A reminder about the ban on political threads

[Cpt. Lundgren]

The ban of political threads is still in force. All political threads will be closed, and the poster will face the risk to have their posting privileges temporarily revoked.

However, I am currently having a discussion with the moderator team if, and how, the ban could be lifted. If we find a solution that we feel comfortable with from an administrative point of view, will we present the solution in public to hear your input.

As a reminder did several of the political discussions got to far out of hand. A lot of those resulted in personal attacks and spilled over into other threads. A year and a half ago did Don put a stop to this with the current moratorium.

Regards
Magnus Lundgren
Administrator

[Eric R.]

In my mind the debates would usually start out good but eventually some one would come in and insult one or more of the parties involved and the debate would spiral downward into a flame war geared to more personnel attacks than a discussion of the subject. I eventually listed topic headings, and a few others did as well, with tag lines like "UN is stupid look at this - Hawks Only" so that others would understand that this is a thread more geared to pro-Iraq war sentiments then those opposed, but there were those on both sides who were determined that a simple discourse on the topic among like minded people would not be tolerated either.

It seemed as if a debates usefull life was about 10 replys before the flames started.

[Dan Gurden]

Yes. I remember the 'Hawks only' threads. Thanks for the reminder.

The only problem with that was thiat it gave the discussion the impression that a valid, balanced arguement was completely uncalled for, and thus was not a discussion but just a self-congratulatory session.

And all that time any troll could come in and spark it all off, with a good idea from the title alone on how it could be done.

For my money, that idea caused more problems and reduced respect between board members than a flat out arguement did.

[Eric R.]

I don't know it seems only one thread made the cut and it was this one and the result I think turned out decently:

http://forum.trek-rpg.net/showthread...Hawks+and+Only

[Anomaly]

I for one would not participate in any political forum, but I think having a separate forum for open political discussions would be good for the community and debate. Put an 'enter at your own risk' subtitle on it and you've got yourself a good forum. If it spreads to other threads, then deal with those individuals & posts on a case-by-case basis. Make a strictly enforced no-flame policy to go with it, and you've got yourself a good place to discuss and spread ideas.

Censoring speech, especially political speech, is very un-Star Trek-like and is, in my opinion, sort of antithesis to what this entire community is based on.

All you have to do on this issue is ask the all-important question: What Would Picard Do?

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Picard (The Drumhead)

[Publius]

It isn't about censoiring, as I have said time and again here and elsewhere. If you want to go and post some political stuff, be my guest. Just go somewhere else. If the government were saying not to post anything political, then it would be censorship in the sense that you are talking (and what the Picard quote was talking about). This policy is no different from a "Terms of Service" type agreement, or any one of a hundred different examples you can find, were privately owned spaces like this one decide against having some sort of conduct they consider damaging take place in their space.

I'd really prefer to leave the ban as is. There are only negatives associated with allowing the Political Stuff here, and no real positives. Even if you have a separate section "Enter at your Own Risk", there are still going to be people that get upset, and that will eventually spill over to the main purpose of this site which is Trek.

And I think Picard would tell us to take political discussion off of his bridge. There is an appropriate place for these sorts of discussions, but that is not here.

[REG]

As I stated in the FBR messageboard, unless you can prove to me that this is a government-owned public messageboard, the administrator can set up whatever ground rules he like.

[Anomaly]

According to the Dictionary.com:

cen·sor·ship n.

1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.

cen·sor (tr.v. cen·sored, cen·sor·ing, cen·sors)
To examine and expurgate.

Funny, it doesn't mention anything about censorship solely being a governmental act.

Anyone can practice censorship. The next time you tell someone to 'STFU', remember, you too are being a censor.

Now, if I said that disallowing political threads was unconstitutional then I could see you getting your panties in a twist about my use of that term, because the consititution guarantees that Congress will not set laws to limit speech - not that you are free to speak anywhere, any time about anything.

The Supreme Court has determined that private places can employ a policy of censorship if they so choose. Such as movie theaters, your local mall, and, YES REG, 'digital living rooms'. By my count, this is now the third time that I've agreed to this spurious argument that you keep making.

This being a digital living room, the powers that be can employ whatever rules or regulations that they choose to, including censoring types of speech, which is exactly what a ban on political topics is. By definition, it is censorship.

Now, if I do not like these rules, I am free to do one of two things: 1) shut up and love it. 2) walk.

When Don put the first political ban in place, I chose (mostly) option 2. My participation dropped to almost nil.

