Quote from: RPGPundit;278889...I got a PM from David R a few days ago, where he essentially said he was no longer going to be active on this site because he really didn't want his name being associated with it

...and...

Quote from: Jackalope;278907And notice that when I left, CavScout's bullshit didn't change at all. He just argued with different people, in the same obnoxious way.

Quoted for emphasis.  These two comments sum up my feelings about this site very succinctly.

!i!

Hmm, right now votes are almost 50-50 on this. Its clear the forum is very divided on this issue.

RPGPundit

Make it subscription or request only access.  Set up a separate group for users that has all the permissions of the regular group, but add access to Politics.  When someone makes the request, pop them to the new group.  No Muss, no fuss, and people who really, really don't want to take part in the Politics forum have a built in ignore list, as they won't be able to even see it.

I voted to keep it.  As others have already stated well, you can just ignore the sub-forum altogether and not post there.

What exactly was the problem again? Some guys can't keep it in their pants?

Christ, just ban Jackalope and Cav Scout already. They're both clearly wing-nuts - is anyone really going to miss either of them? And close the politics sub-forum, as it's really just an invitation for trolls, loons and cretins.

Ned

Quote from: RPGPundit;278928Hmm, right now votes are almost 50-50 on this. Its clear the forum is very divided on this issue.

RPGPundit

It's a few hours later (so the votes might have changed), but I'm really curious about your 50/50 view.

If you're really just asking about a politics sub-forum, OK, that I can see. If you're talking about not allowing politics, it's not even close.

The interesting thing about having it as a separate sub-forum is that it's even easier to ignore that stuff.

So is David not going to come back if politics is still discussed in Off Topic? Is Ian only going to be satisfied if CavSpout is banned (but leave Jackass because he doesn't see him as bad)?

Seems to me about the only way to handle this and keep your principles is to warn the idiots and then ban them from the Off-Topic and/or Politics - not to protect David's or Ian's precious sensitivities, but to keep your site from getting a bad rep (as I recognize that even though we're all adults and can make our own decisions, perception is often reality and you want to avoid the perception of becoming an Off Topic site with some RPG discussion).

On further reflection - I suppose you could get away with changing off topic in the way you describe (making it geek-centric) but you'll have just as much of an issue, IMHO, policing that (to keep out the riff raff of non-geek-related off topic chatter) not to mention doing it in what would be perceived as an unbiased way...

Lastly, if Engine agrees with this, I will immediately change my stance to the exact opposite - that guy is nuts.

Don't ban them. A temporary topic ban might be in order as a test for trolling though. If either one can go six months on the site without discussing politics, I'd be willing to let the whole matter slide. If they can't, boot them out.

Quote from: Jackalope;278907And notice that when I left, CavScout's bullshit didn't change at all. He just argued with different people, in the same obnoxious way.

If the way I post causes no problems unless you show up, then perhaps I am  not the issue.

We had 14 pages of discussion without OHT going bat-shit with warnings and crap. But three pages later, with Jackalope showing up, it is closed.

My posting style didn't change and my stance certainly didn't change, so what was the issue?

Ditch the thing. In fact, ditch off-topic.

Quote from: CavScout;278978If the way I post causes no problems unless you show up, then perhaps I am  not the issue.

But the way you post does cause problems regardless of whether I'm here or not.  Which was the point of the very line you quoted.

Quote from: James J Skach;278971On further reflection - I suppose you could get away with changing off topic in the way you describe (making it geek-centric) but you'll have just as much of an issue, IMHO, policing that (to keep out the riff raff of non-geek-related off topic chatter) not to mention doing it in what would be perceived as an unbiased way...

I semi-respectfully disagree.  From a marginally respectful starting point.  

I didn't mention it earlier, but changing Off Topic to a Geek Media forum would be an excellent idea, in conjunction with my earlier brilliant idea of making the Politics forum request only.  I am frankly stunned at the complete absence of the chorus of agreeing voices.

Turning it into a Geek Media forum seems to make it easier to police, actually, as a topic that doesn't address the fact that Kirk's shirt is the wrong shade of yellow in the upcoming movie is pretty easy to distinguish from a discussion about the evils or sainthood of the US/Hamas/Haliburton/Bill the Cat.

A recap of that thread:

#24 jhkim responds to Spike.

#25 CavScout responds to jhkim's comment to Spike with a question about Gaza's status as a soverign nation.

#29 jhkim responds to CavScout's question explaining that Gaza is a semi-autonomous state within Israel but is not a soverign nation.  This is a correct an accurate answer.

#30 CavScout responds saying "Good try (not really)...Just admit your error and move on."  it is worth noting that jhkim was factually correct and that CavScout is clearly ignoring nuance.

jhkim never responds to CavScout.

#31 Spinachcat offers his opinion on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Here's presents two options and claims no third option.

#33 CavScout claims there is a third option, but the option he presents is included in Spinachcat'ssecond option.

#34 SpinachCat illustrates that CavScout's so-called third oiption is actually just option 2.  

#36 CavScout asks SpinachCat a clearly loaded "gotcha" question that utterly ignores the point of Spinachcat's post and impugns his moral reasoning.

#37 CavScout accuses jhkim of being an antisemite onthe grounds that jhkim recognizes the humanity of Palestinians.

jhkim does not respond.

#41 CavScout offers up a fact in refutation of jhkim'sargument to Spike.

#42 jhkim points out that his argument incorporate the fact presented by CavScout.

#48 CavScout attempts to trap jhkim with misreperesented facts.

#49 CavScout attempts to trap jhkim with misreperesented facts again.

#52 CavScout implies that the refusual of many modern people to allow Israel to run its affairs according to the policies of the manifest destiny invoked by colonialist oppressors in previous centuries before is an example of antisemitism.

