Appeal to the moderation

You know, something that might help our case...if we could all finally remember that Edit Banned is not for conversation. I read that thread (its amusing sometimes) and it seems like every damn page the mods have to come in and say "Don't post shit here, here's what you post here and don't post here" over and over and over again.

Also, I've had to remind three different people not to post NSFW images in Fetishes, despite not doing that being Fast Eddie's one and only concrete condition about re-opening it.

They might care more about our requests if we cared a little more about theirs. Just saying.

Granted, it probably didn't help that the "Edit Banned: would like to laugh again" thread got locked, so avoiding a peanut gallery is difficult.

Not that I'm advocating for a re-launch, but third-party commentary is hard to shut out.

@Arha: You mean that, if we make rules more distinct, it's harder to rules-lawyer? I'm just asking for the sake of clarity.

edited 21st Dec '11 12:20:55 AM by RocketDude

@Rocket Dude: no, it isn't. It just involves people reading what the mods post and then, you know, not doing stuff they tell you not to do.

Yes. Right now, our rules basically consist of 'Don't be a dick.' What exactly does this mean? What if someone is an absolutely horrible person and expresses endorsement of the most horrible things, but does it 'politely?' What if they're clearly being condescending, but seem civil? This person is less likely to get called out than someone who simply gets angry once and gets a warning for it.

It is harder to hide behind rules when the rules are more clearly defined.

edited 21st Dec '11 12:32:25 AM by Arha

Excellent point.

Being condescending is being smug, and still is being less than respectful. That can still be considered being a dick. Simply put, any tone of voice, acting holier than thou, that's still being a dick. You don't need to do that whatsoever. Avoid it at all costs.

Here's the thing; Being a horrible person does not get you banned. Acting like a horrible person does. That's the key difference. You can have the most questionable beliefs ever. But unless you actually express it in a disrespectful way, you're not being a dick whatsoever. Saying you're against Homosexuality is not a dick. Saying "They should never exist" is being a dick. The clear difference is anything that is close to flaming or acting like you're 100% right and that anyone disagreeing with you is an idiot. That's ideally what holier than thou means. Just don't do it.

I was being rhetorical. I guess that wasn't as clear as it could have been, especially since numerous individuals have asked questions like mine and actually wanted to be answered. There are plenty of people who are smug and condescending and don't get in trouble for it because it's not as obvious and it doesn't violate the unspoken rule of 'don't insult people.' Of course it's dickish, that's my point: It's dickish, but our rules don't say that, and people get away with it.

I think it's more of a given in some cases. Is somebody going to be offended if you're speaking directly to them? Change it so they shouldn't be offended. That's pretty much how I personally interpreted it.

I would argue that being a horrible person is what counts, not acting like one. I would say if you hold beliefs like paedophilia apologia then you should not be anywhere, though I do think that if you are too much of a cunt to other people you should be banned also. I just think this site has its priorities backwards when it is lenient against people who are pro-kiddy-fiddling and the like but harsh against people who might imply that that makes the person a bit of a horrible person.

No, it doesn't. What do you do on this site is what matters, not what your beliefs are. Actions are being a dick, not liking something you don't like. That's just an excuse for Acceptable Targets. Which does not apply to any troper.

Our rules are not about morals, it's about acting like a horrible person that should ever get you banned. I really don't care what people's beliefs are. Whether I agree with them or not is not an excuse to be a dick to them. Banning them for having questionable beliefs is essentially hating on them for being different. That's not really acceptable in general.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:12:34 AM by Hydronix

There are such things as bad beliefs and people who espouse them need to be removed from the site. There is no way someone who is a eugenics supporter or who advocates genocide can be a good person, it does not matter how they sugar coat and hide their rotten core, they are still foul and can only spread the idea that these things are fine to believe.

There is a certain moral standards forums should hold themselves to, and if that means banning people for thinking all Africans should be killed, that's what needs to be done. You are so stuck in this Don't Be A Dick/Being Ostracized is the Worst Thing Possible that you fail to realise that holding certain beliefs makes someone a dick.

Holding beliefs only makes you a dick if you act like one. Actions are what the problem is. Deleted topics that cause questionable stuff is one thing, but saying a person should never visit because they belief murder is okay? I may not agree with the person, but they are not doing anything wrong on the site. As long as they do not push it in any way, shape, or form, they are breaking no rules. They should be watched closely at most.

Bad beliefs do not exist. Opinions are not right or wrong. Being a dick has nothing to do with what morals you have either. Being a dick is being disrespectful in some way. You can put forth very questionable beliefs in a kind and respectful manner, and that does not make you a dick here. I am not advocating murder or stuff like that. I am 100% against it. However, I am also against to being a dick towards a person with those beliefs. That does not make you "better" than the person either. Being a dick is being a dick.

The rule is to not be a dick. We have specific topics for what's allowed to be discussed. Not everything does. So we just avoid those topics. The whole "a guy likes murder and shouldn't exist in this world" is saying that we have a right to judge them and condemn them for having some kind of belief. It does not matter what the belief is, because this can relate to any situation whatsoever. What they believe is what they believe. How is condemning for their beliefs not being a dick to them? Why can we break the rules because they have different beliefs? That's the problem with banning people for their beliefs. That's exactly what I'm against.

To use a different and hopefully more useful example, there was a post linked earlier in this thread to a person who apparently had no qualms about Argentina getting nuked. What's to say about that? Shouldn't we disapprove of people who condone of nukes being used?

Disapproving =/= being a dick about it. Of course you can say it's a bad idea. But you can do that in a kind and respectful manner. That may go to the point of being thumpworthy as well. Report these kind of things.

To put it more clearly, just because you believe something is evil doesn't give you the right to attack someone for it. This includes banning them. There is a point to what should be banned, but having beliefs is not one of them.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:27:00 AM by Hydronix

I have seen both sides of this, really. I have seen mods turn a blind eye to people being racist, homophobic, transphobic, discriminating on the basis of class, religion/religious beliefs, age, job status, etc etc etc quite a few times. But then, I've also seen cases where mods have stepped in to a thread and given a warning to people for it, or revealed that yes indeed, they do see the veiled homophobia or whatever and they won't tolerate the behaviour continuing.

I'm not quite sure what to do, though. I think that perhaps, if a person hollers a post they believe is, say, racist, and the moderators decide not to act, then perhaps they could tell the person who hollered why they don't believe a warning should be given, so that the person knows that the holler was received and they're not being ignored, and perhaps if the moderator is not quite seeing why the post is racist, the poster could point out where it is and such, or vice-versa.

Similarly, I know that Eddie is against this, but more mods are really, really needed. The staff size is far, far too small for the forum as it currently is, and it is far too small for the Wiki, as well- and if I am correct, I believe that most if not all of the mods are pulling double duty in moderating both the wiki and the forums. Hell, having mods for particular subforums really is a good idea, as it establishes a clear chain of command and it means that moderators are not pressed trying to check every subforum just in case of a post that needs to be warned.

Another point that I think should be brought up is the issue of thumps. I don't believe that the content of many posts that have been thumped need to be deleted. I can certainly see needing to send a warning to posters who make problem posts, but thumping a post leads to a confused chain of conversation where people reply to thumped posts and it turns the entire conversation incoherent. I can see thumping some posts, like posts that consist of nothing but spam, or really weird troll posts, or the like, but I think the thumping stick needs to be used a lot less. Especially as it's not telling the poster how what they did was wrong, just that it is.

Clear, concrete rules are a thing that is desperately needed at the moment. I mean, as it is, the rule essentially says "The moderators will make a judgement call and may take action against any post we deem is bad." A list of things that is very much not tolerated would be a good start- for example, explicitly stating "Insulting or harassing a user is not tolerated and can result in a warning/ban" would give the moderators a concrete reason to slam down on personal attacks. Hell, you could even add in Rule 0- "Moderators may use their powers at their discretion if your post is bad, even if it does not violate one of the following rules", which would solve the problem of rules lawyering.

