I happen to agree with Krellin. Before everyone goes oooooo, he's still a ding dong, but if this is to be a primarily gaming site, he happens to be correct.

Even ding-dongs occassionally get it right. There is a lot of controversy created on this site in the forums by a frequent poster that never plays games. This is not a game site to this individual. It is a place to create verbal chaos. I thought the owners did not believe that was valuable to this site. I am seeking to become compliant to the rules. I would wish that as I become compliant, the web site would also seek to bring others into compliance to the primary purpose of this site.

I like ho ho's better. A good Susie Q is also yummy

So, basically half the mods wouldn't be able to use the Forum, then?

I would presume that mods ( and former WONDERFUL mods...) would still be able to use the forum because they are MODS. Cops break the law all the time in the name of duty. So, too, would Mods "violate the rules", so to speak. Mods ARE active participants in the gaming site -- and their forum precense is part of keeping the site healthy, regardless of their gaming activity.

A "User" who only uses the site for forum purposes, without playing games, is abusing the primary intent of the site.

Please clarify for me, specifically, who these instigators are, the controversies they create and with whom they create controversies. Explain and detail for me how they take away from the site.

I've been very clear again and again that this site is a Diplomacy site, that the site is first and foremost going to be the best site to play Diplomacy online and negative forum behaviors are not going to be tolerated because they take away from that. So please illustrate for me these instigators who do not play, the threads, and with whom and how that detracts from the site experience. I would like to see some patterns and concrete details.

I'm with krellin

Lets riot until zultar plays a game again. He instigates all sorts of shit in the forum. What with talking about bringing 3 new variants to the site and everything.

Zultar - I don't think calling out individuals in a forum thread is appropriate. If and when I feel that I can/should call someone out, I will email the mods.

But I think you have the tools at your disposal to root out people that use the site purely for the purposes of the forum, and your Mod team can examine whether you feel their discussion topics enhance, or detract, from the gaming nature of the site.

Zultar - I know you despise me. Enough said - it's a given. But believe it or not, I'm trying to suggest an *improvement* to the site. You want less controversy in the forums, then it is rather easy to identify individuals who's soul purpose in showing up on YOUR website is to post controversial nonsense that has nothing to do with the primary purpose of the site.

I would grant latitude to people that actually PLAY games to have discussions with their friends that they have made here. But a person that have a consistent presence without playing games? And who's posts are frequently devisive? Well...I will leave that to you to decide.

I am humbly making a simple suggestion. If you want less controversy, less overly-heated discussions...them eliminate the source of some of those discussions when the source is not actively utilizing the primary purpose of your website.

Here here goldfinger. That guys needs to put up or...or. Have a nice day. :))

I see the forums and the game as 2 different sides of the same coin, while you can know only one side and be completely happy, it isn't until you know the other side that the picture is complete. While what goes on on one side may not always affect the other, they more often do.The forums are about the game, but also about anything else that people wish to talk about.

Goldy - I love you, but you know that's not what I'm saying.

That being said...I would LOVE to have Zultar and Goldy and Abge and ssorrenn and a couple others in a "Call-Me-a-Dirty-So-N-So: The Mods Revenge" game....heh heh...

Krellin, are you going to bend over in that one too.....hehe

@Espir -- the mods have made it *clear* that the forums are NOT the second side of a coin. They are not something that can be discussed as separate; the forums affect -- positively or negatively -- the gaming site. And the assertion is that forum threads can negatively impact (incoming) users, and lose valuable members from the site.

ssorenn....don't discuss on-going games. lol And...please bring lube...if you don't mind....at least then I'll fake a smile...

@krellin I don't think you read my post because that is what I said. Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I wish.

Espi - Sorry. It is possible I misinterpretted what you said. If I enhanced/clarified what you said, and we in fact agree, then all the better, yes?

I'm not seekign controversy in this discussion. I am seeking an actual discussion for the betterment of this site.

CONFESSION: I'd love to come to this site, check out the status of my games, and not have to read over and over and over again on the forums a bunch of controversial shit. Yes, I (very rarely) create a controversial thread. But mostly I get in trouble because I open a thread and see some fringe-political opinion being expressed. I open a thread and respond because I feel beliefs that I hold are under assault.

To my knowledge, this website does NOT have a particular political/religious view. Therefore, when I see offensive views posted, I respond. (Yes...I do it with a particularly offensive flair...I get that....) But the bottom line is....you want people to stop flinging shit at each other? One of the ways to do that is to minimize the amount of shit-flinging battlefields you let on your site.

Since their is a lot of shit-flinging being generated AT TIMES by people that don't even play games...I would think that mods would think that this is a concern that should maybe be dealt with. I may be wrong...I'm just trying to have a conversation.

@krellin I enjoy reading some of the posts you and others make, however often you degenerate into attacks on the others that get old and repeat thread to thread. I understand that there is a lot of personal history behind all of these, but it was very off putting when I first joined. I agree with your rephrasing of what I said aside from the second side of the coin part at the beginning.

Espi -- and in all honesty, I'm on the razor's edge. My future forum precense, by necessity, must be limited.

But mostly what I did was RESPOND to things that were posted. Very, very rarely, if ever, was I ever puinished for a thread I created. I was punished for my inapprpriate response to existing threads.

I'd be a damned model citizen if the forums were not full of post created with the specific intent of stirring up racial/religious/political controversy.

But the truth is, most of the most severe punishments have gone against a particular political persuasion on the forums....nobody with any knowledge of the history of this site will deny that....so...so if the site moderation team wants to be consistent, and not be hypocritical...there are ways to FURTHER minimize the negative activity they claim to not want. Unless the purpose of their actions was to cull a persuasion of discussion, and not a type of discussion. But...I will trust that that was not their intent.

You make this thread as if there were loads of people who react negatively to "instigators who don't play" which I am guessing must be orathaic and/or semck, but this is just plain false. The vast majority of people on here do not react in any sort of extremes. They may not always agree with orathaic or other "instigators" but they can disagree civilly, which is what we are asking here. It's just mainly you now who attack people relentlessly and have little to no constraints. There are people who disagree on many issues but they do not necessarily resort to the ad hominems that you almost always start with. Furthermore, you asked before that I protect all groups and not let users attack all X or all Y. Since then, you have been perpetrator of this whenever you talk about liberals, calling them libtards and saying that ALL libtards do X, Y, or Z. I can find quotes for you if you would like. You make this thread as if there were loads of other people reacting to threads that make the forum blow up when this is not true. Over and over, and not just me, but other users who say explicitly that it's you. Even people who would agree with you on your Christian view and conservative views point this out.
This forum has always and will always attract a variety of views and differences, and it's perfectly fine to discuss them. We do not advocate for any particular view as a site or from the mod team, but we are going to have civil conversations and if anyone can't have civil conversations on this site for whatever reasons, then this site is not for them. That's simply it.

No, I never suggested that are "loads of people" doing something. But none of the site policies are directed towards "loads of people".

I understand that your bias against me probably makes you incapable of having a rational discussion on the concept -- that's OK. It's your site.

I tried to suggest a policy that would improve the site. You reject. So be it. You choose to make it a disection about things I have done, rather than a discussion of the actual concept I presented -- i.e. you have made your bias regarding anything I have to say quite obvious -- i.e. I can say the sky is blue, a common colloquialism, and you will argue with me on the principle that I made the statement.

Fair enough. I never imaged that that you were unbiased, and you assert the right of ownership to not have to be unbiased. I would only ask that you not pretend to be unbiased when you are not.

YOu refer to my "ad hominems" as if I'm the sole abuser, etc etc etc...every assertion you make against me I can find amonst others. Perhaps I present a more...hmmm...."concerntrated" form of offense....but the offense that you claim to hold against me resides in others.

