I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:
Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.
Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!
Leaving the forum
-
Virtually everyone can figure that out and nobody is questioning moderator best judgement in that regard.
But this is the main issue. They don’t they KNOW what they are doing or even worse THEY DO and CHOOSE to throw/create Molotov cocktail threads/posts just to **** with some people. When we according to you respond with action, we get called biased.
So i guess they complain like children and what they do is never once put into question. All we are doing is following the rules about what is basic moderation. Yes they get targeted because they cause the problems time and time again and don’t get punished.
-
So when does this thread get closed?
-
I like eggs, but I digress.
-
@Cmdr:
IMNSHO,
- We went off topic in this thread PAGES ago.
- Moderators HAVE to stop anything political in nature due to the regulations on the site. Sorry, I know I was not asked for an opinion on this rule, but it is what it is.
- Moderators have a duty to use their best judgement to determine if a comment is incendiary in nature. Incendiary comments (or flames) destroy conversations.
- In my OPINION, the site is to help play the game of Axis and Allies (and variants.) Whether by discussing rules, being a place to play with others, finding opponents, or what have you. So technically, if you want my opinion on it, any conversation that isn’t either a game, or a discussion about a game or game rules, is off topic.
-
“Political in nature” is a bit vague. This is a discussion forum about WWII history. There will be times when people have positive or negative things to say about FDR and Truman (Democrats), Eisenhower (a Republican) or other wartime leaders. As long as those comments pertain to WWII history, they should be allowed.
-
A prohibition against comments which are “incendiary in nature” is also vague, and leaves moderators free to suppress points of view with they or others strongly disagree. Allowing flames is destructive to conversations. Allowing non-mainstream perspectives to be expressed is constructive; and causes conversations to be deeper and more meaningful than they otherwise would have been.
-
Legally, Eisenhower has no political opinion when he was a general, which encompasses his entire tenure during the time frame in question (1938-1946). Even if he was allowed to have a political opinion, it would have no bearing on a tactical discussion - I cannot say there is an instance where Eisenhower’s political leanings impacted his ability to take orders from the CIC.
As for ambiguity, it is generally very obvious what is, and is not, against forum policy. If you call someone a “flaming son of a *****, Republican bottom-feeding scum bag” then we know, beyond any ambiguity, that is both a flaming and political post.
-
-
@Cmdr:
Legally, Eisenhower has no political opinion when he was a general, which encompasses his entire tenure during the time frame in question (1938-1946). Even if he was allowed to have a political opinion, it would have no bearing on a tactical discussion - I cannot say there is an instance where Eisenhower’s political leanings impacted his ability to take orders from the CIC.
As for ambiguity, it is generally very obvious what is, and is not, against forum policy. If you call someone a “flaming son of a *****, Republican bottom-feeding scum bag” then we know, beyond any ambiguity, that is both a flaming and political post.
As a general, Eisenhower was involved in several controversies during and after the war. Discussion of these controversies is a relevant and acceptable subject for a WWII history forum.
I agree that in the example you gave, the quote represents a violation of the terms of service. But a phrase like “incendiary in nature” is ambiguous. On the one hand, it can and should be used as a prohibition against personal attacks. Ridding this forum of personal attacks would be a good thing. On the other hand, some may consider non-mainstream perspectives “incendiary.” The world needs less censorship of non-mainstream perspectives, not more.
Whenever ambiguous, value-laden words like “incendiary” are used in defining list moderation policy, moderators are put into the position of clarifying said ambiguity and making judgment calls. This means list moderators’ decisions will come as a surprise, at least when a moderator’s definition of “incendiary” happens to differ from a forum participant’s. Another consequence of ambiguous words like “incendiary” is that the forum will effectively have multiple list moderation policies, because no two moderators will have exactly the same definition of “incendiary.”
-
Kurt,
You may want to read up on the UCMJ (Unified Code of Military Justice.) ALL soldiers, without regard to rank, may not espouse a, or any number of, political opinions. I knew a guy who got an Article 15 for wearing a unit pin (looks like a unit patch) at a politica rally. Lost $100 USD for it, could have, theoretically, had judicial punishment.
The UCMJ, I can assure you, predates World War II. Therefore, General Eisenhower was not permitted to espouse a political view. He had a tactical and strategic view of how bad the NAZIs were and a desire to crush them, but that was apolitical.
Since he was not the President of the United States during World War II (at any point) then his post-military service (as POTUS is a civilian) has no relevance to any discussion on this board.
I do, however, freely admit any act that a general personally committed during World War II, or just prior too World War II, may be a valid discussion for these forums. After all, if you want to mention General Patton personally purchasing fuel for his tanks in a war game just prior to the war? Sure. Want to talk about Rommel’s book, same story.
I just draw the line at saying “Patton was a Democrat” or “Adolf Hitler was a Republican” for one thing, I kind of doubt either was true - most certainly in the latter, since he was elected as a NAZI, but I digress.
-
I thought Dwight and Truman got into it about “Reds” in the USA (Post war)? When was there ever a Nazi issue?
-
It was an illustration to demonstrate a point.
Suggested Topics
