=][= COMMUNITY RULES AMENDMENT =][=

[aa.logan]

 

 

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.

The post I was quoting and responding to said

 

“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“

 

I’m genuinely unaware how custodes being female is intrinsically political. As a consequence, I am requesting that a definition of what is political is provided to prevent further issues arising. 

 

 

[Scribe]

 

I’m genuinely unaware how custodes being female is intrinsically political. As a consequence, I am requesting that a definition of what is political is provided to prevent further issues arising. 

 

Frankly, I dont believe you, but I wont play your game, which is the reason actual discussion cannot happen.

 

Try and score internet points elsewhere.

[Marshal Rohr]

Maybe I’ve just been here long enough to read between Bro Tyler’s lines here on exactly what he means shouldn’t be discussed now, but you all know you don’t need a definition. You’re posting around it, and some of you are directly posting about it. What should not be discussed about sociopolitical issues is whatever issue popped into your head when you read that line, that’s the one that shouldn’t be talked about. 
 

 

We all survived the previous blanket bans. We will all survive this one. No one is saving or ending the world not talking about these things on a site for toy soldiers. 
 

Edit: unless I’m unaware there’s still a blanket ban on FSM and MSoB is there not? Was that Warseer? Wherever Dr Thunder and Melissa were leading the crusade is where it got banned. 
 

Edit 2: Having this rule isn’t picking a side and not picking a side isn’t siding with oppressors because there are no stakes here that impact peoples real lives. It’s a voluntary membership. The board has survived for decades by preventing this stuff from going overboard and it’s the only one of the big three that is still going and not covered in ads and spam posts from anime pfps. 

Edited September 8 by Marshal Rohr

[NovemberIX]

Sooooooo, there's a contingent here that is being quite loud about how much they want other people to shut up.  I'm gonna call this like I see it, the folks who wanna discuss Female custodes, or female space marines, or other niche subjects aren't the ones at issue, it's the folks who brigade around screaming about how it's "all politics now" are not being productive members of the forum.  I'm not calling out anyone, but if you feel that it describes you, then that's on you.

Like let's be honest, no one here is ever discussing realpolitik, there's no comparison of democracy, no campaigning for political party, there's no discussion of views on governance, the issue at hand is usually either gender or representation, that's not political. We can either discuss things in some academic attempt at understanding, or we can just freeze up discussion, but in all reality, if something is gonna set you off, just don't engage. It's a discussion forum about plastic space people, you can leave your baggage at the door too.

Edited September 8 by NovemberIX

[darkhorse0607]

Well if the mods ever wanted a case in point as to why they're doing this, then this thread sure delivered in a relatively short amount of time

[Marshal Rohr]

 

Sooooooo, there's a contingent here that is being quite loud about how much they want other people to shut up.  I'm gonna call this like I see it, the folks who wanna discuss Female custodes, or female space marines, or other niche subjects aren't the ones at issue, it's the folks who brigade around screaming about how it's "all politics now" are not being productive members of the forum.  I'm not calling out anyone, but if you feel that it describes you, then that's on you.

Like let's be honest, no one here is ever discussing realpolitik, there's no comparison of democracy, no campaigning for political party, there's no discussion of views on governance, the issue at hand is usually either gender or representation, that's not political. We can either discuss things in some academic attempt at understanding, or we can just freeze up discussion, but in all reality, if something is gonna set you off, just don't engage. It's a discussion forum about plastic space people, you can leave your baggage at the door too.

There used to be pretty “lively” debate about things like if the Imperium was bad, or the way Ultramar was governed, or if the Black Templars Crusades are evil, etc but they instituted the no politics rule so no one would argue over whether or not an immortal god emperor singularity was the same thing as the Premier of the Soviet Union or He Who Shall Not be Named. 

[crimsondave]

Looks like I have the right ones on ignore.

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

I’m genuinely unaware how custodes being female is intrinsically political. As a consequence, I am requesting that a definition of what is political is provided to prevent further issues arising. 

 

Do you honestly expect any of us to believe that you don't consider representation and diversity to be political? Because most of the loud voices on YOUR side of this debate are the ones citing those things as the reasons for this change and why it's a good thing.

[Lay]

Imo the ruling against political discussion is fine as long as it exists independent of the political climate and not because of it.

