If you want to make it open and free for all, you need to shut down anything that is going to promote arguments. That includes threads that say, "What should I get my boyfriend for our anniversary, we're both gay and proud" and threads that say, "I don't think that gay people should be allowed to hold hands in school".
If you want to stop arguments, you need to stop it from both sides. Otherwise, what you're doing is just going to provoke a significant number of complaints.
I get what you're trying to say, but don't you think one is markedly more prone to cause issues in WCT than the other? One is a more or less benign statement that someone may not like because of the implication of it, the other is a rather harsh declaration of a very contestable position. One's a bigger net to catch **** with, is all I'm saying.
Rules #4 seems way more subjective than it should be. What I got from it is "Things that are widely considered unok like Racism/Sexism and things that can be considered bad by any mod that falls on the thread are not ok." Given Teia's considerable... taking to heart of a few topic, I can see a few threads that will never show up. Or at least without mod text, that would have been fine before.
The obvious elephant in the room, as you mentioned, is the fact that I'm very pro-LGBT-issues. So with that in mind, I'd like to contrast two real threads along those lines. This thread starts off with a slur in the title, albeit one that a lot of people might genuinely not know is a slur, so on those grounds it probably wouldn't be carded for that (the title may be changed, but that's not something I'd be doing myself so as to minimize any self-interest bias). The real problem is the inherent negativity in the thread—it's glorifying excluding people. The underlying subject matter has nowhere to go except to debate LGBT issues. As a result, rules 3 and 4 would both apply to the thread. By contrast, a thread such as this one is far more neutral, being focused on discussing something without necessarily leading to argument. Therefore, that latter thread isn't affected by rule 4, although such a thread posted today would be watched carefully in case rule 3 needed to be applied.
-
As for Harkius' post, I'm not going to reply to it immediately, as I feel it warrants something of a group effort rather than just my own personal views.
We're not intending to ban justifiable positions. What we're seeking to remove from WCT are threads that will, simply by nature of the topic, become debates (hence rule 2), or that, simply by nature of the topic, invite trolling and flaming.
We're not trying to compare slavery and not wanting homosexuals at a dance party. What we are trying to do is show WHY the rule is in place, and the best way to do that (without giving long and involved thread descriptions) is with the obvious 'stupid' positions.
When you consider only one side of a position to have value, and on that basis, preclude the other side from talking about the issue, you've killed a discussion that is being held on an adult level.
Harkius
I don't think the WCT mods are devaluing one position, they just don't feel that contentious statements on sensitive topics belong in WCT given its purview. I doubt they'd have much of a problem with such things being in Debate, where contentious position on sensitive topics are the norm. But they'd be a bit more of a risk in WCT, where the argument that would develop goes against the climate the mods want to set for WCT. There are better places for that type of discussion.
Then help me succeed. We're telling you what we want to create. Instead of tearing us down with each suggestion we make, tell us how to get there.
The rules give us no way of inferring what is and is not justifiable. I've had issues with Teia in the past due to her overly broad opinion of what "homophobia" and "transphobia" are. What you're asking for is discretion on the part of staff that will leave conservatives in the unenviable position of guessing whether their position is going to be considered "justifiable".
You keep throwing around the word 'conservative' as if it has relevance here.
If the posters in question would like to discuss, for example, their views on why homosexuals shouldn't marry, that's absolutely fine. But there's a forum for that. Debate.
If someone would like to discuss Eugenics, there's a forum for that. NSFW Debate.
If someone would like to be casually racist, there's no forum for that. We don't want that here.
If you want to know why that is, your answer is here:
When you consider only one side of a position to have value, and on that basis, preclude the other side from talking about the issue, you've killed a discussion that is being held on an adult level.
Harkius
You're completely misinterpreting the point of the rule. We're not considering only one side to have value.
We're saying that there are some topics that are too heated for WTC. Someone asked for examples. So the examples given were the dance party thread and the poor people thread. There are going to be some topics, no matter your political affiliation, that are simply not conducive to casual conversation. They either become debate, or they cease being casual. Those are what we're asking to be kept out of WCT.
I'm not sure how you're getting politics out of this, but it has nothing to do with it.
I think the real issue here which needs to be addressed is how the staff now has staff members asking users to leave the site in plain language. What a shame this website has become.
Not only imo should promatim be removed immedietly imo, but there needs to be a serious discussion as to what kind of group the staff is that it fosters such behavior
Edit: what is the point of wct now? Like why does it even need new rules? Youre turning it into a watered down version of the speakeasy, minus the spamability. The speakeasy ofc being a waterd down version of the gutter, which is in and of itself a watered down version of 4chan (a watered down version of porn, which is obv jist watered down sex)
Not only imo should promatim be removed immedietly imo, but there needs to be a serious discussion as to what kind of group the staff is that it fosters such behavior
It probably depends on what the rest of the moderators think of the comments.
