I am bobthefunny, and I am now an Admin of this site. I have been promoted from being a Moderator in the Commander forums, which I have maintained for almost seven years now.
This thread has, once again, gone completely off course. This is a gaming forum. While this decision by Wizards has political ramifications, the conversation should remain tied to what this decision means in terms of the game.
This is NOT the place to hold your political rally.
This thread is locked.
I'm curious if the staff has a plan in mind for how this discussion can be facilitated? It was expressed numerous times in both threads that members feel racism and bigotry within the fandom (and this community, to be pointed about it) needs to be discussed and both times rather than try to facilitate the discussion, the staff has killed it instead. In my opinion, the staff are doing more harm than good by doing this. Not only does it cut off dialogue that is long overdue (and undertaken by most in good faith), it only teaches the few acting in bad faith that all they have to do to cut the conversation off (therefore keeping things just as they are, which serves their desires to not address bigotry like racism) is nudge things off topic - easy in a dialogue as emotionally charged as the subject of racism.
This feels like a job for strategic pruning and encouraging things to grow in healthy directions, but the tactic employed is just to cut the tree down. Why is that?
This thread has, once again, gone completely off course. This is a gaming forum. While this decision by Wizards has political ramifications, the conversation should remain tied to what this decision means in terms of the game.
This is NOT the place to hold your political rally.
This thread is locked.
I'm curious if the staff has a plan in mind for how this discussion can be facilitated? It was expressed numerous times in both threads that members feel racism and bigotry within the fandom (and this community, to be pointed about it) needs to be discussed and both times rather than try to facilitate the discussion, the staff has killed it instead. In my opinion, the staff are doing more harm than good by doing this. Not only does it cut off dialogue that is long overdue (and undertaken by most in good faith), it only teaches the few acting in bad faith that all they have to do to cut the conversation off (therefore keeping things just as they are, which serves their desires to not address bigotry like racism) is nudge things off topic - easy in a dialogue as emotionally charged as the subject of racism.
This feels like a job for strategic pruning and encouraging things to grow in healthy directions, but the tactic employed is just to cut the tree down. Why is that?
Hi MikeyG,
Thanks for your concern and input. I agree that this is an important discussion to have - but I am not entirely convinced that THIS is the place to have it - which is the viewpoint currently shared by the owners. This is first and foremost a Gaming discussion site - for mtg. While a conversation about how racism currently is in the playerbase might be valuable and supported - currently none of these discussions has managed to contain itself to that topic, and instead becomes a person's personal platform. That does not help anybody.
However, we would love to have your take on it. I will share your current words with the owners, as a different viewpoint. If you have additional feedback you'd like to share, please respond and I will pass it along as well.
I would also like to add that the site did at one point have a political/news discussion area available - it had to be shut down due to the high amount of moderation resources it required - that would be even more true today.
If you could:
How would you see such a discussion taking place?
Where would you put the limits on such a discussion?
How would you think moderation of such a discussion should go? How far should moderation go towards pruning problematic viewpoints, without seeming to push a particular viewpoint/agenda?
How would you recommend keeping people on topic, and respectful?
Any other feedback on how you think this discussion/forum should look?
Thanks for your concern and input. I agree that this is an important discussion to have - but I am not entirely convinced that THIS is the place to have it - which is the viewpoint currently shared by the owners. This is first and foremost a Gaming discussion site - for mtg. While a conversation about how racism currently is in the playerbase might be valuable and supported - currently none of these discussions has managed to contain itself to that topic, and instead becomes a person's personal platform. That does not help anybody.
However, we would love to have your take on it. I will share your current words with the owners, as a different viewpoint. If you have additional feedback you'd like to share, please respond and I will pass it along as well.
Thank you. It's concerning that the owners don't see this as an issue that affects the community here, but I thank you for taking the concern seriously.
I would also like to add that the site did at one point have a political/news discussion area available - it had to be shut down due to the high amount of moderation resources it required - that would be even more true today.
Oh I know, I modded it for years.
If you could:
How would you see such a discussion taking place?
Where would you put the limits on such a discussion?
How would you think moderation of such a discussion should go? How far should moderation go towards pruning problematic viewpoints, without seeming to push a particular viewpoint/agenda?
How would you recommend keeping people on topic, and respectful?
Any other feedback on how you think this discussion/forum should look?
1) I'd see it as an opportunity to discuss racism's impact on the game, the fandom, and areas like LGSes. It'd likely start as a discussion of the merits of WotC's method(s) for addressing racism, eventually need to reestablish what racism is (racism just isn't a part of many posters' lives, it's inevitable for there there to be questions around it and reestablishing a baseline for what the conversation is even about serves the overall dialogue), and then turn back to what WotC is doing as well as what other areas of the fandom could/should be doing. A single discussion isn't going to solve racism in the community, but I'd consider it a success if people with disparate views could discuss the topic with an open mind, perhaps understand other views (maybe even reconsider their own), without bad faith actors derailing things. It may be too much to hope that the community as a whole walks away with some tools for allyship, but that would be nice, too.
2) In my experience, the boundary points are: a) personal attacks, b) advocacy for illegal acts, particularly violence, c) outright white supremacy. And it probably isn't necessary to delve into deep discussions of racism's history as it's not as germane to the discussion, not to say history isn't important context or that it didn't directly lead to a modern context, it's just too far afield to really be in service of the conversation around racism in the fandom. The boundary points would be things that either advocate extreme real life attitudes and behaviors, or things that would send the thread down a tangent that doesn't really serve the focus (racism in the fandom/game/community).
3) Understanding that the topic is one with a lot of emotions attached to it, modding it should always have the mentality of nurturing the conversation while providing structure/boundaries. It's finesse work, and my strategy was to keep posters on track by nudging them back towards arguments they could support and encouraging the discussion to redirect itself by asking posters questions. I'll be clear that I wasn't always successful because I was 25 and still had some growing up to do, but that was the intent and I suppose it's how I would have liked to have done it. As for how far the staff should go to be seen as not pushing a particular viewpoint, I say don't. I don't think it's possible to do that, the staff should be prepared to understand what its stance is and behave in accordance with it transparently. For example, I never tried to hide what my beliefs were, I simply didn't (or tried not to, at least) let it impact moderation choices. Neutral and fair in moderation, not neutral in opinion
4) As I said, asking questions that would lead a poster back from a tangent, or modposts redirecting more pointedly. I think as well, deescalation tactics, temporary thread locks when tensions run hot, etc.
5) I think it would need to be watched for posters who aren't engaging in order to serve a discussion, they're engaging to end the discussion. They will attempt, intentionally or otherwise, to disrupt the discussion. That's not just true now, it was true a decade ago in Debate as well. There will always, I think, exist a small number of people in the community that just want to derail meaningful discussions. Sometimes in service to a personal agenda, sometimes just because being a griefer is fun for some. But we saw posters acting in bad faith to derail things often enough, you just need to be aware and keep the topic moving along productively like traffic control.
Thanks MikeyG for the in depth reply. I'm alerting the owners to it, so they can take a look. The conversation is ongoing, and this will give us much to think about.
Thank you so much. If yourself or any staff need any follow up clarification or want to ask questions about how we handled controversial/hot button topics in Debate, I don't think Blinking Spirit is still around but I can provide context.
I saw your recent post regarding unacceptable behavior on the forums, and I have some followup questions:
Where do you, as a moderation staff, draw the line between political discourse and sociological discourse? The former you clearly believe belongs elsewhere (despite the fact that MTGS is not an island, nor does it exist apart from the larger Magic community), but social issues affect us all - even here, and whether we want them to or not. We simply cannot ignore that posters here are human beings, not digital abstractions, and there are real life issues that also affect us as Magic players. Yet it seems as though the mods are content to enforce a set of rules that would treat us otherwise. Why is that?
Do the MTGS site owners believe that black lives matter? If so, why have they not come out and addressed the issue directly, instead of skirting it by repeating that political discourse is heavily discouraged? If they believe that black lives matter, they should be able to say so unequivocally, either through some general announcement or asking the mods to sticky a declaration to that effect. Or are the site owners content to passively encourage systemic racism with their silence on the matter? Is there some other reason why they won't follow Wizard's lead on this topic?
What about you, Bob? Do you believe that black lives matter? If the site owners asked you to say or do something that you personally believed to be morally reprehensible, would you comply, or would you step down as site admin?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from FlossedBeaver »
Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep, eh Lancer?
I saw your recent post regarding unacceptable behavior on the forums, and I have some followup questions:
Where do you, as a moderation staff, draw the line between political discourse and sociological discourse? The former you clearly believe belongs elsewhere (despite the fact that MTGS is not an island, nor does it exist apart from the larger Magic community), but social issues affect us all - even here, and whether we want them to or not. We simply cannot ignore that posters here are human beings, not digital abstractions, and there are real life issues that also affect us as Magic players. Yet it seems as though the mods are content to enforce a set of rules that would treat us otherwise. Why is that?
Do the MTGS site owners believe that black lives matter? If so, why have they not come out and addressed the issue directly, instead of skirting it by repeating that political discourse is heavily discouraged? If they believe that black lives matter, they should be able to say so unequivocally, either through some general announcement or asking the mods to sticky a declaration to that effect. Or are the site owners content to passively encourage systemic racism with their silence on the matter? Is there some other reason why they won't follow Wizard's lead on this topic?
What about you, Bob? Do you believe that black lives matter? If the site owners asked you to say or do something that you personally believed to be morally reprehensible, would you comply, or would you step down as site admin?
Thank you for your concern, and your questions.
No online discourse area is ever a perfect island - but we can try to keep things focused, if possible. Let's take a different subject - if someone were to suddenly hijack a thread to talk about gardening, that too is off topic. There are real life issues that affect us all, and there are even some off-topic areas to discuss issues that are affecting people. However, the expectation is that people be able to discuss things calmly and rationally, and pertinent to the topic at hand. Some recent topics have certainly blurred, or included the lines of political discussion to an extent - but even then those lines need to be respected. This site is not a political soap box, nor a person's personal platform to yell at and attack others. When this occurs, the topic is closed, or other appropriate actions are taken. We expect all members to be able to maintain composure and speak rationally, and without racism or prejudicial remarks. Those that are unable to do that, will be asked to no longer participate.
Every conversation I have had with the owners suggests that they are aware and do support black lives, and are against the atrocities being committed. We have gone through several drafts of our statement before releasing the current one which you read - our goal was to clearly state the sites non-tolerance of racism, bigotry, and prejudice, while also attempting to cool down the situation. As this is not a political site, we did not want to initiate a political rally.
I believe that Black Lives Matter. The systematic racism that plagues America is very real, and has persisted for a ridiculously long time. It amazes me that you can turn on a comedian from the 1970's and hear the very same political discourse and fear of cops and chokeholds that are being talked about today.
The great part about volunteering for MTG Salvation is getting to know the community and help foster and give back to the community I care about. Quite simply, if I did not believe in or care for this community, there is no way that I could continue to volunteer to help it. I do believe that the ownership knows this, respects it, and even values that type of commitment. We are granted a good amount of leeway, input, and support in managing the site - within reason. If the ownership were to ever ask something contrary to this, then this would not be a place I would be comfortable volunteering my time for, and I would indeed have to step down.
... but a lot of the threads you mention being locked got started because people on the political right posted off topic and heinous comments. We've been directed by the mods to just ignore these posts and not talk about politics at all, then in different instances been told it's okay so long as it stays respectful, which is of course impossible if one side's view is inherently disrespectful. If the policy is to ignore these types of posts, then in practice the effect is that people make these remarks, they're eventually deleted or snipped, and the other side's point of view is not expressed. In other words, the policy is actually not neutral and unbiased; right-wing narratives will continue to be expressed and the counter points will not. Locking threads does not actually solve the problem so it continually recurs, leading to an overall forum community annoyed with political posts. But there's another reason why this is the approach used. Right-wing players are a sizeable audience on this site. Locking threads does not threaten their continued ad-viewership, but keeping threads open might.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Public Mod Note
(shadowlancerx):
Warned for ignoring mod requests
... but a lot of the threads you mention being locked got started because people on the political right posted off topic and heinous comments. We've been directed by the mods to just ignore these posts and not talk about politics at all, then in different instances been told it's okay so long as it stays respectful, which is of course impossible if one side's view is inherently disrespectful. If the policy is to ignore these types of posts, then in practice the effect is that people make these remarks, they're eventually deleted or snipped, and the other side's point of view is not expressed. In other words, the policy is actually not neutral and unbiased; right-wing narratives will continue to be expressed and the counter points will not. Locking threads does not actually solve the problem so it continually recurs, leading to an overall forum community annoyed with political posts. But there's another reason why this is the approach used. Right-wing players are a sizeable audience on this site. Locking threads does not threaten their continued ad-viewership, but keeping threads open might.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Hi FlossedBeaver,
Thanks for your question! First off, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to you. I have been out of town, so my personal thread here has been unmonitored during my absence.
Political threads continue to be a difficult topic to approach, and even trickier to handle properly. Ideally, we wish to distance ourselves from politics as much as possible - as this is not a political site, and not intended for political debate. It is of course difficult because nothing is ever so easily divided, especially as several recent decisions by Wizards have reached into political spheres. We of course wish to allow discussion of Wizards' decisions and their impact. This makes monitoring that line of where discussion is Magic appropriate to be a difficult case, and needing evaluation on a shifting basis as new topics and decisions are introduced. We hope to maintain the standard to discussion that remains Magic related and oriented however, and not open the site to political rallies.
The American political spectrum today is very divisive, and the post quoted does make the valid point that not all stances are inherently respectful or equal. This is one of many reasons we wish to not engage or encourage these discussions on this site. This is a family friendly site, and disrespectful and dismissive views can not, and should not be tolerated here. As such, those posts need to be deleted in order to maintain a family appropriate content.
This however also touches on one of the difficulties of moderation - visible moderation leaves a record and example of content that gets infracted - but leaves also unacceptable content on the site where minors or other vulnerable demographics can see the content. Deleting or otherwise removing the content allows the discussion to continue without the objectionable deviations, however there is then no visible action shown and people may assume no moderation is taking place. Removing content can also give the impression of implicit censorship, or silencing of a specific viewpoint. This is especially difficult in a political sphere, where as the user stated, not all sides are inherently equal or respectful. It is always a struggle as to how to best handle each and any given situation. Building and fostering a community is always a difficult task, for all those involved. From the moderators who volunteer time and have to take action, but also to the very members of the community who shape the community and discussion in the messages they choose to post and spread, as well as reporting what they feel objectionable and detrimental to the community.
As far as the view that the site is leaning in one direction or another - there have always been allegations of various viewpoints that the site leans in a direction opposite of where the user feels they personally stand. This is often the case when trying to hold a centrist or non-partisan position. We have been accused of being anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum, from allegations of far-right, to allegations for far-left extreme liberalism. The hope is that the balance of these allegations shows that we do hold that central line. Historically speaking, I believe that the majority of the staff has tended to lean slightly to fairly liberal, all things considered, however the staff has had representation from the full spectrum of political beliefs. We have never had any sort of "official" survey on the matter, however our off topic chats, as well as various discussions on how to handle certain tickets (especially political) has shown that we are a fairly diverse group in terms of beliefs.
===
I hope this answers your questions as to our general views, and why we take the stances we do on political discussions.
As far as the view that the site is leaning in one direction or another - there have always been allegations of various viewpoints that the site leans in a direction opposite of where the user feels they personally stand. This is often the case when trying to hold a centrist or non-partisan position. We have been accused of being anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum, from allegations of far-right, to allegations for far-left extreme liberalism. The hope is that the balance of these allegations shows that we do hold that central line. Historically speaking, I believe that the majority of the staff has tended to lean slightly to fairly liberal, all things considered, however the staff has had representation from the full spectrum of political beliefs. We have never had any sort of "official" survey on the matter, however our off topic chats, as well as various discussions on how to handle certain tickets (especially political) has shown that we are a fairly diverse group in terms of beliefs.
