When I was a moderator of WCT I tried to make a rule that would apply to the closet situations of bullying and outright blasting certain groups: I called it a "Hate Speech Free Zone" rule.
If you read the rules, there is one for trolling another user and one for flaming another user. However, I believed that these rules needed to be extended in WCT to trolling a group of people or flaming a group of people.
The next morning, the post I had made had been taken down by and admin with the explicit decision in the Mod Lounge that I was enacting the rule to protect a certain portion of the public that I also identify with.
Now, I know I was also given an assurance that this "Hate Speech" type of ruling was being discussed by the Globals, but it was so long ago and I haven't really been following the issues that I don't know if it is currently active or inactive.
If this is the intent of the new rules, then why not just say it directly? Saying you won't put up with hate speech isn't too far off of what you're trying to accomplish.
Why should one group of people have special protections that other groups don't have?
The "no trolling" and "no flaming" rules adequately protect everyone. But making rules against saying bad things about blacks or gays is just unnecessary, unless you make identical rules about saying bad things about whites or straights. And both of those sets of rules would already fall under the trolling and flaming rules.
Also, I believe a moderator's bias should have no influence on the rules - as was pointed out earlier regarding Blinking_Spirit's "you aren't allow to debate about topics I don't like" pseudo-rule he implements when a thread goes in a direction he was arguing against as a participant in the thread. He pulls out the red text, says no one can debate about this aspect of the thread anymore, and will infract anyone who continues. A prime example would have been an aspect of the transsexual Miss Universe participant thread where we were actually have a rather civil and informative debate over the proper way to address a transsexual - by their biological birth gender (which is still their genetic gender), or by their socially-constructed post-SRS gender. B_S was on the side of the post-SRS gender, and eventually just pulled out the red text and told everyone they have to address any transsexual by the socially-desired gender or get infracted for it. For this reason, I refer to transsexuals by their name, with no gender-specific pronouns. I refuse to give up my beliefs about gender, and at the same time don't want to get infracted. When confronted with two options, I created a third.
I believe there should be one set of rules for the entire MTGS forum, and they should be enforced equally on everyone. No special preferences or treatment for any reason, including mods. If a mod steps out of line, they should be treated the exact same as any other user.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I believe there should be one set of rules for the entire MTGS forum, and they should be enforced equally on everyone. No special preferences or treatment for any reason, including mods. If a mod steps out of line, they should be treated the exact same as any other user.
I understand what you are saying and I fully agree with your concerns. Would the rule being cut and pasted from the forum rules into the WCT rules to serve as a reminder that "hey, this isn't allowed anywhere on the site even here" be amenable to you?
Why should one group of people have special protections that other groups don't have?
The "no trolling" and "no flaming" rules adequately protect everyone. But making rules against saying bad things about blacks or gays is just unnecessary, unless you make identical rules about saying bad things about whites or straights.
My understanding is that this rule is exactly what you're advocating. This is really just a clarification on the flaming/trolling rules to better illustrate what the staff doesn't want to see in WCT.
I believe there should be one set of rules for the entire MTGS forum, and they should be enforced equally on everyone.
That's absurd, and frankly makes me question how much you even understand what we're talking about.
The whole point of this rule is that it isn't about gays or blacks or Jews or Eskimos, it's about attacking people in a way that's different from straight-up flaming. Whites are protected the same way as blacks, straights the same way as gays, conservatives the same way as liberals. If you don't trust us to be unbiased on that you can attack us on that, but don't attack the rule, because you're unambiguously wrong both on its intent and implementation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I understand what you are saying and I fully agree with your concerns. Would the rule being cut and pasted from the forum rules into the WCT rules to serve as a reminder that "hey, this isn't allowed anywhere on the site even here" be amenable to you?
this makes no sense. people already know it exists and it is there there is no need for it in the WCT.
that is what we are saying. the only reason for this rule is to warn and infract people that disagree with a mod stance on an issue.
