Support NeoGAF

[KtSlime]

Thank you for making our point. LOL

Yeah, they are a bit of the extreme example, and you don't get many of them on GAF for long, but there are also people who believe the world to only be 6 thousand years old, and those who believe that sexual preference can be programmed. As an atheist, what level of ignorance is acceptable for me to respect?

Anyway, religion should only be half protected. Obviously lies and slanderous comments should not be tolerated, but I don't think it is okay for a person who believes things we now know to be wrong to make it through the day here and not have his or her beliefs questioned when entering a thread on religion.

 

[Dude Abides]

Thank you for making our point. LOL

You missed his point, which was that your views aren't entitled to respect simply because you believe in them deeply. People are entitled to respect. Ideas are not.

 

[Nevasleep]

In the UK, with no adjective attached, it's more or less a term of endearment.

I'm still 50:50 on it, and Neogaf is an international forum.

I think GAF moderation is pretty much spot on. Jokes and swearing allowed, with the 'line' being more common sense than fixed.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

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.

Moderation is supposed to alleviate the jackass tendency and, on many topics, it clearly does.

I believe the problem is that many believers, myself included, feel that trash like that is completely rampant and, if not outright sanctioned at times, severely under-moderated. Hence, the feeling that I have is that his post will not be judged just like everyone else's.

You missed his point, which was that your views aren't entitled to respect simply because you believe in them deeply. People are entitled to respect. Ideas are not.

Bronies disprove that theory.

 

[Chopper]

I'm still 50:50 on it.

I think GAF moderation is pretty much spot on. Jokes and swearing allowed, with the 'line' being more common sense than fixed.

I'd hope so. I hate the idea of getting banned for calling Sony a bunch of cunts or something. Whereas calling another poster a "fucking cunt" for having a shitty opinion is another matter entirely. :/

 

[Lord British]

You missed his point, which was that your views aren't entitled to respect simply because you believe in them deeply. People are entitled to respect. Ideas are not.

I agree, but I think there are better ways to make the point than to conflate the religious with holocaust deniers. It comes over as very crass, whether or not it was intended.

 

[TommyT]

When was c__t banned?

I suppose "why?" is because it can be deemed offensive? But then, so can many other words...

In the UK, with no adjective attached, it's more or less a term of endearment.

Well there was a big (relative of course) thing about this a few months ago, however the reasoning behind it has been around for a long, long time as per the TOS.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use NeoGAF to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated in any form and are bannable on the first offense. It is recommended that profanity be held to a minimum, as it does not promote civil conversation. Foul language in the form of insults directed towards other forum members may result in a ban.

edit: will expand on this in a bit - but it's all about context.

 

[Chopper]

Well there was a big (relative of course) thing about this a few months ago, however the reasoning behind it has been around for a long, long time as per the TOS.

edit: will expand on this in a bit - but it's all about context.

I am pretty familiar with the ToS, but it's interestingly obtuse. I mean, "fuck" is a sexually orientated swear word, but I would never expect anyone to get banned for using it.

 

[Palmer_v1]

There are too many odd rules about what is considered offensive/banworthy, lots of double standards, and having to follow google's content rules is asinine.

 

[ghst]

britgaf has got this cunt business all wrong, we commonwealth types have been effectively been robbed of a perfectly good hateful slur. when you really want to unsheathe your woman hating rhetoric against that girl who turned your friend code invite down, where can you turn to? certainly not a term as castrated and harmless as cunt.

no, we must follow amerigaf's example and lock this innocuous term away, empower it through banefully reverent silence; before having it born anew as a paragon of misogynist intent.

 

[Chopper]

Calling a woman a cunt is definitely an American thing. I've only ever seen it on televison or in movies. I can't abide by that at all, despite my affection for the word itself.

 

[Dude Abides]

Bronies disprove that theory.

Did you just equate religious people with Bronies? I find that really offensive.

I agree, but I think there are better ways to make the point than to conflate the religious with holocaust deniers. It comes over as very crass, whether or not it was intended.

I agree it's a poor rhetorical choice, because it simply generates more outrage rather than understanding the point, as we see here. However, if you're making the point that ideas are not in and of themselves worthy of respect, it only makes sense to select as examples ideas that almost everyone agrees are not worthy of respect, such as holocaust denial and flat-eartherism.

