Americans are crazy about saying the dreaded C word. Its kind of good because it still gives it some power as an insult to show how little you think of someone.
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
Americans are crazy about saying the dreaded C word. Its kind of good because it still gives it some power as an insult to show how little you think of someone.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Hmmm I was surprised Ami was banned. I thought he was in the usual "pepperiness" in that thread.
Goldrusher, I'm not avoiding your question so much as I am not sure as to how I should answer it just yet; I'll try later.
He was banned for that, yes. It was rather ironic that it happened to him so soon after posting in this particular topic, though.
This is more or less covered in this FAQ:
A lot of the "unwritten rules" of GAF are really just logical extensions of principles outlined in the ToS or in the FAQs. "Defense force" posts are not explicitly written there, but I think you can see how a mod may ban for a post like that as it has the same ability to take away from discussion and is as disrespectful as anything else in there.
He was banned for that, yes. It was rather ironic that it happened to him so soon after posting in this particular topic, though.
This is more or less covered in this FAQ:
Innapropriate Posts & Banned Memes
- Thread Whining / Respect to Others. It's not that "Haters gonna hate" is a banned meme, it's that it's often used to be flippant and dismissive to other posters. If someone is trying to explain what they think about something, either treat them with respect or don't reply at all. So when you post "u mad", "deal with it", "haters gonna hate", "the GAF hivemind", "the usual suspects", "but GAF said x and now they're saying y!!!", "entitled whiners" or anything else that suggests that you don't care what other people think, you may be banned if it is taking away from discussion. This is getting to be a pretty big problem, and it's probably the single largest category of bans these days. If you don't want to discuss something, you don't need to post.
This also includes things like "weekend gaf", "sounds like a GameFAQs threads", "tl;dr", "cool story, bro", "Neat" and associated image macros, "who gives a shit", etc. This list is not exhaustive, and using variants of these statements such as "bold please" and "f*ck the haters" is not a good way to avoid getting banned, as the problem is the general message/intent of your post, not the specific words you are using. If you think a particular thread is lowering a quality of the forum, PM a moderator about it.
- Thread Whining / Respect to Others. It's not that "Haters gonna hate" is a banned meme, it's that it's often used to be flippant and dismissive to other posters. If someone is trying to explain what they think about something, either treat them with respect or don't reply at all. So when you post "u mad", "deal with it", "haters gonna hate", "the GAF hivemind", "the usual suspects", "but GAF said x and now they're saying y!!!", "entitled whiners" or anything else that suggests that you don't care what other people think, you may be banned if it is taking away from discussion. This is getting to be a pretty big problem, and it's probably the single largest category of bans these days. If you don't want to discuss something, you don't need to post.
This also includes things like "weekend gaf", "sounds like a GameFAQs threads", "tl;dr", "cool story, bro", "Neat" and associated image macros, "who gives a shit", etc. This list is not exhaustive, and using variants of these statements such as "bold please" and "f*ck the haters" is not a good way to avoid getting banned, as the problem is the general message/intent of your post, not the specific words you are using. If you think a particular thread is lowering a quality of the forum, PM a moderator about it.
A lot of the "unwritten rules" of GAF are really just logical extensions of principles outlined in the ToS or in the FAQs. "Defense force" posts are not explicitly written there, but I think you can see how a mod may ban for a post like that as it has the same ability to take away from discussion and is as disrespectful as anything else in there.
Art, man. Also, I don't see them doing it?
Touche bro.
Thanks for the reply. Makes sense.
Why does first post always nail it?
I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd be willing to bet that most people who bitch about GAF were simply banned for doing something stupid.
Personally, I like the fact that GAF has that kind of rep., whether it's true or not. I actually value being able to post here, and it'd suck (at least for a while) if I lost that ability.
Personally, I like the fact that GAF has that kind of rep., whether it's true or not. I actually value being able to post here, and it'd suck (at least for a while) if I lost that ability.
Because you don't remember the times it didn't.
I prefer a GAF which errs on the side of "too strict" rather than "not strict enough". Having said that, I waited this long to post in the thread because I wanted to be certain it woudn't become a graveyard. Threads like this have generally been locked fairly quickly in the past because they would seem to fall foul of the "don't discuss moderating" rule in the TOS. Glad this thread has bucked that trend and that mods are contributing to the discussion, but I think my fear of mod-wrath speaks volumes about the perception of the rules and of board moderation.
While I generally like the strict rules and appreciate the high level of thread policing, I do think it's too easy for good people to fall foul of the ban hammer by posting in the wrong topic or by incurring mod ire for their opinions, rather than simply (rightfully) for the way in which those opinions are expressed.
My only real complaint is with the lack of warning when rule changes (or changes in moderation focus) come into effect. I completely disagree with the 'cunt' ban because I would argue the word is not a gendered slur unless it's used in a very specific and increasingly infrequent context (see the 'bitch' clarification earlier in the thread); and while I rarely (if ever) use the word, the only warning I had that it was verboten was seeing Scullibundo get banned for it in the Spiderman thread. Prior to that I had seen it tossed around with wanton abandon, and users never seemed in danger of a ban. That was the public perception, and that's why so many cried foul when the crackdown began.
I understand that the 'cunt' bans aren't a rule change so much as a more strict enforcement of existing rules, but a public notice declaring this doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation. It's certainly better than seeing ignorant but otherwise well-meaning posters fall victim to a change in policy without any warning, and then having to hunt down the relevant thread in which the pertinent discussion took place for confirmation. I didn't read Mumei's posts in the football thread; Sculli obviously didn't either, and judging by his post, he certainly didn't intend to express misogyny when he called Spiderman a 'cunt' any more than he would have expressed misandry if he called him a 'cock'; regardless of how others may use either word.
I'd love a public announcement thread that allows users to see why others were banned, but I think a sticky thread of updates to moderation policy is arguably more important. A 'General Policy Clarificiation' thread on the FAQ board would be perfect. The thread dedicated to a handful of gaming OT poicies seems to work perfectly in its limited capacity; and all it would take would be a similar thread with a broader title.
Edit: Just looked up the Spiderman post. While a lot of gender specific language is used ("[Peter Parker] never becomes a man in the film"), I'd still argue that the offending word was being used synonymously with "little shit", or another derogatory term to imply immaturity, rather to feminize with negative implication. However, I do appreciate that the post isn't as indisputably clear cut as I remembered.
While I generally like the strict rules and appreciate the high level of thread policing, I do think it's too easy for good people to fall foul of the ban hammer by posting in the wrong topic or by incurring mod ire for their opinions, rather than simply (rightfully) for the way in which those opinions are expressed.
My only real complaint is with the lack of warning when rule changes (or changes in moderation focus) come into effect. I completely disagree with the 'cunt' ban because I would argue the word is not a gendered slur unless it's used in a very specific and increasingly infrequent context (see the 'bitch' clarification earlier in the thread); and while I rarely (if ever) use the word, the only warning I had that it was verboten was seeing Scullibundo get banned for it in the Spiderman thread. Prior to that I had seen it tossed around with wanton abandon, and users never seemed in danger of a ban. That was the public perception, and that's why so many cried foul when the crackdown began.
I understand that the 'cunt' bans aren't a rule change so much as a more strict enforcement of existing rules, but a public notice declaring this doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation. It's certainly better than seeing ignorant but otherwise well-meaning posters fall victim to a change in policy without any warning, and then having to hunt down the relevant thread in which the pertinent discussion took place for confirmation. I didn't read Mumei's posts in the football thread; Sculli obviously didn't either, and judging by his post, he certainly didn't intend to express misogyny when he called Spiderman a 'cunt' any more than he would have expressed misandry if he called him a 'cock'; regardless of how others may use either word.
I'd love a public announcement thread that allows users to see why others were banned, but I think a sticky thread of updates to moderation policy is arguably more important. A 'General Policy Clarificiation' thread on the FAQ board would be perfect. The thread dedicated to a handful of gaming OT poicies seems to work perfectly in its limited capacity; and all it would take would be a similar thread with a broader title.
Edit: Just looked up the Spiderman post. While a lot of gender specific language is used ("[Peter Parker] never becomes a man in the film"), I'd still argue that the offending word was being used synonymously with "little shit", or another derogatory term to imply immaturity, rather to feminize with negative implication. However, I do appreciate that the post isn't as indisputably clear cut as I remembered.
Eh, it started off that way, and then transitioned to something more brutal.
blame space
Banned
how many words did he end up typing about ponies
blame space
Banned
are you talking to me eric walton.. i'm good at context.
friskykillface
Banned
were people really banned for saying they eat/would continue eating at chick fil a?
hmmmmmm thats the one time i think here would be too strict.
other then that, neo gaf is perfect, not strict at all, love the no banners/sigs because i can not imagine how that would look lol. not just from ponies, every groups would be annoying, hell the sports teams ones take up so much room.
neo gaf, you are perfect
hmmmmmm thats the one time i think here would be too strict.
other then that, neo gaf is perfect, not strict at all, love the no banners/sigs because i can not imagine how that would look lol. not just from ponies, every groups would be annoying, hell the sports teams ones take up so much room.
neo gaf, you are perfect
blame space
Banned
everyone's so scared of signatures.. you don't know what you're talking about.
Devolution
Member
were people really banned for saying they eat/would continue eating at chick fil a?
hmmmmmm thats the one time i think here would be too strict.
other then that, neo gaf is perfect, not strict at all, love the no banners/sigs because i can not imagine how that would look lol. not just from ponies, every groups would be annoying, hell the sports teams ones take up so much room.
neo gaf, you are perfect
They were banned for trolling about it and essentially saying "nya nya nya nya."
blame space
Banned
finally someone recognizes my hard work on this forum.
butter_stick
Banned
Getting banned over chicken is the way I want to go out.
No, they were banned for coming into a thread discussing Chick-Fil-A's monetary support of anti-gay groups and their CEO's confirmation of this attitude with stuff along the lines of "THIS WANTS ME WANT TO EAT THERE MORE".
Nobody was banned just for saying they liked their food.
blame space
Banned
turn the tables and say they made a thread about chick-fil-a and how great it was during the same time period.. same outcome?
i really don't care about this.. i think anyone that goes to that restaurant after what their CEO displayed is misguided at best.
i really don't care about this.. i think anyone that goes to that restaurant after what their CEO displayed is misguided at best.
friskykillface
Banned
ah i see, read just parts of that thread and never knew. the bans were needed.
the thing about sigs, i wonder how many would have a "what character(from a show or movie or game) are you", i'd say close to 40%
I don't know if there has been a general change or not. I have tended to avoid these sorts of threads in the past because I've never really had personal issues with the moderation, and whatever problems I had with the way other people were moderated were exceptions to the rule. The only reason I started coming into these topics is because, well, I'm a mod now and I am a bit curious about what people think about the moderation, right or wrong.
Suppose you made the same argument for fag - that it does not always mean "a gay man" colloquially; sometimes it is just a shorthand for someone who is incompetent, someone who did or said something lame, someone who is not sufficiently masculine. And this is not a mere hypothetical; we have had actual GAFfers argue that it is okay for people to say fag and faggot because of this in topics in the recent (2011) past.
Would you buy this argument for allowing posters to use fag or faggot? Would you expect me to?
I apologize for the delay.
Goldrusher, in this instance it was essentially something of an artistic exception that was allowed in this circumstance and wouldn't generally be allowed, and is not really comparable to your post in which you simply linked to pictures of topless women.
Enosh, your example is most likely an example of a post that was not noticed by a moderator and would result in a ban if you were to do it today.
NeoGAF is Pro-LGBT. Keep that in mind.
were people really banned for saying they eat/would continue eating at chick fil a?
hmmmmmm thats the one time i think here would be too strict.
other then that, neo gaf is perfect, not strict at all, love the no banners/sigs because i can not imagine how that would look lol. not just from ponies, every groups would be annoying, hell the sports teams ones take up so much room.
neo gaf, you are perfect
Nobody was banned for saying they eat at Chick fila. People were banned for trolling.
We have had a million threads about how awesome chick fila is. This was not one of those threads. People were basically taunting.
You could just as easily say that the people giving the mods a tongue bath have NEVER been banned
I've been banned for dumb stuff and I've been banned for legit stuff. But still...I'm not really a fan of the moderation about particular discussions (although I don't have much personal knowledge about what goes in in the religious topics, something that's been talked about here).
But someone said that it's all about how you articulate your opinion...which pretty much determines whether or not you'll get the ban-hammer when it comes to particular topics.
blame space
Banned
so am I. i'm just saying taking the thread-centric approach has its cons.
