Support NeoGAF

[Muffdraul]

Once in a while there will be a banning that seems to clearly be a mistake or overly draconian or pure and simple abuse of power. But those are very few and far between. For the most part I just appreciate the atmosphere of this place that comes with people being on their best behavior. So to speak. If I ever forget how good it is around here, all I have to do is go to GameFAQs or the GTA Forums for a few minutes.

 

[CrankyJay]

But a really bad idea.

I meant if there are obvious trolls...people who troll every rape thread, every religion thread etc, but are otherwise decent members of the message board.

Heck, people could even request to be banned from such threads just to keep themselves out of trouble.

As to your whole point of a message board...sure...but it seems lately that might makes right has been winning out here on GAF and those in the minority opinion are being silenced or just goaded into getting banned because they feel ganged up on.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Really? I can't imagine things are that heated in political threads. They seem to generally be well moderated whenever I take a short peek in there. I'd like to think that I could talk about any of the things I disagree with Obama on, and there are a few major ones, without getting shit from other users, as long as I've substantiated it.

Spoiler

Yes, yes, I realize the red name might make how people approach you slightly different, but even then, is it really that bad for a regular user?

Red means danger, we've known this since we were toddlers.

You can disagree with Obama about not closing Guantanamo, Drone attacks, staying in Iraq/Afganistan relatively safely. But hit a more hot-button issue, in the eyes of PoliGAF, like health care, environment, social entitlements or even his evolution on gay marriage and watch the sparks fly.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Everybody should be allowed to believe what they believe as long as they are nice about it.

One point here.

This is probably a rather big point of contention, because while the principle is noble, if taken literally this could be an assertion that all beliefs carry equal weight, and more importantly, equal consequences.

Or, to put none too fine a point on it: does it really matter to life and human civilization of Sony or Microsoft wins video games? No... not really.

Does it really matter if people go around asserting that their god heals sickness, so people should pray instead of going to a doctor? Many would say yes, now that is a belief that needs to be discussed, because promoting it could actually result in real harm to people, since we have plenty of cases where attempts to pray away illness have resulted in death from untreated symptoms.

In other words, it may not be 'nice' to tell a religious person that they're full of shit when they say their child needs no doctor because God will provide, but life is on the line and the priorities change.

Similarly, I think a lot of what goes on right now with debates over stuff like homosexuality, is that someone who says "Gay is not real and people just choose to be that way, and they shouldn't be because it's a sin" can be argued as promoting a viewpoint that generally increases intolerance. And helps provide ammunition and justification for actual, bigoted actions taken against real people. And this is how a lot of people see it.

An old analogy to the importance of 'the right opinion' came from an engineer: "Who do you want to design your suspension bridge? The engineer who was the top of his class, or the one who was a C student?" Clearly, in some areas, finding out who has a more informed opinion is important, rather than live and let live.

Let me put it another way. Guy comes into a thread. Says GAF sucks because you can't say the simple truth that the negroidal man is a beast who should be restrained in civilized society and kept from breeding with the "advanced races". People tell him to STFU and get with the 21st century or GTFO. So: intolerance of other opinions? Or....?

Most of the time the people who get branded with that shit arent even bigots, just incapable of understanding perspective or confused because of lack of personal experience. Either way the 'hivemind' is very real in some of these topics.

You know, it is true that some people jump the gun with pointing fingers. Yet especially as of late, in threads with topics like those, I have seen a fair number of posters stop and get into long exchanges with people who say "I don't have experience, make me understand". And a lot of the times, after showing more patience than most people on GAF would, the posters trying to offer advice don't really make much headway. The person who was 'confused' seems to turn right back around and say the same things in the same way, or worse, double down and become aggressive.

But stuff like that gets cited as evidence of the hive mind not tolerating dissent.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I meant if there are obvious trolls...people who troll every rape thread, every religion thread etc, but are otherwise decent members of the message board.

Heck, people could even request to be banned from such threads just to keep themselves out of trouble.

As to your whole point of a message board...sure...but it seems lately that might makes right has been winning out here on GAF and those in the minority opinion are being silenced or just goaded into getting banned because they feel ganged up on.

That's because people are dicks. And there's this entire gang mentality in the heat of the moment. And yes I realize I'm talking about the internet and text on a screen. But some seem to gain way too much importance in it. Invest way too much.

