What would you like to see less or more of around here?

[ThatOtherGirl]

Well, this question of how to moderate specific kinds of speech is interesting. I would say I fall on the side of those who don't want heavy-handed moderation. I would agree that allowing "questionable" pronouncements to be thrown out into the wild and subsequently ripped apart by passionate debate is better than trying to censor anything anyone might find offensive.

I don't actually disagree with you, but I would like to point out that dealing with the "questionable" comments almost always falls on the group people are being rude to. Other people usually don't care enough. This leads to a situation where people have to spend a significant amount of effort just trying to keep up with assholes so the community is somewhere they can be comfortably. Often you have to engage with these sorts of comments on a level that makes it very difficult to deal with - often bad behavior cannot be called out for what it is because the rules of moderation, so we have to deal with it by engaging with people we really would rather not. And often these counter comments are far more heavily moderated than the original comments, again because of the rules in place.

This gives us a decision: Engage with assholes, let the community go to shit, or just leave. Many have just chosen to leave rather than deal with it.

For example, recently someone voiced the opinion on these forums that trans people are so clearly nuts and unstable that we shouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors. To be clear, I am referring to a specific comment where they actually mention scissors, not general comments about mental illness or whatever. That sort of shit should not be acceptable. How do we deal with that? Under the current rules the only thing we can really do is attempt to engage with the person on an intellectual level. But there isn't anything to engage their, it is blatant transphobia. That sort of opinion shouldn't get dignified by being engaged, it should be dismissed. But we can't just point that out, there is a good chance that will result in getting a warning. Hell, I would not be surprised if bringing it up now as an example gets me a warning.

In the end the comment went unchallenged by the community and was not moderated.

People can get away with ridiculous shit so long as they are careful in the exact way they word their post so it cannot be challenged without risking moderation or being forced into a bad faith discussion with a bigot. There is no discussion value in a comment like that but we are unable to express disapproval in any other way because of how the forums are setup. We can't downvote. Reporting doesn't help either because often times these people are not technically breaking any rule. So it gets by or someone who is sick of blatant bigotry loses their cool for a minute and calls it out for what it is and risks getting slapped with a warning or ban.

I think this is why, as Lil devils x has noted, the Escapist forums are known for being more hostile than other places. Not only is bigotry often tolerated because there is no other recourse, but because of this bigotry can be much more difficult to deal with because being unable to express disapproval makes dealing with bigotry much more frustrating.

TLR: The current setup puts a lot of burden on people who just want a place to hang out and gives a distinct advantage to jerks over the people trying to correct them. There is no low effort way to express disapproval of blatant bigotry so often blatant bigotry is tolerated.

 

[veloper]

What this site needs is more of EVERYTHING. It's becoming too quiet and boring.

We need more serious gaming related content, like game reviews, Shamus Young's articles and stuff like that, to pull people in, but we also need the controversial stuff for the forum rats, because let's face it, what posters really want to do is fight and argue with each other over such stuff.

Ideally this place should be one of genuine insights and great ideas in the midst of conflict and comedy.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh gosh, I'm so late to this thread!

Butts.

I want to see more butts.

Man, woman, drawn or sculpted, I care not. Moar.

Preferably sculpted from marble. Can't get enough of that literally chiseled rumpadump...

Well, this question of how to moderate specific kinds of speech is interesting. I would say I fall on the side of those who don't want heavy-handed moderation. I would agree that allowing "questionable" pronouncements to be thrown out into the wild and subsequently ripped apart by passionate debate is better than trying to censor anything anyone might find offensive.

I don't actually disagree with you, but I would like to point out that dealing with the "questionable" comments almost always falls on the group people are being rude to. Other people usually don't care enough. This leads to a situation where people have to spend a significant amount of effort just trying to keep up with assholes so the community is somewhere they can be comfortably. Often you have to engage with these sorts of comments on a level that makes it very difficult to deal with - often bad behavior cannot be called out for what it is because the rules of moderation, so we have to deal with it by engaging with people we really would rather not. And often these counter comments are far more heavily moderated than the original comments, again because of the rules in place.

You are basically describing a fair and open society where you cannot murder the people who are annoying. The annoying/jerks often have their own social ramifications.

This kind of mentality is that of individuals demanding those in control start warping society around them to be more in their own image rather than understanding that being a part of society means give and take and not always only dealing with your best buddies.

However, on a message board you have a distinct advantage of being able to block confirmed jerk-faces and thereby being entirely able to avoid them if you so desire. How does that not meet your qualifications of being able to avoid some such asshat?

For everything else there's MasterCard.

 

[Gorrath]

Well, this question of how to moderate specific kinds of speech is interesting. I would say I fall on the side of those who don't want heavy-handed moderation. I would agree that allowing "questionable" pronouncements to be thrown out into the wild and subsequently ripped apart by passionate debate is better than trying to censor anything anyone might find offensive.

I don't actually disagree with you, but I would like to point out that dealing with the "questionable" comments almost always falls on the group people are being rude to. Other people usually don't care enough. This leads to a situation where people have to spend a significant amount of effort just trying to keep up with assholes so the community is somewhere they can be comfortably. Often you have to engage with these sorts of comments on a level that makes it very difficult to deal with - often bad behavior cannot be called out for what it is because the rules of moderation, so we have to deal with it by engaging with people we really would rather not. And often these counter comments are far more heavily moderated than the original comments, again because of the rules in place.

Firstly, thanks so much for replying. I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts and respond. I feel like I covered some of this in the elaboration below the part you quoted but let me try and refine my meaning. I don't think we should automatically equate bad ideas or what we see as ignorant speech with assholes. Someone can be a perfectly nice person who simply has no idea what they are talking about and so their words come off as offensive and we link offensive speech with ignorant jerks. I think this automatic equation is something we should challenge. This in no way is meant to be apologetics for the ignorant, just a philosophical argument about how we should approach and address what seem to us like ignorant or offensive statements, particularly because what one person asserts as being ignorant is held up as truth by others. My criticisms of CEDA's winners would be held up by some as ignorant racism and I think that's absurd in the extreme.

I would also say that their comments could be dealt with in two effective ways.

1) Try to engage with the person in a way that presents facts, theories and is backed by evidence, even if anecdotal while avoiding the trap of flaming the person for their potentially offensive speech. This may or may not convince them of anything, but reasonable onlookers who are also ignorant about the issue may be swayed. This is a useful and valuable communication even if the OP persists in their ignorance.

2) Ignore it altogether. I am often torn by a desire to respond to posts I see as being riddled with fallacies, bad ideas or ignorance. Sometimes I feel like my own personal investment in the subjects mean I'll get mad and say something undeserving of a decent conversation. In those cases, I just won't comment.

I don't mean to sound self-important here so I hope it doesn't read that way but I engage with lots of people on here about very contentious and sensitive issues. I am almost always someone who is responding rather than being the OP and I've never once been moderated. I believe this is because I think of the person making the comment I find rude/offensive/absurd as merely being misinformed not someone who is a provocative asshole out to piss me off by slandering my whole sex/race/sexual preference.

This gives us a decision: Engage with assholes, let the community go to shit, or just leave. Many have just chosen to leave rather than deal with it.

For example, recently someone voiced the opinion on these forums that trans people are so clearly nuts and unstable that we shouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors. To be clear, I am referring to a specific comment where they actually mention scissors, not general comments about mental illness or whatever. That sort of shit should not be acceptable. How do we deal with that? Under the current rules the only thing we can really do is attempt to engage with the person on an intellectual level. But there isn't anything to engage their, it is blatant transphobia. That sort of opinion shouldn't get dignified by being engaged, it should be dismissed. But we can't just point that out, there is a good chance that will result in getting a warning. Hell, I would not be surprised if bringing it up now as an example gets me a warning.

In the end the comment went unchallenged by the community and was not moderated.

Trans issues are very important to me because my wife is trans, so I certainly have some understanding of your sentiment here. What that person said is clearly ignorant and lacks any understanding of trans people. But I ask you, why do you assert that there isn't anything to engage when it comes to blatant transphobia? I think there is a ton to engage with there; basically everything about trans issues. Now when starting with such a comment, the challenge seems overwhelming and there's a good chance the person won't be convinced no matter what evidence you fling at them, but engaging with them from a position of facts and evidence and assuming that they are just totally misinformed and have no idea what they are talking about is better than just responding that they are an ignorant jackass who needs to read a book. It's a tough temptation to fight because the insult feels so damned personal.

I got into a conversation on here once when someone made the flippant comment that military people were brainwashed child murderers. As someone who served for years in various conflicts, that cuts. My response was to explain in some detail what the military actually teaches. I didn't berate them, I just explained why their comment was absurd. If they had merely been moderated for their comment, I would never have had the chance to point out what was messed up about their statement. I had to delete an retype whole sections of my post because they got pretty reactionary and insulting.

I am sorry that that particular comment went unchallenged. If I'd seen it I'd have been all over it and I'm a straight white male privilege machine (little self-deprecating humor there.)

People can get away with ridiculous shit so long as they are careful in the exact way they word their post so it cannot be challenged without risking moderation or being forced into a bad faith discussion with a bigot. There is no discussion value in a comment like that but we are unable to express disapproval in any other way because of how the forums are setup. We can't downvote. Reporting doesn't help either because often times these people are not technically breaking any rule. So it gets by or someone who is sick of blatant bigotry loses their cool for a minute and calls it out for what it is and risks getting slapped with a warning or ban.

When it comes to bad faith discussions, there's no rule about pointing out the bad faith arguments. I've done it dozens of times and never been moderated for it. I don't like downvoting either because people just assume the hivemind is out to get them and often there's no one taking to time to talk anymore, it's all thumbs up and down along ideological lines. Better, I think, to do the hard work of rigorous debate and presenting evidence and ideas than downvoting or upvoting. I agree with the moderation of blatant personal insults but trying to moderate out ignorance is a failing proposition because it does nothing to teach or explain. And if we can't teach or explain without flinging personal insults ourselves, then we probably should step back a bit, take a few breaths and just try and remember its just ignorance.

Again, hope none of that comes off as self-aggrandizing or superior. Just my philosophy on how to deal with this stuff and why I think trying to moderate the problem away is a bad idea. I really do feel and share your frustration; everyone who has ever argued on the internet does. I just hope we, as a community, fight bad ideas with good ones, ignorance with truth and injustice with justice not with the heavy hand of censoring what we don't like to see.

TLR: The current setup puts a lot of burden on people who just want a place to hang out and gives a distinct advantage to jerks over the people trying to correct them. There is no low effort way to express disapproval of blatant bigotry so often blatant bigotry is tolerated.

It will always and forever be easier to make a stupid statement than correct one. There is a distinct debate tactic that replies on shoving as many fallacies into one diatribe as one can so that their opponent has no reasonable way to counter them all in the allotted time (William Lane Craig LOVES to do this.) It is a burden, I agree, but I think it's a burden worth bearing. And if you or I or anyone gets tired, we can always set that burden down a while and take a hiatus.

Anywho, thanks again for engaging with me. I'm so glad to get to talk about this stuff. I appreciate your time and attention.

 

[Silvanus]

Most of my biggest suggestions have already been covered, but to be specific;

* More consistent moderation, across the board (pun intended). There are too many instances of people repeatedly receiving suspensions and subsequently having them overturned. If overturnings are that commonplace, then the initial suspensions probably shouldn't have been given.

* More content. Obvious, perhaps, but direly needed.

 

[StatusNil]

I'd like some sort of consequences for abusing the report/flag system.

The reason why my inbox looks like something out of a horror film (and yet, paradoxically, my actual health bar is close to empty) is because there's a certain group of users who want to see me banned (they've even said so on other websites; naming me specifically), and they are abusing the reporting system in order to facilitate this.

PMs to the right people, and questions through the correct channels, have both revealed that my posts regularly get spam-flagged and report-brigaded by a group of users. This leads me to being forever walking on moderation eggshells whenever I post, and me being constantly under microscopic moderation scrutiny at all times.
Even worse, moderators are clearly believing that punishments should be given out to me based on the sheer volume of reports, rather than the actual content of my posts.

It's not fair that I should be getting regularly punished and have to do battle with the appeals system on a bi- or tri-weekly basis, all because OTHER people are abusing the system, not me.

I'd like some consequences for this abuse. As for what consequences exactly, I'm not entirely sure. But something definitely has to be done, and soon.

Oh dear, our "Pot & Kettle" department would certainly have a few choice words about this here post. But since this is not the time nor the place, let's just say the suggestion itself is intriguing, though it doesn't address the problem of users contacting moderators outside the reporting system to suggest punishments for other users. I believe there was even a user group that made a point of inviting moderators to join so they could discuss sanctions for others in group chat with the enforcing parties without having to employ the unreliable flagging system. Needless to say, such back channel exploits tend to have an adverse effect on the perceived legitimacy of the system, which in turn leads to a proliferation of appeals the staff has to handle.

Personally I've come to believe that the no doubt well-intentioned gamification of forum moderation, complete with the "life bar" and achievements, has sadly backfired. You give gamers a gamified system, they're gonna game it. And in this case, the name of the game is "Forum Team Death Match", in which some people appear to be doing their best to provoke actionable outbursts from what they perceive as the enemy team. And there's even cheating, as seems to be the case with the notorious banjumping epidemic that appears to be connected to such a "team".

Somehow, a "warning" is not being perceived as a personal notice under this system, but rather just a "hit" on the old life bar, such as can be expected in any game. In fact, from what I've seen, if the moderators actually want to warn people off from certain types of behavior, they DON'T use the official warning system. They just tell people to knock it off without zapping them with the warning wand. It's a strange situation in which the enforcement apparatus has detached itself from actual forum moderation and become a game unto itself.

I'm not sure if doing away with the life bar would be a solution to this issue, as it may exacerbate such arbitrariness and biases as usually exist in any disciplinary environments. But if it's to remain a feature, it needs to be brought into a closer alignment with its original purpose. The game is getting tedious.

 

[Something Amyss]

TLR: The current setup puts a lot of burden on people who just want a place to hang out and gives a distinct advantage to jerks over the people trying to correct them. There is no low effort way to express disapproval of blatant bigotry so often blatant bigotry is tolerated.

Only certain groups, though. This sends a very...specific message, intended or otherwise.

 

[IceForce]

Oh dear, our "Pot & Kettle" department would certainly have a few choice words about this here post.

If you've got something to say about me, just say it, rather than dancing around passive-aggressively.

It may surprise you to know, but I very rarely ever use the reporting/flagging system at all. Most of the time, it's pretty useless (because you can't even type in a reason for your report), and usually posts are already moderated before I even stumble across them.

In fact, I would welcome the mods to publicly release the datamining/metrics regarding reports submitted from my account. The results (or rather, lack of results) might surprise you.

At the very least, I welcome the mods to chime in here and confirm that 99% of my PM correspondence with them has been regarding my own infractions (due to how trumped-up and contrived they always are), and are NOT regarding getting other people moderated.

I believe there was even a user group that made a point of inviting moderators to join so they could discuss sanctions for others in group chat with the enforcing parties without having to employ the unreliable flagging system.

What group was this? First I've heard of it. I hope the group was shut down fairly swiftly.

I'm not sure if doing away with the life bar would be a solution to this issue, as it may exacerbate such arbitrariness and biases as usually exist in any disciplinary environments. But if it's to remain a feature, it needs to be brought into a closer alignment with its original purpose. The game is getting tedious.

I think fixing the COC should be more of a priority, and it might even indirectly help alleviate the problem you've described here.

 

[IceForce]

E.G. to view past Zero Punctuation you have to go Video game> Videos > Zero punctuation Icon > Then click on the show title Zero Punctuation. all to get to the library page

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation

Top of the page: "My Escapist" >> "Video Galleries" >> Then click on the ZP logo (or any of the other logos).

It's not necessarily very intuitive, but the shortcut is there.

I'd like some sort of consequences for abusing the report/flag system.

Strange I wonder if it's anything to do the the myriad of times I've had to go through the same system and have likely had my posts reported.

Maybe there's a mysterious group of "third-party trolls" who are responsible?

I mean I got moderated for making a post copying one of your previous posts before. A post that might I add wasn't moderated for you but me copying said post saw me face such action and have to go through the appeals system.

I once got moderated for "derailing", even though it was you who was bringing up points that were off-topic, not me. (And besides, don't you usually complain about other people "bikeshedding"?)

Spoiler

This message is being automatically sent by the forum system to let you know that you have been issued a warning by a forum moderator.

Warning Details
Post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/663.883429.22291513
Reason: Derailing. Please do not try to get reactions from users. Stick to the thread topic.

Being issued a warning does not prevent earning any badges. Please take this as a warning to adjust your behavior on the forums. If you would like to dispute this, please use our contact form [/contact/subject/forums].

I will agree with you, though. The moderation here is all over the place and horribly inconsistent.

 

[SolidState]

Fix and/or overhaul the flagging system.

As things are, reporting things in the mod group or PMing a mod directly will get you farther than the flagging system will. Either because flags are simply not getting through, or because a mod is ignoring them.

When forgoing and bypassing your site's built-in reporting function actually results in a more reliable and timely response than the built-in reporting function does, then you know your site/moderation has a real problem.

 

[snave]

A shift away from video for the sake of video and back towards intelligently written, high-quality long form articles.

Since The Escapist gave these up, the only outlet producing anything remotely close is Polygon, but I find most of their writers to be utterly insufferable.

 

[Fallow]

Most of my biggest suggestions have already been covered, but to be specific;

* More consistent moderation, across the board (pun intended). There are too many instances of people repeatedly receiving suspensions and subsequently having them overturned. If overturnings are that commonplace, then the initial suspensions probably shouldn't have been given.

* More content. Obvious, perhaps, but direly needed.

This stuff is good, but I would also like it to include permabans. Once you've been banned for the third time, it really should stick. For both main and troll accounts.

Second, I think it's really important that we move from a 'letter of the law' to a 'spirit of the law' approach, especially on the lower side of the scale. Someone saying 'fuck you and everything you love' is far less of a douchebag than someone implying the same a thousand times over in a hundred different posts.
Being an asshat is more general tone than specific wording, and moderation should also consider the posters that are intentionally inflammatory (and there are a few around).

Also, as other's have said:
Multi-quoting
Reason for flagging
Doing weird things in games
Highlevel guides in games (how to be the best Rocket League player, advanced 4-man tactics in Nosgoth/Vermintide etc)
Flashboobs

Hmm, maybe also a jumplink on each post for every response to that post so you can sort of follow a specific discussion on a topic without having to search for responses/continuations. That way you could just keep clicking the jumplinks and follow the discussion to its conclusion before starting on another discussion within the thread.


EDIT: ooh, and speaking of moderation, could we have something to indicate how many mods have looked at something? I have seen quite a few discussions on how biased certain mods are (and some have openly stated their preferences on certain topics), and I think that showing if multiple mods have looked at an issue would put some of those concerns to rest.

 

[Lightknight]

TLR: The current setup puts a lot of burden on people who just want a place to hang out and gives a distinct advantage to jerks over the people trying to correct them. There is no low effort way to express disapproval of blatant bigotry so often blatant bigotry is tolerated.

Only certain groups, though. This sends a very...specific message, intended or otherwise.

I'm unsure what the advantage is. We can just condemn their message. We don't have to say that the person themselves are stinky poopoo-head to convey the idea that their message is evil and wrong.

Otherwise, we can always block anyone who is repeatedly vile.

What kind of "power" are we looking to have over these people? We are able to talk, same as them. If the idea is to censor them then wouldn't that give us an absolute and unequivocal power over them as opposed to the claimed mere "advantage" the poster stated they somehow have? If the problem is one side having an advantage over another then that further widens any disparity if not making the disparity outright complete.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I would like to go back to the "like" discussion.
I like 'like' systems without downvotes or consequences, there are many times when I like what someone says but don't have anything to add, and it feels weird to comment " I like this"

It's also a good way to gauge how people feel about stuff. If people are arguing about two games, it may seem like they are equal, but if one game gets thirty likes and the other gets ten, the first game might be better

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

I think it would be cool to have community short story or art contests/showcases with a new theme every week or two. It could give community members a way to flex their creative muscles and it would also be cool to see people's work.

I'd also like to see the forum interface updated to add more functionality.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

This kind of mentality is that of individuals demanding those in control start warping society around them to be more in their own image rather than understanding that being a part of society means give and take and not always only dealing with your best buddies.

I'm not sure how you jumped from "the rules in place can make it somewhat problematic and difficult to express disapproval of bad behavior, thus discouraging participation of those at who that bad behavior is directed" to "murder anyone who is annoying".

I am not insisting that I only ever deal with my best buddies. Give and take is what I am talking about - and how the way the Escapist is currently setup discourages that at the low level, especially when it comes to people who bad behavior is directed at.

And I didn't even say that anything needs to be changed. I was just pointing it out as a problem that does exist, a consequence of the system as it is.

However, on a message board you have a distinct advantage of being able to block confirmed jerk-faces and thereby being entirely able to avoid them if you so desire. How does that not meet your qualifications of being able to avoid some such asshat?

First off, because 95% of the time that person might be a perfectly cool person I like to talk about video games with. I don't automatically assume that ignorance or even blatant bigotry confirms a person as someone completely not worth interacting with. Most people who are ignorant or even bigoted are good people at heart just with some shitty views.

Second, because my ignoring the user is not a challenge to it - the community at large does not see the comment being called out as bad and so the community might think that it is an ok thing to say. "Person X said a thing and no one seemed to mind, so it must be ok, right?" This is where community give and take actually is - we all contribute to the culture of the community, we all learn from each other.

The whole point I was trying to make was that in the current setup and rules there is no ability to make an appropriate level of response. I can't just say "Not cool" or downvote and drop it. I have to make a discussion out of it when there really is no discussion to be had or I have to shut up about it and say nothing. I don't want to make a big deal about some stupid thing someone said because it almost never is a big deal. I want to make a very small deal about it. But I can't, and that can make it exhausting being on these forums and it can make them seem more hostile than they actually are. I think that is something to consider.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it would be cool to have community short story or art contests/showcases with a new theme every week or two. It could give community members a way to flex their creative muscles and it would also be cool to see people's work.

I'd also like to see the forum interface updated to add more functionality.

What? Are you mad? Why would you want to update an antique? Do you update your grandmother's fine China to include Avengers? Would you put racing stripes on the Mona Lisa? Would you amend the Constitu...wait, bad example.

 

[Lightknight]

This kind of mentality is that of individuals demanding those in control start warping society around them to be more in their own image rather than understanding that being a part of society means give and take and not always only dealing with your best buddies.

I'm not sure how you jumped from "the rules in place can make it somewhat problematic and difficult to express disapproval of bad behavior, thus discouraging participation of those at who that bad behavior is directed" to "murder anyone who is annoying".

You complained that people were allowed to say ignorant things without swift retribution. I was explaining that this is a foundation of a free and open society where the offensive have a place at the table too, same as the weak or few.

So you're just disappointed that you can't call offensive people shit heads? Why do you think that gives anyone and advantage or disadvantage? They are presenting an idea, you have the same means to turn to them and say, "Your idea is shit because...". Hell, you can even say, "You're being racist because...". Providing context brings it away from name calling and puts it into defining. I mean, you couldn't say "You're a shit head because..." unless the person made a comment which implied that their head is somehow made from or covered in dung but you can absolutely call people out on what they're being and why their comments are wrong/offensive.

What would you like to be able to do that you cannot currently do? Just click a button that looks like a down thumb? Why do you feel like that is particularly powerful? Why is it more powerful than explaining why the person is wrong and hopefully enlightening someone through the magic that is social discourse?

However, on a message board you have a distinct advantage of being able to block confirmed jerk-faces and thereby being entirely able to avoid them if you so desire. How does that not meet your qualifications of being able to avoid some such asshat?

First off, because 95% of the time that person might be a perfectly cool person I like to talk about video games with. I don't automatically assume that ignorance or even blatant bigotry confirms a person as someone completely not worth interacting with. Most people who are ignorant or even bigoted are good people at heart just with some shitty views.

Second, because my ignoring the user is not a challenge to it - the community at large does not see the comment being called out as bad and so the community might think that it is an ok thing to say. "Person X said a thing and no one seemed to mind, so it must be ok, right?" This is where community give and take actually is - we all contribute to the culture of the community, we all learn from each other.

The whole point I was trying to make was that in the current setup and rules there is no ability to make an appropriate level of response. I can't just say "Not cool" or downvote and drop it. I have to make a discussion out of it when there really is no discussion to be had or I have to shut up about it and say nothing. I don't want to make a big deal about some stupid thing someone said because it almost never is a big deal. I want to make a very small deal about it. But I can't, and that can make it exhausting being on these forums and it can make them seem more hostile than they actually are. I think that is something to consider.

But you can literally say "not cool" as long as you explain what they're saying is ignorant. That's just due to there being a low content post rule (that is rarely enforced). The rules do not prohibit you from criticizing what is said. You just can't call someone a fucktard and not get dinged. Neither can they.

Perhaps you're just not familiar with the rules? They basically just don't want you to levy direct insults at the other users. You can disagree, strongly and with attitude. No one is stopping that. Like you and I are doing right now. I'm just not going to call you a cotton-headed ninny muggins and you're not going to call me dummy dumb-drops and we'll be fine.

No one is making you do followup posts after one explaining your thoughts. And here's an idea, if it's such a damn crucifixion to explain your thoughts in a sentence or to then just don't respond. You have the same power anyone else does whenever you make a comment.

 

[happyninja42]

First off, because 95% of the time that person might be a perfectly cool person I like to talk about video games with. I don't automatically assume that ignorance or even blatant bigotry confirms a person as someone completely not worth interacting with. Most people who are ignorant or even bigoted are good people at heart just with some shitty views.

Second, because my ignoring the user is not a challenge to it - the community at large does not see the comment being called out as bad and so the community might think that it is an ok thing to say. "Person X said a thing and no one seemed to mind, so it must be ok, right?" This is where community give and take actually is - we all contribute to the culture of the community, we all learn from each other.

But this site's community is infamous for arguing with itself about how some person's comment is sexist/bigoted/naive/etc. You are talking like people are able to just say what they want and :
1. Have zero feedback from the community, telling them that it is wrong/unacceptable. Which is demonstrably wrong with this site. The regulars here thrive on that kind of shit.
2. Have zero repurcussions. Again, demonstrably wrong in a lot of cases. As most of the obvious, intentional asshats that have posted on this forum in the past, have been banned. Hell some of them don't even make it one day before they get banned, their content is so toxic. Why? Because people reported their unacceptable comments to the moderators, who investigated, and took action. So I don't really see where you're getting this "the little guy has no voice here, and can't challenge when people are being mean to them". Because that's just not the case.

The whole point I was trying to make was that in the current setup and rules there is no ability to make an appropriate level of response. I can't just say "Not cool" or down vote and drop it. I have to make a discussion out of it when there really is no discussion to be had or I have to shut up about it and say nothing. I don't want to make a big deal about some stupid thing someone said because it almost never is a big deal. I want to make a very small deal about it. But I can't, and that can make it exhausting being on these forums and it can make them seem more hostile than they actually are. I think that is something to consider.

What would down voting accomplish? Seriously, all that says is "I don't like this comment." It has no context about why you don't like it. If it's hostile, or abusive, or bigoted. People can dislike a comment for something as simple as "I don't like Force Awakens, and this guy is gushing about how awesome it is." there is zero context to a like/dislike system, making it effectively pointless. Also, if you don't want to make a big deal out of it, what does making a little deal out of it accomplish? Again, it isn't really stating anything about why it's "not cool." Why should they investigate something that is "eh, not a big deal", if that's all you indicate? That seems contrary to the very thing you want to accomplish.

And actually you can just say "Not cool", and then drop it. That at least expresses your dislike, and why. I've had people dislike things I've said on youtube, and it hasn't effected me in the slightest.

So again, I'm confused how you will accomplish the goal you want, with the actions you want implemented. It doesn't seem like they would actually accomplish anything significant, which would basically mean that everything would stay the same. I mean you directly said " I want to be able to not make a big deal about it." Well ok, if it's not a big deal, why should it be looked into?