Hi a explaination of Rule 4 please..

[cavalier1645]

Hi this not a flame or rant against the moderators. I just want to ask the moderators for clariffication on the rules.

why is there rule 4?
4. No politics or religion
Real World Politics and Religion are topics not allowed for discussion on this board.
Be aware that historical discussions can often involve sensitive issues that may be warnable. Tread carefully around such topics.

Allot of discuss here or topics involved RL life events. I like to use historical information or Real life events to back my arguments. It makes it very difficult to explain some miltary or BT poltical topics with out even mentioning historical events or politics. What is the justification and spirit of this rule please.

[foxbat]

Hello,
Rule #4 means you should avoid all subjects that concern real life political or religious matters, or can devolve into them. Because personal convictions on these subjects run usually fairly strong,  disagreements can turn into uglily heated debates unsuitable for what is Catalyst Games Lab official site for Battletech and have an unwelcome effect on the company's image. The moderation team is there to avoid this.

So, how are defined RL political or religious matters? As a rule of thumb, if you are not sure your post does not cross the line, do not post. Even what can seem safe at first (historical examples that are centuries old) can still have  repercussions in the contemporary political or religious debate. For instance, I'd be wary of using an example drawn from the French Revolution, which is 200 years old, if this example still rings a bell with nowadays French people. Or using the American Civil War, the American War of Independance, the American-Mexican War or any other event that is not safely buried in the sands of time.

A better option would be to use examples drawn from the Battletech Universe. With 25 years of fiction under their collective belt, authors and line developpers have created a rich history from which youy'll usually find suitable material to illustrate your posts. This will have the side effect to allow people to display their good knowledge of the timeline  and their dedication to our hobby (I'm afraid we've all a dose a geekiness in ourselves! ), and will be quite relevant as, frankly, great pains have been taken to create an original fictitious setting as different as possible from the world we are living in today.

So, if I had to give any advice, do not take any example from today's world, or from history if they have a chance to strike a current political or religious cord. If you are not sure about a particular example, please ask. The moderation team will be quite willing to answer your requests in a timely fashion.

[cavalier1645]

Hello,
Rule #4 means you should avoid all subjects that concern real life political or religious matters, or can devolve into them. Because personal convictions on these subjects run usually fairly strong,  disagreements can turn into uglily heated debates unsuitable for what is Catalyst Games Lab official site for Battletech and have an unwelcome effect on the company's image. The moderation team is there to avoid this.

So, how are defined RL political or religious matters? As a rule of thumb, if you are not sure your post does not cross the line, do not post. Even what can seem safe at first (historical examples that are centuries old) can still have  repercussions in the contemporary political or religious debate. For instance, I'd be wary of using an example drawn from the French Revolution, which is 200 years old, if this example still rings a bell with nowadays French people. Or using the American Civil War, the American War of Independance, the American-Mexican War or any other event that is not safely buried in the sands of time.

A better option would be to use examples drawn from the Battletech Universe. With 25 years of fiction under their collective belt, authors and line developpers have created a rich history from which youy'll usually find suitable material to illustrate your posts. This will have the side effect to allow people to display their good knowledge of the timeline  and their dedication to our hobby (I'm afraid we've all a dose a geekiness in ourselves! ), and will be quite relevant as, frankly, great pains have been taken to create an original fictitious setting as different as possible from the world we are living in today.

So, if I had to give any advice, do not take any example from today's world, or from history if they have a chance to strike a current political or religious cord. If you are not sure about a particular example, please ask. The moderation team will be quite willing to answer your requests in a timely fashion.

Ok I understand why your company is doing this. But to me its seems a bit overkill. I mean history is History. History is not a book of roses. I mean every nation got history they wish never happen or wish there country never did, but it happen. I'd like to think where adults and can move on from that. My particular beef is that when I am discussing a topic that interrest me like "What culture you like see in Btech for example) i risk getting flagged. Or men i want to talk about BT military doing something and bring up modern miltaries or past miltaries. Mods get a little nervous. 

In all I thank you for explanation. I disagree with, but I will follow it.

[Weirdo]

A good rule of thumb: If it's after WWII or has any relation to any current events/debates, take a very long and hard look at it before posting. If it's before WWII, it's more likely to be okay, but it's no guarantee. Remember that the population of this forum is very much a global population, and certain events may still be very controversial subjects for people from certain regions.

[Jaim Magnus]

And beware offhand comments, or responding to the offhand comments of others.  I've been dinged that way before.

[Paul]

Yeah, if you see a post that might be breaking a rule, but it hasn't been acted upon, that might mean it's fine, it might also mean the Mods didn't get to it yet.
My advice: trust your instinct in such situations, and ask a Mod whether a given post crosses a line.

