INTPf Policy Change

[The Gopher]

It sounds like you agree with the goal but disagree with the policy, if I understand you. I'm guessing you'd agree, by your analogy, that it's important to have policies that protect children, so long as the policies can't be abused by those who implement them?

Given we have a problem that people have left the forum over perceived insensitivity around this area, what do you think would be an effective alternative we can do as a community to show we care, or how do you think we could amend this policy to address your concerns? Chances are there's a better solution, and I think the constructive benefit of threads like this is to pool more input from people.

Do we have a problem with people leaving the forum? I think the glow cloud is also a problem, you know, the glow cloud everyone knows about.

Sure who doesn't agree with the goal?

So the derogated minority is the children you would have us have you think of? Beautiful set-up if deliberate. Not sure if I'm okay with minorities being thought of as helpless children but w/e.

I don't think the comparison holds water. We're not implementing privacy policy - that would be if we wanted to look at your PMs. More like, we're implementing a law that allows us to remove children from abusive parents. There, I said it. All racists are pedophiles.

You're concerned that such a policy might be used against parents who haven't been beating their children. But think of the children!

Thanks. I've been getting pretty good at this whole devils advocate thing.

No that's exactly my concern. You say it doesn't hold water but then pour out all the water. False positives, of which personally I think there have been a lot of statistically, are what I'm trying to avoid.

I have to admit the children thread was inspired by RB. Also the children aren't derogated minorities they are people who would leave the forum over this. To be accurate. (That's not a judgement more contextual nitpicking. People are more than free to leave places they don't like for whatever reason and it doesn't imply they are children) That said I would prefer they stay.


I just hate the idea of taking offence to something being put into law. It relies too much on the authorities being accurate and fair. Keep in mind I grew up in a conservative christian family where the authority was religious and had "the moral high ground". Now I'm not saying INTPf has turned into the church. Yet. but I like to avoid any similarities like the plague.

What you have in a sense created is almost the same. The only difference is some of you are reasonable.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

if one person has a right to demand never to be offended then everybody does, including for example people whose religious beliefs cause them to find the existence of homosexual behaviour or mockery of their absurd beliefs or you know women being allowed out of the house by themselves deeply offensive

the world is full of dicks whose heads are full of ignorant and offensive nonsense. it is better to accept this fact and learn how to deal with things that you may find offensive in a way that does not entail taking this significant step on the path to tyranny

 

[redbaron]

You'll just have to trust that I'm not a tyrant then

To put it as bluntly as possible, the point of this policy is to not have to ban people for persecuting people and making them feel unwelcome. If it comes down to removing a member doing this or seeing a persecuted member leave, then I know which one I prefer.

This is the non-banning alternative of addressing the issue, which doesn't even limit free speech as it were - you just have to put a little bit of effort in, but I generally find that when people put effort into an argument, their language will change and become more considerate by default, as they're exposed to more variety of information.

Both QT and Grayman changed their tunes significantly, and so far I'd say it's working fine. The issues with it are so far just hypotheticals.

 

[Grayman]

Grayman changed their tunes significantly, and so far I'd say it's working fine.

What changed exactly?

 

[Jennywocky]

I know we're INTPf, so life = theoretical; but maybe it would be better to wait until the policy is actually applied to a specific case before getting all riled up over the vast range (including the extremes) of potential implementation.

At that point, there would be some substance to see whether further debate of the policy is necessary, versus everyone reacting to their perceptions of the policy in question.

 

[Puffy]

I know we're INTPf, so life = theoretical; but maybe it would be better to wait until the policy is actually applied to a specific case before getting all riled up over the vast range (including the extremes) of potential implementation.

At that point, there would be some substance to see whether further debate of the policy is necessary, versus everyone reacting to their perceptions of the policy in question.

Amen.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Grayman
Frankly you went from blatant sophistry to someone I was actually listening to. That whole 'if it quacks like a stick' thing was hot garbage. We still disagree on our fundamental conclusions, but now instead of saying things that only people who initially agreed with you would hear, you've had some impact on the INTPf transgender zeitgeist.

This is not an invitation to bring it all back up again though, especially not here.

 

[Haim]

I'm still not sure what you're saying. What alternative are you presenting?

Because it seems to me like you're saying my opinion is fact, and if I already know the facts what need do I have of yours?

Make judgment, use your brain, case by case, and if someone is still being a dick ban him.
Much better then forcing people to spam the forum with pointless links to biased sites that do not and can not prove anything.

 

[redbaron]

That's basically what the policy is. Still not sure what you're arguing about.