I agree with solarn what how you born is what you are. getting a sex change isn't going to change those X/Y gene's. yet i would get infracted for saying such a thing why? because someone is bias over the issue.
this is called thought policing and it shouldn't exist in an open discussion forum. yet that is exactly what is trying to happen.
if someone says all gay should be hanged. i totally disagree with the person should be infracted or what have you, but then again this is already against the forum rules.
there is no need to repeat something that everyone already knows isn't allowed.
it's about attacking people in a way that's different from straight-up flaming.
thought policing. we think you are flaming someone even though you aren't because we don't agree with your stance on the issue.
this has been explained plenty of times and the 3 of you still don't understand it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The "no trolling" and "no flaming" rules adequately protect everyone. But making rules against saying bad things about blacks or gays is just unnecessary, unless you make identical rules about saying bad things about whites or straights. And both of those sets of rules would already fall under the trolling and flaming rules.
The rule does apply equally to white people and straight people. However, it's not about flaming or trolling per se, unless it's your argument that posting in a manner likely to spark argument inadvertently is covered by the trolling rules.
For this reason, I refer to transsexuals by their name, with no gender-specific pronouns. I refuse to give up my beliefs about gender, and at the same time don't want to get infracted. When confronted with two options, I created a third.
This would be completely fine in WCT too. No one's asking you to change your beliefs in order to post on these forums. All we ask is that users respect others enough not to post things that would be taken as inflammatory.
that is what we are saying. the only reason for this rule is to warn and infract people that disagree with a mod stance on an issue.
(Bolded for emphasis.)
Please don't lump me into an "us vs. them" type of situation. I'm frankly trying to understand both sides of the issue here. However, if I'm going to placed into a group based upon whatever it is you're basing it upon, then I see no point in continuing my dialogue here.
I understand what you are saying and I fully agree with your concerns. Would the rule being cut and pasted from the forum rules into the WCT rules to serve as a reminder that "hey, this isn't allowed anywhere on the site even here" be amenable to you?
That would be fine. Having site rules reminders stickied to the top of every forum and subforum would probably actually be a good idea.
The "rules" I have issues with is when moderators use their position to make rules for their subforums that exist only because of their biases (although this is likely only really an issue in WCT and Debate subforums, possibly the Speakeasy). Such as a hypothetical rule would be if I was a mod of the WCT forum or the Debate forum and made a rule that said "Any posts that speak negatively of Conservatives or Republicans will be immediately infracted, and any threads that do the same will be immediately infracted and locked." To me, that is an abuse of power by letting personal biases influence the creation of rules.
The rules MTGS has in place right now are fine. They just need to be equally enforced on EVERYONE. I recently reported a blatant personal attack made against me by someone, and the moderator never even gave the person a warning. Two pages later in the same thread, a blatant trolling post went up. I reported it, and again - no action was taken by the moderator. This is because enforcement of the rules is as "moderator discretion." So Person A can break all the rules they want, if they are friends with that forum's mod...they probably won't get carded. But if Person B does it, and that person is not friends with a mod...they probably will get carded. The favoritism of some posters in the eyes of some mods is just obvious - and nothing is done about this selective enforcement of the rules.
That's absurd, and frankly makes me question how much you even understand what we're talking about.
The whole point of this rule is that it isn't about gays or blacks or Jews or Eskimos, it's about attacking people in a way that's different from straight-up flaming. Whites are protected the same way as blacks, straights the same way as gays, conservatives the same way as liberals. If you don't trust us to be unbiased on that you can attack us on that, but don't attack the rule, because you're unambiguously wrong both on its intent and implementation.
How is there any difference between a generalized "no trolling" and "no flaming" rule and newer renditions that blanket cover an entire group? If I make a trolling statement or a flaming statement, it doesn't matter if I aim it at one person or an entire group of people - it's still against the trolling and flaming rules.
