When it comes to not catching people by surprise with a ban, I certainly agree, we need to do better about that.
What if I said Persona is a game made for shun-in losers to encourage them to talk to other people and told you to go outside more?
Unfair, right? Pretty asinine, right? In fact, I'd be saying this just based on your avatar without even knowing what you feel about the franchise or whether you're referencing P3 or P4A.
Yet your post implies a lament, echoed by others, of not being able to act similarly to MLP fans.
Anyway, to be entirely honest, religious discussion is pretty damn hard to sort out. You have the deities in question, the interpretation of those deities, the organizations devoted to those deities, the adherents of those deities, and the philosophical underpinnings of the entire venture. Furthermore, church is often not some thing people just go to on Sunday, as it can have real societal effects and quite often political effects. The religious right in America has bred a ton of ill will along these lines. Efforts to undermine the teaching of Biology in schools for "religious reasons" has also bred ill will.
I'm personally not anti-religion in general, and I do agree people shouldn't be asses to each other, but when it comes to "should X be considered sacred?" I'm not really sure what to say. Usually when you give protected status to religion hypocrites quickly use it as a shield or you get situations when it shuts down discussion in the other direction. I understand the complaint, but like others have said previously in this thread, it's not an easy call and I don't have the best answer for it.
Let´s be honest here. Don´t you think that you personally calling someone a bible thumper is a attack on said person and it opens the flood gate from others to attack said person?
To be honest, i was surprised to see you using that term in Chick fil-A thread. I have never seen you do that before to anyone else. I am agnostic, but that honestly bothered me. If an admin can lose his cool and call someone that, why would other like minded individuals show respect to others of different mind set?
Let´s be honest here. Don´t you think that you personally calling someone a bible thumper is a attack on said person and it opens the flood gate from others to attack said person?
Too strict? Nah. If you want to see strict rules/mods, then head over to the truly awful GameSpot forums. PG-13 rules and snitches galore. Absolutely the worst gaming forums on the internet.
The GAF moderation here seems about right to me. Don't be an asshole with an axe to grind, and you'll be fine. You can go against the "GAF HIvemind" and survive (and actually become popular). But once you have an axe to grind (like JayDubya and BigSicily did), then you'll get into trouble.
However, I do agree with others GAF is a bit too politically correct, especially when it comes to religion. I feel there's too much leniency given to outright bashing of religion here. But on the other side, there are many Christians who believe their beliefs/opinions should shield them from any & all criticism. A good example of this was the Chik Fil A debacle. So many Christians claiming 1st Amendment rights, yet don't understand what the admendment actually means.
GAF has rules, and I appreciate that. You can have a mature discussion on GAF about almost any topic if you want to have one. Sure, there'll be trolls/baitors here & there (as on any forum), but there will be someone here who will intellectually engage you, if that's what you desire. If you want no rules, then head over to 4chan.
On the other hand. some people like the guy I know on Gamespot hate gaf, since he has been waiting for 7 months to get in. But whatever, I waited a few months too.
I know Game Analysts post history and i know he is very religious. That´s why i don´t engage him in a discussion because it is futile, in his case. But does that make it ok insulting people based on their post history?
I know Game Analysts post history and i know he is very religious. That´s why i don´t engage him in a discussion because it is futile, in his case. But does that make it ok insulting people based on their post history?
Let´s be honest here. Don´t you think that you personally calling someone a bible thumper is a attack on said person and it opens the flood gate from others to attack said person?
To be honest, i was surprised to see you using that term in Chick fil-A thread. I have never seen you do that before to anyone else. I am agnostic, but that honestly bothered me. If an admin can lose his cool and call someone that, why would other like minded individuals show respect to others of different mind set?
"Bible thumper" is charged language, and it assigns the action as an attribute of the person described, which is always problematic. However, accusing someone of bible thumping (or godbotting) is not inherently a personal attack. Once I've sufficiently established that I don't credit or consider arguments from scripture until the scripture itself can be justified, quoting scripture at me is simply rude. It insults my intelligence and demonstrates that you're refusing to consider my perspective; you're substituting diatribe for dialogue, which is far more disrespectful than an admonition to stop thumping your bible and actually talk with me instead of at me.
"Bible thumper" is charged language, and it assigns the action as an attribute of the person described, which is always problematic. However, accusing someone of bible thumping (or godbotting) is not inherently a personal attack. Once I've sufficiently established that I don't credit or consider arguments from scripture until the scripture itself can be justified, quoting scripture at me is simply rude. It insults my intelligence and demonstrates that you're refusing to consider my perspective; you're substituting diatribe for dialogue, which is far more disrespectful than an admonition to stop thumping your bible and actually talk with me instead of at me.
So no discussing evolution on GAF, it might offend some people.
Some of these guys believe climate change is offensive to their religion too so let's not have any of that neither (yeah, I thought someone was yanking my chain too...)
Gay marriage pisses off their god apparently, sorry gay-GAF you gotta find some other forum.
It looks like a slippery slope because it is one.
Religious crazies already destroyed from within the greatest civilisation the world had known until then and the ripples from that cataclysm still echo today - we know them as the middle east theocracies.
I don't really think that that's the right conclusion to draw. Mind you, I get that there is validity in suggesting that perhaps people are unnecessarily defensive of people making matter-of-fact claims about religion. Given that it's faith-based, it's entirely reasonable for people to surmise that belief in an entity that can't be proven to exist is irrational.
However, really, I think the crux of the issue is the same as it is for most issues. Criticism appears personal. People are grouped into monolithic groups that apparently account for all adherents. "Atheists vs. Theists," "Liberals vs. Conservatives," "Nintendo fans vs. Sony Fans," and so on.
Also, it's hard to gauge sometimes whether people are posting in good faith or not, or are getting too personal with their criticism. If I deride a certain activity, I think we're better served making the discussion be about that activity. For instance, I do think that belief in homophobic bigotry is a bad thing. However, that's quite a bit different than suggesting that religious practitioners are homophobic bigots.
Also, tone is important. It's hard to come across as making a calm, matter-of-fact observation if the post is filled with apparent snark and condescension. This, in particular, is my hardest challenge in trying to engage in honest discussion. But to bring this back to the discussion at hand, it's one thing to point out logical inconsistencies in the Bible and suggest that this may be problematic. It's another thing to deride that you might as well believe in the Loch Ness Monster or unicorns.
The idea comes from seeing anything the types of slanders that militant atheistic types make on a regular basis with no repercussions. I never said arguing with a mod would get you banned. It will paint a nice shiny target on your back with godlessGAF and it gives them a cudgel in the form of a post history with which people can knock you with later and which can be parsed to all hell for maximum effect further ridicule down the road.
It's not going to make you friends, it's only going to further antagonistic strife for to no good end. It's just not worth trifling with when the owner of the site comes down fairly firmly on the opposite side of the argument.
I don't really think that that's the right conclusion to draw. Mind you, I get that there is validity in suggesting that perhaps people are unnecessarily defensive of people making matter-of-fact claims about religion. Given that it's faith-based, it's entirely reasonable for people to surmise that belief in an entity that can't be proven to exist is irrational.
However, really, I think the crux of the issue is the same as it is for most issues. Criticism appears personal. People are grouped into monolithic groups that apparently account for all adherents. "Atheists vs. Theists," "Liberals vs. Conservatives," "Nintendo fans vs. Sony Fans," and so on.
Also, it's hard to gauge sometimes whether people are posting in good faith or not, or are getting too personal with their criticism. If I deride a certain activity, I think we're better served making the discussion be about that activity. For instance, I do think that belief in homophobic bigotry is a bad thing. However, that's quite a bit different than suggesting that religious practitioners are homophobic bigots.
Also, tone is important. It's hard to come across as making a calm, matter-of-fact observation if the post is filled with apparent snark and condescension. This, in particular, is my hardest challenge in trying to engage in honest discussion. But to bring this back to the discussion at hand, it's one thing to point out logical inconsistencies in the Bible and suggest that this may be problematic. It's another thing to deride that you might as well believe in the Loch Ness Monster or unicorns.
I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.
It's really so much easier if you can prune it down. You stop getting so tangled up in feelings about things in the world that really aren't about you.
It's funny... I complain about people being so hateful, yet another OT thread I'm posting in right now I think to myself "Some of these people are idiots. They say some dumb shit."
I don't really see the religion bashing unless someone is specifically calling Christians or a poster out for being a fucking idiot or something along those lines. For some reason making fun of the concept of Jesus ruffles a lot of feathers despite the fact that my or Dookake's personal humor is not a personal attack on the belief system of others.
That's where you are mistaken, people are being treated equally and usually religious people aren't used to that and it makes them uncomfortable.
Note the TOS:
Sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated in any form and are bannable on the first offense.
"Cunt" is a sexual slur. What you'll notice that all those have in common is that you are not allowed to insult people based on who they are. No matter how you feel about it, "God isn't real", makes no reference to the believer. And even if one does make a reference to the believer, saying for example "Your belief in god is silly", they still aren't making a statement based on who the believer is, because the believer can choose not to be christian any time they feel like it. A women can not choose to have been born with different genetics. Furthermore, say you do accept for the sake of argument that religious belief should have special protected status among beliefs. You will then have absolutely no way to explain why it's okay to mock belief in timecube but bannable to mock belief in God besides an appeal to popularity. The solution to this dilemma is to have all beliefs treated equally, and praised or mocked based on their own merits.
I don't really see the religion bashing unless someone is specifically calling Christians or a poster out for being a fucking idiot or something along those lines. For some reason making fun of the concept of Jesus ruffles a lot of feathers despite the fact that my or Dookake's personal humor is not a personal attack on the belief system of others.
Everyone has their own sense of humor. A lot of what I think is a joke, others might not see as one.
I'm not saying don't joke about it, I think I'd be one of the last people to say that, but you shouldn't be surprised that some people don't find it funny either.
I don't really think that that's the right conclusion to draw. Mind you, I get that there is validity in suggesting that perhaps people are unnecessarily defensive of people making matter-of-fact claims about religion. Given that it's faith-based, it's entirely reasonable for people to surmise that belief in an entity that can't be proven to exist is irrational.
However, really, I think the crux of the issue is the same as it is for most issues. Criticism appears personal. People are grouped into monolithic groups that apparently account for all adherents. "Atheists vs. Theists," "Liberals vs. Conservatives," "Nintendo fans vs. Sony Fans," and so on.
Also, it's hard to gauge sometimes whether people are posting in good faith or not, or are getting too personal with their criticism. If I deride a certain activity, I think we're better served making the discussion be about that activity. For instance, I do think that belief in homophobic bigotry is a bad thing. However, that's quite a bit different than suggesting that religious practitioners are homophobic bigots.
Also, tone is important. It's hard to come across as making a calm, matter-of-fact observation if the post is filled with apparent snark and condescension. This, in particular, is my hardest challenge in trying to engage in honest discussion. But to bring this back to the discussion at hand, it's one thing to point out logical inconsistencies in the Bible and suggest that this may be problematic. It's another thing to deride that you might as well believe in the Loch Ness Monster or unicorns.
I agree on the hardship of properly stablishing a calm tone, as it is easy to see I let my own feelings seep through the post which tends to end sometimes in snarky or condescending remarks. That's something I have to work on.
However many religious people will always take personally even the most neutral statements that call into doubt dogma. I'd like to add that some particularly nefarious ones have gotten quite adept at deflecting calm, rational criticism reframing it as a personal attack on both their faith and their right to believe and practice their beliefs.
I disagree however that one can't make broad statements: homophobia is mandated as an act of faith and those who disagree tend to stay quiet becoming silent accomplices. Church donations openly finance public campaigns with specific goals. There's no way around this - just by belonging to certain denominations, one supports directly or indirectly, by action or inaction, homophobia.
Anyways, I think I've got a bit carried away.
Honestly, as longs as mods could just update the damn FAQ so people don't get surprise bans I'd be happy.
Everyone has their own sense of humor. A lot of what I think is a joke, others might not see as one.
I'm not saying don't joke about it, I think I'd be one of the last people to say that, but you shouldn't be surprised that some people don't find it funny either.
I don't really see the religion bashing unless someone is specifically calling Christians or a poster out for being a fucking idiot or something along those lines. For some reason making fun of the concept of Jesus ruffles a lot of feathers despite the fact that my or Dookake's personal humor is not a personal attack on the belief system of others.
That's where you are mistaken, people are being treated equally and usually religious people aren't used to that and it makes them uncomfortable.
Note the TOS:
"Cunt" is a sexual slur. What you'll notice that all those have in common is that you are not allowed to insult people based on who they are. No matter how you feel about it, "God isn't real", makes no reference to the believer. And even if one does make a reference to the believer, saying for example "Your belief in god is silly", they still aren't making a statement based on who the believer is, because the believer can choose not to be christian any time they feel like it. A women can not choose to have been born with different genetics. Furthermore, say you do accept for the sake of argument that religious belief should have special protected status among beliefs. You will then have absolutely no way to explain why it's okay to mock belief in timecube but bannable to mock belief in God besides an appeal to popularity. The solution to this dilemma is to have all beliefs treated equally, and praised or mocked based on their own merits.
Yeah. I would like for all beliefs to be treated equally.
I just find it weird to be able to joke about some things but not others because it doesn't directly effect you or because it is a choice.
That doesn't change the fact that it offends them. Sure they can choose to not believe but they obviously have reasons for believing, legit or not, and it means a lot to them. It;s who they are and by attacking that you are attacking them. It's not the same as a slur of course since it can be used in a joking manner. I joke about god all the time..but I also joke about racist shit all the time. They may not be equally offensive but they still in fact offensive...
so if you are going to draw the line at slurs, then fine. it just could come off as a slight or favoritism...even if that isn't the case. The only good time to diss someone's beliefs (if there is a good time) is in a joke and even then that's pretty fucked. Yeah if you are polite and say "I don't think Jesus is real" and then explain it then that's cool and if the person takes offense to that, it's cool too. We don't always have to agree of course but as long as both sides are polite in their disagreement (not easy), we should be cool.
It's just when it becomes "lol you believe in god? what an idiot" where things get messed up or overarching statements like "most religious people are intollerent assholes".
Once again moderating this is perhaps not possible. I don't know. It's worth mentioning tho.
What you'll notice that all those have in common is that you are not allowed to insult people based on who they are. No matter how you feel about it, "God isn't real", makes no reference to the believer. And even if one does make a reference to the believer, saying for example "Your belief in god is silly", they still aren't making a statement based on who the believer is, because the believer can choose not to be christian any time they feel like it. A women can not choose to have been born with different genetics. Furthermore, say you do accept for the sake of argument that religious belief should have special protected status among beliefs. You will then have absolutely no way to explain why it's okay to mock belief in timecube but bannable to mock belief in God besides an appeal to popularity. The solution to this dilemma is to have all beliefs treated equally, and praised or mocked based on their own merits.
Yeah, special protection like system wars, anime, sports teams, bronies and apparently even wrestling being real.
No one, least of all me, is saying religion should be untouchable. But there is such a thing as tact that is more often than not replaced by derision if not outright hostility applied to anti-religious posts that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere near the level it currently exists for anything, like those listed above, which has passionate adherents.
Yeah. I would like for all beliefs to be treated equally.
I just find it weird to be able to joke about some things but not others because it doesn't directly effect you or because it is a choice.
That doesn't change the fact that it offends them. Sure they can choose to not believe but they obviously have reasons for believing, legit or not, and it means a lot to them. It;s who they are and by attacking that you are attacking them.
I litterally just explained why the bolded is false in the post you quoted, and why it's different than for example sexual slurs. "people could be offended by that" should never be a basis for any sort of action, because people could be offended by anything. Being offended is not a property of the offender, so one would be literally arguing for banning people not based on their actions but on how they are perceived. If you want a consistent set of rules for the moderators to enforce behavior, you need to be more specific on what kind of actions are okay and which are not. GAF tries to draw a line at insults based on personal properties, the kinds the person in question has no control over, exemplified by "Sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs..." As I said before, one's religion is not such a property.
Yeah, special protection like system wars, anime, sports teams, bronies and apparently even wrestling being real.
No one, least of all me, is saying religion should be untouchable. But there is such a thing as tact that is more often than not replaced by derision if not outright hostility applied to anti-religious posts that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere near the level it currently exists for anything, like those listed above, which has passionate adherents.
Give a like for like example of console preference being protected where religious belief isn't. The upswing in PC evangelizing threads in recent years has shown me time and again people being called silly for their PC evangelism. If someone starts a thread about the WiiU being "the coming of the one true console" no one has to fear being banned for saying the OP is silly for reason X,Y, and Z. The fact of the matter is that the various religions of the world have a substantially larger impact on culture, politics, and ethics than Nintendo ever will. They are naturally going to attract more passionate criticism based on that alone before even going into their very exclusionary world views.
Religion is insanely important to some folks. And just because you don't get it doesn't make it a lesser thing.
It's their lifestyle. It's personal to them. Just because you don't think it is a personal thing doesn't make it so.
Is it the same as race, orientation or gender? fuck no. But in the end you still are insulting someone's lifestyle choice.
That is still pretty messed up.
Just because it's not as bad as a slur doesn't make it okay to diss.
I'm jut asking for some tact. That is all. I'm not asking you to let them run amok. I'm not asking you to share their beliefs. I'm not trying to equate it to racism or sexism (was just using those as examples..of course I see how calling someone a cunt is offensive). I'm just calling out the fact that region can get shat on with out any recourse just because the majority isn't big on it. That seems a bit unfair.
I do think that NeoGAF is too strict. Often, posting here feels like driving in front of a police car; I know that I'm doing nothing wrong but I still feel uneasy. I feel like I can't be myself here (I don't know if that's true or not), and when I see posts like "this thread will be a graveyard, staying away" it's clear to me that others feel the same way. I avoid interacting with red usernames, and am often confused by apparently wanton bans. I like the size, scope, and immediacy of this community, but I don't like how widely NeoGAF seems to appreciate censorship.
Are certain sites/memes still banned? If so, there should be a comprehensive list in the TOS.
I do think that NeoGAF is too strict. Often, posting here feels like driving in front of a police car; I know that I'm doing nothing wrong but I still feel uneasy. I feel like I can't be myself here (I don't know if that's true or not), and when I see posts like "this thread will be a graveyard, staying away" it's clear to me that others feel the same way. I avoid interacting with red usernames, and am often confused by apparently wanton bans. I like the size, scope, and immediacy of this community, but I don't like how widely NeoGAF seems to appreciate censorship.
Yeah, special protection like system wars, anime, sports teams, bronies and apparently even wrestling being real.
No one, least of all me, is saying religion should be untouchable. But there is such a thing as tact that is more often than not replaced by derision if not outright hostility applied to anti-religious posts that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere near the level it currently exists for anything, like those listed above, which has passionate adherents.
This place is not too strict, it's appropriately strict.
But the topic of religion is hard for me to judge on as far as GAF's response. You can't personally attack someone purely by basis of their religion, but I see little harm in responsible ribbing (edit: of religious concepts). Not that it's entirely the same, but if someone called me a soulless atheist for the purpose of teasing as opposed to calling me a piece of shit I'd be fine.
Actually, for the latter, I'd probably still be fine.
Religion is insanely important to some folks. And just because you don't get it doesn't make it a lesser thing.
It's their lifestyle. It's personal to them. Just because you don't think it is a personal thing doesn't make it so.
Is it the same as race, orientation or gender? fuck no. But in the end you still are insulting someone's lifestyle choice.
That is still pretty messed up.
Just because it's not as bad as a slur doesn't make it okay to diss.
I'm jut asking for some tact. That is all. I'm not asking you to let them run amok. I'm not asking you to share their beliefs. I'm not trying to equate it to racism or sexism (was just using those as examples..of course I see how calling someone a cunt is offensive). I'm just calling out the fact that region can get shat on with out any recourse just because the majority isn't big on it. That seems a bit unfair.
There's no opinion going on here. I'm stating facts and observations to explain to you why you are seeing the sort of moderation you are seeing. You can get emotional about it all you want; but it'll be helpful to understand why things are the way they are and you should make an effort to do so.
There's no opinion going on here. I'm stating facts and observations to explain to you why you are seeing the sort of moderation you are seeing. You can get emotional about it all you want; but it'll be helpful to understand why things are the way they are and you should make an effort to do so.
Everytime I surf to another forum like gamefaqs or see comments on youtube, I appreciate NeoGAF even more.
Post on gamefaqs and include one curse word -> instant moderation. Troll the hell out of people -> nothing happens. Be an ass -> nothing happens. Insult people without being too direct and no banned curse words -> nothing happens.
It's funny... I complain about people being so hateful, yet another OT thread I'm posting in right now I think to myself "Some of these people are idiots. They say some dumb shit."
I shared this glossalia experience with GAF, one that I hadn't told anyone before. I came hoping for intelligent discussion ... But look at the level of spite/disdain/etc in there.
Sure I knew that some would laugh but the level of spite was pretty hurtful. I appreciated those posters that actually wanted to talk about it rather than mock me/the experience itself.
What was particularly hurtful is that the incident itself was something VERY shocking to me im not a "bible thumping" christian or ecen particularly right wing.
It pissed me off that thread turned into yet another beabhahafa crazy Christians thread, especially as its obvious I came just looking to talk about something that was kinda upsetting ... I wasnt looking to get bashed (again some posters were very fair and I appreciated that)
I don't really see the religion bashing unless someone is specifically calling Christians or a poster out for being a fucking idiot or something along those lines. For some reason making fun of the concept of Jesus ruffles a lot of feathers despite the fact that my or Dookake's personal humor is not a personal attack on the belief system of others.
And my personal humor about any number of issues isn't meant as a personal attack but it might come off that way if I were to post it. We...religious GAF...are just asking for a little more tact. Question beliefs all you want, that's fine, but please don't have any more (and I'm not talking about you or Dookakke here but just anybody) drive by posts that are completely disrespectful of someone's religious beliefs.
People may say that I chose to be Catholic, and that may be true, but I couldn't stop being a Catholic if I wanted to. It's my identity, I define myself by my Catholicism. I may not be the best Catholic, not even close, I sin constantly and am pretty sure I'm going to Hell, but I believe 110% in the Church and its teachings and even unintentional humor can come off as very insulting.
Replace religion with anything else that people consider to be part of their being and it's just insulting. You have to realize that despite your inability to comprehend this fact, many religious view their beliefs and things such as sin to be just as real and part of their identity as a homosexual views being gay. It's inseparable. (and I know this is not the best comparison, I'm just trying to make a point).
I think we could all use some more civility. I'm not asking anyone to stop questioning religion or religious belief...any religious belief that can't withstand inquiry is a weak belief, but can we just have some civility?
I've been banned for having an opinion that was different.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That's pretty heavy censorship if you ask me. Because no matter how much you disagree with someone's opinion or thoughts on a subject, perhaps even to the point of disgust, you shouldn't ban that person just for that.
I honestly find the users stricter than the mods on many things, especially in gaming side
Like if someone makes a thread title that is slightly incorrect or misleading (and I don't mean HALF LIFE 3 STEALTH RELEASED) I mean things like a thread saying a console has sold x amount but actually it has only shipped x amount, then you get a page of "this thread title is misleading, get it changed" or the OP gets accused of the crime of having an 'agenda'.
Honestly, I think for the userbase this place has, the mods do a fairly good job of keeping the chaos away
I honestly find the users stricter than the mods on many things, especially in gaming side
Like if someone makes a thread title that is slightly incorrect or misleading (and I don't mean HALF LIFE 3 STEALTH RELEASED) I mean things like a thread saying a console has sold x amount but actually it has only shipped x amount, then you get a page of "this thread title is misleading, get it changed" or the OP gets accused of the crime of having an 'agenda'.
Honestly, I think for the userbase this place has, the mods do a fairly good job of keeping the chaos away
I've been banned for having an opinion that was different.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That's pretty heavy censorship if you ask me. Because no matter how much you disagree with someone's opinion or thoughts on a subject, perhaps even to the point of disgust, you shouldn't ban that person just for that.
Allowing extreme opinions without any kind of rules would turn this place into youtube. Youtube comments and Yahoo comments are what happen when opinions are allowed to go uncensored.
I shared this glossalia experience with GAF, one that I hadn't told anyone before. I came hoping for intelligent discussion ... But look at the level of spite/disdain/etc in there.
Sure I knew that some would laugh but the level of spite was pretty hurtful. I appreciated those posters that actually wanted to talk about it rather than mock me/the experience itself.
What was particularly hurtful is that the incident itself was something VERY shocking to me im not a "bible thumping" christian or ecen particularly right wing.
It pissed me off that thread turned into yet another beabhahafa crazy Christians thread, especially as its obvious I came just looking to talk about something that was kinda upsetting ... I wasnt looking to get bashed (again some posters were very fair and I appreciated that)
Did you consider offensive/derisive the posts about the experimental hypothesis that considers glossalia a learned ability instead of a true supernatural phenomenon?
I wish there was more accountability. When somebody is banned the post that got them banned should be edited by a mod saying they were banned, which mod did it, and why. As it is no mod has to take responsibility for being really mean to me and banning me for 2 months
I've been banned for having an opinion that was different.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That's pretty heavy censorship if you ask me. Because no matter how much you disagree with someone's opinion or thoughts on a subject, perhaps even to the point of disgust, you shouldn't ban that person just for that.
I've seen really well written posts go against the popular opinion which actually sparks a counterdebate. If you're going to come with some hit and run tactic and say like one line and leave then sure don't bother.
Did you consider offensive/derisive the posts about the experimental hypothesis that considers glossalia a learned ability instead of a true supernatural phenomenon?
GAF's strict adherence to it TOS is one of the reasons I post here, and one of the qualities that sets it aside from most forums on the web. Be polite, be constructive, and be aware - I'd have it no other way. It's not difficult.
Allowing extreme opinions without any kind of rules would turn this place into youtube. Youtube comments and Yahoo comments are what happen when opinions are allowed to go uncensored.
In real life...no. On a message board, hell yes otherwise it's pointless.
What's pointless? When there are pockets of the community who think their rights to free speech are being pushed aside, what's the point?
Also, since the current wave of censorship is called upon by Google's very own ad partnership, it hurts the community, especially considering that Google owns YouTube. I don't think GAF's post have ever been worse, at least not consistently, than YouTube's comments.
That doesn't even make sense. Religion is a choice. Race/orientation/gender are not.
Everybody has their BRB (big red button), but anyone who is going to be offended by religious talk on Internet forums probably shouldn't be hanging out in threads where religion is discussed. Fact is, you get all types posting, some more mature than others. Taking something personally on GAF is the easy road to getting banned, IMO.
