Appeal to the moderation

If the thread is not specifically about the homosexuality issue, then it would be off-topic as well as uncivil and would indeed be thumpworthy. In a relevant thread, it would have to be context-dependent, I can't give an absolute answer.

Homophobia of the "gays must die" sort is hate speech and is bannable on sight, no questions asked.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:32:13 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Perhaps not a ban, but at least a public warning that such opinions are not tolerated. Or if the mods do not want to get involved, at least let other posters give the smackdown the opinion deserves, rather than thumps and warnings for rudeness for those who do give the smackdown.

If TV Tropes wants to appeal to a "vast number of people", I don't think that's going to happen with the way the site is currently being run. IIRC most young people have a liberal bias (I'll concede this point if someone can dig up evidence saying otherwise), so if the wiki is going to have a reputation at all it should be a socially progressive one, if it wants to draw in more people.

The only incident I can recall of the 2nd case happening was Shichibukai, and that was because the protesters did not know that he was a racist because they did not frequent OTC. This would not be an issue if TV Tropes is truly free speech, i.e. bans and censorship restricted to spam and vandalism.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:35:00 PM by melloncollie

I'm trying to think of an instance of this, and I'm failing.

^Oh, that. Well, as Melloncollie pointed out, the people who stepped out for him did not know about his OTC behaviour.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:34:51 PM by juancarlos

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

I actually kinda want to say this as well: I think we should keep an eye on new users in the forum. Wiki-side is fine, we can monitor that pretty well. But I get the feeling that newer users seem to get ignored a bit, and that probably isn't good.

Mind you, this suggestion probably isn't so good as well, but I'm just throwing ideas out at this point.

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

what...just....what?

I'm genuinely baffled here.

I'm just going to blame my lack of sleep and turn in for the night, it's half past midnight after all and I can't argue well when I'm this tired.

I'll see you all tomorrow provided this thread is still here.

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine

On that, again, attack the opinion, not the poster. "You bigoted racist, STFU" is not really a sterling example of quality debate. "We disagree emphatically with your opinions and feel that they have no place in civilized society. You will make yourself unwelcome if you continue to express them." That one works a lot better, plus if the guy keeps making an ass of himself, you've got plenty of stuff to holler on.

Just saying that I'm not going to commit myself to an absolute statement when we're talking about hypotheticals.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:40:00 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

What if he's not being uncivil, just expressing very questionable opinions?

I mean, I can say "faggots must die" in the most polite phrasing imaginable while wearing a monocle and sipping tea, I'm still advocating mass death. How does my tone make it okay?

I'm confused. Beeelh, no I really ought to get to bed.

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine

Just for clarification - did the Kodomo No Jikan thread get zapped?

"I'm trying to think of an instance of this, and I'm failing."

Methinks he is referring to when popular people get banned.

It's not exactly easy to tell where the line between "attack the opinion" and "attack the poster" is drawn in the eyes of the moderation. "Don't be a dick" ends up having to become "sugar coat disagreements and criticisms as much as possible."

edited 20th Dec '11 9:42:11 PM by culex2

To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

If you said that, then I'd be thumping you the instant I saw the post. Again, these hypotheticals don't really address the issue. Of course we act on blatant hate speech. Most of the situations people are expressing concern over are not nearly so clear-cut. For example, people discussing what is and is not consent for being considered rape. There's genuine inquiry and debate and there's rape apologia, and the line can be fuzzy.

Yes, it got zapped, as far as I know.

Look, we're human beings and fallible, but we are not mods because we are stupid. We can read context and understand the circumstances. If you're sugar-coating malice towards another poster, it's not hard to figure out.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:44:31 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Willbyr: Looks like it.

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

, Goddammit...I hadn't been in that thread in several months due to not keeping up with any of my online mangas in a while, but that thread had some good discussion in it. Honestly, while there's a part of me that understands the concern, it smacks of the kind of paranoia and jumping to conclusions about its content regarding the entire title.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:48:29 PM by Willbyr

Perhaps there could be an invite-only archive of certain thumped/TPR-ed posts? One of the scariest parts of mod action is that the offending post is hidden so nobody can look at it and assure themselves that it was actually deserving of the action.

I've heard people saying the post that got annebeeche banned this time was one of the most respectful posts they'd seen her make.

When popular people get banned, when anybody gets banned, there is nothing but moderator testimony that they were breaking the rules. I think that is part of what makes people fearful.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:50:42 PM by TParadox

Fresh-eyed movie blog

KNJ seems to have entered into the territory of unofficial banned discussion.

This by the way, is a step in the right direction and I hope that the moderation will continue to start enforcing a few generally-agreed upon moral standards here. I don't think it's much to ask for.

As for your responses to me, Fighteer. They have not made me more assured of this site's staff, but beyond that I'm not going to say anything else.

good points all around.

I'm actually going to bed now. Good night.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:52:17 PM by BlixtySlycat

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine

Thing is, as pointed out by many of us here, hollering has not proven to be effective. We have pointed out to posts that have expressed things that...we feel that should not be expressed. As simple as that.

Now, I don't know how immature this is, but I feel that there's a big difference between being a "Thought Police" and someone who bans people who express opinions such as hate speech, misogynism and so on.

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

I swear to God, Blixty, if you don't go to sleep right now, I'll go and Kick you till you do so tuck you in and read a nice story to you.

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

@T Paradox: In the case of Shichi, nobody who protested apparently knew what he posted in OTC. In the case of Signed, I saw what he said in the Chinese Vinegar thread...which was also in OTC.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:53:38 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

Eh, nevermind.

edited 20th Dec '11 10:10:37 PM by Willbyr

It's a big forum, people don't see everything that happens.

Fresh-eyed movie blog

Granted, yeah, we don't know all of what the banned parties said, but I don't think that, in the case of Shichi, the mods banned him for no good reason.

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

I know why Yeah Bro got the boot. I can definitely see why kashchei got it too (I liked her, but let's face it she could be really abrasive). Annebeeche I'm curious about, but I'm giving the mods the benefit of the doubt until I get a better answer. I only hang out in very specific areas of the forum and definitely don't see everything.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I personally think we might do better if we announced bannings, at least of tropers with any history, with at least a summary of why. An official statement, even if brief, is better than uninformed speculation.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Agreed with Morven on that one. It would simply let people know to avoid them constantly asking about it.

Not to say it couldn't bring up more questions to say if that was acceptable to ban over something the asker might find silly.

As for this, my rule of thumb is; You can challenge the Administration, just be extremely respectful of it. There's really no reason to be a dick about it, or snark whatsoever. Clear, Concise, extremely Nice.

Quest 64 thread

Agreed with Morven. Every time I've had a question about a banning, a PM to a mod cleared things right up. Concise info on why someone got the boot would probably go a long way towards easing tensions among those who remain.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~