Suggestion for the Politics section

[Fugus]

Live look at the Mods calling out the bad faith posters.

Only when they had Thwart on the staff. Right now it is more like:

Moderators: “Stop derailing the threads and stay on topic”

Also the Moderators: “ Our policy is not to personally deal with lies and misinformation and just let the users correct it”

All while neglecting the fact that them correcting the lies and misinformation is what is derailing the threads because much like Donkey from Shrek, while the users have the right to ignore the trolls and bad faith posters and just let them get bored and leave after a handful of posts, they lack the capacity.

[Relapses]

Only when they had Thwart on the staff. Right now it is more like:

Moderators: “Stop derailing the threads and stay on topic”

Also the Moderators: “ Our policy is not to personally deal with lies and misinformation and just let the users correct it”

All while neglecting the fact that them correcting the lies and misinformation is what is derailing the threads because much like Donkey from Shrek, while the users have the right to ignore the trolls and bad faith posters and just let them get bored and leave after a handful of posts, they lack the capacity.

You'd have a point if 99% of posters didn't simply define "trolls and bad faith posters" as "people who disagree with me."

[Ringthane]

That is absolutely hilarious.

Yeah. Everybody knows it's amazingly easy to get infracted anywhere on this site. I have the infractions to prove it. I was infracted once because my signature, which I had for months, was apparently suddenly a pixel and a half too big. Did the mods tell me? Change the sig? Nope. They punished me without so much as a by your leave. Usually the same mod, too.

[Daedius]

It's really, really easy to get infracted in the politics forum... like way easier than anywhere else on the site. Not sure what you're talking about.

I actually agree with Amadeus that participation is at an incredibly low level, and for the politics forum in particular I think it's because it's too easy to get a ban there when tempers get high so most people who don't have an incredibly liberal viewpoint peaced out a long time ago.

Reason why I avoid it, been getting infracted left right and center there... got 53 in total on this account, probably 3/4s of that over politics.

[Endus]

Yeah. Everybody knows it's amazingly easy to get infracted anywhere on this site. I have the infractions to prove it. I was infracted once because my signature, which I had for months, was apparently suddenly a pixel and a half too big. Did the mods tell me? Change the sig? Nope. They punished me without so much as a by your leave. Usually the same mod, too.

FWIW, sig infractions aren't really "real" infractions. They add less than 5 infraction points, and bans only occur at 5-point levels; a sig infraction never earns you a ban unless it's your second one (meaning you were warned and kept ignoring the sig rules by uploading another offending sig). The infraction is your warning to change the sig, in those cases.

Mods don't generally troll looking for sigs that break the rules, but if it gets reported or they notice it, they'll take action. The rules on sigs are pretty much 100% objectively defined to the pixel, so it's as cut-and-dry as you can possibly get.

[Fugus]

You'd have a point if 99% of posters didn't simply define "trolls and bad faith posters" as "people who disagree with me."

Except the fact that that isn't the case. The ones classified as trolls are those who disagree with reality and facts and will ignore any facts proposed to them and will continue spouting proven lies because they are fishing for responses with zero regard for the facts or accuracy. Like those who can look at an article and then ignore the entire meat of it to try and spin a single sentence into something that ignores all the context around it.

[Gabriel]

You'd have a point if 99% of posters didn't simply define "trolls and bad faith posters" as "people who disagree with me."

You ever been to the politics sub forum? Mods can't permaban the obvious trolls because by the rules trolling is 100% A Okay as long as you don't admit that you are trolling. You can play a character for as long as you want and troll away, and you're fine as long as you don't drop character.

The only way to get trolls banned on this godforsaken forum is to annoy them until they go off and throw around death threats. The current system is just plain bad.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So if someone doesn’t agree with certain groups set of evidence as fact. Let’s label them to get them infracted.

And of course if we really don’t like them. Instead of being adults or ignoring it. Let’s try to insult and attack until we can derail threads or misconstrue people we disagree with as making death threats or anything else.

Sounds like a concert of bad actors rather than just bad faith arguments.

I’d rather people learn no means no. And just because you have an argument doesn’t entitle you to a response the way you want. It’s an entertainment forum nit congress or an academic school.

If it’s Off Topic politics show me any arena of ideas where politics or issues exist where everyone agrees even on the same set of facts.

If following the rules in and of itself is not enough because people make personal choices and are angry when others don’t agree or share the same perspectives. Then that’s an individual personal issue IMO.

[Fugus]

@Doctor Amadeus

Facts are facts, whether someone doesn't agree with it or not. If people are trying to debate something that is actually up for debate, then they wouldn't be trolling.

Saying that they don't agree with the same set of facts implies that those facts are up for debate to begin with at which point, they aren't established facts and at the very least needs evidence to support them.

Someone claims that Trump won the 2020 election, that isn't disagreeing on a set of facts, that is denying the facts entirely unless they have evidence to prove the opposite. But to ignore facts to go off nothing isn't just "Disagreeing on the same set of facts"

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts.

And not all opinions are equal, if you have problems with your car, the opinion of a career mechanic who is listening to it has far more value than the opinion of someone who googled symptoms as best they could. And anyone who's opinion requires them to ignore facts is an opinion based in ignorance.

So, if you give an opinion that requires you pretend the established facts aren't real without any counter evidence to back it up and going solely based on your feelings and faith and you get proven wrong with evidence only to keep repeating that same factually incorrect position repeatedly without evidence not to debate but to derail threads and fish for replies, then that isn't debating, that is trolling.

[Doctor Amadeus]

@Doctor Amadeus

Facts are facts, whether someone doesn't agree with it or not. If people are trying to debate something that is actually up for debate, then they wouldn't be trolling.

Saying that they don't agree with the same set of facts implies that those facts are up for debate to begin with at which point, they aren't established facts and at the very least needs evidence to support them.

Someone claims that Trump won the 2020 election, that isn't disagreeing on a set of facts, that is denying the facts entirely unless they have evidence to prove the opposite. But to ignore facts to go off nothing isn't just "Disagreeing on the same set of facts"

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts.

And not all opinions are equal, if you have problems with your car, the opinion of a career mechanic who is listening to it has far more value than the opinion of someone who googled symptoms as best they could. And anyone who's opinion requires them to ignore facts is an opinion based in ignorance.

So, if you give an opinion that requires you pretend the established facts aren't real without any counter evidence to back it up and going solely based on your feelings and faith and you get proven wrong with evidence only to keep repeating that same factually incorrect position repeatedly without evidence not to debate but to derail threads and fish for replies, then that isn't debating, that is trolling.

This isn’t a court of law. And some people don’t agree about Trump. They shouldn’t be attacked or thrown out the door because they hold that position. Them believing that is also not always up for debate and shouldn’t need to be. They also aren’t posting in bad faith just because.

[Endus]

This isn’t a court of law. And some people don’t agree about Trump. They shouldn’t be attacked or thrown out the door because they hold that position. Them believing that is also not always up for debate and shouldn’t need to be. They also aren’t posting in bad faith just because.

You, like so many others, are actually just complaining about "criticism". Not "cancelling", not "being attacked", literally just that people disagree with you and criticize you and your positions.

[Ringthane]

FWIW, sig infractions aren't really "real" infractions. They add less than 5 infraction points, and bans only occur at 5-point levels; a sig infraction never earns you a ban unless it's your second one (meaning you were warned and kept ignoring the sig rules by uploading another offending sig). The infraction is your warning to change the sig, in those cases.

Mods don't generally troll looking for sigs that break the rules, but if it gets reported or they notice it, they'll take action. The rules on sigs are pretty much 100% objectively defined to the pixel, so it's as cut-and-dry as you can possibly get.

No, this really counted, and I really ended up getting banned. And I was not warned about the signature, and I saw plenty of people with the same signature and nothing was done to them. And I did point out I had it for months before any action was taken against it. Not hours, not days - months. I can post a screenshot of the PMs I didn't get about it and the infraction I did get about it if you would like.

[Endus]

No, this really counted, and I really ended up getting banned.

Like I said; a single signature infraction won't ever ban you. Even if you're carrying points already; say you've got 15; a signature infraction would bump you to 19, which doesn't trigger another ban, because that only happens if you hit 20. You'd need a second sig infraction to bump you to 23 (or whatever), crossing one of those divisible-by-5 triggers, for a ban to trigger.

And I was not warned about the signature, and I saw plenty of people with the same signature and nothing was done to them. And I did point out I had it for months before any action was taken against it. Not hours, not days - months. I can post a screenshot of the PMs I didn't get about it and the infraction I did get about it if you would like.

Like, that's how the system works. I was a mod here for years. I issued plenty of sig infractions myself in that time.

