Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
Chun-Li On A Bike
Banned
I have PMed Opiate in the past and he always replies back... I really needed support, this summer with my Mother going through a huge surgery (stayed in the hospital for 21 days). I was asking to be able to create a topic for support and prayer for my Mother. Unfortunately at that time, I was not given the permission to create the thread. Opiate did say the whole Mod/Admin team will review my junior status in a few months and if I continue to be a good member here. Then the junior status will changed back to normal member back in May... Regardless of all that, Opiate was there for me during my trouble times. I forever will appreciate him for giving me support during my time of need...
I really wish to have the opportunity to create threads again. Its been almost two year since I was able to create threads here and I have been here since 2004...
I really wish to have the opportunity to create threads again. Its been almost two year since I was able to create threads here and I have been here since 2004...
Pollux
Member
Mumei always replies when I PM him. He even changed my username for me! Thanks again!
Stump always replies, and he always goes very in depth when answering questions.
Opiate replies as well, along with Kagari.
Just off the top of my head. The reason some mods don't reply is that their inboxes are packed and they just don't see the message. I doubt any of them are ignoring anyone maliciously.
Stump always replies, and he always goes very in depth when answering questions.
Opiate replies as well, along with Kagari.
Just off the top of my head. The reason some mods don't reply is that their inboxes are packed and they just don't see the message. I doubt any of them are ignoring anyone maliciously.
MrToughPants
Brian Burke punched my mom
I thought Mumei was a she?
Pollux
Member
I thought Mumei was a he...
The more fanciful the topic, the more likely it generates incredulous posts. I mean, there are people who very seriously believe in alien abductions. What if they posted a thread about being abducted and probed by aliens? Should everyone bite their tongue?
This is exactly why I came to GAF. It has a lot better moderation than most boards. Its definitely not too strict and it helps control conversations. Flame wars are stupid.
Boom
Most "complaints" about moderation being too strict here end up being stuff like this. I mean seriously? Your going to try and pass off that you have a different "opinion".
Boom
Most "complaints" about moderation being too strict here end up being stuff like this. I mean seriously? Your going to try and pass off that you have a different "opinion".
Sometimes you just need a thick skin
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=486734
This thread title could very well be considered offensive.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=486734
This thread title could very well be considered offensive.
Professor Beef
Banned
Correctamundo. He's also the only member of PopGAF to defend Kelly Clarkson. <3
I have no issue with the way things are around here and I don't think NeoGAF is too strict, but it'd be great to have a feature like Teamliquid has with their automated ban list
Yeah I was gonna mention that thread.
He is not the only one who has been guilty of doing this in this thread or in similar related threads. I have just been letting it go with a passing comment about people not necessarily representing their own banning history accurately because I was unsure about calling them out, so this is much appreciated.
I am confused.
I was actually looking at your post history yesterday (I saw you post in a thread, can't remember why I was interested), and did you not create this thread on 8/5/2012? Or this thread on 6/5/2012?
But seriously, I'm a guy. Maybe GayGAF confused you? Or just the name
Eh? She's Crumpet Trumpet's favorite.
butter_stick
Banned
I have no issue with the way things are around here and I don't think NeoGAF is too strict, but it'd be great to have a feature like Teamliquid has with their automated ban list
http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php
Still the best system.
SA having shorter bans is also better.
Professor Beef
Banned
Then who in the world were you stanning for?
"What a terrible, worthless post. User loses posting privileges for 1 day."
This shit warms my heart.
We can request out standing status here? Sweet! What's mine? I think I got banned two or three times, but nothing major I believe
I think this is nice yeah. It beats the "take moderation issues to PM" stance that was around some time back
My favorites are Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Leontyne Price, Karen Carpenter, Jussi Bjorling, Freddie Mercury, and Jackie Wilson. And as I've had a chance to listen to more of their output, Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin, and Streisand have been inching their way up there. I will probably love Maria Callas once I really listen to more of her work.
And no, I don't really care much for PopGAF's musical taste. I just enjoy their joie de vivre.
Teetris, we are still encouraging people to PM about moderation concerns. And you were banned twice in 2010, once for saying you would beat your child if you caught them smoking and once for some minor thread whining.
But I do not want to turn this thread into Ban History Question Hour, so I'm stopping after this.
