GitP: Environmentally Friendly?

[Admiral_Kelly]

Whether it is fair or not the environment is a political issue. It comes up in congress and in political debates all the time. The rules of this board ban political discussion but apparently environmental issues get a pass.

This seems like a contradiction. Why is the environment okay to discuss but all other political debate censored? I have no problem with the barring of political discussion but I do have a problem with inconsistency. In my opinion, either environmental discussion should be banned or we should open the doors to more political issues.

Your thoughts.

[Bryn]

The environment is hardly as polarising as most politics is probably the shortest answer possible.

Alternatively, if you tried to talk about the environment with reference to politics, for example discussing whatever policies your local politicians have on the subject, you'd cross into other political discussion. If you leave that out, it's not really so much of a political issue.

In any case, it strikes me as nothing to lose sleep over :smalltongue:

[DeathQuaker]

My understanding of why political debate is forbidden is because it's almost impossible to get into without starting that magical combination of fired-up-tempers and an unwillingness to concede to any other opinions--i.e., it's a guaranteed flamewar starter, and results in little other than bad feelings around the board.

Environmental issues are, in and of themselves, are not necessarily going to cause a flamewar.

I would say that if someone is saying, "Recycling saves energy!" or "If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, walk to work," it's something fairly neutral. It's a statement or an opinion that doesn't necessarily reflect deep-seated philosophy--especially if it is stuff like, "If you want to...." then it's obviously leaving the decision to take the advice in the hands of a reader, not force an opinion onto anyone else.

On the other hand, if someone pops up and says, "Support House Bill 43592x! It will stop/start greenhouse emissions!" or says, "An Inconvenient Truth sucks because Al Gore is a dirty dirty democrat!" that's where you're definitely crossing the line into politics, and I would imagine such statements would be scrubbed and the user warned just like with any other political statement.

I imagine if Environmentalism discussions did cause a series of flamewars, then the mods might review their treatment of the issue.

[Admiral_Kelly]

'Environmental discussions tend not to end in flame wars.' is a valid point but they can also get heated fast. For instance; what if there is a 'pro green' thread started, saying we should 'save the world by reducing carbon emissions'? For some people, this is an ordinary thread with no controversy. Overall, that is not the case. This is a big issue between people who believe man-made carbon emissions cause global warming and people who do not.

Bigness of the issue or not, whether or not this will devolve into a thread full of pointless bickering really depends on how well the forum members are willing to behave. If people start flaming and getting bitter with each other, that is a problem. A healthy debate between both sides expressing their views without getting personal, on the other hand, should be encouraged.

The problem I see with giving environmentalism the pass is when you draw the line. If a mostly non-political discussion over environmentalism is okay, how about one on abortion? Or how illegal aliens in this country should be treated? Or what subjects children should learn? Technically, those are social issues not political ones, but they will raise a lot of controversy nonetheless.

[Renegade Paladin]

My understanding of why political debate is forbidden is because it's almost impossible to get into without starting that magical combination of fired-up-tempers and an unwillingness to concede to any other opinions--i.e., it's a guaranteed flamewar starter, and results in little other than bad feelings around the board.

Environmental issues are, in and of themselves, are not necessarily going to cause a flamewar.
Are you kidding? They don't just cause flamewars; they cause actual flames, as in, people burn down buildings over it. It's at least as sensitive a topic as other political issues.

This is not to say that either should be censored; politics, contrary to the bizarre popular belief here, is not a guaranteed flame war starter. But that's neither here nor there.

(Incidentally, to address what I thought this thread was going to be about, recycling paper actually consumes more energy and results in more pollution than farming trees for paper. Contrary to what Greenpeace would have you believe, no one goes and cuts down old-growth forests for paper; scrub trees are specifically grown on farms for the purpose, and growing trees is much more environmentally sound than setting up a great big industrial plant for pulping, de-inking, cleaning, and recycling paper.)

