By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Seece on 04 February 2015
Edit Thread
padib said:
Smeags said:

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.

Hey Smeags, replying a few days after because I wanted to make sure I was cool-headed when replying.

The problem I have with the rule is that it is flawed before even being implemented, so time is not the issue. When lumping religion with "other people groups", the problem is the emphasis. We know that religious people are bashed almost at a reflex on most sites, and here on topics related to creation/evolution, religious fanaticism and more topics I personally participate actively in. To simply lump them in a catch-all group while highlighting other important groups (race, sexual orientation) is an error.

The other error is the use of the term homophobia, which in the past and even in this thread has been misused grossly. A better term is hate towards sexual orientation. That minor nuance will be very important in the future, given that even prior to this people have been banned unnecessarily with regards to homosexuality. A great example was Kane's last post:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7005808

Kane1389 said (in a thread pertaining to incest):

Seece said:
"this or the fact that its legal in New Jersey. "

And why the fuck shouldn't it be legal? What those two is none of your damn business or anyone elses. They're consenting adults not doing anyone any harm.

 


Just like with homosexual couples, its usually the children of these couples that will suffer the most

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

 

Also, I'm surprised you are disappointed in my post after the effort I put into making sure I was clear as crystal.

I also believe in your team. I don't believe in the system that is in place at the moment. It must be crystal clear what is hate and what is not, and so far that line has been blurred in terms of past moderations (see Kane example above) and now by the new rule.

Please fix this ambiguity and make it 100% clear, because as it is, the rule can be misused and doesn't fix the abuses made in the past.

Nobody is going to take you seriously when you think Kanes post is acceptable. You're preaching to let hate seap through the walls. It's not tolerated here and however much you go on about this great "injustice" it won't change.