No Politics or Religion in OOC

[Baka]

People just love to be argumentative, and scream about absolutely nothing that matters at the end of the day. It's always ends in drama with people trying to masterstroke one another, or get the last word in before the mute button is hit.

Personally, I think on this server, we're more laxed about when to use the mute button, so I am surprised when people are asking why things were muted that it 'wasn't that bad'. Did you know on Goon, they're more likely to do more than slap you on the wrist for sperging about anime, sex, or anything they deemed too much for OOC? Hell, here, you just get an OOC mute and told to knock it off, yet people push the goddamn issue why they can't talk about (INSERT RACY/INAPPROPRIATE SUBJECT HERE) because they think Freedom of Speech applies to a privately run server.

I really wish people would filter themselves but that's asking for the impossible. The only thing that I see that can actually make controlling OOC a lot easier is to edit the rules of what is acceptable and what's not. Because, let's face it, the PG-13 rule is absolute trash, it's ambiguous, and people like to dance on the line constantly.

[EvilBrage]

 

We can have our cake and eat it, too.

Who cares if they're having a shitstorm discussion about the merits of religious bukakke or whatever? Just toggle OOC and make it all go away.

I don't see how this is so difficult, unless you can feel their words hurting you across space and time.

[Garnascus]

 

We can have our cake and eat it, too.

Who cares if they're having a shitstorm discussion about the merits of religious bukakke or whatever? Just toggle OOC and make it all go away.

I don't see how this is so difficult, unless you can feel their words hurting you across space and time.

 

This same sort of fallacy gets brought up a lot when people discuss the toxic in game chat of many league of legends games. "Just mute them" or in this case "just toggle OOC chat" is not an excuse for people to be shitlords in OOC

[EvilBrage]

This same sort of fallacy gets brought up a lot when people discuss the toxic in game chat of many league of legends games. "Just mute them" or in this case "just toggle OOC chat" is not an excuse for people to be shitlords in OOC

 

But that's between them and whatever diety or moral compass they possess, if any - I don't see it as our holy mandate to stomp out shitlords wherever we might find them, so again: just toggle OOC and don't whine about it, because whining is both fueling their rants and also quite possibly as annoying (if not more so) than the original rant that's taking place.

[Garnascus]

Well as a trial moderator it is sort of my mandate to stomp out shitlords. I agree whining doesn't work, I have much more effective strategies. Asking them nicely to stop and then elevating to individual mutes/bwoinks.

[Baka]

Muting OOC for yourself may be the solution for you, but it doesn't solve the entire problem. It just blocks you from seeing it, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not continuing on.

[LordFowl]

The problem is that human beings have the tendency to be dicks. We can't solve that problem with server arbitration and censorship.

[Baka]

True, you cannot stop people from being dicks, but as I said: this server is a privilege to play on, and if they're going to be disruptive, you nip it in the bud.

You cannot change the nature of people but you can sure as hell discipline them.

[jackfractal]

Baka is right. While there are people who are jerks, and that is unlikely to change, Aurora is not required to give them a platform.

[jackfractal]

Baka is right. While there are people who are jerks, and that is unlikely to change, Aurora is not required to give them a platform.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

This is all lovely, but being a "shitlord" in OOC is both already against the rules and not actually the topic of this thread. What's being suggested here isn't banning OOC shitlordism, it's banning civil discussion of certain topics on the theory that such discussion may offend some people. And while I've yet to see anyone come fourth and say "I'm offended by any mention of religion or politics" in this thread, several people have expressed their distaste for censorship of such topics.

This is not, of course, an issue of freedom of speech, but rather what is best for our community. And the views of people who are offended by an unnecessary increase in censorship are no less valid than the views of those who are offended by the mere mention of religion or politics. I certainly find unnecessary censorship to be stifling and just plain offensive... not to mention disruptive to interesting or amusing discussions in what is ostensibly a mature gaming community. And being unable to handle exposure to a civil discussion of controversial topics is no less immature than ranting and screaming in OOC.