[Zherog]

'Environmental discussions tend not to end in flame wars.' is a valid point but they can also get heated fast. For instance; what if there is a 'pro green' thread started, saying we should 'save the world by reducing carbon emissions'? For some people, this is an ordinary thread with no controversy. Overall, that is not the case. This is a big issue between people who believe man-made carbon emissions cause global warming and people who do not.

In my opinion, that's not a political issue, though. It's a matter of science.


The problem I see with giving environmentalism the pass is when you draw the line. If a mostly non-political discussion over environmentalism is okay, how about one on abortion? Or how illegal aliens in this country should be treated? Or what subjects children should learn? Technically, those are social issues not political ones, but they will raise a lot of controversy nonetheless.

I don't think there'd be any problem at all - in principle - with a discussion about what subjects children should learn. Of course, if you want to interject, "They should learn the bible!" then we've crossed the line from a social discussion into a religious one.

The other two are indeed social issues at their heart, as you said. Unfortunately, though, it's just about impossible to discuss abortion without politics and/or religion being inserted into the conversation. I'd be willing to wager that the illegal alien discussion could probably be done without directly referencing politics; the problem there will arise, though, once somebody says, "Ban them all!" That will almost assuredly illicit a negative response from somebody.

To make a short story long... I think it's possible to discuss environmental issues on a purely scientific level, which is what makes it an OK point of conversation here.

[Admiral_Kelly]

In my opinion, that's not a political issue, though. It's a matter of science.It is a matter of science; but like many other things politics and science often intertwine (that is not to say politics has an actual effect on actual science; just that a scientific issue can also be a political one).
I don't think there'd be any problem at all - in principle - with a discussion about what subjects children should learn. Of course, if you want to interject, "They should learn the bible!" then we've crossed the line from a social discussion into a religious one.And how historical figures should be viewed. And the teaching of sex. And whether or not Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth should be taught... I digress.
The other two are indeed social issues at their heart, as you said. Unfortunately, though, it's just about impossible to discuss abortion without politics and/or religion being inserted into the conversation. I'd be willing to wager that the illegal alien discussion could probably be done without directly referencing politics; the problem there will arise, though, once somebody says, "Ban them all!" That will almost assuredly illicit a negative response from somebody.Or alternately, "Let them all have full rights as citizens!" Otherwise I totally agree with your points here.
To make a short story long... I think it's possible to discuss environmental issues on a purely scientific level, which is what makes it an OK point of conversation here.If it were possible to keep it purely science-based, such as a thread asking 'Are Man-Made Carbon Emissions Responsible for Global Warming?' and stays away from 'What Should (We/the Government) Do About Global Warming?' then yes, it should be aloud.

[skywalker]

Well, there was an actual thread about the Toyota Prius, and whether or not it was actually environmentally friendly a couple of months ago...

As I recall, the thread stayed fairly civil(more civil than I would've expected, I was watching it waiting for the lock icon :smallcool:) for a few days, got snatched by a mod who was hasty to keep it from degenerating into flaming, got returned(I believe after some protest) and then degenerated into exactly what the mod had feared in a couple more days.

The environment encourages just as much "I know better than you, I'm smarter, you're an idiot and your point is invalid" as any other issue. Therefore, I'd see it as just as dangerous as anything else. Posting about the environment could be considered (I just made this up) "flame-baiting." Which is completely separate from trolling, which we do have a rule against. The difference between the two is, trolling is written to be inflammatory, whereas flame-baiting is not, but attracts flamers all the same.

As an example, Sir Giacomo's monk thread(which has seen several posters go down in flames, I do believe) is a thread I would consider "flame-baiting." It was well written, had a valid point, and also said "I'm smarter than you" to a lot of people on this board with very strong opinions. It didn't matter(to me) that he said it in an indirect and polite way, Giacomo still knew he was practically inviting people to take out the flame-throwers. I think any thread like that is questionable(another couple threads I considered questionable: The Prius thread and the LGBT thread), and I wouldn't have started or commented to either of them.

For me, I try to avoid doing anything that will break or encourage others to break the rules. So far, it's served me pretty well(I've not run afoul of the mods yet :smallbiggrin:).

