A reminder about the ban on political threads

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Interesting arguments from both sides, and I have little to add. However, as far as I can tell, this board does not exist as a forum for political discourse. It's up the Admins to decide if they want it to be everything to everyone, or whether they want it to fulfil it's role as a place to discuss Trek RPGs.

I for one, was not sorry to see the political threads go, and I'd be sorry to see them back. The level of immaturity and bigotry that pervaded some of those threads was sickening, and I dread the thought of seeing it return. Yes, it's a shame for those who want to discuss politics in a reasonable fashion, but frankly if you're that desperate to have such a discussion, it really isn't that hard to find an appropriate forum in which to do it.

TrekRPGnet forums are not, purely in my opinion of course, the place for such discussion.

[Dan Gurden]

Just one thing.

This is a REMINDER about the ban on political discussion.

Not a back door into having a political discussion.

So all discussion should cease and disist now, before we have to ask the forum mod to lock the thread. And then nobody gets the last word.

If you really, really MUST talk about politics during the ban.

Do what Gene Rodenberry did. And if you have to ask, you havn't already been doing it.

[Snake_Plissken]

I'm a member at the Battletech site called 'Lords of the Battlefield' and we primarily discuss BT miniatures and painting techniques. There is however a 'knee-jerk' board where it's pretty much a free-for-all. They also have 'light topic' boards but 'knee-jerk' is the "heavy stuff": war in Iraq, US politics, religion, social issues, etc. The great thing is that ib 'knee-jerk' you can disagree with someone and call him a lefty pinko or a right-wing nazi yet in other forums you'll complement him on his panelling technique or ask her where she got that nifty model. People there are able to separate the two, and it works *really* well.

Personally I don't have a problem with someone with whom I disagree politically (with the singlemost exception of if you want to take my guns away from me, that is the uber no-no for me) then we exchange on our views on gaming and Star Trek. Especially with ST, where my view of the franchise is closer to those I disagree politically with in the 'real world' than the other way around.

I also learnt with time that this ages-old adage is true: winning an internet argument is like running in the Special Olympics, you may win but in the end you're still a r*****d. Basically I have my view, then I'm trying to convince someone else that their view is wrong/mine is right. The higher the stakes/importance of the subject, the harder it gets to change one's view. For instance am argument over the spelling of the name of some TOS red shirt won't (or shouldn't ) be as intense as say, the war in Iraq issue. But as I've found out, add in a few personal jabs and then even if you'd be able to convince that person then there's no way that person would admit you are right, or even that you make one or two good points. Now when I post I try to state my position and let others to take it or leave it at that. Except that gun thing, that's my red button Anyways, my 2 cents.

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by Dan Gurden
If you really, really MUST talk about politics during the ban.

Do what Gene Rodenberry did. And if you have to ask, you havn't already been doing it.

Ok, I have this 'friend' who wants the ban lifted...

Seriously, though:

This is precisely why political discourse should be allowed.

Trek has always couched its political and philosophical ideology in storylines, characters or themes.

Now, suppose I want to write a Coda-Trek adventure that mirrors real-world politics - whatever my real-world political message is. I cannot post my ideas and how it applies to the real world in order to ask for opinions or input because I cannot talk about real-world politics.

Apparently, even a debate on the worthiness of the political-subject ban is now considered a political discussion - when politics or a political stance has had nothing to do with either positions of the debate. Previous quotes from me regarding the Constitution/Supreme Court are topics of law and not politics; or are legal discussions to be disallowed too, under the fear that they might be deemed political?

I think that this ban chills legitimate avenues of discussion and that is why I am against it.

[Cpt. Lundgren]

This thread is closed.

This thread is a reminder of the current ban. This thread has instead been used, as Gurden mentioned, as a back door to a political discussion. A general posting, with a political stance sneaked into it as a small remark, is still a political post.

We will also take this thread into account when we will make the decision on the status of the ban. I am sorry to say that it has not improved the chances of a change in the policy.

To address the question about discussion on laws. A question about how a law work is not politics (i.e. what am I allowed to do, without violating this law), but arguing if a law is right or wrong is.

Magnus Lundgren
Administrator