But, none of the ORCs seemed to mind my report so I guess it is an OK topic. (Did I mention it is the third or fourth such post in a month there?)
So I started this thread.
Feel free to join in.
If there's a problem, the solution isn't to create more problems.
You're assuming the ORCs didn't issue a soft warn or hard warn. Just because something you don't like isn't removed doesn't mean nothing was done about it.
Why would you start another thread that you know will be closed? To challenge the system? I could never understand why someone would report a post, wanting it removed, but then they quote the post they want removed.
If there's a problem, the solution isn't to create more problems.
Fair question.
First, forums are places where ideas are placed forward to be considered and challenged and eventually accepted, refuted, a stalemate declared (sometimes with respect on each side and sometimes without), or interest is simply lost.
Second, I fully realize that some topics are 'too hot' for discussions in these forums and accept that.
My problem is that time and again the statement is made that such posts as the one which troubled me should be reported rather than responded to.
I was the one who followed this ideal.
How am I supposed to know something was done about it?
It was still there, unchanged, and I was still not supposed to respond to it. In other words, it gets to stand for all to see and yet it cannot be refuted because any attempt to refute it will be stopped.
Please explicitly justify allowing a controversial statement to stand without the opportunity to refute it. If the reason is that it was related to gaming, I could have made an equal reasoning for my thread. So, that is not acceptable.
My wish was to address the issue of singling out white, heterosexual males because the forum is about gender and gaming. It is inevitable to occasionally make male/female treatment comparisons if only tangentially. Race should have no part in it.
So, please tell me why I should have known something was being done about it when I could not see something being done about it?
And, to repeat, regardless of whether or not something was done about it, why should I not be allowed to respond to it if it is allowed to stand?
First, forums are places where ideas are placed forward to be considered and challenged and eventually accepted, refuted, a stalemate declared (sometimes with respect on each side and sometimes without), or interest is simply lost.
Not true, my friend. You're discussing things in Astrid's that have nothing at all to do with gaming. Be glad that all the threads in that forum haven't been closed for being inflammatory.
Second, I fully realize that some topics are 'too hot' for discussions in these forums and accept that.
My problem is that time and again the statement is made that such posts as the one which troubled me should be reported rather than responded to.
That's just it though, that's how flame wars erupt. You feel you must respond, then he feels he must fire back and so on. It's best to avoid the conflict in the first place.
As for why it remains, I can suggest two. One, leaving something visible helps point to things that aren't okay as an example.
Second, if everything that someone said offends them were removed, then people will falsely claim things offend them. "I'm offended there's still 3e discussions on here! 4e is out and there shouldn't be any other discussions!"
Not true, my friend. You're discussing things in Astrid's that have nothing at all to do with gaming. Be glad that all the threads in that forum haven't been closed for being inflammatory.
I believe you misunderstand.
I have no complaint about the thread I started being closed.
There is a thread, Barriers to Gaming (sorry, I'm to lazy to fix a link
) which is about finding the 'barriers' to women entering the world of D&D in order to produce topics for discussion in other threads. Examples are the perception that D&D is a game for guys. This can then be broken down into discussions about why women feel that way. Is it a legacy result of the fact that guys have always been the primary players so that is what most women see? Is it a result of people seeing art often referred to as 'lesbian stripper ninjas' that make women think the game is made to cater to men. Those are just a couple of examples. This leads for discussion on how to break misconceptions (not to mention whether or not they are accurate or misconceptions to begin with.
Below is another example which is important because it led to this particular discussion:
One point brought up is that many women gamers are treated differently than male gamers when they play. Is it so difficult to believe that when young teenagers are beginning to play D&D they will try to use it as an 'avenue' to make advances at the opposite sex? If it is a group of five guys and one girl, say a one female player, four male players, and a male DM is it not unreasonable to think that the lone girl may be 'hit upon'? When we are talking about teenagers is it unreasonable to believe that when alone in a group like that, a girl may begin to feel uncomfortable with the situation and leave? Then that may put her (and her friends) off from ever trying to play again. Gamers lost to the world of D&D.
