TOS Change: Off Topic Posting

[Mímirswell]

Off-topic Posting (1 or 2 points) (Changes in Bold)

Topicality is expected and will be enforced on all forums, so take the extra time to post on the proper forum. Examples of off-topic posting include, but are not limited to:

• Threads that are not related to the topic of the forum in question, or that contain no material that can reasonably be discussed
• Posts that are not related to the topic of the thread in question, or that contain no material that can reasonably be discussed
• Re-posting threads that you know have already been posted elsewhere
• In the Discussion and Debate forums, statements about other members, whether implicit or explicit, are off-topic. Statements that disrupt the discussion, regardless of intent, will be singled out in particular.
• Unsolicited advertisement for any website, product, service, or facility not first approved by TWC staff

You can advertise websites, products, etc. in your signature, avatar, or other profile fields, as long as you post productively and don't just try to get exposure for your advertisements. Recommendation of websites, products, or other resources are also allowed if relevant to legitimate discussions.

Not, this is specific to just the Discussion and Debate forums and has no effect anywhere else on the site. Also, there will be a window of adjustment (~2 weeks) where infractions of these types will only be notes and not warnings.

[Darkarbiter]

So this this mean if your in the political forum you can't make minor comments about peoples political alignment (I understand this may have been because of insults but theres plenty of on topic discussion you can say about members).
Such as "I don't understand your alignment... what's your views on government type x exactly billy?"

[Ferrets54]

Yeah... I would like to hear the reasoning behind this. A person's background is essential to the formation of their political beliefs and motivations, and comes up in practically every thread with no ill-effect.

Furthermore I do not like the idea about disrupting the discussion. Open any thread, any thread at page ten and you will not have the same discussion as could be found in the OP. Not because it has been disrupted, because it has naturally evolved. To punish development will stagnate and even plausibly kill off the debate forums.

[Mímirswell]

A person's background is essential to the formation of their political beliefs and motivations, and comes up in practically every thread with no ill-effect.

You can state your political background as much as you wish and ask a question about another member's political alignment. For example, "What is your political alignment?" is perfectly acceptable. The member can then answer. At that point, you can refer back to the discussion and continue (and even include that knowledge indirectly if you think it helps further the debate such as tailoring your points towards a specific political ideology).

A statement has to have an illocutionary act (it asserts, demands, promises, or suggests something). Questions are almost never statements (though loaded questions like "Are you one of those retarded conservatives?" can be illocutionary acts and be fair game.

Furthermore I do not like the idea about disrupting the discussion. Open any thread, any thread at page ten and you will not have the same discussion as could be found in the OP. Not because it has been disrupted, because it has naturally evolved. To punish development will stagnate and even plausibly kill off the debate forums.

The statements in this case, have to be about other members. The natural evolution that occurs overtime to most topics is still perfectly valid and desired.

Such as "I don't understand your alignment... what's your views on government type x exactly billy?"

It's not a statement and therefore perfectly valid provided it's on topic (asking that in a science thread about water buffaloes will likely have it removed).

Comments about members, race, religion or occupation are a lot further off topic in the TW forums but this seems to imply that they wouldn't be acted on? I'm assuming that wasn't what was intended but it might be wheeled out that way if people start quibbling....

Insulting comments about a member's race, religion, etc. violate the Insulting others rule. Plenty of forums (such as the Q&S, Thema Devia, and modder forums) require the ability to talk about other members directly. This could expand to the general TW forums at a later date but currently we are going to evaluate it in the Debate and Discussion forums.

[Ferrets54]

You can state your political background as much as you wish and ask a question about another member's political alignment. For example, "What is your political alignment?" is perfectly acceptable. The member can then answer. At that point, you can refer back to the discussion and continue (and even include that knowledge indirectly if you think it helps further the debate such as tailoring your points towards a specific political ideology).

A statement has to have an illocutionary act (it asserts, demands, promises, or suggests something). Questions are almost never statements (though loaded questions like "Are you one of those retarded conservatives?" can be illocutionary acts and be fair game.

But I can't say, "you are biased because you are American/Russian/poor/rich/southern/northern". And this is often important.

The statements in this case, have to be about other members. The natural evolution that occurs overtime to most topics is still perfectly valid and desired.

Very well. This might need clarifying.

[Mímirswell]

But I can't say, "you are biased because you are American/Russian/poor/rich/southern/northern". And this is often important.

