=][= COMMUNITY RULES AMENDMENT =][=

[Brother Tyler]

We have expanded the explanation of "off-topic" subject matter in the Basic Site Rules to include social/sociopolitical issues. Our previous thinking was that such issues are covered under politics, so this isn't a change to our intent. Over the years, however, multiple people have been confused by this perceived omission and discussions about very divisive social/sociopolitical issues have ensued, creating considerable disruption within the community. Explicitly listing social/sociopolitical issues with other off-topic subject matter is intended to provide clarity.

 

This isn't to say that these issues aren't important or that they shouldn't be discussed. The Bolter & Chainsword, however, is not the place for that discussion. This is a place for all members of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby community to come together and to help each other to better understand and enjoy the hobby, despite our differences. Given the diversity within the community, disagreement is inevitable and we all need to conduct ourselves with respect towards all members, including those with whom we might disagree on any given issue.

 

Just as the members of the larger Bolter and Chainsword community represent a wide variety of worldviews and geographic locations, the same can be said of the staff members. Our stance is to be as neutral and unbiased on every issue as possible. Regardless of individual opinions, our goal as a team is to have community rules that are as fair and reasonable as possible, and to enforce those rules firmly and fairly.

 

Due to overarching external issues and the increasing polarization of society, we believe it is necessary to remind the community that we will not take a side in any debates on controversial issues. B&C staff members have personal views and opinions and are as entitled to express themselves as other members of the community, but as a staff we will not weigh in on debates in an official capacity. If a staff member does not clearly indicate that they are providing official guidance within their authority (e.g., using their "mod voice"), they are providing their own personal input as a fellow hobbyist. This does not mean that the staff will not do its job of moderating discussions, but that when a contentious discussion is locked or a member is disciplined, it is due to rules violations or the disruptive nature of the controversy, not a staff member's personal opinions on the contentious issue.

 

Keep the conversation civil and constructive and the chances are you will be on the right side of what we are aiming for. We are all here because of our love of the hobby and want the community to be as engaging and enjoyable as possible.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I don't disagree that this shouldn't be the place for such discussions, but I hope everyone staff side realizes that it's going to get harder to avoid as time goes on. GW themselves have been bringing them up in their Warhammer Community posts, social media, and through shifts in the types of stories they tell. Social Politics have saturated the public zeitgeist. It's exhausting, and it's hard to avoid chipping in on because we naturally all have an opinion.

 

Just, felt like that needed saying. I think most of us want to behave on this issue, but damn if it won't be difficult.

[Brother Tyler]

Believe me, we are fully cognizant of that.

 

What we don't need, however, is for this community to be disrupted.

 

There will naturally be some small amount of content that touches on these issues, and these will be allowed as long as the site doesn't become a front for these kinds of battles.

[aa.logan]

Could we please have a list of which social/political issues are decisive and therefore banned? Would perhaps prevent some of them coming up if the board rules were more explicit about what is permitted. 

[Kastor Krieg]

How does the Moderation expect to enforce this? This will have a chilling effect on any discussion of representation in Games Workshop media. It will make B&C a much less welcoming place for minorities and it effectively crowns "Injustice Warriors" as winners of the discourse - by silencing the minority voices and their allies.

Under rules phrased like this, any mention of a character being canonically agender or trans will be report spammed by Those Guys, for example.

Our stance is to be as neutral and unbiased on every issue as possible.

However well-intentioned this might be, indifference and neutrality in the face of ongoing oppression of minorities by the chuds (and let's not kid ourselves here, please, it was and is ongoing) means siding with the oppressors. 

You (and they) cannot and will not purge neither our topic, or us, from the hobby. We were always here, since the beginning, and we're here to stay.

[Evil Eye]

This is probably for the best. The dinner table isn't the only table that's ruined by the presence of religion and politics.

 

 

We were always here, since the beginning, and we're here to stay.

And so are the people you have so tactfully described as "chuds" and "oppressors".

 

Protip: To defeat the Cyberdemon, shoot at it until it dies If you want to win people over to your cause, saying that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of bigoted istophobe who needs to be shunned from polite society is not the way to do it. It makes you look like a petulant wannabe-tyrant and ironically enough drives people who are either neutral or only mildly in the other camp far onto the opposing end of the discussion.

 

It is OK to disagree on things. It is OK to not like the same things. It is NOT OK to claim that anyone who does disagree with you or not like the same things as you is some kind of extremist because of that. And if you can't express your views without being hostile or confrontational, it's best not to express them at all. I have quite a few opinions that I keep to myself because I know that whilst there are many people who agree with me on this site, there are many who don't and I would rather not cause any more friction than absolutely necessary. You should consider doing the same.

[phandaal]

 

You (and they) cannot and will not purge neither our topic, or us, from the hobby. We were always here, since the beginning, and we're here to stay.

 

If the post turns into a stump speech against imaginary enemies (not the imaginary kind we blast on the tabletop), it probably did in fact veer into that "off topic" territory.

