Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read!

[Nerys Ghemor]

sidious618 wrote:

---

I absolutely agree, I'm just pissed that my post (well, half of it) is quoted in the OP when it was meant to have the opposite effect.

Sorry, but the best way to deal with something like that is to either CLEARLY state your displeasure, or do not go anywhere near it. I'm afraid you set yourself up for that and even if it doesn't reflect sexism, it reflects poor judgment.

Overall, I think this is a clear example that even if some people may have MEANT nothing bad, clearly people need to think more carefully before hitting "post."

[sidious618]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

Sorry, but the best way to deal with something like that is to either CLEARLY state your displeasure, or do not go anywhere near it. I'm afraid you set yourself up for that and even if it doesn't reflect sexism, it reflects poor judgment.

I've never been banned. I've never recieved a warning. I don't even think I've ever recieved a friendly. When people post about their problems on here I always try to help out in their threads. So because of one post that was misunderstood I'm now at the top of the forum in this thread and somehow I set myself up for this?

Really?

I've been a damn good poster on these boards so don't tell me about poor judgment.

[trampledamage]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

Sorry, but the best way to deal with something like that is to either CLEARLY state your displeasure, or do not go anywhere near it. I'm afraid you set yourself up for that and even if it doesn't reflect sexism, it reflects poor judgment.

Overall, I think this is a clear example that even if some people may have MEANT nothing bad, clearly people need to think more carefully before hitting "post."

Equally, people should also look at a post and think "hmm... maybe that was just a badly thought-out joke" and give other posters the benefit of the doubt.

[Nerys Ghemor]

With something that blatant, and in that kind of context...frankly, either it was posted knowing full well what it would mean to people, or it was bad judgment. In cases where there was no "prior record," I am certainly much more willing to consider it a lapse in judgment rather than malicious intent. But ignoring it does not help anyone learn from it.

[sidious618]

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

---

With something that blatant, and in that kind of context...frankly, either it was posted knowing full well what it would mean to people, or it was bad judgment. In cases where there was no "prior record," I am certainly much more willing to consider it a lapse in judgment rather than malicious intent. But ignoring it does not help anyone learn from it.

Did you just completely ignore my explanation earlier?

[trampledamage]

I'm not suggesting ignoring it. Ignoring it is what happened with the Palin thread, until it became a complete train-wreck and now we have this thread.

A post in response to say something along the lines of "if you were trying to be funny, it wasn't" or "if you're being serious then -<insert serious argument here>-" would let everyone know that you think there's a problem.


EDIT: To be clear, I know you, Nerys Ghemor, did do that in the Palin thread - but in general, I'm not suggesting ignoring what you find unacceptable, but giving the benefit of the doubt and then raising a question of "is this a joke?" to allow a chance for apology.

[Kestra]

T'Bonz wrote:

---

I have had multiple complaints lately from women on our BBS about the tone in this (and sometimes other) forums. Some women feel unwelcome and uncomfortable on parts of the board, due to a very nasty tendency of some men (note the "some") to express themselves in a way that makes women uncomfortable.

I usually don't chime in on issues like this, but I'm a little bothered at how it all seems to be about women being offended. MISC has seemed pretty okay to me lately, except for that one thread about Palin. And the remarks in that thread had more to do with her being an unpopular political figure than her being a woman. People post offensive things about public figures all the time; it took a different (and uncommon) turn this time because it happened to be about an attractive female.

I'm not saying that there isn't sexist stuff said in MISC. But it goes both ways, and it doesn't seem quite fair to single out men in that thread alone. Let's be realistic, there are plenty of things that could make a woman or a man uncomfortable in various threads and forums.

I think in this case the comments did cross a line and perhaps it would have been better to just acknowledge that the thread took a bad turn and perhaps the moderators should have closed it up a little sooner, or whatever it is that you moderators do.

Holdfast wrote:

---

Without dredging private BR stuff into the public domain, I certainly feel able to add my voice in public to those feeling that the idea of extending "flame protection" to public figures is very much a bridge too far in terms of moderation.

I think I agree with this. You don't want the general tone of any thread to be terribly hostile, but it seems unreasonable to moderate comments about public figures to the same extent that you would moderate comments about fellow posters. That doesn't mean a free for all either, of course.

Don't know if any of this makes sense, but as a frequent poster in MISC, I wouldn't want to see any large shifts in policy.

[T'Bonz]

Squiggyfm wrote:

---

Sweet! I got a mention!

I'll add humor to the things that aren't allowed in here.

1. Fat people (or mentioning that fat people do exist. We're all God's beautiful creatures (whoops, shouldn't mention God...that might make someone feel icky))
2. Making people feel icky.
3. Speaking ill of our glorious politicians.

Well done. I'll inform the Chariman. Might wanna start censoring the avatars of certain people who have Obama terrorist fist jabbing Amademajad with a mushroom cloud in the back ground...lest the moderation of this board seem biased.

But we all know that isn't the case.

Counting down until this is locked...

Speaking of a lack of humor.

Look, many of the things in that thread were ugly (and I don't even like Palin!) The problem is two-fold:

1 - the sexist stuff. It's getting really bad. I'm getting MULTIPLE complaints mainly from women, and no, they're not from thin-skinned women.

Some locker room type discussion was in there. I'm lewd, crude and rude and if it makes ME wince, it's bad.

2. Political discussion. We have TNZ. TNZ is lovely that if you don't like a politician, you can let 'er rip. Political discussion in Misc is supposed to be more, well, discussion.

Squiggy, I'm being told, loudly and clearly, that some of the postings in Misc are making multiple people uncomfortable. Oh, they don't come on here and whine, nor do they fight with some of you. They just leave, or they come to some of us privately, asking for help.

Telling them basically to fuck off, or get a humor transplant ain't the answer. In TNZ, since it's opt-in and more freewheeling, people join with that knowledge and if they can't deal, they can opt out. Misc was never meant to be that way.

It's not hard to discuss politics without delving into personal attack. I don't mean legitimate criticism or even legitimate anger/frustration over political issues, I mean the personal attacks for no reason with each successive poster trying to top each other in nastiness. That's not really discussion, is it?

We've provided TNZ for people to express themselves in negative ways if they feel like it. It's a great place to do that if you feel the need and those who don't like that type of thing know that they need to stay away if that is the case. Misc isn't TNZ and I don't want the same non-discussion behaviors dragged into it. We really don't need two TNZs.

[sidious618]

Did you see the post I made about my quote? It's a few pages back. I'd appreciate it if you removed it from the OP.

[Hermiod]

T'Bonz wrote:

---

1 - the sexist stuff. It's getting really bad. I'm getting MULTIPLE complaints mainly from women, and no, they're not from thin-skinned women.

In the immortal words of Jamie Hyneman - Well, there's your problem.

Were these complaints directed via the notify button or did they just bypass the process and PM you directly ?

I seem to remember receiving a warning for not following the process last year.

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

Maybe you should worry about it when it's actually a problem and, for now, focus on what this thread is about.

I picked one example and I thought sexist comments and behaviour was the focus of what this thread is about.

[J. Allen]

After reading through the original threads, some of those are indeed taken out of context. That doesn't mean "Hey, awesome face raping!" but it does mean there's more than what's on the surface. That being said, TNZ really is always open for political discussion, and gets a far worse reputation than it deserves. Yes, we're a rowdy bunch of badass Gods among men, but we do delve into very serious debate and discussion. You see, TNZ is almost exactly like Misc save for one thing: We don't tolerate ignorance. If you throw out paint chip levels of stupid, we'll call you on it. If you don't, you're fine. Usually, the people who want to troll Misc go and do it in TNZ until they get kicked out or bored, and then they prey on the innocent posters of Miscellaneous. So really, TNZ as an alternative isn't a bad choice.

Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Oh wait, should I have ended that post with something else?

J.

[Locutus of Bored]

I'd like to address some points.

Hermiod, get a blog. If your sexism towards men issue ever actually becomes a significant problem here outside of one poster who also happens to be you constantly harping on it, then get back to us. Otherwise, stop derailing unrelated threads with it and making everything about your personal crusade. It's to the point now where we want to have a discussion with the female posters about sexism issues (this has been an issue behind the scenes for a long time) but hesitate because we know you'll make it all about your little pet peeve inside of ten posts and won't let it go when asked. I think you've proven our concern accurate in this thread. I'm not going to argue with you about it in here after this, because that would quite frankly be a waste of time and would further derail the thread, but seriously, enough already.

