Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
I think your answer can be found from a post search for "negroidal" which was a term used by a racist in a story I posted. It became a mini meme that some people picked up because the term was amusing to some posters and was used in other threads - and even though it was out of that context it WORKED because it was not meant in a harmful way. Personally I think the mods do a good job of contextualizing such posts.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
if you insinuate the homosexuality is anything other than fine then you're really just being hateful, and being hateful is bannable. the scientific consensus certainly leans toward it not being a choice at it's core, and even if it were it's a completely harmless choice that can have little to no relevancy in your life. you cant flame other users. you cant call someone on here a loser nerd who needs to get a life if they play games all day, or a fat slob because they like to eat etc or a gay person sinful. it's just messed and hurtful.
This is where you're under a misapprehension. No one on GAF is forcing anyone to BELIEVE something. A neo-nazi holocaust denying Flat Earth 6 day literal young earth creationist KKK recruiting pedophile who regularly drives drunk could in theory sign up and be a GAFer and post for many years. However a number of these views (admitting to drunk driving for example, or being a pedophile) are perma bannable (and should be). In other words, as a private forum Evilore, through the medium of his forum, Neogaf is exercising his right to define how members should express themselves.
Even so though, the BELIEF that being gay is sinful or even wrong has never in my experience been bannable. If it was I know several members who would be banned now.
It depends on how you feel about yout money being given to designated hate groups like the Family Research Council. It's not just about marriage.
Glad we agree. Maybe next time you should get your facts in order before making yourself look silly getting outraged over bans that never happened.
Although most were for two weeks so they should be unbanned by now.
RukusProvider
Banned
One simple way would for a mod to edit the post that lead to the ban with atleast a quick blurb about "banned for x/y/z for a/b/c length."
One of the most annoying things is not knowing how long a person is banned for.
As for peer reviews, having done moderation and knowing site owners at different sites, there's generally an unspoken code about going with the flow...
One of the most annoying things is not knowing how long a person is banned for.
As for peer reviews, having done moderation and knowing site owners at different sites, there's generally an unspoken code about going with the flow...
To be perfectly honest, I have always been mystified by the "We need explanations!" and "I don't understand why he was banned!" comments that people have made even before I had become a moderator. And I have not learned of any new rules since becoming a moderator. I have not learned of secret policies. My understanding of what is off-limits is the same as it was before I was a moderator.
What this says to me is that you do not need to be a moderator to have a good sense of what the rules are. It may simply be that I have paid more attention to the rules because I have been on a perm warning since 2009. My one ban, which was for posting in full and without attribution (well, I did but it was earlier in the topic and not in the post I was moderated for) a rather length article, managed to net me that for those who are curious. But I have never felt especially worried about posting. I have never worried about breaking some rule I was heretofore unaware of. And as my understanding of moderation policy has not changed from when I was a regular poster and now that I am a moderator, I honestly do not understand the hand-wringing people are doing.
Also, if anyone would like the simplest distillation of moderation philosophy here, this is it:
And this is also good:
And I am sure Stumples has, as with every other subject known to man and lumberjack, given a great explanation of this sort of thing in the past, but I do not have a post of his in mind offhand. But I think those two posts are a good summation both of the perspective that EviLore takes on the sort of moderation culture he wants to have and what we perceive our role as moderators to be, particularly in relation to sensitive issues.
What this says to me is that you do not need to be a moderator to have a good sense of what the rules are. It may simply be that I have paid more attention to the rules because I have been on a perm warning since 2009. My one ban, which was for posting in full and without attribution (well, I did but it was earlier in the topic and not in the post I was moderated for) a rather length article, managed to net me that for those who are curious. But I have never felt especially worried about posting. I have never worried about breaking some rule I was heretofore unaware of. And as my understanding of moderation policy has not changed from when I was a regular poster and now that I am a moderator, I honestly do not understand the hand-wringing people are doing.
Also, if anyone would like the simplest distillation of moderation philosophy here, this is it:
I will just say that mods on gaf are not brought on for their willingness to put in work on a volunteer basis or to be ToS sticklers. They're brought on purely for intelligence, level headedness, and positive contribution to discussion. And there is no minimum required time to put in or hours that need to be covered, unlike at a lot of other forums. And I keep busy work to the minimum; being a moderator is almost purely about doing what they feel is right, and leading by example when they participate in discussions (which they did prior to becoming mods).
As such, most of the mods are passionate about the position on their own accord. I'm very hands off aside from handling sensitive matters and telling them what my perspective is on how things should be handled so that they can gel with my vision for the site. But since I pick everyone after taking into account their perspective and ability to handle conflict, and all the mods coordinate in IRC on their own, 99% of the time I can stand back and look at the result and nod my head without even having to say anything.
