"Expanded Grounds for Expulsion from Membership" Topic

Kinda like the Supreme Court justice that said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." (or words to that effect.

Without taking a side in this debate, I think the poll is simply to identify topical areas for Bill to "…recognize it when he sees it" just as he does on any other issue where he steps in.

"The issue is Holocaust denial and other disruptive actions that are blatantly racist, misogynistic and bigoted. I do not know why you are trying to derail the conversation."

This is the conversation. Define racist, misogynistic and bigoted. Please tell us what they are so we can avoid them.

You have yet to do that, because by advocating that some points of view are not allowed you are saying that your culture, which is against saying those things, is better and should be heard over another culture that believes those things.

I say let both sides be heard and the listener can decide which is right for themselves. I am willing to admit that I'm a bigot. I think that cultures like apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany and the American South prior to the American Civil War are all inferior cultures to mine. I don't think that anyone differing in that opinion should be silenced however.

At this point Terrement is exactly right. If this rule is put into effect all the editors will be doing is responding to complaint buttons being hit.

Define racist, misogynistic and bigoted.

You have yet to do that

because by advocating that some points of view are not allowed you are saying that your culture, which is against saying those things, is better and should be heard over another culture that believes those things.

Being a bigot is a choice.

At this point Terrement is exactly right. If this rule is put into effect all the editors will be doing is responding to complaint buttons being hit.

Which is what they already do. The polls, if they pass, will provide a specific rule that goes beyond "politics", since apparently the Editor will not consider Holocaust denial and other forms of bigotry to be under the umbrella of "politics".

"Being a bigot is a choice."

So going by your definitions, when was it that you decided to be a bigot?

Nice try Pictors.

Perfect example of the censors' mindset occurred in the discussion over whether ebola has been contained. In looking through the comments I see no mention of race until there is a complaint politics and racism being more appropriate to the Fez.

Now due to the fact that ebola developed in Africa and there is currently an outbreak there have been cries of racism when travel bans or other countermeasures are proposed.

Love the definition of misogyny as well. Apparently as I noted previously discussion of biological differences will be forbidden if the censors have their way.

So going by your definitions, when was it that you decided to be a bigot?

LOL, is this one of those "you are the real racist for pointing out my racism" moments?

Ah, we're back to the racist word that you define by ethnicity after admitting that racism doesn't exist by human standards.

I think we already covered that and you came to the conclusion, on that issue, that I have been right there all along.

So what about the misogyny. How are we to know what the sculptors have in mind when they are sculpting?

I guess questioning the thought police is probably double plus ungood.

Ah, we're back to the racist word that you define by ethnicity after admitting that racism doesn't exist by human standards.

People continue to use the word race as a substitute to the word ethnicity because (1) the word race is far more common in English parlance and (2) it is easier to spell, pronounce, and modify with prefixes and suffixes. In modern English, race is an idiom for ethnicity. But congratulations on looking up a definition for ethnicity.

Yes, I've seen that you are still confused about that.

Now what about the misogyny? How do we get into those sculptors heads? Reveal the secrets of the thought police!

I see you're still going on about your thought police. Since you know more about them than me, why don't you tell us all?

I voted no. Thin skins and self righteous policing of conversations really, really bother me….

At this point Terrement is exactly right. If this rule is put into effect all the editors will be doing is responding to complaint buttons being hit.

Then remove the complaint button. You have to trust the moderator to do his/her job. Just like every forum and Yahoo! group. If your unhappy then don't participate.

This is a charter for bullying and politicisation of the board.

Weasel has told us that he is sensitive to the issues of race, gender, etc. But not so sensitive that he could foretell six pages (so far) of controversy, and doghawsings left and right, over his "respect" for fighting skill post. If someone has to inform me that I have hemorrhoids I would like it to be a sensitive guy like Weasel. But, come on, do you want him inspecting your posts to see if he can find evidence of sexism, or other kinds of intolerance? Is that the kind of pain in the ass you need? Look at how the definitions of racism, sexism, etc. have expanded over time. This is something that will never end.

Every time Germans come up someone will chime in explaining how enlightened they are never to play the Germans. This will be followed by a chorus of "me too" posts. Threads will be derailed with this blather. Anyone who doesn't pronounce the Shibboleth correctly will be duffed up after school.

You will find the same problems with colonial games. Oh, I never play British. Colonial oppressors! Racism is going to be a bugbear stalking the Ultra Modern board. You might have to question if wargaming is a legitimate hobby at all, or whether it needs to be deconstructed and investigated for racism.

Is the hobby a woman or gay friendly? People can go to great lengths to change typically male activities that most "excluded" people don't care about anyway.