So, please, lets not let a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

This is all lovely, but being a "shitlord" in OOC is both already against the rules and not actually the topic of this thread. What's being suggested here isn't banning OOC shitlordism, it's banning civil discussion of certain topics on the theory that such discussion may offend some people. And while I've yet to see anyone come fourth and say "I'm offended by any mention of religion or politics" in this thread, several people have expressed their distaste for censorship of such topics.

This is not, of course, an issue of freedom of speech, but rather what is best for our community. And the views of people who are offended by an unnecessary increase in censorship are no less valid than the views of those who are offended by the mere mention of religion or politics. I certainly find unnecessary censorship to be stifling and just plain offensive... not to mention disruptive to interesting or amusing discussions in what is ostensibly a mature gaming community. And being unable to handle exposure to a civil discussion of controversial topics is no less immature than ranting and screaming in OOC.

So, please, lets not let a few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us.

[jackfractal]

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill. What possible reason could anyone have for stepping forward as a sacrificial target? Anyone who did that would become the topic of all further discussion in this thread. Their motivations and history would be picked over, and they would be continuously asked to justify their emotional reactions.

The internet deify's the 'toughguy', the person who is harmed by nothing, who has no emotional reactions of any kind to anything, regardless of how vile. Such a person is often considered to be an ideal.

That disaffect is seen not as an accident of birth and the persons status in the current political climate, but as a sort of moral rightness. This is of course, ridiculous. It is very easy to be unemotional about topics that you have no stake in. If a political or religious discussion will never affect you negatively, then of course you're not going to have any reaction to it.

In comparison, the capacity to be emotionally affected by anything is seen as not only weakness, but voluntary weakness. All emotional reactions are perceived to be a choice. How often have you heard people derided for 'choosing to be offended' about things that directly affect them and their lives?

The thinking is, in short, if you are capable of being hurt, you deserve to be hurt.

I think that's bullshit.

I also think that not being allowed to talk about politics and religion in OOC isn't going to ruin much of anything. It's a minor thing that will make our community more welcoming.

[jackfractal]

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill. What possible reason could anyone have for stepping forward as a sacrificial target? Anyone who did that would become the topic of all further discussion in this thread. Their motivations and history would be picked over, and they would be continuously asked to justify their emotional reactions.

The internet deify's the 'toughguy', the person who is harmed by nothing, who has no emotional reactions of any kind to anything, regardless of how vile. Such a person is often considered to be an ideal.

That disaffect is seen not as an accident of birth and the persons status in the current political climate, but as a sort of moral rightness. This is of course, ridiculous. It is very easy to be unemotional about topics that you have no stake in. If a political or religious discussion will never affect you negatively, then of course you're not going to have any reaction to it.

In comparison, the capacity to be emotionally affected by anything is seen as not only weakness, but voluntary weakness. All emotional reactions are perceived to be a choice. How often have you heard people derided for 'choosing to be offended' about things that directly affect them and their lives?

The thinking is, in short, if you are capable of being hurt, you deserve to be hurt.

I think that's bullshit.

I also think that not being allowed to talk about politics and religion in OOC isn't going to ruin much of anything. It's a minor thing that will make our community more welcoming.

[Guest]

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill. What possible reason could anyone have for stepping forward as a sacrificial target? Anyone who did that would become the topic of all further discussion in this thread. Their motivations and history would be picked over, and they would be continuously asked to justify their emotional reactions.

People always have the option of messaging me on that, some people have in the past, about many different topics.

Until enough people do it, there is no reason to have a rule in place for it.

As stated by all the staff who have commented, this as a rule on it's own would be meh, however staff will always stop it when it goes too far.

[Guest]

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill. What possible reason could anyone have for stepping forward as a sacrificial target? Anyone who did that would become the topic of all further discussion in this thread. Their motivations and history would be picked over, and they would be continuously asked to justify their emotional reactions.

People always have the option of messaging me on that, some people have in the past, about many different topics.

Until enough people do it, there is no reason to have a rule in place for it.

