody" should be the "somebodies", because it is up to us to fix it and get it working again. We are the problem and we must create the solution.
Ochoin:
A very good point you made about posters talking past each other. It is alienating and frustrating so we all need to be mindful to be as inclusive as possible. Thanks for that.
Otto:
Good points again but we must be mindful that change is difficult and the familiar is comfortable. Resistance is to be expected and persuaded of the wisdom of a 'better' path. That was passionate rhetoric and I must say I enjoyed reading it several times over.
JezEger:
Yes, some topics should be out of bounds but certain aspects of politics and religion are integral to the discussion of wargames and war, so it might be impossible to make a blanket ban. I don't know where to draw the line but the wider the scope of allowable speech the healthier the forum will be in the long-run. But posters developing a thicker skin and raising the threshold of insult or outrage is an important component too, so "get over it." is sound advice.
War Panda:
You wrote:

I do try to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.

Hmmm!?! OK, maybe I deserve it!
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

On WD3, a much smaller forum, you actually form 'virtual friendships'. Outside TMP's Lounge, this doesn't seem easy. Maybe I want too much?

I think that might be a 'why' answer. Is TMP, like a big city, too big to be friendly?

@ochoin Should we take this relationship to the next level? 87))

On WD3, a much smaller forum, you actually form 'virtual friendships'. Outside TMP's Lounge, this doesn't seem easy. Maybe I want too much?

No I don't think you're asking too much at all! I think most people come here for advice, hobby news and maybe general information but can always gain that without posting. I really enjoy the banter and chat…

Rod Wrote:
Hmmm!?! OK, maybe I deserve it!

As I said, I really enjoy the banter and chat…usually ;)

ochoin:
I do not think you are asking too much at all. Virtual respect should eventually lead to virtual friendships, but I'd be very careful in wooing Panda! He's always got black eyes so I think he likes fighting and he may turn on you! ; )
DA THB:
Well it's hard to change first impressions especially when they are right, but if you give us a chance and help us along the way maybe we can turn the corner and become the forum you once thought you were joining. What do you say?
Cheers all.
Rod Robertson

Because dueling has fallen out of favor.

Virtual respect should eventually lead to virtual friendships, but I'd be very careful in wooing Panda!

Nothing to be afraid of here folks…my wife now that's another matter
…Once I'm down in my game room I never know when she'll come down and give me heck

War Panda:
What happened to the first picture of you clutching one of your balls, the other blue one lying on the floor behind you? That was funnier! Did it disappear like the "apologies bunny"?
Cheers and good gaming when the wife's not looking.
Rod Robertson

What happened to the first picture of you clutching one of your balls

And that's exactly the kind of crash and crude comment that has this place the way it is ;)

Yes bunny symdrome Rod, damn bunnies ….(Rod needs his meds :))