To lift the ban, or not to lift the ban?

Practice posts and questions about the boards. The registration code for this board is 'Th3G@m|ngD3n' (Note the use of numbers and symbols!)

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

The real sequence of events is as follows:
<snip>
My mum wrote: I don't care WHO started it!
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Josh_Kablack wrote:
The real sequence of events is as follows:
<snip>
My mum wrote: I don't care WHO started it!
True.

But when my name is constantly mentioned as "starting" it when I wasn't even involved in that particular flareup except for 2 side-comments, it's the sort of thing I would have smacked Frank in the face for in real life.

Since I can't, I'll have to just make up for it by pointing out his entire argument is based on shitty recollections (as usual) and that the flare up did, in fact, start the moment somebody dragged feminism into the picture, as opposed to "Guys just like flaming each other!".
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Post by Maj »

Frank wrote:This totally happens on this forum.
It does. I have my opinions, but more often than not, the things that people talk about here are subjects that I'm completely open for discussion on. In the last year, my political views have traveled more leftward, especially as regards economics. And a large portion of that I attribute to this forum.
Josh wrote:and provide backing for their arguments instead of just raw hostility.
This.
Zinegata wrote:I may praise SD.net all the time
If I recall reading the rules of the forums correctly, they have a policy of sorts that basically says you can't just post flame. You have to post substance. Which is what Josh said.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Maj->

Well, I was originally told that this was the deep end of the Internet, and that people here would commit various acts of rape, arson, and murder to you and your family. On the Internet. :tongue:

However, in the months since it clearly hasn't worked. It's simply caused people to leave and for discussions to devolve into BS. And new rules to be imposed - i.e. saying you wanna murder someone is now no longer kosher.

And to me, the imposition of more rules is fine. Because to be honest I'm much more used to forums with more moderation anyway.

The thing is, I understand that imposing more rules tends to make it harder on the moderating staff. It's nice in principle to have everyone only post with substance, but the fact is people here post without substance all the time, and that these same people often mock others for daring to construct an argument backed up by facts and figures.

The way to lift this burden on most moderating staffs is to simply ban political discussions. Especially when the site doesn't revolve around it anyway. There are other places who do political discussions, and are willing to devote the moderating effort for it.
Last edited by Zinegata on Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

Zine, I don't hate you, I'm not part of the "ban zine" crowd, but

you're basically assuming your political stance to be the correct one when you say that the thread was non-political until Crissa ruined by interpreting the gamer chick conversation as a political/feminist issue. Look, I don't know what Crissa had to say about since I don't read her posts. But those discussion about, in essence, ways to relate to women (for men)? Absolutely are political (or more properly, "social commentary.) They don't become so only when someone you disagree with posts.

I basically agree with Frank.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Post by Maj »

Zinegata wrote:There are other places who do political discussions, and are willing to devote the moderating effort for it.
There is a lot of truth in this. But they're not us.

:tongue:
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
ubernoob
Duke
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:30 am

Post by ubernoob »

Wait, when did I get involved in a blowup? Did Zine and Crissa just erupt over something I said or something? I have Zine on ignore and usually skip Crissa's posts.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Maj->

Yeah, but I'm contesting "us" may not be the best place in the first place ;).

I've learned a lot more in SD.net in my first two weeks there than several months in the Den. And I didn't have to argue with people just to get information. Seriously, I just asked and someone referred me to an awesome book on the Russian Navy.

Somebody tell ubernoob->

To be perfectly honest, you didn't get involved at all. It only started from your comment about dating a hot gamer chick, which some guys followed up on.

Ubernoob was absent when things were heating up.
Orion wrote:you're basically assuming your political stance to be the correct one when you say that the thread was non-political until Crissa ruined by interpreting the gamer chick conversation as a political/feminist issue. Look, I don't know what Crissa had to say about since I don't read her posts. But those discussion about, in essence, ways to relate to women (for men)? Absolutely are political (or more properly, "social commentary.) They don't become so only when someone you disagree with posts.
You're correct that technically speaking, talking about gamer chicks can relate to feminism.

The thing is, people weren't arguing about gamer chicks in a hostile manner until the issue of feminism came up. It was more of a bunch of guys sharing their experiences off-topic.

People may end up having a flamewar if they disagree. This is true. Talking about gamer chicks also technically opens the door to a discussion on feminism. This is also true, and I did agree with Frank that they shouldn't have been dragging the thread off-topic because of it.

The reason why most other boards simply ban political discussion is simple: Adding politics into the picture greatly increases the chance of a flamewar breaking out. Because you're talking about the core beliefs of a large number of people, and are thus more likely to trigger someone from becoming pissed off.

Therefore, from a moderating perspective, it's much easier to simply limit political discussion if the board is not specialized in it.

And I would just like to note that there were actually three "heated" arguments in that thread. There was the argument between Kaelik and me over the Tome's popularity (it involved almost no one else, except people joking that we should get a room). The second involved people bragging I was on their ignore list (which I pointed out was hypocritical, and ended without flare-ups).

But the third? Feminism was introduced, and it was the one that blew up.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

For me, it's not so much the existence of flame wars in general, it's more the personal feuds that frustrate me. Two or more posters have a long, burning debate on a thread, and this creates hostility that makes them...sensitive, spiraling and pulling others into the pyre. The one around Crissa and Kaelik is one of the more visible right now, but there certainly others. Some time back it was Frank and Phonelobster (haven't seen him in ages), and that involved gaming. Those're certainly not the only ones, just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

But the long story is that after a good flame, the more vocal participants are prone to reignite whenever their particular hot-button topic is even mentioned. At the moment, it feels like Crissa and feminism, Kaelik and Crissa, etc.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

They were sharing experiences in a way which was hostile to many of the chicks in question (and in some cases by extension to women in general). It was absolutely an instance of "social commentary" since multiple posters were making generalized claims about the behaviors of an entire demographic.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Orion wrote:They were sharing experiences in a way which was hostile to many of the chicks in question (and in some cases by extension to women in general). It was absolutely an instance of "social commentary" since multiple posters were making generalized claims about the behaviors of an entire demographic.
I'm on the fence with this statement. On one hand, I do agree that some of the statements made in that thread are sexist against nerd/gamer women.

On the other hand, I felt the tone was more of some guys saying "We had bad experiences with gamer chicks" as opposed to "Gamer chicks suck".

Still, I stand by my argument that ultimately, the argument heated up when a political angle was introduced (And mom doesn't care who brought it up first). I'd just like to note that Crissa wasn't alone in thinking some of the comments were rather sexist, as some people also posted objections.

(And why ubernoob is getting blamed for it, I'm not sure. I certainly don't think he meant to create a tangent. It felt more like a side-comment to diffuse tension)
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

I think the moral of the story is that "social commentary" is a ludicrously broad category, at least as I understand it. Which I suppose means I'm chiming in for the removal of the ban. In the meantime, let's please not claim it was only the other guys breaking it.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

I noted that Crissa wasn't alone in claiming there were sexist comments, specifically to point out it's an "on the fence" thing for me.

Still, I don't believe social commentary is broad enough to mean that a ban is impossible. It's been done in other places, and I think that so far it worked out pretty well for them.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

1) The women comments got progressively worse, and while I think that most of the posters where just stupidly saying "gamer women in general" or "women in general" when talking about their experiences, right about the time you get to "All women are crazy drama queens" (or whatever Maddog said) that's really in the social commentary section.

2) I am fine with a [politics] tag, because providing more information is not a problem. I oppose the ban, of course.

3) My main concern is as long as the ban stays in force, and if it does: Social commentary.

Frankly, that's really broad, and could mean all kinds of things. Talking about Paizo is social commentary. Talking about women in general, or gaming women in general, and not just your person experiences is social commentary. Talking about feminism at any point is going to be social commentary, and sure as shit if religion comes up, that's social commentary.

I would like to point out that as far as Politics goes, by fmbfs standard I am a sinister agent of both the right and the left, seeing as I go around calling everyone's religion and economic opinions bullshit, and then turn around and call everyone's racist/sexist claims bullshit.

