"A frank and friendly discussion on the subject of women and gaming, inspired by Shelly Mazzanoble"
In reality, it is not.
It is a place for people to bash men and masculinity, as well as a proving ground for progressive societal ideas and propaganda.
Yes... really.
Just take a look at the threads presented there, and then read them. No... really read them.
And since we have a forum for women and gaming, why not one for men and gaming?
Or why not one for Homosexuals and gaming?
Or one for black folk and gaming?
Or one for emo kids and gaming?
I normally wouldn't have such a case of the ass about it, but the misinformation and disinformation presented there is making me crazy.
This thread is a joke, right?
Nope. It's actually pouting. These threads pop up all the time when people's opinions can't gain any ground in the parlour (
cuz if it wasnt for all the radicals in there they'd agree with me!).Now, you can accept that and either debate them on the issues or ignore them... or you can make yourself look silly by constantly trying to get opinions you disagree with taken away so you can remain safe and secure without all those uppity women and gays and liberals challenging your world-view by their very existence.
It's your choice, man. (But, personally, I hope you continue to choose the 'silly' option.)
And since we have a forum for women and gaming, why not one for men and gaming?.
That's pretty much the rest of the site. Roleplaying by virtue of it's social connotations is largely male in it's demographic. Astrid's Parlor (as well as her book) are simply things meant to help women feel less awkward about a hobby that is by a large percentage a 'man's hobby'.
Now, saying this, I do agree that some of the residents in that particular forum are the sort of people to not enjoy reasonable debate, especially when it comes to controversial topics. They see that forum as 'their' forum, and differing opinions, those that seem to differ from their progressivist opinions, are marginalized. However, these people are few in number, they are simply 'loud', however that comes about in a forum context.
So I suppose I am half agreeing with you. I think Astrid's Parlor is a good idea. I pointed my wife that way (as well as to the book) because I wanted her to see my obsessive hobby from a female perspective. This is a very healthy thing, and I think that if you see beyond the few obnoxious people in Astrid's Parlor that a large amount of it is actually useful, for both men and women, on the topic of roleplaying and gender perspective.
As it were, the key here is to not be so reactive to the obnoxious people, or you may seem exactly like them in turn, only on the opposite side of the fence. Ignoring people on the internet might seem hard at first, but you'll pick it up and be much happier person for it.
This thread is a joke, right?
Either that, or it's very hypocritical, considering the second comment of RH's sig. I'm not sure which is more sad.
*shrug*
Oh well.
I guess even fools need a place to call home...
You guys have obviously not read what passes for discussion in Astrids....
*shrug*
Oh well.
I guess even fools need a place to call home...
I actually have read the content in Astrids (I do post there from time to time).
And don't worry . . . I'll never begrudge you a place to call home.
You guys have obviously not read what passes for discussion in Astrids....
*shrug*
Oh well.
I guess even fools need a place to call home...
I actually have read the content in Astrids (I do post there from time to time).
And don't worry . . . I'll never begrudge you a place to call home.
Touche
Why was this bumped? Nobody cares.
I care.
I am somebody.
Therefore your statement is false.
Also, people have PM'd me with their support. I will assume they wish to stay anonymous.
Also, people have PM'd me with their support. I will assume they wish to stay anonymous.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I assume you at least recognise that it is entirely within WotC/Hasbro's rights to have whatever subforums they want here, yes? Their property rights trump your individual wishes. You can stop buying their stuff in protest, or you can (assuming you are wealthy) attempt to buy enough stock in Hasbro that they feel compelled to give some weight to your wishes as a shareholder. Or you can just stay out of Astrid's and recognise that its existence neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
For the record, I take you at your word that you've had PMs of support. It does not surprise me in the slightest that people who agree with your position on this are too cowardly to make their support public.
You are half right.
No, I'm completely right.
They can impose any policies they like in regards to what people are allowed to post here. Whether any given policy is a good idea is another matter entirely. As I said in the other thread, ignoring your customers or silencing their complaints is probably a bad business move, but it's not morally or legally wrong.Censorship is always moraly wrong.
Is it really your position that it would be morally wrong for WotC to prevent me from posting hardcore pornography here? Or what about making death threats towards another poster? Or doing a Laura Schlessinger and dropping the n-bomb eleven times? How about advocating illegal activity?
Or, by 'always', do you actually just mean 'sometimes'?
In any case, most people understand the word 'censorship' to apply only when a government or other authority restricts speech or expression with the force of law. A corporation restricting speech on its own forum doesn't qualify (likewise, it's not censorship if I request a guest in my house refrain from using racist epithets). Also, it is generally accepted that restricting speech in a single place or at a single time is not censorship either. Location and context matter. You* can be as obnoxiously negative as you like about WotC's products, but you perhaps should not expect to be able to use WotC's bandwidth to do it. Just like you are perfectly free to say some movie is terrible, but if you stand up in the cinema and shout it at the top of your lungs while the movie is playing, you will get thrown out.
