Support NeoGAF

[RokkanStoned]

Not allowed to stream on Twitch, not allowed to talk about on ResetEra (as per their rules).

Well per their rule they've let a lot of leeway (in case a game they find appropriate isn't appropriate on Steam of course) and instead referred to that "not allowed on Twitch" as a general measuring stick, meaning that there must be something that lead Genital Jousting to be viewed as "inappropriate" to even discuss (not show a gif or such, but just discuss it).

 

[Redneckerz]

"No, I won't date trans, fats, ugly people. What's the peoblem?" --> User Banned (2 Weeks): Transphobia. https://www.resetera.com/threads/ne...t-date-trans-people.50541/page-6#post-9519601

WELP

Well, that one isnt that hard, right? The user equates trans people to fat and ugly people, which is clearly inflammatory. As much as we love to criticize bans here, that isn't to say that they are all bad. However, 2 weeks for that is rather stark.

I did glance at it the first time, just didn't think that anything in particular warranted a response from me.

First off: Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond Kitsune.

Now on to this bit of the post you addressed to me. I would lie if i wouldn't say that this didnt disappoint me a little bit. The way i see it, is that multiple people jump on your opinion. Myself, i have told before that we should welcome people with views that contrarian to our own. In that sense, its why i say i find it a bit disappointing that my post, which you percieved as feigned civility, was not worthy of answer. I ponder, why were the others worthy then, when they would fall under the usual name-calling, zero-effort posts? I don't know you, so i went by with good faith and addressing your comment thoroughly. To then not answer to that by way of ''I didn't think that anything in particular warranted a response from me'' is in that sense a bit uncalled for.

Past all the italicized words and feigned civility, you're not saying anything new here. Making up your own terms for moderators and users as if to imply there's a behind-the-scenes secret agenda where specific users are protected and willfully ban-bait everyone else for the mods to take out is some Alex Jones conspiracy-type unsubstantiated bullshit.

There is a reason why i use my own terminology instead of using direct names, the predominant reason being to distinguish these users from the rest of ERA, amongwhich are fine people. And no, that implies nothing else.

As for the secret agenda: I literally yesterday just posted a clear cut case where this is the case, where a rare ban reversal was performed. You can't honestly tell me you looked at that and thought that this is not user-protection. Especially when its around a user who baits the living daylights out of others to get people banned. Even if you would find that theory conspiracy-like, then ill just hover some facts.

• This is from a random user who literally got one line (A staff action) undertaken based off of his posting.
• This is from the aforementioned Little Helper. Notice how many blue lines are drawn. This means the staff undertakes a shitton of actions based on what this user posts. This covers the willfully ban-bait part of your post. (Edit: Updated picture.)
• That same user was given a 3 day ban for that kind of behavior, only for the ban to be quickly reversed. This covers the where specific users are protected part of your post.

This is just one user. I can highlight you another one who is subject to these same two variables, and more even. Please, can you tell me why this is a conspiracy theory, when data suggests otherwise? If i really would go into conspiracy theory, i would throw some wildly odd stories around - Which is why i don't do that. These conclusions are made by own review, by looking at both sides of the coin, and by looking for more context before arriving at said conclusion. If the above example is a conspiracy theory, then why is there verifiable data? Why is it documented? Why do you think the comparisons with OldGAF get made, if all of it is just a conspiracy theory?

Whatever controversy you unearthed from oldgaf does not apply to resetera as well, none of the old mods are still mods over at that site, and transparent moderation was implemented precisely to avoid these kinds of conspiracy theories AFAIK.

Just because the staff is different does not mean that The Names operate on a very similar playbook as some of OldGAF's moderation. I don't think that needs further emphasis, but if you want, ill provide. You speak of transparent moderation. In a way i agree, some of the things that happen there are very transparent indeed. But is it really transparent when every concern has to be addressed privately and word goes out that this is completely ineffective and the real issues aren't addressed? If you think this was not a problem, then why does that word go out? And why do you think The Names close these threads instantly? (I can source this if you want to.)

Contrary to what you may believe, it is not in the interest of the forum (or any forum) to ban most of its members. Also if you get banned, it's not because the secret agenda was out to get you for daring to express a "different" viewpoint, you probably just said some dumb shit and others thought it was dumb. It's really usually not much more complicated than that.

Alright, can you explain this ban? This one got a permanent ban for ''User Banned (Permanent): Repeated arguing in bad faith, antagonising other members, long history of infractions.''. This is what the user said:

''Are you just daft? I am not saying she shouldn't protest. If she wants to protest by all means, go protest! Start a neighbourhood rally, secure written signatures from people all over the country.

This is not the way to do it man.''

If that is arguing in bad faith, then why is this post saying very similar things, but without the line ''Are you just daft?'' not an offense? Hey look, its also by that user i just linked to who got verifiable protection.

But right, lets just zoom out a little bit more and look at the prior posts of the banned user, for context. After all, i would want to know why that particular post was worth a permban. Perhaps the user said something that was uncalled for?

The user starts replying to another user's reply. The other responds in a rather aggressive manner. The first user then addresses this with ''Are you just daft?'' which got him permbanned. Before this happened, the user calls it quits because clearly, not a normal discussion was to be had, and even agrees with the other poster who said something very similar to his.

So, what does this tell me?

• Do these posts correlate to the accusation ''Repeated arguing in bad faith''? I don't think that's the case here.
• Do these posts correlate to the accusation ''Antagonizing other members''? Is calling someone daft (Which really is just one of the more friendlier ways to describe someone) that provocative? Especially in relation to the The Little Helper who got ban reversed before.
• Does this user have such a long history of infractions? This reason is consistently given, to the point where you can ask yourself if it is true, as these days you can verify that with the banbot. Prior to this, this user served a one month ban, with the reasoning: ''Member has been banned (1 month): thread derail + thread whining. You do not get to dictate what people from the US should care about - especially when it comes to a US TV show. History of multiple warnings and bans.'' - Notice how again it references the history bit. Tell me, does that post justify a month ban? Now, we can only assume this user has had prior warnings that aren't covered by the banbot yet, so we just have to assume this out of good faith.

To me, it reads that he got the perm for the ''Are you just daft?'' line. Tell me, is that line really that much over the line to justify such a heavy tool like a permban, given the (verifiable) history of this user? It suggests that the ban history of users is playing a big part in how users are actioned. And whilst this isn't absolutely a bad thing, it makes little sense to serve a perm over that post, with this prior history and with a rather big difference in timeframe (Two months). By comparison, one ex-mod had a day ban, then did a self requested ban for a week, (This isn't covered by the bot) then barely 2 days later got banned again a week, then changed her name, and got a 2 week ban. This user does not get warnings apparently. Now is on a month ban. Sure, this user gets banned, but even here, protection is at play, and who else is allowed a name change to start anew?

That you criticize each resetera post you see in depth instead of the usual name-calling, zero-effort posts in this thread is a step up from the rest of this thread, but not really an improvement. All these paragraphs directly addressing something that the people it addresses are never going to read - that's some A+ level obsession with the site as I mentioned above, and I really don't see the reason why.

It was born out of an ERA user who did come by to criticize my words. In return, i replied with a rather extensive post, to which said user never has replied to. This is the part i find problematic: These users have strong opinions over others or even sites in general (Much like how it happens here) but they never source their statements and, when addressed, simply refuse to take part in the discussion.

Is it obsessive? Well, ill have to agree with you. Its why i am slowly backing out of these things. I only cover what interests me, and per my own words, have opinionated on other places aswell. But alas, i agree that the other place is pre-dominant here. Be as it may for various reasonings. It also serves as a place to vent, a place to welcome differing opinions such as yours (And yes, i am well aware that it is disagreed upon but it is allowed to be voiced, which is yet another thing you won't easily see happening elsewhere) and i welcome these posters back. And, yes, i agree that eventually, this thread (For me atleast) will be enough. I can't speak for others, ofcourse.

It also makes zero sense; if you feel that strongly about something, why type a rebuttal HERE to something being posted on resetera? Why not go to that site and confront them directly? (that's a rhetorical question - everyone knows why.)

Again, the original story was a rebuttal to a user that actually came here to make a post. And if you would post these detailed comments over there, what do you think will happen with the current list of The Names and The Little Helpers? Its partially also why this thread exists aswell - Because such analytic commentary is allowed here.

Hahaha, The Helper was rescued by The Names.



News editor for DualShockers.

Covered that more extensively yesterday: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/off-...rsonal-keep-it-in-here.1462647/post-253359267

 

[Adry9]

Well, that one isnt that hard, right? The user equates trans people to fat and ugly people, which is clearly inflammatory. As much as we love to criticize bans here, that isn't to say that they are all bad. However, 2 weeks for that is rather stark.

Hmm, I don't think he does, I believe the sentence is just poorly structured. He probably refers to trans people, fat people and ugly people as different groups.

But if your interpretation was the case then the ban would be justified yeah.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Redneckerz doing Forum God's work.

Hmm, I don't think he does, I believe the sentence is just poorly structured. He probably refers to trans people, fat people and ugly people as different groups.

But if your interpretation was the case then the ban would be justified yeah.

I read it as different groups too.

 

[KevinKeene]

From my perspective, you are over interpreting the term "they are not worth it". There are two ways of reading this: The effort spent to convince them is coming with such a high opportunity cost that it might not be be worth the effort and thus not a good strategy. Which I think is a valid validation and probably the correct interpretation. The other is they are not worth the effort as persons; calling them as humans worthless, rather than the effort spent to sway them strategically worthless. If I were to agree with your interpretation of Brazil's posting, I would be appaled by the postings as well, but I do not think this is likely. If you have contact to Brazil, you could ask him, which interpretation is correct. I'd be absolutely willing to admit my mistake and reverse my judgment in case he says it is the second.

It's good that you're aware of the two ways of interpreting Brazil's statement. Considering resetera's overall attitude, however, I cannot give this user the benefit of the doubt. Resetera has made it clear time and time again how they treat those of differing political views: give up family and friends, punch people in the face unprovokedly, take away their livelihood. I'm almost sure a big portion of resetera would be in favor of modern versions of concentration camps where dissenters are gathered. Unfortunately, I'm not joking here. That's how crass that community has presented itself.

