Regarding the latest infraction appeal,
Tigranes versus Bootstoots, I'd like to raise the question, whether so called "flaming other members" particularly in such "political threads" need to be revised.
Politics is for some a joint efford to achieve consensus, for others naturally a field of polemics and, essentially, dissent. The latter don't think, that politics should be mixed up with "police assignments". There are people, who don't condemn at hominem arguments and personal attacks in the arena of politics, because, in their minds, a degree of nastyness is essentially part of politics, as a means of justifiable self-defense. In the real world, this view maybe not prevails, but is shared by many. This is meaningful for forum moderation policies. Should a forum exclude those "polemic" participiants from political discussions? Shouldn't moderation policies be aware of the difference between political discussion and one dealing with unit art animation?
(I'm saying: "flaming" and "trolling" aren't the same in a "political" thread.)
Or you might just as well prohibit "political" threads at all, if you decide, it would be too much for the volunteering, well-meaning moderators to deal with unleashed, uncensored debate.
Currently, the rule change in moderation policy toward public infraction reviews is a good thing, but the way, how an infraction in the context of a "political thread" has been dealt with (in the above example), only fosters conformism and standardized, unsurprising communication.
Or is the Civfanatics forum a place for people, who want to read nothing but the permanent affirmation of their own opinion? It's so easy to read your own opinion, just post it by yourself. You don't need another human being to do that. Another voice is useful, only if it says, what you would never say, not even doped.
