Is GAF too strict?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orayn said:
Won't somebody please think of the affluent, white, heterosexual males?! They've suffered in silence for so long... :(
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of pitying majority groups. It's a matter of fairness and avoiding hypocrisy.

Calling someone a "breeder," for example, is meant to be a derogatory remark. People may use it "harmlessly" or sarcastically, much like they do with other derogatory terms, but insulting someone's sexuality should be against the rules both ways.

The rules aren't there to protect minorities. They're there to maintain the quality of the discussion and keep it from free-falling into YouTube comment territory with GAFers insulting each other back and forth.

I was banned once for calling someone an idiot on GAF, for example. That is a relatively tame insult, of course, but it falls in line with the direct attacks that are bannable around here.
 
ScOULaris said:
It's not a matter of pitying majority groups. It's a matter of fairness and avoiding hypocrisy.

Calling someone a "breeder," for example, is meant to be a derogatory remark. People may use it "harmlessly" or sarcastically, much like they do with other derogatory terms, but insulting someone's sexuality should be against the rules both ways.

The rules aren't there to protect minorities. They're there to maintain the quality of the discussion and keep it from free-falling into YouTube comment territory with GAFers insulting each other back and forth.

I was banned once for calling someone an idiot on GAF, for example. That is a relatively tame insult, of course, but it falls in line with the direct attacks that are bannable around here.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's just a matter of basic "respect". Is that even a word on here? There doesn't need to be a political analysis for every disparaging term to determine whether it is potentially offending. It's as simple as not being a self-righteous douche, but that would take alot of the fun out of this site for people.
 
I don't want to tell people what they can and can't feel "offended" by, but I'm rolling my eyes pretty hard at shuri whose MO for the years and years I've been reading his posts is to be provocative and troll-ish and toeing the line of appropriateness/banworthy comments. Whatever dude.
 
Is there really a "derogatory" term for heterosexual people now? Is that like making fun of someone for being white?

"Ha look at that...person who gets all the benefits and can get married if they want to and can keep the human race going. What a clown"
 
ScOULaris said:
It's not a matter of pitying majority groups. It's a matter of fairness and avoiding hypocrisy.

Calling someone a "breeder," for example, is meant to be a derogatory remark. People may use it "harmlessly" or sarcastically, much like they do with other derogatory terms, but insulting someone's sexuality should be against the rules both ways.

The rules aren't there to protect minorities. They're there to maintain the quality of the discussion and keep it from free-falling into YouTube comment territory with GAFers insulting each other back and forth.

I was banned once for calling someone an idiot on GAF, for example. That is a relatively tame insult, of course, but it falls in line with the direct attacks that are bannable around here.
Click to expand...

While traits like fairness and consistency are nice ideals, I don't know if this really gets to the crux of why things might be the way they are. Specifically, you mention that "the rules aren't there to protect minorities" to transition into why the rules should be fair and consistent. And while I don't think that's a moronic suggestion, I do think that it's important to understand that the rules are there more so -- at least in my mind -- to promote inclusion.

In that regard, does some tongue-in-cheek usage of a term like 'breeder' make me, a heterosexual, feel excluded? Not really. As such, I don't necessarily know if I agree that it's of paramount importance to address any such inconsistency. That's not to say it would be silly to address it. I just think it's kind of disingenuous to present them as though they are equivalent and equally egregious, personally. But that's just me.
 
Derrick01 said:
Is there really a "derogatory" term for heterosexual people now? Is that like making fun of someone for being white?

"Ha look at that...person who gets all the benefits and can get married if they want to and can keep the human race going. What a clown"
Click to expand...

I always loved this quote from the Simpsons:

Homer on gays: They're embarrassing me. They're embarrassing America. They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce, and Lance, and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just, uh...
John: Queer?
Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!!
 
Steve Youngblood said:
While traits like fairness and consistency are nice ideals, I don't know if this really gets to the crux of why things might be the way they are. Specifically, you mention that "the rules aren't there to protect minorities" to transition into why the rules should be fair and consistent. And while I don't think that's a moronic suggestion, I do think that it's important to understand that the rules are there more so -- at least in my mind -- to promote inclusion.

