And people's attitude vary incredibly. I personally would be impervious to insult if I was religious ;p
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
And people's attitude vary incredibly. I personally would be impervious to insult if I was religious ;p
I believe its been said it varies depending on context.
Sye d'Burns
Member
I would also wager the forum users are mostly agnostic/atheistic. We'll never know for sure because it takes a certain amount of foolhardiness to wade into even a remotely religious thread holding an opinion counter to the norm.
As a bit of a personal experiment, i used an avatar of Jesus a few months back. Good times.
It's not hard to see why... it's a high-profile gaming industry forum, and piracy is not good for gaming industry. On the other hand gaming industry doesn't give a crap if someone trips out on magic mushrooms.
Or, you know, get an actual job where your behavior might reflect on your employer. Shocking.
Johnny Cage In The Shower
Member
PhoenixDark said:
I'm just gonna re-quote this for this page since I think it's the most important post regarding the topic of this thread and I 100% agree with it.
Elaborating more on it, I just think it's inconsistent to have a forum that is open to the world with members from every corner of the world and yet some of the rules and restrictions are based on Western ideals and political correctness.
I am totally for tolerance and respect among each other, but I am also very curious to learn about other cultures in the OT. I always get excited when someone says " I am from Saudi Arabia, and here its like this and ..." or "I am from Thailand or Indonesia and here we do or do not ." But sadly I can tell how they limit their discussion or hold themselves back, being cautious due to the rules of the forum.
Maybe I tend to appreciate culture and individuality more than many others here, and I really like to learn more about social norms and laws in other parts of the world. But yeah the OT isnt really the place to expand my cultural horizons, unless that culture is "The internet culture".
You're absolutely correct...you can set people on ignore or leave the thread, but sometimes people can't help themselves. Heat of the moment and all that.
This is one of the few subjects i try not to discuss too much on GaF, honestly.Stumpokapow said:
Not much because of the moderation itself, which is fine by me, for the most part, but because there are certain delicate arguments that (understandably) get out of hand VERY easily very quickly, and can bring to a "gang mentality", in which case it is easy to lose the temper and end up banned for a poor wording or some dangerous hyperbole.
It never happened to me personally, but i've seen similar things happen and therefore i try to avoid said arguments for the most part.
It's easier to mantain your cool when talking about Xbox and Wii, it's less easy when talking about stuff like racism, rape, justice and other heavy subjects where a misunderstanding can end up causing a shitstorm.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Alleged GAF hypocrisy over religion is probably the biggest single accusation one will find floating around, right now. It's clear that a whole lot of people on GAF think both GAF members and mods are hypocrites on the subject of 'sensitivity' to religion.
That in and off itself is a huge sprawling debate I'm not sure this is the thread for. But as a short comment, I will observe these points:
1. I would actually agree that the "new atheists" idea attracts a lot of people who simply despise what they see religion in any form as having done to the world, and are looking for the anti-religious crusade, as they see it, to sign up for. These people frequently act like massive assholes, and ironically skim around fallacies and irrational behavior when the subject of religion comes up. This affects any forum on the internet, not just GAF.
2. By the same token, having grown up in America and having nearly 40 years of experience under the belt, the big western religions do often make their believers oversensitive and more paranoid about defending their beliefs than they realize they are. They work persecution complexes into the fabric of their society. Long before the Internet, long before "new atheists", long before the average religious America realized gay people actually existed, it was very common for the religious person to freak out in anxiety, panic, and anger at anyone challenging their reality tunnel. A lot of rational criticism of religion has asserted that when abused, it instills people with constant fear over social conformity and appearing pious. And encourages people to confuse beliefs with their own identity. So that criticizing a belief is seen as a personal attack. Common phrase "I am my faith."
Thus, it seems today, and on the internet especially in America, you have plenty of hyper sensitive Christians charged up with a persecution complex due to the widespread attention garnered by people who are challenging Christian beliefs, versus asshole atheist warriors who don't seem to really care about actual intellectual progress and integrity, just using their newfound allegiance to Team Science, as they see it, to attack all those insane religious people as much as they can.
This makes moderating something like an internet form rather difficult. I can't speak for the GAF mods, but I would assume the basic problem is that no matter how you play it, one side or the other will feel certain they're the ones being short changed.
Then there's the further complexity of: there's no rule saying a single forum should be all things to all people, or even can be. GAF is not a specialized religious site marketed (so to speak) primarily to religious people. Its primary audience seems to be young, interested in mainstream pop culture, computers and technology, with a moderate to low median level of religiosity.
Okay, not a short comment so I'll stop here in this thread.
That in and off itself is a huge sprawling debate I'm not sure this is the thread for. But as a short comment, I will observe these points:
1. I would actually agree that the "new atheists" idea attracts a lot of people who simply despise what they see religion in any form as having done to the world, and are looking for the anti-religious crusade, as they see it, to sign up for. These people frequently act like massive assholes, and ironically skim around fallacies and irrational behavior when the subject of religion comes up. This affects any forum on the internet, not just GAF.
2. By the same token, having grown up in America and having nearly 40 years of experience under the belt, the big western religions do often make their believers oversensitive and more paranoid about defending their beliefs than they realize they are. They work persecution complexes into the fabric of their society. Long before the Internet, long before "new atheists", long before the average religious America realized gay people actually existed, it was very common for the religious person to freak out in anxiety, panic, and anger at anyone challenging their reality tunnel. A lot of rational criticism of religion has asserted that when abused, it instills people with constant fear over social conformity and appearing pious. And encourages people to confuse beliefs with their own identity. So that criticizing a belief is seen as a personal attack. Common phrase "I am my faith."
Thus, it seems today, and on the internet especially in America, you have plenty of hyper sensitive Christians charged up with a persecution complex due to the widespread attention garnered by people who are challenging Christian beliefs, versus asshole atheist warriors who don't seem to really care about actual intellectual progress and integrity, just using their newfound allegiance to Team Science, as they see it, to attack all those insane religious people as much as they can.
This makes moderating something like an internet form rather difficult. I can't speak for the GAF mods, but I would assume the basic problem is that no matter how you play it, one side or the other will feel certain they're the ones being short changed.
Then there's the further complexity of: there's no rule saying a single forum should be all things to all people, or even can be. GAF is not a specialized religious site marketed (so to speak) primarily to religious people. Its primary audience seems to be young, interested in mainstream pop culture, computers and technology, with a moderate to low median level of religiosity.
Okay, not a short comment so I'll stop here in this thread.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Nobody better take my cocks away from me.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i could be wrong but i feel like religious preference gets trashed as often as music, movie, tv show etc. preferences.
try being an michael bay or dubstep fan on here. you just need to develop tough skin about the the things you love, like, or are dear to you. i can tell you right now that posters with anime avatars get a lot of shit too, and posters with a my little pony avatar? like damn.
on the flip side, no matter the topic, posters should try to act as if they were talking to people right in front of them (unless youre an asshole in real life too). I think that's the secret to not getting banned. Pretend gaffers were right in front of you.
I enjoyed and appreciated the post. I don't disagree either. I think people are just asking for even moderation instead of favoritism. Being a jerk atheist or believer should be bannable. One shouldn't get preferential treatment over the other.
Sye d'Burns
Member
Stumpokapow once wrote what I consider to be the most apt summation of GAF debates to date. It was a moment of brilliance; it's just a shame it had to be wasted talking about iOS IAPs
...as a Catholic that gets lumped in with Westboro, his words spoke to me.
...as a Catholic that gets lumped in with Westboro, his words spoke to me.
I have to admit I appreciate GAF as a community (generally speaking) and news source (gaming) more than any other forum-site out there, and it's mostly due to it being strict and relatively heavily moderated.
Actively looking out for viral advertising, trolls, banning insulting melt downs so that people have to take care to remain civil, it works as it should.
To be honest the whole months to be accepted-easy to be banned theme creates a "club" feeling that most people like (pretty obvious from GAF's immense members base).
On the other hand I have to agree with other posters that there are many double standards and some over-sensitivity concerning topics such as racism and sexism, along with some very strict bans.
Someone mentioned an 'appeal ban' mechanism which I think could be helpful in some cases.
For example in that recent thread someone made a joke referencing an Ueda interview (I think?) about women not having strong enough grips, and she was banned. She was unbanned after various members called attention to it being a reference and not a sexist joke (considering it to be sexist seemed absurd even without the reference, but anyway), so kudos to GAF mods, but wouldn't it be nice to be able and do so even if other members don't happen to speak up?
Perhaps you can and I have no idea since I've avoided bans thus far.
Actively looking out for viral advertising, trolls, banning insulting melt downs so that people have to take care to remain civil, it works as it should.
To be honest the whole months to be accepted-easy to be banned theme creates a "club" feeling that most people like (pretty obvious from GAF's immense members base).
On the other hand I have to agree with other posters that there are many double standards and some over-sensitivity concerning topics such as racism and sexism, along with some very strict bans.
Someone mentioned an 'appeal ban' mechanism which I think could be helpful in some cases.
For example in that recent thread someone made a joke referencing an Ueda interview (I think?) about women not having strong enough grips, and she was banned. She was unbanned after various members called attention to it being a reference and not a sexist joke (considering it to be sexist seemed absurd even without the reference, but anyway), so kudos to GAF mods, but wouldn't it be nice to be able and do so even if other members don't happen to speak up?
Perhaps you can and I have no idea since I've avoided bans thus far.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
that's a good quote
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh I'm sure there's at least one or two posters who wouldn't mind seeing me banned for saying "Belief in God is irrational" because "he called me irrational!!"
Alligatorjandro
Banned
It feels strange going into the wild after being on GAF for a while and seeing how different other places are.
SniperHunter
Banned
I agree with this.
Most of the world cannot separate their beliefs from their identity.
The Horror the horror
Banned
Thing is, I believe the strict rules and the enforcement of those rules governing the community are the result of its popularity and the high number of regular members. A newly created message board with a small number of members would find itself dead very soon with such policies in place, so I'm guessing that this place was like the wild, wild West in its infancy in order to cultivate a large following before tightening up the noose as the community grew.
I'm not saying that you should be banned for that, but do U think that you could make that statement in other threads without worrying about a possible ban?
Context. Most of his posts I've observed are in threads conducive to discussing religion. For instance Theism vs. Atheism thread.
POWERSPHERE
Banned
Snitches are the most annoying thing about GAF, and I just don't get it.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I don't think so, no.
GAF is pretty good, but what I would like to see is some transparency.
I think that Something Awful has a public ban list, which I think works like a better deterrent to some unwanted behaviors you don't want on the forum.
If people know why people are banned, they are probably less likely to repeat the banned poster's mistakes.
GAF is pretty good, but what I would like to see is some transparency.
I think that Something Awful has a public ban list, which I think works like a better deterrent to some unwanted behaviors you don't want on the forum.
If people know why people are banned, they are probably less likely to repeat the banned poster's mistakes.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I make it all the time in threads where its relevant. In the Atheism vs Theism thread its the undercurrent to all of my posts. But I wouldn't post it in an unrelated thread that just involved religion somehow. If it was a few notches more aggressive ("All religious people are morons" in a thread about some religious news story) yeah, I think that could be banworthy.
Gotcha.
That sounds great, both ethically and practically, as in working as a deterrent.
RPG.net which is absolutely draconian with its rules when compared to GAF has very transparent rules. Mods post clear colored text warnings, tell why a ban has happened, issue 'thread bans' which forbid someone from discussing a certain subject at all instead of a blanked ban and have a 'trouble tickets' forum where you can appeal and where every ban decision is posted publicly. It's a very nice system, but if some gaffers think this place is strictly moderated they'd be out of the door there in less than 5 minutes.
Examples:
Infraction forum
Appeal forum
It takes a lot of work, of course, but is very transparent.
Do we have to respect Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers as well?
Lord British
Member
By and large I think this forum is excellent. I have some small issues with certain behaviours I've seen on here, but none with the moderation, which is excellent. I've been thoroughly impressed by it.
Do you really think the two are comparable?
Do you really think the two are comparable?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
That does look good, but I think that appeals should be a private matter between the mods and the banned member.
Amory
Member
Are you seriously equating people who believe in God with holocaust deniers?
Wow.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Honestly, it's because for all the bluster on each end... no one knows. We do our SCIENCE! to try to piece things together. But we don't know what comes after. None of us.
I can understand the need to find answers. I just can't find them in stories written by people 2,000 years ago. Something in my mind makes my first thought "They couldn't even control electricity and I have it on good authority that their computers were lacking."
That's not meant to be an indictment or insult to those that do. Just a jovial way to explain my train of thought. I can respect those gaining insight into the human condition through those teachings. But I must admit to a certain degree of pause when someone admits to believing a man talked to a burning bush in any other way than metaphor. Or schizophrenia.
For those that need to be taught not to cheat, lie, kill, or covet it can be a useful tool. I've just never once believed it was the only tool to finding basic decency. Empathizing with others should be an inborn trait. Not something learned through a 2,000 year old book.
Causing others pain both physical and emotional should be something you avoid because you realize the pain they'd be in.
Taken as books of fables, tales, and metaphor I actually enjoy the King James Bible, Torah, Koran... whatever the little book my mom had that was connected to Baha'i.
Anyway, I really do enjoy all of them. But I'd rather believe in something we've discovered since. Instead of tales from a forgotten era.
Again I mean that with all the love in the world to my religious brothers and sisters out there. If they accept me I accept them. But I won't be quiet about the way their religion is being used. To what ends some are abusing it.
And neither should they.
I can understand the need to find answers. I just can't find them in stories written by people 2,000 years ago. Something in my mind makes my first thought "They couldn't even control electricity and I have it on good authority that their computers were lacking."
That's not meant to be an indictment or insult to those that do. Just a jovial way to explain my train of thought. I can respect those gaining insight into the human condition through those teachings. But I must admit to a certain degree of pause when someone admits to believing a man talked to a burning bush in any other way than metaphor. Or schizophrenia.
For those that need to be taught not to cheat, lie, kill, or covet it can be a useful tool. I've just never once believed it was the only tool to finding basic decency. Empathizing with others should be an inborn trait. Not something learned through a 2,000 year old book.
Causing others pain both physical and emotional should be something you avoid because you realize the pain they'd be in.
Taken as books of fables, tales, and metaphor I actually enjoy the King James Bible, Torah, Koran... whatever the little book my mom had that was connected to Baha'i.
Anyway, I really do enjoy all of them. But I'd rather believe in something we've discovered since. Instead of tales from a forgotten era.
Again I mean that with all the love in the world to my religious brothers and sisters out there. If they accept me I accept them. But I won't be quiet about the way their religion is being used. To what ends some are abusing it.
And neither should they.
Sye d'Burns
Member
incendiary pablum. Congrats, you've put into one sentence what it feels like for a believer to wade into a religion topic with a contrary view.
Roland Garros
Banned
I love a Stumpakapow post. He's like Dumbledore.
So soothing to read haha!
So soothing to read haha!
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah, but it's still confusing as hell to a lot of users, and in my opinion creates a chilling effect due to many people not wanting to bother with it due to someone else's subjective analysis of whether the context is bannable or not. Then again, I usually err on the side of more open speech, even if it's horrible. In some circumstances, the cure is worse than the disease.
search all forums -> "bitch", "cunt"
/shrug
(but in regards to the OP, the moderation on gaf is fine for the most part. far better than other most other places. Sometimes too strict in some cases, sometimes not strict enough in other cases.)
Since I would love you for it, -11
This is basically the only area where I strongly disagree with Evilore. I think this would be beneficial and I've asked him about it before. He's always been against it unfortunately. But I agree, I think this would solve a LOT of problems.
Fenderputty
Banned
I got into an argument with Amy about ps3 related crap as a junior and was a member by end of day. Mods like to argue just like everyone else.
As long as you're not a dick, no one should have to worry. I've never been banned.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Transparency usually does, yeah.
Thank you for making our point. LOL
Revengeance
Member
I've seen plenty of questionable bans in my day (free crushed), but I think that with so many active members, and so much activity, it would be impossible for moderation to be 100% consistent.
I think that the 'strictness' is what keeps GAF readable and not a complete cesspool a la GameFAQs. That and no signatures. Thank God for no signatures.
I think that the 'strictness' is what keeps GAF readable and not a complete cesspool a la GameFAQs. That and no signatures. Thank God for no signatures.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I'm not really for a public ban record because many if not most bans are contextual to a poster's longer history and there simply isn't "one post" that got them banned. I don't think the Leper's Colony adds much to SA besides gossip, and the anti-SA spinoff sites like SASS were much more vicious than the GAF spinoffs (Which, O P A ages excluded are basically smaller, time warp versions of GAF back to when it was a more tightly knit, less serious forum).
But as I'm sure people know, I am pretty transparent about ban stuff when I'm asked about it. I normally answer questions on IRC or here when people have them.
I would say that assuming good faith instead of starting the conversation with "A GREAT INJUSTICE HAS OCCURRED" helps.
I would also say that peer review of bans by other mods seems stronger now than it was when I first got here. Not that we 100% agree on things, but there's a lot less rogue operative kind of stuff.
But as I'm sure people know, I am pretty transparent about ban stuff when I'm asked about it. I normally answer questions on IRC or here when people have them.
I would say that assuming good faith instead of starting the conversation with "A GREAT INJUSTICE HAS OCCURRED" helps.
I would also say that peer review of bans by other mods seems stronger now than it was when I first got here. Not that we 100% agree on things, but there's a lot less rogue operative kind of stuff.
Double_Helix
Banned
No
I know right? I really like it when he enters a thread.
Kudos to him, as well as to the mods who replied on the earlier pages. It really puts things into perspective hearing it from the people in charge themselves.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I'm sorry to say this.
But this is the internet. People do tend to be jackasses hiding behind a veil of anonymity. Hell I do it for some of my eclectic forays in posting.
His post will be judge accordingly just like everyone else's. How you responds matters. I was trying to get this through to some Nintendo fans and the first detractors... but it didn't really work there very well. We can all be better by just ignoring the rabble. Trying to make our point, and responding accordingly.
I don't know if it's just because of the age range videogames tend to attract, but with some their first response is always snarky jackass. No middle ground. So again. How you respond to it matters.
You didn't do badly there.
Holy Order Sol
Member
I miss GAF the way it was back when MAF and demi were around (been lurking for a while before registering due to the lack of a proper e-mail address). I liked how it seemed like most people were batshit insane and I wanted to join the fun.
Now we got civilized somehow, and there aren't as many photoshops as there used to be.
Now we got civilized somehow, and there aren't as many photoshops as there used to be.
Sye d'Burns
Member
- Status