 

[(._.)]

just don't post on gaming side. community threads have fairly lax moderation also.

 

[joelseph]

Inconsistent.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I love a Stumpakapow post. He's like Dumbledore.

So soothing to read haha!

Stump is the best mod. He knows the effectiveness of a stern warning! He's a good guy.

 

[Zeliard]

This word banning business would be easier not to laugh at if the term "retard" wasn't thrown around here with reckless abandon. Wasn't very long ago that someone had to make a thread practically begging people to stop using the word, and to the surprise of nobody, it was a controversial notion.

 

[Roland Garros]

britgaf has got this cunt business all wrong, we commonwealth types have been effectively been robbed of a perfectly good hateful slur. when you really want to unsheathe your woman hating rhetoric against that girl who turned your friend code invite down, where can you turn to? certainly not a term as castrated and harmless as cunt.

no, we must follow amerigaf's example and lock this innocuous term away, empower it through banefully reverent silence; before having it born anew as a paragon of misogynist intent.

Stop hogging the red cordial.

Stump is the best mod. He knows the effectiveness of a stern warning! He's a good guy.

Haven't seen enough of him I guess, but what I have seen has been very reassuring. He expertly brings things back down to earth.

 

[kaioshade]

I definitely feel some of the moderation on GAF is a bit random sometimes. There are some threads i would love to participate in, but will not go near because when i see someone have a dissenting opinion, they get ripped to shreds. they attempt to respond and they are banned.

I generally stick to "safe" threads.

 

[Snuggles]

Nope, when you're banned you at least get some vague explanation. When you're juniored you don't get anything at all. I still don't know the exact reason why I was juniored, and despite asking mods and even admins about the reason I never even get a reply. It's something I've said already and other posters also expressed. People get banned or juniored but never get a real explanation. How do you expect people to learn from this? Sometimes they know what they did but as has been shown in this thread it's not always so clear. A good explanation will do a lot in bettering the posts around the forum, tell a person where they messed up and at least they don't have the bullshit excuse of "oh but I didn't know/nobody told me anything!"

If you're the same person I'm thinking of, I saw this go down. You said you wanted to see a studio get shut down because they make games you don't like, someone scolded you for the comment and you responded by insulting them for being a junior. A mod was watching and junior'd you as a comical form of punishment.

It's weird I remember this shit, but there you go.

 

[Lord British]

I agree it's a poor rhetorical choice, because it simply generates more outrage rather than understanding the point, as we see here. However, if you're making the point that ideas are not in and of themselves worthy of respect, it only makes sense to select as examples ideas that almost everyone agrees are not worthy of respect, such as holocaust denial and flat-eartherism.

I see your point, but the holocaust denial thing still strikes me as a poor choice, as it results in an instant emotional reaction. Flat-eartherism alone would have been enough.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Did you just equate religious people with Bronies? I find that really offensive.

No. I said that on the GAF ladder of cultural acceptance, bronies rank higher.

 

[ScOULaris]

I always thought that NeoGAF's strict moderation was for the betterment of the forum, as the resulting discussions on here tend to be a notch above what you'll find elsewhere.

I had gotten banned a few times here and there for not paying close enough attention to the TOS, and I always waited patiently to be allowed back in without complaint.

But then I got Junior'ed for making GAF Votes threads, which I thought were very tastefully done and didn't see a problem with them at all.

Now I look at GAF as an unruly tyrant who preys on the weak... and I cry. So many tears.

 

[Huevos de Oro]

No, I don't think it's too strict, but then again I have to realize I don't really participate in the most heated discussion topics, so my perception of the forum's strictness might be skewed because of that.

I believe it's important to realize that a forum this size is almost impossible to keep in check without an impractical amount of moderators. That makes it easier for some people to feel unjustly singled out for something while they see someone else doing the same thing seemingly without repercussion.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

This is the only forum I regularly visit because of its 'strict' nature, though I feel like it's gotten more strict on some subjects and looser on others.

 

[TommyT]

I am pretty familiar with the ToS, but it's interestingly obtuse. I mean, "fuck" is a sexually orientated swear word, but I would never expect anyone to get banned for using it.

How is "fuck" sexually oriented? It doesn't describe a someone sex or isn't associated with the sex of a person or to whom they're attracted. To go up to a guy or girl and say "You're a dumb fuck" doesn't mean anything more or less to either one. Conversely, if you say "You're a dumb cunt/bitch" to both people, it's a general agreement that it has more impact on a girl than it would a guy.

If you were from the UK or something then there's an argument to be made if you called someone a "right cunt" and there was outcry over it. It's been said, and afiak it's been 'fine' in the sense that the person wasn't banned because there wasn't any sexual "direction" when it was used.

edit: By general agreement, I mean general agreement here, on this forum located in the U.S. So when posting that's just something people that aren't from 'here' have to take into consideration. In the same vein, it is hoped that how things of that nature are moderated is done similarly.

 

[RukusProvider]

For me, absolutely.

How I speak and interact with people in real life would surely have me perma'd within a few posts.

I take a thought, run it through about 20 PC filters and then type it out.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

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.

I don't know what exactly the leper's colony is like, but if it's a sub-forum where members can discuss the bans of others then I can see why it'd be encouraging gossip.
I was just having a sort of public announcement like forum, that is read-only, in which mods give a short explanation for each ban and using them as an example of what not to do.

If the ban is contextual to the poster's longer history, then you say that in the public ban announcement.

 

[noah111]

For me, absolutely.

How I speak and interact with people in real life would surely have me perma'd within a few posts.

I take a thought, run it through about 20 PC filters and then type it out.

Your way of speech and interaction isn't the sole way people communicate everywhere. Some people find certain things more offensive/tolerable than others and the whole structure has to adapt towards that.

Assuming there's a decent number of people who wouldn't take kindly to whatever got restricted or banned. I wouldn't mind there being voting threads in the future for such specifics (like cunt/bitch).

 

[Sye d'Burns]

How is "fuck" sexually oriented?

That might be the simple most tag worthy comment I have read on GAF.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Did you just equate religious people with Bronies? I find that really offensive.

Out of curiosity, do you really? If so, why? Honest question.

 

[Stumpokapow]

For me, absolutely.

How I speak and interact with people in real life would surely have me perma'd within a few posts.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not alluding to anything really heinous.

Your real life interactions vanish into the ether a few seconds later. Chat rooms have basically the same mentality--a one off comment never becomes a big deal. Ditto voice chat. Trash talking is much, much less of a big deal in these formats than a written ongoing discussion.

Posts on GAF can derail threads long after they're made.

It's not about being PC, it's about being mindful of the venue as long form discussion with people coming and going and a permanent record rather than an ephemeral, ad hoc conversation.

It's also the same reason why moderation is much much more loose in live event threads, since they move so quickly nothing has the stickiness necessary to hurt people or get in the way of real discussion.

I'd also mention that there are a lot of people who are bad GAF posters but good people IRL or on IRC or even on other sites. Bans, even perms, are better thought of as "bad fit for GAF" than "bad human being" for the most part.

 

[RukusProvider]

Your way of speech and interaction isn't the sole way people communicate everywhere. Some people find certain things more offensive/tolerable than others and the whole structure has to adapt towards that.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not alluding to anything really heinous.

Your real life interactions vanish into the ether a few seconds later. Chat rooms have basically the same mentality--a one off comment never becomes a big deal. Ditto voice chat. Trash talking is much, much less of a big deal in these formats than a written ongoing discussion.

Posts on GAF can derail threads long after they're made.

It's not about being PC, it's about being mindful of the venue as long form discussion with people coming and going and a permanent record rather than an ephemeral, ad hoc conversation.

It's also the same reason why moderation is much much more loose in live event threads, since they move so quickly nothing has the stickiness necessary to hurt people or get in the way of real discussion.

I'd also mention that there are a lot of people who are bad GAF posters but good people IRL or on IRC or even on other sites. Bans, even perms, are better thought of as "bad fit for GAF" than "bad human being" for the most part.

Assuming there's a decent number of people who wouldn't take kindly to whatever got restricted or banned. I wouldn't mind there being voting threads in the future for such specifics (like cunt/bitch).

The difference being, IRL I can choose to socialize with a particular group and shun those who are offended. On here, my communication is public and as you state, could be offensive to someone without my knowledge.

It's simply a different medium of communication that, atleast for me, must be addressed differently.

 

[woolley]

For me, absolutely.

How I speak and interact with people in real life would surely have me perma'd within a few posts.

I take a thought, run it through about 20 PC filters and then type it out.

Yea...most of the time I just end up erasing my post at the end anyway just because I know someone is gonna be somehow offended.

 

[Angry Grimace]

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 don't agree with that bit about SA. Their strategy might be different but in reality the actual amount of terrible posting is quite low there (regardless of what people who never go there might think) because it is heavily moderated but at the same time people don't get banned for 3-5 weeks at a time.

 

[Purexed]

Not strict enough at times. I find it quizzical that people seriously have problems with conducting themselves with civility and mutual respect.

I'd like to thank the mods for helping keep this the preeminent gaming community on the web. They catch a lot of grief, but there are many of us that appreciate their efforts.

 

[Chopper]

How is "fuck" sexually oriented? It doesn't describe a someone sex or isn't associated with the sex of a person or to whom they're attracted. To go up to a guy or girl and say "You're a dumb fuck" doesn't mean anything more or less to either one. Conversely, if you say "You're a dumb cunt/bitch" to both people, it's a general agreement that it has more impact on a girl than it would a guy.

If you were from the UK or something then there's an argument to be made if you called someone a "right cunt" and there was outcry over it. It's been said, and afiak it's been 'fine' in the sense that the person wasn't banned because there wasn't any sexual "direction" when it was used.

edit: By general agreement, I mean general agreement here, on this forum located in the U.S. So when posting that's just something people that aren't from 'here' have to take into consideration. In the same vein, it is hoped that how things of that nature are moderated is done similarly.

Are you serious?

I think he's serious.

 

[ymmv]

Personally I think the mods are inconsistent and it sucks there isn't any way to complain about a ban (or at least get a better explanation for the ban). There should at least be a way to contact a moderator to discuss the case.

I've been banned a couple of times and only the last ban was deserved because it was actually trolling. The other bans were head scratchers that made me wonder what posting actually got me thrown out of NeoGaf for a couple of weeks. One ban message said I shouldn't have bolstered my "shitty argument" by referring to Metacritic ratings. That sounded more like a mod who didn't agree with my opinion than something that was actually offensive. Another time I was banned for backseat modding. What I didn't like was that the poster I was complaining about got banned too. So I was banned for being right. :-/

The problem is that a couple of questionable bans plus one that was actually deserved puts me in a tough position. My last ban was three months and I wouldn't be surprised if another ban would be even longer. But I simply don't think I'm a lousy poster who gets a kick out of trolling others. On the contrary. I love this forum and most if not all my postings are to the point and constructive. But despite that I got hit by the ban hammer and I don't get it. IMO the bans are fickle, harsh and a mystery to both the banned poster and the rest of Gaf. It sucks that worthwhile posters get banned for months and no one knows what they did wrong and how long they're gone from the forum.

IMO the mods should have a more active role by using "mod breaks". Specifically warn posters about their behavior instead of letting all hell break loose and then kick everybody off the forum. Mod breaks are a feature of the Dutch Tweakers.net forum and it works wonderful there. They also serve as a guide for other posters, because those posts are in another color so they stick out when reading an older thread. I like that far better than reading a thread and wondering about the many greyed out user names.

And that's another thing. Isn't it weird that when you visit each and every thread that's older than six months has a couple of banned user names? Some of those guys were really popular and now they're gone. How about a general amnesty. Why not wipe the slate clean and start from zero. Maybe we could get Denis Dyack to post again? <grin>

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't agree with that bit about SA. Their strategy might be different but in reality the actual amount of terrible posting is quite low there (regardless of what people who never go there might think) because it is heavily moderated but at the same time people don't get banned for 3-5 weeks at a time.

I've been an SA member for 11 years. It has some unique advantages (silo interest sub-forums with forum-specific mods, relatively low no content posting, in-depth and knowledgable people because of these two things) and some disadvantages (community herd mentality/inaccessible to new members, incredible cruelty to new members going back to February 2002, subdivided forums lead to people missing stuff that they might be casually interested in, mega threads
block out news type discussions in gaming and some other forums, mods come off as more capricious).

I think I'm the only GAF mod that reads SA. One former SA admin (now permabanned there) came here and got permabanned; at least two SA gaming mods regged here and left later, one after being banned for a long time by directly insulting a mod here in a thread

SA is a pretty great forum, but I generally like the tone and setup of GAF better personally. For you, the strengths and weaknesses might be reversed.

 

[Roland Garros]

Are you serious?

I think he's serious.

I think he's clumsily trying to say it's not gender-exclusive, unlike cunt and bitch, etc.

 

[TommyT]

That might be the simple most tag worthy comment I have read on GAF.

Are you serious?

I think he's serious.

Are you missing that the 'sexually oriented' part of the TOS that was bolded refers to "material"? In the context of what we're talking about (rather what I'm talking about), words and how they affect people based on their gender, "fuck" has no sexual affinity aside from it's use as a verb in that both sexes can be "fucked" equally.

 

[Wilbur]

britgaf has got this cunt business all wrong, we commonwealth types have been effectively been robbed of a perfectly good hateful slur. when you really want to unsheathe your woman hating rhetoric against that girl who turned your friend code invite down, where can you turn to? certainly not a term as castrated and harmless as cunt.

no, we must follow amerigaf's example and lock this innocuous term away, empower it through banefully reverent silence; before having it born anew as a paragon of misogynist intent.

u r my favrut

 

[Team Filler]

Unless you're a member of a pre-approved outrage group, you're shit out of luck.

britgaf has got this cunt business all wrong, we commonwealth types have been effectively been robbed of a perfectly good hateful slur. when you really want to unsheathe your woman hating rhetoric against that girl who turned your friend code invite down, where can you turn to? certainly not a term as castrated and harmless as cunt.

no, we must follow amerigaf's example and lock this innocuous term away, empower it through banefully reverent silence; before having it born anew as a paragon of misogynist intent.

Laser-focused thermonuclear bombardment.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Are you missing that the 'sexually oriented' part of the TOS that was bolded refers to "material"? In the context of what we're talking about (rather what I'm talking about), words and how they affect people based on their gender, "fuck" has no sexual affinity aside from it's use as a verb in that both sexes can be "fucked" equally.

Tell that to asexualGAF, you meanie.

 

[Wilbur]

If you were from the UK or something then there's an argument to be made if you called someone a "right cunt" and there was outcry over it. It's been said, and afiak it's been 'fine' in the sense that the person wasn't banned because there wasn't any sexual "direction" when it was used.

Like I said earlier, I was banned for renaming a ref called Cuneyt Cakir to Cunt Cakir, as had been done in a previous football thread. This had no sexual implications to it and I was still banned because of some unwritten rule that has always been there but ignored.

 

[TommyT]

Tell that to asexualGAF, you meanie.

Well in that case, you can go fuck yourself.

Spoiler

assuming M'm not misunderstanding what asexual means... googling now

I did... damn!

 

[Zee-Row]

Its a little strict for me since a lot of the morbid humor i use in real life wouldn't fly in this forum. I already learned that the hard way once. I sometimes have to check what I write before I post it.

 

[Team Filler]

I've never liked the idea of GAF servers being US-based dictating that GAF rules be US-centric. Seems like an arbitrary barrier that works against the strengths of the internet.

That being said, I think most of the moderation here is rather reasonable, particularly for the size of this forum.

 

[Sye d'Burns]

Well in that case, you can go fuck yourself.

lol

Like I said earlier, I was banned for renaming a ref called Cuneyt Cakir to Cunt Cakir, as had been done in a previous football thread. This had no sexual implications to it and I was still banned because of some unwritten rule that has always been there but ignored.

I don't know man, phonetically speaking, you quite succinctly put cuhnt and cahk together.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Personally I think the mods are inconsistent and it sucks there isn't any way to complain about a ban (or at least get a better explanation for the ban). There should at least be a way to contact a moderator to discuss the case.

You can contact many of us on Twitter, Steam, XBL, PSN, or IRC. There's also the support email. We could do better in this respect.

Note that "I disagree with my ban" or "I disagree with the rules" are a lot less likely to get any help than "I agree with the rules but it wasn't my intent to come off as breaking them" or similar messages unless the ban was a massive massive misunderstanding.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Well in that case, you can go fuck yourself.

Spoiler

assuming M'm not misunderstanding what asexual means... googling now

I did... damn!

lol