Above Political Correctness

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Apparently it makes sense if you see the Report Post button as the most important factor in Moderation, Snake.

Sure, reporting to a Mod is well and good and should be encouraged, but if the Mod isn't willing to reprimand the person who made the offensive statement due to said statement being "vague" or "potentially interpreted as not intended to offend" or some shit, I'd sure as hell hope tolerant people in the community clearly indicated that the offensive comment made by the intolerant person was fucking insensitive and stupid so that everyone else in the community, including those targeted by said comments, knew that their friends on NPF weren't going to tolerate such shenanigans.

/run-on sentence

[shiney]

I can see where you're coming from. It's hard to be in this position, I feel like I'm in an interrogation room. =)

I don't make decisions based on who is or is not in a minority, though...the thing is, from my perspective, I see someone who gets hot under the collar over what sometimes is the slightest provocation, and want to see that stop. On the other hand, I saw someone use a word which has questionable meaning based on who they are speaking to/about. I base my decisions on a review of the facts and the history of the member(s) involved. Sometimes I get it wrong, and I still think I got it wrong on this one in a few instances, but again there are those who agree with me and those who don't. I will say that, if it comes to punishment, I try to leave emotion and personal belief out of it and look at things strictly from a "who/what rules are broken" perspective, because hell it's not like I care if Non is cisgender or anything. More power to him/her and I mean that, because knowing who & what you are in this world helps people cope and create a sence of belonging and society. But, I'm not going to allow someone to go on a tirade time and again and toss aside rules altogether just because they believe in something passionately. You know? Strictly from a rules perspective, it looks like TDK maybe violated the "flaming" portion to the degree of saying something thoughtless & insulting (to Non), but then Non jumped the shark thereafter.

I honestly don't want anyone to feel unwelcome here but part of that still involves remaining within accordance of our rules.

Edit: good god you guys. Would you prefer I run this place base don my personal beliefs and just threw around punishment based on what I believed? I may as well eliminate the report post function altogether because obviously I'm just supposed to accept that a histrionic reaction from a repeated offender (who's been banned at least twice in the past few months for the exact same behavior) and an insensitive comment are on the same basic level of violation.

Just, wow. Yeah TDK said a dickish thing, and then Non did what Non always does and got banned for it again, instead of just letting a mod handle it. Obviously this means shiney is a tyrant and hates everyone who disagrees...

[Nikose Tyris]

Actually, the way you phrased it there, Snake, is incredibly reasonable. I'm having a hard time not agreeing with Snake's latest post. It's a legitimate point that I made myself.

In post 71, i mean. I haven't read your latest one.

[Specterbane]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Just to clarify: you're against giving TDK a public admonishment for saying something brazenly offensive to a minority group regularly subjected to such hostile comments from beneficiaries of institutional privilege, but you don't mind publicly admonishing NonCon, a member of said minority group who was disparaged as "abnormal," from responding angrily, passionately, and in a completely human fashion to such insensitive comments?

I mean, is this policy supposed to make sense?

If I could put a little perspective on this. The original thread that started all this took 2 hours 11 minuets to get shut down for becoming the starting of a flame war (by my understanding of it).

Is it the job of the Mods to go White Knighting around championing controversial causes? Or is it their job to try and keep the peace and make sure calm discussion can be made without people being intentionality insulting?

Did TDK say something insulting? Obviously to Noncon he did. But did he intend to? I couldn't tell, and apparently the mods couldn't either. Shiney's repeated stated the most he could've done and still be considered a fair mod, and he's done a great job at it for years. I'd think that earns at least a little benefit of the doubt personally.

Edit: Gyah! This is moving fast.

[BitVyper]

So because I'm not in a minority somewhere, I should have to tiptoe around what I say, taking into account the potential that someone MIGHT get offended by a word or nomenclature I use

You know, that is almost exactly the same thing my mother and step father always said whenever I stood up to their constant emotional abuse and casual racism. Apparently watching what you say is just really gosh darned hard! Even when you are using a text based format where you literally have infinite time to be a bit mindful of others' feelings.

As far as the rest of this goes, whatever. But that in particular, I find irritating.

[Archbio]

Originally Posted by Shiney

Strictly from a rules perspective, it looks like TDK maybe violated the "flaming" portion to the degree of saying something thoughtless & insulting (to Non), but then Non jumped the shark thereafter.

Well, that's the thing, really. Strictly from a rules perspective, I wouldn't expect NonCon's behavior to wipe away TDK's behavior. Because then, that's just rewarding successful trolling.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by shiney

Just, wow. Yeah TDK said a dickish thing, and then Non did what Non always does and got banned for it again, instead of just letting a mod handle it. Obviously this means shiney is a tyrant and hates everyone who disagrees...

"Non did what Non always does?"
Shit we're not going to be able to actually have a rational and level-headed discussion about this, are we? I mean, really?

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Just to clarify: you're against giving TDK a public admonishment for saying something brazenly offensive to a minority group regularly subjected to such hostile comments from beneficiaries of institutional privilege, but you don't mind publicly admonishing NonCon, a member of said minority group who was disparaged as "abnormal," from responding angrily, passionately, and in a completely human fashion to such insensitive comments?

I mean, is this policy supposed to make sense?

If you put it that way, no. But that's not exactly what happened.

TDK made a stupid, insensitive comment. That isn't a bannable offense. I'd have given him an infraction and then requested that he issue a public apology because WOW that was a douche post that he made, but he isn't the one who turned it into a 3-thread-wide shitstorm.

The fact remains that while Noncon was the victim, he was not as much of a victim as he MADE HIMSELF OUT TO BE. Yes, a comment like the one TDK made is one that he deserved to be offended by. But no, starting a flamewar is not the way to let people know. Hitting the Report Post button would've gotten moderator attention and allowed the thread to continue on track, possibly with the offending post even being taken down.

Instead what happened is he knee-jerked every fucking thing anyone said, regardless of whether or not it actually had anything to do with the issue being discussed. TDK didn't turn it into a big thing, Noncon did, and the shit disturbing act was what I believe got him the ban.

[shiney]

Bingo @ Kerensky.

BitVyper: ah, admitted.

Arch: you make a good point too, I'm going to discuss this with the other mods at least...nothing cancels out, and I'm sorry if I made things appear that way.

Snake: at this point that is entirely up to you. Fact is Noncon is a repeat offender of doing exactly what happened, exactly, in this instance. You can take the admittedly flippant tone of my post and twist it if you like, or you can research post history and see the instances that resulted in Non getting a temp ban, how they happened, why they happened, and let me know your findings.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Kerensky287

TDK made a stupid, insensitive comment. That isn't a bannable offense.

I think part of my point is that making a stupid insensitive comment should at least warrant mod intervention or a warning to keep things civil, which would then prevent Non from overreacting in an entirely human, predictable, and rational manner in response to said stupid insensitive comment because he'd know the Mods weren't tolerating such shit, which would then prevent this whole situation from escalating in the first place.

Instead what happened is he knee-jerked every fucking thing anyone said, regardless of whether or not it actually had anything to do with the issue being discussed. TDK didn't turn it into a big thing, Noncon did, and the shit disturbing act was what I believe got him the ban.

...But that's precisely the problem.
From your perspective it is "okay" for people to say stupid and insensitive things, but it is not "okay" for people to respond rationally, cohesively and humanely to the stupid things someone has said.

If that culture persists then basically on NPF anyone can say anything offensive or insulting to any minority group, so long as it's sufficiently disguised as "vague" or "not intended to offend," and the Mods will do nothing or assume the best from the perpetrator, thus effectively forcing the hands of the tolerant and civil people on NPF to respond harshly in condemning the comment because the Mods won't condemn it, then effectively enabling the escalation of the situation and ensuring that the Mods eventually punish the people responding appropriately to the shitty and unacceptable comments in the first place, because they're the ones who "escalated" a vague situation into a Very Big Deal.

EDIT:

Snake: at this point that is entirely up to you. Fact is Noncon is a repeat offender of doing exactly what happened, exactly, in this instance. You can take the admittedly flippant tone of my post and twist it if you like, or you can research post history and see the instances that resulted in Non getting a temp ban, how they happened, why they happened, and let me know your findings.

So basically you concede that you are punishing NonCon less because of the actual circumstantial evidence of the "present crime" he's committed, but moreso on the basis of sheer "reputational" or "past crimes" evidence of past acts where you've felt he's over-reacted. His reputation precedes the actual merits of his arguments. He's condemned in your eyes to constantly be the aggressor and never the victim just because he's "acted up in the past, and that clearly means he's acting up again."

...I'm glad America's criminal justice system deliberately bans the introduction of "past crimes" or "character" evidence, except in extremely narrow circumstances, to prevent these exact kinds of propensity judgments from determining whether someone is "guilty" or "innocent."

EDIT 2: Oh man I can't believe I somehow found a way to integrate this tangent into studying for my Evidence final by throwing in an FRE 404(a) reference there, that was pretty awesome.
...I should probably be studying right now. =/