| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry you have used Mea Culpa to many times in one post you must be reprimanded. Just remember that this is "your fault".
I plead "nolo contendere", you have caught me "in flagrante delicto", but I wish to invoke the doctrine of "volenti non fit injuria", and ask the People to "nolle prosequi", due to a "de minimus" circumstance of "non compos mentis".
Sorry DM Becket, was posting from a kindle, which makes the bracket bracket quote thingies a bit hard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily Bob. I get pretty argumentative, no doubt. But I don't see many of my posts actually cross the line. OTOH, when tempers get thin, and people start getting angry and the thread spins out of control and is headed for locked down- I see that just about every post that is flagged gets deleted.
I was more talking about someone who has many of their posts deleted or they see a lot of personal attention. We all cross lines sometimes. I've done it and had my posts deleted. Like you, I try to remain civil when I post. We're not perfect but we also don't see our posts in a constant state of warning.
But note that every post that replies to a deleted post is deleted also, not to mention it appears nearly every borderline. post which is flagged (and no doubt, some of mine have been pretty borderline).
I don't consider those as the posters being heavily moderated. That's Paizo putting out a fire, starting with the source. Some of those posts may have crossed lines too but they are all deleted equally no matter what.
Anyway Bob, you're a Voice of Reason around here, and I thank you for that.
Thank you. I see several others, yourself included, the same way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry you have used Mea Culpa to many times in one post you must be reprimanded. Just remember that this is "your fault".I plead "nolo contendere", you have caught me "in flagrante delicto", but I wish to invoke the doctrine of "volenti non fit injuria", and ask the People to "nolle prosequi", due to a "de minimus" circumstance of "non compos mentis".
"Can he do that?"
"I do believe you mean the Recently Un-deceased."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing several "I'm a left leaning liberal, and I have no problem with So-in-so's moderating".
That is powerful. Really kinda sad too. If your analysis of a moderator's methods has anything to do with your political leanings, then you need to reevaluate why you're commenting in the first place. Analysis should be left to forum rules, period, end of story.
Politics shouldn't have anything at all to do with gaming-topic forum moderation. Poster's political/religious opinions, moderator's political/religious opinions should be IRRELAVENT. If your post is overtly sensitive in a political area, then your post should be deleted. Half the people reading it will either disagree or find it offensive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is considered 'political' and what is considered 'right and wrong' change over time.
I might add,
Wouldn't those are say "I'm a left leaning liberal, and I have no problem with So-in-so's moderating" be irritated by those who might then say "I'm a right-leaning conservative, and I have problems with So-in-so's moderating" ?
By stating your platform and then agreeing with a like-minded moderator, you are now condoning biased moderation. That is poisonous and needs to be ripped out at the root.
Leave your politics at the door. There is no quicker way to start a incendiary debate than to insert politics or religion into a discussion. They should have nothing to do with your posts or moderating formula.
I would say it might be appropriate to mention if your political leaning would be in favor of the moderated post.
Saying "I'm a right-wing, family values kind of guy and I have no problem with that moderation" referring to a deleted post attacking gay marriage, for example. The implication being that even though you might agree with post in general it was over the top.
Nothing to stop a person from lying, in that instance.
"Normally I love all your rhetorical posturing and partisan bickering, but this particular post went TOO FAR for my taste."
Saying "I'm a right-wing, family values kind of guy and I have no problem with that moderation" referring to a deleted post attacking gay marriage, for example. The implication being that even though you might agree with post in general it was over the top.
This would start a whole other debate. I would say that left, moderate, independent, and right are all about family values. I really don't like when it's used to imply that if someone doesn't agree with person X's values that person Y's values are not valid. It's meant as an attack and it should be removed. It's not necessary. All of those qualifiers just add fuel to the fire. The moment anyone calls themselves "liberal" or "conservative" everyone now has an image in their mind of what to expect. The moment someone mentions their faith, a lot of different things will run through people's minds.
I know many conservatives who are atheists and support same sex marriage. I know many liberals who are very religious and who also agree with a lot of what Rand Paul has to say about economics. Whenever I see anyone try to pin a label on something when it isn't needed it's taken too far or out of context later and the discussion breaks down. It happens so often that I cringe when I see it.
No one agrees with Rand Paul on economics.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying "I'm a right-wing, family values kind of guy and I have no problem with that moderation" referring to a deleted post attacking gay marriage, for example. The implication being that even though you might agree with post in general it was over the top.
This would start a whole other debate. I would say that left, moderate, independent, and right are all about family values. I really don't like when it's used to imply that if someone doesn't agree with person X's values that person Y's values are not valid. It's meant as an attack and it should be removed. It's not necessary. All of those qualifiers just add fuel to the fire. The moment anyone calls themselves "liberal" or "conservative" everyone now has an image in their mind of what to expect. The moment someone mentions their faith, a lot of different things will run through people's minds.
I know many conservatives who are atheists and support same sex marriage. I know many liberals who are very religious and who also agree with a lot of what Rand Paul has to say about economics. Whenever I see anyone try to pin a label on something when it isn't needed it's taken too far or out of context later and the discussion breaks down. It happens so often that I cringe when I see it.
Like it or not, "family values" has become a key word in the US. Used along with by someone describing themselves as right wing, it's perfectly clear what is meant. It's been part of conservative Republican propaganda for 30 years.
Now it's worth trying to reclaim that phrase to mean something other than traditional male dominant nuclear family and opposition to homosexuality, abortion, sex education and probably some other things I'm forgetting, but that's an entirely different project.
TheJeff, I do not disagree with you that the terminology of "Family Values" does need redefinition, but it does not need to be done here in these particular forums though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The personal belief system I try to base my responses (written and mental) is simply that "evil people" do not exist. People get very upset if others do not agree with them, and that turns the issue into a simple disagreement into "right versus wrong". If you think that gay people are sinners, that does not make you evil. If you think that Paizo should censor material they want censored, it does not make you evil. If you go around insulting everyone and stepping on their toes, it does not make you evil.
On the other hand, people can easily be internally inconsistent. If you think that gay people are sinners, and are somehow worse than any other sinner, you are in fact showing a lack of internal consistency. Similarly, you are betraying the tenets of your faith by taking it upon yourself to judge other people. If you think censorship on the forum is good when your detractors get censored, but bad when you get censored, and blame censorship, you are being internally inconsistent.
The problem is that everyone uses English differently, so people try to use their own definitions to prove other people wrong, even if they are using the same words differently (as someone astutely pointed out with the word "theory"). So it is easier to assume that someone else is simply evil, mean, wrong, wicked, and stupid than it is to acknowledge that they disagree with you but that is ok.
It becomes a different issue entirely when you move out of the realm of personal interaction and policy though. If one side typifies its behavior through exclusion of other, problems start. Just because a majority of people believe gay people should not be able to get a (non religious) marriage, it somehow becomes the law. Even though it is an internally inconsistent position, if people do not come to realize that, a prejudiced majority can cause actual harm to other people. Imagine if straight white Christian became an actual minority in power, and suddenly the majority decided to punish them for being different by deciding they could not vote, marry, have kids, or gain citizenship. Only then would the complaint of "majority rulings are not necessarily the correct rulings" make sense to the majority.
The main issue I have discussing these problems on a forum is that everybody is quick to attack and rip apart people different than them, and if the majority on a forum does this, how should the minority feel? If you love Paizo, but disagree with the majority of its customers, does that mean you should be attacked? In turn it creates a very defensive atmosphere, which only heightens the attack. On the other hand, one should always be open to critical thought, and not be so resistant and defensive that no thinking occurs. This is why the particular majority of "Progressive" has such a negative reaction to "Traditional". It is an inherent truth that Traditionalists cling to traditions, and the danger is that by doing so they stop thinking and considering new facts. When somebody argues, disputes, or challenges them, it is easy to write them off as radicals looking for attention, but without respect for the past. Similarly, a group of Progressives will react very strongly to a Traditionalist majority, writing them all off as stuck in their ways and unwilling to think. The middle ground, and the only route to understanding is sincere dialog, something that does not happen on a forum like this It is too easy for the majority to silence the minority, and the hyper-defensive nature of the minority makes it easy to ban their posts, since they are unlikely to be friendly and kind if the writer thinks everyone is out to get them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TheJeff, those are the views that should be able to be discussed. People who think gays should not be allowed around children do not deserve to be hated on message boards. People should be able to have discussions with them. They have that view because it is what they were taught, they had or heard about someone with a particularly traumatic experience, they are conflating gayness with pedophilia, or some other reason.
Also, in individual situations (without power involved), that person's opinions are harmless. As soon as that person has any power (being the head of a school board, a scoutmaster, a priest, a politician, a parent), and uses that power to force everyone to act on their position.
However, these causes of this belief can only be discovered, whatever it might be, if there is respect on both sides of the discussion. It is often out of ignorance that people hold on to lies as fact (that gays are more likely to abuse children), but once rooted, it is hard to force a change of mind. Instead they need need to accept it, something that will not happen when being flamed on a forum.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TheJeff, those are the views that should be able to be discussed. People who think gays should not be allowed around children do not deserve to be hated on message boards. People should be able to have discussions with them. They have that view because it is what they were taught, they had or heard about someone with a particularly traumatic experience, they are conflating gayness with pedophilia, or some other reason.
Also, in individual situations (without power involved), that person's opinions are harmless. As soon as that person has any power (being the head of a school board, a scoutmaster, a priest, a politician, a parent), and uses that power to force everyone to act on their position.
However, these causes of this belief can only be discovered, whatever it might be, if there is respect on both sides of the discussion. It is often out of ignorance that people hold on to lies as fact (that gays are more likely to abuse children), but once rooted, it is hard to force a change of mind. Instead they need need to accept it, something that will not happen when being flamed on a forum.
That sounds great in theory. Now: imagine you are not only a poster on these boards, but also happen to be gay. Then someone is telling you that you should not be around children. How could you for one moment think that this 'other side of the discussion' has any respect for you?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People doing cruel, thoughtless things out of fear, ignorance, or lack of critical thought is not usually what the people who are going to be posting about online here are talking about. Kicking a child out of your home while you are their guardian is illegal, so the moral debate is moot. Beating someone to death is illegal, similarly moot. The controversial posts here that get moderated are usually due to poor etiquette, inconsiderate behavior.
Making the actions "less socially acceptable" by calling people out on it and attacking them for it makes the groups more insular and resistant to change (see the problem with simply labeling someone as a "progressive" or as a "traditionalist" as a way to write off their opinions.
For example, simply by moderating posts here, the "wronged" side can turn it from an issue involving personal behavior (which should be examined) into an us-versus-them issue. Once it becomes polarized in this way, there is no impetus for either side to change or consider the position of the rest.
Feytharn, that is the challenge. You need to understand that you 100% disagree with them, you are offended by them, and they are being rude, and get beyond that. A lot of people say things like that not out of actual dislike of any one person personally, but because they are not able to realize what they are doing, or they have been misinformed, or they have strong previous beliefs that have not been critically thought about. To get both sides to a stage where they can progress (overcoming your distaste on both sides, no matter how justified you are), you must be calm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire mincing thread makes me shed a tear for Usenet, and the days when the unmoderated rec.games.frp.dnd was pretty much the only place to go to discuss what was then the most popular fantasy role playing game in the world.
Those were grand days. Grand days.
The internet itself has changed. There was a time when, if you wanted to learn more about religion (for example), there were few places to discuss the matter other than a large unmoderated newsgroup filled with people who had all manner of different viewpoints and would end up having to defend them (or not). It was a place that a person who wanted to learn something had a vast wealth of argument to observe, untainted by the unavoidable bias of moderation. It was marvelous.
Sure, there were jerks, there were flame wars, there were even burned out areas. Those were part of the price paid for something that what we have today, in my opinion, can't hold a candle to.
Now people tend to congregate in whatever moderated clique suits them best, and subtly (or not so subtly) encourage only those of like minds to stay at the table. And those who are not of like minds find their own moderated (isolated?) cliques, where ideas and presentations deemed offensive can likewise be discouraged.
Our online conversations have become sanitized but also lacking in a certain richness. I miss it.
I know there will be a hundred voices rising in ululation to defend what we have now, the inevitability of it, the necessity of it in the context of these fora. But still, we lost something when we collectively chose moderation. There are good things about it, but they came with a price.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh brother, Werebat, if you want to learn more about religion you can take a course or read a book. This is a forum for Pathfinder; the fact that some people obsessively bring up politics or religion in every conversation, on every subject, is their damage.
Oh brother, Werebat, if you want to learn more about religion you can take a course or read a book. This is a forum for Pathfinder; the fact that some people obsessively bring up politics or religion in every conversation, on every subject, is their damage.
Ha Ha! Nice sarcasm, Sarcasmancer! I love it!
The personal belief system I try to base my responses (written and mental) is simply that "evil people" do not exist. People get very upset if others do not agree with them, and that turns the issue into a simple disagreement into "right versus wrong".
I think that "evil people" definitely exist. I recommend The Science of Evil by Simon Baron-Cohen.
Another mage, seems like the author is saying that "evil" is the lack of empathy? They still do not wake up in the morning and tell themselves "I will go out and be evil today". They have a very different perception of the world than maybe you or I, and that causes behavior we cannot understand.
Another mage, seems like the author is saying that "evil" is the lack of empathy? They still do not wake up in the morning and tell themselves "I will go out and be evil today". They have a very different perception of the world than maybe you or I, and that causes behavior we cannot understand.
Their behavior is perfectly understandable. It's much easier to drown an unwanted kitten in the bathtub and throw it in the dumpster than to seek out an adoptive home. It doesn't make that particular action any less evil.
In my opinion, it would be better if they woke up in the morning and told themselves "I will go out and be evil today". At least then we know that they know they're doing something evil. The fact that they can commit evil acts with casual disregard for the impact of their actions is, in fact, significantly worse. "Yeah, I drowned Mr. Whiskers and threw him in the trash, what of it?" ... It's downright chilling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing unbiased about letting bigots and censorious moralists run amok, bothering other people. Expressing certain viewpoints is a violation of the rules because the rules don't allow you to disrespect other people and abuse them. There are certain opinions that it is impossible to formulate in a way that isn't horrible to other people.
There are plenty of places that moderate with hidden clauses, like
- no being rude (unless you are objectifying a woman sexually)
- don't tell people you want them to die (unless it's by endorsing certain political policies under which they would die)
- don't be a horrible racist (except toward Irish, or gypsies, or someone else the moderators don't consider "real" victims of racism)
- don't demean people (except gay people)
So, to me, a website saying it's for friendly discussion and also not allowing horrible behavior, however much it might be acceptable in areas of the larger culture, is consistent and positive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find these boards typically to be incredibly rude, hostile, full of people who demean others, littered with offensive slurs (This or that is "for queer" which was allowed to stand even after a moderator looked at the thread).
I've greatly cut back my actual money expenditure on this game since I started coming to the boards; its a pretty hostile environment to be perfectly honest.
I find these boards typically to be incredibly rude, hostile, full of people who demean others, littered with offensive slurs (This or that is "for queer" which was allowed to stand even after a moderator looked at the thread).I've greatly cut back my actual money expenditure on this game since I started coming to the boards; its a pretty hostile environment to be perfectly honest.
Really? Where do you post where people are more polite? Or is this just a problem with boards in general? Curiosity. If anything these boards seem fairly tame to me. I have seen more problems in the last couple of years (as opposed to 5-6 years ago) but still, nothing compared to most.
Really? Where do you post where people are more polite? Or is this just a problem with boards in general? Curiosity. If anything these boards seem fairly tame to me. I have seen more problems in the last couple of years (as opposed to 5-6 years ago) but still, nothing compared to most.
I find these boards typically to be incredibly rude, hostile, full of people who demean others, littered with offensive slurs (This or that is "for queer" which was allowed to stand even after a moderator looked at the thread).I've greatly cut back my actual money expenditure on this game since I started coming to the boards; its a pretty hostile environment to be perfectly honest.
You're right, maybe its an internet in general thing, but for a board that is as highly moderated as this to still be clogged with insults in every thread and with gay slurs being looked at an allowed to pass is pretty disappointing.
Especially from a company that supposedly prides themselves on inclusion and forward thinking on race and gender issues in roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nathanael, please clarify: on whose behalf are you speaking, exactly? I don't see eye to eye with the Paizo mods on every single issue, but negligence is one thing I won't accuse them of.