 

[Log4Girlz]

One point here.

This is probably a rather big point of contention, because while the principle is noble, if taken literally this could be an assertion that all beliefs carry equal weight, and more importantly, equal consequences.

Or, to put none too fine a point on it: does it really matter to life and human civilization of Sony or Microsoft wins video games? No... not really.

Does it really matter if people go around asserting that their god heals sickness, so people should pray instead of going to a doctor? Many would say yes, now that is a belief that needs to be discussed, because promoting it could actually result in real harm to people, since we have plenty of cases where attempts to pray away illness have resulted in death from untreated symptoms.

In other words, it may not be 'nice' to tell a religious person that they're full of shit when they say their child needs no doctor because God will provide, but life is on the line and the priorities change.

Similarly, I think a lot of what goes on right now with debates over stuff like homosexuality, is that someone who says "Gay is not real and people just choose to be that way, and they shouldn't be because it's a sin" can be argued as promoting a viewpoint that generally increases intolerance. And helps provide ammunition and justification for actual, bigoted actions taken against real people. And this is how a lot of people see it.

An old analogy to the importance of 'the right opinion' came from an engineer: "Who do you want to design your suspension bridge? The engineer who was the top of his class, or the one who was a C student?" Clearly, in some areas, finding out who has a more informed opinion is important, rather than live and let live.

Let me put it another way. Guy comes into a thread. Says GAF sucks because you can't say the simple truth that the negroidal man is a beast who should be restrained in civilized society and kept from breeding with the "advanced races". People tell him to STFU and get with the 21st century or GTFO. So: intolerance of other opinions? Or....?

Certain posters have shared their religious beliefs that homosexuals are sinners, homosexuality is wrong and would be going to hell and have been banned.

 

[Kabouter]

Red means danger, we've known this since we were toddlers.

You can disagree with Obama about not closing Guantanamo, Drone attacks, staying in Iraq/Afganistan relatively safely. But hit a more hot-button issue, in the eyes of PoliGAF, like health care, environment, social entitlements or even his evolution on gay marriage and watch the sparks fly.

What if I, for instance, strongly disagree with Obama on certain tax issues, and especially the way he campaigns on them?

 

[Tomat]

What if I, for instance, strongly disagree with Obama on certain tax issues, and especially the way he campaigns on them?

Go post and report back to us!

 

[Sye d'Burns]

One point here.

This is probably a rather big point of contention, because while the principle is noble, if taken literally this could be an assertion that all beliefs carry equal weight, and more importantly, equal consequences.

Or, to put none too fine a point on it: does it really matter to life and human civilization of Sony or Microsoft wins video games? No... not really.

Does it really matter if people go around asserting that their god heals sickness, so people should pray instead of going to a doctor? Many would say yes, now that is a belief that needs to be discussed, because promoting it could actually result in real harm to people, since we have plenty of cases where attempts to pray away illness have resulted in death from untreated symptoms.

In other words, it may not be 'nice' to tell a religious person that they're full of shit when they say their child needs no doctor because God will provide, but life is on the line and the priorities change.

Similarly, I think a lot of what goes on right now with debates over stuff like homosexuality, is that someone who says "Gay is not real and people just choose to be that way, and they shouldn't be because it's a sin" can be argued as promoting a viewpoint that generally increases intolerance. And helps provide ammunition and justification for actual, bigoted actions taken against real people. And this is how a lot of people see it.

An old analogy to the importance of 'the right opinion' came from an engineer: "Who do you want to design your suspension bridge? The engineer who was the top of his class, or the one who was a C student?" Clearly, in some areas, finding out who has a more informed opinion is important, rather than live and let live.

Let me put it another way. Guy comes into a thread. Says GAF sucks because you can't say the simple truth that the negroidal man is a beast who should be restrained in civilized society and kept from breeding with the "advanced races". People tell him to STFU and get with the 21st century or GTFO. So: intolerance of other opinions? Or....?

This thread - Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith? - was still up in my tabs from earlier and it signals the point where I came to the conclusion that I initially shared with the thread.

I think GAF moderation, on the whole, is fantastic once you accept that Christianity is not a protected class.

So yeah, you can lump every single person of faith in with healing by faith alone if it helps you sleep better.

