Moved from the Star Trek thread (forum rules discussion)

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd have sworn I made two posts in the thread, that vanished. Maybe it was somewhere else, but, honestly I may have been over the line. No big deal, just curious.
 
No posts have been deleted in this thread, David. Go ahead and share your thoughts if you'd like.
 
Belle Sorciere said:
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.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The term did not begin in the realm of politics, and still is used outside the realm of politics, so your statement can't be anything but objectively false.
 
CRKrueger said:
Incorrect. The term did not begin in the realm of politics, and still is used outside the realm of politics, so your statement can't be anything but objectively false.
Click to expand...

And yet, if you check a corpora of English usage, you will find that more than 95% of the time in both spoken and written English, its collocations show it to be used in a political sense.
 
Tarot70 said:
And yet, if you check a corpora of English usage, you will find that more than 95% of the time in both spoken and written English, its collocations show it to be used in a political sense.
Click to expand...

Tarot, I don't think I've seen you before, so welcome to the Pub!

whether you agree or disagree with me or CRK, I'm glad you're giving the Pub a chance.

This kerfuffle is the exception, not the rule.
 
The Butcher said:
I have nothing to add to the issue at hand other than to salute everyone involved for keeping a level head. And Tristram and EF in particular — amazing how something as simple as "no politics" gets so difficult to pin down, so fast!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree. I can be a grating son of a bitch at times, and I appreciate both Tristram and Endless keeping their cool.
 
Endless Flight said:
No posts have been deleted in this thread, David. Go ahead and share your thoughts if you'd like.
Click to expand...
I thought I did but they're not there. It's okay, there was some stuff on "virtue signaling" being a fault that every faction and viewpoint suffers from and something about hoping Orville blows Discovery out of the water. And I'm sure I posted it here because this is where the virtue signalling debate got heated. I checked a few other sites to see it was somewhere else and I didn't find it. But no worries, just odd.
 
David Johansen said:
I thought I did but they're not there. It's okay, there was some stuff on "virtue signaling" being a fault that every faction and viewpoint suffers from and something about hoping Orville blows Discovery out of the water. And I'm sure I posted it here because this is where the virtue signalling debate got heated. I checked a few other sites to see it was somewhere else and I didn't find it. But no worries, just odd.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I meant to contact you about that but then got distracted with a long reply to this thread, and yesterday I worked a ten hour shift on 4 hours of sleep so I'm only just getting back to this now. It was a continuation of the virtue signalling conversation on that thread after this thread had started, and in retrospect I could have just edited out that part and left in your comment regarding Orville, but I was in "have to stop this tangent" mode, so I apologize if I was a bit heavyhanded in my moderation duties there.
 
Tarot70 said:
And yet, if you check a corpora of English usage, you will find that more than 95% of the time in both spoken and written English, its collocations show it to be used in a political sense.
Click to expand...
Even if I thought for one second you actually checked a corpora of anything before you made your statement, the usage is describing human behavior, not a political stance. Any virtue can be signaled. If you really wanted to ban the term, you'd be at least in the ballpark if instead of claiming it's a political term, saying it's some form of ad hominem.
 
TristramEvans said:
but I was in "have to stop this tangent" mode, so I apologize if I was a bit heavyhanded in my moderation duties there.
Click to expand...
I'm saying this without any snark or nastiness whatsoever, but that's exactly what happens when you kneejerk respond to Reports.

What were you trying to accomplish that couldn't have been handled with:
"Hey all, discussing the political motivations of the Discovery writers is off-topic and while the term "virtue signaling" is not political, discussing whether the writers are signaling in this case political virtue certainly will become political, so please stay off the politics, even though sometimes that is difficult with Trek being Trek."
 
I don't think anything was kneejerk. I didn't really do anything for at least 8 hours, possibly more, and I made the final call on deleting Daniel's post. Prior to that, it was moved out of public view after Tristram did his initial check.

Either way, this is a learning experience as it's our first report and we may adjust our policies in dealing with posts that we consider aggressive or crossing the line, etc. Thanks for the input.
 
noman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think Endless and I are trying our best to take the community's wishes overall here. This is why I've shied away from ultimatums, and also why I think that a thread like this being encouraged is meant to show that, not only do we want and listen to input from everyone who posts here, but that we are okay with being questioned and disagreed with.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with you there. The debate being put forth by Daniel and CKR is that "virtue signalling" is not inherently a political term. When we, as a site, decided on the "No Politics" rule, we also decided that would be interpreted as broadly and specifically as is needed. I don't want political terms or buzzwords to be commonplace or considered acceptable here. I don't want to see people dropping comments about "SJWs" or "Pinko-Commies" and then claiming "well it wasn't political conversation" Its still going to bring all the problems that politics bring to a site, raising tempers, causing divisions, what have you. There may be times, like this, that people feel that we are being heavy-handed in our moderation, but at the same time most of the slip-ups of that sort have been ignored. Its only when this turned the conversation from the media being discussed to a debate about the political implications of the term that I stepped in. But that doesn't mean using political buzzwords is okay.

At the end of the day my evaluation regarding "Virtue Signalling" is this: its a term that describes a behaviour that could be applied to anyone regardless of politics, so its not inherently a political buzzword, but its one I prefer people avoid just because there are currently associations in people's mind about it. I'm not going to infract someone for using the phrase, unless its shown that in the future it inevitably leads to a political discussion, but my primary goal here is to keep the forum free of politics, not to enforce the correct use of the English language.


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.
Click to expand...

If Daniel used a political buzzword, that is "breaking the rules." The point of people leaping to his defense, again, is that its not a political buzzword, not that political buzzwords are OK. To reiterate: they are not. It is not necessary to use a political buzzword to discuss RPGs or comics or TV, and if one finds that one cant comment on something without the use of political buzzwords, that should be a good indication thats a conversation for another place online. (there's a reason I don't talk about current Marvel comics here)

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.
Click to expand...

A Warning, in this context, is a statement as a moderator saying "you've broken a rule, don't do it again." Its not something implied or inferred. I exercised my authority as a Mod to cease a political tangent in a thread. That is, insofar as this forum is concerned, my primary duty as a moderator.

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.
Click to expand...

If Belle had escalated the conversation to the point of a personal attack, I would have erased that post as well.

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?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you mean "action against him"? Listen I understand that from the PoV of some people here that Daniel did nothing wrong and Belle instigated this. I also understand, from the other PoV, that Belle responded to the use of a perceived political buzzword. What I did was the minimum I saw necessary to restore order and remove the political tangent. I removed Daniel's post because it was escalation of a problem in progress. I understand if Daniel feels put out by that. Or that, from the PoV that he is blameless, it can be seen as the blame was unduly put on him by implication while the so-called "guilty party" was condoned. But as I took pains to explain, I don't moderate based on taking into account one PoV, whether I agree with it or not.

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.
Click to expand...

And I would have erased that too, for exactly the same reason. Because ultimately, I'm not concerned with how people feel. Thats not the basis on which I make decisions as a moderator, otherwise we would be back to the situation where moderation is based on what offends the majority.

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.
Click to expand...

"Punished" and "Spanked." I don't see either having happened. What punishment did Daniel receive? Was erasing a post a punishment? If so, this use of the term is so broad I find it meaningless.

Yes, the use of a political term can in and of itself be a political statement. If you accuse someone of being a "Fascist", thats a political statement. If someone dismisses their behaviour as "White Knighting" thats a political statement. Throughout this I've been trying very hard to see both points of view, to not take sides. But there is a point where I am going to take a hard line , and its this: No politics. You have the entire internet to spread those buzzwords, to make those arguments, to engage in that fight. Its not wanted here. This is not a line that "can be shifted at any time" - its the line, period. The only "shifting" is 1) giving the benefit of the doubt and 2) accepting we're all human and going to slip up from time to time and I'm not going to jump to infracting or banning someone just because of that. The majority of cases I would hope that the community just polices itself. And so far, this has been the case. Because the community as a whole doesn't want politics infesting this forum, and thats what I'm going to try my best to ensure.

You're like two cops telling me there's no violent crime in my town when I'm looking right at the victim.
Click to expand...

Victim? really?

Seriously Daniel, do you feel that I victimized you?

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.
Click to expand...

Well fucking stop that.
 
Last edited:
CRKrueger said:
I'm saying this without any snark or nastiness whatsoever, but that's exactly what happens when you kneejerk respond to Reports.

What were you trying to accomplish that couldn't have been handled with:
"Hey all, discussing the political motivations of the Discovery writers is off-topic and while the term "virtue signaling" is not political, discussing whether the writers are signaling in this case political virtue certainly will become political, so please stay off the politics, even though sometimes that is difficult with Trek being Trek."
Click to expand...


Fair enough, I wouldn't say it was "kneejerk" exactly, I put some thought into it before intervening in that thread, but there's always ways things can be handled better. I probably wont handle things exactly the same the next time because of how its gone this time. I'm sure there's always going to be better ways to handle things.
 
Thanks, Horus.

I understand if people are a bit anxious about how we moderate here after this event. It's a first for us as I've said before. Many of the members here have been awesome at policing themselves when they think they might be going over the line, sometimes they stop themselves when I or Tristram probably wouldn't have because we wouldn't really think it's overtly political. We are all just trying to get into a good spot. I think we are trying to find a place where we don't need too many rules and the place isn't a free-for-all where anything goes. I view our conversations here as being like a chat you would have with your friends over a cup of coffee around a table. The rule is basically the Golden Rule and the politics rule extends from that. I've seen people lose their basic decency when politics are involved, even family members. And it's worse online, because you aren't face to face with the person you are debating.

It's never easy!
 
Last edited:
CRKrueger said:
Even if I thought for one second you actually checked a corpora of anything before you made your statement, the usage is describing human behavior, not a political stance. Any virtue can be signaled. If you really wanted to ban the term, you'd be at least in the ballpark if instead of claiming it's a political term, saying it's some form of ad hominem.
Click to expand...

I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar.

Anyhow, I did check the usage. In one corpora (about 1b words, current to present day) there were 210 instances of the phrase:
One was academic, around 2010.
Two uses amounted to, "What does 'virtue signalling' mean?"
207 uses were after 2015 and political. I saw no references to, for example, piety or hygiene. The collocations were to words like 'progressive,' 'Prime Minister' and 'rights.' There were a handful (four or five) close to 'conservative' or such. The usage was obviously pejorative in almost every instance and ambiguously for the rest.

So, I see a phrase 210 times, and about 200 times it is used pejoratively, and not only politically, but used by a specific ideology. Now, I never said to ban the term. At the same time, if someone wants to quote from the neo-nazi playbook, I think that the onus is on them to make their innocent intentions crystal clear.

Edit - apparently I type very slowly.
 
While I agree with you I wouldn't have said "If someone wants to quote from the neo-Nazi playbook." Well, I admit I did make the association with the alt right in my report because that is where I usually see "virtue signalling" used, but I was not correct to do so given the no politics rule this forum operates under.
 
Last edited:
noman said:
Ultimately, this is what all of your arguments on this subject boil down to. At least you're being open about your biasis now.


Very well. I'll stop.
Click to expand...
C'mon man.

Contrary to opinion I'm not trying to police you or telling you what to do but don't you think it's nice to have a site where we can actually talk about games and geek shit?

Politics and all that badwrongfun crap has poisoned the other three big sites to the point that I spent years avoiding posting or even reading there. The sub forum on one is positive cess pool of shite and anger that spills over to the gaming forum all the time.

Were the guys here heavy handed? Maybe. Maybe not. Moderation is a fine line to do fairly and I think they're doing ok so far but it's up to all of us to keep this a place worth coming to.
 
HorusArisen said:
Contrary to opinion I'm not trying to police you or telling you what to do but don't you think it's nice to have a site where we can actually talk about games and geek shit?
Click to expand...

Seriously. If you want to complain about Star Trek writers virtue signalling, follow this link and start a thread. If you want to complain about people complaining about Star Trek writers virtue signalling, follow this link and start a thread. If you want to talk about the show without having that same damn conversation again, follow this link.

Is everyone happy now?
 
HorusArisen said:
To be honest I don't like Trek enough to talk about it either way :p:rolleyes::cool:;)
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I don't like Trek enough to subscribe to CBS All Access. I'm still curious enough to eavesdrop on threads about it.
 
I do hope those who have left will give us a second chance. I don't think Tristram or I need to apologize for moderating the forum. We took action and let people share their viewpoints and we said we might change how we handle future incidents. We aren't infallible as mods, but we will try to do our best. That's all I can say that this point without this turning into Groundhog Day.
 
Well Tristam, at least you agree with me that the term isn't solely a political buzzword.

As far as who is actually making this whole thing political, and who is making political arguments, I'd like to point out that Daniel apparently is now an implied Neo-Nazi and a member of the Alt-Right, for using the term.

Where's the warnings and removal of posts now?
Being apolitical means you need to stop those who want to make everything political.
 
giphy.gif
 
So action taken against the guy who used a term you admit isn't a political buzzword and no action taken or even comment made against those who intimate he is a Neo-Nazi or Alt-Righter for using it.

That is your "No Politics" stance?
 
HorusArisen said:
C'mon man.

Contrary to opinion I'm not trying to police you or telling you what to do but don't you think it's nice to have a site where we can actually talk about games and geek shit?

Politics and all that badwrongfun crap has poisoned the other three big sites to the point that I spent years avoiding posting or even reading there. The sub forum on one is positive cess pool of shite and anger that spills over to the gaming forum all the time.

Were the guys here heavy handed? Maybe. Maybe not. Moderation is a fine line to do fairly and I think they're doing ok so far but it's up to all of us to keep this a place worth coming to.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that heavy hand so far has been completely one-sided, and so far, it looks to be used solely on the side of those people who want to claim everything is political and aid their attempts to redefine language to fit their worldview.
 
OHT said:
So it starts.
Click to expand...
Sorry brother, if they truly want to be a No Politics site, they're going to have to actually walk the walk, and that means telling people who hit the Report button because "Caves of Chaos is Colonialism" to take that shit elsewhere.

Mirroring theRPGSite isn't "No Politics".
 
CRKrueger said:
Sorry brother, if they truly want to be a No Politics site, they're going to have to actually walk the walk, and that means telling people who hit the Report button because "Caves of Chaos is Colonialism" to take that shit elsewhere.

Mirroring theRPGSite isn't "No Politics".
Click to expand...

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.

Fucking Star Trek is shit anyway.

shocked-face-baby.png
 
CRKrueger said:
Well Tristam, at least you agree with me that the term isn't solely a political buzzword.

As far as who is actually making this whole thing political, and who is making political arguments, I'd like to point out that Daniel apparently is now an implied Neo-Nazi and a member of the Alt-Right, for using the term.

Where's the warnings and removal of posts now?
Being apolitical means you need to stop those who want to make everything political.
Click to expand...

We're being lax in this thread, as its a meta-discussion about the site's rules and moderation. But yeah, I'm not okay with anyone being accused of being a neo-nazi or the alt-right being brought up at all.
 
Tarot70 said:
I if someone wants to quote from the neo-nazi playbook
Click to expand...

Don't do that. This is completely unnecessary escalation, and the exact kind of thing I was trying to avoid.Consider this my first official Warning, as a mod.
 
Last edited:
CRKrueger said:
Unfortunately, that heavy hand so far has been completely one-sided, and so far, it looks to be used solely on the side of those people who want to claim everything is political and aid their attempts to redefine language to fit their worldview.
Click to expand...
You are going to accuse other people of redefining language, Krueger? Everybody knows exactly what Daniel was talking about when he dropped the term virtue signalling. Yet you come in with your tapdance about its academic religious meaning.

Let's look at what Daniel actually said.

Daniel Ream said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has spent 10 minutes on Internet forum knows exactly what he is saying there. At least I thought I did. Humor me and explain that comment using the apolitical definition virtue signalling the you have been suggesting that he was using. Rather than keep talking about the term abstractly, what does it mean to you in that sentence?
 
Let it be entered into the record that Krueger was the guy who was upset people weren't getting hit with warnings and red text on this forum.
 
CRKrueger said:
Sorry brother, if they truly want to be a No Politics site, they're going to have to actually walk the walk, and that means telling people who hit the Report button because "Caves of Chaos is Colonialism" to take that shit elsewhere.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Baulderstone said:
Let it be entered into the record that Krueger was the guy who was upset people weren't getting hit with warnings and red text on this forum.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top