'No politics' rule

[Ron Miel]

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289048)has been locked on the grounds that it veered into politics.

I find this to be a very harsh restriction. The subjects that can be discussed without involving politics are very few.

An advert in the UK a few years back makes the point very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruGBWLk9s8

[137beth]

IIRC, the justification for the "no politics, no real-world religion" rule was that such discussions almost always devolve into flame wars.

[Rockphed]

In general, observing the rule takes a little bit of thought, but it has been learned through sad experience that online communication would be more likely to be civil if everyone just took a little more time to think before they posted. Much like when visiting family, we expect people to avoid topics that are likely to cause arguments. Politics and religion are just the most common. If you stumble upon another, please avoid that as well.

Edit: And, I suggest you read the "Inappropriate topics" section of the forum rules. It goes into much, much more, and more reliable, detail about why the topics that are against the rules were chosen. If that does not clear up why the thread was closed, a polite PM to the moderator who closed it will probably get answered in a reasonable time.

[Tichrondrius]

Always seemed like a pretty flimsy justification to me, and a really stupid rule at that. If people started flaming- lock the thread. Have a rule against flaming if thats your true justification, not this draconian rule with a really flimsy line that 'most of them end in flaming anyway'. Good threads end up getting locked and people have to do a silly gymnastics dance to have actual conversations and sometimes it gets locked anyway. At least give an actual reason besides the flaming one. But I don't expect one, and it isn't going to be changed, and it's going to stay pretty ridiculous.

[The Giant]

At the risk of putting words in Roland's mouth, I think he meant to say "real world religion," not politics. Since the thread does indeed talk about what real people in the real Middle Ages really believed, it falls afoul of that restriction very quickly. He can post through the lock if I've misinterpreted him.

That being said, neither the "no politics" nor "no religion" are up for debate or discussion. Almost every topic can be discussed without mentioning them, if one is careful and isn't trying to do so. People have conversations here every day that don't involve either topic. This message board exists to discuss certain topics, and not others.

If, at any point, you feel that these restrictions are so restrictive that you're unable to participate in the conversation, then don't participate. There are hundreds if not thousands of other message boards on the internet that allow well-nigh anything to be said to anyone. But we're not changing our rules here, because we like it the way it is...including the part where said rules often cause people who can't talk about anything else to leave.

[Roland St. Jude]

At the risk of putting words in Roland's mouth, I think he meant to say "real world religion," not politics. Indeed I did. I've fixed it now to avoid any further confusion.