Here is the Community forum, with the Senate filter on... check out this list of threads to choose from. I think you'll be quite happy (maybe).
http://boards.theforce.net/forums/community.10851/?prefix_id=17

 

Come and play...

 

I understand. I was schooling <snip> people who chose to lash out and attack me.

Look back at my first post. It was pretty innocuous. Firm, but innocuous.

Now............. is TFN against personal attacks and hate speech or isn't it at this point?

I'm confused based on the tone several posters have taken with me in here.

But that's okay, because I'm clearly used to fighting my own corner. People think nothing of ganging up on a person, but they rarely come to a beleaguered person's aid. Tyranny of the majority.

And yes, if I want to take this discussion further, I should probably go where it has been recommended. Maybe other people will also choose to not inflame and attack me in here any further and actually put the basic principles of TFN into action?

 

Cryogenic ... just one more nugget of wisdom, or friendly advice... if you want to play in the Community forum, you've got to thicken that skin. We are a sarcastic, cynical, sometimes crass, but fun loving bunch. Don't take everything so personally... please. The mods there are very fair and reasonable. It's a different world, with a different flavor from the movie forums, and we like it that way.

 

Cryogenic I think I've identified the issues here.

1) A good communicator writes to inform; a bad one writes to impress. A tip you can abide by every day.
2) We're not quite as enamoured by your wall of text as you are. This is a thread to discuss rule revisions. The lonely bluff from which you hold your opinion in outstretched arms and the Circle of Life plays in the background? It's totally inappropriate, like wearing bold pastels to a funeral. If you want to argue your right to paint with broad strokes, find a place where anyone is interested in discussing it and go to town. You may note, from the fact people look bored or a bit embarrassed for you, that this thread might not be the best place for it. In the same way a nursing home is not the best place to have that first-listen of a new Cannibal Corpse record.

Undoubtedly a Tolstoy-esque volume will be my reward and response, but I frankly don't care. Nobody is interested in your opinion in this thread. They might be interested elsewhere, but not here. Put whatever dignity you can muster at such short notice into a small satchel and we'll see you in the Senate, where we can compare notes from our visits to Malaysia and Jakarta.

 

Apparently, other people are so thick-skinned that a moderator thinks it prudent to "snip" out the word "snip" from my last post.

Poor little darlings need protecting from my "Tolstoy-esque" volumes -- which they apparently don't read, anyway.

 

Cryogenic.

Stop.

Go to Community. I'll happy argue there.

 

Okay, let's try phrasing it like this:

If you want to talk about the interactions between Islam and Western Society, please take it to one of several Community thread on the subject, many of which have already been mentioned. If you want to talk about points of clarification for our new rules, discuss them here. If you have a question about a particular moderating decision, you should PM the moderator in question.

I don't like giving warnings in Comms so this will be the only one.

 

I don't even need to get back to this - you have pretty much proven all of my points, invented reverse discrimination, reverse sexism and willingness to consider certain people more privileged than others; just for the sake of sheer eccentricity. Plus, you have insulted a bunch of people whom this community values a lot. It's not like we value them for "being bigots", on the contrary - they make everybody feel welcome and I have never seen them classify people the way you do. In fact, they know who needs to be defended, who needs to be backed up and whatnot. Intelligent, educated folk.

So, one last word- this thread may be of interest to you...to argue in it:
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/european-ultranationalists.50018610/

Oops, sorry, your post wasn't there when I was typing. I'm stopping right here, either way.

 

I know I'm a little late to the party, but there are a few things I want to respond to.

I'm going to reply to you to together because you seem to have the same issue discerning between what is acceptable and what is not (weird since one of you presumably was involved in discussions about creating these new ToS).
I think there is a very clear difference between hate speech and free speech. One is direct at one or more individuals (posters) and the other is directed at concepts (like religion, gender, ethnic group). I would expect most mods to be intelligent enough to figure out which of these was the case, but in light of recent posts, maybe I expect too much.

You've now seen a perfect example of personal attacks that aren't allowed regardless of whether they are based on one of the forbidden categories.

 

I wanted to address something, but I'm not entirely sure how to do it. On another forum, when the "hate speech" clause was brought up in a post that reiterated the revised rules, another user claimed that "such changes rarely turn out for the better, in [their] experience."

The thing about this revised clause is it's not the final solution, and for those who have argued against it, I'd like for you to keep that in mind. This is just one step toward a solution to fixing a problem that has been covered ad nauseum in another thread. While I feel that perhaps there could be room for expansion, at this point, I don't think any is really needed.

What we're looking at is the prototype of what would most likely end up being a separate document. It's a start and it's progress, but it's certainly not the final product. However, should trouble continue to arise in light of these revised rules, we will be able to point to them and say, "you broke this rule."

 

I'm a little concerned about our use of the term hate speech. I like the woolly open-endedness of the approach and approve of the general direction it takes us in - but I think there might be less controversial ways to say that displays of bigotry are unwelcome here. As a term, hate speech is quite politically loaded (and I admit that from a left wing liberal position) and, at least in my head, quite precise.

I can easily accept that some offensive things (spoken with or without malice) can at least represent bigotry, but hate speech implies an emotional intent that isn't clearly defined out in the rules. It's not entirely clear what is or isn't acceptable if no injury is intended, or if injury is self inflicted.

PS:

 

Well, it isn't the final solution.

QuickEdit: And yes, my wording is crap. I was a bit distracted while writing that, hence having to put in a later edit request after I had gotten my thoughts in order.

QuickEdit, part 2: And as punishment for my terrible wording and posting while distracted, I burned my hand while trying to light a candle.

 

I'm not sure you can write a policy that doesn't have scope creep or a segment who don't agree with it, V2. The point of policy is to articulate a series of values or principles that provide guidance. It is not concerned with means of achievement.

Assessed against the above definition, the MS has developed a policy document with a specific clause on hate speech. What you are seeking clarification on it not a policy point, it's an operational point which will necessarily be more aligned to how forum mods agree to implement the policy.

 

I don't imagine there was a MS debate that came down to bigotry vs hate speech, but was the hate speech phrasing chosen because it implies that intent to injure? I mean, that's an interpretation I could support, but it doesn't quite address some of the casual bigotry that's been the topic of debate in recent months, or if it does, it's not quite the result I was expecting.

 

You can see the hate speech phrasing explained in the early pages of the sexism policy thread.

 

It's wholly misdirected though. Policy is just a set of principles, with deliberate structure. Concerns exist about implementation which is natural... but they are not policy concerns.

 

And also advertising rules! Nobody remembers the advertising rules.

 

Oh, how I missed these types of thread at the JC. This is more likely to draw some of us old members back than Ep7.

//popcorn.

UKS: Drama, R, PPOR, etc.

 

I think if we just rephrase the whole line to "Don't be a horrible human being" it might be more clear to some people. Or "If you don't have anything nice to say etc."

 

Guys, looks like the link to the "moderator complaint process" is down or not functioning:



Jedi Council Forums - Error
A controller for the route path boards.theforce.net/threads/moderator-complaint-resolution-process.27141387/ was not found.