Is GAF too strict?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blasty said:
...So, everyone in the thread is going to be banned?

Goodbye GAF...
Click to expand...

I posted in the egyptian thread

5kra0w1wpkix.gif
 
Damn.. just checked gaf for the first time since yesterday. Glad I stick to Freeza threads..
 
WanderingWind said:
There is a vast difference between having a discussion, and holding council on opinions among people who already agree with you. You can identify these people by the use of "So, what you're saying is..." and having the resulting idiocy requoted by the next few posters slapping the initiator on the back, usually with condescending snark toward the post in question. And yes, either there is usually a healthy amount of faux outrage in these types of threads, or they lead really unhealthy lives. It's not good to get that worked up over variances in opinions, as long as they're not born from obvious, clear cut racist, sexist, etc mindsets.
Click to expand...
Well, as you can see from the post earlier on this page, frequently you see shit like that couched or phrased in a coy manner. These days things like sexism, racism, or bigotry aren't as openly expressed as they used to be, so sometimes it really is about drawing out what somebody REALLY wants to say.
 
Hitokage said:
Well, as you can see from the post earlier on this page, frequently you see shit like that couched or phrased in a coy manner. These days things like sexism, racism, or bigotry aren't as openly expressed as they used to be, so sometimes it really is about drawing out what somebody REALLY wants to say.
Click to expand...

I cannot express how strongly I disagree. We're a multi-cultural, multi-language board. Instead of "trying to draw out what they're really trying to say" you can be an adult and ask. In assuming that you already know what they're getting at, and of course this being the worse possible thing, you're not attempting to have a real discussion. You just want your worst fears about everybody else outside of your circle affirmed. Sometimes, no doubt, they're proven right. A broken clock, and all, but far, far more often it just leads to the poster saying "that's not what I said" and those folks telling him/her, in increasingly strident and obnoxious tones, that yes, he/she really is a racist/homophobe/etc.
 
WanderingWind said:
There is a vast difference between having a discussion, and holding council on opinions among people who already agree with you. You can identify these people by the use of "So, what you're saying is..." and having the resulting idiocy requoted by the next few posters slapping the initiator on the back, usually with condescending snark toward the post in question. And yes, either there is usually a healthy amount of faux outrage in these types of threads, or they lead really unhealthy lives. It's not good to get that worked up over variances in opinions, as long as they're not born from obvious, clear cut racist, sexist, etc mindsets.
Click to expand...
I usually check for long strings of single line quotes (taken from a paragraph, of course) with corresponding single line responses. Its a good litmus for when the thread is unrecoverable. Agree with what you say, though.


WanderingWind said:
I cannot express how strongly I disagree. We're a multi-cultural, multi-language board. Instead of "trying to draw out what they're really trying to say" you can be an adult and ask. Assuming that you already know what they're getting at, and of course this being the worse possible thing, you're not attempting to have a real discussion. You just want your worst fears about everybody else outside of your circle affirmed. Sometimes, no doubt, they're proven right. A broken clock, and all, but far, far more often it just leads to the poster saying "that's not what I said" and those folks telling him/her, in increasingly strident and obnoxious tones, that yes, he/she really is a racist/homophobe/etc.
Click to expand...
100% agree, too many want a debate/battle in lieu of a conversation. Pretty much why I avoid those threads.
 
Hitokage said:
Well, as you can see from the post earlier on this page, frequently you see shit like that couched or phrased in a coy manner. These days things like sexism, racism, or bigotry aren't as openly expressed as they used to be, so sometimes it really is about drawing out what somebody REALLY wants to say.
Click to expand...

It took a Political Radicalism class, where the teacher brings is speakers on various extremes of beliefs and viewpoints. He told us at the beginning of the course that 1 speaker in particular had changed his presentation of beliefs the most since coming to speak. He spoke on pro-life, but he did so in an entirely scientific manner and managed to avoid so many accompanying issues that abortion brings up. He developed his entire argument to take the flame out of the entire argument while still pushing his underlying belief. We couldn't even identify him as the speaker that would have changed the most, but he apparently had been the most controversial speaker in the past.

I think a lot of people have wised up at pushing their thoughts in a construed manner these days.
 
