Support NeoGAF

[Enosh]

How is this post about the saudi people not bannable?

If someone posted that the people of America were a bunch of "Backward Ass Fucks!" or someone said the gay community or trans gendered's were a bunch of "Backward Ass Fucks" they would be banned INSTANTLY. But no, because its about the Middle East its completely acceptable.

you don't read a lot of threads on here I assume

about the question in the OP:
I do think the sometimes random banning of people, the goating of people etc leads to an environment where people who have views other than those accepted by the majority of gaf rather keep those to them self and only post in gaming or other "non sensitive" topics

 

[kruis]

.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

My last ban got extended from 2 weeks to over a month. Reason given: "no reason". Yeah, thanks. The initial banning was tenuous enough (controversial, but sensitively approached pov with plenty of apologies to those inevitably offended), then it gets extended by more than 100% for no reason?

I dunno, I don't think I'm an obnoxious or inflammatory member, I try to bite my tongue when I think it will offend. Sometimes you act against your better judgement!

 

[Ezalc]

I completely disagree with the recent "bitch" usage bannings. I feel like GAF is almost becoming too sensitive about things. There are other things but it doesn't matter since complaining about it won't change anything.

 

[Cindres]

Though I don't fully agree with all the rules, the moderation on here does keep the asshats away, or at least they never survive very long. So GAF generally is a nicer place to be.

 

[Mumei]

Regarding people who are making complaints that a particular issue, whether it be topics about the religious or the overweight or something else entirely, is not moderated sufficiently, I would like to reiterate that sending a PM to moderators actually does work. We are not just telling you this to get you to stop posting about it. If you send a PM about an actual topic with actual posts that might needed to be moderated, a moderator will be willing to take a look at the topic or explain why something specific was not moderated.

Regarding cunt, I think that it would be illustrative to consider the fact even if it is primarily a mild insult or even an ironic term of endearment in some other places that it is a slur in the United States. Hypothetically speaking, if some members of the board came from a place where they called each other fags and faggots and faggish and all sorts of other variants all the time, and these words had no connotations relating to gay men - though cunt does have this connection to its meaning as a slur and I have been told repeatedly that it is as offensive as it gets before racial slurs when used in that context - we would not allow a special exemption for those users to use fag or faggot; we would still treat these words as bannable. And you could replace "fag / faggot" with some other slur about race or ethnicity and have the same effect; even if something is socially acceptable in one society that does not mean that its general use is acceptable here.

Moreover, cunt has been a bannable term for many, many years and many, many users have been banned for it. Apparently many of you were unaware of this, perhaps due to sporadic enforcement or perhaps because you did not consider the possibility that someone was being banned for that. The post I made in the Euro 2012 was not an announcement of a new policy, but a fair warning to a group of posters who apparently had forgotten or did not realize that the word was bannable.

 

[Roland Garros]

Only thing that really frustrated me was the discussion about the banning of the c word, and when asked directly, Mumei just denied the need for a disclaimer for all posters, instead claiming that it had 'always been a rule'.

Even in my lurking days though, I found that it had never been enforced. Lots of people said it, mods included. And then one day they start policing it, and everyone should be aware?

Silly.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Though I don't fully agree with all the rules, the moderation on here does keep the asshats away, or at least they never survive very long. So GAF generally is a nicer place to be.

True. I just think they sometimes need to take things in context. The recent post that got me banned, read in isolation, I could see how some mods may find it ban worthy, but it was just an opinion. But after that post, I spent half a page apologising and explaining how it's just my opinion, and is fairly baseless, so probably entirely wrong.

But I still got banned. People even said, "really? They banned him for that? The dude apologised if nothing else..."

As I say, my first ban was me being an irritating twerp.

My second ban was me, God forbid, gently expressing an unpopular opinion, and then apologising profusely to anyone who was upset.

Ah well, lessons learnt, certain opinions should be kept away from GAF! It's a fair point well heeded.

 

[Kyoufu]

If my memory serves me right, didn't we have a very very brief period where every cuss word was censored? Something to do with Google or the web hosts, I can't remember. So to answer the OP's question: Nope.

 

[Killa Sasa]

Even if it was, I'd prefer it to too lenient. Glad this place keeps dummies from running wild in a couple different ways including fairly consistent moderation.