So perhaps the Sinister Agent model isn't that accurate.
Last edited by Kaelik on Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

I vote for lifting the ban on subject matter. Though I could get behind some sort of restriction on non-gaming multiposting. Three posts in a row should never happen unless there's a technical problem submitting your post.
User avatar
mean_liar
Duke
Posts: 2187
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Boston

Post by mean_liar »

virgil wrote:For me, it's not so much the existence of flame wars in general, it's more the personal feuds that frustrate me.
This, a thousand times this. I appreciate the ban because it partially prevents some of the bullshit, but ideally there'd be some way to keep the pyrrhic tit-for-tat from blowing up AND release the ban.
User avatar
CatharzGodfoot
King
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CatharzGodfoot »

mean_liar wrote:
virgil wrote:For me, it's not so much the existence of flame wars in general, it's more the personal feuds that frustrate me.
This, a thousand times this. I appreciate the ban because it partially prevents some of the bullshit, but ideally there'd be some way to keep the pyrrhic tit-for-tat from blowing up AND release the ban.
'Forced ignore' would be kind of hilarious.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack

User avatar
Prak
Serious Badass
Posts: 17340
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Prak »

"This poster has blocked you. Their posts will automatically be hidden. Click here to reveal this post"

that'd be fucking amazing....
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.

You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Prak_Anima wrote:"This poster has blocked you. Their posts will automatically be hidden. Click here to reveal this post"

that'd be fucking amazing....
I wonder if that would promote more introspection and self-improvement or indignation and retaliation?

I know ignore lists are meant to keep the peace, but I've always wondered what the point was if you didn't know you were on one.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Indignation and retaliation. Certain people believe they have the right to "punish" people they don't like on the internet.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
For Valor
Knight-Baron
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

Post by For Valor »

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Indignation and retaliation.
Agreed. I think feuds would get worse.
Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

FrankTrollman wrote:
fbmf wrote: It hasn't worked. It isn't going to work. I have to ask again: What is the point?

Game On,
fbmf
The thing is, the "far right" and the "far left" aren't necessarily even the ones spamming shit into oblivion. I'm pretty sure I'm farther to the left than pretty much anyone else here. I think Hicks is probably farther to the right than anyone in the current arguments. People can and do have these views and make arguments in favor of them, sometimes with historical anecdotes and citations and even convince other people. This totally happens on this forum.

The ranting and spamming happen totally irrespective of whether the nominal discussion of the thread is "political" or not. There are plenty of things to talk about revolving around culture, economics, the role of the individual and government, social mores, religion, gender, class, the nature of money, wealth, and budgets that don't involve ranting. And honestly, people rant and spam irregardless of whether any of those things are actually the topic of discussion.

Let's be real here, Crissa's/Ubernoob's/Zinegata's latest blowup involved some people saying some kind of shitty and off topic things about women and then her going off about White Privilege. But while that was a shitty thing to happen, it was also off topic. It was off topic when it started, and it stayed off topic. People were flaming each other, not because there was any political content at stake, but simply because people like to flame each other.

You'd do better to have some sort of limit on the number of posts you can make in a flame war in a 24 hour period. Personally, I like a good flame war. The thing that makes these latest rounds of flame wars shitty is not that Zinegata and Crissa are flaming each other, but that they are creating a large number of content-free posts doing it. Posts with cryptic one liners like "Says the person who is a lying bitch" or "That's what she said" are not interesting to read, by and large. Even then, if we had Letterman delivering them it might be OK, but lately it's been degenerating to people just posting "yes it is" and "no it isn't" without crafting an argument, citing sources, or being witty. That shit has got to fucking stop.

But not talking about politics? Fuck that. It's not even that it's repressive and stifles a bunch of interesting discussions. It's that it doesn't even address the root problem.

-Username17
Okay, so the FAR ends of the spectrum are not the problem, it is the overly sensitive AND vocal sinister agents of both sides that cause my unavailing grief.

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

A word about tightening the rules around here:

I basically moderate this forum by myself. I also work a full time job and am getting close to being a father, which I am told is another full time job.

Spending more time here is not going to happen with any kind of regularity.
My being more of a dick about staying on topic probably would help, but if the violation (A) isn't reported and (B)it isn't in the most recent page or so of a thread, I probably won't see it.

Thoughts?

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
Ganbare Gincun
Duke
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:42 am

Post by Ganbare Gincun »

Round up some additional moderators from outside the forum? People that have little interest in gaming and no connection to this community at all in order to encourage impartial rulings on user disputes?
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Personally, I've found that merely saying there is a ban already has a dampening effect on hostility (and not just in the Den - it's been my experience elsewhere too). Because it reminds people that there are, in fact, rules that they should follow.

And even if you're not around all the time, the people who might be inclined to start arguments will think twice because they will have much explaining to do if they make a mess of things before you show up.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked