Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

So I'm back, was banned for a day and all for that one post that was linked. I honestly don't think it was warranted. And Stump, you said that ban messages are better now than they were 5 or 6 years ago, and that anyone who gets banned usually can figure out why they were banned... I wonder what you think they were like back then because all my ban message said was "cmon son". I'm not sure how I broke the rules or even the spirit of the rules from that single post I made in the creeper thread but if you ask me, yes GAF has become too strict, at least based on my personal experience.

EDIT: here's the post that got me banned.

I think that generally speaking, Stumples is right that ban messages are pretty good. I will just link to the post in question if I think it should be obvious, though. If you call someone a fucking idiot in a post, and I link to that post in the ban message, I at least expect that you'll be able to figure out that was why and that I don't need to spell it out for you. But the ban message you (and the others) got from bishoptl was more anomalous than representative of how ban messages typically are these days.

And bish's defense, he did ban fifty people, and as charlequin says, it is a colossal pain in the butt to ban a large number of people. It probably actually took him two or three hours all told to read through the topic, ban people, and record it. And if you are still confused about why, precisely, you were banned, you can always PM him to ask.

 

[zon]

I suppose I'm one of the few people who did argue with Amir0x and didn't get banned back when he had mod powers. At least it seems that way, going by the general consensus.

And it's weird to see people talk about Dragona and say "who's she? happened before my time", shit makes me feel old.

 

[Vermillion]

I wish it was this easy to ban people. We have to fill out a ban message and choose a length!

Standard ban button for obvious offenses?

1 month
"You know what you did."

 

[Margalis]

My favorite part of this example is the post at the end of the page, after the OP has been banned for obviously trolling and Lirlond is banned for his inexplicable freakout

His "freakout" consists of attempting to make a calm logical argument. Far more logical than the people he was arguing with. I mean this was a response he got:

omg... Black people didn't enslave white, black people didn't enforce Jim Crow laws on white people, whites didn't JUST become full citizens less than one generation ago.. There is NO hypothetical..

This poster, a mod by the way, chose to willfully ignore what the word "hypothetical" even means. Black people enslaving white people obviously is a hypothetical. There IS a hypothetical - Lirlond posed it.

This looks like a prime example of someone have the wrong opinion. Meanwhile's Devo's posts are essentially nonsense. "We call that a cultural narrative" is a one-liner that doesn't engage in the topic and doesn't use the term "cultural narrative" correctly. In fact the way she is using it actually undercuts her argument as a "cultural narrative" is often fictive. It's just a meaningless zinger - worse than meaningless. Then later she responds with "tell me where I said that", when "that" was the logical implication of what she had previously argued. (That whether something is a hate crime is determined by historical actions wrt race)

I don't think there's any way you can look at that exchange and claim that Lirlond is "freaking out" while the people responding are debating in good faith. He's asking a very slightly provocative question while the people he is arguing with simply dodge while abusing the English language. This is tame compared to what you'd get in any high school debate club.

 

[Professor Beef]

SmokyDave, would you ban me because I don't drink? And would it help if I bribed you with a pint or three?

 

[freenudemacusers]

SmokyDave, would you ban me because I don't drink?

I would

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Nah, I don't think that's the case. Creep thread has turned the world upside down.

ixtaka says:

and


Banned.

If you have the wrong opinion you can get banned. It's best not to say anything if you hold an opinion like this.

Not condemning the moderation policy, just reconfirming that certain opinions are not allowed on GAF that aren't racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic.

That's what I was talking about though.
In a thread about how creeps are creepy and what one can do to stop creep behaviour, you shouldn't be posting about how you are "ok" with it.

If it was a thread specifically asking if you are okay with creepshots, or to explain yourself if you are for creepshots, then I think that it should be non-bannable to say what ixtaka said (and I'm wagering that it is).

 

[Huevos de Oro]

Man I wouldn't come back and complain after only getting a 24 hour ban. Back in my day we got 3 month Amir0x bans for "fuck off," and we were glad to get it.

If I said "fuck off" I'd have been personally attacking someone and therefore would be breaking the rules.

No, that's what it said under reason for ban.

Holy shit hahaha.

SmokyDave, would you ban me because I don't drink? And would it help if I bribed you with a pint or three?

If SmokyDave was a mod we should have drink ban threads. Everyone posting in the thread that doesn't provide evidence of drinking one beer for every thread page would get banned.

 

[Plywood]

If SmokyDave was a mod we should have drink ban threads. Everyone posting in the thread that doesn't provide evidence of drinking one beer for every thread page would get banned.

So it'd be a pics or it didn't happen kind of thread?

 

[Byakuya769]

SmokyDave, would you ban me because I don't drink? And would it help if I bribed you with a pint or three?

Digimon + doesn't drink. Your ass is grass, son.

 

[Gvaz]

I like amirox.

 

[SmokyDave]

I like the idea that you keep good beer that you don't drink in the house just in case the Queen comes by.*


* Or any other guest, I guess, but the Queen has got to at least be part of the thought process.

We keep a bottle of Sherry for HMTQ. Beer makes her a bit lairy.

SmokyDave, would you ban me because I don't drink? And would it help if I bribed you with a pint or three?

No, but I'd change your tag to 'I survived BSE' and then edit all your posts so they appeared to be typed backwards.

So it'd be a pics or it didn't happen kind of thread?

Pfft. Puke or it didn't happen. Lightweights.

 

[Margalis]

In a thread about how creeps are creepy and what one can do to stop creep behaviour, you shouldn't be posting about how you are "ok" with it.

There was a similar thread a while ago about a guy who took picture of women, saved them to jerk off to, and was being prosecuted.

My position was that while what he was doing was creepy I was "ok" with it in that I think it should be legal, because in general I think the law should not be wielded like a 2x4. Was that something I should not have posted?

The idea that in a thread about someone being creepy the only thing you can say is "yep, that's creepy" is silly and if applied to everything would make any discussion forum completely worthless - in essence you are arguing that you should only post in a thread if the agree with the original sentiment being expressed. Which is already a big problem on Neogaf as it is.

 

[Moral Panic]

That's what I was talking about though.
In a thread about how creeps are creepy and what one can do to stop creep behaviour, you shouldn't be posting about how you are "ok" with it.

If it was a thread specifically asking if you are okay with creepshots, or to explain yourself if you are for creepshots, then I think that it should be non-bannable to say what ixtaka said (and I'm wagering that it is).

Hmm, I disagree, although I understand where you are coming from. The thread was titled "lets talk about creepshots" and he gave his opinion on them. The OP and title has nothing about "what one can do to stop creep behaviour", merely gives the OP's own opinion on the matter in light of a news article he read. With the title then that leaves it to open discussion, which IMO, is the perfect time to state your own views if done in a respectable manner, and they are not views that are banned (racist/homophobic etc).

 

[Huevos de Oro]

So it'd be a pics or it didn't happen kind of thread?

Pretty much. We would end up asleep in a puddle of urine.

 

[Amir0x]

I suppose I'm one of the few people who did argue with Amir0x and didn't get banned back when he had mod powers. At least it seems that way, going by the general consensus.

And it's weird to see people talk about Dragona and say "who's she? happened before my time", shit makes me feel old.

Naw, this is one of those invented things that bitter GAFers have created to try to justify their irrationality one step further. There are plenty of things to criticize me on, but I virtually never banned anyone in a discussion with me unless they started flinging outrageous insults. I would even occasionally go and ask fellow mods to look over a discussion if they thought someone was going too far, so I didn't want to ban people in discussions I was part of.

I can't help but laugh at the outrageousness of the claims

 

[Gvaz]

Stella Artois is decent beer but 4.8% ABV in the UK?

God damn you brits drink pisswater.

Get some 8%~ ABV lager or go home you chumps. Americans and Germans know how to get drunk.

 

[Stumpokapow]

So I'm back, was banned for a day and all for that one post that was linked. I honestly don't think it was warranted. And Stump, you said that ban messages are better now than they were 5 or 6 years ago, and that anyone who gets banned usually can figure out why they were banned... I wonder what you think they were like back then because all my ban message said was "cmon son". I'm not sure how I broke the rules or even the spirit of the rules from that single post I made in the creeper thread but if you ask me, yes GAF has become too strict, at least based on my personal experience.

That would be atypical. Typical ban messages would include a specific rule, your ban history, and often a link to the post if it was one post that did it.

EDIT: here's the post that got me banned.

I chuckled. I can't imagine you would have been banned if the whole thread hadn't contained quite so much stuff bishop felt the need to clean through. I think that's reflected in a one day ban. You shouldn't overthink a one day ban, it's not supposed to be a serious warning.

 

[Professor Beef]

Digimon + doesn't drink. Your ass is grass, son.

No, but I'd change your tag to 'I survived BSE' and then edit all your posts so they appeared to be typed backwards.

You monster...

 

[B-Dubs]

Standard ban button for obvious offenses?

1 month
"You know what you did."

It wouldn't surprise me if Bish was lobbying for one of those, except with a pic of his avatar instead of the message.

 

[charlequin]

Standard ban button for obvious offenses?

1 month
"You know what you did."

You know, maybe it's a good thing we don't have that...

The thread was titled "lets talk about creepshots" and he gave his opinion on them.

I can guarantee you there are a lot of words you could sub in for "creepshots" there and get banned for quite a few potential "opinions" as a result.

 

[SmokyDave]

Stella Artois is decent beer but 4.8% ABV in the UK?

God damn you brits drink pisswater.

Get some 8%~ ABV lager or go home you chumps. Americans and Germans know how to get drunk.

Apparently so. I could've sworn it was 5.2% but I'm looking at the bottle now and you're right, 4.8.

We have 9% lagers but they're either for hobos or for people with suspicious beards. We also have a ton of white 'ciders' that are all exactly 7.5% because any higher and they get taxed as wine. I'll stick with my Stella, switching to Peroni or Cusqueña if I'm feeling cheeky.

...retsnom ouY

Pretty much.

 

[Devolution]

I'm going to raid Smoky's stash.

 

[WanderingWind]

Smoky, what's the opinion on Fuller's over there? It's my favorite of the Brit beers I've had here in the colonies.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

There was a similar thread a while ago about a guy who took picture of women, saved them to jerk off to, and was being prosecuted.

My position was that while what he was doing was creepy I was "ok" with it in that I think it should be legal, because in general I think the law should not be wielded like a 2x4. Was that something I should not have posted?

The idea that in a thread about someone being creepy the only thing you can say is "yep, that's creepy" is silly and if applied to everything would make any discussion forum completely worthless - in essence you are arguing that you should only post in a thread if the agree with the original sentiment being expressed. Which is already a big problem on Neogaf as it is.

That is a good point, but it would at least be better (for the opinion holder) than the current situation.
Instead of an outright ban, it'd depend on the context.

If the opinion holder has been directly asked to state his opinion, and it is not too bad (subject to mod opinion) then I don't think they should be banned.

 

[Moral Panic]

I can guarantee you there are a lot of words you could sub in for "creepshots" there and get banned for quite a few potential "opinions" as a result.

Isn't that the point I was making? There are opinions on GAF (that are not racist/sexist/homophobic etc) that get you banned, no matter where or how you put them.

 

[pigeon]

Isn't that the point I was making? There are opinions on GAF (that are not racist/sexist/homophobic etc) that get you banned, no matter where or how you put them.

Again, your assertion that that opinion is not sexist is not backed up by facts.

 

[Devolution]

Isn't that the point I was making? There are opinions on GAF (that are not racist/sexist/homophobic etc) that get you banned, no matter where or how you put them.

I'm pretty sure most of the bans I've seen that are for opinions are offensive to minority groups.

 

[Moral Panic]

Again, your assertion that that opinion is not sexist is not backed up by facts.

Educate me on these facts that I am clearly missing.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Getting banned ain't that bad. Suck it up. Get some fresh air.

 

[SmokyDave]

I'm going to raid Smoky's stash.

Bring a trolley 'cause we got Moët for days.

Smoky, what's the opinion on Fuller's over there? It's my favorite of the Brit beers I've had here in the colonies.

My opinion is that it's not Stella. As I understand it, it's pretty well liked though. Most of our coolest beers come from dinky little breweries oop north, where people often have webbed fingers. Wychwood and Brewdog both make some crazy brews. Brewdog dropped a beer with 40%ABV+, mental.

Now I'm going to drink yet another beer before bed. I hope you're happy.

 

[Devolution]

What you really gotta do though is give a whole lesson on Tea.

 

[pigeon]

Educate me on these facts that I am clearly missing.

You didn't respond to the post I already made on the topic?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

To be honest with ya'll, I don't really think that opinions should be bannable - so long as you don't make your opinion into an attack.

I guess where some will disagree with me is that some opinions are automatically attacks on some groups of people when expressed.

 

[Moral Panic]

You didn't respond to the post I already made on the topic?

Wouldn't it have been easier to link me to it? It's you who's making the argument that I am missing the facts, so its your prerogative to find them.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Stella is shit. I thought better of you, Dave.

 

[Devolution]

Educate me on these facts that I am clearly missing.

Here's the issue at it's most base that I can explain. Consent and acquiring it are important things in a decent society, especially for women since we are the physically weaker sex and have the added historical oppression of our autonomy meaning jack shit. By endorsing creepshots, you endorse the long standing attitude that women don't deserve a choice in being objectified. Now you can debate to the hills how you acquire consent and how you legislate the lack of consent, but to say that creepshots are okay or even endorse the taking of them, is plain ol' sexism.

To be honest with ya'll, I don't really think that opinions should be bannable - so long as you don't make your opinion into an attack.

I guess where some will disagree with me is that some opinions are automatically attacks on some groups of people when expressed.

Some opinions are nothing more than sexism or racism wrapped in a bow but in the end you're still getting bullshit.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Don't kid yourselves guys, most beers are shit.

 

[SmokyDave]

What you really gotta do though is give a whole lesson on Tea.

Tastes like rusty water and disappointment. Best avoided. I reckon that covers tea!

Stella is shit. I thought better of you, Dave.

Really? You're a bad judge of character. Does it help if I tell you I drink it from a chalice? Does it make it worse again if I admit to stealing my chalices from the pub?

Don't kid yourselves guys, most beers are shit.

Just wait until I have the power, sunshine. You just wait. I'll change your tag to 'ShittyBabycham'.

 

[Gvaz]

I'm in the minority but sometimes, sometimes your opinion is just wrong. Either it's based on invalid data, or a stereotype or ignorance. Sometimes your taste in things is shit, and I'd like to be able to educate those who are so terribly wrong.

Then I think about it some more and I realize it's not that you can educate them to know they're wrong, but that those people are permanently broken and can't be saved from their wrongness.

*somberly sips some tea*

 

[Devolution]

Tastes like rusty water and disappointment. Best avoided. I reckon that covers tea!


Really? You're a bad judge of character. Does it help if I tell you I drink it from a chalice? Does it make it worse again if I admit to stealing my chalices from the pub?

But but...I gotta learn the British way dawg.

 

[Professor Beef]

Really? You're a bad judge of character. Does it help if I tell you I drink it from a chalice? Does it make it worse again if I admit to stealing my chalices from the pub?

Those two things actually make me like you more.

 

[Kareha]

Apparently so. I could've sworn it was 5.2% but I'm looking at the bottle now and you're right, 4.8.

Stella was cut from 5.2 to 4.8 as it saves the brewer, AB InBev, millions of pounds in duty.

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/dri...rs-abv-of-stella-bud-and-becks/225330.article

 

[Lionel Mandrake]

Are we on beverages now?

I've recently discovered hard cider, and it is delicious.

 

[Delusibeta]

Here's the issue at it's most base that I can explain. Consent and acquiring it are important things in a decent society, especially for women since we are the physically weaker sex and have the added historical oppression of our autonomy meaning jack shit. By endorsing creepshots, you endorse the long standing attitude that women don't deserve a choice in being objectified. Now you can debate to the hills how you acquire consent and how you legislate the lack of consent, but to say that creepshots are okay or even endorse the taking of them, is plain ol' sexism.

Pretty much. Plus it's was pretty obvious that the thread was going to get lawn-mowed (how Sentry got passed over, I have no idea), and admitting that some of the pictures were arousing was probably not a good move.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Really? You're a bad judge of character. Does it help if I tell you I drink it from a chalice? Does it make it worse again if I admit to stealing my chalices from the pub?

I actually have one of those special Stella chalice things.

Spoiler

I drink my Boddingtons out of it.

Spoiler

My dad found it on a train.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Just wait until I have the power, sunshine. You just wait. I'll change your tag to 'ShittyBabycham'.

I'm totally hard dude, you can't touch this.

 

[Devolution]

I gotta seriously recommend Choya Plum Wine. It's nice. Some other non grape wines I've tried though, blegh.

 

[WanderingWind]

I gotta seriously recommend Choya Plum Wine. It's nice. Some other non grape wines I've tried though, blegh.

That's the most disgusting thing you've ever posted.

 

[Moral Panic]

Here's the issue at it's most base that I can explain. Consent and acquiring it are important things in a decent society, especially for women since we are the physically weaker sex and have the added historical oppression of our autonomy meaning jack shit. By endorsing creepshots, you endorse the long standing attitude that women don't deserve a choice in being objectified. Now you can debate to the hills how you acquire consent and how you legislate the lack of consent, but to say that creepshots are okay or even endorse the taking of them, is plain ol' sexism.

This isn't a male-female issue, ixtaka clearly says he doesn't mind it happening to him (and someone posted a male creepshot in the thread too). I don't believe it is sexism since the choice of being objectified or not is removed from everyone, in the same way the right to choose if someone takes your picture has already been taken away from everyone. Your argument is like saying "I think they should ban condoms etc" is sexism because the impact would probably be more severe on women. It would be a completely different case if taking pictures without permission was illegal though, but it's not so I don't think his opinion is sexist.