Perhaps Bill could have a pop up box which appears before every post so that you can check your privilege and then click OK to continue?

When you encourage something you get more of it. Conversely, you get less of something you discourage. There is a woman who writes about sexism in video games who says she doesn't even like games. You don't want to invite this sort of debate onto the board.

Instead it would be better to push moral questions onto the Fez, along with Religion and Politics. If someone posts that they have a moral objection to playing <whatever> delete that post and let it be discussed on the Fez. Otherwise we end up with click bait debates taking half the membership to the DH.

Ok, I haven't posted anything in a while so I'll weigh in. It sounds like everyone is getting upset with a opinion someone has about the Holocaust? So what if they think it didn't happen who cares, most people do know it happened and that it was horrific, wasting your time on someone's words is crazy, words don't hurt just forget it or hide his posts if you don't want to read them. It's the same problem we had with the old Current Affairs board if you don't like what your reading don't read it.

Wise words sir.

The answer is fewer rules, not more rules.

This probably wouldn't even be an issue if we got rid of the name-calling rule. If you can call a a , you don't need to spend pages dancing around, pretending to engage in "meaningful discourse" – which is pointless on some subjects with some folks.

I voted no. My answer to such folk is just to turn their BS into little grey boxes. 'em.
Because I don't need my blood pressure raised one bit.

Who gets to decide what is racist, misogynist and anti-Semitic?

I voted no.

Same person who gets to decide what speech is "free" (e.g. lots of crazy stuff) and what isn't (actually typing the word 'troll' as opposed to using the icon).

Why don't we discuss whether or not genocide of civilian populations were true on a site about playing with toy soldiers……. because its a site about playing with toy soldiers. This topic is deliberately inflammatory, and has nothing to do with any gaming scenario I can imagine.
Religion is banned on here, for good reason, yet it has more to do with the causes of potential scenarios and campaigns than most subjects I can think of. Let's discuss whether the Protestants were right and the Pope is indeed the antichrist. Does this give him a demonic saving throw if he leads the army? We don't because it would quickly become the usual internet nonsense with nobody changing their views and everyone trying to prove how right they are. Let's not stop with religion, let's go for every conspiracy/illuminati theory out there for the hard of thinking. How about some good old fashioned 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government did it. The planes were empty. Doesn't matter that concrete evidence is out there and all the nonsense has been refuted, let's do it all over again and see how many people can get dh'd or banned.
This is a site about toy soldiers people. Pew pew, bang bang, my little men killed your little men, hahahaha, Get over yourselves.
As for our Portuguese contributor who believes this is against liberty…. he lives in a country where it is illegal to deny any proven war crime on any media, websites included. If he does come on here and chimes in on this rubbish then he is liable for imprisonment in his own country… thats how seriously many countries take this.
We have moderators to keep it civil and on topic. Topics that are deliberately inflammatory, have nothing to do with wargames, should be deleted. The posters should be warned this is not the place for that sort of crap and if they continue, banned. Not hard to understand. If you really need a definition of what is racist in 2014, you really need to look at yourself, not complain about forum rules.

voted no.

…words don't hurt..

Words matter. Words hurt.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Community standards determine what constitutes protected speech and what is not. Obscenity, pornography, incitement to violence, 'fight'n words' or any number of other antisocial topics are often unprotected speech and are punished by communities.
With a right to free speech comes a responsibility to be cautious about what you say, lest you cause a break-down in the peace, order and good governance of the community of which you are a part. It is the responsibility of all TMP members to measure their words and to limit the scope of their discussions for the good of the community, the hobby and our collective ethos. Freedom and responsibility come to us hand in hand. When a member makes statements which inflame a substantial part of the membership and which injure the good reputations of all who are associated with the forum, then the speaker has made a serious lapse of judgement. When the speaker persists in making those statements despite requests and demands to stop doing the injury they are doing, then there must be a mechanism that the community can use to limit the damage the speaker is inflicting on the community. That mechanism is the Editor in Chief who can censor, censure and punish such antisocial behaviour. The editor, for better or worse, is the "Leviathan" of the TMP community.
This poll is not some binding gag-law passed by the TMP community. We do not have that power. It is a poll to better advise the editor/leviathan what community standards are, so that he can better decide what is protected speech to be allowed and what is unprotected speech and should be sanctioned. This poll changes nothing about the limits of free speech on TMP, the editor will still make the decisions about what to allow and what to censor. That has always been his prerogative and this poll will not change that.
Communities need compromise to function and when communities have to deal with uncompromising people, coercion may sometimes be needed.
If people are concerned about censorship and the possibility of abuse of power, they can always suggest a new poll to reflect a new and more enlightened community standard which will advise the editor/leviathan; but ultimately the editor will do whatever he decides to do. The leviathan must also exercise his power carefully and with responsibility and must always attempt to act in the best interests of the whole community. Failure to do so invites revolt or estrangement of the membership and the death of the community. Thus the editor may very well ignore the results of this poll if he feels it is injurious to the community. That is his prerogative and we must live with this fact.
Perhaps it is time for all to be more careful about what they post? Perhaps it would be better if we all focused a little more on our real responsibilities to each other and a little less on our perceived rights and freedoms which don't really exist here? Perhaps if all of us, including the leviathan, took more care about how we discharge our duties and how we promote the hobby and respect our fellow hobbyists, we could make this a happier and better forum? I'm just ask'in.
Here endeth my sermon.
Rod Robertson