In that regard, does some tongue-in-cheek usage of a term like 'breeder' make me, a heterosexual, feel excluded? Not really. As such, I don't necessarily know if I agree that it's of paramount importance to address any such inconsistency. That's not to say it would be silly to address it. I just think it's kind of disingenuous to present them as though they are equivalent and equally egregious, personally. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Damn, you are a dumbass.

Does this gets the point below across to you?

Cabbie said:
Yup, it's just a matter of basic "respect". Is that even a word on here? There doesn't need to be a political analysis for every disparaging term to determine whether it is potentially offending. It's as simple as not being a self-righteous douche, but that would take alot of the fun out of this site for people.
Click to expand...
 
cutmeamango said:
Damn, you are a dumbass.

Does this gets the point below across to you?
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that homosexuals issuing pejorative terms against heterosexuals is fine and dandy while the reverse isn't. I was just responding as to why a systemic crackdown of the former might be considered a higher priority than the latter. If that makes me a 'dumbass,' then so be it I suppose.
 
Steve Youngblood said:
I didn't suggest that homosexuals issuing pejorative terms against heterosexuals is fine and dandy while the reverse isn't. I was just responding as to why a systemic crackdown of the former might be considered a higher priority than the latter. If that makes me a 'dumbass,' then so be it I suppose.
Click to expand...

It does not.

Breeder is undoubtedly rude and pejorative and in the right circumstances (e.g. in the context of a vituperative personal attack against another poster) maybe something would happen. But we are not going to treat it the same way we treat "faggot."
 
Cyan said:
*whoosh*
Click to expand...

\/ :P

Steve Youngblood said:
I didn't suggest that homosexuals issuing pejorative terms against heterosexuals is fine and dandy while the reverse isn't. I was just responding as to why a systemic crackdown of the former might be considered a higher priority than the latter. If that makes me a 'dumbass,' then so be it I suppose.
Click to expand...

"Dumbass", along with "dense", "retard", and "delusional" are some of the most overused words in discussions (can't slant it enough!) here. And much like breeder, they don't 'pack a punch', at least to me.

But I felt it should work as an illustration on why respect could be a stricter policy. (First time I insult someone here too haha)

They add nothing. Not the words per se, but statements where their sole intent are to (try to) insult others. That's what ScOULaris and Cabbie were on about.

But again, you seem locked in the "inclusion/exclusion" part of it. And not the "respect" part.
 
cutmeamango said:
"Dumbass", along with "dense", "retard", and "delusional" are some of the most overused words in discussions (can't slant it enough!) here. And much like breeder, they don't 'pack a punch', at least to me.

But I felt it should work as an illustration on why respect could be a stricter policy. (First time I insult someone here too haha)

They add nothing. Not the words per se, but statements where their sole intent are to (try to) insult others. That's what ScOULaris and Cabbie were on about.

But again, you seem locked in the "inclusion/exclusion" part of it. And not the "respect part.
Click to expand...

I was never disagreeing that advocating respect is a good thing. Honestly, if tomorrow insults against whites and heterosexuals and other majority groups became banned, I wouldn't be upset about it. I'd completely understand the implementation of such a policy as a concerted effort to be fair and consistent.

However, originally this sentiment was offered:

ScOULaris said:
Pretty much. Insulting, demographic-specific terms are only against the rules if they apply to an oppressed minority. It's lame, but what can you do?
Click to expand...

My attempt at a contribution was to elucidate my perception on why I don't necessarily think that it's lame, and further to establish why this call for fairness may not be completely necessary.
 
Zilch said:
I don't want to tell people what they can and can't feel "offended" by, but I'm rolling my eyes pretty hard at shuri whose MO for the years and years I've been reading his posts is to be provocative and troll-ish and toeing the line of appropriateness/banworthy comments. Whatever dude.
Click to expand...

Hmph. I make my best attempt to avoid trolls. I feel quite anserine in responding then.
 
Holy Wars said:
I will never, evvvver, be banned, again.
Click to expand...

k2mFk.gif
 
Metalmurphy said:
Well, but that's GAF for you, most of the rules don't apply if your talking about the master race.




