|
On March 06 2009 10:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2009 06:53 Hot_Bid wrote:
Steve, that same argument can be applied to any racist or sexist slur, its actually a really good argument for banning "fag" and "faggot". It's the same reasoning as banning "nigger" or "chink" or "gook". Simply having black or chinese or korean people who don't mind the word isn't justification for allowing it. it's not the same at all because 'gay' and 'fag' are acceptable vernacular everywhere ... it's not unreasonable to expect people to use their heads here. racism stays the fuck off tl, period. 'gay' and 'fag' are completely unrelated, not even in the same ballpark
I know I'm drifting offtopic here, but that's not true. In the San Francisco Bay area, 'fag' is generally on the same level as a racial slur. I can only remember hearing it spoken once when I was living in the bay area.
|
I have to agree with CDRdude, :"gay" is fine, but "fag" seems to have a strong negative connotation, similar to that of racial slurs. I go to school in Oklahoma, which was the least liberal state in the last election, and it is definantly unacceptable here.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
in general, the word 'fag' is used maliciously anyway, so the context itself is what's wrong
'gay' is a really generic term that we have no intention of making bannable, because that would be fucking stupid 
|
Braavos36400 Posts
On March 06 2009 10:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2009 06:53 Hot_Bid wrote:
Steve, that same argument can be applied to any racist or sexist slur, its actually a really good argument for banning "fag" and "faggot". It's the same reasoning as banning "nigger" or "chink" or "gook". Simply having black or chinese or korean people who don't mind the word isn't justification for allowing it. it's not the same at all because 'gay' and 'fag' are acceptable vernacular everywhere they are two totally different things, you're basically saying a poke in the arm is the same as a punch in the face because theyre both physical contact and if one is allowed all forms should be allowed it's not unreasonable to expect people to use their heads here. racism stays the fuck off tl, period. 'gay' and 'fag' are completely unrelated, not even in the same ballpark
"fag" is completely in the same ballpark as "nigger" and is nowhere near "acceptable vernacular everywhere". sure i agree with you that "nigger" carries a much heavier connotation of malice because people often use "fag" as an offhand insult, but its far, far from "acceptable vernacular everywhere". just read the responses in this thread, there's no way that "fag" is accepted as plain, everyday, ordinary language (the definition of vernacular, much less accepted vernacular). i can't believe you actually think that.
yeah from now on, i'm issuing warnings and bannings for "fag" and "faggot" and i urge the other Moderators to do the same.
|
I´m a bit surprised that you allow as much as you do. These rules are from a different forum, which is quite similar (MMA).
"1. Fighter Bashing (including refs, promoters and the like) won't be tolerated. Criticism is fine, flaming, steroid allegations, etc. isn't. Minor bashing such as "so and so sucks, is a can, etc." is a double yellow, while extreme bashing like "so and so is a pile of shit, bitch, ***got, etc." will result in a ban.
2. Postwhoring. Posting "+1," "too long, didn't read," "rickson by armbar," empty quoting, etc., will result in a double yellow card and post count reduction. If it's a number of posts, you will be banned for trolling."
Or maybe I´m just used to those rules and find alot of the posts here offending (mostly in the PBP-threads).
|
We've come to a time where gay/fag have the same meaning as idiot/retard. Its sad to see but the word themselves isn't that strong anymore.
I don't know about the word nigger and such since its not used in Sweden and is alot heavier in USA. But i guess if we give it a few more years, given that it's used alot in hollywood films and such and usually with a harmless meaning because often said from a black man to a black man, it will more and more be accepted as a psynomym for idiot/retard the same way gay/fag has evolved without actually having anything to do with the original word.
This is a logical result to the ever evolving language and there will always be new cursewords as time goes on. However it doesn't make it right even to call someone idiot and it sure isn't nice to do so.
So either we go cold turkey and don't allow people to insult eachother or we let the words be allowed but put no greater meaning to them.
