Flaming/trolling

[Luveria]

This poster is deliberately and repeatedly choosing to intentionally insult transgender people, having made it clear they aren't there to discuss anything.

She was not convicted of treason. By definition, she is not a traitor.

Have some manners, please.

Let us compromise: we should refer to Bradley/Chelsea as "it".

ok, now. If some from the US army send secret American plans during World war 2 to the press and the nazis find out about the plans, would not that person be a traitor?

have the decency to use the correct pronouns.

I am using it correct, Bradley is a male.

End of discuss.

Does this look as a female?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Look ... I am personally having a really hard time with this one, so am not the best mod for the job in this particular instance.

I find it entirely coincidental that Manning has chosen now to come out with all of this. It appears to be another maneuver to get what they want, and not a legitimate issue that others on this forum have had to deal with. Thus in looking at the posts above, I am not seeing this as slandering any and all transgendered people. I see it as slamming Manning - which is not against the rules.

That said, I think another moderator needs to take a look at this and make sure it gets a proper review. I didn't want anyone to think it had been ignored, but I given my opinion, I have to recuse myself on making a final judgment.

[Neutraligon]

Dread Lady, I am wondering why your opinion on why Manning just now decided to come fully out of the closet (even before she was arrested people knew she was trans) matters to whether this is trolling or flaming. To call a person an it, no matter the reason, is incredibly rude. Considering how long Scholencia has been here this should be known.

[Scholencia]

If I have to become a warning than go ahead, if that pleases some poster, but since I believe that there is something called morale I dont want to play in some delusions since it would mean that morale is something relative. So, yes give me warning as lot the poster want or even ban me but I will never recognise that morale is relative.

Besides, from Wikipedia:

Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood and released a statement the day after her sentencing identifying as female, taking the name Chelsea Manning and expressing a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy

And also, I am also called by many unappropriated words but I am also not a pussy to go everytime to the moderation and whine about it.

EDIT. Also it did not know that calling something "it" is rude, I just had on mind to ignore the conflict of Bradley/Chelsea gender since that was not the point of my posting.

[Linux and the X]

I find it entirely coincidental that Manning has chosen now to come out with all of this. It appears to be another maneuver to get what they want, and not a legitimate issue that others on this forum have had to deal with. Thus in looking at the posts above, I am not seeing this as slandering any and all transgendered people. I see it as slamming Manning - which is not against the rules.

Manning had been questioning her gender for a while. From Adrian Lamo's chat logs with her:

(10:19:53 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: You mentioned gender identity, I believe.
(10:19:59 AM) bradass87:ive had an unusual, and very stressful experience over the last decade or so
(10:20:53 AM) bradass87:yes… questioned my gender for several years… sexual orientation was easy to figure out… but i started to come to terms with it during the first few months of my deployment

She also attempted to discuss her dysphoria with an Army psychologist, and had mentioned this during her trial.

I understand that Moderation is not General, but if a belief that Manning's transition is merely a stunt or otherwise not a "legitimate issue" has a chance of influencing a Moderation decision — though you're recusing yourself, if you come to such a conclusion it's possible another mod would as well — I feel it important to clarify the issue.

[Luveria]

Dread Lady, I am wondering why your opinion on why Manning just now decided to come fully out of the closet (even before she was arrested people knew she was trans) matters to whether this is trolling or flaming. To call a person an it, no matter the reason, is incredibly rude. Considering how long Scholencia has been here this should be known.

There was this earlier post too by Euroslavia, which is why I made a thread for what Scholencia is doing, as Schlencia is going beyond that by calling a person an "it" for being transgender.

HE needs to focus on arguing HIS innocence and maybe HE will not have to do time in prison.

You're REALLY pushing towards trolling by deliberately pushing buttons, using the phrasing that you've done the last few posts. It's one thing to hold the opinion of such, but the way you make your statement is important, as it's coming across as malicious. I'd recommend that you not purposely push the point as much as you have.

And now I'm being flamed for making a report.

If I have to become a warning than go ahead, if that pleases some poster, but since I believe that there is something called morale I dont want to play in some delusions since it would mean that morale is something relative. So, yes give me warning as lot the poster want or even ban me but I will never recognise that morale is relative.

Besides, from Wikipedia:

Manning has had gender identity disorder since childhood and released a statement the day after her sentencing identifying as female, taking the name Chelsea Manning and expressing a desire to undergo hormone replacement therapy

And also, I am also called by many unappropriated words but I am also not a pussy to go everytime to the moderation and whine about it.

[Farnhamia]

The hive-mind is working on it, please be patient. Your call is important to us ...

[Sibirsky]

Thus in looking at the posts above, I am not seeing this as slandering any and all transgendered people. I see it as slamming Manning - which is not against the rules.

I think it is fairly well known that I am not a fan of President Obama. He has been awful, after all.

Going by this logic, it should be well within the rules for me to make a thread about him and call him a nigger. I would not be slandering all black people, I would only be slamming President Obama.

Something tells me that I would not get a warning. But a ban. Possibly even a deletion.

Maybe someone can explain the difference to me?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Thus in looking at the posts above, I am not seeing this as slandering any and all transgendered people. I see it as slamming Manning - which is not against the rules.

I think it is fairly well known that I am not a fan of President Obama. He has been awful, after all.

Going by this logic, it should be well within the rules for me to make a thread about him and call him a nigger. I would not be slandering all black people, I would only be slamming President Obama.

Something tells me that I would not get a warning. But a ban. Possibly even a deletion.

Maybe someone can explain the difference to me?

You're not a mod, silly goose!

Seriously though, DLN, are you kidding me? By your own admission you're clearly unwilling to be impartial about this, given your blatant political bias. I'm aware it's locked undergoing review, but it seriously sounds to me like someone else needs to take a trawl through as well.

And in fact, I think I'm going to request just that.

[Reploid Productions]

I think it is fairly well known that I am not a fan of President Obama. He has been awful, after all.

Going by this logic, it should be well within the rules for me to make a thread about him and call him a nigger. I would not be slandering all black people, I would only be slamming President Obama.

Something tells me that I would not get a warning. But a ban. Possibly even a deletion.

Maybe someone can explain the difference to me?

You're not a mod, silly goose!

Seriously though, DLN, are you kidding me? By your own admission you're clearly unwilling to be impartial about this, given your blatant political bias. I'm aware it's locked undergoing review, but it seriously sounds to me like someone else needs to take a trawl through as well.

And in fact, I think I'm going to request just that.

The Dread Lady is waaaaaaaay ahead of you there.

Look ... I am personally having a really hard time with this one, so am not the best mod for the job in this particular instance.
...
That said, I think another moderator needs to take a look at this and make sure it gets a proper review. I didn't want anyone to think it had been ignored, but I given my opinion, I have to recuse myself on making a final judgment.

[Tsaraine]

Please be patient, folks - it's looking like we need to trawl the thread, and it's one hundred and twenty-three pages long. And we kinda need to figure out whether "intentional use of male pronouns" counts as "trolling transpeople" before we start, lest we have to trawl it twice. So it may take a day or two to get through it all.

~ Tsar the Mod is not looking forward to this one

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Seriously, I really, really hope that:

(1) The precedent for warning posters for exactly these types of derogatory slurs and invidious inflammatory hostility against these very same class of individuals (transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, gender disphoric, etc) that includes members of these forums. Past rulings have either disciplined such posts and otherwise offensive language or comments have been non-actionable only because of an honest lack of understanding that said language was offensive or because context suggested no intent to anger or offend -- neither of which apply here. See. e.g., link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link.

(2) We do not have a repeat of the admitted, unfortunate Moderation team errors in the notorious "it"/"trash"/"tranny" incident of 2009 (link, link) -- but I am already reassured no similar mistakes will happen now by the prompt attention to this matter, DLN's decision to recuse herself, and the attention of the hivemind.

(3) Although Dread Lady Nathicana did the right thing in recusing herself "on the final judgment," her inappropriate comments that were unrelated to the Moderation issue (but rather to the subject and whether it warranted a thread) and were (unintentionally) offensive is independently reviewed internally so that such behavior is corrected.

DLN's personal opinion of the topic of Pvt. Manning's gender identity should be irrelevant to whether flaming or trolling occurred. Despite saying she was "not the best mod for the job in this particular instance," DLN still opined on whether the reported posts were actionable. She only recused herself from another review and "final judgment." She made a ruling and then created an appeal -- perverting the normal procedures in which an aggrieved party sets forth reasons for objecting to a ruling.

Additionally, posters are routinely told not to argue a thread's subject/disputes in Moderation. It is even less appropriate for a Moderate to do so. Also, the notion that gender identity issues are a trivial matter or publicity stunt is offensive. Among other things, gender dysphoria is a recognized medical issue (but not a disorder). Finally, a reasonable poster reading DLN's statements would conclude the reported posts were not actionable to DLN because of her "problems" with Pvt. Manning and/or gender dysphoria. This is clearly inappropriate. DLN is entitled as a poster to hold whatever opinions she likes and express them within the rules applicable to posters. DLN should be held to at least the same if not higher standard when posting as a Moderator, particularly in making a ruling in Moderation. As posters have been assured that the Moderation Team also polices itself, I hope it will do so here -- if only to clarify that such actions should not happen again.

---
None of the above is intended to express impatience and only the last point is even a partial objection to the way this is being handled. I hope the above perspective, links, & information is helpful. And -- to the extent a formal request is necessary -- I "report" and ask for review of DLN's post.

[Hexhamshire]

What Dark Lady has done here is state what she would have taken and admitted that her personal opinion on the matter has clouded her judgement and that because of this she needs to refer to someone who is maybe better qualified to decide, it's the right thing to do under the circumstances. In fact the only questionable action on the part of Dark Lady in my extremely humble opinion is maybe posting, if she wasn't going to make a decision or felt unable to, then why post anything at all? At worst, she's "spammed" Moderation insofar as it would be possible for an actual Moderator to spam Moderation.

I do get Sibirsky's point though, the word "it" is to transsexuals what the word "nigger" is to black people (hence Dark Lady's usage of "they") and I'm guessing even an isolated use of the N word would result in a reply in red bold text at the very least, hence the request for action here.

While I appreciate you having to decide whether using the wrong gender pronoun (insisting on "he" or "she") is deemed trolling, using the gender-neutral pronoun, "it", especially in a culture that applies gender to anthropomorphised machines (Thomas the Tank Engine is "he") is probably a little more clear cut.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Allow me to clarify here: I was not aware of any prior confusion on Manning's part on gender identity. I have not followed the case closely. I have not been involved in the thread, nor had I been reading through it, browsing news articles, or anything else - hence my initial reaction of 'this seems somewhat sudden on their part'. It was on that initial reaction that I based my reason for recusing myself. It needed dealt with sooner, rather than later - I wanted players to know that it would receive the attention it needed by someone who could do a review proper justice.

I was not made aware of some of the pertinent details until I discussed the issue with other moderators, directly after having locked, and commented here. I have only just read the additional comments in this thread, and the additional information on the Manning case. The lock was deemed appropriate at the time it was made. I have not gone through the thread since, and have left the entire matter in the capable hands of other moderators who both have a better understanding of the Manning situation and history, and can be considered unbiased by comparison to my initial impression.

I do not have any issues with transgendered persons. I think they have every right to be treated with respect, and as I have commented on these forums previously, I cannot imagine the anguish of feeling that one is trapped inside a body that they cannot relate to, or feel that they had been born into a body that did not belong to them, or that they could identify with.

If people feel I need to be investigated somehow due to my lack of information, and initial gut reaction to one individual case, by all means, feel free - but please, do not attempt to put words in my mouth, or make claims that have absolutely no basis here - along with the entire 'it' issue, which I think we can all agree is an inappropriate way to address any fellow human being.

We have so many people going on about full disclosure, and proper distance when any situation could be perceived as not being handled with appropriate fairness by a moderator. I felt I had done the correct thing by giving just that, making sure not only the reported post, but the entire thread got the attention it needed by someone who did not have my inaccurate preconceptions, and still, we have people leaping to conclusions, and complaining.

I stand by my actions, and will continue to leave this to the rest of the moderation team. I believe I've offered more than ample explanation here for my reasoning, and will be more than happy to accept whatever judgment they may have on my account.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Allow me to clarify here: I was not aware of any prior confusion on Manning's part on gender identity. I have not followed the case closely. I have not been involved in the thread, nor had I been reading through it, browsing news articles, or anything else - hence my initial reaction of 'this seems somewhat sudden on their part'. It was on that initial reaction that I based my reason for recusing myself. It needed dealt with sooner, rather than later - I wanted players to know that it would receive the attention it needed by someone who could do a review proper justice.

I was not made aware of some of the pertinent details until I discussed the issue with other moderators, directly after having locked, and commented here. I have only just read the additional comments in this thread, and the additional information on the Manning case. The lock was deemed appropriate at the time it was made. I have not gone through the thread since, and have left the entire matter in the capable hands of other moderators who both have a better understanding of the Manning situation and history, and can be considered unbiased by comparison to my initial impression.

I do not have any issues with transgendered persons. I think they have every right to be treated with respect, and as I have commented on these forums previously, I cannot imagine the anguish of feeling that one is trapped inside a body that they cannot relate to, or feel that they had been born into a body that did not belong to them, or that they could identify with.

If people feel I need to be investigated somehow due to my lack of information, and initial gut reaction to one individual case, by all means, feel free - but please, do not attempt to put words in my mouth, or make claims that have absolutely no basis here - along with the entire 'it' issue, which I think we can all agree is an inappropriate way to address any fellow human being.

We have so many people going on about full disclosure, and proper distance when any situation could be perceived as not being handled with appropriate fairness by a moderator. I felt I had done the correct thing by giving just that, making sure not only the reported post, but the entire thread got the attention it needed by someone who did not have my inaccurate preconceptions, and still, we have people leaping to conclusions, and complaining.

I stand by my actions, and will continue to leave this to the rest of the moderation team. I believe I've offered more than ample explanation here for my reasoning, and will be more than happy to accept whatever judgment they may have on my account.

I reply only to clarify my criticisms of you, DLN, to recognize the import of what you are saying, and to apologize to the extent I put words in your mouth or unfairly disparaged you. (I'm not firing on all cylinders right now, so I hope this makes sense.)

I did not think you were intentionally offensive. I have no reason to think you have any dislike/hostility/etc towards anyone who is trans. I am only concerned that your initial gut reaction that you posted was unintentionally offensive and, merely as a Mod, regrettable to post. Regardless, I accept and appreciate your sentiments here.

Your self-recognition of possible bias or inappropriateness in your being the final word, your locking the thread, and your passing the matter along deserve praise, not condemnation. You are right about that. Similarly, it is great that you and the Mod team wanted to respond immediately to let people know the reported posts (and the whole thread) would be looked at.

I recognize that expectations of transparency coupled with hostility towards explanations puts you and the Mod team in a bit of a Catch-22. I do appreciate that you both tried to do the right thing and tried to explain what you were doing. Both deserve praise.

I do not retract my concern that Mods need to be careful in these situations and in what they say. Although I still think you and the Mod team should consider if you could have handled things better, I never meant your head should be served on a plate. I think you erred in the ways and for the reasons expressed earlier and I wanted that to be recognized. I still do.

But I regret and apologize for overly harsh wording (which, like long posts, is unfortunately typical of me) -- particularly as that is part of what my concern was about.

[Linux and the X]

I know things take time, but the thread (which was fairly active) has now been locked for twenty-four hours. Can we at least get an update on how it's going?

[Helltank]

Linus, Tsaraine has already said that the Moderation team needs to define whether transgender people can be called "he" without trolling AND THEN trawl through over a hundred pages of posts to figure out context and so on. This simply can't be done in twenty-four hours, considering different time-zones and the fact that some moderators can't participate because they might not be fully impartial.

[Tsaraine]

An update: we've come to the conclusion that the use of pronouns isn't necessarily a firm indicator of trolling, as (for example) no less august a body than the Associated Press style book says not to switch pronouns until a person has begun switching physical attributes; and furthermore (as indicated by the fact that we have had to discuss it) the subject is a linguistic minefield in which there's plenty of room for honest confusion and mistakes. So we have to rely upon our fallible human judgment to discern which posters are legitimately unsure of which pronouns to use, and which are legitimately using the "wrong" pronouns in an effort to anger other posters.

We've also come into some luck, as Euro had helpfully been staying abreast of the thread as it progressed, so we essentially have a goodly chunk of it pre-trawled. This will happily reduce the amount of thread that we have to go through - a big hand to Euro, folks! I do need to get some food in me before I dig in to the thread, though - like most moderators, I do better work when full of delicious steak.

At this point, although I've yet to start the trawl, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's unlikely the thread will be unlocked. I'll have to come to some conclusion about whether another thread on the subject should be started - while it's obviously a subject of deep interest to our playerbase, it also generated a big ol' heaping of spite, bile, and other corrosive substances. I'm hopeful it can be restarted, but I'll have to go through it first to make an informed judgment on that.

I'm a little leery of giving a firm ETA on when I'll finish the trawl and be able to present you with an Official Moderator Judgment. So it's coming Soon™.

~ Tsar the Mod

[Linux and the X]

the Associated Press style book says not to switch pronouns until a person has begun switching physical attributes

Actually, in 2011, they made a slight change. Previously, the rule was to "use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex and present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth" (which seems to be the rule you've seen); however, in 2011, this was changed to "use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth" [emphasis added]. Manning clearly meets the second criterion, and only one need now be met.

I'll agree that there may be some non-trolling reasons to fail to use the correct pronouns, but "it's AP style" is not among them.

[NERVUN]

the Associated Press style book says not to switch pronouns until a person has begun switching physical attributes

Actually, in 2011, they made a slight change. Previously, the rule was to "use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex and present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth" (which seems to be the rule you've seen); however, in 2011, this was changed to "use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth" [emphasis added]. Manning clearly meets the second criterion, and only one need now be met.

I'll agree that there may be some non-trolling reasons to fail to use the correct pronouns, but "it's AP style" is not among them.

To clarify on Tsar's post, we're not suggesting AP Style is a reason for trolling, instead what we are noting is that there is quite honestly confusion as to what gender pronoun to use, when, and that if such an august body as the AP has problems with it, we cannot in good consciousness ding everyone who uses the wrong pronoun. Again, we're going to have to make a judgement call if the use was done out of ignorance or deliberate provocation and yes, this will probably mean both sides are going to be annoyed because we missed someone or tagged someone who swears by their grandmother's Harley that they didn't mean it. So it will take a while as we're going to be trying our best to get it as best we can.

[Juristonia]

So, just to clarify, using wrong pronouns out of ignorance, not actionable. Using wrong pronouns purposely and after being corrected repeatedly, actionable?

[Farnhamia]

So, just to clarify, using wrong pronouns out of ignorance, not actionable. Using wrong pronouns purposely and after being corrected repeatedly, actionable?

The thread is under review. Please be patient.

[Grenartia]

Its been two days. I'm just wondering how the thread trawl is going.

[Euroslavia]

Its been two days. I'm just wondering how the thread trawl is going.

A statement will be posted today/tonight, apologies for the delay.

[Grenartia]

Its been two days. I'm just wondering how the thread trawl is going.

A statement will be posted today/tonight, apologies for the delay.

Thanks, Euro. I eagerly await it.