Group/Forum Stereotyping and Flaming (please read)

Official MS Statement:

When the subject of the cultures of the various forums come up, remember this is not an us vs. them environment. We are all one big group of boards. Discuss the forums and their respective topics, and stay away from generalizations that target a particular forum in a negative fashion. If your comment is potentially insulting to a user or a group of users, or an entire forum, just don't post it. It could lead us into waters that are better left unsailed.

Treat the users in your fellow forums with respect, even if you disagree vehemently with them. If something would be edited as a flame were it directed at a single user, it will not be allowed when directed at a forum or a group of users. There is a line between discussing the state of things in a constructive manner and just trying to be insulting to a forum or group with that opinion. Know the difference and act accordingly. This has been discussed and agreed upon by the MS as a whole.

 

okay then..

 

I hear and obey.

 

I am glad something is being done now about this. I will obey.

 

lol, you know it wasn't one sided, right?

 

No, it certainly wasn't one-sided, and neither direction is acceptable.

 

I agree with what Jello posted in Comms, that it's more difficult to moderate group-oriented flames because friendly rivalry is common -- and even encouraged -- on just about every board. But some lightening up needs to be done all around. This is just a message board. On the Internet, for goodness sakes. We're all gonna live.

 

In my opinion all liberals are stupid.
In my opinion all homosexuals are evil, dirty and will burn in hell.
In my opinion all christians have mental issues.
In my opinion all fanficers lack friends in real life.



All of those have been previously acceptable. Has that changed ? If so, then it needs to be applied to all personal opinions.

 

Yeah, no offense, but former administrations have been able to mod without having to resort to this. This is kind of ironic (am I right, Malkie) that the rule generalizes too much.

 

These two are offending to me. The point is that some opinions need to be kept to oneself. Particularly the ones that can be offending.

 

(for clarity; I don't actually hold those opinions, I'm just making a point, and I hope you understand that)

Being offended by my opinion isn't a valid complaint. Sure, you can disagree with my opinion, but you cannot expect my opinion to be censored because you disagree with it.

Had I said "all blacks are criminals", then I'd be posting an inflammatory/baiting remark which would probably need editing. However, claiming that "I think there's a real significant population of ethnic minorities in prison", is an opinion and shouldn't be edited.

They cannot start to moderate opinions, and that was FIRMLY concluded at the end of the discussion on remarks about christianity we had way back when.

 

disagreeing and being offended are two different things. I could disagree without being offended. Being offended runs much deeper than simply disagreeing. It's not to say you can't have those opinions, but don't post the ones that are potentially offending to a user or group of users. To me, the rules seem quite clear about that.

edit:might I also point out that it includes stereotype type posts in that. which the opinions you listed(whether you do or don't actually believe them) are stereotypes.

 

No, the rules don't say that.

You can claim to be offended by anything you like - it's purely subjective hence irrelevant and totally unmoderatable. This was established a very long time ago where precedent was set when the MS agreed not to edit out pictures of Mormon underwear.

Whats your favourite colour ?

 

I could claim to be offended by slippers, but I don't because I'm not. The fact is, I don't lie about these type of things. When I say I'm offended I am offended. And I'm offended that you would imply that I would lie about such things.

 

You are missing the point I'm making. I'm certainly not suggesting you are lieing at all - infact, I'm reasonably confident you would be offended by any negative remarks about fanficers and christians.

The point I'm making is that people get offended by subjective matters. ie what offends person A won't offend person B, so you can't make a rule which defines offensiveness.

Catholics are offended by Protestant beliefs, while Protestants are offended by Catholic beliefs - who is correct ? You can say that we should all respect each other's beliefs, however that doesn't prevent a Catholic being offended by a pro-choice campaign from a Protestant and vice-versa.

You cannot objectively define the line of offense when it comes to beliefs.

For example, I get offended when someone calls me English, should that lead to an edit and ban on these forums?

edit

A Muslim could be offended at Christian beliefs, so should we edit someone saying "I believe in God"?

 

Human nature itself makes this cut and dried scenario above that you have impossible. People are different, and opinions are going to differ, and personalities make up a huge part of it.


I may offended by those that are pro-life (or pro-choice - take your pick). That doesn't mean they have a right to their view.

The rule as it stood before was fairly clear. Now it feels like the slippery slope has been created. Believe it or not, it will make modding harder, rather than easier.

 

I really don't see how this is creating a slippery slope. Those two particular phrases represent a summary of what we should already accept as common sense, and that couldn't get any clearer.

 

Except that as always, they should be dealing with individuals. Individuals make posts. The respect is a given, but you cannot mass ban groups (But, oh I tried ) and there shouldn't be rules for dealing with "groups". It's individual actions that need to be modded, and you have to be careful. The rule in my day was: discuss the post, not the poster(s). It's really that simple.

 

Nobody's talking about dealing with groups - you're certainly right, each individual poster makes his/her posts and are responsible for such. The only groups involved here are the ones being referred to in an individual's posts.

Nothing at all dealing with mass-banning groups, or anything like that. Just that flaming entire forums is not acceptable, which I don't think it really ever has been.

(I might be misunderstanding you here, so please let me know if that's the case)

 

Sorry, that was probably a tangent, but I guess I still see it as calling Fan Ficcers people with no friends or Gamers people that live in their mother's basement with no life (I'm not saying this, but you get my gist) like saying Conservatives are facists or Liberals are hippies, etc. baiting more than anything if it's a conversation in which there is members of that group involved, but then that's what it's always been... a judgment call depending on the thread, convo, etc. Now, saying the Fan Ficcer, User X, has no friends is a flame, registered user and all that, yada yada.

I'll let it go, though. I just think its going a little overboard, but then that's my opinion. (I'm assuming Mod Squad is counted in "groups", as well?)

 

Well, Mod Squad is technically a forum here... though as ever, if there are any complaints, please let us know

(btw, roo, the response to your PM is half-finished. I haven't forgotten it)

 

so essentially nothing has changed, you are just highlighting what's expected behaviour on the boards ?

hence all of the remarks I made above are acceptable (ie personal opinions?)

 

bump.

clarity please ? otherwise I'm struggling to post anything in this forum until I know where I stand

 

Sorry for the delay - its been under discussion in MS. Consensus is that its really a case by case basis; if you're clearly going after posters (as opposed to posts), it probably will be edited. That said, something with "in my opinion" (or some similar phrase) is probably less likely to be edit-worthy in general than merely the statement that follows. But sometimes, "in my opinion" is little more than rhetorical flourish (to borrow a phrase) attached to a flame, and in cases like that it would still be a problem.

 

Thanks for posting the clarification. I don't see that anything has really changed - I guess you are just pushing the point home that we run the risk of getting into trouble if we're perceived as baiting or picking on a particular group.

I do appreciate the difference between saying "all fanficers are losers" versus "I think fanficers need to get out more often". However, the issue is that people who get offended easily will be bothered by both expressions, and they need to learn the difference.

right ?

I hope the MS will support my right to hold a personal opinion as readily as they'd edit something which is inppropriate.

right ?

cheers