Basically, I absolutely trust that the mods put a lot of thought and effort into this issue. But the question is whether that effort truly had everything on the table (including going back to the old system), or if it was only a grudging effort into wording the same changes a different way. We are now in the strange position of still not really knowing how it will all turn out.
For example rule #4, under the previous administrations, would have been no big deal. It just seems like a restatement of the "don't be an actual Nazi" rule. But under the new staff? Alarm bells are going off. Because it just seems like a different wording of the exact same problems that we have been having. And Teia's post confirms that my concerns are warranted.
starts off with a slur in the title, albeit one that a lot of people might genuinely not know is a slur, so on those grounds it probably wouldn't be carded for that (the title may be changed, but that's not something I'd be doing myself so as to minimize any self-interest bias). The real problem is the inherent negativity in the thread—it's glorifying excluding people. The underlying subject matter has nowhere to go except to debate LGBT issues. As a result, rules 3 and 4 would both apply to the thread.
Refer to Harkius' post to find out why this is a problem. If rule number 4 really just meant that you couldn't advocate actual slavery then fine, I'm all for it. But to say that I can't complain about over the top LGBT celebrations where I go to eat at school? "Glorifying excluding people"? I am very disappointed with the outcome of this process.
Teia, in that same thread you lambasted us for complaining about the slur "breeder". By MY standards, I have no problem with such a discussion, even though I think it was hypocritical and wrong. But by YOUR standards, perpetuating a slur is an indefensible position. BUT, since you have now partitioned WCT subject matter into "socially liberal and allowable" and "not politically correct", I'm sure you see no problem with your defense of a slur. This is on top of the fact that you hint that the word "tranny" does constitute an infractable offense! If I ask you why "breeder" is ok but "tranny" is not, you will have to resort to your biased, controversial opinions to justify it, involving your usual argument about "privilege" and gender studies buzzwords. This has no place in the official site policy. If you still insist on injecting your bias into your duties, you need to step down. Do you not see the problem here? You have just illustrated Harkius' exact point with your first post in this topic!
The bias and and hypocrisy here is so incredibly plain that it is basically shouting at me.
I feel like this is just going to turn into another HUGE thread debating the SAME exact issues. I remain wholly unconvinced that these changes are necessary. We had hundreds of posts debating changing WCT. I, and many other users, did not come away from that discussion with a changed opinion about whether these changes are necessary. Since I believe the new staff's position to be unwarranted and untenable, I cannot support these changes.
Then help me succeed. We're telling you what we want to create. Instead of tearing us down with each suggestion we make, tell us how to get there.
We have told you what we want. We want the old system back. And we are going to keep wanting it until we can be convinced that these changes are necessary. It hasn't happened yet. We will not outright concede the point that changes will be made and we must help create them, because it is our opinion that changes are not necessary.
You all want to skip past this and jump to creating the new WCT. Asking us to help you create something implies that we agree something needs to be changed. We don't.
I *think* that what harkius is saying is that although the mods are trying to prevent politics from getting into it, they inevitably will (given hark/teia's history, this isn't an unreasonable position for him to take), and he doesn't want that.
I don't necessarily agree however, I've been pleasantly surprised with teia
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
I *think* that what harkius is saying is that although the mods are trying to prevent politics from getting into it, they inevitably will (given hark/teia's history, this isn't an unreasonable position for him to take), and he doesn't want that.
I don't necessarily agree however, I've been pleasantly surprised with teia
Teia said this, which I assume would be a perfectly fine post under the new staff: ""Breeder" is like "cracker." It's something for privileged people to get their underwear in a twist over because they think those words are somehow anywhere near similar words that are censored on here. You're free to complain when "breeder" starts being used as a word of systematic oppression."
Just IMAGINE if someone made a similar argument in defense of the word "tranny" or some other slur. They would be instantly moderated.
Teia's politics are already apparent in WCT. We aren't talking about not allowing talk of restarting slavery. We are talking about policing a multitude of opinions based on Teia's fringe beliefs. Teia tells me my thread would have been locked under rule 4, the same thread where she makes arguments downplaying the offensiveness of a sexist slur. Does anyone not recognize this bias?
I'd like to thank everyone for coming to my defense, even some people with whom I've had issues in the past.
Having said that, I sincerely believe that everyone is being too hard on Promatim. I believe that I understand where he's coming from. He believes that I'm just a bitter, jaded, arrogant ex-staff member who has foregone meaningful contribution to any of the real forums in favor of constant nagging and *****ing in CI. He believes that I'm a net negative for the site, and that I only come here to spew vitriol and start arguments with people that are doing a job that I once did and that I believe I did better. I can say those things because I know how that feels. I've been in that exact position before. When I was on staff, there were several ex-staff whose posts I loathed to see in CI. I couldn't for the life of me understand why the stayed around if all they ever did was complain about how terrible things were and actively try to make the job more difficult for the people trying to make things better. It was preposterous and frustrating, and I complained about it in unkind language on more than one occasion in private. I believe Promatim was doing the same, and I don't think he should have been reprimanded for it. I don't believe he was trolling, and if he chooses to appeal his infraction -- which I absolutely think he should -- I would support it being overturned 100%.