But the is NOT THE TOPIC I raised that you have disengenuously steered the discussion into, is it?

And since you refuse to discuss the actual OP...there isn't really much point in further discussion.

IF my discussion of this topic is in some way a violation of your rules...or hedging towards...I would please ask that you notify me now before the ban-hammer slides noisily out of it's sheath...

Loads of people do not cheat. Loads of people do not create multi's. None the less...you deem it appropriate to create rules that target an minimal poplation, for the greater good.

I suggested a similar policy regarding forum use which directly parallels other policies.

You fail to see the analogy. I thought you were smarter than that....

Bottom line, Z -- am I allowed to assess what I see on this site and make suggestions? Am I allowed to freely participate without harassment as long as I comply to certain behavioral rules? Or ....why don't you just ban me?

I made an honest thread about a way to possibly improve the site...and you turn it into an attack on me.

Well done...

Krellin, the moderator team does not wish to require that users maintain active Diplomacy play to post on the forum at this time. We thank you for your input, but ask that you send future policy suggestions to [email protected].

-webDiplomacy Moderator

krellin, I am reading your words in a very aggressive manner, perhaps if you want to benefit the site it might be worthwhile to work on rephrasing what you are attempting to say? I can PM you more about how I am reading your posts if you are interested.

Haha^

I just come here to play Diplomacy, fwiw. Sometimes I lurk over forums, but I'm only here to play Diplomacy. This is the best online site for that, in my opinion.

+1^

"Lone racist gunman" move to "killing people"
"Institutionalized racism" supports move to "killing people" from "lone racist gunman"
"Social justice" support hold "not killing people"
"NRA" move to "Social justice" (cutting support)

Never mind. I have Austria to deal with, what was I thinking.

I think we should implement this plan. On an unrelated note, I'll be starting a new variant with 10 day phases where we only hold. Anyone interested in joining, please PM me.

That sounds pleasant.

While I agree with Zultar, I do have to commend krellin in that he's posted a dozen times to this thread and only used ONE swear word.

@Krellin, You know what's interesting, is that this thread seems to have originated from a specific concern you had in an unrelated thread. So you decided to inform a moderator of your concern, and they shortly addressed it. Seemingly to your satisfaction. So what I don't understand is why you decided to come to the forum to complain about something that had already been solved.

So I'm left wondering what this thread is for. I know it's not a serious suggestion because in it you mention you wouldn't want or expect the restriction to apply to former mods, and the person you are complaining about is a former mod.

Basically where I'm at right now is you're just trying to complain in public about other people to try and get some forum members fooled into defending you if you end up getting banned the next time you go on a disgusting rant.

Because we both know that you know damn well if this was a serious concern you would have just emailed or pm'ed us as you've done in the past (as recently as Thursday).

So please, stop wasting everyone's time.

I'll join your game, abgemacht - as long as it's only a 5 point buy-in.

I don't play games - no time.

Crucify me

Yes crucify the twat.

One day I'll have the time to waste explaining to you how you COMPLETELY MISINTERPRET the indented message of Christianity. Until then my friend. And by friend I mean you are a dick.

Haha yes, let the Christians teach me about Jesus of Nazareth. Be sure to bring along your dusty old doctrine books to browbeat me with

I honestly thought for a second that fiedler was talking about the OP.

Let me introduce you to Jesus, Thucydeedees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNNqeaE3T0U

Okay this thread has reached it's limit. We've considered Krellin's request. It's something we've talked about as a team before, and due to programming constraints it's something we removed as too difficult to even consider implementing at the time. Since the trade off would be losing out on some really neat upcoming features for a while to add this in.

Since the request has been logged as has devolved into a troll fest I'm locking this thread. If anyone has any followup to this threads OP please post in the Feature Suggestions thread or email us to ensure we get it.

-WebDip Admin