View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Shay Guy
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 2091
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:41 pm
|
|
|
So... we're all in agreement that Jews count as "marginalized peoples", right? And that Christians and/or white people in America don't? (Not that I want the forums to become hostile to either, to be clear.)
Mojave wrote: | while Jacob and sometimes Zac often flame and degrade those who disagree with them in both forum threads and columns and make posts in the forums that would almost certainly get deleted if they themselves weren't on the staff. |
Any examples?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kendra Kirai
Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Posts: 187
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:43 pm
|
|
|
Mojave wrote: |
GWOtaku wrote: | The "spirit of the rules" is something that really should be taken into account no matter what. All they've really done is (re)state principles and phrased rules so that they can deal with bad actors based on common sense moreso than technicality for those bad actors to dance around, which is what people were complaining about before.
So I guess the question is, do you trust the people here or not? If you've been here for any length of time and haven't left, it stands to reason there is at least some. So I'd say give it a chance for now and react to what happens, not what might happen. |
I think that people can have a degree of trust in the ANN staffers but also find some of their judgment and behavior on the forums questionable or downright inappropriate, and thus have sincere concerns about the degree of power that the new rules give them. It also greatly differs greatly by staffer. Rebecca and Theron frequently engage in productive and civil discussion with those who disagree with them in the forum threads, while Jacob and sometimes Zac often flame and degrade those who disagree with them in both forum threads and columns and make posts in the forums that would almost certainly get deleted if they themselves weren't on the staff. So I can say, that for me personally, I do have some genuine concerns about this rule change not doing enough to curtail the problematic behavior in the forums coming from some staffers and instead giving them even more license to continue contributing to some of the major problems with civility and constructive discussion on the forums. |
Yeah, this is basically giving the mods license to go "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you're banned".
(I'm also not a fan of deleting everything they find offensive, but that's much more on my wanting to see the context of what was going on - I find deleting things said to be akin to historical revisionism and possibly gaslighting depending on context - but I understand why it should probably be done, sometimes, and isn't exactly relevant to the rules discussion)
|
Back to top |
|
|
Catsplay
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 381
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:44 pm
|
|
|
Not sure how well these new forum rules will go down but I'll try to have faith this will make the forums better and not worse. I can see a few potential iffy areas regarding to how the new rules can be used but I'm hoping that's not what ends up happening and all this does is get rid of trolls.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 05 Jan 2002
Posts: 7912
Location: Anime News Network Technodrome
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:46 pm
|
|
|
Shay Guy wrote: |
Mojave wrote: | while Jacob and sometimes Zac often flame and degrade those who disagree with them in both forum threads and columns and make posts in the forums that would almost certainly get deleted if they themselves weren't on the staff. |
Any examples? |
Yeah, I'd love to see examples of this myself, Mojave.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Catsplay
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 381
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:47 pm
|
|
|
Trendo wrote: | The only question i have; Is it still okay to call other user as pedophiles because they like some animes with lolis or calling fans from a specific anime as pedos, homophobic, racist etc. ? |
Yeah this always irked me. I sure hope liking certain anime and loli characters doesn't mean people can still attack and call you names.
|
Back to top |
|
|
DmonHiro
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:49 pm
|
|
|
Trendo wrote: | Is it still okay to call other user as pedophiles because they like some animes with lolis? |
I'm pretty sure that was never OK.
|
Back to top |
|
|
CrowLia
Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 5500
Location: Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:51 pm
|
|
|
Catsplay wrote: |
Trendo wrote: | The only question i have; Is it still okay to call other user as pedophiles because they like some animes with lolis or calling fans from a specific anime as pedos, homophobic, racist etc. ? |
Yeah this always irked me. I sure hope liking certain anime and loli characters doesn't mean people can still attack and call you names. |
This has never been allowed in the forums. I've never seen anyone be "well if you like the loli slave anime you're clearly a pedophile" and not get at least their post deleted.
Kendra Kirai wrote: |
Yeah, this is basically giving the mods license to go "I don't agree with what you're saying, so you're banned".
|
No, it isn't. What is actually does is give the mods license to go "even if you're not expressing it specifically, we can all tell you're a racist/mysoginist/homophobe, so you're banned"
|
Back to top |
|
|
Punished_Nitsugalego
Joined: 20 Jun 2018
Posts: 6
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:55 pm
|
|
|
Quote: | No, it isn't. What is actually does is give the mods license to go "even if you're not expressing it specifically, we can all tell you're a racist/mysoginist/homophobe, so you're banned" |
Wow! These new rules are amazing! They endow the mods with mind reading powers!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Catsplay
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 381
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:58 pm
|
|
|
DmonHiro wrote: |
Trendo wrote: | Is it still okay to call other user as pedophiles because they like some animes with lolis? |
I'm pretty sure that was never OK. |
Oh I'm sure it definitely wasn't okay but it has popped up in the past and people passing judgement on others for liking a series has definitely been a thing. I'm sure many were deleted eventually but I've been involved in a few of those heated threads on controversial series and topics and it wasn't fun.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kendra Kirai
Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Posts: 187
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:59 pm
|
|
|
And that makes it better, CrowLia?
Not all that long ago, that logic was applied to actors, businessmen, etc about being communists, or homosexuals.
More recently, it's been applied to Muslims and other middle easterns about being terrorists.
"We can't prove you are, but it feels right, so you clearly are one."
|
Back to top |
|
|
jtron
Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 183
Location: Chicago
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:06 pm
|
|
|
This is good, thanks. Moderating a forum is hard; a solid policy like this makes it better for everyone.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Utsuro no Hako
Joined: 18 May 2012
Posts: 1032
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:08 pm
|
|
|
Punished_Nitsugalego wrote: | Wow! These new rules are amazing! They endow the mods with mind reading powers! |
The new rules are in response to someone posting that they were going to attend a white supremacist rally. You don't need to be a mind reader to figure that one out.
|
Back to top |
|
|
ANN_Lynzee
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 2930
Location: Email for assistance only
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:09 pm
|
|
|
Kendra Kirai wrote: | And that makes it better, CrowLia?
Not all that long ago, that logic was applied to actors, businessmen, etc about being communists, or homosexuals.
More recently, it's been applied to Muslims and other middle easterns about being terrorists.
"We can't prove you are, but it feels right, so you clearly are one." |
If you can please quote the area of the rules that you think this sort of logic applies to, that would be greatly helpful if discerning any holes in the actual rules themselves.
DerekL1963 wrote: | I find the idea that you must hew to a certain narrow range of viewpoints repugnant. |
Which "view points" listed in the rules to you consider repugnant?
mrsatan wrote: | I've seen people here sometimes flip out at foreigners for saying things that are perfectly acceptable in their cultures but don't line up 100% with whatever U.S. college campuses keep deciding for us is acceptable speech....which is very often at odds with current Western progressive thinking. |
Which areas lined out the rules would be considered "perfectly acceptable" in other cultures and are "U.S. college campus decided acceptable speech?"
ximpalullaorg wrote: | With that said, I can't think anything good will come out of this. Especially since the new rules make reference to "ethical" and "moral" standards, which not only change over time, but are extremely subjective. |
The only part of the rules that uses the word "ethical" is attached to "We also consider hate speech to include any suggestion the rights of an individual should be limited due to the above mentioned identifiers or that their personhood is in some way unethical."
Can you elaborate on what specifically in the rules is subjective and might change over time?
Last edited by ANN_Lynzee on Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
Back to top |
|
|
krymsun
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:15 pm
|
|
|
Using the term "marginalized people" is needlessly political.
First of all, does that mean it's okay to make people who are not considered marginalized feel unwelcome?
Secondly, even if you want to use the phrase, who is a marginalized person? What standards are you using? Someone who could be considered marginalized in the United States could very well not be considered as such in another part of the world (or even by some in the country). Considering this is supposed to be a global forum, it's kind of important.
As the wording stands it sounds like the moderators can just arbitrarily decide who deserves protection and who doesn't based on their own viewpoints.
|
Back to top |
|
|
meiam
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 3442
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:17 pm
|
|
|
Personally I'd just like a way to see deleted post (maybe even just a mega "rubbish" forum post somewhere) to be able to judge what exactly is getting deleted. I'm sure 90% is pretty obvious but to think that anyone cannot make mistake is foolish and so if someone claim there own post was deleted just for getting on the bad side of a mod we could check if they have a point or not. Plus it would allow us to get a sense of the problem, I remember a youtuber making a claim that there own comment section was cesspool, but digging trough it I had to go over 200+ posts before I even saw 1 comment that could be interpreted in a negative light, but he could easily claim that this is only the case after all the bad one are deleted.
Also just for though experiment (I'll pick a non sensible topic), if someone was to say that older people are inferior driver and should face stronger driving law due to there declining visions would that be considered denigration.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|