Politics and moderation

[Cerebralbore101]

Shadow1980 said:

The rules clearly state "Racist, sexist, hateful, toxic, or otherwise demeaning comments will not be tolerated."

That sentence goes against itself. Where is it clearly stated what it means to be toxic? Or demeaning? Who gets to decide that? Ultimately, instead of having a set of objective rules that can be followed (Like don't call people the N word), vgchartz has a bunch of rules that are so loosely defined that any mod can apply them however they like. Vgchartz has had a problem with banning long-term members over poorly defined rules for years now. This rule in particular should be written as follows...

Racist and Sexist comments will not be tolerated. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. What is racist and sexist is clearly defined. Racism is the idea that one race of people is better than another race and/or that one race should be treated differently than another race. Sexism is the idea that one sex is better than another sex and/or that one sex should be treated differently than another sex. Any comment that professes or argues that a race or sex is better than another race or sex will not be tolerated. Any comments treating others differently on the basis of race/sex (instead of personal merit) or advocating for such treatment will not be tolerated. Such treatment is known as discrimination. Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a rhetorical tactic of attacking the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background.

The rules against trolling, flaming, and console wars are just as ambiguous. vgchartz' entire forum rules need to be rewritten in an objective and fair manner. Until that happens moderators will continue to ban people over ill-defined rules. 

Here's a great example: Let's say someone genuinely doesn't like rap music. Under the current rules they would be banned for making too many anti-rap statements or trying to argue that rap isn't music (It absolutely is music!!!). Under the rules proposed above they wouldn't be banned just for that. Why not? Because liking or disliking a certain genre of music has nothing to do with whether or not one race is better than another and is not discriminatory towards race. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - 2 days ago