Why so? How is a LGBT gamer thread less restrictive? It's a thread for LGBT gamers, just like the other would be a thread for Democratic gamers.Anyone, anyone, can participate in an LGBT gamer thread, according to their inclination and ability.
A democratic gamer thread is explicitly partisan.
The LGBT thread doesn't require any intellectual conformity. Partisan discussions by definition, do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shower thoughts, Paizo is a very progressive company. They take opportunities (for better or worse) to try and educate people on their viewpoints via their moderation practices. It's clear that they all care a lot about the views they hold, and consider them their definition of common decency.
In this rapidly changing political climate...shutting down discussion does not help in spreading that decency. There are a lot of things going on RIGHT NOW that are hard to keep track of and run counter to Paizo's ideology, and that of many in the community. Bills and protests and marches that can potentially change history or mitigate the damage caused by the current administration.
It seems to make sense for Paizo to want people to discuss these things, organize, and get out to make a change. Whether it be by joining activist groups or just "signal boosting" those problems to this audience.
Shutting down all political discussion is how the other side wins, in other words.
So you think political discussions should be open, so they can serve as a marketing tool for the particular ideology that Paizo endorses?
Do you realize that there are lots of people with differing, even contradictory, ideologies that would like to participate as full members of the community, and not be treated as second-class citizens?
I would rather have no political discussion at all, or full and open discussion, than set up a political echo chamber where I, and people like me, can be set up as an ideological punching bag. I don't want to participate in a community where I'm treated as a roadblock, or an enemy to be overcome, or "damaging" because of how I might have voted, without a chance to defend myself or present my own perspective.
I think by definition any political discussion is a "marketing tool" for the ideology any of the speakers on any side endorse.
People of all beliefs were allowed to participate in the discussions before, I see no reason why that would change. But the politics of this site do lean a certain way, in general. The people who are opposed or come slant-wise on those majority beliefs are, naturally going to come into conflict.
I'm not sure where you get idea of an echo chamber from by allowing people to post. You'd be as free to disagree as ever.
Honestly, I don't see the POINT of political discussion without dissenting views. It's how you get better at stating your case and refine your viewpoint.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conservatives are a minority here. Being in the minority sucks.
On the other hand, "I don't like being in the minority, therefore I want to shut down all discussion" sucks more. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think by definition any political discussion is a "marketing tool" for the ideology any of the speakers on any side endorse.
People of all beliefs were allowed to participate in the discussions before, I see no reason why that would change. But the politics of this site do lean a certain way, in general. The people who are opposed or come slant-wise on those majority beliefs are, naturally going to come into conflict.
I'm not sure where you get idea of an echo chamber from by allowing people to post. You'd be as free to disagree as ever.
Honestly, I don't see the POINT of political discussion without dissenting views. It's how you get better at stating your case and refine your viewpoint.
As someone who would (wildly inaccurate, ballpark estimate) disagree probably 40-50% of the time with the general political consensus of the site, I completely agree with this. With few exceptions, I saw no real presence of an echo chamber element to the site in the previous political threads, and have so far enjoyed most of the discussion here with people with whom I disagree.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
People of all beliefs were allowed to participate in the discussions before, I see no reason why that would change. But the politics of this site do lean a certain way, in general. The people who are opposed or come slant-wise on those majority beliefs are, naturally going to come into conflict.I'm not sure where you get idea of an echo chamber from by allowing people to post. You'd be as free to disagree as ever.
Did you not see the election thread before it got nuked? Insults and name-calling were routine, but when it came from the pro-Hillary camp, it was allowed to stand unchallenged. It didn't take long for the whole thread to devolve into a "Hillary or GTFO" dumpster fire.
Yes, I am technically allowed to post, but when I know it means I will be subject to insults and abuse that is implicitly approved by the mods, why would I want to?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People of all beliefs were allowed to participate in the discussions before, I see no reason why that would change. But the politics of this site do lean a certain way, in general. The people who are opposed or come slant-wise on those majority beliefs are, naturally going to come into conflict.I'm not sure where you get idea of an echo chamber from by allowing people to post. You'd be as free to disagree as ever.
Did you not see the election thread before it got nuked? Insults and name-calling were routine, but when it came from the pro-Hillary camp, it was allowed to stand unchallenged. It didn't take long for the whole thread to devolve into a "Hillary or GTFO" dumpster fire.
Yes, I am technically allowed to post, but when I know it means I will be subject to insults and abuse that is implicitly approved by the mods, why would I want to?