 

[I'm an expert]

So again, why not put the reason the poster was banned in the offending post so people can see THIS GUY SAID (whatever) and what the consequences were?

 

[Roland Garros]

Moreover, cunt has been a bannable term for many, many years and many, many users have been banned for it. Apparently many of you were unaware of this, perhaps due to sporadic enforcement or perhaps because you did not consider the possibility that someone was being banned for that. The post I made in the Euro 2012 was not an announcement of a new policy, but a fair warning to a group of posters who apparently had forgotten or did not realize that the word was bannable.

Sporadic enforcement? Mods used the word. How can you explain that?

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Not strict enough, unfortunately.

 

[K-19]

Not strict enough, unfortunately.

Some men just want to see the world burn ...

 

[Yoshichan]

It's better this way.

Everytime I get banned, it's like a reality-check. Sometimes I'm in need for a reality-check.

 

[Fritz]

So again, why not put the reason the poster was banned in the offending post so people can see THIS GUY SAID (whatever) and what the consequences were?

Because people will have endless meta discussions on the justification of this or that ban. It's tiring for the board and the mods.


The amount of meta threads has increased tremendously recently. At least since the cunt incident. Or let's say that's my impression.

 

[Red Liquorice]

The rules here basically say "Hey, shut up and think before you speak, idiot".

I'm cool with that, would like to see it more actually.

 

[Gustav]

The saddest part about this thread is seeing Timedog and his comments slipping into irrelevance. Nobody reacts to him anymore.

Poor Timedoggy.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Some men just want to see the world burn ...

Some men.. just want to make music.

 

[AppleBlade]

I have posted on a lot of forums and if this forum was about any other topic other then Video Games my answer would be yes. However with the kind of posters that video game forums attract I think GAF's approach makes sense.

Gaming forums attract a lot of pretentious immature 15 year old fanboys. It gets unbearable for the older posters or more mature posters. I am a 29 year old high school teacher with a wife and a kid. The last thing I need is to be insulted by someone half my age because I don't like what he likes. That used to happen all the time on the Gamespot forums. It was impossible to have a constructive conversation about anything controversial (honestly, that's difficult to do here as well).

 

[alr1ght]

So again, why not put the reason the poster was banned in the offending post so people can see THIS GUY SAID (whatever) and what the consequences were?

That would help immensely. It would clear up alot of the unwritten rules (which I know by just observing for a long time) for people who haven't been here long.

 

[DietRob]

I think the people that consider it strict are those with extreme opinions that would rather not have 'discussion' on their views. I've been here almost 4 years now and there is no way I would have stayed as long as I have if it wasn't for our rules on not outright bashing each other and the great job that the mod team does in facilitating our discussions.

 

[C4Lukins]

I think people have a general understanding of what can get you banned without it being super specific. No need for a Neogaf Ten Commandments.

 

[Gustav]

I think the people that consider it strict are those with extreme opinions that would rather not have 'discussion' on their views. I've been here almost 4 years now and there is no way I would have stayed as long as I have if it wasn't for our rules on not outright bashing each other and the great job that the mod team does in facilitating our discussions.

Actually, I think you are right. The moderation makes GAF what it is. It's the reason where all here.

 

[BakedPigeon]

The only thing I don't like about gaf is your forced to agree with everything that is controversial or else you get ridiculed by these punk ass elitists on here. Somehow your a bad person if your view is different. I will not mention any names or subjects because I don't want to get shit talked on me.

 

[Roland Garros]

Because people will have endless meta discussions on the justification of this or that ban. It's tiring for the board and the mods.

But I've seen them do that anyway, and because they have nothing to go, people trundle back through a post history or speculate on why he got banned. At least we'd be debating something clear, rather than speculating about something mysterious.

 

[Arjen]

Moreover, cunt has been a bannable term for many, many years and many, many users have been banned for it. Apparently many of you were unaware of this, perhaps due to sporadic enforcement or perhaps because you did not consider the possibility that someone was being banned for that. The post I made in the Euro 2012 was not an announcement of a new policy, but a fair warning to a group of posters who apparently had forgotten or did not realize that the word was bannable.

So, any thought why it only comes up the last couple of months in topics like this?
More high profile users banned for the use of the word? More users using the word?
It's a bit weird that it's been banned for years apparently, but people only been complaining about it since the Euro Cup bannings.

 

[The Anti-Monitor]

The only thing I don't like about gaf is your forced to agree with everything that is controversial or else you get ridiculed by these punk ass elitists on here. Somehow your a bad person if your view is different. I will not mention any names or subjects because I don't want to get shit talked on me.

If you think it's unreasonable why not say so openly.

 

[Eiolon]

I've seen some people banned for some pretty petty stuff, but on the flip side, I've seen people survive after posting some more questionable stuff. I think it balances itself out.

 

[Wilbur]

Correct.

You say that, but the reason I was banned in the midst of the Euros thread is still lost to me. From the two posts I was given as reasons for banning, one was stating the referee Cunyt Cakir was biased and changing his name to Cunt Cakir, and the other was for saying Verano was being moronic.

Now its confusing because if appears to me I was banned for either a) suggesting the referee was biased, b) using the word cunt (despite there being no announcement or warning that usage of the word would lead to a ban or c) calling Verano a moron (which is the only one I can see being a viable reason for banning but even then, the context is important because he's a member of FootyGAF and anything said was tongue in cheek). Even more mystifying Verano was banned for... nothing as far as I can see.

I appreciate that context will apply most of the time but I was banned for something I either wasn't told was a bannable offence, or context wasn't applied.

 

[BMX Bandit]

My second ban was me, God forbid, gently expressing an unpopular opinion, and then apologising profusely to anyone who was upset.

I have no idea what you said, but this happens all the time. Someone makes a comment and a bunch of people will start circling the wagon brow beating or calling for a ban. The bloodlust on here can be crazy and if you go against the grain just be prepared for the shit show. Seems people always wanna watch someone get fed to the lions.

 

[BakedPigeon]

If you think it's unreasonable why not say so openly.

Because then you get about 20 elitists replying to you, telling you that your are a POS and your opinion is wrong.

 

[The Anti-Monitor]

Because then you get about 20 elitists replying to you, telling you that your are a POS and your opinion is wrong.

And that's terrible.

 

[DietRob]

Actually, I think you are right. The moderation makes GAF what it is. It's the reason where all here.

Yep, <3 GAF mods. I find them generally fair and like the fact that they participate in our discussions and don't just moderate them..


Boy I'm laying on the butt kissing heavy this morning. But, I've yet to be banned.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I didnt know c**t was such an important word

 

[I'm an expert]

But I've seen them do that anyway, and because they have nothing to go, people trundle back through a post history or speculate on why he got banned. At least we'd be debating something clear, rather than speculating about something mysterious.

It's super annoying when I honestly can't find the reason someone was banned or I think I find the egregious comment but can't help but be like "this is banworthy?". It'd make the mods' thinking clearer if there was some sort of comment posted.

And yeah, there are always a barrage of "that was fast" or "owned' gifs after someone gets banned anyway. The meta isn't changing at all, people enjoy seeing others get hammered.

I didnt know c**t was such an important word

It's not, only Americans think it is.

 

[Arjen]

I didnt know c**t was such an important word

It's on of the few rare words to perfectly describe a person like John Terry

 

[Log4Girlz]

It's super annoying when I honestly can't find the reason someone was banned or I think I find the egregious comment but can't help but be like "this is banworthy?". It'd make the mods' thinking clearer if there was some sort of comment posted.

And yeah, there are always a barrage of "that was fast" or "owned' posts after someone gets banned anyway. The meta isn't changing at all, people enjoy seeing others get hammered.




It's not, only Americans think it is.

Whatever America thinks is important is important.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Regarding people who are making complaints that a particular issue, whether it be topics about the religious or the overweight or something else entirely, is not moderated sufficiently, I would like to reiterate that sending a PM to moderators actually does work. We are not just telling you this to get you to stop posting about it. If you send a PM about an actual topic with actual posts that might needed to be moderated, a moderator will be willing to take a look at the topic or explain why something specific was not moderated.

I will start by saying that i am agnostic, but i see a lot of people mock religious people here. Hell, even Hitokage called someone a bible thumper, which i thought extremely distasteful and down right offensive. If an administrator disrespect an individual on this forum, how are we expect posters to respect each other? People here mock people who have faith in a condescending matter all the time here on Gaf without any repercussion.

I will try to remind people that engaging others in a dialog have more chance of persuading them into seeing it from their own point of view since mocking them does not do any good and might reinforce someone´s belief even more. I see the discrepancy in moderation in religious threads quite repulsive honestly

 

[I'm an expert]

Whatever America thinks is important is important.

Normally I'd agree and say fuck yeah! but spending more time over here on the off topic forum these past few months and seeing how many people insert u's into words like color or favorite, I started feeling bad for them that the board can be so American centric.

 

[RiggenBlaque]

I also think the reason why someone is banned and for what post should be shown. Look at Something Awful, it says in big text under a post USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST and you click on it for an explanation of why. People don't derail threads discussing it and it gives everyone a clearer picture of what the rules are. I find GAF's biggest problem to be a serious lack of transparency, it feels like the rules of what is and isn't allowed on GAF change monthly (to a light user like me).

 

[Knux-Future]

It's uneven at times.

Some groups can skip through minefields unharmed..while others are watched like a hawk. Also in threads where shit is real tense, if you are on the opposite point of view (even if you are just playing devil advocate) you can get called various names (piece of shit, stupid, ect) just because you don't completely agree.

I also think some people think their opinions are law...which leads to some issues. And if they are in a specific group, this thought process is backed up.

At least it isn't gamefaqs or realgm..but it could stand to lighten up a little.

 

[Milchjon]

I didnt know c**t was such an important word

It's not that important, but it's used frequently enough in real world exchanges to make it pretty common, and people tend to use common words. I mean, we lost LJ11 and Buckethead to it, and neither seemed to have any bad intentions or directly insulted someone when they used it. Buckethead used it referring to a fictional character.

That, and the rule had never been brought to light before the Euro incidents, and obviously a lot of people still aren't really aware of it.

 

[Mumei]

I will not be able to respond to questions or comments about my previous post until later today; I am about to leave for work.

Sorry for the wait, but I thought people might like an explanation for my apparent bailing.

 

[Broder Salsa]

So, any thought why it only comes up the last couple of months in topics like this?
More high profile users banned for the use of the word? More users using the word?
It's a bit weird that it's been banned for years apparently, but people only been complaining about it since the Euro Cup bannings.

There was no complaints because it wasn't enforced, that much is obvious. Mods using it in the exact same context as footballGAF does in baseball threads should show that pretty well just like the use of it in giantbomb threads (where it's kind of a meme with Vinny Caravella and his use of cunt on the bombcast) :

Of course people were no doubt banned if they called other users that, but it's bullshit to suddenly act like it was a rule that has always been here, a warning in the middle of a mega thread like the euros is shitty when people then goes on to get banned for calling Spiderman a cunt in their reviews of the movie and so on, when it was perfectly acceptable and even used by mods a few weeks prior. In that situation the very least would be a warning in some updated rules, instead of having to see several people banned from football gaf because they didn't realize it was suddenly banned. No wonder a whole OT got really bitter with the moderation on here after that.

I didnt know c**t was such an important word

It's something we used a lot in the football thread. Is it super important? No, but neither would be just banning all swearing right?

 

[G-Fex]

I don't know about strict, but Gaffers themselves are terrible.

 

[C4Lukins]

But I've seen them do that anyway, and because they have nothing to go, people trundle back through a post history or speculate on why he got banned. At least we'd be debating something clear, rather than speculating about something mysterious.

Just look at it as an everyday conversation or argument you would have with an actual living human being in person. If you go over the line of what would be acceptable, you are in danger of being banned. It may happen or it may not. You do not need a rule book to clarify such a line. If you are being a dick, there is a chance you will be banned. It is up to the discretion of a chosen few to determine if you need to be temporally silenced or not.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Anti religious or government remarks should, and as far as I can tell, have always been fair game. You can't take a stance against a race or orientation because those things alone are never responsible for any kind of bad in this world. With that said I do my best to sensitive and every gaffer knows that there is a vast vast majority of good people belonging to any religion.

 

[SonnyBoy]

I will try to remind people that engaging others in a dialog have more chance of persuading them into seeing it from their own point of view since mocking them does not do any good and might reinforce someone´s belief even more. I see the discrepancy in moderation in religious threads quite repulsive honestly

The moderators are extremely hypocritical when it comes to this.

I've come to find that a lot of the people who engage in these activities harbor the same negative traits as those they mock. It's quite amusing if you don't let it bother you.

 

[entremet]

I've only posted in two other forums. I don't notice a big difference really.