| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, Ambrosia, you are telling me that you read the posts in question, and have determined that Rysky was not upset about them, despite, literally, telling Klara, "F~&! You!" over her post made? Further more, you think the other posters were trying to gaslight and dismiss Rysky and that he was engaging in good faith.
If this is actually true, then we have nothing more to talk about on this subject. I can only conclude that you were incredibly biased in your reading of those posts, as the posters that were "gaslighting" him went to great efforts to try and explain the misunderstanding to Rysky before the posts were removed.
Despite every explanation, and clarification, by Klara and others in the thread, Rysky repeatedly claimed that Klara was equating transexual people with psychopaths and schizophrenics, simply because Klara was using them as people representing a similar popularity density.
That's it. That's all Klara was doing in that post. She was saying that, based on population, for every 1 transsexual person, there are roughly 3 psychopaths, and 3 schizophrenics in the world. However, portrayals of these three demographics is vastly skewed. You will find vastly more transsexual people in media, than you will find psychopaths and schizophrenics (outside of law shows, anyway).
It is in my opinion, and many others, that Rsyky grossly exaggerated the situation and then continued to keep blowing the problem out of proportion for over a misunderstanding that he refused to contemplate.
I have three copies of the PDF of the posts that Klara saved. Others have copies as well. If anyone wants to find them, they are out there, and aren't hard to find. I can't share them here, because Paizo will delete the post, otherwise I would.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have three copies of the PDF of the posts that Klara saved. Others have copies as well. If anyone wants to find them, they are out there, and aren't hard to find. I can't share them here, because Paizo will delete the post, otherwise I would.
Isn't the problem, though, not the posts themselves, but the offline interaction between Ashiel and the mod, which led to the ban? Posts get modded all the time, but there were emotionally charged emails and a thread in Feedback that were the main contributors to the ban. That's the impression I got.
-Skeld
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick side note: LGBT people are not "controversial topics." LGBT people are human being we ask be treated with respect and humanity in our company spaces, especially considering that we have many employees who fall within that community and are required to participate in the forums as part of our jobsf - There seems to be a correlation of the banhammer with the lgtb topics. Paizo choose to include controversial topics in their published materials but it seems that it can't handle discussions about it (And I'm not talking about the occasional jerk that rant about how a trans character in WoTR will send everyone to hell or something), specially if the poster opinion doesn't align with the moderator at hand. You are free of course to not want some topic to be discussed, but if that is the case make it a rule and make it clear for everyone.
Who said "LGBT people" are "controversial topics" and not people?
What was being said from my reading was topic revolving around LGBT based topics amounts to more bans.
15 people liked this?
I guess Nicos can clarify what he meant.
edit: The context of the statement was very clear to me so I am wondering how that many people read it, and nobody questioned Crystal's interpretation of words that appear nowhere in the forum.
| 1 person 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.
At the same time you are telling people how to handle their business. How ironic.
I have three copies of the PDF of the posts that Klara saved. Others have copies as well. If anyone wants to find them, they are out there, and aren't hard to find. I can't share them here, because Paizo will delete the post, otherwise I would.Isn't the problem, though, not the posts themselves, but the offline interaction between Ashiel and the mod, which led to the ban? Posts get modded all the time, but there were emotionally charged emails and a thread in Feedback that were the main contributors to the ban. That's the impression I got.
-Skeld
For the most part, yes. However, Ashiel is my friend and I'm not going to let him paint Ashiel as the perpetrator behind these most recent events, when he had very little to do with it. Nor am I going to let him paint Rysky as innocent and, essentially, a beacon of justice, in this matter either.
It's one of those issues of public portrayals, isn't it? Any public action over this would never occur if Ashiel and Raital are painted as the ones at fault here, as Paizo and Ambrosias have. If no one corrects the portrayal, then, obviously, they are guilty right?
Ambrosias' recounting of events is incorrect, in my opinion anyway, and it negatively effects Ashiel's and Raital's standing in this matter.
Quick side note: LGBT people are not "controversial topics." LGBT people are human being we ask be treated with respect and humanity in our company spaces, especially considering that we have many employees who fall within that community and are required to participate in the forums as part of our jobsf - There seems to be a correlation of the banhammer with the lgtb topics. Paizo choose to include controversial topics in their published materials but it seems that it can't handle discussions about it (And I'm not talking about the occasional jerk that rant about how a trans character in WoTR will send everyone to hell or something), specially if the poster opinion doesn't align with the moderator at hand. You are free of course to not want some topic to be discussed, but if that is the case make it a rule and make it clear for everyone.
Who said "LGBT people" are "controversial topics" and not people?
What was being said from my reading was topic revolving around LGBT based topics amounts to more bans.
15 people liked this?
I guess Nicos can clarify what he meant.
edit: The context of the statement was very clear to me so I am wondering how that many people read it, and nobody questioned Crystal's interpretation of words that appear nowhere in the forum.
I was going to, but I forgot about it with the thread being locked over the weekend. Which doesn't help matters. I bet a large number of people who were interested in this topic forgot about it over the weekend and dropped it from their attention.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of arguing these points and this event over and over. We are just not going to agree.
(And for the record, I have always identified as female.)
Customer Service Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
f - There seems to be a correlation of the banhammer with the lgtb topics. Paizo choose to include controversial topics in their published materials but it seems that is can't handle discussions about it (And I'm not talking about the occasional jerk that rant about how a trans character in WoTR will send everyone to hell or something), specially if the poster opinion doesn't align with the moderator at hand. You are free of course to not want some topic to be discussed, but if that is the case make it a rule and make it clear for everyone.
While it's not an issue to discuss aspects of what LGBTQA inclusive subject matter has been included in Paizo products, or every to critique how Paizo handles the subject, the conversation, like the rest of our forums, needs remain civil.
Threads that cover LGBTQA subjects will most like continue to see occasional posts removed or other moderator actions and that for a couple reasons.
For some folks (in general in our society) LGBTQA issues are very important topics, often it's because a person is or knows someone who identifies on the LGBTQA spectrum and/or is passionate about ensuring equality for groups, or because they have a very deep rooted (usually religious) objection to LGBTQA identifying persons. Subjects that elicit strong emotional reactions do skew towards heavier moderation because it can be really hard to maintain your decorum on issues you feel are vital to who you are. Discussions of any subject that has this much social history and this much passion behind it usually see more moderation because the conversations tend to skew towards escalation when people's core beliefs about the world or about themselves are at stake.
Additionally, the Paizo community has a number of very diverse beliefs about how to handle LGBTQA issues, how they should be included in our products, the various interpretations of how they are being included, etc. While we don't want to exclude anyone from the conversation, we also are not interested in offering a platform for people to vocalize beliefs regarding LGBTQA issues or persons who identify as LGBTQA that are harmful to those community members who identify as such. A noble goal but in reality, this is a very tricky thing! Some folks may feel that threads or posts repeatedly questioning the existence of inclusion of LGBTQA character in our campaign setting is incredibly harmful, while others might not understand why or how that could be painful. The LGBTQA community is a very broad and diverse group in and of itself. Within the various sub-communities of each branch there can be widely different opinions and feelings on what is offensive or not. Diverse, evolving societal standards and continued intersectional education in how we talk about LGBTQA issues means it can be a complex subject to navigate.
So we have a complex social issue where passion runs high. That alone is enough for a given subject to result in more than "usual" moderation efforts being applied. But then we also have the fact that LGBTQA issues/subjects are something that a many folks on Paizo's staff in particular are interested in or involved with. A number of us identify somewhere on the LGBTQA spectrum or we have close coworkers/friends & family that do. This means we are typically already in those threads where these subjects come up or when we see comments made about these issues our attention is focused on the conversation. Posts/threads that cover LGBTQA subjects/issues have a higher visibility with staff which, when combined with the above two points, means there is indeed a correlation between LGBTQA threads and forum moderation.
Overall, I think it's healthy for both the community and for Paizo to have discussions, conversations or debates on how we are doing with regards to LGBTQA inclusiveness. We don't ban people for talking about things, or even critiquing how we're doing with it. It's vital to making sure we don't stagnate socially or accidentally alienate a part of our community.
We want to foster a environment that is welcoming to people who want to be here. However, if we feel someone is actively working against that goal, when someone is actively driving away other community members and is not willing to or able to stop, it is our job as moderators of the forums, to remove the ability to continue to post from that user's account. This is never a decision that should be made lightly. Often before removing the ability to post members of the moderation team will consult and get a second or third opinion. Moderation is not an easy task. While we try to ensure we are doing our best, we can, do, have, will make judgement calls that we might not agree with in hindsight or that reviewing the situation will have us seeing in a different light.
We strongly encourage individuals who wish to remain in the community to let us know via email, where we can review our decision and follow up in a manner that respects the privacy of all our community members, keeping in mind that review does not imply reversal.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike Ashiel's posting style intensely: smarmy, dismissive and arrogant. Any and all of her threads I hide as soon as I read them and I have avoided interactions with her because they were always vitriolic.
That being said this whole situation is absurd and Ashiel (and apparently a few others) should be unbanned.
Barring threats to staff or other posters, outright racism or repeated threadcrapping (aka - the drive-by's, we have a few in this thread) a perma-ban, or ban asking the poster to beg to have it lifted is ridiculous.
IMO the moderation staff needs to buck up a little and remember that they need to remove their emotions from the situation when dropping nukes, wipes, locks and issuing bans. That or just outright state your political/social views and say that any threads, comments or critiques that challenge or offend them will be met with deletes, warnings and eventual bans.
In this exchange - based upon the emails - an emotional response from a poster was met by an emotional response, i.e. dismissal. Why would you tell someone that "maybe this isn't the place for you" then ban them? Shouldn't that phrase be acted upon by the poster - you know, deciding if the place really is for them and if they still want to continue posting?
The moderators here need to remind themselves that they both have infinite power to control the narrative while simultaneously possessing human emotional responses to things that they find offensive.
On that note, I also feel (aka - an opinion) that it is incredibly distastefully to see staff (moderators or otherwise) +1 posts poli/socially charged posts or post that are pro-paizo. I'm not seeing the need for them to get involved in political or socially charged threads or the need to "back each other up" or friendly posters. All this does is foster an even more "Us vs. them" environment based upon who are their open favorites are on the boards.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apologize to her, bring her back and tell her to keep it civil if she decides to post again. Fix it and move on.
Then I can start hiding her threads again.
| 1 person 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.
psychogenetic fallacy
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.
Again, we're talking different 4chans. /lgbt/, for example, has one of the least toxic and most friendly communities I've ever seen. If you're an ass towards others, you do get banned there. However, you're entirely free to voice any opinion otherwise.
| 1 person 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.
If you haven't been affected, don't post in this thread. Simple stuff.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will never understand the "it doesn't both me so you shouldn't complain either" attitude.