Now that it has re-opened under new management, I am asking for the policy to be re-evaluated and to not ban any threads of serious merit and discourse whatever that may be.

I am merely offering my opinion (that's still allowed here, isn't it?) regarding the topic of political discussions. I am wholly uninterested in participating in a political debate here or in reading any political forums or even posting there - there are far better avenues of political discourse that I can follow and some I frequent quite regularly. But I think that cutting the legs out from under a subject as important as politics is antithesis to Star Trek's philosophy.

I'm advocating reason, is all, and trying to champion the cause of free speech, no matter if I be ignored by the powers that be or rebuked by you.

The administration of TrekRPG.net can do as they please to make the rules. But since the policy on political discussions is being re-examined, I believe that I am free to offer my opinion on the subject.

Or would you censor me of my opinions in this regard, too?

[REG]

You are entitled to your opinion, but ultimately, it's the administrator's and the moderators' headache.

As for my opinion, I kinda like the "living room" as it is. I'm still adjusting to the new ownership and administration.

[Liquidator Queeg]

Speaking as a member of the new administration team, the one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that we all want the focus of the new website to be about Star Trek and Star Trek roleplaying. We're going to make the site as content-driven as we can. We're going to to our best to make sure that people want to come here and talk Trek, gaming, and more Trek and gaming.

That's the goal. For six years, TrekRPG.net has been the best website on the net for Star Trek roleplaying and we're going to damn well make sure it stays that way.

Now, to get this post on-topic.

As I'm not a moderator here, I can't specifically say whether or not political topics will be allowed. I can only say, like Don and Magnus have already, that Magnus and the Mods are looking at a variety of issues regarding the forums, including the current ban on political threads.

LQ

[Tobian]

I have to agre with Publis on this one I think, this is not a question of simple censorship. Technically speaking while these forums may be hosted on an american server farm somewhere, and technically they are bound to international laws pertaining to internet useage they are NOT bound by the american constitution: If youre going to quote principles of free speach at us them bind it to the international laws on such. I am British, so i'm not bound by any such laws, however I fully understand how I'm bound by the rules of this forum, because I signed up to it when I agreed to it.

I'm not sure what the point of using the argument of Picard and the UFP is serving:
Generally speaking, as portrayed in the series, 24th century people and Federation members are emotionally mature and capable of conducting themselves with decorum.
As quoted there is a time and a place for such discussions.. Yes at a court inquest, as was the example a fair trial without prejudice and censorship IS an essential part of the process, but in every other instance Starfleet is neither a Democracy nor completelly 'fair' and to be honest neither is the Federation: The Federation lays down a strict set of laws that any member world has to abide too to be able to join the Federation. You have to have freedom, democracy, a world government, warp drive capability, 'human' rights wich conform to the standards of the Federation, and while you can have your own laws, there are still several laws you can't have, such as You can't have Genetic manipulation (with the exception of for medical and humanitarian reasons)... You can't just do whatever you like, have slavery, attack planets and annexe them for profit and supress riots and political criminals with brutal force on a whim, and then get oodles of free stuff off the Federation: They are not that stupid, it's a fairly restrictive agreement in that sense!

While they may have a version of Freedom of speach in the future I am pretty much sure that they wouldn't put up with stupid, ignorance and emotionally imature statements then as now!

Picard told plenty of people to shut up in his day as Captain

[Publius]

Originally posted by Anomaly
Anyone can practice censorship. The next time you tell someone to 'STFU', remember, you too are being a censor.

Now, if I said that disallowing political threads was unconstitutional then I could see you getting your panties in a twist about my use of that term,

(Snip)

Or would you censor me of my opinions in this regard, too?

Point #1: Read the post again, Anomoly:

Originally posted by Publius, emphasis added in bold
If the government were saying not to post anything political, then it would be censorship in the sense that you are talking (and what the Picard quote was talking about)

I was actually very careful to specify that it was the way you were using the word and the way that the quote was to be read, not the word in isolation that I was talking about. My panties remain untwisted, thanks very much. Although, this brings me to...

Point #2: If this is the tone you take in the discussion to bring back political threads, you certainly have made my point very nicely. Most appreciated.

[Anomaly]

Pulblius

In a text medium, tone is inferred by the reader.

I can't help what you infer from my post.

I neither attacked you nor did I even mention your name. The post stayed wholly within the realm of reasonable discourse, so perhaps you proved your own point. That people are too touchy to have reasonable discourse.

Tobian

Censorship is never 'simple'. Case in point: Notice how people can't even agree that a ban on political threads equates to censorship. According to arguments made here, unless a government agency is doing it, it can't be censorship. I don't understand this perception, and I certainly don't understand the logic.

Perhaps it is because 'censorship' is an ugly word. It evokes imagery of Men In Black crossing out words on documents with black magic marker in some dank Cold War-era basement. Or brings up images of McCarthyism. But apparently people don't like the term even when it is applied correctly. I don't know, I'm just speculating.

Yes, the Picard quote is used out of context, but quotes are used out of context all the time - the context in this case is not as important to the overall idea behind the quote.

The 24th century should be viewed as an ideal. While perhaps that humanity will never emotionally mature to a point where it can reach that ideal, it is still a good ideal nontheless, and one we should strive as a people to achieve. Reaching out for the ideal is just as important as ultimately reaching the ideal. Part of that ideal is having an open mind, a theme that is underscored over and over and over in Star Trek going all the way back to TOS (maybe not so much with ENT - I don't know, I haven't watched it since they tortured that guy in an airlock - talk about antithesis to the ideal!).

I agree that there is a time and place for everything. No, Picard wouldn't allow a political debate on his bridge (unless he was the one debating it with someone on the viewscreen). But he also wouldn't allow a lengthy conversation about NASCAR or Teletubbies, either. The bridge is a place for serious business. If you're going to liken all of TrekRPG.net to the bridge, then by that logic, all non-Star Trek oriented posts should be banned. If you're going to make TrekRPG.net analagous to the ship, Star Trek chat would be the bridge, the various rules areas would be engineering and General Discussion would be Ten Forward.

Give us a Poli-Sci laboratory, please. Give us a time and place for political discussions. Folks who do not wish to take part in the discussions are free not to walk through the doors.

I always have (and shall continue to) followed the rules of the forum in which I am participating, whether it be here or elsewhere. And if I do not like the rules, should they remain the same, or should they change, I am free to go elsewhere to find entertainment.

[Tobian]

Anomaly, I'm not entirelly sure what or why you are arguing about this for. You can technically define anything you want to as censorship: Not speaking to someone; not saying what you feel; not saying offensive words; not being able to graphiti on a wall; not being allowed to punch someone in the face; not telling your boss he's a jerk; not saying something inapropriate at a funeral; not telling your commanding officer what you think of him, to his face, in the middle of the parade ground; not saying the new swear word you just learned to your parents mixed company in a dinner party, when you're 4.. these are all forms of self censorship and forms of censorship we all employ all day every day, I am constantly censoring myself and being censored by the situation I am in and to the by-laws, rules and regulations of society. This is a basic concept of human existence, and socienty would fall apart if there was no censorship: yes you can technocally call this censorship, you're right, but this is a society of people and you have to abide by the rules to be in here.

The whole point about the political ban was to protect the community from self harm, to protect it's members from personal attacks and keep general decorum. By your logic there should be no censorship on trolling, no censorship on swearwords or offensive content, no censorship of any kind... or are you arguing for selective censorship?

Political and ethical ideology are one thing, the precept of freedom of speach is both the building block of society in the western world, something that every citizen cherishes here, yet no one actually observes, because people constantly censor themselves and are censored by the rules of the community and society in which they live, censorship is as much a building block for civilised society as is freedom of speach. What you are talking about is redefining the line on exactly what we are censoring *NOT* the nature of censorship it's self.

Yes this IS censorship but then almost all of the boards are censored, otherwise it would just be a free for all with no moderators. It is simply one of the many things which are censored on the boards.

Arguably many of the censorships here are either implied, such as racial and religious intolerance, because it has not been strictly stated that you can't do that; people practice it under their own volition: However rules against trolling, personal attacks and posting guidelines are activelly moderated and 'censored'., this *IS* censorship, so are you arguing we should remove that too? Because of course these 'rules' impinge on our freedom of expression and speach?

[Anomaly]

Very nicely said, Tobian.

However, your argument falls apart in one place:

Politics is the only subject that is a banned topic here. That is no matter how politely discussed, no matter how relative the conversation, no matter what - it is an unwelcome topic. You are free to discuss any other topic, but this one is verboten.

The other examples that you have cited are antithesis to the basic precepts of human communication - trolling, cursing at people, etc - and I am not arguing for a lifting of that form of community-accepted (and reasonably acceptable) censorship or self-censorship.

My point is: If it can be reasonably discoursed, no topic should be forbidden from discussion.