Perhaps I am all of those things. I've made no secret about the fact that I disapproval greatly of the job Senori, Teia, and Frox have been doing in Water Cooler Talk. I've been vehement in my opposition and blunt in my delivery, and I know that I've upset people. I also know that my behavior of late has been in stark contrast to the way I approached and discussed and dealt with issues when I was a staff member. The reason for this is simple: it was never personal when I was dealing with users as a staff member. The issues as of late are personal to me.
Maybe I take things too seriously. Maybe I'm melodramatic and histrionic. Maybe I'm a raving lunatic who should find a different hobby and go outside more. What I know is that I spent seven months watching over a part of the site for hours every day, and I grew to love that part of the site and to genuinely care for and about the people posting there. I tried my best to make things fun and enjoyable for those people, and if I allow myself to be openly arrogant, I believe that I came to understand them and their desires. In short, I considered the people in WCT my friends -- even those I disagreed with, even those I issued infractions to.
Now I see people coming in and doing things and issuing changes that I never would have done, and that I know several prominent members of the community oppose. It hurts me to watch this happen, and I take it personally. I see people whose opinions I trust and value say that they now hesitate to post, and it makes me unhappy. I take it personally because until recently, they were "my" people. Maybe that's too savior, maybe I'm giving myself too much credit, whatever. The point is, I take these things personally because they matter to me, and I sincerely believe that the community that I care about is being done a disservice. As long as that continues to be true, I will continue to fight for these issues. I will reiterate previous apologies that I've given in advance for my behavior; I'm doing what I believe needs to be done.
On the topic at hand, I believe the new rule is disgusting because the concept of making it infraction-worthy to simply hold certain opinions -- regardless of the manner in which those opinions are raised or expressed -- is outrageous. My disgust is only heightened by the fact that this list of infractable opinions is non-public, non-inclusive, and chosen by a non-representative minority group absent any input from the community. That disgusts me.
The new rule is ridiculous because it's either completely inappropriate (see above) or completely unnecessary. Threads that are clearly debates are already against the rules. Trolling is already against the rules. Flaming is already against the rules. Any conceivable situation that would be sufficiently problematic to warrant action under this new rule would already be actionable under the existing rules, unless the goal is to explicitly push the forum toward uniformity and forced coherence with a pre-set agenda.
The rule is unsurprising because the team of Senori, Teia, and Frox have demonstrated flawed thinking, overly zealous moderation, and agenda-driven policies on numerous occasions already. Evidence can be found in a variety of threads both here and among the Helpdesks.
Teia said this, which I assume would be a perfectly fine post under the new staff: ""Breeder" is like "cracker." It's something for privileged people to get their underwear in a twist over because they think those words are somehow anywhere near similar words that are censored on here. You're free to complain when "breeder" starts being used as a word of systematic oppression."
Such a post would likely be unacceptable under the new system. Did I make that post? Evidently. Would I make it again these days, even without rules against it? No. The issue here isn't my old posting, but how the new rules would relate to actual threads.
Such a post would likely be unacceptable under the new system. Did I make that post? Evidently. Would I make it again these days, even without rules against it? No. The issue here isn't my old posting, but how the new rules would relate to actual threads.
If you're asking do people do it right now? There's been a few issues with it, but nothing major.
The rule is basically against threads that are inherently going to cause heated posting. We're talking thing like "I believe that those with mental disabilities should be painlessly euthanized to keep the bloodlines pure and to prevent their diseases from being spread to future generations." That type of post is not outright trolling anyone, nor is it flaming anyone. It could easily be a valid opinion. However, it isn't one that could be easily talked about without devolving into either a heated debate (in which case, debate rule) or flaming/trolling.
That latter bit is why this rule is in place. Some topics just aren't good for a casual discussion area.
That's great and all, but those types of discussion clearly aren't allowed in Debate either because of Blinking Spirit's "You aren't allowed to have opinions I disagree with" rule. So implying that they should be posted there when they'd be met with a probable infraction or ban isn't really helpful.
I'm trying, Nai, but you aren't making it easy. And the difficulty and the defensiveness gives me hesitation. I continue only under the auspices of having been told that my opinion has value to some of the people who make decisions (this includes you).
I recently had someone I greatly respect, who is upset with the staff, comment that they didn't think their opinion mattered to me. I'm glad to have changed their mind. I may not agree with you, but your opinion is helpful to make sure that we're doing the right thing with this site.
To reiterate:
Perhaps this will elaborate...
When you say that one side's opinion is "contentious", you're saying that the other side is the default. Feel free to ask Teia about the problems in assuming that one side is the default and that the other is abnormal. I can probably shorten her argument down to something about "othering people" and making them feel "unwelcome in this space".
Let me know if I need to elaborate further.
I understand what you're trying to say, I think. The problem comes in the next section...
Please answer whether the following are "contentious" statements:
A) Men ought only love women, and women ought only love men.