 

I agree with others though. We need some kind of guidelines on what exactly is "socio-political," considering some of these issues are featured in official Games Workshop posts and fluff.

 

For example: it would be helpful to know if it is OK/not OK to express appreciation or disapproval of a lore change based entirely on how it aligns with our real-world preferences, as we saw in those doomed Black Library threads.

Edited September 8 by phandaal

[Schurge]

Looks like we're off to a great start.

 

I think B&C has historically benefited from this policy and I appreciate that it isn't a fun one to discuss or enforce whether it be because you sometimes get undeserved ire from partisans, or because maintaining a principled neutrality means that you yourself must sometimes swallow the bitter pill of silence on things that may matter deeply to you.

 

Here is to everyone - including GW - making your jobs as easy as possible in this respect.

[SvenIronhand]

I recently saw a poster on DakkaDakka make the cogent observation that rules against posting about politics on hobby forums are merely a matter of when the finish bell is hit. I'm not confident that this will help. 

[Antarius]

I used to be very much against this sort of ruling, for reasons similar to Kastor Krieg's (although I might or might not agree with the specifics of his post, I think there is truth to the idea that "choosing not to choose a side is also choosing a side") but I am sort of coming around to the idea that the media landscape has changed enough that it might be necessary.

I know this might sound slightly paradoxical, but I think the current trend of framing everything as a front in a culture war is sometimes best dealt with by avoiding it (at least in certain spheres). There are people who want division and polarisation (and we might not always agree on who they are, but that is perhaps less important, if we can avoid the polarisation) and in many cases choosing to fight them means they win by default, precisely because their goal is to turn everything into a political battle and make sure that there is no neutral ground where people can interact in a positive way with people they disagree with. I think we can succeed by denying them that.

That is not to say that I believe these issues shouldn't be discussed. But I'm not convinced that this is the place for it - and I say that as someone who has basically left the moderation group because I didn't want to listen to (what I perceived as) anymore paranoia about wokeness. But I actually do have faith that this is a place that can be neutral and where my hypothetical political disagreements with someone else doesn't have to come between our shared enjoyment of something.

Edited to add: I'm not trying to air any dirty laundry here or anything like that. I'm simply saying that while I know I disagree very much with some of the staff here on both framing and (likely) substance about many, many things, I still have faith in their good intentions in this regard. And I think it is important to keep some places as free of politics as possible, because if everything becomes a hill to die on, we're going to be doing a lot of dying.

Edited September 8 by Antarius

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I think we have a pretty good case study on how this is going to go based on the replies already given in this thread. This isn't something people can just be silent on. In a very short amount of time, someone is going to call someone else evil in as many words and we'll be back to arguing about how one person or the other is stupid for thinking so.

 

My gut feeling is that we're going to have to escalate to bans, and eventually one side or the other is going to be the only ones left as a result. Even if all of a side don't get banned, the others of that side will see it as a sign that the site itself is against them and they'll leave.

 

We have officially hit the point where this is more divisive than Primaris, and both less welcome as a topic and more likely to draw arguments into it regardless. 

[NovemberIX]

I'm with Krieg on this, the only ones who benefit from this are the ones that wish to maintain the status quo. We have to remember, there are some members who don't comment in good faith, even if a discussion is valid. The simple truth is, we can either be a group that accepts people for all their differences, tolerant of everything but intolerance, or we can become more and more insular, trying to shrink the remit of discussion till we can only discuss approved topics in approved ways.

 

 

[Mr Farson]

Constant real world arguments over what is an escapist hobby is exhausting and this isn't the place for it

[Joe]

I don't envy the task the moderati have set before them as there's certainly going to be some hefty crossover in discussion here and there, however I wish them all the best - there is no easy solution here, and there definitely isn't one that all sides will find acceptable. I do believe it may be more prudent if staff were to abstain from any potentially controversial discussions full stop outside of employing their official mod voice, as I can see that rapidly earning flak when people feel that a staff member is unfairly influencing a discussion, be that true or not.

 

Regardless, I swing back round to a remark I made when the Warhammer is for everyone statement was first released; there are better hills to die on than "they released a statement about inclusivity and creating a positive environment for everyone and I don't like that."

 

Be decent. It's not hard.

[phandaal]

 

It's not hard.

 

Is it easier than not making up ridiculous boogeymen like this:

 

 

there are better hills to die on than "they released a statement about inclusivity and creating a positive environment for everyone and I don't like that."

 

What alternate universe version of B&C did this come from? Do we all have goatees and eye patches there?

 

And yes, this thread really is another good example for why we need some clarity. 

Edited September 8 by phandaal

[Doghouse]

I like making toy soldiers and talking to/encouraging people that like making toy soldiers, that's as deep as I get.

 

 

What alternate universe version of B&C did this come from? Do we all have goatees and eye patches there?

 

I have a regular beard but pretty sure I could dig out an eye patch and shave it into one at short notice. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

Does this mean we're never going to find out whether the "actual factual Fascists" are in the room with us right now?

[Scribe]

 

We were always here, since the beginning, and we're here to stay.