[NovemberIX]

 

There used to be pretty “lively” debate about things like if the Imperium was bad, or the way Ultramar was governed, or if the Black Templars Crusades are evil, etc but they instituted the no politics rule so no one would argue over whether or not an immortal god emperor singularity was the same thing as the Premier of the Soviet Union or He Who Shall Not be Named. 

Honestly I miss when Amicus was full of lore discussions, I feel if we're gonna sit here and take it as a 'serious' setting, then yeah we should be able to discuss the nature of the Imperium, weather or not being on the receiving end of a Templars crusade would be an enjoyable experience, or the tyrantyness of the Emps.

 

I mean there are no good guys in this setting, and no societies I'd wanna live in, but I'm willing to examine it, discuss it, figure out how things would exist, even if it reveals an ugly nature. These subjects can be discussed from an in universe lore perspective and an outside analysis. As for the despots, I mean, look, as long as no one is saying that they want other folks to suffer under that type of regime, I feel that we can discuss their relativity to the setting as appropriate.

[MechaMan]

I think this rule is too broadly/vaguely defined, and is likely to have a chilling effect as a consequence. 

 

Social/sociopolitical are pretty nebulous terms, and if this thread demonstrates anything it’s that there’s little consensus as to what constitutes a social/ sociopolitical topic. (Let’s face it, any attempt to demarcate what is and isn’t social/sociopolitical is in itself a deeply complex and contentious sociopolitical conversation to have and any conclusion won’t be “neutral”.)

 

I think clearer definitions might be helpful so these rules aren’t enforced arbitrarily (not because the mods want to be authoritarian, but because the less a rule is defined the more it relies on the discretion of the enforcer). It would also make it easier for us to follow them. 

[Kastor Krieg]

 

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

 

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.

I don't want to convince or convert people on the internet. I want to be left well alone to participate and not receive abuse from people screeching about "gay" or "sperging" and so on. I want people to stop questioning the gender, morality and the very humanity of myself and people like me, or like people we know and love.

There's no "disagreement" here, because there can be only one "agreement". Trans / bi / gay / ace / queer / autistic / disabled / racial or ethnic minority people are human, their equal rights need to be recognized and upheld. Those who dare question our humanity and equality in those rights with those who had the sheer luck of being born hetero / neuronormative / white, etc., need to not be platformed by B&C.

Those are not "views" up for discussion. Bolter & Chainsword going "well, you both have an opinion so you both may equally voice it", where one side's supposed opinion is "I am human and I deserve to live a happy life without threats and torment of abuse", while the other side finds each and every way to insinuate a message coming down to a "But are you REALLY, though?", will be B&C enabling the 2nd party by mere inaction in defense of the first.

And do not misunderstand - or attempt to misrepresent! - the above as an attempt to silence actual topical discussion. I would be jumping with both boots straight into a discussion of political or socioeconomical internal workings of an Imperium agriworld, or a Tau enclave. I would welcome a discussion on why does the Imperium not really care about your race, gender, or sexual preferences, but instead has substituted this with a different hate of "The Other".

However, it is my strong conviction that any voices which incite division and hate towards particular users or groups thereof, or cause those users grief and emotional pain due to their sex/gender/preference/disability/ethnicity/minority status, painting them as "The Other" of our community, are the voice which indeed do not have a place on this Forum.

Forum policies as the one above silence and "other" those groups of users by making our mere existence "a political" and "verboten" topic itself. With those policies, the abusers will not have to try and silence us anymore - because B&C Moderation will do their work for themselves.

A simple question rises for the Moderati - do you want us and our voices here, or will you yield to the instigators' pressure to silence and remove us from this community altogether?

+ By your deeds you shall be known +

[Lord_Ikka]

=][=

And we're done. I will be locking this topic for a cooldown. There are three points I want to make clear to every frater, in case they don't know:

 

1. The mod team is a diverse one, and we have many differing opinions on every subject. We are not monolithic, nor are we of one mind about most things. The mod team does not take sides in discussions- our job is to enforce the sites rules and policies, not to force our personal opinions on others. If a mod has a personal opinion, they can and will voice it, but it is not done in our "mod voice" (usually bolded/colored text with the =][= symbol). If you believe otherwise, inform another mod or an administrator.