[Roland St. Jude]

...To make a short story long... I think it's possible to discuss environmental issues on a purely scientific level, which is what makes it an OK point of conversation here.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. If something has the potential to be discussed without turning into a political discussion, we try to give it room to do so. If it starts to stray into politics, we try to nudge it back.

Arguably, politics covers all human interactions, so we should shut down all threads on any real life social issues. But that's obviously overbroad. No one would advocate that, I don't think. Some might advocate the opposite (that we allow all discussion on any topic), but that's not going to happen here; the ban of discussions on real life religion and politics are an integral part of The Giant's concept for this place.

So it can't be all or nothing, so we exercise some judgment. A more mainstream definition of politics is the process of civil governance. If you stay away from discussing what governments do or should do and the positions and statements of politicians and candidates, that's a pretty good start. And, of course, whatever the topic, if there's flaming, that's obviously against our rules.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I read the title of this and about died. Durkon should be running for his life.

[FoE]

Is it OK for me to posit my theories that global warming is being caused sentient dolphins? :smalltongue:

[Moff Chumley]

Is it just me, or does every time a take a week on some kind of trip, FoE's account gets even more anvillicous and/or egotistical? :smalltongue: (Chumley wants to be more like FoE. :smallwink:
Skywalker, why would the LGBT thread be controversial? Besides, controversy, on THE INTERNET, is not inherently a bad thing. A lack of civility is. Non-political environmental threads, while easily controversial, aren't likely to get out of hand.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Skywalker, why would the LGBT thread be controversial?Because maybe some people find homosexuality to be , you know, wrong?

OHMYGODHOWDAREYOUSAYTHATYOUHOMOPHOBE!

[AmberVael]

(another couple threads I considered questionable: The Prius thread and the LGBT thread)

While a thread on discussion of LGBT certainly has the potential to turn nasty and flame war like, the thread we have isn't typically focused on discussion of morality/ethics/politics of the LGBT community (for the most part- of course there will be some mention, but it is generally passing, not the focus). Instead, it is just focusing on the community and people themselves, which generally isn't a flammable topic.

[kpenguin]

This pretty much hits the nail on the head. If something has the potential to be discussed without turning into a political discussion, we try to give it room to do so. If it starts to stray into politics, we try to nudge it back.

Arguably, politics covers all human interactions, so we should shut down all threads on any real life social issues. But that's obviously overbroad. No one would advocate that, I don't think. Some might advocate the opposite (that we allow all discussion on any topic), but that's not going to happen here; the ban of discussions on real life religion and politics are an integral part of The Giant's concept for this place.

So it can't be all or nothing, so we exercise some judgment. A more mainstream definition of politics is the process of civil governance. If you stay away from discussing what governments do or should do and the positions and statements of politicians and candidates, that's a pretty good start. And, of course, whatever the topic, if there's flaming, that's obviously against our rules.

Okay, then. Can you make a specific definition for a political topic? I know it is the right of the administration to judge any individual topic political or nonpolitical, but it would be nice to have some sort of guideline for the purpose of starting threads.

I assume that the use of "real-world" means that fictional politics (i.e. The people of Forestport should back John Silversword's bid for mayor because of his pro-ogre stance) is okay? Also, the various non-locked threads debating how this forum is run means that board politics is also an okay discussion?

[NerfTW]

Because maybe some people find homosexuality to be , you know, wrong?

OHMYGODHOWDAREYOUSAYTHATYOUHOMOPHOBE!

That would, actually, be the definition of homophobia, Admiral.

Nope, this won't end badly at all, no siree. :smallfurious:

[kpenguin]

That would, actually, be the definition of homophobia, Admiral.

So, stating that some people believe that homosexuality is wrong is, in itself, homophobic?

[Emperor Tippy]

That would, actually, be the definition of homophobia, Admiral.

Nope, this won't end badly at all, no siree. :smallfurious:

Incorrect. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality. Disagreeing with something or seeing it as wrong doesn't mean that you necessarily fear that thing.

I don't care at all what relationships consenting adults get into so long as said relationships don't harm anyone else. I don't think the government should have any involvement with marriages either. None of that means that there are no reasonably valid reasons one could see homosexuality as wrong.

