The SDF Putsch

Since it looks like the claim the war in Ukraine thread was only to be banned for a week has turned out to be untrue, I think it raises some questions.

The thread did require a lot of moderator attention because of violations of the "no politics" rule. It did make me wonder one thing. Why was the no politics rule instituted? The Breaking News thread is full of political posts, despite the rules and the first post in the thread prohibiting political discussion. It would be a nightmare having to manually delete and warn posters for doing that.

I also find it ironic, that despite seemingly being the moderator most vocal about bringing politics into the Ukraine thread, most of Deino's posts in that thread were political in nature. If a moderator can't stick to the rules how can they expect members to? For the most part I think the moderators were doing a good job and I don't think any of them were polemic in any way.

Looking at it objectively it does seem like one person has insisted upon zealously enforcing rules, then used that to clamp down on those with dissenting opinions. Reminds me of what happened in a Munich beer hall a few decades ago...

What does @Webmaster think about closing down the most popular thread on this forum, and the reason why many people in recent months? Does he prefer it being like the days when you'd only see a few posts on the forum being made in a week?

"We are all equal, but some are more equal than others"

Although I think the Ukraine War thread was turning into a partisan gossip thread, I question the wisdom of a military forum locking a thread on the most significant armed conflict happening right now.

Practically speaking, the discussion will just spill out onto other threads. Is that really better than confining it to one thread?

Besides, weren't there special moderators who policed that thread? Seemed like they were pretty active.

The decision to close that thread for a week was made at the decision of specific world-affairs moderators, whose decision was supported by the other moderators.
They can make the decision to reopen it once they are ready to, and I personally won't countermand it.
@LawLeadsToPeace


However, the fact that some users seem particularly attached to that thread to the extent that they're taking counts barely a day after a week has elapsed, says more about those users than anything.



The topic of that thread has been had multiple times among the moderators -- the topic of the Ukraine war is one that's been a lightning rod for incompetent, politically charged and virulent arguments and discussion. For the last year or so it's been tentatively agreed to allow to remain, but it's up to the users who engage in that thread to act properly.
That thread's continued existence (and the topic's continued existence) should be treated as a privilege, not an entitlement.


I would also add that a thread being "popular" does not mean anything.
SDF is not meant to exist for the sake of being "popular" and having discussion for the sake of it. Useful, productive, targeted discussion is encouraged, which the rules are designed to enable. The rules are also designed to discourage less constructive discussion and the equivalent of thread "packing peanuts".

Just a question. If the mods are unable to handle the Ukraine thread… then in a hypothetical scenario what should we expect over a Taiwan scenario?

For all the neocons/warmongers saying that the Ukraine is a rehearsal for Taiwan. Seems like the Ukraine thread could also be a rehearsal for a Taiwan thread which will be a 100x magnitude worst for discussion in general.

Unless our moderation plan is to ignore the “mushroom cloud” outside the window when (or if as it seems more unlikely) that time comes.

FriedButter said:

Just a question. If the mods are unable to handle the Ukraine thread… then in a hypothetical scenario what should we expect over a Taiwan scenario?

For all the neocons/warmongers saying that the Ukraine is a rehearsal for Taiwan. Seems like the Ukraine thread could also be a rehearsal for a Taiwan thread which will be a 100x magnitude worst for discussion in general.

Unless our moderation plan is to ignore the “mushroom cloud” outside the window when (or if as it seems more unlikely) that time comes.

Click to expand...

The entire point why the Ukraine war topic is not considered essential by some of the moderators and whose presence on the forum has been up for debate, is exactly because of the costs versus benefits/relevance to the forum.

Let's put it this way -- the Ukraine war topic for a Russian defense forum or Ukrainian defense forum is probably considered essential given the proximity of the topic to the forum's purpose.

Blitzo said:

The entire point why the Ukraine war topic is not considered essential by some of the moderators and whose presence on the forum has been up for debate, is exactly because of the costs versus benefits/relevance to the forum.

Let's put it this way -- the Ukraine war topic for a Russian defense forum or Ukrainian defense forum is probably considered essential given the proximity of the topic to the forum's purpose.

Click to expand...

True. I suppose what I meant is that the rules should be prepared ahead of time. So everyone wouldn’t be going in blind.

Wasn’t there a couple times where some updated rules were on page ### for Ukraine? No one is going to see that after an hour.

Also I think the politics rule during a conflict may need some revisiting. Based on how the Ukraine conflict / thread has formed. It does not look possible to separate politics from war due to how intertwined they are.

FriedButter said:

True. I suppose what I meant is that the rules should be prepared ahead of time. So everyone wouldn’t be going in blind.

Wasn’t there a couple times where some updated rules were on page ### for Ukraine? No one is going to see that after an hour.

Also I think the politics rule during a conflict may need some revisiting. Based on how the Ukraine conflict / thread has formed. It does not look possible to separate politics from war due to how intertwined they are.

Click to expand...

We've had topics in the past which have been political but have been allowed with conditions, and they were allowed due to the the proximity/relevance to the forum and forum's userbase -- the HK riots a few years ago was an example of this.

The Ukraine war topic is one which is both about how much people can restrain themselves in that thread, as well as just how important and relevant the topic is to the forum.


I personally do not stand on either side, and have generally washed my hands of it as far as moderating input for that thread goes.

Abominable

We all know that Deino is free to express his childish political opinion on the dreadful tragedy of the Ukrainian Gambit (2008-, 2014-, 2021-) and the rest of us must shut up and keep a respectful silence because otherwise a horde of servile lackeys will beat us up.

Political opinions, or opinions that can be veiwed as political, are kind of unaviodable in a thread on the War in Ukraine. However, we should try to actively limit the amount of political statements in our post, and make sure that where they are espoused, they serve a purpose to the discussion at hand. Put it another way, posts that are primarily intended for engaging in informational warfare should be avoided.

That said, when it comes to political issues, nobody has the monopoly on truth, because these are inherently controversial, emotive and subjective issues. Logical poeple can differ wildly in how they interpret facts. So, it would be desirable for rules regarding political discussion to be applied even-handedly to everyone. This is different from discussions on military topics, where opinions are not created equal. Deino's opinion on basically anything military would be worth immeasurably more than my own, or most others for that matter.