Devolution
Member
Sounds like you're apt to get a ban if it's in a thread that's not already NSFW. I posted a link to nude models in a thread already about a nude photoshoot and didn't get a ban.
It was pretty insulting to gays, especially the people who said "I'm REALLY GOING TO EAT THERE NOW JUST TO PISS YOU ALL OFF." Immaturity at its finest. How does one reply other than in a string of expletives?
It was pretty insulting to gays, especially the people who said "I'm REALLY GOING TO EAT THERE NOW JUST TO PISS YOU ALL OFF." Immaturity at its finest. How does one reply other than in a string of expletives?
blame space
Banned
no i know and i'm glad those bans were placed. but we're talking about rules.
elrechazado
Banned
gaf moderation is fantastic now that amirox isn't a trolling mod giving out bullshit bans.
butter_stick
Banned
Isn't saying you're going to boycott the place basically the exact same mentality in reverse?
Devolution
Member
Nope.
Errr....
no........
GillianSeed79
Member
No. See civil rights movement, i.e. people boycotting buses and segregated lunch counters, etc.
butter_stick
Banned
If I'm a hardcore Christian that thinks gay marriage is the devil's work, and my favourite chicken restaurant just said they agree with me and then GAF posts how they'll never eat there again and they're sick evil people, I would be being attacked via association. How is that different to the hardcore Christian posting how they're not going to boycott and in fact they're going to eat a ton more chicken to show their support for this shared mentality? Same shit, but you're on the side of the argument GAF as a collective disagrees with.
I'm not a Christian for the record, I don't want that rep. I'm not anti gay marriage either. Trolling is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not a Christian for the record, I don't want that rep. I'm not anti gay marriage either. Trolling is in the eye of the beholder.
Devolution
Member
The Hardcore Christian is a bigoted douche who wants to restrict rights?
blame space
Banned
butter_stick i think you're ignoring which side is right and which side is wrong.
Ignoring "right" and "wrong" for a moment.....
If someone has a problem, it's not right to throw it in their face....whatever it may be. It's just a small consideration people should make.
edit: it's basically taunting
A lot of the time, yes. It is part of the reason why I tend to lurk more.
I feel like you need to put on eggshell slippers before trying to discuss anything even remotely emotionally charged.
Posters that are overall a real asset to the board get permabanned all of the time. I get that they make mistakes but many are very much a positive to the board over all. That should be taken into consideration before someone is just tossed away.
Threads get locked way too easily. A temporary derail or a couple of bad posts in a good thread is no reason to lock it. Way to often I am reading a fun/interesting thread and then bam its locked, often for no good reason.
I feel like you need to put on eggshell slippers before trying to discuss anything even remotely emotionally charged.
Posters that are overall a real asset to the board get permabanned all of the time. I get that they make mistakes but many are very much a positive to the board over all. That should be taken into consideration before someone is just tossed away.
Threads get locked way too easily. A temporary derail or a couple of bad posts in a good thread is no reason to lock it. Way to often I am reading a fun/interesting thread and then bam its locked, often for no good reason.
What posters that were a value to the board got permabanned?
Roland Garros
Banned
In my eyes, religion deserves everything it cops, but I'd never enter a thread and debate it.
If I've learnt anything in life it's that no matter how much you debate or deride someone's faith, it won't make them waiver. If they change their perspective, it will be a slow realisation they will arrive at in their own time.
If I've learnt anything in life it's that no matter how much you debate or deride someone's faith, it won't make them waiver. If they change their perspective, it will be a slow realisation they will arrive at in their own time.
Roland Garros
Banned
Does it though? I PM'd bishoptl about some worrying trends in the George Zimmerman thread and got a very unhelpful reply. I let it go and then re-entered the thread after a 10 days or so and the same hostility was present for basically having an opinion unpopular with the majority.
I PM'd Hitokage for clarification yesterday and got no reply. It can be frustrating, especially because I'm seeking clarification to know where the line is.
I think I've only not replied to about ten PMs regarding moderation issues, all but (I think) one of which I didn't reply to because other moderators had received the same PM and had already responded and taken action. The one remaining I didn't reply to was because I felt it was an issue that had already been sufficiently well addressed by other moderators, and I had no desire to get involved in that particular debate (it was about the whole "cunt" matter).
- Status