[Fugus]

This isn’t a court of law. And some people don’t agree about Trump. They shouldn’t be attacked or thrown out the door because they hold that position. Them believing that is also not always up for debate and shouldn’t need to be. They also aren’t posting in bad faith just because.

They wouldn’t be getting in trouble for holding that opinion, they would be getting in trouble for claiming that opinion as fact without evidence while ignoring actual facts that disprove it and repeatedly pushing it for reactions.

If they want to debate their opinion, great, bring some facts and evidence to support it while also processing the facts and evidence against it.

But if you can’t handle hearing facts against it and/or have no facts supporting it, then you shouldn’t be bringing it up here as you aren’t trying to debate or inform.

[Doctor Amadeus]

They wouldn’t be getting in trouble for holding that opinion, they would be getting in trouble for claiming that opinion as fact without evidence while ignoring actual facts that disprove it and repeatedly pushing it for reactions.

If they want to debate their opinion, great, bring some facts and evidence to support it while also processing the facts and evidence against it.

But if you can’t handle hearing facts against it and/or have no facts supporting it, then you shouldn’t be bringing it up here as you aren’t trying to debate or inform. You are just trolling or, to give as much benefit of the doubt as possible, you are preaching at which point you are bringing your own brand of religion into the forum which is also against the rules.

No I don’t think you or anyone should feel or think of yourself as entitled enough to tell anyone what they can or can’t bring up or speak on.

As long as it’s not against the rules. Nobody here is obligated to have an opinion you or anyone agrees with.

And as an option you shouldn’t be allowed to break the rules because you simply don’t like what someone says.

Disagreement happens in life even on serious enough subjects and issues that should be clear.

Sometimes people can be wrong it isn’t up to you or anyone to fix them.

This isn’t a court of law.

So no I don’t think a handful of individuals should get to determine who’s breaking the rules because of that.

I agree with civility. But as someone has already mentioned engaging in behavior that is against the rules to misconstrue a heated debate until it gets as serious as claims of death threats. That’s far more in line with bad faith than someone arguing and possibly just being wrong.

If someone is talking about something I don’t agree with I don’t engage them. If I think they are acting in bad faith I’ll ignore it.

[Fugus]

@Doctor Amadeus

Its not up to me what you can bring up but unless you can factually back it up or defend it, then you aren’t trying to inform of debate and is going against the purpose of the section to begin with.

If you aren’t up for or can’t handle a logical debate, then you are posting in the wrong section to begin with.

We aren’t talking about disagreements. If I say the problem with global warming is due to green house gases and start talking about as the figures to back it up and your response is that global warming is an act of retribution because we let gays in the military and I touch myself at night, that isn’t just a disagreement and is the level it gets to in that section.

And as far as your part with

Sometimes people can be wrong it isn’t up to you or anyone to fix them.

According to the moderation themselves it quite literally IS my responsibility along with everyone else to fix and address the factual lies and disinformation that is intentionally spewed into that section because they aren’t allowed to do anything about it and their policy is to let the users address it.

So no I don’t think a handful of individuals should get to determine who’s breaking the rules because of that.

A handful of individuals, like moderators?
How to determine if they are breaking the rules? Are they ignoring confirmed facts or presenting their views as facts repeatedly without evidence after being shown evidence refuting their views?

Seems like pretty objective ways of judging it from a group who’s entire job it is to deal with it.

And why did you call it a debate when it isn’t. A debate is evidence vs counter evidence and actually trying to convince or be convinced. If you have no evidence to support you that isn’t already debunked and refuse to accept evidence that refutes you, you aren’t debating and shouldn’t lie and pretend you are.

[Endus]

Sometimes people can be wrong it isn’t up to you or anyone to fix them.

It is our responsibility, as Fugus said, to not tolerate the spreading of misinformation and falsehoods, not just here, but everywhere, as a normal process of living in a society.

To not do so is to foster willful ignorance and malicious misinformation.

I agree with civility.

Refusing to discuss your positions after inserting them into a discussion thread is a breach of civil discourse. Intentionally posting false information is a breach of civil discourse, at least if you insist upon doing so after it has been proven to be false (just being wrong and open to correction is not a lack of civility). Stating to those you're engaging with that you're not going to be willing to let them engage with you in return is a breach of civility.

[Doctor Amadeus]

@Doctor Amadeus

Its not up to me what you can bring up but unless you can factually back it up or defend it, then you aren’t trying to inform of debate and is going against the purpose of the section to begin with.

