I'm confused

[New Mitanni]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14667

Looks like a possible suicide-by-Mod as well. In any event, more appropriate to a blog than NSG.

[Neo Art]

Recently (today, in fact) some posters complained that one individual had referred to transvestites as a monstrosity and trash. This poster received no punishment, or warning, or any response from moderation. instead, it was ruled that "As much as [a poster]'s opinions are VERY unpopular, he is still allowed to express them. This is just one of the many ways one receives "freedom of expression" is our beloved Father Knows Best State." from here.

Now, in a few posts, a poster states "I think christians are filth" and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14645&start=25#p527351]"people in the military are such trash"
[/url] . This poster was given a ban.

Now, from where I sit, the difference between "transexuals are monstrosities" and "christians are filth" is...well...minimal. Yet on one hand we are informed that unpopular opinions are still protected, and on the other a poster is given a ban for "trolling" for posting material that is...well....pretty much the same.

Now, perhaps the rules are above me, perhaps they're just too complicated, but when a moderator posts in a moderation thread that posters opinion, despite being VERY unpopular (emphasis added) were still protected, silly me, but I would have read that to mean ANY posters unpopular opinions, about ANY group, are protected.

is there perhaps something in the rules of this forum that spells out the difference between "expressing an unpopular but protected opinion" and "trolling"? Is it that different posters who are given more protection, or are certain groups more protected? OK to insult transexuals, but not christians and the military? Because, again, if someone says that unpopular opinions are protected...I'd think that would apply to ALL opinions. Because it seems to me that the difference between "expressing an unpopular opinion" (IE "transexuals are trash") and "trolling" (IE "christians are filth") depends pretty much on...well...whatever moderator happens to read it first. And I can't hardly believe that this forum would be governed in such an arbitrary and capricious manner, so perhaps the difference can be spelled out for me?

Because, frankly, I may or may not have many opinions about a LOT of various groups and ethnicities, which may or may not be considered HIGHLY controversial, and I just want to make sure that I insult the "right" kind of people.

You know, so that it'd be protected unpopular opinions, and not trolling.

[Sdaeriji]

Parthenon ultimately received a warning.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14554&start=200#p526746

[Kryozerkia]

I had overlooked the context. I went back to correct it.

[Neo Art]

I had overlooked the context. I went back to correct it.

I'm glad the rules are getting a bit more clarified. I'd be lying if I said that this particular day hasn't caused a LOT of...shall we say....discomfort, already prompting one fairly respected member of the community to leave, and lots others grumbling. I'm glad it's received a look over, I hope you can understand how that kind of statement would seemingly fly in the face of history here, and make it look that "sompe people" were less protected than others.

[Scolopendra]

Whoa, we made a mistake and then admitted it and corrected it?

And based on my logs, it was discussed and corrected about two and a half hours ago, before the drama kicked in?

Shock and awe!

[Dumb Ideologies]

Whoa, we made a mistake and then admitted it and corrected it?

And based on my logs, it was discussed and corrected about two and a half hours ago, before the drama kicked in?

Shock and awe!

You know, as much as I'm going and all that, I can't let that blatant misrepresenation stand.

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

But if you want to avoid the very real questions raised about a large section of the moderation team, go ahead.

[Antilon]

viewtopic.php?p=527784#p527784

[Katganistan]

Got it.

[Antilon]

Parthenon ultimately received a warning.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14554&start=200#p526746

Yeah, but that seems a bit of a double standard...

[Sdaeriji]

Parthenon ultimately received a warning.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=14554&start=200#p526746

Yeah, but that seems a bit of a double standard...

I don't disagree. I was just correcting the representation in the OP that Parthenon received no warning whatsoever.

[Antilon]

God******, where's the delete option?!

[Scolopendra]

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

You do realize that, most of the time, we act independently, right? And, praise be, we're not omniscient?

Wait, I'm confusing the emotional THEY HATE ME argument with logic. Never mind, carry on.

[Melkor Unchained]

Whoa, we made a mistake and then admitted it and corrected it?