So I can travel the world with confidence
And this is also good:
And I am sure Stumples has, as with every other subject known to man and lumberjack, given a great explanation of this sort of thing in the past, but I do not have a post of his in mind offhand. But I think those two posts are a good summation both of the perspective that EviLore takes on the sort of moderation culture he wants to have and what we perceive our role as moderators to be, particularly in relation to sensitive issues.
blame space
Banned
yeah sometimes i too wonder why people would even want to know why a person they share a community with and interact with a lot suddenly disappears forever. totally mystified.
Psychological Intellect
Banned
How do you know wehther or not a warning you get is a perm warning or not?
Maybe there should be an obituary for perma-bans.
I believe on your ban message, it would say "never" where the ban's lift date is listed.
Psychological Intellect
Banned
No I mean if a mod warns you of a ban, how do you know if that warning pertains to a regular or permanent ban?
Never seen a warning like that.
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
The ban message will say something along the lines of "The next ban is permanent" or "this is your final warning".
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
i remember in the Wachowski thread, people with differing (but non-offensive or insulting) opinions about how to classify the person (such as saying "good for him" or disagreeing with the notion that so much cosmetic and synthetic procedure could be considered "natural") were attacked, insulted, and threatened with bans for having an opinion that was contrary to the majority of the hivemind. These people should allowed to have their own opinion, as long as they don't insult the community, yet they were insulted, attacked, and "backseat-modded" without any repercussions for those that came after them.
it eventually devolved into personal attacks and insults from both sides, (and several bans, I believe) but the people who respectfully voiced differing opinions being threatened with bans and insulted (which would be ban worthy from the other side of the opinion) and this being deemed acceptable was particularly hypocritical in my eyes.
I didn't post in that thread. I never post in threads dealing with political, racial, or sexuality issues because of all this grey area. Swearing and meme-ing bans are usually brief and inconsequential, its stuff like the above that can be a bit concerning. It leads me to not want to voice my opinion sometimes.
it eventually devolved into personal attacks and insults from both sides, (and several bans, I believe) but the people who respectfully voiced differing opinions being threatened with bans and insulted (which would be ban worthy from the other side of the opinion) and this being deemed acceptable was particularly hypocritical in my eyes.
I didn't post in that thread. I never post in threads dealing with political, racial, or sexuality issues because of all this grey area. Swearing and meme-ing bans are usually brief and inconsequential, its stuff like the above that can be a bit concerning. It leads me to not want to voice my opinion sometimes.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I still stand by what I said a while ago that permabans are the only thing too strict about GAF. I feel they are almost never deserved. Forever is a mighty long time. Unless they have a pattern of saying something fucking disgusting or stupid then a permaban shouldn't be necessary. Just ban people for a year. A year is a long ass time as well.
Or it's probably just a way for the admins to control the population just like man made famine and man made natural disasters. No tin foil hats people. This is the real deal.
Or something.
Or it's probably just a way for the admins to control the population just like man made famine and man made natural disasters. No tin foil hats people. This is the real deal.
Or something.
Psychological Intellect
Banned
I guess I'm not really explaining it right. Say you're in a thread posting in whatever and a mod notices that you're toeing the line a little bit and says like "you should be careful" how do you know if that warning(which is probably a ban warning) is a regular warning or a perm ban warning. is there a cutoff list of how times you get banned before you get perma banned or does it depend on the absolute seriousness of your previous bans?
Oh, a perm warning is always issued via a ban message. You might still be permed for something you post if it's really far over the line/your umpteenth ban/you're a known troublemaker/you're a junior, but a perm warning is a specific flag you get in your ban record. A warning in a thread is normally just for a regular ban, and a ban won't be permanent unless one of the conditions I mentioned earlier applies.
Psychological Intellect
Banned
is that so? hmmmmm.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Are there more bans in Gaming or OT?I've always wondered that.
If someone really crosses the line in a big way (such as a long racist rant), or can't behave himself even for the short time he's a junior, or gets banned for the same thing again and again, it's clear that the user is not a good fit for GAF. A permanent ban makes sense in my opinion. Though you're welcome to disagree of course.
I don't think we maintain statistics on that, sorry.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
It definitely used to be gaming but nowadays I'm not so sure.
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
I don't think anyone who has ever been banned doesn't honestly know why. I mean really. You know.
You just want to argue about it. We've all been there, just take your lumps and post smart next time.
Read that 'how not to get banned' thread. It's not rocket science. Most people don't have any problems not being a dick but I guess some people need extra help figuring it out.
You just want to argue about it. We've all been there, just take your lumps and post smart next time.
Read that 'how not to get banned' thread. It's not rocket science. Most people don't have any problems not being a dick but I guess some people need extra help figuring it out.
Broder Salsa
Banned
The new consoles are coming soon, surely that will bring on a lot of meltdowns and bans.