B) People ought to love whomever they love.
C) "Traditional family values" support healthy and families.
D) Healthy families can originate from any kind of family, provided that there is love and acceptance.
What I'm guessing is that you will say that A and C are contentious, but that B and D aren't.
My point? They're all contentious to someone.
These aren't fringe, whacky, tin-foil-wearing-hat, racist, "Bring slavery back and kill all of the mentally retarded" kind of opinions, either. But considering A to be any different from B is injecting your own normative ethic. Doing so essentially imposes a value set on discussion, particularly when the people with one point of view are subject to disciplinary action.
I hope that this is clear enough now.
I am completely happy if someone comes into WCT and declares B and D to be good things. Awesome.
I'm also happy if someone comes in and says A and C are good things. I grew up in the A and C household. I disagree with it. But that's about it.
Now, if you come in and tell me that A and C are the only ways to live and that there's a problem if I'm a B and D dude? Now we have a problem.
In my contribution to the rule in question, I'm trying to avoid a place where poster B (B and D dude) has forced poster A (A and C dude) to leave, because he's declaring that B and D are the only ways to go.
I'll explain this in slightly more detail in a second.
Speaking of disingenuous characterizations of the opinions of another poster...we have this.
Nai, I am well-aware of where different discussions belong, and most other long-term users are. What I am saying is that a thread in Real-Life Advice saying, "I am a closeted homosexual, and I am ready to come out. I want to invite a guy I am interested in to the prom, but I don't know how" (while a truly worthwhile goal, is just as contentious as LogicX's thread about not appreciating gay PDA, title excepted).
I've been waiting for a chance to put this statement in, as I believe it'll help illuminate my feelings on this matter.
With the way this rule works, we're not outlawing Homophobia and promoting Homosexuality. We're asking you to keep your Heterophobia and Homophobia to yourself and allow us to be heterosexual and homosexual as we so choose. If you wish to speak out about it, there's better places on the site for it.
The closeted homosexual deserves his RLA post. So does the lonely heterosexual. But the closet homophobic doesn't get to make a post asking how to force homosexuals out of his house, and the lonely heterophobe isn't going to get a free ride bashing heterosexuals.
A lot of the things this rule closes out are rather extreme views. A discussion of "I think Gay marriage is a sin" would be best suited for Debate. But I could see "I would like marriage to be a man and a woman, since my religion says its so, but can we make a Civil Union-something-or-other for you instead?"
I hope that fleshes that out a little more.
I'm actually not, as astonishing as that may be. I am saying that the rule, as written, is confusing to virtually everyone who has posted about it, especially the people who were already dissatisfied.
Then let's un-confuse it. That's what I'd love to do.
While you claim that some subjects "are too heated for WTC", what you ought to recognize is that a thread started that is pro-X, where X is any human behavior, is going to pull out some people who are anti-X, and precluding them from talking, to prevent debates, is...misguided. Moreover, by forbidding such stances at the beginning (i.e., not only can you not comment if you have an anti-X stance, but you also can't create your own thread that is anti-X from the start), what you've essentially done is say:
If you have an opinion on these human behaviors that runs counter to that of the Staff in this area, zip it. Because we're going to enforce one stance. Now, if I am somehow missing it, and you're going to stop all discussions that might lead to debate, then I am all for it. But you're going to need to understand that
I'm having trouble finding the right words for this. I think the best way is this way:
If someone came onto this board and said "All furries should go to hell", I'd want that thread shut.
If someone came onto this board and said "All human-lovers (for lack of a good opposite for furries) should go to hell", I'd want that thread shut too.
Let me know if this helps out. I'm having trouble explaining this position, because the best wordings I've come up with don't seem to be getting the message across.
Socially conservative is not just a political position, it's also a pesonal ideology which can be as integral to someone's self-identification as their gender or sexuality. By not understanding this, you're creating the problem that I am trying to explain. But it's going to take a bridge being built from your end, too, Nai.
It's more that I don't understand the concept of 'socially conservative'. It's literally not part of my education. I don't identify as these terms because I actually don't know what they are.
This rule isn't meant for causing infractions. It's meant to say that, if a thread is made that's deemed to be heading into territory inhabited by trolls and flames, we're going to close it. That's about it. It probably needs a wording to say as such.
That's great and all, but those types of discussion clearly aren't allowed in Debate either because of Blinking Spirit's "You aren't allowed to have opinions I disagree with" rule. So implying that they should be posted there when they'd be met with a probable infraction or ban isn't really helpful.
There's actually the NSFW Debate subforum, which specifically allows those threads, for the ones that can't fit in normal Debate.
For those things that are just normal debates or heated discussions, I'm sure Debate would work just fine.
Now, if you come in and tell me that A and C are the only ways to live and that there's a problem if I'm a B and D dude? Now we have a problem.
Why? As long as people aren't flaming I don't see a problem here. Would you really have a problem if someone said "people should love whoever they want to love" is the only way to live?
