|
I managed to say some pretty nasty things about Beast and got moderators wandering in to compliment me rather than ban me. Maybe people should just get better at doing criticism without insulting people? It's not that difficult!
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:13 |
|
|
# ? May 8, 2024 04:57 |
|
Nuns with Guns posted:It doesn't seem appropriate to what-if about a situation where an innocent person's life is destroyed by false accusations when the accused here seems to have quietly owned up to it and quickly withdrawn from public spheres. But, this is not one situation. This is a pattern of incidents throughout, essentially, western culture going back indefinitely that is starting to come to light and get the attention it deserves. It is going to become extremely necessary very soon for places like RPGNet (and Something Awful for that matter) to have a very clear and specific process for dealing with harassment between users and especially by staff. We absolutely have to assume that other moderators and site admins on various websites are going to be accused of doing horrible things. It is completely appropriate to discuss, in the thread about this industry, how these situations are going to be addressed in the future, and to look at an immediate and current situation as an example. rkajdi posted:
This is a fair criticism. rkajdi posted:I also don't see what it has to do with one of the bog standard "Maybe it's false/Let's hear his side" kind of MRAish responses that always seems to come out when a woman brings forward an allegation of rape. That's the point Enola Gay-For-Pay brought that I'm responding to. Again, this is serious poo poo and is basically as tangentially involved with RPG stuff as the NeoGAF thing is with video games. Acting like McFarland should be dropped for making even as lovely a game Beast is instead of being a rapist is just impossible for me to comprehend. I don't appreciate being lumped in with MRAs. My entire problem is that you just branded this man as a rapist and demanded that he be fired based on an anonymous internet post and that feels really uncomfortable to me, but at the same time I agree with you, this is serious poo poo, and there should be consequences for it. I don't think I am being a red-piller by being a little conflicted here, ok? rkajdi posted:It's worth discussing Matt McFarland for the same reason I brought up the Metzner stuff here originally. The nerd community in general has been a victim of the nerd social fallacy, and that's let a bunch of creepers like Metzner and worse into the community. I want to clean house on sexual harassers and sex criminals, and I don't honestly see a lot of reasonable counter-arguments to the position. I do see a lot of cowardice from people in power about doing the right thing and booting them, and it's actively helping to make the community a worse place. This I 100% agree with, and I don't think anyone is arguing with you about it. The Wyzard posted:I disagree with this entirely. Even if her accusations are totally fabricated, Matt would have to be batshit crazy to come out and make a statement. This is a very good point and I appreciate you making it.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:18 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:I managed to say some pretty nasty things about Beast and got moderators wandering in to compliment me rather than ban me. Sure, cool. By the way, have you considered that maybe smugly advocating for tone policing people lashing out in pain and anger over abuse apologia, in a conversation controlled by the guy who helped design the abuse apologia, who turned out to almost certainly be a rapist, makes you look like a bit of a callous prick right now? Maybe quit brown nosing for ten seconds and think about what's being discussed? It's not that difficult!
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:37 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:I managed to say some pretty nasty things about Beast and got moderators wandering in to compliment me rather than ban me. Aren't/weren't you a moderator there? Weird that they'd give someone who was on the moderation team more slack than they'd show to an outsider. I wonder how this might be applicable to another situation where, to pick a random hypothetical, someone who is or was on the moderation team was outed as a pedophile rapist but wasn't banned from the forum. RPZip fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Oct 25, 2017 |
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:38 |
|
No, I'm pretty sure it's because I didn't actually break any rules.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:44 |
|
We do tone police the gently caress out of RPGnet though. I'm aware this has advantages and disadvantages as a strategy.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:46 |
|
The Wyzard posted:We do tone police the gently caress out of RPGnet though. Yeah, but that's why I find the SA attitude that you can't say mean things without getting banned baffling, because historically RPGnet's major moderation problem has been the floods of people who figured out how to be shits of one kind or another without falling afoul of the PA rules.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:47 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Yeah, but that's why I find the SA attitude that you can't say mean things without getting banned baffling, because historically RPGnet's major moderation problem has been the floods of people who figured out how to be shits of one kind or another without falling afoul of the PA rules. Hey you know what shut the gently caress up and stop equivocating about defending rape guy's rape fantasies against people being revictimized by them. gently caress you.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:53 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:No, I'm pretty sure it's because I didn't actually break any rules. When the rules are being used to shield a pedophilic rapist rather than victims of abuse it's time to change the rules rather than point at them like "nope, sorry, gotta keep them trolls out, It Is Written."
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:54 |
|
love to debate the rules of another forum on this forum.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:54 |
|
what the gently caress
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:57 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Yeah, but that's why I find the SA attitude that you can't say mean things without getting banned baffling, because historically RPGnet's major moderation problem has been the floods of people who figured out how to be shits of one kind or another without falling afoul of the PA rules. As a counterexample, allow me to present this. Someone in the RPG.net thread this discussion was based off got dinged for the following: quote:HR departments and their policies exist to protect the company from employees and the threat of litigation, not the other way around. If HR was interested in people it would still be called personnel. It's a personal attack against HR professionals, you see. Last time I was on there I got dinged for calling the Ex3 PDF's total lack of bookmarking and page XX errors 'unprofessional', which was also a personal attack. RPG.net's tone policing incentives the kind of sniveling, passive aggressive shitheadery that some people are extremely proficient in. This isn't an advantage unless you're the type of dipshit who thrives in that kind of environment.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 00:59 |
|
Yes, those are both personal attacks, and it would be very easy to reframe them so that they aren't without altering the content of the sentence! So I'm surprised that people don't.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:05 |
|
Serf posted:love to debate the rules of another forum on this forum. Well how about this forum? If I post "Serf came to my house and killed my dog because of my bad posting," what should the mods here do? Even without adding the emotional stakes of sexual abuse, it's not an easy question. Adding a sexual abuse element to the allegation makes it even more fraught. What is a good policy for this forum, and for forums in general to deal with allegations of off-site misconduct and crime between forum members?
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:06 |
|
Neither of those are personal attacks. The one about HR departments doesn't even reference a particular person or entity.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:06 |
|
Jimbozig posted:Well how about this forum? If I post "Serf came to my house and killed my dog because of my bad posting," what should the mods here do? Even without adding the emotional stakes of sexual abuse, it's not an easy question. Adding a sexual abuse element to the allegation makes it even more fraught. What is a good policy for this forum, and for forums in general to deal with allegations of off-site misconduct and crime between forum members? if you posted that my response would be "lol" Rand Brittain posted:Yes, those are both personal attacks, and it would be very easy to reframe them so that they aren't without altering the content of the sentence! So I'm surprised that people don't. good god drat
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:08 |
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Neither of those are personal attacks. The one about HR departments doesn't even reference a particular person or entity. Well, okay, it's a group attack, but whatever.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:09 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Yes, those are both personal attacks, and it would be very easy to reframe them so that they aren't without altering the content of the sentence! So I'm surprised that people don't. I loving dare you to identify who that HR comment would offend to the point that it required administrative action. I loving dare you. And no, you don't count.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:09 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Yes, those are both personal attacks, and it would be very easy to reframe them so that they aren't without altering the content of the sentence! So I'm surprised that people don't. They're really not, unless you are the softest, most tender, delicate baby made of glass that has ever existed.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:10 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Yes, those are both personal attacks, and it would be very easy to reframe them so that they aren't without altering the content of the sentence! So I'm surprised that people don't. No I'm pretty sure saying gently caress you you goddamn piece of poo poo is a personal attack in both style and content and is very much intended to be so. In case it wasn't clear before, gently caress you, you goddamned piece of poo poo.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:11 |
|
Serf posted:love to debate the rules of another forum on this forum. love to see mods from said forum coming to this forum to circle the wagons because some people here are side-eyeing how they handled, and I want to emphasize this, a man that raped an underaged girl.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:11 |
|
Mors Rattus posted:They're really not, unless you are the softest, most tender, delicate baby made of glass that has ever existed. rpgnet mods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSuF6HCqko
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:11 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Well, okay, it's a group attack, but whatever. "Calling the work someone did unprofessional is an attack on them and consequently needs to be moderated as such" is the stupidest loving interpretation of that policy and you prancing around throwing smug shade at other people because "well they could just have made that point without attacking anyone, it's so surprising they didn't do so!" is obnoxious as hell.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:12 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Well, okay, it's a group attack, but whatever. It's not even an attack. Like, based on those examples, you're pretty much just banning people for having negative opinions of a thing, which is ridiculous. The "SA attitude of you can't say mean things" is completely correct, unless those examples aren't actually representative.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:12 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:Yes, those are both personal attacks, and it would be very easy to reframe them so that they aren't without altering the content of the sentence! So I'm surprised that people don't. Telling you to gently caress off because you are being an insufferable git would likely be a personal attack. Calling out a company's product lacking industry standard features as unprofessional is about as impersonal as you can go.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:13 |
|
Mors Rattus posted:They're really not, unless you are the softest, most tender, delicate baby made of glass that has ever existed. The personal attack rule doesn't really care about degree?