As stated by all the staff who have commented, this as a rule on it's own would be meh, however staff will always stop it when it goes too far.

[EvilBrage]

Muting OOC for yourself may be the solution for you, but it doesn't solve the entire problem. It just blocks you from seeing it, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not continuing on.

 

But it does solve the entire problem. The problem is that I do not like seeing it, and when I click "toggle OOC," it is gone. How much more problem-solvey could it get? Does it really bother you so much what people say while you can't see OOC?

 

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill.

 

It's like being the singular vegan who goes out to eat with fifty of your closest friends, but has an inexplicable psychological compulsion that demands each and every one of said friends eats only vegan-approved foods, despite the fact that you are not obligated to eat what is on their plate and it shouldn't very well matter to you. When they go home at night, you know they're going to break out the thick-sliced turkey bacon.

If the food isn't on your plate, then it's really not your problem. You have a legitimate grievance if someone tracks you down in-game and shouts IC and LOOC at you to the same effect, but barring that, just shut off OOC and let the good times roll.

If you're incapable of that, then simply pray for mercy and never go to 4chan.

[EvilBrage]

Muting OOC for yourself may be the solution for you, but it doesn't solve the entire problem. It just blocks you from seeing it, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not continuing on.

 

But it does solve the entire problem. The problem is that I do not like seeing it, and when I click "toggle OOC," it is gone. How much more problem-solvey could it get? Does it really bother you so much what people say while you can't see OOC?

 

Of course nobody has come out and said "I am one of the people who would benefit from this." In this thread alone, such people have been constantly been described as whiners, babies, immature, and mentally ill.

 

It's like being the singular vegan who goes out to eat with fifty of your closest friends, but has an inexplicable psychological compulsion that demands each and every one of said friends eats only vegan-approved foods, despite the fact that you are not obligated to eat what is on their plate and it shouldn't very well matter to you. When they go home at night, you know they're going to break out the thick-sliced turkey bacon.

If the food isn't on your plate, then it's really not your problem. You have a legitimate grievance if someone tracks you down in-game and shouts IC and LOOC at you to the same effect, but barring that, just shut off OOC and let the good times roll.

If you're incapable of that, then simply pray for mercy and never go to 4chan.

[jackfractal]

Thank you EvilBrage. I was wondering if I could come up with a good example of why the ad-hoc solution that Scopes is proposing doesn’t work and you offer the perfect example.

According to the kind of thinking expressed in your last post, expressing any vulnerability or a desire to have a discussion curtailed is a pointless power trip. It is never an expression of a genuine desire to not engage with an emotionally taxing subject in what should nominally be one’s time to relax, and is thus axiomatically invalid.

Regardless of context or consequence, the right to speak, in all cases, about any topic, in any context (including spacemens) is of higher moral priority then the comfort and enjoyment of those who are less than impervious to harm. If people are being harmed, than the onus is on those being harmed to remove themselves from the community (mute ooc) but they should never complain or attempt reform.

It’s a perfect example. I could not have come up with a better one.

It’s also a clear illustration as to why this should be a rule and not an ad-hoc measure on a case-by-case basis, and it perfectly illustrates why you might not see as many complaints about this as you might expect if you’re watching the mod channels.

Think about it. If you are a person who is being made angry or uncomfortable by a political or religious discussion, you have to ask yourself a very serious question before you start talking to anyone about it. The question is, “Is the person who I ask for help going to be sympathetic and understanding, or are they going to think like EvilBrage?”

A lot of people think like EvilBrage, and until you ask, you can’t know. If you’re unlucky, as has been demonstrated here, you will at the very least, be called a whiner and your complaint will be ignored.

This is why it has to be a rule. If we care about this at all, it has to be a rule.

If it’s a rule, then the reason for stopping any particular discussion of politics or religion is simple. It’s a violation of the rule. That’s it. Done.

If instead it’s done in an ad-hoc seat-of-the-pants case-by-case moderation then the reason for stopping the discussion is the person who asked for this specific discussion to be stopped.

The requirement for validity rests entirely on the head of the specific person making the request and that is not a comfortable situation to be in for anyone. As has been demonstrated in this thread, there are people who believe that any request to curtail a discussion is going to be invalid.

I’ve seen it happen on Aurora more than once.

So people don’t. They don’t complain. They don’t take the risk. They just leave. And often, they don’t come back.

For the ‘toughguys’, for the people people who think anyone who can be made anxious, angry, or depressed by certain political topics are all whining control freaks, choosing voluntarily (as a result of a psychological compulsion?) to impose their wacky demands on the people around them, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea is that we just force out everyone who isn’t a ‘toughguy’, and then we can say what we want, safe in the assurance that we’ve scared off anyone who's actually invested in the things we talk about it.

I, personally, think it’s a problem. Thankfully, it’s a problem with a very simple solution, just don’t allow politics or religion in ooc.

[jackfractal]

Thank you EvilBrage. I was wondering if I could come up with a good example of why the ad-hoc solution that Scopes is proposing doesn’t work and you offer the perfect example.

According to the kind of thinking expressed in your last post, expressing any vulnerability or a desire to have a discussion curtailed is a pointless power trip. It is never an expression of a genuine desire to not engage with an emotionally taxing subject in what should nominally be one’s time to relax, and is thus axiomatically invalid.

Regardless of context or consequence, the right to speak, in all cases, about any topic, in any context (including spacemens) is of higher moral priority then the comfort and enjoyment of those who are less than impervious to harm. If people are being harmed, than the onus is on those being harmed to remove themselves from the community (mute ooc) but they should never complain or attempt reform.

It’s a perfect example. I could not have come up with a better one.

It’s also a clear illustration as to why this should be a rule and not an ad-hoc measure on a case-by-case basis, and it perfectly illustrates why you might not see as many complaints about this as you might expect if you’re watching the mod channels.

Think about it. If you are a person who is being made angry or uncomfortable by a political or religious discussion, you have to ask yourself a very serious question before you start talking to anyone about it. The question is, “Is the person who I ask for help going to be sympathetic and understanding, or are they going to think like EvilBrage?”

A lot of people think like EvilBrage, and until you ask, you can’t know. If you’re unlucky, as has been demonstrated here, you will at the very least, be called a whiner and your complaint will be ignored.

This is why it has to be a rule. If we care about this at all, it has to be a rule.

If it’s a rule, then the reason for stopping any particular discussion of politics or religion is simple. It’s a violation of the rule. That’s it. Done.

If instead it’s done in an ad-hoc seat-of-the-pants case-by-case moderation then the reason for stopping the discussion is the person who asked for this specific discussion to be stopped.

The requirement for validity rests entirely on the head of the specific person making the request and that is not a comfortable situation to be in for anyone. As has been demonstrated in this thread, there are people who believe that any request to curtail a discussion is going to be invalid.

I’ve seen it happen on Aurora more than once.

So people don’t. They don’t complain. They don’t take the risk. They just leave. And often, they don’t come back.

For the ‘toughguys’, for the people people who think anyone who can be made anxious, angry, or depressed by certain political topics are all whining control freaks, choosing voluntarily (as a result of a psychological compulsion?) to impose their wacky demands on the people around them, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe the idea is that we just force out everyone who isn’t a ‘toughguy’, and then we can say what we want, safe in the assurance that we’ve scared off anyone who's actually invested in the things we talk about it.

I, personally, think it’s a problem. Thankfully, it’s a problem with a very simple solution, just don’t allow politics or religion in ooc.

[Contextual]

According to the kind of thinking expressed in your last post, expressing any vulnerability or a desire to have a discussion curtailed is a pointless power trip. It is never an expression of a genuine desire to not engage with an emotionally taxing subject in what should nominally be one’s time to relax, and is thus axiomatically invalid.

Regardless of context or consequence, the right to speak, in all cases, about any topic, in any context (including spacemens) is of higher moral priority then the comfort and enjoyment of those who are less than impervious to harm. If people are being harmed, than the onus is on those being harmed to remove themselves from the community (mute ooc) but they should never complain or attempt reform.

 

Let me start with an aside to you acknowledging your skillful rhetoric, vocabulary, and ability to clearly and concisely convey your point in a diplomatic and/or passive aggressive manner. That's truly a rare quality these days, and commendable.

However, I have to disagree with you, fundamentally because your analogy is at its best a sweeping generalization of the playerbase, and internet users as a whole. I will not deny you the fact that on the internet, thick skin and snarky comebacks are the qualities most often revered and portrayed, but I will contend that this in no way portends to the issue at hand, primarily because no direct offense, insult, or slander is being committed. These things would be an issue if we were honestly debating whether or not to ban asshattery in OOC, but not so much in this discussion of topic restriction. The thing is, if a player(or better yet, a person) finds themselves in an uncomfortable position of having to bear witness to a topical discussion which truly and genuinely harms them on a psychological, emotional, or stressful level, the onus is indeed on them not to necessarily remove themselves from the discussion, but to make their discomfort known. Once this is on the table, the decision falls onto those original proponents to either:

a) Break the "Don't be a dick" rule and continue their discussion, knowing full well that it upsets a fellow player and thus warrant an OOC mute,

or b) Change the topic.

Alternatively, it is an option for the offended party to simply mute OOC from their end. Understand that this is not an inherently negative course of action, though it involves less 'conflict' and would be a reasonable course of action if the player does not believe the topic at hand to be truly offensive in nature but does not wish to hear it regardless.

To simply curtail the conversation out of the gate by making a rule against it is quite frankly a rather hamfisted approach at enforcing 'civility' in a community that is otherwise expected and purported to be one of mature players, and by that definition one that is able to remain civil if left to its own devices. If an offended player does not wish to explore their frankly myriad options for dealing with something they may not like being discussed in a side channel, and instead wishes to leave entirely and by your statement not come back, then they are by all means welcome to. That is their choice, and I find it rather distasteful to paint it as though we are chasing them, torches and pitchforks in hand, out into the countryside that they might not return to terrorize our meager homestead with their wretched sensibilities.

I should also not like to think of the opposite, that we are a honeyed trap wishing to lure in as wide an audience as possible under the guise of... nonconfrontationalism(?) in order to retain them indefinitely unto the twilight years of the server's life, that they may never wish to leave without scruples of doing so.

Understand that I am not speaking of only restricting political and religious discussion, nor am I defending heated debates thereof, I am speaking of putting any kind of metaphorical blinders on the metaphorical horse and calling it well-trained as opposed to artificially unaware. It is much more reasonable to expect the offended to act as mature as the offenders are expected to be, and to present their position in a civil, reasonable manner, so that others may reciprocate. If you want to contest the issue of whether doing so is effectual, I welcome you to, for I know based on first-hand experience, many of them, that the system we have works, and it works well.

Perhaps, though, a case could be made for giving moderators more power, with this discussion in particular the ability to mute OOC, to better moderate the server and curb hostility.

[Contextual]

According to the kind of thinking expressed in your last post, expressing any vulnerability or a desire to have a discussion curtailed is a pointless power trip. It is never an expression of a genuine desire to not engage with an emotionally taxing subject in what should nominally be one’s time to relax, and is thus axiomatically invalid.

Regardless of context or consequence, the right to speak, in all cases, about any topic, in any context (including spacemens) is of higher moral priority then the comfort and enjoyment of those who are less than impervious to harm. If people are being harmed, than the onus is on those being harmed to remove themselves from the community (mute ooc) but they should never complain or attempt reform.

 

Let me start with an aside to you acknowledging your skillful rhetoric, vocabulary, and ability to clearly and concisely convey your point in a diplomatic and/or passive aggressive manner. That's truly a rare quality these days, and commendable.