[Roland St. Jude]

Okay, then. Can you make a specific definition for a political topic? I know it is the right of the administration to judge any individual topic political or nonpolitical, but it would be nice to have some sort of guideline for the purpose of starting threads.

The rules seem to have worked fine for many years without more specifically defining "political." I think we're unlikely to try to define it further, but it's worth considering whether a more specific rule 1) could be devised and 2) would help. I'm skeptical on both counts, though. I'd advise that you simply steer clear of topics that are inherently political (that is, regarding governments, political campaigns, etc.) and post here with the knowledge that real world political discussions are disfavored.


I assume that the use of "real-world" means that fictional politics (i.e. The people of Forestport should back John Silversword's bid for mayor because of his pro-ogre stance) is okay?

Correct.


Also, the various non-locked threads debating how this forum is run means that board politics is also an okay discussion?

Mostly. If you have questions about the Forum Rules or other board issues, please ask them in Board Issues. If you have a complaint about a specific instance of moderation, please contact the moderator who took the action, one of the assigned moderators for the area, and, if all else fails, WampaX. If you simply have a complaint about how the board is run, PM a moderator or administrator.

Edit: Also, note to all, please don't use this thread or this forum to test the limits of the rules; it isn't a rule-free-zone.

[skywalker]

Skywalker, why would the LGBT thread be controversial?I knew no one would care about the Prius thread...

Here's a good example:
Because maybe some people find homosexuality to be , you know, wrong?

OHMYGODHOWDAREYOUSAYTHATYOUHOMOPHOBE!


That would, actually, be the definition of homophobia, Admiral.

Nope, this won't end badly at all, no siree. :smallfurious:
It took a little over an hour.

Vael, I know that our thread isn't(and I've cited it before to others as an example of how wonderful and accepting our community is) and I never said it was against the rules. I just said it didn't fall within my personal bounds of where I would post. Something else I'd like you to consider: If someone happened to post in the thread about how they considered homosexuality wrong, but in a completely well-thought out and thoughtful post(and it doesn't have to be religious, there are non-religious arguments against homosexuality), would you make a well thought out post arguing with them, or would you smear them as a homophobe like NerfTW?

If someone were to post something like that there, would the discussion continue? Or would they be chastised for trolling? Not that there's anything wrong with chastising them, but is it ethical to start a thread where dissenters cannot have a voice? I don't think it is. Even when dissenters aren't specifically prohibited(I've not read the LGBT thread in a while, but I don't think they were) as some OPs try to do, sometimes opposite opinions are circumstantially kept out by the nature of the rules. I'm not saying we need a rule against it, but is it ethical?

[AmberVael]

I have had one person that really stands out in my mind disagree with my views on the LGBT community before- not even really elaborating on their reasoning for why they disagreed. However, the manner in which they did it was extremely thoughtful and kind, showing that even as they disagreed, they still cared about me.
If anything, the encounter made me respect this person even more than I had before it.

Personally, if someone posted there like that, I might say a few things from my opinion, and then point out it was off topic, because it's supposed to be about the community and people, and not invite such controversy in. If they wish to debate LGBT matters, they can do it in an area made to debate LGBT matters. They can have their view- in the appropriate place.

Speaking of which, this is getting off topic too, so I'll end my contribution to derailment here.

[zeratul]

[QUOTE=Moff Chumley;4593901]Skywalker, why would the LGBT thread be controversial?/QUOTE]I knew no one would care about the Prius thread...

Here's a good example:


It took a little over an hour.



hehe, don't you love it when people prove your point for you? I would say though that the LGBT on this forum is from what I've seen of it not really controversial at all. Given that it is for LGB people those against those orientations can just pass over it.

[Serpentine]

People have gone in there with dissenting views - and I applauded their courage - and they have been... not so much smeared as... vaguely and politely in a mildy rude way discouraged from repeating the claim or continuing the discussion? But I think most people there were pretty civil about it, and I would hope, at least, that a discussion on such a matter would be possible - so long as politics and religion were kept out of it, of course.