Like Harkius said, anything can be contentious to anyone. The best policy is to go back to where we were before; the hands off approach. Which was working. Why is this discussion always conducted with the assumption that some changes are needed?
Why? As long as people aren't flaming I don't see a problem here. Would you really have a problem if someone said "people should love whoever they want to love" is the only way to live?
Like Harkius said, anything can be contentious to anyone. The best policy is to go back to where we were before; the hands off approach. Which was working. Why is this discussion always conducted with the assumption that some changes are needed?
That is definitely something that would belong in the debate subforum. A better question to ask here, is why are people having these sorts of discussions in WCT at all? If someone makes a thread in RLA and their lifestyle is one you disapprove of for reasons other than what they want advice changing, just don't post in it. And if you really have something to say on the matter, make a thread about the subject in Debate. That seems like common sense to me.
And this goes both and all ways, not just for socially conservative opinions.
Obviously there are going to be other problems that come as a result of rule #4, but I really don't understand why anyone is having discussions about sensitive topics in a board intended for relaxed, off-topic discussion.
Obviously there are going to be other problems that come as a result of rule #4, but I really don't understand why anyone is having discussions about sensitive topics in a board intended for relaxed, off-topic discussion.
One person's sensitive topic is another's relaxing topic.
One person's sensitive topic is another's relaxing topic.
How hard is it for somebody to not post in a thread if they dislike what it's about? Again, this seems like it's just common sense. I know people tend to be a lot more dickish on the internet, but even so.
Thanks for all the feedback, guys! We're gonna talk among ourselves, make some more changes and let you know when we're ready. Best!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
When I was a moderator of WCT I tried to make a rule that would apply to the closet situations of bullying and outright blasting certain groups: I called it a "Hate Speech Free Zone" rule.
If you read the rules, there is one for trolling another user and one for flaming another user. However, I believed that these rules needed to be extended in WCT to trolling a group of people or flaming a group of people.
The next morning, the post I had made had been taken down by and admin with the explicit decision in the Mod Lounge that I was enacting the rule to protect a certain portion of the public that I also identify with.
Now, I know I was also given an assurance that this "Hate Speech" type of ruling was being discussed by the Globals, but it was so long ago and I haven't really been following the issues that I don't know if it is currently active or inactive.
If this is the intent of the new rules, then why not just say it directly? Saying you won't put up with hate speech isn't too far off of what you're trying to accomplish.
If this is the intent of the new rules, then why not just say it directly? Saying you won't put up with hate speech isn't too far off of what you're trying to accomplish.
The hate speech rule you speak of actually factored into how I approached the situation. Basically, I determined that "hate speech" was a bit narrow of a category to have included in the rules, so my reason (other mods may have different ones) for promoting and supporting rule 4 was a more generalized form of that rule that applies equally to both sides of the spectrum:
For what it's worth, my own personal take on that rule (read: this is not an official statement of policy, merely a statement of personal opinion) in an "under the hood" sense is that one shouldn't be ascribing any inherently negative values to groups of people. So threads like the "why are the Chinese passive-aggressive?" thread (just to pick a real example) would be locked due to the racism inherent in presuming all Chinese people to be passive-aggressive. The rule is intentionally general because to attempt to be exhaustive is to invite nitpicking.
Since the issue of liberal/conservative was brought up, I'd like to clarify that the intent and my intended enforcement of rule 4 would protect both sides equally. Things like anti-LGBT sentiment per se aren't a problem. Stating them in such a way as to ascribe inherently negative qualities to them or that glorifies exclusionary practices, however, only serves to foster argument (note the distinction between argument and debate).
Stating them in such a way as to ascribe inherently negative qualities to them or that glorifies exclusionary practices, however, only serves to foster argument
this is exactly what peope have a problem with. you still don't get it.
this exactly why it is a bad rule, and why people have issues with it. pure thought police.
more so on an issue that you are extremely bias on.
The hate speech rule you speak of actually factored into how I approached the situation
hate speach is already against the rules of this forum. so why do you feel the need to make another one when one exists already?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I get what you're trying to say, but don't you think one is markedly more prone to cause issues in WCT than the other? One is a more or less benign statement that someone may not like because of the implication of it, the other is a rather harsh declaration of a very contestable position. One's a bigger net to catch **** with, is all I'm saying.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
The obvious elephant in the room, as you mentioned, is the fact that I'm very pro-LGBT-issues. So with that in mind, I'd like to contrast two real threads along those lines. This thread starts off with a slur in the title, albeit one that a lot of people might genuinely not know is a slur, so on those grounds it probably wouldn't be carded for that (the title may be changed, but that's not something I'd be doing myself so as to minimize any self-interest bias). The real problem is the inherent negativity in the thread—it's glorifying excluding people. The underlying subject matter has nowhere to go except to debate LGBT issues. As a result, rules 3 and 4 would both apply to the thread. By contrast, a thread such as this one is far more neutral, being focused on discussing something without necessarily leading to argument. Therefore, that latter thread isn't affected by rule 4, although such a thread posted today would be watched carefully in case rule 3 needed to be applied.
-
As for Harkius' post, I'm not going to reply to it immediately, as I feel it warrants something of a group effort rather than just my own personal views.
We're not trying to compare slavery and not wanting homosexuals at a dance party. What we are trying to do is show WHY the rule is in place, and the best way to do that (without giving long and involved thread descriptions) is with the obvious 'stupid' positions.
My helpdesk should you need me.
I don't think the WCT mods are devaluing one position, they just don't feel that contentious statements on sensitive topics belong in WCT given its purview. I doubt they'd have much of a problem with such things being in Debate, where contentious position on sensitive topics are the norm. But they'd be a bit more of a risk in WCT, where the argument that would develop goes against the climate the mods want to set for WCT. There are better places for that type of discussion.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Then help me succeed. We're telling you what we want to create. Instead of tearing us down with each suggestion we make, tell us how to get there.
You keep throwing around the word 'conservative' as if it has relevance here.
If the posters in question would like to discuss, for example, their views on why homosexuals shouldn't marry, that's absolutely fine. But there's a forum for that. Debate.
If someone would like to discuss Eugenics, there's a forum for that. NSFW Debate.
If someone would like to be casually racist, there's no forum for that. We don't want that here.
You're completely misinterpreting the point of the rule. We're not considering only one side to have value.
We're saying that there are some topics that are too heated for WTC. Someone asked for examples. So the examples given were the dance party thread and the poor people thread. There are going to be some topics, no matter your political affiliation, that are simply not conducive to casual conversation. They either become debate, or they cease being casual. Those are what we're asking to be kept out of WCT.
I'm not sure how you're getting politics out of this, but it has nothing to do with it.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Not only imo should promatim be removed immedietly imo, but there needs to be a serious discussion as to what kind of group the staff is that it fosters such behavior
Edit: what is the point of wct now? Like why does it even need new rules? Youre turning it into a watered down version of the speakeasy, minus the spamability. The speakeasy ofc being a waterd down version of the gutter, which is in and of itself a watered down version of 4chan (a watered down version of porn, which is obv jist watered down sex)
It probably depends on what the rest of the moderators think of the comments.
Basically, I absolutely trust that the mods put a lot of thought and effort into this issue. But the question is whether that effort truly had everything on the table (including going back to the old system), or if it was only a grudging effort into wording the same changes a different way. We are now in the strange position of still not really knowing how it will all turn out.
For example rule #4, under the previous administrations, would have been no big deal. It just seems like a restatement of the "don't be an actual Nazi" rule. But under the new staff? Alarm bells are going off. Because it just seems like a different wording of the exact same problems that we have been having. And Teia's post confirms that my concerns are warranted.
Refer to Harkius' post to find out why this is a problem. If rule number 4 really just meant that you couldn't advocate actual slavery then fine, I'm all for it. But to say that I can't complain about over the top LGBT celebrations where I go to eat at school? "Glorifying excluding people"? I am very disappointed with the outcome of this process.
Teia, in that same thread you lambasted us for complaining about the slur "breeder". By MY standards, I have no problem with such a discussion, even though I think it was hypocritical and wrong. But by YOUR standards, perpetuating a slur is an indefensible position. BUT, since you have now partitioned WCT subject matter into "socially liberal and allowable" and "not politically correct", I'm sure you see no problem with your defense of a slur. This is on top of the fact that you hint that the word "tranny" does constitute an infractable offense! If I ask you why "breeder" is ok but "tranny" is not, you will have to resort to your biased, controversial opinions to justify it, involving your usual argument about "privilege" and gender studies buzzwords. This has no place in the official site policy. If you still insist on injecting your bias into your duties, you need to step down. Do you not see the problem here? You have just illustrated Harkius' exact point with your first post in this topic!
The bias and and hypocrisy here is so incredibly plain that it is basically shouting at me.
I feel like this is just going to turn into another HUGE thread debating the SAME exact issues. I remain wholly unconvinced that these changes are necessary. We had hundreds of posts debating changing WCT. I, and many other users, did not come away from that discussion with a changed opinion about whether these changes are necessary. Since I believe the new staff's position to be unwarranted and untenable, I cannot support these changes.
We have told you what we want. We want the old system back. And we are going to keep wanting it until we can be convinced that these changes are necessary. It hasn't happened yet. We will not outright concede the point that changes will be made and we must help create them, because it is our opinion that changes are not necessary.
You all want to skip past this and jump to creating the new WCT. Asking us to help you create something implies that we agree something needs to be changed. We don't.
I don't necessarily agree however, I've been pleasantly surprised with teia
Teia said this, which I assume would be a perfectly fine post under the new staff:
""Breeder" is like "cracker." It's something for privileged people to get their underwear in a twist over because they think those words are somehow anywhere near similar words that are censored on here. You're free to complain when "breeder" starts being used as a word of systematic oppression."
Just IMAGINE if someone made a similar argument in defense of the word "tranny" or some other slur. They would be instantly moderated.
Teia's politics are already apparent in WCT. We aren't talking about not allowing talk of restarting slavery. We are talking about policing a multitude of opinions based on Teia's fringe beliefs. Teia tells me my thread would have been locked under rule 4, the same thread where she makes arguments downplaying the offensiveness of a sexist slur. Does anyone not recognize this bias?
Having said that, I sincerely believe that everyone is being too hard on Promatim. I believe that I understand where he's coming from. He believes that I'm just a bitter, jaded, arrogant ex-staff member who has foregone meaningful contribution to any of the real forums in favor of constant nagging and *****ing in CI. He believes that I'm a net negative for the site, and that I only come here to spew vitriol and start arguments with people that are doing a job that I once did and that I believe I did better. I can say those things because I know how that feels. I've been in that exact position before. When I was on staff, there were several ex-staff whose posts I loathed to see in CI. I couldn't for the life of me understand why the stayed around if all they ever did was complain about how terrible things were and actively try to make the job more difficult for the people trying to make things better. It was preposterous and frustrating, and I complained about it in unkind language on more than one occasion in private. I believe Promatim was doing the same, and I don't think he should have been reprimanded for it. I don't believe he was trolling, and if he chooses to appeal his infraction -- which I absolutely think he should -- I would support it being overturned 100%.
Perhaps I am all of those things. I've made no secret about the fact that I disapproval greatly of the job Senori, Teia, and Frox have been doing in Water Cooler Talk. I've been vehement in my opposition and blunt in my delivery, and I know that I've upset people. I also know that my behavior of late has been in stark contrast to the way I approached and discussed and dealt with issues when I was a staff member. The reason for this is simple: it was never personal when I was dealing with users as a staff member. The issues as of late are personal to me.
Maybe I take things too seriously. Maybe I'm melodramatic and histrionic. Maybe I'm a raving lunatic who should find a different hobby and go outside more. What I know is that I spent seven months watching over a part of the site for hours every day, and I grew to love that part of the site and to genuinely care for and about the people posting there. I tried my best to make things fun and enjoyable for those people, and if I allow myself to be openly arrogant, I believe that I came to understand them and their desires. In short, I considered the people in WCT my friends -- even those I disagreed with, even those I issued infractions to.
Now I see people coming in and doing things and issuing changes that I never would have done, and that I know several prominent members of the community oppose. It hurts me to watch this happen, and I take it personally. I see people whose opinions I trust and value say that they now hesitate to post, and it makes me unhappy. I take it personally because until recently, they were "my" people. Maybe that's too savior, maybe I'm giving myself too much credit, whatever. The point is, I take these things personally because they matter to me, and I sincerely believe that the community that I care about is being done a disservice. As long as that continues to be true, I will continue to fight for these issues. I will reiterate previous apologies that I've given in advance for my behavior; I'm doing what I believe needs to be done.
On the topic at hand, I believe the new rule is disgusting because the concept of making it infraction-worthy to simply hold certain opinions -- regardless of the manner in which those opinions are raised or expressed -- is outrageous. My disgust is only heightened by the fact that this list of infractable opinions is non-public, non-inclusive, and chosen by a non-representative minority group absent any input from the community. That disgusts me.
The new rule is ridiculous because it's either completely inappropriate (see above) or completely unnecessary. Threads that are clearly debates are already against the rules. Trolling is already against the rules. Flaming is already against the rules. Any conceivable situation that would be sufficiently problematic to warrant action under this new rule would already be actionable under the existing rules, unless the goal is to explicitly push the forum toward uniformity and forced coherence with a pre-set agenda.
The rule is unsurprising because the team of Senori, Teia, and Frox have demonstrated flawed thinking, overly zealous moderation, and agenda-driven policies on numerous occasions already. Evidence can be found in a variety of threads both here and among the Helpdesks.
Such a post would likely be unacceptable under the new system. Did I make that post? Evidently. Would I make it again these days, even without rules against it? No. The issue here isn't my old posting, but how the new rules would relate to actual threads.
But I want you to be able to make that post Teia.
That's great and all, but those types of discussion clearly aren't allowed in Debate either because of Blinking Spirit's "You aren't allowed to have opinions I disagree with" rule. So implying that they should be posted there when they'd be met with a probable infraction or ban isn't really helpful.
I recently had someone I greatly respect, who is upset with the staff, comment that they didn't think their opinion mattered to me. I'm glad to have changed their mind. I may not agree with you, but your opinion is helpful to make sure that we're doing the right thing with this site.
I understand what you're trying to say, I think. The problem comes in the next section...
I am completely happy if someone comes into WCT and declares B and D to be good things. Awesome.
I'm also happy if someone comes in and says A and C are good things. I grew up in the A and C household. I disagree with it. But that's about it.
Now, if you come in and tell me that A and C are the only ways to live and that there's a problem if I'm a B and D dude? Now we have a problem.
In my contribution to the rule in question, I'm trying to avoid a place where poster B (B and D dude) has forced poster A (A and C dude) to leave, because he's declaring that B and D are the only ways to go.
I'll explain this in slightly more detail in a second.
I've been waiting for a chance to put this statement in, as I believe it'll help illuminate my feelings on this matter.
With the way this rule works, we're not outlawing Homophobia and promoting Homosexuality. We're asking you to keep your Heterophobia and Homophobia to yourself and allow us to be heterosexual and homosexual as we so choose. If you wish to speak out about it, there's better places on the site for it.
The closeted homosexual deserves his RLA post. So does the lonely heterosexual. But the closet homophobic doesn't get to make a post asking how to force homosexuals out of his house, and the lonely heterophobe isn't going to get a free ride bashing heterosexuals.
A lot of the things this rule closes out are rather extreme views. A discussion of "I think Gay marriage is a sin" would be best suited for Debate. But I could see "I would like marriage to be a man and a woman, since my religion says its so, but can we make a Civil Union-something-or-other for you instead?"
I hope that fleshes that out a little more.
Then let's un-confuse it. That's what I'd love to do.
I'm having trouble finding the right words for this. I think the best way is this way:
If someone came onto this board and said "All furries should go to hell", I'd want that thread shut.
If someone came onto this board and said "All human-lovers (for lack of a good opposite for furries) should go to hell", I'd want that thread shut too.
Let me know if this helps out. I'm having trouble explaining this position, because the best wordings I've come up with don't seem to be getting the message across.
It's more that I don't understand the concept of 'socially conservative'. It's literally not part of my education. I don't identify as these terms because I actually don't know what they are.
This rule isn't meant for causing infractions. It's meant to say that, if a thread is made that's deemed to be heading into territory inhabited by trolls and flames, we're going to close it. That's about it. It probably needs a wording to say as such.
My helpdesk should you need me.
There's actually the NSFW Debate subforum, which specifically allows those threads, for the ones that can't fit in normal Debate.
For those things that are just normal debates or heated discussions, I'm sure Debate would work just fine.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Why? As long as people aren't flaming I don't see a problem here. Would you really have a problem if someone said "people should love whoever they want to love" is the only way to live?
Like Harkius said, anything can be contentious to anyone. The best policy is to go back to where we were before; the hands off approach. Which was working. Why is this discussion always conducted with the assumption that some changes are needed?
That is definitely something that would belong in the debate subforum. A better question to ask here, is why are people having these sorts of discussions in WCT at all? If someone makes a thread in RLA and their lifestyle is one you disapprove of for reasons other than what they want advice changing, just don't post in it. And if you really have something to say on the matter, make a thread about the subject in Debate. That seems like common sense to me.
And this goes both and all ways, not just for socially conservative opinions.
Obviously there are going to be other problems that come as a result of rule #4, but I really don't understand why anyone is having discussions about sensitive topics in a board intended for relaxed, off-topic discussion.
One person's sensitive topic is another's relaxing topic.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
How hard is it for somebody to not post in a thread if they dislike what it's about? Again, this seems like it's just common sense. I know people tend to be a lot more dickish on the internet, but even so.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
If you read the rules, there is one for trolling another user and one for flaming another user. However, I believed that these rules needed to be extended in WCT to trolling a group of people or flaming a group of people.
The next morning, the post I had made had been taken down by and admin with the explicit decision in the Mod Lounge that I was enacting the rule to protect a certain portion of the public that I also identify with.
Now, I know I was also given an assurance that this "Hate Speech" type of ruling was being discussed by the Globals, but it was so long ago and I haven't really been following the issues that I don't know if it is currently active or inactive.
If this is the intent of the new rules, then why not just say it directly? Saying you won't put up with hate speech isn't too far off of what you're trying to accomplish.
again this is already against the rules of the forum in general.
saying "black people are scum and should die" is already against the rules.
there is no need for another rule to say the same thing as the rule already there.
The problem that people have is this.
The rule is going to be used as a thought police for people that disagree with certain issues or stances.
that they find unacceptable.
that is not what the WCT is about. it is about open talk and discussion about daily events.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The hate speech rule you speak of actually factored into how I approached the situation. Basically, I determined that "hate speech" was a bit narrow of a category to have included in the rules, so my reason (other mods may have different ones) for promoting and supporting rule 4 was a more generalized form of that rule that applies equally to both sides of the spectrum:
Since the issue of liberal/conservative was brought up, I'd like to clarify that the intent and my intended enforcement of rule 4 would protect both sides equally. Things like anti-LGBT sentiment per se aren't a problem. Stating them in such a way as to ascribe inherently negative qualities to them or that glorifies exclusionary practices, however, only serves to foster argument (note the distinction between argument and debate).
this is exactly what peope have a problem with. you still don't get it.
this exactly why it is a bad rule, and why people have issues with it. pure thought police.
more so on an issue that you are extremely bias on.
hate speach is already against the rules of this forum. so why do you feel the need to make another one when one exists already?
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum