[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

[Greater Miami Shores]

So we're to understand then that negative discussion of public figures is no longer allowed on this forum?
Because it MIGHT offend followers of said figures?

I think what the mods mean is, don't bait, don't flame, don't troll, don't use any foul language of any kind, against any fellow nations, favorite politicians, and VIPS, and problem solved, its easy to do.

[Honeydewistania]

Title should be [disCUSSion]

[Washington Resistance Army]

2) For the duration of the election, since things are heated, comments that are likely to inflame supporters of one side or another will incur warnings or short term bans. So yes, calling Trump a cunt is likely to upset his supporters 27 days out from the election, and thus incurred a warning. Calling Biden the same would incur a warning as well. This is likely to continue until a winner in the election has been confirmed.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Calling Trump a cunt would upset his supporters irregardless of when the next election is, and the same is true for Biden. If it's trolling near an election it should just flatly always be trolling, no? Do supporters of politicians become immune from trolling simply because an election has past?

This whole thing just makes really no sense from a moderation perspective.

[Drop Your Pants]

I think what the mods mean is, don't bait, don't flame, don't troll, don't use any foul language of any kind, against any fellow nations, favorite politicians, and VIPS, and problem solved, its easy to do.

What's a "favourite politician", or a VIP for that matter? Except during american election time (always hilarious for every other country) the rules aren't enforced as much.

Purely from a GP point (which is where i'm mostly in), swearing loudly has never been a problem. These possible new rules will extend into other sections of the forum and it probably won't end well.

Edit: Also, out of interest if i called trump a twit and a willy would it equal the same warning of the use of cunt?

[Katganistan]

There's an internal discussion currently afoot, so I'm not sure what else an individual Moderator is going to be able to say here until that discussion has run its course.

Then why did Kat even bother posting.

For the same reason the other moderators here have posted. To give you the information that is available at this time.

Why did you bother posting this?

[Katganistan]

So we're to understand then that negative discussion of public figures is no longer allowed on this forum?
Because it MIGHT offend followers of said figures?

I think what the mods mean is, don't bait, don't flame, don't troll, don't use any foul language of any kind, against any fellow nations, favorite politicians, and VIPS, and problem solved, its easy to do.

No, that's not what we mean. Please stop interpreting the rules to be far reaching enough to reach the event horizon. Please stop telling people they should follow your incorrect interpretation. Please stop.

[WayNeacTia]

The answer to this whole mess seems pretty simple doesn't it? There really is zero reason to use derogatory comments about political figures. Moderators are correct in implying that when you use derogatory comments about politicians, you tend to wind up their supporters. Given the current U.S. political climate and the violence it is causing, the last thing we need on here is people being riled up by what is in effect, someone trying to be edgy and flaming a politician.

Feel free to call out politicians for their dumbassery, but do it in a civil tone. Is it really that hard, not to swear and call a politician (whether they are on the site or not) derogatory names?

[New haven america]

The answer to this whole mess seems pretty simple doesn't it? There really is zero reason to use derogatory comments about political figures. Moderators are correct in implying that when you use derogatory comments about politicians, you tend to wind up their supporters. Given the current U.S. political climate and the violence it is causing, the last thing we need on here is people being riled up by what is in effect, someone trying to be edgy and flaming a politician.

Feel free to call out politicians for their dumbassery, but do it in a civil tone. Is it really that hard, not to swear and call a politician (whether they are on the site or not) derogatory names?

There are hundreds of reasons to do so.

[WayNeacTia]

The answer to this whole mess seems pretty simple doesn't it? There really is zero reason to use derogatory comments about political figures. Moderators are correct in implying that when you use derogatory comments about politicians, you tend to wind up their supporters. Given the current U.S. political climate and the violence it is causing, the last thing we need on here is people being riled up by what is in effect, someone trying to be edgy and flaming a politician.

Feel free to call out politicians for their dumbassery, but do it in a civil tone. Is it really that hard, not to swear and call a politician (whether they are on the site or not) derogatory names?

There are hundreds of reasons to do so.

There really isn't. Civility is actually a thing.

[New haven america]

There are hundreds of reasons to do so.

There really isn't. Civility is actually a thing.

Incorrect on every conceivable level.

[The Free Joy State]

There's an internal discussion currently afoot, so I'm not sure what else an individual Moderator is going to be able to say here until that discussion has run its course.

Thank you for the update, Luna.

If the outcome of your internal discussions is that using insulting terms against politicians is to be regarded as trolling, I would appreciate some clarification as to whether:

• This move is only for the duration of the American election.
• And, if so, if it is only regarding American politicians.
• If substantive posts and one-liners will be treated differently (a one-liner of insults seems more likely -- just from my personal perspective -- to potentially anger than a substantive post in which one curse is used).
• If you may still use intensifiers and highly critical descriptive terms (for example, "Boris' latest policy is fucking stupid") to describe disagreeable political decisions.

Whatever the outcome, I will abide by it, but I would appreciate clear clarification (as it seems like a potential minefield).

[WayNeacTia]

There really isn't. Civility is actually a thing.

Incorrect on every conceivable level.

And what exactly does it achieve, other than pissing people off? There is very little reason to flame a politician here, except to troll their supporters.

[The New California Republic]

Incorrect on every conceivable level.

And what exactly does it achieve, other than pissing people off? There is very little reason to flame a politician here, except to troll their supporters.

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

[The Archregimancy]

Thank you for your patience while we juggle timezones.

While I can't give a precise timeline, our internal discussion seems to be moving forward positively, and I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to clarify this issue in the next couple of days.

[The New California Republic]

Thank you for your patience while we juggle timezones.

While I can't give a precise timeline, our internal discussion seems to be moving forward positively, and I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to clarify this issue in the next couple of days.

Thanks Arch.

[WayNeacTia]

And what exactly does it achieve, other than pissing people off? There is very little reason to flame a politician here, except to troll their supporters.

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

[The New California Republic]

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

None of that spells out that the rule we are discussing will change for the course of the elections. Sorry Wayne but it just doesn't.

[CoraSpia]

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

[The New California Republic]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

[CoraSpia]

We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

To put it in context, if the police were going to start enforcing road rules more, then while they previously might have given someone a pass for doing 55 in a 50 zone, they'd now get pulled. This is pulling people for driving an annoyingly colored car.

[WayNeacTia]

We've quite thoroughly explained previously in the thread why that rules reminder doesn't notify us of this new rule. The reminder speaks of current rules being enforced more strictly, when we have been told repeatedly that this isn't against the rules.

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

[CoraSpia]

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.

[The New California Republic]

Yes this discussion thread makes it abundantly clear that there is not a stricter enforcement of this "rule", as the rule doesn't actually exist; it's actually a user action that changes from being non-actionable to actionable by mere merit of there being an election on, with there being no actual rule change.

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

Nonsense. Nowhere does it say that non-rules suddenly become rules, as is occurring here.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

I don't see why you aren't getting this. It's been deemed non-actionable for years, years. And then it suddenly changes with no warning. Folk are rightly concerned about the contradiction.

[WayNeacTia]

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.

I would think it would be obvious that name calling politicians, especially in the middle of an election, is nothing more than trolling. Would it not be trolling if I insulted your mother, who I assume is not a member of the site, just to rustle your jimmies? It works both ways. Simply because people are trying to rules lawyer, doesn't change the fact that it will rustle a lot of people jimmies. If you don't want to classify it as trolling, then classify it as baiting, as that is exactly what it is.

[CoraSpia]

It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.

I would think it would be obvious that name calling politicians, especially in the middle of an election, is nothing more than trolling. Would it not be trolling if I insulted your mother, who I assume is not a member of the site, just to rustle your jimmies? It works both ways. Simply because people are trying to rules lawyer, doesn't change the fact that it will rustle a lot of people jimmies. If you don't want to classify it as trolling, then classify it as baiting, as that is exactly what it is.

Go for it, we don't get on all that well.
If it's trolling, then perhaps the mods shouldn't have set a precedent for several years that it in fact wasn't trolling. They've told us it's not against the rules many times in the past and decided it was with absolutely no warning.