Hi Mumei,
Actually a mod or admin had to split up the old threads from 6/5/2012 to create the 8/5/2012 thread. While the 6/5/2012 thread was created from the bump of the original Wario64 thread with teaser shots of the trailer. I had bumped up the 6/5/2012 with new screen shot. Then I updated the OP with the screen shot. I hope that helps, explain everything.
Hi Mumei,
Actually a mod or admin had to split up the old threads from 6/5/2012 to create the 8/5/2012 thread. While the 6/5/2012 thread was created from the bump of the original Wario64 thread with teaser shots of the trailer. I had bumped up the 6/5/2012 with new screen shot. Then I updated the OP with the screen shot. I hope that helps, explain everything.
So it's all the artificial effect of various mod interventions that makes it look like you posted those topics in 2012, or am I misunderstanding?
Oh shit I forgot about that
edit, oh didn't mean to turn it into question hour, my bad. I was thinking maybe the PM stance was still there, but I appreciate some more open convo about it. It can really help people if they read through it about what's what.
Yes, that is exactly what happened. Some mod or admin was able to split the old threads up to make it appear like that.
Too strict? I guess it depends on the perspective. My personal opinion is there are a lot of subjects where people are forced to sort of speak in third person, or abstract rather than first hand for fear of a ban. I don't personally think stifling a type of bias or opinion does the battle of ideas any service, if it's truly bad or abhorrent let the discussion decide, rather than the "fist" of moderation. Obviously this doesn't include personal attacks or outright constant trolling, but I think we should yearn to be able to cite a opinion, even if it's a minority of unpopular opinion, without the threat of a ban. I think that's reasonable. As you can see I could never be a mod, because very few things would make me want to ban besides truly severe cases.
But here's a idea for a better system, maybe not a perfect system, but better. Why not have a "chopping block" type of idea? Where if a user is close to a ban after a post or series of posts, you get a PM saying you have 48 hours to defend yourself and only allowed to post in the chopping block section in that thread for that time. That would at least give users the ability to defend themselves in public while also not allowing them to cause any trouble anywhere else. And it's not behind closed doors at the sole discretion of a mod, everybody can see the issue and hear the argument, so there's no assumptions. Now, every case couldn't be handled this way, but it's better than a user just disappearing and others getting bad impressions or one side of the story. I've seen this work well on small community boards, so I don't know how realistic it would be for a large board though.
And you never know there could be ways using this method to bring two people who are arguing together, or a user with bad habits to have better ones, rather than just relying on benevolence. It's just a idea of a better way to adjudicate disputes and issues, a better way to want to lend a hand to a community rather than just saying my house my rules. A rough idea I know, and I don't pay the bills here but would anybody be against this? If we're all adults here, we probably shouldn't be using pre-school ideas, go sit in corner, if you get worse you get sent home. I'm saying I think we should reason with each other and I think that would lead to a much tighter and better community long term. Besides, you have to keep some people around just for the entertainment. Some of my all-time favorite posters, none here sadly, would be banned on GAF instantly. I guess there's a fine line between being extremely inappropriate but extremely hilarious, and just being purely inappropriate. I yearn to spit my drink as I read a out of left field comeback turned into entire userbase roast, or two people just going raw on each other on a boring Saturday night. The next day everybody touches gloves and back to business, but it requires everybody to not be so serious all the time, and take a few hits on occasion in stride. So yeah, in that way GAF is too strict. =P
So barring my insane utopian idea, I think in comparison to other boards it's a yes and no. I can understand why people see this board as greatly balanced as well as greatly narrowed on some wiggle room, on some topics. I particularly like some of the game design and mechanics discussion here occasionally, some of the best I've seen anywhere.
But here's a idea for a better system, maybe not a perfect system, but better. Why not have a "chopping block" type of idea? Where if a user is close to a ban after a post or series of posts, you get a PM saying you have 48 hours to defend yourself and only allowed to post in the chopping block section in that thread for that time. That would at least give users the ability to defend themselves in public while also not allowing them to cause any trouble anywhere else. And it's not behind closed doors at the sole discretion of a mod, everybody can see the issue and hear the argument, so there's no assumptions. Now, every case couldn't be handled this way, but it's better than a user just disappearing and others getting bad impressions or one side of the story. I've seen this work well on small community boards, so I don't know how realistic it would be for a large board though.
