Did you find this helpful?
Yes
48.8% (1202)
48.8% (1202)
No
3.7% (92)
3.7% (92)
Never put up irrelevant options, it's stupid and means that you won't get the results you created the poll for.
45.5% (1122)
45.5% (1122)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The Banhammer and You: A User's Guide to the Forums

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT
 

Because of the issues raised by some users about the moderation of more difficult subjects, like sexism and bigotry, we've been asked to make an 'official response'.

As in the Code of Conduct, these areas are already covered:

Use Our Forums Appropriately
Our forums are a place to talk with like-minded people, not a place to advertise your blog, webpage, YouTube channel or commercial enterprise. Your profile has a place for such things, and that is where it should stay. If you fail to do this, you will automatically get a 1 month suspension.

Similarly, posts including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community. An example of these are:
Piracy
Ad Blockers
Illegal Drugs in the United States
Illegal Acts in the United States
Pedophilia
Pornography
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks

We feel these rules are adequte enough to explain what not to post about these subjects, and considering the different amount of personal opinions, we cannot makes the rules any clearer without upsetting more people.

There were also issues raised about not being able to post more controversial opinions without fear of getting punished. However, as mentioned in the Moderation FAQ:

I want to post a controversial opinion, what should I do to avoid mod wrath?
Our cardinal rule is that it is more about how you say something, not what you say. Always make sure to explain your reasoning and to be respectful of other users, no matter their opinion. We do not usually punish people for someone else being offended; we punish them for being purposely offensive.

By following these guidelines, you should be able to avoid punishments for your opinions, as long as you stay civil when discussing them with each other.

As for Moderation inconsistency, as we've stated many times; it's a big forum. we rely on you, the users, to report the majority of posts that we review. If you feel a post is offensive, please report it.
Don't assume someone else will report it, because that might not be true. If someones opinion seems offensive, to you or to others, you can still report it. We give each reported post the same amount of consideration.

If you feel there is Moderator bias and your report isn't getting handled the way you wish, please PM an individual mod you trust, or a member of staff. There's also the Community Manager Nasrin, who is in charge of all the Moderators.
Here is a list of Moderators to contact about any of the issues raised on the forums.

All of the moderators try their best to make sure the Escapist is a friendly, welcoming environment, regaurdless of personal beliefs. However, to do this, we also need the cooperation of you, the users.

-The Moderation Team.

So basically you guys refuse to elaborate what constitutes sexism? I already brought the issue directly to the mods in the previous page where I provided several examples of people casually using the term "slut" in what I (and several other women on the site) felt was an inappropriate manner. Is your final answer that calling women sluts is not sexist by the Escapist's standards, and this issue is not going to be addressed?

manic_depressive13:
So basically you guys refuse to elaborate what constitutes sexism? I already brought the issue directly to the mods in the previous page where I provided several examples of people casually using the term "slut" in what I (and several other women on the site) felt was an inappropriate manner. Is your final answer that calling women sluts is not sexist by the Escapist's standards, and this issue is not going to be addressed?

The issue has been addressed, and the verdict is that while the word slut is sexist, users are still entitled to their opinion unless using it in an insulting or rude way.

sky14kemea:
The issue has been addressed, and the verdict is that while the word slut is sexist, users are still entitled to their opinion unless using it in an insulting or rude way.

So it's sexist but people are still allowed to use it without penalty? Well at least we finally got an honest "Yes it's sexist but we don't care" to put us in our place. It's not so bad though, I've always wanted to visit the 15th century.

Isn't using sexist language sort of insulting and rude by definition? You know, like, insulting and rude towards women?

manic_depressive13:

sky14kemea:
The issue has been addressed, and the verdict is that while the word slut is sexist, users are still entitled to their opinion unless using it in an insulting or rude way.

So it's sexist but people are still allowed to use it without penalty? Well at least we finally got an honest "Yes it's sexist but we don't care" to put us in our place. It's not so bad though, I've always wanted to visit the 15th century.

Isn't using sexist language sort of insulting and rude by definition? You know, like, insulting and rude towards women?

You may want to tone down the rude attitude a bit. We have taken this seriously.

There's a variety of users on the forum, some of them are going to have very controversial opinions. If we start punishing people for that, we'll end up angering lots more people.

It's not like we can just ban anyone who mentions the word "slut". Or any other slur for that matter. Otherwise there'd be no way to have a proper discussion about things.

Like it said in the statement, you're welcome to report those posts, and we'll see what we can do, but please don't expect us to bend over backwards for you and a few other users, when we have to make sure the forum is fair for everyone.

I want to try to approach this from an outside perspective, I am really trying not to be offensive towards the moderators (you guys do an awesome job of keeping the forums spam-free and by-and-large banhammering justly).

But the response to this issue does sound very depressing.

sky14kemea:
We have taken this seriously.

From the perspective of someone not involved in the debate here, it does not come across that you have. I am sure that you (the staff as a collective) have had debates amongst yourselves, I realise that this is a very hard issue to approach, and have taken said discussions seriously in assessing the impact on the forum as a whole. Yet the response as detailed in this thread does seem a little bit dismissive as I will come on to in a moment.

There's a variety of users on the forum, some of them are going to have very controversial opinions. If we start punishing people for that, we'll end up angering lots more people.

Yes, but as has been pointed out by yourself, "it is not what you say, but how you say it". I do not think that any controversial opinion should be stifled, that would be the antithesis of a forum, however it does seem that many instances of sexism and homophobia slip under the radar (hence why this issue has been highlighted in the first place). People should be free to criticise feminist and gay-rights movements, and to debate whether the actions of a certain group are leading to some of the societal problems we see, but one simply does not need to use words such as "slut" to do so.

However, the justification of "we'll end up angering lots more people" sounds a lot like "Well, [women/gay/transsexual users] are the minority of the user-base, and making the forum a more friendly place for them would anger the others, so sod them." I appreciate that is not the intention behind the statement, but in recent weeks this forum does seem like a very unfriendly place for female and minority posters.

It's not like we can just ban anyone who mentions the word "slut". Or any other slur for that matter. Otherwise there'd be no way to have a proper discussion about things.

I disagree. Whilst it has been mentioned that directly calling someone a "slut" will result in action (as it is an attack against the poster rather than the argument), it is possible to have a proper discussion without sliding into insults. It is quite possible to debate virtually any issue without needing to use such insulting or demeaning language.

For example, I would have thought that the following examples would get someone slammed with the hammer relatively quickly:

"Dress like a faggot, get treated like a faggot"
"Act like a nigger, get treated like a nigger"
"Some people are niggers"
"Some people are faggots"

Yet it is apparently fine to say that "some people [women] are sluts"? "If you dress like a slut then expect to get treated like a slut"?

Slut itself is a gender-loaded insult. Never has someone gone "Person X is a total slut", and the response has been "I wonder if he is talking about a man or a woman?". The very fact that when turning the term upon men it is distinguished with "man-slut", or more commonly "man-whore", shows that it is a term specifically derogatory to women. Just like faggot is specifically targeted towards homosexual men and nigger is directed towards those of Afro-Caribbean ancestry. It is not surprising that people within those groups feel that such language is offensive, derogatory, and flame-baiting.

Like it said in the statement, you're welcome to report those posts, and we'll see what we can do, but please don't expect us to bend over backwards for you and a few other users, when we have to make sure the forum is fair for everyone.

Again, this sounds a lot like a "sod the minority" mindset. As I said earlier, that is not your intention, but to allow people to label women as "sluts" and the general poor attitude towards women/homosexuals/transsexuals that seems to be prevalent, seems to go directly against the stated aims of the Code of Conduct. I do not mean the part about sexist or racist language, or calling groups who may visit the Escapist names, but rather:

"We want our forums to be a place where everyone, regardless of who they are, can gather to socialize and talk with like-minded people in a safe and welcoming environment"

I cannot blame the female (or other minority) posters for feeling that such an ideal is not being upheld - many of the recent topics (or rather, the attitudes expressed therein and the acceptance of them) have made me far more hesitant to want to continue my patronage of this community, which is a shame as I think it is a fantastic website and I really enjoy debating on it.

I want to state again that I think the staff do a fantastic job on the whole, and that this recent issue is a very tricky one to balance. I mean no ill will, and I figured I would throw my opinion into this thread to try to shed some extra light on where manic_depressive13 is coming from without any prior stake in this thread.

manic_depressive13:

Sorry, I was just trying to insert a bit of humour into a depressing situation. I get it, this is the gaming community. You lose the sexist and you lose your traffic. Ha, fair enough! No one needs to bend over, backwards or forwards. You have my blessing to just continue sitting on your hands.

Seriously, is that really necessary?

Superbeast:

However, the justification of "we'll end up angering lots more people" sounds a lot like "Well, [women/gay/transsexual users] are the minority of the user-base, and making the forum a more friendly place for them would anger the others, so sod them." I appreciate that is not the intention behind the statement, but in recent weeks this forum does seem like a very unfriendly place for female and minority posters.

You're right, that isn't the intention behind the statement, so please don't make it out to be so.

I disagree. Whilst it has been mentioned that directly calling someone a "slut" will result in action (as it is an attack against the poster rather than the argument), it is possible to have a proper discussion without sliding into insults. It is quite possible to debate virtually any issue without needing to use such insulting or demeaning language.

For example, I would have thought that the following examples would get someone slammed with the hammer relatively quickly:

"Dress like a faggot, get treated like a faggot"
"Act like a nigger, get treated like a nigger"
"Some people are niggers"
"Some people are faggots"

Yet it is apparently fine to say that "some people [women] are sluts"? "If you dress like a slut then expect to get treated like a slut"?

Now you're backing me into a corner. It is not fine to say that, but since I'm not omnipotent, I can't go around punishing people who do that unless people are willing to start reporting it.

I cannot blame the female (or other minority) posters for feeling that such an ideal is not being upheld - many of the recent topics (or rather, the attitudes expressed therein and the acceptance of them) have made me far more hesitant to want to continue my patronage of this community, which is a shame as I think it is a fantastic website and I really enjoy debating on it.

I can't control what people are currently talking about. I can lock as many threads as possible, and ban the word "slut" from even being referred to, but it won't change those topics being brought up. What you're asking me to do is basically become so strict that no one can have any serious debate without fear of "being oppressed".

I want to state again that I think the staff do a fantastic job on the whole, and that this recent issue is a very tricky one to balance. I mean no ill will, and I figured I would throw my opinion into this thread to try to shed some extra light on where manic_depressive13 is coming from without any prior stake in this thread.

Really? 'Cause it doesn't seem like you feel that way in the above comments. You don't need to back up your statements with "Oh, but I'm sure you're doing a good job!" I'm a big girl, I can take criticism.

I've stated before (somewhere) that I'm willing to take this issue on board and personally deal with it if people feel that the Moderators are being inconsistent. I always welcome PMs about problems, and I've always done what I can.

If doing my best won't satisfy people, then you'll just have to deal with the disappointment.

I feel like most insults are less offensive (I'm not even sure how some of these are even found offensive or considered insults) than the passing aggressive remarks stringent rules like these encourage. People won't usually respond with those words unprovoked.

sky14kemea:
You're right, that isn't the intention behind the statement, so please don't make it out to be so.

My point was that what I highlighted is the perception of what the response means, and hence it is what is getting Manic's back up. It is this perception that is making people feel that the moderation is inadequate on this matter, and it is this perception that is getting to some female posters.

Now you're backing me into a corner. It is not fine to say that, but since I'm not omnipotent, I can't go around punishing people who do that unless people are willing to start reporting it.

People do report such comments. They have apparently even messaged moderators in regards to them (an impression gained from posts made in other topics). Yet the posts can go unmoderated, hence it makes people feel that their group is fine to be attacked. The above perception of the moderators' stance on the issue does not help with that, and then you have the personal opinions of whichever moderator is going through the report que at that time. To use an earlier example, what if the moderator clearing the que has Eleuthera's opinion on the matter (given that the cat is already out of the bag with Manic discussing their views):

IMO, the issues brought forward by this user aren't sexism, they're definitely not nice, but calling a subgroup of women 'slut' and not all of them is pretty much by definition not sexism. The issue he has with "comparing women to houses, who have sex stolen from them" I also don't really agree with, I think it's a rather apt comparison usually.

Sure, it is only their personal opinion, but personal opinions are going to affect moderation. Hence there is inconsistency (which was the original issue that brought these complaints to light).

I can't control what people are currently talking about. I can lock as many threads as possible, and ban the word "slut" from even being referred to, but it won't change those topics being brought up. What you're asking me to do is basically become so strict that no one can have any serious debate without fear of "being oppressed".

Actually, no. I thought I had made that quite clear in my previous post. I cannot conceive of any discussion involving sexuality, gender or race that needs the words faggot, slut or nigger in order to be a "serious debate" (unless the debate is over whether those words are offensive). Given the threads that have kicked this off, people can criticise Anita Sarkeesian or discuss rape-prevention without needing to label women as "sluts". I do not see how stopping people use sexist insults stifles discussion in any way at all, and I do not think that is would be "oppression" to enforce the rules of the Code of Conduct. If one wants to criticise the "Tropes Vs women" video they can in a polite manner, if one wants to express that they feel gay rights would be detrimental to society/religion/thier own personal values then they can do so in a polite manner. I am not calling for any topic to be banned but rather insulting and demeaning terms. They make the forum a less pleasant place for certain minority groups and do not actually contribute to any discussion surrounding their related subjects aside from being needlessly antagonistic.

Really? 'Cause it doesn't seem like you feel that way in the above comments. You don't need to back up your statements with "Oh, but I'm sure you're doing a good job!" I'm a big girl, I can take criticism.

My point was actually that on the whole I feel the moderation is fairly good on this website, however on this particular matter it seems to be failing. That is my criticism. That is why I couched it with praise - because in other areas I feel that the moderation is actually deserving of praise (and I do not believe in being a totally negative-nancy, and I wanted to make it clear it is about one specific issue to avoid any claims of general "mod sass").

I've stated before (somewhere) that I'm willing to take this issue on board and personally deal with it if people feel that the Moderators are being inconsistent. I always welcome PMs about problems, and I've always done what I can.

Whilst it is fantastic that you are willing to take this burden on board, that does send rather mixed signals with both the announcement made and the potential views of other staff members. It goes back to increasing inconsistency - if someone contacts you personally and you act upon "sexist language", yet a different poster reports a post for "sexist language" which goes unmoderated because the moderator in question does not feel the language is actually sexist, then there has been a net increase in the inconsistency as well as a general sense of vaguness as to what that line in the Code of Conduct actually means - both whether it can be said in the first place, and whether it is right to report such posts.

If doing my best won't satisfy people, then you'll just have to deal with the disappointment.

I do apologise, I was hoping to give constructive criticism (to the Staff as a whole) with my post, but it appears that I have miscommunicated if that is truly your response.

sky14kemea:

manic_depressive13:
So basically you guys refuse to elaborate what constitutes sexism? I already brought the issue directly to the mods in the previous page where I provided several examples of people casually using the term "slut" in what I (and several other women on the site) felt was an inappropriate manner. Is your final answer that calling women sluts is not sexist by the Escapist's standards, and this issue is not going to be addressed?

The issue has been addressed, and the verdict is that while the word slut is sexist, users are still entitled to their opinion unless using it in an insulting or rude way.

Well if it's sexist then why is it okay to use if the rules ban sexism? It seems misleading to say sexist remarks are not allowed in the rules if it is allowed so that people can voice their opinions.

Now I get that there's this point to deal with:

It's not like we can just ban anyone who mentions the word "slut". Or any other slur for that matter. Otherwise there'd be no way to have a proper discussion about things.

And I can understand letting it be used as a reference like one can use 'nigger' to refer to the word or someone else's use of it, but not when applying it to people. But it doesn't get that treatment, since people are apparently allowed to apply it to women so long as it's not specific women on the board. At least that is how it seems going by the lack of moderation on its usage in the thread Manic linked. And I'd say its use is not integral to an actual discussion, is it? Do we ever need to refer to women as sluts to give an opinion? Unless the opinion itself is about deeming people to be sluts(which I think is about as appropriate as a discussion deeming certain gay people faggots or the like) I don't see how it stifles discussion if they can use other words.

And I get why Manic would be annoyed. She sees sexist remarks and they go unmoderated regardless of reporting. So she asks for a clarification of what the Escapist defines as sexism because it seems that the mod team has a rather different opinion on it than her since they claim to ban sexist remarks, but in her opinion and that of others it appears that they go unmoderated by policy and not lack of notice in some instances (Not saying completely). That is not to say I'm claiming the moderators purposefully ignorance sexism by policy, but seem to have a different idea of it than some of us given what remarks don't seem to qualify as sexist remarks.

manic_depressive13:

cerebreturns:
People don't use it as a defense for rape except in cases of where the woman's character comes into question. It's the same way as a woman who's constantly going to bars, who is known for being a slut and so on.

If enough tags up then it can be considered circumstantial evidence against her case of rape.

There are a lot of cases of women later on coming out and saying that the person who "raped" them in fact didn't rape them but they said it.

The Unworthy Gentleman:
They don't use it as a defence for rape. It's a way of giving the person who wore as much as a bra and some knickers some responsibility. Dressing like a slut means you're only going to be seen and treated as a slut by some stranger, hell probably even to a lot of people who know you well, so some responsibility needs to be accepted for that.

For me, I think, part of the issue comes from how words are targeted rather than which words are used. Sentiments like "EA is filled with bastards and whores" isn't really actionable in any major way because it's a loose target of displeasure rather than a targeted attack on an individual or group, even those both insults are gender-associated. In the same way that "Bronies are a blight on forums" isn't really actionable, even though we have user groups and threads devoted almost exclusively to brony subculture. It's a question of what we can theoretically police versus what would be impractical.

I will state that if we would attempt to police that much of that much of the language of Escapists, one of two things would happen:

1) Moderators by and large would be overwhelmed by the input. "Bastard" ceases to become a statement and more a bannable offense, so does "slut," and "whore," and "dick," and "pussy," and "asshole," and almost any word that becomes contextual to a certain degree. Language is just too wide and too varied to be universally applicable. So if we start putting blanket bans down on certain types of language, it restricts how much freedom we have to isolate actual problem cases, and how much of it comes down to whether or not one or two words are "too offensive" to some, but not others.

2) Huge outcries of "Censorship!" would pick up. "Who are [we] to quash someone's right to call a slut a slut?" will become a thing in the same way "troll" had that very argument ad nauseum on the Religion and Politics sticky thread. It would either result in mass-protests, mass-banning, or both.

It becomes wildly impractical to be Policemen, Janitors, and Minsters of Taste. We just can't do it, and further, I'm almost certain the users wouldn't have it. I hate the idea that people can openly post offensive things, but its also a side effect of a wildly disparate set of persons with different cultural acceptances, life experiences, and thoughts on acceptable language. There are memes and subreddits and forums entirely devoted a precise cultures and even they will have arguments and disagreements about what language is acceptable in context. You open that to the entire world, and everything becomes ridiculously complicated. Ask an Englishman and an American how bad the C-word is, and you'll get a wildly different scale. Ask the same about the word "fanny" and you'll get very different answers. There's just too much there for one word to have that much power. In the same way that I can dislike "Your mom" jokes for one of my life experiences, and another could find them uproariously funny. There's just too much variance. Which is precisely the reason users have the option to use the Ignore function and avoid certain threads.

I hate it, I hate that there are things out there that people can be offended by and nothing can be done about it. But the fact of the matter is regardless of how much we dislike or don't mind certain pieces of language, we have to look at a global context.

Do you find "slut" sexist? Clearly the answer is yes.
Does someone else? Maybe.
Can someone just find it a genderless insult? Also yes.

Consider moderator's role more of a beat cop rather than a judge. We have to follow laws as they're written otherwise there are powers to be abused. Would a policeman offer help to someone being raped? Absolutely. Would a policeman arrest someone for calling someone else a slut? No, they'd just say "break it up" and move along. That is our job.

AnarchistFish:
I feel like most insults are less offensive (I'm not even sure how some of these are even found offensive or considered insults) than the passing aggressive remarks stringent rules like these encourage. People won't usually respond with those words unprovoked.

And this is precisely what I'm talking about. Language has too much context for it to be a simply "yes" or "no" as to why one word or one insult is more or less actionable. We can't be the absolute judges of whether or not language is good or bad. That's for lawmakers and courts. We're just cops.

Superbeast:
I cannot conceive of any discussion involving sexuality, gender or race that needs the words faggot, slut or nigger in order to be a "serious debate" (unless the debate is over whether those words are offensive). Given the threads that have kicked this off, people can criticise Anita Sarkeesian or discuss rape-prevention without needing to label women as "sluts". I do not see how stopping people use sexist insults stifles discussion in any way at all, and I do not think that is would be "oppression" to enforce the rules of the Code of Conduct. If one wants to criticise the "Tropes Vs women" video they can in a polite manner, if one wants to express that they feel gay rights would be detrimental to society/religion/thier own personal values then they can do so in a polite manner. I am not calling for any topic to be banned but rather insulting and demeaning terms. They make the forum a less pleasant place for certain minority groups and do not actually contribute to any discussion surrounding their related subjects aside from being needlessly antagonistic.

It goes back to increasing inconsistency - if someone contacts you personally and you act upon "sexist language", yet a different poster reports a post for "sexist language" which goes unmoderated because the moderator in question does not feel the language is actually sexist, then there has been a net increase in the inconsistency as well as a general sense of vaguness as to what that line in the Code of Conduct actually means - both whether it can be said in the first place, and whether it is right to report such posts.

I do apologise, I was hoping to give constructive criticism (to the Staff as a whole) with my post[.]

Which brings us back to a position of instability. Moderation by and large will be a little inconsistent, and there's actually very little we can do about that. To make the rules uniform would either make the rules too brittle, or too loose. That's just a side effect of varying opinions.

But more accurately, I think that saying "No argument needs pejorative" is the wrong approach because the rules address insults and aggression. I'm pretty sure we're mostly in agreement there. What should be attended to is that the language itself is called into question, not that insults should or shouldn't be acceptable. How do we define what is and isn't acceptable in terms of what are simply words, and which are or aren't insulting enough to be actionable?

Further, we have to establish targeted language. While you agree that there is variance in language's offensiveness, mods also have to determine which targets are in breach of the Code of Conduct. It means that while "slut" can be a blanket insult to all women, we have to determine its use as such rather than simply using it as a word for hypothetical individuals.

Without those distinctions, moderation becomes modifying rules on the fly on a case-by-case basis rather than applies the consistent rules as seems most accurate to the situation.

NewClassic:

manic_depressive13:

cerebreturns:
People don't use it as a defense for rape except in cases of where the woman's character comes into question. It's the same way as a woman who's constantly going to bars, who is known for being a slut and so on.

If enough tags up then it can be considered circumstantial evidence against her case of rape.

There are a lot of cases of women later on coming out and saying that the person who "raped" them in fact didn't rape them but they said it.

The Unworthy Gentleman:
They don't use it as a defence for rape. It's a way of giving the person who wore as much as a bra and some knickers some responsibility. Dressing like a slut means you're only going to be seen and treated as a slut by some stranger, hell probably even to a lot of people who know you well, so some responsibility needs to be accepted for that.

For me, I think, part of the issue comes from how words are targeted rather than which words are used. Sentiments like "EA is filled with bastards and whores" isn't really actionable in any major way because it's a loose target of displeasure rather than a targeted attack on an individual or group, even those both insults are gender-associated. In the same way that "Bronies are a blight on forums" isn't really actionable, even though we have user groups and threads devoted almost exclusively to brony subculture. It's a question of what we can theoretically police versus what would be impractical.

Isn't saying 'Bronies are a blight on forums' kind of like telling all the bronies 'You're a blight on forums?' Just kind of a side note, since it seems like an attack on people who are around here on the forums.

I will state that if we would attempt to police that much of that much of the language of Escapists, one of two things would happen:

1) Moderators by and large would be overwhelmed by the input. "Bastard" ceases to become a statement and more a bannable offense, so does "slut," and "whore," and "dick," and "pussy," and "asshole," and almost any word that becomes contextual to a certain degree. Language is just too wide and too varied to be universally applicable. So if we start putting blanket bans down on certain types of language, it restricts how much freedom we have to isolate actual problem cases, and how much of it comes down to whether or not one or two words are "too offensive" to some, but not others.

But is it a blanket ban she's asking for? In the posts she quotes it's not exactly like calling EA names. In fact, I'd say the one about bars is more akin to someone insulting all people who go to churches. It's quite possible that a woman here would go to bars and perhaps enjoy sex. It's not like people they seem to imply are sluts wouldn't be liable to be around.

2) Huge outcries of "Censorship!" would pick up. "Who are [we] to quash someone's right to call a slut a slut?" will become a thing in the same way "troll" had that very argument ad nauseum on the Religion and Politics sticky thread. It would either result in mass-protests, mass-banning, or both.

Well right now we have the opposite, don't we? People are displeased about how sexism is being handled. As for the "Who are we to quash someone's right..." you could apply that to any slur you wanted. Someone could say that about 'fags'. Is that kind of argument really something that the moderators ought to consider?

It becomes wildly impractical to be Policemen, Janitors, and Minsters of Taste. We just can't do it, and further, I'm almost certain the users wouldn't have it. I hate the idea that people can openly post offensive things, but its also a side effect of a wildly disparate set of persons with different cultural acceptances, life experiences, and thoughts on acceptable language. There are memes and subreddits and forums entirely devoted a precise cultures and even they will have arguments and disagreements about what language is acceptable in context. You open that to the entire world, and everything becomes ridiculously complicated. Ask an Englishman and an American how bad the C-word is, and you'll get a wildly different scale. Ask the same about the word "fanny" and you'll get very different answers. There's just too much there for one word to have that much power. In the same way that I can dislike "Your mom" jokes for one of my life experiences, and another could find them uproariously funny. There's just too much variance. Which is precisely the reason users have the option to use the Ignore function and avoid certain threads.

But the thing is in this case it is something that is quite offensive towards particular people, isn't it? And it outright lists "Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks" as something that can get people in trouble. It's something that insults a whole swathe of people if their behavior doesn't meet the standards of the poster. And it doesn't seem a big stretch to assume people could be around who others would deem a slut. I can understand it for criminals or people who are likely not to be here, but it seems like for other groups here you can't simply say something that would speak poorly of them. Like I assume I can't just throw a jab at all people who are religious and call them all something offensive because I don't approve of their behavior. Or defend it with "I'm just calling a ____ a ____"

I hate it, I hate that there are things out there that people can be offended by and nothing can be done about it. But the fact of the matter is regardless of how much we dislike or don't mind certain pieces of language, we have to look at a global context.

Do you find "slut" sexist? Clearly the answer is yes.
Does someone else? Maybe.
Can someone just find it a genderless insult? Also yes.

Consider moderator's role more of a beat cop rather than a judge. We have to follow laws as they're written otherwise there are powers to be abused. Would a policeman offer help to someone being raped? Absolutely. Would a policeman arrest someone for calling someone else a slut? No, they'd just say "break it up" and move along. That is our job.

But the thing is in this case the rules seem to say that 'Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks' are not allowed, so from at least my perspective you're not playing judge. But if you don't think that does give it to you, then do you see why certain people would want clarification on the rules? Because I, at least, see things like the posts manic quoted as rather sexist remarks. So it seems that if you do not have the authority to do anything about it then the rules are not all that clear to everyone in that regard.

And really, but not moderating it are you not simply saying that the mod team does not recognize it as sexist? Either way a position is taken since it either breaks the rules or does not. And if it does not the implication is that it does not fall under 'Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks'.

And the comparison is kind of unhelpful, at least to me, in that you guys do warn for insulting other users so I'm not sure what your point is. It does seem to fall under the rules.

Further, we have to establish targeted language. While you agree that there is variance in language's offensiveness, mods also have to determine which targets are in breach of the Code of Conduct. It means that while "slut" can be a blanket insult to all women, we have to determine its use as such rather than simply using it as a word for hypothetical individuals.

But in that same vein couldn't people start throwing slurs at hypothetical targets also? And it's not very hypothetical in that it's kind of targeting anyone who sleeps around a lot or dresses in a certain way. Both things that people here could reasonably do. It's an insult that could quite likely apply to other posts, just as if I insulted people who believed in a god or something.

And I really think you're thinking manic asked for something I think she didn't, specifically making any use of the word 'slut' worthy of a warning.

NewClassic:
For me, I think, part of the issue comes from how words are targeted rather than which words are used. Sentiments like "EA is filled with bastards and whores" isn't really actionable in any major way because it's a loose target of displeasure rather than a targeted attack on an individual or group, even those both insults are gender-associated. In the same way that "Bronies are a blight on forums" isn't really actionable, even though we have user groups and threads devoted almost exclusively to brony subculture. It's a question of what we can theoretically police versus what would be impractical.

Is "Women are a blight on the forums" or "Black people are a blight on the forums" acceptable? Look I smoke, I'm a vegetarian, I belong to quite a few groups that people around her seem to viciously hate. But vegetarians aren't a disadvantaged group with a history of horrific oppression. Smokers aren't a disadvantaged group. Nor are bronies. I don't really see how you can compare those things.

Although that remark towards bronies would be pretty rude and I'm certain I've seen people actioned for stuff along those lines. It's still not remotely comparable.

1) Moderators by and large would be overwhelmed by the input. "Bastard" ceases to become a statement and more a bannable offense, so does "slut," and "whore," and "dick," and "pussy," and "asshole," and almost any word that becomes contextual to a certain degree. Language is just too wide and too varied to be universally applicable. So if we start putting blanket bans down on certain types of language, it restricts how much freedom we have to isolate actual problem cases, and how much of it comes down to whether or not one or two words are "too offensive" to some, but not others.

Except dick, pussy, cunt, cock are just swears, they refer to genitals and that's it. "Slut" is a slur that shames women for their sexuality. "Fag" is a slur that shames people for their sexuality.

2) Huge outcries of "Censorship!" would pick up. "Who are [we] to quash someone's right to call a slut a slut?" will become a thing in the same way "troll" had that very argument ad nauseum on the Religion and Politics sticky thread. It would either result in mass-protests, mass-banning, or both.

Well who are you to quash people's right to call people "fags" and "niggers"? You honestly think the forum will devolve into chaos if you don't let the people here shame women for their sexuality?

It becomes wildly impractical to be Policemen, Janitors, and Minsters of Taste. We just can't do it, and further, I'm almost certain the users wouldn't have it. I hate the idea that people can openly post offensive things, but its also a side effect of a wildly disparate set of persons with different cultural acceptances, life experiences, and thoughts on acceptable language. There are memes and subreddits and forums entirely devoted a precise cultures and even they will have arguments and disagreements about what language is acceptable in context. You open that to the entire world, and everything becomes ridiculously complicated. Ask an Englishman and an American how bad the C-word is, and you'll get a wildly different scale. Ask the same about the word "fanny" and you'll get very different answers. There's just too much there for one word to have that much power. In the same way that I can dislike "Your mom" jokes for one of my life experiences, and another could find them uproariously funny. There's just too much variance. Which is precisely the reason users have the option to use the Ignore function and avoid certain threads.

I'm not sure cunt is a thing in England either. Anyway, it's just a word that refers to the vajay-jay. Yeah it's rude, but it's like fuck or cock or shit. It doesn't have meaning like "slut" which is intended to shame women for their sexuality, in case you missed that.

Do you find "slut" sexist? Clearly the answer is yes.
Does someone else? Maybe.
Can someone just find it a genderless insult? Also yes.

Some people think "nigger" and "faggot" are just general insults as well. We dismiss those people as ignorant people who should learn about context before flinging around hurtful slurs.

Consider moderator's role more of a beat cop

You exist to assert the power of priveleged white people and are frequently abusive towards blacks, gays and people with mental illness? The whole reason that thread started was because it was the cops who called women sluts, so I guess you've made quite the accurate analogy. Remember? The public were outraged that people in a position of power would hold and perpetuate such insulting and misinformed opinions.

The cops wouldn't arrest someone for calling someone a "faggot" either. Hell, they'd probably join in the beating.

Finally, obviously context should be taken into account. I've used multiple slurs in my posts but I've used them as examples of things that are disgusting and shouldn't be allowed. I'm not suggesting you instaban anyone who types "slut".

As mentioned in the Moderation FAQ:

I want to post a controversial opinion, what should I do to avoid mod wrath?
Our cardinal rule is that it is more about how you say something, not what you say. Always make sure to explain your reasoning and to be respectful of other users, no matter their opinion. We do not usually punish people for someone else being offended; we punish them for being purposely offensive.

By following these guidelines, you should be able to avoid punishments for your opinions, as long as you stay civil when discussing them with each other.

Why does this not answer most of these issues?

If you are being intentionally offensive with how you put across a sexist (or any other kind of) opinion then we will take action. If you are discussing it in a fair and reasonable manner then we won't take action.

We can't read minds. I personally try to look at all moderated posts without a personal opinion on their content. If they break the rules, they get moderated, if they don't then they don't. The obvious problem of "is it offensive" to me comes down to the statement at the top of this post. If it was written to be obviously malicious, provocative to a specific user or in any other way that breaks the forum rules then it will be moderated.

TimeLord:
Why does this not answer most of these issues?

That's a really good question. Why is it that when we asked for clarification of the rules all we got was reiteration?

manic_depressive13:

TimeLord:
Why does this not answer most of these issues?

That's a really good question. Why is it that when we asked for clarification of the rules all we got was reiteration?

Because the rules that already exist explain how to not get banned.

If you use sexist slurs in an intentionally offensive, malicious or rule breaking manner (flaming, trolling etc) then you will be moderated.
If you don't, you won't.

TimeLord:

As mentioned in the Moderation FAQ:

I want to post a controversial opinion, what should I do to avoid mod wrath?
Our cardinal rule is that it is more about how you say something, not what you say. Always make sure to explain your reasoning and to be respectful of other users, no matter their opinion. We do not usually punish people for someone else being offended; we punish them for being purposely offensive.

By following these guidelines, you should be able to avoid punishments for your opinions, as long as you stay civil when discussing them with each other.

Why does this not answer most of these issues?

If you are being intentionally offensive with how you put across a sexist (or any other kind of) opinion then we will take action. If you are discussing it in a fair and reasonable manner then we won't take action.

We can't read minds. I personally try to look at all moderated posts without a personal opinion on their content. If they break the rules, they get moderated, if they don't then they don't. The obvious problem of "is it offensive" to me comes down to the statement at the top of this post. If it was written to be obviously malicious, provocative to a specific user or in any other way that breaks the forum rules then it will be moderated.

Because the section that I'm looking at is not that one, but this one:

Similarly, posts including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community. An example of these are:
Piracy
Ad Blockers
Illegal Drugs in the United States
Illegal Acts in the United States
Pedophilia
Pornography
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks

I assume the others don't generally get exceptions. If you advocate to for pedophilia no matter how nicely, you'll get hit, yeah? So I don't see why 'nicely' put sexist remarks get a pass.

And actually even in the other section, I don't see how insulting women who go in bars and sleep around isn't likely to be offensive to people. How can it possibly be respectful to call people who have more sex than one person likes a slut? It could easily apply to people on the board, can't it?

TimeLord:

manic_depressive13:

TimeLord:
Why does this not answer most of these issues?

That's a really good question. Why is it that when we asked for clarification of the rules all we got was reiteration?

Because the rules that already exist explain how to not get banned.

If you use sexist slurs in an intentionally offensive, malicious or rule breaking manner (flaming, trolling etc) then you will be moderated.
If you don't, you won't.

Sexist slurs in themselves ought to be rule breaking because sexism is against the rules. I don't fucking understand what you mean by "if sexist slurs are used in a rule breaking manner". They're SEXIST. The rules say no SEXISM. Remove the clause that forbids sexism, and try to avoid patronising the shit out of people who are disappointed by the Mod's frankly rude dismissal of this issue as if we're the ones having difficulty with comprehension.

On the one hand you say sexism is against the rules.
You mostly acknowledge that "slut" is a sexist slur.
You go on to say that you're still pretty much not going to do anything about it.

And when I give up and say "Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged" I'm accused of being rude and unfair. I get told that you're taking this issue "seriously" when all you're doing is copy-pasting the rules saying "LOOK IT SAYS IT HERE WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ARE YOU STUPID?" You act as though I'm demanding this forum be run according to my every whim, instead of a simple line drawn on sexism and bigotry. It's hard to believe you're taking this seriously when so far the mods have mostly just been rude and defensive with regards to the issue, did absolutely nothing to address the problem and I'm convinced that any moment now I'm going to get hit with another suspension for "mod sass" because apparently asking you to actually do the job you accepted responsibility for is crossing the line on these forums.

But not calling "some" women sluts. That's just dandy.

manic_depressive13:
Sexist slurs in themselves ought to be rule breaking because sexism is against the rules. I don't fucking understand what you mean by "if sexist slurs are used in a rule breaking manner". They're SEXIST. The rules say no SEXISM. Remove the clause that forbids sexism, and try to avoid patronising the shit out of people who are disappointed by the Mod's frankly rude dismissal of this issue as if we're the ones having difficulty with comprehension.

Talking about sexism and/or sexist slurs in a non-aggressive manner, for example discussing them and their use in modern society or something similar. When it gets to point of "You are a slut" comments then we would obviously step in.

And when I give up and say "Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged" I'm accused of being rude and unfair. I get told that you're taking this issue "seriously" when all you're doing is copy-pasting the rules saying "LOOK IT SAYS IT HERE WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ARE YOU STUPID?" You act as though I'm demanding this forum be run according to my every whim, instead of a simple line drawn on sexism and bigotry. It's hard to believe you're taking this seriously when so far the mods have mostly just been rude and defensive with regards to the issue, did absolutely nothing to address the problem and I'm convinced that any moment now I'm going to get hit with another suspension for "mod sass" because apparently asking you to actually do the job you accepted responsibility for is crossing the line on these forums.

Because I personally do not understand what your issue is. From my point of view the rules are clear.
I appologise if myself or my fellow mods have come across as as rude or dismissive however I can assure you that the the issue of sexism and sexist posts is being discussed by us behind the scenes to resolve the concerns raised. The post sky14kemea made above;

Was co-written with the Community Manager and we assumed would answer your concerns.

Unfortunately, to parrot a phrase from the above statement;

"We feel these rules are adequte enough to explain what not to post about these subjects, and considering the different amount of personal opinions, we cannot makes the rules any clearer without upsetting more people."

Because such posts (and many others concerning "offensive" content) are at the end of the day, personal opinions, and while we can detach ourselves from our personal opinions in order to moderate the Escapist, we can't know exactly how offensive a certain post was to everyone. Some people might simply find the use of the word "slut" offensive, whatever the context. However another user might not get offended until actively insulted by being called a slut. Therefore posts anywhere between (and including) the two extreme ends of the spectrum can, and will, get reported. We want these forums to be a place to discuss issues freely without fear of censorship, which is a reason for the rules being the way they are.

manic_depressive13:
...Look I smoke, I'm a vegetarian, I belong to quite a few groups that people around her seem to viciously hate. But vegetarians aren't a disadvantaged group with a history of horrific oppression. Smokers aren't a disadvantaged group. Nor are bronies. I don't really see how you can compare those things.

..."Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged"...

...Slut isn't gender neutral. As I said it has historical and cultural connotations. I find your denial of this absurd and disturbing. I honestly don't know how to respond to it. Someone may as well be telling me that "nigger" isn't a racial slur, and it's the same as using the word "dick" or "shithead". It just isn't. I don't even. You can't just randomly swap the offensive word and pretend it's the same thing. "Asshole" isn't a slur. They could have said "some women are assholes" but they didn't- they used the word slut and that's not something that should be acceptable, particularly when you are pretending that sexism is against the Code of Conduct.

From this, I infer a vast gap between how versed you are in how critical socio-lingusitic gender theory treats various words, and how versed you can ask the average user on here to be.

This is a place where people come to discuss whether the revamped combat system of the latest God of War have improved or taken away from the gameplay, and whether or not the art design have become more generic. Yet some users start discussions using sociological terms from academic neo-marxist critical theory, such as privilege. And/or see terms such as "slut" in their sociolinguistic context, with the full weight of the history they originate in.

Few people are capable of conducting such a discussion on such a level. Fewer still care to do so. So the result will be the same as if I went down to the shopping mall, and tried to start up a spirited discussion on to what extent Kant's ethical maxim is compatible with legalizing assisted suicide; Lots of ignorance - at least from my point of view, since in reality nobody can be expected to know or care about it - knee-jerk reactions, polarized positions, and passive-aggressiveness aimed at my position/person. Expecting mall security to remove those who reacted poorly to it would hardly be reasonable though.

As Timelord mentions, people come from a lot of different backgrounds. Moderating posts based on a standard of western socio-lingustic academia would hardly make these forums more accommodating. It'd avoid the feelings of a few who are as emotionally vested in this field as they are knowledgeable about it being stepped upon; At the cost of forcing everyone else to tip-toe around the issue, to the point that for all practical purposes they'd be excluded from discussion of it.

So no, the mods aren't embracing sexism. It'd seem they just want to moderate on whether there's any actual malice and sexist intent behind the use of certain terms, rather than what the master level gender studies course on them might say they entail. A very reasonable approach to moderation on a forum that wish to accommodate users from a wide range of cultural and educational backgrounds, and isn't specifically about this topic either.

TopazFusion:
I'm not going to quote anyone here, cause it'll make this page longer than it needs to be, ... but here's my 2 cents on this...


I see a number of people here comparing the word "slut" with the word "nigger".
This is a silly comparison. You're comparing apples with oranges.

The reason is, "slut", just like the word "troll", is a behavioral description.
Someone can be behaving "like a slut" +, just like someone can be behaving "like a troll" +.

Someone cannot "behave like a nigger". The word just doesn't make sense in this context. It's nothing more than a racial slur, and has nothing to do with the behavior of the person.

"Slut" and "troll" + on the other hand, reference the way the individual in question is behaving. Be it in a promiscuous fashion (in the case of the word "slut"), or in a trollish manner (in the case of the word "troll").


+ Just remember you cannot call anyone on this forum a "slut" or a "troll". Let me make that very clear, and drive that point home.

Yes and no. You have people arguing that "nigger" isn't an racist word, that they use it not be mean black people, but black people who are X, Y and Z. Yeah, I don't believe that either.

OTOH, you have people using the word "slut", not just for women who do X, Y and Z (which are all perfectly legal and admirable in men, of course), but just for any woman they don't like.

...

At the risk of seeming cynical, though, did anyone particularly expect the rules to be enforced as stated?

Imperator_DK:

manic_depressive13:
...Look I smoke, I'm a vegetarian, I belong to quite a few groups that people around her seem to viciously hate. But vegetarians aren't a disadvantaged group with a history of horrific oppression. Smokers aren't a disadvantaged group. Nor are bronies. I don't really see how you can compare those things.

..."Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged"...

...Slut isn't gender neutral. As I said it has historical and cultural connotations. I find your denial of this absurd and disturbing. I honestly don't know how to respond to it. Someone may as well be telling me that "nigger" isn't a racial slur, and it's the same as using the word "dick" or "shithead". It just isn't. I don't even. You can't just randomly swap the offensive word and pretend it's the same thing. "Asshole" isn't a slur. They could have said "some women are assholes" but they didn't- they used the word slut and that's not something that should be acceptable, particularly when you are pretending that sexism is against the Code of Conduct.

From this, I infer a vast gap between how versed you are in how critical socio-lingusitic gender theory treats various words, and how versed you can ask the average user on here to be.

This is a place where people come to discuss whether the revamped combat system of the latest God of War have improved or taken away from the gameplay, and whether or not the art design have become more generic. Yet some users start discussions using sociological terms from academic neo-marxist critical theory, such as privilege. And/or see terms such as "slut" in their sociolinguistic context, with the full weight of the history they originate in.

Few people are capable of conducting such a discussion on such a level. Fewer still care to do so. So the result will be the same as if I went down to the shopping mall, and tried to start up a spirited discussion on to what extent Kant's ethical maxim is compatible with legalizing assisted suicide; Lots of ignorance - at least from my point of view, since in reality nobody can be expected to know or care about it - knee-jerk reactions, polarized positions, and passive-aggressiveness aimed at my position/person. Expecting mall security to remove those who reacted poorly to it would hardly be reasonable though.

As Timelord mentions, people come from a lot of different backgrounds. Moderating posts based on a standard of western socio-lingustic academia would hardly make these forums more accommodating. It'd avoid the feelings of a few who are as emotionally vested in this field as they are knowledgeable about it being stepped upon; At the cost of forcing everyone else to tip-toe around the issue, to the point that for all practical purposes they'd be excluded from discussion of it.

So no, the mods aren't embracing sexism. It'd seem they just want to moderate on whether there's any actual malice and sexist intent behind the use of certain terms, rather than what the master level gender studies course on them might say they entail. A very reasonable approach to moderation on a forum that wish to accommodate users from a wide range of cultural and educational backgrounds, and isn't specifically about this topic either.

But again, why then may someone not be called a fag? I see the two (slut and fag) as equivalent, in that both are perjoratives against a group that are ingrained enough in the public's psyche that they are often used without any intent to insult a specific sexual identity. Yet one is tolerated, while the other is not? I see the same logic applied to "cunt", though admittedly this is much rarer.

Kaulen Fuhs:
...
But again, why then may someone not be called a fag? I see the two (slut and fag) as equivalent, in that both are perjoratives against a group that are ingrained enough in the public's psyche that they are often used without any intent to insult a specific sexual identity. Yet one is tolerated, while the other is not? I see the same logic applied to "cunt", though admittedly this is much rarer.

Pretty sure that you can't call any escapist user a slut. And that you could call the Westborough Baptist Church fags - a particularly efficient insult against such extreme homophobes - so long as it's backed up with arguments explaining why they suck.

Might also have to do with "fag" being more uncommon and hence more noticeable, it being more likely to appear in a context which makes it actionable, gays being a much smaller minority and hotter topic in the US, wanting to differentiate the site from 4chan (where it's apparently how users commonly refer to each other), or simply an understandable lack of a very detailed coordination in regard to which exact words are actionable under which circumstances.

I for one see no reason why "This Simshitty title just proves that EA are fags!" or the like should be moderated though. While crude and nonconstructive, it simply express anger at the rise of business practices which are ever less transparent and consumer friendly, to the point of now interfering with the product. But I'm no mod.

Imperator_DK:

Kaulen Fuhs:
...
But again, why then may someone not be called a fag? I see the two (slut and fag) as equivalent, in that both are perjoratives against a group that are ingrained enough in the public's psyche that they are often used without any intent to insult a specific sexual identity. Yet one is tolerated, while the other is not? I see the same logic applied to "cunt", though admittedly this is much rarer.

Pretty sure that you can't call any escapist user a slut. And that you could call the Westborough Baptist Church fags - a particularly efficient insult against such extreme homophobes - so long as it's backed up with arguments explaining why they suck. Might also have to do with "fag" being more uncommon and hence more noticeable, it being more likely to appear in a context which makes it actionable, gays being a much smaller minority and hotter topic in the US, wanting to differentiate the site from 4chan (where it's apparently how users commonly refer to each other), or simply an understandable lack of a very detailed coordination in regard to which exact words are actionable under which circumstances.

I for one see no reason why "This Simshitty title just proves that EA are fags!" or the like should be moderated though. While crude and nonconstructive, it simply express anger at the rise of business practices which are ever less transparent and consumer friendly, to the point of now interfering with the product. But I'm no mod.

I tend to be of the opinion that the sooner we extinguish this kind of pathetic language from everyday usage, the better, but I see your point.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Imperator_DK:

Kaulen Fuhs:
...
But again, why then may someone not be called a fag? I see the two (slut and fag) as equivalent, in that both are perjoratives against a group that are ingrained enough in the public's psyche that they are often used without any intent to insult a specific sexual identity. Yet one is tolerated, while the other is not? I see the same logic applied to "cunt", though admittedly this is much rarer.

Pretty sure that you can't call any escapist user a slut. And that you could call the Westborough Baptist Church fags - a particularly efficient insult against such extreme homophobes - so long as it's backed up with arguments explaining why they suck. Might also have to do with "fag" being more uncommon and hence more noticeable, it being more likely to appear in a context which makes it actionable, gays being a much smaller minority and hotter topic in the US, wanting to differentiate the site from 4chan (where it's apparently how users commonly refer to each other), or simply an understandable lack of a very detailed coordination in regard to which exact words are actionable under which circumstances.

I for one see no reason why "This Simshitty title just proves that EA are fags!" or the like should be moderated though. While crude and nonconstructive, it simply express anger at the rise of business practices which are ever less transparent and consumer friendly, to the point of now interfering with the product. But I'm no mod.

I tend to be of the opinion that the sooner we extinguish this kind of pathetic language from everyday usage, the better, but I see your point.

You both have very good points.

Language like that shouldn't be so wide-spread like it is, but on the other hand, who are we to hand out punishments based on peoples vocabulary?

I've pretty much exhausted myself on this subject, but I just wanna thank you two for being mature about it.

Not that I'm saying others haven't been, in fact most people have been pretty great about it given the circumstances lately.

Imperator_DK:

Pretty sure that you can't call any escapist user a slut. And that you could call the Westborough Baptist Church fags - a particularly efficient insult against such extreme homophobes - so long as it's backed up with arguments explaining why they suck.

You probably could but not because of the arguments made instead it would be due to the inconsistent moderating on the forums that favour some groups over overs.
As for using the word slut, that's simply a case of people wanting selective censorship and foisting their political beliefs onto the rest of us unless they are arguing for all words that someone disagrees with to be censored but then we would end up like we were in the Demolition man movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz4HEEiJuGo

On a somewhat different note, does noscript count as an addblocker? If so, can I still use noscript if I allow certain scripts to run?

Out of curiosity... If I made a thread that simply said "[link] What do you think?", I'd receive a Warning because of low content, right?

TopazFusion:

madwarper:
Out of curiosity... If I made a thread that simply said "[link] What do you think?", I'd receive a Warning because of low content, right?

It's very likely, yes.

A good way to avoid such a warning is to include your own opinion in the opening post.

I thought that too. Though, I was confused when there were the 2 recent threads about the RWBY trailer. The thread with the full opinion in the OP was closed, while the other thread which had no content in the OP, has not only yet to receive a warning, but was endorsed in the closed thread.

madwarper:
I thought that too. Though, I was confused when there were the 2 recent threads about the RWBY trailer. The thread with the full opinion in the OP was closed, while the other thread which had no content in the OP, has not only yet to receive a warning, but was endorsed in the closed thread.

It's not that the other thread was endorsed; it's that it was (1) first and (2) had comments already. It's easier and less confusing to ask one poster to move to the other thread than ask a dozen users.

The OP has gotten a warning, by the way. It should show up soon.

thaluikhain:
On a somewhat different note, does noscript count as an addblocker? If so, can I still use noscript if I allow certain scripts to run?

If it blocks advertisements, then yes, it counts as an ad blocker. Technically, no one is allowed to tell you you're not allowed to use an ad blocker. Not even the higher-ups. The most they could do is request that you remove it, as they keep the lights running with advertisements. Of course, it's ultimately your decision whether to use it or not and, of course, they will frown upon it(unless you're a Publisher's Club member, because then it wouldn't really matter, anyway). The only way you'll get in trouble by way of ad blockers is advocating them, that's enough to incur mod wrath. Otherwise, you're perfectly safe.

Updated mod list. Now I feel all grizzled n' experienced with the addition of new mods.

TopazFusion:

Scde2:
Updated mod list. Now to wait until someone notices a mistake :D ...

Found one!

ChristopherRobin is apparently not a mod anymore (at least according to the list at the bottom of the CoC).

I always found it a bit up-in-the-air as to whether or not people like him were still mods, since they still have the blue username which only mods have. ChristopherRobin isn't the only one either; wilson still has the blue username even though the last time he was active was almost two years ago.

I have a question about flagging posts for moderation.

Let's say, I come across a post that's a textbook example of a low-content post, so I flag it. The next day, that thread is still on the forum's front page, so I check to see if a warning had been issued and no visible action had been taken against the post. Seeing as how this is an obvious, clear-cut low-content post, I flag it again, check on it later and again nothing has happened. And, this continues, with the same result and now the post is a week old.

What exactly should be/have been my course of action?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here