Moved from the Star Trek thread (forum rules discussion)

[TristramEvans]

Actually, let's enter it into the record that Krueger wants warnings and red texts, since they are already being used, to be used impartially.

What other circumstances have Warnings and Red Text been used?

 

[CRKrueger]

What other circumstances have Warnings and Red Text been used?

Granted this has been the test case, but that's why we're talking about it, right? You're still dancing around not mentioning TP or Belle by name and certainly haven't said "No Neo-Nazi or Alt Right (or SJW for that matter) talk."

 

[TristramEvans]

Whatever. I'm tired of the online community altogether. It seems impossible for people to untangle one thing from another and people have been trained by the various boards out there to either look for offense, or cause offense.

It'd be nice if everyone left it at the door. Sort of leave your pistols with the doorman kind of thing.

I really can't be arsed with the kind of argumentation that is even going on in this thread.

It exhausts me, and I'm honestly flabbergasted at how much to do has been made over essentially nothing. I cant imagine the rage the first time I actually take an action as a moderator. But yeah, you were a mod for years, so you must know this situation well. All I can think is every minute I waste here is time I could be having fun talking about RPGs in the main forum

Fucking Star Trek is shit anyway.

I totally agree.

 

[TristramEvans]

You're still dancing around not mentioning TP or Belle by name and certainly haven't said "No Neo-Nazi or Alt Right (or SJW for that matter) talk."

Everything you just said is demonstrably false.

 

[CRKrueger]

Rather than keep talking about the term abstractly, what does it mean to you in that sentence?

It's not difficult.
"the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue."
Daniel was saying the writers of Discovery are going to use Discovery as a means of demonstrating their political views.
Let's bring it around to gaming.
"The texts of Myfarog and Blue Rose both are full of virtue signaling."
I guess you'd better call me a psychiatrist then because I must have multiple personality disorder, because according to you, I'm both a Neo-Nazi and SJW.

The truth is, the term applies neutrally and is describing the human behavior, not the specific political ideology that is behind it.

The fact that 4chan decides to use the term more than Tumblr doesn't change the definition, sorry.

 

[CRKrueger]

Thats not a comparable example in any way. Your trying to conflate someone reporting a breaking of the no politics rule (whether anyone agrees that happened) with someone reporting something for political reasons.

You don't think Belle reporting the term as political was done for political reasons, or at least based on their political viewpoint, even when they declared it an alt-right term? Jesus Christ dude, what the hell?

 

[TristramEvans]

You don't think Belle reporting the term as political was done for political reasons, or at least based on their political viewpoint, even when they declared it an alt-right term? Jesus Christ dude, what the hell?

That's not what I said. The example you've implied is as analogous is not someone reporting a term that they think is political, its someone reporting something solely because they have an objection based on their politics. Just because you think Belle's interpretation was wrong, the reason for the report was because she thought Daniel was breaking the no politics rule. Your example is of someone making a report that in and of itself breaks the no politics rule.

No I dont think Belle reported it "for political reasons", in the way you seem to be implying. It may have been based on their political viewpoint, but you could just as easily say it was based on common usage. And common usage is the aspect of this situation that none of your arguments acknowledge. You seem to be arguing that common usage shouldn't be taken into account. But I don't think you've provided a good reason for it not to be, other than you personally not thinking that it has any importance.

 

[CRKrueger]

As an example, here's some more terms that also aren't inherently political.
Dog-whistle
Code-words
Still Neo-Nazi am I, or did I jump the fence again. Oh, hey, neither...
"Despite being branded as an RPG, the Kickstarter campaign for X is full of enough code words that Storygamers everywhere will hear the dog-whistle and know what type of game it really is."
What political stance was I making in that statement?
"X as a game is full of modern mechanics but the text is also full of virtue signaling to the old school. The author wants it known he's a grognard and Gronan owes him a beer."

Protip: When you can effortlessly and repeatedly demonstrate the non-political usage of a term describing human behavior...it might just be a term describing human behavior and not the politics behind it.

 

[Baulderstone]

Daniel was saying the writers of Discovery are going to use Discovery as a means of demonstrating their political views

Exactly. He was dragging the writers politics into it. Which leads to people taking sides on it.

Let's bring it around to gaming.
"The texts of Myfarog and Blue Rose both are full of virtue signaling."
I guess you'd better call me a psychiatrist then because I must have multiple personality disorder, because according to you, I'm both a Neo-Nazi and SJW.

When have I accused anyone of being either of those things? I can think of a lot of names to throw at you, Krueger, but neither of those terms comes to mind.

I won't disagree with the statement you made in quotes, but it is exactly the kind of thing I wouldn't say on a forum with no politics. I have other places for that, as you know.

Granted this has been the test case, but that's why we're talking about it, right? You're still dancing around not mentioning TP or Belle by name and certainly haven't said "No Neo-Nazi or Alt Right (or SJW for that matter) talk."

It was Post #75.

You know EF and Tristram. I don't know if red text is going to work well on a site with red link text. You might need another mod color. I guess you could change the color of links, but I like the red.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The term "virtue signaling" itself is an apolitical scientific term. It's a term developed originally as applied to humans to explain religious practices. The idea that positing that virtue signaling even exists is political is ridiculous, not to mention quite ignorant.

It's a stipulative term. The fact it's also used as a scientific term doesn't preclude it also having other meanings.

So we have to look at context. And I have trouble seeing how you think that Daniel was in fact making a point about evolutionary biology and its relationship to Star Trek.

It's exactly the same as something like "privilege". The term has an entirely apolitical legal definition. That still isn't mostly how it's used online.

 

[CRKrueger]

As far as common usage goes, there's something everyone is missing.

Even if the people who like Ann Coulter use the term virtue-signaling more often than dog-whistle and the people who like Rachel Maddow use the term dog-whistle more often than virtue-signaling, that does not change the fact that both terms, even when used by ideologues of any stripe, are STILL describing behavior, not the political stance behind it.

The terms aren't political stances, the terms are accusing others of taking political stances. Saying someone is getting political is not in and of itself, political, period.

Tristam, you're the last person I thought would have suggested we let the beliefs of social media write the dictionary.

 

[Baulderstone]

"Despite being branded as an RPG, the Kickstarter campaign for X is full of enough code words that Storygamers everywhere will hear the dog-whistle and know what type of game it really is."

"X as a game is full of modern mechanics but the text is also full of virtue signaling to the old school. The author wants it known he's a grognard and Gronan owes him a beer."

I think the difference with these quotes is that you provide context. We know the dog whistle is for story game mechanics. We know the virtue being signalled is old school gaming.

It's saying things like "X is a game full of virtue signalling" without any clarification. That's an easy way to bait people, like saying "X is a game that is problematic". You didn't actually say anything, and can backpedal away, but there is a definite connotation there. On the other hand, you could say "X is problematic because it's combat system takes two hours to resolve a one on one fight." That statement would be less, um, problematic.

 

[CRKrueger]

It's a stipulative term. The fact it's also used as a scientific term doesn't preclude it also having other meanings.

So we have to look at context. And I have trouble seeing how you think that Daniel was in fact making a point about evolutionary biology and its relationship to Star Trek.

It's exactly the same as something like "privilege". The term has an entirely apolitical legal definition. That still isn't mostly how it's used online.

As I said...Daniel was absolutely claiming that the writers were injecting their politics into Discovery and were advertising that fact.

Here's what everyone is missing...that observation is not political, and that observation is exactly how the term IS used in evolutionary biology. It describes how humans use, like animals, a method of signaling to others.

 

[CRKrueger]

Baulderstone, I'll admit that you have a point in that if someone uses the term "virtue-signaling", common parlance fills in the context of "SJW Virtues" and if someone says "dog-whistle", common parlance fills in the context of "Racist dog-whistle".

But here's the thing. Even if that's true, making the observation that Myfarog contains racist elements isn't a political statement, it's in the text for all to read.

Way up above, Tristam said....

instead of saying
"Leaving aside for a moment the virtue signaling of the writers" you instead said something to the effect of
"Leaving aside the writer's desire to insert their own political posturing into the program," I don't think we'd have had any issues.

...those two sentences mean the exact same thing.

So we're left with "Bad Word Syndrome". The problem is, since, according to everyone here, common parlance and usage mean a lot, then lets me ask you...
Which side has a vested interest in banning the term "virtue signaling"?
Which side has a vested interest in banning the term "dog-whistle"?
See what lovely paths we get to walk down now? The people quitting will be the mods.

 

[TristramEvans]

As far as common usage goes, there's something everyone is missing.

Even if the people who like Ann Coulter use the term virtue-signaling more often than dog-whistle and the people who like Rachel Maddow use the term dog-whistle more often than virtue-signaling, that does not change the fact that both terms, even when used by ideologues of any stripe, are STILL describing behavior, not the political stance behind it.

The terms aren't political stances, the terms are accusing others of taking political stances. Saying someone is getting political is not in and of itself, political, period.

Tristam, you're the last person I thought would have suggested we let the beliefs of social media write the dictionary.

Well I actually totally agree with you up to one point. And that's your assertion that the term has no political context in which the entire motivation of Belle's objection must in and of itself be a political stance. Let me explain, we have two scenarios:

Daniel says "BlahBlah", and Belle, who only knows BlahBlah in a political context from common usage online, says "hey, thats bringing politics into the no politics forum" and reports it.

or

Daniel says "BlahBlah" and Belle, despite knowing full well the term isnt political, relies on some common usage associations and reports it in order to insert politics into the forum.

I not only see the first as the more likely scenario, but it also goes along with giving the benefit of the doubt (just as assuming when Daniel said "BlahBlah" he was not using it as a political buzzword).

But it seems like you are insisting on the second scenario. And I don't see why, given the two possibilities, even assuming the second one is ultimately of any benefit.

 

[Baulderstone]

As I said...Daniel was absolutely claiming that the writers were injecting their politics into Discovery and were advertising that fact.

Here's what everyone is missing...that observation is not political, and that observation is exactly how the term IS used in evolutionary biology. It describes how humans use, like animals, a method of signaling to others.

Sure. It's fine to observe that. I just moderate the observations that I bring up on site specifically marked to avoid getting into tired political fights.

Baulderstone, I'll admit that you have a point in that if someone uses the term "virtue-signaling", common parlance fills in the context of "SJW Virtues" and if someone says "dog-whistle", common parlance fills in the context of "Racist dog-whistle".

But here's the thing. Even if that's true, making the observation that Myfarog contains racist elements isn't a political statement, it's in the text for all to read.

Way up above, Tristam said....

...those two sentences mean the exact same thing.

So we're left with "Bad Word Syndrome". The problem is, since, according to everyone here, common parlance and usage mean a lot, then lets me ask you...
Which side has a vested interest in banning the term "virtue signaling"?
Which side has a vested interest in banning the term "dog-whistle"?
See what lovely paths we get to walk down now? The people quitting will be the mods.

The thing you keep forgetting is that there was no moderation against the term "virtue signalling". No ban. No warning. No removal. Tristram is simply saying that if he had worded it differently, it would have been less controversial. Nobody has banned any words. We are just shooting the breeze on ways we can use them without causing unnecessary drama.

 

[CRKrueger]

I'm not insisting the second, I'll stipulate the first is more likely.

However, as I posted above, if you had to bet your life on someone complaining about the term "virtue-signaling" being from the Left or Right, how would you bet?

The fact that when someone says "Virtue Signaling" people hear "Left Virtue Signaling" doesn't change the fact that "Left Virtue Signaling" isn't a political statement either. So if it's not, why are you complaining? Because you see the term as an attack on the Left, ie. you are now bringing your politics into the conversation.

That's why I brought in the Colonialism argument (which you're right, wasn't the best analogy), the point is, if you're going to police language, for the sake of all that's left of reason in the world, don't let it be based on social media.

 

[CRKrueger]

Sure. It's fine to observe that. I just moderate the observations that I bring up on site specifically marked to avoid getting into tired political fights.



The thing you keep forgetting is that there was no moderation against the term "virtue signalling". No ban. No warning. No removal. Tristram is simply saying that if he had worded it differently, it would have been less controversial. Nobody has banned any words. We are just shooting the breeze on ways we can use them without causing unnecessary drama.

Not sure the term being labeled "out of the Neo-Nazi playbook" is quite shooting the breeze. ;)

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm not insisting the second, I'll stipulate the first is more likely.

However, as I posted above, if you had to bet your life on someone complaining about the term "virtue-signaling" being from the Left or Right, how would you bet?

The fact that when someone says "Virtue Signaling" people hear "Left Virtue Signaling" doesn't change the fact that "Left Virtue Signaling" isn't a political statement either. So if it's not, why are you complaining? Because you see the term as an attack on the Left, ie. you are now bringing your politics into the conversation.

That's why I brought in the Colonialism argument (which you're right, wasn't the best analogy), the point is, if you're going to police language, for the sake of all that's left of reason in the world, don't let it be based on social media.

Fair enough, I agree insofar as that goes.

 

[Baulderstone]

Not sure the term being labeled "out of the Neo-Nazi playbook" is quite shooting the breeze. ;)

I take your point, but I meant more the back and forth between us and the moderators. The mods haven't laid down any rules against forbidden words. We are just talking things through.

 

[Tarot70]

Even if the people who like Ann Coulter use the term virtue-signaling more often than dog-whistle and the people who like Rachel Maddow use the term dog-whistle more often than virtue-signaling, that does not change the fact that both terms, even when used by ideologues of any stripe, are STILL describing behavior, not the political stance behind it.

No. They aren't.

Their sole function is to demean and belittle the ideas and values of their opposition. They are both the semantic equivalent of, 'this am bad.'

 

[CRKrueger]

No. They aren't.

Their sole function is to demean and belittle the ideas and values of their opposition. They are both the semantic equivalent of, 'this am bad.'

So you're saying they can be used Ad Hominem. Ok fine, that's a good argument to make in fact.

But it's not political.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

CRKrueger, what exactly do you foresee happening on this forum? What scenario are we trying to prevent, keeping in mind there are only two moderators and you and I both know them relatively well from their posting history on other, more politically open venues?

 

[Shipyard Locked]

To expand on that, I think we might need to see more cards on the table. For the purposes of this sort of meta-thread, we're probably going to need to be more open than the rest of the site.

Permission to speak freely?

 

[CRKrueger]

CRKrueger, what exactly do you foresee happening on this forum? What scenario are we trying to prevent, keeping in mind there are only two moderators and you and I both know them relatively well from their posting history on other, more politically open venues?

Fair enough.

I don't want them to err on the side of caution to the degree that ideologues use the Reporting mechanism to enforce their own political viewpoints by having non-political words, ideas, etc. branded as political.

 

[TristramEvans]

Permission to speak freely?

Personal attacks a side, for this thread only its pretty much open.

 

[TristramEvans]

I don't want them to err on the side of caution to the degree that ideologues use the Reporting mechanism to enforce their own political viewpoints by having non-political words, ideas, etc. branded as political.

I like to think EF and I are savvy enough to prevent that from happening, but it is something I will keep in mind, especially because of this conversation

 

[K_Peterson]

You know EF and Tristram. I don't know if red text is going to work well on a site with red link text. You might need another mod color. I guess you could change the color of links, but I like the red.

Besides the red text, what's up with the rest of the text in the warning? Bolded white characters or something - what is that?

It appears to look fine with your 'dark' theme, but not with the 'light'.

 

[TristramEvans]

Besides the red text, what's up with the rest of the text in the warning? Bolded white characters or something - what is that?

It appears to look fine with your 'dark' theme, but not with the 'light'.

Yeah, obviously I'm using the dark theme. I wrote it in red, then changed the rest of the font back to white, without realizing what it would look like to all the fools using "normal view"

 

[CRKrueger]

I like to think EF and I are savvy enough to prevent that from happening, but it is something I will keep in mind, especially because of this conversation

...and, what the hell, let's be honest and lay it all out on the table, I'm hoping you're not, shall we say, over-sensitive to cries of Foul coming from the Left like Belle's, because after what happened over "there" the last thing you want to have happen here is a right wing foothold being created.

 

[TristramEvans]

...and, what the hell, let's be honest and lay it all out on the table, I'm hoping you're not, shall we say, over-sensitive to cries of Foul coming from the Left like Belle's, because after what happened over "there" the last thing you want to have happen here is a right wing foothold being created.

I'm not at all. Trust me, I get the fill from the other side from the other place. I'm not going to lay out my politics here (but hey, maybe on my blog), but lets just say I am not overly endeared to either side.

 

[K_Peterson]

I wrote it in red, then changed the rest of the font back to white, without realizing what it would look like to all the fools using "normal view"

Get ready for the RpgPub's second 'report', shit-weasel. ;)
If the dark theme didn't f' with my eyes I'd use it. But it does, and I'm not changing from the Light side.

 

[TristramEvans]

Get ready for the RpgPub's second 'report', shit-weasel. ;)
If the dark theme didn't f' with my eyes I'd use it. But it does, and I'm not changing from the Light side.

 

[Belle Sorciere]

Fair enough.

I don't want them to err on the side of caution to the degree that ideologues use the Reporting mechanism to enforce their own political viewpoints by having non-political words, ideas, etc. branded as political.

I like how I'm an ideologue given that the extent of my involvement was to say "Hey, that's political."

Feel free to point at literally any other political commentary I've made. Hell, watch me like a hawk and report me if you catch me posting political views. I don't care. I'm not here to talk about politics, and that is the extent of my motivation for bringing up daniel's choice of words. I would have responded similarly if someone had brought up privilege or dog whistles or anything else that smacks of political commentary because such comments invite political argument and debate, and the reason I am here is because this forum isn't intended to have that.

I reported daniel's post because my understanding was that this forum is supposed to be a politics free zone, and the way he brought up virtue signalling was clearly political. I made the mistake of mentioning that "virtue signalling" is commonly used by members of the alt right, but I acknowledged that was a mistake earlier in this thread.

Anyway, I'm satisfied with how TristramEvans and Endless Flight have responded to this. I wasn't seeking to get anyone banned or suspended or warned. I wanted to know where the "no politics" line is drawn.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Fair enough.

I don't want them to err on the side of caution to the degree that ideologues use the Reporting mechanism to enforce their own political viewpoints by having non-political words, ideas, etc. branded as political.

Equally, I don't want a situation where ideologues manage to sneak in political digs at each other by arguing semantics and technicalites.

Frankly, I'd rather have a full on no holds barred political subforum before that.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Personal attacks a side, for this thread only its pretty much open.

Ok, so here's how I see it.

The term 'virtue signalling' isn't the issue because the post that used it is still up and I used it in this very thread without incident.

The issue is we have two posters who clashed, and let's be perfectly honest, one leans toward a controversial social movement and one leans away from that controversial movement. Both stand accused of looking to score secret subversion points.

This one incident, the only serious data point we've had so far, is being used as a be-all-end-all litmus test for the site's two stressed out and merely human mods: when things come to a head, will they unconsciously or deliberately 'favor' leaning toward the controversial social movement or leaning away from the controversial social movement?

The most concerned among us have concluded to varying degrees that the mods failed the test and leaned controversial. They supposedly came down hard on Daniel and let Sorciere off scot free and unexamined. Having read all the posts, I disagree.

Daniel was not banned, excoriated, or restricted in any way. Sorciere grossly overstepped later, got called out on it, and then apologized. Daniel vanished of his own free will (unfortunate). Sorciere is still posting perfectly neutral gaming comments.

They both erred, but I don't see either of them in metaphorical gibbets. it wasn't a big deal and we're overreacting, doing exactly what we claimed to have come to this forum to avoid. This single incident, which has resulted in no banned people or words, is only a deal-breaker if you really want it to be.

Those who know Tristram know damn well he isn't beholden to either end of the spectrum we're concerned about. You goddamn know it. If I really need to, I could start copy pasting his posts from other venues that made his beliefs clear long before he became a mod here.

But hey, if we still need to solve this in the long term, then here's my advice Tristram: Whenever the second data point comes along, favor the opposite side so that way people know you're fair! Then just keep them balanced from there on out.

Yes, obviously that last comment was sarcasm.

So come on people, let's get back to games already!

 

[TristramEvans]

Has Daniel actually disappeared over this? If so, thats a shame and I do feel bad if my handling of this led to that. That was very far from my intention. Hopefully he'll make his way back here at some point when things have cooled down.

 

[Belle Sorciere]

My intention in bringing it up was certainly not to chase anyone away. I have nothing against Daniel.

 

[CRKrueger]

the way he brought up virtue signalling was clearly political.

Sorry, but no.
Having the opinion that someone else is being political is not political.

 

[CRKrueger]

Has Daniel actually disappeared over this? If so, thats a shame and I do feel bad if my handling of this led to that. That was very far from my intention. Hopefully he'll make his way back here at some point when things have cooled down.

Dunno about Daniel, but Noman is taking a break it looks like.