[Suggestion] Should unqualified Trump-support be a bannable offense?

Discussion in 'Help and Rules' started by woweed, Nov 24, 2018.

  1. Isfendil Budding Semiticist

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2015
    This is referring to what we already ban people for, not what OP suggests we ban people for. Strictly it is the context of the message I quoted.
     
  2. damein fisher This bad boy can fit so many maps in it

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Location:
    Alberta
    I stand by my final point. That the original idea is bad and should be dropped.
     
  3. zhropkick a swell guy

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    It honestly wouldn't be that bad as long as we kept things on topic and enforced US law, also stopped people doing dodgy stuff like stealing content.
    What are people going to do? Deny the holocaust when there's physical evidence of it and thousands of SS personnel who never denied taking part in it? There isn't much people can really do on an on-topic alternate history forum that's that bad, some people might be basket cases regardless but it takes all sorts to make a world.
     
  4. Mustard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    I think the part in bold can't be emphasised enough. This is supposed to be a forum for the discussion of alternate history - how events in the past could have changed, what the significance of said change would have been, etc. At the end of the day, there is nothing stopping a Trump supporter contributing towards this.

    The problem is that the off-topic chat is coming to dominate how this forum operates. By its very nature, chat is supposed to be a dumping ground for anything not relevant to alternate history, yet the rules are now being morphed to accommodate what happens within it. Just imagine how - if suggestions like the one in this thread and other similar ideas yet to be proposed are implemented by the mods - AH.com will look in a few years time. Rather than having a broad range of ideas on how a POD could have changed the past, we'll instead be left with a limited spectrum of views as a consequence of rules forced upon the rest of the forum by chat.
     
  5. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom Kicked

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Having any rules besides vague but limited rules against off-topic or literal spambots is against the spirit of the bible and constitutions. If you want to use one of the domain tlds like .com or .org or .biz should come with a requirement to stick to only removing marketers to be within the spirit of the first amendment. This would of course extend to prohibiting usage of forum software that allows for people to use an "ignore" option too, so you can't have the overly sensitive doing an end run for themselves with that.
     
  6. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    ...You must be joking...
     
  7. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom Kicked

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    I'm not joking. In fact, the only form of law enforcement allowed online would be to make sure that any rules on site would be limited to the offtopic and no viral marketing rules. You know what, make it a felony too so that DAs who want to prosecute and get points for locking away "dangerous cyber criminals" can use applying this rule.
     
  8. woweed New Hippie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    ...What the hell?
     
    January First-of-May likes this.
  9. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    I think you can rest easy.
    Iirc the last time this was brought up Ian specifically mentioned that people didn't exclusively support Trump for reasons that would get them kicked under the current rules on bigotry.

    As to the other theme in this thread I'm seeing the fallacy of thinking Free Speech = Unregulated Speech.
    As I've said before most people don't really want Absolute Freedom of anything, what they want is Free Enough where current restrictions don't apply to them personally.