It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
Do you people know a setup when you see it?No! This thread is.As it's an easy pointer for fables to look at and say,''well well well look at what why my web caught all the trolls........in one place.This makes it too easy for me.Now I can sort them out for extinction''It will be closed soon but she just wants more of the other trolls to attend the party...lolz.
Post edited March 01, 2017 by Tauto
avatar
Vainamoinen: The massive personal attack, the attempted ostracism and vehement defense of Breitbart, of course, happened (sorry folks & Fable, German discussion).
https://www.gog.com/forum/general_de/terror_in_berlin/post98
I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that post and it's 100% consistent with what I wrote in this thread.

avatar
Vainamoinen: And you're throwing "fuck offs" in the faces of reasonably arguing people here.
I think I only threw one fuck off at someone's face. Because labeling me, or even implying that I am, a racist or a homophobe is not a reasonable argument.
low rated
avatar
dtgreene: Well, this Milo guy has written an article for Breitbart titled "Why Women Should Leave the Internet" that was clearly misogynistic.
avatar
fronzelneekburm: Actually, this Milo guy wrote an article about how women get too easily offended.

And you got offended.

Thanks for proving his point, I guess...
I heard an audio recording recently in which Milo delved into the "complexities" of man-boy love, and stated that the laws governing such relationships are a tad too inflexible. When CPAC caught wind of it they told him to fuck off. Family values and all that, you know. o.O
low rated
avatar
fronzelneekburm: I don't see anything remotely objectionable in that post
I disagree and assure you that despite your inability to see any fault in that post, I would never use the same communicative strategies against you.

avatar
fronzelneekburm: Because labeling me, or even implying that I am, a racist or a homophobe is not a reasonable argument.
I don't think you were labeled such, and I don't think you are racist or homophobic. I am pretty darn sure most of the people in the gamergate thread weren't. But out of an aimed at "unity is strength" group dynamic they still found themselves consistently unable to protest when racism, homophobia and a baffling assortment of other deeply xenophobic traits – besides literal bullying and incitement strategies – surfaced in their very midst.

And that's why this fucking thing got closed.
Post edited March 01, 2017 by Vainamoinen
low rated
avatar
fronzelneekburm: There you have it, folks. Clear as day. Forum moderation isn't supposed to be about encouraging open and honest debate, it's about cramming the "right" kind of ideology down people's throats. An ideology which is, naturally, being defined by exactly the kind of toxic "you're with us or against us"-mentality that have made this forum go downhill.
avatar
Telika: All forum charters, by stating that "racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, are inacceptable", are, in the sense where you use it, imposing an "ideology", or "cramming it down peopl's throats". Antinazism is an "ideology", antiracism is an "ideology", any legal system that forbids you from eating people in the street or beating up old people to get their wallets are "ideologies", "crammed down people's throats".

So yes, a forum code of conduct stems from, and imposes, values. Against people who reject these values. You can throw a fit about it if you want, but all you are expressing is that you feel oppressed by basic values clashing with your own "ideology".

You're just using a word without defining or caring for its meaning. Again, pure rhetorics ("ideology" connoted bad, so used to designate systems of values on the opposite side, implying that own system of values is not an ideology, or doesn't exist).

One way or the other, GOG will express an ideology. Which one it will be (one inclusive to all religions/ethnicities/nationalities/sexual orientations, or one friendly to the stigmatisation and exclusion of sexual/national/religious alterities) will depend on their own decision. As they keep repeating, not everybody will be happy about it.

I happen, for ideological reasons, to hope that the unhappiest people will be the racist and homophobic ones. You can hope, for ideological reasons, for the opposite. We have no say on that.

Also :

In practice, they WILL alienate people, no matter what they do or don't (passive moderation neglect has massively alienated people, and the current population is largely a consequene of it). Beyond their own sensitivities, which already drive significant aspects of the shop (such as the DRM-free ideology), they will have to evaluate costs and benefits, knowing there will be both. Time will tell which course of action will provoke the least compensated forum hemorrhage. They will have to bet on either gamers ethnic, sexual, religious diversity or on an ultraconservative potential majority (is it actually a majority amongst gamers is the question that will determine the consequences of their rules). But you cannot have both. You cannot condone a climate of sexism, islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, and yet expect people from all horizons to stay in the community. You cannot (as this thread illustrates well) proscribe sexism, islamophobia, xenophobia and racism and expect ultraconservatives to not feel "ideologically oppressed" and decide to leave for whatever fake news outlet flatters them more. And line drawn anywhere will have such results.

So let's maybe cease to see it as a one-side issue, about one side "wanting it its way", one side "feeling offended", one side "whining", etc. Because, frankly. Look at this thread.
Dammit Telika, I could never express it so plain and clear myself. Oh, how I hate you so very, very much! :-O
low rated
avatar
Vainamoinen: Actually, this Milo guy wrote a lot of articles. Articles with titles such as

"The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off"
"Trannies whine about hilarious Bruce Jenner billboard"
"Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy"
"Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?"
"Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet"
"There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews"
"Science proves it: Fat-shaming works"
Just for fun, let's gender/whatever swap these titles. How would you react to these:
"The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Men should log off"
"Cissies whine about hilarious Caitlyn Jenner billboard"
"Birth control makes men unattractive and retarded"
"Would you rather your child had misogyny or cancer?"
"Straight rights have made us dumber, it's time to go into the closet"
"There's no hiring bias against men in tech, they just suck at interviews"
"Science proves it: Thin-shaming works"

(Not all of these modified headlines make sense, but some certainly do.)

How would you react to the headlines that I posted above?

avatar
real.geizterfahr: Seriously, guys and girls
I know this will sound nitpicky, but that phrase isn't as inclusive as you probably think it is; it excludes non-binary folks.
Post edited March 01, 2017 by dtgreene
low rated
avatar
real.geizterfahr: Seriously, guys and girls
avatar
dtgreene: I know this will sound nitpicky, but that phrase isn't as inclusive as you probably think it is; it excludes non-binary folks.
Lolza, you're the best Deatrice.

EDIT: I agree with you, Deatrice.

And I think he should be banned for that infraction.

It's a bannable offence to exclude non-binary folks.
Post edited March 01, 2017 by Kleetus
low rated
We're all going about this the wrong way, let's be up front and just say who we want banned.

I'll go first, who wants me banned?
low rated
avatar
Kleetus: We're all going about this the wrong way, let's be up front and just say who we want banned.

I'll go first, who wants me banned?
Attachments:
.jpg (183 Kb)
Post edited March 01, 2017 by tinyE
low rated
avatar
fables22: 1. Most likely won't happen soon - only due to its technical nature. It'll me months at best.
avatar
JMich: In that case let me once more direct people to this script. Nothing to do with blues, and not a proper way to remove rep, but should cover most of the forum users' needs.
Forum users need a JerkMuter™ with Auto-DownRep function of banned users. Huge timesaver! :D
That's what forum users need (observation based on this thread). :P XD

edit: Auto-UpRep for included friend-list would be nice as well. Thank you very much.
Post edited March 01, 2017 by vsr
high rated
avatar
real.geizterfahr: If I was a moderator, I'd lock this thread and give most people in here their first warning. All you're doing here is to try to get fables to ban your favorite nemeses. "Look what xyz wrote in this thread five years ago", "xyz is full of whateverism", "xyz is the real problem of the forum", "xyz has to be banned because he's downvoting me with an army of alts that only I can see" -.-

Seriously, guys and girls: Just stop it! Draw a line and leave all this bulshit behind you. Stop posting your collection of "evil posts from user xyz" and stop discussing user xyz's behaviour the past couple of years. Most forums I know have a rule that forbids to openly discuss other users' behaviour, because this is exactly where most hostility comes from. Of course user xyz will attack you when you start to tell everyone what a douche he is!

If you don't like someone, don't speak with him. If you think someone is an evil racist, report his NEW evil racist posts (not some years old collection) to a blue. But don't tell everyone that you have proof that he is an evil racist. We can't do shit about it anyway. All you'll achieve with this is to turn a thread about forum rules into a thread about your personal animosities. And we've had enough of that the last couple of years.
avatar
Kleetus: See if you can guess which character the fuck is.
avatar
real.geizterfahr: You?

ps. Oh, wait, 他 really means "you" and not "fuck".
^^ THIS!!!

I've said this to a few people who were begging me to ban their "enemies" through PMs before - I won't ban people based on what they said years ago. Or even months ago. The fact that you've got some unfinished business with someone else or you happen to completely disagree with someone on absolutely everything means nothing to me. However, despite the fact that I've not been around anywhere near as long as many of you, I've been around long enough to make my mind up about a few things.

Don't message me and ask me to ban someone because they harassed you last year, or because you think that someone's post from months ago was offensive. But do get in touch if you see someone breaking the rules now. Let's give everyone a chance to redeem themselves and start (kinda) afresh.
avatar
real.geizterfahr: Seriously, guys and girls
avatar
dtgreene: I know this will sound nitpicky, but that phrase isn't as inclusive as you probably think it is; it excludes non-binary folks.
Look, dt... I think everyone should be allowed to be whatever he wants to be. If you think your gender is "cup" then be a cup. I don't care if you prefer to get filled with coffee or with tea, because I'm not a cup and I'm most definitely not you. It's not my business what you prefer. If it makes you happy that you're a cup and if coffee makes you hot: Great! Be happy. Everyone should be happy. BUT: I won't start to write 100% inclusive postings to not hurt the feelings of a random cup that probably never even reads my posting. Because a) I don't have the time for it and b) I don't want to bury the point of my posts under a pile of gender-stuff that I never even heard of.

My English grammar is weird enough as it is already. I won't start to swap "he" for "they" just to be inclusive. When I start a phrase with "guys and girls" It's not even an attempt to be inclusive! I could've written "dudes" or "dudes and duderinas" just as well. And to be absolutely honest... In this case, "guys and girls" was even meant in a "sexist" way :O After all, the post was directed towards a bitching group of males ;) Anyway... I basically just wanted to say "Don't you guys see how silly this is?". No evil gender discrimination involved - aside from a little stereotypical (=exaggerated/not the real thing) joke, if you want to count that.

Gender and sexuality are horribly overrated. Let people stick their stuff wherever they want to stick it. I don't see why we need to discuss this and I don't see why we need to make this an everyday part of completely unrelated postings on a gaming forum.



edit: I just realized that this sounds harsher than it was meant. Sorry for that. I just wanted to say that there are people who don't want to "study" LGBT (and I know that even THIS isn't inclusive!) vocabulary just to be "allowed" to write a normal post on a gaming forum.
Post edited March 01, 2017 by real.geizterfahr
avatar
Telika: You cannot condone a climate of sexism, islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, and yet expect people from all horizons to stay in the community. You cannot (as this thread illustrates well) proscribe sexism, islamophobia, xenophobia and racism and expect ultraconservatives to not feel "ideologically oppressed" and decide to leave for whatever fake news outlet flatters them more. And line drawn anywhere will have such results.
Once again that's IMHO an oversimplification, the problem is not really in condemning racism, homophobia, whatever... the problem is that, over the years, those words have been so abused and overused that they lost a lot of their meanings.

Nowadays they are thrown around so easily as soon as somebody feel "offended" or even as soon as there is any sort of disagreement, regardless of whenever or not they are actually justified, so it's no surprise that some start to consider those words as being meaningless buzzwords, or even "name calling".

I don't think that many peoples are "worried" that hate speech, abuse, outright racism, etc... end up being forbidden / restricted on this forum, no, but some peoples are worried that some others starts calling racist, sexists, etc... anything they don't like and try to abuse of the forum moderation rules (if those are too "blurry") to remove anything that doesn't perfectly align with their own personal agenda.

And no, I disagree that they "have" to alienate peoples, if there are clear "neutral" rules, that the moderators judge posters / posts fairly based on those rules and not on based on their own belief. I think that it's possible to have peoples of various political alignment frequent the forum have have discussions without anybody (apart from the most extremist on both side) needing to feel "alienated".

It won't be easy and there will be peoples warned/banned, thread closed, etc... but it's possible.
avatar
fables22: snip
Hej Fables,

Since I happened to be around, would like to ask if any thought has been given to being more specific / explicit / overt on specific violations of the rules?

I remember once getting heated up with your colleague for what I saw as the unwilligness to name names in public. I saw and see it as an abdication of responsibility.
I am still wondering at that because the two thread closures so far have been vague, with their specific motives "in the eye of the beholder" to some extent - polarizing instead of unifying.

This is worrying to me for a couple of reasons:
1- it can be interpreted as wanting to maintain vagueness to be able to subvert the rules. Examples matter so people know where the actual lines are. I actually think something else is at play but any perception of the previous is corrosive via undermining trust in your impartiality.
2- I suspect there is a cultural aversion to doing the dirty laundry in public, for reasons of historical ressonance concerning drawing attention to oneself - or worse, to others. Ironically, or just plain tragically, trying to do things in a individually humane way can be just what is needed for a mob to form. It ends up enabling a form of heckler's veto in fact, despite intentions to the contrary.

So at the risk of going way against the current zeitgeist, kindly consider to name names. I'd suggest taking a look at the Slate Star Codex site approach for inspiration - the list of folks under moderation, reasons for same, links...

And good luck I guess.
avatar
fables22: snip
avatar
Brasas: Hej Fables,

Since I happened to be around, would like to ask if any thought has been given to being more specific / explicit / overt on specific violations of the rules?

I remember once getting heated up with your colleague for what I saw as the unwilligness to name names in public. I saw and see it as an abdication of responsibility.
I am still wondering at that because the two thread closures so far have been vague, with their specific motives "in the eye of the beholder" to some extent - polarizing instead of unifying.

This is worrying to me for a couple of reasons:
1- it can be interpreted as wanting to maintain vagueness to be able to subvert the rules. Examples matter so people know where the actual lines are. I actually think something else is at play but any perception of the previous is corrosive via undermining trust in your impartiality.
2- I suspect there is a cultural aversion to doing the dirty laundry in public, for reasons of historical ressonance concerning drawing attention to oneself - or worse, to others. Ironically, or just plain tragically, trying to do things in a individually humane way can be just what is needed for a mob to form. It ends up enabling a form of heckler's veto in fact, despite intentions to the contrary.

So at the risk of going way against the current zeitgeist, kindly consider to name names. I'd suggest taking a look at the Slate Star Codex site approach for inspiration - the list of folks under moderation, reasons for same, links...

And good luck I guess.
Well, as I said before, there's going to be new and updated version of the forum rules very soon. I hope those will make things a bit clearer. As for the threads - the more recent one was closed because it has been derailed to the point where I don't think it could ever get back on track, without me having to delete every off-topic comment in there. As for the first thread - as I said previously, I found many comments in there worthy of their author's ban - however, as some of those authors made themselves (conveniently) very difficult to get in touch with, I had no way of warning them and giving them the option to delete/edit their posts. However, as someone before already mentioned in this thread as well, I don't feel like we have to justify every act of moderation that happens or will happen - I suppose "our house, our rules" applies. That is not to say that moderation is to be taken lightly, though.