Squiggy's "watch me as I rape your face" comment was not in any way sexist in nature if you actually look at it in context and don't just post it as a single line under the heading "Sexist Crap." He used it like "watch me as I destroy your argument" in a post directed at a male poster who was being particularly obtuse and followed it up with plenty of on-topic content to back up his argument. I asked him to stop after said poster complained, not because I thought it was actually sexist or in any way serious, just because if we're being consistent it was a personal comment directed at that poster and as such was not allowed. Squiggy stopped after that and that comment in no way had anything to do with the later sexual comments towards Sarah Palin, and to imply a connection is misleading at best.

I don't see how "I'm stretching for ya, dontcha know" is in any way a sexist comment. It's just referring to the content of the pictures posted.

Sidious already explained the reasoning behind his comment, and why he thinks it should be removed. It was playing off another related comment, and he acknowledged that they should stop. So, I'll let that stand with his own argument.

One comment was about the tightness of Palin's outfit. Borderline, but not directed at a poster here, which would put it in a whole new light. We've had discussions about how tight Troi's outfit was in certain episodes without any issues being raised.

Now, the other three comments were all Garak's, and that's really the heart of the issue here. I agree that it was way over the line. I think the primary reason Garak said it was not to express a sexual attraction to Palin (though he probably does have one) but more to get a rise out of Palin supporters. I could be wrong, but that's how it came off to me. So it's probably trolling, and definitely sexist even if that wasn't his primary intent, because it seeks to make a woman purely a sexual object for his gratification. Plus, the comment by itself was way over the line and not in any way comparable to just saying "I think Sarah Palin is hot."

How this somehow got extended to not being able to insult politicians is beyond me, and I'd like to make it clear that I don't support it. If Palin says people in big cities aren't "real Americans" I've got no problem if someone wants to insult her if they can back it up with some on-topic content. If Obama raises taxes on the middle class after promising not to, and a poster calls him "a lying jackass" I've got no problem with that either if they can again back it up. "Obama is a jackass because..." is fine. I might disagree with you, but I'm not going to warn you for it. Hell, if you can call Obama "der fuhrer" and actually make a cogent argument stating why he is comparable to Hitler I'll even let that pass without a warning. I probably won't appreciate your comment, and I might give you a friendly to tone it down, but if you actually made an attempt to back up the insult instead of just saying it outright as an insult unto itself, I doubt that I'll warn you for it.

What won't pass is comments just designed to piss people off with little or no content to back it up. That's trolling, and it's an existing rule that doesn't need extra draconian extensions about insulting politicians or celebrities tacked onto it in order to be applicable.

[RoJoHen]

Just for Devil's Advocate purposes, I think there is a very big difference between saying "Obama is a liar because..." and "Obama is a lying jackass because...".

I personally don't care one way or the other, but some people might. I see no problem with insulting politicians (we insults plenty of other people, so I don't see why politicians would be protected). The problem is that often insulting politicians and political beliefs leads to fighting between posters. It's not the "Obama is a jackass" line that's the problem. It's the poster who responds by insulting the person who said that.

[Da'an]

Have issues like this ever come up in the various Star Trek forums? Lewd comments about Jeri Ryan or Connor Trinneer? How were those dealt with?

[Hermiod]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

I'd like to address some points.

Hermiod, get a blog. If your sexism towards men issue ever actually becomes a significant problem here outside of one poster who also happens to be you constantly harping on it, then get back to us. Otherwise, stop derailing unrelated threads with it and making everything about your personal crusade. It's to the point now where we want to have a discussion with the female posters about sexism issues (this has been an issue behind the scenes for a long time) but hesitate because we know you'll make it all about your little pet peeve inside of ten posts and won't let it go when asked. I think you've proven our concern accurate in this thread. I'm not going to argue with you about it in here after this, because that would quite frankly be a waste of time and would further derail the thread, but seriously, enough already.

To be honest with you - boo fucking hoo. You don't want to talk about it ? Fine. Just because somebody formalised the mini-modding you've been doing for as long as I can remember that doesn't mean you can say a word to me about disrupting threads when you've just done it yourself.

T'Bonz's post was about sexism in Misc and so was mine. There's nothing unrelated about it. If you don't like it, tough.

What won't pass is comments just designed to piss people off with little or no content to back it up. That's trolling, and it's an existing rule that doesn't need extra draconian extensions about insulting politicians or celebrities tacked onto it in order to be applicable.

So where are Garak and Squiggy's warnings then ?

I don't know if moderators are allowed to put people on ignore, but if you can do so then please do. On a board where the above poster's actions aren't warnable there's no way I've said a damned thing that's actionable so you have no further reason to read what I've said.