27 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Pretty much self explanatory. I figure this deserves its own topic so we can get this settled once and for all.

Disallow: As in made a formal rule of the site that politics and/or religion topics are expressly forbidden.

Also - I apparently accidentally null-voted myself. After recent events, count me among the "disallow" voters.
27 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
FWIW, I think it should be made clear that "disallow" means as a formal site rule, where posting such topics can lead to post locking, deletion, or whatever other moderator action you had in mind for posting against the rule.
EDIT: or, if disallowing meant something else, that should be made clear as well.
27 Sep, 2009, Asylumius wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
No - They're as valid as any other subject.

That said, if there was a "remove the forums entirely and support only the repository, articles, mud list, etc." option, I'd choose that one in a heartbeat.
27 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I think it's pretty safe to say the forums are going to remain, but I suppose there should have been an option for "drop the general chatter forum entirely"? :P
27 Sep, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
One advantage of allowing those kinds of off-topic discussions is that it may help to keep the drama out of the more productive and on-topic stuff. If you could couple this with an "ignore general chatter forum" facility for those who didn't want to bother with it, I think it would keep most people happy.
27 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
That makes sense in principle, Orrin, however I think it makes the assumption that drama doesn't spill over to people's interactions even in nominally on-topic and productive threads.

The general chatter forum as it currently stands is not all off-topic. For example, there is currently a thread going about triggers, "gagging", and clients. There is discussion about clients in general. There was a bit about equipment, rent, etc. People use it to introduce themselves. Basically, general chatter needs to distinguish between things-that-don't-fit-in-other-sections-but-are-still-MUD-related, and things-that-aren't-MUD-related-at-all. Things related to MUDs in general feel quite appropriate, at least as far as I can tell.
27 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Basically, general chatter needs to distinguish between things-that-don't-fit-in-other-sections-but-are-still-MUD-related, and things-that-aren't-MUD-related-at-all. Things related to MUDs in general feel quite appropriate, at least as far as I can tell.


I'm inclined to agree with this, but for obvious reasons it seems as though only the politics and religion posts cause the most trouble.
27 Sep, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
That makes sense in principle, Orrin, however I think it makes the assumption that drama doesn't spill over to people's interactions even in nominally on-topic and productive threads.

I think the point was made that it was the politics/religion threads where the trouble tends to be concentrated, which would support that assumption.

David Haley said:
The general chatter forum as it currently stands is not all off-topic. For example, there is currently a thread going about triggers, "gagging", and clients. There is discussion about clients in general. There was a bit about equipment, rent, etc. People use it to introduce themselves. Basically, general chatter needs to distinguish between things-that-don't-fit-in-other-sections-but-are-still-MUD-related, and things-that-aren't-MUD-related-at-all. Things related to MUDs in general feel quite appropriate, at least as far as I can tell.

Then that's a case for a separate non-MUD-related, off-topic, whatever-you-want-to-call-it forum distinct from general chatter, which can be ignored as a user preference.
27 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
I think the point was made that it was the politics/religion threads where the trouble tends to be concentrated, which would support that assumption.

Well, yes. Except when it happens in perfectly MUD-related threads, as it did just recently. I would agree that the politics/religion threads tend to be where such things germinate, but I don't think it's true to say that trouble doesn't spread. Therefore, allowing the threads as a "get it out your system" type of punching bag doesn't seem like it would work, because we have seen that it hasn't – which is why we're talking about this in the first place.

Orrin said:
Then that's a case for a separate non-MUD-related, off-topic, whatever-you-want-to-call-it forum distinct from general chatter, which can be ignored as a user preference.

Completely agreed. My preference would be to simply discourage it in general, but separating it and giving the option to ignore works as well.
27 Sep, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I voted against, but given most people can't handle radically different opinions without getting nasty it might be for the better.
27 Sep, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Therefore, allowing the threads as a "get it out your system" type of punching bag doesn't seem like it would work, because we have seen that it hasn't – which is why we're talking about this in the first place.

Trouble may well spread, but we'll never know whether the effect is positive or negative until we do away with those contentious threads and find out. I was simply offering an alternative perspective on the merits of allowing political/religious discussion.
27 Sep, 2009, Asylumius wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Instead of having a "Not-MUD-related, general, but not religion or politics" forum (which is kind of stupid), why not just add a board for the explicit topics of politics and religion. You all seem to WANT to talk about that shit anyway.
27 Sep, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm sorry but the problem isn't the topics of religion and or politics. From
Canadan tasers to re-valuating currency, drama erupts from people
being unable to handle adverse opinion adequately.

Dropping those two topics does nothing. You'd need to kill all non-mud topics.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
27 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I'm sorry but the problem isn't the topics of religion and or politics.


Evidence suggests these to be the only two topic areas that cause any significant eruptions though.
27 Sep, 2009, Asylumius wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
You'd need to kill all non-mud topics.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net


i think you should take your facist commy censorship ideas and gfto our forums! i hate your face! and your god!

(See what I did there?)
27 Sep, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Cratylus said:
I'm sorry but the problem isn't the topics of religion and or politics.


Evidence suggests these to be the only two topic areas that cause any significant eruptions though.

Eugenics.
27 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmmm…. perhaps…. but I've seen no significant eruptions from a topic about eugenics. Then again, has one devoted to the subject even been posted? (Not that I'd want that tested mind you)

To paraphrase a quote: Democracy is 3 left-wingers and a right-winger deciding who should be committed to the insane asylum.
27 Sep, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Hmmm…. perhaps…. but I've seen no significant eruptions from a topic about eugenics. Then again, has one devoted to the subject even been posted? (Not that I'd want that tested mind you)

To paraphrase a quote: Democracy is 3 left-wingers and a right-winger deciding who should be committed to the insane asylum.


I think this is fair illustration that pretty much any topic can be instantly
derailed with the introduction of deeply felt beliefs, whether they be about
religion, politics, eugenics, what-have-you.

I don't think the solution is banning a subset of topics along those lines.

Assuming there is a problem to be solved in the first place, the solution
is somewhat outside that box.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
27 Sep, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Maybe what we need is a Right Wing and a Left Wing forum? :unclesam:


Seriously, I agree with Crat. It's more about personalities than ideologies. I voted no, valid.
27 Sep, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Sandi said:
Maybe what we need is a Right Wing and a Left Wing forum?


We would certainly have to be more specific! Where would I fit in as a Conservative Democrat? The left wingers
hate me for not being a tree hugging hippie ninny pussy face and the right wingers hate me for not being an imperialist
driven to rule the world and spread ignorance through religion.
0.0/182