The environment is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
History is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
Science is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
Current affairs is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
etc.
Obviously, some topics are gonna fall into political and religious discussion easier than others, but, so far as I can gather, they're okay until they get to that point.

[averagejoe]

Not that there's anything wrong with chastising them, but is it ethical to start a thread where dissenters cannot have a voice? I don't think it is. Even when dissenters aren't specifically prohibited?

Well, from what I understand, the point of the thread isn't for people to go on and say, "Look how awsome and morally correct these lifestyles are," it's to discuss things within the community, and dissenting opinions are allowed within this context. Which is to say, by disagreeing with homosexuality you're not voicing a dissenting opinion, you're just going off on a tangent. Non-hetero lifestyles being okay is an assumption of the thread, not an opinion open for argument.

Here's an example; take a versus thread, say, Sauron vs. Scout Finch. Let's further assume that everyone who has so far posted in the thread has stated that Sauron would win hands down. Now, you would be welcome to voice a dissenting opinion (i.e. Scout Finch could take Sauron in a straight up fight,) but you would not be welcome to try to start an argument which vaguely relates to the thread but goes off topic, (i.e. To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Rings were both terrible books and anyone who likes them isn't morally saavy.) It's perfectly reasonable to disallow such things because you're not voicing a dissenting opinion, you're starting a new argument mostly unrelated to the old one except by the objects of discussion.

At least, I think. I don't actually frequent the LBGT thread, so please correct any mistakes I might have made. I'm fairly sure this is accurate, but you know what they say about assuming.

[kpenguin]

Well, from what I understand, the point of the thread isn't for people to go on and say, "Look how awsome and morally correct these lifestyles are," it's to discuss things within the community, and dissenting opinions are allowed within this context. Which is to say, by disagreeing with homosexuality you're not voicing a dissenting opinion, you're just going off on a tangent. Non-hetero lifestyles being okay is an assumption of the thread, not an opinion open for argument.

Here's an example; take a versus thread, say, Sauron vs. Scout Finch. Let's further assume that everyone who has so far posted in the thread has stated that Sauron would win hands down. Now, you would be welcome to voice a dissenting opinion (i.e. Scout Finch could take Sauron in a straight up fight,) but you would not be welcome to try to start an argument which vaguely relates to the thread but goes off topic, (i.e. To Kill a Mockingbird and Lord of the Rings were both terrible books and anyone who likes them isn't morally saavy.) It's perfectly reasonable to disallow such things because you're not voicing a dissenting opinion, you're starting a new argument mostly unrelated to the old one except by the objects of discussion.

At least, I think. I don't actually frequent the LBGT thread, so please correct any mistakes I might have made. I'm fairly sure this is accurate, but you know what they say about assuming.

I wouldn't say that's a fair comparison. The hypothetical dissenting opinion in the LBGT thread (that non-hetero lifestyles are not OK) would be analogous to someone entering the hypothetical "Sauron vs. Scout" thread saying that the match-up is bad one and that the topic is silly. In both cases, the dissenter is posting that the topic being discussed (whether a match-up between a little girl and an evil god or alternate lifestyles) is bad.

[averagejoe]

I wouldn't say that's a fair comparison. The hypothetical dissenting opinion in the LBGT thread (that non-hetero lifestyles are not OK) would be analogous to someone entering the hypothetical "Sauron vs. Scout" thread saying that the match-up is bad one and that the topic is silly. In both cases, the dissenter is posting that the topic being discussed (whether a match-up between a little girl and an evil god or alternate lifestyles) is bad.

My comparison was quite fair and accurate. In the one case one is saying that LGBT lifestyles are not okay, and that anyone participating in such lifestyles are making wrong choices in life. In the other case one is saying that people who read or make positive comments about the books at hand are making wrong choices in life. To say that a particular versus thread is silly or a LGBT thread superfluous is something else entirely. However, decrying the lifestyle is hardly so tame as calling the topic silly or unnecessary.

