Appeal to the moderation

I'm aware it's not, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated here.

(Also not saying that the solution is to shut down OTC, when we did that to IJBM, OTC inherited most of its problems)

Agreed.

I would also like to get some opinions on the links I drop. I want to know if it's just me that's being offended or not. Because I don't think it is just me.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:00:45 PM by BlixtySlycat

I don't think that the root of the problem here lies with the moderation, but instead lies with the posters, the problem may be made worse by the way the moderation handles things, but I think that as soon as we got away from trying to have a friendly, casual atmosphere, things went south.

I would like to have that back. We can't make anyone act this way, that would much defeat the purpose, but if anyone has suggestions on how we can help the moderation, or how we can just make this community a friendlier place, I'm all ears because I miss the way things used to be. I don't think the forum is going to die any time soon, but going back to the old "hugbox" days, even in just one section of the site, would be nice.

That rape culture thread is something I've had my eye on for some time. I'm not happy about it being there, as it brings the nasties out.

What I don't get is why one person talking about something like that causes a "culture of oppression" or makes other people unwilling to contribute in other areas of the site. Maybe it's a personal failing but it seems to me that if a particular person isn't threatened or impugned by a post, moderator action has to have a higher bar than simply "I don't like what he said".

I am getting mixed messages here. I am being told that TV Tropes does not officially condone racism, misogyny, etc., and such things would be reported if dealt with. But I have also been told that they are just opinions, comparable to being a Republican. I have hollered a few posts before, and nothing was done.

Regarding the recent bannees, I do not believe that Yeah Bro, Anne, Age and Youth, or Disaster Grind are trolls. As far as I can tell they have genuine concerns about how the site is run.

Also, shall I assume that the moderation will be leaning towards Option #2 in the OP?

edited 20th Dec '11 9:06:51 PM by melloncollie

Yes, that's true, but that's also true of all moderator decisions, on pretty much every site. It's simply a matter of what we choose to treat as a valid complaint. I mean, the backing behind reporting inflammatory stuff and trolling is "I don't like what he said", because a lot of people don't like that. I don't think most people like it when rapists get defended either.

I could be totally wrong and we could have some secret subculture of rape enthusiasts on here that I don't know about, but I don't think that's the case.

Look, they are opinions. Opinions that a large number of people find morally repugnant. Fine, but we have to draw the line somewhere or we end up purging anything that even vaguely bothers anybody.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:11:03 PM by Fighteer

I think I commented about what other sites do once, but it was in the context of a belief stated earlier that entirely censoring thumped posts from users was the "only viable system," which is pretty incorrect.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:09:30 PM by culex2

Unless a moderator made the rape culture thread and made it as a moderator (Or, as you guys call it, under his mod hat), I don't see how that links with the point I was trying to make.

^Eh, it all depends on contexts. But my point is, we can't fix our problems by thinking "Hey, X site does this, we shouldn't" or the reverse. Whatever we shall do, we shall do it because we believe it's the right course of action.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:11:53 PM by juancarlos

I have to question then, what the purpose of even having a "don't be a dick" rule is. I mean, if I bring someone on here who is a sincere racist and does not shut up about his sincere racism, is that okay because that's just his opinion? No, obviously not, we banned Shichibuki for being a racist. This line of thought just doesn't hold up.

There's a thread about "rape culture?" WTF. Where?

Yeah, where's the line, really? We banned Signed for being a racist, we banned Shichi for being a racist, we banned that one guy whose name I forget who was a pedo apologist and drama-exporter...

EDIT: ^In OTC.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:14:07 PM by RocketDude

If that is the case then I think Option #1 would be more palatable to you. To be honest I do not like the idea of having to holler often either. I think ideally people should be able to come out and call the poster of the offending opinion for what they are (i.e., "sexist prick"), but if the forum is not prepared to handle true free speech then, well...