It is pretty much impossible to say what is endgame. If you asked people of the "auth left" (I put it in exclamation mark because I have only ever heard the term from you and I do not want to unwittingly use a hateful term in case it has such history) what the end game is, they would say it is a world in which no one is discriminated according to race (though I'd prefer they use ethnicity), gender, sex, age, disabilities. A goal I think is very commendable by the way, the only think we would be in disagreement on here is the methods. The idea is to use affirmative action and linguistic limitations to counterbalance existing inequalities until such measures are not needed anymore. I would prefer a change by education, free access to higher education, actions towards desegregation, much, much highere taxation of inheritance, laws to counteract structures that are indirectly sexist (e.g. the pathway to professorship in Germany effectively forces women to decide between family and career; such a system cannot be upheld) while maintaining the highest possible degree of personal freedom.

1.) Auth-left is no more a hateful term than alt-right. I'm a bit baffled why you would even think that since you know what it pertains to. As a libertarian left myself (IF i had to label myself), it's important to properly adress the part of the left that is against personal freedom. That's why auth-left is a perfect descriptor.

2.) Of course, a world without discrimination would be nice. But there's two issues with the auth-left's stance: for one, they focus on a select few areas of discrimination and ignore ALL the other areas. Most prominently the problem of classism that penetrates all groups of people, no matter their skin, sex, or sexual attraction. Of course, resetera doesn't like to talk about that, considering a big chunk of its users have fancy, low-effort jobs that still pay highly. The kind of jobs where you can post on an internet forum all day ... So that's something they ignore despite the principle of intersectionality. It's easier to find an enemy when you focus on a narrow peer group than looking at the wider problems that relate to everone - but fuck white rural farmers who are facing poverty, 'cause they're white!

For second, it's the 'how', the methods of the auth-left to achieve that world without discrimination. As mentioned above and in my previous posting, the impression I have is that they simply wish for dissenting people to 'go away'. Not enter discussion with them, not be patient, not lead by good example. No, instead the auth-left wants to force these people 'away' by taking away their livelihood, ridiculing them in the media (I'm shocked that there's no wider backlash against Hollywood constantly shitting on republicans) and even being okay with violence used against them, often with gross postings like 'it's not just what happened to him, but I also don't feel any sympathy'. That's just scary as fuck. I want to say this clearly: Despite defending right-leaning, I'm not politically right. Again, libertarian left. However, I'd always risk my own life to save even a neonazi, because WE'RE HUMANS. And I just can't forgive people who are okay with violence against other people. It's totally scummy and goes against any ideas of 'making the world a better place'. I think the auth-left has made it clear what their methods are/would be and I think that is scary and both legally and morally wrong. I want to think that you agree with me, Yoshi, that reaching your goal by ruining a large amount of people's lives is not a valid method to go about it.

I do not think I do but I am of course not the best person to validate my own actions, due to an inherent bias.

Let me use internet-slang for a moment: Don't 'cuck' yourself Everyome is biased one way or another. Your opinion isn't lesser because of it. So speak freely :]

Hope to see you on the gaming side more often now.

 

[SatansReverence]

RE: this thread apparently being so active.

It averages less than a post an hour.

Compared to

say, a thread in OT getting 5.5 posts an hour.

Or

A gaming side thread with 6 posts per hour.

Oh yes, this is totally the most active thread on gaf

 

[Yoshi]

I'm almost sure a big portion of resetera would be in favor of modern versions of concentration camps where dissenters are gathered. Unfortunately, I'm not joking here. That's how crass that community has presented itself.

I practice the same here as I try to do everywhere: Do not judge the individual by the group it belongs to. I have no indication Brazil meant the heinous thing and merely being on staff for Resetera is not sufficient argument to believe he did.

I want to think that you agree with me, Yoshi, that reaching your goal by ruining a large amount of people's lives is not a valid method to go about it.

I do agree and I have argued against it consistently. Ridiculing republicans ideas in media is fine though.

Hope to see you on the gaming side more often now.

Even on Resetera I have only been posting few things int he gaming side, because of my time constraints not allowing to play much. I have played the following games this year:
- Assassins Creed Rogue
- Croc 2
- Ittle Dew 2+
- Burnout 3
- Kya Dark Lineage
- Tonic Trouble
- Soleil
- StarTropics
End of list. Two games from this decade. I doubt there are many people who would like to talk about these games. But I will make some effort to post more on the gaming side.

 

[Redneckerz]

Scroll through this thread, I would love to see you rebuke Redneckerz thorough and well structured posts. Please do, I encourage you. Maybe it will be enlightening, and maybe not.

In general, i find that it very rarely happens. And you know, that's fine too. Its just a bit much when the cycle repeats ever so often, hence why i just link back to my posts from time to time. Its all out in the open and i don't believe i am not unwelcoming to dissenting opinion, provided its well underlined. Its why i can take Kitsune's post as such despite that i disagree with it on various points.

Hmm, I don't think he does, I believe the sentence is just poorly structured. He probably refers to trans people, fat people and ugly people as different groups.

But if your interpretation was the case then the ban would be justified yeah.

Ah yes, now with the post readily at, i can see the groups part. Still, aside from poor structure, putting trans people side to side with fat and ugly people is rather.. not a good look. I mean, it just invites The Names or Little Helpers to keep a record of your behavior, you know? Hence why the user did an account suicide on July 12 and got permed for ''User Banned (Permanent): Downplaying sexism, thread whining, history of bigoted remarks.''

Still 2 weeks. I think we both can agree that the post by itself isnt going to get awards for quality.

Redneckerz doing Forum God's work.[/B]



I read it as different groups too.

Spoiler

I am actually just fishing for a custom title so i can then happily retire in my GAF attic by the sea.

I miss Sunhilegend and Mandrake, (And el_torro) by the way. Now those people are rightful Forum GODS.

 

[KevinKeene]

Ridiculing republicans ideas in media is fine though.

It absolutely is. I just wish the media would be more balanced and also riducule the auth-left more often (themes like safe spaces, the whole triggered!-thing or fear of attractive females. Just to give some examples). Also, while I disagree with most republican views, not all deserve ridicule. I'm in favor of pro-life, but not for religious or misogynistic reasons. Should I be ridiculed for that?

Even on Resetera I have only been posting few things int he gaming side, because of my time constraints not allowing to play much. I have played the following games this year:
- Assassins Creed Rogue
- Croc 2
- Ittle Dew 2+
- Burnout 3
- Kya Dark Lineage
- Tonic Trouble
- Soleil
- StarTropics
End of list. Two games from this decade. I doubt there are many people who would like to talk about these games. But I will make some effort to post more on the gaming side.

My big wish is that you'd finally play Mass Effect 1. You keep saying how much you hated ME3 and I agree fully with it. And yet I love the first one. It's SO different. Go play it and report bacj in detail with a dedicated thread about your experience with the game

 

[Redneckerz]

Completely off topic but lmao at that custom tag. Love it. Thank you, staff for hearing my pathetic semi-sarcastic beg!

 

[prag16]

Sorry, I cannot say anything about the banbot. I am very much against modern internet bullying tactics and from the outside look this banbot appears to be the same thing as people hunting through old twitter postings to find mud on people. From the limited amount of stuff I have seen from Kiwifarm, they are hardly an unbiased source of information. That being said, in cases like yours they sould have just have ignored your reports, notlike you hurt anyone with this, even if they felt they were unjustified reports. In principle, it could be a much better policy to ban people from topics than outright banning from the bord for very specific areas of deviation.

As other have said, it's strictly a list or banned / warned posts. Directly from Era. There's no commentary or spin applied.

http://resetera.kiwifarms.net

You can't tell me that many, hell, a majority of the bans listed there are justified. It's all right there plain as day.

 

[RoadHazard]

Well, I got banned on RE for arguing that the recent immigrant wave to Sweden hasn't been a net positive for the country economically. And while I'll agree that my argument wasn't very well supported with scientific sources, I still think it's a bit ridiculous that this would get me banned. I'm very far from a racist, I just have a sober view of what's going on. And the guy who called me a racist for saying this didn't get banned, so yeah.

 

[The Sane Psycho]

Of course, resetera doesn't like to talk about that, considering a big chunk of its users have fancy, low-effort jobs that still pay highly. The kind of jobs where you can post on an internet forum all day

You mean collecting gibs from the government?

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Well, I got banned on RE for arguing that the recent immigrant wave to Sweden hasn't been a net positive for the country economically. And while I'll agree that my argument wasn't very well supported with scientific sources, I still think it's a bit ridiculous that this would get me banned. I'm very far from a racist, I just have a sober view of what's going on. And the guy who called me a racist for saying this didn't get banned, so yeah.

There's no room for nuance at ree.

 

[dolabla]

Well, I got banned on RE for arguing that the recent immigrant wave to Sweden hasn't been a net positive for the country economically. And while I'll agree that my argument wasn't very well supported with scientific sources, I still think it's a bit ridiculous that this would get me banned. I'm very far from a racist, I just have a sober view of what's going on. And the guy who called me a racist for saying this didn't get banned, so yeah.

Yep, sounds like'em, lol. Was it perma?

I wouldn't sweat it. They're not mentally capable of being able to handle diverse views. Their definition of racism has and never will be located in any sort of dictionary you can find.

You're on sane ground now , so you can share whatever opinion you'd like

 

[Windom Earle]

No, absolutely not what I said, in fact, I love dark humour, and have no issues with offensive content in humour, as long as it is actually used for humour instad of being the humour. I just said that the two things you compared are not similar to each other, because there is a much larger conceptual distance between pedophilia and jokees about children when compared to sexism and jokes about women.


The extra layer is that you take away the humourous intent and context, and a joke about women becomes sexism. If you take away the humourous intent and context from jokes about children, it may become hateful to children, but (in almost all cases) not pedophile.

You keep saying "jokes about children" while leaving out important words like "rape" or "abuse" or "molestation".

So just to get this right...

This:

is just a joke. Pretty much fine.

This:

Is very sexist and terrible.

Can't you see the hole in your argument? Can't you see how jokes about raping children can normalize pedophilia? Don't you have a problem with that?

Also let's switch "children" with "women". Are women rape jokes ok?

 

[Dr. Claus]

You keep saying "jokes about children" while leaving out important words like "rape" or "abuse" or "molestation".

So just to get this right...

This:

is just a joke. Pretty much fine.

This:

Is very sexist and terrible.

Can't you see the hole in your argument? Can't you see how jokes about raping children can normalize pedophilia? Don't you have a problem with that?

Also let's switch "children" with "women". Are women rape jokes ok?

I wouldn't joke about that last one. According to 'Era and their spokesman, MagicalKitsune - that is a highly sexist and offensive tweet that just cements how terrible a person Colin is! /s

 

[KevinKeene]

You keep saying "jokes about children" while leaving out important words like "rape" or "abuse" or "molestation".

So just to get this right...

This:

is just a joke. Pretty much fine.

This:

Is very sexist and terrible.

Can't you see the hole in your argument? Can't you see how jokes about raping children can normalize pedophilia? Don't you have a problem with that?

Also let's switch "children" with "women". Are women rape jokes ok?

Neither do jokes jokes about pedosexual crimes normalize such crimes, but also yes, a good rape joke is a good joke. The topic doesn't matter and we should be careful to not make certain comedy illegal.

 

[I'm new be nice]

I just wanted to say I have a lot of respect for the oppositional posters in this thread. Although I may not necessarily agree with you guys on all your points, I find the discussion highly engaging to read and I'm glad you are taking the time out of your day to argue passionately about what you believe in.

 

[Tornado Condor]

Well, I got banned on RE for arguing that the recent immigrant wave to Sweden hasn't been a net positive for the country economically. And while I'll agree that my argument wasn't very well supported with scientific sources, I still think it's a bit ridiculous that this would get me banned. I'm very far from a racist, I just have a sober view of what's going on. And the guy who called me a racist for saying this didn't get banned, so yeah.

You get banned there for disagreeing with their hivemind of philosophers.

 

[Yoshi]

You keep saying "jokes about children" while leaving out important words like "rape" or "abuse" or "molestation".

So just to get this right...

This:

is just a joke. Pretty much fine.

This:

Is very sexist and terrible.

Can't you see the hole in your argument? Can't you see how jokes about raping children can normalize pedophilia? Don't you have a problem with that?

Also let's switch "children" with "women". Are women rape jokes ok?

I do not see the hole in the argument, I never said the Moriarty tweet is worse than the Gunn tweets. In fact the Moriarty tweet is pretty mild and the Gunn tweets are simply offensive and not funny at all. I just said that it is still further detached from pedophilia, conceptually, to make jokes about children (even when including sexual content) than jokes about women are detached from sexism.

 

[Windom Earle]

Neither do jokes jokes about pedosexual crimes normalize such crimes, but also yes, a good rape joke is a good joke. The topic doesn't matter and we should be careful to not make certain comedy illegal.

Personally I agree that rape jokes are ok (I draw the line at children though). I just think it's weird that Era does damage control for those pedo jokes while they lose their shit when the wrong person makes a mild female joke that was actually pretty funny (see Colin Moriarty). They are hypocrites with a lot of double standards and "our side" vs "their side" agenda.

I do not see the hole in the argument, I never said the Moriarty tweet is worse than the Gunn tweets. In fact the Moriarty tweet is pretty mild and the Gunn tweets are simply offensive and not funny at all. I just said that it is still further detached from pedophilia, conceptually, to make jokes about children (even when including sexual content) than jokes about women are detached from sexism.

Why though? Abuse towards children is worse than abuse towards adults, so shouldn't we be extra careful to not turn it into a joke and normalize it?

 

[RoadHazard]

Yep, sounds like'em, lol. Was it perma?

I wouldn't sweat it. They're not mentally capable of being able to handle diverse views. Their definition of racism has and never will be located in any sort of dictionary you can find.

You're on sane ground now , so you can share whatever opinion you'd like

No, just a week. But yeah, definitely feels like moderation over there has a certain "slant".

Edit: It was changed to 3 days after review. So someone was a bit more reasonable than whoever banned me in the first place I guess. Still don't think it was ban-worthy at all, but oh well.

 

[Redneckerz]

Sorry, I cannot say anything about the banbot. I am very much against modern internet bullying tactics and from the outside look this banbot appears to be the same thing as people hunting through old twitter postings to find mud on people.

FWIW, as Crunklord covers our posts here (Hi Crunk!) i should just rehash my view on the banbot: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/off-...rsonal-keep-it-in-here.1462647/post-253353842

''Its also why i am getting mixed impressions on the Banbot over at Kiwi. Crunklord extends the bot more and more with all kinds of (useful) data, but by including more and more metadata, you are coming close to that grey area where it seems its less about collecting statistics and the angle (Despite doing nothing i believe that is anything illegal, the bot just collects data that the community makes) seems more shifted to a less positive tone. Like i said, they don't do anything wrong, but you can question how much stats you actually need to prove a point. Some of the stuff included definitely seems overkill to me which is why i speak of a shifted angle and a grey area.''

Do i think the banbot encourages bullying by mapping all this factual scraped data to its users? Well, no, but with so much data at one place i would be naive to think that there will be folks out there using this data for less friendly purposes. Hence why i call it a grey area. With that being said, hardcore personal information isn't to be found there, unless the user/community provides it on its own.

 

[Windom Earle]

That ban bot is weaponized autism. It's what Kiwifarms does.

 

[Yoshi]

Why though? Abuse towards children is worse than abuse towards adults, so shouldn't we be extra careful to not turn it into a joke and normalize it?

I already answered, why there is a bigger difference. This is not a valuation what is worse, just that making jokes about female stereotypes is conceptually closer to sexism (because it would become sexism if you were to remove the context) than making jokes about children, even sexual ones, is from pedophilia (because if you remove the context, it is still just an offensive comment and not pedophilia).

 

[KevinKeene]

I already answered, why there is a bigger difference. This is not a valuation what is worse, just that making jokes about female stereotypes is conceptually closer to sexism (because it would become sexism if you were to remove the context) than making jokes about children, even sexual ones, is from pedophilia (because if you remove the context, it is still just an offensive comment and not pedophilia).

Agreed, though the bottom line should be: a joke is a joke, and you don't remove context, because that makes no sense.

 

[Windom Earle]

I already answered, why there is a bigger difference. This is not a valuation what is worse, just that making jokes about female stereotypes is conceptually closer to sexism (because it would become sexism if you were to remove the context) than making jokes about children, even sexual ones, is from pedophilia (because if you remove the context, it is still just an offensive comment and not pedophilia).

Doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Sounds to me you're just twisting around words. Also stop calling it "jokes about children". It's pedophile jokes/one liners. And it would be pedophilia if you remove "the context".

Just to repeat, it's ok to talk about literally fucking children, but it's not ok to make fun of some stereotypes. Male or female. How do you even function in the real world?

By the way, why do you defend a website that obviously doesn't care about you and banned you for nothing?

 

[dolabla]

No, just a week. But yeah, definitely feels like moderation over there has a certain "slant".

Edit: It was changed to 3 days after review. So someone was a bit more reasonable than whoever banned me in the first place I guess. Still don't think it was ban-worthy at all, but oh well.

Definitely! The kiwi ban bot sheds a light on just how screwed up the moderation practices are on there. It will never be a place where you can really share your opinions.

 

[DeepEnigma]

There's no room for nuance at ree.

Unless it comes to Detroit: Too Human, then they complain about lack of nuance.

No, just a week. But yeah, definitely feels like moderation over there has a certain "slant".

Edit: It was changed to 3 days after review. So someone was a bit more reasonable than whoever banned me in the first place I guess. Still don't think it was ban-worthy at all, but oh well.

You should have just threatened to kill the President or violence to his voters, it would have only been 24 hours ... but only well after the sites that poked fun at them pointed that out (when they did not ban initially).

 

[cromofo]

Who would've thought that the worst people funneled from Neogaf to Resetera would end up making Resetera the cesspit it is now.

It's just more concentrated insanity.

 

[Yoshi]

Doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. Sounds to me you're just twisting around words. Also stop calling it "jokes about children". It's pedophile jokes/one liners. And it would be pedophilia if you remove "the context".

What's so hard to understand about "this is no valuation of what is worse"? Pedophilia just is someething completely different than tasteless comments. By itself it is a mental illness, it manifests observably in horrible acts against children. Sexism, however, manifests in stereotypical thought and speech based on sexes. Therefore, remove the joke component from a joke about women, then you end up with sexism. Remove the joke intention from Gunn's tweets and you end up with deranged anti-children comments, but not with pedophilia.

Just to repeat, it's ok to talk about literally fucking children, but it's not ok to make fun of some stereotypes. Male or female. How do you even function in the real world?

Saying one is closer to sexism than the other is to pedophilia does not state the first is worse than the second. There are a lot of things that are much worse than sexist jokes, which still are far detached from pedophilia, so what are you getting at? I say the analogy is wrong, not that one is worse than the other. In principle, I am of the opinion that you may joke about everything. The more offensive the joke, the higher my demand for the quality to think good of it, but from my perspective, there are no hard limits on what to joke about. As long as it is not jokingly bullying, but even still, the issue then is not in the fact that you joked about something but in the extra motivation for that.

By the way, why do you defend a website that obviously doesn't care about you and banned you for nothing?

I think they banned me for something that also leads to this long conversation: My strong desire to be precise. Which they did not take fondly when it comes to discussions on ethnicity or transgender issues. Am I unhappy about that? Yes. Do I think it was needlessly harsh? Yes. Do I think that this makes all the people there indefensibly horrible? No. There are issues with Resetera and I think their moderation on certain topics and towards certain users is overly one-sided and often values the right emotional connotations over correctness, which is something I cannot get behind (which, I have to add, is also something that may make me an unpleasent partner for discussion for many). But there are quite a few moderators where I am very positive they do their best and act with good intentions.

Just because there are some issues, I do not need to put everyone under the bus and if I thought it was just a hellhole, I would neither have participated in discussions there for so long, nor be unhappy about a ban (I wouldn't even have gotten, because why post in a hellhole?). Nor would I have stayed on NeoGAF for 14 years, because, in many ways, NeoGAF was worse than Resetera is right now for quite a few years. In fact, the old NeoGAF moderation style might have been a bit better for me, because the issue I was permed over at Resetera is a characteristic of mine that certainly always showed here as well, but in terms of wild west bannings, NeoGAF definitely was harsher and less transparent than Resetera. Still, many great people were here and at Resetera, as well as well-intentioned moderators.

 

[Windom Earle]

Hmm, l guess we differ on how we judge the leadership of old GAF/ResetEra.

I don't think they are good people. Good people don't act like they do.

What's so hard to understand about "this is no valuation of what is worse"? Pedophilia just is someething completely different than tasteless comments. By itself it is a mental illness, it manifests observably in horrible acts against children. Sexism, however, manifests in stereotypical thought and speech based on sexes. Therefore, remove the joke component from a joke about women, then you end up with sexism. Remove the joke intention from Gunn's tweets and you end up with deranged anti-children comments, but not with pedophilia.

Saying one is closer to sexism than the other is to pedophilia does not state the first is worse than the second. There are a lot of things that are much worse than sexist jokes, which still are far detached from pedophilia, so what are you getting at? I say the analogy is wrong, not that one is worse than the other. In principle, I am of the opinion that you may joke about everything. The more offensive the joke, the higher my demand for the quality to think good of it, but from my perspective, there are no hard limits on what to joke about. As long as it is not jokingly bullying, but even still, the issue then is not in the fact that you joked about something but in the extra motivation for that.

It still does though because you are basically saying that one of them has real life consequences while the other may not. Also if pedophilia is a mental illness, wouldn't it make sense that mentally ill people would be interested to normalize their agenda via social media? Seeing a big Hollywood role model normalize sick behaviour could empower other sickos all over the world as a role model.

So prove to me how some tame joke about women has more real life consequences than this.

Also do you think that Gunn is innocent or not? Would him being an actual pedo change your opinion on the severity of the tweets?

This is getting off topic at this point, but it never ceases to amaze how the left is willing to defend pedos, so I guess I'll keep going for a bit.

 

[captainraincoat]

As other have said, it's strictly a list or banned / warned posts. Directly from Era. There's no commentary or spin applied.

http://resetera.kiwifarms.net

You can't tell me that many, hell, a majority of the bans listed there are justified. It's all right there plain as day.

Remember
"We do not allow our members to make claims or arguments not based on reality"

What's so hard to understand about "this is no valuation of what is worse"? Pedophilia just is someething completely different than tasteless comments. By itself it is a mental illness, it manifests observably in horrible acts against children. Sexism, however, manifests in stereotypical thought and speech based on sexes. Therefore, remove the joke component from a joke about women, then you end up with sexism. Remove the joke intention from Gunn's tweets and you end up with deranged anti-children comments, but not with pedophilia.

Saying one is closer to sexism than the other is to pedophilia does not state the first is worse than the second. There are a lot of things that are much worse than sexist jokes, which still are far detached from pedophilia, so what are you getting at? I say the analogy is wrong, not that one is worse than the other. In principle, I am of the opinion that you may joke about everything. The more offensive the joke, the higher my demand for the quality to think good of it, but from my perspective, there are no hard limits on what to joke about. As long as it is not jokingly bullying, but even still, the issue then is not in the fact that you joked about something but in the extra motivation for that.

I think they banned me for something that also leads to this long conversation: My strong desire to be precise. Which they did not take fondly when it comes to discussions on ethnicity or transgender issues. Am I unhappy about that? Yes. Do I think it was needlessly harsh? Yes. Do I think that this makes all the people there indefensibly horrible? No. There are issues with Resetera and I think their moderation on certain topics and towards certain users is overly one-sided and often values the right emotional connotations over correctness, which is something I cannot get behind (which, I have to add, is also something that may make me an unpleasent partner for discussion for many). But there are quite a few moderators where I am very positive they do their best and act with good intentions.

Just because there are some issues, I do not need to put everyone under the bus and if I thought it was just a hellhole, I would neither have participated in discussions there for so long, nor be unhappy about a ban (I wouldn't even have gotten, because why post in a hellhole?). Nor would I have stayed on NeoGAF for 14 years, because, in many ways, NeoGAF was worse than Resetera is right now for quite a few years. In fact, the old NeoGAF moderation style might have been a bit better for me, because the issue I was permed over at Resetera is a characteristic of mine that certainly always showed here as well, but in terms of wild west bannings, NeoGAF definitely was harsher and less transparent than Resetera. Still, many great people were here and at Resetera, as well as well-intentioned moderators.

The place is only as good as its moderation and from day one they said the place would be an open and transparent place to post.....it even has it on their faq ....from there they have gone outside of this and in many cases created their own set of rules based on a few and champion bullying of people with a different opinion or the ability to articulate their views in a sensible and constructive matter.

I'm having a hard time seeing how you can defend the place...the moderators tow the line and if you are saying that some of them are not bad then something doesn't add up....you don't average 1000 bans a month from just a few select people (not counting the warnings either)

Appreciate you explaining yourself and sometimes self reflection is the best way to learn from your mistakes/wins and make you a better person.

I think here is a much better place now and its has the building blocks to be very successful in the future.

 

[Sellyprime]

As a long time lurker of neogaf and as such when the split happened i began lurking at resetera so i could get my news in the way i liked, i have found resetera to be a place where discussion is not allowed to the point of insanity and that the way voices are allowed to be aired that the only option is hostility when in my opinion the best way to teach someone whom has lesser views of people is to educate them on the differences of people and their beliefs.

 

[prag16]

Era appreciates the handful of their komrades still on gaf 'fighting the good fight'.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-did-you-find-resetera.58389/page-6#post-10886156

Thread eventually got locked.. "Cross forum drama."