Hello,
I'd like to clarify what is being stated in the quoted content. It is not necessary for the site overall to be leaning in a particular direction, or for specific staffing on the site to being leaning toward particular views, in order for one of the site's policies to in practice have biased results. What I'm describing here is a type of bias in the true sense of the word, in which the sorts of discussions that get represented are disproportional to the views of the community and/or disproportional to their epistemic merit as an effect of the moderation policy. In other words, a policy which is actually biased, because it is intended to dispel the appearance of bias (according to popular perception which is self-reinforcing). The latter is what you're describing vis-à-vis holding a "central line," a position which makes it possible for those on the political right to feel comfortable in the community here by virtue of implicit approval. If there's middle ground to be had, neither side can be considered to have gone beyond the pale, and thus there are "good people on both sides." I think this is a pragmatic calculation about maintaining the largest possible audience, but the long term effects of the social dynamics within that audience are something I would consider to be unfortunate.
I respect the difficulty you mention of determining how to best moderate in these cases. I hope that you consider the criticism I have offered as reflecting on the value that this community holds to me, which has been cultivated over many years of work by the staff here. If I felt it were fruitless to continue to engage in discussion here, I would refrain from doing so.
I think it would be helpful, bob, if the mod team stopped conflating politics and social issues. It is not inherently political to say that people are black, or that people are gay, or that people are transgender, and it is certainly not political to observe that people from each of those groups are disproportionately marginalized in contemporary America (as they have been historically). Those are facts supported by data, for anyone who cares to look at it, and to dismiss these issues as being 'political' gives voice and credibility to bigots in much the same way that making Covid-19 a political issue enables the anti-science / anti-liberal crowd. Furthermore, the only way to construe these issues as 'off-topic' would be to ignore that Magic players come from all walks of life, identify with every race, creed, color, orientation or preference, and that yes, they even post here on occasion. Again, we're talking about real, live human beings, not abstract ideology. While I recognize the obvious hurdles posed by a digital platform, it honestly doesn't take much effort or wherewithal to see that forum posters are more than a series of colorless handles and avatars, inconvenient as that may be for someone in your position. The calculated decision to put blinders on is only elevating the degree of bias here at MTGS, as H3RAC71TU5 sagely pointed out.
I will apologize for not being as forgiving as my peers; while I can empathize with your position as a mod, I do not sympathize. You volunteered to be here, and no matter the difficulty it is your responsibility to make this a safe space for all Magic players - and yes, that includes those very same groups I mentioned above. Your determination to hold a centrist line only continues to promote inequity on these message boards, and hamstringing our ability to promote more inclusive values / behavior means that bad faith posters will come away emboldened and enabled, the inevitable consequence of which is the continued toxification of social mores in real space. This is why I continue to emphasize that MTGS does not exist in isolation; we are all part of the greater, global community, and however small our footprint may be here on these forums, there are still broader repercussions to be felt everywhere. I implore you to be part of the solution, and if you can't live up to your self-imposed responsibilities then at least let us do it for you.
As far as the view that the site is leaning in one direction or another - there have always been allegations of various viewpoints that the site leans in a direction opposite of where the user feels they personally stand. This is often the case when trying to hold a centrist or non-partisan position. We have been accused of being anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum, from allegations of far-right, to allegations for far-left extreme liberalism. The hope is that the balance of these allegations shows that we do hold that central line. Historically speaking, I believe that the majority of the staff has tended to lean slightly to fairly liberal, all things considered, however the staff has had representation from the full spectrum of political beliefs. We have never had any sort of "official" survey on the matter, however our off topic chats, as well as various discussions on how to handle certain tickets (especially political) has shown that we are a fairly diverse group in terms of beliefs.
Hello,
I'd like to clarify what is being stated in the quoted content. It is not necessary for the site overall to be leaning in a particular direction, or for specific staffing on the site to being leaning toward particular views, in order for one of the site's policies to in practice have biased results. What I'm describing here is a type of bias in the true sense of the word, in which the sorts of discussions that get represented are disproportional to the views of the community and/or disproportional to their epistemic merit as an effect of the moderation policy. In other words, a policy which is actually biased, because it is intended to dispel the appearance of bias (according to popular perception which is self-reinforcing). The latter is what you're describing vis-à-vis holding a "central line," a position which makes it possible for those on the political right to feel comfortable in the community here by virtue of implicit approval. If there's middle ground to be had, neither side can be considered to have gone beyond the pale, and thus there are "good people on both sides." I think this is a pragmatic calculation about maintaining the largest possible audience, but the long term effects of the social dynamics within that audience are something I would consider to be unfortunate.
I respect the difficulty you mention of determining how to best moderate in these cases. I hope that you consider the criticism I have offered as reflecting on the value that this community holds to me, which has been cultivated over many years of work by the staff here. If I felt it were fruitless to continue to engage in discussion here, I would refrain from doing so.
You are correct H3RAC71TU5 that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing to the site, and that was not the primary reason that I had brought that up. The context that I had wished to convey with that statement is one of diversity, and having representation of various walks when discussing new challenges brought upon by moderation. For example, I would be very concerned if the staff were to moderate content regarding a minority, without having the perspective of a minority to explain or provide context. Now, the staff is limited, and we do not have representation of every minority that exists - however, even having some minority context can be helpful to provide some amount of experience from a grander scheme.
As an example, earlier this year a series of posts was reported to us for having some slurs against a minority. I was unfamiliar with the terms, and requested some clarification from the user regarding those terms. The user was able to provide an impressively concise history, with additional reference for further reading. Fortunately, we also had a former staff member of that minority I was able to reach out to, and another staff member was also able to shed light on the tickets from previous experience as well. This allowed us to respond to the ticket and post appropriately, and I personally learned a bit more about these types of interactions - though I would hope that I would not need to use this knowledge in the future.
In a more pressing and closer to home example, recent political discussions have been quite in depth among the moderators as well. There are several solutions which have been proposed which have been debated, and given contrasting views as we thankfully have the diversity on staff to not simply railroad one set of values at the expense of others.
===
You are also correct about disproportionate representation of viewpoints. Media these days try to gain viewrship and clicks by presenting drama and strife, and do so by often saying that both sides of an issue need to be examined. It is important to examine both views, however this does not mean that both views are equal. Examining both sides simply means to not dismiss a contrary viewpoint out of hand - not to give it equal importance. Simply because two viewpoints are opposed, does not mean they have equal weight. For an extreme example, let's take Murder. If one side says "Murder is bad" and the other side says "Murder is good" - the morality of these points are not equal. Examining both sides may mean simply listening to the other argument, or acknowledging that it exists. However, it does not mean that both points have an equal ground, nor need to be given equal screentime. In fact, promoting both messages equally would be immoral in itself. Once the contrary arguments are heard, and debated, it is important to repeat the message that "murder is bad" and have that be the prevalent message that is shown.
That is why on this site that signs of solidarity for #BLM are allowed in user's signatures. Several members have opted to show solidarity within their signatures in respect with the sites rules.
However, the alternate slogan of #BlueLivesMatter, which has been recognized as widely used as a hate slogan, is not allowed(edit 9/9/2020: Further research into the origins and history and current social usage of the slogan has been done, and we are allowing #BlueLivesMatter as a statement of support to slain officers and solidarity for our uniformed officers. See: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/community-discussion/staff-helpdesks/814110-admin-bobthefunnys-strategic-chalkboard?page=2#c39 . Context is always considered, as with the usage of any slogan or phrase) (however, general support of the police IS allowed - there is rightful disagreement and discussion on HOW to best fix the police - what is not allowed is hatespeech/movements, which BlueLM is generally recognized as supporting(This statement is not necessarily accurate, and I apologise for it. -bob)).
There is some division on the staff about #AllLivesMatter, as there are legitimate cases of its use in promoting racial equality and unity - however, as its main use has been as a slogan for "Racial Dismissal" or simply as a criticism of #BLM, we again ask that it not be used on this site.
There is also the case that simply by nature of the discussion, one side is more likely to be moderated, and thus that message will not be given equal representation. As such, moderation may provide a bias in what messaging appears on the site. An example of this could possibly be pro-LGBT messaging vs. anti-LGBT messaging. As pro-LGBT messaging is generally non-inflammatory and supportive, it is less likely to receive moderation than anti-LGBT messaging which is often inflammatory and divisive. As such, more LGBT messaging will show up on the site than anti-LGBT messaging. That said, we have had exceptional cases in the past where pro-LGBT users have posted messages that have been inflammatory in their own messaging and own right, and have had to be moderated on their own merits. Whether this presents an issue with the moderation methods, and whether a viewpoint is being dis-proportionally represented needs to be evaluated on a case by case merit. In the example presented, I see no issue in promoting an inclusive message over a hateful or dismissive one.
If you feel that a particular viewpoint is getting a disproportional representation, and that the representation given is harmful to the community, please let us know. We WANT to know. Drop us a line in the staff inbox. Post here (public). PM the administrators or your local mod directly. Report problematic or harmful posts, and let us know why. If it's a larger concern, give us plenty of details so we can discuss it amongst the staff, but also so we can discuss it with you.
====
When we say we want to accept all people on this site to discuss magic - what we mean is that we accept all people to come to the site and discuss magic. Much as Target or Walmart will allow any individual to enter their stores and shop regardless of their political affiliation, we allow any individual to browse this site and discuss magic regardless of their affiliations.
However, if an individual were to enter a Target or Walmart, and disturb other users by shouting political messages in their faces, or by knocking over stands of masks, they would be removed from the store regardless of their political biases. The same is true here. This site is not a political soapbox, and political bias has no merit in disrupting other users. Support towards a cause IS welcome here - unless that support itself is prejudicial or harmful.
Showing support and solidarity is great - much like wearing a T-shirt or face covering that shows your solidarity to a cause. However, if that solidarity itself is problematic or hateful, it is not welcome here either. Using the Walmart/Target example, this would be akin to someone entering the store with a Tshirt/Mask which is obscene, hateful, or contains a slur, those individuals can (and would) be asked to vacate the store.
Assaulting others is not ok, regardless of circumstance.
I think it would be helpful, bob, if the mod team stopped conflating politics and social issues. It is not inherently political to say that people are black, or that people are gay, or that people are transgender, and it is certainly not political to observe that people from each of those groups are disproportionately marginalized in contemporary America (as they have been historically). Those are facts supported by data, for anyone who cares to look at it, and to dismiss these issues as being 'political' gives voice and credibility to bigots in much the same way that making Covid-19 a political issue enables the anti-science / anti-liberal crowd. Furthermore, the only way to construe these issues as 'off-topic' would be to ignore that Magic players come from all walks of life, identify with every race, creed, color, orientation or preference, and that yes, they even post here on occasion. Again, we're talking about real, live human beings, not abstract ideology. While I recognize the obvious hurdles posed by a digital platform, it honestly doesn't take much effort or wherewithal to see that forum posters are more than a series of colorless handles and avatars, inconvenient as that may be for someone in your position. The calculated decision to put blinders on is only elevating the degree of bias here at MTGS, as H3RAC71TU5 sagely pointed out.
I will apologize for not being as forgiving as my peers; while I can empathize with your position as a mod, I do not sympathize. You volunteered to be here, and no matter the difficulty it is your responsibility to make this a safe space for all Magic players - and yes, that includes those very same groups I mentioned above. Your determination to hold a centrist line only continues to promote inequity on these message boards, and hamstringing our ability to promote more inclusive values / behavior means that bad faith posters will come away emboldened and enabled, the inevitable consequence of which is the continued toxification of social mores in real space. This is why I continue to emphasize that MTGS does not exist in isolation; we are all part of the greater, global community, and however small our footprint may be here on these forums, there are still broader repercussions to be felt everywhere. I implore you to be part of the solution, and if you can't live up to your self-imposed responsibilities then at least let us do it for you.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
There are many issues today which should not be political issues, but they are. That is our reality. While we must certainly work hard to change this reality, and make the world a better place, ignoring it is an unrealistic proposition.
Everything you say about race, religion, and orientation being social issues is correct. It is also a political issue. It should not be, but it is. That minorities are oppressed is fact. It is a social issue. It is also a political issue. Magic players come from all walks of life. This is fact. This is not a political issue. Where I draw the line is you saying that this makes a difference on what is, and isn't on topic. Simply because someone is a minority, does not make discussion about that minority on the board on topic. What makes something on/off topic is only the topic itself.
I have a garden. Simply because I have gardened (very amaturely, fyi) does not mean that you need to hear about my basil plants. It does not mean that I need to discuss any sort of latest gardening news, tips, or controversies from the internet. Perhaps next set Wizards will print a set focused on gardening. In that case, gardeners might have some tie in to discuss how a magic card does or does not fit its gardening lore. For example, if a card based on a mint plant was created, someone would be on topic to discuss why the mechanics and lore of the card fit the medicinal or culinary natures of a mint plant. If the topic then devolved into how to garden and cultivate actual mint plants - that would be off topic, despite the tie in to the minty card.
Above is an obvious extreme and slightly satirical expression and illustration. When it comes to representation on cards, or political messaging provided by Wizards, the lines are obviously much more difficult to judge, never clear cut, and can actually shift, depending on cultural context. However, what matter is what the discussion is serving.
A poignant example: Recently, during the Eldraine set, Wizards placed a greater emphasis on diversity in their characters and cards. This was wonderful. Plenty of users came out in support of this inclusion, as they could more closely relate to a character than before, where they had perhaps not been so well represented previously. This is great! There was some discussion about diversity in Magic's history, how it has changed historically, and what it all means. This is great, too. However, there were also ... other... posts. There were detractors, who claimed this was all shameful pandering, or were otherwise non-inclusive, or even downright prejudicial. This was not ok, and often led to discussions devolving, and threads getting locked. There were messages that attacked and shamed some of the people who had come out and identified as being represented. This is not ok, and again was either non-inclusive, or downright prejudicial. Finally, there were people who assaulted those who were being prejudicial - while their motives might have been better, their method was not. This is also not ok (it's also not how you manage to convince or convert a person).
In the case of recent issues, this is a magic site. Using this site as a political soapbox will always be off-topic. Using the large store example above, if you were to enter a Walmart or Target, and then yell at other customers, you will get removed - forcibly, if necessary. It doesn't matter what your political opinion is, or even if your opinion IS political. You could argue/yell at people about why your favorite cartoon is so great - but if you assault other patrons, you will be removed from the premises. The same is true here. If a user is argumentative, assault other users, soap boxes whatever topic is not magic related, or overall bothers other users - they will be asked to leave. Forcibly, if necessary.
I especially want to highlight the beginning premise of his post:
Quote from Feyd_Ruin »
I've said it many times, I'll say it again, and I stand by it: Political discussion is not allowed here. The world has gone to %$#%, and I think everyone can agree this has been the craziest year — at least in a long, long time. Politics are insane right now, with the largest polarity between sides than we've seen in living memory. Turn on the news, and it's chaos and unrest and political discord, and an unending stream of negative emotion and a cacophony of anxiety.
People need to be able to get away from this when they need to, and sites like this can offer them that opportunity. There's no reason to have political discussions here, it doesn't fit the site, and there's no good merit for having them on a magic site when a lot of people won't want them and there's other, better places to have them.
In perspective that Antifa associates themselves with BLM and shouts DefundThePolice for years, is putting a massive negative on this entire topic.
If political discussions are not wished for, this is downright insulting to anybody which friends these protesting terrorists attacked, hurt and which stores and homes these sick people are destroying and burning down.
This is not helpful at all and pushing blindly in a direction is upsetting a lot of people that wish nothing more than working and living together respectfully (and especially #BLM is anything but respectful).
Either be consequential and make all political associations not allowed or downright opt in to a extreme radical position that is spreading nothing more than hate, pain and misery in the world.
Showing support and solidarity is great - much like wearing a T-shirt or face covering that shows your solidarity to a cause. However, if that solidarity itself is problematic or hateful, it is not welcome here either. Using the Walmart/Target example, this would be akin to someone entering the store with a Tshirt/Mask which is obscene, hateful, or contains a slur, those individuals can (and would) be asked to vacate the store.
I'm glad you brought this up, seeing as how I've been infracted eleven consecutive times for just my in-post sig. If you support the message, then why the heck does it matter if I choose to express it on my face mask rather than my t-shirt, if the entire purpose is visibility and awareness?
Quote from bobthefunny »
Quote from Feyd_Ruin »
People need to be able to get away from this when they need to, and sites like this can offer them that opportunity. There's no reason to have political discussions here, it doesn't fit the site, and there's no good merit for having them on a magic site when a lot of people won't want them and there's other, better places to have them.
