Support NeoGAF

[Blasty]

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.

Do you mean it's there, or it's not?

 

[smoothj]

Sometimes I'm glad I get too lazy to post in those threads.

 

[WanderingWind]

"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.

Likely not, but again, assumptions are the death of reasonable discourse. I'm a much bigger fan of honesty (especially out of those who want to declare themselves morally and intellectually superior). People will show their true colors without you "cleverly" attempting to draw out what you think is there. All that does is derail the topic into a cycle of attack and defense. That's not a discussion, IMO. It's one step short of a verbal (?) witch hunt.

But, I've already gone on for far too long.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not remarking on the 2 sticky threads. I barely skimmed the OP's of both before deciding those topics were not for me.

 

[hachi]

I'm not sure if I'm in the correct thread to ask this, but what's the deal with members being demoted back to Junior status? Am I imagining things? I've spotted two threads in the past several days that were started months ago (and bumped back to life by the author) where the author's status is currently Junior, which would of course make it impossible for them to have started the thread in the first place if they'd never attained full Member, plus their join dates / number of posts suggest they were likely once Member for a very long time.

This thread, for example, and is author onQ123. So is demotion to Junior a common practice, and how does that compare to temporary banning of members? I'm merely curious.

 

[reggie]

"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.

Maybe there are people with an underlying agenda, but have you ever thought that maybe they don't? Stop assuming the worst in people and projecting your own ideas onto them.

 

[Starsunder]

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.

For what it's worth, I agree so hard with this post.

 

[Ovid]

He could be just busy or wants to make them sweat.

I think he wants them to sweat AND to have the other members see it so that it makes an example out of them.

 

[whytemyke]

I've been on both sides of the ban hammer. In retrospect i don't blame anyone for my bans. I think for the amount of crap they have to filter thru, mods do a pretty good job.

Curious how those two stickied threads will be handled. That creepshot one is going to be a mass grave, i think.

 

[Mully]

One day, I want to have the ability to make phrases that strike fear and power in people.

In the mean time, I'll just watch Bish do his thing.

 

[Emerson]

Could not agree any more strongly with WanderingWind and I think he's done a very good job of conveying the feelings I've had about GAF recently.

There are people on here with malicious intent, racist/sexist/homophobic ideations, and those who try to couch them in ostensibly more benign opinions. But much more commonly, we have a bunch of posters on GAF who are simply normal people, and who aren't any of those bad things. Yet we seem to have a lot of people here who like to assume the worst about people, even when logic would imply they probably aren't so bad.

Real discussion has become almost impossible on GAF. If you say something that could be construed as bigoted by any stretch of the imagination (or even just by twisting your words), you'll be ridiculed and dogpiled until you either bow out or get banned. The conversation is destroyed. Even when that doesn't happen, people with less common opinions are afraid to post them.

There's already a few people whom I consider quality posters in this thread saying they don't participate in any remotely controversial discussion because it's not going to be constructive. This kind of atmosphere is really not healthy for this forum IMO.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well today is going to be...interesting.

 

[Dennis]

Could not agree any more strongly with WanderingWind and I think he's done a very good job of conveying the feelings I've had about GAF recently.

There are people on here with malicious intent, racist/sexist/homophobic ideations, and those who try to couch them in ostensibly more benign opinions. But much more commonly, we have a bunch of posters on GAF who are simply normal people, and who aren't any of those bad things. Yet we seem to have a lot of people here who like to assume the worst about people, even when logic would imply they probably aren't so bad.

Real discussion has become almost impossible on GAF. If you say something that could be construed as bigoted by any stretch of the imagination (or even just by twisting your words), you'll be ridiculed and dogpiled until you either bow out or get banned. The conversation is destroyed. Even when that doesn't happen, people with less common opinions are afraid to post them.

There's already a few people whom I consider quality posters in this thread saying they don't participate in any remotely controversial discussion because it's not going to be constructive. This kind of atmosphere is really not healthy for this forum IMO.

Well put.

 

[replicashooter]

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

Ah, that's cool then - I'll stay.

Is GAF to strict? I dunno, it's a nice place to be and I've learnt and laughed a lot from this place as it's probably one of the few forums that I actually post in as it has smart peeps on it.

What I see in the modern world is a lot of hand ringing and soft shoeing with truck loads of self censorship in the form of "political correctness" and not wishing to offend anyone visibly.

This suppression leads to loads of passive aggressive snarkiness and people becoming false as they don't keep it real and say what they feel for the sake of thinking about what other people are thinking.

As a consequence people these days don't have conversations, they have meta-conversations and that, in my eyes, isn't true communication.

So, is GAF becoming strict or is it just representing the changing world in which we live that folk from a different era (ie. me) seem to stand out like Leisure Suit Larry at a metrosexual, pro feminist fair trade kumquat convention.

Probably the former, take from it what you may.

That said, if the world keeps on going the way it is by 2020 GAF will follow this formula:

1) Somebody posts a thread
2) 950 replies stating "I agree" in various forms
3) ?
4) Profit sharing for all

 

[Blasty]

Could not agree any more strongly with WanderingWind and I think he's done a very good job of conveying the feelings I've had about GAF recently.

There are people on here with malicious intent, racist/sexist/homophobic ideations, and those who try to couch them in ostensibly more benign opinions. But much more commonly, we have a bunch of posters on GAF who are simply normal people, and who aren't any of those bad things. Yet we seem to have a lot of people here who like to assume the worst about people, even when logic would imply they probably aren't so bad.

Real discussion has become almost impossible on GAF. If you say something that could be construed as bigoted by any stretch of the imagination (or even just by twisting your words), you'll be ridiculed and dogpiled until you either bow out or get banned. The conversation is destroyed. Even when that doesn't happen, people with less common opinions are afraid to post them.

There's already a few people whom I consider quality posters in this thread saying they don't participate in any remotely controversial discussion because it's not going to be constructive. This kind of atmosphere is really not healthy for this forum IMO.

I agree with this.

 

[injurai]

A mod should have stepped in sooner, rather than letting those thread form a graveyard.

Creep should have been locked day 1, and the Egypt thread should have had a ban warning put up to keep it strictly anthropic in nature.

An honest Anthropic and Cultural thread would honestly be very interesting.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Could not agree any more strongly with WanderingWind and I think he's done a very good job of conveying the feelings I've had about GAF recently.

There are people on here with malicious intent, racist/sexist/homophobic ideations, and those who try to couch them in ostensibly more benign opinions. But much more commonly, we have a bunch of posters on GAF who are simply normal people, and who aren't any of those bad things. Yet we seem to have a lot of people here who like to assume the worst about people, even when logic would imply they probably aren't so bad.

Real discussion has become almost impossible on GAF. If you say something that could be construed as bigoted by any stretch of the imagination (or even just by twisting your words), you'll be ridiculed and dogpiled until you either bow out or get banned. The conversation is destroyed. Even when that doesn't happen, people with less common opinions are afraid to post them.

There's already a few people whom I consider quality posters in this thread saying they don't participate in any remotely controversial discussion because it's not going to be constructive. This kind of atmosphere is really not healthy for this forum IMO.

Yup, this post is spot on.

 

[Forkball]

So are bad threads stickied now kinda like how people's heads were put on spikes to warn everyone?

 

[Dead Man]

Could not agree any more strongly with WanderingWind and I think he's done a very good job of conveying the feelings I've had about GAF recently.

There are people on here with malicious intent, racist/sexist/homophobic ideations, and those who try to couch them in ostensibly more benign opinions. But much more commonly, we have a bunch of posters on GAF who are simply normal people, and who aren't any of those bad things. Yet we seem to have a lot of people here who like to assume the worst about people, even when logic would imply they probably aren't so bad.

Real discussion has become almost impossible on GAF. If you say something that could be construed as bigoted by any stretch of the imagination (or even just by twisting your words), you'll be ridiculed and dogpiled until you either bow out or get banned. The conversation is destroyed. Even when that doesn't happen, people with less common opinions are afraid to post them.

There's already a few people whom I consider quality posters in this thread saying they don't participate in any remotely controversial discussion because it's not going to be constructive. This kind of atmosphere is really not healthy for this forum IMO.

I disagree with this. While there are a couple posters who pile on, I have never actually seen a mod bow to pressure and ban over something that was an honest mistake. I certainly have very little concern voincing any unpopular opinions I have, as long as I do so respectfully.

If you think those few posters (and I can only think of 3 or 4) are actually swaying mods, you may wish to speak with the mods, rather than bag out people for having opinions about opinions.

 

[noah111]

I think there was an intelligible discussion to be had in both threads. Only difference is one was of substance and relating to news, and the other was born out of someone's ignorance (no offense) on a topic.

Regardless, there were some revealing insights in both, and a few who (in my opinion) do deserve what may be coming to them, as if they had expressed such opinions one-offly in some random thread, you can be sure it would be a spectacle. The fact that those are shrouded in a pool of conversation and opinions is pretty evident by the fact that the threads needed to be locked and assessed by halting the conversations.

At least that's my take on it.

 

[Emerson]

I disagree with this. While there are a couple posters who pile on, I have never actually seen a mod bow to pressure and ban over something that was an honest mistake. I certainly have very little concern voincing any unpopular opinions I have, as long as I do so respectfully.

If you think those few posters (and I can only think of 3 or 4) are actually swaying mods, you may wish to speak with the mods, rather than bag out people for having opinions about opinions.

I don't mean to imply that the mods are bowing to pressure. I actually think the mods are great at this point. I've said controversial things, been dogpiled on, so forth and not been banned.

But the general atmosphere still exists.

 

[Blasty]

I disagree with this. While there are a couple posters who pile on, I have never actually seen a mod bow to pressure and ban over something that was an honest mistake. I certainly have very little concern voincing any unpopular opinions I have, as long as I do so respectfully.

If you think those few posters (and I can only think of 3 or 4) are actually swaying mods, you may wish to speak with the mods, rather than bag out people for having opinions about opinions.

I think how it actually happens is someone gets dogpiled and baited until they slip up and get themselves banned. Meanwhile, the one or two people who were subtly trolling get off free.

 

[DrForester]

I've never felt the mod team has ever bowed to pressure. Generally I'm surprised when some threads go longer than I thought they would.

One thing I would like to see (and this is done most of the time) is a post saying why it's being closed. I get annoyed seeing threads locked with no explanation (even the ones where it's blatantly obvious why it was closed).

 

[SteveWinwood]

A mod should have stepped in sooner, rather than letting those thread form a graveyard.

Creep should have been locked day 1, and the Egypt thread should have had a ban warning put up to keep it strictly anthropic in nature.

An honest Anthropic and Cultural thread would honestly be very interesting.

Is it the mod's job to save people from themselves?

 

[injurai]

Is it the mod's job to save people from themselves?

No good point, but I feel often times things are locked because it poorly represents gaf. Like the creep thread has no place being part of gaf, yet it was allowed to be populated over the course of a few days.

I guess letting it go allows mods to better confirm that something does indeed need to be locked.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

NeoGAF dogpiles are always amusing. One person posts something different from the norm, then a dozen people will quote funny reaction gifs or "what the fuck am i reading!?!?", prior to a ban.

Whoever that poor bastard who actually thought the world was the white man's creation, RIP good buddy, cuz that one got quoted like 50 fuckin' times

 

[Hot Coldman]

Holy crap at the stickied threads.

 

[Stet]

NeoGAF dogpiles are always amusing. One person posts something different from the norm, then a dozen people will quote funny reaction gifs or "what the fuck am i reading!?!?", prior to a ban.

Whoever that poor bastard who actually thought the world was the white man's creation, RIP good buddy, cuz that one got quoted like 50 fuckin' times

On the other hand, the person who once said Alien was boring absolutely deserved a 500-post dogpile.

 

[Surface of Me]

Holy crap at the stickied threads.

I avoided both of them until now, I thought the creepshots was about creepy people in photos or something, but its much worse than that.

 

[Vilix]

What are you talking about? Fall in line?

I state my opinion all the time on GAF as do others. But I think before I post things in this forum. Alot of members don't do that. They post stupid and offensive things and that's what gets them banned.

Case in point: Post #2802.

Of course that's an extreme case. However, there have been threads and posts where points were well debated, the discussion was civil, but the poster was still got banned. It almost seemed to be that because someone was on a certain side of the arguement got the boot.

 

[WanderingWind]

On the other hand, the person who once said Alien was boring absolutely deserved a 500-post dogpile.

Well, yeah.

 

[injurai]

Well, yeah.

That it's. WanderingWind gets my nomination for the next mod spot. His opinions are flawless.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

On the other hand, the person who once said Alien was boring absolutely deserved a 500-post dogpile.

I think he also said Aliens was a crummy b-movie

Ban that guy from fuckin' society. Send him off to a island to hang out with Tom Hanks and Wilson.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Lol at the temporarily stickied threads.

It's gonna be a bloodbath of biblical proportions.

 

[Recon]

NeoGAF dogpiles are always amusing. One person posts something different from the norm, then a dozen people will quote funny reaction gifs or "what the fuck am i reading!?!?", prior to a ban.

Whoever that poor bastard who actually thought the world was the white man's creation, RIP good buddy, cuz that one got quoted like 50 fuckin' times

That isnt a ban worthy comment though. It was dumb and ignorant, but ban worth? No. But he probably will get banned for it. I felt no malice from it, just a huge lack of knowledge.

 

[noah111]

There are people on here with malicious intent, racist/sexist/homophobic ideations, and those who try to couch them in ostensibly more benign opinions. But much more commonly, we have a bunch of posters on GAF who are simply normal people, and who aren't any of those bad things. Yet we seem to have a lot of people here who like to assume the worst about people, even when logic would imply they probably aren't so bad.

Miscommunication is your own responsibility, so whether or not your real-life 'intent' comes across in a post is irrelevant, as you should've made an attempt at more eloquence before saying something that you'll be held 'accountable' for. I have made that mistake more than once on GAF, from being seen as sexist/victim-blaming/racist and so on. I'm still alive, because I make an attempt to express my intent further and as concise as possible, or in rare cases acknowledging i'm wrong about something or the way I conveyed a thought. That's why more often than not, a user isn't banned straight away unless what they said was clearly absurd. The poster usually responds back to those quoting and makes his/her case, which can clarify their opinions on a matter. If it is revealed that what they originally stated is just as bad as it sounded the first time (i.e. their intent), a ban usually happens. If it is realized that it was a consequence of poor communication or expression of a poser that resulted in them being 'dogpiled', the conversation moves on and that's that. It's not really too complicated.

Real discussion has become almost impossible on GAF. If you say something that could be construed as bigoted by any stretch of the imagination (or even just by twisting your words), you'll be ridiculed and dogpiled until you either bow out or get banned. The conversation is destroyed. Even when that doesn't happen, people with less common opinions are afraid to post them.

This is an inaccurate blanket statement. That may happen sometimes, but there are also many times it does not. I was recently accused of racism in a thread and was sort of 'dogpiled' as you put it, but further expressed my thoughts more clearly, in more than just a few words, and then most realized what my intent or perspective was. Less common opinions simply need to be more justified ones. If you post only a few words expressing your 'less common' opinion, no shit it's going to made a spectacle of. And if that 'less common' opinion ends up being one of bigot or whatever, a ban is justified, no matter how articulated that opinion is (as it's wrong and offensive)

 

[Ovid]

I only posted once in the creep shots thread, giving my opinion that as a woman I would be creeped out and freaked out not matter what the guy looked like. Then I saw the general atmosphere of the thread and bailed, cause yeah. I hope not everyone who posted in the thread will be banned, but if I am am, I suppose it's for the greater good, hee.

I saw your post and I think you're fine. All you did was give your opinion (from a woman's POV).

 

[Dennis]

I only posted once in the creep shots thread, giving my opinion that as a woman I would be creeped out and freaked out not matter what the guy looked like. Then I saw the general atmosphere of the thread and bailed, cause yeah. I hope not everyone who posted in the thread will be banned, but if I am am, I suppose it's for the greater good, hee.

I am pretty sure you are not going to get banned for that. That would make no sense.

 

[WanderingWind]

That it's. WanderingWind gets my nomination for the next mod spot. His opinions are flawless.

This really bears repeating, in my humble opinion.

 

[Ovid]

I was meaning that if everyone in the thread is nuked vs targeted strikes

Bish said "some accounts".

 

[Dennis]

I was meaning that if everyone in the thread is nuked vs targeted strikes

That is not going to happen. I have never heard of people getting banned just for being in a thread.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

NeoGAF dogpiles are always amusing. One person posts something different from the norm, then a dozen people will quote funny reaction gifs or "what the fuck am i reading!?!?", prior to a ban.

Whoever that poor bastard who actually thought the world was the white man's creation, RIP good buddy, cuz that one got quoted like 50 fuckin' times

The measure of a post's deservedness of a ban should not be how many times it's quoted. Maybe the guy was just ignorant?

 

[Dennis]

That it's. WanderingWind gets my nomination for the next mod spot. His opinions are flawless.

I second this. Well, at least his opinon on Dragon Age: Origins is flawless.

You still love it right? Otherwise we may have to reconsider this mod thing.....

 

[Byakuya769]

What are you talking about? Fall in line?

I state my opinion all the time on GAF as do others. But I think before I post things in this forum. Alot of members don't do that. They post stupid and offensive things and that's what gets them banned.

Case in point: Post #2802.

As a black person, I really can't parse how that post was offensive. Him being honest about his ignorance and the subject was good, and he even brought it up to question WHY he ever believed that stuff in the first place.

The creeper thread is the same to me. Once it became about weird fights over imaginary legislation, I lost interest, but even the worst opinions there didn't offend to the point that I felt uncomfortable or attacked (but I'm not a woman).

So I don't know. It does seem like we're getting too sensitive and too excited at seeing other members banned.

 

[Ovid]

The measure of a post's deservedness of a ban should not be how many times it's quoted. Maybe the guy was just ignorant?

LOL...sometimes I think it does.

That post in the Egypt thread pretty was offensive. By the amount of times it was quoted shows how offensive it was.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Other than the Mexicans bit, which clearly was a joke, I don't see anything wrong with that Egypt thread.

A guy was a bit ignorant, and there was a lot of interesting information posted between the "LOLOL UR RACIST" posts. There was no malice, no trolling, he just was wrong about something and quite a few people educated him.

This is an issue I see in the trans threads I've read. It's not a well known subject so when someone gets something wrong, more often than not he's lynched rather than educated.

 

[WanderingWind]

I second this. Well, at least his opinon on Dragon Age: Origins is flawless.

You still love it right? Otherwise we may have to reconsider this mod thing.....

Indeed.

 

[Ovid]

As a black person, I really can't parse how that post was offensive. Him being honest about his ignorance and the subject was good, and he even bright it up to question WHY he ever believed that stuff in the first place.

The creeper thread is the same to me. Once it became about weird fights over imaginary legislation, I lost interest, but even the worst opinions there dd t offend to the point that I felt uncomfortable or attacked (but I'm not a woman).

So I don't know. It does seem like we're getting too sensitive and too excited at seeing other members banned.

Seriously dude? I'm not Mexican but I felt very uncomfortable reading his Taco Bell "joke". The digit zero and fireworks jokes were awful too.

His "jokes" are putting down races and I don't like it.

 

[injurai]

I second this. Well, at least his opinon on Dragon Age: Origins is flawless.

You still love it right? Otherwise we may have to reconsider this mod thing.....

Indeed.

You love DA:O too!!! *faints*

 

[Recon]

LOL...sometimes I think it does.

That post in the Egypt thread pretty was offensive. By the amount of times it was quoted shows how offensive it was.

This is such a dumb way to think about it.

Other than the Mexicans bit, which clearly was a joke, I don't see anything wrong with that Egypt thread.

A guy was a bit ignorant, and there was a lot of interesting information posted between the "LOLOL UR RACIST" posts. There was no malice, no trolling, he just was wrong about something and quite a few people educated him.

This is an issue I see in the trans threads I've read. It's not a well known subject so when someone gets something wrong, more often than not he's lynched rather than educated.

This guy gets it.

 

[djplaeskool]

I only posted once in the creep shots thread, giving my opinion that as a woman I would be creeped out and freaked out no matter what the guy looked like. Then I saw the general atmosphere of the thread and bailed, cause yeah. I hope not everyone who posted in the thread will be banned, but if I am am, I suppose it's for the greater good, hee.