|
Well, no.
It's dangerous allowing only the popular opinions. Of course more people would get furious about a statement denying black people a right to vote than those looking at a statement proposing different explanations to rape other than the free will of the rapist. #1 is hardly debatable or defendable by scientific facts whereas #2 is kinda true.
People get furious about all kinds of shit they don't agree with. The amount of people disagreeing shouldn't in itself be a problem or disentitle an unpopular opinion of a voice. A post needs to be appreciated by the content it provides, not by the attitude it conveys. There needs to be an objective scale to measure a post's quality. If not, it's the middle ages all over again.
I admit that there are extreme examples that need further consideration. First and foremost religion debates that are strictly forbidden here. But then again, the reasoning for this is not that believing in a deity is in itself a bannable offense (although the disrespect of some moderators towards believers have rustles people's jimmies before) but because the threads are bound to derail.
It's not the subjective attitude that needs to be moderated, it's the objective criteria - including contribution to the thread, phrasing of the post, informedness of the poster, etc - that need to be considered in moderating action.
I don't agree with the post at hand being moderated. I just disagree with the reasoning in the ban message.
|
If posts fit a common theme in a thread that's getting a heavy dose of justice applied to keep the discussion sane, copy/pasted ban reasons are perfectly legit.
And that's ignoring the part where you seem to have some sort of notion that rape is based on unmet biological needs, which is, in the majority of cases, untrue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence#Groth_typology
|
I never said I had a problem with copypasting ban reasons. I just don't consider the text itself appropriate.
Neither do I disagree with the paragraph you linked. I also don't see where I talked specifically about biological needs.
I was saying the poster had a point in claiming there's more to rape than just the free decision-making of the rapist.
All people have urges.
All people behave differently under pressure.
All men behave differently towards women once they find themselves in a somewhat enclosed area with only males for a significant amount of time.
"Weak" men concede to their urges faster than stronger willed men.
Education and upbringing have their influence, as do friends, comrades and family.
Or in short: provide someone with a motive, opportunity and an underdeveloped sense of morality and suddenly the likeliness of a crime goes through the roof.
That's criminology. Not rape apologism.
|
On April 15 2012 06:56 opisska wrote:
I used that one thread as an example, but this is a society-wide issue - the "political correctness" (this name is now slightly absurd as the problem has long ago outgrewn the scope of politicis, bat whatever) that stems from the will "not to offend" people is spreading as a plague through our societies, hindering any discussion at the will of random "offence takers"
There's a big difference between expressing an opposing view point and spewing uninformed non-sense into a thread with no intention of engaging a discussion. I've never seen the TL mods ban anyone whose view was expressed in a logical, respectful manner and reasonable tone. As far as things that fall into a grey area, well this sums things up: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=768#15355
On April 19 2012 06:39 KwarK wrote:
An ongoing problem we've had with general is that people just read the title of a topic, write the first dozen words that come to mind and then hit post before going on their way and never again checking the topic. People tend not to read the replies of others, nor to reply to each other, nor check back and see if anyone has replied to them. This environment actively discourages people who are interested in the topic from attempting a discussion because it's simply not worth the effort involved in writing out an informative and well structured argument only to be drowned out in minutes and have the intended recipient never read it.
Holy crap-a-moly thank you. I cannot express how completely I agree with you. I am getting quite tired of people who read the OP and immediately reply. This isn't twitter, this isn't facebook, nor any form of dumping grounds for your one crappy sentence worth of thoughts on a topic. This is a discussion forum, where you are meant to DISCUSS the issue. Which, crazy as it may sound, involves reading what other people have written. How hard is it to read at the very least just a few pages of the thread?
The 5 word posts should be an auto-temp ban IMO. It's spam and should be treated as such. [/mini rant]
|
I would probably consider this thread "solved" after the clear and open reply of KwarK*
On April 19 2012 06:39 KwarK wrote:
Now, obviously an apologist view doesn't necessarily have to be uninformed and non contributing but equally, fuck them.
But in the light of the fact that rape discussion got a fresh start with "What is rape?" and bans are already being handed for TL-unsanctioned opinions (see a prime example in the spoiler below). I would like to re-open this thread and ask a simple question:
Why don't you just put it in the rules?
Or ban rape-related discussion altogether, much like religion? There is really no point in "allowing" a discussion on a certain topic, when some points of view are forbidden.
For me personally, it would feel much better. Forbidding a topic altogether is fair to all sides of the argument. The current situation is a half-assed solution, that only creates three unwanted categories of users: banned (those who write forbidden opinions), outraged (those who see those and disagree with them) and disappointed (those who see that it leads to bans).
+ Show Spoiler +On August 23 2012 16:00 IceThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 15:29 zalz wrote:
Rape as such isn't just physical force. If a women doesn't feel safe and feels like she can't say no, that might still be a form of force.
How the hell would the man no such a thing? Men can't read womans mind you know. If she don't communicate with her partner, how is he to be blamed for anything? Show nested quote +
I think if a women is exceptionally intoxicated, it might also consitute rape, because she can't in all seriousness make any real choices. Again, how is the man to blame for this? Men are genetically engineered to mate as many times as possible in his lifespan. If a woman, drunk or not) is pressing on for sex, then it's equally as hard to say no to it, as it is for a starved 3rd world person to say no to a BBQ. Also if the woman is drunk, then chances are that the male is also drunk. As for a universal definition of rape, that won't work. For example, in a lot of countries it is impossible for a man to rape his wife, simply because the culture states that sex is a man's priviledge in marriage, and he can force it from the women if he wants it. Show nested quote +
A big problem though is that it doesn't take long before public opinion turns to blame a women. They once polled people to ask when something was still a rape in their eyes.
AFAIK, in 90% of relationship problems is blamed on the man. Show nested quote +
Being phyiscally forced was obviously a rape in the eyes of nearly everyone, but if a women gets naked, climbs into your bed, and then suddenly says she doesn't want to have sex, is it still a rape? Of course it is (imo anyway), but the majority of people seem to disagree on that notion.
We could make a good analog out of this. If i BBQ a boar in africa, and i promis this obviously starved individual some of it, and then deny it when it's finally done, most people would say that it's my own fault if he just steals it. Same thing goes for sex. It's a deep drive in men, it's way stronger than any drug. How can it be his fault, if the woman does some shit like that then? User was temp banned for this post.
EDIT: *just to be clear, I am grateful for the clarity and openess of Kwark, there is no sarcasm meant on my side (but after reading my reply, I fear it could be interpreted wrongly)
|
United States24701 Posts
In pretty much any topics, there are opinions that can get you banned (this is only avoidable when there is virtually no moderation... which makes for terrible forums most of the time).
It's bad to create a community where you have to agree with the consensus all the time, or you will be banned. As far as I can tell, TL really doesn't want this. On the other hand, it's not okay to say whatever you want. Saying that it's okay to force women to have sex with you so long as the girl was initially interested, regardless of if she physically tries to get away from you or not, because you are 'programmed' to is not acceptable here. As Kwark said, if you represent yourself as a person that we can't stand to co-exist with, you will probably have to go. It takes a fair amount for that to happen, mind you.
In specific cases where it seems like someone was banned for an unpopular opinion but shouldn't have been, you are welcome to bring it up (I'd suggest starting with the moderator who did it). Mistakes do get made. However, TL users do not have a universal right to say whatever they want on this website. If you seem like a horrible person we will get rid of you (after second chances... I mean the guy in question above only got a 1 week ban, and it's not his first mod action).
|
I feel the same way.
The other day in LR, GMarshal warned this guy who made a joke.
GMarshal's reply:
'do you know how many reports i have to go through, dont joke and get reported' in a nutshell.
That alone almost derailed. Its TL's house, not the mods house, there needs to be a limit on a what a mod can do because he feels a certain way about something. But, i will state that the MODS here are hands down best that ive ever seen in a community started from almost scratch that has grown into what it is.
Except for LR threads, but i think LR threads can't be saved, esp now that bw and sc2 fans are in the same thread
|
Guys, I am sorry, but your replies do not actually solve anything.
The topic is called "What is rape?". Nevertheless, the very point - what does and what does not constitute rape - is not discussable in said thread, because it has been basically already decided by the mods.
OK, you like it that way, you can't stand people who don't, fair game. But what is then the point of having such discussion in the first place, if you don't wish to allow it? The only thing I am asking here is for you to admit that it is hypocritical and reflect on that fact. Actually, that is the only thing that has bothered me all the time, but I couldn't name it properly: the inherent hypocrisy of the current state of things, when you pretend that there is room for discussion, where there is none.
It is getting kindof difficult not to get involved in the actual rape discussion here, when the replies start to do that, but I would like to avoid it as much as possible, because it is very much not the point here. But for the sake of completeness, let me ilustrate from which position I am coming: I disagreee with that banned guy in almost everything (for one, I can never imagine forcing anyone to have sex with me under any circumstances - but I am aware that my sex drive is very, very deep below average, so I can't take much credit for this), but I do believe that the way rape is being presented in our society (bare in mind that this society can be quite different from yours, whatever that means) is potentially dangerous to completely innocent males and that the harm done to women is not the whole story that needs to be told, if you want to discuss the topic properly.
|
United States24701 Posts
On August 24 2012 07:00 opisska wrote:
Guys, I am sorry, but your replies do not actually solve anything.
The topic is called "What is rape?". Nevertheless, the very point - what does and what does not constitute rape - is not discussable in said thread, because it has been basically already decided by the mods.
OK, you like it that way, you can't stand people who don't, fair game. But what is then the point of having such discussion in the first place, if you don't wish to allow it? The only thing I am asking here is for you to admit that it is hypocritical and reflect on that fact. Actually, that is the only thing that has bothered me all the time, but I couldn't name it properly: the inherent hypocrisy of the current state of things, when you pretend that there is room for discussion, where there is none.
Why are you assuming that there is no room for discussion? Just because not every possible viewpoint is considered reasonable doesn't mean that there is only one viable viewpoint.
|
United States42934 Posts
That topic actually went on for a while discussing the use of the promiscuity argument rape cases without anyone getting banned.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:25 ohampatu wrote:
That alone almost derailed. Its TL's house, not the mods house, there needs to be a limit on a what a mod can do because he feels a certain way about something.
Naw I'm okay with this. If a volunteer banling plows through a LR full of reports - a job nobody should want or have to do - I don't care if they're more trigger happy. People should just behave better.
|
On August 24 2012 09:23 KwarK wrote:
That topic actually went on for a while discussing the use of the promiscuity argument rape cases without anyone getting banned.
Yes, I was now briefly reading through that topic and I was positively surprised.
|
On August 24 2012 05:10 micronesia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
In pretty much any topics, there are opinions that can get you banned (this is only avoidable when there is virtually no moderation... which makes for terrible forums most of the time).
It's bad to create a community where you have to agree with the consensus all the time, or you will be banned. As far as I can tell, TL really doesn't want this. On the other hand, it's not okay to say whatever you want. Saying that it's okay to force women to have sex with you so long as the girl was initially interested, regardless of if she physically tries to get away from you or not, because you are 'programmed' to is not acceptable here. As Kwark said, if you represent yourself as a person that we can't stand to co-exist with, you will probably have to go. It takes a fair amount for that to happen, mind you.
In specific cases where it seems like someone was banned for an unpopular opinion but shouldn't have been, you are welcome to bring it up (I'd suggest starting with the moderator who did it). + Show Spoiler +Mistakes do get made. However, TL users do not have a universal right to say whatever they want on this website. If you seem like a horrible person we will get rid of you (after second chances... I mean the guy in question above only got a 1 week ban, and it's not his first mod action).
Unless it's Kwark on the rape topic. You'll get told to fuck off... As he already stated above and to me in a PM.
The point of the OP stands, there are plenty of topics that are best stayed away from on TL because you know you'll get mod action if you do not. The ABL would have a quarter less posts if that weren't true... If that's the position you want (and I can see why you would want that, as avoiding it either sacrifices some quality or requires an extensive moderator surveillance programme that I doubt could be implemented), it's better to be open about it. I think this deserves consideration whenever you're looking at updating the 10 commandments thread. As long as the policy is transparent, I doubt reasonable people would have a problem with it.
|
United States42934 Posts
On September 15 2012 04:48 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:10 micronesia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
In pretty much any topics, there are opinions that can get you banned (this is only avoidable when there is virtually no moderation... which makes for terrible forums most of the time).
It's bad to create a community where you have to agree with the consensus all the time, or you will be banned. As far as I can tell, TL really doesn't want this. On the other hand, it's not okay to say whatever you want. Saying that it's okay to force women to have sex with you so long as the girl was initially interested, regardless of if she physically tries to get away from you or not, because you are 'programmed' to is not acceptable here. As Kwark said, if you represent yourself as a person that we can't stand to co-exist with, you will probably have to go. It takes a fair amount for that to happen, mind you.
In specific cases where it seems like someone was banned for an unpopular opinion but shouldn't have been, you are welcome to bring it up (I'd suggest starting with the moderator who did it). + Show Spoiler +Mistakes do get made. However, TL users do not have a universal right to say whatever they want on this website. If you seem like a horrible person we will get rid of you (after second chances... I mean the guy in question above only got a 1 week ban, and it's not his first mod action). Unless it's Kwark on the rape topic. You'll get told to fuck off... As he already stated above and to me in a PM. The point of the OP stands, there are plenty of topics that are best stayed away from on TL because you know you'll get mod action if you do not. The ABL would have a quarter less posts if that weren't true... If that's the position you want (and I can see why you would want that, as avoiding it either sacrifices some quality or requires an extensive moderator surveillance programme that I doubt could be implemented), it's better to be open about it. I think this deserves consideration whenever you're looking at updating the 10 commandments thread. As long as the policy is transparent, I doubt reasonable people would have a problem with it.
How I respond to absurd PMs from random people has absolutely no bearing upon my responsibilities as a moderator or how seriously I take them. If you'd rather I didn't tell you to fuck off in a PM then don't send me stupid PMs. If you wish to send me stupid PMs and then get told to fuck off then don't act like it's some moderation issue, it's not.
|
KwarK seems to be moderating on an ideological basis.
People whose views he disagrees with are heavily burdened by warnings and threats from him, while anyone he agrees with is free to spew ignorance with impunity.
|
United States42934 Posts
This guy is pissed that my stance on the Trayvon Martin topic was "stop whining about moderation in the topic itself, take it to website feedback or PM a mod" and then refused to ban a guy he PMed me about. I have not made any post in the Trayvon Martin topic since the guy was killed because I have absolutely no interest nor ideological stance on the issue. I give no fucks and have no strong opinion. Therefore when two guys are interpreting what happened differently and arguing about it and one of them starts crying about moderation bias in the topic itself my only response will be to warn him to stop whining about the bias itself, I have lack the knowledge of the topic or the motivation to get involved beyond that.
Mortonm is a fucking idiot who broke the rules by bitching about moderation and was granted the leniency of a warning by me because he was new and might not have known. In my polite warning I made it explicitly clear that the topic was never, ever the place for moderation whining by using the phrase "Bitching about moderation bias in the topic is never, ever acceptable.". He seems to have been unable to grasp this.
|
Hey KwarK, ever wish you got paid every time someone said that?
It's simple. Differing views are fine, if you take off the tinfoil hat before presenting them, and don't try to use aggressive "debate" strategies of excessive hyperbole or creating foregone conclusions with your wording.
We could flip the complaint, people accuse KwarK of poor moderation because they dislike his ideology, instead of taking his advice to heart.
I maintain that I could easily have a political debate with the guy on stuff we strongly disagree on without getting banned for it.
|
United States42934 Posts
In this case the guy was upset because I was allowing too free of a debate in the topic and wouldn't start banning people he didn't like. He didn't seem to grasp that I had no issue with his stance, only his bitching about the lack of moderator enforcement of his stance. I think that that is odd given that my warning of him didn't include any critique of his opinion or indeed any reference to the topic, it was just a strongly worded explanation that bitching in the topic was against the rules. Still, some people just want to martyr I guess.
|
On December 06 2012 05:25 KwarK wrote:
In this case the guy was upset because I was allowing too free of a debate in the topic and wouldn't start banning people he didn't like. He didn't seem to grasp that I had no issue with his stance, only his bitching about the lack of moderator enforcement of his stance. I think that that is odd given that my warning of him didn't include any critique of his opinion or indeed any reference to the topic, it was just a strongly worded explanation that bitching in the topic was against the rules. Still, some people just want to martyr I guess.
Kinda reminds me of the thread about you being too passive aggressive, getting hijacked to complain about you aggressively stifling discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
