Change in moderator policies

Originally Posted by dteowner
Ironically this thread came about so YOU could vent your spleen over moderation that wasn't to your liking. But that's completely different I guess. I see the echo chamber has spread from P&R.

No, it clearly didn't. Myrthos put the thread here (from P&R) to allow for open discussion about the change in policy, which he said he's been thinking about for a while. So, we thrashed it out, we all chucked in our two cents, and a decision was made.

I don't see the point in leaving it here in the main forum to be a recepticle for the embittered mutterings resulting from every moderation in P&R. I don't think most people give a damn, and it seems to defeat Myrthos' purpose for having the P&R.

This thread really needs to be just shut down. It has even lost its value in any form of entertainment.

Originally Posted by CelticFrost
This thread really needs to be just shut down. It has even lost its value in any form of entertainment.

Pibbur said that two pages ago but then went on to make half a dozen posts which seemed to be very enjoyable for him and the people he was conversing with. Also, if it's lost its entertainment value, why are you still reading it to know its lost its value, why even bother posting to it? Do you need to feel vindicated if at some point it does get closed? Will you believe it was closed because you asked for it to be closed?

Probably should close the P&R forum while we are at it, i dont think it is possible to have "fair discourse" anymore. Shame really, i had fun so far on this lefty board(majority of users are lefty I believe but just dont participate much in the P&R forum) because while it did have people typing insults it had its fair share of people making good points on either side.

If someone can only make a post that violates the TOS, they shouldn't bother typing it. That would still leave the posts from people that make good points without the need to insult or discriminate others. From what I've been reading here there are some who feel that should not be a requirement in P&R. Perhaps some also feel it should not be a requirement in general. One might even think it is not supposed to be a place where respect should have any meaning.

But that would mean its based on an interpretation on what an insult or discrimination is. Like i personally believe homosexuality is wrong. I dont have anything against people but i believe that act is wrong same way I find anal sex to be wrong because it doesnt produce life. But people are going to see that as discrimination.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Pibbur said that two pages ago but then went on to make half a dozen posts which seemed to be very enjoyable for him and the people he was conversing with.

Yes, I realize that isn't consistent. Also that I have a tendency to make off topic posts, just for the purpose of being (or trying to be) funny. Sometimes they have their place, sometimes (like in this thread) they don't, and I should be more careful.

Pibbur who

Originally Posted by Damian
But that would mean its based on an interpretation on what an insult or discrimination is. Like i personally believe homosexuality is wrong. I dont have anything against people but i believe that act is wrong same way I find anal sex to be wrong because it doesnt produce life. But people are going to see that as discrimination.

It's not so much a matter of silencing your opinion, it's more a matter of what is law. Imagine 50 years ago and your opinion would have been normal and the opposing viewpoint being vulgar and illegal, would you have been complaining so vigourously in those circumstances that homosexuals cannot freely express their opinions?

Changing laws can sometimes involve decades of mass conversation, conversation that doesn't enter polite conversation until the law actually changes but finds other means to express itself. The general idea of this site is to not be an agenda hub for changing laws but to just discuss things in a lawful framework.

I mean, you could post a picture of an overthetop hardcore porn scene, like two girls one cup, because you personally believe that's your free speech in action, but every sense of logic suggests this isn't the place to be doing that, that's not what this site is about.

You can have lots of interesting conservative discussions if you want, but just relentlessly choosing topics/points which are at the extreme edge of the social consciousness because you get a buzz from seeing the resulting flak or because you are actually a blindly fanatical extremist is a different ball-game altogether. I have no doubt an extreme communist constantly espousing the benefit of social unrest on every thread would get fairly short shrift in much the same manner.

The conversation about homosexuality and how people as social beings are legally supposed to interact with homosexuality has already been debated and resolved for now, you should know how to behave on this topic. If you wish to make your stubborn opinion more than a subtle aside then you've got a few decades of activism to go through before your posts stop coming across as… well… promoting rebellion to the law rather than discussing current topics.

I personally believe pot should be a freely available product, but I don't bleat on about it every day on the Watch, how many times do I want to hear the same viewpoints being repeated? Do I need to rub this opinion in the faces of people who's only combined interest is computer games? Do I think changing one person's mind here will change the law? Well, no to all really. But if pot somehow becomes the topic for the day, such as when California decriminalised, then I'll be stating my opinion. Does this make sense to you?

Originally Posted by Damian
But that would mean its based on an interpretation on what an insult or discrimination is. Like i personally believe homosexuality is wrong. I dont have anything against people but i believe that act is wrong same way I find anal sex to be wrong because it doesnt produce life. But people are going to see that as discrimination.

The way I see it:
You don't like cheese. You think cheese is disgusting. You don't eat cheese yourself and you don't like having to watch other people eating cheese, it makes you vomit. Nothing wrong saying that, though don't be surprised when cheese lovers will tell you they'll look elsewhere for better company.

It is pretty silly to say you hate (all) people liking cheese.
(Just because ONE of their preferences?!?)

But it's not okay to say that people liking cheese are disgusting and filthy, that they're not to be trusted because they'll always try to make you eat cheese, that cheese lovers deserve everybody's disapproval and contempt, or that the chef is a despicable person for making and serving (other) people cheese and that they all should be exiled to a cheesy country.

You pick one thing, and that one thing is the sole basis for your judgement of a group of people: pushing them into second class. THAT is discrimination.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
If someone can only make a post that violates the TOS, they shouldn't bother typing it. That would still leave the posts from people that make good points without the need to insult or discriminate others. From what I've been reading here there are some who feel that should not be a requirement in P&R. Perhaps some also feel it should not be a requirement in general. One might even think it is not supposed to be a place where respect should have any meaning.

At this point why don't you just close P&R section and be done with it?

Its against TOS to "insult" others but what is an insult is subjective. For example, I didn't personally think HHR points against Muslims were insults in that thread even thought I didn't agree with some of his points. Yet you thought they were "insult" and closed that thread. Now this worries me since I can't read your mind. For example, I might post something which I consider perfectly fine but you will consider as an "insult".

Originally Posted by Eye
The way I see it:
You don't like cheese. You think cheese is disgusting. You don't eat cheese yourself and you don't like having to watch other people eating cheese, it makes you vomit. Nothing wrong saying that, though don't be surprised when cheese lovers will tell you they'll look elsewhere for better company.

It is pretty silly to say you hate (all) people liking cheese.
(Just because ONE of their preferences?!?)

But it's not okay to say that people liking cheese are disgusting and filthy, that they're not to be trusted because they'll always try to make you eat cheese, that cheese lovers deserve everybody's disapproval and contempt, or that the chef is a despicable person for making and serving (other) people cheese and that they all should be exiled to a cheesy country.

You pick one thing, and that one thing is the sole basis for your judgement of a group of people: pushing them into second class. THAT is discrimination.

I agree with you on both point. Discrimination is bad however I believe people are being silenced for saying the bolded. One can believe cheese is bad and yet not discriminate against other cheese eaters. People can't see this difference and now days its assumed that if some one doesn't like cheese then they must also don't like cheese eaters.

Originally Posted by lostforever
I agree with you on both point. Discrimination is bad however I believe people are being silenced for saying the bolded. One can believe cheese is bad and yet not discriminate against other cheese eaters. People can't see this difference and now days its assumed that if some one doesn't like cheese then they must also don't like cheese eaters.

I agree some people seem to have difficulty reading. On the other hand some people have difficulty writing.
Especially when it comes to topics you (generally speaking) know are sensitive it is key to look twice at words written down. Sometimes all it takes is just one different word or one slight change in a sentence to get accepted without protest.

Question is do you (generally speaking) wish to speak whatever comes to mind instantly, or do you wish to be understood? The latter may need some second thought.

Originally Posted by Eye
I agree some people seem to have difficulty reading. On the other hand some people have difficulty writing.
Especially when it comes to topics you (generally speaking) know are sensitive it is key to look twice at words written down. Sometimes all it takes is to just one different word or one slight change in a sentence to get accepted without protest.

Question is do you (generally speaking) wish to speak whatever comes to mind instantly, or do you wish to be understood? The latter may need some second thought.

Yes I agree, words needs to chosen with care but its very hard when emotions are involved on the internet. This is why I follow the P&R section but hardly take part since I am too lazy to choose my words carefully so I just avoid saying anything and inadvertently hurting people's feeling

On the flip side, people also need some thick skin as well, specially on the internet. My personal believe (not saying its right) is that if you don't have thick skin, then you should also avoid the P&R section as well.

Originally Posted by lostforever
On the flip side, people also need some thick skin as well, specially on the internet. My personal believe (not saying its right) is that if you don't have thick skin, then you should also avoid the P&R section as well.

Well… you're skin doesn't seem to be very thick, one slight change in policy and you're expressing a desire to wipe out a forum like an overracter of the type you then dismiss as thin-skinned.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Well… you're skin doesn't seem to be very thick, one slight change in policy and you're expressing a desire to wipe out a forum like an overracter of the type you then dismiss as thin-skinned.

I never claimed I have thick skin! I merely said I believe….

As for slight change? Well I don't think so since we hardly ever get thread and posts deletions in this forums so if that happens then its big change in policy.

Well… the policy change is that post deletions will be more vigourously applied in the specific scenarios described in the policy. The policy has been enacted, so the time to argue the severity of the change has passed, but moderation did exist prior to the change and posts were deleted prior to the change, you probably just never saw them so much because they weren't from people you regularly read.

You say you personally didn't see the illegality of what HHR said, to which is that because you are unfamiliar with the law or because you have the same inherent bias on that one post? Was it by chance a mass generalisation that all muslims require blame for the events that passed? If so, why are you unable to see the problem with that position on a legally minded forum?

Originally Posted by lostforever
At this point why don't you just close P&R section and be done with it?

Because some part of me likes to think that we can discuss the topics without violating the TOS. If not then I guess the forum will close itself.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Its against TOS to "insult" others but what is an insult is subjective. For example, I didn't personally think HHR points against Muslims were insults in that thread even thought I didn't agree with some of his points. Yet you thought they were "insult" and closed that thread. Now this worries me since I can't read your mind. For example, I might post something which I consider perfectly fine but you will consider as an "insult".

Determining when something is an insult is not that black and white. There is always a grey area, which is different from person to person. I obviously will try to keep my personal opinions and preferences out of the equation in determining if something is an insult or not, but will probably fail in completely accomplishing that. It is something we all have to live with I guess
You cannot read my mind, but there are a few easy things to take into account.
Making blanket statements are always a trigger for me as they are usually wrong, so that always leads to a deeper check.
Things that aren't allowed, don't suddenly become acceptable because someone with a religious background makes them. I fully endorse freedom of religion and also the freedom to not be religious, but it doesn't give anyone any extra perks for being or not being religious.
If you make a statement about race, religion, sexuality or gender and you replace what you say with other races, religions, etc. and because of that it becomes not OK anymore, then probably what you were writing isn't allowed. This will not work always, but it might help.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Well… the policy change is that post deletions will be more vigourously applied in the specific scenarios described in the policy. The policy has been enacted, so the time to argue the severity of the change has passed, but moderation did exist prior to the change and posts were deleted prior to the change, you probably just never saw them so much because they weren't from people you regularly read.

Yes a policy was enacted but time has not passed on the discussion of interpretation and the application of said policy. My believe is that, based on the current application of that policy, we will not have any meaningful debate ever in P&R section so let’s get rid of it.

You say you personally didn't see the illegality of what HHR said, to which is that because you are unfamiliar with the law or because you have the same inherent bias on that one post? Was it by chance a mass generalisation that all muslims require blame for the events that passed? If so, why are you unable to see the problem with that position on a legally minded forum?

I don’t know if you read that thread but it wasn’t clear to me if HHR was saying if all Muslims were to blame for the events so I asked that question in that thread. I didn’t see an answer, may be it was deleted. If he said “yes”, I was going to post the same reply as Ripper (IRA, white, Catholics etc) and would also have pointed out

When say legal, you mean EU law or the TOS of this forum? I do not believe it’s against any EU law to say something like “All Muslims are terrorist” etc.

My personal believe, most of these terrorist have been Muslims and Islam (so do other religions) enable these terrorist. I don’t believe all Muslims are to blame for these events. But it’s up to Muslims to modernize their religion in similar way what Christians have done to their religion so that Islam as religion no longer enables these terrorist.

Originally Posted by lostforever
I don’t know if you read that thread but it wasn’t clear to me if HHR was saying if all Muslims were to blame for the events so I asked that question in that thread. I didn’t see an answer, may be it was deleted. If he said “yes”, I was going to post the same reply as Ripper (IRA, white, Catholics etc) and would also have pointed out

Isn't that the ever present problem with HHR though, every thread will result a semantics derail in asking him if he meant "all of" insert category of insulted grouping and that whatever the topic is he will find an "all of" grouping to insult, either subtly or more likely blatantly… and then just not answer that point satisfactorily but reel off another wall of text doing the same thing again? To which posting history becomes more relevant in Mythos' mind than the specific infraction that leads to a reaction, which is understandable, no?

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I see you came out of seclusion to attack someone. Not ironic in the slightest.

Personal attack that adds nothing to the topic at hand. Reported.