 

[Dr. Claus]

Era appreciates the handful of their komrades still on gaf 'fighting the good fight'.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-did-you-find-resetera.58389/page-6#post-10886156

Thread eventually got locked.. "Cross forum drama."

Wow, some of those folk are highly disturbed. "I feel the mods are a bit too lenient"? Jeebus, what do they want, a complete dictatorship?

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

I rarely agreed with rusty on ideology but at least he was genuine.

Big ups to rusty.


era mods shook. hilarious.

 

[captainraincoat]

Wow, some of those folk are highly disturbed. "I feel the mods are a bit too lenient"? Jeebus, what do they want, a complete dictatorship?

No ...from what I gather from some friends they are completely oblivious to what is really going on.....going to be a fun ride to watch.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Do you all remember that post by Skyrim, the bethesda developer who literally stated that the toxic nature of ResetEra drives away other developers from communicating on the forum?

Well, apparently - according to the Moderator, Morrigan - it didn't happen.

Despite the fact that we have literal evidence of it happening:

 

[dolabla]

Era appreciates the handful of their komrades still on gaf 'fighting the good fight'.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-did-you-find-resetera.58389/page-6#post-10886156

Thread eventually got locked.. "Cross forum drama."

Lmao!

Some of them really think they're in a war........................ on a gaming message board

I guess when you're more paranoid than Stalin, then you really are in war.........................................

Spoiler

in your head that is.

 

[captainraincoat]

Lmao!

Some of them really think they're in a war........................ on a gaming message board

I guess when you're more paranoid than Stalin, then you really are in war.........................................

Spoiler

in your head that is.

Think you might see a bit more of that sort of stuff once the bans/ghost ban and sabotage stuff are made public as quite a few of their staff/VIPs would be caught up in all that crap and there are also potential legal issues as apparently era isn't afraid of throwing around a legal notice judging from the crap that's been thrown at the ban bot to be taken down.

Anything that would undermine or put them at risk as not being credible or not doing something in good faith would be attacked.

 

[prag16]

Do you all remember that post by Skyrim, the bethesda developer who literally stated that the toxic nature of ResetEra drives away other developers from communicating on the forum?

Well, apparently - according to the Moderator, Morrigan - it didn't happen.

Despite the fact that we have literal evidence of it happening:

Nothing to see here. Move along. (And take a time-out for an escalatingly aggressive inflammatory derail while you're at it.)

 

[SatansReverence]

Nothing to see here. Move along. (And take a time-out for an escalatingly aggressive inflammatory derail while you're at it.)

Gotta wonder, is the original dev post still intact? Did anyone bring it up afterwards?

 

[Yoshi]

It still does though because you are basically saying that one of them has real life consequences while the other may not. Also if pedophilia is a mental illness, wouldn't it make sense that mentally ill people would be interested to normalize their agenda via social media? Seeing a big Hollywood role model normalize sick behaviour could empower other sickos all over the world as a role model.

First, I did not say one way or the other about real life consequences. I think neither has measurable real life consequences that go beyond "someone who reads it may be hurt by it", "someone may complain about it" or "someone might lose his job over this".

So prove to me how some tame joke about women has more real life consequences than this.

I cannot, because I do not think this is true.

Also do you think that Gunn is innocent or not? Would him being an actual pedo change your opinion on the severity of the tweets?

Innocent of what? I have not heard any charges against him other than having made some tasteless Twitter jokes. He is guilty of having made some tasteless Twitter jokes. I wouldn't have fire him over ten year old bad jokes and I'd say that's a rather minor misbehaviour. And no, if he were a pedophile this would not change my valuation of the tweets and even if they did, chances are he would have commited some serious crimes that make discussion about some bad jokes on Twitter pretty useless.

This is getting off topic at this point, but it never ceases to amaze how the left is willing to defend pedos, so I guess I'll keep going for a bit.

I am unaware of any pedophile being discussed right now, so I do not think there is any defense of pedos to be found here.

 

[Lady Bird]

Do you all remember that post by Skyrim, the bethesda developer who literally stated that the toxic nature of ResetEra drives away other developers from communicating on the forum?

Well, apparently - according to the Moderator, Morrigan - it didn't happen.

Despite the fact that we have literal evidence of it happening:

This is even more blatant than the Jessice Price thread.

 

[Azzurri]

Man, I thought gaf was bad with its off topics, but ResetEra takes it to a whole new level. I get people hate Trump and anything Republican, but christ it's like the whole first is anti trump/conservative.

 

[mneuro]

Well I got my permaban from reset finally for posting in the reparations thread. Suggested that all people in poverty deserve assistance, and not just certain racial groups. Banned for down playing systemic racism.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Well I got my permaban from reset finally for posting in the reparations thread. Suggested that all people in poverty deserve assistance, and not just certain racial groups. Banned for down playing systemic racism.

I guess the mods see that as a variation of "all lives matter". >.>

 

[Nobody_Important]

Well I got my permaban from reset finally for posting in the reparations thread. Suggested that all people in poverty deserve assistance, and not just certain racial groups. Banned for down playing systemic racism.

Only one person was permabanned in that thread unless I missed someone and the post did not say what you just said.


If you are the other guy who was banned then you were banned for a week not perm'd and that post reads kind of similar to what you said, but still isn't exactly what you claimed.