Forum reset

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 12:08 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Here's my issue, but I don't want this to turn into a bickering fest and I just wanted to talk about this publicly because I think it's good for the boards to be able to see the outcome of the quick back and forth. I don't post in PnR on a lot of subjects because, well, I'm not as interested in politics as most down here, but I do enjoy debating some of the topics.

Here's an extreme version of what happens down here sometimes that I've seen...

PosterA: "I believe gay people are mentally ******** and people from X country are *slur*."

PosterB: in response to the above.... "you're a dumbass"

Now, I honestly think that most people can see which one of these comments is more offensive and worse for the state of a message board than the other, but I believe the mods and admins on here actually think that what PosterB had to say is the issue somehow. I just think there needs to be a clear "line" of what can and can't be said, even though I'm sure that's easier said than done. I can't see how insulting 1 person is worse than insulting thousands and thousands of people with something extremely offensive. IMO, either both or neither of the above things should be tolerated, I don't think it's fair for one or the other to be okay yet the other not allowed.

You can delete this if you wish, I just think that it may be a good idea to discuss this openly so maybe the regulars down here can see what the moderating team deems appropriate going forward.

Perhaps your example is more of a 2 wrongs don't make a right scenario. Why should we have to decide which is "more" offensive?

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 12:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps your example is more of a 2 wrongs don't make a right scenario. Why should we have to decide which is "more" offensive?

Did you read the end? I mentioned that I believe that BOTH or NEITHER should be allowed.

I merely stated that while I personally found 1 of them to be "more offensive", the mods/admins in the past have (in my opinion) shown that they didn't agree and actually allowed things such as my example from PosterA yet had an issue with my example by PosterB.

That was my entire point, I wanted to see how the mod team felt about that because it seems they may have changed the way things are operating in PnR. I could be wrong, but it was an observation that I feel the entire forum should be aware of if the rules are changing. Knowing exactly what is/isn't acceptable is obviously important in a forum where discussion gets heated and people have very strong opinions.

[Rotobeast]

(11-02-2015, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do not bring up things from the previous threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.




Finally, I ask that Bengalzona become the new PnR Mod. We disagree on most everything, but I’ve never seen him attack anyone.

I feel the former is the most important.
While I understand that we tend to remind each other with our "douchebag" moments or social flaws, it tends to derail any conversation.
There have instances where a "point" concerning one person has been repeated more than 30 times, in one week.
It just gets old and is one of the things that makes me feel like spending less time here (not insinuating I'm important to the dynamic of the board).
I do understand fighting against something you think is wrong, but most people here are far to stubborn to ever change.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but after 6 months of the same rhetoric I think you can drop it.

As far as a Mod, I've always been for it.
From what I've seen, Zona is a great guy, but is he here that often anymore ?
I don't look to see who's lurking, so I may have the wrong impression of activity.

Regardless of the direction this thread takes, we ALL can strive to be better people.


Side note: I'm not sure how I feel about the Mod/Admin deletions being performed in the forum.

[Benton]

(11-02-2015, 12:08 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Here's my issue, but I don't want this to turn into a bickering fest and I just wanted to talk about this publicly because I think it's good for the boards to be able to see the outcome of the quick back and forth. I don't post in PnR on a lot of subjects because, well, I'm not as interested in politics as most down here, but I do enjoy debating some of the topics.

Here's an extreme version of what happens down here sometimes that I've seen...

PosterA: "I believe gay people are mentally ******** and people from X country are *slur*."

PosterB: in response to the above.... "you're a dumbass"

Now, I honestly think that most people can see which one of these comments is more offensive and worse for the state of a message board than the other, but I believe the mods and admins on here actually think that what PosterB had to say is the issue somehow. I just think there needs to be a clear "line" of what can and can't be said, even though I'm sure that's easier said than done. I can't see how insulting 1 person is worse than insulting thousands and thousands of people with something extremely offensive. IMO, either both or neither of the above things should be tolerated, I don't think it's fair for one or the other to be okay yet the other not allowed.

You can delete this if you wish, I just think that it may be a good idea to discuss this openly so maybe the regulars down here can see what the moderating team deems appropriate going forward.

(11-02-2015, 12:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Did you read the end? I mentioned that I believe that BOTH or NEITHER should be allowed.

I merely stated that while I personally found 1 of them to be "more offensive", the mods/admins in the past have (in my opinion) shown that they didn't agree and actually allowed things such as my example from PosterA yet had an issue with my example by PosterB.

That was my entire point, I wanted to see how the mod team felt about that because it seems they may have changed the way things are operating in PnR. I could be wrong, but it was an observation that I feel the entire forum should be aware of if the rules are changing. Knowing exactly what is/isn't acceptable is obviously important in a forum where discussion gets heated and people have very strong opinions.

Generally, it's an individual basis on your two examples. Nothing is ever black and white. Given the nature of the topics here, leeway was given in the past as you can't have a discussion about a topic that evokes strong feelings from two different sides without one side feeling the other is being wrong in some way, whether it's perceiving them to be narrow minded, insulting, sexist, racist, etc.

Your PosterB leaves no such gray area. If you directly insult someone, it's obviously in violation of the CoC. In the past, PosterA was given some room as — provided there wasn't any other violation of the CoC in regards to language or something else — it was part of the discussion. As an example, if you're discussing racism, you're going to have a range of views as to what is acceptable and what is not.

As I've said (a lot) lately, we tried to give a long leash with that. Unfortunately, that has provided an atmosphere where people are just attacking one another instead of the topic. If you can't use this as a place to discuss ideas and view points rationally, then moderation will be heavy handed in PnR.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 12:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Did you read the end? I mentioned that I believe that BOTH or NEITHER should be allowed.

I merely stated that while I personally found 1 of them to be "more offensive", the mods/admins in the past have (in my opinion) shown that they didn't agree and actually allowed things such as my example from PosterA yet had an issue with my example by PosterB.

That was my entire point, I wanted to see how the mod team felt about that because it seems they may have changed the way things are operating in PnR. I could be wrong, but it was an observation that I feel the entire forum should be aware of if the rules are changing. Knowing exactly what is/isn't acceptable is obviously important in a forum where discussion gets heated and people have very strong opinions.

My intent was not to dismiss your point. I was simply providing a point of view. I agree a slur of a population can be as bad as a direct attack of an individual; however, we must consider the intent of both sides.

For instance if Poster A says: "In my opinion same-sex attraction is caused by abnormality in the brain" and a retort from Poster B  would be "You're a hateful bigot that thinks homosexuals are mentally ********". Which poster has been "attacked". 

I do agree an open discussion on the forum  etiguette is a good thing if we fight the urge to make it personal.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-02-2015, 06:01 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I hope everybody that posts here continues to do so and I hope other members join in as they become eligible.

With that said, PnR isn't for the faint of heart and should be treated as such. While I believe 'Zona would be a fine moderator, I don't think moderating this forum is the answer. In fact, I believe this forum should go unmoderated, where nearly anything goes and all complaints are ignored. The best way to avoid being offended down here is to avoid the forum altogether. I'm definitely not suggesting anyone do that, as I prefer activity and controversy, but avoidance is the best form of 'self' -- moderating.

These types of outlets just aren't ideal for 'fairness'. Things are bound to get personal and possibly a little outta hand. I think anyone that visits here should understand that.

We need to stop complaining in PnR. That should be the only pact we make with each other.

I am actually in favor of DA's suggestion. Let PnR be a free-for-all. Make sure to let any and all know that if they come in this forum they WILL be belittled and their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs will be twisted and perverted and that they WILL be offended and insulted. So, if you don't like it, don't post.

Let me also add to the people wishing to express their outrage andcalling out bigotry and racism and wathnot. My problem with that is that in most cases, the supposed bigotry is just their opinion and not factual. If some member of the Klan gets on here and spouts their racist beliefs, okay. But when someone advocates for the use of IDs to vote, that is NOT bigotry in and of itself. But, then again, if we had an unregulated forum like DA suggests, then who cares?

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 12:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I am actually in favor of DA's suggestion. Let PnR be a free-for-all. Make sure to let any and all know that if they come in this forum they WILL be belittled and their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs will be twisted and perverted and that they WILL be offended and insulted. So, if you don't like it, don't post.

Let me also add to the people wishing to express their outrage andcalling out bigotry and racism and wathnot. My problem with that is that in most cases, the supposed bigotry is just their opinion and not factual. If some member of the Klan gets on here and spouts their racist beliefs, okay. But when someone advocates for the use of IDs to vote, that is NOT bigotry in and of itself. But, then again, if we had an unregulated forum like DA suggests, then who cares?

We have a smack forum. WTS what you and DA are advocating leaves no place for the poster who wishes to discuss PnR to discuss it without being subjected to riducule.

Perhaps there could be a seperate PnR Smack Forum.

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 12:41 PM)Benton Wrote: Generally, it's an individual basis on your two examples. Nothing is ever black and white. Given the nature of the topics here, leeway was given in the past as you can't have a discussion about a topic that evokes strong feelings from two different sides without one side feeling the other is being wrong in some way, whether it's perceiving them to be narrow minded, insulting, sexist, racist, etc.

Your PosterB leaves no such gray area. If you directly insult someone, it's obviously in violation of the CoC. In the past, PosterA was given some room as — provided there wasn't any other violation of the CoC in regards to language or something else — it was part of the discussion. As an example, if you're discussing racism, you're going to have a range of views as to what is acceptable and what is not.

As I've said (a lot) lately, we tried to give a long leash with that. Unfortunately, that has provided an atmosphere where people are just attacking one another instead of the topic. If you can't use this as a place to discuss ideas and view points rationally, then moderation will be heavy handed in PnR.

Thanks. I believe (whether everybody agrees with it or not) that occasionally reminding people what is to be allowed/not allowed in a forum such as this could be helpful to the general population down here. I know that some will still try to get as close to the line without crossing it, and some will obviously cross it, but it's good to know if moderation will be getting more or less lenient.

I know that I've had an issue with subjective matters in the past, and while I didn't agree with the exact outcome of the conversation had with the moderator, I do appreciate an explanation. Thanks for the clarification.

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2015, 12:41 PM)Benton Wrote: Generally, it's an individual basis on your two examples. Nothing is ever black and white. Given the nature of the topics here, leeway was given in the past as you can't have a discussion about a topic that evokes strong feelings from two different sides without one side feeling the other is being wrong in some way, whether it's perceiving them to be narrow minded, insulting, sexist, racist, etc.

Your PosterB leaves no such gray area. If you directly insult someone, it's obviously in violation of the CoC. In the past, PosterA was given some room as — provided there wasn't any other violation of the CoC in regards to language or something else — it was part of the discussion. As an example, if you're discussing racism, you're going to have a range of views as to what is acceptable and what is not.

As I've said (a lot) lately, we tried to give a long leash with that. Unfortunately, that has provided an atmosphere where people are just attacking one another instead of the topic. If you can't use this as a place to discuss ideas and view points rationally, then moderation will be heavy handed in PnR.

Part of the problem we have seen developing here has been that when an individual says something that would be offensive and would be classified as bigotry (listed as against the CoC as well) there have been some attempts to educate and correct the behavior. However, there has been persistence on the parts of certain individuals in using such language after that. Whether it is done as an attempt at humor, to incite a response, or just to be bigoted is indiscernible. This is what caused some of the recent issues here and what has been causing some issues for a while now. There comes a point where people will lose their temper with it. Obviously, some people have a much shorter time frame they will tolerate it than others before their behavior will also become unacceptable.

This is not the only problem that is existent here, but it has been a big one that carried over even from the old boards.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-02-2015, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We have a smack forum. WTS what you and DA are advocating leaves no place for the poster who wishes to discuss PnR to discuss it without being subjected to riducule..

We already have that now. People's beliefs are constantly subjected to ridicule. People bash religion and political ideologies all the time. There is no way to stop it. You can either not have this forum, not participate in this forum, grow thick skin or give as good as you get. Those are your choices. Well, I guess you could complain about the ridicule but that only opens you up to more ridicule.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 01:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: We already have that now. People's beliefs are constantly subjected to ridicule. People bash religion and political ideologies all the time. There is no way to stop it. You can either not have this forum, not participate in this forum, grow thick skin or give as good as you get. Those are your choices. Well, I guess you could complain about the ridicule but that only opens you up to more ridicule.

To be fair there is an option that you are leaving out: Participate in the forum while abiding by the CoC.

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair there is an option that you are leaving out: Participate in the forum while abiding by the CoC.

The issue here, again, is that the CoC clearly states that racism and whatnot isn't allowed.

People say obviously racist shit a lot, let's admit that at least. The mods say it's subjective, which it clearly is by definition, but 99.9% of people can see that it's obvious racism.

If you use the current CoC to moderate a forum discussing politics and religion, and actually moderate it by the rules 100% of the time, the forum just wouldn't exist. I appreciate the mods coming in to explain things, but it still doesn't necessarily seem fair that one side gets to be up for interpretation, but the other side isn't allowed to call them out on their perceived bigotry, which is a huge part of a lot of debates in this subforum.

Each side wants to say "please enforce the CoC, but only when I'm not breaking it or only when somebody makes me upset". It's a tough spot for the mods right now IMO.

[Rotobeast]

(11-02-2015, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair there is an option that you are leaving out: Participate in the forum while abiding by the CoC.

While I do agree, I am getting the thought that you are pitching yourself to become a Mod.
I'm not attacking you for this, it's just how it's coming across to me.
Is this something you're interested in ?

[treee]

I used to love P n R but it has seemed pretty shitty on these boards so far tbh. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love these boards, but the P n R subforum leaves a lot to be desired here.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 01:16 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: While I do agree, I am getting the thought that you are pitching yourself to become a Mod.
I'm not attacking you for this, it's just how it's coming across to me.
Is this something you're interested in ?

Absolutely not. I thought we agreed to self-moderation when Bells stepped down. I just view the current environment and find it getting a little more toxic than usual. Obviously I am not alone; however, it is not a consensus.

I just felt the need to bring it to light and get some thoughts on it. We call it a sensing session.  

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2015, 12:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Let me also add to the people wishing to express their outrage andcalling out bigotry and racism and wathnot. My problem with that is that in most cases, the supposed bigotry is just their opinion and not factual. If some member of the Klan gets on here and spouts their racist beliefs, okay. But when someone advocates for the use of IDs to vote, that is NOT bigotry in and of itself. But, then again, if we had an unregulated forum like DA suggests, then who cares?

I see what you're saying, here. The problem comes in that what you describe makes up maybe, and I'm being generous here, 25% of the claims of bigotry in this subforum and is not the case most of the time. The majority of the statements called out as such are legitimately prejudicial statements made in a disparaging manner from what I have seen.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 01:13 PM)djs7685 Wrote: The issue here, again, is that the CoC clearly states that racism and whatnot isn't allowed.

People say obviously racist shit a lot, let's admit that at least. The mods say it's subjective, which it clearly is by definition, but 99.9% of people can see that it's obvious racism.

If you use the current CoC to moderate a forum discussing politics and religion, and actually moderate it by the rules 100% of the time, the forum just wouldn't exist. I appreciate the mods coming in to explain things, but it still doesn't necessarily seem fair that one side gets to be up for interpretation, but the other side isn't allowed to call them out on their perceived bigotry, which is a huge part of a lot of debates in this subforum.

Each side wants to say "please enforce the CoC, but only when I'm not breaking it or only when somebody makes me upset". It's a tough spot for the mods right now IMO.

You can absolutely call someone out on their bigotry; it just doesn't have to be sophmoric in nature. Matter of fact you also have to option of ignoring it all together. No one is saving the world here.

[djs7685]

(11-02-2015, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can absolutely call someone out on their bigotry; it just doesn't have to be sophmoric in nature. Matter of fact you also have to option of ignoring it all together. No one is saving the world here.

That option is just another "enforce the rules when it's convenient for me but not the people debating with me" type of thing though.

There is no perfect system here, and as I said earlier, the mods are in a tough spot with how to proceed going forward with the subforum. I don't know if my personal beliefs are the answer, but I do surely know that "let people say racist things because you can ignore them since you aren't saving the world" definitely isn't the answer.

[Rotobeast]

(11-02-2015, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Absolutely not. I thought we agreed to self-moderation when Bells stepped down. I just view the current environment and find it getting a little more toxic than usual. Obviously I am not alone; however, it is not a consensus.

I just felt the need to bring it to light and get some thoughts on it. We call it a sensing session.  

Cool.
No worries.

I merely thought you may have been against self-moderation, with the recent displeasure noted and suggestion of Zona becoming a Mod.
I'm sure you can understand how that could be misconstrued as a passive-aggressive action.

Please carry on, as I feel this has been constructive.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2015, 01:38 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Cool.
No worries.

I merely thought you may have been against self-moderation, with the recent displeasure noted and suggestion of Zona becoming a Mod.
I'm sure you can understand how that could be misconstrued as a passive-aggressive action.

Please carry on, as I feel this has been constructive.

Oh, I absolutely feel this forum needs moderation; it's just that I am not the person for the job.