An important notice on political threads in the main forum

[Tom Kalbfus]

The thing I find on other rpg sites is that their no politics rule is often enforced inconsistently. On Paizo for example, I try to avoid politics, and then somebody else drops their politics into the discussion, usually by trashing America or conservatives, and I respond and get banned while the other guy does not! I don't really want to discuss politics, I want to discuss role playing games, but left-wing politics enters the forum with no consequences, while conservatives who respond get banned, so we end up like human pin cushions, we have to take abuse from left-wingers, and if we counter argue and refute their points we get banned.

Other places such as Giant in the Playground, real world settings such as medeaval Europe or use of real world religions, even if they are ancient religions such as those the entries in Deities & Demigods is based on is banned, because there are a few people in the real world who actually worship Thor for instance. I like the real world gods and goddesses from the Greek and Norse Pantheons rather than the made for RPG pantheons of the Forgotten Realms. This is because the people who thought up Thor and Odin didn't do so to satisfy the requirements of a role playing game, but for a real society that existed at that time.

[Omega]

Bemusingly bringing Pundit's thread on topic of RPGs.

One reason we have fantasy pantheons if to shut the hell up the religious nuts out there. And because of the SJWs of prior iterations of this disease who bitched about "appropriation" of other cultures religions.

[RandyB]

Bemusingly bringing Pundit's thread on topic of RPGs.

One reason we have fantasy pantheons if to shut the hell up the religious nuts out there. And because of the SJWs of prior iterations of this disease who bitched about "appropriation" of other cultures religions.

History of RPGs 101: fantasy pantheons - e.g. Nehwon, Greyhawk - were included in D&D long before any religious nuts got wind of the game and started bitching.

[hedgehobbit]

Why can't we talk about the actual fucking games more, and the thoughts of the people who work for game companies about companies less?

Because if you remove all the political BS from the current RPG industry, there isn't anything to talk about. There hasn't been a significant mechanical innovation in RPGs in over a decade and all we are getting is slightly modified versions of things that have been done multiple times in the past; a slightly modified version of Cyberpunk, a slightly modified version of Pathfinder, a slightly modified version of Twilight 2000, etc, etc, etc.

[Trinculoisdead]

Because if you remove all the political BS from the current RPG industry, there isn't anything to talk about. There hasn't been a significant mechanical innovation in RPGs in over a decade and all we are getting is slightly modified versions of things that have been done multiple times in the past; a slightly modified version of Cyberpunk, a slightly modified version of Pathfinder, a slightly modified version of Twilight 2000, etc, etc, etc.

I disagree. I think we could start a thread about that.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Because if you remove all the political BS from the current RPG industry, there isn't anything to talk about. There hasn't been a significant mechanical innovation in RPGs in over a decade and all we are getting is slightly modified versions of things that have been done multiple times in the past; a slightly modified version of Cyberpunk, a slightly modified version of Pathfinder, a slightly modified version of Twilight 2000, etc, etc, etc.

I mentioned the trouble I got in for suggesting a revision for Twilight 2000 because a political situation was embedded into the game, the main assumption being that the Cold War continues until the Twilight War (World War III) the superpowers destroy each other and the players try to survive the aftermath. When the Cold War ended I suggested my ideas for a different Twilight 2000. Like for instance, what of some hostile Arab country gets nuclear weapons and uses them in a terrorist attack on the United States, but that would be unfair to Muslims and arabs to make them the enemy. Well someone has to be the enemy in a game like Twilight 2000, in the past it was the Soviet Union, and that was acceptable back then, but now? Nope, can't be the arabs because that's bigoted, can't be the Chinese because that's racist, who are the bad guys going to be? The only acceptable answer for the left was the United States of America!

[VisionStorm]

I put RPGs and games in general in the category of stuff that makes me happy. WOTC makes RPGs and card games. They are not only making statements but changing their product based on current events.



It never ceases to amuse me that there are people bitching about RPG threads on topics they don't like, when they could be participating in the threads they do like.

Let me hold your hand and get you started.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42254-Any-advantage-to-OSRIC
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42241-Current-WoTC-aside-what-does-your-perfect-D-amp-D-edition-look-like
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42252-DIY-5-5e-of-DyD
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42136-State-of-Shadowrun-6e-today
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42249-Hex-Crawl-World-Building-Systems
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42250-The-definitive-Shadowrun
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42206-Increasing-Challenge-Earned-Feelings-in-Games
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42220-Looking-for-an-ancient-Greek-RPG-WITHOUT-elves-dwarves-etc
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42172-NO-POLITICS-What-are-you-most-excited-to-play-next
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42148-Old-West-the-Pecos-and-Sources-for-Maps
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42215-What-RPG-stuff-are-you-burned-out-on
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42149-Help-with-1920-s-1980-s-Income-and-equipment-tables
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42242-Gonzo-RPGs-Which-is-your-favorite

That's just the first page, and not even all of it.

I wish some of those threads got more traction so I could discuss some of my RPG pet peeves and ideas, and I don't even mind having political discussions or dissecting idiotic corporate statements. But I guess bitching about what other people are discussing is more important.

The reason to duplicate the thread would be to discuss the political aspects of a certain RPG hobby issue that you don't want discussed on the main forum.

AKA, the GunMetal thread is about the author deleting a chapter about cops from his cyberpunk Kickstarter because the author is shitting himself over BLM idiocy. As I understand your current decision, people couldn't discuss the BLM idiocy part of the author's reasoning. Thus, we'd need to open a thread in your forum to discuss that half (or more) of the RPG hobby issue because its most certainly going to be political.




I'm not bitching about Pundit's decision. I want clarification because I don't understand how it works and what the parameters are for what is acceptable in the main forum regarding a "politics in the RPG hobby" topics.




Banned? SO FUCKING WHAT!!

Do you think for one fucking second that I care if I'm permanently banned or not?

Do you think that I am going to somehow bend? Are you fucking kicking me?

I've got a LONG history of burning bridges and not giving a damn.

I will say whatever I will say.

RPGPundit will do whatever RPGPundit does.

I like Pundy, but getting banned would just mean my damn RPG gets done faster!

I agree. Some of these discussions are damn near impossible to have without delving into non-RPG politics. The politics of the day are too entwined into the majority of these issues to discuss them without getting into non-RPG politics at some point. It's like freaking walking through eggshells.

[estar]

Either allow politics, or shift it all to Punditry, but this half-arsed shit is just asking for confusion and for people to get as close as possible to whatever boundary you want to enforce.

Exactly what I said when I was moderator. Except he considers the Punditry a ghetto which doesn't have the traffic he wants for the stuff he wants to post about which happen to involve a great deal of... punditry.

It been amply demonstrated that if a gaming forum want to continue to talk about gaming it the political talk whether it within or without the hobby need to put aside in another play. Otherwise we get the situation we have now whether every other thread is about one political issue or another.

[estar]

Because if you remove all the political BS from the current RPG industry, there isn't anything to talk about. There hasn't been a significant mechanical innovation in RPGs in over a decade and all we are getting is slightly modified versions of things that have been done multiple times in the past; a slightly modified version of Cyberpunk, a slightly modified version of Pathfinder, a slightly modified version of Twilight 2000, etc, etc, etc.

I am having no trouble finding places to read and participate in interesting discussion about tabletop roleplaying including new ideas in regards to mechanics.

[estar]

I want the discussion on this forum to stick to the subject of RPGs, including the politics of RPGs.

Yet here we are with you starting this particular thread that resulted from the consequences of allowing a wideranging discussion on the politics of RPGs.

[Ratman_tf]

I am having no trouble finding places to read and participate in interesting discussion about tabletop roleplaying including new ideas in regards to mechanics.

For now. And you still come here as well.

[Steven Mitchell]

I don't think it matters much where the line is drawn as far as traffic to this sight.  Not long term anyway. What is going to happen with with people on one side of the line or another:

A. People will cross it can get banned.  No traffic from them.
B. People will avoid those threads and not get banned.  No additional traffic from them, maybe slightly less due to all the avoiding things.
C. People will try to talk about the thing inside the lines.  They'll have less to say.  Less traffic.
D. People will be passive/aggressive dicks or even trolls, with the goal of shutting the topic down and/or trying to tempt someone from groups B or C into a momentary slip and thus get them banned.  More traffic, but do you want it?

Since there is no way to write firm rules that will stop D, traffic in those posts will trend to that nature over time.  Or pundit could start banning them, but then that doesn't fit the "wild west" feel here or generate traffic.  (It might increase traffic in the long run, but that's a philosophical and prudential discussion that doesn't belong in this topic, I think.)

With the usual caveat and the reminder that I don't think anything works well, I would suggest as a trial a different policy:  People have started putting the "No Politics" tag on topics.  Instead, invert it. "No Politics" is the default.  Talk about politics at all in normal thread, suffer the penalties.  If you want to talk the approved gaming politics in a topic, tag it with "Politics" or "Game Politics" or whatever makes the most sense.  I mean, Pundit already titles his gaming politics topics such that it is usually obvious that this is the case.  This just make it more clear.  If there is a gaming politics slant to a normal topic, start a new topic with the correct header.

[estar]

For now. And you still come here as well.

However my posting has dropped off considerably.

As for the other places for some it does remain to seen due to the fact I went there as a result of Google Plus shutdown. The other however I been posting for as long or longer than this site.

[estar]

With the usual caveat and the reminder that I don't think anything works well, I would suggest as a trial a different policy:  People have started putting the "No Politics" tag on topics.  Instead, invert it. "No Politics" is the default.  Talk about politics at all in normal thread, suffer the penalties.  If you want to talk the approved gaming politics in a topic, tag it with "Politics" or "Game Politics" or whatever makes the most sense.  I mean, Pundit already titles his gaming politics topics such that it is usually obvious that this is the case.  This just make it more clear.  If there is a gaming politics slant to a normal topic, start a new topic with the correct header.

I can live with this. However just be aware I proposed something similar and the discussion still boiled to that the Pundit thinks it puts topics he cares about into a ghetto.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, I certainly enjoy engaging in topical gaming discussions. However, honestly, such topics do not tend to be very robust or long lasting, especially when compared to political discussions. Strictly speaking, philosophically, you can have such separate discussions, but I do not believe they are that advantageous or positive, even though I may like them. I think it is much better to have freedom of speech, and to be free to engage in whatever discussion that people want to. I think of this place as kind of like getting together with my friends at the local Sunrise Café, or Texas Roadhouse, where we eat, drink, and hang out together, talking about whatever. When getting together with some buddies, having a cigar, having some drinks together, there's no person that comes over to your table and says, "Now now, we can't be discussing politics or religion!" Or whatever, you know? You talk about whatever you want. Beyond that, I also think that people gathering together engage in discussions that range about, or also include tangents, asides, references, and examples. That's just normal human socialization. It's the way we talk.

Then you have the dynamic where "politics" has become intertwined in EVERYTHING today. Whether for good or bad, that's just the way it is. In contrast, for example, you have the RPGPUB that attempts to remain "politics free" though there does seem to be some bias there. Regardless, overall such an environment seems to be artificially sweet, chewy and dull. I think that the overall tendency for being boring and dull is derived precisely from the impositions on freedom of speech, if that makes any sense. The discussions become stilted, and unnatural.

Having said all that, I think amongst friends we can police ourselves. "Hey, lets get the discussion back on topic" I think is fine, and welcome, for thread starters that want to keep a discussion focused. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, people naturally digress, go off on tangents and side arguments, cite examples, and on and on. I believe that is how we normally communicate with each other.

I am in favour of embracing freedom of speech.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK