An Official Banning Policy?

I wasn't actually suggesting that. I'm saying if a topic would easily lead the flame wars, it's better to not post it. A list of what is considered completely unacceptable in the rules would suffice.

My suggestions are; Rape, Murder, Paedophilia(Lolicon and Shotacon).

Racism, Sexism(etc.) can have very meaningful discussion, as I've talked it out with people related to that. We have Fetishes for sex related stuff. (Sexism not counted)

These are suggestions, not literal requests.

edited 20th Dec '11 5:35:02 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

Well, I think I've had this debate about six times since I joined this site, but 7th time's the charm eh?

@Fighteer: Most likely regulars are posting under sockpuppets because they're sick of the way this place is run and yet love some of the people/threads here. I'm not really scared of being banned, so if you want a regular's opinion, I'm here.

Frankly, there are some things that just are dickish. I'm not saying that makes you a bad person, just that certain views are objectively wrong and stating those views is wrong. racism and sexism, for example, are just wrong. They have been scientifically proven wrong time and time again and simply stating such an opinion should be at least thumpable.

Homophobia and abortion, on the other hand, are really just opinions. You can be a dick about them either way but they're not objectively wrong so that leaves some room to debate the facts behind each opinion.

"Being disrespectful has nothing to do with opinions in general. It has to do with acting like a dick about it. Some people are creepy, yes, doesn't mean we shouldn't respect what they believe."

We don't have to respect opinions, especially ones that are wrong. What we can do is report them if they're outside of the rules, refute them if they're not, and ignore them if we must. I don't like it, but "creepy" is just as bad as "dick" when it comes to bad reasons to ban someone.

"Do people seriously want everyone with any form of bias banned immediately for it? Because...well, let's be honest. Nobody would be allowed to use the forum, ever."

I personally want things that are just wrong to not be allowed. I mean things that are provably false and offensive, just to be 100% clear.

"Everybody has a right to their opinion."

Everyone has a right to think whatever they want, we have a right to claim that they're opinion is wrong and kick them out of our club.

" it seems like the overwhelming majority of these problems occur in On-Topic Conversations"

OTC is used primarily for politics, religion and other debateable topics. These things naturally bring in strong opinions so it's only natural that OTC would have a higher then average rate of problems.

Maybe you're too young to have known IJBM, but that board was much worse. I can recall at least one banning a week from that place. OTC is nothing, in comparison.

" If you'd just trust us to do our jobs, it wouldn't be a problem, but every time one of these situation occurs, it turns into a massive blowup that wastes enormous amounts of our time."

That really should tell you something. If every time a situation like this occurs we have a push-back to install more specific rules or clarify the existing ones then maybe the rules are the problem.

"If you want something constructive, then how about somebody writes a draft for the rules they want to see to clarify what "being a dick" is"

I proposed that a while ago in another thread and never got the okay to draft up some new rules, unfortunately.

"what does tick me off is the constant assumption of bad faith from the moderators. "

I've never argued under the presumption that the moderators are acting in bad faith. I've moderated before, it's tough work and it is work. Unpaid work at that. Doesn't mean I'm not going to suggest changes when I see something is broken.

"...who are honestly trying to do the best we can to keep the place running."

I am honestly doing the best I can to try to keep the place running. If the rules aren't changed this will occur again. This is honestly the sixth of seventh time I've been involved in a debate about site policy and every single time we have this fight we get a "the rules are fine" and then a few months later it happens again and this is happening because something is broken. I feel it's the rules and will fight at every single opportunity to have them changed because I'm sick of seeing bad people stay and good people go.

"I just find little boys so sexy"

unfortunately, that is not objectively wrong. However, it is creepy as fuck, and pedophilia is a crime so it's on the line of acceptable. I wouldn't ban you for it, I would certainly contact the feds about it though.

"This messageboard is not for us to go on some crusade to attack beliefs we don't like. There is no reason for that. If the topic is inappropriate, we change it or lock the topic. That's it."

This isn't about ideas we don't like, for me at least. I hate basically everything major tom believes in and I would never report him for any of it because he's not objectively wrong.

Being pro-life, for example, is to me, a very silly idea; but it's not a wrong idea.

Being racist, for example, is simply a wrong idea. The idea of racial superiority/inferiority is simply wrong and stating so is being a dick.

This is basically where me and the rules butt-heads. Why should we tolerate opinions that are simply incorrect? Not to mention hateful in nature?

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Does SA have a script they use for this stuff?

edited 20th Dec '11 5:36:41 PM by Fighteer

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

SA actually has a pretty extensive rules list. Oh nevermind, you were talking about the TPR'd post.

I should note that, even by the letter of our rules as they stand, racism is not OK.

edited 20th Dec '11 5:39:53 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I have no idea Fighteer. I have no idea at all.

@thatguythere 47: The problem is, all that stuff is still opinions and morals. Morals are literally opinions on what is acceptable or not. Long story short, if something is considered illegal, it has to be discussed with utmost care. If something is rather "sick"(the three ones I suggested up there), it's better to just not have any topics on it. The rest can indeed have respectful conversation. But I find it hard to believe that Rape, Murder, and Paedophilia can. The only thing I can see is ways to avoid having it happen, at best. But the rest of it will most likely not be so nice, with a lot of flaming and arguments that are unneeded.

edited 28th Feb '12 6:48:27 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

Nope, you don't "need to be a dick" here. Ever. If what they're saying is really so bad that you can't address it tactfully, chances are they shouldn't be here in the first place.

It's not your job to fix the world, bro. By all means holler and let us ban them, but insulting people into submission won't get you anywhere.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

@thatguy: I really would like to know how it came about that people think we allow those kinds of things. As you said, they are blatantly wrong and are inappropriate as topics, except in certain very limited cases, such as topics specifically about discussing those beliefs.

Also, as for all this sock posting going on, I am about three million times more likely to weigh what you have to say if you are a regular. If you somehow think that socking up and acting all concerned about things is going to impress us, you fail. Badly.

edited 20th Dec '11 5:44:54 PM by Fighteer

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

This is what I'm getting out of the current rules:

Yes, "don't be a dick" is vague, but most of the problem seems to be people insisting it doesn't count because they were being dicks to Acceptable Targets.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

Exactly 20 Log Root 10.

We don't have Acceptable Targets as any poster here. None of them count for it. You are not allowed to be a dick to anybody, even if they were a dick to you. Report, Don't Respond. Let the Mods take care of it. Even if another Mod is clearly being one, REPORT it. This is pretty much the point that there is. Just use the Report Button. The Mods will take care of it as fast as possible.

Likewise, be reasonable. A bit of snark from a Mod or an Admin is better off ignored that reporting. Unless it clearly is just being a jerk for being a jerk. I could easily say examples, but I don't need to, because my point is clear.

edited 20th Dec '11 6:33:09 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

Don't know about all of them, but least one that I saw was an account created with the express purpose of insulting another troper, which, y'know, I'm cool with constructive criticism, but that is kind of like wearing a great big "ban me!" sticker on your head.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Which is more likely— that there's an organized trolling effort of people coming in here to repeat identical complaints ad nauseum because they like to start trouble, or that the problems with this site's moderation and policies are obvious enough that multiple people have come to the same conclusion?

What you're advocating is tolerance of people's opinions. If these forums actually encouraged posters to be tolerant of people, things like classism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry wouldn't be tolerated.

And "all the unproductive poor should be sterilized" isn't exactly a little opinion you have to work hard to be offended by.

Because you guys, whoever you are (one person, several people, goons, I don't care) are making accounts for the sole purpose of picking fights with the mod staff. You are doing this knowingly and deliberately. You cannot claim to speak for the troper body when you are clearly not a part of it. Your claims to represent some noble interest are patently phony.

In short, you are trolling. And that's about that.

Lazer, it's stupidly obvious. Please.

edited 20th Dec '11 6:13:46 PM by Fighteer

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

I'd be posting in here, but everyone has already said what I think better than I could, and nobody's opinion will be changed when it's all over anyway.

This is why I don't go in OTC.

edited 20th Dec '11 6:14:58 PM by TParadox

Fresh-eyed movie blog

Hrrrm. Considering we've had numerous trolls keep making socks for periods of over one year long to do very specific types of trolling/vandalizing , I'd say option one is more likely than you think.

587: thatguythere 47, you said "racism and sexism are objectively wrong", and then you go on to say "Homophobia and abortion, on the other hand, are really just opinions. You can be a dick about them either way but they're not objectively wrong" etc.

Well, I'm personally of the opinion that homophobia is not more rational that sexism or racism, that the ideas connected with homophobia are objectively incorrect, and it's not "just an opinion". And others may think the same way about abortion.

In other words, you're more subjective than you seem to realize. You can't expect the moderation to deliver judgments on the correct worldview and scientifc truth.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

Nah. If it's going to keep attracting trolls, I'm locking it for a while. Not forever, though.

edited 20th Dec '11 6:25:06 PM by Fighteer

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