Dude, please. Black people don't get to step away from being black when political discourse gets too hot, that's the entire premise of the ongoing movement. You can either acknowledge that, or continue to pretend like black people don't post here - and who could blame them at this point, when voices for inclusion are consistently shouted down for being 'political'? When people complain about systemic racism, they're describing your actions here, bob. Your silence as an authority figure, and unwillingness to let others be vocal in your stead, is perpetuating the notion that Magic is for cisgendered white guys only.
I'm glad you brought this up, seeing as how I've been infracted eleven consecutive times for just my in-post sig. If you support the message, then why the heck does it matter if I choose to express it on my face mask rather than my t-shirt, if the entire purpose is visibility and awareness?
The more apt comparison here is that you are walking up to everyone in the store and saying it to their face. Repeatedly.
Antagonizing other customers is how people get asked to leave the store.
Dude, please. Black people don't get to step away from being black when political discourse gets too hot, that's the entire premise of the ongoing movement. You can either acknowledge that, or continue to pretend like black people don't post here - and who could blame them at this point, when voices for inclusion are consistently shouted down for being 'political'? When people complain about systemic racism, they're describing your actions here, bob. Your silence as an authority figure, and unwillingness to let others be vocal in your stead, is perpetuating the notion that Magic is for cisgendered white guys only.
You are absolutely right that Black people cannot step away from being black. That women cannot stop being women. That gays, and Natives, and Muslims, and Christians, and Jewish people, and any other minority, or any group of people can stop being there what they are. This means we should work to create a safe place for them. Not create a toxic environment that repeatedly throws the fight back into there faces no matter where they go. This site is one of those places where people CAN step away from their problems. Behind a name on the internet, you can be anything - black, white, red, blue, or green - no one knows anything about you except what you choose to share. This is the one place where people CAN get away from their troubles, from their problems, from the politics - and enjoy a hobby they love, and share that enjoyment with others.
If a person trying to unwind is constantly attacked and not allowed to unwind, is it really surprising that they end up pissed off and stressed? That they end up pissed off at the very cause that "awareness" is being raised for? And pissed off at the person attacking them, for the manner in which they are constantly bringing up that "awareness"?
Consistently berating and attacking the other side is the exact opposite of creating a safe space for anyone. It creates a place where even the group in question cannot escape their issues. Believe it or not, they need to unwind as well. Creating a safe space means creating an environment where those people can be relax, not harassed, and not have to interact with the hateful rhetoric. In the context of this site, it means creating an environment which (1) does not have people and messages that disparage them, such as racist, misogynistic, or prejudicial messages - and (2) does not have people constantly bringing up the issue in the face of everyone else, which then instigates those very fights right in their faces - which, coincidentally causes those very issues to cut those wounds right back open again - in the very place that they hoped to find that very safety.
Systematic racism is not simply 'silence'. Systematic racism is denial. It is turning the other way and allowing problematic rhetoric to continue. Silence CAN be systematic racism, in that silence can be turning the other way and ignoring issues. In the context of this site and our position on these issues, what we are asking is NOT to ignore hateful rhetoric. If it exists, report it, and let us handle it. It is not welcome here. Period. Our request of 'silence' is to allow people to have a place where they can enjoy the hobby they came here to enjoy. A place where they can escape those troubles, and step out of the fight. If they want to go join that fight, if they have recuperated and want to go be an activist - there are better places than here to do it. Let them choose where they want to engage. This is not that place.
You're playing into that awful '90s trope that black people want everyone to see them without color; that's not the day and age we live in. If you don't see their color, you don't see them as human beings. Plain and simple. I guarantee you that no person of color has come here, for a brief respite against the daily repugnance that is their lives, and been glad to see absolutely nobody standing up in their defense. Or worse, people complaining about Wizard's hot take on equity, or the whole 'get that BLM ***** outta here' attitude. Nobody comes home after being pepper sprayed in the face and thinks to themselves, 'well at least Magic is unspoilt by the social woes of 2020.' It is, it has been, and your attempt to safeguard the sanctity of this space has indeed made it safe - but not for the people you purport it to be.
I saw a black woman at the grocery store not more than a week ago with a shirt that read "Please don't be racist. Thank you," and I complimented her on it. You know what she didn't say in response? Get that political crap outta here, I'm trying to shop.
The more apt comparison here is that you are walking up to everyone in the store and saying it to their face. Repeatedly.
Antagonizing other customers is how people get asked to leave the store.
No? You give posters too little credit if you think I've somehow hoodwinked them all into believing that I'm directing an obvious signature at them. I've reiterated multiple times that I'm simply promoting awareness, in the manner I find most efficacious (for mobile platforms specifically), and pointed out that I refuse to publicly engage people who respond inappropriately or in bad faith. You are taking issue with the form and not the substance of my approach, and that form is a matter of millimetres on your screen. So no, by all outward appearance it is not an apt comparison, not by any metric. But don't take my word for it:
Systematic racism is not simply 'silence'. Systematic racism is denial. It is turning the other way and allowing problematic rhetoric to continue. Silence CAN be systematic racism, in that silence can be turning the other way and ignoring issues. In the context of this site and our position on these issues, what we are asking is NOT to ignore hateful rhetoric. If it exists, report it, and let us handle it. It is not welcome here. Period. Our request of 'silence' is to allow people to have a place where they can enjoy the hobby they came here to enjoy. A place where they can escape those troubles, and step out of the fight. If they want to go join that fight, if they have recuperated and want to go be an activist - there are better places than here to do it. Let them choose where they want to engage. This is not that place.
This narrative that you've created about leftist aggression here is... delusional? I don't know what better word to use for it, except to say that it doesn't jibe with reality. The few voices of reason here are anything but antagonistic, and if you're going to lump my sig in there as a form of overt aggression then I don't know what to tell you at this point. If your premise is that even bigots deserve a safe place to just be themselves and enjoy Magic, as long as they're not bothering anyone else, then I'm going to stop you right there and say no, they do not. You have no business lecturing me about what is and what is not systemic racism so long as you continue to perpetuate it, and just this paragraph alone is emblematic of both the underlying problem and your inability to recognize it.
I guarantee you there's nothing in my browsing history that would lend itself to this sort of targeted ad. It's being advertised here, at MTGS, because that's the community you serve. I'm disgusted, frankly.
This site is one of those places where people CAN step away from their problems.
No, it's not. The staff thinking it is, though, is profoundly naive and certainly clarifies a lot.
If a person trying to unwind is constantly attacked and not allowed to unwind, is it really surprising that they end up pissed off and stressed? That they end up pissed off at the very cause that "awareness" is being raised for? And pissed off at the person attacking them, for the manner in which they are constantly bringing up that "awareness"?
Who are you referring to here? Are you saying that marginalized people are mad and stressed because other posters are raising awareness about ignorant/bigoted/offensive attitudes displayed on the forum? Who is the attacker here, is there a lot of attacks going on? I'll admit that I haven't seen a lot of direct attacks going on so much as dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes and frankly that's a bigger piss off and stressor than other posters taking a stand against it. But I may have misread you.
Creating a safe space means creating an environment where those people can be relax, not harassed, and not have to interact with the hateful rhetoric. In the context of this site, it means creating an environment which (1) does not have people and messages that disparage them, such as racist, misogynistic, or prejudicial messages - and (2) does not have people constantly bringing up the issue in the face of everyone else, which then instigates those very fights right in their faces - which, coincidentally causes those very issues to cut those wounds right back open again - in the very place that they hoped to find that very safety.
So, for context, I'm the director of a charity that supports 2SLGBTQ+ people across our province, and I championed a whole educational program that is a full-day class on creating and maintaining safer spaces. I work with municipalities, schools, community organizations - I even worked with a federal prison once. I don't know that I'd call myself an expert, but this is certainly something I work with daily.
Your first point is certainly on target, but I don't think the second is. Safe spaces don't assume challenging/hurtful conversations won't happen, they ensure that the people who could be in some way harmed by those situations have backup so they aren't in a position to deal with it alone. And in some cases that means having allies take on the work of pushing back against ignorance and helping people understand why their attitudes/actions are harmful. Safety isn't stopping conversations about bigoted opinions from happening, it's ensuring that when they do happen that they are healthy/respectful discussions and the people most impacted by them are supported. In my trainings, I advocate for authority figures (teachers, supervisors, etc) to be those supports, facilitate healthy and anti-oppressive discussions, and follow-up with people who may have been impacted to ensure they're okay. On a site like this, I'd anticipate the staff would take that on but here it's largely been a handful of users. And I'm grateful that they do.
I certainly can't and won't speak for every marginalized person on the forum, perhaps some like these conversations being avoided. I think that's like an ostrich with its head in the sand, racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc members are on the forum, and in my experience letting things go unchallenged doesn't make things go away. I personally feel most supported and 'safe' (in this context) when I know other posters won't let casual bigotry slide and will seek to pushback and educate. That, in my opinion, is the hallmark of a real safe space.
In the context of this site and our position on these issues, what we are asking is NOT to ignore hateful rhetoric. If it exists, report it, and let us handle it.
Not to be petty, but I reported a homophobic slur in a thread title and nothing happened for three days. I'm not bringing it up to criticize the staff, I get why that situation played out as it did and that's my point. The staff isn't able to facilitate and guide conversations like it used to, they aren't in the position to be the empathetic authorities nurturing a community (not that previous iterations of the staff didn't have their issues). I think it's why you're seeing regular posters attempt to step into that role by pushing back on posters expressing opinions that may be hurtful to other posters. And it's very likely why you're receiving so much frustration, the staff's stance on this feels more like neutrality than real leadership - especially from the perspective of posters putting in effort to be supportive and try to make other posters feel supported (which is to say nothing of the general principle many of these posters may be guided by beyond just supporting other posters).
I appreciate that the staff is having conversations about how to address the politicization and partisanship of everything, I hope feedback from posters has contributed to those conversations. I don't think the issue is going away anytime soon, it'll probably only worsen as the world continues to strain.
No, it's not. The staff thinking it is, though, is profoundly naive and certainly clarifies a lot.
My apologies, what I meant was, that this should be that area. This is a gaming forum, for discussing a hobby and a past time.
Who are you referring to here? Are you saying that marginalized people are mad and stressed because other posters are raising awareness about ignorant/bigoted/offensive attitudes displayed on the forum? Who is the attacker here, is there a lot of attacks going on? I'll admit that I haven't seen a lot of direct attacks going on so much as dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes and frankly that's a bigger piss off and stressor than other posters taking a stand against it. But I may have misread you.
I left it general. People when attacked will lash back, and this places stress on all who participate in the confrontation. Willingly or unwillingly.
Dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes is a problem. These have no place on this site. However, it should not be on users to confront them, as that type of confrontation only escalates the issue, entrenches them, and makes it even harder to moderate in the long run. We ask that you report this issues to the moderation staff. If the staff responses are not adequate, that itself is an issue, which hopefully can be addressed and improved through discussion with community members in the staff inboxes and helpdesks, such as this one, and seeing what other ways community involvement can be improved.
So, for context, I'm the director of a charity that supports 2SLGBTQ+ people across our province, and I championed a whole educational program that is a full-day class on creating and maintaining safer spaces. I work with municipalities, schools, community organizations - I even worked with a federal prison once. I don't know that I'd call myself an expert, but this is certainly something I work with daily.
Your first point is certainly on target, but I don't think the second is. Safe spaces don't assume challenging/hurtful conversations won't happen, they ensure that the people who could be in some way harmed by those situations have backup so they aren't in a position to deal with it alone. And in some cases that means having allies take on the work of pushing back against ignorance and helping people understand why their attitudes/actions are harmful. Safety isn't stopping conversations about bigoted opinions from happening, it's ensuring that when they do happen that they are healthy/respectful discussions and the people most impacted by them are supported. In my trainings, I advocate for authority figures (teachers, supervisors, etc) to be those supports, facilitate healthy and anti-oppressive discussions, and follow-up with people who may have been impacted to ensure they're okay. On a site like this, I'd anticipate the staff would take that on but here it's largely been a handful of users. And I'm grateful that they do.
Thank you for your viewpoint here. I agree that it would be irresponsible to assume that confrontation would not occur. The point I was trying to make is that this type of confrontation in a digital environment often serves to escalate and exacerbate the problem. Having allies and showing support is important, but this is best served by showing solidarity with the victim than in antagonizing the aggressor. What I would hope to have occur is that the incident get reported to the moderation, such that the offender can be made aware of the issue in a way that would prevent escalation and reduce repetition of the behavior.
Having the behavior caught early puts the onus directly on the aggressor, while if there is escalation the aggressor will more easily shift the blame to those who attacked them, and more easily frame themselves a victim and in the right. This makes it more difficult to have meaningful discussions, and hopefully meaningful change.
I certainly can't and won't speak for every marginalized person on the forum, perhaps some like these conversations being avoided. I think that's like an ostrich with its head in the sand, racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc members are on the forum, and in my experience letting things go unchallenged doesn't make things go away. I personally feel most supported and 'safe' (in this context) when I know other posters won't let casual bigotry slide and will seek to pushback and educate. That, in my opinion, is the hallmark of a real safe space.
The goal here is certainly not ostrich head in the sand, and certainly not lack of challenge. The goal is to keep this a place for the discussion of Magic, and allow a hobby that is a stress relief and escape from every day life to remain such.
Bigoted messaging is obviously a complete anti-thesis to that goal, and is not welcome on this site.
Not to be petty, but I reported a homophobic slur in a thread title and nothing happened for three days. I'm not bringing it up to criticize the staff, I get why that situation played out as it did and that's my point. The staff isn't able to facilitate and guide conversations like it used to, they aren't in the position to be the empathetic authorities nurturing a community (not that previous iterations of the staff didn't have their issues). I think it's why you're seeing regular posters attempt to step into that role by pushing back on posters expressing opinions that may be hurtful to other posters. And it's very likely why you're receiving so much frustration, the staff's stance on this feels more like neutrality than real leadership - especially from the perspective of posters putting in effort to be supportive and try to make other posters feel supported (which is to say nothing of the general principle many of these posters may be guided by beyond just supporting other posters).
I appreciate that the staff is having conversations about how to address the politicization and partisanship of everything, I hope feedback from posters has contributed to those conversations. I don't think the issue is going away anytime soon, it'll probably only worsen as the world continues to strain.
This is indeed a point of great friction. Part of the problem though is that having users try to take this on themselves most often leads to escalation, rather than resolution.
There is certainly a rift right now between staff and community, in part due to the current burden and capabilities of the staff. I recognized that there is much room for improvement, and I certainly hope these discussions can help be a step towards that improvement.
My apologies, what I meant was, that this should be that area. This is a gaming forum, for discussing a hobby and a past time.
I think that's a great ideal, but still naive. I've never felt this community was truly that (literally as far back as the 'News days), nor any other comparable space online. Though, I don't really expect them to be, wherever you find people interacting you will find issues of racism/homophobia/misogyny/etc. And again, I won't speak for all marginalized people, but I don't have an expectation that that ideal can be reached - just that the people responsible for the space try to facilitate healthier discussions.
The Harry Potter community is dealing with issues of transphobia, sports communities are having conversations about racism, etc. Communities dedicated to hobbies and pastimes aren't devoid of these conversations. I get why you're aspiring to that, I just don't think it's realistic. And to a degree, I don't know that it's responsible, either.
To hopefully clarify what I mean by that, I'll use the analogy of a classroom as it's my bread and butter at work. One of the most frequent requests I get is to conduct professional development for teachers because the schools have policies around making classrooms safer, but many teachers lack for the confidence/skills to intervene in instances where bigotry is expressed in subtle/casual ways. Teachers already have enough to deal with, and they get that this is also important, but for many it's just not their strength and it's easier just to end conversations and maybe send a student to the office for detention if they do something egregious. Those teachers foster environments of neutrality, which isn't the same thing as fostering environments of safety and of growth - which is why my team gets called in for PD. To their perspective, the space is orderly and hurtful conversations are shut down so things are good. Yet from the perspective of some of the kids in class, they will see things differently. Common sentiments expressed in our focus groups were things like "I felt like if I defended myself, I'd be in trouble too", "no one stood up for me, not even my teacher", "I feel isolated/unsupported/anxious in that space", and "I don't want to be there."