This policy is like an extra step between someone saying for example, "black/trans/gays are fucked up" and a mod warning/banning them or closing the thread (all 3 of these options are less than ideal because they STOP discussion) and making that into: "let's bring that opinion into a territory that can actually be discussed."

It's designed so that we can stop people being persecuted and feeling unwelcome, but not having to do that by forcibly removing those making them unwelcome if we don't have to.

 

[QuickTwist]

That's basically what the policy is. Still not sure what you're arguing about.

This policy is like an extra step between someone saying for example, "black/Jews/trans/gays are fucked up" and a mod warning/banning them or closing the thread (all 3 of these options are less than ideal because they STOP discussion) and making that into: "let's bring that opinion into a territory that can actually be discussed."

It's designed so that we can stop people being persecuted and feeling unwelcome, but not having to do that by forcibly removing those making them unwelcome if we don't have to.

FTFY

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

FTFY

You're not with the times, dude. Jews are not in social-justice vogue now.

 

[QuickTwist]

You're not with the times, dude. Jews are not in social-justice vogue now.

I suppose that excuses RB's hitler joke than?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I'm still laughing whenever I see this guy with a swastika in his avatar keep using the word "persecuted".

 

[Minuend]

So basically this is a "don't shit on people, but intpf is still open to discussion about facts (or opinions) that might be controversial as long as they are not emotional driven bullshit" rule

Seems ok to me.

Not really that much of a change, except it would be easier to warn/ ban people who clearly have an agenda. It's a different version of the "not allowed to proselytize" rule. Basically you just don't want shitty attitudes driven by shitty motivations who don't care to listen or discuss (and who as a result drive away valuable members)

Do we have a problem with people leaving the forum?

I wouldn't know for sure, but valuable members keep being absent. Ofc they have lives and all, but if someone leaves because of shitty attitudes I wouldn't be surprised. And I'm not painting myself as a person outside that negative perspective of intpf either

I do think some members here have contact with former members and know why they left.

just hate the idea of taking offence to something being put into law. It relies too much on the authorities being accurate and fair. Keep in mind I grew up in a conservative christian family where the authority was religious and had "the moral high ground". Now I'm not saying INTPf has turned into the church. Yet. but I like to avoid any similarities like the plague.

What you have in a sense created is almost the same. The only difference is some of you are reasonable.

That's an important distinction. Rules or semantics are less important than their intentions

Sometimes it's more about trying to vocalize intuitive "knowings" of what is needed to make something better. As long as I see no contrary actions from mods, I'm fine with such weird rules. I know mods have been demoted in the past due to acting on their own (if I remember correctly), so i'm not worried. You might argue I'm the crab in the steadily increasingly hot pan here, but if there are good arguments I'm not afraid to change my mind. I've been on intpf for a long time, yes, but I'm not emotionally dependent on it to where I wouldn't be able to listen to other people's arguments. But for now, this change's disagreement seems more focused on details and phrasing, rather than intention.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Swastika
Nobody complained until they needed a scapegoat. It is the case, and has always been the case, that if someone reported the avatar, and that report was considered genuine, then it would be changed. But it's only being brought up now, as a way of shifting the focus of a real issue.

To be clear I'm not really concerned about the fuzzy details like you guys are. Moderation here has always been more intuitive than technically consistent, since well before I came along. I already have the power to abuse this forum, but demonstrably don't. But when it's phrased in a politically charged manner, suddenly the outside possibility of abuse becomes all but confirmed for you.

This is not an expansion of mod power. It's a declaration of intent. If anything, it's actually limiting us by setting specific expectations. Before this was implemented, I could have just banned people outright for bigotry and got in a lot less trouble for it. Justifications for bans would be easy to fabricate if we were so inclined. But existent potential for mod abuse isn't in muh-freedum vogue atm so w/e.

@Haim
Okay we agree. I will make judgements and use my brain on a case by case basis. If someone is still a dick I'll ban them. The judgements I make will probably fall along the lines of 'if you can't evidence your bigotry, it's not welcome here', and I'll make similar use of my brain to decide which sites are too biased to be considered evidence.

I'll scrap the notion that people need proof for anything. Let's soften that down to 'have reasons demonstrably based in reality' for pushing your belief. Seem fair?

@PNB
This isn't about offense. It's about groundless persecution. In no way does this protect people from reality. Also quite frankly, the way to help people overcome their difficulties is not to multiply those difficulties. If someone is constantly bullied, increasing the bullying won't magically give them thick skin. People need room to develop the tools to overcome adversity. It's not like creating one place where someone is slightly more tolerated will shove them directly into magical fairy land where intolerance is just a dream. People still gotta live outside the forum, they won't quickly forget that people hate on them constantly for no reason

 

[The Gopher]

I know we're INTPf, so life = theoretical; but maybe it would be better to wait until the policy is actually applied to a specific case before getting all riled up over the vast range (including the extremes) of potential implementation.

At that point, there would be some substance to see whether further debate of the policy is necessary, versus everyone reacting to their perceptions of the policy in question.

Amen.

But Jenny if we get riled up now then we have an excuse to get even more riled up in the future if something happens!

If we are all good little sheep now they if something happens in the future we'll just be slightly angry sheep who never cared before about a swastika.

Speaking of, nobody cared before because it wasn't relevant before the same people who didn't care about the swastika didn't care about anything else but they are arguing at the people who do care about not the swastika that hey well why do you also not care about the swastika isn't that like double standards.

Also I think people care more about various grey area offence type implementations due to the change in who may be carrying it out. It's not exactly a surprise that a lot of people didn't like RB becoming a mod and being reminded that someone with unconventional styles and opinions is a mod is disconcerting.

But yeah back to the first point the only power anyone here has is being riled up to the point it's annoying for implementation of policies to occur.

That said I'm all for a counter "Arena". Call it "Gophers Wholesome Holiday Resort" of something where any sort of negative responses are banned.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

To be clear, I don't care about the swastika myself. I just find it funny when people get all hysterical about that "fucked up" line from QT when it comes to transsexuals, and start changing the rules of the forum and whatnot, but messing with Nazism is all cool – because you don't get as many social-justice cookie points nowadays for defending Jews. The whole thing is a farce in my view, but who gives a shit, really. It's just a forum and the mods can do whatever they want.

I am consistently insensitive. I don't see that consistency amongst these warriors against "persecution".

 

[Puffy]

But Jenny if we get riled up now then we have an excuse to get even more riled up in the future if something happens!

If we are all good little sheep now they if something happens in the future we'll just be slightly angry sheep who never cared before about a swastika.

Speaking of, nobody cared before because it wasn't relevant before the same people who didn't care about the swastika didn't care about anything else but they are arguing at the people who do care about not the swastika that hey well why do you also not care about the swastika isn't that like double standards.

Also I think people care more about various grey area offence type implementations due to the change in who may be carrying it out. It's not exactly a surprise that a lot of people didn't like RB becoming a mod and being reminded that someone with unconventional styles and opinions is a mod is disconcerting.

But yeah back to the first point the only power anyone here has is being riled up to the point it's annoying for implementation of policies to occur.

That said I'm all for a counter "Arena". Call it "Gophers Wholesome Holiday Resort" of something where any sort of negative responses are banned.

So cutting to the point, you don't like that a particular person was made madmin, and have been using the drama that's escalated from QT's original thread to fan the flames and create mistrust around mods so you can more easily raise another mob by pointing to this incident in the future?

 

[The Gopher]

So cutting to the point, you don't like that a particular person was made madmin, and have been using the drama that's escalated from QT's original thread to fan the flames and create mistrust around mods so you can more easily raise another mob by pointing to this incident in the future?

Hey at least I declare my strawmen when I make them.

No I was describing why the reaction might be stronger given RB's controversial nature not saying I was intentionally making it stronger.

I was also arguing against a pacifist view on easy to predict scenarios due to the fact that when those scenarios eventuate it's harder to actually do anything/people might feel forced to be silent.

I'm not around the forum enough to influence anyone who isn't already forming a mob by themselves.


Also we do need a zero judgement/uplifting section of the forum. Even if it starts out mildly sarcastic poes law will kick in at some point.

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't think this forum has ever had trouble being silent when they have had an issue with the moderation. At least, not the people who normally voice their opinions.

(We do have a lot of lurkers, I'm guessing, but they just lurk anyway.)

 

[Haim]

Yep, fine by me.

 

[The Gopher]

On moderation that's kind of fair. But there's also the more neutral side. That said people were quiet on Sinny for ages until people started gossiping about how much they all disliked her.

It's more an issue with how seriously concerns are taken and how that scales or normalises. I would say more but I don't think I can clarify in the time I have. You do, even if you disagree, understand that normalisation of things can happen and be bad. Like normalising gender roles being static. That's the concept of why I'm arguing. I don't want the rule to become normalised and impossible to disagree with.

 

[Puffy]

Gopher, I have you pegged, quit squirming. I know this isn't about 'normalisation' of forum behaviour. Your concerns aren't about the goal or the policy, you don't trust the people implementing them, and want to take a chance to defame them.

Ordinarily, I don't mind social games, and it's really nothing personal. But in this case, this thread emerged as a response to sensitive issues, that effects people close to me, and I think it's disrespectful to take advantage of sincere proposals for how moderators want to address it, and overkill and draw out the discussion, for some private end that's unrelated to the actual topic of the thread.

Can you address the actual topic of the thread please, as I've asked you to twice now, or take your real concerns to PM with hado, rb, or a separate thread?

 

[Black Rose]

What I know is that Sinny was antagonizing people publicly and privately. And was using phrases in relation to certain groups (like Gay people). I haven't been aware of such interactions being so taxing on the mods by people on their problem list. Sometimes it is one-sided and just mean and other the other side both sides are just difficult. I have been open with people about what I believe and if there was disagreement I never went after their identity. I was sad that Sinny could no longer make conspiracy posts and other topics we shared. She seemed to like me. She told me "I know kitty that I am going against my better nature". She had problems with her parents and authority. Yet she was the one most like me on the forum and we shared the most interests. I do not condone what she did but she was like me in many ways. Using race or gender or sexual orientation etc... to demean a person is unacceptable. It is just a tool to get the other person upset and to quite.

But as to the new policy, it is more of guard against unfactual claims against a group. You cannot say all Gay people are "this way" as such if it is not true. Or that all gays live in California. It is contextual because it is a point that degrading some group should not happen. But talking about a group does not necessarily do this. If a person is flaming just to flame then that means the factual basis disappears and the antagonization begins. Open discussions turn into flaming. What is difficult is in knowing that a claim was not just baiting or a distraction. What people talk about should be rational in the sense that what they say is not just a validation for them to vent negativity on some group. The point is to have a dialog that is mediated by reason. The emotions one feels is no justification to attack others but to use them to express oneself reasonably. A belief one has might not be true, it should not control you in a negative way.

 

[The Gopher]

Gopher, I have you pegged, quit squirming. I know this isn't about 'normalisation' of forum behaviour. Your concerns aren't about the goal or the policy, you don't trust the people implementing them, and want to take a chance to defame them.

Ordinarily, I don't mind social games, and it's really nothing personal. But in this case, this thread emerged as a response to sensitive issues, that effects people close to me, and I think it's disrespectful to take advantage of sincere proposals for how moderators want to address it, and overkill and draw out the discussion, for some private end that's unrelated to the actual topic of the thread.

Can you address the actual topic of the thread please, as I've asked you to twice now, or take your real concerns to PM with hado, rb, or a separate thread?

No Puffy you don't have me pegged and I'm not squirming. Almost every single time I argue on the forum it's related to freedom of choice or expression or some other aspect because this is what I care about.

For instance the last time I was arguing against certain rules being in place regarding prostitutes because I thought they would kill the niche area where people legitimately wanted to be prostitutes and it would take away their freedom to do that but killing their clients. I am however for the rules that don't take away that niche area but help those who don't want to be prostitutes.

Considering the only time I seem to argue on the forum it's related to freedom of choice in some way, and again, we are arguing about a similar topic... what makes you think I'm suddenly not caring about what I'm arguing about and using it purely to defame people?

Sure I don't think RB is a good choice for mod but that's a side issue and wouldn't effect my own strong feelings on the matter. I however decided to point it out because I think most people here are socially retarded (myself included since I'm clearly having issues communicating my thoughts) and might not have noticed.

Puffy, this kind of misunderstanding is why I hate this policy. If even you, someone who's generally socially competent can completely misunderstand where I'm coming from how is this supposed to be implemented? The issue is not a perfect real world implementation I too have people I care about effected by these issues, hey if you take Sinny I was effected by these issues. I never said a solution wouldn't be good I just think it's more damaging than useful given the imperfect nature of humans.

You have the order backwards, it's not I hate RB so I'll use the policy as a chance to hate on RB. It's I hate the policy, and part of the problem with the policy is implementation of which people have concerns about RB.

On a personal level I would even be concerned about my own modding of this rule.

I thought I was on topic. If there's something I've missed can you re-phrase it. Thanks.

 

[redbaron]

I guess people are just going to keep pretending like they don't realise my avatar is obviously making a joke about Hitler and that it's pretty obvious I'm not rocking a Swastika because I want another Holocaust?

Are people still pretending about that one?

The avatar is making a joke of Hitler, not of Jews. It's like if I made a joke out of say, the KKK and people said it was persecution of black people. It's literally the opposite.

Also it seems the only dissent is reduced to just complaints about me being *adjectives here* or pretending to be dumb and offended by my avatar, and the actual policy itself is pretty much fine.

Puffy you've basically touched on why I haven't responded to anything Gopher has said in this thread.

 

[Hadoblado]

@AK
Sinny is still very much active on INTPc, where at least from what I've seen she seems to be doing well. There is no barrier to you partaking in her conspiracy posts.

Re: swastika
Does the swastika perpetuate any persecution? Does anyone for even a second think he's serious? Even if you were genuinely an antisemite, would you see RB and think 'that guy gets it?'. Is he making a claim that needs evidencing?

Let's clear something up. Are you concerned that the mods are pushing an agenda and shutting down all opposing thought? Or are you concerned the mods are incompetent/corrupt, and just going to use this 'power' for personal ends?

To me, the fact RB has a swastika as a joke, if anything, implies it's going to be pretty difficult to sincerely spread a leftist agenda through selective soft censorship.

But it does imply that we're going to be inconsistent and abusive right? Well, if we were going to be inconsistent or abusive in the face of forum uproar, we already had all the tools. We could have already been doing this. Gopher points to times that mods have been wrong about things. But if it were the case we were ban-happy, the end-of-the-world scenario where mods are incorrectly making bans would already have come and gone.

In the real world, where the comparison people seem to be making would be an increase in government censorship, the stakes are really high and it's insanely difficult to reduce government power once it's achieved. Here on the forum, I believe the mods have already been caused more grievance trying to implement the policy than will be caused to people affected by it. We don't have the same overbearing weight of consequence not to try something out. So we're trying it, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

Edit: @Grayman and @QT
This thread is not the platform for you to talk about how wrong you weren't. I moved them to the Eureka thread. QT if you want it reopened to talk about it, I can do that.

 

[The Gopher]

For the record I think the swastika is hilarious.

Actually hold up let me go at the swastika holocaust people for a bit. Because it's fucking retarded. (I will prove it's retarded if required)

It's complete nonsense to compare a joke meme about something that happened a long time ago to current active abuse of minorities. While I understand you might think that they are equally relevant and SJWarrior like but that's not how the world works. Sure there are some people in the world that think everything and every micro action is offensive but that isn't whats going on here.

The real problem is, where people are being insulted and belittled by people who either don't know much about the issue or if they do don't wish to provide evidence to back up their statements. People can have a problem with this, and make gay/black/jewish and trans jokes. The people here aren't misguided social justice warriors who see everything in black and white context matters.

Intent matters. If QT said dude trans people are fucked up but it was clearly done in a friendly joking manner I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

If RB was going around saying Hitler did nothing wrong (seriously) then yes he would be a hypocrite. But in this case he is not. If I had an avatar of a trans joke which was legitimately clearly a joke and funny I don't think anyone would mind. If QT had one people might think it was intended to be insulting given past experiences.

Intent and context matters and is everything.

The issues I have revolve around proving intent. Attacking people for perceived intent. Puffy is not going to gaslight me into thinking my intent is different from what it is however he might make other people perceive my intent incorrectly and I could catch hell for it. Mods in the past have missed context and read the room incorrectly/simply not had the information required to make the judgement and I always come down hard when I think this has been done. Why? Because I'm a fucking INFP or something and I can't seem to get away from my moral/justice issues.

The point being if you intend to hurt someone with your words that's bad, now at some level people should be able to not take offence but if you're continually beating someone up then they are going to break. Now you might not intent to hurt someone but if you are told. "Hey this is continually damaging this person. Please provide your reasons for doing this." and you decide no I'm going to keep going on without providing a reason. Then you're being an jerk and if the forum doesn't want you here that's fine.

The world isn't black and white. It's a grey area of acceptability and different things are acceptable in different groups, contexts, and styles. If RB started banning people for making jokes about people who want to put trans people in gas chambers. Then he would be a hypocrite. He's not. He may be authoritarian depending on where you are on the scale but he is consistently one in his ethics.

 

[Puffy]

Gopher, you're very capable of skillful lieing and manipulation and I have no reason at all to trust you in this context. This 'misunderstanding' doesn't reveal an issue with this particular policy (it's resonant of 'the boy who cried wolf') - clear intent is a subject that underlies the carrying out of policy related to most forum policies or legal matters in general. It's a broader topic than the particular instance of policy this thread is dedicated to.

Given your 'real' issue of proving intent underlies moderator decisions outside of the context of this particular policy, is unavoidable and ergo will be run into again, and you've acknowledged this by pointing to an existing history of examples, how about creating a new thread outlining this broader concern? Or actually be constructive, as I've asked you to three times now, by coming up with suggested amendments to moderator process that would address this, and potentially improve everyone's experience as a whole, rather than just complain incessantly?

Or would you prefer to continue flailing and conjure more evasions and apparitions? I'm enjoying that btw.

 

[The Gopher]

It is related. It's increasing the grey area which I already think is an issue. The fact I'm not socially stupid doesn't mean I'm being intelligent.

What I'm saying is sure I can go out and murder people. I am quite good at paintball, so this means I'm going to intentionally destroy my 5 year old cousin in a nerf war and crush his soul. Potential is not a good argument. (Ironic...) Sure I understand distrusting me but that doesn't mean I'm always dis-trustworthy and simply saying I am capable of something doesn't mean I'm doing something.

Sure when I get time. At the moment I only have time to say you're wrong so I'll get around to fixing it later.

Also it would be nice if we could talk about the policy rather than this side issue. I'm not sure why you have a bone to pick but I would prefer if you did it directly in PM's.

 

[Puffy]

Uh-huh.

My entire interjection into this thread so far has been aimed around framing the conversation in a way so that the real underlying concerns in this thread can be teased out and addressed. I'm doing that because I care about the underlying issues of this particular topic, and the broader ones that relate to moderation in general (as someone who has moderated in the past, I'd like to see these same old trust issues done and dusted.)

You've evaded attempts to frame this in a more constructive direction constantly. And it's because you don't want the issues to be resolved. If they were resolved and moderation improved then you'd have no ammunition from which to attack the people you want deposed. Instead you want to raise a lot of noise and create a fire here, so you have justification to continue creating fires in future.

You're backing out of the conversation because you can't answer the challenge I continue to pose to you: what is the real problem here, and how can we fix it?

 

[The Gopher]

Uh-huh.

My entire interjection into this thread so far has been aimed around framing the conversation in a way so that the real underlying concerns in this thread can be teased out and addressed. I'm doing that because I care about the underlying issues of this particular topic, and the broader ones that relate to moderation in general (as someone who has moderated in the past, I'd like to see these same old trust issues done and dusted.)

You've evaded attempts to frame this in a more constructive direction constantly. And it's because you don't want the issues to be resolved. If they were resolved and moderation improved then you'd have no ammunition from which to attack the people you want deposed. Instead you want to raise a lot of noise and create a fire here, so you have justification to continue creating fires in future.

You're backing out of the conversation because you can't answer the challenge I continue to pose to you: what is the real problem here, and how can we fix it?

I don't need to attack anyone. I'm doing what I can in the short term, (Complaining) so that there will be social pressure against action, (Implementation of the policy) because I dislike the policy. It seems you took the part about me creating fires literally.

Nobody more than I would love for there to be perfect moderation. It's almost literally my job. However because it's my job, and because I am aware of all the issues that go into it. I understand it's not going to happen. Due to this I prefer lax moderation over false positive moderation (not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt) and I've been continually proposing that as a solution. I also proposed the anti-arena sub forum where it's very strict, or more accurately very encouraging of good behaviour. If people build great relationships and understanding in this environment it'll hopefully spread and we won't need stricter rules we can lean on more encouraging good behaviour.

For example I was very encouraging of Sinny the first time she started to get transgender issues. CC came into the thread and was very anti-encouraging and progress was lost.

Just because these are not solutions you like doesn't mean I haven't been suggesting them.

 

[Hadoblado]

This feels like it's turning into a bit of a feud. I might give it one more day before closing the thread just to make sure everyone's had ample opportunity to be heard?

 

[Puffy]

This feels like it's turning into a bit of a feud. I might give it one more day before closing the thread just to make sure everyone's had ample opportunity to be heard?

I'm personally fine with that though it isn't my intention to continue posting here further.

 

[The Gopher]

This feels like it's turning into a bit of a feud. I might give it one more day before closing the thread just to make sure everyone's had ample opportunity to be heard?

It does seem like the conversation took an odd turn but I don't have any issues with Puffy.

Feel free.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@AK
Sinny is still very much active on INTPc, where at least from what I've seen she seems to be doing well. There is no barrier to you partaking in her conspiracy posts.

Re: swastika
Does the swastika perpetuate any persecution? Does anyone for even a second think he's serious? Even if you were genuinely an antisemite, would you see RB and think 'that guy gets it?'. Is he making a claim that needs evidencing?

Let's clear something up. Are you concerned that the mods are pushing an agenda and shutting down all opposing thought? Or are you concerned the mods are incompetent/corrupt, and just going to use this 'power' for personal ends?

To me, the fact RB has a swastika as a joke, if anything, implies it's going to be pretty difficult to sincerely spread a leftist agenda through selective soft censorship.

But it does imply that we're going to be inconsistent and abusive right? Well, if we were going to be inconsistent or abusive in the face of forum uproar, we already had all the tools. We could have already been doing this. Gopher points to times that mods have been wrong about things. But if it were the case we were ban-happy, the end-of-the-world scenario where mods are incorrectly making bans would already have come and gone.

In the real world, where the comparison people seem to be making would be an increase in government censorship, the stakes are really high and it's insanely difficult to reduce government power once it's achieved. Here on the forum, I believe the mods have already been caused more grievance trying to implement the policy than will be caused to people affected by it. We don't have the same overbearing weight of consequence not to try something out. So we're trying it, and if you don't like it, that's okay.

Edit: @Grayman and @QT
This thread is not the platform for you to talk about how wrong you weren't. I moved them to the Eureka thread. QT if you want it reopened to talk about it, I can do that.

That whole eureka thread was mostly you and RB using various sophistry and sarcastic remarks basically telling QT to shut up. Zero actual arguments/evidence was supplied from your side. That went on until the thread was closed. Already there I view the whole thing as hostile to discourse. By virtue of assuming the moral high ground, you put yourself to much looser standards of argument when you speak in favor of protecting transsexuals, while imposing a tight standard on anyone who wants speak freely on the subject. But you don't apply that tight standard on yourself when talking about the Nazi thing, because then, apparently, there are exceptions, gray areas, and questions of interpretation and whatnot, right?

I would say yes, if not pushing an agenda, the whole thing does look slightly biased.

 

[redbaron]

Can you actually find an example of me allowing people to talk about the Holocaust in an insensitive manner or allowing Nazi rhetoric on the forum, or is this another fake and exaggerated hypothetical?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Can you actually find an example of me allowing people to talk about the Holocaust in an insensitive manner or allowing Nazi rhetoric on the forum, or is this another fake and exaggerated hypothetical?

We are talking specifically about your avatar. So that attempt at moving the goalpost doesn't work..

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

This whole thing makes me wonder: if this is an INTP forum, then where is the Ti? I imagine in a Ti-based forum, there would be only one rule: speak your mind no matter what it is, and we'll take it from there – because we are thinkers who think critically and independently, and we can distinguish between good and bad arguments not matter how sensitive the topic is.

But now the feelings get the best of us – as is the case with the rest of the world. It's a cliché.

 

[Minuend]

This whole thing makes me wonder: if this is an INTP forum, then where is the Ti? I imagine in a Ti-based forum, there would be only one rule: speak your mind no matter what it is, and we'll take it from there – because we are thinkers who think critically and independently, and we can distinguish between good and bad arguments not matter how sensitive the topic is.

But now the feelings get the best of us – as is the case with the rest of the world. It's a cliché.

I guess I find it more disconcerting how you need rules like this in the first place, if INTPf was such a logical, rational place, such threads wouldn't exist at all, you'd think.

What you say sounds good in theory, but it's not how things work. People aren't civil or rational, they are stupid and seek to justify their own behavior and opinions. Some INTPs might camouflage themselves in "rational speak", but in the end they can be as shitty as other people, just more arrogant about it because they think their "rational thinking" puts them above other people, they think it means their opinions are automatically more fleshed out and nuanced. Don't confuse a front of rationality with actual rationality. Note: general statement not addressed to anyone in particular. I guess more pointed at any behavior who does that regardless of type.

Imagine being bullied throughout your entire school life, and then imagine meeting many of your bullies frequently as an adult, and they feel ok about talking shit about you to your face and sabotage you in your work or social life, which affects how your friends and family perceive you. That would be more similar to what people like trans go through, for some people it also become physical/ violent

Then you go to any forum and there's quite a few of the bullies there as well, who uses any opportunity to make threads about people who are similar to yourself and wherever you are you are continuously reminded of how negatively people perceive you. Meanwhile the bullies justify themselves by stating how you "shouldn't take it personal" and they are just "stating the facts". And if you show any "feelings" it will be used against you.

Idk, maybe it's difficult for people to imagine what that would be like if they haven't really been targeted or continue to be targeted for aspects of who they are throughout their lives over longer periods of time, or if they don't know someone who they know is an interesting and intelligent person, but who is shot down and shunned by people in the most absurd situations. In theory it sounds nice and dandy for people to listen and be rational, but when it all comes down to it, they are pretty much shit and are fine shitting on good people because of stupid reasons.

Knee jerk reactions to minority groups is something you can find on any forum, anywhere, all intpf is doing is raising the bar for how stupid you are being allowed to be when you target groups you dislike while trying to hide behind "I'm just being logical". And I guess I've been focusing on minority groups, but it wouldn't be tolerated to go around saying all men are abusive and rapists either

 

[washti]

I imagine in a Ti-based forum, there would be only one rule: speak your mind no matter what it is, and we'll take it from there – because we are thinkers who think critically and independently, and we can distinguish between good and bad arguments not matter how sensitive the topic is.

Your obstinate attitude to rb's avatar indicate different thing.
Despite the request for demonstration where red baron insults Jews, no one who accused him for lack of sensitivity, showed any example of offence.

You only repeat ad nauseam - swastika, swastika.
Yeah swastic fantasic. Repeat more.

In my family are people who were presecuted by nazis and who don't remember them "that bad". My grandma as child carried food with her mother to local ghetto risking live. She claim that nazis (only true Germans)gave her toys and sweets and she never encountered any form of malice from them.

Forty km from her lived family of my second grandma. They were presecuted for religion. Nazi beaten them, took away food, crops, burned the neighbours' home and threatened that my family's house would be next.

Excuse me but I do not care if some aussie has fun with graphic mockery of totalitarian regime, one that havoced half of the world.

 

[Grayman]

. And I guess I've been focusing on minority groups, but it wouldn't be tolerated to go around saying all men are abusive and rapists either

Men are the primary instigators of rape and violence. I have made that case in the past and as a man I don't get upset when people point it out.

I am also not going to change what I choose to discuss because someone elses bullying has made people more sensitive to certain types of discussion.

This forum has become somewhat SJW but I don't care because the internet is a big place and there are plenty. of forums who prioritize free speech, mainly only banning actual bullying and illegal activity.

 

[redbaron]

We are talking specifically about your avatar. So that attempt at moving the goalpost doesn't work..

Well, no.

You said that I have a different standard between trans/Nazi - yet I don't see anyone here saying Jews are fucked up, or that Nazis are great, or persecuting Jews by minimizing their struggle and me allowing it. The mere existence of this avatar doesn't mean that I'd ever do that, and the point of it is sorely missed if you're implying that.

Exactly what washti said is exactly how I'd imagine most people even with a Jewish background would feel about the whole thing and you're just looking more and more ridiculous the longer you keep trying to somehow connect a picture that makes a mockery of Hitler as a means of persecuting Jews.

I mean at this point your argument doesn't even contest the validity of why it's a good thing to prevent persecution on the forum, and is now some form of "but HE does it too!" - even if I did it wouldn't make the point any less pertinent, but the fact that I don't even do it makes this even more absurd.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Serac
Re: Eureka
I feel like you mischaracterised my behaviour in the Eureka thread. I agree evidence from 'our side' has been lacking, but I'm not going to moderate 'victimless' claims. This policy is literally a redistribution of the onus of err... evidence.

Re: Avatar
I don't consider the Nazi thing inconsistent at all. RB is not recontextualising the issue. I don't actually like the avatar (sorry rb), but it's not saying anything that could even be evidenced. It's literally not something that this policy would apply to, and frankly, if we did go and have it removed, it would suggest we actually were going to push an indiscriminate SJW agenda. As much as the avatar is a headache for anyone trying to keep this conversation clear, it's just not relevant to this issue. It really is unfortunate that rb is the edgiest lord here, because if grayman or anyone else on the other 'side' had it, it would also be fine.

Re: Ti
The people here aren't all Ti-users. I don't even think a majority are. Regardless, no subject is taboo. I don't see how the basest level of bigotry is something Ti values, but if it does value it, the analytical aspect of the conversation is served by people bringing evidence.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay I think it's time. If anyone desperately want to add anything more exceptions can be made, but I'm locking it for now.

Just so it's clear, while the very nature of this topic tends to be extremely polarising, and thus this discussion has largely been one of disagreement, I do take your views seriously and respect the difference in perspective. While me saying this probably doesn't mean much to you, I'm hoping that when you see it implemented you won't necessarily change the value you put on freedom, but at least see that this change does not represent an exploitative abuse of mod power. Freedom is something I value dearly, I could easily see myself being on the opposite end of this discussion if things were only a little different.

But words are wind, and only time will tell if this is a good or a bad decision.