However, I have to disagree with you, fundamentally because your analogy is at its best a sweeping generalization of the playerbase, and internet users as a whole. I will not deny you the fact that on the internet, thick skin and snarky comebacks are the qualities most often revered and portrayed, but I will contend that this in no way portends to the issue at hand, primarily because no direct offense, insult, or slander is being committed. These things would be an issue if we were honestly debating whether or not to ban asshattery in OOC, but not so much in this discussion of topic restriction. The thing is, if a player(or better yet, a person) finds themselves in an uncomfortable position of having to bear witness to a topical discussion which truly and genuinely harms them on a psychological, emotional, or stressful level, the onus is indeed on them not to necessarily remove themselves from the discussion, but to make their discomfort known. Once this is on the table, the decision falls onto those original proponents to either:

a) Break the "Don't be a dick" rule and continue their discussion, knowing full well that it upsets a fellow player and thus warrant an OOC mute,

or b) Change the topic.

Alternatively, it is an option for the offended party to simply mute OOC from their end. Understand that this is not an inherently negative course of action, though it involves less 'conflict' and would be a reasonable course of action if the player does not believe the topic at hand to be truly offensive in nature but does not wish to hear it regardless.

To simply curtail the conversation out of the gate by making a rule against it is quite frankly a rather hamfisted approach at enforcing 'civility' in a community that is otherwise expected and purported to be one of mature players, and by that definition one that is able to remain civil if left to its own devices. If an offended player does not wish to explore their frankly myriad options for dealing with something they may not like being discussed in a side channel, and instead wishes to leave entirely and by your statement not come back, then they are by all means welcome to. That is their choice, and I find it rather distasteful to paint it as though we are chasing them, torches and pitchforks in hand, out into the countryside that they might not return to terrorize our meager homestead with their wretched sensibilities.

I should also not like to think of the opposite, that we are a honeyed trap wishing to lure in as wide an audience as possible under the guise of... nonconfrontationalism(?) in order to retain them indefinitely unto the twilight years of the server's life, that they may never wish to leave without scruples of doing so.

Understand that I am not speaking of only restricting political and religious discussion, nor am I defending heated debates thereof, I am speaking of putting any kind of metaphorical blinders on the metaphorical horse and calling it well-trained as opposed to artificially unaware. It is much more reasonable to expect the offended to act as mature as the offenders are expected to be, and to present their position in a civil, reasonable manner, so that others may reciprocate. If you want to contest the issue of whether doing so is effectual, I welcome you to, for I know based on first-hand experience, many of them, that the system we have works, and it works well.

Perhaps, though, a case could be made for giving moderators more power, with this discussion in particular the ability to mute OOC, to better moderate the server and curb hostility.

[jackfractal]

So you want people to openly say “Stop this conversation you’re having. I don’t have the emotional energy to process this today. Can’t we just place spacemens?”

And you don’t expect there to be backlash?

In this thread, not two posts above you, is someone who is of the considered opinion that all attempts to curtail discussions, regardless of context, are akin to a vegan forcing people at a dinner party into veganism based on an irrational psychological compulsion.

Anyone making a public attempt to stop a conversation based on the fact that it emotionally affects them is placing themselves in an enormously vulnerable position. Everyone on the entire server will have the opportunity to filter their experiences through their own validity function, and as has already been established, there are at least some people in our community who will always find their reasons inadequate.

So the ‘myriad options’ you were talking about for someone in this position are actually:

 

2. Quietly ask the administration to halt the conversation, risking the fact that the administration may not take you seriously and the person dealing with your adminhelp may be one of the people who will call you a whiner or mentally ill.
   
4. Open yourself up to public ridicule by bringing it up in OOC.
   
6. Leave.

 

I would argue that it is unnecessarily onerous to require people who are asking for consideration to place themselves upon the mercy of public opinion. It is far easier and safer for them to be able to say “Hey, isn’t talking about politics against the rules?”

I will agree that the pitchfork analogy is not a good one, as people are not talking about politically contentious topics with the express desire of driving off the people who are tired of hearing about such things. I did not mean to imply as such, and if I did, I apologize.

Instead, I offer you this as an alternative analogy. I think it fits a bit better.

