Side discussion about General Topics forum

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

That is the tricky line which the moderators have to walk, and one of the big reasons that I've held back from volunteering because I have a feeling that I'd be a bit too strict.
We've got a list of names that are off limits in the forum censor...including a famous Luftwaffe fighter-bomber (thanks Dowly ), so I see no reason to change that to be honest, Steve does a good job of patrolling for offensive language so that's not a problem.
When it comes down to using perjorative terms, I think it's a Mutually Assured Destruction situation really, for instance we have seen Tarjak call Skybird a bigot, which is partly what inspired this thread, however Skybird has on numerous occasions called those who dispute his Islamic theory naive or foolish, which is the greater insult? The fact is, in the minds of both Skybird and Tarjak both terms are used accurately and as a matter of fact, which is opened to interpretation by all that view this thread. There may be those on this forum who don't view Skybird as a bigot, just as there may be those who don't view those of us who disagree with Skybird as naive fools.
The problem also lies in the fact that by the book neither Tarjak or Skybird have done anything wrong, with exception of perhaps the 'express yourself with respect' part of the rules.

I think that quite possibly the rules and code of conduct for GT and the Subsim forum might need a little overhaul and work to bring up to date with the current situation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to open up a thread, give it some publicity and ask the forum members what they think needs tightening up in the rules, whether perhaps the discussion of politics should be forbidden, or whether name calling of any kind is forbidden, or so on. Jim and Steve will obviously want to chime in to put forward ideas which will make things easier for them to book those who are crossing lines of decency and perhaps we can put forward an updated list of hate groups. I fully agree with the names mentioned on the current one but I think there are some glaring omissions, or perhaps it could be simplified by stating that Subsim does not tolerate racial, religious or sexual persecution or the promotion of such ideologies. That covers a broad spectrum and gives the moderators more lee-way to clamp down on the promotion of hatred in GT which has spawned this discussion.

[Sailor Steve]

And, against my better judgement, and because it's been moved to a different thread...

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Habitual again, you really should choose your words better, you know they are not true.
You should avoid absolutes at all costs, it just makes it very easy to prove you wrong.

Fine. Prove me wrong. Give us a link to show where you've ever given a link to prove your claims. I'm curious to see this.

Yeah right
I believe another person recently made a post about why certain members who post crazy Nazi anti jewish stuff which is specificly banned are not banned from the forum.

You believe? Can you give us a link to it?

How is your memory? Not too good it seems.
So are you the person who participated in that topic?

I'm the person who asked that you provide links to prove your claims. I didn't participate in the topic proper.

Are you the person who handed me an infraction for calling the individual a Nazi.

I'm the person who gave you an infraction for insulting another member without bothering to back up your claim and then for making a game out of arguing about it while still refusing to justify your claims. Much like what is going on now.

Was it proven in the topic that the individual really likes that Nazi ideology and hates jews?

No. If it was proven the individual would have been banned. If you want to claim it you'd better be ready to prove it.

As a bonus was it proven in that topic that the person really liked some rather infamous anti semitic literary "masterpieces"?

Good. Show us how it was "proven".

So you think a flat earther cannot be summarily dismissed by the mere reference to established scientific fact, people have to put up a picture

I think he needs to be shown the error of his ways, not mocked at your whim.

If you look above you will see a comment about you using absolutes.
you really should heed it as not doing so proves me right in what I said about you.

You should really provide proof of that. As it stands, it's just your word. It really looks to me like you're playing games again. Again you claim it but you don't bother to even try to show everyone how I'm wrong.

You mean this post....

Unlike you, I linked to the post I meant. It wasn't about city-states and it wasn't about economics. It was about making fun of people without bothering to actually talk about what was said. You continually do this, and have done so for years. You can try to make this about me all you like, but the only time I come in is when you do this to people.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

@ Oberon


But wouldn't that sexual persecution put the gay marriage topic on the banned list, what happens next time there is a Republican primary or yet another activist liberal court striking down the ban on it?

Yes it would, and rightly so. All those threads tend to do is create a soap-box for homophobic viewpoints.

Actually would "liberal" be on the list of perjorative terms? a lot of people throw that word around as an insult

Aye, just as Bigot, Nazi and the like gets thrown back in real life and on GT, but if you start cutting down on that then it's hard to know where to stop, I think, personally, that swearing is a good cut off point, beyond that it's just a case of breaking up a circular argument when it's run its course. For example your discussion with Rockstar is pretty much running to the end of its life now, and it would serve no real purpose for either of you if it were to continue in public. If there is a real interest to discuss the finer points of the Qu'ran between the two of you then perhaps it would be better taken to Private Messages?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

No! I think the rules are good as are.

I think the biggest problem with some terms are those that people make up and refer upon another person as if they said it.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes


Already done, and I told you a while ago in that PM after your last round of nonsense how you would be treated from now on, I gave you a few breaks lately but you have again proven yourself to be what you are.
I fully understand that when you apologised previously for making the same identical baseless accusations you were just spouting empty words with not an iota of honesty in them.
Good day young man.

How's Steve to be treated from now on? What has he proven himself to be this time? I thought Steve was old....

I swear, one would think you're trying to get banned....

[Buddahaid]

I actually think it's been working pretty well although I'm not one of those tasked with monitoring it. One of the things I enjoy most about GT is the discussion over controversial subjects and current events and I'd hate to see that squashed in the name of overt PC. I can't even watch what passes for news these days without feeling I'm being fed a line and played like a fish, and I can care less about who wore what dress and who snubbed who at the gala and who's dated who behind whoever's back which is what the lion share of the news feeds seem to be.

Don't mess with it

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

overt PC

Oh no...no, no, no, no...no...

All I am asking for is some common decency. Subsim is supposed to be a family friendly forum...so since when has racism, sexism and religious persecution been a family friendly affair?
I would hold as little truck with a radical Islamist posting about how the decadent west is doomed to fall under Islam as I would with those who decry that every Muslim is an extremist.

Now, really, we're living in the 21st century, we're supposed to be better than this, is it too much to ask that each and every human being be treated equally? Is it too much to ask that they be allowed to live without the fear of persecution because of their choice or their upbringing, or even just because of an accident of birth?

Sure, I hear many people saying, but ISIL isn't going to give them that opportunity...no, no they're not, and that is something that we must fight against just as strongly as we fight against any other form of persecution, but you cannot condemn ISIL on one hand, and then make the same fundamental flaws in judgement that they do and expect to be treated differently.

Now, obviously I'm not saying that you do Buddahaid, but there are people who do and they seem to be either unable or unwilling to see the irony in it, and so that's why I think in order to give a level playing field to any discussion here we need to remove religious, sexual or racial prejudices from the table. Humour is one thing, we all had a good chuckle at the 'Arab scud launcher' pic with the camel that went around in the post-9/11 era, just as we have a good chuckle at pictures lampooning ISIL and the like, but we must also be prepared to have the humour used back at us, the rise of the 'Murca meme, or the French surrender epics, however incorrect they may be, we are just as guilty of making the same assumptions against others.
That is one thing, but in a serious discussion such as we promote happening in General Topics (depending on the thread) then rational thinking should be encouraged and emotional outbursts, not banned but controlled. Obviously in the aftermath of an atrocity people are going to be emotional, and that is to be expected, but when this emotional train continues into ingrained hatred...then dangerous things happen.

I'm rambling a bit here, as I sometimes do...but basically, I don't want PC, I don't want jokes to be verboten or anything like that...what I want is for people to stop using General Topics as a vehicle for the promotion of the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs, just as I would like to stop radical Imams from using British mosques to promote the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs...honestly, I see little difference between the two.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes

And as always when you can't prove it you fall into insulting language and mockery. But you still can't show it.

Already done, and I told you a while ago in that PM after your last round of nonsense how you would be treated from now on, I gave you a few breaks lately but you have again proven yourself to be what you are.
I fully understand that when you apologised previously for making the same identical baseless accusations you were just spouting empty words with not an iota of honesty in them.
Good day young man.

More mockery and more talk. Still nothing to show. Talk is cheap. Let's see a single proof of anything you say. Don't just claim it, show it.

[Flamebatter90]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

Sub-section, where we put those members who are constantly fighting and pickering. They can't post anywhere else but there (and only they can post there) and can only get out by conceding or calling it a draw. If they keep on pickering after that, both get the banhammer.

I vote that the two first are Sailor Steve and Tribesman.

Basically, what I am calling for is Thunderdome minus Tina Turner's stupid hair.

[August]

Originally Posted by Flamebatter90

I vote that the two first are Sailor Steve and Tribesman.

That's the problem with your idea. One already deserves the ban hammer and the other doesn't and never will.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Flamebatter90

Sub-section, where we put those members who are constantly fighting and pickering. They can't post anywhere else but there (and only they can post there) and can only get out by conceding or calling it a draw. If they keep on pickering after that, both get the banhammer.

I vote that the two first are Sailor Steve and Tribesman.

Basically, what I am calling for is Thunderdome minus Tina Turner's stupid hair.

[Flamebatter90]

Originally Posted by August

That's the problem with your idea. One already deserves the ban hammer and the other doesn't and never will.

Originally Posted by Armistead

I was not exactly being serious there.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.



Exactly! I for one am pretty tolerant of different opinions. And I understand a person is like to let off some steam occasionally. Like ikalugin said: I do not mind sensible replies and even reasonable amounts of burning emotion. After all we are all humans and have limited rationality, as well as access to information and ability to process it.

Where is the line, indeed? Two big factors: who defines where it is, and who interprets each statement and measures it to determine if it is line. And that falls to me, the moderators, and the community. In the past, when we got a person who repeatedly made it clear he was an anti-semite or nazi, enough of the community would voice their disapproval and he was left out of future discussions. But not everyone is going to agree. Personally, I can stand a little more than some people. We've had a couple of avowed commies post here. I need to see a pretty blatant example before I feel compelled to yank someone. For me, I prefer to skip their posts and ignore them. And if that leads to topic spamming to get my attention, then that is sufficient grounds for dismissal.

I also cast a sour look at calling people names: Idiot, racist, liar, fool, sheep, etc. If you want to say Miley Cyrus is a tart, or some rapper is an idiot, that's less bothersome. I believe we should give elected officials a modicum of respect for their office, but they can still be criticized (just less severely than thugs, and Miley Cyrus). :P


Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

Three things. First, some of us who are around since long, can remember times when things were much worse. Say ten years ago or so.

Second, what is offending a name by the standards of one, is more or is not as offending by the standards of somebody else. I defend my use of terms like "naive" and "foolish, fool", because by the standards of German language they are not at all like calling somebody right to his face that he is an "idiot" - that would be an offence if being done in a personal message. In a more generally, anonymously addressed statement, describing for example the bad behaviour of car drivers in a certain region, or the members of a cult doing some really weird stuff, the term again already is less aggressive again.

And third, not only names can be offending - but behaviour and the way in which you react to somebody elses's reply can be an offence, too. And there I speak by plenty of bad experience of having been at the receiving end of such talks over the past ten years. Suggestive phrasing, manipulative wording, underhanded implications, when you get intentionally misquoted and the quote ripped out of context to make it appear that something else was said and meant than originally was said for sure, when you address what the other demanded you to reply to, and when you did he totally ignores it, when the other tries to make you jump through the burning rings he holds up and wants you to again and again react to his demand and question, but never himself does he take that answers of yours into account bu treats it as if you refuse to answer, or when you gave a reply and see the other turning it in your mouth - that is imo much worse than just calling somebody names, in real life outside virtual, written talks it is the difference between spoken word, and aggressive action. This is the stuff that makes ME angry for sure, and I sometimes then react to it by ignoring it, or cutting things short, or giving a snappy, laconic, sarcastic reply - or telling the other quite frankly what [enterwordhere] I think he is by his shown behaviour. I do not necessarily endlessly honour the cheating behaviour of the other, I do not accept that then I nevertheless should get demanded to honour such tricky behavior by reasonably, endlessly reasonably, always patiently and reaosnably recting ot it again and again and again. We have some specialists for doing like this here, for example the currently only remaining name entry on my ignore list, Tribesman. Haven't read him since years, will never care to read him again. To me he is the worst troll since Akula ten years ago. And last months and years I caredf for him, he was a master of described tactics - and judging by some feedback that sometimes I cannot avoid to snap up, he still is.

I often got and get accused of "walls of text" (one could argue that already is a derogatory term too, couldn't you...), but not rarely these come from replying to somebody else's post sentence by sentence - something that several other people over the years have come to copy (which I do not mean as criticism). regarding offences and attacks conducted not by word choice, but rhetoric and behaviour, moderation sometimes leaves much to be desired, or allows repeated offenders to many months to have their ways. Other people also sometimes overlook that they sometimes fail in trying to maintain precision in expression of what they want to say - when cutting things too short themselves.

I am wondering. Years ago we repeatedly exchanged some emails about forum behaviour, and I complained about things that were worse than what we have now, and I advised you that it might be a good idea to simply ban certain themes like religion or politics, deleting all threads starting such topics. You always decided against such measures and refused moderation like this. Today, things are much less troubled, but you think about tightening moderation. Well, conflicts there are in GT, and probably always will be. Its subsim's rumble pit. It ended the way it is now because of your extremely liberal policies of moderation, and I must say I occasionally thought indeed that moderation set in far too late, and was far too forgiving, allowing quite some personally-aimed rhetorics hurting somebody. Or that an offender got relativized and the victim of his attack got made sharing responsibility, only to give the outcome of moderation a more balanced look. The situation as it is now is what you deserved by your forum policies, Neal. You called for it, and considering that this is the rumble pit for sure, it is not the worst outcome possible - all in all your policies still worked more for the better than for the worse.

So what's the fuzz about now? It has been so much worse in the past, with moderation not reacting at all.

The present debate is much about nothing, I'd say.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

One of the ideas I have is ''Thread time outs'', if a thread spirals down into a back and forth between 2 or more of the same members which have A)Nothing to do with the OT, B) Is like a dog chasing it's own tail and gets nowhere or C)where it turns into namecalling and accusations the thread should be locked for 48 Hours untill a 2nd try can be made but if it spirals again then it should be locked again but this time permanently.

---

@Steve and Tribesman, could you please take this over to PM it's really tiring to see this same bickering in public carried over from one thread to the other.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

One of the ideas I have is ''Thread time outs'', if a thread spirals down into a back and forth between 2 or more of the same members which have A)Nothing to do with the OT, B) Is like a dog chasing it's own tail and gets nowhere or C)where it turns into namecalling and accusations the thread should be locked for 48 Hours untill a 2nd try can be made but if it spirals again then it should be locked again but this time permanently.

I second this. (Until I see a black and white flag near Königratz)