I'd say that the difference between that and here are that a Town Square is subject to the law, whereas a private place that happens to be rather open to people is subject to the whims of the owner, a private citizen. Every private space is likely going to be the owner's safe space, where what they like is present and what they don't like is absent. That you don't find their views on what to include and exclude comparable to whatever radical version of a safe space your envisioning means little more than that you happen to agree with that particular safe space.
Except this doesn't hold universally when one considers other privately owned businesses. For example, there have been some recent, high-profile examples of restaurants denying service based on the race / religious views of the customer. As far as I'm aware, this sort of discrimination has been found to be illegal. It gets a bit more ambiguous when you consider dress codes, gender exclusivity, and seemingly arbitrary age restrictions enforced by some establishments. My point is that you aren't entirely free to set any restrictions you want just because you're privately owned. More to the point, by your definition every internet site becomes a safe space just by virtue of enforcing their own unique CoC, and again I feel like this is a distortion of the term as it's commonly understood.
LifeCharacter said:
When cisphobia becomes a real thing that extends beyond an exhausted trans person venting on their private blog or twitter about cis people constantly bothering them about being trans, I'll be sure to include it. Until then, I feel it's best to leave people to their own persecution complexes rather than advocate that it become part of a private institutions CoC.
Ahhh yes, the old privilege + power argument. Hating on the majority doesn't matter. Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days. Your argument is that trans people shouldn't be held accountable for it because they've been the recipients of worse discrimination. If you really believed it's the right thing to "leave people to their own persecution complexes" instead of formally granting them special rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Elvis Starburst said:
IceForce said:
14 warnings in 11 months, and only 2 of them were actually accurate.
What's going on is, despite making thousands of snippy one-liner posts that contributed nothing to the discussion back when The Escapist actually had a low content rule, IceForce somehow managed to get himself exonerated through the appeals process. This isn't the case to hang your hat on when attempting to make the argument for moderator fallibility.
Not saying you don't have the right but sure you can't expect people to just sit and smile at your rule 0 although it is your prerogative to institute it.
Rule 0 is there to fill in the gaps from any potential loopholes that may arise. This isn't a democracy. If you want to view it as a dictatorship, that's your prerogative. I prefer to see it as an admin of a forum stating that it's their interpretation of the rules that goes, not the other way around. As that's what it really is. It's an internet forum, there must be someone that has the final say about an issue that crops up. Almost all of the time, it will be my moderator team that handles these issues. They know the forums and are generally familiar with the folks that post in each forum. Rule 0, for that, means that if you get into an argument and a moderator says stop. You stop. If you are at odds about something that was said that may or may not be against the code of conduct, it's the moderators choice that is "correct". It's the same with the staff who do appeals. The same rules apply there as they do here.
Honestly, unless you plan on causing issues, the Code of Conduct won't even affect you. Be mature and respectful to others and there will never be a problem. It's when people get that chip on their shoulder and hide behind the shield of anonymity when they make accusations that cause issues and require us to get involved. Rule 0 allows us to ensure that they cannot take advantage of any loopholes they find and stamp out any potential issue with the "gray area" of a topic.
You don't need to like Rule 0, but again, unless you're planning on being a dick to someone or something, it will never apply to you. My staff are not tyrannical members on a power trip. They would much rather just create posts and replies like any other member instead of having to police the troublemakers. They do it because they want to keep the place a positive destination for those that visit.
This is an effort to denigrate and belittle the effects of homophobia and transphobia. That's really all this is. There is no genuine concern here; only an absurd false parallel, one which even StreamerDarkly knows lacks any sense of perspective.
So can we stop devaluing real issues like homophobia and transphobia which contribute to mental and physical abuse, sexual assaults, assaults, murders, and rampant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Because straight and cis folk don't experience the kinds of hatred, threat, active violence, and discrimination that LGBTQ+ folk endure on a daily basis. Cisphobia and heterophobia are literally non-issues in comparison. Especially since in a lot of the developed world it's still legal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ folk in housing, employment, and access to services. Even in the places where it's officially illegal a LGBTQ+ person can't expect to even have their case heard if they're discriminated against. Where as a cisgender straight person will never face active discrimination for being cisgender and straight.
This is a non-discriminatory website. I could care less if you're white, black, hispanic, LGBTQ+ or any other preference, shape or color of any kind. It simply doesn't matter to me who you are, only that you show everyone else around you a bit of respect.
Everyone, EVERYONE, is free to post here so long as what they say isn't derogatory or otherwise conflict with the sites' Code of Conduct.
I hope this clarifies my stance and the stance of the Escapist regarding equality.
When cisphobia becomes a real thing that extends beyond an exhausted trans person venting on their private blog or twitter about cis people constantly bothering them about being trans, I'll be sure to include it. Until then, I feel it's best to leave people to their own persecution complexes rather than advocate that it become part of a private institutions CoC.
Ahhh yes, the old privilege + power argument. Hating on the majority doesn't happen. Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days. If you really believed it's the right thing to "leave people to their own persecution complexes" instead of formally granting them special rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Except that people who cry about anti-white racism, cisphobia, and heterophobia never actually experienced any actual discrimination. Also it's not really that there's hate against cisgender heterosexual white men, but there sure are a lot of those same cisgender heterosexual white men fighting against equality rules. Especially when LGBTQ+ folk, racial, and religious minorities are specifically targeted with hate and discrimination, even official legal hate and discrimination. That's why the special protections absolutely need to exist, because some people can't just leave other's be, they have to go out of their way to make other people's lives hell just because the other person is different.
In an attempt to cause some form of moderation paradox, what would happen if I were to necro and old thread with a swear word in the title?
In all seriousness, I'm both a fan and not a fan of moderation not being up for debate. Back when I used to play DC Universe Online I was highly active on their forums (over 10k posts) and the inability to discuss moderation lead to a HUGE disconnect between forumites and moderators. That eventually came to a head where the following situation transpired.
-A group of people who were largely constructive and helpful posters for years were wrongly permabanned.
-Another group discussed this, making it a widely known issue
-The original group was unbanned because of the attention called to the issue
-The second group that discussed the issue and got the first group unbanned was permabanned for discussing moderation
I would urge you to reconsider the discussion of moderation. Obviously don't make a public spectacle of it where you've got a moderator furiously defending their actions to an angry mob, but have an open discussion about it every so often to see if the community has some concerns and just how popular they are.
So can we stop devaluing real issues like homophobia and transphobia which contribute to mental and physical abuse, sexual assaults, assaults, murders, and rampant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Because straight and cis folk don't experience the kinds of hatred, threat, active violence, and discrimination that LGBTQ+ folk endure on a daily basis. Cisphobia and heterophobia are literally non-issues in comparison. Especially since in a lot of the developed world it's still legal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ folk in housing, employment, and access to services. Even in the places where it's officially illegal a LGBTQ+ person can't expect to even have their case heard if they're discriminated against. Where as a cisgender straight person will never face active discrimination for being cisgender and straight.
This has been misquoted; that was KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime, not StreamerDarkly (and the comment seems to have been specifically in response to StreamerDarkly, rather than saying the CoC was guilty of those things).
Whoa, wait a minute? I'm receiving a warning for that? The hell?
Its very clearly a joke directed at Elfgore's tendency to be overly dramatic when he would lock necro threads, not insulting him. Its no more harmful or mean-spirited than someone making a joke about me liking boobs or CaramelFrappe liking Miia.
EDIT: I'm removing my quoted bit here in the spirit of upholding the new rules. Sorry, SolidState, for quoting you in the first place. This isn't the place for that; if you'd like to follow-up feel free to PM me.
OT: So hate speech is now officially actually enforced as being unacceptable around here? I'm glad. Transphobia has been a pretty big issue around here, it'd be nice to see that changed.
Whoa, wait a minute? I'm receiving a warning for that? The hell?
Its very clearly a joke directed at Elfgore's tendency to be overly dramatic when he would lock necro threads, not insulting him. Its no more harmful or mean-spirited than someone making a joke about me liking boobs or CaramelFrappe liking Miia.
(And it will certainly be interesting to see how certain people's -- not naming any names -- posting styles are going to change to accommodate this new rule.)
I realize that the enforcement of the new rules is going to be a bit looser in this thread, and this might be considered backseat moderating itself, but wouldn't it be better for everyone if you didn't go around testing the boundaries of the very rule you're saying will be the ruin of a bunch of people you apparently don't like?
Well that's the thing, isn't it. 'Passive-aggressiveness' is so deeply engrained in this forum's psyche, it's going to take a while to eliminate.
Just going on what other people have said (because I honestly don't know if this is true or not) but from what I've heard, Escapist's forums are oft-described by people elsewhere on the internet as being pretty 'passive-aggressive'. (Hence my "psyche" and "engrained" comment, above.)
As willing as I am to get into these sorts of discussions, I don't want to derail this thread or start any arguments, so I've elected to just remove that bit of my post.
On that note, I am curious if pointing out how someone is breaking or skirting the rules is considered backseat moderating? I feel like calling out certain rule-breaking behaviors at least has the potential of improving someone's posting habits, if "you . . . provide reasoning and justification for your statements".
I know that warning notices tend to include the reasoning behind why they were issued, but past experience leads me to believe that a lot of people tend to have a visceral reaction to receiving warnings, and they often aren't amenable to the reasoning given and frequently go on to continue acting in the way that resulted in them being warned in the first place. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things (I usually do), but it seems like the backseat moderation rule could lead to a bunch of gray areas where people are trying to get other users to understand why their rule-breaking behavior is unacceptable, and then they end up running afoul of the rules themselves.
EDIT: I mean, I understand that it's not my job to uphold the enforcement of the rules, but I've always tried to be the person who helps clarify them or tries to get people to understand possibly why their warned post got actioned. In the context of a regular forum thread, in my case it's not always so much a "friendly reminder" as it is "this might help improve the overall conversation level of the entire website", and maybe it's a personal thing but I've always liked keeping that sort of stuff above-board, so to speak. I'm not usually familiar enough with somebody that I feel justified or comfortable in just tossing them a PM (acknowledging that that's a personal thing as well, since it's kind of what the function exists for), and I feel like having it in the open forum where anyone can see also has the potential to provide said information for other users who read the thread.
So can we stop devaluing real issues like homophobia and transphobia which contribute to mental and physical abuse, sexual assaults, assaults, murders, and rampant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Because straight and cis folk don't experience the kinds of hatred, threat, active violence, and discrimination that LGBTQ+ folk endure on a daily basis. Cisphobia and heterophobia are literally non-issues in comparison. Especially since in a lot of the developed world it's still legal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ folk in housing, employment, and access to services. Even in the places where it's officially illegal a LGBTQ+ person can't expect to even have their case heard if they're discriminated against. Where as a cisgender straight person will never face active discrimination for being cisgender and straight.
This has been misquoted; that was KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime, not StreamerDarkly (and the comment seems to have been specifically in response to StreamerDarkly, rather than saying the CoC was guilty of those things).
That is correct, I was responding directly to @StreamerDarkly for making some really far-fetched claims.
Terminalchaos said:
I've been harassed and targeted for being a cis white male on an elevator by an entire group of lgbt protesters. I felt threatened and endangered just for being me. I tried to spit on me (thats considered assault btw) Just because someone is a member of a group that is considered to be empowered above discrimination or oppression does not mean that an individual member of that group cannot be threatened or diminished.
DO NOT TELL ME MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT VALID. In that moment I had no power over the group mocking and threatening me for my gender and orientation. just because this does not occur with the same frequency that those in minority groups experience it does not make it invalid. you are dehumanizing and invalidating me as an individual when you mock those that are bothered by cisphobia. A major concept of intersectionality is that an individual can experience oppression from a number of different angles depending on their personal identities and experiences. Being cis, white, and male does not negate the myriad other forms of oppression I experience on a daily basis. I have many other aspects of myself that experience much oppression. You can't tell just from looking at someone all the forms of oppression they may experience so to assume someone has no hardships is bigoted and dehumanizing.
BTW having long hair and being cis has led to me being insulted, misgendered ("hehe such a pretty girl with that long hair," losing job opportunities (men must have short hair to work here- please see our dress code) and being outright threatened with violence for having long hair. Telling me to just cut my hair is insensitive and ignores the larger issue that I should be able to dress, groom, and express my self according to my own feelings and identity.
Instead of minimizing the experiences of oppression that those in traditionally less oppressed groups experience by mocking them for experiencing less oppression than other groups perhaps not be a jerk about it and accept their experiences as well. Their oppression does not minimize your oppression. We can work on this together and mocking us for experiencing oppression too just dehumanizes us and makes your entire case weaker or at least highly hypocritical.
TLDR - cis, white men have feelings too and disrespecting them does not improve your status, just makes you an oppressive bigot. Their bad experiences don't negate yours. Just be nice and don't discriminate against any group (except if it involves the console wars)
So will racism or sexism be forbidden against any group or is it ok to say horrible things about white men?
While I sympathize and understand your position. Please understand that the levels of horrible things others generally have to endure for being a racial, sexuality, gender identity, or religious minority are several orders of magnitude worse. It gets even worse if someone is in more than one class, in the US most of the anti-trans discrimination and hate crime last year was aimed at trans women who also happened to be in racial minority groups.
Yeah it sucks that you having long hair as a cis man means you got denied work, but on the other hand that's still not what a trans or gay person tends to experience. Which is being evicted from one's home, being fired from ones job, being denied housing, being denied employment, being put in the wrong homeless shelter. Those are experiences that cis-straight folk won't generally experience, but they are experiences trans folk like me experince, all LGBTQ+ folk experience these things. In the case of trans people it can get as bad as only being able to make a living through illegal means, or in porn.
Also the experiences you shared... Those aren't uncommon experiences that people in the LGBTQ+ community have too, especially during the coming out process and in the case of trans people, the transition process. Still the only time I ever hear a cis, straight, white, and/or male person complain about these things, is as a counter a argument person who experiences actual broad systemic oppression. Which is actively diminishing the experiences of those of us who do face gigantic social exclusion and systemic discriminatory oppression. This isn't about the oppression Olympics, we're not here to diminish your experiences, but arguing against us because of a few instances compared to our consistent experiences is an attempt to diminish our struggles.
Most importantly, none of us here are saying it's okay to hate on cisgender straight white men, that was never stated as an objective. Saying it is and bringing the subject up in the first place is a tone policing tactic, designed to get the marginalized groups to shut up. We don't want any sexism, racism, sexuality, or gender identity harassment or exclusion, still that's not something people who are the 'norm', as in the majority group, face on a regular basis either. Those of us who are of more marginalized groups experience it a lot and if there aren't specific rules to protect us, we get absolutely no protection in practice.
As willing as I am to get into these sorts of discussions, I don't want to derail this thread or start any arguments, so I've elected to just remove that bit of my post.
On that note, I am curious if pointing out how someone is breaking or skirting the rules is considered backseat moderating? I feel like calling out certain rule-breaking behaviors at least has the potential of improving someone's posting habits, if "you . . . provide reasoning and justification for your statements".
I know that warning notices tend to include the reasoning behind why they were issued, but past experience leads me to believe that a lot of people tend to have a visceral reaction to receiving warnings, and they often aren't amenable to the reasoning given and frequently go on to continue acting in the way that resulted in them being warned in the first place. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things (I usually do), but it seems like the backseat moderation rule could lead to a bunch of gray areas where people are trying to get other users to understand why their rule-breaking behavior is unacceptable, and then they end up running afoul of the rules themselves.
I'm not quite sure of the angle either, but I remember previous heated arguments where someone would deconstruct someone else's post with a point-by-point breakdown of all the bits of their post that break the COC. For example, someone would quote someone else and accuse them of "Posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking users into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (which I'm sure we all remember from the previous COC).
There were times when ordinary users (ie: non-mods) would wield the COC like a weapon against other users. (I even had it happen to me a few times, in the old GG megathread.)
If I was to guess, I'd say this 'Backseat Moderating' rule is designed to stop that kind of behavior.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
