Quantcast
A Major Issue that Needs to be Addressed by Moderators

Forums - General Discussion - A Major Issue that Needs to be Addressed by Moderators

Jay520 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Let's say you do bring up 9/11. No mal intent, it's a legit topic. The person you are talking to starts crying. It turns out they lost their father in the Twin Towers.

The human thing to do is apologies. You explain that you didn't mean to hurt them and apologies for causing them pain. That's what empathy is about it.


Not really. You wouldn't have any obligation (morally) to apologize for merely discussing a topic that someone else finds disturbing. There's nothing wrong with discussing 9/11. In fact, I'm pretty sure every American has probably discussed it thoroughly in their life; it's actually become a fairly common topic in the USA especially for educational purposes. If someone starts crying because of such a common topic, that's their own problem. Do you think people should apologize for talking about leg training because it made a parylized person upset? I would say no. Sure, it would be a good course of action to ease the tension, but other than that, there's no obligation to do so.

Yes you do have an obligation as a member of the human race to appologize for accidently upsetting a fellow human. Just because you didn't intend to cause pain does not mean that their feelings are less painfull. Talking about 9/11 is perfectly legit. Upsetting someone who lost a loved one and not appologizing for accidently causing the pain would be a dick move. Compassion and empathy are extreamly important parts of human interaction. The internet forgets that far too often.



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi said:

Yes you do have an obligation as a member of the human race to appologize for accidently upsetting a fellow human. Just because you didn't intend to cause pain does not mean that their feelings are less painfull. Talking about 9/11 is perfectly legit. Upsetting someone who lost a loved one and not appologizing for accidently causing the pain would be a dick move. Compassion and empathy are extreamly important parts of human interaction. The internet forgets that far too often.


So if I started talking about ham sandwhiches and someone started crying (for whatever reason - maybe their family was eaten by savage pigs), I would be obligated to apologize? Or let's say someone become upset becaus my shirt bore a certain shade of red (maybe they were red-green colorblind and my shirt reminded them of their disability), I would also be obligated to apologize? That's the argument you're making with the bolded. Using your argument, you would be apologizing 15, 20 times minimum per day as people are bound to be upset by your words (unless you don't talk much). You would have to apologize to people with the craziest, most vulnerable sensitive topics. Is that how you live your life? 

I would guess the answer to that question would be no. You don't go around apologizing to every sensitive person out there just because they are the ones who easily become upset. No, you probably create a spectrum in your mind containing when you are obligated to apologize for something and when you aren't. On one end of the spectrum lies things you probably wouldn't feel obligated to apologize for regardless of who becomes upset (though you may do so anyway to ease the feelings) - like apologizing for wearing a red shirt. On the other end of the spectrum lies things you are more likely to feel obligated to apologize for since it's more understandable for someone to become upset by it - like accidentally driving over someone's pet cat. In this particularly case, yes, it would be a dick move to just casually continue your day after violently ending the life of someone's pet.

I agree that apologizing would be the compassionate move and one that helps ease the tension, but there's nothing morally wrong about it. 



Jay520 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Yes you do have an obligation as a member of the human race to appologize for accidently upsetting a fellow human. Just because you didn't intend to cause pain does not mean that their feelings are less painfull. Talking about 9/11 is perfectly legit. Upsetting someone who lost a loved one and not appologizing for accidently causing the pain would be a dick move. Compassion and empathy are extreamly important parts of human interaction. The internet forgets that far too often.


So if I started talking about ham sandwhiches and someone started crying (for whatever reason - maybe their family was eaten by savage pigs), I would be obligated to apologize? Or let's say someone become upset becaus my shirt bore a certain shade of red(maybe they were red-green colorblind and my shirt reminded them of their disability), I would also be obligated to apologize? That's the argument you're making with the bolded. Using your argument, you would be apologizing 15, 20 times minimum per day as people are bound to be upset by your words (unless you don't talk much). You would have to apologize to people with the craziest, most vulnerable sensitive topics. Is that how you live your life? 

I would guess the answer to that question would be no. You don't go around apologizing to every sensitive person out there just because they are the ones who easily become upset. No, you probably create a spectrum in your mind containing when you are obligated to apologize for something and when you aren't. On one end of the spectrum lies things you probably wouldn't feel obligated to apologize for regardless of who becomes upset (though you may do so anyway to ease the feelings) - like apologizing for wearing a red shirt. On the other end of the spectrums lies things you are more likely to feel obligated to apologize for sense it's more understandable for someone to become upset by it - like accidentally driving over someone's pet cat. In this particularly case, yes, it would be a dick move to just casually continue your day after killing someone's pet.

I agree that apologizing would be the compassionate move and one that helps ease the tension, but there's nothing morally wrong about it. 

Good job coming up with the most absurd situations possible. But I will say that if someone was as emotionally unstable as to cry over the color of my shirt I think I would probably apologize and put on a jacket to keep from upsetting a clearly disturbed individual that deserves even more compassion that a emotional stable person.

I don't know what world you live in where you meet people who burst into tears over every word you say. You either know a lot more people with emotional problems than I do your you go around saying mean things to everyone you see.

I haven't made anyone cry in a very long time, even by accident. I can't even remember the last time. But I have apologized for making someone visibly uncomfortable due to the discussed topic. I apologized, changed the subject and things were pleasant again.

Exercising compassionate isn't just a tool to get out of a tense situation. Be compassionate is part of having empathy. You know, that thing in the back of your mind that makes you identify with other humans. It's that that thing that without it we would be a savage race of thugs.

If you make someone upset you are supposed to feel bad about it because you identify with how you would feel if someone upset you. It's not even a question of morality. It's part of the human condition. Nobody should go around actively trying to hurt other people's feelings. Some do, that's why we have words like "jerk" to describe those who don't have compassion.



kain_kusanagi said:

Good job coming up with the most absurd situations possible. But I will say that if someone was as emotionally unstable as to cry over the color of my shirt I think I would probably apologize and put on a jacket to keep from upsetting a clearly disturbed individual that deserves even more compassion that a emotional stable person.

I don't know what world you live in where you meet people who burst into tears over every word you say. You either know a lot more people with emotional problems than I do your you go around saying mean things to everyone you see.

I haven't made anyone cry in a very long time, even by accident. I can't even remember the last time. But I have apologized for making someone visibly uncomfortable due to the discussed topic. I apologized, changed the subject and things were pleasant again.

Exercising compassionate isn't just a tool to get out of a tense situation. Be compassionate is part of having empathy. You know, that thing in the back of your mind that makes you identify with other humans. It's that that thing that without it we would be a savage race of thugs.

If you make someone upset you are supposed to feel bad about it because you identify with how you would feel if someone upset you. It's not even a question of morality. It's part of the human condition. Nobody should go around actively trying to hurt other people's feelings. Some do, that's why we have words like "jerk" to describe those who don't have compassion.


The scenarios I listed don't have to be actual to discuss the merits of your arguments. If you have a belief system, it should hold weight among all possible scenarios (those actual and imaginary). Otherwise your belief is based on a condition by condition basis. Meaning your actual belief isn't based on the belief system you provided, but is instead based on whatever factors are affecting the different conditions.

Anyway, you have moved the topic away from what's moral and what's the right thing to do to what humans are biologically programmed to do. This has very little practical applications to the point of this thread - which is the rules and enforcement of the rules of this site. These rules are not based on the human condition, which is why there are no rules that say "please be nice and apologize to other users if you offend them". That would be cool if users did that, but to expect such a rule to be enforced is crazy. The rules are based not on whether or not some random user becomes offended by a post, but rather, they are usually based on if a post is intended to offend for the sake of offending. 

If you go around moderating every posts that offend someone, then you are left with a situation like the one I mentioned where you are apologizing 15, 20 times a day over the most trivial and common posts. But instead of apologies, you would have moderations instead and discussion would be virtually impossible; everyone would be afraid that their post would offend someone, somewhere at some time with some specific condition that makes him particularly sensitive to some particular topic.



Jay520 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Good job coming up with the most absurd situations possible. But I will say that if someone was as emotionally unstable as to cry over the color of my shirt I think I would probably apologize and put on a jacket to keep from upsetting a clearly disturbed individual that deserves even more compassion that a emotional stable person.

I don't know what world you live in where you meet people who burst into tears over every word you say. You either know a lot more people with emotional problems than I do your you go around saying mean things to everyone you see.

I haven't made anyone cry in a very long time, even by accident. I can't even remember the last time. But I have apologized for making someone visibly uncomfortable due to the discussed topic. I apologized, changed the subject and things were pleasant again.

Exercising compassionate isn't just a tool to get out of a tense situation. Be compassionate is part of having empathy. You know, that thing in the back of your mind that makes you identify with other humans. It's that that thing that without it we would be a savage race of thugs.

If you make someone upset you are supposed to feel bad about it because you identify with how you would feel if someone upset you. It's not even a question of morality. It's part of the human condition. Nobody should go around actively trying to hurt other people's feelings. Some do, that's why we have words like "jerk" to describe those who don't have compassion.


The scenarios I listed don't have to be actual to discuss the merits of your arguments. If you have a belief system, it should hold weight among all possible scenarios (those actual and imaginary). Otherwise your belief is based on a condition by condition basis. Meaning your actual belief isn't based on the belief system you provided, but is instead based on whatever factors are affecting the different conditions.

Anyway, you have moved the topic away from what's moral and what's the right thing to do to what humans are biologically programmed to do. This has very little practical applications to the point of this thread - which is the rules and enforcement of the rules of this site. These rules are not based on the human condition, which is why there are no rules that say "please be nice and apologize to other users if you offend them". That would be cool if users did that, but to expect such a rule to be enforced is crazy. The rules are based not on whether or not some random user becomes offended by a post, but rather, they are usually based on if a post is intended to offend for the sake of offending. 

If you go around moderating every posts that offend someone, then you are left with a situation like the one I mentioned where you are apologizing 15, 20 times a day over the most trivial and common posts. But instead of apologies, you would have moderations instead and discussion would be virtually impossible; everyone would be afraid that their post would offend someone, somewhere at some time with some specific condition that makes him particularly sensitive to some particular topic.


You do this all the time. You want to discuss a topic and then you drive it in your direction that follows your line of logic and when someone goes along with you on your path and responds in kind you claim they are diverging from the original point. I'm not going to do that again.

I never used the word moral untill you did. Morality was never something I was talking about. You've now taken my "human condition" phrase and turned it into what "humans are biologically programmed to do". You are putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them. I'm not going to do that.

Instead I'm going to just clearify my basic premise.

We should all try to be nice to each other and treat everyone with respect, kindness and understanding.

I'm not asking that the forum rules be based on the human condition or morality, (your word not mine). I'm not even arguing tha every hurtfull comment should be moderated. I'm simply saying that if you hurt someone's feelings you should apologize. Isn't that what we all learned in kindergarten? It's just as valid in adulthood as it was in childhood. http://socyberty.com/lifestyle-choices/what-we-learned-in-kindergarten/



Around the Network
Marucha said:

This kind of stuff needs to stop. Look at the second post.

Look, I do my best to take the high road and I don't engage people directly... I do exactly as the rules stated, report the posts... but nothing ever gets done.

If women are not welcome here, then just say so. So far, that's basically the message I am getting from the actions of others. That said, there are a lot of problems on this forum, not even just what is allowed towards the girl's in particular, but just really all levels of immaturity that are putting the standards of this site closer and closer to gutter level.

Did you read the topic of your thread? PM's producing a SQL error. Galaki said "Why is your PMS producing a SQL error."

That post was funny, he was just pointing out a coincidence, I don't think it was intentionally designed to be sexist.

----

Maybe we need a female mod though. On a website where 9/10, or more, users are male, comments which may be interpreted as sexist to women might get ignored by male mods.

IMO I thought it was very funny, but I'm a man. Make sure you report posts which you feel are sexist, and if you don't see any actions done, report again and ask the mod to contact you, or directly contact various moderators. If a Mod didn't ban/warn someone, their decision will unlikely get overturned, but mods are among the easiest people to talk to on the forum, and will listen to your case.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

kain_kusanagi said:
Jay520 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Good job coming up with the most absurd situations possible. But I will say that if someone was as emotionally unstable as to cry over the color of my shirt I think I would probably apologize and put on a jacket to keep from upsetting a clearly disturbed individual that deserves even more compassion that a emotional stable person.

I don't know what world you live in where you meet people who burst into tears over every word you say. You either know a lot more people with emotional problems than I do your you go around saying mean things to everyone you see.

I haven't made anyone cry in a very long time, even by accident. I can't even remember the last time. But I have apologized for making someone visibly uncomfortable due to the discussed topic. I apologized, changed the subject and things were pleasant again.

Exercising compassionate isn't just a tool to get out of a tense situation. Be compassionate is part of having empathy. You know, that thing in the back of your mind that makes you identify with other humans. It's that that thing that without it we would be a savage race of thugs.

If you make someone upset you are supposed to feel bad about it because you identify with how you would feel if someone upset you. It's not even a question of morality. It's part of the human condition. Nobody should go around actively trying to hurt other people's feelings. Some do, that's why we have words like "jerk" to describe those who don't have compassion.


The scenarios I listed don't have to be actual to discuss the merits of your arguments. If you have a belief system, it should hold weight among all possible scenarios (those actual and imaginary). Otherwise your belief is based on a condition by condition basis. Meaning your actual belief isn't based on the belief system you provided, but is instead based on whatever factors are affecting the different conditions.

Anyway, you have moved the topic away from what's moral and what's the right thing to do to what humans are biologically programmed to do. This has very little practical applications to the point of this thread - which is the rules and enforcement of the rules of this site. These rules are not based on the human condition, which is why there are no rules that say "please be nice and apologize to other users if you offend them". That would be cool if users did that, but to expect such a rule to be enforced is crazy. The rules are based not on whether or not some random user becomes offended by a post, but rather, they are usually based on if a post is intended to offend for the sake of offending. 

If you go around moderating every posts that offend someone, then you are left with a situation like the one I mentioned where you are apologizing 15, 20 times a day over the most trivial and common posts. But instead of apologies, you would have moderations instead and discussion would be virtually impossible; everyone would be afraid that their post would offend someone, somewhere at some time with some specific condition that makes him particularly sensitive to some particular topic.


You do this all the time. You want to discuss a topic and then you drive it in your direction that follows your line of logic and when someone goes along with you on your path and responds in kind you claim they are diverging from the original point. I'm not going to do that again.

I never used the word moral untill you did. Morality was never something I was talking about. You've now taken my "human condition" phrase and turned it into what "humans are biologically programmed to do". You are putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them. I'm not going to do that.

Instead I'm going to just clearify my basic premise.

We should all try to be nice to each other and treat everyone with respect, kindness and understanding.

I'm not asking that the forum rules be based on the human condition or morality, (your word not mine). I'm not even arguing tha every hurtfull comment should be moderated. I'm simply saying that if you hurt someone's feelings you should apologize. Isn't that what we all learned in kindergarten? It's just as valid in adulthood as it was in childhood. http://socyberty.com/lifestyle-choices/what-we-learned-in-kindergarten/



Actually you're the one who is changing the topic. From the start this thread had been about the forum rules. You're the one who started talking about the human condition (or biological programming. Same thing, different term), which has little connection with the default point of the thread.

Jay520 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Jay520 said:
kain_kusanagi said:

Good job coming up with the most absurd situations possible. But I will say that if someone was as emotionally unstable as to cry over the color of my shirt I think I would probably apologize and put on a jacket to keep from upsetting a clearly disturbed individual that deserves even more compassion that a emotional stable person.

I don't know what world you live in where you meet people who burst into tears over every word you say. You either know a lot more people with emotional problems than I do your you go around saying mean things to everyone you see.

I haven't made anyone cry in a very long time, even by accident. I can't even remember the last time. But I have apologized for making someone visibly uncomfortable due to the discussed topic. I apologized, changed the subject and things were pleasant again.

Exercising compassionate isn't just a tool to get out of a tense situation. Be compassionate is part of having empathy. You know, that thing in the back of your mind that makes you identify with other humans. It's that that thing that without it we would be a savage race of thugs.

If you make someone upset you are supposed to feel bad about it because you identify with how you would feel if someone upset you. It's not even a question of morality. It's part of the human condition. Nobody should go around actively trying to hurt other people's feelings. Some do, that's why we have words like "jerk" to describe those who don't have compassion.


The scenarios I listed don't have to be actual to discuss the merits of your arguments. If you have a belief system, it should hold weight among all possible scenarios (those actual and imaginary). Otherwise your belief is based on a condition by condition basis. Meaning your actual belief isn't based on the belief system you provided, but is instead based on whatever factors are affecting the different conditions.

Anyway, you have moved the topic away from what's moral and what's the right thing to do to what humans are biologically programmed to do. This has very little practical applications to the point of this thread - which is the rules and enforcement of the rules of this site. These rules are not based on the human condition, which is why there are no rules that say "please be nice and apologize to other users if you offend them". That would be cool if users did that, but to expect such a rule to be enforced is crazy. The rules are based not on whether or not some random user becomes offended by a post, but rather, they are usually based on if a post is intended to offend for the sake of offending. 

If you go around moderating every posts that offend someone, then you are left with a situation like the one I mentioned where you are apologizing 15, 20 times a day over the most trivial and common posts. But instead of apologies, you would have moderations instead and discussion would be virtually impossible; everyone would be afraid that their post would offend someone, somewhere at some time with some specific condition that makes him particularly sensitive to some particular topic.


You do this all the time. You want to discuss a topic and then you drive it in your direction that follows your line of logic and when someone goes along with you on your path and responds in kind you claim they are diverging from the original point. I'm not going to do that again.

I never used the word moral untill you did. Morality was never something I was talking about. You've now taken my "human condition" phrase and turned it into what "humans are biologically programmed to do". You are putting words in my mouth and then demanding that I defend them. I'm not going to do that.

Instead I'm going to just clearify my basic premise.

We should all try to be nice to each other and treat everyone with respect, kindness and understanding.

I'm not asking that the forum rules be based on the human condition or morality, (your word not mine). I'm not even arguing tha every hurtfull comment should be moderated. I'm simply saying that if you hurt someone's feelings you should apologize. Isn't that what we all learned in kindergarten? It's just as valid in adulthood as it was in childhood. http://socyberty.com/lifestyle-choices/what-we-learned-in-kindergarten/



Actually you're the one who is changing the topic. From the start this thread had been about the forum rules. You're the one who started talking about the human condition (or biological programming. Same thing, different term), which has little connection with the default point of the thread.

1. You jumped into a conversation that had naturally evolved from the OP to the related topic of being nice to each other rather than being a jerk to each other. You're welcome to discuss it too and even evolve it, but please don't redefine it and ask me to defend the argument from your point of view.

2. Human condition =/= biological programming. Biology is part of who we are, but science doesn't dictate the soul. We should be kind to each other for more reasons than our genetic code was handed down from tribal ancestors who needed everyone to get along so they could survive better. Being human is in part about fighting our genetic inheritance. We are better than the animals we came from because we choose to be.

BTW, I'm aware of your opinion on my use of the word soul so you don't need to turn this into a religious debate. That I assure you is a dead end topic.



kain_kusanagi said:

1. You jumped into a conversation that had naturally evolved from the OP to the related topic of being nice to each other rather than being a jerk to each other. You're welcome to discuss it too and even evolve it, but please don't redefine it and ask me to defend the argument from your point of view.

2. Human condition =/= biological programming. Biology is part of who we are, but science doesn't dictate the soul. We should be kind to each other for more reasons than our genetic code was handed down from tribal ancestors who needed everyone to get along so they could survive better. Being human is in part about fighting our genetic inheritance. We are better than the animals we came from because we choose to be.

BTW, I'm aware of your opinion on my use of the word soul so you don't need to turn this into a religious debate. That I assure you is a dead end topic.


1. This is your conversation.

kain_kusanagi said:
MDMAlliance said:
kain_kusanagi said:
MDMAlliance said:
I honestly do not understand the OP because the example given is not really a good one. I would need to see other examples in order to be convinced that it is a real problem, otherwise I think that the females that are offended by these kinds of posts are being way too sensitive. 

Talking about PMS in a way of a pun should really not be offensive, and even if it weren't used as a pun it has no implication by itself. 
If used as a verb, it starts to get closer to offensive, but really not much more offensive than what many females would say about males if they were to generalize them. 
So I really need a better example than what was given. Maybe I haven't seen it because most of the places I browse don't actually have these kinds of posts in it.


Why would you not finding offence invalidate somone who is offended?


I think it's good to define what it means to be offensive and to be offended.  In order to be offensive, there really needs to be some sort of intent and initiation, whether direct or indirect.  To be offended would be to have been affected by said remark and its intentions.  I do not see how you can be offended by simply making a statement about something.  It makes little sense.  It makes as much sense as a person who gets offended because someone mentions 9/11 at all.

You may argue that it wasn't just a statement and was a joke about something that can be stressful/painful, but the post given was barely even a joke.  It was a play on words and had no intent besides PM's and PMS consisting of the same letters.  There was no hidden meaning, and no reason for someone to be offended unless they were looking to be offended.  The comment was, inherently, not offensive.

Let's say you do bring up 9/11. No mal intent, it's a legit topic. The person you are talking to starts crying. It turns out they lost their father in the Twin Towers.

The human thing to do is apologies. You explain that you didn't mean to hurt them and apologies for causing them pain. That's what empathy is about it.

I don't go around trying to offend people, but I do sometimes anyway. I always apologies because I don't want to hurt anyone feelings and if I do it hurts me to have hurt someone else.

Just because you didn't mean to offend doesn't mean you can't offend. Explaining that you didn't mean to offended and apologizing for the misunderstanding usually goes a long way to mending the situation. Just because we are on the internet it doesn't mean we should act like inhuman jerks.

 


1. Clearly, he was referring to offensive in the context of the rules. By offensive, he meant posts with an intent to be offensive. Your definition of offensive depends on how people respond to a post. His definition dealt with the inherent offensiveness of a post. And the reason he used that definition is because it's the only one type of post that would warrant moderation. so he was actually addressing the main topic. You started talking about being nice and the "human condition" which doesn't really matter. Hell, he even clarified later that he was referring to moderation so I'm not sure where you get the thinking that your conversation wasn't about the main topic.

2. Semantics. I couldn't care less about how you define "human condition" and "biological programming." These terms aren't formally defined anymore and you get my point anyway, so let's not quibble over wordplay. Much of what you said doesn't seem to make sense anyway.



There's a reason why I don't participate too much in these forums. Because it is true. Some people joke arround, not even caring about what the targeted person may feel. If there's enough trust between the two parties, like being long time friends... but that's not the case.

The only excuse many of these people have is: It was only a joke.
But... they never apologize, and no action is ever taken.

This should be a no brainer... but it still baffles me how some dudes treat some dudettes over gaming.
Is it really so hard to belive we also play games? Is it so really that hard to respect that?

I wouldn't need to point this out... but the fact is, that this is how things are here at times.