• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Rule 8. Politics. Gone. For good.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Spoit said:
Were we reading the same rant threads? Even before the last half year or so, at least half the posts in those rant threads were 'olol look at this person who disagrees with my views'. Doubly so for the (anti-)SJW bullshit. Not to mention people coming in here after being banned on the other forums and ranting about being persecuted for their political views, when if you went and looked at the tribunals or posts that put them over the edge? They' were often just being shitposters and thumbing their noses at the mods when told to tone it down and/or stop.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I never actually go to any of the Rants threads besides the politics one and the SV one. The amount of political spillover (including SJW related stuff) into the SV doesn't really seem much higher these past few months compared to previously.

As for ranting about being banned in another forum because of your political views, that's not something I think of as actual discussion of politics. I've always seen that as, you know, ranting about that other forum.
 
UrsaTempest said:
I think fictional politics are pretty safe.

'side, you're member of the Cabal right? Just ask directly. Easier that way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, except the involvement is a (fictionalized) depiction of the actual, documented excesses of a real-world political group/movement. I could get into a similar situation with a story set in the '50s or '60s with the civil rights movement as a background... etc., etc. Politics is a part of real life, and it impacts on our lives. It's almost impossible to write a halfway realistic piece of fiction without them getting involved somehow.

As for asking on IRC, it's an open issue of policy on the forum. I'm of the opinion that this sort of discussion should be in... well, "public" is the best way to put it, I suppose -- open, anyway. It needs a public response... like the one tehelgee just provided, even if it's rather inadequate.

I suppose this does tell me where I'll be running that quest, though... even if its ideas post got considerable response here.

Edit: To clarify, tehelgee's explanation is sufficiently broad that I have to assume that the "no politics" rule would disallow, say, Worm (cf. Lustrum). I'm pretty sure that's not what he intends, but the rule's really quite poorly thought-out as written.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess the new threads didn't even last 2 days. Damn, that has to be some sorta record. Ah well, I'm going back to sleep. I just hope the SV rant thread and Sanctimonious acts of assholery on QQ rant thread don't get nuked again when I'm sleeping. Again.

I miss everything when I go to bed. >.>
 
While the Mods have the right to make this choice, I consider something so far reaching and broad, that effectively bans any sort of game that involved the real world in any scale over that of a small town as written, to be a mistake. While I agree that politically based flame wars should be stomped on, I do not think that game ideas such as 'You are all wizard lords of a wizard academy, have fun abusing your power while still carrying out your responsibilities enough you don't get fired', which is a game that I have actually considered running, to be banned. Because that would involve both facility politics and inter-fantasy nation politics, as rule as written both of those are banned, and while people can say 'oh the mods will not be mean about such things' depending on that while directly ignoring the rule as written does not seem like a good idea.

Or any of the 'Council of National Leader' games we have seen happen in the past, which are also banned by the rule as it is written. Hell, looking at my quests, I get deeply worried about the fantasy nation politics that I had planned to show up once players finally made it to the fantasy setting in MC Dynasty and raised a wizard's tower and basically became a power player locally, because rules as written I'm pretty sure making a peace treaty 'on screen' is against the rules, and that sort of thing shouldn't be. Or dealing with the multiple space nations in my space pirate quest... or, hell, as written, I'm pretty sure it makes it against the rules for Minster Fudge to show up in the Tri-Master Quest at all. Or basically anything else to do with the later half of Harry Potter because the political corruption of the Ministry is a more then minor thing in that half the series.

Look, I'm not saying that the idea behind this new rule is a bad one, but could we at least have a form of said rule that doesn't blanket ban depicting any large scale form of human interaction as per a direct reading of the text before any sort of 'common sense' interception?

Beyond that, the 'Common Sense' behind rule interception is a thing that changes over the years, not something that remains static. Even if, right now, or for the next year, there isn't a single person who would view a rousing game of "You are a magical hypnotist spy sent to go spy on an enemy nation and 'turn' any of its assets that you can" as against the rules, will that still be true one year and one month into the future, when some new mod is having a really bad day and no sense of humor? Even if that is something that we can appeal, it isn't something that we should ever have to appeal in the first place. And as written, it is something that we would have to end up appealing.

If the issue is people throwing political poo at each other, why not simply announce that Rule 1, the 'Be Polite To Each Other Or Else' Rule, and Rule 5, the 'Keep On Topic' rule are going to be enforced with a Rod of Iron on anything to do with modern politics? Anyone throwing political poo at each other and refusing to stop could still be banned under those rules as is.
 
Happerry said:
While the Mods have the right to make this choice, I consider something so far reaching and broad, that effectively bans any sort of game that involved the real world in any scale over that of a small town as written, to be a mistake. While I agree that politically based flame wars should be stomped on, I do not think that game ideas such as 'You are all wizard lords of a wizard academy, have fun abusing your power while still carrying out your responsibilities enough you don't get fired', which is a game that I have actually considered running, to be banned. Because that would involve both facility politics and inter-fantasy nation politics, as rule as written both of those are banned, and while people can say 'oh the mods will not be mean about such things' depending on that while directly ignoring the rule as written does not seem like a good idea.

