Regarding the Ban

[Hotwire]

Reacting to bad behavior with bad behavior is not a solution. This is heavy-handed censorship. The offending parties should be punished, not everyone else too that has an interest in a part of the BattleTech universe just because it draws some contention.  It is ridiculous for the moderator team to resort to completely prohibiting the discussion of a game feature on the very forum that is officially for the game.  >:(

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'd think about reposting your concern in the website and forum support forum.

I agree that moderators do from time to time get too big for their britches or otherwise engage in malfeasance.  However having such a discussion in the general topic forum is inviting them to shut it down.

[Daryk]

The problem isn't any "offenders" in particular.  From my observation, any individual post in those threads by itself is completely within the rules, but taken together, the aggregate tone (on both sides) is less than friendly.  The moderators aren't reacting to a one off phenomena here, either.  Thread after thread on the topic has been locked.  They're just asking us all to cool off a bit while they try to figure out a strategy to keep things from getting to that point again.  Not that I've been posting in those threads, but I'm more than willing to take a knee while the mods figure it out.  This isn't the first time controversial topics have been temporarily banned, and I dare say it won't be the last.

And Tai Dai Cultist has it right... this kind of thread belongs in the support forum, not general discussion.  I expect it'll be moved shortly.

[Bedwyr]

this kind of thread belongs in the support forum, not general discussion.  I expect it'll be moved shortly.

Agreed. I've done so.

In partial response to the OP comment, it's explained in the notice pretty clearly. This is not censorship; this is moderation of a consistent behavior problem. Daryk is generally correct. The problem is larger than a particular set of forum posters. It has effectively become such a problem topic that it inflames people almost as quickly as any given political subject. So, in effect, this response is not that far off from how we respond to rule 4. We disallow political subjects not because we support or oppose particular politicians, but because over time forum goers have demonstrated admirably (and repeatedly) that reasoned political discourse cannot be reasonably held. People just can't restrain themselves. Likewise here. I'll only add that a great many posts have been pulled from these threads and warnings handed out. Those posts and warnings the public do not see once pulled. It is often worse than you think.

We see no further conversation being productive at the moment and hence the subject are off limits for now. We'll let you know if and when the subject is open again.

[ActionButler]

As a general rule, I do not support banning topics of discussion on discussion forums, but the recent LAM threads have all ended up as incredibly circular engagements where some of the more vocal participants don't seem interested in actually discussing anything as much as stating their opinions and arguing that any different stances are shortsighted or unfair. 

More than anything, though, they seem to result is some impolite exchanges between posters.  Mods shouldn't have to put 90% of their effort monitoring 1% of the threads.   

[JadeHellbringer]

As a general rule, I do not support banning topics of discussion on discussion forums, but the recent LAM threads have all ended up as incredibly circular engagements where some of the more vocal participants don't seem interested in actually discussing anything as much as stating their opinions and arguing that any different stances are shortsighted or unfair. 

More than anything, though, they seem to result is some impolite exchanges between posters.  Mods shouldn't have to put 90% of their effort monitoring 1% of the threads.   

Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, that's damned near how I did put it in our discussions.

Something to remember- we're not saying "you can never discuss them here again EVAR". We're saying "we're taking a break from this for a while, letting things calm down, and we'll revisit opening this up as a line of discussion sometime down the road". And for what little it's worth, the only reason we jump to such a surprising and severe measure is because things reached a point where severe measures were all that were left to use. This has been bad, guys- we're spending a LOT of time cleaning LAM threads. So hopefully this has the effect we're aiming for- things calm down and we don't have to keep dealing with the same arguments over and over for a while.

[Wikkid]

*snip*So, in effect, this response is not that far off from how we respond to rule 4. We disallow political subjects not because we support or oppose particular politicians*snip*

I understand the point you are trying to highlight, but this is a poor analogy considering moderator/s were participating in the discussion.

[Daryk]

*snip*
I'll only add that a great many posts have been pulled from these threads and warnings handed out. Those posts and warnings the public do not see once pulled. It is often worse than you think.
*snip*

Thank you for the reminder, sir!  I just finished reading the other thread about moderation down here, and have to agree with that original poster in that a note to the effect that moderation action has been taken in a thread may merit a note from the staff.

[Bedwyr]

It's something to consider, sure, and I do see some merit. You'll have to forgive me, though, if I groan slightly and let my forehead hit the desk thinking of further paperwork. Maybe there's a technical solution, maybe not. We'd have to discuss that kind of change behind the scenes so we red peons don't go making any public commitments implicit or explicit.

[Daryk]

I completely understand!  I just wanted to be on record so the other OP wasn't a lone voice in the wilderness.  Thanks for your time and consideration of the idea.  And best of luck with this current mess.

[Hotwire]

Thanks all for the consideration and I understand the move to Website & Forum Support completely.  I get the practical reasoning behind the ban, however I still think it is an excessive reaction.  Some topics are just going to be contentious and go with the territory of having a forum whose scope includes it.

[worktroll]

There can be contentious topics. However, the management - here, CGL - have made it clear that this forum is meant to serve as a friendly community, not an intellectual bear-pit.

As such, if forum members can't stay within the rules when discussing a contentious topic, the forum management will act to keep the forums friendly. After all, we aren't moderating a topic - we're moderating the actions of posters who can't stay inside forum rules when discussing a particular topic.

I trust no-one's claiming a Ghu-given right to use these forums as a place to unleash their aggression. Other forums make their own rules, and we'll respect that. But that doesn't mean we'll not follow our own rules.

After all, think of all the arguments that typically  don't have at big family gatherings. Unless there's always someone who wants to talk about ice hockey, and everyone else groans inside because they know just where this is going.

[Hotwire]

Your argument seems to support better the sanction of those that are the problem rather than the subject in question.

[worktroll]

Which requires that we allow people to break rules repeatedly so they could in theory work their way up the banladder.

Believe it or not, Warning & Banning is not our preferred option. The people discussing the LAM rules have an obvious passion for the game. It's just that in the heat of the moment, they run the risk of crossing the line. We feel sometimes a little "time off" allows the emotions of the moment to cool.

Short form, we'd like these people as passionate, engaged forumites, who can stay within the Rules. That's our win situation.

Note that until a few years back, people's Warnings lasted forever. Since the change back then, though, Warnings drop off after 12 months. This allows us to recognise that good people do make mistakes, allows us to deal with the mistakes, and gives the good people a chance to consider what led to that mistake.  Is this consistent with a forum management team determined to drive out any opposition?

W.

<edit> Or, just read this. :)

[Cache]

We do the same with some topics at LOTB. The only difference is that we don't post a list of banned topics (aside from religion and politics).  If people don't have a constant reminder of our "heavy handed censorship", it's like it doesn't happen. ;)

If one of those topics starts, we lock it. "Been there, done that, not doing it again."  No sanctions necessary.

[Weirdo]

"Been there, done that, not doing it again."

*saves this bit of text for future use*