* - 'You' meaning the generic 'you', not 'you' personally.
Censorship is always moraly wrong.
No, it's not. Censorship is just a loaded term for the Code of Conduct, which you agreed to abide by when you joined this community. The Code of Conduct tells you what you cannot write -- what you would inflammatorily call "censorship". Among the things you agreed should be censored are:
- Obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content
- Hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
- Repeated flaming and personal attacks
- Inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
- Personal or private information of another person, or any confidential information pertaining to a business, without consent
- Statements that promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense
- Impersonations of other persons, including members or Wizards of the Coast staff
- Spam
- Advertising
These are all forms of censorship. They are forms of censorship to which you agreed to abide by joining the forum. Do you really believe that all of the above should be allowed?
@duskweaver,
By the way "censorship" is not commonly understood to mean government censorship. The dictionary definition doesn't mention government involvement at all. Censroship, quite literally, means any curtailment of speech by a censor. In this case, the censors are the ORCs. "Censorship" is an accurate, although inflammatory word.
The First Amendment and "free speech" involves the government. But goldomark didn't invoke a Constitutional argument.
By the way "censorship" is not commonly understood to mean government censorship.
I actually said it is commonly understood as being "when a government or other authority restricts speech or expression with the force of law". It does not have to involve the government, but it does have to involve an official body with the legal power to back up its restrictions. The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the closest thing the English language has to an official arbiter) agrees with me, BTW.
The dictionary definition doesn't mention government involvement at all.
First, I don't trust that site as a reliable source. Not when it disagrees with the OED, anyway. Second, that link gives the following:
censorship
- no dictionary results
No results found for censorship
Please try spelling the word differently, searching another resource, or typing a new word.
So that doesn't really help.
EDIT: OK, the link is working now. That's strange.
EDIT: OK, the link is working now. That's strange.
The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the closest thing the English language has to an official arbiter) agrees with me, BTW.
I disagree that the OED is the official arbiter. I'll go with Merriam Webster, "America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information" for more than 150 years. The OED, in contrast is an "historical dictionary", thus providing you with outdated and antiquated definitions.
If I want etyomology, I'll go to OED. If I want to know how a word is currently used, I'll go with Merriam-Webster. (Dictionary.com uses Random House, a perfectly acceptable alternative.)
Both MW and Random House agree with me.
So I'll assume OED was giving you an antiquated definition of "censorship".
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory. And if goldomark wants a place where he is uncensored, he can go to 4chan.
I'd just like to say I agree with the OP. If I wanted my woman to game with me I'd yell at her to bring me my sandwich from the kitchen so she can kiss my dice for good luck.
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory.
Your kidding, right? So their is nothing wrong with journalist being detained in Cuba for denouncing the dictatorial regime over there? For example.
Of course there is something wrong with that kind of censorship. However a private organization or business who wishes to regulate their forums on their own webspace through so called 'censorship' is just fine, both constitutionally and, well, logically. It's their forum, they bought it with their money, it isn't in the public domain, you have a choice to be here, and lastly but most importantly you Agreed to a legal contract by even signing up to these forums. I don't give two craps about what argument you might have against censorship, if you post here you have essentially signed a legal electronic agreement to follow their rules. If you don't like that, then don't post here.
Among the things you agreed should be censored are:
- Hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
- Inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
Both of these are rampant in Astrids.
If you disagree with the regulars who have taken over that area of the forum, or provide alternate views than the ones the regulars want to promote, you will be subject to the above actions.
LOL...
Astrids is full of sexists, and some of you would notice if you read the garbage that passes for discussion there...
But, some people are so open-minded their brain has fallen out...
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
And the moderation on these forums is a joke anyway.
But thanks for the advice just the same.
I'm pretty sure that if someone said that women are just as good as men, and some are better, that you would say that is a sexist remark.
How can I not take personally being called a sexist?
Which is what you have done.
See, this is kinda the same crap that is common in Astrids.
It is simply because one doesn't follow the philosophy of the regulars that one is dismissed, attacked, and/or flamed.
And, for the record, I don't take opinions different from mine as inflammatory comments or personnel attacks.
But I do defend what I believe in.
And that confuses some people... especially when it isn't what they believe in.
You're right. I did, involuntarely, called you a sexist. Sorry.
You didn't defend yourself or say that you do believe that women are as good as men, which could lead me to believe that you are sexist. I do not really know from this little exchange that we have had so far.
I could have uses black people in my example and your answer might lead me to believe that you are racist (just an example, I do not know that you are).
But if you are a sexist or a racist, or have some sexist or racist views, do not complain that people call you a sexist or a racist.
What constitute being a sexist or a racist is up for debate and hopefully the MODs won't interfere in such conversations.
What is wrong with you?
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
Either that or you're just wrong. Hmmm. Which seems more likely?
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
Either that or you're just wrong. Hmmm. Which seems more likely?
I expected such replies from you and goldo.
*shrug*
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
Don't simply click report and then click OK. Explain in the box why the post is baiting/inflammatory/flaming/etc. That way the ORCs are aware of what is going on and can more accuratelt determine the proper course of action.
How can I not take personally being called a sexist?
Because everyone's a little bit sexist, the same way that everyone's a little bit racist. It's an unfortunately unavoidable product of pretty much every prominent modern human culture. It's normal that it upsets you to be called sexist, because most people don't want to admit that they are or don't even realize that they are. If you don't think that you're even a little bit sexist, then you're probably wrong. The sooner you can realize and admit it, the sooner you can grow as a person.
EDIT: Just to further accent the point.
Is calling someone sexist or racist against the CoC? Because people can express sexist and racist views without breaking the CoC. Shouldn't they be called out?
Note - Not speaking for WotC, ORCs, nor should this be considered an official interpretation of the CoC.
Personally, if I was reading a thread and somoene was consistantly espousing racist/sexist views, I would (a) report them to the ORCs; and (b) use my mental filter and just skip over their posts. (Mental filter because, as a CA, I am not permitted to have anybody on Ignore).
However, should you feel the need to respond, it is always safe to respond with a post directed towards the idea as opposed to the poster.
The difference between "Idea X is rather sexist" and "You are sexist" is significant. One is attacking the idea or concept, the other is attacking the person.
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory.
Your kidding, right? So their is nothing wrong with journalist being detained in Cuba for denouncing the dictatorial regime over there? For example.
Of course there is something wrong with that kind of censorship. However a private organization or business who wishes to regulate their forums on their own webspace through so called 'censorship' is just fine, both constitutionally and, well, logically. It's their forum, they bought it with their money, it isn't in the public domain, you have a choice to be here, and lastly but most importantly you Agreed to a legal contract by even signing up to these forums. I don't give two craps about what argument you might have against censorship, if you post here you have essentially signed a legal electronic agreement to follow their rules. If you don't like that, then don't post here.
With your logic we shouldn't complain about any DnD products that WotC produces. We should either buy then or not. Yet we still complain because we want good products for our hard earn money and those complaints sometimes have a impact. Heck, 4E is a direct result of some of these complaints. The same logic is applied to the boards.
The first part of this counter argument is a Straw Man. Baiting, flaming, and trolling are not nearly the same as complaining about parts of the game that you do not like.
Additionally you seem to be missing that some do not post legitimate complaints hoping that they will be addressed. Rather they post outright lies and hate in hopes of pissing other off and watching the chaos that is unleashed.
The code of conduct is mainly for the those that to the second as honest discussion can be overwhelmed and lost in a sea of disruptive behavior.
It's WotC boards and yes they can implement what ever they want here. I do not have to agree with allof their politics and I can work toward changing some of it. It's like asking for a seperate forum for Essentials. Nothing wrong there and WotC can listen or not.
Same with censorship on these boards. Sure I agreed to the terms of service to post here, but it doesn't mean that I agree with 100% and that I can't work to change some of it. If I do not agree to the terms of services I wouldn't be able to voice my opinions.
Remember that you do not represent all those that complain. A highly disruptive minority exists in most if not all forums.
I find this all sit down and shut up attitude very disturbing.
Here again we have a Straw Man. I rarely see any post that tells dissenters to shut up. The majority what disruptive posters play nice. In fact I've seen most outright trollish poster complain that falsely claim that those opposed to their trolling wanting all option squashed, not that I would count you among them. Those types of posters generally pretend to be against something to provide cover.
In Posting With Intent to Shut Down Threads I bothered to post several threads where disruptive behavior is quite clear and did some documentation of such behavior.
I've rarely seen that type of behavior in Astrid's Parlor let alone rampant behavior like the OP suggest exists and failed to provide examples when asked. It is both possible that I missed it or it doesn't really exist.
Thanks!
To be honest I rarely see trolling, baiting and flamming. It's a pretty subjective thing and I feel that a lot of posts have been MODed because of perceived disruptive behavior, but it wasn't the case. How do you know if someone is lying or just misinformed, if someone is panicking or baiting, or if a posters has a personnal stalker that just report anything he says?
The poster's history is the biggest indicator. Once or twice for the same thing I can understand, but then a poster's infractions reach into the double digits for the same behavior...
The biggest incident I can recall is posting pictures of aborted fetuses three times. They where still on the same account for all three and they managed to get a the rare IP ban. Other posters have made multiple accounts and freely PM'ed or even posted that they where back to bother the forum goers again. I know at least two posters that did this and used over 10 accounts each.
More clairety in the CoC and in the MODs descisions would often be appreciated.
ORCs are supposed to explain why they modded your post when they do so. It doesn't always happen, but that is when they explain their actions. If you disagree with a specific action, you can also e-mail customer service. Other than that, it is against policy for WotC employees to discuss moderation.
Why not just use the IP ban after three stricks if people just keep on trolling?
I have no idea. As long as trolls do not do something extreme, they can create as many new accounts as they want and keep on trolling.
Aren't you using a Straw Man with the aborted foetus example?
No. A strawman is a usually fictitious argument attributed to someone else attacked in the place of their actual argument.
I was showing an extreme example where the trolling is quite clear, but that doesn't mean that poster do not get modded when they actually shouldn't.
However, please note that actual troll use gray areas to hide in. for example the poster that posted those pic complained quite a bit that others just wanted to censor him for having an opposing pint of view. If you didn't actually catch the incident or study his posting history closely you wouldn't likely think that he did anything worth banning him for.
I do know that another one other poster that complained quite frequently about censorship of his ideas that severally flamed me personally and another that politely asked his to stop. Just after that he posted porn with trollish comments of 4th.
If you didn't actually see his flameout you would likely think that he got moderated and banned for no good reason.
Of course no number of examples of troll smacking by the ORCs would ever disprove that other posters get moderated when they should not.
That kind of my point(s). I want them to be more forth coming, especialy is situations where no one understands why a comment was MODed or why subsiquent similar "offences" aren't MODed. And these are the rules we can't do anything about it attitude is distressing.
ORCs only respond to a reported posts rather than looking for offenses. I could be that the similar offenses just where not reported, or that the reporter of an unmodded offense did not explain it well in the the report.I have a thread stickied on the top of this forum that explains a bit on how to report a post and what to do if you disagree with a moderators response.
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory.
Your kidding, right? So their is nothing wrong with journalist being detained in Cuba for denouncing the dictatorial regime over there? For example.
Of course there is something wrong with that kind of censorship. However a private organization or business who wishes to regulate their forums on their own webspace through so called 'censorship' is just fine, both constitutionally and, well, logically. It's their forum, they bought it with their money, it isn't in the public domain, you have a choice to be here, and lastly but most importantly you Agreed to a legal contract by even signing up to these forums. I don't give two craps about what argument you might have against censorship, if you post here you have essentially signed a legal electronic agreement to follow their rules. If you don't like that, then don't post here.
With your logic we shouldn't complain about any DnD products that WotC produces. We should either buy then or not. Yet we still complain because we want good products for our hard earn money and those complaints sometimes have a impact. Heck, 4E is a direct result of some of these complaints. The same logic is applied to the boards.
It's WotC boards and yes they can implement what ever they want here. I do not have to agree with allof their politics and I can work toward changing some of it. It's like asking for a seperate forum for Essentials. Nothing wrong there and WotC can listen or not.
Same with censorship on these boards. Sure I agreed to the terms of service to post here, but it doesn't mean that I agree with 100% and that I can't work to change some of it. If I do not agree to the terms of services I wouldn't be able to voice my opinions.
I find this all sit down and shut up attitude very disturbing.
I'm sorry, but I am confused. My logic is that Wizards has a right to regulate their boards. I never said that Wizards should over-regulate their boards. While they certainly have a right to, what I was referring to is the legal contract you agreed to post on these boards. This legal contract says nothing about disallowing criticisms of their products. So where do you get off saying my logic is thus?
I complain about problems in their products all the time. Because the CoC doesn't affect that at all. The CoC has everything to do with disruptive behavior, and as a private organization they have a right to regulate their boards in order to maintain a disruptive-free environment. This may be censorship, but they are legally allowed to do that.
Also, it is possible to voice disagreement with the CoC without actually breaking the CoC. They in fact encourage you to voice your disagreement in these forums. That's awesome, if you want to work towards a change. I was not telling you to sit down and shut up. None of my post had anything at all to do with telling you to stop talking.
Therefore your statement "If I do not agree to the terms of services I wouldn't be able to voice my opinions" is completely false. Nothing in the terms of service says you can't disagree with it! You just have to follow it while you're here, and voice your disagreement. Voicing your disagreement does not break the terms of service.
Now, if they had a terms of service that disallowed disagreement or criticism then I could see your point. But they don't. So I fail to see how you came up with me saying to sit and shut up.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
So you believe you have the special ability to spot offenses that slip by everyone else? WoW. If I didn't know better I'd say you really are Glenn Beck. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot.
Please try to stay on-topic.
Thanks!
And the award for "Most Ironic Poster" goes to…
;)
This thread is a joke, right?
Nope. It's actually pouting. These threads pop up all the time when people's opinions can't gain any ground in the parlour (
cuz if it wasnt for all the radicals in there they'd agree with me!).Now, you can accept that and either debate them on the issues or ignore them... or you can make yourself look silly by constantly trying to get opinions you disagree with taken away so you can remain safe and secure without all those uppity women and gays and liberals challenging your world-view by their very existence.
It's your choice, man. (But, personally, I hope you continue to choose the 'silly' option.)
And since we have a forum for women and gaming, why not one for men and gaming?.
That's pretty much the rest of the site. Roleplaying by virtue of it's social connotations is largely male in it's demographic. Astrid's Parlor (as well as her book) are simply things meant to help women feel less awkward about a hobby that is by a large percentage a 'man's hobby'.
Now, saying this, I do agree that some of the residents in that particular forum are the sort of people to not enjoy reasonable debate, especially when it comes to controversial topics. They see that forum as 'their' forum, and differing opinions, those that seem to differ from their progressivist opinions, are marginalized. However, these people are few in number, they are simply 'loud', however that comes about in a forum context.
So I suppose I am half agreeing with you. I think Astrid's Parlor is a good idea. I pointed my wife that way (as well as to the book) because I wanted her to see my obsessive hobby from a female perspective. This is a very healthy thing, and I think that if you see beyond the few obnoxious people in Astrid's Parlor that a large amount of it is actually useful, for both men and women, on the topic of roleplaying and gender perspective.
As it were, the key here is to not be so reactive to the obnoxious people, or you may seem exactly like them in turn, only on the opposite side of the fence. Ignoring people on the internet might seem hard at first, but you'll pick it up and be much happier person for it.
This thread is a joke, right?
Either that, or it's very hypocritical, considering the second comment of RH's sig. I'm not sure which is more sad.
*shrug*
Oh well.
I guess even fools need a place to call home...
You guys have obviously not read what passes for discussion in Astrids....
*shrug*
Oh well.
I guess even fools need a place to call home...
I actually have read the content in Astrids (I do post there from time to time).
And don't worry . . . I'll never begrudge you a place to call home.
You guys have obviously not read what passes for discussion in Astrids....
*shrug*
Oh well.
I guess even fools need a place to call home...
I actually have read the content in Astrids (I do post there from time to time).
And don't worry . . . I'll never begrudge you a place to call home.
Touche
Why was this bumped? Nobody cares.
I care.
I am somebody.
Therefore your statement is false.
Also, people have PM'd me with their support. I will assume they wish to stay anonymous.
Also, people have PM'd me with their support. I will assume they wish to stay anonymous.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I assume you at least recognise that it is entirely within WotC/Hasbro's rights to have whatever subforums they want here, yes? Their property rights trump your individual wishes. You can stop buying their stuff in protest, or you can (assuming you are wealthy) attempt to buy enough stock in Hasbro that they feel compelled to give some weight to your wishes as a shareholder. Or you can just stay out of Astrid's and recognise that its existence neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
For the record, I take you at your word that you've had PMs of support. It does not surprise me in the slightest that people who agree with your position on this are too cowardly to make their support public.
You are half right.
No, I'm completely right.
They can impose any policies they like in regards to what people are allowed to post here. Whether any given policy is a good idea is another matter entirely. As I said in the other thread, ignoring your customers or silencing their complaints is probably a bad business move, but it's not morally or legally wrong.Censorship is always moraly wrong.
Is it really your position that it would be morally wrong for WotC to prevent me from posting hardcore pornography here? Or what about making death threats towards another poster? Or doing a Laura Schlessinger and dropping the n-bomb eleven times? How about advocating illegal activity?
Or, by 'always', do you actually just mean 'sometimes'?
In any case, most people understand the word 'censorship' to apply only when a government or other authority restricts speech or expression with the force of law. A corporation restricting speech on its own forum doesn't qualify (likewise, it's not censorship if I request a guest in my house refrain from using racist epithets). Also, it is generally accepted that restricting speech in a single place or at a single time is not censorship either. Location and context matter. You* can be as obnoxiously negative as you like about WotC's products, but you perhaps should not expect to be able to use WotC's bandwidth to do it. Just like you are perfectly free to say some movie is terrible, but if you stand up in the cinema and shout it at the top of your lungs while the movie is playing, you will get thrown out.
* - 'You' meaning the generic 'you', not 'you' personally.
Censorship is always moraly wrong.
No, it's not. Censorship is just a loaded term for the Code of Conduct, which you agreed to abide by when you joined this community. The Code of Conduct tells you what you cannot write -- what you would inflammatorily call "censorship". Among the things you agreed should be censored are:
- Obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content
- Hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
- Repeated flaming and personal attacks
- Inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
- Personal or private information of another person, or any confidential information pertaining to a business, without consent
- Statements that promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense
- Impersonations of other persons, including members or Wizards of the Coast staff
- Spam
- Advertising
These are all forms of censorship. They are forms of censorship to which you agreed to abide by joining the forum. Do you really believe that all of the above should be allowed?
@duskweaver,
By the way "censorship" is not commonly understood to mean government censorship. The dictionary definition doesn't mention government involvement at all. Censroship, quite literally, means any curtailment of speech by a censor. In this case, the censors are the ORCs. "Censorship" is an accurate, although inflammatory word.
The First Amendment and "free speech" involves the government. But goldomark didn't invoke a Constitutional argument.
By the way "censorship" is not commonly understood to mean government censorship.
I actually said it is commonly understood as being "when a government or other authority restricts speech or expression with the force of law". It does not have to involve the government, but it does have to involve an official body with the legal power to back up its restrictions. The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the closest thing the English language has to an official arbiter) agrees with me, BTW.
The dictionary definition doesn't mention government involvement at all.
First, I don't trust that site as a reliable source. Not when it disagrees with the OED, anyway. Second, that link gives the following:
censorship
- no dictionary results
No results found for censorship
Please try spelling the word differently, searching another resource, or typing a new word.
So that doesn't really help.
EDIT: OK, the link is working now. That's strange.
EDIT: OK, the link is working now. That's strange.
The Oxford English Dictionary (which is the closest thing the English language has to an official arbiter) agrees with me, BTW.
I disagree that the OED is the official arbiter. I'll go with Merriam Webster, "America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information" for more than 150 years. The OED, in contrast is an "historical dictionary", thus providing you with outdated and antiquated definitions.
If I want etyomology, I'll go to OED. If I want to know how a word is currently used, I'll go with Merriam-Webster. (Dictionary.com uses Random House, a perfectly acceptable alternative.)
Both MW and Random House agree with me.
So I'll assume OED was giving you an antiquated definition of "censorship".
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory. And if goldomark wants a place where he is uncensored, he can go to 4chan.
I'd just like to say I agree with the OP. If I wanted my woman to game with me I'd yell at her to bring me my sandwich from the kitchen so she can kiss my dice for good luck.
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory.
Your kidding, right? So their is nothing wrong with journalist being detained in Cuba for denouncing the dictatorial regime over there? For example.
Of course there is something wrong with that kind of censorship. However a private organization or business who wishes to regulate their forums on their own webspace through so called 'censorship' is just fine, both constitutionally and, well, logically. It's their forum, they bought it with their money, it isn't in the public domain, you have a choice to be here, and lastly but most importantly you Agreed to a legal contract by even signing up to these forums. I don't give two craps about what argument you might have against censorship, if you post here you have essentially signed a legal electronic agreement to follow their rules. If you don't like that, then don't post here.
Among the things you agreed should be censored are:
- Hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
- Inflammatory statements, such as ones designed to elicit a negative response from the community
Both of these are rampant in Astrids.
If you disagree with the regulars who have taken over that area of the forum, or provide alternate views than the ones the regulars want to promote, you will be subject to the above actions.
LOL...
Astrids is full of sexists, and some of you would notice if you read the garbage that passes for discussion there...
But, some people are so open-minded their brain has fallen out...
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
And the moderation on these forums is a joke anyway.
But thanks for the advice just the same.
I'm pretty sure that if someone said that women are just as good as men, and some are better, that you would say that is a sexist remark.
How can I not take personally being called a sexist?
Which is what you have done.
See, this is kinda the same crap that is common in Astrids.
It is simply because one doesn't follow the philosophy of the regulars that one is dismissed, attacked, and/or flamed.
And, for the record, I don't take opinions different from mine as inflammatory comments or personnel attacks.
But I do defend what I believe in.
And that confuses some people... especially when it isn't what they believe in.
You're right. I did, involuntarely, called you a sexist. Sorry.
You didn't defend yourself or say that you do believe that women are as good as men, which could lead me to believe that you are sexist. I do not really know from this little exchange that we have had so far.
I could have uses black people in my example and your answer might lead me to believe that you are racist (just an example, I do not know that you are).
But if you are a sexist or a racist, or have some sexist or racist views, do not complain that people call you a sexist or a racist.
What constitute being a sexist or a racist is up for debate and hopefully the MODs won't interfere in such conversations.
What is wrong with you?
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
Either that or you're just wrong. Hmmm. Which seems more likely?
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
Either that or you're just wrong. Hmmm. Which seems more likely?
I expected such replies from you and goldo.
*shrug*
If you see a violation of the code of conduct, I suggest clicking on the report button.
I hate to do that.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
Don't simply click report and then click OK. Explain in the box why the post is baiting/inflammatory/flaming/etc. That way the ORCs are aware of what is going on and can more accuratelt determine the proper course of action.
How can I not take personally being called a sexist?
Because everyone's a little bit sexist, the same way that everyone's a little bit racist. It's an unfortunately unavoidable product of pretty much every prominent modern human culture. It's normal that it upsets you to be called sexist, because most people don't want to admit that they are or don't even realize that they are. If you don't think that you're even a little bit sexist, then you're probably wrong. The sooner you can realize and admit it, the sooner you can grow as a person.
EDIT: Just to further accent the point.
Is calling someone sexist or racist against the CoC? Because people can express sexist and racist views without breaking the CoC. Shouldn't they be called out?
Note - Not speaking for WotC, ORCs, nor should this be considered an official interpretation of the CoC.
Personally, if I was reading a thread and somoene was consistantly espousing racist/sexist views, I would (a) report them to the ORCs; and (b) use my mental filter and just skip over their posts. (Mental filter because, as a CA, I am not permitted to have anybody on Ignore).
However, should you feel the need to respond, it is always safe to respond with a post directed towards the idea as opposed to the poster.
The difference between "Idea X is rather sexist" and "You are sexist" is significant. One is attacking the idea or concept, the other is attacking the person.
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory.
Your kidding, right? So their is nothing wrong with journalist being detained in Cuba for denouncing the dictatorial regime over there? For example.
Of course there is something wrong with that kind of censorship. However a private organization or business who wishes to regulate their forums on their own webspace through so called 'censorship' is just fine, both constitutionally and, well, logically. It's their forum, they bought it with their money, it isn't in the public domain, you have a choice to be here, and lastly but most importantly you Agreed to a legal contract by even signing up to these forums. I don't give two craps about what argument you might have against censorship, if you post here you have essentially signed a legal electronic agreement to follow their rules. If you don't like that, then don't post here.
With your logic we shouldn't complain about any DnD products that WotC produces. We should either buy then or not. Yet we still complain because we want good products for our hard earn money and those complaints sometimes have a impact. Heck, 4E is a direct result of some of these complaints. The same logic is applied to the boards.
The first part of this counter argument is a Straw Man. Baiting, flaming, and trolling are not nearly the same as complaining about parts of the game that you do not like.
Additionally you seem to be missing that some do not post legitimate complaints hoping that they will be addressed. Rather they post outright lies and hate in hopes of pissing other off and watching the chaos that is unleashed.
The code of conduct is mainly for the those that to the second as honest discussion can be overwhelmed and lost in a sea of disruptive behavior.
It's WotC boards and yes they can implement what ever they want here. I do not have to agree with allof their politics and I can work toward changing some of it. It's like asking for a seperate forum for Essentials. Nothing wrong there and WotC can listen or not.
Same with censorship on these boards. Sure I agreed to the terms of service to post here, but it doesn't mean that I agree with 100% and that I can't work to change some of it. If I do not agree to the terms of services I wouldn't be able to voice my opinions.
Remember that you do not represent all those that complain. A highly disruptive minority exists in most if not all forums.
I find this all sit down and shut up attitude very disturbing.
Here again we have a Straw Man. I rarely see any post that tells dissenters to shut up. The majority what disruptive posters play nice. In fact I've seen most outright trollish poster complain that falsely claim that those opposed to their trolling wanting all option squashed, not that I would count you among them. Those types of posters generally pretend to be against something to provide cover.
In Posting With Intent to Shut Down Threads I bothered to post several threads where disruptive behavior is quite clear and did some documentation of such behavior.
I've rarely seen that type of behavior in Astrid's Parlor let alone rampant behavior like the OP suggest exists and failed to provide examples when asked. It is both possible that I missed it or it doesn't really exist.
Thanks!
To be honest I rarely see trolling, baiting and flamming. It's a pretty subjective thing and I feel that a lot of posts have been MODed because of perceived disruptive behavior, but it wasn't the case. How do you know if someone is lying or just misinformed, if someone is panicking or baiting, or if a posters has a personnal stalker that just report anything he says?
The poster's history is the biggest indicator. Once or twice for the same thing I can understand, but then a poster's infractions reach into the double digits for the same behavior...
The biggest incident I can recall is posting pictures of aborted fetuses three times. They where still on the same account for all three and they managed to get a the rare IP ban. Other posters have made multiple accounts and freely PM'ed or even posted that they where back to bother the forum goers again. I know at least two posters that did this and used over 10 accounts each.
More clairety in the CoC and in the MODs descisions would often be appreciated.
ORCs are supposed to explain why they modded your post when they do so. It doesn't always happen, but that is when they explain their actions. If you disagree with a specific action, you can also e-mail customer service. Other than that, it is against policy for WotC employees to discuss moderation.
Why not just use the IP ban after three stricks if people just keep on trolling?
I have no idea. As long as trolls do not do something extreme, they can create as many new accounts as they want and keep on trolling.
Aren't you using a Straw Man with the aborted foetus example?
No. A strawman is a usually fictitious argument attributed to someone else attacked in the place of their actual argument.
I was showing an extreme example where the trolling is quite clear, but that doesn't mean that poster do not get modded when they actually shouldn't.
However, please note that actual troll use gray areas to hide in. for example the poster that posted those pic complained quite a bit that others just wanted to censor him for having an opposing pint of view. If you didn't actually catch the incident or study his posting history closely you wouldn't likely think that he did anything worth banning him for.
I do know that another one other poster that complained quite frequently about censorship of his ideas that severally flamed me personally and another that politely asked his to stop. Just after that he posted porn with trollish comments of 4th.
If you didn't actually see his flameout you would likely think that he got moderated and banned for no good reason.
Of course no number of examples of troll smacking by the ORCs would ever disprove that other posters get moderated when they should not.
That kind of my point(s). I want them to be more forth coming, especialy is situations where no one understands why a comment was MODed or why subsiquent similar "offences" aren't MODed. And these are the rules we can't do anything about it attitude is distressing.
ORCs only respond to a reported posts rather than looking for offenses. I could be that the similar offenses just where not reported, or that the reporter of an unmodded offense did not explain it well in the the report.I have a thread stickied on the top of this forum that explains a bit on how to report a post and what to do if you disagree with a moderators response.
This is all sort of a semantic quibble, though. The important thing is there's nothing wrong with censorship. in theory.
Your kidding, right? So their is nothing wrong with journalist being detained in Cuba for denouncing the dictatorial regime over there? For example.
Of course there is something wrong with that kind of censorship. However a private organization or business who wishes to regulate their forums on their own webspace through so called 'censorship' is just fine, both constitutionally and, well, logically. It's their forum, they bought it with their money, it isn't in the public domain, you have a choice to be here, and lastly but most importantly you Agreed to a legal contract by even signing up to these forums. I don't give two craps about what argument you might have against censorship, if you post here you have essentially signed a legal electronic agreement to follow their rules. If you don't like that, then don't post here.
With your logic we shouldn't complain about any DnD products that WotC produces. We should either buy then or not. Yet we still complain because we want good products for our hard earn money and those complaints sometimes have a impact. Heck, 4E is a direct result of some of these complaints. The same logic is applied to the boards.
It's WotC boards and yes they can implement what ever they want here. I do not have to agree with allof their politics and I can work toward changing some of it. It's like asking for a seperate forum for Essentials. Nothing wrong there and WotC can listen or not.
Same with censorship on these boards. Sure I agreed to the terms of service to post here, but it doesn't mean that I agree with 100% and that I can't work to change some of it. If I do not agree to the terms of services I wouldn't be able to voice my opinions.
I find this all sit down and shut up attitude very disturbing.
I'm sorry, but I am confused. My logic is that Wizards has a right to regulate their boards. I never said that Wizards should over-regulate their boards. While they certainly have a right to, what I was referring to is the legal contract you agreed to post on these boards. This legal contract says nothing about disallowing criticisms of their products. So where do you get off saying my logic is thus?
I complain about problems in their products all the time. Because the CoC doesn't affect that at all. The CoC has everything to do with disruptive behavior, and as a private organization they have a right to regulate their boards in order to maintain a disruptive-free environment. This may be censorship, but they are legally allowed to do that.
Also, it is possible to voice disagreement with the CoC without actually breaking the CoC. They in fact encourage you to voice your disagreement in these forums. That's awesome, if you want to work towards a change. I was not telling you to sit down and shut up. None of my post had anything at all to do with telling you to stop talking.
Therefore your statement "If I do not agree to the terms of services I wouldn't be able to voice my opinions" is completely false. Nothing in the terms of service says you can't disagree with it! You just have to follow it while you're here, and voice your disagreement. Voicing your disagreement does not break the terms of service.
Now, if they had a terms of service that disallowed disagreement or criticism then I could see your point. But they don't. So I fail to see how you came up with me saying to sit and shut up.
And even then, the violations are so well disguised and so eloquently stated that not every one will see it for what it is. As a matter of fact, some of Astrids regulars are so good at using language, they seem to have almost been trained in spreading dis-information...
So you believe you have the special ability to spot offenses that slip by everyone else? WoW. If I didn't know better I'd say you really are Glenn Beck. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot.
Please try to stay on-topic.
Thanks!
And the award for "Most Ironic Poster" goes to…
;)