And make it clear and concrete that you don't tolerate things like racism, homophobia and the like. Saying "We don't tolerate it" is all well and good, but unless you take action against any racism or the like that you see and/or is reported, then your words mean jack shit because you aren't backing them. And I see far too much racism and the like around, and I feel that it's pointless to report it because it is only rarely that any action is taken about it.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:34:30 AM by CyganAngel

^Agreed on all points.

Yes, they clearly and demonstrably do. If you are pro-rape, that is a bad belief. It also violates the don't be a dick rule you seem to cherish because thinking that rape isn't awful makes the person holding that belief a dick (And I am putting it really fucking lightly when I say that they are a dick)

Guess what? You do have the right to judge someone for what they believe, how else are you supposed to? By your logic the most philanthropist person in the world is no different from a Neo-Nazi who hates Jews, Blacks and Queers and wants the whites to rule over everyone. Newsflash: If that sounds right to you, then you need to reevaluate your priorities.

The rules of TV Tropes are not the word of God, they are not supreme morality mandated by the heavens. If the rules of TV Tropes prevent paedophiles and rape apologists from being banned for their beliefs, that is a problem with the rules and not a problem with the act of ostracizing rapists and paedophiles.

Rocket Dude: Awesome.

Telos To The Max:

While I agree with you, I think you may need to cut down on the aggression or whatever it is that is making your post come off as really... I don't know how to say it, sorry.

If you phrase your points a bit more civilly, you may actually get people here to listen to you :V

Bad is subjective. All beliefs are completely subjective. They are not being a dick by believing something different. Are they actually arguing rape is good? That's different from saying they're fine with rape. You move on. They are not being dicks.

Morals are not in question here. Being a dick to someone who has different beliefs in you is being a dick. You do not have any actual right to judge them whatsoever at all. Being a dick is being a dick. Acceptable Targets does not work. Because a person has different beliefs, we can break the rules for that? No, we can't.

They are on TV Tropes. Where the rules apply. Having a belief does not make you banworthy. All it does mean is that depending the belief, keeping a close eye to avoid flame wars is the most to be done. This personal crusade against different people is completely unnecessary and does not make you a better person than them. We are not Crusaders whatsoever. We don't have the right to condemn people, regardless of who they are. Beliefs =/= Actions. Condemning people for having beliefs is what Hate Crime is. This is why I do not agree whatsoever with condemning people for having questionable beliefs. You can just... not like them. Be civil no matter what.

Also...

Homophobia is not the same as hating on Homosexuality. Being afraid of something for whatever reason is fine. That's not their fault at all. Phobias are something that is from a scarring life experience.

Hate Speech is not allowed. Having beliefs about something is, because, they are not being hateful about it. If they are, there is a problem. That's not the same as condemning someone for their beliefs, it's thumping them for being a dick. Really, no matter how you slice it, it's whether you're being a dick or not. This is the main problem. There is no good reason to condemn someone for having different beliefs than you. That's making you the dick. Not talking about the subject is simply the best solution completely. If the person will be respectful, they will just avoid the topic. That's how simple it is. Avoid it. If asked to stop, you just stop. If they don't stop, then they're actually being a dick, because they're not following what was asked. As I said once more before; We do not use Acceptable Targets here. That's an excuse to be a dick to someone for being different from you in the case of questionable beliefs. Why is it not allowed to report them for having it? There is no reason to. If the topic gets ire, ask to have it closed, and keep it calm and civil. The whole moral system is assuming that we're right and they're wrong. Morals are subjective, after all.

edited 21st Dec '11 1:45:41 AM by Hydronix

Then your opinion that my behavior is bad is subjective, and it's okay if I do whatever?

Behavior is not beliefs. What you believe is what you believe. Being insistent upon it is questionable. Being outright angry about it is being a dick. That is not the same thing.

Once again, it's not hard to ask the topic to be closed and to ask those who participate in it to not talk about it anymore. That's the requirements.