The Banhammer and You: A User's Guide to the Forums

[manic_depressive13]

Why does this not answer most of these issues?

That's a really good question. Why is it that when we asked for clarification of the rules all we got was reiteration?

Because the rules that already exist explain how to not get banned.

If you use sexist slurs in an intentionally offensive, malicious or rule breaking manner (flaming, trolling etc) then you will be moderated.
If you don't, you won't.

Sexist slurs in themselves ought to be rule breaking because sexism is against the rules. I don't fucking understand what you mean by "if sexist slurs are used in a rule breaking manner". They're SEXIST. The rules say no SEXISM. Remove the clause that forbids sexism, and try to avoid patronising the shit out of people who are disappointed by the Mod's frankly rude dismissal of this issue as if we're the ones having difficulty with comprehension.

On the one hand you say sexism is against the rules.
You mostly acknowledge that "slut" is a sexist slur.
You go on to say that you're still pretty much not going to do anything about it.

And when I give up and say "Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged" I'm accused of being rude and unfair. I get told that you're taking this issue "seriously" when all you're doing is copy-pasting the rules saying "LOOK IT SAYS IT HERE WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ARE YOU STUPID?" You act as though I'm demanding this forum be run according to my every whim, instead of a simple line drawn on sexism and bigotry. It's hard to believe you're taking this seriously when so far the mods have mostly just been rude and defensive with regards to the issue, did absolutely nothing to address the problem and I'm convinced that any moment now I'm going to get hit with another suspension for "mod sass" because apparently asking you to actually do the job you accepted responsibility for is crossing the line on these forums.

But not calling "some" women sluts. That's just dandy.

 

[TimeLord]

Sexist slurs in themselves ought to be rule breaking because sexism is against the rules. I don't fucking understand what you mean by "if sexist slurs are used in a rule breaking manner". They're SEXIST. The rules say no SEXISM. Remove the clause that forbids sexism, and try to avoid patronising the shit out of people who are disappointed by the Mod's frankly rude dismissal of this issue as if we're the ones having difficulty with comprehension.

Talking about sexism and/or sexist slurs in a non-aggressive manner, for example discussing them and their use in modern society or something similar. When it gets to point of "You are a slut" comments then we would obviously step in.

And when I give up and say "Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged" I'm accused of being rude and unfair. I get told that you're taking this issue "seriously" when all you're doing is copy-pasting the rules saying "LOOK IT SAYS IT HERE WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ARE YOU STUPID?" You act as though I'm demanding this forum be run according to my every whim, instead of a simple line drawn on sexism and bigotry. It's hard to believe you're taking this seriously when so far the mods have mostly just been rude and defensive with regards to the issue, did absolutely nothing to address the problem and I'm convinced that any moment now I'm going to get hit with another suspension for "mod sass" because apparently asking you to actually do the job you accepted responsibility for is crossing the line on these forums.

Because I personally do not understand what your issue is. From my point of view the rules are clear.
I appologise if myself or my fellow mods have come across as as rude or dismissive however I can assure you that the the issue of sexism and sexist posts is being discussed by us behind the scenes to resolve the concerns raised. The post sky14kemea made above;

Spoiler

Because of the issues raised by some users about the moderation of more difficult subjects, like sexism and bigotry, we've been asked to make an 'official response'.

As in the Code of Conduct, these areas are already covered:

Use Our Forums Appropriately
Our forums are a place to talk with like-minded people, not a place to advertise your blog, webpage, YouTube channel or commercial enterprise. Your profile has a place for such things, and that is where it should stay. If you fail to do this, you will automatically get a 1 month suspension.

Similarly, posts including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community. An example of these are:
Piracy
Ad Blockers
Illegal Drugs in the United States
Illegal Acts in the United States
Pedophilia
Pornography
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks

We feel these rules are adequte enough to explain what not to post about these subjects, and considering the different amount of personal opinions, we cannot makes the rules any clearer without upsetting more people.

There were also issues raised about not being able to post more controversial opinions without fear of getting punished. However, as mentioned in the Moderation FAQ:

I want to post a controversial opinion, what should I do to avoid mod wrath?
Our cardinal rule is that it is more about how you say something, not what you say. Always make sure to explain your reasoning and to be respectful of other users, no matter their opinion. We do not usually punish people for someone else being offended; we punish them for being purposely offensive.

By following these guidelines, you should be able to avoid punishments for your opinions, as long as you stay civil when discussing them with each other.

As for Moderation inconsistency, as we've stated many times; it's a big forum. we rely on you, the users, to report the majority of posts that we review. If you feel a post is offensive, please report it.
Don't assume someone else will report it, because that might not be true. If someones opinion seems offensive, to you or to others, you can still report it. We give each reported post the same amount of consideration.

If you feel there is Moderator bias and your report isn't getting handled the way you wish, please PM an individual mod you trust, or a member of staff. There's also the Community Manager Nasrin, who is in charge of all the Moderators.
Here is a list of Moderators to contact about any of the issues raised on the forums.

Spoiler: A list of mods:

[user]Nasrin[/user] (Community Manager)
[user]Baby Tea[/user]
[user]Caliostro[/user]
[user]DigitalSushi[/user]
[user]Empireth[/user]
[user]NewClassic[/user]
[user]GeorgW[/user]
[user]Labyrinth[/user]
[user]maddawg IAJI[/user]
[user]Scde2[/user]
[user]sky14kemea[/user]
[user]TimeLord[/user]
[user]Marter[/user] (User Reviews mod)
[user]ChristopherRobin[/user]
[user]Eleuthera[/user]

All of the moderators try their best to make sure the Escapist is a friendly, welcoming environment, regaurdless of personal beliefs. However, to do this, we also need the cooperation of you, the users.

-The Moderation Team.

Was co-written with the Community Manager and we assumed would answer your concerns.

Unfortunately, to parrot a phrase from the above statement;

"We feel these rules are adequte enough to explain what not to post about these subjects, and considering the different amount of personal opinions, we cannot makes the rules any clearer without upsetting more people."

Because such posts (and many others concerning "offensive" content) are at the end of the day, personal opinions, and while we can detach ourselves from our personal opinions in order to moderate the Escapist, we can't know exactly how offensive a certain post was to everyone. Some people might simply find the use of the word "slut" offensive, whatever the context. However another user might not get offended until actively insulted by being called a slut. Therefore posts anywhere between (and including) the two extreme ends of the spectrum can, and will, get reported. We want these forums to be a place to discuss issues freely without fear of censorship, which is a reason for the rules being the way they are.

 

[Gigano]

...Look I smoke, I'm a vegetarian, I belong to quite a few groups that people around her seem to viciously hate. But vegetarians aren't a disadvantaged group with a history of horrific oppression. Smokers aren't a disadvantaged group. Nor are bronies. I don't really see how you can compare those things.

..."Okay, I understand, you're afraid of stepping on the toes of the privileged"...

...Slut isn't gender neutral. As I said it has historical and cultural connotations. I find your denial of this absurd and disturbing. I honestly don't know how to respond to it. Someone may as well be telling me that "******" isn't a racial slur, and it's the same as using the word "dick" or "shithead". It just isn't. I don't even. You can't just randomly swap the offensive word and pretend it's the same thing. "Asshole" isn't a slur. They could have said "some women are assholes" but they didn't- they used the word slut and that's not something that should be acceptable, particularly when you are pretending that sexism is against the Code of Conduct.

From this, I infer a vast gap between how versed you are in how critical socio-lingusitic gender theory treats various words, and how versed you can ask the average user on here to be.

This is a place where people come to discuss whether the revamped combat system of the latest God of War have improved or taken away from the gameplay, and whether or not the art design have become more generic. Yet some users start discussions using sociological terms from academic neo-marxist critical theory, such as privilege [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29]. And/or see terms such as "slut" in their sociolinguistic context, with the full weight of the history they originate in.

Few people are capable of conducting such a discussion on such a level. Fewer still care to do so. So the result will be the same as if I went down to the shopping mall, and tried to start up a spirited discussion on to what extent Kant's ethical maxim is compatible with legalizing assisted suicide; Lots of ignorance - at least from my point of view, since in reality nobody can be expected to know or care about it - knee-jerk reactions, polarized positions, and passive-aggressiveness aimed at my position/person. Expecting mall security to remove those who reacted poorly to it would hardly be reasonable though.

As Timelord mentions, people come from a lot of different backgrounds. Moderating posts based on a standard of western socio-lingustic academia would hardly make these forums more accommodating. It'd avoid the feelings of a few who are as emotionally vested in this field as they are knowledgeable about it being stepped upon; At the cost of forcing everyone else to tip-toe around the issue, to the point that for all practical purposes they'd be excluded from discussion of it.

So no, the mods aren't embracing sexism. It'd seem they just want to moderate on whether there's any actual malice and sexist intent behind the use of certain terms, rather than what the master level gender studies course on them might say they entail. A very reasonable approach to moderation on a forum that wish to accommodate users from a wide range of cultural and educational backgrounds, and isn't specifically about this topic either.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not going to quote anyone here, cause it'll make this page longer than it needs to be, ... but here's my 2 cents on this...


I see a number of people here comparing the word "slut" with the word "******".
This is a silly comparison. You're comparing apples with oranges.

The reason is, "slut", just like the word "troll", is a behavioral description.
Someone can be behaving "like a slut" [sup]

+

[/sup], just like someone can be behaving "like a troll" [sup]

+

[/sup].

Someone cannot "behave like a ******". The word just doesn't make sense in this context. It's nothing more than a racial slur, and has nothing to do with the behavior of the person.

"Slut" and "troll" [sup]

+

[/sup] on the other hand, reference the way the individual in question is behaving. Be it in a promiscuous fashion (in the case of the word "slut"), or in a trollish manner (in the case of the word "troll").


+ Just remember you cannot call anyone on this forum a "slut" or a "troll". Let me make that very clear, and drive that point home.

Yes and no. You have people arguing that "******" isn't an racist word, that they use it not be mean black people, but black people who are X, Y and Z. Yeah, I don't believe that either.

OTOH, you have people using the word "slut", not just for women who do X, Y and Z (which are all perfectly legal and admirable in men, of course), but just for any woman they don't like.

...

At the risk of seeming cynical, though, did anyone particularly expect the rules to be enforced as stated?

 

[Gigano]

...
But again, why then may someone not be called a fag? I see the two (slut and fag) as equivalent, in that both are perjoratives against a group that are ingrained enough in the public's psyche that they are often used without any intent to insult a specific sexual identity. Yet one is tolerated, while the other is not? I see the same logic applied to "****", though admittedly this is much rarer.

Pretty sure that you can't call any escapist user a slut. And that you could call the Westborough Baptist Church fags - a particularly efficient insult against such extreme homophobes - so long as it's backed up with arguments explaining why they suck.

Might also have to do with "fag" being more uncommon and hence more noticeable, it being more likely to appear in a context which makes it actionable, gays being a much smaller minority and hotter topic in the US, wanting to differentiate the site from 4chan (where it's apparently how users commonly refer to each other), or simply an understandable lack of a very detailed coordination in regard to which exact words are actionable under which circumstances.

I for one see no reason why "This Simshitty title just proves that EA are fags!" or the like should be moderated though. While crude and nonconstructive, it simply express anger at the rise of business practices which are ever less transparent and consumer friendly, to the point of now interfering with the product. But I'm no mod.

 

[sky14kemea]

...
But again, why then may someone not be called a fag? I see the two (slut and fag) as equivalent, in that both are perjoratives against a group that are ingrained enough in the public's psyche that they are often used without any intent to insult a specific sexual identity. Yet one is tolerated, while the other is not? I see the same logic applied to "****", though admittedly this is much rarer.

Pretty sure that you can't call any escapist user a slut. And that you could call the Westborough Baptist Church fags - a particularly efficient insult against such extreme homophobes - so long as it's backed up with arguments explaining why they suck. Might also have to do with "fag" being more uncommon and hence more noticeable, it being more likely to appear in a context which makes it actionable, gays being a much smaller minority and hotter topic in the US, wanting to differentiate the site from 4chan (where it's apparently how users commonly refer to each other), or simply an understandable lack of a very detailed coordination in regard to which exact words are actionable under which circumstances.

I for one see no reason why "This Simshitty title just proves that EA are fags!" or the like should be moderated though. While crude and nonconstructive, it simply express anger at the rise of business practices which are ever less transparent and consumer friendly, to the point of now interfering with the product. But I'm no mod.

I tend to be of the opinion that the sooner we extinguish this kind of pathetic language from everyday usage, the better, but I see your point.

You both have very good points.

Language like that shouldn't be so wide-spread like it is, but on the other hand, who are we to hand out punishments based on peoples vocabulary?

I've pretty much exhausted myself on this subject, but I just wanna thank you two for being mature about it.

Not that I'm saying others haven't been, in fact most people have been pretty great about it given the circumstances lately.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On a somewhat different note, does noscript count as an addblocker? If so, can I still use noscript if I allow certain scripts to run?

 

[madwarper]

Out of curiosity... If I made a thread that simply said "[link] What do you think?", I'd receive a Warning because of low content, right?

 

[madwarper]

Out of curiosity... If I made a thread that simply said "[link] What do you think?", I'd receive a Warning because of low content, right?

It's very likely, yes.

A good way to avoid such a warning is to include your own opinion in the opening post.

I thought that too. Though, I was confused when there were the 2 recent threads about the RWBY trailer. The thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404095-RWBY-Black-Trailer] with the full opinion in the OP was closed, while the other thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404089-Newest-Trailer-for-RWBY-Black] which had no content in the OP, has not only yet to receive a warning, but was endorsed in the closed thread.

 

[Marter]

I thought that too. Though, I was confused when there were the 2 recent threads about the RWBY trailer. The thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404095-RWBY-Black-Trailer] with the full opinion in the OP was closed, while the other thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.404089-Newest-Trailer-for-RWBY-Black] which had no content in the OP, has not only yet to receive a warning, but was endorsed in the closed thread.

It's not that the other thread was endorsed; it's that it was (1) first and (2) had comments already. It's easier and less confusing to ask one poster to move to the other thread than ask a dozen users.

The OP has gotten a warning, by the way. It should show up soon.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

On a somewhat different note, does noscript count as an addblocker? If so, can I still use noscript if I allow certain scripts to run?

If it blocks advertisements, then yes, it counts as an ad blocker. Technically, no one is allowed to tell you you're not allowed to use an ad blocker. Not even the higher-ups. The most they could do is request that you remove it, as they keep the lights running with advertisements. Of course, it's ultimately your decision whether to use it or not and, of course, they will frown upon it(unless you're a Publisher's Club member, because then it wouldn't really matter, anyway). The only way you'll get in trouble by way of ad blockers is advocating them, that's enough to incur mod wrath. Otherwise, you're perfectly safe.

 

[Scde2]

Updated mod list. Now I feel all grizzled n' experienced with the addition of new mods.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Updated mod list. Now to wait until someone notices a mistake ...

Found one!

[user]ChristopherRobin[/user] is apparently not a mod anymore (at least according to the list at the bottom of the CoC).

I always found it a bit up-in-the-air as to whether or not people like him were still mods, since they still have the blue username which only mods have. ChristopherRobin isn't the only one either; wilson still has the blue username even though the last time he was active was almost two years ago.

 

[madwarper]

I have a question about flagging posts for moderation.

Let's say, I come across a post that's a textbook example of a low-content post, so I flag it. The next day, that thread is still on the forum's front page, so I check to see if a warning had been issued and no visible action had been taken against the post. Seeing as how this is an obvious, clear-cut low-content post, I flag it again, check on it later and again nothing has happened. And, this continues, with the same result and now the post is a week old.

What exactly should be/have been my course of action?

 

[Marter]

I have a question about flagging posts for moderation.

Let's say, I come across a post that's a textbook example of a low-content post, so I flag it. The next day, that thread is still on the forum's front page, so I check to see if a warning had been issued and no visible action had been taken against the post. Seeing as how this is an obvious, clear-cut low-content post, I flag it again, check on it later and again nothing has happened. And, this continues, with the same result and now the post is a week old.

What exactly should be/have been my course of action?

PM a moderator with a link to the post and ask why nothing was done about it.

Assuming that length of time has passed, of course. Don't do that the next day or something.

BTW: Your report will only work once for each post. Any further reports by you would be ignored for that post.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Quick question... do warnings count as a form of mod wrath, and do they nullify getting the Matrix badges? Does the post count towards them reset after you get a warning, can you still get those badges?

 

[Realitycrash]

Snip

Don't know if to suggest this here or not, but figured I might as well, since it's public and people can read it: We've been having a lot of people lately (at least three people in just as many weeks) think that it is a-okey to throw generalizing insults about people who believe in a political system, a specific religion, etc, because 'as long as they do not target anyone specific, they aren't breaking the rules'.
Obviously they have been warned. But I've re-read the CoC again, and even though 'Don't offend' 'Be respectful' and 'Don't be a dick' seems to cover this, maybe it should be more explicitly spelled out?