I'll use another example; it's like going to any thread about some aspect of DnD (homebrew, optimization, DM suggestions, whatever) and making the argument that people should not play DnD. I think everyone would agree that allowing people to do this would be both silly and exceedingly irritating. I'm willing to talk to anyone about anything; however, it's very irritating when I'm talking about some aspect of X and someone comes in and tries to argue the rightness or wrongness of X itself. It's not because I don't like dissenting opinions, it's because that's not what I'm talking about. I'd gladly join in a new "Is X okay?" thread, but that disscussion doesn't belong in the, "If you X then do you Y or Z?" thread.

[kpenguin]

My comparison was quite fair and accurate. In the one case one is saying that LGBT lifestyles are not okay, and that anyone participating in such lifestyles are making wrong choices in life. In the other case one is saying that people who read or make positive comments about the books at hand are making wrong choices in life. To say that a particular versus thread is silly or a LGBT thread superfluous is something else entirely. However, decrying the lifestyle is hardly so tame as calling the topic silly or unnecessary.

I'll use another example; it's like going to any thread about some aspect of DnD (homebrew, optimization, DM suggestions, whatever) and making the argument that people should not play DnD. I think everyone would agree that allowing people to do this would be both silly and exceedingly irritating. I'm willing to talk to anyone about anything; however, it's very irritating when I'm talking about some aspect of X and someone comes in and tries to argue the rightness or wrongness of X itself. It's not because I don't like dissenting opinions, it's because that's not what I'm talking about. I'd gladly join in a new "Is X okay?" thread, but that disscussion doesn't belong in the, "If you X then do you Y or Z?" thread.

I bow to your superior logic.

However, I would like to point out that in a lot of threads in the gaming forum asking for optimization for a bad class (like samurai or monk), the common comment is to not use that class and pick something else. Since I don't see such posts called out for being off-topic by the mods at any time, I assume that they are not. They are, however, a bit similar to the idea of someone posting whether alternate lifestyles are "right" or "wrong"

[Serpentine]

Actually, I hate those comments, and if I knew what to classify them as, I would report them. You're right, they are kinda similar (though of infinite less importance and sensitivity), and they, too, ought to not be made.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I find this line of thinking to be flawed.

If topic X is being discussed discussing the whether X is right or wrong on basis of morality, science, gaming, etc. still has to do with X and is therefore not off-topic. Even if X is a subset of A and I were to talk about whether or not A is right or wrong, so long as it relates to X, I can still talk about A.

However, if what Vael said was true about it being a community-like thread then arguments for or against homosexuality should be posted in another thread. Though, if it is a community thread and a thread for discussing homosexuality in general, then forum members should be aloud to post counter-arguments their.

[AmberVael]

To quote the first page:


Well, given some recent facts (and some recent closet bashing as well :smalltongue: ), I've decided that it would be interesting for us, LGBT people in the playground to share some of our experiences.

Sharing our experiences might help eventual closeted LGBT people in the playground who doesn't want to reveal themselves for several (and valid reasons), but would like to read some advice and experiences from fellow LGBTs.

*snip*

I also beg that we keep this topic free of politics and religion. It's beyond the scope of this thread to discuss whether LGBT is "right" or "not".

The first part describes what the thread is for- sharing experiences, getting advice, etc.
Then I cut out a bit of stuff which wasn't relevant to this discussion...
And the last part after the snip is showing that it isn't meant to be a discussion of morality, but of experience and community.

So I think my explanation was probably a good one, if not quite as focused as the original stated purpose (but then again, the thread isn't as focused on the original stated purpose, though it doesn't stray far from it).

[LotharBot]

The environment is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
History is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
Science is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
Current affairs is okay as long as political and religious discussion stay out of it.
etc.

The problem with this approach is that many of those topics have political or religious components, sometimes very serious and important ones. People trying to learn about them or formulate well-thought-out ideas from these threads will often end up with large gaps in their knowledge. And people trying to discuss them often have to hold back, use euphemisms or allusions, or simply make up bogus arguments because their real arguments/reasons aren't allowed. We've all seen elephant-in-the-room style discussions on this board, where everyone knows there's a political or religious aspect that can't be discussed but is coloring a lot of perceptions.