I was in that thread, so I can say with relative confidence that you're exaggerating more than a little. That being said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Part of political discussion is wading through garbage. If you're not able or willing to do that, you're not going to have a very productive experience no matter where you go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people can't accept that nearly half of the country aren't (insert your favorite -ist or -phobe moniker here), then there's no point in discussion.Being able to talk to people that largely DO accept that is one of the reasons I used Paizo as a forum for political discussion.
Granted, that isn't always the case, but it's a heck of a lot more common here than most other places. Most news sites, for example, have a comment section that consists solely of people screaming at the top of their lungs against ridiculous caricatures of their "enemies."
So the rules discussions and X was nerfed threads?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was in that thread, so I can say with relative confidence that you're exaggerating more than a little. That being said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Part of political discussion is wading through garbage. If you're not able or willing to do that, you're not going to have a very productive experience no matter where you go.
People of all beliefs were allowed to participate in the discussions before, I see no reason why that would change. But the politics of this site do lean a certain way, in general. The people who are opposed or come slant-wise on those majority beliefs are, naturally going to come into conflict.I'm not sure where you get idea of an echo chamber from by allowing people to post. You'd be as free to disagree as ever.
Did you not see the election thread before it got nuked? Insults and name-calling were routine, but when it came from the pro-Hillary camp, it was allowed to stand unchallenged. It didn't take long for the whole thread to devolve into a "Hillary or GTFO" dumpster fire.
Yes, I am technically allowed to post, but when I know it means I will be subject to insults and abuse that is implicitly approved by the mods, why would I want to?
I saw a lot of what he describes, so YMMV, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People of all beliefs were allowed to participate in the discussions before, I see no reason why that would change. But the politics of this site do lean a certain way, in general. The people who are opposed or come slant-wise on those majority beliefs are, naturally going to come into conflict.I'm not sure where you get idea of an echo chamber from by allowing people to post. You'd be as free to disagree as ever.
Did you not see the election thread before it got nuked? Insults and name-calling were routine, but when it came from the pro-Hillary camp, it was allowed to stand unchallenged. It didn't take long for the whole thread to devolve into a "Hillary or GTFO" dumpster fire.
Yes, I am technically allowed to post, but when I know it means I will be subject to insults and abuse that is implicitly approved by the mods, why would I want to?
You don't have to want to. You don't have to at all.
But it's nice to have the choice, ain't it?
Because liberals have so many websites where we don't get harassed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is definitely frustrating, knowing that only one side must cling to social niceties, while the other is free to fire away.
Makes having a polite and friendly debate/ conversation very difficult.
It would be, if that were an accurate description of political discourse on this site, but it's not. Even within the election threads, there was more self-regulation (users chastising other users for rudeness) than there was any kind of partisan censorship.
Because liberals have so many websites where we don't get harassed.
Well... they do. It's just that there are also a ton of sites where conservatives are the majority and have their own "safe space". So when people go from one to another, it can feel like being in hostile territory is somehow abnormal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the LGBT thread shuts down homophobia and other attacks on LGBT folk pretty hard. That could be considered "intellectual conformity".The LGBT thread doesn't require any intellectual conformity. Partisan discussions by definition, do.Why so? How is a LGBT gamer thread less restrictive? It's a thread for LGBT gamers, just like the other would be a thread for Democratic gamers.Anyone, anyone, can participate in an LGBT gamer thread, according to their inclination and ability.
A democratic gamer thread is explicitly partisan.
Those rules exist for all threads on all topics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, a thread about politics turns political and partisan. And this is why people are against them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, a thread about politics turns political and partisan. And this is why people are against them.
Would you care to be more specific? Like by quoting the behavior you find objectionable. I don't think that just *using* the terms Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal means a discussion is "turning political and partisan." At least not in a way that is inherently objectionable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
But the reason I am largely apprehensive about adding politics to pathfinder is a simple experience, when someone, a player walks away from your table before a session and no longer wants to return just because "you voted Trump" and not being open to talk about it or even discuss reasoning's, casting aside all the fun gaming sessions and times had in the past.
That is going to happen (probably at about the same rate) regardless of whether the Paizo Messageboards allow political discussions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but I don't appreciate being muzzled.
looks at picture
Draws sketchThrows away sketch
Looks at picture.
...."how?"
{. . .}
But the reason I am largely apprehensive about adding politics to pathfinder is a simple experience, when someone, a player walks away from your table before a session and no longer wants to return just because "you voted Trump" and not being open to talk about it or even discuss reasoning's, casting aside all the fun gaming sessions and times had in the past.That is going to happen (probably at about the same rate) regardless of whether the Paizo Messageboards allow political discussions.
