[DISCUSSION] Moderation of Issues of Sexuality

[Yukonastan]

As inspired by this comment by Arch.

It's a topic that can, and has, raised emotions numerous times. Now, while I wasn't involved with the most recent one, or any before that, it's an important issue to discuss.

In this case, there was no ruling given besides "Not actionable", which raised spirits quite a bit. I don't discredit the mod decision in any way, shape, or form, as they have a great amount more experience than me regarding this issue. However, I noticed some points that make me think.

One argument given was that the reported individual in this case was quite trollish, but by definition, only toed the line between actual full-on hard trolling about it. This is an argument -for- the "not actionable" face of the coin.

However, it insults someone for their sexuality, calling it a predicament and an affliction. It's neither of those things, and frankly, some people are quite sensitive about their sexuality. So the defense by the mods (Defend it with logic) may be seen as frankly slightly hostile. This, on the other hand, opposes the wisdom of the ruling given.

Now, I understand some people believe that homosexuality is a disease or a sin. If that's what they believe, then that's what they believe. However, there is a line in self-expression of such matters, and there is a clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and probably the Constitution as well, that limits the freedom of speech to be within reason. While the statement by the person reported in the linked thread was borderline, that's all it was in my opinion. Borderline.

As an example of the last, let's say that I think that all Jews and Israelis are evil and should be destroyed, converted, or otherwise taken off their Satanic ways.
I can't say that, 'cause it is not grounded within reason at all, and it's discriminatory. I can be charged for spouting the above, or comparable. It's illegal for me to commit hate crimes, or to discriminate because of race, sex, sexuality, religion, et cetera. In part, due to the above, at times the issue of sexuality tends either way, and therefore needs to be approached carefully. Maybe it needs to be moderated more firmly if tempers appear to be flaring, or maybe it needs to be moderated more firmly period.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I think the key issue here is where do we draw the line between expressing discontent with someone's lifestyle and a personal attack. What I saw in that other thread was not an attack. It was just someone expressing their own warped view of what is and isn't appropriate for those not like them.

[The balkens]

I think the key issue here is where do we draw the line between expressing discontent with someone's lifestyle and a personal attack. What I saw in that other thread was not an attack. It was just someone expressing their own warped view of what is and isn't appropriate for those not like them.

it did however offend a group of players though.

[Dumb Ideologies]

To answer the narrow question from the original thread again, as moderators seem incapable of grasping something that should be as obvious as the nose on their face.

It's not remotely acceptable to suggest that people from minority sexual or gender identities need to be given hard labour punishments because their identities are ultimately false, weird, and the product of having too much time on their hands. That is not something the victims of such trolling should be told to "argue down". The ruling is a disgrace and someone needs to act responsibly, reverse the impetuous mistake and admit error if the moderators do not want to be sending a clear message to LGBT posters about the complete lack of respect they hold for them.

On the wider topic of moderating issues of this kind - there are some rough edges, but a very good starting point is to substitute in another identity or perhaps belief-based group and see if it would be acceptable then.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I think the key issue here is where do we draw the line between expressing discontent with someone's lifestyle and a personal attack. What I saw in that other thread was not an attack. It was just someone expressing their own warped view of what is and isn't appropriate for those not like them.

it did however offend a group of players though.

Well yeah. It was an anti-gay opinion in the LGBQT thread. I'm not saying the intent wasn't there, just that the content in and of itself wasn't an attack.

[The balkens]

it did however offend a group of players though.

Well yeah. It was an anti-gay opinion in the LGBQT thread. I'm not saying the intent wasn't there, just that the content in and of itself wasn't an attack.

have you taken a look at the guys history though?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I'm not saying the intent wasn't there

[The balkens]

I'm not saying the intent wasn't there

oh.

[Ra Rosulh]

I don't read that thread, nor do I intend to. But from what I saw in the quotes in moderation(and I looked back at the full quotes), I don't see what he did wrong exactly :u

Remember to look only at what he quoted, cause that's what he's talking about.

The 'predicament' was what was in the spoilers I assume (Living in the basement, forced to hide, having to do chores to live or something, all that stuff). To which, yeah I could suggest labour o- o would get you out and about. If you're worried your life is a wreck and coming to an end, then getting out and doing stuff to get your mind off it would be a benefit yes?
Dude was 'insulting' him on the grounds of self-pity, he said so himself and I can clearly see that o- o

And I will say this, however controversial it may be to some of you. Being "different" in sexuality, doesn't mean you get special treatment. If he said that to a straight guy, no one would care, and it can still apply to a straight person as the response was towards self-pity, not sexuality. Track record or not, it seems to me that people are trying to pull up the past and pile it all on this one post.

I just don't see how this 1 post was worthy of action to start with.

[Lyttenburg]

However, it insults someone for their sexuality, calling it a predicament and an affliction. It's neither of those things, and frankly, some people are quite sensitive about their sexuality. So the defense by the mods (Defend it with logic) may be seen as frankly slightly hostile. This, on the other hand, opposes the wisdom of the ruling given.

Being the person reported, I'd like to comment on this claim.

Nowhere in my post have I called someone's else sexuality a predicament - I was refering to something else. And nowhere in my post, that offended oh so many people, have I claime that some forms of sexuality are "afflictions".

Also, nowhere in my posts ever have I advocate the forceful round up and shipping of people with non-traitional swxual orientation to some "closed institutions" with "Arbait Macht Frei" written on their gates, or for said individuals should be lynched or subjected to other criminal acts. Nowhere. C'mon, search my posts if you want.

Maybe, strawmanning is not the best start for such a topic, hm, Yukonastan?

[The Blaatschapen]

The specific example which triggered this discussion should not be hair split here. This discussion is about moderation regarding sexuality issues in general.

[Grenartia]

To answer the narrow question from the original thread again, as moderators seem incapable of grasping something that should be as obvious as the nose on their face.

It's not remotely acceptable to suggest that people from minority sexual or gender identities need to be given hard labour punishments because their identities are ultimately false, weird, and the product of having too much time on their hands. That is not something the victims of such trolling should be told to "argue down". The ruling is a disgrace and someone needs to act responsibly, reverse the impetuous mistake and admit error if the moderators do not want to be sending a clear message to LGBT posters about the complete lack of respect they hold for them.

On the wider topic of moderating issues of this kind - there are some rough edges, but a very good starting point is to substitute in another identity or perhaps belief-based group and see if it would be acceptable then.

Exactly. As the person being trolled, I resent being told that I should "argue down" bullshit which blatantly dehumanizes me, and which is, by any and all reasonable definitions, trolling. And, like I asked previously, where does the line get drawn between trolling that should be "argued down", and trolling which is worthy of being acted on?

Its completely bullshit rulings like this that are driving away everybody from this site who is not a cishet white man, and the diversity of opinions that go along with having people who are not one or more of those things. Its bullshit rulings like that which drive this site ever closer to being a troll sanctuary.

it did however offend a group of players though.

Well yeah. It was an anti-gay opinion in the LGBQT thread. I'm not saying the intent wasn't there, just that the content in and of itself wasn't an attack.

Telling me that I should engage in hard labor to rid myself of "wierd thoughts and strange revelations" (i.e., my very identity), isn't an attack?

2. I don't read that thread, nor do I intend to. But from what I saw in the quotes in moderation(and I looked back at the full quotes), I don't see what he did wrong exactly :u

Remember to look only at what he quoted, cause that's what he's talking about.

The 'predicament' was what was in the spoilers I assume 1. (Living in the basement, forced to hide, having to do chores to live or something, all that stuff). To which, yeah I could suggest labour o- o would get you out and about. If you're worried your life is a wreck and coming to an end, then getting out and doing stuff to get your mind off it would be a benefit yes?
3. Dude was 'insulting' him on the grounds of self-pity, he said so himself and I can clearly see that o- o

And I will say this, however controversial it may be to some of you. 4. Being "different" in sexuality, doesn't mean you get special treatment. 5. If he said that to a straight guy, no one would care, and it can still apply to a straight person as the response was towards self-pity, not sexuality. Track record or not, it seems to me that people are trying to pull up the past and pile it all on this one post.

I just don't see how this 1 post was worthy of action to start with.

1. Except, none of that was actually what I was saying there.

2. Maybe, you know, you should, in order to get the full context.

3. Wasn't self-pity.

4. I don't want special treatment.

5. Nobody would seriously tell a straight man that he should engage in hard labor to rid himself of "wierd thoughts and strange revelations" (i.e., his sexual orientation and gender identity).

[Reploid Productions]

This is a policy discussion thread, not a specific report. So let's leave off on arguing specific cases, please.

[Grenartia]

The specific example which triggered this discussion should not be hair split here. This discussion is about moderation regarding sexuality issues in general.

Except, the specific example is entirely relevant to the issue in general. Discussion of the former is entirely germane to discussion of the latter.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Well yeah. It was an anti-gay opinion in the LGBQT thread. I'm not saying the intent wasn't there, just that the content in and of itself wasn't an attack.

Telling me that I should engage in hard labor to rid myself of "wierd thoughts and strange revelations" (i.e., my very identity), isn't an attack?

Believe it or not, no. No, it isn't.

[Grenartia]

Telling me that I should engage in hard labor to rid myself of "wierd thoughts and strange revelations" (i.e., my very identity), isn't an attack?

Believe it or not, no. No, it isn't.

I'm sorry, that just reeks of troll-enabling.

[Dumb Ideologies]

This is a policy discussion thread, not a specific report. So let's leave off on arguing specific cases, please.

Given that attempts to discuss this specific outrageous decision - which sets a very alarming precedent for the future - were preposterously shut down for "spamming moderation", that's not really a particularly realistic or credible request. As a legitimate and very pressing issue, it certainly needs to be discussed somewhere; in the absence of anywhere else, it will happen here.

[Ra Rosulh]

1. Except, none of that was actually what I was saying there.

2. Maybe, you know, you should, in order to get the full context.

3. Wasn't self-pity.

4. I don't want special treatment.

5. Nobody would seriously tell a straight man that he should engage in hard labor to rid himself of "wierd thoughts and strange revelations" (i.e., his sexual orientation and gender identity).

Given the common mechanics of quoting what you are talking about, which he seemed to be using, he was talking about;

If you must know, I'm still in the closet, and must therefore still use the men's room. I cannot come out, due to uncertainty regarding whether or not I'll be kicked out of my house, my current status as unemployed (and if that status ever changes, whether or not I'll be fired if I come out), and not being in college (due to not having a car to get there, nor qualifying for enough financial aid to get a free ride). All I can do is sit around my house all day, do some token chores to earn my keep, and watch TV and post on here. I'm little better off than a fucking prisoner. Happy now?

There is no reason to suggest he was talking about anything other than that in my mind, and is probably how a few othe rpeople would read it as well.
To narrow it down to a minimum, he's saying "get a job". Labour is often always in demand, and if you're worried about people finding out or something, dont. Labour is mind numbing beyond belief... I mean I work with 3 gay guys doing labour, doesn't even matter, cause you're so god damn tired you have no interest anymore.

I wont read the thread however, cause it is no doubt long and wordy, and I am tired and sore, and also had a gay friend before, so I know of the struggles and that I can't hope to comprehend (I know it's more then gay, but it's all I got).

And I probably used "special treatment" the wrong way, I meant more that people tend to draw the wrong lines and connections because one person believes this and the other that.

But again, I stress that for all that I can tell, his post was pointed directly at that one comment (went back and read a few posts). Probably wasnt the right way to say it, but getting out and working does wonders to outlook on this, and is a good starting point to gaining control of things.
I dunno, I probably shouldnt be posting at all...

Edit; I broke the quotes... god dammit

[Ethel mermania]

This is a policy discussion thread, not a specific report. So let's leave off on arguing specific cases, please.

The problem is though the case this stems from is an excellent example of the policy reflected. It is an all x is y. The problem for me is. Sometimes I am ok with all x is y. If we substituted all diabetics need sugar control it would be fine, all jews need internment camps wouldn't be. I would think all transpeople have issues would be ok, all transpeople need hard labor I think isn't.

[Lavan Tiri]

This is a policy discussion thread, not a specific report. So let's leave off on arguing specific cases, please.

Reppy, with all due respect, this specific case is the reason we're having this whole damn discussion.

[Sdaeriji]

Perhaps Moderation could elaborate on what sort of counter argument one could expect to make in response to someone referring to a core part of your identity as a sickness or disorder. "no u" comes to mind.

[The Archregimancy]

In this case, there was no ruling given besides "Not actionable", which raised spirits quite a bit. I don't discredit the mod decision in any way, shape, or form, as they have a great amount more experience than me regarding this issue.

While I'm unable to comment on specifics, or indeed promise a specific course of action, I will note in passing that the specific case that has - entirely understandably - raised some strong emotions is still under discussion by the moderation team.


Beyond this specific case, I personally welcome the opportunity presented by this discussion thread for our LGBT members to voice their thoughts regarding moderation approaches to issues of sexuality, and would like to thank Yukonastan for starting this thread.

I don't personally object to specific case studies being used to illustrate /demonstrate individual points, though I would ask that we don't necessarily focus just on the case that led to this thread.

[Ethel mermania]

Perhaps Moderation could elaborate on what sort of counter argument one could expect to make in response to someone referring to a core part of your identity as a sickness or disorder. "no u" comes to mind.

You can't make that arguement though. Kids with autism will claim autism is a core part of them, and it is a disorder.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

In this case, there was no ruling given besides "Not actionable", which raised spirits quite a bit. I don't discredit the mod decision in any way, shape, or form, as they have a great amount more experience than me regarding this issue.

I don't personally object to specific case studies being used to illustrate /demonstrate individual points, though I would ask that we don't necessarily focus just on the case that led to this thread.

While you do not objectify to the specific case, that one particular case is basically the newest report that spreads hate against LGB(T) out of many reports, and considering that it was slipped away, it's no different than saying that the Jewish People should do hard labor AGAIN or any other hate speech.

Along with the fact that the Moderators have been more or less aimed at keeping this sort of bias away, the passing of this particular case allows for many more things, along with racial, more homophobic, transphobic,things against furries, though they won't bother at times since it passes<insert smiley here>anti-religious, and many more things to be said explicitly.

[Nazi Flower Power]

As inspired by this comment by Arch.

It's a topic that can, and has, raised emotions numerous times. Now, while I wasn't involved with the most recent one, or any before that, it's an important issue to discuss.

In this case, there was no ruling given besides "Not actionable", which raised spirits quite a bit. I don't discredit the mod decision in any way, shape, or form, as they have a great amount more experience than me regarding this issue. However, I noticed some points that make me think.

One argument given was that the reported individual in this case was quite trollish, but by definition, only toed the line between actual full-on hard trolling about it. This is an argument -for- the "not actionable" face of the coin.

However, it insults someone for their sexuality, calling it a predicament and an affliction.

It actually is not clear whether the "predicament" part referred to Gren's sexuality or their difficulties with being unemployed. Lyttenburg says it was the latter, and in the context of the original thread it is genuinely unclear. When you include the employment issues, Gren's situation legitimately is a predicament. I have no idea why people who oppose the "not actionable" ruling keep throwing the word "predicament" around as if it somehow bolsters their case. It doesn't. It just demonstrates that you jumped on the politically correct bandwagon without reading the relevant posts and considering them with an open mind.

Calling someone's sexuality "weird" -- and it looks like that part does refer to sexuality, not unemployment -- can be obnoxious, but it's not actionable.

The physical labor stuff was an all around dumb suggestion. If you think that part was trolling, well... I think it's borderline, but I can see why some people come down on the side that it is trolling.

But I think the biggest cause of disagreement here is that some people are taking the "predicament" comment out of context.