[Adopt-A-User Program]: "Constructive criticism toward ResetEra."

[Phoenix RISING]

I'm black and I don't even think black people should use the N-word for the similar reasons that black people don't like white people to use it.

If "It's just a word" is your base contribution to the topic, then you haven't brought anything new to this centuries-old discourse. In fact, you have regressed to the thought pattern of "Black people are not people; their feelings do not matter."


Same could be said concerning women. After all, those allegations, along with Tyler's wishy-washy stance on the matter, is what brought us here.

TL;DR version: conteibute better than you would on the YouTube comment section

 

[dpunk3]

Am I wrong?

Click to shrink...

For sure. If anyone on GAF spoke out of line they got shit on, and it was well established.

 

[Deleted member 15326]

I think calling the moderation here restrictive already is off mark.

That OP is...something

 

[AnansiThePersona]

To think I came in here with the expectation of how the site could be made better, and walked into a "the n-word is just another word" argument. Kevin Sorbo would be disappointed in you, dolce-vita.

 

[Deleted member 6730]

For sure. If anyone on GAF spoke out of line they got shit on, and it was well established.

Click to shrink...

I've seen most users get banned for speaking "out of line" and most of the time it was because they were acting like shitty people. What do you think the point of moderation is?

 

[Wesley-Σ]

I would take the criticism more serious if not for the fact every time it happens it's pretty much a form letter with alt right code words and bullet points

Click to shrink...

The OP seemed pretty honest to myself.

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

 

[Bubble Metropolis]

I don't know who Colin is, but if it were my site I personally wouldn't ban any discussion on a particular person just for having an unsafe personality. But it's not my site. It's the community's site, and for better or worse I'm sure the community as a whole would agree on this moderation policy. And if you consider the very reason for this forum's existence, it's a policy you probably shouldn't be surprised by.

As for the first point: it's not dissimilar from the modding policy on the previous site, but they would handle such business more silently so that you couldn't necessarily correlate a certain opinion with a ban.

I'm not sure if publicly listing the reason for a ban is a better approach. It may seem like the mod just wanted to have the last say in the particular argument and pinned it to their opponent's corpse. It can give off a vibe of "This person had the wrong opinion, I have the right opinion. Everyone better get in line."

For all the faults of the previous site, they had been in the forum moderation business for quite a while and probably made decisions such as keeping moderation and banning discussions to a minimum through well-considered experience.

 

[Seesaw15]

In my opinion, it sends a message that we have to think and behave a certain way in order to remain a member here

Click to shrink...

No one can control what you think but having standards for behavior are a given.

 

[Heraldic]

I have to say between the comments here on Colin and the response on Dennis Dyack I share your same concerns. An attitude seems to prevade (at times, and by some) that A is morally reprehensible, a person is espousing beliefs from A, therefore that person is ipso facto reprehensible and should be excommunicated, cut off from the pack, in other words Goodbye! Thank you almighty moral arbiters.

 

[metalslimer]

The OP seemed pretty honest to myself.

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

Click to shrink...

Express which part? That SJWs are ruining discourse?

 

[HStallion]

The OP seemed pretty honest to myself.

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

Click to shrink...

Not basing their OP on Colin Moriarty and that post he linked. Way to start on the wrong foot.

 

[Wesley-Σ]

Express which part? That SJWs are ruining discourse?

Click to shrink...

The OP never mentioned that term.

 

[nemoral]

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

Click to shrink...

By picking examples not involving racial slurs or GG talking points? You'd have a much better argument if the issue were "there aren't enough fiscally conservative voices here" or "the pop orthodoxy on ERA has made it impossible for metalheads to express their metal opinions!"

 

[Famassu]

You realize you just told SunWukong, a black male, to fuck off because of your opinion of what black people must think?

Click to shrink...

His opinion about Anita in the same post is also trash. No one needs to walk on eggshells because of Anita just because she criticizes some sexist tropes. One has to be some next-level snowflake of a man-wimp who can't take any criticism about their work without it triggering some kind of persecution complex to think so.

 

[Starlite]

The example post raises significant red flags, especially the end of it. It reeks of GamerGate talking points, and the former board has plenty of experience of people coming in with those same talking points under the guise of a "far discussion", only to start on a misogynistic and/or racist spiel once given enough time.

Even if there could be a discussion on whether or not the n-word is "just another word", an argument I feel has been more than worn out and has a pretty damn conclusive answer, more often than not these people are not truly here for a civil discussion. Give them enough time, and they will start trolling with KIA or sometimes /pol/-like rhetoric. It happened so often on the former board that there's not a lot of toleration of it. It's often just an attempt to disrupt the board.

 

[intheflorsh]

I think calling the moderation here restrictive already is off mark.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. For better or for worse, the moderation style here seems far more relaxed than it ever was the old site.

 

[Deleted member 15326]

I'd actually like to see a thread where Moriarty explains his comments on how Asian-American success means white supremacy and racism don't exist to someone like Austin Walker.

 

[spam musubi]

The OP seemed pretty honest to myself.

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

Click to shrink...

They could pick another post to screenshot to make their case? This one is literally going "the N word is no big deal, Anita Sarkeesian is the real problem!" and also blaming political correctness. Those are basically just all red flags. When there is an example of someone getting banned for an actual unjust reason, then they can make the thread.

There's talking to one other, and there's muddying up good discourse by constantly bringing back up talking points that have long been resolved in order to disrupt a progressive safe space.

 

[HockeyBird]

The N-word is not just a word. There long and horrific history behind it. Slavery, lynching, genocide, Jim Crow. The N-world encompasses and symbolizes all those things. Saying it is just a word is like someone denying the Holocaust happened. Saying it's just a word ignores its historical context and denies the horrible events associated with it.

 

[Fhtagn]

I'm not sure if publicly listing the reason for a ban is a better approach. It may seem like the mod just wanted to have the last say in the particular argument and pinned it to their opponent's corpse. It can give off a vibe of "This person had the wrong opinion, I have the right opinion. Everyone better get in line."

Click to shrink...

The line at which a stated opinion is wrong enough to deserve a ban exists everywhere on the internet except 4chan. I am perfectly happy to post a site that knows better than to let topics spiral out of control with thoroughly debunked bs like "the n-word is just a word."

 

[Aeana]

The OP seemed pretty honest to myself.

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

Click to shrink...

You've done a lot of answering for the OP of the thread, but where is s/he to speak for him/herself? I thought you were only a surrogate?

 

[Slayven]

The OP seemed pretty honest to myself.

If they wanted to express something like this but not be interpreted as someone who associates with GG, how should they approach the situation?

Click to shrink...

He can start by not dismissing racism, and harassment.

 

[Deleted member 12950]

On Moriarty, I think a blanket ban is fine.

Patreon Provocateurs like Moriarty or Jordan Peterson have a cycle where they say something inflammatory to stoke a reaction and then use that reaction to play the victim to raise funds.

It's best to just ignore them altogether. I wouldn't be surprised if the Moriarty thread being locked and forum policy being not to discuss him led to a short-term gain in his income but it beats him being able to outrage fundraise off of a Restera reaction to all the stupid things he's going to say in the future.

 

[lorddarkflare]

I don't know who Colin is, but if it were my site I personally wouldn't ban any discussion on a particular person just for having an unsafe personality. But it's not my site. It's the community's site, and for better or worse I'm sure the community as a whole would agree on this moderation policy. And if you consider the very reason for this forum's existence, it's a policy you probably shouldn't be surprised by.

As for the first point: it's not dissimilar from the modding policy on the previous site, but they would handle such business more silently so that you couldn't necessarily correlate a certain opinion with a ban.

I'm not sure if publicly listing the reason for a ban is a better approach. It may seem like the mod just wanted to have the last say in the particular argument and pinned it to their opponent's corpse. It can give off a vibe of "This person had the wrong opinion, I have the right opinion. Everyone better get in line."

For all the faults of the previous site, they had been in the forum moderation business for quite a while and probably made decisions such as keeping moderation and banning discussions to a minimum through well-considered experience.

Click to shrink...

I am at the very least willing to try and see how publicly sharing ban reason goes. This is important because it helps with moderator accountability.

Can this eventually fail? Sure. But lets try it until we can conclusively prove it is not prudent.

 

[Wesley-Σ]

You've done a lot of answering for the OP of the thread, but where is s/he to speak for him/herself? I thought you were only a surrogate?

Click to shrink...

Good question, actually. I am only a surrogate, but the topic does interest me. I am not here to argue a specific stance -- but to understand.

I only answer what I can because I am worried that me being a surrogate OP would associate the topic for myself, but perhaps participating has only done the opposite.

 

[Cerium]

We appreciate the criticism, but many of the members here have already articulated our thoughts on the matter. Dissent and debate is generally welcome, but there are certain core values that our community is built upon and cannot be compromised. The subjects you raise infringe upon these.