And you never know there could be ways using this method to bring two people who are arguing together, or a user with bad habits to have better ones, rather than just relying on benevolence. It's just a idea of a better way to adjudicate disputes and issues, a better way to want to lend a hand to a community rather than just saying my house my rules. A rough idea I know, and I don't pay the bills here but would anybody be against this? If we're all adults here, we probably shouldn't be using pre-school ideas, go sit in corner, if you get worse you get sent home. I'm saying I think we should reason with each other and I think that would lead to a much tighter and better community long term. Besides, you have to keep some people around just for the entertainment. Some of my all-time favorite posters, none here sadly, would be banned on GAF instantly. I guess there's a fine line between being extremely inappropriate but extremely hilarious, and just being purely inappropriate. I yearn to spit my drink as I read a out of left field comeback turned into entire userbase roast, or two people just going raw on each other on a boring Saturday night. The next day everybody touches gloves and back to business, but it requires everybody to not be so serious all the time, and take a few hits on occasion in stride. So yeah, in that way GAF is too strict. =P
So barring my insane utopian idea, I think in comparison to other boards it's a yes and no. I can understand why people see this board as greatly balanced as well as greatly narrowed on some wiggle room, on some topics. I particularly like some of the game design and mechanics discussion here occasionally, some of the best I've seen anywhere.
I think we're probably in fairly close agreement--you seem to be talking about posts that are intended to rile people up, not communicate a point of view.
There was a point earlier this year when prolific members on this forum were getting away with a bit much and it was ruining discussion. Luckily, that has ended now and things seem to be back to normal again.
The only gripe I have is that many serious topics never tend to turn discussion:
OP: "New species of X found in Y location. Here is some info on it..."
"Neat"
"Cool"
"Wow"
"Can it run crysis?"
"^haha that's great"
"^Yeah totally funny"
.... and so on.
I know there isn't really much to discuss, but why even let the threads turn into that? Those one word replies should be saved for the 'joke' threads that deserve them. The leniency here has led to posters getting away with it in many other threads. Threads that could house serious interesting discussion never get going because the first two pages are boring one liners.
I find myself guilty of it because what's the point in saying anything serious? Nobody cares anyways. It's always about making the best joke first.
Actually, I should be thankful. At least it keeps it on the front page longer so others can see it who care.
Clockblockers
Member
I'm a little late coming back, but I agree here, I think selective enforcement is a good system as long as the moderators remain reasonable, and I assume (hope?) they keep each other in check so the moderation standards are similar across the board.
As a whole I love GAF, I may not be a frequent poster, but I'm a frequent lurker, and I'm happy to be a part of the community here.
I thought mumu was mimi. Oh wait, he is.
GitarooMan
Member
You can't handle the truth!
Roland Garros
Banned
Yes. See the George Zimmerman thread for further proof of this.
Goldrusher
Member
I didn't misrepresent my ban. I still feel it was a ban for having a different opinion.
Nothing in that post was against the TOS. It was simply against the stream. But isn't that what a discussion board is for? No matter how controversial an opinion, as long as you don't break any TOS rules, why a ban?
1. Rules.
2. Bans for breaking the rules.
Don't give out bans for breaking rules that don't exist.
Don't ban people simply because they've been banned before as you're implying. That doesn't make sense.
A rule is a rule, and if you break the rule, you're banned. Why ban some people and not others?
"Oh, this guy's already been banned for wanting an HD Mickey Mania and for linking to a nipple, better ban him for questioning this story."
As I said, why are those relevant to the ban I was referring to?
Some of the weirder ones:
linking to topless photos
Someone asked what a puffy nipple is and I got banned for linking to an example, which was a LINK and clearly NSFW-labelled. The TOS doesn't say anything about linking to NSFW content, and it happens every day in OT, often with very violent videos ... Is linking to a video of people beating the shit out of each other simply to make a thread, less worse than a nude photo to be informative?
console war / port beg / Wii complaining #1
news: Epic Mickey revealed
Got banned for wondering why nobody has made an HD Mickey Mania yet. Wii-only mods were trigger-happy back then. I guess I should have made a new thread to discuss the lack of HD 2D platformers.
console war / port beg / Wii complaining #2
news: after months of WiiFit topping the charts, a Call of Duty takes over
Got banned for saying "at least it's a real game now", implying I also don't like Call of Duty. Very well.
a derail about a 14 year old being sexy and/or getting implants
The girl was 18 at the time. I always figured I got that one for the language ("attention whore"), not for the opinion itself as you now seem to imply.
Someone asked what a puffy nipple is and I got banned for linking to an example, which was a LINK and clearly NSFW-labelled. The TOS doesn't say anything about linking to NSFW content, and it happens every day in OT, often with very violent videos ... Is linking to a video of people beating the shit out of each other simply to make a thread, less worse than a nude photo to be informative?
console war / port beg / Wii complaining #1
news: Epic Mickey revealed
Got banned for wondering why nobody has made an HD Mickey Mania yet. Wii-only mods were trigger-happy back then. I guess I should have made a new thread to discuss the lack of HD 2D platformers.
console war / port beg / Wii complaining #2
news: after months of WiiFit topping the charts, a Call of Duty takes over
Got banned for saying "at least it's a real game now", implying I also don't like Call of Duty. Very well.
a derail about a 14 year old being sexy and/or getting implants
The girl was 18 at the time. I always figured I got that one for the language ("attention whore"), not for the opinion itself as you now seem to imply.
So basically you're saying is that in addition to the TOS, there are more rules you can break.
And some of the rules only apply to those who have been banned before.
I was just banned for 30 minutes or so.
Sounds serious, what you do?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=386290
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=390708
"Images presenting exposed genitalia, bared buttocks, and/or female nipple/aureola are not allowed."
Both those are crystal clear.
Not so sure. It was quite surreal. I just hope me being able to write again isn't some kind of fluke.
I am sorry; it was a mistake stemming from attempting to mod while on three hours of sleep. I realized I was in error and had misunderstood you, so I lifted it. I won't be doing that again.
Mea culpa, in this case.
But if you have further questions, please PM me.
I read that in Macho Man's voice and then added "Into a Slim Jim"
I'm an expert
Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
Brony thread title change. The prosecution rests.
Goldrusher
Member
Both your links refer to posting actual images, as in -images. Not links.
Not that it matters much, because I'm pretty sure I got that ban long before those two threads were made and/or edited.
For example, by the current rules this is not allowed:
[QUOTE]What's an elephant?
[INDENT]This is an elephant:[/INDENT]
[IMG]http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/004/cache/african-elephant_435_600x450.jpg[/QUOTE]
But I got banned for this, for which the rules aren't crystal clear at all:
Enosh
Member
I am quite sure there are plenty of examples of people posting NSFW images in various threads and tagging them with NSFW, I mostly remember the whole topless protest thingy that the Ukrainian group does, being like this
stealth edit: a quick search found this:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=414217&highlight=nude+protest
link by subversus of a quite clearly topless women, don't think he was banned for that one, but might be wrong, there were other threads like this and I don't remember people being banned in them
I know context etc, but if he says he was answering a question regarding nipples or something, not like he went "yo guys check out those boobs"
No problem. Thanks for being nice about.
I think I know what the ban was for, and when the sentence is taken out of context a ban should almost be expected.
PetriP-TNT
Member
So, what do you (mostly mods, but also users) think about this latest(?) rule on SA gaming side: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3500351
This thread demonstrates the difference Stumkapow was talking couple of pages behind well: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3501064&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
This thread demonstrates the difference Stumkapow was talking couple of pages behind well: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3501064&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
shinobi602
Member
Way too strict for my tastes, but the discussions outweigh that negative to me.
It's not a major problem that regularly causes threads to derail here as far as I'm aware, I don't read gaming side all that much, but I've never heard of it being an issue at least. Based on that, I don't think GAF would need any rule like that.
Sometimes I forget this forum is primarily US based, there are some words and issues that offend Americans more than do other nationalities.
I was banned recently for using the c word , I'd actually figured since the f bomb was was ok, the c one was too. My friends (even girls) use the c world often so I didn't even realise it was frowned upon by GAF or that there were any language restrictions at all.
I was banned recently for using the c word , I'd actually figured since the f bomb was was ok, the c one was too. My friends (even girls) use the c world often so I didn't even realise it was frowned upon by GAF or that there were any language restrictions at all.
Goldrusher
Member
How does this not break those rules then:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479018
It's basically a thread about a video of Shia LaBeouf's penis.
With an NSFW-labelled link to an erotic video of a naked man and a naked woman doing it. You see breasts, bush and penis.
- Status