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:13 |
|
Jimbozig posted:Well how about this forum? If I post "Serf came to my house and killed my dog because of my bad posting," what should the mods here do? Even without adding the emotional stakes of sexual abuse, it's not an easy question. Adding a sexual abuse element to the allegation makes it even more fraught. What is a good policy for this forum, and for forums in general to deal with allegations of off-site misconduct and crime between forum members? The rules say directly "Flames and insults do not constitute harassment." Which means that on this forum, posters are free to berate each other, be generally obnoxious in their behaviour, and even make up stuff and present it as fact. Just so long as it doesn't verge into hate speech (racial slurs, etc.) which is against the rules. So in theory, yes, you can repeatedly make the claim that Serf killed your dog. At least up until the point it becomes considered a low-content and/or "worthless" post, at which point it breaks the rules. Which means the lesson here is if you're going to engage in targeted harassment on these forums, be entertaining about it. Wow this place is kinda hosed up when you take a moment to think about it.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:15 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:The personal attack rule doesn't really care about degree? Well then maybe it should so we don't have to worry about a rapist's tender feelings being injured that someone used a mean word, you staggeringly tone deaf rules lawyering fuckbrigade.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:15 |
|
Jimbozig posted:Well how about this forum? If I post "Serf came to my house and killed my dog because of my bad posting," what should the mods here do? Even without adding the emotional stakes of sexual abuse, it's not an easy question. Adding a sexual abuse element to the allegation makes it even more fraught. What is a good policy for this forum, and for forums in general to deal with allegations of off-site misconduct and crime between forum members? When it happened on SA the mod was removed and banned completely very quickly.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:16 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:The personal attack rule doesn't really care about degree? Gee, this might be a problem.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:16 |
|
Fuego Fish posted:The rules say directly "Flames and insults do not constitute harassment." Which means that on this forum, posters are free to berate each other, be generally obnoxious in their behaviour, and even make up stuff and present it as fact. Just so long as it doesn't verge into hate speech (racial slurs, etc.) which is against the rules. Amazingly the dead gay humour forum doesn't really have current rules or anything on the actual forums rules page.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:18 |
|
but y'aaaaaaaaaaaall! what if i really did kill jimbozig's dog because of his bad posting? surely that's a thing that could happen and shouldn't be compared to a person actually getting raped as a child, right??
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:18 |
|
Serf posted:but y'aaaaaaaaaaaall! what if i really did kill jimbozig's dog because of his bad posting? surely that's a thing that could happen and shouldn't be compared to a person actually getting raped as a child, right?? Can you kill the dog because of how bad his game is instead? That's more comparable.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:19 |
|
Mors Rattus posted:Gee, this might be a problem. I think Wyzard and I have already been explicit about the problems that doing it this way causes, namely, lots and lots of people dropping shade under facially-innocuous statements.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:19 |
|
Liquid Communism posted:Telling you to gently caress off because you are being an insufferable git would likely be a personal attack. "Insult the work, not the artist" was always how it went, so unless there's some context missing from RPZip's example then it was absolutely a bad call to ding anybody for that. It's different if your criticism is "this work is clearly reminiscent of someone who's a big dumb ugly idiot rear end in a top hat who smells like compost," but saying "this lack of basic editing and layout functionality is unprofessional" is not that. And before this gets even more tangential and side-tracked, let's remember that the reason this is even under discussion in the first place is that "Beast is a game written by a literal sex offender" is no longer a personal attack against the creator, who is still allowed to post on RPGnet for some reason, but a simple statement of fact.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:21 |
|
Rand Brittain posted:I think Wyzard and I have already been explicit about the problems that doing it this way causes, namely, lots and lots of people dropping shade under facially-innocuous statements. nah you've mostly just been a smug dickhead
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:23 |
|
I mean, I'm a little sympathetic here because I think strong moderation and deliberately cultivating a certain atmosphere and posting style is good. SA can be a little too lenient sometimes, and the endpoint of that style of (non)-moderation is nuGBS and 4chan. But at the same time, it's probably a good idea to make sure your rules don't incentivize even worse behavior than they prohibit. And you're not the federal government so moderating more or less strictly based on the content of the post as well as the tone is probably wise.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:24 |
|
I'm sure that reason is: "Well, he's not a -convicted- sex offender." Which has merit in the legal system, but I admit to finding it strange that social pressure hasn't solved the problem already. I like to think harboring accused child rapists is not socially acceptable in most communities.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:25 |
|
forum rules are not holy canon, the infallible word of god brought down as an unbreakable covenant between administrator and user and reader to protect them from rampaging trolls and their terrifying chariots of shitposting and thus anything that gets through is merely an unfortunate consequence that must be nobly and stoicly dealt with if the rules you set in place to perform a function and a purpose are being subverted to do the direct opposite of the intended thing you can in fact, just change them
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:29 |
|
|
# ? May 8, 2024 04:57 |
|
Daeren posted:forum rules are not holy canon, the infallible word of god brought down as an unbreakable covenant between administrator and user and reader to protect them from rampaging trolls and their terrifying chariots of shitposting Uh excuse me if the forum rules don't work you can sue Lowtax for your first amendment dead baby rights.
|
# ? Oct 25, 2017 01:31 |