If you aren’t up for or can’t handle a logical debate, then you are posting in the wrong section to begin with.

We aren’t talking about disagreements. If I say the problem with global warming is due to green house gases and start talking about as the figures to back it up and your response is that global warming is an act of retribution because we let gays in the military and I touch myself at night, that isn’t just a disagreement and is the level it gets to in that section.

And as far as your part with



According to the moderation themselves it quite literally IS my responsibility along with everyone else to fix and address the factual lies and disinformation that is intentionally spewed into that section because they aren’t allowed to do anything about it and their policy is to let the users address it.


A handful of individuals, like moderators?
How to determine if they are breaking the rules? Are they ignoring confirmed facts or presenting their views as facts repeatedly without evidence after being shown evidence refuting their views?

Seems like pretty objective ways of judging it from a group who’s entire job it is to deal with it.

And why did you call it a debate when it isn’t. A debate is evidence vs counter evidence and actually trying to convince or be convinced. If you have no evidence to support you that isn’t already debunked and refuse to accept evidence that refutes you, you aren’t debating and shouldn’t lie and pretend you are.

I’m not here to inform anyone, but it’s not up to you to decide what people talk about if they haven’t broken the rules. You are no authority here especially and you don’t get to decide what is fact or truth.

This tar and feather nonsense based on your opinion of who should stay and who should go is not position.


This is an entertainment forum which occasionally includes conversations about a lot of issues.


That is my reason for being here. Not because I need something not because I rely on it as anything other than an outlet for fun and to be social that’s it.

This is not the place to contemplate deep political issues or spiritual ones.

As for moderation that’s not my job either.

I recognize your opinion and perspective but just as I’m not always righteous about everything and everyone you and none else are either.

You don’t get to decide is someone is sincere or not based on bade beliefs or disagreeable thinking.

As long as people are being civil and not breaking the rules. I can’t see any grounds for removing people based on consensus here or popular belief.

I do agree with you about misinformation. But I think the way to deal with that is to counter views with constructive feedback.

[unfilteredJW]

I’m not here to inform anyone, but it’s not up to you to decide what people talk about if they haven’t broken the rules. You are no authority here especially and you don’t get to decide what is fact or truth.

This tar and feather nonsense based on your opinion of who should stay and who should go is not position.


This is an entertainment forum which occasionally includes conversations about a lot of issues.


That is my reason for being here. Not because I need something not because I rely on it as anything other than an outlet for fun and to be social that’s it.

This is not the place to contemplate deep political issues or spiritual ones.

As for moderation that’s not my job either.

I recognize your opinion and perspective but just as I’m not always righteous about everything and everyone you and none else are either.

You don’t get to decide is someone is sincere or not based on bade beliefs or disagreeable thinking.

As long as people are being civil and not breaking the rules. I can’t see any grounds for removing people based on consensus here or popular belief.

I do agree with you about misinformation. But I think the way to deal with that is to counter views with constructive feedback.

This is so fucking wacko.

[MoanaLisa]

Except the fact that that isn't the case. The ones classified as trolls are those who disagree with reality and facts and will ignore any facts proposed to them and will continue spouting proven lies because they are fishing for responses with zero regard for the facts or accuracy. Like those who can look at an article and then ignore the entire meat of it to try and spin a single sentence into something that ignores all the context around it.

I don't believe that users should be sanctioned for a sincere belief in something that may not be factual. Discussion of religion is against the rules here because fights break out, not so much about facts, as about faith and belief. That's partially the basis for my own position that politics should be pushed off the site. The last decade has seen politics, especially U.S. politics, become a fight over faith—sometimes resembling a cult belief—vs. facts. I'm ok with the notion of going after liars but very often a mod is not able to determine whether someone is saying something terrible out of a sincere faith or just lying to start or continue a fight. Other users think this is simple, but many other users assume that someone with a different opinion than them is either lying or trolling.

Anyway, since so much of political discussion is now based on faith and perceptions it's very much like a religious debate and should be off the site just as religion is.

Yep it can be seen as censorship or abrogating "free speech" (which is a non-issue since MMO-C isn't a government) and I'm OK with that for what should primarily be a site devoted to something entirely different. Go fight about your politics elsewhere. There are plenty of places to do so.

It doesn't matter anyway. Damage is done. This is just personal philosophy at this point.