[Korzon77]

As a veteran of other boards and for that matter actual local government, you'd be surprised at how quickly something that seems innocuous can explode with the fire of a thousand raging suns, leading to curses, bans and people swearing off the game forever.  And, at the end of the day, these boards exist and are provided to us for free, to help foster and expand the Btech community, not to see half the member base storm off.

[Stormfury]

On the other hand, I've seen threads get closed or have a moderator post that certain lines of discussion aren't allowed under Rule 4 even though those lines of discussion haven't come up and/or weren't related to real-world politics any way.

Then there's the matter of certain contentious threads with real-world issues being discussed remaining open while others with far less heated discussions get closed and posters get sanctioned.

[Paul]

On the other hand, I've seen threads get closed or have a moderator post that certain lines of discussion aren't allowed under Rule 4 even though those lines of discussion haven't come up and/or weren't related to real-world politics any way.

You presume then that no posts were removed that crossed the Rule 4 line.
Since said rules-breaking posts came up once in the context of the thread, they might again, hence such an announcement is attempting to do people a service: don't get warnings yourself.

Then there's the matter of certain contentious threads with real-world issues being discussed remaining open while others with far less heated discussions get closed and posters get sanctioned.

If you believe a certain thread violates Rule 4, hit the Report button.

Paul

[Stormfury]

You presume then that no posts were removed that crossed the Rule 4 line.

Since I was following the thred in real time and no posts were removed, it's less a presumption and more a statement of fact.

If you believe a certain thread violates Rule 4, hit the Report button.

When moderators are posting in those threads, they're pretty obviously aware of what is being said.

Sometimes it is determined to be OK even though the conversation is considerably more heated than in situations where it had been deemed to be a rules violation. The only way to find out which it's going to be in any particular situation is to hit the "post" button then wait and see.

[Paul]

Since I was following the thred in real time and no posts were removed, it's less a presumption and more a statement of fact.

Since you're not likely to prove your point, I'll just take your word for it. Apologies for the inconvenience of pre-emptive reminders that people shouldn't violate Rule 4, the second-most violated rule. I trust that it does not impact your posting behavior.

When moderators are posting in those threads, they're pretty obviously aware of what is being said.

That's not the same as an official review, in which all Moderators, and the Admins participate.

Sometimes it is determined to be OK even though the conversation is considerably more heated than in situations where it had been deemed to be a rules violation. The only way to find out which it's going to be in any particular situation is to hit the "post" button then wait and see.

Yes, so if you'd rather not rely on the generosity of the Mods, the best course is to not risk it at all.

Paul

[Stormfury]

That's not the same as an official review, in which all Moderators, and the Admins participate.

The point of the Report function is to make the staff aware of a situation.

If they are already aware of a situation (up to and including quoting posts that have seen other threads closed down and/or posters warned) it is not a question of whether they are aware of the situation, but of consistency.

Yes, so if you'd rather not rely on the generosity of the Mods, the best course is to not risk it at all.

There should be no need to rely on anything. The rule should be clearly and consistently applied.

[Paul]

If they are already aware of a situation (up to and including quoting posts that have seen other threads closed down and/or posters warned) it is not a question of whether they are aware of the situation, but of consistency.

Not so. It's only an indication that the posting Mods are aware of the thread, not the whole team.

The point is that there should be no need to rely on anything. The rule should be clearly and consistently applied.

Alas, the nature of human interaction requires judgment calls. The consistency you seem crave has never been and will never be achieved here. If that proves to be a circumstance that makes it undesirable for you to continue posting here, you have my sympathy, and my assurance that my respect for you will not decline if you elect to spend your time differently.

Paul

[Stormfury]

Not so. It's only an indication that the posting Mods are aware of the thread, not the whole team.

And those individual moderators should be more than aware of what the rules are. So either the thread should always be closed and Warnings issued, the rule should be re-written, or discussions should be allowed to take their course.

At present, the outcome of any given discussion is entirely arbitrary.

Alas, the nature of human interaction requires judgment calls. The consistency you seem crave has never been and will never be achieved here.

The exact same phraseology that sees some threads closed and/or Warnings handed out in some cases sees absolutely no action in others. If, as you've implied. the dividing line is whether somene has hit the report button or not, then that needs to be addressed as well.

Either the rule has been violated, or it has not, and either the moderators are aware of it, or they are not.

[Paul]

Your philosophy does not seem to match ours, and that's unlikely to change. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Paul

[MadCapellan]

Requiring an official report and team review before locking threads and handing out bans seems like a policy that protects the poster.  I can't really see that as a bad thing.