My theory is if the history channel thinks its evil, then its got to be bad – that place is wall to wall Nazis, aliens and Nazi aliens, yet there seems an almost reverent pause and a rather calm no sensationalist approach at documenting the events.

So if the history channel doesn't mess around with the subject then neither should anyone else.

I'm with IrishMarine. Don't like it, don't read it. Our hobby is, at its core, an intellectual crime against humanity. Why, because we celebrate war. Intellectually speaking we gleefully immerse our minds in the minutia of the most vile and horrific activities of humankind. Our hobby gives us no high moral ground when speaking of standards of decency in our global society.

I voted NO, because when you're drowning in , it doesn't make a bit of sense to politely ask others to use the word poo-poo.

Also, I've always thought it best to allow an ass plenty of time and space to prove just how big an ass he/she really is.

Our hobby is, at its core, an intellectual crime against humanity.

No it isn't. It's a hobby.

because we celebrate war.

Speak for yourself. Me? I celebrate the art of soldiering, and the honour, bravery and courage of fighting men and women. War is what they endure, not who they are. An interest in warfare and the causes of war does not equate to celebration.

we gleefully immerse our minds in the minutia of the most vile and horrific activities

Again, I disagree. I do not wish to taint my games with the vile, blood-and-faeces horror of actual warfare. Most wargamers, while knowing the unpleasantness inherent in historical conflict, do not enact abhorrent events of warfare on the table top. Nor would many do so 'gleefully'. Those that do so are damaged.

Our hobby is, at its core, an intellectual crime against humanity.

Speak for yourself. Me? I celebrate the art of soldiering, and the honour, bravery and courage of fighting men and women. War is what they endure, not who they are. An interest in warfare and the causes of war does not equate to celebration.

What you say is fair enough. But it is susceptible to attack by increasingly politicised people. We only have to rule that any questions of morality get discussed in the Fez and the lid is back on the box.

People should be political, or they forfeit the right to an opinion. And morality should always be open to discourse. If we hide our morality, we may as well not have it.

Hiding discussion in the Fez for fear of causing offence is counter to what we all stand for. I'm more of the mind that individuals should take full responsibility for the things they say and publish online.

Our hobby is not one that should be justified to anyone. I wouldn't expect a motorcycle enthusiast or an angler to justify their enjoyment of what they do to me. Do hunters and anglers agonise over the morality of what they do?

Why do we feel the need to justify this hobby of ours to each other?

Chortle wrote

This is a charter for bullying and politicisation of the board.

and in the same post

Instead it would be better to push moral questions onto the Fez, along with Religion and Politics. If someone posts that they have a moral objection to playing <whatever> delete that post and let it be discussed on the Fez. Otherwise we end up with click bait debates taking half the membership to the DH

So in short: a ban would politicise the board – and presumably you are against the ban?…but you want all mention of 'moral' questions shuffled off the Fez and any posts breaching that edict deleted?

So under your rules one could say: 'We played a really good game last night based on an Einsatzgruppe in Byelorus and its sterling work against the evil Bolshevik Commissars and their rabbitty friends – do you think our victory conditions table was too lenient?' and that would be fine, but if someone wrote in saying they loved rabbits and this was a cruel and insensitive game, their post would be deleted?

Purely in the interests of clarity you understand.

'We played a really good game last night based on an Einsatzgruppe in Byelorus and its sterling work against the evil Bolshevik Commissars and their rabbitty friends – do you think our victory conditions table was too lenient?'

No one is every going to say something like that. " sterling work against the evil Bolshevik Commissars" – discussion of whether the Bolsheviks were good or bad would be shifted to the Fez.

but if someone wrote in saying they loved rabbits and this was a cruel and insensitive game, their post would be deleted?

They would be free to take that to the Fez, rather than cluttering up the board.