 

Exactly, because the Hobby has always been for everyone, and political or social commentary has never been necessary and on this site in particular has never been encouraged.

 

Build the models, play the game, read the lore.

 

 

I like making toy soldiers and talking to/encouraging people that like making toy soldiers, that's as deep as I get.

 

WellThereItIs

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I think Scribe's above post also is a good example of where we're going to hit trouble.

 

"Build the models, play the game, read the lore."

 

This is exactly correct. But in the case of more recent topics, like changes to the Custodes fluff, we are just talking about the lore, and changes made to it. The biggest and only change to Custodes lore from the last 2 major Custodes depictions are that they are suddenly also female, but that is, by its nature, a political issue now. There's no way to discuss it without that becoming the crux of the problem and the cause of all our arguments.

 

We can argue about changes to Necron lore and how they were suddenly revamped. We can claim it's goofy, and nobody is likely to become upset by that on a truly deep level. We can gripe about how Squats are now weird clones, or T'au don't make their own weapons, and those conversations won't blow up or break the rules. But despite having escentially the same sort of conversation about changes to the Custodes fluff, we can't engage here without it becoming political now. 

 

That's the issue, and it's very likely to come up again in future. 

 

I don't have a reasonable solution, either. I'm just thinking back on my several months of not posting after the Custodes changes dropped. I said everything I intended to then, and all of my experiences with the faction have been colored by these sorts of issues since. That change is definitely a large part of my Custodes thoughts right now. I mean, it isn't like the rules are worth thinking about currently.

[aa.logan]

 

IThis is exactly correct. But in the case of more recent topics, like changes to the Custodes fluff, we are just talking about the lore, and changes made to it. The biggest and only change to Custodes lore from the last 2 major Custodes depictions are that they are suddenly also female, but that is, by its nature, a political issue now.

This is what I mean about needing a definition of ‘political issue’; if the existence of around 50% of the world’s population is now conversational and verboten for discussion, so be it, but it’d be nice to know.

[Scribe]

 

This is what I mean about needing a definition of ‘political issue’; if the existence of around 50% of the world’s population is now conversational and verboten for discussion, so be it, but it’d be nice to know.

 

That's a misrepresentation of the issue, and exactly why these discussions devolve.

[caladancid]

 

This is what I mean about needing a definition of ‘political issue’; if the existence of around 50% of the world’s population is now conversational and verboten for discussion, so be it, but it’d be nice to know.

 

Yes I think you have got it- this is definitely what the new rule is meant to prohibit. 

 

On a serious note, the rule doesn't seem ambiguous to me.  Every single person who reads this will know what they should or shouldn't do. Pretending you don't know when you are breaking it is fine I guess, but we all know you know. When you talk about chuds, etc, etc, it is clear that has nothing to do with the Warhammer hobby. When you ask totally disingenuous questions like "Wait I can't talk about women now???????" you know that has nothing to do with the Warhammer hobby.

 

Lets just talk about new paint schemes and cool models. If someone doesn't like you putting a female head on a Custodes you know what? They can just not say anything. Or, if you want to launch into someone for being a fan of Krieg because of your real life political thoughts, you can also just not say anything.

[lansalt]

 

But despite having escentially the same sort of conversation about changes to the Custodes fluff, we can't engage here without it becoming political now. 

This shouldn't be so difficult. When a hot topic like this comes out, sensible people should be able to express their personal approval or dissaproval without going into details about IRL political issues. Just a brief statement without attacking other users or political talking points should be enough. Otherwise it just triggers replies from the opposite side until it becomes a flamewar. Worse: a flamewar unrelated to 40k.

 

Allowing political discusion and enabling the people that can't stop talking about it in unrelated places always ends up badly. I've seen this break communities of several nerdy sites over the years.
I'm pretty sure that I don't agree about a lot of IRL stuff with many members of this site in both sides of the so-called political divide, but I don't come to the B&C for that, nor nobody should. That's not the focus of this site unless I'm mistaken.  "All art is political" and "the status quo" are empty platitudes, IMO. For those who want to actively mix 40k and politics, there's already places for that out there.

And by the way, it's not like GW is doing anything specially politically relevant or outside maintream trends. They're just a toy/entertaiment company catering to everybody.

 

[aa.logan]

 

 

That's a misrepresentation of the issue, and exactly why these discussions devolve.

I respectfully disagree with what you’re saying, but this is *exactly* why a definition of what is contentiously political ought to be provided. 
 

I accept that in some things there will never be consensus- in the thread on changes to custodes we were both taking the same point to mean complete opposites, for example- so as a result the board policy needs to be very clearly spelt out to ensure folk know where they stand and avoid the bad feeling that seem to cloud discussion.

[Scribe]

 

I respectfully disagree with what you’re saying, but this is *exactly* why a definition of what is contentiously political ought to be provided. 

 

In no way whatsoever is the most recent issue a 'dont discuss women in 40K' issue. You have grossly misrepresented the issue for no reason other than to stir up further issue.