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.