They would be free to take that to the Fez

Isn't the Fez invite only? Not everyone has the luxury to 'take it to the Fez'.

Chortle, the Fez is not the answer to everything.

Isn't the Fez invite only? Not everyone has the luxury to 'take it to the Fez'.

You ask for admission. I think it is open to all.

No one is every going to say something like that. " sterling work against the evil Bolshevik Commissars" – discussion of whether the Bolsheviks were good or bad would be shifted to the Fez.

I love that!
Nobody's ever going to call the Bolsheviks evil! Where have you been going on TMP?

So that gets shunted to the Blue Fez but the discussion of a game based on the work of the Einsatzgruppen is morally neutral?!

Wow – Just Wow!

I have two issues with the proposal.

Firstly, racism already covers anti-Semitism and more genocides in history get their fair share of denying. Could we please not implicitly make one wronged people more important than others? (That could ultimately pave the way for history to repeat itself.)

Also, the proposal is overall too broad and vague. Certainly no good can come of that. To illustrate, I'd like to point to That Board That Has Recently Been Renamed and how an argument can well be made more than a fair share of topics there reek of implicit misogyny.

Nobody's ever going to call the Bolsheviks evil! Where have you been going on TMP?

So that gets shunted to the Blue Fez but the discussion of a game based on the work of the Einsatzgruppen is morally neutral?!

Wow – Just Wow!

No, all discussions of morality go to the Fez.

I voted "No" because the rule doesn't go far enough. What about homophobia, transphobia, anti-Islamism, anti-Christianism, anti-Atheism, anti-Republicanism, anti-Decocratism, or any other anti-speech you can think of? Why should only certain groups get special protection from their haters?

The results are remaining consistent, so by the end of the 31st a new rule is going to go into effect. The wording of the poll makes all denial of holocausts and bigoted observations grounds for expulsion. This will be, interesting….

Chortle wrote

No, all discussions of morality go to the Fez.

Exactly.
So – 'do you respect the efficiency of the Einsatzgruppen and how do you game them?' would remain – just a nice wargaming question:

and anyone who said 'they were murdering scum and I totally disrespect them because of their part in genocide' would be deleted and shunted off to the backwaters of the Fez?

Nice switch on the real culprits who are 'honouring' the murdering genocidal creeps.

Voted no.

And I do not go the fez so will not explain there.

Voted Yes. What time zone does the polls end?

It's interesting that some TMPers, while crowing loudly over supposed anti-Semitism in 'Holocaust denial' refuse to mention that the Nazis targeted other groups besides Jews in their efforts. Poles being the most obvious group, but there were Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, Freemasons, etc. Yes, the vast amount of victims of the Holocaust were Jews but even the official Holocaust Museum in Israel is having problems with the numbers but that's a different issue, I guess. Oh, will that last comment get me banned because I don't agree with the politically correct number of 6 million? What if it was 4.5 million or 10 million?

Hatred of women? Could someone show me that on TMP – meaning a particular thread where someone said "I hate women" or "Women are only good for one thing"? If I show you a picture of a topless woman and said, "I wish her boobs were bigger." Is that hatred of women or a personal opinion? How about if I said, "Women are better at some things than men." Would that get me banned as 'hating men'?

What if I said, "Polish beer is the best in the world and American beer sucks!" Would that get me banned? Who decides these issues? Bill? After all, according to some of you – logic would dictate that I prefer Polish beer, and in essence, Poles [because they brew better beer than the Americans] to another ethnic group.

So, oh wise and all-knowing and all-sensitive TMPers of the PC crowd – how do you claim to select your armies if you are not choosing one ethnic group over another? You game Napoleonic French but refuse to game Napoleonic Swedish – ah ha! You, my friend are a Swedeophobe and I'm going to denounce you as hating Swedes on TMP!

Anyone want to explain to me how a bunch of grown men [supposedly] can be so childishly infantile and ridiculously sensitive? What are we, in the 3rd grade of elementary school?

Swampking, other groups targeted by the Nazis have been mentioned many times in the original thread that sparked this one.

As for the rest of your post… I'll pass.

Rick,

Really? I didn't see them mentioned.

As to the rest of my post – that's your right.

Agreed?

Some light reading for you -

TMP link

Who decides these issues? Bill?

Of course. Same person who decides that the "free speech" he proclaims that allows on certain subjects (Holocaust denying, age of consent, etc) doesn't seem to include calling someone a "troll".

Burn the witches!

Voted Yes. What time zone does the polls end?

Ends on 31th October 2015 (UTC-05:00)

Ah, Censorship at its best.

Finest kind.

I actually voted no, but since I enjoy the tears of drama, I kinda wish I had voted yes.