Hitokage said:
Well, as you can see from the post earlier on this page, frequently you see shit like that couched or phrased in a coy manner. These days things like sexism, racism, or bigotry aren't as openly expressed as they used to be, so sometimes it really is about drawing out what somebody REALLY wants to say.
Click to expand...

Wow. "Coy"...like "nuanced"? Because coy is a motive, and it's hard to determine motive from words in a post.

edit: I don't know what earlier post you're referring to, so I'm not referencing that particular post.
 
SteveWinwood said:
Your thread got locked. Please don't turn this one into a continuation of yours.

Not trying to backseat mod, just as a personal favor to me how about?
Click to expand...

Sure, I didn't intend to - I just saw it, clicked on it and saw that my thread had been mentioned and thought I'd address a few points that people seemed to be griping about.

I'll leave this thread now as requested as I hate to be the stifler of good discussions.
 
So, what would get you banned in the two stickied threads?

Looking back, I didn't post anything that could be deemed offensive in the creeps thread. I had somewhat of a controversial stance on a certain part of it, but, I didn't partake in any of the victim blaming, flaming, or claiming women liked it when a rich/attractive man took their photo.

Guys, do you think my account will get lawn-mowed?

Edit: I did get some replies from a lot people who only responded to one part of my comment and ignored the context; is that grounds for a ban?
 
WanderingWind said:
I cannot express how strongly I disagree. We're a multi-cultural, multi-language board. Instead of "trying to draw out what they're really trying to say" you can be an adult and ask. In assuming that you already know what they're getting at, and of course this being the worse possible thing, you're not attempting to have a real discussion. You just want your worst fears about everybody else outside of your circle affirmed. Sometimes, no doubt, they're proven right. A broken clock, and all, but far, far more often it just leads to the poster saying "that's not what I said" and those folks telling him/her, in increasingly strident and obnoxious tones, that yes, he/she really is a racist/homophobe/etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly what occurred in the creepshot thread.
Blasty said:
So, what would get you banned in the two stickied threads?

Looking back, I didn't post anything that could be deemed offensive in the creeps thread. I had somewhat of a controversial stance on a certain part of it, but, I didn't partake in any of the victim blaming, flaming, or claiming women liked it when a rich/attractive man took their photo.

Guys, do you think my account will get lawn-mowed?
Click to expand...

I dont.
 
WanderingWind said:
There is a vast difference between having a discussion, and holding council on opinions among people who already agree with you. You can identify these people by the use of "So, what you're saying is..." and having the resulting idiocy requoted by the next few posters slapping the initiator on the back, usually with condescending snark toward the post in question. And yes, either there is usually a healthy amount of faux outrage in these types of threads, or they lead really unhealthy lives. It's not good to get that worked up over variances in opinions, as long as they're not born from obvious, clear cut racist, sexist, etc mindsets.
Click to expand...

Hm. (For clarification "you" in these could easily be replaced with "one" or something; I'm not necessarily talking about you)

I know what you're talking about; I just do not really see it as being problematic in the way that you do. I think part of it is that I think that whether posters intend to mean what is being paraphrased, what they are saying can be accurately paraphrased in that manner. And I think that paraphrasing is a normal part of these conversations. Everyone feels that their position is misrepresented in these conversations at some point or another, of course, and sometimes it actually is inaccurate. So clarify what you meant! Or perhaps you might just learn something about the logical conclusions of what you are saying, if you take seriously the possibility that they might have something to tell you.

Come to think of it, I feel like this conversation until I posted was a better example of an echo chamber; posters who entirely agreed with each other making complaints and holding council on opinions among people who already agree with one another.

For the record, the only thing you're guilty of is still liking Mariah. The 90s are way, way over. It's time to move on. :(
Click to expand...

D:

You know, I actually sort of "discovered" her in the last few years. I heard a song on the radio - Emotions, I think - and got interested and started listening to more. I knew a lot of her songs already, as it turned out, but I was sort of one of those people who would hear songs on the radio and hear names of singers, but never connect who was singing what.

And my taste is completely out of date anyway!

upJTboogie said:
Exactly what occurred in the creepshot thread.
Click to expand...

I think that the issue is that sometimes it is what they said.
 
WanderingWind said:
I've dubbed them the "Echo Chamber." Same 7-8 posters who show up in otherwise legitimately interesting threads and utterly ruin any chance of an actual discussion.

EDIT: It has already been mentioned. Several times. Heh.
Click to expand...

I was just about to make a comment mocking posters decrying posters for decrying other posters.
 
I agree with everything so nicely summed up by WanderingWind in this page and the last.

Mumei said:
This is where you get off track.

You might have a point that sometimes posters do not respond in the most constructive manner to the sexist or simply ignorant comments that certain posters tend to make, but the disgust is genuine. And for whatever it is worth, when I see one poster say something appallingly ignorant, and I see another poster respond angrily, I don't blame the second poster for being angry with the first poster.
Click to expand...

Not only is there a lot of faux outrage on GAF there is also a great deal of one-upmanship in being the most progressive and sensitive - which leads to a lot threads being derailed by the slightest opportunity to be holier than thou.

And typically, the ones being 'outraged' seem to get a lot of leeway in being rude and condescending towards the 'offending' poster.
 
Blasty said:
So, what would get you banned in the two stickied threads?

Looking back, I didn't post anything that could be deemed offensive in the creeps thread. I had somewhat of a controversial stance on a certain part of it, but, I didn't partake in any of the victim blaming, flaming, or claiming women liked it when a rich/attractive man took their photo.

Guys, do you think my account will get lawn-mowed?

Edit: I did get some replies from a lot people who only responded to one part of my comment and ignored the context; is that grounds for a ban?
Click to expand...

LOL...Bish has everyone who posted in those threads shaking in their boots.
 
upJTboogie said:
Exactly what occurred in the creepshot thread.
Click to expand...

I stayed the hell out of those two threads. I had nothing of substance to add, besides that if you take creepshots or enjoy creepshots, you're a fucking creep and need to seek counseling.

The Egyptian one, though...wow. What the hell do you say to that?
 
replicashooter said:
This is not to disparage the works of the arabs for creating the number 0 (nice work),
Click to expand...

It was nothing.

the chinese for thinking of gunpowder (and using it for fireworks instead of M16s) or mexicans for making quesadillas (boo to Taco Bell) as the modern world has been a long, slow slog by people of all hues and abilities to get to where we are now but the implementation has been by white people to benefit (it seems to me) white people.
Click to expand...

Here is my advice to you: stop fucking talking about Mexicans.

(Also, if you were wondering, they invented corn, probably the most important grain today..)
 
Hitokage said:
Well, as you can see from the post earlier on this page, frequently you see shit like that couched or phrased in a coy manner. These days things like sexism, racism, or bigotry aren't as openly expressed as they used to be, so sometimes it really is about drawing out what somebody REALLY wants to say.
Click to expand...

This just comes off as childish. You're projecting your own version of their thoughts, not their actual thoughts.
 
pigeon said:
It was nothing.



Here is my advice to you: stop fucking talking about Mexicans.

(Also, if you were wondering, they invented corn, probably the most important grain today..)
Click to expand...

The way I see, it's individuals that invent or discover things, regardless of what culture they come from.

Otherwise I could gloat about a whole bunch of stuff I was never involved with.
 
Mumei said:
Hm. (For clarification "you" in these could easily be replaced with "one" or something; I'm not necessarily talking about you)

I know what you're talking about; I just do not really see it as being problematic in the way that you do. I think part of it is that I think that whether posters intend to mean what is being paraphrased, what they are saying can be accurately paraphrased in that manner. And I think that paraphrasing is a normal part of these conversations. Everyone feels that their position is misrepresented in these conversations at some point or another, of course, and sometimes it actually is inaccurate. So clarify what you meant! Or perhaps you might just learn something about the logical conclusions of what you are saying, if you take seriously the possibility that they might have something to tell you.

Come to think of it, I feel like this conversation until I posted was a better example of an echo chamber; posters who entirely agreed with each other making complaints and holding council on opinions among people who already agree with one another.



D:

You know, I actually sort of "discovered" her in the last few years. I heard a song on the radio - Emotions, I think - and got interested and started listening to more. I knew a lot of her songs already, as it turned out, but I was sort of one of those people who would hear songs on the radio and hear names of singers, but never connect who was singing what.

And my taste is completely out of date anyway!




I think that the issue is that sometimes it is what they said.
Click to expand...