 

2. The process for determining whether something is social/political has and always will be both subjective in outlook and determined by more than one mod (just like every other issue). Every time we get a report on a posted comment/thread, unless it is something blatantly breaking board rules (spammers/personal insults, etc...), there is a discussion among the mods on how to handle the issue. This is done this way precisely because there are multiple ways of interpreting internet comments and we (the mods) want all opinions/options to be heard and considered before we make a decision. As with all potential rules violations, the team will consider any socio/sociopolitical report on a case-by-case basis, rather than put out a blanket ban on potential trouble topics.

 

3. The B&C is and has always been a forum about the 40k hobby. Bringing in real-world examples has always been allowed (siege warfare tactics similar to WWI, the combined-arms approach of certain armies being modeled after real life armies, the Ministorum's aesthetic based on certain religions, etc...), and will continue to be allowed as long as the conversation is clearly about the hobby and not being used as a platform to espouse a particular real-world sociopolitical ideology. 

 

=][=

Edited September 9 by Lord_Ikka

[Brother Tyler]

Note that this topic will not be unlocked.

 

It would be impractical to even attempt to provide a list of specific subjects that are prohibited since issues change and expand all the time. Any attempt to be legalistic and prescriptive would inevitably fall short, leaving room for those that want to sow dissent. Exercise good judgment.

 

The prohibition against these types of issues here at the B&C isn't new - this is a prohibition that has been in place since the ezBoard days. All we did was add one element to the rule for clarity. And as has been stated in this discussion, the replies herein perfectly illustrate why this prohibition is necessary in sustaining an environment where we can focus on our mission statement. No one is silencing any group - everyone is welcome to participate in the community as long as they are contributing towards the goals of the community. The way we work towards the goals of the community is to engage with each other in the hobby, which isn't difficult for those that truly want constructive outcomes. Conversely, creating discord and divisiveness does not support the community.

 

[Brother Tyler]

An unfortunate, but necessary, follow-up.

 

Kastor Krieg has been issued an official warning for his last post in this discussion. While numerous other members brought up valid concerns and touched on issues, no one else pushed beyond the limits of acceptability. Kastor Krieg, meanwhile, deliberately posted content in blatant defiance of the community rules, and he did so with the intent of creating divisiveness and disruption.

 

The community rules make it very clear that everyone is welcome to participate in this community; and the prohibitions against off-topic discussion are intended to ensure that everyone feels welcome here and that the environment remains congenial.

 

Normally, discipline is handled in private. Kastor Krieg's rules violation, however, was deliberately defiant and provocative, demanding both disciplinary action and public notification. In addition, it was a repeat of a similar incident several years ago, indicating either an unwillingness or an inability to abide by the community rules.

[Brother Tyler]

Okay, now that everyone has had some time to cool off, it's time to address a number of points that were brought up. Most of these points demonstrate misunderstandings of the rules.

 

First and foremost, while this was an "amendment," it was not a substantive change to the site rules. There were no subjects that were previously allowed which are no longer allowed. The prohibition against the issues that might be covered under "sociopolitical" were already covered under "political" content, which has been prohibited here for 20+ years. Confusion stemmed from members applying the limited interpretation of "political/politics", thinking that only referred to governance, when our intent all along was the more extensive definition of the word (I'm referring to Wikipedia for the limited/extensive definitions because I doubt most of you have access to the books I have on politics and political science). Since we frequently saw grumbling that some removed/locked content wasn't about [the member's interpretation of] "politics," we felt it necessary to clarify the existing prohibition in our rules by adding "sociopolitical" to the examples of off-topic material. This "amendment" was nothing more than a clarification of long-standing prohibitions.

 

This brings us to the real issue, which is the fact that these subjects and a great many others are off-topic. Basically, anything that doesn't relate to our mission statement is off-topic. The mission statement appears at the top of the screen and in the community rules, but here it is for those of you that might not be clear on the subject:

 

 

We're not here to talk about how your team did in the big game, the latest movies, musical artists/styles that you enjoy, etc. Nor are we here to discuss actions of government that you support/oppose, recent/upcoming disasters, conflicting theories on education, etc. This isn't to say that those prohibited subjects aren't important. Of course they're important. We have strong opinions on those subjects, too. Those issues are not what this site and community exist for, however. We have enough disagreements over relevant Warhammer 40,000 subject matter without introducing controversy over unrelated issues. No matter how important any of us think some issue is, if it doesn't relate to the Warhammer 40,000 hobby, it is off-topic and prohibited here at the Bolter & Chainsword. There are plenty of places where you can discuss such issues, and some of those might even be places where you can hope to influence a positive and constructive outcome.