Bias is demonstrated in posts, it rarely needs to be elicited via personal comments. When it does, a simple, "Are you an American/Russian/X?" will highlight your suspected bias to the reader and provide the necessary confirmation when they answer (or more often when they choose to ignore it). There are probably other more effective ways to accomplish this as well but that's the first that came to mind.

[Ferrets54]

Bias is demonstrated in posts, it rarely needs to be elicited via personal comments. When it does, a simple, "Are you an American/Russian/X?" will highlight your suspected bias to the reader and provide the necessary confirmation when they answer (or more often when they choose to ignore it). There are probably other more effective ways to accomplish this as well but that's the first that came to mind.

You see this is the problem... nothing's been solved... it's just created an inconvenience and technicality. I click on a person's profile if I want to know somebody's nationality, I need to confront them if I want to establish bias.

[Trax]

Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

[Dayman]

Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

Agreed. While ad hominem insults are annoying, a legitimate comment should be allowed.

[Carach]

Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

Indeed

[Roman Rapper]

Horrible move, it will kill the disussion or at least take any spice out of it. if this is enforced you are going to alienate many great members with short temper in order to protect someones "feelings".

No. It will simply prevent certain spiteful members from sticking the boot in when they know they will get a reaction.

I am claiming this change in the Tos as a victory for my campaign, and, what's more, a victory for all non-trolling members.

lol.

[Scorch]

I am claiming this change in the Tos as a victory for my campaign, and, what's more, a victory for all non-trolling members.

lol.

That's quite a bit of credit you're attributing to yourself, quite incorrectly, I might add.

[Roman Rapper]

That's quite a bit of credit you're attributing to yourself, quite incorrectly, I might add.

That comment was made tongue-in-cheek, hence the lol at the end. In fact, my own campaign for this change was only started after I saw Garb (a member I have immense respect for) start a thread bemoaning the extent to which certain members have been trolling recently. In doing so, he mirrored my own thoughts, and so I proceeded to continue the good fight in my "A question regarding official site policy" thread. Until, lo and behold, the Tos was changed accordingly.
(although I'm sure you're right, the change had nothing to do with me.)

[Scar Face]

I support this, it is after all more or less the re-introduction of trolling. I'm confused as to why there is such a large negative response, as in the Curia vote a majority of people supported the re-introduction of trolling. Which as I said, this more or less is. Yet lo and behold, I might just be the only supporter.

[Scorch]

That comment was made tongue-in-cheek, hence the lol at the end. In fact, my own campaign for this change was only started after I saw Garb (a member I have immense respect for) start a thread bemoaning the extent to which certain members have been trolling recently. In doing so, he mirrored my own thoughts, and so I proceeded to continue the good fight in my "A question regarding official site policy" thread. Until, lo and behold, the Tos was changed accordingly.

Yes, so was mine, funnily enough. So we're even.

(although I'm sure you're right, the change had nothing to do with me.)

I am.

I support this, it is after all more or less the re-introduction of trolling. I'm confused as to why there is such a large negative response, as in the Curia vote a majority of people supported the re-introduction of trolling. Which as I said, this more or less is. Yet lo and behold, I might just be the only supporter.

It's more about giving moderators more tools to deal with more situations more effectively than reintroducing trolling.

[Sosobra]

Agreed, this is a poor move in policy.

[makanyane]

I don't mind the move so long as it is applied with discretion by the moderators, I actually think it could sort some problems out which were caused by removing trolling from ToS. Am a bit concerned that it seems to manage to imply that "statements about other members" are not off topic elsewhere. Comments about members, race, religion or occupation are a lot further off topic in the TW forums but this seems to imply that they wouldn't be acted on? I'm assuming that wasn't what was intended but it might be wheeled out that way if people start quibbling....

[Carach]

Personally, im off to every thread to tell them they are all walking suspended men/women/children on grounds of the new offtopic rules.

[s.rwitt]

Furthermore I do not like the idea about disrupting the discussion. Open any thread, any thread at page ten and you will not have the same discussion as could be found in the OP. Not because it has been disrupted, because it has naturally evolved. To punish development will stagnate and even plausibly kill off the debate forums.

Have to agree with Ferrets here.

[LoZz]

bad move....

this is a internet forum, not a law court and as such i fail to see while we need such tuff regulations, i agree off-topic posting in the debateing forum is bad but this idea to me will kill off alot of debates as they wont be able to evolve