- xLAS3RP01NT3Rx
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: xLAS3RP01NT3Rx
What does "bad topic" mean?A topic that would most likely offend someone and that Achronos doesn't want talked about.Offend someone, eh?
Look, if politics is a "bad topic," so is abortion, and so is evolution. They're all the same in terms of response, which is the only possible reason to disallow political discussion in the first place.They aren't the same in terms of responses. I said this using Recon 54's trend as an example. But the responses aren't the issue, regardless.You just defined "bad" by people's response! Taking offense is a response! Achronos' opinion is a response! Response is the sole issue.
Also, I cannot see any trend in RN54's posts. Can you provide some links to him posting in abortion, evolution, or MLP threads?
It's a matter of 'political discussion' covering what the moderators want it to cover, then using their own judgment to whether something is allowed. Based on the thread. Why? Because Achronos doesn't want some things discussed because they are 'bad' topics. What you seem to be arguing is that they should put those in the rules too. But that's silly. When the rules were detailed, people would just find loopholes. Now it is up to each moderator to decide what is allowed and what isn't.I'm arguing consistency. Political and religious discussion is very neatly prohibited in the rules.
The rules should either be edited to include everything that could possibly offend people (as you would say, "bad") or simply state that it is against the rules to make threads that might offend people.
That's already in the rules, actually.
That's why political and religious discussion shouldn't be specifically prohibited in the rules! It's redundant!
Not all political/religious discussions offend people. It's the people within those topics, just like in abortion/evolution/MLP threads.
If they judge something bad, then they'll lock it. Nothing lost. And if the thread is really bad (i.e. evolution is right, God isn't real and whomever disagrees with me is stupid' crap) then the user will get banned. But you're asking them to go back to the super detailed things. If a topic isn't allowed the user isn't going to be banned unless it is actually offensive most likely. But it is up to the moderators to decide what they can and cannot risk continuing in a forum.I understand that threads are allowed to continue by the discretion of the moderators.
Political discussions are not allowed to continue by discretion of the moderators; if they are political, they are locked.
It should not be this way; rather, it should be just like any controversial topic allowed in the forum- up to the discretion of the moderators.
Similarly, you can't say political discussion is bad because Achronos says it is.Sure I could. If the big man doesn't want it then it's a bad topic. If he were to say 'discussing the website is against the rules from now on' then website discussion would be bad.I mean this kindly: can you please get past Achronos' opinion?
You define "bad" as something Achronos doesn't want, and then you say Achronos doesn't want something because it is "bad."
That's exactly the circular logic I was talking about.
All of this is subjective, and I never mentioned Xbox discussion.My first post was in response to somebody saying Xbox Vs. Playstation threads should be banned because people sometimes flame in them. Then you replied saying I was wrong. Oh, ok.
Posted by: DuardoPosted by: xLAS3RP01NT3Rx
@Duardo: That's nice, but it doesn't have to do with politics, unless you mean to say that political discussion is comparable to that of religion because they both deal with faith and in-disprovable beliefs- opinions, essentially.
If an opinion is, "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty," I would say political and religious discussions do revolve solely around opinions. This alone cannot be the reason the subjects are banned, but the general lack of tolerance for opinions usually found in the threads cannot be the reason either, as this is not exclusive to political and religious discussion."The reason politics and religion aren't allowed as discussion topics on here is because of two factors: it is highly personal and emotional, and there are no "right" answers. Whereas a conversation about a scientific theory doesn't usually have these problems. The topic commonly referred to as "evolution" gets in trouble because most people don't understand how the scientific method works and incorrectly attach agendas, politics, etc (both sides do this). Discussions about climate change often get in trouble here too. "Abortion, like religion and politics, is highly personal and emotional as well. No right answers. I don't see it any different than religion or politics in that regard, and many times it is closely tied to both.
Should it be added to the list?
I don't think so, but instead, the list be removed. The way I see it, the rules already cover the two topics in - Respect your fellow members, or at least tolerate them publicly. Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated, even if they probably deserve itSome general rule could be laid out that encompasses specifically controversial/emotionally charged/no-right-answer if that isn't enough.
Unfortunately, that might catch "What's your favorite flavor ice cream" in the crossfire, but that's the cost of my OCD.
Also, I'm off to bed.
If the thread is still p. 1 tomorrow I'll reply if necessary, but no more tonight.
[Edited on 08.27.2011 10:08 PM PDT]