[Stormfury]

Protects some posters, maytbe. Across the board, not so much.

I've stopped reporting certain posters because nothing they do, no matter how egregious, garners any kind of moderator attention, and during the discussion about moderation standards I was PMed by other posters saying the exact same thing. Whether this is intentional or not, it sets up a situation where popular posters have a free hand in breaking the rules and less popular posters are subjected to a vastly different level of moderator attention and application of the rules.

Paul, consistency is not exactly difficult to achieve. If a Warning is handed out (or not) for something that's been said, you have it on record and can very easily compare the two.

[Paul]

Paul, consistency is not exactly difficult to achieve. If a Warning is handed out (or not) for something that's been said, you have it on record and can very easily compare the two.

You're making the claim here; you need to provide evidence that supports it. If you have some kind of fear that prevents you from posting said evidence in the forums, there's PM and email.
Without said evidence, it's just your opinion whether or not there is inconsistency.
As both inaction and action is reviewed with regards to Reports, you have a strong indication that there may be merely a difference of opinion between yourself and the entire Mod and Admin team with regards to what does, and does not violate the rules.

I suppose they could all be wrong though.

Paul

[Gustav Kuriga]

Except the only people who would have the records to support it are the people he's criticizing, and I highly doubt they're going to give him said evidence...

As he said, you have it on record.

[Jaim Magnus]

Curiously, no sign of Mods...

[Stormfury]

You're making the claim here; you need to provide evidence that supports it. If you have some kind of fear that prevents you from posting said evidence in the forums, there's PM and email.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not going to be baited into posting it here or providing it via PMs since I know from prior experience that any material linked to or said via those mediums is subject to the site rules, and I can't exactly turn around and contend I shouldn't be issued with a Warning when I know for a fact that whatever I'd be quoting or linking to violates the site rules.

I've already tried to contact the Catalyst Observer several times, but like others who've done so have recieved no response.

Except the only people who would have the records to support it are the people he's criticizing, and I highly doubt they're going to give him said evidence...

As he said, you have it on record.

This is one of the reasons that I am opposed to the removal of posts. With an exception for spam or things like pornography, leaving them up with a note that moderator action has been taken helps establish a baseline for the posting community and assists in objectivity because everyone is then on the same page about what is or is not acceptable.

When posts that I get a Warning for vanish, it's pretty difficult to demonstrate that Warnings were handed out to certain posters for making particular statements but not to others, since some posts are gone while others remain.

[Slade, The Grey Fox]

Curiously, no sign of Mods...

Do we need to step in, or can we keep this conversation civil?

[Jaim Magnus]

I've been following this and hoping for a mod to weigh in, rather than site maintenance.  Seems a rather pointless discussion otherwise.

[Bosefius]

I've been following this and hoping for a mod to weigh in, rather than site maintenance.  Seems a rather pointless discussion otherwise.

Aside from Slade asking everything to be civil there is no need for us to weigh in. We work as a team, there is no bias for or against any one poster over another. If a report is made then we review the report. If a single moderator is active in a thread and does not see a problem (and no one else reports it) that is not approval from the Moderator team.

If YOU THE USER (not specifically you, but all users in general) feel something should be reviewed then report it. Even if it is a moderator. You could report me for this post. I would excuse myself from the discussion and take whatever punishment was deemed appropriate, from Friendly Advice (which some people have received) to a Warning or it would be deemed to not be a problem.

We do ask that everyone remember that we DO NOT discuss actions we take with anyone aside from each other and the user. There have been times warnings have been rescinded (because we over-reacted or misinterpreted something). These boards are multi-national, what we Americans may see as an inexcusable attack a fellow European may explain away as a language issue or even just a different take on a situation.

Ok, I lied a little, their are very specific times we take unilateral action and report it later. This is normally when dealing with spambots.

I will stress I don't speak for anyone except myself. Each Moderator looks at this job in a different way. But remember, it is a volunteer job for all of us. All of us were chosen by other Moderators. If I'm not mistaken the majority of us are also involved in other volunteer work such as the Demo Teams, fact checking, playtesting, the MUL (poor, poor souls), etc. For all of us Battletech is a labor of love.

Lastly, we do believe you should be able to complain to us, about us, etc. We do ask it be polite and civil, as Slade requested. We attempt to be civil in all of our dealings with fellow posters and we ask the same.

Most of all, have fun, make sure the Gauss hits the other guy in the face and don't shoot an LB-10X at Slade's Akuma...

[Stormfury]

Aside from Slade asking everything to be civil there is no need for us to weigh in. We work as a team, there is no bias for or against any one poster over another. If a report is made then we review the report. If a single moderator is active in a thread and does not see a problem (and no one else reports it) that is not approval from the Moderator team.

Whether it is intended to appear this way or not, having a moderator post in a thread does indicate that they are aware of what has been said up to that point. In that case- especially when a moderator directly quotes material that has resulted in sactions being applied elsewhere- it in fact does imply approval, tacit or directly.

These boards are multi-national, what we Americans may see as an inexcusable attack a fellow European may explain away as a language issue or even just a different take on a situation.

I've been issued with Warnings for what is down here a common and completely inoffensive way of phrasing something even if it may have a different meaning for an American (or European). On both occasions I was told that didn't matter, because the moderation team had made their interpretation of what I said and deemed it inexcusable and offensive.

So, yeah. In my experience, also not so much.

[Slade, The Grey Fox]

Most of all, have fun, make sure the Gauss hits the other guy in the face and don't shoot an LB-10X at Slade's Akuma...

YOU PROMISED YOU WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT MY AKUMA!!

In that case- especially when a moderator directly quotes material that has resulted in sactions being applied elsewhere- it in fact does imply approval, tacit or directly.

In cases of warnings, or even friendly "suggestions" more often than not, the offending material is removed.  In situations where it is left in play, it may not be enough to invoke a warning but serves a purpose in letting those participating in the threat that they need to consider all viewpoints when posting and to turn away from the "dark side".  If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to PM it and we can discuss this as an aside.  That being said, we can move back to discussing the purpose of Rule #4.

[foxbat]

Whether it is intended to appear this way or not, having a moderator post in a thread does indicate that they are aware of what has been said up to that point. In that case- especially when a moderator directly quotes material that has resulted in sactions being applied elsewhere- it in fact does imply approval, tacit or directly.

No. The fact that Mods do not post in a topic  doesn't mean they are not aware of it. Like for everyone else, there is no requirement for them to post in it, or take any other action, as long as no rules are broken.

[Charlie Tango]

The Mod and Admin team includes people from the United States, Great Britain, France, Spain, New Zealand, and Australia.  While not a comprehensive list of everywhere Battletech is played around the world, it covers the vast majority of players and forum posters. If an issue is regarding something from a particular region,  the Moderator/Admin with knowledge in that area is consulted to ensure there is no misunderstanding due to a "regional difference".


Edit: to add New Zealand to our list of Moderation nations..

[Paul]

Except the only people who would have the records to support it are the people he's criticizing, and I highly doubt they're going to give him said evidence...

Hardly, since his claim is inaction when there should be action, in his eyes. Ergo, threads continue to exist that shouldn't.

He has his own Warnings on record as well, so can provide a comparison.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not going to be baited into posting it here or providing it via PMs since I know from prior experience that any material linked to or said via those mediums is subject to the site rules, and I can't exactly turn around and contend I shouldn't be issued with a Warning when I know for a fact that whatever I'd be quoting or linking to violates the site rules.

You keep making this claim, it keeps not being true. Only the forum posts are subject to forum rules, not PMs and definitely not emails. If you've ever been warned for a PM, give me a date range, and I'll look it up. IE, the date of the PM you received.


The onus is on you to prove your point. Since you won't, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss your complaint as both unfounded, and impossible to act upon. Even if I took it as a legitimate complaint, there's simply nothing to act on, since you're providing nothing but unsupported accusations.
The issue as I see it is that you'd draw the line in a different spot than the Mod/Admin team when it comes to Rule 4. That's unfortunate, but not a problem.

I've already tried to contact the Catalyst Observer several times, but like others who've done so have recieved no response.

Who are these 'others'?

This is one of the reasons that I am opposed to the removal of posts. With an exception for spam or things like pornography, leaving them up with a note that moderator action has been taken helps establish a baseline for the posting community and assists in objectivity because everyone is then on the same page about what is or is not acceptable.

It hasn't been a problem in a decade. People tend to learn quite quickly where the arbitrary line is. Examples contribute nothing.

When posts that I get a Warning for vanish, it's pretty difficult to demonstrate that Warnings were handed out to certain posters for making particular statements but not to others, since some posts are gone while others remain.

And yet, your post is quoted in the PM that includes the Warning.

Your problem will not be resolved unless you're able to substantiate your accusations.
As I indicated earlier, your options are then to either live with it, or spend your time elsewhere.

Whether it is intended to appear this way or not, having a moderator post in a thread does indicate that they are aware of what has been said up to that point. In that case- especially when a moderator directly quotes material that has resulted in sactions being applied elsewhere- it in fact does imply approval, tacit or directly.