In my oppinion you cannot really draw a general line because all the situations are so very different and its not at all unusual that friends call eachother fags or whatever without seriousness.
|
Hmmmm? Are you saying you're going to ban the use of the word fag even when it is not used maliciously? There was no bad intent behind that post and I received my first warning... for what? Saying a bad word? I assure you the tone wasn't bad.
'lol u fag' - sounds normal.
It is very different from
'you're a fucking fag'.
which is also different from maybe a fans comment
'that cheese was so faggy T_T'
And those could be justified too given the circumstances, and who said it to who.
Especially when people think of these words, they honestly don't even associate homosexuality into it. It's just become too common for that.
Wouldn't you have to take a stance against all types of malicious posts in general rather than exclude certain words? Because adding 1 word at a time to an invisible list that posters don't see seems rather retarded. Perhaps retard / retarded are the next words to go.
In all seriousness though, banning words seems silly. If somebody uses gook, nigger, chink, spic, etc... they look stupid and only take away from any posts they may make. Just let people talk the way they would and then hand out bans accordingly. If a racist fag comes along and says something retarded, he's obviously going to get banned. Like honestly, are you going to go through with the warning of a temp ban on me because I just said, "if a racist fag"? Despite there being 0% malicious intent towards homosexuals?
While handing out bans based on words seems like it would simplify the case, it really doesn't. Racist words were created for their sole purpose, to get some anger and make a reaction.
Next thing you know you'll want to ban cunt because girls don't like it. Or synonyms for fag. Like queer and ass pirate. Taking a stance against prejudice is fine. But banning words because some people feel icky? Those people, regardless of any persecution they may have faced in their life, need to grow the fuck up.
Seriously, fag really doesn't have the same connotations to it or the strength of more sinister words. It's mostly used lightheartedly.
Anyway, I think you're taking the wrong stance. But if you feel strongly about it, you should at least consider discussing a visible list of words with the other admins that are meant to truly incite shit. If it passes you can make an amendment in the TL commandments or do George Carlin's scary words bit, so that everyone knows. ;p
So basically I'm saying, keep it to a case by case thing. Unless you really feel excluding words will increase the general quality of the site. ;p
|
On March 06 2009 17:56 MacWorld wrote:
I´m a bit surprised that you allow as much as you do. These rules are from a different forum, which is quite similar (MMA).
"1. Fighter Bashing (including refs, promoters and the like) won't be tolerated. Criticism is fine, flaming, steroid allegations, etc. isn't. Minor bashing such as "so and so sucks, is a can, etc." is a double yellow, while extreme bashing like "so and so is a pile of shit, bitch, ***got, etc." will result in a ban.
2. Postwhoring. Posting "+1," "too long, didn't read," "rickson by armbar," empty quoting, etc., will result in a double yellow card and post count reduction. If it's a number of posts, you will be banned for trolling."
Or maybe I´m just used to those rules and find alot of the posts here offending (mostly in the PBP-threads).
People who fall into these categories usually get PM's as warning about their posting. I should know haha.
However, there are cases and cases. As far as I know, subtle flaming has been allowed and is still allowed. In some cases, smart flaming builds up reputation too. Of course, we're talking about flaming with a reason, not just random fail attempts to flame.
Edit: Testie makes a good point, I agree on that :p
|
On March 06 2009 18:59 MYM.Testie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hmmmm? Are you saying you're going to ban the use of the word fag even when it is not used maliciously? There was no bad intent behind that post and I received my first warning... for what? Saying a bad word? I assure you the tone wasn't bad.
'lol u fag' - sounds normal.
It is very different from
'you're a fucking fag'.
which is also different from maybe a fans comment
'that cheese was so faggy T_T'
And those could be justified too given the circumstances, and who said it to who.
Especially when people think of these words, they honestly don't even associate homosexuality into it. It's just become too common for that.
Wouldn't you have to take a stance against all types of malicious posts in general rather than exclude certain words? Because adding 1 word at a time to an invisible list that posters don't see seems rather retarded. Perhaps retard / retarded are the next words to go.
In all seriousness though, banning words seems silly. If somebody uses gook, nigger, chink, spic, etc... they look stupid and only take away from any posts they may make. Just let people talk the way they would and then hand out bans accordingly. If a racist fag comes along and says something retarded, he's obviously going to get banned. Like honestly, are you going to go through with the warning of a temp ban on me because I just said, "if a racist fag"? Despite there being 0% malicious intent towards homosexuals?
While handing out bans based on words seems like it would simplify the case, it really doesn't. Racist words were created for their sole purpose, to get some anger and make a reaction.
Next thing you know you'll want to ban cunt because girls don't like it. Or synonyms for fag. Like queer and ass pirate. Taking a stance against prejudice is fine. But banning words because some people feel icky? Those people, regardless of any persecution they may have faced in their life, need to grow the fuck up.
Seriously, fag really doesn't have the same connotations to it or the strength of more sinister words. It's mostly used lightheartedly.
Anyway, I think you're taking the wrong stance. But if you feel strongly about it, you should at least consider discussing a visible list of words with the other admins that are meant to truly incite shit. If it passes you can make an amendment in the TL commandments or do George Carlin's scary words bit, so that everyone knows. ;p
So basically I'm saying, keep it to a case by case thing. Unless you really feel excluding words will increase the general quality of the site. ;p
this argument is not winnable by either side. there is LOTS of offense to be taken from being called a fag. I would NEVER use the word lightheartedly. I grew up cursing my brains out. its just second nature. I cannot hold a conversation without saying "Fucking" or some variant. I cannot remember the last time i ever used the words fag or faggot. They are derragatory, plain and simple. I call my best friends assholes like its second nature, never once "fag".
I use to say this and that were gay all the time. I now go to one of the most liberal schools in the country that houses an enormous gay population, so even that has been curbed.
When its in your face its easy to see how your words affect people, and just as easy to overlook when its not. I think this is INCREDIBLY important to think about when choosing your words, in case you are sensitive to offending people.
|
hit quote instead of edit. my bad.
|
On March 06 2009 17:56 MacWorld wrote:
I´m a bit surprised that you allow as much as you do. These rules are from a different forum, which is quite similar (MMA).
"1. Fighter Bashing (including refs, promoters and the like) won't be tolerated. Criticism is fine, flaming, steroid allegations, etc. isn't. Minor bashing such as "so and so sucks, is a can, etc." is a double yellow, while extreme bashing like "so and so is a pile of shit, bitch, ***got, etc." will result in a ban.
2. Postwhoring. Posting "+1," "too long, didn't read," "rickson by armbar," empty quoting, etc., will result in a double yellow card and post count reduction. If it's a number of posts, you will be banned for trolling."
Or maybe I´m just used to those rules and find alot of the posts here offending (mostly in the PBP-threads).
what the hell is rickson by armbar?
|
On March 10 2009 10:55 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2009 17:56 MacWorld wrote:
I´m a bit surprised that you allow as much as you do. These rules are from a different forum, which is quite similar (MMA).
"1. Fighter Bashing (including refs, promoters and the like) won't be tolerated. Criticism is fine, flaming, steroid allegations, etc. isn't. Minor bashing such as "so and so sucks, is a can, etc." is a double yellow, while extreme bashing like "so and so is a pile of shit, bitch, ***got, etc." will result in a ban.
2. Postwhoring. Posting "+1," "too long, didn't read," "rickson by armbar," empty quoting, etc., will result in a double yellow card and post count reduction. If it's a number of posts, you will be banned for trolling."
Or maybe I´m just used to those rules and find alot of the posts here offending (mostly in the PBP-threads). what the hell is rickson by armbar?
It's a prediction on how the match will turn out, saying that the fighter named rickson will win by using the armbar submission move.. An equivalent post in starcraft would be "Julyzerg by 5pool".
|
On March 10 2009 11:07 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2009 10:55 arb wrote:On March 06 2009 17:56 MacWorld wrote:
I´m a bit surprised that you allow as much as you do. These rules are from a different forum, which is quite similar (MMA).
"1. Fighter Bashing (including refs, promoters and the like) won't be tolerated. Criticism is fine, flaming, steroid allegations, etc. isn't. Minor bashing such as "so and so sucks, is a can, etc." is a double yellow, while extreme bashing like "so and so is a pile of shit, bitch, ***got, etc." will result in a ban.
2. Postwhoring. Posting "+1," "too long, didn't read," "rickson by armbar," empty quoting, etc., will result in a double yellow card and post count reduction. If it's a number of posts, you will be banned for trolling."
Or maybe I´m just used to those rules and find alot of the posts here offending (mostly in the PBP-threads). what the hell is rickson by armbar? It's a prediction on how the match will turn out, saying that the fighter named rickson will win by using the armbar submission move.. An equivalent post in starcraft would be "Julyzerg by 5pool".
Yeah but it doesn´t have to involve the actual players, for instance if Bisu faces Flash - you would go "Julyzerg by 5pool" - the difference is of course that Rickson claimed he had a 400-0 record which I guess Julyzerg hasn´t - so I think it´s a minor problem in sc.
|
So what now, some are saying they will ban certain word like "fag" etc.., some are saying they wont.
Maybe its time to implement a bar that shows which Moderator will read what, so we know where we can use some words and where we cant..
|
On March 10 2009 10:38 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2009 18:59 MYM.Testie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hmmmm? Are you saying you're going to ban the use of the word fag even when it is not used maliciously? There was no bad intent behind that post and I received my first warning... for what? Saying a bad word? I assure you the tone wasn't bad.
'lol u fag' - sounds normal.
It is very different from
'you're a fucking fag'.
which is also different from maybe a fans comment
'that cheese was so faggy T_T'
And those could be justified too given the circumstances, and who said it to who.
Especially when people think of these words, they honestly don't even associate homosexuality into it. It's just become too common for that.
Wouldn't you have to take a stance against all types of malicious posts in general rather than exclude certain words? Because adding 1 word at a time to an invisible list that posters don't see seems rather retarded. Perhaps retard / retarded are the next words to go.
In all seriousness though, banning words seems silly. If somebody uses gook, nigger, chink, spic, etc... they look stupid and only take away from any posts they may make. Just let people talk the way they would and then hand out bans accordingly. If a racist fag comes along and says something retarded, he's obviously going to get banned. Like honestly, are you going to go through with the warning of a temp ban on me because I just said, "if a racist fag"? Despite there being 0% malicious intent towards homosexuals?
While handing out bans based on words seems like it would simplify the case, it really doesn't. Racist words were created for their sole purpose, to get some anger and make a reaction.
Next thing you know you'll want to ban cunt because girls don't like it. Or synonyms for fag. Like queer and ass pirate. Taking a stance against prejudice is fine. But banning words because some people feel icky? Those people, regardless of any persecution they may have faced in their life, need to grow the fuck up.
Seriously, fag really doesn't have the same connotations to it or the strength of more sinister words. It's mostly used lightheartedly.
Anyway, I think you're taking the wrong stance. But if you feel strongly about it, you should at least consider discussing a visible list of words with the other admins that are meant to truly incite shit. If it passes you can make an amendment in the TL commandments or do George Carlin's scary words bit, so that everyone knows. ;p
So basically I'm saying, keep it to a case by case thing. Unless you really feel excluding words will increase the general quality of the site. ;p this argument is not winnable by either side. there is LOTS of offense to be taken from being called a fag. I would NEVER use the word lightheartedly. I grew up cursing my brains out. its just second nature. I cannot hold a conversation without saying "Fucking" or some variant. I cannot remember the last time i ever used the words fag or faggot. They are derragatory, plain and simple. I call my best friends assholes like its second nature, never once "fag". I use to say this and that were gay all the time. I now go to one of the most liberal schools in the country that houses an enormous gay population, so even that has been curbed. When its in your face its easy to see how your words affect people, and just as easy to overlook when its not. I think this is INCREDIBLY important to think about when choosing your words, in case you are sensitive to offending people.
It's not that it's not winnable. It's about how willing are you to consider the consequences of your word choice? Of course using "gay" as a substitute for "stupid" etc. is offensive to some people, but that's not really the biggest problem.
It's not about hurting feelings, it's about not using "gay" (or "fag") to mean stupid or lame because it reinforces the idea that homosexuality is stupid or lame (or worse). The use of "gay" as an insult, even a friendly insult, immediately links homosexuality with those insults.
And the idea that it's an accepted part of the vernacular so it's fine to use is just silly. All those racial slurs that are clear bannable offenses were also accepted parts of the vernacular at one point as well.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
we're not going to ban just for the word 'fag', that stuff is 100% contextual. that said, most of the time 'fag' is used in a negative context (flaming someone, or just being anti-gay - both of which are bannable), so expect bans to happen with the normal frequency on that subject. there is no link between homosexuality and someone saying 'manner pylon is so gay'.
the difference here is that words like 'nigger' and racist comments are always used in the context that is bannable, there is no alternative usage.
that's the bottom line, and is the approach we are using
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Seriously, if someone is not capable of telling the difference between homophobic or gay bashing use of the words, they are not qualified to be a moderator here. This is pretty much common sense.
|
On March 12 2009 22:49 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
we're not going to ban just for the word 'fag', that stuff is 100% contextual. that said, most of the time 'fag' is used in a negative context (flaming someone, or just being anti-gay - both of which are bannable), so expect bans to happen with the normal frequency on that subject. there is no link between homosexuality and someone saying 'manner pylon is so gay'.
the difference here is that words like 'nigger' and racist comments are always used in the context that is bannable, there is no alternative usage.
that's the bottom line, and is the approach we are using
Just want to point out for the sake of playing devil's advocate, the reason "racist" comments are always considered racist is that people began to consider them always racist and banning their usage.
If you banned people who said "fag" or "gay" because they're intolerant, harmful expressions, than people wouldn't think so much about context. They'd simply consider the words inappropriate.
Just for example. If we all begin saying, "What a nigger manner pylon," there wouldn't officially be a link between african americans and manner pylons either. But I bet the above still sounds bad. It's because we're used to thinking about it as a derogatory term regardless of context: words have assigned meanings, not inherent meanings.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On March 12 2009 22:55 DeepGreen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2009 22:49 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
we're not going to ban just for the word 'fag', that stuff is 100% contextual. that said, most of the time 'fag' is used in a negative context (flaming someone, or just being anti-gay - both of which are bannable), so expect bans to happen with the normal frequency on that subject. there is no link between homosexuality and someone saying 'manner pylon is so gay'.
the difference here is that words like 'nigger' and racist comments are always used in the context that is bannable, there is no alternative usage.
that's the bottom line, and is the approach we are using Just want to point out for the sake of playing devil's advocate, the reason "racist" comments are always considered racist is that people began to consider them always racist and banning their usage. If you banned people who said "fag" or "gay" because they're intolerant, harmful expressions, than people wouldn't think so much about context. They'd simply consider the words inappropriate. Just for example. If we all begin saying, "What a nigger manner pylon," there wouldn't officially be a link between african americans and manner pylons either. But I bet the above still sounds bad. It's because we're used to thinking about it as a derogatory term regardless of context: words have assigned meanings, not inherent meanings.
"what a nigger manner pylon" doesn't make sense at all, nobody is going to start saying that. do you really think people are going to see a post like "gas prices are pretty gay right now" and think they can respond with "yeah, the oil companies are run by total niggers"? We're not talking about what the situation was 50 years ago, or what it may be 50 years from now. this is 2009, and we're not dictating what words are acceptable or unacceptable worldwide. we are applying common sense to a situation and coming up with the best solution
racist comments have a shitload more weight to them, and there's good reason for that. the word 'gay' just doesn't mean anything outside of specific contexts. that's the way it is, i didn't decide it, and itd be asinine to start suddenly cracking down on something so common and harmless in the name of being progressive.
|
hey post count reduction sounds like a good idea, I don't think TL has that? or do we have a history of doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