I honestly didn't realize what I got banned for until searching through my post history and seeing pretty much everyone being harsh towards Boxxy in some bump of a Boxxy thread got banned. Wasn't complaining though as I only got a week or two as a junior, but the ban message just said something along the lines of "we do not speak like that in company of ladies".
If you really want someone to be your villain, I'll take responsibility. I mean, I was not a moderator at a time, but you can come up with some story where I traveled back in time in order to administer it, I'm sure.
We don't. It fluctuates depending on the topics, I think.
Not looking for a villain really, just curious so I can poke fun.
That might do though, I'll think about it!
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I got banned once or twice as a junior and I know which mod did it lol. I don't look at the mod badly though, I actually think he is a good poster!
blame space
Banned
someone should leak the mod forum or the ban list or something
Wendel Clark
Member
did you guys review the time bishoptl banned me because his hockey team got knocked out of the playoffs?
That's pretty much a software limitation that has been left unaddressed for years. Users banned for any length are put into the same usergroup and that usergroup is what determines things like default tag.
It is something that would help though. Being able to tell a boot out the door from a slap on the wrist would be more useful.
More applicable here is that since each mod can only read only so much, different effective jurisdictions arise and mods generally assume that areas outside their own are being handled unless something looks really off.
I think the problem is "don't be a dick" is a much stricter standard than used to be enforced here.
I was recently banned for comparing people judging the morals of people eating at chick a filla to the people judging the balls of people avoiding movie theaters after the aurora shooting.
Did it make allot of sense? Not really. I really don't see how this violated any TOS or offended anyone. Not my best posting work but I had to scratch my head a little as to why that was bannable.
The only thing I can figure is cross posting in 2 highly sensitive threads. OK, are we going to be so strict as to make an off topic post a bannable offense?
The problem this creates is that it causes people to self censor, even if an analogy or idea is stupid, or a joke is bad, I would rather it be put out and discussed. Often someone posts something kind of wacky and before they are allowed to explain themselves they are banned.
Perspicacity
Banned
I've been banned once and I absolutely agree with the banning policy.
One post made me upset, I reacted badly, and even at the time felt I should be banned for my response.
Keep up the good work.
One post made me upset, I reacted badly, and even at the time felt I should be banned for my response.
Keep up the good work.
Good god that is just a sad display. Someone posted this list before but... ugh it managed to get 3X worse in the span of a few days. Stop me if I sound a little too dickish but I really don't think that the bans in those "threads" were that big of a deal. On average you're account is disabled for 2 weeks. There's a strange stigma against getting banned around these parts... its not that bad unless you're going for a record. (!_!)
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
I feel charlequin's quote does not pertain to the GAF of today ..
This forum is currently not welcoming to conservatives henceforth why very few do not post in political threads - there is no balance in regards to politics
This forum is currently not welcoming to conservatives henceforth why very few do not post in political threads - there is no balance in regards to politics
We don't see the need to keep shifting the balance point with conservatives as they become increasingly right wing
flippymittens
Banned
That and this forum is inconsistent when it comes to discrimination (some forums are welcomed and encouraged while others are condemned).
That's insane. That has one of the highest percentage-wise bodycounts I've either ever seen in a single thread or the second-most. None of the comments really seemed that bad either considering they were joking.
We do not seek balance. That was not the point of his post.
And it just so happens that many of these opinions that are frowned upon here are associated with American social conservatism in particular. We are aware of this. We would prefer to make a more welcoming community for minority members by forbidding certain expressions of opinions than to make a more welcoming community for people who wish to be abusive towards the aforementioned by allowing bigotry.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Conservatism is a very broad term. There are many modern conservatives here that disagree with the social part of their party and still feel unwelcome and their voice is muted.
I don't want to hijack this thread anymore and make it about politics.
Surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has
You will never satisfy everyone - too many users here
flippymittens
Banned
Well I think he is complaining that anyone with a conservative opinion is freely insulted or mocked...
That there is no room for discussions on the issues when one side is just patting each other on the back all the time and insulting someone's opinion.
I would argue this forum is not open to libertarians either... Ron Paul supporters get labeled as Paulbots, even people who do not support Ron Paul but agree with him on the NDAA, foreign affairs, etc. are insulted.
I would argue that neogaf has a more Democratic Party bias than a liberal bias.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
I can't be the only one to think this sounds ridiculous. I get that Admins have more powers but when it comes to banning people you either all play by the same rules or nobody does.
It's this kind of thinking that kills discussion on this forum.
The vast majority of religious people believe gay people are sinful - definitely every Christian I've encountered in real life. Their book has God referring to homosexuality as an abomination. Are you for the banning of almost all religious people?
I'm an atheist but I want to convince these people that they're wrong, I don't want them banned for their beliefs.
They also believe atheists are sinful too. Hurtful, messed up, and selfish, yes. Ban worthy, of course not.
- Status