Or any of the 'Council of National Leader' games we have seen happen in the past, which are also banned by the rule as it is written. Hell, looking at my quests, I get deeply worried about the fantasy nation politics that I had planned to show up once players finally made it to the fantasy setting in MC Dynasty and raised a wizard's tower and basically became a power player locally, because rules as written I'm pretty sure making a peace treaty 'on screen' is against the rules, and that sort of thing shouldn't be. Or dealing with the multiple space nations in my space pirate quest... or, hell, as written, I'm pretty sure it makes it against the rules for Minster Fudge to show up in the Tri-Master Quest at all. Or basically anything else to do with the later half of Harry Potter because the political corruption of the Ministry is a more then minor thing in that half the series.

Look, I'm not saying that the idea behind this new rule is a bad one, but could we at least have a form of said rule that doesn't blanket ban depicting any large scale form of human interaction as per a direct reading of the text before any sort of 'common sense' interception?

Beyond that, the 'Common Sense' behind rule interception is a thing that changes over the years, not something that remains static. Even if, right now, or for the next year, there isn't a single person who would view a rousing game of "You are a magical hypnotist spy sent to go spy on an enemy nation and 'turn' any of its assets that you can" as against the rules, will that still be true one year and one month into the future, when some new mod is having a really bad day and no sense of humor? Even if that is something that we can appeal, it isn't something that we should ever have to appeal in the first place. And as written, it is something that we would have to end up appealing.

If the issue is people throwing political poo at each other, why not simply announce that Rule 1, the 'Be Polite To Each Other Or Else' Rule, and Rule 5, the 'Keep On Topic' rule are going to be enforced with a Rod of Iron on anything to do with modern politics? Anyone throwing political poo at each other and refusing to stop could still be banned under those rules as is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's only real life politics that are banned.
 
GhostKaiju said:
Oh, of course, and I see no reason to be one or a brown noser. Basic fucking courtesy to a person of power when they're in a bad mood and giving out punishment to people trying to start shit, or just outright not saying shit to these people? Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not annoyed that they're not kissing the ground our moderators walk on, I'm annoyed they're this goddamn dumb and antagonistic to not even beung able to barely work out concepts this simple, and it's something somsimple that it's a psychological Venn Diagram with all of the connected Xenoforum sites (SB, SV, QQ). You antagonize an agry mod, you are winning a Darwin Prize.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you antagonize a Moderator the most likely thing that will happen is you get banned, that isn't exactly a darwin award thing.
 
TheBleachDoctor said:
It's only real life politics that are banned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Happerry pointed out on IRC that that's not in the rule as written. Of course, even if it was, it'd still be overbroad.

Fantastic racism is just a patch over racism, for instance, and Worm features multiple characters who directly reference real-life political issues. And what if I were to try and run a Stargate quest? Senator Kinsey's brand of jingoism is very much a real life political thing... just as an example.
 
While I fully support the rights of site owners to determine what happens on their platform, I can't help but be amused by this rule on account of all the kvetching about those bastards on SV, with their thought police and their lawyer roleplay.
 
rcnr said:
While I fully support the rights of site owners to determine what happens on their platform, I can't help but be amused by this rule on account of all the kvetching about those bastards on SV, with their thought police and their lawyer roleplay.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I imagine if you look at the cross section between those people and the ones who start the politics junk you'd have a very fat overlap
 
Aleh said:
Happerry pointed out on IRC that that's not in the rule as written. Of course, even if it was, it'd still be overbroad.

Fantastic racism is just a patch over racism, for instance, and Worm features multiple characters who directly reference real-life political issues. And what if I were to try and run a Stargate quest? Senator Kinsey's brand of jingoism is very much a real life political thing... just as an example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You know the mods are actual people that you can ask for clarification on specific instances, right?
It's not like they're some enigmatic force that will strike you down from the great beyond with nary a warning.
 
This is probably a better implementation that what SB or SV will do, where it will be (is de facto already) a "do not talk politics we don't like"-rule.
 
TheBleachDoctor said:
You know the mods are actual people that you can ask for clarification on specific instances, right?
It's not like they're some enigmatic force that will strike you down from the great beyond with nary a warning.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Already done. That lead to this:

Aleh said:
Edit: To clarify, tehelgee's explanation is sufficiently broad that I have to assume that the "no politics" rule would disallow, say, Worm (cf. Lustrum). I'm pretty sure that's not what he intends, but the rule's really quite poorly thought-out as written.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As written and explained, the rule forbids fictionalized depictions of real-world politics, political groups, and political movements. That would forbid the X-Men (who were created as a blatant expy of racism and the civil rights movement), Pokegirls (loooots of commentary on feminism there, especially in the backstory)...

magic9mushroom said:
That appears to be what Aleh is doing in this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
More accurately, I asked, and have been replying based on the answers.

TheBleachDoctor said:
Then they should actually ask a mod. Tag them, rather than just post an open question and hope a mod happens to read that post and bother to answer.
I'm sure they'd get a faster response that way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You didn't notice the multiple posts doing exactly that?
 
Okay Aleh, after going through this thread again, I still don't understand where you're getting the "Fictional political analogies/commentary is banned" from. I only noticed the stuff saying debate itself was banned. Aside from something about yog shogoth?
If you could point me to the post saying political analogies in works of fiction are also banned, that would be great.
Edit: Or has the question not been answered yet?
Edit 2: Nevermind, I don't think it has. I'll just go to sleep now. I should have done so hours ago.
 
Last edited:
Aleh said:
Happerry pointed out on IRC that that's not in the rule as written. Of course, even if it was, it'd still be overbroad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
tehelgee said:
When we say no politics, we mean no real life politics. Or real life politics thinly veiled behind a mostly translucent veneer of imagination.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I REALLY don't see the issue here. I'm pretty sure it's a no in fiction only if said fiction poorly make its politics teh same as in RL, with the same issues.
 
TheBleachDoctor said:
Okay Aleh, after going through this thread again, I still don't understand where you're getting the "Fictional political analogies/commentary is banned" from. I only noticed the stuff saying debate itself was banned. Aside from something about yog shogoth?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Aleh said:
Okay, I have a bit of a concern.

Namely, one of the fiction projects I'm working on has... well, not quite political themes, but politics is very much involved and a character was basically Justine Sacco'd in the backstory. I'm not sure that "safe and friendly place for fiction" and "no politics" are quite compatible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
tehelgee said:
When we say no politics, we mean no real life politics. Or real life politics thinly veiled behind a mostly translucent veneer of imagination.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is... fairly unambiguous: It means that fictionalized depictions of real-world politics, politicians, political groups, and political movements are categorically forbidden now, as long as the original source is recognizable.

This is, to be blunt, ridiculous... and why I'm no longer seriously considering running that quest here.

OverReactionGuy said:
A mod already answered about the fictional politics. Even quoted your post Aleh
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know. See above.
 
Aleh said:
This is... fairly unambiguous: It means that fictionalized depictions of real-world politics, politicians, political groups, and political movements are categorically forbidden now, as long as the original source is recognizable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I personally think you are reading into that too much and searching for things that aren't even there. But I just got up and don't want to get in an argument about this.

So I'll bow out here.

But your next post should be tagging the mods and asking for clarification, seriously. If you're that worried about it, it's best to directly ask them yourself and then wait until they answer because most of them are not online right now.
 
Why not why not satire our political views through fantasy?

It will be vague but as long as it's a story, it should be within good faith of rule 8.

But I don't honestly don't want to keep it completely fantasy. I still want to one day write a worm Si-Potus Quest or story that is NSFW.

Maybe even a Legend of the galactic heroes fic.
Which is World War I in space.
 
Snake/Eater said:
In what context?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That political BS is not the point of this forum and should be done away with. If I want to argue politics in circles, there is Whitehall. I don't even mess with SV's political scene. It's way too stressful for me, mang.

I'm happy that QQ is putting its hoof down (brony!) on it.

I'm pretty sure that if you want to still do a story with political intrigue and all that fancy stuff, you'll be okay. But arguing over every little thing certain people in places of political power (and their supporters do) IRL is right out, such a thing would be off-topic in any story threads so that all is self-explanatory. So, no more arguing over DOOM! and shit like that? Cheers.
 
Aleh

Let me be blunt: the no politics rule refers to current events politics. I'll even add that to the rule as it's listed, since I did say there was going to be some confusion about what constitutes politics and what doesn't.

I'm not about to ban people because they started a WW2 quest, a quest dealing with the life of nobility, or something like that. This rule was put in place to stop people from starting shit storms every five minutes about shit that's currently going down in real life.

Really, there's no need to try to apply rules lawyer thinking to QQ. We're not SV, we're not going to pull a 'catch 22 gotcha' or something retarded like that.

EDIT: Words.
 
Last edited:
Oh, thank god. Politics (of a sort) is the bread and butter of a lot of Worm concepts, and I was worried this would affect those.
 
The Ero-Sennin said:
That political BS is not the point of this forum and should be done away with. If I want to argue politics in circles, there is Whitehall. I don't even mess with SV's political scene. It's way too stressful for me, mang.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
See, that's what was nice about talking about it here. The political scene of places like SV is a complete clusterfuck. Here you could actually have casual conversation about it despite a wide variety of views being expressed.
 
Reader mode
182 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top