Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonQ]

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.

Eh, I've posted 1/4 as much here (basically, my pet topics and to see people whom I only know from here) after a 2-month ban for this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=36635637&postcount=161 .

While it's more dismissive than insulting (certainly much less than what's usually thrown around and, admittedly, less than a couple of things for which I hadn't been moderated), 1/2 of the post is a call to stop off-topic posts in an openly hostile way. Whatever. Ban. Inconsistency is the only constant.

What made me digusted enough to limit my appearances here was the moderator's message. It was something like, "NeoGAF is a gay-friendly place. If you don't like it, you are free to stop posting about it or visiting the site." (If we can access past moderation, I'll post it directly.)

Whoever banned me interpreted

"The marriage system was great in FE4, but only because you actually have kids that then become your units for the second half of the game. If they aren't doing that, I don't really see this as particularly interesting."

as hostility stemming from vicious uninhibited rage AT TEH GAYZ IN MAH VIDEO GAMEZ or

"Also, back to your hovel, PoliGAF. Be terrible back there."

as a meltdown from someone expressing a differing opinion on a "serious issue," despite this being on the Gaming side.

From that post (referencing the gameplay) and from my post history, my presence in the topic is because, you know, Fire Emblem is amazing and I like it. Also, of course, neither assumption is actually something I'd do. The last time most of my artistic or social opinions were the majority in my groups, I was in the 8th grade at a Lutheran grade school.

That means any post I make tangentially about a serious issue is being policed by people who have ignorant assumptions about me. It's not pitchforks and torches, but it's certainly not community.

 

[Arksy]

You're not giving us specific topics.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to political threads. My apologies.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

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.

Well, there's two ways to take this. If you mean correct in the verifiable sense where one side is literally correct and the other unarguably wrong, then it's pretty clear why the correct side can be excused for not pulling punches. If one side says 2 + 2 is 4, and the other argues it's 5, there's not really any need for civilized debate.

If you mean "correct" in the sense that it's just the popular opinion, then this too is pretty easy to understand. People are more critical of opinions they disagree with and more lenient towards opinions closer to their own. Think of sports, for instance. One doesn't need to present salient arguments to get high-fived for suggesting that the home team is awesome and that the rival team sucks.

 

[Devolution]

I thought it was obvious I was referring to political threads. My apologies.

Which. What topics?

Well, there's two ways to take this. If you mean correct in the verifiable sense where one side is literally correct and the other unarguably wrong, then it's pretty clear why the correct side can be excused for not pulling punches. If one side says 2 + 2 is 4, and the other argues it's 5, there's not really any need for civilized debate.

If you mean "correct" in the sense that it's just the popular opinion, then this too is pretty easy to understand. People are more critical of opinions they disagree with and more lenient towards opinions closer to their own. Think of sports, for instance. One doesn't need to present salient arguments to get high-fived for suggesting that the home team is awesome and that the rival team sucks.

Personally, and going through the history of those I've "baited" since that's how people would see it let's be honest, a lot of people make somewhat questionable statements, then when pressed further show a complete disdain for transpeople, gays, women, and those who don't conform to certain conservative conventions held by the poster. Just the other day some dude called men who dress in women's clothing freaks after I didn't agree with his stance on the matter.

 

[Cyan]

Secondly, it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

It is the discussion.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

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 doesn’t 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 don’t, 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.

I think you could easily give an example without naming names. It would be more helpful than holding back completely, at least.

More concrete evidence is especially needed because you're making the strong claim that moderators treat people unfairly based on their opinions. (As opposed to the weaker claim that other posters treat people with minority opinions unfairly, which is basically true in all human endeavors.)

 

[Arksy]

I think you could easily give an example without naming names. It would be more helpful than holding back completely, at least.

More concrete evidence is especially needed because you're making the strong claim that moderators treat people unfairly based on their opinions.

I'm not making the accusation in the absolute. I am only saying that this is my perception of the matter. I may be wrong.