 

One of the most ridiculous arguments was that prohibition against sociopolitical issues signaled advocacy for some position on some issue, the incorrect assumption being that the prohibition was focused on a specific issue or group of related issues (inclusivity being the catch-all term, I think). This argument is a logical fallacy. More importantly, it is a form of unintellectual bullying intended to intimidate the target (us, in this case) into either defending themself or allowing the discussion. You can take that garbage somewhere else. The prohibition is on all sociopolitical (and other off-topic) issues, and applies equally against any positions on those issues. This prohibition on off-topic subject matter doesn't take sides, doesn't contribute to the prolonging of any problems that you perceive, and doesn't make you a victim. Nor is anyone being silenced. You have just as much of a voice here as anyone else.

 

Another ridiculous argument was that members are going to have to take sides on these issues and will need to do so here. While it is probably true that most, if not all, of us have formed some positions on various issues, there is no need for us to polarize into opposing sides here at the Bolter & Chainsword. This community represents members from across the globe, from all walks of life, different lifestyles, different stages of life, etc. We have different experiences and viewpoints. If we focus on our differences, we will have nothing but discord. Our goal is to come together as a community, to achieve some level of harmony despite our differences. We can't do that if agitators are creating discontent over issues that aren't relevant to the community's purpose [the Warhammer 40,000 hobby]. It is actually incredibly easy to not focus on these issues - you just have to want to focus on enjoying the hobby and helping others to do so.

 

Yet another incorrect argument was that the prohibition against off-topic political material applies to discussion of in-universe politics within the Warhammer 40,000 setting (similarly, religion, etc.). We have always allowed such discussion. The risk of such discussions, however, is that members start bringing up real-world issues. Once that starts to happen, especially when things become contentious, content is removed and/or locked. The examples of (in-universe) politics and religion being valid for discussion also demonstrate that there are touch points where other political/sociopolitical discussion might be allowed as long as it remains relevant to the Warhammer 40,000 hobby and things don't get too heated. Once temperatures start to rise and insults start getting thrown around, content is removed and/or locked. As one member put it, the finish bell is hit.

 

I previously stated that this is a global community. Expecting everyone to agree is foolish. Human beings are flawed. Each of us is convinced that our viewpoints are "correct." Each of us has different viewpoints, however, and it is inevitable that there will be disagreements, even on issues where we might see our own viewpoint as being obviously "correct." If we were to enforce some sort of ideological purity requirement, the community would be exponentially smaller and of considerably less value. A truly diverse community inevitably leads to disagreements, and the most effective response is to accept that you are going to disagree with others and that others are going to disagree with you, but you can still interact peacefully. This doesn't mean that you can say anything you want, however. Courtesy and respect are the lubricants that keep things running smoothly. Messages of hatred and disrespect will lead to disciplinary action. Indeed, we have permanently banned members for such content, often fast-tracking such members to the airlock. Similarly, threatening violence against other members will lead to instant permanent banning. That's not to say that content with which you disagree is necessarily hate speech or a threat of violence. Someone celebrating the observation that demographics within the tabletop gaming community have shifted as more non-white people have joined is no more a message of white hate than not wanting female Adeptus Custodes or Adeptus Astartes is inherently misogynistic. People can have views that differ from yours without being hateful towards you or wishing violence upon you.

 

Even though I've stated that the prohibition doesn't signal that we're taking sides on any issues, the principles presented in our community rules make our stance on inclusivity abundantly clear:

 

We are all here united by our common enjoyment of the hobby.

We are all here as equals.

The differences between us neither define us nor divide us.

The differences make us stronger as individuals and as a community.

This site, this community, welcomes all hobbyists.

 

Everyone is welcome here. It doesn't get much more inclusive than "everyone." We don't exclude based on race, nationality, religion, worldview, gender, sexuality, profession, education level, ability/disability, or any other factors. As long as you abide by the community rules, you are welcome within the community (even if you're a freckle-faced left-handed ginger ).

 

We're here to share our love of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby, not to solve the problems of the world. At best we can hope to serve as a positive example, enabling our members to take the positive lessons they learn here and apply them elsewhere. We do this by coming together, not by fomenting discord.