And based on my logs, it was discussed and corrected about two and a half hours ago, before the drama kicked in?

Shock and awe!

You know, as much as I'm going and all that, I can't let that blatant misrepresenation stand.

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

But if you want to avoid the very real questions raised about a large section of the moderation team, go ahead.

I'm sorry, but I take exception to this. I didn't say that Parth's comments were "a-ok," I said I was disinclined to accept 'tranny' as a derogatory term any more than 'homo' or 'hetero.' All three are logical abbreviations of otherwise long and unwieldy words.

Furthermore, we are unpaid volunteers. I can't stress this enough. I'll stick around and mod when I can, but I had to go to work around the time this all came up and only had the time to post my first impressions. I skimmed over the links TCT provided and (since Rep was writing her initial response to Jordaxia at the time) suggested she take a gander at them since I was about to leave. Based on what I saw in IRC when I came back this evening, she had an errand to run and obviously couldn't post right away.

Long story short, Parthenon got his warning, so the complaints I'm seeing here amount to "but not fast enough." Until someone is willing to pay me to mod this site, I'm not going to drop everything and deal with these issues immediately as they arise: I'll sometimes come across stuff and decide to either come back to it later or leave it for another mod; and I'm sure the others do the same.

[Reploid Productions]

You know, as much as I'm going and all that, I can't let that blatant misrepresenation stand.

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

But if you want to avoid the very real questions raised about a large section of the moderation team, go ahead.

Additionally, while I was going to be the mod to handle it, as Melkor said, I had to go run an errand. After returning and going over the thread in question, certain opinions in the thread had me sufficiently annoyed that I realized, aside from the warning to Jordaxia, that I was no longer able to maintain sufficient composure to deal with it fairly and had to drop it in Kryo's lap, resulting in an extra delay while Kryo got up to speed on the entire mess and thus the delay in warning Parthenon.

Coincidentally, this is also why I've been keeping fairly silent aside from the most blatant things that need warnings over, because at the moment I recognize that I am far too bloodthirsty to be handling the Sword of DEAT or the banhamer tonight, at least not without clearing it through one or more of the other mods.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

You do realize that, most of the time, we act independently, right? And, praise be, we're not omniscient?

Wait, I'm confusing the emotional THEY HATE ME argument with logic. Never mind, carry on.

Whether or not you act independently, and regardless of claims of omniscience, the point I am making, and which you all seem to be studiously avoiding, remains. Your independent rulings were distinctly different to the response that would have faced an unprovoked attack on any other minority group. It does not requre "THEY HATE ME arguments" or conspiracy theories of the "mod-hivemind" to be aware of this. And it remains as clear as day that some of you, as individuals, need to look at yourselves seriously and admit your biases. If I can achieve that, then maybe something positive can come out of this mess which has made me feel obligated to leave.

[Melkor Unchained]

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

You do realize that, most of the time, we act independently, right? And, praise be, we're not omniscient?

Wait, I'm confusing the emotional THEY HATE ME argument with logic. Never mind, carry on.

Whether or not you act independently, and regardless of claims of omniscience, the point I am making, and which you all seem to be studiously avoiding, remains. Your independent rulings were distinctly different to the response that would have faced an unprovoked attack on any other minority group. It does not requre "THEY HATE ME arguments" or conspiracy theories of the "mod-hivemind" to be aware of this. And it remains as clear as day that some of you, as individuals, need to look at yourselves seriously and admit your biases.

Since it was Parthenon who initially took this to Moderation (and because the post he linked to was obviously actionable), it got dealt with first. TCT didn't post those links until Rep was already writing her post and carrying out the ban, and had to leave pretty much immediately after that, as did I.

[Scolopendra]

The problem, as it relates to the moderators, as I clearly stated in the thread, is that all of you were fully provided with all the postings and the relevant context from the beginning, but 90% of you ruled it a-okay, while the one who didn't still gave it far from proportionate treatment compared to similar offences against other groups.

You do realize that, most of the time, we act independently, right? And, praise be, we're not omniscient?

Wait, I'm confusing the emotional THEY HATE ME argument with logic. Never mind, carry on.

Whether or not you act independently, and regardless of claims of omniscience, the point I am making, and which you all seem to be studiously avoiding, remains. Your independent rulings were distinctly different to the response that would have faced an unprovoked attack on any other minority group. It does not requre "THEY HATE ME arguments" or conspiracy theories of the "mod-hivemind" to be aware of this. And it remains as clear as day that some of you, as individuals, need to look at yourselves seriously and admit your biases.

And you have to learn what size brush to tar with, since last time I checked I didn't have a particularly irrational hatred of transexuals nor was I even around to know what the problem was until it was resolved. And yet all we get is "90 percent! 90 percent! 90 percent!"

One person looked at it, made a snap but not complete ruling, handed it off.

The next person looked at it, but was busy, and handed it off.

The next person looked at it, forgot the context, made a ruling that was in error, looked at it again, and fixed it (albeit without enough blood to quench everyone's thirst).

Tell me where the 90% comes in, and how this is representative of some sort of bias against transsexuals in particular?

For full disclosure, yes, I'm annoyed with you, but not because of any genitalia you may reportedly have or have had. You're just a mind on the opposite end of the Internet that communicates through electrical signals displayed as letters on the screen, and any claim must be taken with a grain of salt. I'm annoyed because I am, by association, being accused of a bias I sure as hell know I don't have. In fact, I can list my biases right here for everyone to see:

1) I'm biased against the raiding game or most raiders. They strike me as bullies, and the raiding game strikes me as legalized bullying.
2) I'm biased against Bryn Shander, Derscon, and Auman based on a mixture of personal history and attitude conflict. To be safe I always delegate any mod-related tasks that are associated with them.
3) I'm biased against Nazis and Objectivists based on ideology.
4) I'm biased against pity-party "I'm leaving" posts. Either leave or don't; the attention-whoring (in my opinion) drama is childish.

I'll apply the whip and pray to the dark powers to deliver me from ignorance and reveal more biases, but those are the ones that pop into my head on short notice. Some of us are introspective, sometimes to a fault, and it's best that you recognize that sometime before making broad accusations.
4)

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'll apply the whip and pray to the dark powers to deliver me from ignorance and reveal more biases, but those are the ones that pop into my head on short notice. Some of us are introspective, sometimes to a fault, and it's best that you recognize that sometime before making broad accusations.

...
4) I'm biased against pity-party "I'm leaving" posts. Either leave or don't; the attention-whoring (in my opinion) drama is childish.

I hold that it is an entirely reasonable accusation on the basis of the evidence of what has happened here today. Your righteous indignation at a polite request to think about what I've said is unfortunate. I am not "attention whoring" with that thread, once this exchange in moderation is done, I am out of here. And in that thread, I'm raising a very real issue about transphobia amongst posters on this forum, and how people seem to view it as unacceptable to attack and belittle all groups except one.

My approach in this moderation thread (I admit my thread in General was a little emotional, I was upset, hence why I'm leaving) has not been arrogant or dismissive of the mods, and I've tried to treat your views and position with respect, despite my grievances with how the issue was dealt with. I'm afraid I cannot say the same for the responses that this mod has given me.

But, you know. This will be my real last post here. I'm sure something smarmy will be posted in return and my concerns unconditionally rejected before this is locked, and that you'll be able to score the cheap points to declare "mod victory" and dismiss what I've raised.

I don't want to extend my stay here artificially just to wind people up. If you've fixed your position, I can either end in a sad-looking flamefest against the moderators, or retire quietly and with, I hope, some dignity.

It's just a shame it had to end like this.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I'll apply the whip and pray to the dark powers to deliver me from ignorance and reveal more biases, but those are the ones that pop into my head on short notice. Some of us are introspective, sometimes to a fault, and it's best that you recognize that sometime before making broad accusations.

...
4) I'm biased against pity-party "I'm leaving" posts. Either leave or don't; the attention-whoring (in my opinion) drama is childish.

I hold that it is an entirely reasonable accusation on the basis of the evidence of what has happened here today. Your righteous indignation at a polite request to think about what I've said is unfortunate. I am not "attention whoring" with that thread, once this exchange in moderation is done, I am out of here. And in that thread, I'm raising a very real issue about transphobia amongst posters on this forum, and how people seem to view it as unacceptable to attack and belittle all groups except one.

My approach in this moderation thread (I admit my thread in General was a little emotional, I was upset, hence why I'm leaving) has not been arrogant or dismissive of the mods, and I've tried to treat your views and position with respect, despite my grievances with how the issue was dealt with. I'm afraid I cannot say the same for the responses that this mod has given me.

Bullshit, plain and simple. Accusatory, confrontational, and not one iota of 'respect' shown to any of the mods in any of your postings here. Seriously, this has all gotten to the point of stupid. You want to leave? There's the door.

[Melkor Unchained]

I still don't see what you're so angry about. So Rep didn't go through and read the whole thread before acting on an obviously actionable post first? That shit happens all the time. TCT came in with links, which I read, and subsequently referred to Rep in IRC since I assumed she had more time to deal with it than I had. All I had posted was a snap ruling on the use of the term 'tranny,' which it seems to me you have chosen to interpret as "Trolling transsexuals is okay." I didn't mean to convey the impression that I had delivered a 'final ruling' on Parthenon's comments, hence my mention of passing on TCT's links to Rep and my imminent departure. If you came away with this with the "Melkor thinks Parth's comments were 'a-ok'," that's an error of understanding more than anything else.

[Maurepas]

I'll apply the whip and pray to the dark powers to deliver me from ignorance and reveal more biases, but those are the ones that pop into my head on short notice. Some of us are introspective, sometimes to a fault, and it's best that you recognize that sometime before making broad accusations.

...
4) I'm biased against pity-party "I'm leaving" posts. Either leave or don't; the attention-whoring (in my opinion) drama is childish.

I hold that it is an entirely reasonable accusation on the basis of the evidence of what has happened here today. Your righteous indignation at a polite request to think about what I've said is unfortunate. I am not "attention whoring" with that thread, once this exchange in moderation is done, I am out of here. And in that thread, I'm raising a very real issue about transphobia amongst posters on this forum, and how people seem to view it as unacceptable to attack and belittle all groups except one.

My approach in this moderation thread (I admit my thread in General was a little emotional, I was upset, hence why I'm leaving) has not been arrogant or dismissive of the mods, and I've tried to treat your views and position with respect, despite my grievances with how the issue was dealt with. I'm afraid I cannot say the same for the responses that this mod has given me.

But, you know. This will be my real last post here. I'm sure something smarmy will be posted in return and my concerns unconditionally rejected before this is locked, and that you'll be able to score the cheap points to declare "mod victory" and dismiss what I've raised.

I don't want to extend my stay here artificially just to wind people up. If you've fixed your position, I can either end in a sad-looking flamefest against the moderators, or retire quietly and with, I hope, some dignity.

It's just a shame it had to end like this.

Well, before you go, I would hope that you read that thread, because not everyone was unsympathetic...

[Scolopendra]

I'll note the words "righteous indignation" are yours, not mine, although I'll agree with your use of it: righteous indignation is the virtue concomitant with wrath and is the reasonable application of anger towards perceived injustice. Blaming everyone for what is clearly the act for a few individuals is unjust. Additionally, it is not logical to blame an entire group of a dozen-odd people based on the isolated actions of three people, all of whom made an honest mistake.

As the saying goes, do not ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance.

I do not like being blamed for something I did not do. I do not like my friends, which most of the rest of the mods are, being blamed for something they did not do. Most people don't like these things. Thus explains my righteous indignation.

Back to my point, though...

Knowing that only three mods were involved, one of which lacked the time to do anything and only two that actually made any statements? Tell me where the 90% comes in, and how this is representative of some sort of bias against transsexuals in particular? We all know a single data point does not constitute a trend; please provide additional data to suggest that an actual bias exists and is endemic among the staff.

