Politics and moderation

[Chrkeller]

JWeinCom said:

Chrkeller said:

I can give you my views, hopefully I have credits given my claims were proven. 

I never thought I couldn't express my politics.  I felt expressing my politics made me a target of the mods.  

As an example I was threatened with a ban for something like "the adults are talking" in a thread about PC vs Nintendo.  I flatly got banned for pointing out captain lives with his mom.  

Meanwhile Captain told me years ago he wanted to blow me up.  He said something about stabbing Leynos.  He is calling for executive assassination and talks openly about desires to blow up data centers..  and that is all fine.

Leynos got a laughable slap on the wrist for saying kill Republicans, in a thread where i identified as a republican.

My only rationale explanation is I identified as right so now there is a target on my back.  Unless you got s better explanation  because it makes no sense to me that straight up calls for violence is great, but don't dare tease anyone.

Point being, I really dont care what the rules are, in a sense.  But apply rules equally and fairly.

*calls for violence should be banned, period. 

I'm not sure that is responsive to what I said. What I asked for was examples of right wing speech that should be allowed but isn't.

I would need to see the context for those to really address them all and give an actual explanation. Which I'm not interested in doing, frankly because I feel like I've kind of wasted enough time in my thread. But I'll just assume all of these are accurate and there's no missing context. Already discussed the post about republicans, so going to skip that one.

Honestly, I would personally agree with you on most of those points. But, that's not generally the policy of the mod team, at least from my experience, which I haven't been a part of for years now so I do not speak for them.

The team had always been more lenient with any kind of speech about people who are not actually on the forums (i.e. celebrities or hypothetical executives) then comments that were made directly towards members of the forum. I'm pretty sure I argued pretty much the point you're making, that anything violent should always receive the harshest penalties even if the target is not an actual poster. Which is not to criticize the mod team, they just saw it differently. 

As for the comments about stabbing and exploding, I'm pretty sure if Captain Explosion said he was going to blow me up (and if I recall correctly he did once) I'd probably get a chuckle out of it. I would take it as hyperbolic and silly and think he was kind of crazy, but I would not really care that much. On the other hand, in my early 30's, I did have to move back in with my parents for a while. I genuinely felt super ashamed of it to the point where even now I'm upset thinking about it. If someone had said that to me on a forum, I would likely be super upset and not want to post here anymore. Bringing up personal information about a user in a negative way meant to embarass them was actually something that would always receive very harsh penalties.

The point is, mods are not necessarily objectively evaluating which speech is "worse". A big part of it is what the mods feel is more likely to be disruptive to the forums. For example, back to trans stuff. The mods are genuinely pro-trans (as they should be), but that's really not the whole reason we policed that so heavily. A big part of it was that we knew that once someone started talking about trans people that's what the thread was about. Anyone who wanted to talk about the actual topic would inevitably leave and it would boil down to two people arguing about trans issues. And trying to nip any conversation in the bud before it derailed a topic was simply more workable than trying to wait till it got out of hand to reign it back in. 

So I would probably agree objectively that saying you want to blow someone up is objectively more unacceptable than saying someone lives at home (which isn't really something to be ashamed of we're all doing our best our best here), I think the latter comment is much more likely to derail a thread and make users less likely to come back. Whether you believe me or not, that being treated more harshly is 100% what I would expect without knowing anything about either user's political views.

Comments which are likely to evoke strong negative emotional reactions from users are typically treated far more severely. If I were to say I want to beat Jaleel White to death with a sock full of pennies, that is a horrible thing to say, but honestly, I think it would slide because despite being violent, no particular user is likely to feel any sort of way about it. Meanwhile, if I said "user X is a pathetic loser" that would much more likely get a ban. Not saying I agree, but that's what my experience has been. 

So no, I do not think you have been personally targetted. I think teasing is in many cases generally treated more severely than violent speech whether that should or should not be the case. I personally do not believe it had anything to do with you being particularly targeted. Take that as you will.

That is my point.  I think the argument is being misunderstood.  I don't think people are annoyed at not being able to voice their opinion.  I think the issue is the unbalance in warnings/bans.  At least the half dozen people who left when I did, we all felt this way.

My knock at captain was because he kept calling for assassinations and domestic terrorism.  I reported it every single time (as I was told to do) and nobody cared.  So I took a shot out of frustration.  IMHO, when reported 12 different times, action should have been taken.

Really it boils down to many of us, not understanding the rules.  Calling for assassination is fine...  but jokingly saying the adults are talking, well that is a problem.  To your point, which we agree, objectively that makes no sense.

Many of us are simply confused.

Either way, time to play Fortunes Weave.  And Shadow heard the concerns and is working on it.  Thus, give faith to Shadow in fixing what is a problem for many of us 

Edit 

I did want to mention that you and Sundin, both agreeing that violent posts should have ramifications does sincerely make me feel better.  I am being genuine when I say violent posts being accepted legitimately has bothered me.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - 23 hours ago