RB Political Discussion Meta Thread

[BRickAstley]

I would say it is true that there is "no recognizable long term strategy by the moderating team", since there isn't and hasn't been recently a specifically defined administrator/moderator structure and ruleset. It's really just been "hey everyone, be an adult about posting on here" and admins have stepped in here and there and adjudicated things to the best of their ability. There also is no (practical) admin/moderator division of duties.

I'm open for having a discussion on this, but it really depends on everyone else's activity/interest levels.

[T-hawk]

Yeah, really the moderating is just whichever mod is the first to decide something and do it. None of us are the power-trip enforce-my-authoritah type, and none of us want to be drawing up and enforcing some policy. If you're looking for a forum with everything codified into Rules, look elsewhere.

I personally didn't want the politics thread closed, but not enough so to warrant getting into any debate with Brick over it (who did the closing in case anyone is wondering; best to be transparent about that.)

[scooter]

That might indeed be a good idea if things get out of hand in the heat of a moment. However, this case was not a problem of an unfortunate singular loss of self-control, but a user openly defying moderator warnings quite a bit after the infraction and ignoring calls for civil behaviour.
In my opinion, the whole thread should have been moderated more strictly from the beginning. I accept that this is a somewhat difficult task due to cultural differences  - what is considered free speech in the US may be hate-speech in Germany - but I still feel the effort should have been made.

I think this is more a function of the fact that historically moderators virtually never step in here because it's always been a relatively small community. They mostly just remove spam and organize forums. A topic explosive enough to warrant moderator action is kinda new territory here, but historically politics was a no-go at RB. That discussion existing is a fairly recent development, so it probably makes sense to have this conversation about how we'd prefer it to be handled. Generally, of the non-politics stuff, I don't think anything needs to be changed at all. Even the most heated and ugly games have been settled eventually. The politics thing is just a different beast on its own, and it makes sense to come to an agreement of how to handle it.



Personally, like Krill I'd love to see a proper Brexit thread that's isn't intentionally partisan but rather focused on the process itself. I think it's one of the most interesting things happening in the world right now, and this is my only window into people I "know" that live in the UK/EU. In order for it to work, though, we have to agree to allow a heavier hand in moderating that prevent people from hijacking it into a partisan politics thread (and give that its own thread if we want). I'm fine with that and would prefer it over sending discussion over to a QT, but it would be a bit of a departure from the normal moderation standard here.

[Gustaran]

None of us are the power-trip enforce-my-authoritah type, and none of us want to be drawing up and enforcing some policy.  If you're looking for a forum with everything codified into Rules, look elsewhere.

With all due respect T-Hawk, I don't really buy that. There is a middle-ground between "everything codified into Rules" and not upholding the most basic rules of online interaction (such as preventing users from continuously insulting each other).
You may want to portray your inactivity as being above any sort of power abuse. But unfortunately, that self-view currently clashes with the reality of the "political discussion" thread, since some sort of action needs to be taken.

I am not unsympathetic and I can partly understand the direction BRickAstley is coming from. So if the moderators feel "our vision for RB is different, we hope that users behave a certain way without being threatened with a lenghty list of possible penalties" that is certainly a valid position.
But if that is your goal, and you thus don't want to actively moderate controversial discussions according to a pre-agreed standard, then the consequence is that certain topics simply can't be discussed here, because the potential for controversy is too high.

Maybe we should adopt the compromise suggested by Krill, to basically stop discussing political topics on RB and instead take them to a QT. That way, the discussion takes place outside of RB, the moderators here don't have to deal with it and whoever created the topic can decide to moderate or not moderate any discussion.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Gustaran I think Darrel is talking about Apolyton, APOLYtaclypse. I disagree with Darrell and I actually think that was an exception to the rule to not ban people. They should have just arbitrarily banned true-culprit Asher and they would have someday if WPC members didn't run away.

[KingOfPain]

22 years and counting, actually an amazing run for a private gaming community.

We survived a Civ3 game post turned into a 9/11 (no less) heated debate. And now this.

I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the mods’ handling of the matter but they have my full support.

Mods here were never meant to moderate posts. They are here to keep the back-end running smoothly, and to facilitate game play if need be. Just as unique as the RB community is, the forum never needed any more moderation than that.  

... So if the moderators feel "our vision for RB is different, we hope that users behave a certain way without being threatened with a lenghty list of possible penalties" that is certainly a valid position.
But if that is your goal, and you thus don't want to actively moderate controversial discussions according to a pre-agreed standard,

That has always been our hope

...then the consequence is that certain topics simply can't be discussed here, because the potential for controversy is too high.

Everything as usual, until when the mods are forced to step in (and you know we hate it). This episode is classified as an isolated instance.

Maybe we should adopt the compromise suggested by Krill, to basically stop discussing political topics on RB and instead take them to a QT. That way, the discussion takes place outside of RB, the moderators here don't have to deal with it and whoever created the topic can decide to moderate or not moderate any discussion.

Definitely an alternative. And good for Krill for doing so.

Because the mods here are unwilling to allow discussion on this forum,

You mean that temporary closed discussion, right?

[MJW (ya that one)]

KoP, my thread being locked after my second post and a mod not saying anything seemed to imply that they were banning all political threads. Especially after Krill's post.

[BRickAstley]

I didn't even know that your Sweden thread was locked until you just said that.

I definitely understand better why you feel I'm trying to stifle political talk, now.

[Krill]

It won't look locked to mods and admins, but the rest of us plebs are locked out. That does explain the difference.

[Bobchillingworth]

I locked the Sweden thread, as I didn't see the point of having a second politics thread when the first was still locked.


Personally, I was not about to ban anyone in the original Brexit / Politics thread, not when there's never been any enforcement regarding players abusing their competitors in spoiler threads and when any ban would be inevitably seen as politically motivated. As KoP notes, our roles are to purge spammers and perform admin functions, not referee debates.

I don't see the value in having another thread for political discussion. The content did little to elevate the quality of RB, and the rancor was toxic for a small gaming community where players repeatedly face the same opponents, and I write this acknowledging that I played a significant role in stirring the pot.