padib said:
| Smeags said:
(From Rule 13: Insults & Flaming)
- Moderators will look at overt discrimination very harshly. Blatant forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other sort of hatred towards a group of people(s) will not be tolerated, and will be met with firm moderation.
|
@overt. Welp, there goes our freedom to express ourselves on fundamental topics. I say this assuming "discrimination" will be used for anyone who disagrees with the political status quo. Hopefully I'm wrong. What solidifies my fear is that terms like homophobia are completely inadequate. A person is free to feel the way they feel, be it feeling uncomfortable with certain sexual practices. It doesn't make them a hater.
I'd like to point out that "Overt" and "disrespectful" are two very different things. One can be overt about a fundamental disagreement towards certain practices, it doesn't make one a hater. Also, religion was not included in the big list (bold) so that's up to interpretation.
bananaking21 said:
Moderators will look at overt discrimination very harshly. Blatant forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other sort of hatred towards a group of people(s) will not be tolerated, and will be met with firm moderation.
well ill be blunt here, i hope the moderators actually pay attention to comments about muslims, arabs or middle easterns in general. while i dont usually enter political threads to stay away from these comments, at times i do. and the number of misinformed, blantantly wrong or just flat out offensive comments. personally ill stay away from these threads, but there is a good number of people who are from those groups that i mentioned that might be in those threads, and get offended by them.
|
I'm glad someone else noticed. It's pretty glaring that a grossly hated/berated group (religious people) was ignored from the big list.
Seece said:
:) nice!
A lot of (gay mods) seem more tolerant of "differing" opinions than me (but then I have zero tolerance for it) so glad to see harsher punishment!
|
Yup, bravo in helping to make vgchartz a place where people can't disagree with the political status quo, even if they are being open (overt) and honest and respectful about it.
@Mods. I think you guys totally dropped the ball on this one. So you consult Seece (who has shown time and time again difficulty to cope with opinions that differ from his, and who had a few divisive clashes with important members in the past) but don't consult other people who have shown to be reasonable about what constitutes and what does not constitute hate. I could describe the subtle differences for a day.
I'm really dissappointed.
The rule will be completely misused and abused, it's obvious. Why did you guys not ask some of us for who this was obviously an important issue? We may not be mods but some of us have some years behind us and can help clear things up.
...
If you want, I can help point out the flaws in the rule and show you how to make it an excellent rule or at least a noble one.
Here are the flaws in the rule:
- Discrimination is completely up to the interpretation of the mod and of the user making the report. A user with influence could help cause this rule to be abused. We already know who that could be (see bold in quote above) and who it could be targetted at. The terms need to be completely and unambiguously defined.
- Religion/non-religion is a very hated life choice. It should be included in the big list. Lesser ones such as age and culture should also be added.
- Laws change all the time, and people have had to voice opinions that were contrary to the status quo to catalize that change. Removing that right of dialogue is counter-productive to this forum and to any society. The rule is unclear as to whether or not this is allowed.
How to clarify what is BAD.
What is hate?
- Hate is not discrimination. Discrimination could be due to hate but it could be not. Hate is the bad, that much is certain.
- Discrimination is totally dependent on the current laws. A murderer may not be happy that he is in prison, but the law does discriminate him. He does not have the same rights as all other people and must be confined to a prison until he/she has served their sentence.
- Hate is a feeling which leads to the use of words or actions directed to hurt another person. Why is hating bad? Because hurting people is bad. I don't think vgchartz wants hurt people.
- When people hate online, they will do things like fling dirt at a person, harass them, turn people against them, and so on and so forth.
How to manage hate?
- The best way to manage this is to observe behaviors and discern when a person is being abusive and insulting
- By bearing in mind what is hate
- By looking for clues of hate within posts (dirt-flinging, use of slang terms, harassment, opinionated/arrogant tone, etc.).
When can having a politically-incorrect opinion not constitute hate?
- When the opinion is part of a person's core belief which they may want to share to express themselves, with no intent to hate. This would be made obvious by their effort in avoiding to insult anyone carelessly.
What are the signs of not having an intent to hate? The user is:
- respectful.
- describing their thoughts as clearly as possible.
- making an effort to be learned.
- making an effort not to offend anyone in the process of saying things which may be disagreeable to another user, though said honestly and respectfully. People will never always be happy to hear each others' opinions and the idea is to help people learn to look at things from other peoples' points of view.
So I would reword the rule as follows:
- Moderators will look at hate posts very harshly. Blatant forms of hate towards people of a given race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion, culture, ideology or any other sort of hatred towards a group of people(s) will not be tolerated, and will be met with firm moderation. For clarity, to share an opinion contrary to political status quo does not constitute hate. Hate will be evaluated on tone, choice of words, attitude and possible trolling on a case by case basis. Lack of tact when posting in topics pertaining to the main people groups mentioned above will be dealt with severely. The use of slant terms such as "feminazi", "fag", "religious bigot", "nigger", "terrorist" (in sweeping reference to middle-eastern people) or other slant terms will lead to an immediate ban. Example: You may disagree with sexual equality and are free to express it in a respectful and sober manner. You may not however carelessly insult one sex or another (or any individuals therein).
Other examples could be:
- "You may disagree with a particular generally accepted ideology such as gay marriage and are free to express it in a respectful and sober manner. You may not however insult the LGBT community using slant terms or by being rude (judged on choice of words and tone, on a case-by-case basis)."
- "You may disagree with a particular point of religious belief such as Jihad, the Levitical Law, the Trinity, reincarnation, specific creation, etc. and are free to express it in a respectful and sober manner. You may not however insult the religious community using slant terms or by being rude (judged on choice of words and tone, on a case-by-case basis)."
Sure it's verbose, but it's unambiguous and leaves little room for abuse. I'm sure the version I'm proposing can be made more concise while maintaining its integrity.
|