Edit: This question is mainly for atheists: why is indoctrinating children with religious beliefs socially acceptable? Similar types of child abuse are looked down upon, such as raising children to hate all people of a particular race and/or consider them inferior.
If you accept friends who indoctrinate their children with their religion yet reject potential friends who teach their kids to be racist, please explain why.

Why do so many religious people think they have a good reason for believing what they do? And also, why do they often claim that their own magical beliefs are more sophisticated than the magical beliefs of others? I've yet to hear an explanation as to why Christian beliefs, for example, are any more sophisticated than the belief in the Care Bears my sister had when she was 3.

An example of a belief that can be backed up is that it's impossible to know both where something is and how it's moving beyond a specific degree of accuracy. Anybody can check this for themself and then believe it based on reproducible first hand experience.

Edit: Why do many theists and atheists believe that the Jesus character is a good person/god? Whether you believe in him or not, even a quick reading of the new testament should allow anyone to realize the character is disgusting.

Also, why do many non-fundamentalist Christians think that because they reject some Bible stories, but believe in the Jesus one, that their beliefs are more reasonable than those of fundamentalists?

Read that OP and tell me what other nameyourgrouphereGAF would be subjected similar affronts.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

What if I, for instance, strongly disagree with Obama on certain tax issues, and especially the way he campaigns on them?

That depends, there's a pretty healthy libertarian streak which may shield you if you couched your argument in those terms. How much money does the potential tax payer earn? Is he or she *gasp* wealthy? Should he or she pay more or *egad* less?

sorry for the dp, I meant to cut and edit my post.

 

[HappyBivouac]

GAF's policies are the primary reason I'm still here. The Internet seems to make lots of people into intolerable assholes. GAF has done the best job of dealing with that that I've ever seen, anywhere I think.

 

[Tomat]

What if I, for instance, strongly disagree with Obama on certain tax issues, and especially the way he campaigns on them?

Actually on second though, you know what mods should do? Go all Undercover Boss and start posting under a secondary member account. It'll be the true GAF experience. Or maybe it won't, I dunno, but it might be a neat thing to try.

 

[Esch]

You know, it is true that some people jump the gun with pointing fingers. Yet especially as of late, in threads with topics like those, I have seen a fair number of posters stop and get into long exchanges with people who say "I don't have experience, make me understand". And a lot of the times, after showing more patience than most people on GAF would, the posters trying to offer advice don't really make much headway. The person who was 'confused' seems to turn right back around and say the same things in the same way, or worse, double down and become aggressive.

But stuff like that gets cited as evidence of the hive mind not tolerating dissent.

I have seen this as well. Sometimes, I think people taking the "make me understand" position are usually just angling for a presentation of points that they can rebut or argue with. And that is actually fine to me, at least most of the time I can recognize it. To be honest internet arguments cant convince people of as much as you might think they can unless they are repeated ad nauseam. As far as effect, anecdotal "evidence" in a persons day to day interactions are about 100 times more fast acting and effective.

I honestly think that all you can do is outline your argument, throw some statistics, and then disengage.

What im not a fan of is how easily people move to throw the "antitolerant" labels around like bigot. If you're gonna say something like that, it better not be a one-off post, and you better explain how someone is a bigot in detail when you do.

 

[FelixOrion]

What if I, for instance, strongly disagree with Obama on certain tax issues, and especially the way he campaigns on them?

I don't think will get too heated simply because of the color of your ski- I mean name.

Although I do enjoy that GAF, being very strict, almost puts a weight of value on your account to make think twice before posting stuff and encourages good, if sometimes heated, discussion.

 

[Knux-Future]

One point here.

This is probably a rather big point of contention, because while the principle is noble, if taken literally this could be an assertion that all beliefs carry equal weight, and more importantly, equal consequences.

Or, to put none too fine a point on it: does it really matter to life and human civilization of Sony or Microsoft wins video games? No... not really.

Does it really matter if people go around asserting that their god heals sickness, so people should pray instead of going to a doctor? Many would say yes, now that is a belief that needs to be discussed, because promoting it could actually result in real harm to people, since we have plenty of cases where attempts to pray away illness have resulted in death from untreated symptoms.

In other words, it may not be 'nice' to tell a religious person that they're full of shit when they say their child needs no doctor because God will provide, but life is on the line and the priorities change.

Similarly, I think a lot of what goes on right now with debates over stuff like homosexuality, is that someone who says "Gay is not real and people just choose to be that way, and they shouldn't be because it's a sin" can be argued as promoting a viewpoint that generally increases intolerance. And helps provide ammunition and justification for actual, bigoted actions taken against real people. And this is how a lot of people see it.

An old analogy to the importance of 'the right opinion' came from an engineer: "Who do you want to design your suspension bridge? The engineer who was the top of his class, or the one who was a C student?" Clearly, in some areas, finding out who has a more informed opinion is important, rather than live and let live.

Let me put it another way. Guy comes into a thread. Says GAF sucks because you can't say the simple truth that the negroidal man is a beast who should be restrained in civilized society and kept from breeding with the "advanced races". People tell him to STFU and get with the 21st century or GTFO. So: intolerance of other opinions? Or....?



You know, it is true that some people jump the gun with pointing fingers. Yet especially as of late, in threads with topics like those, I have seen a fair number of posters stop and get into long exchanges with people who say "I don't have experience, make me understand". And a lot of the times, after showing more patience than most people on GAF would, the posters trying to offer advice don't really make much headway. The person who was 'confused' seems to turn right back around and say the same things in the same way, or worse, double down and become aggressive.

But stuff like that gets cited as evidence of the hive mind not tolerating dissent.

That is the whole being a dick part. Pushing your beliefs on to others is not okay and in that specific case it's fine to call people out on it..but do it in a way that doesn't cream "you are an idiot".

I'm mainly talking about the broad disdain for religion overall. If we really are cutting down on bitch and cunt because that offends people then why is it okay to go "lol Jesus isn't real"?

It just that it seems strange that one group is free game is all.

It just seems half-assed. Personally, I think as long as you are purposely being offensive, some things could slide.

I agree that if someone in a thread about saving a kids life came up with the "Let God handle it son" post then perhaps they can be talked too...or better yet ignored.

Once again let them do them. If it's not an attack at least. I'm not saying religious posters should be completely protected (I don't think any poster should be protected....white knighting is white knighting) but if you are gonna ban shit...be consistent.

 

[Log4Girlz]

That is the whole being a dick part. Pushing your beliefs on to others is not okay and in that specific case it's fine to call people out on it..but do it in a way that doesn't cream "you are an idiot".

I'm mainly talking about the broad disdain for religion overall. If we really are cutting down on bitch and cunt because that offends people then why is it okay to go "lol Jesus isn't real"?

It just that it seems strange that one group is free game is all.

It just seems half-assed. Personally, I think as long as you are purposely being offensive, some things could slide.

I agree that if someone in a thread about saving a kids life came up with the "Let God handle it son" post then perhaps they can be talked too...or better yet ignored.

Once again let them do them. If it's not an attack at least. I'm not saying religious posters should be completely protected (I don't think any poster should be protected....white knighting is white knighting) but if you are gonna ban shit...be consistent.

So saying Jesus was not real or at least did not possess mystical powers is equivalent to calling someone a cunt? One of them is a personal insult, I will let you decide which.

 

[Angry Fork]

I don't think it's fair to ban someone for calling someone else a cunt, it's the same thing as asshole, loser, dick, etc. It's not a female-only insult. And if gaf is going to go as far as ban insults entirely I think that's much too strict. People get into heated debates sometimes with trolls and legitimate assholes I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to call them what they are.

2nd thing is I don't think the mods do a good enough job explaining the distinctions or 'context' by which you wouldn't be banned using certain words. And it's a shame that some members get away with more just because they're popular and basically 'mod approved' trolls.

Lastly the banning of hot picture threads is still completely ridiculous. I still don't know what this google excuse is about and why an independent site can't do what it wants. You can have threads of a weird alien penis-looking thing and have a picture of it sticking out of a hole with 'brazzers' on it but a woman wearing lingerie with too much skin means thread closed? I don't understand. The response of 'you can just look at google images if you want half naked pictures' isn't the point and doesn't refute the fact that it doesn't make sense for gaf to ban it.

That's about it everything else is great though. Community feels like a real community, people meet up in real life, the owner/mods of the site engage in debates and it doesn't feel like a master/slave relationship between mods and members where you have to suck up to them in order to not get banned. Most of them have thick skin and embrace opposing opinions.

Also bring back animated avatars please. The lack of smiley's are tolerable but I really miss the moving avatars. Over the last year or 2 the taking away of this kind of stuff really brought about a 'no fun allowed' vibe and I think it's too much. At least the hot picture threads need to come back.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Personally, I don't think it's overly strict. However, I'm not really the kind of person who tries to push buttons or test the limits of the rules. That's mainly because I recognize that it's such a large forum that I can't really rely on people giving me the benefit of the doubt if something I've said could be taken the wrong way. Couple that with the fact that I'm not overly fond of confrontation, and it becomes easy for me to attune my language to the tone of civility that is requested here.

But I understand that some people are looking for a more laid-back atmosphere where you can speak your mind the same way you could with friends over drinks at a bar. Since I don't really post the same way on the internet -- particularly large public ones -- as I would converse with friends in real life, I have a different perspective on the issue.

 

[Tomat]

So saying Jesus was not real or at least did not possess mystical powers is equivalent to calling someone a cunt? One of them is a personal insult, I will let you decide which.

The former depends on the situation, if it's largely unrelated to the thread at hand and just some edgy athetist being an edgy atheist then I'd say yeah, I think they're the equivalent.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The former depends on the situation, if it's largely unrelated to the thread at hand and just some edgy athetist being an edgy atheist then I'd say yeah, I think they're the equivalent.

If unrelated to the thread then its bannable for an entirely different reason than using the c word. They are in no way similar IMO.

 

[Tomat]

If unrelated to the thread then its bannable for an entirely different reason than using the c word. They are in no way similar IMO.

To me, in both situations you have someone being an ass. That's the way I see it. There are ways you could word either situation that makes you come off like less of a jerk.

 

[ymmv]

Also bring back animated avatars please. The lack of smiley's are tolerable but I really miss the moving avatars. Over the last year or 2 the taking away of this kind of stuff really brought about a 'no fun allowed' vibe and I think it's too much. At least the hot picture threads need to come back.

I also get a "no fun allowed" vibe from Neo Gaf at times. That's a shame because I started F5'ing this forum because it had so many outrageously funny threads.

 

[Knux-Future]

So saying Jesus was not real or at least did not possess mystical powers is equivalent to calling someone a cunt?

No but I don't think cunt should be banned either.

and first of all ...none of us truly know if that shit is a fact.

What if someone truly believes that Jesus is real and if you said that to them it would offend the shit outta them?

Cunt is an awesome word...one that apparently is a major part of some European countries (i' m not an expert) and judging by this thread...doesn't offend many here.

So why is it banned?

All I'm saying if you start banning words because they are offensive then why stop at banning shit like Jesus ain't real since that can too be very offensive to someone of faith?

I think many paint every religious person as "PRAISE JEEESUS, I GO TO CHURCH ERRDAY" when that's not the case.

Many of them are surprisingly open in some cases but still they would be offended if you dissed Jesus. You don't gotta believe but it would nice to respect them.

I think a part people are missing is that not every religious person is in your face about it and as long as that remains and they are generally polite then why not treat them with some respect?

 

[Stumpokapow]

So what your saying is if you dont like a poster or your opinion differs from a lot of the opinions of a poster they eventually will get the banhammer?

That's not whatsoever related to anything I posted. I'm saying bans have a broader context than one post. People have records. Someone who has been identified by ten separate mods for the same borderline trolling or aggression over a five year period has a shorter leash than someone with an otherwise clean record. It has nothing to do with contrary beliefs, it has to do with abusive, aggressive, flippant, rude, hostile treatment of others, assuming bad faith, reacting with an unchecked temper, not knowing when to drop an issue, etc.

When two people argue and insult each other, one might get a longer ban than another based on the history.

I know if I moderate a thread I'm more likely to respond harshly to a user other moderators have identified as a problem poster.

 

[Log4Girlz]

No but I don't think cunt should be banned either.

and first of all ...none of us truly know if that shit is a fact.

What if someone truly believes that Jesus is real and if you said that to them it would offend the shit outta them?

Cunt is an awesome word...one that apparently is a major part of some European countries (i' m not an expert) and judging by this thread...doesn't offend many here.

So why is it banned?

All I'm saying if you start banning words because they are offensive then why stop at banning shit like Jesus ain't real since that can too be very offensive to someone of faith?

I think many paint every religious person as "PRAISE JEEESUS, I GO TO CHURCH ERRDAY" when that's not the case.

Many of them are surprisingly open in some cases but still they would be offended if you dissed Jesus. You don't gotta believe but it would nice to respect them.

I think a part people are missing is that not every religious person is in your face about it and as long as that remains and they are generally polite then why not treat them with some respect?

Saying Jesus is not real is not derogatory. It is not an insult. Cunt is seen by many as an inherently insulting word. Which is why it is banned but not asshole. But naturally, context is everything, like how it is unacceptable to call me an asshole.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

No but I don't think cunt should be banned either.

and first of all ...none of us truly know if that shit is a fact.

What if someone truly believes that Jesus is real and if you said that to them it would offend the shit outta them?

Cunt is an awesome word...one that apparently is a major part of some European countries (i' m not an expert) and judging by this thread...doesn't offend many here.

So why is it banned?

All I'm saying if you start banning words because they are offensive then why stop at banning shit like Jesus ain't real since that can too be very offensive to someone of faith?

I think many paint every religious person as "PRAISE JEEESUS, I GO TO CHURCH ERRDAY" when that's not the case.

Many of them are surprisingly open in some cases but still they would be offended if you dissed Jesus. You don't gotta believe but it would nice to respect them.

I think a part people are missing is that not every religious person is in your face about it and as long as that remains and they are generally polite then why not treat them with some respect?

So many of godlessGAF are offended by religion, I'm surprised it hasn't been banned. Honestly, I'd be ok if it were. It's better than tiptoeing through minefields that threads devolve into once someone has taken the bait.

 

[Prez]

I wonder if I'm identified as a problem poster. I can get unfriendly sometimes.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I wonder if I'm identified as a problem poster. I can get unfriendly sometimes.

I would never have guessed that Stabbie.

 

[Tomat]

So many of godlessGAF are offended by religion, I'm surprised it hasn't been banned. Honestly, I'd be ok if it were. It's better than tiptoeing through minefields that threads devolve into once someone has taken the bait.

If we're going to ban conversation regarding things that some members get offended by then we have completely jumped the slippery slope and gone straight into free-fall.

I wonder if I'm identified as a problem poster. I can get unfriendly sometimes.

I wonder how people and some mods view my posts (if they view them at all).

 

[blame space]

i think i'm the first person to ever receive an email from support @neogaf.com

 

[Sye d'Burns]

If we're going to ban conversation regarding things that some members get offended by then we have completely jumped the slippery slope and gone straight into free-fall.

Rather we pretend to be tolerant of it while raining insults and belittling innuendo on those that believe in it?

 

[Angry Fork]

i think i'm the first person to ever receive an email from support @neogaf.com

It was evilore apologizing for docking you 300 votes wasn't it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

GAF might be improving on this lately, but how did mods like the transgender girl (can't remember her name...) and AmiRox reign for so long? With AmiRox i've probably heard more horror stories than i've actually seen though.

GAF has never had a transgender mod.

Without poo-pooing any past mods, who I think generally did a good job although we're improving all the time--reforms and changes in any organization take place slowly and often times the first change is in who you hire and how you look forward, rather than bloodletting or forcing attrition on existing people.

 

[Wafflecakes]

One thing that drives me nuts is popgaf. I am fine with them mucking up their thread with hundreds of GIFs per page and no actual text because apparently their GIFs speak for them. However, when they invade other threads I can innocently click said thread and my computer and internet slow to a crawl as it struggles with the GIF load. Then once loaded and I can browse I realize there is no text at all but instead a page of Christina licking her lips and Mariah jiggling her boobs. That is not discussion................

Insane that they removed animated Avatars yet they still let that shit go on.

(hell I think most GIF only posts are not helpful in all contexts....they generally lead to a couple pages of people quoting said GIFs))

 

[Kabouter]

So saying Jesus was not real or at least did not possess mystical powers is equivalent to calling someone a cunt? One of them is a personal insult, I will let you decide which.

It's not the equivalent, but I might still ban for saying Jesus is not real if used in a certain context and said in a certain way. If someone goes into a discussion of Christianity and argues that Jesus never existed, or never had mystical powers and was respectful and provided arguments, that's fine. If someone went into the same thread and did a hit and run post with the equivalent content of 'lol Jesus doesn't even exist/was just some regular dude', that's just trying to get a rise out of people for no good reason.

I wonder if I'm identified as a problem poster. I can get unfriendly sometimes.

Nah, you've got a few bans, but that's about it. You're not someone who I, or any other mod, has noticed in a negative way to such a degree (or in my case, to any degree) that you've been identified as a problem poster.

Oh, and I apologize in advance for this off-topic response.

That depends, there's a pretty healthy libertarian streak which may shield you if you couched your argument in those terms. How much money does the potential tax payer earn? Is he or she *gasp* wealthy? Should he or she pay more or *egad* less?

sorry for the dp, I meant to cut and edit my post.

It's not so much the height of the tax as much as the system I object to, Romney wants to eliminate double taxation of foreign income for US based companies, Obama says that's shipping jobs overseas when it's in actuality eliminating a protectionist measure that has no place in the 21st century. The United States had no part in facilitating the earning of foreign sourced income by a US based corporation. The height of taxation is less relevant to me, since that depends entirely on the level of services one expects from the government, which I don't really have an intelligent opinion on for the United States given that I've never lived there. But obviously, if people expect the current set of services to be provided by the government, revenue will have to go way up.

Anyway, I'd like to think I could make this argument regardless of my red name, but I can't be sure. I haven't noticed too much of a change in how people approach me in discussions, but I never really participated in the most volatile discussions much anyway, so there wouldn't be much to notice to begin with.

 

[Tomat]

Rather we pretend to be tolerant of it while raining insults and belittling innuendo on those that believe in it?

Bold part only, I'd like to think most people do when talking to strangers. If you absolutely hate religion and you plan on debating it with someone, you should be pleasant about it, otherwise the conversation will go no where. If they're an asshole about it, you should just ignore them.

The people raining insults and belittling innuendos should be banned, plain and simple.

 

[ymmv]

What's troubling is that you can be banned for not necessarily breaking the rules, but for offending the wrong person or group of people when that wasn't the intention. So you always feel like you're walking on such thin ice when posting on touchy subjects.

GAF might be improving on this lately, but how did mods like the transgender girl (can't remember her name...) and AmiRox reign for so long? With AmiRox i've probably heard more horror stories than i've actually seen though.

Are you thinking of Dragona? Didn't she ban everyone joking about women drivers?

 

[Im_Special]

Okay so I'm late to this thread and I'll admit I haven't read much of it yet, but my take on the OP's question is there fine and not fine.

When it comes to racism, piracy, insults/putdowns, that sort of thing they do a fine job at moderating. But the amount of shit-posting that goes on (I guess this is what people call it?) is just absolutely terrible, and I really hope one day soon the mods will outline some rules to reduce it then moderate it.

I've been visiting GAF much less now then I did before because of it in favor of SA's forum, you could take any thread and probably reduce the size of it by 75% if you took all the empty "white noise" posting out of it, the one liners, nothing but a .gif post, LOL Bomba, etc. Seriously people if someone is asking for an RPG recommendation and all you have to contribute is saying "FINAL FANTASY X" then bail out of the thread, how about don't post at all and save everyone else the scrolling.

/end little rant

 

[Angry Fork]

There's nothing wrong with Amirox, he's just passionate and doesn't hold back in debates. He doesn't do shit like "shut up you asshole you're an idiot" kind of stuff. He provides legitimate reasonable arguments and that should be embraced. I think people dislike him because he never lets things go until he wins but that isn't enough to badmouth him.

 

[Monroeski]

Are you thinking of Dragona? Didn't she ban everyone joking about women drivers?

She banned pretty much anyone that made any sort of joke about a female stereotype; I think "female drivers are bad" just had the largest bodycount.

 

[iNvid02]

No but I don't think cunt should be banned either.

and first of all ...none of us truly know if that shit is a fact.

What if someone truly believes that Jesus is real and if you said that to them it would offend the shit outta them?

Cunt is an awesome word...one that apparently is a major part of some European countries (i' m not an expert) and judging by this thread...doesn't offend many here.

So why is it banned?

All I'm saying if you start banning words because they are offensive then why stop at banning shit like Jesus ain't real since that can too be very offensive to someone of faith?

I think many paint every religious person as "PRAISE JEEESUS, I GO TO CHURCH ERRDAY" when that's not the case.

Many of them are surprisingly open in some cases but still they would be offended if you dissed Jesus. You don't gotta believe but it would nice to respect them.

I think a part people are missing is that not every religious person is in your face about it and as long as that remains and they are generally polite then why not treat them with some respect?

this is a cuntacular post

as long as these words aren't used to insult people, they should be fine right. but then how can you use them

 

[Count Dookkake]

I deserved most of my bans, so I think the moderation is fine.

 

[Lothars]

Rather we pretend to be tolerant of it while raining insults and belittling innuendo on those that believe in it?

I don't think any conversation should necessarily be banned but I agree with your post and that seems to happen fairly consistently.

 

[Dude Abides]

This thread - Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith? - was still up in my tabs from earlier and it signals the point where I came to the conclusion that I initially shared with the thread.



So yeah, you can lump every single person of faith in with healing by faith alone if it helps you sleep better.




Read that OP and tell me what other nameyourgrouphereGAF would be subjected similar affronts.

Bungalow Bob has been banned numerous times and got juniored, probably for that thread, so what are you complaining about?

 

[Tomat]

I don't think any conversation should necessarily be banned but I agree with your post and that seems to happen fairly consistently.

That's a problem with the posters, not the subject of discussion.

 

[Esch]

There's nothing wrong with Amirox, he's just passionate and doesn't hold back in debates. He doesn't do shit like "shut up you asshole you're an idiot" kind of stuff. He provides legitimate reasonable arguments and that should be embraced. I think people dislike him because he never lets things go until he wins but that isn't enough to badmouth him.

People dislike him because of how he lost his modship.

 

[Knux-Future]

Saying Jesus is not real is not derogatory. It is not an insult. Cunt is seen by many as an inherently insulting word. Which is why it is banned but not asshole. But naturally, context is everything, like how it is unacceptable to call me an asshole.

You aren't a religious person, so how the hell do you know that?

Trust me it's pretty damn offensive to basically take a dump on something someone else believes in. Whether it's legit or not. That will offend them...and yes you are being an asshole in that case. Intent doesn't change that fact.

If you are just joking around and do a Jesus is fictional joke, and an religious poster in around, he/she may take offense to that. Just like if you are in a goddamn soccer/football thread and call a ref a cunt, if a women poster is around, she may get offended that you used that word.

It's different degrees of offensiveness and all but in the end the level doesn't really matter.

To be honest, I'm not a religious guy (I believe something bigger than us exsist but the stories are a bit to far fetched to believe fully). I went to catholic school for all 12 years and it sucked. I hated it basically. I was forced to go to church and sunday school when I was young too....that also sucked. So I'm not the biggest fan BUT I do respect their choice to believe in what they believe in. That's up to them and as long as they keep it out of my face and don't force it on me...fine. Go crazy.

but it reeks of hypocracy that it's basically okay to offend one group because the majority here doesn't believe in what they believe in. Shit I'd get banned to calling out MLP fans for being creepy before getting banned on dissing someone else's god.

That's kinda fucked, is all.

Basically go hard or don't go at all...

So yeah if you can diss Jesus then why can't I call a fictional character a cunt if they are in fact acting like a cunt?

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Bungalow Bob has been banned numerous times and got juniored, probably for that thread, so what are you complaining about?

That thread wasn't one of them. See post 12.

Lack of critical thinking skills.

Lack of understanding of the scientific method and standards of rigor for evidence.

Desire to address the shortcomings of asserting a purely faith-based position and the resulting cognitive dissonance.

Desire to provide a stronger argument to more effectively proselytize.

It was at that point that I decided

I think GAF moderation, on the whole, is fantastic once you accept that Christianity is not a protected class.

You don't argue with a man in his own house.

 

[Desmond]

Anyone else find ''First post gets it as usual.'' etc really aggravating?

 

[Ein Soph Aur]

Anyone else find ''First post gets it as usual.'' etc really aggravating?

Sometimes

Not as much as "defense force" though.