Misc - Several issues - Misc Posters Read!

[Holdfast]

Acceptable: I don't like Sarah Palin because she was a hypocrite." (giving the reason why you feel she was hypocrite.) OR "I don't like Obama because he is not keeping his promise" (again giving a reason.)

NOT ACCEPTABLE:

- Palin is a jackass.
- Obama is a jackass

Neither are discussion. Both are insults. This is not the place for insults. If you need to attack a politician personally (not the politics or what he/she has done, but a personal attack,) that is NOT for Misc. That type of discussion may occur in TNZ.

If you want politics in here, this is how it will be. The mods will warn you if you get personal like you have been with political stuff.

You MAY still post political stuff. You may not post things which are insulting a person, not their policy and you may not say sexist or racist things.

There are plenty of us on staff who think this is an overreaction. The problem we were dealing with was many women on the board and the staff saying that they feel uncomfortable in Misc and avoid it due to some of these remarks. So plenty of us thought we need to try to keep it in check. I don't know why this got extended to the discussion of politics in Misc, because that played a very small part in the problem. I'm sure Bonz will be along to explain, but I'm hoping some of this announcement can be scaled back a bit.

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 agree with Spiff that seperate issues have very unhelpfully become conflated in these announcements.

However, I also feel obliged to also say that since I'm no longer responsible for any sort of policy enforcement in Misc, my comments here are purely personal (though obviously influenced by my past experience dealing with this board), written as a fairly frequent Misc poster rather than a staff member.

 

[RoJoHen]

I have a question. I realize that Misc is a big forum with lots of topics, so some flaming and trolling might get overlooked. How often do people actually "notify the mod" when something bothers them? How do the mods usually respond?

If a poster notified a Misc mod that some of the sexist comments were bothering them, would the mods make an announcement in the thread? Automatically issue an infraction? How often are PMs used to give friendly warnings? You know, just to say, "Hey, some of the things you're saying are bothering some of the posters. Could you try to tone it down?"

 

[tomalak301]

I do like the Politics subforum idea, but then we get into Brier Patch/Think Tank territory. I think it's impossible to control what people say in the face of anonymity around here and that's unfortunate, but it's also the reason I don't participate in political threads.

After thinking about this over the night, I am still shocked at some of the quotes quoted in the original post but do wonder if this is an overreaction. Misc is a big forum, with a lot of people and a lot of ideas conflicting together. I agree the sexist comments need to stop, if it is a public figure or not, but things should be taken on a post by post, context by context basis. If not, than Misc will not be as great anymore and one of the reasons Misc was great was because the mods did know a bit of lenency when a post would require a bit of lenency.

 

[Squiggy]

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...

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Oh my.....

You know i'm taking that as tacit approval to keep on keeping on.


Whatever that means.


TITS!

 

[Squiggy]

Fun with selective quoting and ignoring context:

juvenile...boys...smutty...women ...both male and female .

An attempt to make...hard

hot... people...sniping at each other....


Split...in two.

...fun stuff...Make one a sub...

I'm not...tighter...just...Sarah Palin..."fun stuff" .

I am APPALLED!!!

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Oh my!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Here you go.

Aragorn's GBotW threads get checked over with a magnifying glass just in case someone might spot the tiniest amount of breast while, at the same time, we get pictures of guys with champagne bottles narrowly covering strategic areas.

Uh, do you have those examples, not just your claim after the moderator standard was laid out?

It was some time ago no, so no.

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

EDIT: Squiggy, if you have an opinion on how Miscellaneous should be handled as far as moderation goes, maybe you could try discussing this in a serious manner. Jokes have their place, but there are also other times when constructive discussion might be better.

 

[trampledamage]

Fun with selective quoting and ignoring context:

juvenile...boys...smutty...women ...both male and female .

An attempt to make...hard

hot... people...sniping at each other....


Split...in two.

...fun stuff...Make one a sub...

I'm not...tighter...just...Sarah Palin..."fun stuff" .

I am APPALLED!!!

Oi!

I'm speechless... I'm also spitting crackers over my keyboard which isn't good...

 

[sidious618]

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

I can give you an example. If I said "I'd like to fondle David Duchovny's ass" no one would care. Hell, some people would probably laugh. But if I said, "I'd like to fondle Jessica Biel's ass" people would bitch and moan and we'd end up with another thread like this.

 

[RoJoHen]

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

I can give you an example. If I said "I'd like to fondle David Duchovny's ass" no one would care. Hell, some people would probably laugh. But if I said, "I'd like to fondle Jessica Biel's ass" people would bitch and moan and we'd end up with another thread like this.

I can safely say that I am opposed to the idea of fondling David Duchovny's ass. I do, in fact, find it quite icky.

 

[sidious618]

I can safely say that I am opposed to the idea of fondling David Duchovny's ass. I do, in fact, find it quite icky.

I've actually had a crush on him for years. I'm completely straight otherwise but I'd make an exception for that man, no doubt.

 

[trampledamage]

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

I can give you an example. If I said "I'd like to fondle David Duchovny's ass" no one would care. Hell, some people would probably laugh. But if I said, "I'd like to fondle Jessica Biel's ass" people would bitch and moan and we'd end up with another thread like this.

Actually no. I don't think anyone would care two hoots if you said you wanted to fondle Jessica Biel's ass. If you said it in the middle of a thread about how she's planning to run for the Senate, then people might have a problem.

If there was a thread about Duchovny running for the Senate and it was derailed by women posting drool smilies ( but it's your example not mine ) - then there would be complaints too. Admittedly mostly along the line of "how come they're allowed to do this when we aren't" but that's the BBS for you.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

So, if the moderators are receiving enough complaints that they think there is a prevailing culture of sexism (humourous or otherwise) and not just isolated train-wrecks of threads or posts, then we all need to look to how we respond and joke and maybe dial it back a bit.

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]

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]

So, if the moderators are receiving enough complaints that they think there is a prevailing culture of sexism (humourous or otherwise) and not just isolated train-wrecks of threads or posts, then we all need to look to how we respond and joke and maybe dial it back a bit.

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."

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]

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]

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.

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.