#53 Balbinus points out to CavScout that accusing anyone who disagrees with him of antisemitism is uncalled for.

#54 Spike agrees with Balbinus.

#58 CavScout makes a cyrptic and unclear comment to Haffrung.

#59 jhkim responds to CavScout's comments (48 & 49), pointing out again that he had already accounted for these facts.

#70 CavScout really confuses the issue by attacking jhkim for getting his facts wrong while contradicting himself in the process.  Again, this confusion stems entirely from CavScout unwillingness orinability to consider any nuance.

#71 CavScout attacks Ghost Whistler for discussing Israel without stridently condemning condemning Hamas.

#74 CavScout responds to balibinus.  CavScout claims that Britain did not suffer much fromIRA attacks, and that no other nation would be expected to suffer attacks like Israel is.

#76 While responding to Spike, CavScout assumes that anyone who is disturbed by Israel's response to Hamas attacks  does not support calls for Hamas to stop attacking Israel.  he provides no evidence in support for this assumption. Taken with post #71, we can see that CavScout is building the case that anyone who does not loudly and publically decry Hamas must clearly support Hamas.

#77 jhkim asks CavScout a reasonable question,asking him for an example of an area comparable to Gaza.

#78 Balbinus points out that Britain suffered greater civilian casulaties due to IRA terrorism than Israel has from Hamas terrorism.

CavScout never responds to this point.

#79 CavScout deflects jhkim's question by claiming that Gaza is not like Gaza, and then implies via gothca question that jhkim supports killing citizens of foreign powers because"you have beef with them," when jhkim was actually discussing people's right to defend themselves from oppression.

#81 Balinbus makes a point to CavScout regarding Israeli's disproprortionate use of force.

#90 In a response to Ghost Whistler CavScout claims the most important difference between Hamas and the IRA was their goals.  This difference apparently justifies massive civilian casulties in the pursuit of Hamas.

#92 In a second response to the samepost by Ghost Whistler CavScout ask more gotcha questions.

#93 CavScout dismiss Balibinus claim that the IRA did more damage because the United Kingdom has a greater population,and the IRA didn't fire as many rockets. He claims the israeli's live in greater danger than the British.  He then accuses Balibinus of having no sympathy for Israel.

#94 CavScout trolls Balibinus pretty hard in this post,asking loaded and leading questions, distorting balibinus position, and implying that the only reason Balbinus thinks Israel's policies towards Hamas won't workis because he is "against Israel."

#98 jhkim posts a graph illsutrating the disproportionality ofPalestian losses in the conflict, and points out that israeli'sare five times more likely to be murdered than killed by terrorism.

#99 CavScout responds by making the utterly bizarre statement "The same line of "reasoning" would suggest the US should have done little or nothing in response to the 9/11 attacks..." He then makes veiled accustations of antisemitism towards jhkim.

jhkim ignores CavScout.

#102 CavScout asks jhkim another gothca question, still ignoring jhkim'sactual point to make thinly veiled accusations of antisemitism.

#102 jhkim points out that two eyes for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

#105-#107 Balibinus responds to CavScouts trolls, pointing out that CavScout is dodging and being unrealistic.

#112 CavScout responds to jhkim's wisdom by saying "but then you let the bad guy get away with being bad." Failing, apparently, to understand the wisdom of turning the other cheek.  it also at this point that cavScout enters the world where the only possible response to Hamas is the current response, to consider any other courseof action is to 'let Hamas get away with it.'

#114 CavScout continues this line of thought with Balbinus, insisting that Israel can only bomb civilians or roll over an take it,and that Balibinus wants them to roll over and take it.  Nuance takes a gut shot.

#115 CavScout accuses everyone who thinks Israel's current actions are counterproductive, indefensible or ineffective of blaming Israel for defending itself.  Nuance is bleeding in the corner.

#119 Balbinus makes a last-ditch effort to revive nuance by pointing out that opposition to this particular response is not opposition to any and all responses.

#121 CavScout accuses Balbinus of giving opposition to Hamas "lip service" to hide true antisemitism.  Nuance dies, having been skull-fucked to death by CavScout.

#122 CavScout accuses Balbinus of antisemitism.  Then, in what can only be called the most ironic twist of the thread, accuses Balbinus of black and white thinking.

#123 Haffrung tries to explain where CavScout has misinterpretted Balbinus.

#124 CavScout blows off Haffrung, saying the IRA had different means (planted bombs versus fired rockets) and ends (Irish independence versusIsraeli destruction), so its irrelevant that they killed more people and provoked a less extreme response from the UK.

#125 Haffrung points out that the difference in means and ends is irrelevant when the outcome (terrorism and dead civilians) is the same.

#127 CavScout claims that the UK would have responded like Israel if the IRA had used rockets instead of bombs.

#129 CavScout actually manages to catch jhkim in an error, but it's irrelevant to the argument at large.

I entered the conversation at post  #133, by which point CavScout had already alienated most of the people arguing, accused everyone who disagreed with him of both antisemitism and supporting terrorism, and had managed to ignore every bit of nuance in the thread.

Yet somehow, I'mthe bad guy.

Hey, that was a fun read!

I motion we lock up all the crazy people in the politics forum, except once a month Jackalope gets briefly released to post a summary.

The issue is, Jackalope, that alone either you or Cavscout are capable of posting aggressive, insulting or explosive remarks; but that's not really a big deal in a site like this. The moment you're both together in the same thread, the thread goes nuclear. And that is.

When you guys are in a thread alone, there's a chance it will turn into a thread about (one of) you, but its not a given. When you're both posting in the same thread, its all but guaranteed that the thread will turn into a pointless pissing match between the two of you.

RPGPundit