What is Political and Mod Direction

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
In my opinion, the mods are doing a very good job of keeping The Pub civil and a nice place for having light-hearted, humorous, but also informative and insightful discussions about RPGs.

If the emerging effect of their actions can be conceptualized as "No Politics", then I'm up for that kind of "No Politics".

Sure, sometimes things get a little heated, but that's life.

In essence, this Pub continues the tradition of free discourse, free speech (with some necessary alterations) and debate of late 90s and early 2000s, before the shitty Culture Wars.

I think the intent of the creator of this site, and his helpers, has a great deal of influence on what's happening in there. It hasn't escaped my notice either that the majority of them are a tad older than your typical RPG audience. That can't hurt (experience has to give you some good things besides grey hair, I suppose :wink:).

An important point, I would say, is that this site is not monetized according to the (dark) tenets of negative marketing - it doesn't induce negative emotions to keep its audience captive in a sickly addictive miasma of dark emotions - differing, for example, from the way the RPG Pundit's site is operated. Pundit is an interesting bloke, who has much to offer the RPG scene, but I fear his money-making negativity machine could lead to his demise.

Anyway, thank God for small blessings.
 
So...no to the sandbox clique? Do I get a pass if I join the Frei Kriegspiel Bunch:devil:?
That's an interesting point, actually. I think discussion of specific techniques of running a game are useful. It just becomes noise when you zoom out to something on the scale of "The OSR", but a discussion of ways to handle random encounters would be a great topic that lies within the OSR wheelhouse.
As I said before, despite being one of those who believes there's a slant, I think this more than anything else indicates you guys are doing a bang-up job.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, if everyone is unhappy, we might have reached a fair compromise.
 
That's an interesting point, actually. I think discussion of specific techniques of running a game are useful. It just becomes noise when you zoom out to something on the scale of "The OSR", but a discussion of ways to handle random encounters would be a great topic that lies within the OSR wheelhouse.
Yeah, the idea that all OSR games are being run the same way is obviously nonsense...though what do I know (and more pertinently, do I want to share opinions on that particular "movement":tongue:)?

I consulted First Son and he actually agreed...:thumbsup:
 
Where I come from, championing the wrong type of politics in the wrong pub could result in a visit from masked men. I like my pubs free of all that shit. Also, I don't really understand the subject (at least in the way most folks debate it), but I know it when I have to google terms like 'Overton Window.' When I see a post shit-crammed full of similar terms, it's clear things are taking a turn for the worse and becoming political. However, I do understand there is a political spectrum out there and not everyone is on the same part of it. I do think the Pub strikes the right balance and the mods do a good job when someone steps over the line. The Pub is my one-stop shop for reading and discussing elf games and I would prefer to keep it that way.
 
As this thread is winding down, I'm going back through and trying to assess all the comments/suggestions.

So, just so everyone knows, I'm currently working o a "Welcome to the RPG Pub" post with an FAQ to be stickied in the main forum. After 5 years our population has grown to the point that I think we cant rely on assumptions in general anymore, and as part of that I am trying to put into words what we mean by the "No Politics" rule. I don't want it to channge to a strict set of guidelines, something that will just be gamed and tie the mod's hands, but I also don't want it to be so ambiguous that folks have no idea what the mods might do.

Ultimately the last thing we want is people feeling like they have to "walk on eggshells" as it's so often put, though I think some "self censorship" is a good thing, and overall, something The Pub regulars have been pretty good at - it's really rare when Mods have to step in

. One of the things I want to stress is that we aren't "ban happy" here at The Pub, or big on the idea of "punishments" in general. I recently argued against the very idea of temporary bans because I think those are infantalizing and come across like we are acting like teachers or parents "scolding" a poster. - however, on the other hand, it is a "better" alternative to going straight to a permaban and I think it's time we have something in place that's better than "keep putting up with sh#t until we can't take it anymore". Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

At first adding "no Religion" to the rule seemed like a good idea, but when I started to try and put it into words I found that it requires way more specificaion, mainly because religion plays a huge part in the Hobby and it's fictional settings. I'm leanig towards "No Politics" already covers the modern intersection of religion and politics, without adding a layer of confusion.
 
Overtly political threads should just be deleted and a message sent to the poster.

Overtly political posts should be deleted and a message sent to the poster.

This posters who persist in posting overtly political threads or posts should be asked not to continue doing that.

If they continue, then they should be given a warning.

If they still continue they should be banned.

From our point of view, we could post that a thread, or post, is overtly political, in our opinion, and, perhaps, report it to the Moderators.
 