That's clearly not a 1 to 1 comparison, but I think it helps illustrate where I'm coming from.
I left it general. People when attacked will lash back, and this places stress on all who participate in the confrontation. Willingly or unwillingly.
Dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes is a problem. These have no place on this site.
True, but they're here and I know you just want people to report and ignore but that's not happening and I think understanding why it's not is important.
I suppose a part of my struggle with this is the emphasis on attacks and confrontations. While certainly that might be accurate for some interactions, I think it's reductive to categorize all of the conversations we're talking about that way. I've seen posters attempt more of a call-in strategy, and I think more often than not the pushback against bigotry has been conducted with an intent of real shifts in beliefs. Hell, I've PMed posters to engage them in real dialogue away from the public view where people may be more inclined to posture and snipe for clout.
We ask that you report this issues to the moderation staff. If the staff responses are not adequate, that itself is an issue, which hopefully can be addressed and improved through discussion with community members in the staff inboxes and helpdesks, such as this one, and seeing what other ways community involvement can be improved.
I guess ultimately the issue here is one of vision. Do we think a community is healthier when hard conversations are stifled or when they're given space to proceed healthily and in good faith?
How do you think community involvement can be improved?
Thank you for your viewpoint here. I agree that it would be irresponsible to assume that confrontation would not occur. The point I was trying to make is that this type of confrontation in a digital environment often serves to escalate and exacerbate the problem.
Having allies and showing support is important, but this is best served by showing solidarity with the victim than in antagonizing the aggressor.
I suppose in the short term that could be true, but I do not believe that escalation is inevitable, nor do I think instances of escalation are lost causes even when they occur. Conflict is messy, so is growth - that's true of individuals and of communities.
I suppose that's how I see the role of authority figures in this context. They sift through the escalating tension to identify the healthy version of the conversation, deescalate and guide people to that healthier version of the conversation. If things are escalating, it's because people are invested in the issue on the table. I say harness that energy, just ensure it's directed in productive ways rather than destructive ways.
Last year, my city's Pride Festival hit the skids after a cluster**** of racism-related conflicts. In the wake of it, the community turned on itself, with escalating tension, death threats, people losing jobs, and a whole organization dissolving. My org began hosting summits to facilitate conversations at the organization/community leader level to hopefully resolve a lot of the unresolved conflicts and filter that down to the community level. Obviously we weren't going to solve racism with a series of summits, but conversations and deescalating meant we were moving in that direction. People shared, people heard about things they'd never experienced, structural issues and power dynamics in the community were exposed as unhealthy, relationships strengthened, and simple resolutions/initiatives were undertaken. There's still a ton of work to be done, but the community is healing because we made space for hard conversations, and yes for confrontations where warranted.
What I would hope to have occur is that the incident get reported to the moderation, such that the offender can be made aware of the issue in a way that would prevent escalation and reduce repetition of the behavior.
Do you believe that is happening? Do you think simply stopping the behavior on the forum is enough? These questions are more rhetorical in nature, more food for thought than otherwise.
There is certainly a rift right now between staff and community, in part due to the current burden and capabilities of the staff. I recognized that there is much room for improvement, and I certainly hope these discussions can help be a step towards that improvement.
For what it's worth, and please take this in the spirit intended, but when people perceive a vacuum of leadership on issues of principle they will attempt to fill it. I think the sentiments being expressed to you are indicative of that perception at work. I say that only because I think it's a dynamic the staff should understand the motivation behind if they want to dispel the perception and I think it ought to be considered as the staff discuss things.
In perspective that Antifa associates themselves with BLM and shouts DefundThePolice for years, is putting a massive negative on this entire topic.
If political discussions are not wished for, this is downright insulting to anybody which friends these protesting terrorists attacked, hurt and which stores and homes these sick people are destroying and burning down.
This is not helpful at all and pushing blindly in a direction is upsetting a lot of people that wish nothing more than working and living together respectfully (and especially #BLM is anything but respectful).
Either be consequential and make all political associations not allowed or downright opt in to a extreme radical position that is spreading nothing more than hate, pain and misery in the world.
Thank you TheOnlyOne652089 for joining this conversation. Your input is appreciated.
Antifa is Antifa. Terrorists are terrorists. It would be incorrect to assign the actions and values of one group upon another, just as it would be wrong to hold #BlueLivesMatter accountable for the actions the Proud Boys.
In order to hold a meaningful discussion on this matter and start from an equal footing, I would like to present a brief history of the three #LivesMatter movements, as my best understanding goes.
=== History ===
#BlackLivesMatter
#BlackLivesMatter (wiki (1)), often abbreviated #BLM has its earliest recorded usage in 2013. It began as a movement after the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 to bring attention to systemic racism and the plight of minorities in the United States, who have more frequent physical encounters with police, an increased rate of fatal shootings by police, and are incarcerated at considerably higher percentages and rates than the economic and population distribution would suggest normal, and typically receive longer and harsher sentences for similar crimes committed by Caucasian criminals. Like the following movements, #BLM has deeper and wider roots than the movement started in 2013. In 2016, Collin Kaepernick's movement to kneel for the anthem achieved national headlines as another movement to raise awareness. Similarly, the history goes much further back. Comedian Richard Pryor's observations about police in 1979 is eerily similar to what we see today (2). Likewise, Dave Chappelle's police skits are altogether strikingly on point, bridging the gap.
To put historical context in perspective, the 15th amendment gave African Americans the right to vote in 1870, however, many states and regions prevented African Americans from exercising those rights through various means of profiling. This was not amended until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (3). This was only 55 years ago. There are people still alive today who were blocked from exercising their right to vote. And there are people still alive today who prevented them from voting.
#BLM is generally regarded as a non-violent protest group raising awareness for social inequities. The main controversy regarding the #BLM movement is in the name, where detractors equate it as saying that other lives don't matter. In part, this is part of the origin of the name of the #AllLivesMatter movement. The counter to this argument is that #BLM is not saying that only black lives matter, but rather that black lives matter as well, which has not been historically demonstrated. President Obama explains it best: "I think that the reason that the organizers used the phrase Black Lives Matter was not because they were suggesting that no one else's lives matter ... rather what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that's not happening in other communities."
#AllLivesMatter
#AllLivesMatter (wiki (4)) in contrast has its beginning in 2014, as a deliberate counter-movement to #BLM. As a direct counter to #BLM, #ALM is often used to dismiss or demean #BLM protests. It is important to take the context into account here. There was no #AllLivesMatter before #BlackLivesMatter. #ALM is a direct counter to #BLM, to assign incorrect meaning and assumptions to the name of the BLM movement in order to discredit it. Then general societal view accepts this. Facebook banned #ALM slogans in 2016, Walmart has removed sales of all #ALM merchandise this year (5). #ALM is generally viewed as a divisive statement, meant to divide.
This is not to say that #AllLivesMatter as a slogan is without merit. There are several examples of prominent figures who have used AllLivesMatter as an inclusive form to say that everyone matters - or rather, that all lives SHOULD matter. In a 2015 poll (1), 78% of poll takers identified more with All Lives Matter, while only 11% identified with Black Lives Matter (note: 2015 is much closer to the 2013 start of the movements than today. Exceptionally high support for #BLM has grown over the last two years, I would be curious to see the poll results if repeated today). Several proponents have said that #BLM is divisive in its choice of name, and should update the name to more accurately reflect the goals of the movement.
There are multiple articles that explain the false equivalence between BLM and ALM, and why saying ALM is not as inclusive as you might think. Here are a few examples:
The #BlueLivesMatter (Wiki) slogan similarly began in 2014, and is used used as a counter-movement to #BLM. However, unlike #ALM, the #BlueLives movement originates as a movement to highlight that Police are often profiled and are victims of crimes based on their professions, and #Blue was started in direct reaction to the murder of two police officers in 2014 (7). As such, the movement has notable links towards supporting a difficult and dangerous job, which has come under increased scrutiny in recent days due to the evaluation of the use of police force. #BlueLivesMatter as a movement is often equated as comparing the dangers that officers face to the dangers that minorities face.
Criticisms of the movement point out that becoming a Police Officer is a choice of profession. One of which the officer (to be) is informed and makes a choice to enter a profession which they know is dangerous. In comparison, African Americans do not have that choice. Criticisms point out that while the dangers of the job of a Police Officer are real, and need to be supported, using the slogan as a counter to the #BLM movement, especially in the face of police brutality is dismissive of the racial biases and problems that exist today (8).
Like #BlackLivesMatter, the Blue Lives movement has considerably deeper roots. The symbol for Blue Lives movement is a black and white American flag, with a one stripe colored blue. This is a reference to "the thin blue line." A view point that puts the Police as the line between society and anarchy. The origins of the thin blue line extend back to 1922, but was popularized in 1950 by Police Chief William H. Parker (9) as part of his public relations program. Since then, the saying, as well as various versions of the flag of a blue stripe on a black field have been used to show support for officers slain on duty. However, today the flag is now equated to the Blue Lives movement, and as opposition to the Black Lives Movement. As such it has taken additional meaning in forms of being dismissive towards the value of Black Lives. This has been shown on a historical level as well (10).
Some companies have banned the use of #BlueLivesMatter, such as GoodYear, though GoodYear later reverted that policy. A woman who was wearing a #BlueLivesMatter start pointed remarks against a person wearing #BLM attire on a Delta Flight (11). Delta has banned that woman for life, and shown support to the #BLM user.
=======
Conclusion
This is simply a quick high level overview based on some fast and dirty research I did to better explain the stances as I see them. Other moderators, and the site Owners likely have their own set of research and sources. Based on these sources, I am confident that our current approach of accepting #BlackLivesMatter as a slogan, but not the other two, is consistent with the current meanings and current understanding of these terms by the general population.
Note that this applies directly to the specific slogans, their use, and their current connotations. Claiming support for all, regardless of creed or color; or showing support to our uniformed officers that uphold the law with dignity and honor is not being demeaned - however, when supporting these movements, it is important to know the context, history, and connotations and impact they have on others.
I hope this helps to explain why the stance is currently as it is. If you disagree with this stance, or these sources, or have additional sources you would like me to read, I encourage you to share these sources with me, such that I can better educate myself on the topic.
The mob just demands and enforces violently and aggressive what they claim to be right, trample the rights and wishes of anybody else and spread terror and fear of mob rule and violent attacks.
This is what the entirety of BLM is about right now, and to think that a counter-movement against such a violent force is problematic is icing on the cake, claiming a victim is in the wrong to defend themselves.
What is most malicious is the connection of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" with the organization that is BLM, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
If anything at all, BLM as an organization represents violent hate against police officers and anybody else they disagree with.
BLM is all about mobilizing people into destructive mobs and its the last mentality anybody would want in a hobby forum about trading cards, as any form of violence should be strictly outlawed and not "accepted" at all.
I am very well aware of the current blackmail tactic used by these organizations against companies, forcing them to at least act like they support BLM, which just further underlines the social economic pressure based on fear of repercussion against the company and its employees.
This form of terror and blackmail make any fair discussion impossible, as it is actively trying to oppress any counter-argument and silence anybody else but the movement itself, undermining the very principle of free speech.
The very idea to make any social economic problems into a race topic will always claim the moral high ground for themselves and anybody that disagrees they can cheaply and ignorantly accuse to be a racist ; which is incredible ironic as the BLM movement itself is rooted in racism as it fuels the violence between black, white, Hispanic, Asian and all other groups that they lazily put under the mantle of "white".
They even justify their violence, instead of seeing these attacks at the form of terror they are.
Any movement and message that tries to enforce itself by violence cannot claim to be peaceful, these two things dont come together.
To believe the demands of black people would have an intrinsic higher priority than the needs and demands of all the other imaginative groups of skin color is atrociously racist on its own.
The loudest and most violent screamer does not equal the same as the people most in need, it even takes away from the people that are more silent and peaceful to get their message out there (the way it should be in any society that claims to follow democratic principles).
----
A proportion of people in the US especially are oppressed and terrorist by BLM protests and instigated riots that lead to destruction of property and damage any form of social harmony.
And if anything, we want social harmony, working together instead of against each other.
Working together as a nation instead of splinter groups of interest groups.
----
Just to get an idea in connection to a gaming store:
Imagine you sit in a store, play some Magic and the BLM mob ascends upon your store, screeches, demands you leave immediately.
Hows that helpful in any way ?
People put the BLM label on any form of crazy social oppression and just act like their obscure shouting is doing anything but damage to the social harmony.
If a group of different political backgrounds remotely wants to be able to come together and play a game without violence against each other, the only way to do that is to keep these labels completely out of the context of the hobby.
The moment one is allowed to spread its message its only natural that any counter-group will do the same.
And if the counter-argument is oppressed and not allowed, it leads to the issue that actual dialogue is not allowed and one side is so massively favored over the other that nobody is allowed to disagree or be shunned and silenced by force.
A welcoming friendly environment cannot exist with interest groups involved that have nothing to do with the context of the actual hobby forum for trading card games.
(Its like someone forces dialogue about their sexual preferences at a kids birthday party ... thats as inappropriate as it gets)
You are correct H3RAC71TU5 that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing to the site,
Well, let's not get carried away.
Perhaps it is the case that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing on the site; I do not know this to be true (or false). Rather, whatever systemic bias which is present on the site is not contingent on the views of the staff. Every single staff member could be a card-carrying communist and the enforcement of this moderation policy in itself would have the same results. This is not a coincidence. There is no chronic issue of left-wing posters blurting out inflammatory political posts out of the blue. Centrists also do not do this. I don't say this to suggest two wrongs make a right, but to point out the cause for the disparity. The reason for this is the fundamental strategies employed by different political ideologies. The right is characterized by the provocateur tactic; the left is characterized by critique (for the center, its a disdain for passion presented as the high ground, among other techniques ;)). These strategies are being borne out through the forum posts here, and because of their inherent differences, a representative bias emerges from the policy about political posts. And this has an effect over time of emboldening hateful views unopposed by positive resistance (only the passive, negative action of moderation which leaves resistance unspoken), creating a space for their gradual 'radicalization' (a bit of a misnomer) which causes real life violence. The policy creates a safe space for this behavior to continually recur because its moderation is effectively a slap on the wrist whereas everyone else receives total censure. So not only is the policy manifestly not neutral, it actively contributes to a problem.
In a more pressing and closer to home example, recent political discussions have been quite in depth among the moderators as well. There are several solutions which have been proposed which have been debated, and given contrasting views as we thankfully have the diversity on staff to not simply railroad one set of values at the expense of others.
I would caution against a notion that diversity is a panacea for moderating the community. For diversity to be reliably beneficial, its representatives must be accountable to the groups they represent, for one. I presume this site does have general mechanisms of accountability for moderators, forgive me that I do not know all of the details thereof. But there is a danger of diversity becoming a final goal, the oft-criticized "identity politics," when (although it is an end in itself) diversity's value must be contextualized with the broader set of goals of which it is a part as a means to the true final goal, justice. I mean "justice" in the broadest possible sense, for the purposes of the site in our current discussion, you can take it to mean fairness.
I'm not familiar with what you personally consider to be a diverse set of political views; in my experience, the perception most people have of the range of views in politics is actually a fairly narrow set of ideologies from which is extrapolated the model of the "spectrum." This is exacerbated from the conflation of entire sets of views with one another, especially in the United States, due to a false dichotomy of liberal and conservative. Which, incidentally, also forms its own representative bias in what ideologies the general public has political awareness of. I mean, when you say the staff has a diverse range of views does that mean some staff members are of a fascist persuasion? That would be diverse, technically, just as if some staff members had committed murder the staff would be diverse in the metric of criminality.
You are also correct about disproportionate representation of viewpoints. Media these days try to gain viewrship and clicks by presenting drama and strife, and do so by often saying that both sides of an issue need to be examined. It is important to examine both views, however this does not mean that both views are equal. Examining both sides simply means to not dismiss a contrary viewpoint out of hand - not to give it equal importance. Simply because two viewpoints are opposed, does not mean they have equal weight. For an extreme example, let's take Murder. If one side says "Murder is bad" and the other side says "Murder is good" - the morality of these points are not equal. Examining both sides may mean simply listening to the other argument, or acknowledging that it exists. However, it does not mean that both points have an equal ground, nor need to be given equal screentime. In fact, promoting both messages equally would be immoral in itself. Once the contrary arguments are heard, and debated, it is important to repeat the message that "murder is bad" and have that be the prevalent message that is shown.
That is why on this site that signs of solidarity for #BLM are allowed in user's signatures. Several members have opted to show solidarity within their signatures in respect with the sites rules. However, the alternate slogan of #BlueLivesMatter, which has been recognized as widely used as a hate slogan, is not allowed (however, general support of the police IS allowed - there is rightful disagreement and discussion on HOW to best fix the police - what is not allowed is hatespeech/movements, which BlueLM is generally recognized as supporting). There is some division on the staff about #AllLivesMatter, as there are legitimate cases of its use in promoting racial equality and unity - however, as its main use has been as a slogan for "Racial Dismissal" or simply as a criticism of #BLM, we again ask that it not be used on this site.
I'm afraid that I can't consider hashtags in signatures to be remotely adequate. Using your example above, it would be like an advertisement saying "MURDER IS GOOD" with small text at the end stating "murder is bad actually." Even that doesn't quite capture it. It would be a small text on a different commercial on a different channel.
If someone makes a post which is immoral, it is important that the moral message be prevalent. But that moral message is only (with exceptional briefness) summarized in slogans. And in the case of a locked thread, the moral message has no possible prevalence in the exact relevant situation that its prevalence ought to be expressed vociferously. The moral message must be conveyed specifically in response to the immoral message because this itself demonstrates the substance of the morality in the concrete example of refuting the immoral. The original messenger may be unconvinced, and the discussion may become heated, but its existence is morally beneficial to the community.
What I want is for counterpoints to be able to be expressed. If lines are crossed or if both sides begin to repeat themselves, then moderator intervention is certainly appropriate. And perhaps some of the solutions you've alluded to being discussed could be helpful as well. Perhaps a functionality could be put in place to ban a specific member from posting in a given thread, allowing people to make replies without it escalating into an argument that derails a thread. And in the event that other people join in and it does become an argument, perhaps all that indicates is a strong community desire to have that discussion. You're asking us to ignore posts for the sake of people who want to get away from political discussions, why is it not the case those people can simply ignore the discussions which occur? There's a blocking system in place, certainly people who engage in political discussion gain a reputation for doing so. I think it would be healthier for the community for the selection of discussion to be largely handled by individual users' tastes of who to simply block than to put in place moderation rules which you've admitted create enormous difficulties to enforce.
I would also dispute the claim that there are better places to discuss politics or engage in activism. Politics suffuses all human existence. It is present in all our interactions. There is no "better" place for the discussion to occur, it is a dimension within all discussions. As such it is universally relevant. I understand that you don't see this as being on topic, but it's fundamentally different from the example you provide of gardening. A topic always has a certain scope, but these "horizontal" dimensions are superficial (in even an etymological sense ), meaning all depth of discussion ultimately proceeds through the moral aspect (i.e., the topic's salient relevance to human life, of which politics is a part). Topicality is one of many criteria which must dictate discursive norms. I would contrast with it the "moral aspect" I mention, meaning not quite so lofty things as it sounds as just forming social relationships between posters. Permitting political discussion is something I see as having a net benefit of generating higher engagement within the community. I've been reading this forum for over a decade (yikes), and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the average length of threads and the amount of replies between members has gradually decreased over that interval. Partially I suppose this could be attributed to the greater frequency of Magic products resulting in a higher quantity of threads and also the consequence of finite design space. But I think the forum culture here has also suffered from forum rules being unnecessarily stifling to discussion. A move toward promoting free and open discussion would allow the forum to flourish. Topicality is important, but as long as the forum overall is about Magic, as long as individual threads have had space made for on topic discussion, I don't see the need to root out all digression.
There is also the case that simply by nature of the discussion, one side is more likely to be moderated, and thus that message will not be given equal representation. As such, moderation may provide a bias in what messaging appears on the site. An example of this could possibly be pro-LGBT messaging vs. anti-LGBT messaging. As pro-LGBT messaging is generally non-inflammatory and supportive, it is less likely to receive moderation than anti-LGBT messaging which is often inflammatory and divisive. As such, more LGBT messaging will show up on the site than anti-LGBT messaging. That said, we have had exceptional cases in the past where pro-LGBT users have posted messages that have been inflammatory in their own messaging and own right, and have had to be moderated on their own merits. Whether this presents an issue with the moderation methods, and whether a viewpoint is being dis-proportionally represented needs to be evaluated on a case by case merit. In the example presented, I see no issue in promoting an inclusive message over a hateful or dismissive one.
I'm a little bit concerned about what you're saying here.
Let me start off by using an example from philosophy of science to get away from framing bias in terms of politics for a bit. My hope is that we can attain greater clarity about bias. So. The Quine-Duhem Thesis states that hypotheses are not tested in isolation. For example, in the famous experiment demonstrating the roundness of the earth, the sails of a ship were observed as the ship sailed toward the horizon. If the earth were flat, the entire ship would be expected to go out of view all at once. But if the earth has a curvature, the sails would be the last part of the ship to vanish. The aforementioned thesis would point out that this experiment assumes that light travels in straight lines. Then, to demonstrate light does travel in straight lines, an experimental complex would have to make other assumptions that that experiment does not test, and so on. Meaning that there are an unlimited number of potential hypotheses for any given phenomenon. This is, btw, a massive epistemological problem which has been discussed at length, but I digress (!). My point is, *in practice* scientists still select from a relatively small number of hypotheses to test, and even develop consensus. Is it a bias for the hypothesis that light travels in straight lines is selected for representation in scientific theory and that the hypothesis that light travels in crooked lines isn't, let alone the N other hypotheses that also aren't represented? Well, maybe. But the notion of bias in the first place presupposes an objective and coherent world. That's a start for explaining the intuitive process of narrowing the options down. The presence of free and open discussion has always been a critical mechanism for biases to be brought to light in the history of science. And reaching consensus means moving on to other topics, the fringe resurgence of flat-earthism notwithstanding.
So, in other words, contrary to what you said earlier, being unbiased does not mean that two opposing views receive some amount of representation in which neither is dismissed outright. In fact it is quite impossible to not dismiss outright any number of things at all times, nor would it be desirable not to. It is not a bias to discriminate on the point of representation if there is justification to omit. I'm glad you agree that not all views are equal, but in fact, that means that some views warrant absolutely no serious treatment and the most rational thing to do is to dismiss them outright.
That's what concerns me about you saying that some anti-LBGT posts would not be moderated. I should think that any anti-LBGT post would be against the forum rules and subject to moderation. Hate speech isn't bad because it's rude. It's not bad because it disrupts orderly operation. It's bad because it causes harm. Hate speech, no matter how politely worded so as to not inflame, is harmful. Suppose a Nazi is hunting a Jew, but stealthily. He captures the man unseen, and even replaces him with a convincing automaton. Civil life goes on undisrupted, and no one notices what has happened, but this is still murder--its still wrong. It would not be a bias to remove all instances of anti-LBGT posts, as they do not meet basic moral standards for representation just as "light travels in crooked lines" fails epistemic standards. However, since people do make these posts anyway, when they do (and it happens frequently), if it is deleted or the thread closed without a rebuttal allowed, this creates a bias in the site. It's important for the general community to see the arguments as to why such content is immoral, because this is basically educational and raises awareness. This supports conditions of healthy forum interactions even though the argument against immorality itself is acutely argumentative. Under the circumstances, a heated discussion is warranted because it cements the values of the community at that frontier and is a signpost for the community's cultural development. This keeps on happening because the community needs to be able to talk about these things in order to move on and talk about Magic. You want the site to be a safe space for a broad variety of people, and it should be. But it cannot be a safe space for both LBGT people and people with anti-LGBT views; reactively covering up the latter is not sufficient for making it a safe space for the former.
When we say we want to accept all people on this site to discuss magic - what we mean is that we accept all people to come to the site and discuss magic. Much as Target or Walmart will allow any individual to enter their stores and shop regardless of their political affiliation, we allow any individual to browse this site and discuss magic regardless of their affiliations.
However, if an individual were to enter a Target or Walmart, and disturb other users by shouting political messages in their faces, or by knocking over stands of masks, they would be removed from the store regardless of their political biases. The same is true here. This site is not a political soapbox, and political bias has no merit in disrupting other users. Support towards a cause IS welcome here - unless that support itself is prejudicial or harmful.
Showing support and solidarity is great - much like wearing a T-shirt or face covering that shows your solidarity to a cause. However, if that solidarity itself is problematic or hateful, it is not welcome here either. Using the Walmart/Target example, this would be akin to someone entering the store with a Tshirt/Mask which is obscene, hateful, or contains a slur, those individuals can (and would) be asked to vacate the store.
Assaulting others is not ok, regardless of circumstance.
And I would counter that it's not possible for all content in the discussions to be 100% about Magic. People come here to discuss Magic, but also to discuss generally... it's a forum. People go to Walmart to shop, the lines which demarcate appropriate behavior in that context are necessarily narrower. I want to generate more Magic discussion. But the conditions for that means having more leeway. That doesn't mean allowing harassment. But it does mean that the degree of controversy is proportional to the value of the thesis. A thesis which has the (negative) value of creating large immoral situations needs to be rejected more forcefully than most theses. To reject forcefully without devolving into harassment is quite a hard skill to develop, I've certainly not mastered it. I believe it takes practice and maybe some direction.
This means we should work to create a safe place for them. Not create a toxic environment that repeatedly throws the fight back into there faces no matter where they go. This site is one of those places where people CAN step away from their problems. Behind a name on the internet, you can be anything - black, white, red, blue, or green - no one knows anything about you except what you choose to share. This is the one place where people CAN get away from their troubles, from their problems, from the politics - and enjoy a hobby they love, and share that enjoyment with others.
If a person trying to unwind is constantly attacked and not allowed to unwind, is it really surprising that they end up pissed off and stressed? That they end up pissed off at the very cause that "awareness" is being raised for? And pissed off at the person attacking them, for the manner in which they are constantly bringing up that "awareness"?
Consistently berating and attacking the other side is the exact opposite of creating a safe space for anyone. It creates a place where even the group in question cannot escape their issues. Believe it or not, they need to unwind as well. Creating a safe space means creating an environment where those people can be relax, not harassed, and not have to interact with the hateful rhetoric. In the context of this site, it means creating an environment which (1) does not have people and messages that disparage them, such as racist, misogynistic, or prejudicial messages - and (2) does not have people constantly bringing up the issue in the face of everyone else, which then instigates those very fights right in their faces - which, coincidentally causes those very issues to cut those wounds right back open again - in the very place that they hoped to find that very safety.
I don't think there is the need for an environment for people to go where it's supposed to not be at politics at all, but political posts hating on that person in particular for who they are pop up periodically and no one stands up to this. Seeing content like that which moderation will structurally never completely eliminate or suppress, and not seeing anyone come out with more supportive content, is alienating. It is because of the great degree of prevalence of that hatred that the groups subject to this in fact need the allowance of equitable exception, up to and including the criterion of topicality.
I also fear I do not understand the need to weigh in on FlossedBeaver's in-post tags. This isn't harassment, it is not in itself disruptive although a person could choose to make a disruption out of it--but the problem then lies with that person's choice. It's a personal quirk, and it's also an unintended consequence of your policy against political posts. I think you understand this and that's the real reason why you're coming down so hard on it. But you're putting yourself in a position where you're going to have to plug up too many holes in your ship because your policy is untenable. If people aren't allowed to express the things they need to express in a particular way, it will come out in some other way. This isn't good for the health of the community.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffI am bobthefunny, and I am now an Admin of this site. I have been promoted from being a Moderator in the Commander forums, which I have maintained for almost seven years now.
Feel free to discuss things with me here.
Thanks,
-bob
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I'm curious if the staff has a plan in mind for how this discussion can be facilitated? It was expressed numerous times in both threads that members feel racism and bigotry within the fandom (and this community, to be pointed about it) needs to be discussed and both times rather than try to facilitate the discussion, the staff has killed it instead. In my opinion, the staff are doing more harm than good by doing this. Not only does it cut off dialogue that is long overdue (and undertaken by most in good faith), it only teaches the few acting in bad faith that all they have to do to cut the conversation off (therefore keeping things just as they are, which serves their desires to not address bigotry like racism) is nudge things off topic - easy in a dialogue as emotionally charged as the subject of racism.
This feels like a job for strategic pruning and encouraging things to grow in healthy directions, but the tactic employed is just to cut the tree down. Why is that?
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffHi MikeyG,
Thanks for your concern and input. I agree that this is an important discussion to have - but I am not entirely convinced that THIS is the place to have it - which is the viewpoint currently shared by the owners. This is first and foremost a Gaming discussion site - for mtg. While a conversation about how racism currently is in the playerbase might be valuable and supported - currently none of these discussions has managed to contain itself to that topic, and instead becomes a person's personal platform. That does not help anybody.
However, we would love to have your take on it. I will share your current words with the owners, as a different viewpoint. If you have additional feedback you'd like to share, please respond and I will pass it along as well.
I would also like to add that the site did at one point have a political/news discussion area available - it had to be shut down due to the high amount of moderation resources it required - that would be even more true today.
If you could:
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Thank you. It's concerning that the owners don't see this as an issue that affects the community here, but I thank you for taking the concern seriously.
Oh I know, I modded it for years.
1) I'd see it as an opportunity to discuss racism's impact on the game, the fandom, and areas like LGSes. It'd likely start as a discussion of the merits of WotC's method(s) for addressing racism, eventually need to reestablish what racism is (racism just isn't a part of many posters' lives, it's inevitable for there there to be questions around it and reestablishing a baseline for what the conversation is even about serves the overall dialogue), and then turn back to what WotC is doing as well as what other areas of the fandom could/should be doing. A single discussion isn't going to solve racism in the community, but I'd consider it a success if people with disparate views could discuss the topic with an open mind, perhaps understand other views (maybe even reconsider their own), without bad faith actors derailing things. It may be too much to hope that the community as a whole walks away with some tools for allyship, but that would be nice, too.
2) In my experience, the boundary points are: a) personal attacks, b) advocacy for illegal acts, particularly violence, c) outright white supremacy. And it probably isn't necessary to delve into deep discussions of racism's history as it's not as germane to the discussion, not to say history isn't important context or that it didn't directly lead to a modern context, it's just too far afield to really be in service of the conversation around racism in the fandom. The boundary points would be things that either advocate extreme real life attitudes and behaviors, or things that would send the thread down a tangent that doesn't really serve the focus (racism in the fandom/game/community).
3) Understanding that the topic is one with a lot of emotions attached to it, modding it should always have the mentality of nurturing the conversation while providing structure/boundaries. It's finesse work, and my strategy was to keep posters on track by nudging them back towards arguments they could support and encouraging the discussion to redirect itself by asking posters questions. I'll be clear that I wasn't always successful because I was 25 and still had some growing up to do, but that was the intent and I suppose it's how I would have liked to have done it. As for how far the staff should go to be seen as not pushing a particular viewpoint, I say don't. I don't think it's possible to do that, the staff should be prepared to understand what its stance is and behave in accordance with it transparently. For example, I never tried to hide what my beliefs were, I simply didn't (or tried not to, at least) let it impact moderation choices. Neutral and fair in moderation, not neutral in opinion
4) As I said, asking questions that would lead a poster back from a tangent, or modposts redirecting more pointedly. I think as well, deescalation tactics, temporary thread locks when tensions run hot, etc.
5) I think it would need to be watched for posters who aren't engaging in order to serve a discussion, they're engaging to end the discussion. They will attempt, intentionally or otherwise, to disrupt the discussion. That's not just true now, it was true a decade ago in Debate as well. There will always, I think, exist a small number of people in the community that just want to derail meaningful discussions. Sometimes in service to a personal agenda, sometimes just because being a griefer is fun for some. But we saw posters acting in bad faith to derail things often enough, you just need to be aware and keep the topic moving along productively like traffic control.
Thank you again, bob, for taking this seriously.
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThank you!
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
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
Where do you, as a moderation staff, draw the line between political discourse and sociological discourse? The former you clearly believe belongs elsewhere (despite the fact that MTGS is not an island, nor does it exist apart from the larger Magic community), but social issues affect us all - even here, and whether we want them to or not. We simply cannot ignore that posters here are human beings, not digital abstractions, and there are real life issues that also affect us as Magic players. Yet it seems as though the mods are content to enforce a set of rules that would treat us otherwise. Why is that?
Do the MTGS site owners believe that black lives matter? If so, why have they not come out and addressed the issue directly, instead of skirting it by repeating that political discourse is heavily discouraged? If they believe that black lives matter, they should be able to say so unequivocally, either through some general announcement or asking the mods to sticky a declaration to that effect. Or are the site owners content to passively encourage systemic racism with their silence on the matter? Is there some other reason why they won't follow Wizard's lead on this topic?
What about you, Bob? Do you believe that black lives matter? If the site owners asked you to say or do something that you personally believed to be morally reprehensible, would you comply, or would you step down as site admin?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThank you for your concern, and your questions.
No online discourse area is ever a perfect island - but we can try to keep things focused, if possible. Let's take a different subject - if someone were to suddenly hijack a thread to talk about gardening, that too is off topic. There are real life issues that affect us all, and there are even some off-topic areas to discuss issues that are affecting people. However, the expectation is that people be able to discuss things calmly and rationally, and pertinent to the topic at hand. Some recent topics have certainly blurred, or included the lines of political discussion to an extent - but even then those lines need to be respected. This site is not a political soap box, nor a person's personal platform to yell at and attack others. When this occurs, the topic is closed, or other appropriate actions are taken. We expect all members to be able to maintain composure and speak rationally, and without racism or prejudicial remarks. Those that are unable to do that, will be asked to no longer participate.
Every conversation I have had with the owners suggests that they are aware and do support black lives, and are against the atrocities being committed. We have gone through several drafts of our statement before releasing the current one which you read - our goal was to clearly state the sites non-tolerance of racism, bigotry, and prejudice, while also attempting to cool down the situation. As this is not a political site, we did not want to initiate a political rally.
I believe that Black Lives Matter. The systematic racism that plagues America is very real, and has persisted for a ridiculously long time. It amazes me that you can turn on a comedian from the 1970's and hear the very same political discourse and fear of cops and chokeholds that are being talked about today.
The great part about volunteering for MTG Salvation is getting to know the community and help foster and give back to the community I care about. Quite simply, if I did not believe in or care for this community, there is no way that I could continue to volunteer to help it. I do believe that the ownership knows this, respects it, and even values that type of commitment. We are granted a good amount of leeway, input, and support in managing the site - within reason. If the ownership were to ever ask something contrary to this, then this would not be a place I would be comfortable volunteering my time for, and I would indeed have to step down.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffHi FlossedBeaver,
Thanks for your question! First off, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to you. I have been out of town, so my personal thread here has been unmonitored during my absence.
Political threads continue to be a difficult topic to approach, and even trickier to handle properly. Ideally, we wish to distance ourselves from politics as much as possible - as this is not a political site, and not intended for political debate. It is of course difficult because nothing is ever so easily divided, especially as several recent decisions by Wizards have reached into political spheres. We of course wish to allow discussion of Wizards' decisions and their impact. This makes monitoring that line of where discussion is Magic appropriate to be a difficult case, and needing evaluation on a shifting basis as new topics and decisions are introduced. We hope to maintain the standard to discussion that remains Magic related and oriented however, and not open the site to political rallies.
The American political spectrum today is very divisive, and the post quoted does make the valid point that not all stances are inherently respectful or equal. This is one of many reasons we wish to not engage or encourage these discussions on this site. This is a family friendly site, and disrespectful and dismissive views can not, and should not be tolerated here. As such, those posts need to be deleted in order to maintain a family appropriate content.
This however also touches on one of the difficulties of moderation - visible moderation leaves a record and example of content that gets infracted - but leaves also unacceptable content on the site where minors or other vulnerable demographics can see the content. Deleting or otherwise removing the content allows the discussion to continue without the objectionable deviations, however there is then no visible action shown and people may assume no moderation is taking place. Removing content can also give the impression of implicit censorship, or silencing of a specific viewpoint. This is especially difficult in a political sphere, where as the user stated, not all sides are inherently equal or respectful. It is always a struggle as to how to best handle each and any given situation. Building and fostering a community is always a difficult task, for all those involved. From the moderators who volunteer time and have to take action, but also to the very members of the community who shape the community and discussion in the messages they choose to post and spread, as well as reporting what they feel objectionable and detrimental to the community.
As far as the view that the site is leaning in one direction or another - there have always been allegations of various viewpoints that the site leans in a direction opposite of where the user feels they personally stand. This is often the case when trying to hold a centrist or non-partisan position. We have been accused of being anywhere and everywhere on the political spectrum, from allegations of far-right, to allegations for far-left extreme liberalism. The hope is that the balance of these allegations shows that we do hold that central line. Historically speaking, I believe that the majority of the staff has tended to lean slightly to fairly liberal, all things considered, however the staff has had representation from the full spectrum of political beliefs. We have never had any sort of "official" survey on the matter, however our off topic chats, as well as various discussions on how to handle certain tickets (especially political) has shown that we are a fairly diverse group in terms of beliefs.
===
I hope this answers your questions as to our general views, and why we take the stances we do on political discussions.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Hello,
I'd like to clarify what is being stated in the quoted content. It is not necessary for the site overall to be leaning in a particular direction, or for specific staffing on the site to being leaning toward particular views, in order for one of the site's policies to in practice have biased results. What I'm describing here is a type of bias in the true sense of the word, in which the sorts of discussions that get represented are disproportional to the views of the community and/or disproportional to their epistemic merit as an effect of the moderation policy. In other words, a policy which is actually biased, because it is intended to dispel the appearance of bias (according to popular perception which is self-reinforcing). The latter is what you're describing vis-à-vis holding a "central line," a position which makes it possible for those on the political right to feel comfortable in the community here by virtue of implicit approval. If there's middle ground to be had, neither side can be considered to have gone beyond the pale, and thus there are "good people on both sides." I think this is a pragmatic calculation about maintaining the largest possible audience, but the long term effects of the social dynamics within that audience are something I would consider to be unfortunate.
I respect the difficulty you mention of determining how to best moderate in these cases. I hope that you consider the criticism I have offered as reflecting on the value that this community holds to me, which has been cultivated over many years of work by the staff here. If I felt it were fruitless to continue to engage in discussion here, I would refrain from doing so.
I will apologize for not being as forgiving as my peers; while I can empathize with your position as a mod, I do not sympathize. You volunteered to be here, and no matter the difficulty it is your responsibility to make this a safe space for all Magic players - and yes, that includes those very same groups I mentioned above. Your determination to hold a centrist line only continues to promote inequity on these message boards, and hamstringing our ability to promote more inclusive values / behavior means that bad faith posters will come away emboldened and enabled, the inevitable consequence of which is the continued toxification of social mores in real space. This is why I continue to emphasize that MTGS does not exist in isolation; we are all part of the greater, global community, and however small our footprint may be here on these forums, there are still broader repercussions to be felt everywhere. I implore you to be part of the solution, and if you can't live up to your self-imposed responsibilities then at least let us do it for you.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffYou are correct H3RAC71TU5 that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing to the site, and that was not the primary reason that I had brought that up. The context that I had wished to convey with that statement is one of diversity, and having representation of various walks when discussing new challenges brought upon by moderation. For example, I would be very concerned if the staff were to moderate content regarding a minority, without having the perspective of a minority to explain or provide context. Now, the staff is limited, and we do not have representation of every minority that exists - however, even having some minority context can be helpful to provide some amount of experience from a grander scheme.
As an example, earlier this year a series of posts was reported to us for having some slurs against a minority. I was unfamiliar with the terms, and requested some clarification from the user regarding those terms. The user was able to provide an impressively concise history, with additional reference for further reading. Fortunately, we also had a former staff member of that minority I was able to reach out to, and another staff member was also able to shed light on the tickets from previous experience as well. This allowed us to respond to the ticket and post appropriately, and I personally learned a bit more about these types of interactions - though I would hope that I would not need to use this knowledge in the future.
In a more pressing and closer to home example, recent political discussions have been quite in depth among the moderators as well. There are several solutions which have been proposed which have been debated, and given contrasting views as we thankfully have the diversity on staff to not simply railroad one set of values at the expense of others.
===
You are also correct about disproportionate representation of viewpoints. Media these days try to gain viewrship and clicks by presenting drama and strife, and do so by often saying that both sides of an issue need to be examined. It is important to examine both views, however this does not mean that both views are equal. Examining both sides simply means to not dismiss a contrary viewpoint out of hand - not to give it equal importance. Simply because two viewpoints are opposed, does not mean they have equal weight. For an extreme example, let's take Murder. If one side says "Murder is bad" and the other side says "Murder is good" - the morality of these points are not equal. Examining both sides may mean simply listening to the other argument, or acknowledging that it exists. However, it does not mean that both points have an equal ground, nor need to be given equal screentime. In fact, promoting both messages equally would be immoral in itself. Once the contrary arguments are heard, and debated, it is important to repeat the message that "murder is bad" and have that be the prevalent message that is shown.
That is why on this site that signs of solidarity for #BLM are allowed in user's signatures. Several members have opted to show solidarity within their signatures in respect with the sites rules.
However, the alternate slogan of
#BlueLivesMatter, which has been recognized as widely used as a hate slogan, is not allowed(edit 9/9/2020: Further research into the origins and history and current social usage of the slogan has been done, and we are allowing #BlueLivesMatter as a statement of support to slain officers and solidarity for our uniformed officers. See: https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/community-discussion/staff-helpdesks/814110-admin-bobthefunnys-strategic-chalkboard?page=2#c39 . Context is always considered, as with the usage of any slogan or phrase) (however, general support of the police IS allowed - there is rightful disagreement and discussion on HOW to best fix the police - what is not allowed is hatespeech/movements,which BlueLM is generally recognized as supporting(This statement is not necessarily accurate, and I apologise for it. -bob)).There is some division on the staff about #AllLivesMatter, as there are legitimate cases of its use in promoting racial equality and unity - however, as its main use has been as a slogan for "Racial Dismissal" or simply as a criticism of #BLM, we again ask that it not be used on this site.
There is also the case that simply by nature of the discussion, one side is more likely to be moderated, and thus that message will not be given equal representation. As such, moderation may provide a bias in what messaging appears on the site. An example of this could possibly be pro-LGBT messaging vs. anti-LGBT messaging. As pro-LGBT messaging is generally non-inflammatory and supportive, it is less likely to receive moderation than anti-LGBT messaging which is often inflammatory and divisive. As such, more LGBT messaging will show up on the site than anti-LGBT messaging. That said, we have had exceptional cases in the past where pro-LGBT users have posted messages that have been inflammatory in their own messaging and own right, and have had to be moderated on their own merits. Whether this presents an issue with the moderation methods, and whether a viewpoint is being dis-proportionally represented needs to be evaluated on a case by case merit. In the example presented, I see no issue in promoting an inclusive message over a hateful or dismissive one.
If you feel that a particular viewpoint is getting a disproportional representation, and that the representation given is harmful to the community, please let us know. We WANT to know. Drop us a line in the staff inbox. Post here (public). PM the administrators or your local mod directly. Report problematic or harmful posts, and let us know why. If it's a larger concern, give us plenty of details so we can discuss it amongst the staff, but also so we can discuss it with you.
====
When we say we want to accept all people on this site to discuss magic - what we mean is that we accept all people to come to the site and discuss magic. Much as Target or Walmart will allow any individual to enter their stores and shop regardless of their political affiliation, we allow any individual to browse this site and discuss magic regardless of their affiliations.
However, if an individual were to enter a Target or Walmart, and disturb other users by shouting political messages in their faces, or by knocking over stands of masks, they would be removed from the store regardless of their political biases. The same is true here. This site is not a political soapbox, and political bias has no merit in disrupting other users. Support towards a cause IS welcome here - unless that support itself is prejudicial or harmful.
Showing support and solidarity is great - much like wearing a T-shirt or face covering that shows your solidarity to a cause. However, if that solidarity itself is problematic or hateful, it is not welcome here either. Using the Walmart/Target example, this would be akin to someone entering the store with a Tshirt/Mask which is obscene, hateful, or contains a slur, those individuals can (and would) be asked to vacate the store.
Assaulting others is not ok, regardless of circumstance.
There are many issues today which should not be political issues, but they are. That is our reality. While we must certainly work hard to change this reality, and make the world a better place, ignoring it is an unrealistic proposition.
Everything you say about race, religion, and orientation being social issues is correct. It is also a political issue. It should not be, but it is. That minorities are oppressed is fact. It is a social issue. It is also a political issue. Magic players come from all walks of life. This is fact. This is not a political issue. Where I draw the line is you saying that this makes a difference on what is, and isn't on topic. Simply because someone is a minority, does not make discussion about that minority on the board on topic. What makes something on/off topic is only the topic itself.
I have a garden. Simply because I have gardened (very amaturely, fyi) does not mean that you need to hear about my basil plants. It does not mean that I need to discuss any sort of latest gardening news, tips, or controversies from the internet. Perhaps next set Wizards will print a set focused on gardening. In that case, gardeners might have some tie in to discuss how a magic card does or does not fit its gardening lore. For example, if a card based on a mint plant was created, someone would be on topic to discuss why the mechanics and lore of the card fit the medicinal or culinary natures of a mint plant. If the topic then devolved into how to garden and cultivate actual mint plants - that would be off topic, despite the tie in to the minty card.
Above is an obvious extreme and slightly satirical expression and illustration. When it comes to representation on cards, or political messaging provided by Wizards, the lines are obviously much more difficult to judge, never clear cut, and can actually shift, depending on cultural context. However, what matter is what the discussion is serving.
A poignant example: Recently, during the Eldraine set, Wizards placed a greater emphasis on diversity in their characters and cards. This was wonderful. Plenty of users came out in support of this inclusion, as they could more closely relate to a character than before, where they had perhaps not been so well represented previously. This is great! There was some discussion about diversity in Magic's history, how it has changed historically, and what it all means. This is great, too. However, there were also ... other... posts. There were detractors, who claimed this was all shameful pandering, or were otherwise non-inclusive, or even downright prejudicial. This was not ok, and often led to discussions devolving, and threads getting locked. There were messages that attacked and shamed some of the people who had come out and identified as being represented. This is not ok, and again was either non-inclusive, or downright prejudicial. Finally, there were people who assaulted those who were being prejudicial - while their motives might have been better, their method was not. This is also not ok (it's also not how you manage to convince or convert a person).
In the case of recent issues, this is a magic site. Using this site as a political soapbox will always be off-topic. Using the large store example above, if you were to enter a Walmart or Target, and then yell at other customers, you will get removed - forcibly, if necessary. It doesn't matter what your political opinion is, or even if your opinion IS political. You could argue/yell at people about why your favorite cartoon is so great - but if you assault other patrons, you will be removed from the premises. The same is true here. If a user is argumentative, assault other users, soap boxes whatever topic is not magic related, or overall bothers other users - they will be asked to leave. Forcibly, if necessary.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staffhttps://www.mtgnexus.com/viewtopic.php?p=101218#p101218
I especially want to highlight the beginning premise of his post:
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
In perspective that Antifa associates themselves with BLM and shouts DefundThePolice for years, is putting a massive negative on this entire topic.
If political discussions are not wished for, this is downright insulting to anybody which friends these protesting terrorists attacked, hurt and which stores and homes these sick people are destroying and burning down.
This is not helpful at all and pushing blindly in a direction is upsetting a lot of people that wish nothing more than working and living together respectfully (and especially #BLM is anything but respectful).
Either be consequential and make all political associations not allowed or downright opt in to a extreme radical position that is spreading nothing more than hate, pain and misery in the world.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I'm glad you brought this up, seeing as how I've been infracted eleven consecutive times for just my in-post sig. If you support the message, then why the heck does it matter if I choose to express it on my face mask rather than my t-shirt, if the entire purpose is visibility and awareness?
Dude, please. Black people don't get to step away from being black when political discourse gets too hot, that's the entire premise of the ongoing movement. You can either acknowledge that, or continue to pretend like black people don't post here - and who could blame them at this point, when voices for inclusion are consistently shouted down for being 'political'? When people complain about systemic racism, they're describing your actions here, bob. Your silence as an authority figure, and unwillingness to let others be vocal in your stead, is perpetuating the notion that Magic is for cisgendered white guys only.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThe more apt comparison here is that you are walking up to everyone in the store and saying it to their face. Repeatedly.
Antagonizing other customers is how people get asked to leave the store.
You are absolutely right that Black people cannot step away from being black. That women cannot stop being women. That gays, and Natives, and Muslims, and Christians, and Jewish people, and any other minority, or any group of people can stop being there what they are. This means we should work to create a safe place for them. Not create a toxic environment that repeatedly throws the fight back into there faces no matter where they go. This site is one of those places where people CAN step away from their problems. Behind a name on the internet, you can be anything - black, white, red, blue, or green - no one knows anything about you except what you choose to share. This is the one place where people CAN get away from their troubles, from their problems, from the politics - and enjoy a hobby they love, and share that enjoyment with others.
If a person trying to unwind is constantly attacked and not allowed to unwind, is it really surprising that they end up pissed off and stressed? That they end up pissed off at the very cause that "awareness" is being raised for? And pissed off at the person attacking them, for the manner in which they are constantly bringing up that "awareness"?
Consistently berating and attacking the other side is the exact opposite of creating a safe space for anyone. It creates a place where even the group in question cannot escape their issues. Believe it or not, they need to unwind as well. Creating a safe space means creating an environment where those people can be relax, not harassed, and not have to interact with the hateful rhetoric. In the context of this site, it means creating an environment which (1) does not have people and messages that disparage them, such as racist, misogynistic, or prejudicial messages - and (2) does not have people constantly bringing up the issue in the face of everyone else, which then instigates those very fights right in their faces - which, coincidentally causes those very issues to cut those wounds right back open again - in the very place that they hoped to find that very safety.
Systematic racism is not simply 'silence'. Systematic racism is denial. It is turning the other way and allowing problematic rhetoric to continue. Silence CAN be systematic racism, in that silence can be turning the other way and ignoring issues. In the context of this site and our position on these issues, what we are asking is NOT to ignore hateful rhetoric. If it exists, report it, and let us handle it. It is not welcome here. Period. Our request of 'silence' is to allow people to have a place where they can enjoy the hobby they came here to enjoy. A place where they can escape those troubles, and step out of the fight. If they want to go join that fight, if they have recuperated and want to go be an activist - there are better places than here to do it. Let them choose where they want to engage. This is not that place.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I saw a black woman at the grocery store not more than a week ago with a shirt that read "Please don't be racist. Thank you," and I complimented her on it. You know what she didn't say in response? Get that political crap outta here, I'm trying to shop.
No? You give posters too little credit if you think I've somehow hoodwinked them all into believing that I'm directing an obvious signature at them. I've reiterated multiple times that I'm simply promoting awareness, in the manner I find most efficacious (for mobile platforms specifically), and pointed out that I refuse to publicly engage people who respond inappropriately or in bad faith. You are taking issue with the form and not the substance of my approach, and that form is a matter of millimetres on your screen. So no, by all outward appearance it is not an apt comparison, not by any metric. But don't take my word for it:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/667462-rumor-mill-forum-helpdesk?comment=49
This narrative that you've created about leftist aggression here is... delusional? I don't know what better word to use for it, except to say that it doesn't jibe with reality. The few voices of reason here are anything but antagonistic, and if you're going to lump my sig in there as a form of overt aggression then I don't know what to tell you at this point. If your premise is that even bigots deserve a safe place to just be themselves and enjoy Magic, as long as they're not bothering anyone else, then I'm going to stop you right there and say no, they do not. You have no business lecturing me about what is and what is not systemic racism so long as you continue to perpetuate it, and just this paragraph alone is emblematic of both the underlying problem and your inability to recognize it.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
https://action.donaldjtrump.com/democrat-corruption-ad-v3/?utm_medium=ad&utm_source=dp_googletd&utm_campaign=20200814_na_kamalavp_djt_tmagacpros_ocpmylea_bh_audience0140_na_na_us_b_18-99_gdnw_all_na_lp0348_acq_sa_responsive_na_na_na&utm_content=sur&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI45up65rR6wIVDH5iCh16wQg9EAEYASAAEgKMgPD_BwE
I guarantee you there's nothing in my browsing history that would lend itself to this sort of targeted ad. It's being advertised here, at MTGS, because that's the community you serve. I'm disgusted, frankly.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
No, it's not. The staff thinking it is, though, is profoundly naive and certainly clarifies a lot.
Who are you referring to here? Are you saying that marginalized people are mad and stressed because other posters are raising awareness about ignorant/bigoted/offensive attitudes displayed on the forum? Who is the attacker here, is there a lot of attacks going on? I'll admit that I haven't seen a lot of direct attacks going on so much as dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes and frankly that's a bigger piss off and stressor than other posters taking a stand against it. But I may have misread you.
So, for context, I'm the director of a charity that supports 2SLGBTQ+ people across our province, and I championed a whole educational program that is a full-day class on creating and maintaining safer spaces. I work with municipalities, schools, community organizations - I even worked with a federal prison once. I don't know that I'd call myself an expert, but this is certainly something I work with daily.
Your first point is certainly on target, but I don't think the second is. Safe spaces don't assume challenging/hurtful conversations won't happen, they ensure that the people who could be in some way harmed by those situations have backup so they aren't in a position to deal with it alone. And in some cases that means having allies take on the work of pushing back against ignorance and helping people understand why their attitudes/actions are harmful. Safety isn't stopping conversations about bigoted opinions from happening, it's ensuring that when they do happen that they are healthy/respectful discussions and the people most impacted by them are supported. In my trainings, I advocate for authority figures (teachers, supervisors, etc) to be those supports, facilitate healthy and anti-oppressive discussions, and follow-up with people who may have been impacted to ensure they're okay. On a site like this, I'd anticipate the staff would take that on but here it's largely been a handful of users. And I'm grateful that they do.
I certainly can't and won't speak for every marginalized person on the forum, perhaps some like these conversations being avoided. I think that's like an ostrich with its head in the sand, racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc members are on the forum, and in my experience letting things go unchallenged doesn't make things go away. I personally feel most supported and 'safe' (in this context) when I know other posters won't let casual bigotry slide and will seek to pushback and educate. That, in my opinion, is the hallmark of a real safe space.
Not to be petty, but I reported a homophobic slur in a thread title and nothing happened for three days. I'm not bringing it up to criticize the staff, I get why that situation played out as it did and that's my point. The staff isn't able to facilitate and guide conversations like it used to, they aren't in the position to be the empathetic authorities nurturing a community (not that previous iterations of the staff didn't have their issues). I think it's why you're seeing regular posters attempt to step into that role by pushing back on posters expressing opinions that may be hurtful to other posters. And it's very likely why you're receiving so much frustration, the staff's stance on this feels more like neutrality than real leadership - especially from the perspective of posters putting in effort to be supportive and try to make other posters feel supported (which is to say nothing of the general principle many of these posters may be guided by beyond just supporting other posters).
I appreciate that the staff is having conversations about how to address the politicization and partisanship of everything, I hope feedback from posters has contributed to those conversations. I don't think the issue is going away anytime soon, it'll probably only worsen as the world continues to strain.
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffMy apologies, what I meant was, that this should be that area. This is a gaming forum, for discussing a hobby and a past time.
I left it general. People when attacked will lash back, and this places stress on all who participate in the confrontation. Willingly or unwillingly.
Dogwhistles to alt-righty/bigoted attitudes is a problem. These have no place on this site. However, it should not be on users to confront them, as that type of confrontation only escalates the issue, entrenches them, and makes it even harder to moderate in the long run. We ask that you report this issues to the moderation staff. If the staff responses are not adequate, that itself is an issue, which hopefully can be addressed and improved through discussion with community members in the staff inboxes and helpdesks, such as this one, and seeing what other ways community involvement can be improved.
Thank you for your viewpoint here. I agree that it would be irresponsible to assume that confrontation would not occur. The point I was trying to make is that this type of confrontation in a digital environment often serves to escalate and exacerbate the problem. Having allies and showing support is important, but this is best served by showing solidarity with the victim than in antagonizing the aggressor. What I would hope to have occur is that the incident get reported to the moderation, such that the offender can be made aware of the issue in a way that would prevent escalation and reduce repetition of the behavior.
Having the behavior caught early puts the onus directly on the aggressor, while if there is escalation the aggressor will more easily shift the blame to those who attacked them, and more easily frame themselves a victim and in the right. This makes it more difficult to have meaningful discussions, and hopefully meaningful change.
The goal here is certainly not ostrich head in the sand, and certainly not lack of challenge. The goal is to keep this a place for the discussion of Magic, and allow a hobby that is a stress relief and escape from every day life to remain such.
Bigoted messaging is obviously a complete anti-thesis to that goal, and is not welcome on this site.
This is indeed a point of great friction. Part of the problem though is that having users try to take this on themselves most often leads to escalation, rather than resolution.
There is certainly a rift right now between staff and community, in part due to the current burden and capabilities of the staff. I recognized that there is much room for improvement, and I certainly hope these discussions can help be a step towards that improvement.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I think that's a great ideal, but still naive. I've never felt this community was truly that (literally as far back as the 'News days), nor any other comparable space online. Though, I don't really expect them to be, wherever you find people interacting you will find issues of racism/homophobia/misogyny/etc. And again, I won't speak for all marginalized people, but I don't have an expectation that that ideal can be reached - just that the people responsible for the space try to facilitate healthier discussions.
The Harry Potter community is dealing with issues of transphobia, sports communities are having conversations about racism, etc. Communities dedicated to hobbies and pastimes aren't devoid of these conversations. I get why you're aspiring to that, I just don't think it's realistic. And to a degree, I don't know that it's responsible, either.
To hopefully clarify what I mean by that, I'll use the analogy of a classroom as it's my bread and butter at work. One of the most frequent requests I get is to conduct professional development for teachers because the schools have policies around making classrooms safer, but many teachers lack for the confidence/skills to intervene in instances where bigotry is expressed in subtle/casual ways. Teachers already have enough to deal with, and they get that this is also important, but for many it's just not their strength and it's easier just to end conversations and maybe send a student to the office for detention if they do something egregious. Those teachers foster environments of neutrality, which isn't the same thing as fostering environments of safety and of growth - which is why my team gets called in for PD. To their perspective, the space is orderly and hurtful conversations are shut down so things are good. Yet from the perspective of some of the kids in class, they will see things differently. Common sentiments expressed in our focus groups were things like "I felt like if I defended myself, I'd be in trouble too", "no one stood up for me, not even my teacher", "I feel isolated/unsupported/anxious in that space", and "I don't want to be there."
That's clearly not a 1 to 1 comparison, but I think it helps illustrate where I'm coming from.
True, but they're here and I know you just want people to report and ignore but that's not happening and I think understanding why it's not is important.
I suppose a part of my struggle with this is the emphasis on attacks and confrontations. While certainly that might be accurate for some interactions, I think it's reductive to categorize all of the conversations we're talking about that way. I've seen posters attempt more of a call-in strategy, and I think more often than not the pushback against bigotry has been conducted with an intent of real shifts in beliefs. Hell, I've PMed posters to engage them in real dialogue away from the public view where people may be more inclined to posture and snipe for clout.
I guess ultimately the issue here is one of vision. Do we think a community is healthier when hard conversations are stifled or when they're given space to proceed healthily and in good faith?
How do you think community involvement can be improved?
I suppose in the short term that could be true, but I do not believe that escalation is inevitable, nor do I think instances of escalation are lost causes even when they occur. Conflict is messy, so is growth - that's true of individuals and of communities.
I suppose that's how I see the role of authority figures in this context. They sift through the escalating tension to identify the healthy version of the conversation, deescalate and guide people to that healthier version of the conversation. If things are escalating, it's because people are invested in the issue on the table. I say harness that energy, just ensure it's directed in productive ways rather than destructive ways.
Last year, my city's Pride Festival hit the skids after a cluster**** of racism-related conflicts. In the wake of it, the community turned on itself, with escalating tension, death threats, people losing jobs, and a whole organization dissolving. My org began hosting summits to facilitate conversations at the organization/community leader level to hopefully resolve a lot of the unresolved conflicts and filter that down to the community level. Obviously we weren't going to solve racism with a series of summits, but conversations and deescalating meant we were moving in that direction. People shared, people heard about things they'd never experienced, structural issues and power dynamics in the community were exposed as unhealthy, relationships strengthened, and simple resolutions/initiatives were undertaken. There's still a ton of work to be done, but the community is healing because we made space for hard conversations, and yes for confrontations where warranted.
Do you believe that is happening? Do you think simply stopping the behavior on the forum is enough? These questions are more rhetorical in nature, more food for thought than otherwise.
For what it's worth, and please take this in the spirit intended, but when people perceive a vacuum of leadership on issues of principle they will attempt to fill it. I think the sentiments being expressed to you are indicative of that perception at work. I say that only because I think it's a dynamic the staff should understand the motivation behind if they want to dispel the perception and I think it ought to be considered as the staff discuss things.
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
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThank you TheOnlyOne652089 for joining this conversation. Your input is appreciated.
Antifa is Antifa. Terrorists are terrorists. It would be incorrect to assign the actions and values of one group upon another, just as it would be wrong to hold #BlueLivesMatter accountable for the actions the Proud Boys.
In order to hold a meaningful discussion on this matter and start from an equal footing, I would like to present a brief history of the three #LivesMatter movements, as my best understanding goes.
=== History ===
#BlackLivesMatter
#BlackLivesMatter (wiki (1)), often abbreviated #BLM has its earliest recorded usage in 2013. It began as a movement after the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 to bring attention to systemic racism and the plight of minorities in the United States, who have more frequent physical encounters with police, an increased rate of fatal shootings by police, and are incarcerated at considerably higher percentages and rates than the economic and population distribution would suggest normal, and typically receive longer and harsher sentences for similar crimes committed by Caucasian criminals. Like the following movements, #BLM has deeper and wider roots than the movement started in 2013. In 2016, Collin Kaepernick's movement to kneel for the anthem achieved national headlines as another movement to raise awareness. Similarly, the history goes much further back. Comedian Richard Pryor's observations about police in 1979 is eerily similar to what we see today (2). Likewise, Dave Chappelle's police skits are altogether strikingly on point, bridging the gap.
To put historical context in perspective, the 15th amendment gave African Americans the right to vote in 1870, however, many states and regions prevented African Americans from exercising those rights through various means of profiling. This was not amended until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (3). This was only 55 years ago. There are people still alive today who were blocked from exercising their right to vote. And there are people still alive today who prevented them from voting.
#BLM is generally regarded as a non-violent protest group raising awareness for social inequities. The main controversy regarding the #BLM movement is in the name, where detractors equate it as saying that other lives don't matter. In part, this is part of the origin of the name of the #AllLivesMatter movement. The counter to this argument is that #BLM is not saying that only black lives matter, but rather that black lives matter as well, which has not been historically demonstrated. President Obama explains it best: "I think that the reason that the organizers used the phrase Black Lives Matter was not because they were suggesting that no one else's lives matter ... rather what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that's not happening in other communities."
#AllLivesMatter
#AllLivesMatter (wiki (4)) in contrast has its beginning in 2014, as a deliberate counter-movement to #BLM. As a direct counter to #BLM, #ALM is often used to dismiss or demean #BLM protests. It is important to take the context into account here. There was no #AllLivesMatter before #BlackLivesMatter. #ALM is a direct counter to #BLM, to assign incorrect meaning and assumptions to the name of the BLM movement in order to discredit it. Then general societal view accepts this. Facebook banned #ALM slogans in 2016, Walmart has removed sales of all #ALM merchandise this year (5). #ALM is generally viewed as a divisive statement, meant to divide.
This is not to say that #AllLivesMatter as a slogan is without merit. There are several examples of prominent figures who have used AllLivesMatter as an inclusive form to say that everyone matters - or rather, that all lives SHOULD matter. In a 2015 poll (1), 78% of poll takers identified more with All Lives Matter, while only 11% identified with Black Lives Matter (note: 2015 is much closer to the 2013 start of the movements than today. Exceptionally high support for #BLM has grown over the last two years, I would be curious to see the poll results if repeated today). Several proponents have said that #BLM is divisive in its choice of name, and should update the name to more accurately reflect the goals of the movement.
There are multiple articles that explain the false equivalence between BLM and ALM, and why saying ALM is not as inclusive as you might think. Here are a few examples:
#BlueLivesMatter
The #BlueLivesMatter (Wiki) slogan similarly began in 2014, and is used used as a counter-movement to #BLM. However, unlike #ALM, the #BlueLives movement originates as a movement to highlight that Police are often profiled and are victims of crimes based on their professions, and #Blue was started in direct reaction to the murder of two police officers in 2014 (7). As such, the movement has notable links towards supporting a difficult and dangerous job, which has come under increased scrutiny in recent days due to the evaluation of the use of police force. #BlueLivesMatter as a movement is often equated as comparing the dangers that officers face to the dangers that minorities face.
Criticisms of the movement point out that becoming a Police Officer is a choice of profession. One of which the officer (to be) is informed and makes a choice to enter a profession which they know is dangerous. In comparison, African Americans do not have that choice. Criticisms point out that while the dangers of the job of a Police Officer are real, and need to be supported, using the slogan as a counter to the #BLM movement, especially in the face of police brutality is dismissive of the racial biases and problems that exist today (8).
Like #BlackLivesMatter, the Blue Lives movement has considerably deeper roots. The symbol for Blue Lives movement is a black and white American flag, with a one stripe colored blue. This is a reference to "the thin blue line." A view point that puts the Police as the line between society and anarchy. The origins of the thin blue line extend back to 1922, but was popularized in 1950 by Police Chief William H. Parker (9) as part of his public relations program. Since then, the saying, as well as various versions of the flag of a blue stripe on a black field have been used to show support for officers slain on duty. However, today the flag is now equated to the Blue Lives movement, and as opposition to the Black Lives Movement. As such it has taken additional meaning in forms of being dismissive towards the value of Black Lives. This has been shown on a historical level as well (10).
Some companies have banned the use of #BlueLivesMatter, such as GoodYear, though GoodYear later reverted that policy. A woman who was wearing a #BlueLivesMatter start pointed remarks against a person wearing #BLM attire on a Delta Flight (11). Delta has banned that woman for life, and shown support to the #BLM user.
=======
Conclusion
This is simply a quick high level overview based on some fast and dirty research I did to better explain the stances as I see them. Other moderators, and the site Owners likely have their own set of research and sources. Based on these sources, I am confident that our current approach of accepting #BlackLivesMatter as a slogan, but not the other two, is consistent with the current meanings and current understanding of these terms by the general population.
Note that this applies directly to the specific slogans, their use, and their current connotations. Claiming support for all, regardless of creed or color; or showing support to our uniformed officers that uphold the law with dignity and honor is not being demeaned - however, when supporting these movements, it is important to know the context, history, and connotations and impact they have on others.
I hope this helps to explain why the stance is currently as it is. If you disagree with this stance, or these sources, or have additional sources you would like me to read, I encourage you to share these sources with me, such that I can better educate myself on the topic.
====
Sources, again.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter]wiki
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWulvchFpYs&ab_channel=NetflixIsAJoke
(3) https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter
(5) https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/29/walmart-ends-sale-all-lives-matter-merchandise-indefinitely/3282035001/
(*) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/all-lives-matter-black-lives-matter/
(*) https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/black-lives-matter-essay-why-is-saying-all-lives-matter-wrong
(*) https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter
(*) https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2020/06/saying-all-lives-matter-doesnt-make-you-racist-just-extremely-ignorant.html
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lives_Matter
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers
(8) https://www.reformer.com/stories/letter-racist-symbolism-behind-the-blue-lives-matter-flag,608759
(9) https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/08/the-short-fraught-history-of-the-thin-blue-line-american-flag
(10) https://gothamist.com/news/inside-seething-white-heart-blue-lives-matter-movement
(11) https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/09/04/black-woman-was-confronted-about-blue-lives-matter-flight-delta-gave-her-black-lives-matter-pin/
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
They are anything but "peaceful" and shout their message in an aggressive way that mobilizes people into a destructive rampage.
A video what happens right now:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1302060108898357257
The mob just demands and enforces violently and aggressive what they claim to be right, trample the rights and wishes of anybody else and spread terror and fear of mob rule and violent attacks.
This is what the entirety of BLM is about right now, and to think that a counter-movement against such a violent force is problematic is icing on the cake, claiming a victim is in the wrong to defend themselves.
What is most malicious is the connection of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" with the organization that is BLM, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
If anything at all, BLM as an organization represents violent hate against police officers and anybody else they disagree with.
BLM is all about mobilizing people into destructive mobs and its the last mentality anybody would want in a hobby forum about trading cards, as any form of violence should be strictly outlawed and not "accepted" at all.
I am very well aware of the current blackmail tactic used by these organizations against companies, forcing them to at least act like they support BLM, which just further underlines the social economic pressure based on fear of repercussion against the company and its employees.
This form of terror and blackmail make any fair discussion impossible, as it is actively trying to oppress any counter-argument and silence anybody else but the movement itself, undermining the very principle of free speech.
The very idea to make any social economic problems into a race topic will always claim the moral high ground for themselves and anybody that disagrees they can cheaply and ignorantly accuse to be a racist ; which is incredible ironic as the BLM movement itself is rooted in racism as it fuels the violence between black, white, Hispanic, Asian and all other groups that they lazily put under the mantle of "white".
They even justify their violence, instead of seeing these attacks at the form of terror they are.
Any movement and message that tries to enforce itself by violence cannot claim to be peaceful, these two things dont come together.
To believe the demands of black people would have an intrinsic higher priority than the needs and demands of all the other imaginative groups of skin color is atrociously racist on its own.
The loudest and most violent screamer does not equal the same as the people most in need, it even takes away from the people that are more silent and peaceful to get their message out there (the way it should be in any society that claims to follow democratic principles).
----
A proportion of people in the US especially are oppressed and terrorist by BLM protests and instigated riots that lead to destruction of property and damage any form of social harmony.
And if anything, we want social harmony, working together instead of against each other.
Working together as a nation instead of splinter groups of interest groups.
----
Just to get an idea in connection to a gaming store:
Imagine you sit in a store, play some Magic and the BLM mob ascends upon your store, screeches, demands you leave immediately.
Hows that helpful in any way ?
People put the BLM label on any form of crazy social oppression and just act like their obscure shouting is doing anything but damage to the social harmony.
If a group of different political backgrounds remotely wants to be able to come together and play a game without violence against each other, the only way to do that is to keep these labels completely out of the context of the hobby.
The moment one is allowed to spread its message its only natural that any counter-group will do the same.
And if the counter-argument is oppressed and not allowed, it leads to the issue that actual dialogue is not allowed and one side is so massively favored over the other that nobody is allowed to disagree or be shunned and silenced by force.
A welcoming friendly environment cannot exist with interest groups involved that have nothing to do with the context of the actual hobby forum for trading card games.
(Its like someone forces dialogue about their sexual preferences at a kids birthday party ... thats as inappropriate as it gets)
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Well, let's not get carried away.
Perhaps it is the case that the views of the staff do not have a direct bearing on the site; I do not know this to be true (or false). Rather, whatever systemic bias which is present on the site is not contingent on the views of the staff. Every single staff member could be a card-carrying communist and the enforcement of this moderation policy in itself would have the same results. This is not a coincidence. There is no chronic issue of left-wing posters blurting out inflammatory political posts out of the blue. Centrists also do not do this. I don't say this to suggest two wrongs make a right, but to point out the cause for the disparity. The reason for this is the fundamental strategies employed by different political ideologies. The right is characterized by the provocateur tactic; the left is characterized by critique (for the center, its a disdain for passion presented as the high ground, among other techniques ;)). These strategies are being borne out through the forum posts here, and because of their inherent differences, a representative bias emerges from the policy about political posts. And this has an effect over time of emboldening hateful views unopposed by positive resistance (only the passive, negative action of moderation which leaves resistance unspoken), creating a space for their gradual 'radicalization' (a bit of a misnomer) which causes real life violence. The policy creates a safe space for this behavior to continually recur because its moderation is effectively a slap on the wrist whereas everyone else receives total censure. So not only is the policy manifestly not neutral, it actively contributes to a problem.
I would caution against a notion that diversity is a panacea for moderating the community. For diversity to be reliably beneficial, its representatives must be accountable to the groups they represent, for one. I presume this site does have general mechanisms of accountability for moderators, forgive me that I do not know all of the details thereof. But there is a danger of diversity becoming a final goal, the oft-criticized "identity politics," when (although it is an end in itself) diversity's value must be contextualized with the broader set of goals of which it is a part as a means to the true final goal, justice. I mean "justice" in the broadest possible sense, for the purposes of the site in our current discussion, you can take it to mean fairness.
I'm not familiar with what you personally consider to be a diverse set of political views; in my experience, the perception most people have of the range of views in politics is actually a fairly narrow set of ideologies from which is extrapolated the model of the "spectrum." This is exacerbated from the conflation of entire sets of views with one another, especially in the United States, due to a false dichotomy of liberal and conservative. Which, incidentally, also forms its own representative bias in what ideologies the general public has political awareness of. I mean, when you say the staff has a diverse range of views does that mean some staff members are of a fascist persuasion? That would be diverse, technically, just as if some staff members had committed murder the staff would be diverse in the metric of criminality.
I'm afraid that I can't consider hashtags in signatures to be remotely adequate. Using your example above, it would be like an advertisement saying "MURDER IS GOOD" with small text at the end stating "murder is bad actually." Even that doesn't quite capture it. It would be a small text on a different commercial on a different channel.
If someone makes a post which is immoral, it is important that the moral message be prevalent. But that moral message is only (with exceptional briefness) summarized in slogans. And in the case of a locked thread, the moral message has no possible prevalence in the exact relevant situation that its prevalence ought to be expressed vociferously. The moral message must be conveyed specifically in response to the immoral message because this itself demonstrates the substance of the morality in the concrete example of refuting the immoral. The original messenger may be unconvinced, and the discussion may become heated, but its existence is morally beneficial to the community.
What I want is for counterpoints to be able to be expressed. If lines are crossed or if both sides begin to repeat themselves, then moderator intervention is certainly appropriate. And perhaps some of the solutions you've alluded to being discussed could be helpful as well. Perhaps a functionality could be put in place to ban a specific member from posting in a given thread, allowing people to make replies without it escalating into an argument that derails a thread. And in the event that other people join in and it does become an argument, perhaps all that indicates is a strong community desire to have that discussion. You're asking us to ignore posts for the sake of people who want to get away from political discussions, why is it not the case those people can simply ignore the discussions which occur? There's a blocking system in place, certainly people who engage in political discussion gain a reputation for doing so. I think it would be healthier for the community for the selection of discussion to be largely handled by individual users' tastes of who to simply block than to put in place moderation rules which you've admitted create enormous difficulties to enforce.
I would also dispute the claim that there are better places to discuss politics or engage in activism. Politics suffuses all human existence. It is present in all our interactions. There is no "better" place for the discussion to occur, it is a dimension within all discussions. As such it is universally relevant. I understand that you don't see this as being on topic, but it's fundamentally different from the example you provide of gardening. A topic always has a certain scope, but these "horizontal" dimensions are superficial (in even an etymological sense
I'm a little bit concerned about what you're saying here.
Let me start off by using an example from philosophy of science to get away from framing bias in terms of politics for a bit. My hope is that we can attain greater clarity about bias. So. The Quine-Duhem Thesis states that hypotheses are not tested in isolation. For example, in the famous experiment demonstrating the roundness of the earth, the sails of a ship were observed as the ship sailed toward the horizon. If the earth were flat, the entire ship would be expected to go out of view all at once. But if the earth has a curvature, the sails would be the last part of the ship to vanish. The aforementioned thesis would point out that this experiment assumes that light travels in straight lines. Then, to demonstrate light does travel in straight lines, an experimental complex would have to make other assumptions that that experiment does not test, and so on. Meaning that there are an unlimited number of potential hypotheses for any given phenomenon. This is, btw, a massive epistemological problem which has been discussed at length, but I digress (!). My point is, *in practice* scientists still select from a relatively small number of hypotheses to test, and even develop consensus. Is it a bias for the hypothesis that light travels in straight lines is selected for representation in scientific theory and that the hypothesis that light travels in crooked lines isn't, let alone the N other hypotheses that also aren't represented? Well, maybe. But the notion of bias in the first place presupposes an objective and coherent world. That's a start for explaining the intuitive process of narrowing the options down. The presence of free and open discussion has always been a critical mechanism for biases to be brought to light in the history of science. And reaching consensus means moving on to other topics, the fringe resurgence of flat-earthism notwithstanding.
So, in other words, contrary to what you said earlier, being unbiased does not mean that two opposing views receive some amount of representation in which neither is dismissed outright. In fact it is quite impossible to not dismiss outright any number of things at all times, nor would it be desirable not to. It is not a bias to discriminate on the point of representation if there is justification to omit. I'm glad you agree that not all views are equal, but in fact, that means that some views warrant absolutely no serious treatment and the most rational thing to do is to dismiss them outright.
That's what concerns me about you saying that some anti-LBGT posts would not be moderated. I should think that any anti-LBGT post would be against the forum rules and subject to moderation. Hate speech isn't bad because it's rude. It's not bad because it disrupts orderly operation. It's bad because it causes harm. Hate speech, no matter how politely worded so as to not inflame, is harmful. Suppose a Nazi is hunting a Jew, but stealthily. He captures the man unseen, and even replaces him with a convincing automaton. Civil life goes on undisrupted, and no one notices what has happened, but this is still murder--its still wrong. It would not be a bias to remove all instances of anti-LBGT posts, as they do not meet basic moral standards for representation just as "light travels in crooked lines" fails epistemic standards. However, since people do make these posts anyway, when they do (and it happens frequently), if it is deleted or the thread closed without a rebuttal allowed, this creates a bias in the site. It's important for the general community to see the arguments as to why such content is immoral, because this is basically educational and raises awareness. This supports conditions of healthy forum interactions even though the argument against immorality itself is acutely argumentative. Under the circumstances, a heated discussion is warranted because it cements the values of the community at that frontier and is a signpost for the community's cultural development. This keeps on happening because the community needs to be able to talk about these things in order to move on and talk about Magic. You want the site to be a safe space for a broad variety of people, and it should be. But it cannot be a safe space for both LBGT people and people with anti-LGBT views; reactively covering up the latter is not sufficient for making it a safe space for the former.
And I would counter that it's not possible for all content in the discussions to be 100% about Magic. People come here to discuss Magic, but also to discuss generally... it's a forum. People go to Walmart to shop, the lines which demarcate appropriate behavior in that context are necessarily narrower. I want to generate more Magic discussion. But the conditions for that means having more leeway. That doesn't mean allowing harassment. But it does mean that the degree of controversy is proportional to the value of the thesis. A thesis which has the (negative) value of creating large immoral situations needs to be rejected more forcefully than most theses. To reject forcefully without devolving into harassment is quite a hard skill to develop, I've certainly not mastered it. I believe it takes practice and maybe some direction.
I don't think there is the need for an environment for people to go where it's supposed to not be at politics at all, but political posts hating on that person in particular for who they are pop up periodically and no one stands up to this. Seeing content like that which moderation will structurally never completely eliminate or suppress, and not seeing anyone come out with more supportive content, is alienating. It is because of the great degree of prevalence of that hatred that the groups subject to this in fact need the allowance of equitable exception, up to and including the criterion of topicality.
I also fear I do not understand the need to weigh in on FlossedBeaver's in-post tags. This isn't harassment, it is not in itself disruptive although a person could choose to make a disruption out of it--but the problem then lies with that person's choice. It's a personal quirk, and it's also an unintended consequence of your policy against political posts. I think you understand this and that's the real reason why you're coming down so hard on it. But you're putting yourself in a position where you're going to have to plug up too many holes in your ship because your policy is untenable. If people aren't allowed to express the things they need to express in a particular way, it will come out in some other way. This isn't good for the health of the community.