Anyway, I feel that the things I mentioned are more than simply "I don't like what he said". Being told by a poster that, for example, homosexuality is wrong is on a much different level than being told that liking Michael Bay is wrong. One is harmful, one is not.

askfj;adsf ninjas

edited 20th Dec '11 9:15:24 PM by melloncollie

Here

Also, Eddie, there's a thread search function, yannow.

Roughly 400 posts of it.

Have a look through yourself and you should see what Mellon's talking about in short order.

Not everyone in there is an apologist, obviously. Possibly not even most of them, but they're in there and it's preventing people—say, me—from even trying to enter the conversation.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:15:45 PM by BlixtySlycat

I think what several people are saying is, "Mods, you have a big stick, use it more."

And the Mods try to be careful because they don't want to intimidate everyone in case they thump/ban someone who might not have deserved it. The result is certain people who are needlessly though more subtly inflammatory hang around more and cause more friction. And when reported and no action is seemingly taken, it disheartens others.

@mellon: That too. I mean, yeah, threads have gotten locked before on difference of harmless opinions (see: the Unpopular Opinion threads), but homophobia and the like are, well, harmful.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:15:26 PM by RocketDude

Juan, that's the wrong one. That one was locked ages ago, but there's one open now.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:15:31 PM by INUH

The belief that homosexuality is wrong is shared by a vast number of people. I don't agree with it either, but are we to ban all social conservatives from the forums, sight unseen?

You are probably right that we shouldn't have OTC topics on blatantly controversial subjects like rape. (Watches Eddie run off to OTC and start zapping.)

edited 20th Dec '11 9:16:27 PM by Fighteer

I beg to differ here. What I'm trying to say is that moderation should aim at the right places. Aiming at the people who don't like how this place is run is wrong, aiming it at the people who go out and say things that frankly, violate the most simple modicums of civility that we claim to support and encourage, well...there's not much to say there.

^^The fact that we have two speaks volumes.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:21:47 PM by juancarlos

Do you want my honest opinion that might get me banned for back-talking or do you want a lie?

That's a serious question. I'd rather not be banned.

That was one of my suggestions in the first place.

can we get a crowner for that? (Initially just a Yes/No, and then if it passes, what subjects to ban)?

edited 20th Dec '11 9:19:13 PM by BlixtySlycat

^^Oh, yeah, my original draft of that post included a "it's really sad that that could even happen," but I figured that went without saying :P

Juan: That is still using it more.

edited 20th Dec '11 9:19:57 PM by Parable

Parable: Yeah, I think my post was somewhat badly written. Read it again.

Blixty, I won't ban or action you for an honest opinion that I probably share in some respects, but I cannot indulge as a moderator committed to fair treatment.

Quite frankly, the alternative to this situation is not to increase moderation but to do something like making the chatty parts of the forums invite-only.

I'm getting mixed messages here: one is that we need to be more strict in moderating undesirable opinions, but then when someone with undesirable opinions does get banned, we get a shitstorm of complaining about our policies. Where's the win for us, here?

edited 20th Dec '11 9:27:07 PM by Fighteer

To that end, I'll trust your judgment.

If we're defining social conservative as someone who finds any homosexual abhorrent, then yes. That should be a bannable offense. Now, opposition to gay marriage, that's not something that requires a crackdown. It can be discussed civilly. But no, once you get into homophobia you've crossed a line, the same line someone crosses when they endorse racism or sexism. It is the same thing applied to a different group of people. There have been tropers in the past who have slipped homophobia into their posts and never been banned for it, most of them are now gone for unrelated reasons, but I simply want to be assured that if someone comes into a thread stating that he finds gay people to be an affront to whatever-the-fuck, that he will be thumped and warned.

These are two different things

A is saying that people who criticize the site too much are getting banned.

B is saying that people with unpleasant opinions aren't banned.

"unpleasant opinions" isn't "I have problems with the moderation"

edited 20th Dec '11 9:32:18 PM by BlixtySlycat