|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add an opinion. What is the point of this discussion. Someone got banned. If that person has an issue, then they should discuss it with the mods. Why should I care, it has nothing to do with me. His rights weren't violated. He doesn't have a "right" to state his opinion on this forum in any way he wants. This isn't a street corner. His Ban doesn't affect me, and it doesn't really affect anyone else here that wasn't involved in the situation. If I have a post deleted, or I am banned and I have an issue with it I will contact the mods to find out why.
The whole purpose of this public display seems like it is an to rile some people up into making some bad decisions. My opinion, is to see to your own house. If you have an issue take it up with the mods. If they don't listen, find another playground, this is the internet, there are plenty our there. It is not like you are getting kicked out of your house. Stop trying to gather the peasants to grab pitchforks and go after you perceived adversaries. Be an adult, handle your business, let people handle theirs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, 4chan's known for its Freedom of Speech. I can't deny that. No moderators. No one shutting you down, deleting your posts or banning you. Near absolute freedom of speech.
With all the problems that brings. Nothing to stop abuse or hatespeech. Nothing to keep someone who's not liked from being targeted for the luls. Complete wild free-for-all.
Of course, here you fear getting your posts deleted or being banned. On 4chan, people have been harassed to the point of suicide.
There are different communities on 4chan, admittedly. I'm sure some are less toxic.
No trust me. 4chan is pretty much toxicity on a scale that beggars the imagination.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only real 'issue' I feel compelled to comment on is the tendency of some posters and mods to automatically assume the worst intentions behind certain posts - malice instead of ignorance. It's nothing unique to the Paizo forums but it bothers me when I see it, even more so from a mod because they represent Paizo as a company.
I understand that everyone has bad days and some have more garbage to deal with behind the scenes than others, I really do. But please, if you see a post that upsets you just step back for a moment and ask yourself what the odds are that the person who made it was deliberately being offensive/sarcastic vs. speaking out of ignorance. Barring obvious trolling language I'd bet it's most likely the latter instead of the former, especially when you consider that people from all over the world and of various cultures and walks of life read and post here. I say this because it sounds like just that sort of thing was the catalyst for this whole mess in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only real 'issue' I feel compelled to comment on is the tendency of some posters and mods to automatically assume the worst intentions behind certain posts - malice instead of ignorance. It's nothing unique to the Paizo forums but it bothers me when I see it, even more so from a mod because they represent Paizo as a company.
I understand that everyone has bad days and some have more garbage to deal with behind the scenes than others, I really do. But please, if you see a post that upsets you just step back for a moment and ask yourself what the odds are that the person who made it was deliberately being offensive/sarcastic vs. speaking out of ignorance. Barring obvious trolling language I'd bet it's most likely the latter instead of the former, especially when you consider that people from all over the world and of various cultures and walks of life read and post here. I say this because it sounds like just that sort of thing was the catalyst for this whole mess in the first place.
People do misrepresent themselves sometimes, I will grant you, but what percentage of those incidents result in bans or deleted posts?
Obvious trolling isn't really much the problem. It's people making statements or creating analogies that to their own worldview and those who share it seem perfectly fine and reasonable. But not everyone interprets things the same way, and people who may point out that fact or imply it's offensive usually get dismissed as biased/"SJW"/some other agenda. I rarely every encountered deleted posts that arise from "oh sorry I meant x". It's almost always discussion between the different parties escalating and becoming heated, or the person who suffered the most deleted posts double downing on what he said or arguing against the mods.
|
|
The only real 'issue' I feel compelled to comment on is the tendency of some posters and mods to automatically assume the worst intentions behind certain posts - malice instead of ignorance. It's nothing unique to the Paizo forums but it bothers me when I see it, even more so from a mod because they represent Paizo as a company.
I understand that everyone has bad days and some have more garbage to deal with behind the scenes than others, I really do. But please, if you see a post that upsets you just step back for a moment and ask yourself what the odds are that the person who made it was deliberately being offensive/sarcastic vs. speaking out of ignorance. Barring obvious trolling language I'd bet it's most likely the latter instead of the former, especially when you consider that people from all over the world and of various cultures and walks of life read and post here. I say this because it sounds like just that sort of thing was the catalyst for this whole mess in the first place.
Why?? If the post upset a mod, why should they step back. There is a good chance it upsets other people too. Everyone has to realize this is a business, not just a social group, and everything found on their website is a reflection of them. If they leave up a post that can be taken the wrong way, then some one is going to take it the wrong way. That person may also think Paizo agrees with the post, since they didn't do anything to moderate it. That can lead to reputation damage. Why even put yourself in that situation if you are a company? Users of this forum should consider themselves very lucky that Paizo is not stronger in their moderation. As a company it would be safer for them, and they would be well within their right.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller
{marks "Godwin" on bingo card}
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
{marks "Godwin" on bingo card}"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller
well as we all know, Paizo banning people on the board is the exact same situation as rounding up people and sending them to death camps...exact...same...situation
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a post removed where I was giving another poster some good-natured grief. That poster and I are on good terms and have been for years and will occasionally poke at each other for sport. The mod's comment was that they didn't know if I was joking, which is fine. I could see how someone, not knowing the history between the other poster and I, might think I was being a serious jerk.
It happens. Sometimes the context isn't obvious and you can't expect all the mods to be up to date on all the different social dynamics here. In fact, the best way for mods to become familiar with you is have a questionablessed posting history.
-Skeld
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is being oppressed. No one is losing their voice, if such a thing were even possible in this day and age with hundreds of sites to post on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had my posts removed. Mostly because somehow I end up posting replies like mad when Rysky is online.
Or Skeld
Or Jawa.
Okay I think I have a problem guys...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mobile posting so can't quote other posts but my point is that instead of assuming the worst about something, operate under the assumption that the post was made by someone who legitimately did not know better whether due to cultural differences or due to misinformation/lack of education. Say, "Hey you might not know this but <thing you said> is actually wrong or can be considered offensive/hurtful and this is why" in a calm manner. You can give the benefit of the doubt and still communicate that something was upsetting or could be upsetting to others. If they keep trying to argue the point or become rude/hateful in response to a mild correction (as some people do) then that's another thing entirely, of course and where stronger action is warranted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While that is the historical context, the quote seems more apropos as regards abuse of power and why you should care even if you are not the group being oppressed.
I agree with you that you should speak up in the face of oppression, even if you're not the target of it. However, I think there is a distinguishing feature between the situations you are identifying which breaks the analogy.
In my view, it's incorrect to see oppression or "abuse of power" as a useful framework for analysing what's going on here. Paizo are a private company with published forum rules that are openly subjective and based on human judgement, rather than of the form "if you do X then Y will happen". I understand many don't like that, but the fact is that such a forum is the one you're invited to participate in and what you sign up for by starting an account.
I don't think that the moderators then exercising their judgement and enforcing their subjective interpretation of the guidelines is "oppression" nor is it "abuse of power" rather, it's them exercising their power entirely in accordance with the forum guidelines. It's what they said was going to happen and what every poster here agrees to.
I think it's entirely appropriate to lobby for change privately or in this subforum if someone wants more codified rules (although I for one will lobby against such a change). However, I don't think one should judge the moderators actions here as if they were made on a site without explicitly subjective and perspective-dependant posting guidelines.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a post removed where I was giving another poster some good-natured grief. That poster and I are on good terms and have been for years and will occasionally poke at each other for sport. The mod's comment was that they didn't know if I was joking, which is fine. I could see how someone, not knowing the history between the other poster and I, might think I was being a serious jerk.
It happens. Sometimes the context isn't obvious and you can't expect all the mods to be up to date on all the different social dynamics here. In fact, the best way for mods to become familiar with you is have a questionablessed posting history.
-Skeld
Gorbacz deserved it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gorbacz deserved it.
Because he's a sentient bag of devouring?
Why?? If the post upset a mod, why should they step back. There is a good chance it upsets other people too. Everyone has to realize this is a business, not just a social group, and everything found on their website is a reflection of them. If they leave up a post that can be taken the wrong way, then some one is going to take it the wrong way. That person may also think Paizo agrees with the post, since they didn't do anything to moderate it. That can lead to reputation damage. Why even put yourself in that situation if you are a company? Users of this forum should consider themselves very lucky that Paizo is not stronger in their moderation. As a company it would be safer for them, and they would be well within their right.The only real 'issue' I feel compelled to comment on is the tendency of some posters and mods to automatically assume the worst intentions behind certain posts - malice instead of ignorance. It's nothing unique to the Paizo forums but it bothers me when I see it, even more so from a mod because they represent Paizo as a company.
I understand that everyone has bad days and some have more garbage to deal with behind the scenes than others, I really do. But please, if you see a post that upsets you just step back for a moment and ask yourself what the odds are that the person who made it was deliberately being offensive/sarcastic vs. speaking out of ignorance. Barring obvious trolling language I'd bet it's most likely the latter instead of the former, especially when you consider that people from all over the world and of various cultures and walks of life read and post here. I say this because it sounds like just that sort of thing was the catalyst for this whole mess in the first place.
Because just because a post upsets a mod, does not mean that post is worthy of deletion. A mod can become upset over a post for any number of reasons, it could touch on subject matter that the mod struggles with (rape, addiction, domestic violence, infidelity), it could express opposing political views, it could express opposing social views, it could criticize something the mod greatly enjoys...
There are many reasons why a mod might find themself upset over a post, without that post breaking any rules. The problem is, that very well could have happened here on Paizo. I find it highly suspicious that the posts expressing Ashiel's critical opinion of Anevia's portrayal in WotR was removed, despite it not breaking any rules. The posts may have lead to posts later on down the line that broke the rules, but the initial criticism did not. There are countless examples of Post A leading to someone making Post B that would cause a series of deleted posts, but leave Post A behind.
Having born witness to many people expressing concern that their posts have been removed for being critical of Pazio's published work, especially published work involving LGBT characters, these actions make me extremely wary.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having born witness to many people expressing concern that their posts have been removed for being critical of Pazio's published work, especially published work involving LGBT characters, these actions make me extremely wary.
In the years I've been on this board, I don't think I've ever seen them remove a post for being critical of their published work. I've definitely never seen a post removed just because it contains criticism of Paizo's work involving LGBT characters.
That really seems like barking up the wrong tree.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a mod finds a post "upsetting", then odds are other posters and silent readers do to. And since usually a mod isn't aware of specific posts until someone flags them, then the odds that more than one person was upset seems increasingly likely. And unlike posters who can just close a thread and ignore, Paizo's staff are stuck with being exposed to it. Why should Paizo staff have to tolerate insensitive and abusive posts in their work environment, especially when they have warned these same posters repeatedly to desist?
Why are some of the banned posters' defenders so adamant on defending them, urging for extra consideration and tolerance of repeated bad behavior, but are perfectly willing to throw someone else under the bus--in this case, Rysky--simply because he happened to be the only one to openly probe the poster's thoughts and attempt to engage in a discussion with the problematic conclusions in those posts? Is it because Rysky is a SJW, something he (and I) consider a badge of honor, but is considered an abusive/dismissive epithet on "friendly" places where free speech is more valuable than community and inclusion?
Moreover .. and this is just me pondering aloud .. if you know that doing X (in this case engaging in being critical of LGBT characters) would provoke a post or ten to be removed, why would you continue on that track?
If you know that taking a certain action will cause a certain response, then doing it over and over again is either being provocative or trying to what, make a point about the evils of censorship? Or am I am just going crazier?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gorbacz deserved it.I had a post removed where I was giving another poster some good-natured grief. That poster and I are on good terms and have been for years and will occasionally poke at each other for sport. The mod's comment was that they didn't know if I was joking, which is fine. I could see how someone, not knowing the history between the other poster and I, might think I was being a serious jerk.
It happens. Sometimes the context isn't obvious and you can't expect all the mods to be up to date on all the different social dynamics here. In fact, the best way for mods to become familiar with you is have a questionablessed posting history.
-Skeld
^ Disturbingly close to the truth.
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a mod finds a post "upsetting", then odds are other posters and silent readers do to. And since usually a mod isn't aware of specific posts until someone flags them, then the odds that more than on person was upset seems increasingly likely. And unlike posters who can just close a thread and ignore, Paizo's staff are stuck with being exposed to it. Why should Paizo staff have to tolerate insensitive and abusive posts in their work environment, especially when they have warned these same posters repeatedly to desist?
Why are some of the banned posters' defenders so adamant on defending them, urging for extra consideration and tolerance of repeated bad behavior, but are perfectly willing to throw someone else under the bus--in this case, Rysky--simply because he happened to be the only one to openly probe the poster's thoughts and attempt to engage in a discussion with the problematic conclusions in those posts? Is it because Rysky is a SJW, something he (and I) consider a badge of honor, but is considered an abusive/dismissive epithet on "friendly" places where free speech is more valuable than community and inclusion?
A post can be upsetting without being abusive or insensitive. I don't recall if you are one of the people who have actually read the removed posts, but if you aren't, then please don't speak more on the subject until you do.
But, to address your comments on Rysky... Rysky grossly misunderstood what was being said and became very upset over the post. Rysky continued to be upset, and defended his viewpoint causing him to be upset, even after being repeatedly told that he was misunderstanding the post. This was not a case of "Rysky being the only one brake enough to confront these horrible monsters posting on the forum".
Why are we defending the banned posters? Because they did nothing wrong. Outside of reposting a thread asking for clarification, after being told to make the thread in the first place, Raital did absolutely nothing wrong. Banned.
Ashiel hardly even participated in the discussion that lead to the posts being removed. Then Ashiel sought out answers to why it was removed, and expressed his opinion over the upsetting actions taken by Pazio. Banned.
They did nothing wrong, and they were banned. I'm sure Paizo will do their best to justify Ashiel's banning by continue to state he'd been a repeatedly problematic poster and Ashiel ignored several instances of correspondence correcting his posting habits (which Ashiel claims never happened, as he lacks any such correspondence in his email)... but they have no justification for Raital.
Their justification for banning Ashiel is flimsy at best, but Raital was banned with no word, no warning.
In addition, I will defend Ashiel and Raital, because they can't be here to defend themselves. I highly any significant portion of people monitoring this thread would bother to seek out Ashiel or Raital to find out what happened from their point. We certainly know Pazio won't reveal what happened.
If we weren't here posting, then the only what Paizo posts, painting Ashiel and Raital as being clearly wrong, would exist. I'm not saying everything Ashiel did was right, but I also feel he didn't do anything worth being banned over. Despite what Paizo says or claims. Unless Raital is being incredibly dishonest in her account, then I know she did nothing to be banned over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A post can be upsetting without being abusive or insensitive. I don't recall if you are one of the people who have actually read the removed posts, but if you aren't, then please don't speak more on the subject until you do.
I may have missed one or two at the end, but I read the posts in question, both Rysky's and the other three posters. And as I stated before, my assessment of the conversation is almost a 180 flip of yours.
But, to address your comments on Rysky... Rysky grossly misunderstood what was being said and became very upset over the post. Rysky continued to be upset, and defended his viewpoint causing him to be upset, even after being repeatedly told that he was misunderstanding the post.
I didn't read "upset" into Rysky's replies and further questions, mostly shock and incredulity at the glaring wrongheadness of those conclusions.
This was not a case of "Rysky being the only one brake enough to confront these horrible monsters posting on the forum".
I didn't say anyone was "brave" or a "horrible monster." The situation is again being used to misconstrue Rysky's actions and intent, just like Buri's insinuation earlier in this thread that Rysky was gloating over someone being banned. If that is your assessment of Rysky's personality and motives, then at best we have a very poor communication happening. Rysky speaks up, three posters get defensive and try to gaslight and dismiss him. Rysky is the target for blame because he tried to engage in good faith... while other readers simply sighed in frustration, decided it wasn't worth making the attempt to educate again, and just quietly flagged it.
Why are we defending the banned posters? Because they did nothing wrong. Outside of reposting a thread asking for clarification, after being told to make the thread in the first place, Raital did absolutely nothing wrong....
I can't speak to Raital's case without having all the facts, but clearly you and I see very differently about the same events in question.
Moreover .. and this is just me pondering aloud .. if you know that doing X (in this case engaging in being critical of LGBT characters) would provoke a post or ten to be removed, why would you continue on that track?
If you know that taking a certain action will cause a certain response, then doing it over and over again is either being provocative or trying to what, make a point about the evils of censorship? Or am I am just going crazier?
Exactly. Nobody knew that talking about the things they were talking was bad. In fact it's pretty much arguable that it was not.
Really?
Having born witness to many people expressing concern that their posts have been removed for being critical of Pazio's published work, especially published work involving LGBT characters, these actions make me extremely wary.
I could scroll back to find the rest of the quotes, but that seems somewhat pointless.
In any case, regardless of whether or not it was "bad" to post about the things in the thread we're still back around to the reason Ashiel was removed from the forums was the aftermath.
The mods don't seem inclined to further communicate any information that is going to .. what, put minds at ease? People seen to have made their decision that the mods are being mean or evil or oppressing opinions. What is the purpose of continuing this, given that we've seem posted that people wouldn't come back even if the ban was removed?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There were more than one trans thinking that the posts were ok, but I guess it was the right of non-trans persons to be insulted in the name of all-trans people of the world.
Women and gays and trans folk can internalize self-hateful bullsh!t just like everyone else. Being trans (or whatever) isn't an automatic defense against repeated tired old debunked anti-trans rhetoric.
And I'm so happy you've assessed my personal sexuality and identity in under 30 seconds, and then dismissed it even quicker.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we defending the banned posters? Because they did nothing wrong. Outside of reposting a thread asking for clarification, after being told to make the thread in the first place, Raital did absolutely nothing wrong. Banned.
Ashiel hardly even participated in the discussion that lead to the posts being removed. Then Ashiel sought out answers to why it was removed, and expressed his opinion over the upsetting actions taken by Pazio. Banned.
They did nothing wrong, and they were banned. I'm sure Paizo will do their best to justify Ashiel's banning by continue to state he'd been a repeatedly problematic poster and Ashiel ignored several instances of correspondence correcting his posting habits (which Ashiel claims never happened, as he lacks any such correspondence in his email)... but they have no justification for Raital.
Their justification for banning Ashiel is flimsy at best, but Raital was banned with no word, no warning.
In addition, I will defend Ashiel and Raital, because they can't be here to defend themselves. I highly any significant portion of people monitoring this thread would bother to seek out Ashiel or Raital to find out what happened from their point. We certainly know Pazio won't reveal what happened.
If we weren't here posting, then the only what Paizo posts, painting Ashiel and Raital as being clearly wrong, would exist. I'm not saying everything Ashiel did was right, but I also feel he didn't do anything worth being banned over. Despite what Paizo says or claims. Unless Raital is being incredibly dishonest in her account, then I know she did nothing to be banned over.
With regard to the bolded. I don't think Paizo are making any statements about specific users or what happened (other than to say the series of events is being reviewed and to leave the OP unamended, which I guess could be taken as tacit acknowledgement that the emails posted were accurate).
Some members of the community might be speculating, but I don't think it's right to say that Paizo are making any statements one way or the other about either Ashiel or Raital.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Nobody knew that talking about the things they were talking was bad. In fact it's pretty much arguable that it was not.
The other poster and I have butted heads on these same points before, and she was informed by more than me that her conclusions on those points were problematic and hurtful at best.
But again, thanks for the summary dismissal.
I'm a man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dearie me, they're wasting their dismissal spells... Mwahahahaha!!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, what's the point here? Is this a rally to save a fallen friend, or burn down the forums in anger over their banning, or to seek change or what. Because it's sort of all over the place.
Again, what's the point here? Is this a rally to save a fallen friend, or burn down the forums in anger over their banning, or to seek change or what. Because it's sort of all over the place.
Probably different people have different motivations, so being all over the place is to be expected.
I can understand wanting to raise this publicly if you thought that Ashiel and/or Raital had been treated poorly. I think people are being careless in framing exactly what happened since none of us have all the facts and some speculation as to behind-the-scenes motivation has crept in as fact. I think this is true on "both sides" of the discussion as many fans are theorising about why Paizo took the action they did even whilst supporting it.
Nonetheless, there's clearly some confusion as to what the rules are and how they are enforced. There are issues of strong disagreement within the community. Clarifying that and perhaps developing better systems of communicating such can only help the forums, imo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the trans that were ok with the posts were just wrong because they are internalizing self-hateful bull#%&#?, good there are other people in the world to correct them.
I really don't care what you think. I believe you have a right to speak your opinions and conclusions.
But, if you share those opinions and conclusions with me and others in a public space, I and others have a right to challenge the wrongheadness or ignorance in them. Indeed, if the wrongheadness and ignorance is harmful, then many (including myself) will continue to do so.
Paizo, the owners of this server and messageboards, has a right to tell some or all of us to speak more carefully, to offer corrections, and/or desist entirely. And for those who continue to be disruptive, Paizo can also tell them to post somewhere else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Women and gays and trans folk can internalize self-hateful bullsh!t just like everyone else. Being trans (or whatever) isn't an automatic defense against repeated tired old debunked anti-trans rhetoric.So, the trans that were ok with the posts were just wrong because they are internalizing self-hateful bull#%&#?, good there are other people in the world to correct them.
Being trans is no guarantee that your views are not transphobic. The views, rather than the holder of the views, determine that.
And yes, sometimes trans people do internalize self-hateful stuff. That is unfortunately the way the world works.
What is the purpose of continuing this, given that we've seem posted that people wouldn't come back even if the ban was removed?Determining if anything can be done to prevent such things from happening again.
I would think not getting into it with the mods would rank high on the list.
@Captain Yesterday: Have you read Jiggy's excellent post over in the other thread in Website Feedback that has been getting some attention? While you may think you are helping by making jokes and keeping the stress level down, your behaviour also comes off as very dismissive and an attempt to distract or move the thread off-topic from the discussion at hand. Given Paizo's rules on thread-off topicness, this could put the thread at risk of being closed, while there still appears to be appetite for further discussion. With this in mind, please reconsider the appropriateness of your behaviour in this thread.
I skimmed that whole post and I didn't see my name once.
I was very disappointed.