Padib, I really think you've jumped the shark on this one. And I'm honestly disappointed in your comments towards the team.
There's a huge difference between an overt discriminatory comment and a civil disagreement with a lifestyle.
Excuse the language from here on out, I'm going to make some examples:
Example of an overt discriminatory comment: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6688462
That is the sort of posts we're going to hit hard from the get go. There is no room for them in any sort of debate, and there is no room in this site for the user who makes them. Will it result in an automatic permaban? Not necessarily, but we will look upon posts like that much more harshly than say a "lol fanboy" comment.
And we haven't forgotten religious groups, it's right there in the rule: "or any other sort of hatred towards a group of people(s) will not be tolerated, and will be met with firm moderation."
So posts like "Christians are backwards neanderthals who need to die out." will also be met more harshly than other petty name calling that litters the forums (thankfully the latter exists much more than the former).
Suffice to say, here's the ultimate take away: hate speech will be met harshly, no matter where it comes from. That's what the rule is saying. You can disagree with homosexuality, or Christians, or any group of people that you want to disagree with. However, when doing so, you better be sure that you're being civil and respectful about it (and back up what you say with evidence and facts that add to the discussion in a positive way).
And know that every post that is moderated by the means of criticizing a lifestyle isn't necessarily hate speech. Unwarranted criticism isn't necessarily hate speech, despite both being moderatable (with varying ban severity of course).
-
"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 report is made by any user. That's where their participation in moderation ends. It is now up to the team to discuss and make a decision on whether the post in question should be moderated. There is no "user with influence", and I'm bummed that you would even suggest that.
Somehow, you've completely missed the point of the rule, and have already brought your judgment before we can even put it into practice. I believe in my team. I know that they will treat this issue very seriously as well as fairly. I know that we will act as a team together, and not be swayed by the opinions of others. We will do what we can to make sure that the community of gamrConnect is as diverse and healthy as it can be.
