Moved from the Star Trek thread (forum rules discussion)

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.

daniel_ream

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
460
Reaction score
541
TristramEvans said:
OK, yeah, its iffy. When it comes to media criticism, its going to be very hard to deal with a lot of stuff without delving into how that media reflects political themes. On the other hand, the comment regarding "virtue signalling" was specifically directed at the writers rather than the content of the media, and, as a phrase, its a bit, shall we say, "politically loaded" in regards to online discourse. So, how about from now on we avoid modern catchphrases altogether and if any political themes in media are discussed, we stick to more general and less contemporary terminology? (And if anyone wants to discuss this further, lets take it to Site Discussion and let this thread get back to Trek).

If you kowtow to whomever gets offended the most loudly over nothing first, you'll be TBP in no time.
 
Sure, but this isnt about offense , its about bringing current political issues into the discussion on the forum. If someone was offended by an element of a game, or a TV show, for that matter, I wouldn't be stepping in to interfere. Thats their issue to deal with. What we will "kowtow" to is the joint decision as a community to avoid politics in the forum.

To a certain extent, I think it would have been easier if everyone just ignored your comment and didnt bother responding, especially if they are of the opinion there's no way to respond without bringing politics into it. At the same time, 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.
 
I think people are too quick to find offence in statements and phrases but if we do want to avoid the annoying nature of other forums to devolve into cat fights we all need to self police and keep politics as far from here as possible.

We've done well so far :smile:
 
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.

Having no politics on the forum is one thing, letting people control the conversation by rewriting the definition of words is another.

Also, the entire point of Trek is social commentary, always has been. If someone is concerned with Roddenberry's intent and vision is at the helm of a Trek series, it will be, at times, political. Hopefully, it will ask questions instead of giving answers and hold up a mirror instead of a holy book. But, some media, and indeed some games out there are inextricably linked with political themes if not outright messages.

I'd like to think we could handle talking about something like Blue Rose without hitting the fainting couch.
You can go just as stupid with the non-politics as other sites have gone with the politics.
 
Last edited:
The term "virtue signaling" itself is an apolitical scientific term.

It used to be. And within a signalling theory context it can still be.

But failing that explicitly stated context, in the common vernacular it has become a pejorative. One that has been co-opted by the 'alt-right' to be used to attack 'libruls.'
 
I'm afraid I have to agree that regardless of the origins of the term, it is common usage thats relevant.

And honestly, people are acting like "no politics" are being taken to the extreme, when we're explicitly making the attempt to let political themes be discussed specifically within the context of their expression and analogies in media. Isn't this whole tangent kind of the complete opposite of enforcing the no-politics rule with an iron fist or something?
 
There have been several posts here that we could have stepped in and said broke the no-politics rule but we let it slide because we let things take their course without acting too soon. We don't shoot first and ask questions later around here.
 
I'm not saying you are shooting first, and I realize this place hasn't even turned towards going down the path of "no politics stupidity", it hasn't even glanced that way.

What I am saying is that the term "virtue signaling" refers to a behavior that exists. The act itself is not in question, it is not in doubt whether the activity itself exists. People do it for reasons relating to religion, politics (left and right), and social class. It is a fact that this behavior exists in humans.

It may have a connotation of being solely an activity done by those on the Left and used as a perjorative by those on the Right. That doesn't change what it is.

Let's be 100% clear here. The actual argument was that acknowledging that virtue signalling exists is itself a political statement. That's an argument that is so unbelievably ridiculous it's almost Orwellian in it's construct, and I honestly can't believe someone like Tristam is even thinking of going there.

What are you going to do, ban the term? What word or phrase is next?
 
What are you going to do, ban the term? What word or phrase is next?

We deleted one post, which was found to be needlessly aggressive. We did not delete the post that was actually reported by a member here. We didn't ban anyone or any behavior or any term and we never plan to! Someone may use the term "virtue signaling" in the future and we might not even notice. It's all on a case by case basis because we are not going to craft a list of rules to post by or a list of words you can't use, etc. We were alerted to this particular instance because it was reported by a member, so action was taken.
 
The actual argument was that acknowledging that virtue signalling exists is itself a political statement. That's an argument that is so unbelievably ridiculous it's almost Orwellian in it's construct, and I honestly can't believe someone like Tristam is even thinking of going there.

Well, that was Belle's argument.

From my point of view, its not the term itself thats a problem, its the political tangent that came out of it that quickly overwhelmed the Trek thread and let to mod reports and an escalation in tempers. No one has banned the term "virtue signalling" from discussion here. I made the suggestion that it would be better for the forum to avoid phrases that are currently politically charged, but thats going to be entirely based on context.
 
I took the No Politics rule to mean no political discussion. Daniel didn't do that, really. He made note of political elements which, as CRK pointed out, are inherent to the franchise. I did the same thing in the thread in question, BTW, referencing the ST:d creators' intent to model the Klingons on Trump supporters (I later edited this out of my original post). I was of the opinion that Daniel's original post wasn't out of line (his reply to Belle certainly was), given that his use of "virtue signaling" was a throw away line that didn't have anything to do with anything.

From my point of view, its not the term itself thats a problem, its the political tangent that came out of it that quickly overwhelmed the Trek thread and let to mod reports and an escalation in tempers. No one has banned the term "virtue signalling" from discussion here. I made the suggestion that it would be better for the forum to avoid phrases that are currently politically charged, but thats going to be entirely based on context.

What I'm taking away from this discussion is the official metric for "No political discussion" now unofficially includes "No political buzz words at all, even if used in a non-political context". The judgment of the appropriateness of said political terms to be determined according to context...which, given that the rest of us can't read minds and don't know who will react negatively to what, means that the use of some actual words and terms are frowned upon, and I'm going to be tiptoeing on this forum more than I am now.

In Daniel's case, he drew attention for violating a rule none of us knew existed.

I disagree with this approach in the strongest possible terms.
 
Well, I'm not going to Orwell myself, sorry. I'm not letting a person's political opinion redefine the english language. You're going to have to do it. The term has meaning regardless of what virtues you are talking about. Hell people virtue signal all the time in the Old School/New School war threads you see. I'll use the term if I feel it's appropriate and you do what you gotta do. You're the one that has to look yourself in the mirror.

EDIT: I am not talking about Ream's response (which I did not see) which apparently was quite inflammatory. I'm talking about the board, as Ream so adequately put it, kowtowing to one person's factually and provably incorrect definition of a term, rendering that term Verboten. That's some seriously ridiculous bullshit. We start a Paranoia or Underground LARP and no one tell me?
 
I'm going to be tiptoeing on this forum more than I am now.

As long as you are respectful of everyone here and you don't talk about current real-world politics, I don't think you'll have to walk on ice. ;)

This is all a learning experience for us as staff. I feel like members are coming from all kinds of different forum where different rules are applied in different ways and we have to find our way here. I'd like us to be as welcoming as possible so we are trying to allow free speech as much as possible with as few rules as possible. It may work, it may not. Mistakes will be made. They've been made everywhere else. We aren't special and there will never be a perfect forum on the internet. All I can say is that the mods here will try their best to administer the rules as fairly as they can.

I'm rambling now but I wish this was all easier than it is.
 
Last edited:
As long as you are respectful of everyone here and you don't talk about current real-world politics, I don't think you'll have to walk on ice.

This isn't about me, Endless.

EDIT: When I quoted your post, the above quote was the only text I saw. I agree with and respect the paragraph that came after.
 
Last edited:
I took the No Politics rule to mean no political discussion. Daniel didn't do that, really. He made note of political elements which, as CRK pointed out, are inherent to the franchise.

Well no, the post in question was about the writer's virtue signalling, not the inherent political elements of the franchise. The whole point of this conversation is that I completely agree its impossible to meaningfully discuss Trek without acknowledging the poltical themes that have always pervaded the show.

I did the same thing in the thread in question, BTW, referencing the ST:d creators' intent to model the Klingons on Trump supporters (I later edited this out of my original post). I was of the opinion that Daniel's original post wasn't out of line (his reply to Belle certainly was), given that his use of "virtue signaling" was a throw away line that didn't have anything to do with anything.

I tentatively agree. Understand that no mod actions were taken regarding that post. I stepped in to get the thread back on topic, try to calm the waters, and remove that particular tangent to here at Site Discussion. I could see it from both Daniel's and Belle's PoV, and I really wasnt trying to take sides, just solve a problem.

What I'm taking away from this discussion is the official metric for "No political discussion" now unofficially includes "No political buzz words at all, even if used in a non-political context". The judgment of the appropriateness of said political terms to be determined according to context...which, given that the rest of us can't read minds and don't know who will react negatively to what, means that the use of some actual words and terms are frowned upon, and I'm going to be tiptoeing on this forum more than I am now.

There's no "unofficial rules" or secret traps here. I made a suggestion that we avoid terms that are politically charged, but thats not a moderator edict, thats still me imploring you guys to police yourselves. The thing to keep in mind is its not the post that caused me to step in, its the effect. If a thread is derailed by a political tangent, even a meta one, thats the point I put on the moderator hat. Not for individual posts, throwaway lines, or anything else.

In Daniel's case, he drew attention for violating a rule none of us knew existed.
I disagree with this approach in the strongest possible terms.

I'm not sure anyone said Daniel violated a rule, in fact I specifically said otherwise, didn't I?
And even if he violated the "no poltics" rule by my estimation, the sum consequences are what? This ongoing conversation?
 
We'll see.
Also, read the edit I made to my post you just quoted.

Thank you for reading the whole thing. I wanted to add more stuff after I hit the 'post reply', which I do too quickly too often.
 
I made the suggestion that it would be better for the forum to avoid phrases that are currently politically charged, but thats going to be entirely based on context.
It might also be good to instead of responding to every Report with intervention to instead tell a poster that being apolitical also means not subscribing to their political views, and they may want to not be so hyper-sensitive, and in any case, we're not redefining the english language, especially on Samuel Johnson's birthday. :grin:
 
This forum is five months old and we just had our first report yesterday. I'd say we've been pretty fortunate so far that more reports have not been made. If we could go five months before another report, I'd be the happiest admin around.
 
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 pretty clear that the term was being used in its pejorative sense, and not in an apolitical sense.

"Leaving aside for a moment the virtue signaling of the writers, this new phenomenon of everyone trying to have their own Netflix and siloing content off into multiple $10/month streaming services could kill the business model."

If you are going to leave aside a potentially volatile topic, then leave it aside. Don't lead with it at the beginning your post, and then slide into another topic. The sentence is actually about fragmenting streaming services. Just lead with that. Maybe it wasn't Daniel's intent, but the oblique aside feels like an attempt to draw out a response.

I know it is hard to hold this stuff in sometimes. I typed up a comment today and then deleted it before posting it. I realized I had strayed into talking about government regulation of an industry, and while it wasn't a particularly volatile issue, "REGULATION" is a red flag word for some people. I've shared my thoughts on the matter elsewhere, so I can live without saying it here, as much as it pains me to deprive you all of my wisdom.

Anyway, I don't want to come off as dogpiling Daniel here. He plays rough at times, but I like a lot of what he says about gaming here even when I disagree with him. I've probably been edgier than I should have been myself in a certain thread over the last 24 hours, and I apologize for that. I hope we can continue to keep the tone of the site intact without the mods having to turn into cops.
 
This forum is five months old and we just had our first report yesterday. I'd say we've been pretty fortunate so far that more reports have not been made. If we could go five months before another report, I'd be the happiest admin around.
I'm sure you would, but just realize that measured response to Reports (including outright ignoring some) is the way to ensure you get less of them. Greasing the squeaky wheel is not.
 
Anyway, I don't want to come off as dogpiling Daniel here. He plays rough at times, but I like a lot of what he says about gaming here even when I disagree with him. I've probably been edgier than I should have been myself in a certain thread over the last 24 hours, and I apologize for that. I hope we can continue to keep the tone of the site intact without the mods having to turn into cops.

I'd like to build off this comment. The actions taken in no way mean that we think Daniel is a bad member or person. He's been a valuable contributor here since he signed up just like everyone else. He posted something, it was reported, we took action and now it's over. We move on with no ill will. We don't put any terms into a naughty box. We didn't warn (or ban) anyone, even though there is a nice warning system that this forum has (a joke there). We didn't chastise the member reporting the post for being too sensitive (which we didn't say he/she was or think he/she is).

We don't mind having this conversation if it helps clear the air.
 
It's pretty clear that the term was being used in its pejorative sense, and not in an apolitical sense.
To be fair, to the one doing the virtue signaling or the one whose virtues are being signaled to, identifying it as such will probably seem perjorative. Belle Sorciere obviously agrees with the virtues Daniel believes the writers were signaling, so they obviously see it as perjorative. There are similar terms like "yellow journalism" that have factual usage that are also usually considered insults by those whom the charge is leveled against. It does not make it incorrect.
 
I'm sure you would, but just realize that measured response to Reports (including outright ignoring some) is the way to ensure you get less of them. Greasing the squeaky wheel is not.

I think having this conversation out in the open helps. We could have just deleted the post and swept it under the rug and then squashed anybody questioning our decision making. That won't happen here though.
 
It might also be good to instead of responding to every Report with intervention to instead tell a poster that being apolitical also means not subscribing to their political views, and they may want to not be so hyper-sensitive.

No matter what, someone's going to be pissed off about something. I've been clear from the start, my approach is going to be talking, with anything else as a last resort. In this case I think conversation (and changing the venue of the conversation) was enough to get that thread back on track without alienating one side or the other. But I'm seeing hyper-sensitivity all over the place these days.

To be fair, to the one doing the virtue signaling or the one whose virtues are being signaled to, identifying it as such will probably seem perjorative. Belle Sorciere obviously agrees with the virtues Daniel believes the writers were signaling, so they obviously see it as perjorative. There are similar terms like "yellow journalism" that have factual usage that are also usually considered insults by those whom the charge is leveled against. It does not make it incorrect.

The point of "no politics" is not to take a side in regards to moderation. You seem to be acknowledging here that interpretation of the post depends on one's political views.
 
The point of "no politics" is not to take a side in regards to moderation. You seem to be acknowledging here that interpretation of the post depends on one's political views.
This is the argument:
Asserting that virtue signalling exists in any particular context is a political claim all on its own and implies an entire political outlook.
This is an objectively false statement. It's redefining language to fit a particular political view.

I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but that doesn't mean Belle's interpretation was wrong either.
That is the voice of the board objectively supporting that false statement.

Daniel's assessment of the Discovery writers is not speaking to their political beliefs, it's speaking to their social behavior. ANY virtue can be signaled. You can agree with the virtues being expressed yet still think people are virtue signaling. Anyone can virtue signal, from Buddhists to Neo-Nazi's. If the writers were going to be talking about expressing the beliefs of Robert Heinlein, Daniel could have said the same thing, and what he said still wouldn't be political.
 
I'm in class now, so I'll respond in depth later tonight. For now all I can say is that even if I 100% agreed with you, I still would have handled the situation the same way. I'm not concerned with assigning blame, I just wanted the political derail to cease.
 
This is the argument: This is an objectively false statement. It's redefining language to fit a particular political view.

That is the voice of the board objectively supporting that false statement.

Daniel's assessment of the Discovery writers is not speaking to their political beliefs, it's speaking to their social behavior. ANY virtue can be signaled. You can agree with the virtues being expressed yet still think people are virtue signaling. Anyone can virtue signal, from Buddhists to Neo-Nazi's. If the writers were going to be talking about expressing the beliefs of Robert Heinlein, Daniel could have said the same thing, and what he said still wouldn't be political.

Tristram, rather than clutter this thread further with my posts, I'm going to hold off on my reply to your response above, and wait until you've responded to CRK above.

CRK's quote above summarizes my thoughts on the matter better than I think I could express them.

Also, my internet is dropping sporadically. If I suddenly become inactive in the next few days, it's not because I'm ragequiting or anything.
 
One of my pet peeves with another forum is having to edit what you say all the time when your actually on topic for the thread. I am an annoying advocate and passionate about avoiding derailing threads, even though I'm hypocritically guilty of it myself sometimes.

With respect to Belle here though, do we really want this to be a place where every single word or phrase has to be measured against 'possibly' offending someone. I didn't see the deleted message so that may be another issue. Daniel can be a prickly thorn sometimes but that certainly hasn't outweighed his contributions to threads and we'd be the unicorns farting rainbows if we were all perfect.

Personally unless the thread suddenly veers into politics or off topic we should be broad shouldered enough to allow for little differences in opinion.

I'd say the rules are simple

no politics (but I agree with CJKreuger to an extent)

But also

No personal attacks/arguments - address the topic not the person. Getting personal just means every time the other person posts the thread devolves.

I had a point but i went to bed late and my backs killing me so it may not be as clear as I'd like. Basically peace out or some hippy phrase :p
 
Okay, just this once, I'm going to take this from the beginning and explain my entire thought process. I say, just this once, because I will burn out as a mod ultrafast if I'm expected to do this everytime I make a call as a mod. It will be doubly exhausting to explain my actions, when basically no actions were taken. So bookmark this, its basically overall how my thought processes work and how I view my responsibilities to this community as a moderator, and will likely be applicable to anything I do in the future, because I'm relatively consistent in this regards.

Last night I notice that this little notification thing at the top of the forum page, telling me there's a report. I'd never seen this before, had no idea how long it was there, and so went to read it. I wont quote the report, but its basically the same argument that Belle made in the thread. So I went and looked at the thread, and at that time there was what you see there..and Daniel's response to Belle, which was, shall we say, vitriolic. It was obviously headed in a bad direction from that point. If this had just been a vitriolic fight regarding Trek itself, I would not have stepped in, because you guys can flamewar to your hearts content about the content of a science fiction series. The meta-discussion about the post itself between Belle, Ulys....er, noman, and Daniel though, had the potential to take over the thread and was crossing the line. A discussion about whether a post is political is, in and of itself, a political discussion. At the very least it was more appropriate for Site Discussion, and not the thread itself.

So, I erased the last post so as not to invite Belle (or anyone else) to respond (but left it visible for EF so he could make the final call on whether it should be erased), gave my initial thoughts on the matter (which you've all read), wrote a note to EF regarding the report, and invited anyone who wanted to continue the digression to move it here to the Site discussion forum.

This is all elementary, but thats the bare facts of what happened and the extent of my actions as a moderator - I erased a post, and asked that further discussion be taken to the appropriate forum. On top of that I made some suggestions in regards on how to avoid this as a problem in the future. Note the word suggestion. If I make a ruling as a moderator, I'm not going to pussyfoot around about it. I'll use the cliched red text, there won't be any doubt or interpretation of my language.

Please note, equally important, what I did not do as a moderator
- give a warning, infraction, or any other sort of disciplinary measure to anyone
- assign blame to anyone
- ban any words or phrases

So, this is all stuff we all know, which I think is important to establish before I now go into my personal thoughts on the matter.
Here's where I'm going to piss some people off, but in reading this, I want you to at the very least, no matter how much you disagree with me, are horrified by my politics, or are annoyed by my biases, stay aware of the juxtaposition between my thoughts as an individual and my actions in the role of a mod.

When I first read the post by Daniel, I thought two things: "the statement was complete unnecessary to the point he was making" and "this is bait for a political reaction."

Thats a suspicion. I'm, completely by admission, inferring a motive that may or may not have been there. I'll still scrunch my eyes and and go "hmmmmmm" at any denial of this. Why? Well, here's my bias:

I first encountered the phrase virtue signalling a few years ago online in one specific context: calling out social justice advocates, either for pompously self-aggrandizing in the course of a conversation based on their political views, or in media, inserting blatant political call-outs that make no sense in the context of the media themselves, but are there simply to note how "woke" the writer is.
wow-1.jpg

tumblr_o3acl84gXZ1rsus6so1_500.png

In the years since I've continued to see this phrase used in this one specific context (I've used it in this context), and have not, to date seen it mentioned outside of the criticism of the far left & avowed online feminists (especially those noted as "white knights"), etc.

On the other hand, I completely disagree with Belle that this has anything specifically to do with the alt-right, as the vast majority of people I've personally seen use the phrase are not members of the alt-right (and there's very few people who identify as alt-righters I've really paid much attention to). But, like Belle, this is the context that I am familiar with the phrase from. Highly politicized, always directed as a criticism towards the American Left and like-minded.

OK, so all that said, my first reaction reading Belle's response was "why the fuck take the bait and make this a thing?" I think it could have just passed by without causing any issues. There was plenty of Trek discussion after it before the tangent, the meat of Daniel's actual post, regarding subscription services and piracy, could be addressed without the rest. I was annoyed, more than anything. Take something, even if I also saw it as discretely toe-in-the-water political, and make certain that it turns into a discussion of politics.

Then, I stepped into my moderator shoes.

As I've said before on here my approach to moderating involves, primarily, mutual respect. One big part of this is giving the benefit of the doubt. Like most here, I've seen moderation that doesn't extend the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, I've seen moderation that instead bends over backwards to try and justify suspicions well beyond any logical reading. And I hate that. So, until irrevocably proven otherwise, or at least as far as logic can bend without breaking, I will extend everyone here in the community the benefit of the doubt.

So Daniel says he was not using the phrase in political terms. CKR says the term has no specific relation to modern politics inherently in its use. OK, I recognize I have biases, I've never looked into the history of the phrase at any point, I know my experiences aren't the be all and end all. So I accept that, and push aside my initial reaction. I don't know Daniel well enough to make any assumptions about his motivations with any certainty.

And at the same time, I can empathize with Belle's PoV, for all the reasons given above. Daniel and CKR's response is to claim they are doing nothing but shit-stirring. I don't know (neither I would guess do Daniel or CKR) Belle well enough to make that assumption about regarding motivation either. Belle could be wrong in interpretation, and still have a valid reason to see it as a politically-charged phrase. Regardless of the phrases origin, or its academic use, if I know the phrase from its common usage in that context, why should it surprise me that anyone else would have the same initial reaction. And not being a mod, what reason is there to extend the benefit of the doubt that I personally see as my duty to the community?

So there's the two points of view. Is my responsibility then to take a side? If I come down in support of one interpretation or the other, not only am I not giving both members of the community the benefit of the doubt, I'm alienating at least one member of the site, maybe more. And like my approach to GMing, I see the point of being a moderator is in the name: moderate. The middle ground.

You know why I like the site's no politics rule? Because what I hate more than anything is the divisiveness of modern political discourse. The way its become this false dichotomy of Us vs Them, with no room for nuance, empathy, or compassion. "You voted for this person? then you're a racist scumbag". "You support this group of activists? Then you're an immoral hate-mongerer." "If you aren't 100% with us, you are against us." That, to me, is the definition of political extremism, and more and more in online discourse it seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The easiest way to know if you are a political extremist is if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the excluded middle. Thats the kind of stuff I don't want on this forum. This mentality that makes enemies of other people for having a different PoV, no matter how insignificant the difference.

And CKR, even though you are in this thread making a linguistic argument, rather than a political one, I'm still seeing that same absolutism in the argument. If I dont condemn Belle categorically as 100% in the wrong, then I am supporting a fallacious viewpoint. Sorry man, even though I think you present your argument well and agree with most of what you say, at that specific point my response is "fuck that." My motivation is that everyone continue to enjoy this forum as a community that is a respite from the political divisiveness that infects almost every part of online socialization these days, not to make sure that every utterance is a bastion of "objective" truths.

If at some point it becomes a clear pattern of behaviour that Belle is continually calling out people for each and every statement that could possibly be interpreted as political, at that point I'll moderate. But right now this is our forum's first report, its the first time I've felt the need to step in and curtail a political digression, and I don't care who started it. I just care that we all go back to enjoying our escapist fantasies without the annoyances of the real world intruding on our little slice of geeky heaven. If I can moderate something without the need to cast anyone in the sole role of enemy, thats always going to be my preferred approach, because its the moderate approach, and the only way I can ensure that that promise of mutual respect isn't dependent on only one subjective view of a given situation, including my own.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, to the one doing the virtue signaling or the one whose virtues are being signaled to, identifying it as such will probably seem perjorative. Belle Sorciere obviously agrees with the virtues Daniel believes the writers were signaling, so they obviously see it as perjorative. There are similar terms like "yellow journalism" that have factual usage that are also usually considered insults by those whom the charge is leveled against. It does not make it incorrect.
You're assigning views to me that I did not state nor do I necessarily hold. I do not know enough about Star Trek Discovery to say whether I agree or disagree with the writers on anything. You're building a straw man here.

I would have responded the same to any political statement because I do not come here to debate politics, and I think such statements are bait for political commentary.

I also did not say that "virtue signalling" was pejorative. I said it was political. TristramEvans describes in detail how it is political. You're reading "pejorative" into what I wrote, but it is most definitely not present.

In any event, since "virtue signalling" is almost entirely used in a political context (calling out people who express left-wing political views) my statement simply cannot be objectively false.

This didn't offend me. I saw a political statement on a forum that is supposed to be free of politics. The fact that I pointed that out is not a sign of offense.

Anyway, in the future I won't call anyone out for political commentary. My mistake in this particular thread (well not this thread we're in but you know what I mean) was to question the usage openly.
 
Last edited:
You know what I find hilarious about this whole thing?

Daniel and I have been going round and round for two weeks. He argued with me because I engaged in RPG BadWrongFun: the mental health edition, he argued with me because his Amber players were too stupid to fully exploit sorcery, we disagreed on game balance, and he accused me of getting emotional.

And here I am defending him. Here I am actually getting emotional.

The irony is killing me.

Tristram, Endless, I want to make something very clear upfront.

This is your site. You are the ones who are paying for it in both treasure and time. No one, including me, has any right to your work here. No one has the right to tell you how to conduct your business here. Including and especially me.

But I likewise have no obligation to participate at a place I find disagreeable.

I came to this site knowing full well there'd be moderation judgments I don't agree with. Very likely, some of those judgments would include me, given some of the characteristics of the noman persona.

I value this site. I value what you've created here. I'm willing to accept a judgment I don't agree with, even one directed at me, in order to continue to post here. This place gives me a much needed outlet, and I can tolerate a great deal of disagreeable actions because of it.

However, there are certain lines I will not tolerate being crossed.

The primary rule here is no political discussion. Daniel didn't break that rule. He didn't initiate, or try to engage anyone in, a political discussion. The made use of a political term.

A political term or buzz word is not a political discussion.

Some of you have argued that Daniel was attempting to provoke. Really? How do you know? Can you prove that? You're assuming intent where there's not one shred of evidence for it. Daniel's been posting here for a while, and while he can get a little prickly, I've never seen him try to provoke anyone on this forum, including me.

Daniel didn't break any rules. He used a political buzzword, a new member seized upon its use, blew it out of proportion, and it snowballed into an avalanche of derp that Daniel is in no way responsible for.

Tristram, you wrote this:

Please note, equally important, what I did not do as a moderator
- give a warning, infraction, or any other sort of disciplinary measure to anyone
- assign blame to anyone
- ban any words or phrases

This is factually untrue.

You deleted Daniel's angry reply to Belle. You, a moderator with authority over him, intervened and told him to calm down (which is an implied warning, given it comes from someone with authority). You exercied your authority over him, however lightly.

Belle, who actually initiated the political discussion, got a gentle pat on the head and, "Don't worry, everything is okay", while Daniel got his post deleted.

Just because you didn't bring down the ban-hammer or give any sort of formal warning, dosen't mean you didn't exercise your authority as a moderator. Do you think Daniel believes you took no action against him?

And as for Daniel's angry reply to Belle, guess what? If it had been me, and someone else was demanding I censor my own use of language that didn't break the understood rules, I'd have been a lot less gentle than Daniel was.

And this is my one and only issue here. I would STFU and tolerate all of this, however much I don't like it, except for one thing:

Belle's objection was the use of a term. A phrase. Not because it was used as part of a political discussion, not because it was used to attack anyone, but because it existed, that it was used at all.

I find this attitude repellant.

Language is not politics. The use of a political term, in and of itself, is not a political statement. "Virtue signaling" is not some ridiculously Alt-Right verbal ninjutsu that is somehow a political attack in and of itself.

Daniel was spanked while Belle was given assurances. The use of a political term was punished and the sentiment that such terms have no place in any discussion was endorsed. You've made it clear that you, a mod, prefers that political language not be used. Combined, this sends a clear message: The No Politics line can be shifted at any time for any reason in order to keep the peace.

You can police behavior, gentlemen. You can't police language. That's what you're doing here. That's my objection.

And please don't insult me with any more assurances of "We're not doing that," and "It's not going to happen to you." Because it just fucking did. To Daniel. You're like two cops telling me there's no violent crime in my town when I'm looking right at the victim.

Nothing you've written so far has, in any way, actually debunked any of the arguments CRK or I have made.

I think Daniel's gone (hope I'm wrong). If so, I just lost my favorite playmate on this board.

I was just a political as he was in the thread in question. I've been pushing the boundaries of the No Politics rule far more than he has, and no one got on my case about it.

Because I didn't use certain types of words or terms perhaps?

Yesterday it was Daniel. Tomorrow it'll be me. Given the more impish elements of the noman persona, it's only a matter of time before some hyper-sensitive member goes off on something I wrote and it turns out the same way as it did with Daniel. Except worse. Becuse I'm not as nice as he is.

And gentlemen, if you're still unable to to fully grasp the point CRK and I have been trying to make, I don't know what else to write here.

If you persist in this attitude, then Daniel was right in the OP: You've taken the first step to becoming RPG.net.

We're going from from Gaming BadWrongFun, to BadWrongLanguage.

I reject this; I reject it completely.

EDIT: Belle, I'm not picking on you at all, though you're certainly free to give me a piece of your mind if you need to. I respect the fact that you apologized in the thread in question, and I don't have anything against you personally. I hope you stay here at the Pub, and enjoy yourself while you're here. My issue here isn't with you. It's with Tristram and Endless, or more precisely, their judgement in this matter.
 
Last edited:
I know it is hard to hold this stuff in sometimes.

Boy is it ever. I think carefully about every post.

The problem is we actually enjoy this stuff. We get a little surge, a thrill out of skirting taboos, artfully veiling ideological statements, and taking dramatic stances. The 'good fight', whatever that means to each individual, feels good. But it's also super distracting, and it's everywhere now.

Relearning how to let go is hard.

I had to leave theRPGsite partly because I was getting too much of that sort of negative pleasure (only purer) there and losing focus on the hobby. I still crave that hit when I'm not vigilant, and if I can't get it I might settle for its close relative, drama. Tasty, cathartic drama, mmm...

So yeah, on this site I choose to self-censor, I choose to back down, I choose to let things go for my own benefit, not just for others. If I ever feel like virtue signalling on any point of the ideological XYZ graph, the places where I can do so are multiplying by the month.
 
The problem is we actually enjoy this stuff. We get a little surge, a thrill out of skirting taboos, artfully veiling ideological statements, and taking dramatic stances. The 'good fight', whatever that means to each individual, feels good. But it's also super distracting, and it's everywhere now.

Contrary to what some might think, given my position on this matter, I don't enjoy any of this at all. I am, in fact, feeling quite miserable about the whole thing.

I had to leave theRPGsite partly because I was getting too much of that sort of negative pleasure (only purer) there and losing focus on the hobby. I still crave that hit when I'm not vigilant, and if I can't get it I might settle for its close relative, drama. Tasty, cathartic drama, mmm...

I left theRPGsite because Pundit was openly promoting political violence. My disagreement on this forum dosen't come anywhere close to that.

So yeah, on this site I choose to self-censor, I choose to back down, I choose to let things go for my own benefit, not just for others. If I ever feel like virtue signalling on any point of the ideological XYZ graph, the places where I can do so are multiplying by the month.

Then perhaps I should do so as well. Perhaps this is the better way.
 
I've said all I'm going to say on this subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top