I would assume that it is possible that having the coversation on the boards about who was voted for could possibly cause more of this than not having if only because most random strangers won't know who was voted for unless your advertising it, but if you know who I am on Paizo and you really want to know you can check my posting history and find out based on that who I probably voted for. That being said if the only reason someone wouldn't want to play with you is based of only who you voted for, you might be better off without them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume that it is possible that having the coversation on the boards about who was voted for could possibly cause more of this than not having if only because most random strangers won't know who was voted for unless your advertising it, but if you know who I am on Paizo and you really want to know you can check my posting history and find out based on that who I probably voted for. That being said if the only reason someone wouldn't want to play with you is based of only who you voted for, you might be better off without them.{. . .}
But the reason I am largely apprehensive about adding politics to pathfinder is a simple experience, when someone, a player walks away from your table before a session and no longer wants to return just because "you voted Trump" and not being open to talk about it or even discuss reasoning's, casting aside all the fun gaming sessions and times had in the past.That is going to happen (probably at about the same rate) regardless of whether the Paizo Messageboards allow political discussions.
You say that like "who you voted for" this election is such a teeny, insignificant thing of no consequence.
One good thing I got out of the Political threads is that I got to see plenty of people's true colors, and it let me know who i had to be wary of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These boards seem to run too slowly a lot of the time anyway. By excluding topics for discussion, maybe we can speed up the kinds of discussions that are actually relevant to the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume that it is possible that having the coversation on the boards about who was voted for could possibly cause more of this than not having if only because most random strangers won't know who was voted for unless your advertising it, but if you know who I am on Paizo and you really want to know you can check my posting history and find out based on that who I probably voted for. That being said if the only reason someone wouldn't want to play with you is based of only who you voted for, you might be better off without them.{. . .}
But the reason I am largely apprehensive about adding politics to pathfinder is a simple experience, when someone, a player walks away from your table before a session and no longer wants to return just because "you voted Trump" and not being open to talk about it or even discuss reasoning's, casting aside all the fun gaming sessions and times had in the past.That is going to happen (probably at about the same rate) regardless of whether the Paizo Messageboards allow political discussions.
You say that like "who you voted for" this election is such a teeny, insignificant thing of no consequence.
One good thing I got out of the Political threads is that I got to see plenty of people's true colors, and it let me know who i had to be wary of.
I said if that was the only reason, if other things have been said or done that paint a wider picture of a person sure you may not want to be at their table. But if the only thing you know about the guy playing the elven wizard is that he voted Trump and you refuse to game with him at all over that then he isn't the problem.
|
These boards seem to run too slowly a lot of the time anyway. By excluding topics for discussion, maybe we can speed up the kinds of discussions that are actually relevant to the game.
That's not my experience. To me the boards seem to run too fast most of the time. There was a time when I used to be able to read basically everything interesting written in the forums but that time has long gone.
But as long as we're closing everything but Off Topic, the Campaign Setting and the AP boards I'm all for it :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My best friend voted for George W. Bush, twice. I did not, obviously.
If I'd judged him by his political affiliation we would never have been friends, which would've been a damn shame.
These boards seem to run too slowly a lot of the time anyway. By excluding topics for discussion, maybe we can speed up the kinds of discussions that are actually relevant to the game.That's not my experience. To me the boards seem to run too fast most of the time. There was a time when I used to be able to read basically everything interesting written in the forums but that time has long gone.
But as long as we're closing everything but Off Topic, the Campaign Setting and the AP boards I'm all for it :D
I suspect you were being cheeky, but I was referring to the load times, which often seem to take up to 5 seconds, during peak hours.
|
|
I said if that was the only reason, if other things have been said or done that paint a wider picture of a person sure you may not want to be at their table. But if the only thing you know about the guy playing the elven wizard is that he voted Trump and you refuse to game with him at all over that then he isn't the problem.I would assume that it is possible that having the coversation on the boards about who was voted for could possibly cause more of this than not having if only because most random strangers won't know who was voted for unless your advertising it, but if you know who I am on Paizo and you really want to know you can check my posting history and find out based on that who I probably voted for. That being said if the only reason someone wouldn't want to play with you is based of only who you voted for, you might be better off without them.{. . .}
But the reason I am largely apprehensive about adding politics to pathfinder is a simple experience, when someone, a player walks away from your table before a session and no longer wants to return just because "you voted Trump" and not being open to talk about it or even discuss reasoning's, casting aside all the fun gaming sessions and times had in the past.That is going to happen (probably at about the same rate) regardless of whether the Paizo Messageboards allow political discussions.
You say that like "who you voted for" this election is such a teeny, insignificant thing of no consequence.
One good thing I got out of the Political threads is that I got to see plenty of people's true colors, and it let me know who i had to be wary of.
We're going to disagree on that.
I suspect you were being cheeky, but I was referring to the load times, which often seem to take up to 5 seconds, during peak hours.These boards seem to run too slowly a lot of the time anyway. By excluding topics for discussion, maybe we can speed up the kinds of discussions that are actually relevant to the game.That's not my experience. To me the boards seem to run too fast most of the time. There was a time when I used to be able to read basically everything interesting written in the forums but that time has long gone.
But as long as we're closing everything but Off Topic, the Campaign Setting and the AP boards I'm all for it :D
I suggest treats for these long wait periods!
I suggest treats for these long wait periods!I suspect you were being cheeky, but I was referring to the load times, which often seem to take up to 5 seconds, during peak hours.These boards seem to run too slowly a lot of the time anyway. By excluding topics for discussion, maybe we can speed up the kinds of discussions that are actually relevant to the game.That's not my experience. To me the boards seem to run too fast most of the time. There was a time when I used to be able to read basically everything interesting written in the forums but that time has long gone.
But as long as we're closing everything but Off Topic, the Campaign Setting and the AP boards I'm all for it :D
HUZZAH!!
We're going to disagree on that.I said if that was the only reason, if other things have been said or done that paint a wider picture of a person sure you may not want to be at their table. But if the only thing you know about the guy playing the elven wizard is that he voted Trump and you refuse to game with him at all over that then he isn't the problem.I would assume that it is possible that having the coversation on the boards about who was voted for could possibly cause more of this than not having if only because most random strangers won't know who was voted for unless your advertising it, but if you know who I am on Paizo and you really want to know you can check my posting history and find out based on that who I probably voted for. That being said if the only reason someone wouldn't want to play with you is based of only who you voted for, you might be better off without them.{. . .}
But the reason I am largely apprehensive about adding politics to pathfinder is a simple experience, when someone, a player walks away from your table before a session and no longer wants to return just because "you voted Trump" and not being open to talk about it or even discuss reasoning's, casting aside all the fun gaming sessions and times had in the past.That is going to happen (probably at about the same rate) regardless of whether the Paizo Messageboards allow political discussions.
You say that like "who you voted for" this election is such a teeny, insignificant thing of no consequence.
One good thing I got out of the Political threads is that I got to see plenty of people's true colors, and it let me know who i had to be wary of.
I guess we are, and sadly at that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Set the world on fire.
Say to yourself that this is fine.
Be OK with the events that are unfolding currently.
Have a cuppa.
Demand safe space for discussing objective merits of setting the world on fire.
There's some logic there, but I can't see it for the flames.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once, when I was young and beautiful, I was ambivalent to the idea of politics on a gaming site- even a bit hostile. After a truly nauseating and frightening experience in a gaming site I will not name here, I changed my mind. I think politics have a minor place here, as knowing the basics of someone's political views is important, especially when you have no idea who the person on the other side of the screen is. In order to grow, we need to be exposed to people who aren't like us, and how to deal with them in a fashion beyond ignorance, whether it be passive or aggressive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.
I keep a mousetrap set next to my milk just in case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.I keep a mousetrap set next to my milk just in case.
As you should
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I want to respond to some of these posts, I think we're dangerously close to turning this from a political meta-thread into a plain-old political thread, which is still verboten.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once, when I was young and beautiful, I was ambivalent to the idea of politics on a gaming site- even a bit hostile. After a truly nauseating and frightening experience in a gaming site I will not name here, I changed my mind. I think politics have a minor place here, as knowing the basics of someone's political views is important, especially when you have no idea who the person on the other side of the screen is. In order to grow, we need to be exposed to people who aren't like us, and how to deal with them in a fashion beyond ignorance, whether it be passive or aggressive.
This. The election has made it difficult to differentiate individuals between alt-right and conservative persuasions. Though you cant tell until you discuss things.
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community Guidelines
Insinuate? It's being assumed that's the case. Which is bananas.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But is it okay to choose to not deal with them simply off of stereotypes and assumptions?Trump voters aren't bogeymen who are going to come into your house and drink your milk.But amazingly, insinuating that specific people on the boards are an imminent physical threat based on who they voted for doesn't violate the Community GuidelinesI did not intend to imply "imminent physical threat". I can see how it could have been taken that way and I apologize for that.
I also don't think they're boogeymen.
I think there is a level well below that, where there is reason to not want to deal with people.
Assumptions?
The people who voted for Trump either A) supported what he did and is doing or B) weren't bothered by the things he did and will do.
I don't want to play with either.