So... both? :P
Click to expand...

This post made it to Nintendo-Gamer.


Say what you want about PC Gaf, about the communities, about the stupid rules, about the non-written rules, whatever. The fact this kind of poster still exists makes those kind of rules needed. People like this are the reason so many of us arrived to a Gaming forum and now post almost-exclusively in Off-Topic.

This post is fascinating, really, because it's pretty much what's wrong with the whole gaming subculture. The fact GAF at least tries to control this kind of thing is why it's popular despite its smaller size. Sure, it's too strict, but let's not forget the opposite is much worse.
 
Meh.. I'll take the good ol' days of Crash vs Nights vs Mario over today's stuff.
 
I like the waiting list and the rules. I don't think that gaf is strict in that regard. I think our self-policing and the thin skin that some people wear is annoying, but you get used to it quickly.

There are other forums that are way too strict with arcane and stupid rules, like OperationSports. I love whenever a new sports game comes out and there are immediately 20 sticky threads and all of them are subtitled "NO QUESTIONS NO DISCUSSION" it's like... wtf is the point of a forum then.
 
Desmond said:
Hardly port begging, I know its a rule, but does it get enforced? See: any RDR thread.
Click to expand...
Hush man, don't get me banned.
I try to control my urges on the subject though, as i know i'll never get it anyway. :|
The Anti-Monitor said:
This post made it to Nintendo-Gamer.


Say what you want about PC Gaf, about the communities, about the stupid rules, about the non-written rules, whatever. The fact this kind of poster still exists makes those kind of rules needed. People like this are the reason so many of us arrived to a Gaming forum and now post almost-exclusively in Off-Topic.

This post is fascinating, really, because it's pretty much what's wrong with the whole gaming subculture. The fact GAF at least tries to control this kind of thing is why it's popular despite its smaller size. Sure, it's too strict, but let's not forget the opposite is much worse.
Click to expand...

Those posts are also incredibly hilarious though and what makes such threads so fun to read.
Personally if i want to have a real discussion or read one, i come here, if i want to read (nothing more than lurking, of course) meltdowns about a particularly beaking news, i can go on other venues, such as 4chan and such.
So i'm good with the way Gaf handles it, at the end of the day.. it's good to have a choice.
 
The Anti-Monitor said:
This post made it to Nintendo-Gamer.


Say what you want about PC Gaf, about the communities, about the stupid rules, about the non-written rules, whatever. The fact this kind of poster still exists makes those kind of rules needed. People like this are the reason so many of us arrived to a Gaming forum and now post almost-exclusively in Off-Topic.

This post is fascinating, really, because it's pretty much what's wrong with the whole gaming subculture. The fact GAF at least tries to control this kind of thing is why it's popular despite its smaller size. Sure, it's too strict, but let's not forget the opposite is much worse.
Click to expand...

Yikes.
 
1cmanny1 said:
I do not like the waiting list, it makes no sense. Why would you want to discourage members from joining?
Click to expand...

The waiting list inevitably comes with the private e-mail thing I think.

It's not ideal, but it's helluva lot more preferable than making this forum easy to shit up, and it makes people behave.
 
The Anti-Monitor said:
This post is fascinating, really, because it's pretty much what's wrong with the whole gaming subculture. The fact GAF at least tries to control this kind of thing is why it's popular despite its smaller size. Sure, it's too strict, but let's not forget the opposite is much worse.
Click to expand...

Lancehead255 said:
Damn! at that post. Microcosm of system wars.
Click to expand...

Having posted on Gamespot's horrible, horrible forums while I waited for my GAF account to be approved, I can say that the only thing separating them from GAF is EviLore & Co. The post AM linked to is, indeed, very typical of the gaming "discussion" had over there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Who is your nemesis on GAF?
2 3
107
421
Paasei replied
BeardGaf is my cheek line too low?
32
1K
GeekyDad replied
  • Poll
Is seven tacos too many?
2 3
108
6K
Go_Ly_Dow replied
Healthy Gaf, looking some advice
35
553
The Cockatrice replied
Fuck you Twitter / X | Firefox strict mode users are locked out
18
2K
Avid Reading Horse replied
Top Bottom