Clearly, that's not true. It just means the Mod in question doesn't see an issue, but (eventually) the Team did. People who quote offending posts don't get a Warning unless their own posted material also breaks the rules. Their posts just get yanked along with the one(s) that will incur a Warning.

I've been issued with Warnings for what is down here a common and completely inoffensive way of phrasing something

That's your opinion. Apparently you're wrong.

Paul

[worktroll]

None of this discussion is answering the OP's question:

why is there rule 4?

This forum exists as Catalyst Game Lab's official forum for the BattleTech boardgame. As such, the forums are intended to be a place where fans of the game, game universe and its diverse expressions can share an environment which is friendly and which encourages their exploration of the game etc.

Past experience, and examples on numerous other forums, show that certain topics - usually within the real-world politics and religion areas, but also including ice hockey - quickly deteriorate into what are colloquially described as "flame wars". These forums are not an intellectual bearpit, nor are they a "fight club" for arguments. If one is here for the purpose of winning arguments over other forum posters, frankly, one is doing it wrong.

The main issues happen when people are unable to separate historical fact from their evaluation or opinion of that fact. Frankly, wer'e not here for that. We're here for giant stompy robots, and related topics which (while remaining within all forum rules) may be of related interest to fans of BattleTech.

All forum posters have agreed to abide by the forum rules as part of the process of creating their account here. Should anyone find that they need the cut and thrust of personal argument essential to their enjoyment of the game, they're welcome to find, run or start alternative BattleTech communities where such behaviour is part of the intent of the forums. Several such communities exist, and enrich the overall fan community. At the same time, such people are also welcome to remain and be part of the community here, subject to the rules here.

Note I'm not addressing the issue of supposed or perceived inconsistency of moderation - as always, everyone's perception of the same events/issues will be different, based on their personal history, perspective, and involvement. Anyone interested in such things is recommended to watch Rashomon.

Yours sincerely,

Worktroll, Administrator.

[Stormfury]

No. The fact that Mods do not post in a topic  doesn't mean they are not aware of it. Like for everyone else, there is no requirement for them to post in it, or take any other action, as long as no rules are broken.

That's not what I said, though.

Suppose that a poster gets issued a Warning for saying "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;" (generated by randomly mashing my keyboard).

They then see another poster saying "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;" in another thread. That post is not sanctioned (and we can tell, because posts that are not sanctioned are not deleted). This frustrates them, makes them more likely to snap and accrue another Warning later on, and doesn't help with the tone of the board.

Not only that, you've got the site as a whole seeing that "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;" is apparently not objectionable. So membes are inclined to say "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;" (and possibly get a Warning for doing so) on the basis that there's apparently no problem with it, or to say something similar which doesn't help the environment that much if the point of issuing a Warning for saying "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;" is to help defuse things.

If a moderator posts in a thread where someone is saying "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;", or directly quotes someone saying "Lbvsjgfsdkjgfd;fgdl;" and no action is then taken, it further reinforces the idea that there is nothing wrong with saying that and (to those who've been issued a Warning for saying the exact same thing) highlights the disparity with which the rules are being applied.

He has his own Warnings on record as well, so can provide a comparison.

The last time around, I provided an example and was told that since I couldn't provide proof that was what I'd been Warned for my argument could be discounted.

You keep making this claim, it keeps not being true. Only the forum posts are subject to forum rules, not PMs and definitely not emails.

Very well. I'll mark this for future reference, because it's not how it's been applied up to this point.

]The onus is on you to prove your point. Since you won't, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss your complaint as both unfounded, and impossible to act upon.

...

It's impossible to provide proof because the posts I (and others) receive Warnings for are deleted. This is like saying "prove, without use of the fossil record, that dinosaurs ever existed."

You've made it clear that you don't consider my say-so to be enough, but the system in place means that's all I- or anyone else- can offer.

Even if I took it as a legitimate complaint, there's simply nothing to act on, since you're providing nothing but unsupported accusations.

Alternatively, we could follow the board rules and ask the Catalyst Observer to look into it. Which I have done on a number of occasions. However, neither I nor the others who've done so have received a reply, not even an automated "we received your e-mail and are looking into the matter."

The e-mail I sent them contains far more in the way of specifics than I'm going to get into here or with you.

Who are these 'others'?

Why do I need to identify them? They've tried to go by the right channels to resolve the issue of undue or unfair moderator attention (or at least what they perceive to be such), so why should I make their lives any more difficult here than they already are?

[cavalier1645]

A good rule of thumb: If it's after WWII or has any relation to any current events/debates, take a very long and hard look at it before posting. If it's before WWII, it's more likely to be okay, but it's no guarantee. Remember that the population of this forum is very much a global population, and certain events may still be very controversial subjects for people from certain regions.