I'm not saying the Giant should change his policy. What I am saying is that, if you're learning about a topic like those above from threads here, you should take what you hear with a grain of salt.

[NerfTW]

Something else I'd like you to consider: If someone happened to post in the thread about how they considered homosexuality wrong, but in a completely well-thought out and thoughtful post(and it doesn't have to be religious, there are non-religious arguments against homosexuality), would you make a well thought out post arguing with them, or would you smear them as a homophobe like NerfTW?


I'm not even reading the rest of this thread because this pisses me off so much.

He didn't make a reasoned argument. He put it as a side note at the end of his post. For comparison, I might as well just put

"Oh, and I think black people are wrong" at the end of my post, and claim I'm "smeared" when someone responds in an emotional manner. In fact, I think I'll just put that as my signature, because of course we should all have reasoned discussions as to why a person is "wrong" because of thier unchangeable brain chemistry.

While we're at it, we might as well argue the germ theory of disease is wrong.


Simply put, don't make statements you know will offend people offhand, and get upset when it results in a flame.

[averagejoe]

However, I would like to point out that in a lot of threads in the gaming forum asking for optimization for a bad class (like samurai or monk), the common comment is to not use that class and pick something else. Since I don't see such posts called out for being off-topic by the mods at any time, I assume that they are not. They are, however, a bit similar to the idea of someone posting whether alternate lifestyles are "right" or "wrong"

Well, I'm really not talking in terms of the board rules, more in what seems ideal to me, so I'm sorry if I gave any other impression. People doing that is pretty annoying, though, and they should stop, whatever the actual rules are.



If topic X is being discussed discussing the whether X is right or wrong on basis of morality, science, gaming, etc. still has to do with X and is therefore not off-topic. Even if X is a subset of A and I were to talk about whether or not A is right or wrong, so long as it relates to X, I can still talk about A.

That's only true if it's a "General X discussion;" Even if you can link the topics, that doesn't mean they're on topic. I mean, what if I were to go into a DnD homebrew thread and started stating that DnD sucks and people should play Exalted? You're saying that such a discussion would not be off topic and should be allowed on this thread?

[Admiral_Kelly]

@NerfTW: Do not be so quick to judge. He asked why the LGBT thread would be controversial to which I thought the answer to was pretty obvious. Like it or not, alot of people find homosexuality objectionable or immoral. That is a fact; you cannot change their opinions with your own. Some member seeing a 'pro rainbow' thread may get offended is why there would be a controversy. The all-caps comment was a hypothetical reaction to my post, since people tend to get touchy with this subject (and use the word 'homophobia' a lot). It also emphasized exactly what a thread discussing the ethics of homosexuality might cause, further showing the controversial nature of the subject.

Getting past the drama...

@averagejoe: The situation you bring up is more of a 'topic X, a subset of A, is brought up - poster X posts about the wrongness of A which does not relate to X' scenario, going off-topic.

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

GITP is very environmentally friendly. We have some druids; we know they are friendly to nature. We also have a ton of elves, who are traditionally very nature friendly.

Everyone seems friendly to the talking animals on the boards, and they are pretty nature-ish.

Sure, there are some sore spots, (like the evil Lord Magtok) but overall, I think that yes, GITP is environmentally friendly.

[AmberVael]

GitP: made out of 100% recycled interweb. :smalltongue:

Or maybe:

GitP: Druidically compliant.

[Talic]

Don't forget the Necromancers! I think we could all use a lesson on recycling from them!

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

But it is true! Think about how often the same old (but re-usable) arguments are recycled again and again in numerous threads.... (Not even the use of flames, acid or even disintegrate rays can keep them from being recycled.) :smallamused:

[Talic]

But the use of flames can get the arguments themselves destroyed. heh.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

But alas the phoenix rises again.

[Jimorian]

GitP: made out of 100% recycled interweb. :smalltongue:

Or maybe:

GitP: Druidically compliant.

Better: GitP web site brought to you with 100% recycled electrons. :smallcool: