Paradise Papers claim Hamilton avoided paying £3.27 million in tax on his jet

[3jawchuck]

For instance, this is not allowed:

Well, the rich wanna keep their money. Surprise surprise.

To your credit, that should be in the forum policy. Noted.

The only thing I see wrong with this statement is that is it brainlessly tautological. You can't tell the political alignment of the poster from that statement, rich or poor, left or right, the majority will agree with that sentiment. So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

[turbof1]

For instance, this is not allowed:

Well, the rich wanna keep their money. Surprise surprise.

To your credit, that should be in the forum policy. Noted.

The only thing I see wrong with this statement is that is it brainlessly tautological. You can't tell the political alignment of the poster from that statement, rich or poor, left or right, the majority will agree with that sentiment. So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

We don't, and we don't want to. The only thing mattering to us is that we don't want any left wing or right wing statements, no matter if the poster is differently positioned. The majority will agree with the statement in general, but bringing it in contact with the topic goes overboard.

[3jawchuck]

For instance, this is not allowed:

To your credit, that should be in the forum policy. Noted.

The only thing I see wrong with this statement is that is it brainlessly tautological. You can't tell the political alignment of the poster from that statement, rich or poor, left or right, the majority will agree with that sentiment. So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

We don't, and we don't want to. The only thing mattering to us is that we don't want any left wing or right wing statements, no matter if the poster is differently positioned. The majority will agree with the statement in general, but bringing it in contact with the topic goes overboard.

So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

[turbof1]

The only thing I see wrong with this statement is that is it brainlessly tautological. You can't tell the political alignment of the poster from that statement, rich or poor, left or right, the majority will agree with that sentiment. So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

We don't, and we don't want to. The only thing mattering to us is that we don't want any left wing or right wing statements, no matter if the poster is differently positioned. The majority will agree with the statement in general, but bringing it in contact with the topic goes overboard.

So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

Well, maybe I should have the rest of the post quoted. I don't really want to since the post is removed and although poster is not mentioned, I'd still like to avoid public shaming. Here's an other piece of it:

They're the ones who keep incorporating these 'holes' into the system so they can exploit them.

I mean of course there's sense in it, but if you are going to look at political allignment, you can guess to where this post is leaning on too (again, without putting the poster in any political allignment block, just the comment). And look, if we are going to decent into this it is going to be a "discussion" about left vs right (while again left and right wing might actually suprise you on that, for that matter), it's going to cut progress about the topic.

I admit though: quite the grey zone.

Maybe I'd have to redefine "allowed politics" to something better. The decisions flowing out of politics should perhaps be discussed without discussing the connection to the allignment of the decision makers and who they want to prefere.

[3jawchuck]

We don't, and we don't want to. The only thing mattering to us is that we don't want any left wing or right wing statements, no matter if the poster is differently positioned. The majority will agree with the statement in general, but bringing it in contact with the topic goes overboard.

So, how does it break the "not left or right wing inspired" guideline you mentioned?

Well, maybe I should have the rest of the post quoted. I don't really want to since the post is removed and although poster is not mentioned, I'd still like to avoid public shaming. Here's an other piece of it:

They're the ones who keep incorporating these 'holes' into the system so they can exploit them.

Well that certainly does have more a lean to it. I can see where you're coming from now.

[Just_a_fan]

For instance, this is not allowed:

Well, the rich wanna keep their money. Surprise surprise.

To your credit, that should be in the forum policy. Noted.

So a statement of the obvious isn't allowed because you consider it political even though it is entirely apolitical.

We have, effectively, moderators applying their own subjective interpretation of "political". Posts they don't like will be culled as "the wrong politics". Weibo here we come.

[turbof1]

For instance, this is not allowed:

Well, the rich wanna keep their money. Surprise surprise.

To your credit, that should be in the forum policy. Noted.

So a statement of the obvious isn't allowed because you consider it political even though it is entirely apolitical.

We have, effectively, moderators applying their own subjective interpretation of "political". Posts they don't like will be culled as "the wrong politics". Weibo here we come.

Read the posts further. There is an explanation given.

[Just_a_fan]

I come back to the point that you either allow political discussion or you don't. If you start imposing arbitrary rules based on what you consider "acceptable" politics then you are no better than certain countries around the world.

At the end of the day, it's Steven's garden and he makes the rules, but simpler rules are easier to follow and moderate. My position would be "no politics outside of F1" - the machinations between teams, the FIA, and Liberty are obviously politics that is expected on the site. Anything else isn't.

[dans79]

At the end of the day, it's Steven's garden and he makes the rules, but simpler rules are easier to follow and moderate. My position would be "no politics outside of F1" - the machinations between teams, the FIA, and Liberty are obviously politics that is expected on the site. Anything else isn't.

I agree.

If we where allowed to talk about semi political topics such as this, as long as we don't make political statements or denigrate others, I know what I would do.

I would post my countries tax brackets and ask people to justify the dramatic percentage differences in the amounts payed out in taxes. I'd add it always shocks people how low the bar for the highest tax bracket actually is.

[turbof1]

At the end of the day, it's Steven's garden and he makes the rules, but simpler rules are easier to follow and moderate. My position would be "no politics outside of F1" - the machinations between teams, the FIA, and Liberty are obviously politics that is expected on the site. Anything else isn't.

I agree.

If we where allowed to talk about semi political topics such as this, as long as we don't make political statements or denigrate others, I know what I would do.

I would post my countries tax brackets and ask people to justify the dramatic percentage differences in the amounts payed out in taxes. I'd add it always shocks people how low the bar for the highest tax bracket actually is.

Well you are perfectly allowed to talk about that subject. Come to think of it, looking strictly at this topic this is not political. Only, it is extremely easy to make it. That's why we acted when somebody started talking about it is the fault of the rich people. We don't want the topic decent into a full on discussion about left vs right, because someone will come along and state how it's not the rich people's fault. That's an invitation for a problematic topic.

For me there's a difference between policy and politics. However, if the line gets too ambigious and it causes too much issues for the members, we will simplify and get rid of the discussion. In the near future we will be faced a lot with this as the brexit creeps ever closer. So either we allow a reasonable discussion under a somewhat complex set of rules, or we don't for the sake of simplicity. That's something the moderator team will have to decide on (and ultimately Steven gets the final word on that)

[Shrieker]

I remember writing a post to this topic. Where the hell is it ?

[Just_a_fan]

I remember writing a post to this topic. Where the hell is it ?

It was obviously political. Well, political in the wrong way. Or something.

[henry]

At the end of the day, it's Steven's garden and he makes the rules, but simpler rules are easier to follow and moderate. My position would be "no politics outside of F1" - the machinations between teams, the FIA, and Liberty are obviously politics that is expected on the site. Anything else isn't.

I agree.

If we where allowed to talk about semi political topics such as this, as long as we don't make political statements or denigrate others, I know what I would do.

I would post my countries tax brackets and ask people to justify the dramatic percentage differences in the amounts payed out in taxes. I'd add it always shocks people how low the bar for the highest tax bracket actually is.

Never look at European brackets. You’ll have a cardiac arrest.

[Shrieker]

I remember writing a post to this topic. Where the hell is it ?

It was obviously political. Well, political in the wrong way. Or something.

You can't be serious. So I do remember right, and it was removed ?

[3jawchuck]

I remember writing a post to this topic. Where the hell is it ?

It was obviously political. Well, political in the wrong way. Or something.

You can't be serious. So I do remember right, and it was removed ?

Annoying as it may be, them's the rules. I don't see a problem with politics as long as people stay civil and it stays on topic, but I don't run the place.