Well I am sorry if my forum thread has gotten a little out of hand. For that I apologize I never intended this thread to get out of hand. As for the response to my last statement. I understand, but find it still strange. I understand that this a global population, but as I said before why is it even necessary to have such a rule. Especially for a company based out of the United States (witch I was surprised I thought CGL was English or German or some other Euro nation). As I said History and world news is not a pile of roses. Governments and leaders do stuff out of political intrests (or personal ) It's not a mark against the people for what there countries have done in the past. All countries no offense have blood on their hands...Sorry but basic human nature is not a very nice thing. 5000 years of warfare, 200 years of peace. That should tell ya about human history. So me bringing up some culture or country history shouldn't offend rational and reasonable people. I think this rule is catering to people who get emotional work up about events they can not influence or control (sorry no time machine) As an American I am not going to get upset if some bring up America's dirty laundry ( There plenty there)

OK that's my 2 cents. :)

[Paul]

The last time around, I provided an example and was told that since I couldn't provide proof that was what I'd been Warned for my argument could be discounted.

Sounds interesting. Don't suppose you have a link to that exchange, or was that in PM?

Very well. I'll mark this for future reference, because it's not how it's been applied up to this point.

I continue to be unaware of any examples of you getting dinged for showing offending posts. How about a date or date range where this happened?

It's impossible to provide proof because the posts I (and others) receive Warnings for are deleted.

Then I guess you don't realize that the offending post is included in any Warning you receive.
Meanwhile, if given some dates, I'm willing to do your work for you, and see if I can find something that substantiates your various claims.

You've made it clear that you don't consider my say-so to be enough, but the system in place means that's all I- or anyone else- can offer.

Incorrect, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

The e-mail I sent them contains far more in the way of specifics than I'm going to get into here or with you.

Fair enough, but then consider me unmoved by your accusations. Repeating them without any proof is not likely to change that position.

Why do I need to identify them? They've tried to go by the right channels to resolve the issue of undue or unfair moderator attention (or at least what they perceive to be such), so why should I make their lives any more difficult here than they already are?

Because the anonymous throng of oppressed people almost never exists, despite the self-sacrifice of their white knight. I'm curious if that applies in this instance.

As for making their or your life more difficult: this thread continues to exist, and your account continues to be unbanned. Seems to me we're a bit lax with this whole oppression thing. Does that make the hamfisted fascism incompetent, or negligent? If inconsistent, it seems to me we could be making 2 clicks to just ban you and remove this thread, rather than try to actually respond.
It can't possibly be that there's an intent to give a fair shake.

Paul

[Charlie Tango]

When a Warning is issued,  the offending poster is sent in the message from the Moderator an exact copy of the post that they are being Warned for.

[Stormfury]

Sounds interesting. Don't suppose you have a link to that exchange, or was that in PM?

There was an entire, now-closed thread on the matter that is still on the front page of this sub-forum. Relevant post here.

I contacted the Catalyst Observer with over a dozen specific examples not long after it was closed. I have yet to receive a reply. Since sending that message, I've encountered several more. The initial e-mail was the result of extremely brief searches of the board (about 10 minutes, total), not relentless combing the place for anything that kind of sort of almost maybe but not really was connected to what I was saying.

Meanwhile, if given some dates, I'm willing to do your work for you, and see if I can find something that substantiates your various claims.

I did this last time around. I was given a Warning for saying that someone was being deliberately obtuse. Use the site search feature to search the board for "deliberately obtuse" and see what comes up in the "Minas Tirith/Helms deep..." thread. I was told that it was fine because of the context in which it was used, but if that is actually the case then no Warning should have been issued against me either.

That's just one example, easy to demonstrate except for the bit where I can't show that the "deliberately obtuse" bit was what got me a Warning to begin with.

Because the anonymous throng of oppressed people almost never exists, despite the self-sacrifice of their white knight. I'm curious if that applies in this instance.

I wasn't the only one saying this in the other thread. I'm not even the only one who's said it in this thread.

And in a situation where people are already feeling like they're being unfairly targeted for moderator attention (and bannings), how eager do you think most of them would be to speak out about it? They've either stopped posting here or don't want to rock the boat any further. I'm not white-knighting (and, frankly, that was more than a little offensive).

I'd rather address the matter with the Catalyst Observer. When will they be back? It's been a month since I last asked, two months since the time before that, and I e-mailed them in September last year too.

[rebs]

Past experience, and examples on numerous other forums, show that certain topics - usually within the real-world politics and religion areas, but also including ice hockey - quickly deteriorate into what are colloquially described as "flame wars".

Glad someone has a sense of humor, that the joke is culled from the truth of the matter makes it that much more entertaining.  :)

In college and afterward for a few years, I used to conduct English as a Second Language labs at the local community college.  I learned all about Rule 4 quiet well in that setting.  Simply put (for those with a question about its need to exist), it is for keeping civility in place, nothing more or less. 

[StCptMara]

Glad someone has a sense of humor, that the joke is culled from the truth of the matter makes it that much more entertaining.  :)

Huh..I thought "sports" was a form of Politics.

That said, there are times where keeping from crossing Rule 4 in a discussion on something In Universe really feels like walking on eggshells, like, say a discussion on religion in BattleTech(that was an interesting, but VERY delicate thread). Also, I will admit that sometimes knowing what is going to count as "Politics" is really tricky. I mean, I got a warning on the old forums for a comparison
of one series of events in BattleTech to an RL historical event from the 1500's(though I cannot remember which event now), and was told that it was because of "No Politics." It is a very delicate rule sometimes, especially for history buffs, as we really do not see what there is to be offended about at drawing the parallels between things(especially when someone is saying some series of events in BattleTech is completely unrealistic and would never happen RL, and your response is to point out that they HAD happened RL).

[rebs]

I've experienced that here.  In some instances, I've ignored comments that try to claim an event was unrealistic, when there are plenty of RL parallels that say otherwise.   It looked to me like the user was gaming rule 4 in order to maintain an appearance of "winning" an argument or some such tripe.   

But... sports as a form of politics?  Maybe the Olympics, but if one goes that far as to eliminate sports topics from off-topic threads, then games might be next.  Or different types of TV programing, or movies...   the slope becomes a sharp curve very quickly.

This is the part were the TPTB decide what they want discussed here and what they do not want discussed. 

[cavalier1645]

Man really sorry I got to miss this thread. I would have put my 2 cents in for that one.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,24053.0.html

Ok now that I back from  the ban world I learn some intresting lessons about this forum

1. one history is apparently Politics and I can't use historical examples to back any arguments.
2. This forum may too senstive to actual debate over anything. So I am done arguing or debating on here. It's not worth the warning and bans

Now here a question for the mods. Why does catalysis have this rule 4. Seems extreme to me and uncessary.

[StCptMara]

1. one history is apparently Politics and I can't use historical examples to back any arguments.
2. This forum may too senstive to actual debate over anything. So I am done arguing or debating on here. It's not worth the warning and bans

1. It is not that History is Politics, it is that certain points of history are extremely political hot-buttons. The Vietnam "War", WW2,
any Civil Wars. This is because all of those are extremely political in nature.

2. It is not that forumites are too sensitive to debate over anything, but the arguing is probably where the problem lies. Also, you know,
getting emotionally involved in the discussion can lead to crossing lines regarding other rules.

[roosterboy]

Now here a question for the mods. Why does catalysis have this rule 4. Seems extreme to me and uncessary.

Because in the years that this forum has been around, it has been proven time and time again that the posters here are incapable of discussing such things and keeping it civil for very long.

Because this isn't the place to discuss such things, this is a place to discuss big, stompy robots.

Because there are hundreds of other places on this great, wide web of ours in which to discuss such things.

Because this is a site to promote a BattleTech community, not to serve as the forum for people to spread their idiosyncratic ideas about history and politics.

Because it's nice to have a safe haven away from all that crap.

Take your pick.

[God and Davion]

  I would like to clear something about history and politics. A rule of thumb is that everything before WWII can be discussed, but this is a rule of thumb based on the fact that almost no people of that time is still alive and almost every political issue of that time is clearly forgotten.

  This means that not everything before WWII is safe to talk about. I can think about dozens of topics that would create issues despite having happened before WWII, not only in US, but in Germany, Spain. So people should be careful about using historical examples because some of them are still politically active, maybe not in US, but in other countries.

  History is not a clean matter. History is not just what it is written in a book. Historians can make mistakes, history can be rewritten and people may look at something that happened 800 years before and bring different conclusions and argue bitterly about it. This happens, it is not just a theory. I had discussions and felt anger for things that happened 800 years ago.   This is why is stated in the same rule 4 that, when in doubt, ask the moderators about if something is ok.

[cavalier1645]

1. It is not that History is Politics, it is that certain points of history are extremely political hot-buttons. The Vietnam "War", WW2,
any Civil Wars. This is because all of those are extremely political in nature.

2. It is not that forumites are too sensitive to debate over anything, but the arguing is probably where the problem lies. Also, you know,
getting emotionally involved in the discussion can lead to crossing lines regarding other rules.

1. That is a bit of a cop out. Where all grown adult here. (Or should be if you on a forum? but never mind) If you can not talk about a sensitive topic in life, Well It does speak volumes.

2. I tend to disagree with your statement. The fact I was ban in a reality short time and did go fishing for trouble or being offensive strikes me as the forum is a bit sensitive.

As I say I am tired and done with it. If they want a nice clean and PC forum, they can have it. Ill just post my fluff ideas and surf for info for BT. Other then that I am done discussing on this forum.

[Kit deSummersville]

1. That is a bit of a cop out. Where all grown adult here. (Or should be if you on a forum? but never mind)

Not everyone is an adult; we do have adolescents posting on this forum and I think a giant robot game is a good place for them, unlike some other locations on the internet.

[Xotl]

1. That is a bit of a cop out. Where all grown adult here. (Or should be if you on a forum? but never mind) If you can not talk about a sensitive topic in life, Well It does speak volumes.

Ignoring the fact that we're not in fact all adults here, if all it took to be mature and reasonable was to be old, we'd have no problems in this world; whether you're an adult or not has no bearing on your ability to handle politics and religion maturely.  Wisdom and critical thinking skills are often poorly developed even in adults, and people of all ages have their passions inflamed by random topics all the time, to a degree that overrides even good sense - you cannot tell me you've never seen it.  It isn't children that write all those angry letters to the editor in your local newspaper.

More importantly, this overlooks a couple of key factors.  First, so what if you in particular are a mature adult?  That doesn't stop someone from running wild with what you post and taking offense to it, and an argument breaking out.  It happens regardless of how mature or well-intentioned you are because, in a public forum, you're never the only one involved.

Secondly, this all assumes that the forums haven't had literally years (over a decade really) of real-life experience in this regard.  I mean, the possiblities are that, a) yes, horrible flame wars and bannings and drama and derails have happened time and time again here, leading to the policy you're unhappy with, or b) the policy was put in place just for the fun of it or because someone was unhappy with an even number of forum rules or some other incomprehensible purpose.  Taking a quick look at political forums across the internet and even random Youtube comments, I know which one seems more likely to me.

[StCptMara]

More importantly, this overlooks a couple of key factors.  First, so what if you in particular are a mature adult?  That doesn't stop someone from running wild with what you post and taking offense to it, and an argument breaking out.  It happens regardless of how mature or well-intentioned you are because, in a public forum, you're never the only one involved.

You know, Xotl, this can easily be verified: Does, whenever TPTB post somethign new and interesting, it get met with majority of
Doom ANd Gloom, majority of "This is the best thing ever!" or the majority of the rational response of "Wow! I will refrain from commenting good or bad until I can see the whole rules, and make a properly informed decision?" I hate to say it, but I rarely see
anyone responding with the third option. We have a forum that, frankly, is often spurred on in its discussions by rampant speculation.
Not saying that is a bad thing, but it defines the character of our forum. And this is just about possible game rules/changes/additions!
Imagine if RL Politics and Religion were part of the discussion!

That said, I come here to talk about giant stompy robots, and could care less about the decisions made by some Austrian Corporal 70 years ago, or why one should never get involved in a land war in Asia. What do those have to do with crushing the evil Star Adders/Davions/Taurians? We have ENOUGH politics on here with Pro-Victor/Pro-Katherine loyalties among the former FedCom players.

[rebs]

Man really sorry I got to miss this thread. I would have put my 2 cents in for that one.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,24053.0.html

Ok now that I back from  the ban world I learn some intresting lessons about this forum

1. one history is apparently Politics and I can't use historical examples to back any arguments.
2. This forum may too senstive to actual debate over anything. So I am done arguing or debating on here. It's not worth the warning and bans

Now here a question for the mods. Why does catalysis have this rule 4. Seems extreme to me and uncessary.

Hello Cav.  You've already received the best answers. 

But I would add, as came up in another discussion, we all actually do use political and historical examples in our arguments/discussions quite a bit here on CBT - when it is done with articulate discretion it can add a lot to the discussion.  Just as long as things are briefly mentioned simply for their value as a fact of history, it draws little or no attention.   

It's when people take their arguments too far, or someone else takes offense to something said that problems arise.   So if people get completely bent out of shape over religious or political speech, the solution is easy.  This is not a political blog, nor is it a religious website.  Rule 4 exists outside of the confines of this site, in plenty of other venues, and all for pretty much the same reason: 

Maintenance of Civility.

That's it.  So with that in mind, there is nothing unreasonable about it.  A lot of people dislike that the internet is not quite the home to Free Speech that we would all love to cling to.  It just can't be that way; it must be (hopefully, at best) a benevolent dictatorship.   If the inmates run the asylum, you end up with MySpace.