Fandom bans politics on GameFAQs (outside of Current Events)

worse than that Reg, CE is at the forefront of this issue because that's where a lot of are the mods come and where a lot of things get modded, partially because it's where a lot of people went to after the politics boards were killed.

"political discussion does not make sense as a core driver of conversations on a site dedicated to video games and gameplay"

This is true, and people keep ignoring that forums and such that ban this stuff get less toxic overnight by default. I don't want GameFAQs turning into Twitter. There's a reason I come here and not there.

this place hasnt been Twitter for the last 20 years, why would it start now?

be in the lookout for Non-Political Americans Rushmore and Least Horny Video Games Rushmore, happening this week

TimmyQuivy posted... I understand a sticking point is that we have a forum thread for feedback for changes weve made and will not be revisiting. I will take responsibility for not explicitly framing our intentions in that initial announcement for the feedback thread - the thread is to allow a place to, yes, voice your frustration, as well as ask clarifying questions and remove ambiguity where possible.

The question was asked how the CE change makes the community safer specifically. There are, unfortunately, individual direct threats and doxxing weve seen throughout our time overseeing this site. Those inevitably have a direct line to a political conversation that becomes heated. But safety is also about creating a safe environment broadly - Even if not directly attacked, there are members of this community who may feel generally unsafe witnessing some of the broad, negative, and/or generalistic statements that have been posted here. Also, if a new user comes to the site and sees vitriolic, out of control conversations, they are likely to leave and go elsewhere.

As the owner of this site, we view fostering a safe and reasonably welcoming environment as a critical priority. We viewed the decision we came to after internal discussion as the most reasonable compromise - addressing some long-standing concerns that were raised to us in a way that still creates an area for discussion users have requested. I understand that by its nature compromise doesnt make anyone 100% happy. To be upset by this decision is still understandable. My responses have been simply to add context and clarification for the record. I do not fault anyone with an opposing viewpoint to our decision.

I understand a sticking point is that we have a forum thread for feedback for changes weve made and will not be revisiting.

I don't get why they even care. How do you inherit something so old (which you didn't even ask for and it just came bundled with the thing that you actually wanted to buy) and your first thought isn't "do the bare minimum required to keep it alive but otherwise don't bother with it"? They don't want to actually do anything new with GameFAQs, this is pointless.

I understand that by its nature compromise doesnt make anyone 100% happy

I don't think there's any way to fight the changing tides

know the difference between a complete ban and the allowance of it on CE? zero. absolute zero difference between that one board, a board people actively refuse to go to, and everywhere else.

this is almost certainly correct but I'm tired of rollin over for stuff and this is about the closest thing to a home I've got

love you Bolo, we will always be e-roomates who run topic series way too long-running and overly complicated for our own good

TimmyQuivy posted...

I will answer with a few thoughts:

For consistency, Fandom's Community Creation Policy states that we do not permit communities "whose main purpose is to represent a political party, advocate for or against a political ideology, or generally opine regarding political issues". I think the key word is "advocate". In CE in particular, "News event happened" conveys a very different message to start a conversation than "Political Party was Right Because News Event" happened.

I understand that there is still some ambiguity in that definition. As alluded to by many, "politics" these days is a terminology that is could be extended to many sorts of conversation in every day life. I don't think it's possible (or reasonable) to try to sit here and think of an all-encompossing definition.

But it's also good to be clear about what politics is not:

DToast and now myself endorse one of the moderator's (Uta) example on something that is not inherently political - (original: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/11-team-gamefaqs/80747428/979919729):

"If a game has political theming it's of course fine to talk about that. I don't think anyone is going to be moderated for talking about the anti-capitalist themes of Final Fantasy VII. I don't think anyone is going to get moderated for talking about Wolfenstein either. As for that second comment. Anything that's say, a basic human right or even just a basic fact about reality? That's not political. Just because one particular group likes to make science and social denial their political points doesn't mean those things actually are politics. We're not going to go around moderating people for being Trans or talking about Trans issues "

To broaden it a little - Politics is not discussing political messages directly relating to video game gameplay/design, discussing how a video game incorporated a member of a tradtionally underrepresented group into the game, discussing how an element of your identity is or is not properly represented in a game. Our intention is to use a stringent definition of politics that covers clear trolling and flame wars, and not a loose definition to simply police speech.

Obviously, there is still intepretation in some of these definitions and examples, but common sense can be readily applied for 99% of the things not covered thus.

but how horny am I allowed to be

In CE in particular, "News event happened" conveys a very different message to start a conversation than "Political Party was Right Because News Event" happened.

I don't think it's possible (or reasonable) to try to sit here and think of an all-encompossing definition.

I don't think there's any way to fight the changing tides

I don't think anyone is going to be moderated for talking about the anti-capitalist themes of Final Fantasy VII.

Is simply mentioning lgbt considered political?

Neo (Moderator)3/11/2024 1:13:17 PM
#4

In an opening post like this one: Yes.

Posts like this do not inspire confidence or 'trust' btw.

My favorite part of the whole thing was everytime someone brought up all the other non gaming boards the response was "well if you think another board should be shutdown we'll make sure to bring it up for review".

What is the context of this response...?

My favorite part of the whole thing was everytime someone brought up all the other non gaming boards the response was "well if you think another board should be shutdown we'll make sure to bring it up for review".

Like literally the opposite of the point they were trying to make.

My favorite part of the whole thing was everytime someone brought up all the other non gaming boards the response was "well if you think another board should be shutdown we'll make sure to bring it up for review".

My favorite part of the whole thing was everytime someone brought up all the other non gaming boards the response was "well if you think another board should be shutdown we'll make sure to bring it up for review".

Wait, what? Which post was this

My favorite part of the whole thing was everytime someone brought up all the other non gaming boards the response was "well if you think another board should be shutdown we'll make sure to bring it up for review".

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/10-ask-the-mods/80718723