Secondly, given the search function of the forum, posting a link or quoting an offending post to use an example incurs the same issues I had above.

I do NOT want to start a fight with the moderators and given the detailed post by Stumpokapow in the previous page. I feel that my perceptions have been changed somewhat but that comes with the caveat that I don't speak for other people.

 

[Devolution]

I'm not making the accusation in the absolute. I am only saying that this is my perception of the matter. I may be wrong.

Secondly, given the search function of the forum, posting a link or quoting an offending post to use an example incurs the same issues I had above.

So you're just going to be ridiculously ambiguous about the whole situation.

 

[stupei]

A couple weeks ago I made a joke referencing Ueda's comments about a female protagonist for The Last Guardian. One of the mods didn't know the reference and assumed it was my actual opinion, so I was banned. (Slightly ironic since I think I'm probably more likely to be regarding as one of those "overly PC" people by some.) It was probably at least half my own fault for not making the joke more explicit, though I had honestly thought it was a pretty well known quote.

People in the thread pointed out the mistake, and I was unbanned before the day was over.

The fact that the moderation is so strict but also open to admitting errors or changing a position makes it one of the very best around, in my opinion.

 

[Hitokage]

So you're just going to be ridiculously ambiguous about the whole situation.

Productive!

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

I'm not making the accusation in the absolute. I am only saying that this is my perception of the matter. I may be wrong.

Secondly, given the search function of the forum, posting a link or quoting an offending post to use an example incurs the same issues I had above.

You'd be using the words of people who have voluntarily posted on a public forum.

You could also summarize a particular position or argument or whatever that has been deemed unacceptable by "PC GAF" and we can talk about it.

 

[jorma]

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.

All i did was posting my personal opinion on how i felt the forum was being moderated. If you think it sounded petty, there's not much i can do about that. And if the mods think that it's bullshit and wrong, well there's not much i can do about that either. It's not going to change how i feel about their moderation. They are all stand up and decent individuals, there's not a single mod i have problems with since dragona left, but i still think the sum of all their actions is lacking in consistency.

And I don't need your sympathy or your help, i get by just fine. And i'm pretty sure i never claimed that i was persecuted, what gave you that idea?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Personally, and going through the history of those I've "baited" since that's how people would see it let's be honest, a lot of people make somewhat questionable statements, then when pressed further show a complete disdain for transpeople, gays, women, and those who don't conform to certain conservative conventions held by the poster. Just the other day some dude called men who dress in women's clothing freaks after I didn't agree with his stance on the matter.

For what it's worth, I wasn't really playing my sad violin tune for people who espouse less than popular viewpoints. However, just for the sake of argument, I will concede that it's probably easier to get away with less-than-elegant viewpoints on contentious topics when your views align with the consensus. And by that, just as a for instance, I'm sure someone will be less scrutinized for making a dubious pro-liberal remark here than they would for a dubious pro-conservative remark.

However, I'm not all that hung up on it as something that needs to be fixed, as it just comes with human nature. The only thing I concede as problematic is when someone who is honestly maybe just a little naive and ignorant -- but perhaps open to reason -- gets chased out or feels ganged up on and just shuts off entirely from the discussion, but was otherwise posting in good faith. But does that even happen often, specifically that the people were posting in good faith? I have no idea.

 

[Hitokage]

This is just what stump was talking about...

 

[Cyan]

This is just what stump was talking about...

Fair enough, I'll drop it.

 

[Devolution]

For what it's worth, I wasn't really playing my sad violin tune for people who espouse less than popular viewpoints. However, just for the sake of argument, I will concede that it's probably easier to get away with less-than-elegant viewpoints on contentious topics when your views align with the consensus. And by that, just as a for instance, I'm sure someone will be less scrutinized for making a dubious pro-liberal remark here than they would for a dubious pro-conservative remark.

However, I'm not all that hung up on it as something that needs to be fixed, as it just comes with human nature. The only thing I concede as problematic is when someone who is honestly maybe just a little naive and ignorant -- but perhaps open to reason -- gets chased out or feels ganged up on and just shuts off entirely from the discussion, but was otherwise posting in good faith. But does that even happen often, specifically that the people were posting in good faith? I have no idea.

It doesn't happen as often as people tend to think. A lot of it, like I said, becomes clear when a poster is pressed further. Or instead of admitting to ignorance on the matter they dig their heels in deeper about their expressed ignorance even after information and myths have been dispelled. At some point it just becomes a pointless endeavor because they won't even recognize studies. Which brings me to something I cannot stand lately: the need to cite even the most rudimentary historical, anthropological or sociological principles because some just posts [source] as their argument.

 

[RiccochetJ]

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.

Eh, I've been on the 'bad' side at times, and I honestly think it's more of a feeling that I'm on a shorter leash than the actual truth.

There was a particular thread that got locked down last night and I had a point going in, but for the life of me it went sideways very quick and looking back I feel like an idiot.

Honestly, most times I agree with most people on here but if I think I've found a good counter argument, I'll be the devil's advocate. I'm in the middle about a lot of things so if I can make an argument, I will. That's most of the fun for me about OT.

The great part is that sometimes I'll go in with an opinion and a good debate will actually have me leaving that thread with a different opinion.

The fact that the mods let that happen but keep everyone in check is great.

 

[UrbanRats]

It doesn't happen as often as people tend to think. A lot of it, like I said, becomes clear when a poster is pressed further. Or instead of admitting to ignorance on the matter they dig their heels in deeper about their expressed ignorance even after information and myths have been dispelled. At some point it just becomes a pointless endeavor because they won't even recognize studies. Which brings me to something I cannot stand lately: the need to cite even the most rudimentary historical, anthropological or sociological principles because some just posts [source] as their argument.

Sometimes a poster also has a general feeling that is yet not a clear, well formed idea, and gets caught up in its own confusion when people start ganging up on its un-popular sounding opinion (that can sometimes be borderline idiotic, admittedly).
So what comes out of it is someone that sees himself cornered and ends up juggling with concepts that he wasn't initially supporting, partly because he can't admit he was wrong, partly because he didn't know how to properly express his opinion in the first place and ends up responding to people's speculations disregarding his own initial point.
For example i've seen this happen in touchy subjects like the "statutory rape definition" endless debacle that pops up every so often.
It doesn't help that those posters also share "side" with legitimately outlandish people, and get aggregated together, making everything more heated up than it could be.
And of course, it's not even like the other side is necessarily trying to bait or get the opposing porster banned or anything, but certain subjects (everything involving race is also eligible for this argument) seem to be very sensitive (understandably) and an opinion not perfectly expressed can be spinned and misinterpreted very easily, especially, as i said, if near some legitimately extreme or absurd position from another poster that argues on generally the same side.

That's why in time i tried to reduce my snarkyness as much as possible (in heavy subjects, of course) and avoid replying to a message i find wrong, if my point has been made already, to avoid heating up something more than it already is.

You say a person's real opinion comes out after some heating up, and i agree with that, but i also think that sometimes you can clearly see someone moving further away from his initial point just because caught up in an argument he doesn't know how to handle in the first place; digging their own hole just because they can't backdown and admit they worded it wrong or expressed their point not clearly enough.
Along with what Stump has said, about losing temper, trying to answer everyone at the same time.

 

[Mumei]

There were recently posters complaining about the ability to go against the grain or to argue against the "hivemind" in GAF topics. These posters neglected to mention that they were banned for comparing homosexuality to bestiality and for comparing transgender people to people suffering from delusions brought on by mental illness.

This is nearly identical to the situation that charlequin addressed earlier in this thread when a different poster was doing something similar:

One of the posts earlier in this thread that complained about being "banned for an opinion" neglected to mention that the opinion in question was that the Holocaust was exaggerated.

