Mod Squad update for the week ending June 9th

I've made my misfeelings about the EU pretty clear in the past.

But even I can't agree with the content of Empressess' former sig.

Because, you know...



It's being too kind.

To me, the EU is more like having a septic tank in the middle of a ritzy, Manhattan penthouse. In fact, let me check and see...

Yep. I have Grand Admiral Thrawn on my toilet paper. And you know what that means.

The point is, I believe expressing an opinion about EU is just like expressing an opinion about one of the Star Wars movies. I've seen many a signature that have dissed one or more of the films in one way or another. And, though they might "upset" some people, they are allowed to remain because they are expressions of opinion. A dislike for the EU, even expressed in a sig, is not neccessarily an intention to PO someone. I believe it to be just an expression of opinion, nothing more, and should be allowed to stay.

Even if it is an understatement like the Empressess'.

It's not a direct shot at those who enjoy the EU. Maybe at some of those who perpetrate it (like KJA), but not those who enjoy it. They have every right to enjoy it. That's their opinion.

Just like a person has every right to enjoy TPM, but that doesn't mean that a person shouldn't be allowed to put a derogatory comment towards TPM in his/her sig. As long as it is not taking a direct potshot at someone who enjoys the film. By the same token of EU and KJA, etc, a shot at TPM may be a shot at George Lucas. But it is still not a shot at those who enjoy it, unless you're overly sensitive.

 

Twink_Kee:

I find your comments a little immature, but not offensive in of themselves. Express whatever opinions you like concerning the quality of the EU or the movies, as long as you back them up with grounded criticism. But don?t insult those who read the EU. Everybody has to take a crap every now and then. But a john is one of the lowest forms of scum on earth ? in my mind, being called a john is a lot worse than being called a prostitute.

 

I'm sorry, I withdraw my previous post as I didn't realise there was a second line to the signature, abusing EU'ers.








There was a second line, right?

UKS

 

"I find your comments a little immature, but not offensive in of themselves. Express whatever opinions you like concerning the quality of the EU or the movies, as long as you back them up with grounded criticism."

"Immature"? How? I could sit here, and air a laundry list of problems I have with the EU, but that's all been covered before. Quite frankly, I myself am tired of the EU/Canon debate. Like I said, I believe folks have every right to enjoy the EU, and express that, just as much as people have every right to dislike the EU and express that. Now, I don't think somebody should dislike the EU just for the sake of disliking. Like you said, I believe there should be well-grounded opinions and criticisms that support those reasons. And I think one of those reasons was well-implied in that signature. It is one reason that I hold myself, and that is that EU cheapens the Star Wars universe in ways. In some ways, you could say it enrichens it by adding background. But I also believe there are ways that it cheapens it, by saturation and redundancy. Paid-for sex may feel good, but it is still a watered-down experience in the long run. It's not even a shot at one specific story or the quality of all EU stories. A person can have a gripe with the PT, and still think it not to be produced bad. They might feel that the PT has dissolved the mystery and unknown myth of Darth Vader's background. Yet, by the same token, they can think of one or more of the PT movies to be well-made and good stories. But it is the overall effect that would cause the problem for such a person.

The point was that people should still be allowed to express their opinions, as long as it is not a direct shot at someone who could be lured in being upset about those opinions.

"But a john is one of the lowest forms of scum on earth ? in my mind, being called a john is a lot worse than being called a prostitute."

Again, that is your opinion. To be honest, I'd probably share that. But that doesn't change the fact that there are still some people who would even find offense to that opinion.

Now, IMO, it's all relative. Star Wars is not something to be taken too seriously. Love is. Comparing protistution and love is a serious matter. But equating that on the plane of Star Wars - fiction - is something that one shouldn't be bothered by too much. It's not equating EU with prostitution, placing it on the same level. Now, if the quote had said "EU is as bad as prostitution", then that would be a ridiculous statement. But the comparisons are being put on different planes.

 

The bottom line is, I felt and feel that it?s offensive to myself and other EU fans directly. You can agree or disagree as you like, but you won?t change my mind. As a Moderator here, it?s my responsibility to keep offensive material off of these boards, and I found said signature offensive. If you still have a problem with my conduct, take it up with an Administrator.

 

But if take offense in it, and it is not intended to be a personal attack on you or any of the EU fans, then whose fault is that? It's a self-fabricated offense, IMO.

I could add a line in my sig that says, "TPM is like a red-headed stepchild to the Star Wars saga." There are actually people on this board who would take offense to that on TPM's account, and not on the account of all red-headed stepchildren across the world.

 

What if she had said "I keep all my EU in the john."

 

cant see anything wrong with the john comment. But the prostitute one was both in bad taste AND unfunny

 

There are actually people on this board who would take offense to that on TPM's account, and not on the account of all red-headed stepchildren across the world.

Sorry, I take offense to being compared to TPM.

Yes, someone will be offended by anything. I didn't see the signature in question when it was actually in the signature, but as an EU fan, I have to say that I'd be a little put out by that. I'd also be put out if someone called TPM the redheaded stepchild of the GFFA, and not because I liked the movie. The point isn't who is insulted for what reason, but rather that someone was insulted. If someone is offended, then it's a violation of the terms of service. Gandolf had every right to ask her to change it on those grounds, since it was clearly offensive to him.

Mel

 

Ahhh...


But I had a sig a few weeks ago that offended someone, and they threatened me with going to the mods about it. When the mod(Gandolf) looked at it he told me it could stay. So offending someone doesn't equal having to change the sig.


If the sig is trolling or flaming someone THATS the violation of the TOS, someone being insulted isn't enough. (At least that's my impression).

 

As you say, Twink, MANY people express opinions of the films in their sigs. And very few of them are asked to change them.

I've seen plenty of sigs that express a dislike for the EU. He isn't denying her right to express that opinion. He felt the way she did it was inappropriate. I'm sure she can go back and put "EU = teh lame" in her sig if she wants. But the analogy she made was inflammatory.

Of course there are unspoken implications when making such a comparison. I don't think anyone who caught the implied jab at EUists is imagining it. One has to be held responsible for what they say, and that should be motivation enough for one to fully consider the consequences before they make that kind of statement.

Hiding behind the excuse "I/She couldn't know people would interpret it like that" isn't valid, and suggests a lack of maturity. Its also irresponsible.

 

People can get insulted by anything. The key is to figure out if is an intentional insult directed at a person or persons who would immediately be susceptible. In this case, I don't think it was, though you'd assume fans of the EU wouldn't like it.

But, whenever you post a criticism of any kind, you know there are gonna be folks who don't like it.

"I've seen plenty of sigs that express a dislike for the EU. He isn't denying her right to express that opinion. He felt the way she did it was inappropriate. I'm sure she can go back and put "EU = teh lame" in her sig if she wants. But the analogy she made was inflammatory.

Of course there are unspoken implications when making such a comparison. I don't think anyone who caught the implied jab at EUists is imagining it. One has to be held responsible for what they say, and that should be motivation enough for one to fully consider the consequences before they make that kind of statement."

A person can "interpret" it any way they want, but it doesn't change the way the comparison was structured. It wasn't a direct comparison between EU and prostitution, but an effect comparison. Like I said before, no one was equating EU with protistution. If you think that, you need to go back, read the quote, and examine the structure.

It's like saying "water is to thirst, like food is to hunger". That makes no comparison between water and food, but the effect.

 

Specialized sentance structure
is irrelevent. The fact that people interpreted at offensive is.

TERMS OF SERVICE
"User agrees and acknowledges that any posts, nicknames or other material deemed offensive, harassing, baiting or otherwise inappropriate may be removed at the sole discretion of the administration."

This statement was found offensive. And the decision of the administration was to remove it.

 

Like I said above then, there are many opinions that can be interpreted as offensive. I just don't see, given how the statement was structured, that someone would think it is equating EU with prostitution.

 

I think you can see how it could be intrepeted, but you feel it isn't a fair interpretation because of your analysis of the syntax. But, what is important is that not everyone will come to the same conclusion you did. Gandolf saw that it could be seen as offensive, and he himself was offended, so it is his job to remove it.

 

I have to agree with Twin_Kee on this point.. Nowhere in that Sig is it saying that People who read EU are..anything!

The Sig infers that EU is a pale imitation of Star Wars. I assume that is still allowed to be said?

Now, you could say that the signature inferred that EU was a prostitution of Star Wars, (I don't think it did, but it is a more reasonable suggestion). But even that is not attacking a person, but an idea.

Surely people can take the attack on EU? Or are we becoming a more Pro-EU board each day?

I mean, you get worse attacks on THE FILMS in the AOTC/TPM Boards...



In the end, if people are going to take offense at someone attacking their opinions. (not them), then that is their problem.

Surely?

UKS

 

Twink_Kee...
Building on what was said before...
The quote was in clear violation of TOS and Forum "Rules and Regulations." For those who actually bother to read the JC Rules and Regulations in the Welcome Forum, we have the following:

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this board 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 violative of any law. Advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are inappropriate on this board."

The sig was in violation of at least one, and as much as seven or more rules.

Twink, if you don't agree with describing the comments on some subjective opinion of a mod - whether or not is's defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, obscene, or profane (and I even left off harassing, which it could also be) - then everyone must recognize that prostitution (and by inference "John" in the sig's context) are of a sexual nature.

Therefore, we have one clear, objective violation which is not based on anyone's opinion.

Empress should have known that. It should have been removed and it was right for the Admins to push for removal and/or remove such a statement if it wasn't changed by the user. If a mod handled by way of PM's with the user first, instead of having Nathan simply change it, then that's shows sensitivity by that mod which really wasn't required. To " " over a clear violation of the rules is rather immature, IMO.

 

If you wanna take it under the context of a sexual nature, then that's another matter entirely. If the quote is found to be sexually explicit, regardless of who or what it is aimed at, then - yes - I agree it should be removed. Personally, I don't think it's anything worse than what you'd see on your average sitcom. Of course, then again, given the quality of sitcoms these days, that may not be saying a whole lot...

Let me just finish by saying that I agree with the sentiment UK gave. When reading that statement the first time, I could:

A. See how EU fans would be upset by it

but, also,

B. Understood that it was saying nothing more than that the EU waters down Star Wars

Even with point A, I think you have to allow people to express their opinions as long as they're not obviously violating the TOS, even if the opinion upsets or "offends" ("offends" being quite subjective in this instance) someone. There's a point where do draw the line, but I don't believe this to be it.

 

Oh, come on now. There is a lot of talk that goes on in this board, that could be considered of a sexual nature.

"She ignites my lightsaber", etc

I don't think the overall point and context of that statement was of a sexual nature at all, but more of a quality nature.

 

1. We're not talking about all of the other talk, we're talking about a sig which contains references to prostitution in the context of true love.
2. The fact that others may or may not
get away with" anything is irrelevent. The "Speeders Defense." But, officer, you missed the five other people speeding and you got me. That's no defense.
3. I provided a JC rule which is pretty clear, IMO. I note that the common definition of prostitution is "promiscuous sex, usually for money" or some variation on it.

I'm not going to argue intent or the message. I just pointed out the sig when looked at on an objective basis was violating rules here. And that's where I stand. I'll let everyone else get into the issue of quality issues of the EU - which I see as irrelevent to the point.

That's to say, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. Under any reasonable context, the message contained a word of a sexual nature. Posts of a sexual nature are against the rules here.

I'll bow out now.

 

Ugh. This is going around in circles. And I will stand by what I have said in saying that the signature was not "sexually oriented", but quality oriented.

I will say this. I find it funny that, of all the complaints I've seen, none of them were complaints regarding the "sexual orientation" of the post, but rather the "offense" of the "comparison with the EU". I don't remember anybody citing, "Ooh. She wrote 'prostitution'. Now my eyes are dirty, and I'll have to wash them out."

Even in the reasons given above, the sig was not pulled for sexual offense. It was pulled because it was deemed "offensive" to EU fans.

 

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

So the defense is that it shouldn't have been pulled for reasons cited, but pulled for reasons not cited.

"Your honor, I'm innocent. I didn't mean for the body to fall over the balcony when I shot the victim in the head."

Regardless of whether it was reason U, V, W, X or reason Y, it should've been pulled for at least one of them. I cited one which reasonably doesn't hold any subjectivity to its enforcement.

(And I'm not even suggesting that the reasons it was removed weren't valid either. IMO, they were.)

 

What this arguement really boils down to is the fact that whoever edited the sig/asked for the comment to be removed doesn't like the EU being bashed. I know that, you know that, but the fact is that you cannot take action simply because someone bashes the EU. You need an excuse, which is where 'sexual content' comes in. All this crap about it being of a 'sexual content' is exactly that, crap.

As UKS said, the EU is an idea, not a person. If someone doesn't like it, get over it. I myself enjoy the EU, but I don't get offended when people bash it, unlike some more insecure members of these boards.

 

First of all, this is in the interest of fairness. "What's good the goose is good for the gander". Yeah, I know we don't live in a fair world, but I think this is obviously unfair where prejudices have stepped in. And just because we don't live in a fair world, doesn't mean we should stop fighting for fairness.

And, IMO, neither reasons were valid. Because:

1. I don't believe the sig to be sexually oriented, profane, vulgar or whatever you wanna call it

2. I don't believe the sig to be generally offensive.

Like I said before, there are always gonna be groups that find something offensive. You can't change that. No matter what kind of terminology is used.