Meh. Agreement or disagreement isn't the issue. Already formulating notions without attempting to honestly engage one another is, and goes against reasonable discussion. I think that it's become quite a bit of a problem, but that's for people like you to decide on officially, or whatever. It is affecting the quality of discussion in threads that hold the most potential for such, though.

And your old-school tastes are just fine, Mumei-bro.
 
You're not going to get banned just for posting in those threads. You just have to have awful, bigoted or sexist opinions (and there were a lot of them).

A lot of people are going to say wah wah free speech and all that, but it's not a democracy and I'd rather have fewer pedos, racists and misogynists where I post anyway.
 
I don't think a mod would literally do random bannings of anyone who posted in those threads no matter what. Has that ever happened before? There was lots of victim blaming in the creep thread so I'm not surprised it's being singled out. I posted once in there, didn't post in the egyptian one it was way too stupid to bother.
 
replicashooter said:
Sure, I didn't intend to - I just saw it, clicked on it and saw that my thread had been mentioned and thought I'd address a few points that people seemed to be griping about.

I'll leave this thread now as requested as I hate to be the stifler of good discussions.
Click to expand...

I'd love for you to talk about the thread and what happened as much as you want. I just don't want to read anymore were egyptians black or not discussions as they give me a headache :P

Angry Fork said:
I don't think a mod would literally do random bannings of anyone who posted in those threads no matter what. Has that ever happened before? There was lots of victim blaming in the creep thread so I'm not surprised it's being singled out. I posted once in there, didn't post in the egyptian one it was way too stupid to bother.
Click to expand...

There used to be a "anyone who posts past here and says X gets banned" trend that would happen, and you'd have people get banned for posting something 5 seconds after that post which they obviously didn't see as they were typing something up. I'd consider those to be damn near random. The mod that enjoyed doing that isn't around anymore though, so it doesn't happen nowadays.
 
Stet said:
You're not going to get banned just for posting in those threads. You just have to have awful, bigoted or sexist opinions (and there were a lot of them).

A lot of people are going to say wah wah free speech and all that, but it's not a democracy and I'd rather have fewer pedos, racists and misogynists where I post anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about that. There were way too many people responding to posts and seeing only what they wanted to see.

Needless to say, I fear for my account.
 
WanderingWind said:
I cannot express how strongly I disagree. We're a multi-cultural, multi-language board. Instead of "trying to draw out what they're really trying to say" you can be an adult and ask.
Click to expand...
"Hello, good sir, would you like to be banned?"

Bear in mind, we're likely not thinking of the same examples here, but I've definitely come across people on this forum with an underlying agenda who try to pass it off as something benign knowing they'd get banned otherwise, or if not that then certainly discredited.
 
Blasty said:
I'm not too sure about that. There were way too many people responding to posts and seeing only what they wanted to see.

Needless to say, I fear for my account.
Click to expand...

I think that's why Bish is giving them 12 hours, so he can go though it properly and only ban the deserving. If he was going to nuke the threads he'd have done it already.
 
Blasty said:
I'm not too sure about that. There were way too many people responding to posts and seeing only what they wanted to see.

Needless to say, I fear for my account.
Click to expand...

Well, lucky for you, the people who "see what they want to see" (which is really a revealing perspective; as if anybody wants to see racism and sexism all ove GAF) don't get to ban people. Bishop does. So if you get banned, you can be confident it was for your personal bad opinions.
 
Angry Fork said:
I don't think a mod would literally do random bannings of anyone who posted in those threads no matter what. Has that ever happened before? There was lots of victim blaming in the creep thread so I'm not surprised it's being singled out. I posted once in there, didn't post in the egyptian one it was way too stupid to bother.
Click to expand...

maybe 2 week bans or something
 
is manos' ban perma? please no. he was actually funny unlike blame space.

EDIT: how many times can you be banned before being dismissed for good? I see people who post nonstop get banned sorta often but it is only for a short period of time. when are you flagged for termination after constant minor rule breaking?
 
I generally hold the same political and social views as the usual suspects in the outrage brigade, but I can't see the sense in hurling insults, derailing threads and calling for bans when somebody says something that I disagree with.

I just can't work up the passion to launch a tirade against someone who uses the word "tranny" in a non-pejorative context or whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom