Paizo, please recruit a moderation team.

[Umbral Reaver]

The reasons should be self-evident by now.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Is it too soon to mention that they have had a stellar one in the past that was let go for unspecified reasons, or would that derail the thread you're starting here?

[TOZ]

There's no money in it.

[Grankless]

And formalize banning posters who repeatedly make racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc statements rather than just deleting their posts and letting them continue to do it.

[Leon Aquilla]

Why stop there, why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases, until the tech is right to put RFID tags in people's books that can catch fire and destroy them when someone says something you disagree with.

[Grankless]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Why stop there, why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases, until the tech is right to put RFID tags in people's books that can catch fire and destroy them when someone says something you disagree with.

So to be clear, you're in favor of bigotry being allowed on the forums? Because that's the literal only interpretation of this post, considering being banned from the forums doesn't stop you from buying Pathfinder books.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Do you think transphobic and racist comments are just differing opinions, Leon? That's very interesting. See, the way I see them, they are a part of efforts by some posters to maintain this as a space they control, a space minority posters must either toe the line in, force themselves to be invisible in, or leave. It wasn't long ago that trans people largely stayed silent on these forums for fear of being mocked or othered or harassed or threatened, as has, in fact, happened a few times over the last few weeks. I'm sure you wouldn't prefer a return to those days.

[Particular Jones]

I was wondering when someone would use the Cathy Newman method of debating “ so your saying “ on these forums.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Of course! Everyone knows that basic community moderation is a slippery slope, Jones. You and I laugh at Leon now, but who'll be laughing when we're being forced to pay a Swear Tax like in that great documentary, Demo Man? :P

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Wow~

[TriOmegaZero]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Why stop there, why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases...

That's actually what banning does.

[TriOmegaZero]

Part of the problem with integrating the forums and the store. Maybe they can separate that out now, but I doubt it.

[Grankless]

Hm. Well, that is definitely not great implementation, but at least it can easily be prevented at a personal level by simply not posting bigoted opinions. It's literally the easiest thing in the world since it's the default state of being for most people.

[Tonya Woldridge]

As mentioned in this thread, there are several issues tied to banning members that make the use of the procedure more fraught, including tech limitations and lack of clear policies. I'd also note that we don't have any members of the moderation team scheduled for Sat/Sun (and it isn't a dedicated team, since they have other tasks as well). So we will work through it as we can and continue to make improvements as we are able.

[TwilightKnight]

Grankless wrote:

So to be clear, you're in favor of bigotry being allowed on the forums? Because that's the literal only interpretation of this post, considering being banned from the forums doesn't stop you from buying Pathfinder books.

As opposed to the some of the heavy-handed moderation that I have been subjected to by staff who simply didn't like what I had to say despite it not violating any published forum rules...yes! You don't persuade people by limiting their exposure to viewpoints or protecting them from offense. The only exception is moderating calls for violence or mass panic (the old "fire" in a crowded theater meme).

Only through open public discourse are people exposed to all the possible perspectives to make up their own mind. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms and cannot—must not—be used as a justification for censorship. Only by permitting "bad" speech can we expose it for what it is and provide context for the "good" speech. Without the yin-yang you lose the value and context of "good" speech. This is a paramount foundation of public discourse.

Moderation rant:

But, of course, the forums are technically Paizo's space. They can do what they want with it. All I ask is that they be open and honest with the rules. If they want to host open dialog, the rules should reflect that and their moderators should be limited to those specific guidelines. If, OTOH, they want to play censorship whenever someone expresses an opinion they don't like, then they need to be adult about that and post it in their moderation rules. Be willing to stand by your convictions, not hide behind them. And when they do take an action against a user, be adult enough to have an actual conversation with that user if they question their sanction. I can speak from experience that when the banhammer is swung, they sometimes bother to notify you with generic, broad language, but they never answer follow up questions, nor engage in resolution even in private.

Like many, but for different reasons, I have little respect for their moderation process, nor some of those tasked with enforcing it.

"I wholly disapprove of what you say — and will defend to the death your right to say it"

[Freehold DM]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Of course! Everyone knows that basic community moderation is a slippery slope, Jones. You and I laugh at Leon now, but who'll be laughing when we're being forced to pay a Swear Tax like in that great documentary, Demo Man? :P

You beat me to it, you sassy kobold.

[TwilightKnight]

Leon Aquilla wrote:

why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases

I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I do not think they could block your access to your purchased database on an individual basis since you own that content, with the possible exception maybe of proof that you are a digital pirate. Though, I admit I have not read the "fine print" of Paizo's digital permissions so it may well have a clause (that you acknowledge by buying digital product) allowing them to block your access to the content you own if they don't like your behavior. Similar to how professional sporting teams have public image clauses in their employment contracts.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Why stop there, why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases...

That's actually what banning does.

I am not sure if we are parsing a difference between a temporary ban and a permanent one, but I can confirm that being banned from the forums for a period of time does not block access to your download files, nor from making a purchases. Seems they may not like your speech, but they still want your money. :-)

[thejeff]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Grankless wrote:

So to be clear, you're in favor of bigotry being allowed on the forums? Because that's the literal only interpretation of this post, considering being banned from the forums doesn't stop you from buying Pathfinder books.

As opposed to the some of the heavy-handed moderation that I have been subjected to by staff who simply didn't like what I had to say despite it not violating any published forum rules...yes! You don't persuade people by limiting their exposure to viewpoints or protecting them from offense. The only exception is moderating calls for violence or mass panic (the old "fire" in a crowded theater meme).

Only through open public discourse are people exposed to all the possible perspectives to make up their own mind. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms and cannot—must not—be used as a justification for censorship. Only by permitting "bad" speech can we expose it for what it is and provide context for the "good" speech. Without the yin-yang you lose the value and context of "good" speech. This is a paramount foundation of public discourse.

** spoiler omitted **...

Mostly what they're doing with moderation is shutting down flame wars or things likely to spin into flame wars. Having actual public conversations with people objecting to that doesn't actually serve the purpose, it just draws the moderator into the flame war.

Do they screw up? Certainly. But any open unmoderated space past a certain size is not a "foundation of public discourse", but an unusable cess pool. Anyone who's spent any time on the Internet should know that well. Permitting bad speech on the grounds that public debate with good speech will reveal it to be bad and leave the good triumphant simply doesn't work when there's an endless array of anonymous trolls doing it for the lols.

[TriOmegaZero]

TwilightKnight wrote:

I am not sure if we are parsing a difference between a temporary ban and a permanent one, but I can confirm that being banned from the forums for a period of time does not block access to your download files, nor from making a purchases. Seems they may not like your speech, but they still want your money. :-)

I guess I've never actually been banned then! Must have just been a glitch that time I couldn't log in.

[TwilightKnight]

I can only speak from experience...:

...in that of the times I have been sanctioned, yes it has occurred multiple times over the past 15 years, probably to no surprise to many :-), it has been [almost] exclusively for criticizing Paizo and what I considered a bad decision or behavior on the part of one of their staff. I did not use profanity, nor did I even call a staffer out by name, though interestingly enough there have been times when I have and no moderation was enforced. Given recent events, I consider those sanctions justified as finally it seems a wider and growing part of the community is waking up to Paizo's business practices.

That being said, I only ask three things. First, if Paizo wants to employ a practice of banning speech they don't like, then say so. Put it in your forum rules. Second, when you sanction a user, be prepared to have a private conversation* with them and specifically indicate what it is you are sanctioning them for—not a weak "you have violated our rules." Third, in general I am opposed to censorship of almost any kind, so I would prefer they lock a thread if it becomes a flame war or emotions are escalated, whatever. Don't scrub it (unless the language calls for violence or mass hysteria), but don't allow it to continue. Let people read the transcript and develop their own conclusions both about the subject matter and those discussing it. That is how a moderator functions in public discourse.

*Generally, disciplinary action is done with the intent to correct behavior. If you cannot specify exactly what you are disciplining some for and provide improvement recommendations, then your discipline amounts to nothing and can easily look personal and petty. The moderator/s need to be prepared to have a conversation with the user not just a "because I said so."

I certainly don't want the forums to look like reddit because that truly is a deep and wide cesspool. However, we are largely adults (presumably) and should be capable of having open, honest discussions even when we disagree with other participants.

[Fergie]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Only through open public discourse are people exposed to all the possible perspectives to make up their own mind. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms and cannot—must not—be used as a justification for censorship. Only by permitting "bad" speech can you lose the valuevwe expose it for what it is and provide context for the "good" speech. Without the yin-yang and context of "good" speech. This is a paramount foundation of public discourse.

You must be new to this whole "internet" thing.

[Note: I'm not directing this in any way towards you personally TwilightKnight, just rebutting the common arguments about "free speech" that I see many make on the internet. I give you credit for having a more nuanced understanding of the issue.]

More seriously, there was a time when it was vital that everyone had a right to stand in the public square, and speak their mind. Perhaps it still is a vital part of a free and democratic society. However, ones "right" to be an anonymous bigot or a-hole on the internet is of zero value to society or "freedom" or anything else. It is sullying something of real value - freedom of political expression (petition for redress of grievances), for the sake of noise generation.

I vital part of fighting for your rights is calling out when someone is hiding behind their "rights" in order to damage society. Exploiting "rights" for the wrong reasons damages real applications of rights. Given the costs that many have paid throughout history for the rights we have, they should be respected, not exploited.

Besides, There's no such thing as rights!
-George Carlin (so you know, language and blasphemy and stuff)

[Rysky]

“So to be clear, you're in favor of bigotry being allowed on the forums?”

“As opposed to the some of the heavy-handed moderation that I have been subjected to by staff who simply didn't like what I had to say despite it not violating any published forum rules...yes!”

Good to know.

[Fergie]

"And formalize banning posters who repeatedly make racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc statements rather than just deleting their posts and letting them continue to do it."
If you object to this, there is really only one interpretation I can come up with.
Also, the "So your saying,..." is a fundamental aspect of debate. It is a way of stripping away BS to get at underlying concepts by re-framing an issue. I have personally seen federal court judges use that tactic very well. When someone uses that tactic, it is really on you to clarify and or rebut the aspects of the framing. Something I have personally seen lawyers representing me do very well.

[captain yesterday]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

I am not sure if we are parsing a difference between a temporary ban and a permanent one, but I can confirm that being banned from the forums for a period of time does not block access to your download files, nor from making a purchases. Seems they may not like your speech, but they still want your money. :-)

I guess I've never actually been banned then! Must have just been a glitch that time I couldn't log in.

It might have been! I know the last couple of times I got the 24 hour ban I couldn't post or see who favorite'd what but I could still access my downloads.

[Particular Jones]

I would like to see banned those who truly make racist, Homophobic, transphobic etc comments on the forum. Except they have to be both truly and factually harmful. Not because poster XYZ is not vocal enough in their support say of trans rights

I support all three I’m a person who continually validate my support. I will say it once and only once to a person and that is all. In the same way I may support all three Im not going to simply tell you what you want to hear or echo your position on a topic. If you want someone to continually tell you what you want to hear feel free yo pay me or others 20$ or more per hour. I will tell you whatever you want to hear.

People should be banned on actual harmful comments not because poster XYY were hurt and poster ABC should be per banned. Otherwise this forum will die a slow death imo.

[keftiu]

Particular Jones wrote:

I would like to see banned those who truly make racist, Homophobic, transphobic etc comments on the forum. Except they have to be both truly and factually harmful. Not because poster XYZ is not vocal enough in their support say of trans rights

What counts as “truly and factually harmful” in this regard? Because we’ve had several users be pretty viciously transphobic in the last few weeks, and I’d be glad to see them gone.

[Steve Geddes]

Things were better when there was a dedicated team, but it was a pretty gruelling job.

[Steve Geddes]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases

I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I do not think they could block your access to your purchased database on an individual basis since you own that content...

I dont follow it really but my understanding is that you rarely have legal ownership of digital content you "purchase" - you are nearly always licensing it.

Thats why wotc could just revoke access to 3.5 PDFs all those years ago (even though many of them had been distributed via third parties).

[Particular Jones]

For me it is someone who makes as an example transphobic comment towards Transpeople. Or who makes a racist comment towards POC. That is when we should van someone. Otherwise it’s a dangerous slippery slope and we start using anything and everything even if it not racist as an excuse to ban someone. Or worse we ban them simply for having a difference of opinion.

[TwilightKnight]

Rysky wrote:

Good to know

Agreed. When participating in public discourse, it is always useful to understand who you are talking to and the foundations of their various positions

[keftiu]

Particular Jones wrote:

For me it is someone who makes as an example transphobic comment towards Transpeople. Or who makes a racist comment towards POC. That is when we should van someone.

Several users here have done this repeatedly. It’s been frustrating to see them stick around.

[thejeff]

Steve Geddes wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

why not just revoke all access to offenders' digital purchases

I do not claim to be a lawyer, but I do not think they could block your access to your purchased database on an individual basis since you own that content...

I dont follow it really but my understanding is that you rarely have legal ownership of digital content you "purchase" - you are nearly always licensing it.

Thats why wotc could just revoke access to 3.5 PDFs all those years ago (even though many of them had been distributed via third parties).

Also, they're not actually revoking your content. If you've downloaded it, it doesn't go away. They're providing a convenient service of letting you continue to download it again anytime you want, but I doubt they're contractually obligated to do so. They're certainly not legally required to do so indefinitely. If Paizo went out of business, for example, they wouldn't have to make arrangements to keep a website up where you could get old purchased pdfs.

Download copies and store them yourselves.

[Reckless]

Dear Paizo,

Please do not recruit a moderation team. Please use that money to better the lives of your employees, not create a set of Sisyphean positions doomed for only criticism and failure. In fact, use the money to give a raise to those people you already have doing this task, and/or maybe shut down everything but the store on the weekends and give them the time off people keep trying to steal from them on these boards by being jerks.

Thank you,

Stratton Liberty
aka Reckless

[Grankless]

Twilight, I have absolutely no idea how you can genuinely say you want to see bigotry on the forums. Personally, I, as a trans woman, think anyone who considers me subhuman should be barred from basically every community, as their presence literally only makes things worse. There's no magical debate fairy blessing the forums just because bigots keep causing arguments.

You either support bigotry, or you oppose it. It is a binary thing. There's no sliding scale of "oh, a LITTLE hate speech is okay, it's fine if only ONE thread gets disgusting antisemitic garbage posted in it". The ONLY correct amount of bigotry is zero. If you support the presence of bigotry...

[Steve Geddes]

I agree. A community that committed to "hearing all sides" isnt a community I want any part of. Hate and empathy arent two sides on a spectrum. One has a positive impact, one is negative.

I can find out the latest bigot talking points without going to a gaming site to hear them given airtime.

[TwilightKnight]

Grankless wrote:

Twilight, I have absolutely no idea how you can genuinely say you want to see bigotry on the forums.

I never said I WANT to see/hear bigotry. I simply support the free exchange of ideas at the most fundamental level. It is a mistake to conflate a desire for free speech with a desire for offense. There is no way to prevent speech limitations from becoming perverted and without exception, every time limitations are placed on speech it becomes tyrannical. When the day arrives that a truly unbiased and perfectly equitable moderator appears, I will support their ability to decide what is "good" and/or "bad" speech. Until then, I prefer the risk of offense over the oppression of censorship. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, I understand and hold no enmity towards you. I am what I am and stand by my convictions.

[keftiu]

There is no need to 'understand the other side' when it comes to matters of trans rights.

[Rysky]

“I never said I WANT to see/hear bigotry”

You did exactly that, thank you for falling into the Tolerance of Intolerance Paradox.

Given free reign to bigots isn’t an enlightened and unbiased talking point, you’re advocating for a rather harmful anarchy where minorities are punched down and threatened and hurt and/or forced out of communities or worse.

It’s not a moral win giving bigots a stage, all you’ve achieved is given them a stage to be a bigot.

[Particular Jones]

I have seen posters who used to be more civil on these boards become less so on the boards.

I don’t want see any form of harassment or bigotry etc. Neither does one get a free pass on any and all type of bad behaviour simply because they are a POC, gay or a trans person. To me at least it seems because the mods decided to be more lenient the boards have become a free for all. One may support a good cause yet if one acts like a jerk it does not excuse the person from being one.

One asks for some posters to stop, tone it down or do less of it and instead some just quintuple down on the bad behaviour. It was not like this five years ago. Yes while some here may have a subscription or spent much money on products again in no way shape or form entitled to engage in bad behaviour. In other forums that would lead to warnings with temporary or even permanent bans.

Paizo owns the forums and they can do what they want with them. I would not be surprised if they get fed up and do what a Wotc did and close their forums. Nor do they have to ask anyone here if they do so

[Rysky]

5 years ago? 5 years ago we had bigots making death threats till they were banned, culminating in the “politics are not allowed” on the forums implementation.

[TwilightKnight]

Particular Jones wrote:

It was not like this five years ago

I disagree. I have been involved in the forums for more than a decade and I generally find them to be as un/welcoming as they always have been

Rysky wrote:

bigots making death threats till they were banned

Rightly so

Rysky wrote:

politics are not allowed

Overreaction — YMMV

[pauljathome]

keftiu wrote:

There is no need to 'understand the other side' when it comes to matters of trans rights.

I can't believe that I'm about to defend Twilightknight :-).

But I think you're missing his point (or I am).

While there are very clearly some posts that are racist, transphobic, etc etc there are also lots and lots of posts that are in a grey zone. Some will see them as racist/transphobic/etc, some won't.

The issue in my mind is differentiating those. I have absolutely no problem at all with banning the clearly racist/transphobic. But I DO have huge problems with banning everybody who could conceivably be racist/transphobic by some peoples standards.

Heck, in the spate of these threads there have been several examples of people making, in ignorance, comments that could be considered transphobic, these people being told WHY what they were saying was unacceptable, and they LEARNING from that, apologizing, and going on to do better. Surely a much, much, much better result than banning them.

I vehemently disagree with Twilight when he says

TwilightKnight wrote:

There is no way to prevent speech limitations from becoming perverted and without exception, every time limitations are placed on speech it becomes tyrannical

. I live in a country (Canada) that absolutely HAS what many Americans think of as unreasonable limitations on speech (hate crime legislation) that I, together with the vast majority of Canadians, believe are justified and do far more good than bad. Heck, pretty much ALL of us live in societies with LOTS of limitations on our speech ("Can't yell fire in a theatre", libel and slander laws, truth in advertising laws, etc etc etc).

But it IS absolutely true that any decisions to perma ban somebody has to be done very carefully. I think there needs to be some kind of appeal process. Given that absolute perfection is impossible I think it needs to err on the side of allowing possibly transphobic/racist remarks rather than on the side of assuming anything that may be transphobic/racist IS transphobic/racist.

[Particular Jones]

That was my point as well ban a poster for being truly racist, transphobic etc not because some assume they are.

If I have a lazy roommate who refuses to do any chores and is a POC my calling him out on his laziness is not being racist it is bad behaviour. If you go by posters here I’m not just racist I should be banned. As everything and anything they deem racist should be. Or a cut on a finger vs a severed finger is factually the same type of injury and absolutely no one is going to tell them otherwise. Not even the doctor giving them treatment at the hospital.!

[Cori Marie]

pauljathome wrote:

keftiu wrote:

There is no need to 'understand the other side' when it comes to matters of trans rights.

While there are very clearly some posts that are racist, transphobic, etc etc there are also lots and lots of posts that are in a grey zone. Some will see them as racist/transphobic/etc, some won't.

The problem here is that a lot of what you feel are a "grey zone" are actually extremely loud dog whistles that have been thrown at those marginalized groups for decades. We've grown accustomed to hearing them, we know exactly what they actually mean a recent example was the poster who repeatedly said their were legal reasons not to allow a man and a woman to room together at a convention, when that wasn't the argument, and the argument was about a trans woman and a cis woman. It was a loud dog whistle that said "no I will never think of a trans woman as anything other than a man" and he posted that argument literally dozens of times over the course of a week.

[Rysky]

If your roommate is lazy, call them out on being lazy… why did you feel the need to bring their skin color up, like at all?

If someone starts complaining about another person and feels the need to go out of the way to highlight their race constantly or whatever then the complainer is suspect.

You’re kinda defeating your own argument you’re trying to construct, you’re obsessed with race and being a victim.

[YawarFiesta]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Do you think transphobic and racist comments are just differing opinions, Leon? That's very interesting. See, the way I see them, they are a part of efforts by some posters to maintain this as a space they control, a space minority posters must either toe the line in, force themselves to be invisible in, or leave. It wasn't long ago that trans people largely stayed silent on these forums for fear of being mocked or othered or harassed or threatened, as has, in fact, happened a few times over the last few weeks. I'm sure you wouldn't prefer a return to those days.

Main issue is that people here seem to have have different definition of what racism or transphobia is.

Humbly,
Yawar

[Rysky]

I'd say lying and inventing a non-existent law as a defense for why a trans woman wasn't allowed to room with a cis woman falls squarely under transphobia.