I think this is a good place to note that there seem to be a lot of posts in threads like this that start with an assumption that we're somehow missing the fact that banning people for having certain opinions is reducing the range of acceptable discussion. In fact, we're quite aware of that; when people are banned for having specific opinions (and this is still quite a bit rarer than many seem to assume), it's because we don't want to preside over a community where some kinds of awful opinions are allowed to run free.

We're very explicit about GAF being a tolerant community in which bigotry is not acceptable. When people's "opinions" run afoul of this, they're not welcome here. "Jews are all greedy" is not a legitimate "opinion" here. Neither is "gay men are all sexually immoral" or "women in general are gold-digging harpies." People who want to be part of the NeoGAF community need to accept upfront that we have a clear-cut house standard on a lot of nominally "political" issues and that there's not actually room for debate here on those topics beyond a certain point.

We know that the moderation policy constrains peoples' ability to express certain kinds of opinions, particularly on the subjects of minorities. This is intentional. It is not going to change.

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.

LostVoyager tends to catch a lot of flack for precisely the reasons you mentioned: His opinions sometimes seem to reflect a lack of real life experience and naivete, and because he is also young and is (at least the last time I saw this happen) living with his parents, people call him out on that.

The original poster feels obligated to defend themselves and rather than picking one person to respond to, gets worked up responding to everyone.

Right. I have explained before that you need to just pick the person who is engaging you in a way that you think will be productive and talk to them. You are not obligated to respond to every person; just apologize that you cannot argue with everyone and focus on the conversation(s) you are willing to entertain. This is the biggest stumbling block posters have when trying to express an unpopular opinion.

- 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.

And this is also very true. It has happened a number of times to me where I discover someone in a different context and a poster I had really disliked is actually quite charming outside of that situation.

Was just on that neogaf bans site, did not know amir0x was permabanned!

How the mighty have fallen.

He is not. That site is not (necessarily) accurate when it comes to lengths or reasons.

 

[DyTonic]

gaf aint strict

 

[Stumpokapow]

A couple weeks ago I made a joke referencing Ueda's comments about a female protagonist for The Last Guardian. One of the mods didn't know the reference and assumed it was my actual opinion, so I was banned. (Slightly ironic since I think I'm probably more likely to be regarding as one of those "overly PC" people by some.) It was probably at least half my own fault for not making the joke more explicit, though I had honestly thought it was a pretty well known quote.

People in the thread pointed out the mistake, and I was unbanned before the day was over.

The fact that the moderation is so strict but also open to admitting errors or changing a position makes it one of the very best around, in my opinion.

This reply is also to GhaleonQ:

If you get banned, and it's clear from the ban that the moderator literally had no clue what you were referencing, please let us know.

I don't mean "if you don't agree with your ban, let us know". I don't mean "if you don't agree with our rules, let us know". I mean that if you get banned for posting NSFW stuff and you actually posted a picture of a hotdog, that's clearly an error. Please let us know.

I remember someone got banned for insults once and when it was looked into, the guy was just quoting a Seinfeld joke ("the jerk store called... etc" if I recall correctly). That happens. Whoops.

I don't have the time to look into the context of the ban Ghaleon mentioned, but the gist of the complaint appears to be that the moderator misread the intent of the post; if the moderator's read had been correct, the ban would have been justified, but it wasn't in his opinion. If I had been notified about that at the beginning of or during the ban I would have done leg work and it probably would have gotten resolved.

 

[Hitokage]

Yeah, there have certainly been cases where the factual basis for a ban isn't there. For example, while junior members are supposed to be permed this does not apply to people who lose their ability to make threads. On some occasions a mod saw the "Junior Member" and made the perm without checking.

 

[pigeon]

You say a person's real opinion comes out after some heating up, and i agree with that, but i also think that sometimes you can clearly see someone moving further away from his initial point just because caught up in an argument he doesn't know how to handle in the first place; digging their own hole just because they can't backdown and admit they worded it wrong or expressed their point not clearly enough.
Along with what Stump has said, about losing temper, trying to answer everyone at the same time.

I sympathize with this, but if you're not willing to back down or admit that you made a mistake, and also not willing to just leave the thread for good, then you're probably going to get banned anyway sooner or later, if not for politics than because you are pretty sure the Wii U is going to be a lot of fun. The reason it's called moderation is because it selects for people who know how to act moderately.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Is it that hard to apologize when you discover you're wrong or worded something improperly?

I've had to do that multiple times around here.

 

[Cyan]

Is it that hard to apologize when you discover you're wrong or worded something improperly?

For some of us? Yes. It really, really is.

And the deeper the mistake, the more difficult it is to back down.

 

[RiccochetJ]

For some of us? Yes. It really, really is.

And the deeper the mistake, the more difficult it is to back down.

Eh, it's easier to take your deserved lumps than fight your way to a ban.

 

[Hitokage]

People generally don't even want to admit to themselves they're wrong or did something in error. It's how cognitive dissonance works.

 

[Cyan]

Eh, it's easier to take your deserved lumps than fight your way to a ban.

Sure, but you're arguing logically with a mental process that completely bypasses the logic circuit.

 

[flippymittens]

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.

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!!!"...

I never said it was... I literally never made that claim. This is what happens when people go against the status quo of what should be condemned, you distorted my opinion and then talked down to me based on my distorted opinion throughout your post.
Its fine by me that I have to put up with people mocking me, distorting my post, treating me like crap on this forum, because I know I am not alone, and because I put up with being the outcast/loser outside of here as well just like others.

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.

Except the only arguement I could buy that for is maybe models but even then, why insult their appearance? I see alot of insults towards the appearance of entertainers who are meant to entertain.

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!!!"

...
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...

Again I have never claimed any of this in my post, I said nothing close to this so I may only assume you are using distortion and trickery to both ridicule me and my points that I did make.

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!!!"

...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.

Except why are certain users like me and others obligated to waltz on egg shells while when others ridicule, mock, or demean us that we have to make a huge deal out of the problem to get it recognised if that. Some users are given passive moderation while others are given active moderation by the staff.

 

[flippymittens]

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.

So in order to say an opinion that is not mainstream on GAF you have to be articulate, intelligent, etc. or be considered scum unworthy of expressing an opinion?
Why should some people be given preferential treatment based on aesthetics rather than supporting evidence.

I would really like something concrete. Anything concrete. Please... manifestation of the conservative/Christian persecution complex mode...

Except Ron Paul supporters or even people who are not supporting Ron Paul but rant against the our foreign policy, the NDAA, etc. are labeled Paulbots or elitist liberals (in one thread) and their opinion dismissed because the election makes this "game time".

 

[beastmode]

If a mod hasn't already, you might want to check out the mess in the anti-obesity thread. I may have made insults directed at the intelligence of certain posters, but only after seriously replying on multiple occasions. The (almost certainly) intentional misrepresentation of what I was saying has also spread to the fitness thread.

 

[Redford]

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.

Can't come up with any immediate examples, but there are posters who will take some innocuous comments as a license to go full ape-shit. It's done for the fun of it alot of the time I guess, since there's no assumption of good-faith to be seen in the way they go from zero to sixty.

That's not to say I've never seen posters like this get banned, though.

 

[Cyan]

If a mod hasn't already, you might want to check out the mess in the anti-obesity thread.

I mentally noted that thread as "avoid at all costs" the moment I saw it. I don't think GAF is mature enough to talk intelligently about obesity.

 

[Deified Data]

Is it that hard to apologize when you discover you're wrong or worded something improperly?

I've had to do that multiple times around here.

Same. I don't find it particularly difficult anymore because I've done it so often (typically via PM). I feel it leaves a very good impression of you with the person you're apologizing to, regardless of your initial disagreement. Sometimes they respond with gratitude, sometimes they ignore it, but hell, it's worth a shot if you're genuinely in the wrong.

 

[UrbanRats]

I sympathize with this, but if you're not willing to back down or admit that you made a mistake, and also not willing to just leave the thread for good, then you're probably going to get banned anyway sooner or later, if not for politics than because you are pretty sure the Wii U is going to be a lot of fun. The reason it's called moderation is because it selects for people who know how to act moderately.

People generally don't even want to admit to themselves they're wrong or did something in error. It's how cognitive dissonance works.

That is true, but it's not always about realizing that your position is wrong and not wanting to back down, as i said sometimes you may have a general idea that you genuinely think it's true or fair, but don't really know how to express it properly.
Luckily it has never happened to me on Gaf (that i can remember of) but it has in other moments of my life and sometimes i can see it unfold in a thread.
That is not to say that there shouldn't be a ban, you have to keep your cool and that's YOUR responsibility as a user, though i'm trying to point out that sometimes in the heat of defending an unclear position, you can entangle yourself in arguments that you do not really support, and realize that too late, not knowing how to back off without looking like an idiot.

Is it that hard to apologize when you discover you're wrong or worded something improperly?

I've had to do that multiple times around here.

Well i don't find admitting being wrong that hard, personally (as long as i'm convinced from the opposite argument), but there's a difference in admitting to have worded or argued your position badly, and completely abandon your initial position (that you still feel as right), i think a lot of times there's a confusion on the two that causes the meltdown.
You still feel your initial point is right, you know your arguments are wrong (and you're closing yourself into a corner) and yet you can't grasp the fact that you're looking at that (possibly valid) opinion from the wrong angle, therefore failing to express what you really mean.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I never said it was... I literally never made that claim. This is what happens when people go against the status quo of what should be condemned, you distorted my opinion and then talked down to me based on my distorted opinion throughout your post.
Its fine by me that I have to put up with people mocking me, distorting my post, treating me like crap on this forum, because I know I am not alone, and because I put up with being the outcast/loser outside of here as well just like others.


Except the only arguement I could buy that for is maybe models but even then, why insult their appearance? I see alot of insults towards the appearance of entertainers who are meant to entertain.



Again I have never claimed any of this in my post, I said nothing close to this so I may only assume you are using distortion and trickery to both ridicule me and my points that I did make.



Except why are certain users like me and others obligated to waltz on egg shells while when others ridicule, mock, or demean us that we have to make a huge deal out of the problem to get it recognised if that. Some users are given passive moderation while others are given active moderation by the staff.

what on earth are you talking about

People are not allowed to insult others on GAF. If they do, that's bannable, or warnable, or subject to other moderator action. If you feel you've been insulted, forward the post to a moderator and remind the user that insulting people is not allowed and it's not a nice thing to do. I personally have never seen someone insulted based on their age or their height here.

If a mod hasn't already, you might want to check out the mess in the anti-obesity thread. I may have made insults directed at the intelligence of certain posters, but only after seriously replying on multiple occasions. The (almost certainly) intentional misrepresentation of what I was saying has also spread to the fitness thread.

I just checked the last few pages and I mostly saw a calories-vs-carbs debate that is not really something that interests me. I saw a few posts that seemed a little curt but nothing that really transcended to insults (mostly just "typically dumb argument from a calorie counter" level stuff, I'm paraphrasing here). If another mod has time they will hopefully go through the whole thread a little more.

 

[stupei]

This reply is also to GhaleonQ:

If you get banned, and it's clear from the ban that the moderator literally had no clue what you were referencing, please let us know.

I don't mean "if you don't agree with your ban, let us know". I don't mean "if you don't agree with our rules, let us know". I mean that if you get banned for posting NSFW stuff and you actually posted a picture of a hotdog, that's clearly an error. Please let us know.

I remember someone got banned for insults once and when it was looked into, the guy was just quoting a Seinfeld joke ("the jerk store called... etc" if I recall correctly). That happens. Whoops.

I don't have the time to look into the context of the ban Ghaleon mentioned, but the gist of the complaint appears to be that the moderator misread the intent of the post; if the moderator's read had been correct, the ban would have been justified, but it wasn't in his opinion. If I had been notified about that at the beginning of or during the ban I would have done leg work and it probably would have gotten resolved.

Just to be clear: I honestly wasn't saying anything about it to complain. I was actually away from the computer for most of that day and my account was unbanned by the time I got home from dinner, so I didn't even really have the chance to do anything about it myself.

But it's good to know that contacting a mod is considered kosher in those kinds of circumstances. Thanks.

 

[beastmode]

I just checked the last few pages and I mostly saw a calories-vs-carbs debate that is not really something that interests me. I saw a few posts that seemed a little curt but nothing that really transcended to insults (mostly just "typically dumb argument from a calorie counter" level stuff, I'm paraphrasing here). If another mod has time they will hopefully go through the whole thread a little more.

5-10 or so people were fairly committed to defaming my posts (SeanR1221 has actually admitted to having a personal vendetta on low-carbohydrate diets.) When I set them straight they went to another thread to vilify amongst themselves. I'm not sure if that's grounds for moderation, but it's worth checking out.

 

[charlequin]

But then I spend the next week finding countless threads that are similar in the sense of being a 'frathouse' type of thread, and people giving countless responses in the thread similar to 'frathouse' responses, and some people even giving the type of responses that resulted in mass bannings from the thread above.

Is it honestly that difficult to understand the difference between a thread where everyone's joking about how the OP should be a creepy sexually-harrassing perv to his sister's friend and a thread about poop? The "frathouse" thing isn't about being how it's not okay to talk about gross stuff or discuss sex and masturbation, it's about how aggro sexual harrassment and projection isn't cool.

The thing where we've cracked down on "would" is really illustrative here. When it's okay to say "would" (or "I'll be in my bunk" or any of the other innumerable variants) it creates a meat-market environment where women can't be discussed without everyone chiming in to comment on the specifics of their physical attractiveness. That's problematic enough with public figures and it creates an actively hostile environment when it comes to other posters.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Is it honestly that difficult to understand the difference between a thread where everyone's joking about how the OP should be a creepy sexually-harrassing perv to his sister's friend and a thread about poop? The "frathouse" thing isn't about being how it's not okay to talk about gross stuff or discuss sex and masturbation, it's about how aggro sexual harrassment and projection isn't cool.

The thing where we've cracked down on "would" is really illustrative here. When it's okay to say "would" (or "I'll be in my bunk" or any of the other innumerable variants) it creates a meat-market environment where women can't be discussed without everyone chiming in to comment on the specifics of their physical attractiveness. That's problematic enough with public figures and it creates an actively hostile environment when it comes to other posters.

Do women "would" men? If they do, will they be banned? I think a crude expression of sexual attraction is fine. Is it because of the crudeness? If I said, "I feel that this woman is extremely attractive and would likely enjoy sexual relations with her," is that similarly subject to a warning/ban? The assumption that's made with those bannings display some kind of disconnect between the unstated rules of this website and the culture and morality we're familiar with.

I don't think many people are ashamed to admit that they think about sex all the time. Wanting sex with an attractive person is part of being human. We see something we like, and we think of sex. We think that way because it's enjoyable for all consenting parties. When someone says "would" or "masturbate" they're not implying abuse or rape. You romance a man or woman to become intimate with them. This should be assumed. I would have a hard time finding someone who disagrees.

 

[bill0527]

Is it honestly that difficult to understand the difference between a thread where everyone's joking about how the OP should be a creepy sexually-harrassing perv to his sister's friend and a thread about poop? The "frathouse" thing isn't about being how it's not okay to talk about gross stuff or discuss sex and masturbation, it's about how aggro sexual harrassment and projection isn't cool..

I don't think anyone that posted the word masturbate in that thread seriously expected or wanted the OP to break down his sister's door in the middle of the night, with his pants around his ankles and begin pleasuring himself by the light of the full moon while standing over his sisters friend. That was the joke. You ever see the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

 

[mollipen]

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.

Well... okay then.

I'll say three things. First, two of my three bans came from posting my opinions, so saying "your opinions are protected" isn't some sweeping statement you can make.

Second, I've seen plenty of times when people disagree with the "popular" opinion on GAF - it all comes down to how you state that opinion and how you treat others when doing so.

Finally, unless people are being rude or ignorant in the stating of their opinion, I try not to dismiss those opinions. So it's also kind of annoying that you're just throwing out statements about how dismissive or rude people like me are.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I don't think anyone that posted the word masturbate in that thread seriously expected or wanted the OP to break down his sister's door in the middle of the night, with his pants around his ankles and begin pleasuring himself by the light of the full moon while standing over his sisters friend. That was the joke. You ever see the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

Yeah, I'd have to agree here, I probably would not have done that.

 

[pigeon]

Do women "would" men? If they do, will they be banned? I think a crude expression of sexual attraction is fine. Is it because of the crudeness? If I said, "I feel that this woman is extremely attractive and would likely enjoy sexual relations with her," is that similarly subject to a warning/ban? The assumption that's made with those bannings display some kind of disconnect between the unstated rules of this website and the culture and morality we're familiar with.

The culture and morality you're familiar with apparently resembles in no way the culture and morality I'm familiar with, because where I come from the bolder part is more or less the DEFINITION of "not fine."

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I dunno, do girls say 'would'?

Cause if they did, at least about me, I'd be a-okay with that, but you can't really apply that to all dudes or all girls.

 

[GrizzNKev]

The culture and morality you're familiar with apparently resembles in no way the culture and morality I'm familiar with, because where I come from the bolder part is more or less the DEFINITION of "not fine."

You're generalizing when I'm obviously speaking in the context of that thread. Have you ever said to another person that you'd like to have sex with someone you find attractive while that attractive person wasn't present?

 

[Blackace]

I dunno, do girls say 'would'?

Cause if they did, at least about me, I'd be a-okay with that, but you can't really apply that to all dudes or all girls.

She is beautiful

Or just

Beautiful

Or sexy, even

Is pretty acceptable in mixed company in real life.. Just use those words

 

[GrizzNKev]

She is beautiful

Or just

Beautiful

Or sexy, even

Is pretty acceptable in mixed company in real life.. Just use those words

So, on a personal level, if you're among only trusted friends, would you "would"?

 

[IceCold]

When people talk about the strictness of gaf, I don't think they're just talking about the mods, but the overall tone of the website. There has been a somewhat recent wave of overly PC/Outraged users on GAF (think of users like Shanadeus) that just shit on many threads, and although some of them are not here anymore, they have had a lasting effect on the forum - OT specifically. Then users like Gaborn make this worse by creating terrible news threads that just rile people up.

 

[T.M. MacReady]

Do women "would" men? If they do, will they be banned? I think a crude expression of sexual attraction is fine. Is it because of the crudeness? If I said, "I feel that this woman is extremely attractive and would likely enjoy sexual relations with her," is that similarly subject to a warning/ban?

That form of crudeness is rarely tolerated, but male gaffers can and often do "would" pictures of men with zero worry of such consequences. GAF works hard to protect its stance of being a friendly and safe place for the LGBT community, which is extremely admirable and one of the many things that I like about this site. It does allow for a slight double standard, which can at times seem unfair, but in the end, its not worth arguing over and its something we can all live with and adhere to. I tried approaching this topic earlier in this thread, and admittedly did not properly convey my point. Its just the way things have to be I guess. Gender, politics, and race issues are extremely sensitive topics, and sometimes trying to discuss even a slightly differing opinion on these topics (not that I ever have or wish to, but I have seen it in some threads) will cause things to get out of hand, and the opinion that could be deemed offensive to some, even if that opinion is being taken completely the wrong way, will always provoke strong reactions to protect the offended with these issues.

Bottom line: think before you speak, approach every issue with respect, and if you feel you're being misunderstood, best to not let it escalate and keep things civil.