Imagine our server as a cozy local restaurant in winter. The windows are shut and snow falls softly outside. It’s a Friday night and the darkness outside the windows is deep. It’s not late, but we’re heading in toward New Years, and the night has gotten an early start. We are all there for the same purpose, to eat good food, enjoy the company, and possibly listen the music of a local band that’s going to start up in a few minutes.

The people who talking about politics are like a group of people in the middle of the restaurant smoking heavy Cuban cigars. You know the kind, the good kind, the kind that paint the air of whatever room they’re smoked in with thick grey-blue streaks.

The people who are smoking enjoy their cigars, and the people they’re sitting with may also like cigars, or at least tolerate them, but there are people with asthma in the world, and small children, and the old people with respiratory problems, and it makes more sense for the restaurant to simply ask the smokers to please smoke elsewhere then it is to lose the business the smokers drive away.

There is an entire world outside the restaurant for people to smoke in, the burden of not smoking in the restaurant is not a particularly onerous one as the smokers are there, after all, to eat. A mild amount of forbearance on their part would make the whole place much more palatable for everyone else.

[jackfractal]

So you want people to openly say “Stop this conversation you’re having. I don’t have the emotional energy to process this today. Can’t we just place spacemens?”

And you don’t expect there to be backlash?

In this thread, not two posts above you, is someone who is of the considered opinion that all attempts to curtail discussions, regardless of context, are akin to a vegan forcing people at a dinner party into veganism based on an irrational psychological compulsion.

Anyone making a public attempt to stop a conversation based on the fact that it emotionally affects them is placing themselves in an enormously vulnerable position. Everyone on the entire server will have the opportunity to filter their experiences through their own validity function, and as has already been established, there are at least some people in our community who will always find their reasons inadequate.

So the ‘myriad options’ you were talking about for someone in this position are actually:

 

2. Quietly ask the administration to halt the conversation, risking the fact that the administration may not take you seriously and the person dealing with your adminhelp may be one of the people who will call you a whiner or mentally ill.
   
4. Open yourself up to public ridicule by bringing it up in OOC.
   
6. Leave.

 

I would argue that it is unnecessarily onerous to require people who are asking for consideration to place themselves upon the mercy of public opinion. It is far easier and safer for them to be able to say “Hey, isn’t talking about politics against the rules?”

I will agree that the pitchfork analogy is not a good one, as people are not talking about politically contentious topics with the express desire of driving off the people who are tired of hearing about such things. I did not mean to imply as such, and if I did, I apologize.

Instead, I offer you this as an alternative analogy. I think it fits a bit better.

Imagine our server as a cozy local restaurant in winter. The windows are shut and snow falls softly outside. It’s a Friday night and the darkness outside the windows is deep. It’s not late, but we’re heading in toward New Years, and the night has gotten an early start. We are all there for the same purpose, to eat good food, enjoy the company, and possibly listen the music of a local band that’s going to start up in a few minutes.

The people who talking about politics are like a group of people in the middle of the restaurant smoking heavy Cuban cigars. You know the kind, the good kind, the kind that paint the air of whatever room they’re smoked in with thick grey-blue streaks.

The people who are smoking enjoy their cigars, and the people they’re sitting with may also like cigars, or at least tolerate them, but there are people with asthma in the world, and small children, and the old people with respiratory problems, and it makes more sense for the restaurant to simply ask the smokers to please smoke elsewhere then it is to lose the business the smokers drive away.

There is an entire world outside the restaurant for people to smoke in, the burden of not smoking in the restaurant is not a particularly onerous one as the smokers are there, after all, to eat. A mild amount of forbearance on their part would make the whole place much more palatable for everyone else.

[LordFowl]

A poetic analogy, but fundamentally flawed in the fact that OoC is designed specifically for discussions of all types, except for the current round. The fact remains that willfully cutting out topics of discussion to pander to the percentage of people that are offended by that topic will eventually lead to nothing being permitted on the OoC, because something will always offend somebody.

A more apt modification to your analogy is that everyone in the restaurant is smoking, it just happens that cuban cigars produce more smoke than cigarettes.