Hi a explaination of Rule 4 please..

[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.