I think the key thing about politics and religion is that we don’t want someone preaching to us (“Socialism is the right way, Capitalism is evil” or vice versa / “[insert religion] is the answer, here’s an invitation to our services / the Pope is the debil”) or attacking us for assumed political or religious opinions.

So if we are talking in the movie thread about one of my guilty pleasure giallo films Strip Nude For Your Killer which opens with an abortion we don’t want someone to post about how abortion is murder and then the thread to devolve into pro and con arguments for it. Same with gun control.

At least when I think no politics or religion that is what I am looking for.
 
From our point of view, we could post that a thread, or post, is overtly political, in our opinion, and, perhaps, report it to the Moderators.
Actually, this thread started with the mods asking us to not post, and to make sure to report:thumbsup:!
 
One of the things I want to stress is that we aren't "ban happy" here at The Pub, or big on the idea of "punishments" in general.[..]
It's much appreciated, it has been noticed, and it's a good thing you're writing it explicitly.
I recently argued against the very idea of temporary bans because I think those are infantalizing and come across like we are acting like teachers or parents "scolding" a poster
Temporary bans aren't scolding in essence imho. It's how they're handled and worded, and that depends on the intent behind them.

"For the greater good of this site, and according to the "No Politics" rule, your contribution to this thread needs to stop. No hard feelings. No doubt you'll be able to continue to contribute again in a short while."

is very different from :

"You say horrendous things [because you're a bad person] ,and you should be ashamed of yourself. You're banned".

I trust the intent of the mods on this site, and that is to allow thoughtful and in good faith discussions, with a modicum of respect and politeness.

That's very different from petty power plays intended to give the mods a hard on. And let's not be fooled that the problems across the internet forums are caused by this in 80% of the case
At first adding "no Religion" to the rule seemed like a good idea, but when I started to try and put it into words I found that it requires way more specificaion, mainly because religion plays a huge part in the Hobby and it's fictional settings. I'm leanig towards "No Politics" already covers the modern intersection of religion and politics, without adding a layer of confusion.
Ye Gods, please ! leave religion(s) alone (do not add a "No Religion" rule), lest you blast the RPG Pub while trying to defuse such existential trap bombs :shock:.
 
Religion is mostly common sense I think.

Mentioning you were at Church on Sunday? Talking about keeping kosher? Saying you celebrate EId? All fine.

Just don't proselytise, don't have fiery theological debates, don't use it as an excuse to culture war and don't insult other people for their religion or lack of religion.

Honestly, this doesn't feel like an issue for the board. I think I've seen it happen once.

The most borderline question is probably the Satanic Panic, partly because it shades into politics. But I'm not sure that banning discussion of that particular issue on a RPG forum is feasible.
 
As this thread is winding down, I'm going back through and trying to assess all the comments/suggestions.

So, just so everyone knows, I'm currently working o a "Welcome to the RPG Pub" post with an FAQ to be stickied in the main forum. After 5 years our population has grown to the point that I think we cant rely on assumptions in general anymore, and as part of that I am trying to put into words what we mean by the "No Politics" rule. I don't want it to channge to a strict set of guidelines, something that will just be gamed and tie the mod's hands, but I also don't want it to be so ambiguous that folks have no idea what the mods might do.

Ultimately the last thing we want is people feeling like they have to "walk on eggshells" as it's so often put, though I think some "self censorship" is a good thing, and overall, something The Pub regulars have been pretty good at - it's really rare when Mods have to step in

. One of the things I want to stress is that we aren't "ban happy" here at The Pub, or big on the idea of "punishments" in general. I recently argued against the very idea of temporary bans because I think those are infantalizing and come across like we are acting like teachers or parents "scolding" a poster. - however, on the other hand, it is a "better" alternative to going straight to a permaban and I think it's time we have something in place that's better than "keep putting up with sh#t until we can't take it anymore". Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

At first adding "no Religion" to the rule seemed like a good idea, but when I started to try and put it into words I found that it requires way more specificaion, mainly because religion plays a huge part in the Hobby and it's fictional settings. I'm leanig towards "No Politics" already covers the modern intersection of religion and politics, without adding a layer of confusion.

How about:
  • No politics
  • No linedancing the no politics rule (you're breaking my heart .. my achy-never mind)
  • Do not abuse the no politics rule
  • We'll know it when we see it. This is not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
How about:
  • No politics
  • No linedancing the no politics rule (you're breaking my heart .. my achy-never mind)
  • Do not abuse the no politics rule
  • We'll know it when we see it. This is not rocket science.
Tempting, but also exactly what risks leading to new posters less familiar with the forum feeling like they're walking on eggshells.
 
How about:
  • No politics
  • No linedancing the no politics rule (you're breaking my heart .. my achy-never mind)
  • Do not abuse the no politics rule
  • We'll know it when we see it. This is not rocket science.

Tempting, but also exactly what risks leading to new posters less familiar with the forum feeling like they're walking on eggshells.

Maybe these could function as headings with a short blurb underneath, something along the lines of:

No politics
Don't bring culture wars, real-world politics, gaming industry melodramas or other such content into the discussion in an inflammatory way. We're here to have fun and talk shite without having to feel that we are walking on eggshells. Similarly, bigotry, dog-whistling and hate speech will not be tolerated.

Don't line-dance the no politics rule
Persistently testing the edges of the no politics rule will be noticed, and it's pretty obvious when this is being done in bad faith. Just don't do that shit.

Don't abuse the no politics rule
Abusing the no politics rule for rhetorical purposes or to harass other members is also obvious when it's being done in bad faith. We don't cancel people for disagreeing with you.

Don't harass other members
This should go without saying, but don't be an arsehole, don't harass other members and don't bring your vendettas here.

We'll know it when we see it
Moderation is done on a case by case basis, with the objective of not moderating conversations unless it's really necessary. However, we're perfectly capable of seeing when it's really necessary. This is not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
I think what we’ve been doing for the last five years has been working pretty well. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. I think the biggest issue is people inferring things from other people’s posts and calling them out on it instead of just asking the mods to check up on it.
 
The smiley face of shame for a avatar?!

I like how for the most part all of the mid action is private. It doesn't embarrass the user for making a mistake. But I do think if a poster is doing it repeatedly at some point it might be good to tell the general populace you're aware of issues and dealing with it. I don't like it but there can be the issue that it appears users who keep doing it a special and allowed to.
 
I think what we’ve been doing for the last five years has been working pretty well.
Absolutely.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
Quite.
I think the biggest issue is people inferring things from other people’s posts and calling them out on it instead of just asking the mods to check up on it.
Yes. And all the more because people with nefarious intent have perfected this "calling out" to disturb countless forums on the internet.
 
Tempting, but also exactly what risks leading to new posters less familiar with the forum feeling like they're walking on eggshells.

I think I have an elegant solution to this problem. The big issue is, anytime you dilineate politics for this rule, I think it is going to lead to more problems around walking on eggshells, people getting banned because they were baited, people getting up to that line in order to bait, people using that definition to insist other posters have crossed it and need to be banned, etc. Maybe the solution is to say "We don't ban you for mentioning politics. If the mods feel posts are getting too political, we will ask people to stop. We will only ban you for persisting in posting about politics when you have been asked to stop and consistently refused" (or something like that). You might also emphasis you don't even want it to get to that.

I think the eggshell concern is around worrying that you accidentally step into something that falls under the no politics rule, but if you keep that rule 'we know it when we see it' (which I think is the best for enforcing the spirit of no politics), and just be forgiving about it provided people don't repeatedly keep posting when they've been asked by mods not to, I think that is much less of a concern. In general this seems to reflect how the rule has been enforced, and it strikes me that the issue hasn't been how politics has been defined when its enforced or how its enforced, but new people not understanding what this rule means when they post. My feeling is things have been working pretty good so far. But I don't think I have ever seen a successful hammering that out and detailing it on a forum. I am not bothered at all if I post something and a mod says "You may not realize it but this is potentially crossing the no politics line, can you please stop". My only concern really would be instances where people don't see the mod warning, persist without realizing they've been warned, and then get a temp or permanent ban.
 
I think what we’ve been doing for the last five years has been working pretty well. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
I concur.
I think I have an elegant solution to this problem. The big issue is, anytime you dilineate politics for this rule, I think it is going to lead to more problems around walking on eggshells, people getting banned because they were baited, people getting up to that line in order to bait, people using that definition to insist other posters have crossed it and need to be banned, etc. Maybe the solution is to say "We don't ban you for mentioning politics. If the mods feel posts are getting too political, we will ask people to stop. We will only ban you for persisting in posting about politics when you have been asked to stop and consistently refused" (or something like that). You might also emphasis you don't even want it to get to that.

I think the eggshell concern is around worrying that you accidentally step into something that falls under the no politics rule, but if you keep that rule 'we know it when we see it' (which I think is the best for enforcing the spirit of no politics), and just be forgiving about it provided people don't repeatedly keep posting when they've been asked by mods not to, I think that is much less of a concern. In general this seems to reflect how the rule has been enforced, and it strikes me that the issue hasn't been how politics has been defined when its enforced or how its enforced, but new people not understanding what this rule means when they post. My feeling is things have been working pretty good so far. But I don't think I have ever seen a successful hammering that out and detailing it on a forum. I am not bothered at all if I post something and a mod says "You may not realize it but this is potentially crossing the no politics line, can you please stop". My only concern really would be instances where people don't see the mod warning, persist without realizing they've been warned, and then get a temp or permanent ban.
Also, this.
 
.., people getting banned because they were baited, people getting up to that line in order to bait, people using that definition to insist other posters have crossed it and need to be banned, etc.
I am, of course, not privy to the reports and backstage chat, but I never had the impression that this was a problem in the current board culture.
Though maybe, if new people come from other places, and insist bringing that attitude here.
 
One of the things I want to stress is that we aren't "ban happy" here at The Pub, or big on the idea of "punishments" in general. I recently argued against the very idea of temporary bans because I think those are infantalizing and come across like we are acting like teachers or parents "scolding" a poster. - however, on the other hand, it is a "better" alternative to going straight to a permaban and I think it's time we have something in place that's better than "keep putting up with sh#t until we can't take it anymore". Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
My attitude to tempbans of a day are that they mean "go away and cool off" - it's enough time for someone to get any anger out of their system and come back to the place with a better attitude... or come back swinging, of course, in which case (As an admin) what they're telling you is "I want to be a problem" in which case you can go for the real punishments.

I don't even consider a tempban to actually be a punishment, they're just an admin tool.
 
In regards to people walking on eggshells, I think that aside from making a welcome to the pub, no politics please post, there is very little need to go into detail on what constitutes politics. New people will be able to get a feel for what is and isn't acceptable by seeing what current members post. It's not like the mods are harassed that ban for the slightest infraction. If someone crosses the line they get a talking. If they repeatedly cross the line with no sign of stopping then they get banned. Most of the time people who don't fit in with the culture self exile.
I think I've only seen 2 people get banned since I joined and in both cases they were repeat offenders who wanted everyone to bow to their will.

In regards to putting religion in with politics. It feels unnecessary. The only time I've seen anything even remotely close to IRL religion coming up in a context that might provoke an argument is when started a thread about a religious rpg they were making. Everyone that posted in it was very respectful and even curious about the mechanics and such. The poster seemed to have been discouraged by hostile reactions on other forums though.
 
My attitude to tempbans of a day are that they mean "go away and cool off" - it's enough time for someone to get any anger out of their system and come back to the place with a better attitude... or come back swinging, of course, in which case (As an admin) what they're telling you is "I want to be a problem" in which case you can go for the real punishments.

I don't even consider a tempban to actually be a punishment, they're just an admin tool.

Best practice I've seen is to ask the poster to back off or calm down, if they don't then move to a temp ban.

In other words, treat them as an adult and only tempban once they've failed to control themselves.
 
Last edited:
I think the key thing about politics and religion is that we don’t want someone preaching to us (“Socialism is the right way, Capitalism is evil” or vice versa / “[insert religion] is the answer, here’s an invitation to our services / the Pope is the debil”) or attacking us for assumed political or religious opinions.

So if we are talking in the movie thread about one of my guilty pleasure giallo films Strip Nude For Your Killer which opens with an abortion we don’t want someone to post about how abortion is murder and then the thread to devolve into pro and con arguments for it. Same with gun control.

This. The problem is not the existence of controversy, it's the judgment that accompanies it. I may only be speaking for myself when I say that there isn't a problem with people saying "the way $GAME handles $ISSUE (s) makes me uncomfortable"... along with either "help me change it for my home table" or even "how should $AUTHOR do it differently?". Conversely, I don't think there's a problem with people saying "I am comfortable with the way $GAME handles $ISSUE, and that's how I play it at my table", though it does run the risk of lawncrapping if people are asking for advice.

