History Main / BanOnPolitics

* ''VideoGame/AzurLane'', a Chinese game, censors with asterisks the phrases "free Hong Kong" or "free Tibet".
** The 2022 Northern Overture event introduced a number of Russian and Soviet ships ([[NoCommunitiesWereHarmed referred to as "Northern Parliament" in-game]]), including one named "Kiev", on the exact day that Russian troops began to enter Ukraine. Less than an hour after the mandatory maintenance was finished, an emergency hotfix was pushed that disabled commenting on ''all'' Northern Parliament ships in addition to the ones introduced in the event. A company higher-up commented on the unfortunate coincidental timing of the release, confirming the event was planned about two years in advance.
* Similarly, ''VideoGame/WarThunder'', developed and published in Hungary, with a very significant Russian, Ukrainian, and international playerbase, disabled chat in all matchmade games indefinitely on the 26th of February, two days after the start of the aforementioned conflict, "to make sure that it is not used for political discussions that might offend other players".

** The 2022 Northern Overture event introduced a number of Russian and Soviet ships ([[FantasyCounterpartCulture referred to as "Northern Parliament" in-game]]), including one named "Kiev", on the exact day that Russian troops began to enter Ukraine. Less than an hour after the mandatory maintenance was finished, an emergency hotfix was pushed that disabled commenting on ''all'' Northern Parliament ships in addition to the ones introduced in the event. A company higher-up commented on the unfortunate coincidental timing of the release, confirming the event was planned about two years in advance.

* For 13 years since its inception in 2003, this was how Creator/RoosterTeeth operated. Any discussion threads forbade political discussions, and when core members would do podcasts or live recordings, they would do everything in their power to make sure politics stayed out of their talks. However, following the heat of the 2016 Presidential Election, Rooster Teeth [[SubvertedTrope backed out of this stance]], claiming that having to hold back on political discussions was an unhealthy practice.

* In ''Film/TheException'', when Wehrmacht soldier Captain Brandt is about to be introduced to the former [[TheEmperor Kaiser]] Wilhelm II, the Kaiser's adjutant Siguard lays out some ground rules, including the forbidding of political discussions.
-->--'''Colonel Sigurd von Ilsemann:''' ''You'll address him as sir and his wife as madam. The Treaty of Versailles forbids any other form of address. His left arm is slightly deformed; you will not refer to it or look at it. You will speak only when spoken to and '''all discussion of politics is forbidden'''. Express no opinion of your own, agree with his and remember, at the age of four, he bit the Duke of Edinburgh in the leg.''

-->--'''Colonel Sigurd von Ilsemann:''' ''You'll address him as sir and his wife as madam. The Treaty of Versailles forbids any other form of address. His left arm is slightly deformed; you will not refer to it or look at it. You will speak only when spoken to and '''all discussion of politics is forbidden'''. Express no opinion of your own, agree with his and remember, [[BasedOnATrueStory at the age of four, he bit the Duke of Edinburgh in the leg.]]''

-->--'''Colonel Sigurd von Ilsemann:''' ''You'll address him as sir and his wife as madam. The Treaty of Versailles forbids any other form of address. His left arm is slightly deformed; you will not refer to it or look at it. You will speak only when spoken to and '''all discussion of politics is forbidden'''. Express no opinion of your own, agree with his and remember, [[BadAssBoast at the age of four, he bit the Duke of Edinburgh in the leg.]]''

----

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. Meaning it is permissible to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. This is likely because if you take a general political topic, like UsefulNotes/{{socialism}} vs. conservatism ([[UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies or other types of ideologies]]), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up on by older members). While with a current political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive. Similarly, debates about concrete issues can be based on concrete facts - general debates tend to be based much more on feelings and philosophical / ideological differences.

Politics is not the only subject that gets this treatment, but it is the most prominent; both sex and religion also get this treatment, but both are usually more prone to self censorship anyway. There is a long-standing belief that one should never discuss sex, politics or religion at dinner parties. Of course, in RealLife, dinner parties that ''do'' discuss these topics are always the fun ones. Regardless of that, the point is that some subjects can create fights, and thus many forums ban these subjects.

Many forums not dedicated to politics have an official or unofficial ban on discussing current politics. (Historical politics, as long as it doesn't involve [[GodwinsLaw comparing others to Nazis]][[note]]some forums even censor the ''word'' "Nazi", if only to confound fulltext searches[[/note]], is usually okay if relevant to the matter at hand; 20 years seems to ''usually'' be the threshold for "current", with a few notable exceptions.)

