This is exactly my point. A moderator – one who I respect greatly, in fact – should not have the power to stop a discussion simply because he or she finds it too political for GQ, when a simple alternative exists (moving to another forum) and is frequently done.
GQ does not ban all “non-factual” discussion, especially not when it flows naturally through discussion once the factual question has been answered (and it had been).
Thanks, it was nice knowing you too. I hope you brought popcorn.
Unless running coach made that flag, I don’t see how he could be responsible for the grouping. My understanding is that he was citing some other website explaining the flag. But if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize to running coach. I really doubt running coach is either racist or an ICE sycophant.
The flag was a political flag. The GQ had been answered, and it is not normally outside GQ norms to allow discussion to flow freely (while still remaining on-topic) unless it becomes political. Why should that exemption be there? Why not simply move it and allow discussion to continue? What good does it do to say “Oh well, now this thread is political… WARNING!”?
A discussion about factual issues should not have to be moved to a forum for expressing political opinions just because one person wishes to introduce political opinions into the discussion.
No thread ever HAS to be moved, but are frequently done for the sake of organization. Posts are moved to Cafe Society as routine, with little to no fanfare, even if it began life in GQ. This is the less heavyhanded alternative to stopping discussion altogether. We don’t say “WARNING: NO LITERARY JABS IN GQ” when a discussion about some author or movie gets heated. Why a double standard for when a GQ discussion turns political? Either just leave it in GQ and let it be, or if it must be moderated, moving it is a better decision than stopping the discussion.
It’s not like I hijacked a nonpolitical post to express some wayward political opinion. (To be clear, I have done that in the past, and I have been warned as such, and I accepted those as fair and valid and useful moderation actions.) In this case, though, that flag is innately political, whether the OP knew it or not, and of course the discussion was going to center around politics. And why should it not? It’s an interesting topic, and I think my follow-up question was perfectly reasonable, even if you’re not personally interested in that discussion. But why not simply let it go on?
If you are so interested in discussing the political aspects, why don’t you start a new thread in an appropriate forum?
I find it perplexing that posters will go to far more time and effort protesting an instruction in GQ to take it to another forum than it would take to simply start a new thread.
Exactly. And I speak as one who got my hand slapped a few times for introducing politics into GQ threads.
(In my defence, when I used to use Tapatalk on my old phone, for some reason I had trouble telling the forums apart, and would accidentally post politics into GQ. But I accepted the gentle rebukes from Colibri, precisely because I want GQ to be about factual matters, and introducing politics into a thread about a factual question will turn it into a debate.)
Because the thought simply didn’t occur to me. It seemed a perfectly innocuous question and I did not spend time wondering if it would be better as a separate thread, since that particular question was already answered, and people interested in that flag were already there in that thread. I don’t have an issue with a forum existing specifically for politics, but as internet discussion tend to go, sometimes conversations just naturally flow between categories, like this one did. If you hadn’t said anything, I would have assumed – erroneously, perhaps – that starting another thread just to ask that question would’ve just gotten the two of them merged since they were so close.
What I’m appealing isn’t the separation of categories, but the needlessly heavyhanded moderation that happens when a GQ thread crosses over into politics specifically, as opposed to crossing over into any other category like CS or IMHO or TQZ. Why is “miscategorization of a thread” worthy of any sort of warning, and why specifically is politicization more dangerous to a GQ thread when the original question has already been answered, and when the topic at hand was revealed to be innately political in nature? In other words, why a “No politics in GQ” rule to begin with?
If the warning was for arguing moderation outside of ATMB, that’s OK by me. (In fact, I take responsibility for that. I vaguely remember having seen a similar notice before, but I didn’t think too much about it before asking in that other thread. I should’ve known better.)
However, if the warning was for a political discussion in GQ – when the object of the question itself is inherently political – THAT is what I do have a problem with. I do not think such a rule is necessary, or able to objectively enforced, or makes the board a better place.
This. Why is it ever worthy of a slap on the wrist to begin with, much less a warning? Why not simply let it be discussed, or move it as necessary? What is so terrible about continuing a GQ discussion into politics once the GQ portion has been answered?
It is right there in the title of the forum and, if that isn’t enough, the rules we agree to when we sign up.
And what do you mean “flow naturally into politics”? That is nowhere near what happened in this case.
Because there still may be factual issues flowing from the original factual question. Moving it to GD makes it more difficult to keep the thread focussed on factual issues.
That’s just a tautology. “The rule is there because it’s there.” I’m arguing it’s a bad or counterproductive rule.
It’s not always so clear-cut. The question I asked – whether there really is an overlap between those particular types of LEOs singled out in the flag – is both political and factual.
Because when politics get dragged into it, entire threads get derailed, name-calling ensues, and the OPs original intention / question gets left behind.
If every time someone mentioned “When Harry Met Sally,” everyone got heated and derailed the thread, there would probably be a rule about not mentioning “When Harry Met Sally.”
But in this case the OP HAD been answered, and the object of the OP’s question was innately and unavoidably political. It’s like asking a GQ question about something Trump did; how could you leave politics out it? And there are already rules about hijacking and name-calling. Politicization shouldn’t be a separate concern, as long as it doesn’t hijack the thread with an unrelated political concern.
If we’re talking about, I dunno, the flight formation of ducks and someone jumps in with a random political bash, yeah, okay, I get your point there. But that’s not what happened here. It was a direct followup to a question about a political symbol.
Of course it’s political. It’s just not a jab. How is calling an agency who enforces race-based actions, and is frequently staffed by self-avowed white supremacists, “racist” anything more than acknowledging their platform? It’s like calling the Left “socialist” or the Right “religious”.
Whether I broke a rule is a judgment call. I don’t think my statement broke the rules, but Colibri does. Colibri’s decision stands, no matter what I think, and I’m OK with that.
However, going forward, I AM asking for the rule to be changed, to either allow on-topic politicization of GQ threads to continue once the GQ has been answered, or to simply move them to P&E. Rules against hijacking, drive-by bashings of unrelated things, namecalling of other posters outside the Pit, etc. are still fine, and sufficient – in my opinion – for making sure GQ threads don’t get out of hand once they become political. I do not think there should be a rule against politics in GQ, again, so long as the politics involved are reasonably on topic and the basic factual element has already been addressed.
Edit: And actually, is there a list of GQ-specific rules somewhere? I don’t see it in ATMB or in GQ?