Where it becomes a problem is when people imply (or infer) other statements from it:
  • "$GAME is $PROBLEM, therefore anyone who likes $GAME likes $PROBLEM"
  • "No game should ever contain $PROBLEM and only $PROBLEM authors would incorporate $PROBLEM into games."
Of course... the other problem is when other people-- if we're being charitable, only in response to the former statements (real or imagined)-- respond with:
  • "$GAME does not contain $PROBLEM. Game cannot contain $PROBLEM because it's just a game."
  • "Anyone who believes $GAME contains $PROBLEM, or that any game contains any problem at all, is $TYRANNY."
  • "$TYRANNY doesn't play games, and only complains about games and hangs out in gaming communities to ruin games for gamers."
See... and the point where I have a problem with things is that in the vast majority of "no politics" gaming spaces I've spent any time at, "no politics" means that the middle group of statements is "political" and the first statement is... either political in its own right, or can be made political by anyone who chooses to read (and report) it as belonging to the second group. The statements in the third group are not considered political and the members and staff freely indulge in them while belittling and dismissing anyone who makes the first statement, while loudly proclaiming their political neutrality, in the name of their political neutrality.

I like this place, because they haven't started doing that yet-- but this thread is the writing on the wall.
 
I don’t understand what you mean by this thread is the writing on the wall. We’ve had one of these threads about once a year since the Pub has started to hear everyone’s viewpoints, if they so choose to give them, and see how we can get better at moderating. We believe that these threads are a key ingredient in having trust between the members and the moderators, along with how we actually moderate.
 
How many posters have been banned in 5 years? I mean honestly if I saw a stat saying 1 user ban per year on average with 1000+ users I'd not worry about eggshells.
Including Bunch next Wednesday?

More seriously, I would worry that "we hardly ban anybody" would attract people who are joining specifically because they think they'll get away with more.
 
See... and the point where I have a problem with things is that in the vast majority of "no politics" gaming spaces I've spent any time at, "no politics" means that the middle group of statements is "political" and the first statement is... either political in its own right, or can be made political by anyone who chooses to read (and report) it as belonging to the second group. The statements in the third group are not considered political and the members and staff freely indulge in them while belittling and dismissing anyone who makes the first statement, while loudly proclaiming their political neutrality, in the name of their political neutrality.

I like this place, because they haven't started doing that yet-- but this thread is the writing on the wall.

In terms of balance I don't think the "slippery slope" becomes less of a logical fallacy because it's you doing it rather than Krueger.
 
Including Bunch next Wednesday?

More seriously, I would worry that "we hardly ban anybody" would attract people who are joining specifically because they think they'll get away with more.
Fair enough. But if they know we exist already and spent any time here then they already know we don't ban often.
 
Something that really came through to me reading through this post is the re-occurring theme of (put bluntly) "be an adult and don't be a jerk", too bad that needs to be said, but it does.

I think "no politics" in itself is a bit of an issue. Some read this as this is an entirely political free environment, and such a thing really doesn't exist, pretty much every human interaction is political. As a result I think we have had as many or more threads go down in flames over a poster raging that politics are being allowed (or the other sides politics are being allowed and mine aren't), than true "culture war" violations. Baking thinly veiled real world issues into a fantasy or sci-fi setting is more of a rule than an exception.

I'd say one of the biggest red flags and something to be avoided is absolutist comments. Narrative games suck and the people who like them are not real gamers... vs I don't like narrative games because XYZ doesn't work for me. The second there can actually be a discussion, the first is just combative from the start. XYZ game is inherently -ist was the genesis of this most recent thread, had it been stated as I really dislike XYZ aspects of the game because of (list of specific issues) we probably wouldn't have 10 pages of discussion about this.

A game based on Iron Sky is going to have Nazis, Nazis are a political movement. A spy game is going to involve politics Cold War - East bloc Communism vs West bloc Capitalism if set in that popular era of spy vs spy. A spy game set in the present is likely to touch on some real world politics, as they are baked into the setting.

Admitting up front that this is not truly a political free zone and some politics are acceptable may actually reduce conflict. What is not desirable is political debate, this is not the place to discuss the greatness or wickedness of a political figure or movement. Winston Churchill existed, Winston Churchill "was a big stupid poopy head, prove me wrong" however would most likely be an inappropriate post.


While it has largely fallen on deaf ears, some posters are just blood in the water to each other. Probably worth noting that if you find yourself constantly getting "triggered" by a certain poster then using some restraint is wise, avoid responding to them and there is an ignore feature if you find the inability to "just say no" to commenting on some posters posts. Just because you disagree with their point of view does not mean their comments cross a line.


Six actual people if I remember correctly.

Are you including those who rage quit as bans? I can only think of 1 definitely banned and a second who may have been banned, or quit after being told to change behavior or face a ban. Honestly in both of those cases getting banned was truly a matter of choice, they made zero effort to comply with the basic rules of polite society enforced here.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top