Update to No Politics rule

[officeglenn 767]

After some discussion among the moderating team, the No Politics section of the CCSLC Code of Conduct has been amended to read as follows:

 

3. No Politics

Posts and topics of a political nature or referring to politics, whether explicitly or implicitly, that are not relevant to the topics of sports or graphic design are expressly prohibited on the CCSLC. This includes but is not limited to: jokes; links to news stories; concepts depicting current or recent political figures or using partisan political symbols; or any other content the moderating team deems to be of a politically incendiary nature. Such content also may not be used in members' signatures, user titles, avatars or profiles. Posts and topics referring to politics that are relevant to sports or graphic design must not be overly partisan or incendiary.

[Gordie 105]

While we're tiptoeing through that neighbourhood, I've been meaning to talk to you about your avatar, Glenn.

I don't know who he is, but elderly, privileged white guys performing power salutes make me uncomfortable.

[goalieboy82 673]

1 hour ago, Gordie said:

While we're tiptoeing through that neighbourhood, I've been meaning to talk to you about your avatar, Glenn.

I don't know who he is, but elderly, privileged white guys performing power salutes make me uncomfortable.

why am I laughing at that.  you just made my day.

 

[goalieboy82 673]

2 hours ago, officeglenn said:

After some discussion among the moderating team, the No Politics section of the CCSLC Code of Conduct has been amended to read as follows:

 

3. No Politics

Posts and topics of a political nature or referring to politics, whether explicitly or implicitly, are expressly prohibited on the CCSLC. This includes but is not limited to: jokes; links to news stories; concepts depicting current or recent political figures or using partisan political symbols; or any other content the moderating team deems to be of a politically incendiary nature. Such content also may not be used in members' signatures, user titles, avatars or profiles.

will there be any exception to this (depending on news)

[officeglenn 767]

12 minutes ago, goalieboy82 said:

will there be any exception to this (depending on news)

 

No.

[goalieboy82 673]

14 minutes ago, officeglenn said:

 

No.

thanks

[Cosmic 4,739]

I'm just not sure the line can be clear. Even saying that teams should or shouldn't get public money for stadia is expressly political, but that has always been well within bounds.

[Sec19Row53 1,095]

Could you please post the before and after versions? I know that there is a line to not cross, but it would help me if I saw how the rule read before this revision.

 

Thanks!

[habsfan1 2,241]

58 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Could you please post the before and after versions? I know that there is a line to not cross, but it would help me if I saw how the rule read before this revision.

 

Thanks!

 

I agree.

[Bucfan56 5,335]

3 hours ago, goalieboy82 said:

will there be any exception to this (depending on news)

 

I mean... Yeah there is, but not really. 

 

 

I’ll reiterate my statement from the Admiral thread about y’all taking this board WAY too damn seriously. I mean, I get it, but there’s gotta be a better way than total censorship and dropping down year-long bans for it. In the very least, the optics are a bit poor, no? 

 

That being said, whatever. I don’t really have anything to contribute to fixing the problem. Your world, boss. 

[dfwabel 1,790]

So does "No Politics" also refer any local discussion(s) of facility financing for sport facilities

 

Will any forthcoming ballot issues or other talks be prohibited?

 

Will anything about any new Ottawa arena now be banned?

 

Will talk about the Clippers arena be banned?

 

Will talk of a new Flames or Stampeders stadium be banned?

 

Will any talk of public money used for sports facilities be banned?

 

Can "The Lo Down" mention to the WWE agreement and Saudi Arabia?

 

Since FIFA Qatar is still set, can we talk about the Qatari government? (Wait, bad example)

 

I just want to know if there are any limits.  If city X had a mayor Y who wants a new arena, is that news able to be discussed with a "No Politics" policy.

 

[the admiral 15,826]

Everything is politics

[dfwabel 1,790]

If the "Official Rules, Regulations and FAQs" were locked in 2015, what are they in 2018 I how amI aware of any internet rules changes such policies were written?

I will, to my best, follow everything, but what IS everything?

 

In the last five years, every other message board gives me a notice on updates of policy, yet I am on CCSLC most yet get the leastn information.

Edited November 25 by dfwabel

[dfwabel 1,790]

23 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

 

Is there any difference in terms from a person who signs up tomorrow against what I did and how would I know it?

[BringBackTheVet 8,853]

14 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

there’s gotta be a better way than total censorship

 

It's not really "censorship".  It's not like any particular point of view is being suppressed - it's an entire subject.  It's not much different than a high-school spanish teacher asking one of her students to stop asking a million questions about French because that's out of scope.

 

It flat out sucks when we're talking about the Cleveland Indians uniforms and it devolves into the same stupid conversation, which derails what might have been a good discussion about the aesthetics.  Also, there's certain board members I genuinely dislike based on the views they've expressed on various topics that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.  That shouldn't be.

 

It's hard though.  There's plenty of times when "political" discussion is necessary and completely relevant.  I think it's more nuanced than a ban on politics.  Pot shots aren't necessary, but discussing (or at least pointing out) how a [insert party here]-controlled state legislature voted to provide x funding for a stadium and simultaneously cut x from the firefighter budget is relevant in certain specific cases.  I'm not sure how to codify exactly what falls into the banned territory, or if it's even possible, but I hope that common sense would prevail (which it eventually did with the Admiral situation, though it took time.)

 

 

 

 

 

[DDR 1,655]

13 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Can "The Lo Down" mention to the WWE agreement and Saudi Arabia?

Dang it. I was just getting ready to launch a fan fiction thread where D'Lo Brown, as the Greatest European Champion, becomes the de facto head of state for all of Europe, rechristening the former-continent as the Nation of Domination, and solves most of the world's ills from his sky high castle fortress in Lisbon. He tackles (spears?) many of the tough political issues of our time and interacts with several world leaders. 

[MCM0313 1,448]

I don't think such a stringent policy is necessary, but then again I've never moderated or been involved in such arguments. 

[Atomic 965]

53 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It flat out sucks when we're talking about the Cleveland Indians uniforms and it devolves into the same stupid conversation, which derails what might have been a good discussion about the aesthetics.  Also, there's certain board members I genuinely dislike based on the views they've expressed on various topics that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.  That shouldn't be.

This right here is why the policy is in place. Couldn’t have said it better myself. 

 

In all honesty, 99% of the time these discussions devolve. In my opinion, there’s no point to them if we all can’t be civil with one another. Sadly, it’s been proven time and time again that some people can’t. 

[DDR 1,655]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Also, there's certain board members I genuinely dislike based on the views they've expressed on various topics that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. 

 

Is this about me saying Sami Zayn should win the 2017 Royal Rumble? 

[Cosmic 4,739]

Can I at least get a mod on record saying we can still discuss Glendale city council meetings?