And I, personally, do not trust you or Teia to be unbiased in enforcing the rules. But we are not allowed to comment on that anymore, because that is apparently against the rules to question a mod because it undermines their authority. Hopefully you two can prove me wrong after your rocky first month in the WCT. I sincerely hope you two do prove me wrong and turn out to be excellent and unbiased moderators of the forum. But forcing people in the forum, and the forum itself, to mesh with your biases is not going to make you an unbiased moderator. Just because you ban discussion of all topics you hold a bias for won't make you an unbiased moderator.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
However, it's not about flaming or trolling per se, unless it's your argument that posting in a manner likely to spark argument inadvertently is covered by the trolling rules.
Any statement can spark an arguement is someone disagree's with it.
All we ask is that users respect others enough not to post things that would be taken as inflammatory.
offended people will always be offended by something.
Please don't lump me into an "us vs. them" type of situation. I'm frankly trying to understand both sides of the issue here. However, if I'm going to placed into a group based upon whatever it is you're basing it upon, then I see no point in continuing my dialogue here.
i speak in general terms.
I, personally, do not trust you or Teia to be unbiased in enforcing the rules. But we are not allowed to comment on that anymore, because that is apparently against the rules to question a mod because it undermines their authority.
since when? as long as you are not flaming them how can it be against the rules to express concern?
since when? as long as you are not flaming them how can it be against the rules to express concern?
I believe that was an admin decision in one of the two WCT-related threads in the CI forum that happened following my suspension for speaking my mind (and when I found out that personal attacks are an immediate suspension - when it's enforced, or at least that is what I was told by the admin that suspended me for a personal attack).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I believe that was an admin decision in one of the two WCT-related threads in the CI forum that happened following my suspension for speaking my mind (and when I found out that personal attacks are an immediate suspension - when it's enforced, or at least that is what I was told by the admin that suspended me for a personal attack).
That isn't the case, find a proof, because otherwise this is patently false (have you not seen people call for the demodding of mods before, they aren't infracted for it unless it is rude)
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
That isn't the case, find a proof, because otherwise this is patently false (have you not seen people call for the demodding of mods before, they aren't infracted for it unless it is rude)
It was somewhere in that 30 page thread that is now locked. An admin said that accusing a mod of abuse of power would be considered flaming and treated as such because it undermines their power on the forums. And this is a very recent decision, so all of those calls for demodding of mods likely predate this decision by an admin.
The only way that post is not there now is if the admin deleted the post. And I could easily see that happening. But I do explicitly remember seeing that post in the currently locked 30 page thread that was begun following my suspension for speaking my mind in a manner that the admins didn't like.
And I am not going to dig through a 30 page 500+ post long thread that you were a participant in just to prove you wrong. I know what I saw and I know what was said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
I have a not-so vague problem with this idea. What you've done, essentially, is to take an exceptionally vague stance (i.e., "Don't post things that we aren't going to like") and then disguised it as something that it isn't.
What you've done is create a false equivalency that says, "If you don't think like us, and give your tacit approval to any type of behavior that a particular section of humanity has approved of, your posts criticizing this behavior are unwelcome."
Harkius, I just wanted to say that I found your posts on this subject to be positively brilliant at highlighting the problem that many users feel is inherent with the new rules, and I appreciated your integrity and objectivity in making the argument on behalf of those of a more conservative bent than yourself, such as Highroller. Very refreshing postings.
We're not intending to ban justifiable positions. What we're seeking to remove from WCT are threads that will, simply by nature of the topic, become debates (hence rule 2), or that, simply by nature of the topic, invite trolling and flaming.
If the posters in question would like to discuss, for example, their views on why homosexuals shouldn't marry, that's absolutely fine. But there's a forum for that. Debate.
If someone would like to discuss Eugenics, there's a forum for that. NSFW Debate.
*snip*
We're saying that there are some topics that are too heated for WTC.
*snip*
I'm not sure how you're getting politics out of this, but it has nothing to do with it.
Nai - is there some particular reason that WCT can't handle heated discussions? Because it sounds as if a number of users feel as if this is a way of kicking threads into a far, dusty corner whenever they take on a topic with a bit too much juice to it. I also can't see that the move accomplishes much - a flame-fest in debate isn't all that much better than a flame-fest in WCT.
Beyond that, I think we've already seen that there's going to be a substantial room for reasonable minds to disagree about which topics are too inflammatory or too outrageous to be permitted to stay in WCT. Not to mention for reasonable minds to disagree regarding whether having mildly inflammatory or outrageous ideas discussed is a bad a thing in the first place.
Isn't that the lifeblood of a forum? Taking on interesting topics? Facilitating the marketplace of ideas - not stifling it or burying it or kicking it off to academia-land?
Given the way that this has been implemented so far, it really does seem as if this is will be applied as a case of the staff knuckling down on intolerance. And that, in itself, can be a very unwelcoming and unappreciated atmosphere, in the same way that a sterile, white-washed hospital room is less welcoming than a tall, grassy field, full of wind and dirt and the chirping of crickets. Not everyone prefers their forums subjected to this cringing, hand-wringing level of sanitization.
Protecting people is all well and good, but it very much sounds as if the end-game of this will be the WCT mods donning habits and rapping the knuckles of anyone with the gumption to risk strenuously disagreeing with someone else or who espouses a stupid, rude, or backwards idea.
And frankly, I would much rather see a WCT where people are free to say stupid things, than a WCT where the mods take it upon themselves to decide which topics are sufficiently "safe" for everyone to discuss.
thought policing. we think you are flaming someone even though you aren't because we don't agree with your stance on the issue.
this has been explained plenty of times and the 3 of you still don't understand it.
I understand your position, but I disagree with you vehemently. There's the difference.
Quote from Solaran_X »
How is there any difference between a generalized "no trolling" and "no flaming" rule and newer renditions that blanket cover an entire group? If I make a trolling statement or a flaming statement, it doesn't matter if I aim it at one person or an entire group of people - it's still against the trolling and flaming rules.
Because we tried to enforce these rules with the general rules and people got upset about it not being clear enough, so we're trying to be clear.
So, either you let us enforce it with the general rules (which apparently you're okay with?) except that you weren't okay with letting us enforce it through the general rules previously, so what are we to do?
Quote from Solaran_X »
And I, personally, do not trust you or Teia to be unbiased in enforcing the rules.
I'm sorry about that, but--do you even know what my political beliefs are? I think you assume things about me that you don't have evidence for.
Quote from Solaran_X »
But we are not allowed to comment on that anymore, because that is apparently against the rules to question a mod because it undermines their authority.
I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it.
Quote from Solaran_X »
Hopefully you two can prove me wrong after your rocky first month in the WCT. I sincerely hope you two do prove me wrong and turn out to be excellent and unbiased moderators of the forum. But forcing people in the forum, and the forum itself, to mesh with your biases is not going to make you an unbiased moderator. Just because you ban discussion of all topics you hold a bias for won't make you an unbiased moderator.
What would it take to prove you wrong, exactly?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Nai - is there some particular reason that WCT can't handle heated discussions? Because it sounds as if a number of users feel as if this is a way of kicking threads into a far, dusty corner whenever they take on a topic with a bit too much juice to it. I also can't see that the move accomplishes much - is a flame-fest in debate all that much better than a flame-fest in WCT?
Because all of those rules in Debate exist because arguments, when they happen, actually do need more structure than WCT has or wants. I'm certain BS would love to get rid of the rules and kick back, but that's not how Debate can work because that's not how arguments work.
Quote from Azrael »
Beyond that, I think we've already seen that there's going to be a substantial room for reasonable minds to disagree about which topics are too inflammatory or too outrageous to be permitted to stay in WCT. Not to mention for reasonable minds to disagree regarding whether having mildly inflammatory or outrageous ideas discussed is a bad a thing in the first place.
There'll always be substantial room for reasonable minds to disagree about every action taken on this forum; we're all smart guys who know how to get at arguments and score points. But eventually you have to draw the line.
Quote from Azrael »
And frankly, I would much rather see a WCT where people are free to say stupid things, than a WCT where the mods take it upon themselves to decide which topics are sufficiently "safe" for everyone to discuss.
I'd prefer to have a WCT where people feel welcome and safe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
At the risk of being overwhelmingly pithy...how's that going for you?
I think it was Lincoln who said "you can't please everybody"--or maybe it was Bob Dylan?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
Because all of those rules in Debate exist because arguments, when they happen, actually do need more structure than WCT has or wants. I'm certain BS would love to get rid of the rules and kick back, but that's not how Debate can work because that's not how arguments work.
There'll always be substantial room for reasonable minds to disagree about every action taken on this forum; we're all smart guys who know how to get at arguments and score points. But eventually you have to draw the line.
I'd prefer to have a WCT where people feel welcome and safe.
Senori, I'm not being facetious or intending to sound rude, your last sentence kind of illustrates the problem. Many of us DON'T feel welcome or safe under the vague rules you've implemented, and after some questionable stumbles in your team's run so far.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Passable would be very heavily exagerating, it is certainly a failure it's just a matter of if this failure gets fixed or continues to get worse.
To be plain about it, I've been getting the impression from multiple users that the only "fix" they'll find acceptable is to stick with Viricide's system and not deviate at all from it.
I understand your position, but I disagree with you vehemently. There's the difference.
Disagree all you want it won't make it correct. No there is no difference.
The rules of the forum already cover trolling and flaming.
It was you or teia just posted this rule would cover things that aren't direct flaming. that is called thought policing.
you are making an assumption with no evidence.
simply that person disagree with a point a view that you consider correct they are evidently trolling.
AKA i believe you are born male or female. no matter if you change your body parts your gene's still dicate that you are a male or female.
i would be infracted i doubt warned since i am sure that would offend someone.
even though there is nothing flaming or insulting about it. under the new rules.
that is thought policing.
I'd prefer to have a WCT where people feel welcome and safe.
these rules are already in place to stop people from trolling and flaming.
again i don't see why they need to be changed and neither do a lot of other people.
this is still something that we cannot get a decent answer on.
all we get is well people might get offended.
offended people are always offended.
or it might cause an arguement?
there is always a discussion when someone disagree's with someone else.
your rules have shut down any type of open discussion on the WCT because they violate one rule or another.
then there are the rules where we can get warned or infracted simply because we disagree with a view point that someone might get offended over.
yet you and teia (not sure about frox i haven't heard from him) still don't understand.
To be plain about it, I've been getting the impression from multiple users that the only "fix" they'll find acceptable is to stick with Viricide's system and not deviate at all from it.
lets compare the two shall we?
Viricides forum:
open discussion some minor debate, people that got out of line warned or infracted. plenty of topics posted and a good amount of activity.
the new forum:
no discussion, people getting warned and infracted for nothing but disagreeing. hardly any new forum discussion at all and very low activity.
Señorita, I'm not being facetious or intending to sound rude, your last sentence kind of illustrates the problem. Many of us DON'T feel welcome or safe under the vague rules you've implemented, and after some questionable stumbles in your team's run so far.
I assume the first part is autocorrect.
As to your larger point, I don't honestly know what we can do to help you here. When we try to make the rule specific you shoot it down; when we make it vague you shoot it down. When we try to restrict it you shoot it down; when we make it broad you shoot it down. So maybe, ultimately, the problem is that you're shooting down everything we suggest?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I think it was Lincoln who said "you can't please everybody"--or maybe it was Bob Dylan?
Lincoln? I wonder what his perspective would have been about the WCT mods designating certain topics (slavery, for example) as "too inflammatory" a subject for posters to be permitted to talk about.
The paternalism inherent in these proposed rules is positively stifling. The users aren't lilies who are going to wilt if someone has the stupidity to ask why the Chinese are passive-aggressive.
So far as I'm aware, the only Chinese people who have been angered in the slightest by what's been going on in WCT are the ones who feel that you're trying to reduce their community to a kindergarten classroom.
Why should one group of people have special protections that other groups don't have?
The "no trolling" and "no flaming" rules adequately protect everyone. But making rules against saying bad things about blacks or gays is just unnecessary, unless you make identical rules about saying bad things about whites or straights. And both of those sets of rules would already fall under the trolling and flaming rules.
Also, I believe a moderator's bias should have no influence on the rules - as was pointed out earlier regarding Blinking_Spirit's "you aren't allow to debate about topics I don't like" pseudo-rule he implements when a thread goes in a direction he was arguing against as a participant in the thread. He pulls out the red text, says no one can debate about this aspect of the thread anymore, and will infract anyone who continues. A prime example would have been an aspect of the transsexual Miss Universe participant thread where we were actually have a rather civil and informative debate over the proper way to address a transsexual - by their biological birth gender (which is still their genetic gender), or by their socially-constructed post-SRS gender. B_S was on the side of the post-SRS gender, and eventually just pulled out the red text and told everyone they have to address any transsexual by the socially-desired gender or get infracted for it. For this reason, I refer to transsexuals by their name, with no gender-specific pronouns. I refuse to give up my beliefs about gender, and at the same time don't want to get infracted. When confronted with two options, I created a third.
I believe there should be one set of rules for the entire MTGS forum, and they should be enforced equally on everyone. No special preferences or treatment for any reason, including mods. If a mod steps out of line, they should be treated the exact same as any other user.
I understand what you are saying and I fully agree with your concerns. Would the rule being cut and pasted from the forum rules into the WCT rules to serve as a reminder that "hey, this isn't allowed anywhere on the site even here" be amenable to you?
My understanding is that this rule is exactly what you're advocating. This is really just a clarification on the flaming/trolling rules to better illustrate what the staff doesn't want to see in WCT.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
That's absurd, and frankly makes me question how much you even understand what we're talking about.
The whole point of this rule is that it isn't about gays or blacks or Jews or Eskimos, it's about attacking people in a way that's different from straight-up flaming. Whites are protected the same way as blacks, straights the same way as gays, conservatives the same way as liberals. If you don't trust us to be unbiased on that you can attack us on that, but don't attack the rule, because you're unambiguously wrong both on its intent and implementation.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
this makes no sense. people already know it exists and it is there there is no need for it in the WCT.
that is what we are saying. the only reason for this rule is to warn and infract people that disagree with a mod stance on an issue.
I agree with solarn what how you born is what you are. getting a sex change isn't going to change those X/Y gene's. yet i would get infracted for saying such a thing why? because someone is bias over the issue.
this is called thought policing and it shouldn't exist in an open discussion forum. yet that is exactly what is trying to happen.
if someone says all gay should be hanged. i totally disagree with the person should be infracted or what have you, but then again this is already against the forum rules.
there is no need to repeat something that everyone already knows isn't allowed.
thought policing. we think you are flaming someone even though you aren't because we don't agree with your stance on the issue.
this has been explained plenty of times and the 3 of you still don't understand it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The rule does apply equally to white people and straight people. However, it's not about flaming or trolling per se, unless it's your argument that posting in a manner likely to spark argument inadvertently is covered by the trolling rules.
This would be completely fine in WCT too. No one's asking you to change your beliefs in order to post on these forums. All we ask is that users respect others enough not to post things that would be taken as inflammatory.
(Bolded for emphasis.)
Please don't lump me into an "us vs. them" type of situation. I'm frankly trying to understand both sides of the issue here. However, if I'm going to placed into a group based upon whatever it is you're basing it upon, then I see no point in continuing my dialogue here.
That would be fine. Having site rules reminders stickied to the top of every forum and subforum would probably actually be a good idea.
The "rules" I have issues with is when moderators use their position to make rules for their subforums that exist only because of their biases (although this is likely only really an issue in WCT and Debate subforums, possibly the Speakeasy). Such as a hypothetical rule would be if I was a mod of the WCT forum or the Debate forum and made a rule that said "Any posts that speak negatively of Conservatives or Republicans will be immediately infracted, and any threads that do the same will be immediately infracted and locked." To me, that is an abuse of power by letting personal biases influence the creation of rules.
The rules MTGS has in place right now are fine. They just need to be equally enforced on EVERYONE. I recently reported a blatant personal attack made against me by someone, and the moderator never even gave the person a warning. Two pages later in the same thread, a blatant trolling post went up. I reported it, and again - no action was taken by the moderator. This is because enforcement of the rules is as "moderator discretion." So Person A can break all the rules they want, if they are friends with that forum's mod...they probably won't get carded. But if Person B does it, and that person is not friends with a mod...they probably will get carded. The favoritism of some posters in the eyes of some mods is just obvious - and nothing is done about this selective enforcement of the rules.
How is there any difference between a generalized "no trolling" and "no flaming" rule and newer renditions that blanket cover an entire group? If I make a trolling statement or a flaming statement, it doesn't matter if I aim it at one person or an entire group of people - it's still against the trolling and flaming rules.
And I, personally, do not trust you or Teia to be unbiased in enforcing the rules. But we are not allowed to comment on that anymore, because that is apparently against the rules to question a mod because it undermines their authority. Hopefully you two can prove me wrong after your rocky first month in the WCT. I sincerely hope you two do prove me wrong and turn out to be excellent and unbiased moderators of the forum. But forcing people in the forum, and the forum itself, to mesh with your biases is not going to make you an unbiased moderator. Just because you ban discussion of all topics you hold a bias for won't make you an unbiased moderator.
Any statement can spark an arguement is someone disagree's with it.
offended people will always be offended by something.
i speak in general terms.
since when? as long as you are not flaming them how can it be against the rules to express concern?
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I believe that was an admin decision in one of the two WCT-related threads in the CI forum that happened following my suspension for speaking my mind (and when I found out that personal attacks are an immediate suspension - when it's enforced, or at least that is what I was told by the admin that suspended me for a personal attack).
That isn't the case, find a proof, because otherwise this is patently false (have you not seen people call for the demodding of mods before, they aren't infracted for it unless it is rude)
It was somewhere in that 30 page thread that is now locked. An admin said that accusing a mod of abuse of power would be considered flaming and treated as such because it undermines their power on the forums. And this is a very recent decision, so all of those calls for demodding of mods likely predate this decision by an admin.
The only way that post is not there now is if the admin deleted the post. And I could easily see that happening. But I do explicitly remember seeing that post in the currently locked 30 page thread that was begun following my suspension for speaking my mind in a manner that the admins didn't like.
And I am not going to dig through a 30 page 500+ post long thread that you were a participant in just to prove you wrong. I know what I saw and I know what was said.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Harkius, I just wanted to say that I found your posts on this subject to be positively brilliant at highlighting the problem that many users feel is inherent with the new rules, and I appreciated your integrity and objectivity in making the argument on behalf of those of a more conservative bent than yourself, such as Highroller. Very refreshing postings.
Respect.
Nai - is there some particular reason that WCT can't handle heated discussions? Because it sounds as if a number of users feel as if this is a way of kicking threads into a far, dusty corner whenever they take on a topic with a bit too much juice to it. I also can't see that the move accomplishes much - a flame-fest in debate isn't all that much better than a flame-fest in WCT.
Beyond that, I think we've already seen that there's going to be a substantial room for reasonable minds to disagree about which topics are too inflammatory or too outrageous to be permitted to stay in WCT. Not to mention for reasonable minds to disagree regarding whether having mildly inflammatory or outrageous ideas discussed is a bad a thing in the first place.
Isn't that the lifeblood of a forum? Taking on interesting topics? Facilitating the marketplace of ideas - not stifling it or burying it or kicking it off to academia-land?
Given the way that this has been implemented so far, it really does seem as if this is will be applied as a case of the staff knuckling down on intolerance. And that, in itself, can be a very unwelcoming and unappreciated atmosphere, in the same way that a sterile, white-washed hospital room is less welcoming than a tall, grassy field, full of wind and dirt and the chirping of crickets. Not everyone prefers their forums subjected to this cringing, hand-wringing level of sanitization.
Protecting people is all well and good, but it very much sounds as if the end-game of this will be the WCT mods donning habits and rapping the knuckles of anyone with the gumption to risk strenuously disagreeing with someone else or who espouses a stupid, rude, or backwards idea.
And frankly, I would much rather see a WCT where people are free to say stupid things, than a WCT where the mods take it upon themselves to decide which topics are sufficiently "safe" for everyone to discuss.
I understand your position, but I disagree with you vehemently. There's the difference.
Because we tried to enforce these rules with the general rules and people got upset about it not being clear enough, so we're trying to be clear.
So, either you let us enforce it with the general rules (which apparently you're okay with?) except that you weren't okay with letting us enforce it through the general rules previously, so what are we to do?
I'm sorry about that, but--do you even know what my political beliefs are? I think you assume things about me that you don't have evidence for.
I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it.
What would it take to prove you wrong, exactly?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Because all of those rules in Debate exist because arguments, when they happen, actually do need more structure than WCT has or wants. I'm certain BS would love to get rid of the rules and kick back, but that's not how Debate can work because that's not how arguments work.
There'll always be substantial room for reasonable minds to disagree about every action taken on this forum; we're all smart guys who know how to get at arguments and score points. But eventually you have to draw the line.
I'd prefer to have a WCT where people feel welcome and safe.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
*eyes the giant CI thread*
At the risk of being overwhelmingly pithy...how's that going for you?
I think it was Lincoln who said "you can't please everybody"--or maybe it was Bob Dylan?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
That is...always going to be the case. The issue is that that vocal minority is actually a large percentage of posts.
Senori, I'm not being facetious or intending to sound rude, your last sentence kind of illustrates the problem. Many of us DON'T feel welcome or safe under the vague rules you've implemented, and after some questionable stumbles in your team's run so far.
To be plain about it, I've been getting the impression from multiple users that the only "fix" they'll find acceptable is to stick with Viricide's system and not deviate at all from it.
Disagree all you want it won't make it correct. No there is no difference.
The rules of the forum already cover trolling and flaming.
It was you or teia just posted this rule would cover things that aren't direct flaming. that is called thought policing.
you are making an assumption with no evidence.
simply that person disagree with a point a view that you consider correct they are evidently trolling.
AKA i believe you are born male or female. no matter if you change your body parts your gene's still dicate that you are a male or female.
i would be infracted i doubt warned since i am sure that would offend someone.
even though there is nothing flaming or insulting about it. under the new rules.
that is thought policing.
these rules are already in place to stop people from trolling and flaming.
again i don't see why they need to be changed and neither do a lot of other people.
this is still something that we cannot get a decent answer on.
all we get is well people might get offended.
offended people are always offended.
or it might cause an arguement?
there is always a discussion when someone disagree's with someone else.
your rules have shut down any type of open discussion on the WCT because they violate one rule or another.
then there are the rules where we can get warned or infracted simply because we disagree with a view point that someone might get offended over.
yet you and teia (not sure about frox i haven't heard from him) still don't understand.
lets compare the two shall we?
Viricides forum:
open discussion some minor debate, people that got out of line warned or infracted. plenty of topics posted and a good amount of activity.
the new forum:
no discussion, people getting warned and infracted for nothing but disagreeing. hardly any new forum discussion at all and very low activity.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I assume the first part is autocorrect.
As to your larger point, I don't honestly know what we can do to help you here. When we try to make the rule specific you shoot it down; when we make it vague you shoot it down. When we try to restrict it you shoot it down; when we make it broad you shoot it down. So maybe, ultimately, the problem is that you're shooting down everything we suggest?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Lincoln? I wonder what his perspective would have been about the WCT mods designating certain topics (slavery, for example) as "too inflammatory" a subject for posters to be permitted to talk about.
The paternalism inherent in these proposed rules is positively stifling. The users aren't lilies who are going to wilt if someone has the stupidity to ask why the Chinese are passive-aggressive.
So far as I'm aware, the only Chinese people who have been angered in the slightest by what's been going on in WCT are the ones who feel that you're trying to reduce their community to a kindergarten classroom.