Around here, we call our version of this the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment.

A slight variation on the Ban On Politics often exists in environments with some degree of internal politics, for similar reasons of stopping incipent fighting. For example, a forum may ban some or all discussions of moderation or administrative actions if these discussions have previously led to FlameWar, a venue/bar might ban a band if its presence leads to a BarBrawl, or a group of any sort may bar an individual whose presence fractures the unity of the group for some reason or another. Another similar variation is the "ban on discussion," e.g. closing a post of some sort to comments entirely if it is in regard to a sensitive issue and/or people cannot stop fighting in the comments/attacking the poster.

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. Meaning it is permissible to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. This is likely because if you take a general political topic, like {{socialism}} vs. conservatism ([[UsefulNotes/PoliticalIdeologies or other types of ideologies]]), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up on by older members). While with a current political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive. Similarly, debates about concrete issues can be based on concrete facts - general debates tend to be based much more on feelings and philosophical / ideological differences.

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. Meaning it is permissible to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. This is likely because if you take a general political topic, like {{socialism}} vs. conservatism ([[PoliticalIdeologies or other types of ideologies]]), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up on by older members). While with a current political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive. Similarly, debates about concrete issues can be based on concrete facts - general debates tend to be based much more on feelings and philosophical / ideological differences.

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. Meaning it is permissible to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. This is likely because if you take a general political topic, like {{socialism}} vs. conservatism ([[PoliticalIdeologies or other types of ideologies]]), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up on by older members). While with an actual political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive.

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. Meaning it is permissible to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. This is likely because if you take a general political topic, like socialism vs. conservatism (or other types of ideologies), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up on by older members). While with an actual political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive.

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. That it is allowed to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. That is likely because that if you take a general political topic, like socialism vs. conservatism (or other types of ideologies), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up on by older members). While with an actual political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive.

Many forums not dedicated to politics have an official or unofficial ban on [[BerserkButton discussing current politics]]. (Historical politics, as long as it [[GodwinsLaw doesn't involve comparing others to Nazis]][[note]]some forums even censor the ''word'' "Nazi", if only to confound fulltext searches[[/note]], is usually okay if relevant to the matter at hand; 20 years seems to ''usually'' be the threshold for "current", with a few notable exceptions.)

The reasoning is quite simple: Any discussion of current politics is [[FlameBait likely to lead to a]] FlameWar. Unnecessary flame wars are bad. Thus, any discussion of politics is likely to be {{troll}}ing, although you will get the occassional NaiveNewcomer who genuinely doesn't know any better. Thus, the Ban On Politics.

Ironically, the opposite of this trope is not too rare either. That it is allowed to talk about ''current'' political events, but against the (written or unwritten) rules to talk about ''general'' political issues. That is likely because that if you take a general political topic, like socialism vs. conservatism (or other types of ideologies), it will often be the same old forum members who come up with the same old arguments that they cannot account for and use them as an excuse to flame each other (or new members who interfere by doing the same or are ganged up by on older members). While with an actual political issue, it is often easier to research it thoroughly and have some facts to back your arguments up and there is a fair chance that the discussion will stop once the issue stops being commonly brought up in the media, while the formerly mentioned discussion of socialism vs. conservatism will likely continue as long as humankind is alive.

->''"Henry, I suggest you stick to two subjects: [[TalkAboutTheWeather the weather]] and your health."''

Many forums not dedicated to politics have an official or unofficial ban on [[BerserkButton discussing current politics]]. (Historical politics, as long as it [[GodwinsLaw doesn't involve comparing others to Nazis]][[note]]some forums even censor the word N*zi, if only to confound fulltext searches[[/note]], is usually okay if relevant to the matter at hand; 20 years seems to ''usually'' be the threshold for "current", with a few notable exceptions.)

The reasoning is quite simple: Any discussion of current politics is [[FlameBait likely to lead to a]] FlameWar. [[AndThatsTerrible Unnecessary flame wars are bad]]. Thus, any discussion of politics is likely to be {{troll}}ing, although you will get the occassional NaiveNewcomer who genuinely doesn't know any better. Thus, the Ban On Politics.

The reasoning is quite simple: Any discussion of current politics is [[FlameBait likely to lead to a]] {{Flamewar}}. [[AndThatsTerrible Unnecessary flamewars are bad]]. Thus, any discussion of politics is likely to be {{troll}}ing, although you will get the occassional NaiveNewcomer who genuinely doesn't know any better. Thus, the Ban On Politics.