I feel like posts like these would be more useful if they were a bit more specific, this is too vague to do anything with. Some examples would be ideal. Best way to improve GAF's moderation is to be concrete about what you dislike about it now, and give examples.
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
I feel like posts like these would be more useful if they were a bit more specific, this is too vague to do anything with. Some examples would be ideal. Best way to improve GAF's moderation is to be concrete about what you dislike about it now, and give examples.
Count Dookkake
Member
But they think they'll get banned if they are too specific.
black_vegeta
Member
Yeah, that's my feeling as well. Sometimes, being banned on certain things is inconsistent when it comes to the mods. One mod will be cool with it, then another mod will come in and ban 30% of the users in a thread. If the could more on the same page of what and what not to ban, I would be more happier. Otherwise, GAF is a great place to chill and chat.
I'm not going to ban anyone for disagreeing with GAF's moderation, as long as they're being respectful of course, but that goes without saying. So they should feel free to be specific.
Count Dookkake
Member
NinjaBoiX
Member
Some people get banned for posting a poor/wrong/unpopular opinion, even if it's delicately worded, accepted as being incorrect and due apologies are given.
Yet other posters appear to be able to actively insult and antagonise other members, for no apparent reason, with little to no recourse.
I'll PM you some examples if you want, I don't want to demonise anyone publicly.
flippymittens
Banned
Edit: He beat me to most of it.
Well it is okay to insult someone's intellect, stereotype, and insult people outside of a few rightfully protected boundaries.
An example would be insulting the appearance of some, or the height. Others include age based insults.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Calling someone short isn't an insult. I'm short. Hi. Unless someone is, like, "You know your opinion about open-world gameplay versus linear narratives? I can't hear you from up here, ya worthless midget!!!"
Insulting someone's appearance when it isn't a conversation about their appearance is bannable, hence why we've banned literally dozens of people over the years over "Gabe Newell is fat", "The guy making the new DMC game is <insert insult here>", Jade Raymond, etc. We ban for that. The more over the top the insult, the more likely we are to ban someone. The faster the thread, the less likely we are to catch it.
Insulting someone's intellect is contextual. If someone makes a dumb argument, and you call it a dumb argument, that's fine. If you say "only a dumb person would claim <x>", that's okay. If you start inferring that someone is being dumb or is dumb, that's borderline. When the post totally diverges from the argument and just turns into aggressive personal insults about the person's intelligence, that's bannable. We ban plenty of people for calling each other morons.
I have literally no idea what you are referring to with "age". People sometimes point out that naive arguments are not likely to come from someone with real-life experience, or that the understanding a teenager has of the world around them is decontextualized and incomplete... Just like when a 15 year old has their heart broken by their first boyfriend and their parents say "Oh honey, I know it seems like the end of the world now, but it's not a big deal", it might come off as condescending or patronizing, but it's not meant as an insult, it's meant as an acknowledgment that life experience brings context that can't be repeated in the form of a strictly logical argument.
Let's make it fully clear; someone disagreeing with you, even forcefully, is not an insult. All debates are going to end up being intellectual meritocracies. People who make poor arguments are going to be refuted. You have to realize that when you make an argument (that something is or is not a certain way), your position precludes the position of others. If they disagree, they have the right to tell you. If they feel your argument is not supported by facts, they have the right to tell you. If they feel your position is at odds with history or science or it's impractical, they have the right to tell you. You are not entitled to people agreeing with you.
But if you feel like a user is insulting you or anyone else, please contact a moderator. It's possible you're right and we missed the post. It's possible that the post is a mixed bag and we might opt to delete the post or warn the user or warn the thread rather than ban. It's also possible the moderator doesn't agree with your assessment at all.
The bottom line is that here's what the TOS says:
Although those three categories are carved out at the end, we aren't in favour of any insults. If someone insulted you or if someone is insulting someone else, let us know.
Please feel free
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
We generally treat this as borderline, because the internet itself still hasn't figured out an effective hat-tip/via/credit to/click-through-to-source system, and because the bigger problem is people posting content from a secondary source that mischaracterizes the information from the primary source or duplicates it... or worse, not posting a link at all.
We've banned a few people for it, normally when we ask a poster to edit down to excerpts and they refuse.
I agree we should be more diligent about encouraging clickthroughs or editing articles down. I know EviLore feels the same way.
If you feel a thread is particularly egregious (or if it's your work that's being copy-pasted!) please contact us or just leave a friendly message in the thread saying "Want to edit it down to an excerpt and try to make the original credit / link more visible?" User self-policing is by far the best way to solve any problem.
Those are pretty rare cases. Most of the user-on-user stuff we moderate are non-factual things like general insults, most of the "knowingly false" stuff we moderate is fake-insider bluster. We give people the benefit of the doubt that if they post something wrong, it's negligence rather than malice. One counter-example would be someone, for example, posting dozens and dozens of low-quality blog rumours in gaming side. We had a particular issue with people who don't speak Japanese posting anonymous Japanese rumours that they Google Translated. Ugh. We'd typically respond by junioring or warning rather than banning.
Thanks on the PM. Depending on how old the posts are they might not result in anything immediate, but it still helps us get a handle on what we're missing.
NinjaBoiX
Member
As I say stump, that PM wasn't "ban these horrible people!", that's not my style. I was simply pointing out examples of people being willfully obnoxious, rather than simply misinformed. I don't want to be a tattle tail for want of a better word, I was simply replying to your request.
Just as a heads up, I don't think whining about it all the time will do your friend much good.
I would argue that complaints against "political correctness" are often actually saying "I should be able to say whatever I want without having to worry how my words affect others."
Just because one person may not understand why something would be offensive doesn't mean it isn't offensive to someone else.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
It's not exactly groupthink if everyone genuinely agrees. What you're seeing is that people who agree feel comfortable posting and people who don't decide not to. It creates the illusion that there's a complete consensus, but it's not necessarily people bowing to social pressure which is one hallmark of groupthink.
I mean, I guess if you define the group as all of GAF, then yes, some people are not speaking up do to social pressure, but they aren't participating at all, so I wouldn't include them in the "group."
But if people who disagree don't feel comfortable posting, wouldn't you say that is bowing to social pressure?
I mean, I've definitely noticed that too, that if there's a consensus in the first few posts, it can be really difficult for opposing arguments to get any traction. You get pile-ons, and so on. Although sometimes a thread can reverse polarities later on, once the initial posters are no longer reading it.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Yeah, see my edit. I'm just being pedantic about the exact definition of groupthink because I'm a social psychologist (and an annoying person). The general idea that consensus pressure plays a role in shaping the course of discussions is spot on.
I should have followed the discussion further back; I didn't realize some people were saying people get banned simply for disagreeing with the majority. I'm highly skeptical of that claim.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Admins junior and un-junior people, not mods. People do get unjuniored, but generally after a long time. I won't give a timeframe like there's a hard and fast rule, but we're more talking a year or more than we are months. We would only consider it if a user has a clean record recently. It's a case-by-case thing.
In your case, you got juniored, you PMed a bunch of mods (I think some through other members because you had a problem with your PM inbox) asking about it. I said I'd look into it. Before I heard back from the admins, within a day or two of me replying to you, you had spammed a bunch of threads complaining about the injustice of it all. Another moderator gave you a temp ban for this. When you came back, I think you had a passive aggressive protest avatar for a while and I remember maybe a dozen posts since then which basically took the form of "WELL SINCE I'M A JUNIOR!!!!!!!!!!" I don't mention this because I want a debate about it. I mention it because it's pretty much an example of the kind of thing we'd want to avoid when considering unjunioring someone.
So I'd definitely recommend cooling your jets for a while. If you have a thread that absolutely must be posted, that's really gripping stuff, you might find that another member is willing to work with you on it.
If multiple people comment that they feel this way, in what way is it BS? I myself have seen more then once instance of someone stating a dissenting political proposition that in fact wasn't particularly extreme and getting banned for it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Hm, examples? Honestly curious here.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
You sure they got banned just for stating their opinion and not for getting aggressive in response to the ensuing pile-on?
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Give him a week, he'll be okay.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
That's the most common thing I see.
Someone posts a dissenting opinion. They get dogpiled by a bunch of posters who, individually are making very reasonable arguments and generally not doing something bannable, but the sheer number of posters makes it into a dogpile. The original poster feels obligated to defend themselves and rather than picking one person to respond to, gets worked up responding to everyone. Being frustrated about the fact that they can't make everyone else see their point of view, they end up getting aggressive or insulting (sometimes egged on by one or more respondents). In the end, the poster ends up being banned for insulting or a meltdown. Sometimes one or more of the respondents get banned if they're also complicit.
It's unfortunate, but the solution isn't banning everyone who engages the poster, and the solution isn't allowing the poster to have meltdowns and get insulting just because they're getting a hard time for their opinion.
So the advice I'd basically give would be:
- If someone makes a post you strongly disagree with, read the next few posts. If other posters have already done a good job highlighting your disagreement, you don't need to make the exact same response. Let it ride. GAF, and every forum, would be better if they had half as many replies that were twice as good.
- If it feels like people are dogpiling on you, and you really want to respond, try responding in the general sense by clarifying your point or linking people to an OpEd or commentator you feel represents you. Don't respond to individual posters, and certainly don't respond to everyone. Try to diffuse the situation rather than escalate it. Make your posts count.
- Use ignore to ignore users you recognize as being frequent shit-starters. Don't view their posts once they're on your ignore list.
- Don't insult people. Don't have a meltdown. Walk away.
- Try to remember that many of the posters you disagree with on politics or religion are actually good people in other threads. Try to read and post in a wide variety of threads. You'll find that your opinion of people will improve if you see them as well-rounded people rather than 2D cardboard people who just repeat a political opinion that offends you.
- If you want to leave a thread, consider doing it without telling people. Posting "I'm not wasting any more of my time here" is bad enough, doing it and then responding 15 minutes later with some flimsy excuse like "LOL I HAD TO DO LAUNDRY SO I JUST CHECKED THE THREAD AGAIN" is a good sign you're on the road to a meltdown. If you're going to leave a thread, just leave the thread.
- Consider not posting in politics threads. Is GAF really the best place on the internet to have a political discussion? There are probably other threads that GAF is more uniquely well suited to deliver you. Why not check some of those out? I'm sure someone posted a "cool animal doing cool stuff" thread today.
If you feel that people are overwhelming you, contact a moderator. If others are being insulting, we'll intervene. If they're not being insulting, but they're also not letting you get your say in, we might delete some posts or try to notify people to give you some breathing room.
No one should be run off the site because they have a differing political opinion, even if that opinion seems totally hare-brained to everyone else.
Thats what you all argue, because your opinions are protected. And approved of. If i disagree with any of those opinions, the line i have to walk is much much thinner. I don't get to disregard your bullshit opinion in the same dismissive and rude way you get to disregard my bullshit opinion. I can still dissent obviously but no, i don't think i'm treated the same when i give voice to a dissenting opinion.
It's not a major problem for me since my own set of opinions are fairly "pc" for the most part. I feel perfectly safe when posting those.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Hey, what was the greatest/worst meltdown you've ever seen?
You guys keep being vague. How about some concrete examples. "I don't feel like I can post opinion X because of blah blah blah." You're not going to get piled on or insulted or whatever in this thread, the mods are all over it.
Devolution
Member
I feel like the "pc" whining is misdirection. A bunch of the people I've seen post slightly bigoted stuff, people get a bit in their shit and then they let fly how they really feel. Then a ban happens.
Count Dookkake
Member
This is a particularly good point.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Is it possible that people with un-PC opinions also tend to express them less elegantly than they could? I might be a bit of an exception, but I usually enjoy learning about other people's perspectives (even when unpalatable to me) provided they're presented with some reasoning behind them.
Count Dookkake
Member
This is quite likely.
Devolution
Member
Let's be real here there isn't much "political correctness" on gaf so much as cracking down on homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia and a bit of ableism. It's allowed a variety of posters to post on here without feeling attacked, alienated or demonized for who they are.
NinjaBoiX
Member
This has happened to me so many times. Just think of all the times a friend that you generally agree with, expresses an opinion that horrifies you. You take their general outlook on life into account, apply a level of understanding based on that, and then discuss how they came about their opinion.Stump said:
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I know several posters with un-PC opinions (by GAF standards) who express them elegantly and are just fine. Most notably several very pro-life people and a handful of anti-gay people. Whatever you say about Game Analyst the dude doesn't get hostile and he's very articulate.
Devolution
Member
That site isn't exactly accurate.
Ah ... ok, thanks for the heads up.
There's no real point. As i said, anyone can have an opinion about anything but if it's a dissenting one people get to shit all over you in ways that is not tolerated if the opinion is considered "correct".
Yeah it's perhaps vauge but that's how i feel gaf works at the moment. Feel free to disregard, i don't think me posting here will change anything.
It's possible. But the feeling i personally have is that i get to be much "less elegant" if i present a "correct" opinion, so i feel safer when posting those.
I agree with this, though it has nothing to do with moderation. It's a community problem.
That said I've seen times when the person being dogpiled on also gets baited to do something that would get them banned.
Devolution
Member
People get themselves banned. I find the baited situation to be hilarious.
NinjaBoiX
Member
I just typed "Amirox neogaf" into Google, oh my! The guy is an internet legend! Other boards commenting on his antics! He has meme's and everything!
Steve Youngblood
Member
I can see that possibly being problematic, but the fact of the matter is that this is a large forum where similar topics get discussed over and over. As such, it's understandable -- if perhaps slightly regrettable -- that popular arguments begin to reach the realm of being regarded as correct, and that people become a little less patient as fatigue with the topic sets in.
But its true the Amirox was banned, dunno about perma though.
goldenpp72
Member
This is a pretty good point as well, not something I really thought about until now, but if people are on the 'correct' side you can get away with quite a bit more mud slinging than you can if you're on the 'bad' side. Though I guess this applies in society in general, it's still a funny observation.
Devolution
Member
The reason why should be obvious.
Ok, it's just, there's no real reason to be vague, and it makes your argument seem totally petty. "I'm persecuted, but I refuse to give you any details." I'm sorry, but that doesn't inspire me to try to help you at all.
In the absence of any detail, we are left to assume... well.
I am able to cite some examples but I am reluctant to post for a multitude of reasons. Posting examples might be viewed as an exercise in finger-pointing which could have the effect of bringing moderators into disrepute. Secondly, it doesnt really add anything to the discussion. We are saying that we feel moderation is unbalanced in favour of a majority view and dissenting opinions are discouraged from engaging and therefore dont, creating the appearance of a herd mentality or a wide consensus among posters.
Aside from this narrow issue I think the standards enforced on behaviour make it the best place on the internet to go to for gaming news and discussion as well as some amazing threads on GAF-Community initiatives such as the weight loss thread, IronGAF and other specialist threads but not a particularly good place to debate policy and political philosophy.
Aside from this narrow issue I think the standards enforced on behaviour make it the best place on the internet to go to for gaming news and discussion as well as some amazing threads on GAF-Community initiatives such as the weight loss thread, IronGAF and other specialist threads but not a particularly good place to debate policy and political philosophy.
Devolution
Member
You're not giving us specific topics.
- Status