[Barringtonia]

Bullshit, plain and simple. Accusatory, confrontational, and not one iota of 'respect' shown to any of the mods in any of your postings here. Seriously, this has all gotten to the point of stupid. You want to leave? There's the door.

Is this really allowed as well, in Moderation, by a non-Moderator - I wouldn't expect it from a Moderator to be honest, not sure why a normal poster can chip in with this sort of commentary,

[The Romulan Republic]

I hold that it is an entirely reasonable accusation on the basis of the evidence of what has happened here today. Your righteous indignation at a polite request to think about what I've said is unfortunate. I am not "attention whoring" with that thread, once this exchange in moderation is done, I am out of here. And in that thread, I'm raising a very real issue about transphobia amongst posters on this forum, and how people seem to view it as unacceptable to attack and belittle all groups except one.

My approach in this moderation thread (I admit my thread in General was a little emotional, I was upset, hence why I'm leaving) has not been arrogant or dismissive of the mods, and I've tried to treat your views and position with respect, despite my grievances with how the issue was dealt with. I'm afraid I cannot say the same for the responses that this mod has given me.

To the best of my recollection, you insinuated or accused that the entire mod staff tollerated discrimination against transexuals (which depending on the country might well be illegal hate speech, but I'm not sure where various jurisdiction's laws stand on this). You dismissed the "free speech" defense as, and I quote, "bullshit." You were to my mind particularly respectful (not that a little disrespect is always a bad thing).

Also, I don't know if I for one would call your actions "attention whoring," but I would say you should either get out or stop saying you're going to.

You say you're not welcome here? Not as far as I'm concerned, and certainly not because of your sexuality. I barely know you, and I did not know at all that you were a transexual. However, something I frankly cannot stand is censors.

To reiterate a position that I feel now, especially, needs to be defended, I am catagorically opposed to banning something simply because it is insulting, demeaning, or offensive. Their is no right to immunity from name-calling or hurt feelings. I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who feels they are so oppressed as to leave a place like this, but that sympathy does not extend to infringing on the right to freedom of speech, for the following reasons (and probably some others, but these are the main ones that occur to me right now):

1. Censorship of this kind establishes the precedent that something can be banned simply because someone finds it offensive or, perhaps, vaguely threatening. However, everyone disagrees over what exactly is offensive or threatening. This precedent thus threatens everyone's right to free speech, not merely those of the people you find offensive.

2. As an extension of the above, censorship is by nature inclined to play favorites, to be prejudicial. This is because everyone disagrees on what is offensive, and different groups' definitions of what is offensive often conflict. Thus, it is impossible to censor everything that anyone finds offensive equally, so censorship will likely favor whatever ideology/group is the predominant one.

3. Censorship is a tactically ineffective way of opposing hatred, as it breeds sympathy for the censored by turning them into a martyr or champion for free speech. It is far more effective to give the hateful rope to hang themselves with, and then destroy their ideas in reasoned debate. Perhaps it takes longer. Perhaps some find the views with which they are confronted so offensive that they decide to simply withdraw, as you apparently have chosen to do. But it has to be done by someone, and it is more effective, I hope and believe, than censorship will ever be.

4. Take away an extremist's right to loudly blow off steam, and you may feed the impression that they are oppressed, while driving them underground and possibly towards more dangerous forms of expressing their ideology.

Again, I have the utmost sympathy with your feelings of discrimination and uneven enforcement of this forum's rules. I did not participate in the thread in question, and will not speak to the truthfulness of your claims at this time. However, I am concerned by what amounts to a call for more censorship on your part, and the possibility that your actions and words will encourage such a shift in board policy.

You say that you cannot remain because of the way you have been treated? But if this board censors everything that anyone finds offensive, then I do not think I can remain here in good conscience. Should your idea of what is offensive be held as more sacred, more important than mine, which includes the belief that censorship is offensive? If so, why?

Edit: added another example of the problems with censorship.