Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read!

[T'Bonz]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Amaris]

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]

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.

 

[RoJoHen]

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.

Not trying to take sides here, but by your own admission, Hermiod, the issue with male sexism happened too long ago for you to even be able to provide a reference for other people to look at. I've seen you post complaints about this issue many times, but I have never seen the source that caused the supposed problem. If you had a genuine concern regarding male sexism, and if that concern was not addressed or dealt with to your liking, I'm sorry about that, but I do think you need to back off.

Sexism of any kind should not be tolerated, but we also shouldn't need to spell that out for everyone. You just sound like a broken record every time you bring this up. Nothing is going to be done about your past issue. I suggest you get over it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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.

Which is why I'd give a friendly to tone it down if things got out of hand. But I don't think it should be automatically warnable. It depends on the context, the severity, and the justification for the comment IMO. There's nothing wrong with being genuinely angry with a politician and insulting them as a result if you can at least present a cogent argument to justify your anger.

I mean, that's the slippery slope of all slippery slopes if we're going to start mandating that not only is flaming posters not allowed, but flaming people who aren't even members here. Are we supposed to start giving warnings to people who say Michael Jackson is a pedophile? Some may find it offensive, and it can be trolling if it's said in a memorial thread for no reason other than to rile people up, but should the opinion not even be allowed to be stated? If people say B&B are idiots, is that warnable? If you call a Voyager character ugly, aren't you also insulting the person playing the character? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

Just the other day I called Congressman Pete King a dingus for complaining about the Michael Jackson media frenzy while contributing to it himself. Should that be warnable?

Those are just rhetorical questions, I know you're not personally suggesting this.

 

[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.

Which is why I'd give a friendly to tone it down if things got out of hand. But I don't think it should be automatically warnable. It depends on the context, the severity, and the justification for the comment IMO. There's nothing wrong with being genuinely angry with a politician and insulting them as a result if you can at least present a cogent argument to justify your anger.

I mean, that's the slippery slope of all slippery slopes if we're going to start mandating that not only is flaming posters not allowed, but flaming people who aren't even members here. Are we supposed to start giving warnings to people who say Michael Jackson is a pedophile? Some may find it offensive, and it can be trolling if it's said in a memorial thread for no reason other than to rile people up, but should the opinion not even be allowed to be stated? If people say B&B are idiots, is that warnable? If you call a Voyager character ugly, aren't you also insulting the person playing the character? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

Just the other day I called Congressman Pete King a dingus for complaining about the Michael Jackson media frenzy while contributing to it himself. Should that be warnable?

Those are just rhetorical questions, I know you're not personally suggesting this.

I completely agree with everything you're saying. Insulting someone who isn't a member here is harmless, even if it might occasionally be in poor taste. It's how people respond to the insult (or how the poster intended for people to respond) that should really be what we're looking at.

 

[Hermiod]

Not trying to take sides here, but by your own admission, Hermiod, the issue with male sexism happened too long ago for you to even be able to provide a reference for other people to look at. I've seen you post complaints about this issue many times, but I have never seen the source that caused the supposed problem. If you had a genuine concern regarding male sexism, and if that concern was not addressed or dealt with to your liking, I'm sorry about that, but I do think you need to back off.

Sexism of any kind should not be tolerated, but we also shouldn't need to spell that out for everyone. You just sound like a broken record every time you bring this up. Nothing is going to be done about your past issue. I suggest you get over it.

I was not able to find the specific post I was referring to. That's not the same as not being able to find examples, like this doozy from TerriO. (She got her way, by the way, they can make sperm with no male involvement now!)

Or the classic PKTrekGirl pot bellied rants, or HighteeHeller's classic "I'm swearing off men" thread. So, yes, I can come up with examples when I need to. The rules about images just happened to be the best one.

 

[Hermiod]

Which is why I'd give a friendly to tone it down if things got out of hand. But I don't think it should be automatically warnable. It depends on the context, the severity, and the justification for the comment IMO. There's nothing wrong with being genuinely angry with a politician and insulting them as a result if you can at least present a cogent argument to justify your anger.

I mean, that's the slippery slope of all slippery slopes if we're going to start mandating that not only is flaming posters not allowed, but flaming people who aren't even members here. Are we supposed to start giving warnings to people who say Michael Jackson is a pedophile? Some may find it offensive, and it can be trolling if it's said in a memorial thread for no reason other than to rile people up, but should the opinion not even be allowed to be stated? If people say B&B are idiots, is that warnable? If you call a Voyager character ugly, aren't you also insulting the person playing the character? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

In Michael Jackson's case, yes, it should be warnable because Jackson was never convicted of any crime. Unreservedly accusing someone of committing a criminal act, especially one as disgusting as sexually assaulting children, is an extremely dangerous and damaging act.

Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Pingfah]

I was not able to find the specific post I was referring to. That's not the same as not being able to find examples, like this doozy from TerriO. (She got her way, by the way, they can make sperm with no male involvement now!)

No, they can't.

 

[Goliath]

I was not able to find the specific post I was referring to. That's not the same as not being able to find examples, like this doozy from TerriO.

You mean, the "doozy" she posted in this context?

The "doozy" which you yourself let slide at the time?

Do you know what your problem is, Hermiod?

No, of course you don't. Let me explain.

Your problem is, you refuse to see that your continual cries of "wolf!" have guaranteed that nobody will take you seriously, even if a wolf is at the door.

You refuse to see that, by whining on and on like a broken fan, you've made yourself a liability to your own cause.

You refuse to see that your incessant carping on this issue has allowed anyone who disagrees with you to make it a question of personality rather than principle.

Even when I agree with you--and I have, on occasion, agreed with you--I would never say so publicly, because I don't want to be associated with you. A man is judged by the company he keeps.

Speaking as a man, I can only say: please--get off your hobby horse, and stop trying to defend us poor, downtrodden men from the monstrous regiment of women.

Frankly, we'd be stronger without you.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

In Michael Jackson's case, yes, it should be warnable because Jackson was never convicted of any crime. Unreservedly accusing someone of committing a criminal act, especially one as disgusting as sexually assaulting children, is an extremely dangerous and damaging act.

Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

He is innocent until proven guilty... in a court of law. That has absolutely no bearing on personal opinion on an internet forum.

 

[An Officer]

I think T'Bonz's quoting of the Palin topic was just an example. An example to show discussion is fine, trolling and or flaming is not. I do not think it was meant to be taken so literally that anyone who says Seven of Nine's catsuit is too tight should be warned. That's just being silly now. If it was Seven of Nine is a jackass instead, that's trolling and would need a mod to step in if other posters took that badly. That's the kind of modding I would expect to be happening before this thread anyway.

This is a prime example of trying to understand the spirit of the law rather than the letter. The spirit I believe T'Bonz is trying to point out is that MISC is for discussion, those wanting to actively troll or flame, or just test out borderline offensive/funny discussions should take it to TNZ where it is welcome. Mods should be using their own god-given horse-sense rather than being so blindingly literal.

If you don't get bogged down by taking things so literally, there shouldn't be any modding difficulties arising from this.

If numerous and ongoing complaints have arisen from sexism, whether directed at a politician or a poster, then it is obvious there has been a lingering inbedded problem, which needed dealing with. I for one am grateful T'Bonz has taken action to put in a solid zero tolerance rule on sexism. The parameters on this were vague previously, and Misc mods have been letting it slide for far too long for fear of being over-zealous. I cannot even believe the Palin thread was allowed to go that far without one mod saying a word. Yes, a shaking up of the staff amongst themselves was definitely required, before we lost more valuable female contributors over this. A problem which could have been handles as simply as this long ago. I suppose we needed to hit rock bottom before we made changes, always the way though.

 

[Hermiod]

Frankly, we'd be stronger without you.

I could easily repeat everything you just said in terms of the moaning the women and the people who agree with them on this board come out with every time anyone says anything vaguely negative about women.

I am not talking about this case, the comments about Sarah Palin were way over the top. I'm talking about the comments in the thread I linked to, or people moaning and complaining about side boobs or stereotypes about women spending all their money on shoes.

All I want is an equal playing field. If everyone else shuts up complaining and being over sensitive about gender (and other topics like, as someone else pointed out above, weight) then I will have no reason to say a word.

If, on the other hand, we are going to be oversensitive about things then it has to go both ways. I would prefer to talk about other things and I do talk about other things but if I have to walk on eggshells just in case I offend somebody then everybody else can too.

He is innocent until proven guilty... in a court of law. That has absolutely no bearing on personal opinion on an internet forum.

I know, I just think that some accusations go beyond personal opinion and cross in to libel, almost. People who make those sort of accusations are very brave, I'm sure, doing so on an anonymous internet forum. They would not be so brave doing so in front of the accused's lawyers. Freedom of speech applies right up until the point you make accusations that you cannot prove.

 

[trampledamage]

If numerous and ongoing complaints have arisen from sexism, whether directed at a politician or a poster, then it is obvious there has been a lingering inbedded problem, which needed dealing with. I for one am grateful T'Bonz has taken action to put in a solid zero tolerance rule on sexism. The parameters on this were vague previously, and Misc mods have been letting it slide for far too long for fear of being over-zealous. I cannot even believe the Palin thread was allowed to go that far without one mod saying a word. Yes, a shaking up of the staff amongst themselves was definitely required, before we lost more valuable female contributors over this. A problem which could have been handles as simply as this long ago. I suppose we needed to hit rock bottom before we made changes, always the way though.

Hmm... maybe this thread would have been better placed in the Briefing Room. It seems to me we don't need new rules, but the people in Misc have been allowed to get away with making comments that are upsetting to a lot of people. The way to deal with that is to get the mods to pay closer attention and to tell the posters themselves that such a comment crossed a line.

As has come up within this discussion, some of these comments are jokes that not everyone finds funny. Certainly most of the questionable comments in the photo threads are meant to be humourous rather than seriously creepy. Pointing out that a joke crossed the line, helps everyone measure what's allowable and what isn't.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I do think that this has passed just being a BR discussion. Maybe it should have been a Misc discussion instead of a rule change right away, but this thread is definitely needed. There are posters who think there are problems in misc with sexism and there are posters who think that misc is perfectly fine. Moderators have differing opinions but are torn how to please both. We really do need a board consensus in some way. Right now, here is the rules as Bonz has outlined them. But if she wasn't open to feedback for a better way, this thread wouldn't still be open.