An important notice on political threads in the main forum

[Spinachcat]

Does everyone understand the parameters of RPGPundit's new rule?

Be honest. I don't see how people will address broader national issues while simultaneously keeping it within the context of the RPG hobby.

Maybe the death laser barrier will become obvious after a few bannings.

[Kyle Aaron]

I don't think it's difficult to tie most issues to something in gaming. "So if this were a scenario... and that's why I wrote up this new character class..." etc. Gamers are supposed to have an imagination!

[Steven Mitchell]

Does everyone understand the parameters of RPGPundit's new rule?

Be honest. I don't see how people will address broader national issues while simultaneously keeping it within the context of the RPG hobby.

Maybe the death laser barrier will become obvious after a few bannings.

I understand the parameters in general.  I don't trust that understanding anywhere near the edge, such that basically VisionStorm's example is a good one for when I'm no longer participating.  But then, my personality is not one to live on the edge anyway, so that it is no great loss for me.

[Omega]

Gamers are supposed to have an imagination!

Not anymore.

Imagination and thinking are bad things. They get in the way of being good cattle that are happy to be slaughtered.

[VisionStorm]

I understand the parameters in general.  I don't trust that understanding anywhere near the edge, such that basically VisionStorm's example is a good one for when I'm no longer participating.

This is basically where I'm at right now. I have a general understanding of the parameters, but I'm still not sure exactly where the line is, only the general vicinity of where I might unwittingly cross it. From what I got I get the impression that we may address concerns someone brings up in relation to the topic that may stray into details of broader national issues, but only as a direct response to those types of queries. And anything beyond that could potentially (maybe) get me banned.

The thing is that any reply to that type of questions or statements will almost inevitably lead to further questions and back and forth, demands for evidence that BLM, for example, is truly a "marxist" organization and so on and what not, that will basically just invite you or push you into the danger zone where the invisible line exists. Next thing you know you're like two pages in arguing about the merits of BLM in a thread about a game company donating to them.

Unless you put a stopper to it right from the start and tell them from your first reply that we're not supposed to discuss politics that don't relate to RPGs, but you're gonna answer that one thing and keep it to one post, you're always gonna end up arguing. And that assumes that they care and don't try to pick an argument anyways.

[oggsmash]

Anyone asking for validation to the claim BLM is marxist is just trolling or an idiot, or EXTREMELY lazy.  Maybe best to just not answer.

[Ratman_tf]

Does everyone understand the parameters of RPGPundit's new rule?

Be honest. I don't see how people will address broader national issues while simultaneously keeping it within the context of the RPG hobby.

Honestly, no. I feel like the discussion goes off the political rails at the point where someone, for example, says "Wait, why would anyone oppose Black Lives Matter?" In order to answer that question, a person has to go into the culture war and that is a huge tangent from the specific conversation about RPGs.

[Brad]

Honestly, no. I feel like the discussion goes off the political rails at the point where someone, for example, says "Wait, why would anyone oppose Black Lives Matter?" In order to answer that question, a person has to go into the culture war and that is a huge tangent from the specific conversation about RPGs.

Well in that case, whoever made the that comment should be banned from the thread and a mod should delete it, given what Pundit said. The issue with this board isn't that it's moderated, it's that it isn't moderated hardly at all until WAAAAAAY after the point that the problems started cropping up. Also, there are some people on here who just cannot help themselves and bring their SJW bullshit into every thread, no matter the subject. They enjoy derailing every conversation, specially because they hate the fact this site even exists and they have no control over it. So, again, ban hammer and be done with it.

[Ratman_tf]

Well in that case, whoever made the that comment should be banned from the thread and a mod should delete it, given what Pundit said. The issue with this board isn't that it's moderated, it's that it isn't moderated hardly at all until WAAAAAAY after the point that the problems started cropping up. Also, there are some people on here who just cannot help themselves and bring their SJW bullshit into every thread, no matter the subject. They enjoy derailing every conversation, specially because they hate the fact this site even exists and they have no control over it. So, again, ban hammer and be done with it.

The other edge of that sword is that discussion about RPGs has become a minefield of culture war topics, as the threads that sparked this notice demonstrate.

[GeekEclectic]

Well in that case, whoever made the that comment should be banned from the thread and a mod should delete it, given what Pundit said. The issue with this board isn't that it's moderated, it's that it isn't moderated hardly at all until WAAAAAAY after the point that the problems started cropping up. Also, there are some people on here who just cannot help themselves and bring their SJW bullshit into every thread, no matter the subject. They enjoy derailing every conversation, specially because they hate the fact this site even exists and they have no control over it. So, again, ban hammer and be done with it.

This was my thought exactly. If all they said was "Wait, why would anyone oppose Black Lives Matter?" . . . where's the RPG in this? This hypothetical person has already crossed the line. Don't respond to it, maybe use the report function because it's there for a reason, and let them take the fall. Sometimes silence is golden.

[Kyle Aaron]

Exactly. Just because someone speaks doesn't mean you have to respond. You're a human being possessed of reason and free will, not a monkey in a cage being poked with a stick.

And that's the great thing about tabletop roleplaying games, you have so many choices compared to board games or computer games, you can express your free will... I was going to say your reason and free will, but then I thought of most of the game groups I've had and I'm not sure how many I can say have used their reason.

Anyway, see? You can bring any discussion back to rpgs! Take it as a challenge, you can practice in this thread.

[Chris24601]

Anyone asking for validation to the claim BLM is marxist is just trolling or an idiot, or EXTREMELY lazy.  Maybe best to just not answer.

Or answer with "if you need validation of X then you're too stupid to be participating in this conversation about role-playing topic Y."

It's derisive AND on topic.

[Sable Wyvern]

If the topic is, "I will no longer support gaming company X because they support cause Y", then the question, "What's the problem with cause Y?" is directly relevent to the topic and essential to meaningful conversation, and also apparently banned as not directly relevant to gaming. Hence the problem with Pundit's whole attitude to politics in the main forum.

The real, hard boundary can't be explicitly defined, and amounts to, "Pundit will know it when he sees it."

Which is why I believe the rule should either be free-for all, or everything political to Pungency.

[VisionStorm]

I'm sure that thoroughly dismissing or outright banning people for having the audacity to ask why anyone would oppose BLM will not be used by detractors as ammunition to claim that this is some sort of "alt-right" forum full hypocrites who don't really believe in free speech, or unwittingly lead to it becoming an echo chamber where everyone just agrees with each other. :rolleyes:

[SHARK]

If the topic is, "I will no longer support gaming company X because they support cause Y", then the question, "What's the problem with cause Y?" is directly relevent to the topic and essential to meaningful conversation, and also apparently banned as not directly relevant to gaming. Hence the problem with Pundit's whole attitude to politics in the main forum.

The real, hard boundary can't be explicitly defined, and amounts to, "Pundit will know it when he sees it."

Which is why I believe the rule should either be free-for all, or everything political to Pungency.

Greetings!

Yeah, I agree with you, Sable Wyvern. Either free for all, or everything political goes in Pungency. For myself, since despite Pundit's efforts at "clarification" it still seems murky and uncertain. I'm supposed to scrutinize every aspect of every conversation I'm in--and also shuffle and worry about if any response I make is somehow to be determined as "Inappropriately Political"? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just keep my commentary Rated G in the main forum.

I honestly like the gunslinger syndrome even in the main forum. Like I have often made the analogy, when you get together with friends at a bar for wings, beer, and cigars, who stands over your shoulder telling you that you can't talk about A or B? No one does that. One of the main refreshing aspects of this site has been that feeling of freedom. Conversations flow and move about as people talk. It's how people talk. To somehow police everyone's speech just seems so unnatural to me. If someone gets into a tangent argument with someone else in a thread, well, fuck 'em, they get ban hammered if the discussion is political? As we have been experiencing, what aspect of our life, society, and culture, ISN'T POLITICAL? Everything is political. Everything has political roots and ramifications.

So, I get that some of the more political arguments may get annoying--they do for me as well, at times--I believe having a more free for all policy is better.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK