It hit a point where those sorts of comments were becoming way too prevalent, and they don't have a purpose outside of trying to get a rise out of people.
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
Devolution
Member
It's not just poor taste, it's drive by trolling.
matt360
Member
Absolutely. No arguments there. But those weren't the only types of bannings in that thread.
Devolution
Member
The only other ones I recall were anti-gay marriage and they never stuck to "that's what I believe," they started posting anti-gay rhetoric.
I think GAF is more ideological than strict, and I saw that impulsive members don't last very long with the visible hands-on moderation. At least GAF is straightforward about enforcing community rules, and I might not agree so I just post less and lurk more.
I think some posters will get comfortable within the constraints, others will slip up and get banned. But that's part of most online communities.
I think some posters will get comfortable within the constraints, others will slip up and get banned. But that's part of most online communities.
IrishNinja
Member
homophobic stuff is pretty clearly defined as bannable in the TOS; what purpose is there to come into a controversial thread about Chik-fil-a's support of strongly anti-gay measures and say "MMM MMM THIS SHITS DELICIOUS" if not to troll and take such a stance?
even if you magically plead ignorance, you've not read the OP, which is also bannable. there were dudes posting counter-arguments (without making hateful statements) who weren't banned, so i don't see that one as anything less but crystal clear.
i agree with most of what you said, but what annoys me is that trolling and ad hominem is fine if you take a favored stance. while if you're arguing against then you need to write the greatest argument of your life
Wow...
I had no idea that you could get banned for making masturbation jokes / trolling with pic comments.
Thanks for the heads up Mumei.
I'm betting that everyone who got banned because of that thread now resent the OP hehe
Jake McLargeHuge
Banned
I had made a stupid comment in the middle of a debate, had it deleted, and got a succinct response as to if/why it was deleted(didn't know posts could be wiped out). It was pretty cool. Not sure if that's SOP around here, but I dig it.
I see your point, but still, i find it pretty natural that an homophobic position has to be expressed more exhaustively and well mannered than the opposite one.
IrishNinja
Member
exactly. if this was a gaming-side case of "well, sony's more favored than MS or nintendo or (x) so you have to speak to that" id get it; ideologically, we're speaking of a hateful platform.
also, i know they took heat for it, but religions folks defending the stance didn't have to write a thesis, they simply had to say things like "i disagree with (x) but..." rather than take a firm homophobic stance like "homosexual love is evil" etc. maybe its easier for me to say from the outside, but it's a pretty clear line, and while they're not in the majority, there's people here that seem to walk it pretty comfortably.
i.e., piracy is a naturally hot topic in gaming - do you have to walk on eggshells discussing it? not so much, you can speak pretty freely on the subject as long as you don't openly condone or admit to bootlegging a currently-available product. i guess what im saying is, within the boundaries of the game here, i get that there's stuff not always spelled out in the TOS in other examples but this place still isn't as ambigious or arbitrary as smaller communities ive been to - if you're a comics fan, check out john byrne's forum. you can literally be banned for visiting his thoughts/intentions, as an example.
How was a thread titled "my sister's hot friend is staying over for the night" where the first and second replies were "masturbate" allowed to reach 5 pages when seemingly nothing inside of it was permissible?
EDIT: Well, it did move kinda quickly; it wasn't open that long I suppose.
IrishNinja
Member
goddamn, that's the definition of a graveyard....hopefully 1-weeks?
I agree with this in most cases, but with a thread like that, there really isn't any chance for a decent discussion. Dumb topic, dumb responses.
If you think you can pull it off properly.
Mohonky
Member
The only thing I think GAF is too strict on is homosexuality. Personally, I don't care either way but I have noticed that if some one had an opinion that they disagreed with homosexuality or otherwise were against it they often get the ban hammer real quick when I feel it's a perfectly legit stance. I don't agree with that stance, but I think they can have a right to take it so long as they go about it in a mature manner.
Though I have noticed discussions on homosexuality on gaming boards in general results in the ban hammer coming out real quick, where on non-gaming boards it doesn't attract anywhere near the same response.
Never been able to work out why.
Though I have noticed discussions on homosexuality on gaming boards in general results in the ban hammer coming out real quick, where on non-gaming boards it doesn't attract anywhere near the same response.
Never been able to work out why.
Outstanding.
I just don't see how you can be "disagree" with homosexuality without being bigoted, regardless of how you express that opinion. And I think most of us agree that bigoted comments should be ban worthy.
I actually think many people get a lot of leeway with that stance. To me there is a distinct difference just for example between saying "I believe homosexuality is sinful" and willfully misrepresenting current scientific research, or promoting marginalized and non-mainstream research for the purpose of backing a religious/moral stance you take which affects another person.
I have never seen someone banned just for not "agreeing" with homosexuality (although in practice that framing never made sense to me - if you want to say "Other people should be forced to live the way I dictate to them" then say so.) it always is something more.
While I've not necessarily noticed that trend I think I have a potential explanation. I think historically openly gay people are more prevalent in some fields than others. I think it would make sense for people who are gay or bi or trans to go into a field like game design and develop hobbies like gaming because there isn't the same history of homophobia and uber masculine stereotypes you might see in a more typical male board. Essentially many game developers are behind the scenes for most people and only deal with their co-workers. Also, gamers have historically been somewhat marginalized themselves (even though they're much more mainstream these days). I think that itself attracts other marginalized people to it as a hobby more than average. Which in turn would lead to more aggressive moderation to protect the community.
Unless you can point us to all of these unjustified trolling bans you are wrong. People always complain about bannings that were wrong but yet can never seem to give an example. At least 95 percent of the time it's wildly exaggerrated that they were unjustly banned.
Mohonky
Member
I'm inclined to say many people are bigoted in some ways regarding certain topics. I'm also inclined to say some people are more worldly than others having been exposed to people of varying social, racial, economic, religious etc backgrounds, where some others may not have had the opportunity to experience life beyond their own small world (small towns etc) so are not comfortable with ideas that are not something they would be regularly exposed to so I can't entirely blame them for the development of their associations and opinions.
If some one is homophobic, that the thought of seeing two men or two women together makes them ill or uncomfortable, so be it. To me, I don't see it as anymore illogical than some one with another phobia.
I mean have a look at the list of fears here;
http://phobialist.com/
(Of note, I myself have agoraphobia and despite knowing consciously how stupid the notion is, the fear and anxiety I suffer from it is something I really struggle with).
I'm sure many people who suffer from any number of those phobias may even realise it's unusual but possibly can not be helped or requires help in understanding to overcome that fear.
By forcing someone to agree that homosexuality is fine (and I think it's fine personally but that's not the point) aren't you doing exactly that though, dictating how they should think and feel about the subject as much as they are forcing their view onto others?
So why can't we have a ban log that justifies the ban people receive instead of this shitty ambiguity that results in all decisions having to be brought up in here?
Answer: because they know that if they did that the contradictions in moderation would be even more glaring than they already are.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
It's not the contradictions we are really worried about because we all mod a little differently.. What I might let slide another might ban for what I might ban for 2 months another might ban for 2 weeks.. It's the wasting of resources having to explain every ban from the log.. We already have a lot of ground to cover between the Gaming side Gaming Community OT and OT Community that we really don't have time to explain why calling someone a "Dumb Fuck" got a person banned..
But from what I've read in this thread, you guys already have a record of sorts for why people are banned that mods and admins can read. Plus you're supposed to give a ban message when somebody is banned. Why not just make that public, say you put it in the post someone was banned for or have an automated page that displays recent bans and reasons?
I don't see how that couldn't be a good thing for the community, the number of times people don't know why somebody is banned and then people are surprised when a rule is suddenly enforced that they felt wasn't previously is vast. If the point is "there's no consistency in decisions between mods", how do you expect people to know what the rules are?
To I'm sure the great disappointment of several of the moderators, NeoGAF does not have the power to ban you for your thoughts, only your posts. You can hate homosexuals as much as you want as long as you don't post about it. And yes, there is a distinction between not being able to post your full beliefs on a gaming board and not being able to marry (for example).
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Because you cannot write rules for every single possible offensive thing that can be found in the Internet...just like a police officer has to decide if a person is speeding or traveling with the flow of traffic.. A public log won't change that just make people argue more...
matt360
Member
No thanks, but feel free to check the thread out for yourself. You're free to think I'm wrong, but that doesn't mean I am. But it's already clear from your tone that you're not going to find any unjustified bans in there.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=420012&highlight=chick+fil+a
SomethingAwful does just fine with their system. And it's a much bigger forum than GAF.
This thread has been allowed to stay open even though they're usually locked the second bans are questioned, which implies to me that somebody sees there's a need for mods to be able to respond directly to people's questions. How is it being a big secret why people are banned a better step towards improving the posts at the site than making it clear to everybody why the ban took place? Even if it's inconsistent, you at least make the reason for the ban publicly viewable. Unless the ban was an incredible fuck up on the part of the moderator I don't see what changes.
You can see the reason why we do not have a ban log in this conversation. The response to the limited explanation that was given was exactly what we suggested would happen. People believe that when they receive an explanation about moderation that it is an opportunity for them to argue about it.
If we were following the advice of the proponents, we would be banning every single person speculating or arguing about it - but many of the people who are arguing about it are otherwise good posters. I certainly do not want to ban them, and this is precisely the dilemma that charlequin was explaining earlier when he said that we do not want to put otherwise good posters in a position where they are likely to get themselves in trouble.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Yea it does kinda make sense - not sure if it takes up too many resources though.. I'd just like to add that it wouldn't hurt to have something to scrutinize the job our mods do especially after we've had incidences of mods abusing their powers
Considering that all bans are logged and peer reviewed these days, I don't see how abuse of power is likely at this point.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
The past few times I've spoke my mind and it made the hivemind fussy I got temp banned.
I wouldn't say it's too strict, but it certainly has it's taboos.
I don't see the point in really swimming upstream; I've learned my lesson. I can't think of a single person that has changed their opinion based on someone's post on a message board.
I wouldn't say it's too strict, but it certainly has it's taboos.
I don't see the point in really swimming upstream; I've learned my lesson. I can't think of a single person that has changed their opinion based on someone's post on a message board.
I did, several times.
I mean you're forced to, if your opinions are based on ignorance.
Dude Abides
Banned
I checked out the Something Awful list and a lot of it is "you're basically an idiot," and "you typed a bunch of shit." Not sure how useful such feedback is.
You already push the information on the reason for the ban to the message the banned user sees; isn't there a way to just automatically append that information to the offending post or the user's public profile?
I mean at the very least, why not a "user was banned for this post" notification?
I mean at the very least, why not a "user was banned for this post" notification?
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Didn't know there was review - sounds good enough for me
My last ban certainly wasn't peer reviewed. Bischoptl just banned me for a day because he was wrong and didn't follow a conversation he interrupted.
bishoptl is an Administrator. He does not have to play by exactly the same rules that Kabouter or I or of the other moderators do.
Nobody is terribly interested in policing thoughts here. While it would be ideal if everyone eventually came around on being able to accept homosexuality in society, for the time being we are more concerned with making this forum a place where LGBT people are welcome and can interact with others on a reasonably civil basis. We don't condone expressions of soft bigotry because it runs counter to this goal.
Recent moves have been made to reduce the boys club factor as well, something that has real life consequences as women are put off from entering IT or CS fields due to the male dominated culture. As this is a videogame forum, there is a large amount of overlap too.
I haven't really looked into the thread being discussed so I can't comment on it directly. As I've said before in general though, people being taken by surprise isn't a good thing and leads to arguing. Sometimes people were given clear warning and can't take a hint, but it's on us to limit things to that case.
IrishNinja
Member
i saw that go down, and it wasn't how you're framing it here.
also, given the amount of mod presence at the moment, be sure you want to plant your flag on this one before doubling-down...just a heads-up, as people've caught an L for carrying on about their last ban in the past.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Actually it was peer reviewed.. Sorry
I'm not the one accusing mods of unjustly banning people. Maybe you should put up or shut up. It just gets old hearing about all this bias and yet people can never point to anything.
What about jokes parodying racists homophobes while using dysphemistic language (faggot / nigger, etc) in the joke. The joke uses homophobic/sexist/racist/etc language, but it attacks the people who use it in earnest.
It's relative to the conversation. Nothing I did was against a rule. It's basically "i'm big bad bischoptl, ragghh Samual l Jackson ban time post a gif". But if he has the ability to do whatever he wants than sure. I don't care if I get banned for pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling my posts stupid and then banning me for being snarky.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Every ban is looked at...
- Status