However some posts had begun to decide to phrase discussions of sexism as being the result of that caused by white heterosexual males. That is clearly beyond the scope of Astrid's Parlor and any forum here at Wizards.
Note: In the following I am not trying to prove a point, merely showing my thought process regarding the actions taken.
I felt the need to address such a post because I believed:
1.) That sexism was not limited to white straight males and should thus have been lumped under the heading of simply male sexists. I thought singling out based upon race was inflammatory.
2.) It should be called out as off-topic and discussion stopped so as to prevent an explosion.
I do not come to these boards to spend my time in heated discussions trying to prove that I should not be placed into lump generalizations based upon my race.
So, I reported a post. There was no visible sign that any action was taken and the post remained intact.
I decided that if the post remained intact then it was not deemed unfair for discussion by the ORCs. So, I created a separate thread where the topic would be the differences in severity of sexism between the races. I had no wish to prove that one race was worse/better than another, but merely to address the situation that one should be singled out. I opened another thread to do it in order to protect the thread where the discussion had been inappropriately started. I put a link here to insure the 'disagreement' was settled quickly. First, a lot of people saw what was going on and second the community took action to stop the conversation in the thread.
However, I still have no clue as to whether or not the discussion in the originating thread is acceptable. Webster stated in an above post that although nothing 'visible' has occurred it does not mean that something is not being done. However, a second post was added to the first which was reported. I gave a short response and think I reported it also. I have devised a much longer and in depth response but I do not know whether or not I am allowed to respond to the post. If I respond, then I am continuing a discussion which is far beyond the scope of the forum but has already received two reports for two posts and had a third post (mine) added in. On the one hand, I have seen no evidence that anyone involved in the thread other than me believes that race is off-topic for the thread but on the other hand I am made to feel (by Webster's post above and a response in the Guide to Problematic Posters thread) that I need to ask permission from Customer Service to respond to posts that are left intact by the ORCs.
That's just it though, that's how flame wars erupt. You feel you must respond, then he feels he must fire back and so on. It's best to avoid the conflict in the first place.
As for why it remains, I can suggest two. One, leaving something visible helps point to things that aren't okay as an example.
Second, if everything that someone said offends them were removed, then people will falsely claim things offend them. "I'm offended there's still 3e discussions on here! 4e is out and there shouldn't be any other discussions!"
This still doesn't sit well with me.
Take the first:
That's just it though, that's how flame wars erupt. You feel you must respond, then he feels he must fire back and so on. It's best to avoid the conflict in the first place.
How can topics even be discussed if conflict is avoided? To be specific, the poster even added a second post explaining that it was a topic that would not be ignored. I do not see how not responding to points that would continue being made is a good thing for a topic.
But this is perhaps my biggest problem:
As for why it remains, I can suggest two. One, leaving something visible helps point to things that aren't okay as an example.
Not only was the post left intact but there was no pointing out by the ORCs that it was off-topic/inappropriate. If there is nothing stating that it is inappropriate (other than my response to the second post which the above quote stated should be avoided) how is anyone supposed to know that it is an example of something that is not OK? Let me reiterate, the post was allowed to stand there: intact and without any mention of being off-topic or being out of bounds. That very fact led me to believe that it was OK (exactly the opposite of your conclusion) by the standards of WotC even though I thought it personally was improper for the forum (but not for civilized debate).
Personally, once the ball was rolling, I did not care whether the situation was addressed by the topic being closed or being addressed by posters. After the issue had been addressed as WotC saw fit (I do not know if I agree or not because I do not know how it was addressed...), it did not appear to me that they thought the topic was out of bounds. Why am I supposed to think something is being left as an example of what is not OK when there is nothing labeling it as such?
for the last:
Second, if everything that someone said offends them were removed, then people will falsely claim things offend them. "I'm offended there's still 3e discussions on here! 4e is out and there shouldn't be any other discussions
I am in agreement with you on that. However, I believe there is a difference in magnitude between pointing out specific groups by race as being guilty of prejudices and silly edition arguing. So, although I agree with the statement as written, I do not believe it has a fair application to the topic being discussed.
This brings down to the key point:
If, after reporting, there is no mentioning by the ORCs of a post's points as being out of bounds, why should someone (such as myself) think the topic is off-limits and that the points of a post should not be responded to?
That is what I want an answer to.
I do think that the poster should not have included race in her post nor should the ORCs have left it in tact how it is. But if nobody is continuing to further that off-topic discussion then I see no need to make a big deal out of it.
One, leaving something visible helps point to things that aren't okay as an example.
And how are we to know that that line of discussion is not OK? There is nothing telling anybody that it is not OK.
Second, if everything that someone said offends them were removed, then people will falsely claim things offend them. "I'm offended there's still 3e discussions on here! 4e is out and there shouldn't be any other discussions
As RUMPLESTIX has pointed out, this is not a silly flame war. This is someone that has used, in a discussion of the differences in participation within D&D of different genders, race where there was no need to use race. All that was needed was the mention of gender. This post can be taken as targeting of white heterosexual men.But the follow-up post seemed to say that the poster was saying that members of one group will have more prejudices against members of people who are not in that group. She used "white heterosexual males" because that group is the majority in D&D ATM.
It wasn't about oppression, but about how members of a group (any group) more commonly have prejudices about the members of a different group, and not about their own.
IE: Straights are more likely to have prejudices about gays than other straights, men are more likely to have prejudices about women than other men, etc.
The poster used the whole "white heterosexual male" phrase because she had upset previous posters by just using "male" in similar discourse, and was promptly reminded that women aren't the only ones with problems.
I can see how the first post can be taken harshly, but it was not her intent to make it about race, but about groups of similar peoople - she used "heterosexual white male" because the majority of D&D is, as we keep going back to, heterosexual white males.
However, there are always things that the ORCs do or don't do that will bother you (and others). dirtyfrank is correct in the ignoring part - if you leave it alone, it will probably be buried under more posts. Lord knows there are some deeply disturbing and, yes, outright sexist things posted in Astrid's. I've reported my fair share of posts with little effect. We all have our frustrations.
But the thing is, the poster will only succeed in turning a conversation about something into something else (if that is his/her intent) if other people respond.
Now, RUMPLESTIX has made his response to her posts. That's pretty much it. If others pick it up, that's their deal. If it gets out of hand, the ORCs step in. As much as I'd love to go on a little rant about the Moderation, I won't.
But I honestly think that you (RUMPLESTIX) have a blind spot when it comes to this particular poster. Not saying she's completely blameless in this instance, but that you do not respond so personally to other posts of similar nature, and that you have a history of misunderstandings and disagreements with her. I highly recommend putting the poster on Ignore. I have a few on my list, it happens.
This brings down to the key point:
If, after reporting, there is no mentioning by the ORCs of a post's points as being out of bounds, why should someone (such as myself) think the topic is off-limits and that the points of a post should not be responded to?
That is what I want an answer to.
There is nothing to stop you from responding, except your own belief that it's off-topic and inflammatory. We all have opinions of what is in and out of bounds, and it's up to you to decide how to respond to it, if at all. The general recommendation is to ignore it because if you don't respond, it will likely die on its own.
dirtyfrank, while you can speak to your response, you cannot speak of another's motivations, especially since she specifically said that wasn't her intent. Be careful of what you accuse others of doing.
I don't know what I'm trying to say here. I wrote out like 5 different responses, and almost just erased this one. I'm just trying to provide some perspective. Can't we all just get along?
If, however, you feel that is not enough, send them a private message detailing how the post made you feel uncomfortable, and asking if they would remove/edit it out. This solution is better than reporting it to the ORCS, because it will teach people responsibility for their words as opposed to blaming the moderation staff for removing a post that they think is not a problem.
The final resort should then be reporting it to the ORCS, if the person is being difficult or vulgar. But hey, at least you tried to make a difference without reporting it to an authority, and making a stand for your ideals without annoying the public through flames and unnecessary postings. Be proud of yourself, have a cookie.
about the post, though I urge people to read the thread from post 98 before answering
The context of the post was that I had mentioned the bad reputation of gamers (e.g. geeks with poor social skills) as one of the factors contributing to the low number of girls and women in D&D. I was asked why women would be put more off by people with bad social skills than men, and I started explaining about women being hit on, or targeted with prejudices by these people. I ended up explaining that socially maladjusted men were more likely to have sucky attitudes towards women than other men.
I used the phrase “white heterosexual males” once, when I mentioned that they generally aren't as prejudiced about other white, heterosexual males. Straight white males weren't supposed to be the main subject of the post, it was a minor detail. What I meant to suggest, was (as KillerGM already said) that the members of the typical D&D demographic (straight white males) were more likely to be negatively prejudged against people not of the typical D&D demographic.
I didn't meant to imply this was unique for the typical D&D demographic, or any group really, but I understand why it seemed like that to some, and this is why I added my other post to, explain (even if I hadn't needed to, as the post wasn't moderated) that I included the racial and sexual aspect (as a minor detail, not as the point of the post) to illustrate that it was a more universal social mechanism than simply men vs. women.
I used the phrase “white heterosexual males” once, when I mentioned that they generally aren't as prejudiced about other white, heterosexual males. Straight white males weren't supposed to be the main subject of the post, it was a minor detail. What I meant to suggest, was (as KillerGM already said) that the members of the typical D&D demographic (straight white males) were more likely to be negatively prejudged against people not of the typical D&D demographic.
I didn't meant to imply this was unique for the typical D&D demographic, or any group really, but I understand why it seemed like that to some, and this is why I added my other post to, explain (even if I hadn't needed to, as the post wasn't moderated) that I included the racial and sexual aspect (as a minor detail, not as the point of the post) to illustrate that it was a more universal social mechanism than simply men vs. women.
Simply ignoring the issue won't solve the problem, but then again, if you do respond it will create an unpleasant environment for the rest of the people that do not want to participate. Not responding to the issue, at least publicly, is the best thing to do for everyone. The poster of said controversial remark will notice that no one has responded, and will then think of a reason why there was no response, learn from their mistake, and hopefully, never make it again.
Honestly, ignoring it wouldn't work. You see, while it might have been obvious to whoever has a problem with that post that I must have chanted “Must rant against oppression by white heterosexual males” continuously while writing it
because I couldn't possibly have had any other intention when I wrote it, I myself wouldn't have been able to identify that. I was writing a post answering a post responding to a post regarding a post (yes, it was part of a long line of discussion, which is why looking at the post itself is meaningless) about why socially maladjusted gamers with bad attitudes tended to be more off-putting to women.As far as I can remember, I was writing (among other things) about many of them having bad attitudes towards women that they didn't have towards men, because they were male themselves, when it occurred to me that I'd forgotten other groups who might also be affected by this ('this' being the tendency for gamers with bad attitudes to go harder on people not of their demographic, and 'other groups' being everything from cross-dressers to vegans, but with race and sexual orientation being the most prominent). I added “heterosexual white males” instead of “males” in one of the last lines to include this aspect, ended the post with “Male chauvinism is a lot more common in gaming circles than female chauvinism, if for no other reason than the majority of gamers being male”, to show that I wasn't singling anyone out for being more sexist by nature, but rather commenting on a pattern of people being more whatever-ist against others not like them, and thought no more of it.
If no one had responded, I would just have assumed the thread had died like it has so many other times, most likely because my answer was satisfactory and there was nothing more to say (since the poster who started this line of conversation tends to be very critical of whatever I write, and try to find fault with it, I wouldn't believe for a second that he'd abstain from commenting if he could find something to be offended over). It would never have occurred to me, that after so many offensive posts and so many references to other subjects (such as race) on the board, that this single line could be interpreted the way it did.
about this:
RUMPLESTIX: Considering how often arguments about how D&D is not made for women to play, and how every conversation about how to attract women or make them comfortable in D&D should therefore not exist, I'm pretty shocked that you're so offended over the fact that the ORCs didn't delete my post. I mean, when statements that boil down to “people who use this board for it's intended purpose are jerks and should stop posting” are allowed to stay, how can this offend you?
About the last:
I would have settled for an off-topic disclaimer. However, my complaint was not that they did nothing but rather that I did not know whether or not I could respond because I did not know if they had done anything.
About the first:
My point is that because the topic of the forum is women and gaming (more recently unofficially or perhaps officially expanded to gender and gaming), when those arguments are made they can be addressed and countered. Statements thrown around about race cannot have time devoted to counter them because the subject of the forum has nothing to do with race. The forum topic is not minorities and gaming, it is women (gender) and gaming.
Although people may continue to throw such stuff around about women, there is a wealth of posting in Astrid's Parlor which readers can use to make decisions on their own. Also, if people use old lines that have been thoroughly debunked it is a simple cut and paste matter to debunk them again. There is no such opportunity regarding the subject of race.
To show an explicit example, I interpreted your original post to say that the sexism of white straight males should be counted separate from the sexism of other races (why explicitly mention it otherwise...). So, I created a thread to amass all the anecdotal evidence I could regarding sexism and other ethnicities to make the point that they should all be lumped together rather than separated. It was shut down pretty quickly.
About a portion of the sblock:
I didn't meant to imply this was unique for the typical D&D demographic, or any group really, but I understand why it seemed like that to some, and this is why I added my other post to, explain (even if I hadn't needed to, as the post wasn't moderated) that I included the racial and sexual aspect (as a a minor detail, not as the point of the post) to illustrate that it was a more universal social mechanism than simply men vs. women.
I will refer you to the end of the explaination post being referenced:
I'm sorry if white heterosexual males feel that they're singled out, but as long as they compose the majority of D&D's audience, their overall behaviour is likely to have a greater effect on the hobby than that of any other group. I didn't decide this, but I'm not going to ignore it either.
The reference was not made to illustrate a universal social mechanism, it was made to explicitly mention white heterosexual males because their actions have a greater effect on the hobby than any other group. In other words, it was singling them out.
But, as I have said, I don't like the idea of spending a great deal of time to counter such nonsense, even though I have spent that time this weekend. I think the 'oh, just ignore it' idea is a whole truckload of crap. These forums are not about race and race conversations shouldn't take place. I don't come here for them.
It would never have occurred to me, that after so many offensive posts and so many references to other subjects (such as race) on the board, that this single line could be interpreted the way it did.
I have a great deal of trouble accepting this as fact.
Allow me to show my very own response to a post by Erato recently:
. OK, I guess I have a couple of questions and comments from this post:
Let's start with this:As long as minorities are minorities, and as long as sexism against women is more common than sexism against men, and as long as straight white men are holding most positions of power and influence, negative prejudices about other people will tend to be more frequent and be taken more seriously, and it will have larger consequences for the people subjected to them. And again, it isn't really about negative statements, it's also about things like a negative, or lacking, portrayal.
This all makes sense and I am in agreement.
However things are a little different with the next:And, as other people have already said, straight white males are not more prone to taking things lightly. They just make sure to never use 'weak' words, such as 'offended' about their own feelings. They tend to (pretend to) speak from a more objective perspective, but the result is the same: Whenever there's a risk that 'their' group will be portrayed negatively, or whenever someone is talking about something positive about another group, or something positive that should be done to another group (like more representation), they become nervous and upset, and try to find reasons for why it's unfair. They might try to make it about something else, but in the end, they're defending their position as the norm.
OK, here we go.
First sentence: agreement.
Second sentence: 'Never' is a big word, especially when talking about using a 'weak' word such as 'offended'. Come to think of it, I believe I may have recently used that very word...
I think I will need to pull the third sentence out by itself:They tend to (pretend to) speak from a more objective perspective, but the result is the same: Whenever there's a risk that 'their' group will be portrayed negatively, or whenever someone is talking about something positive about another group, or something positive that should be done to another group (like more representation), they become nervous and upset, and try to find reasons for why it's unfair.
Wow, big sentence. I was once told by someone that if you replace 'sex' with 'race' and it sounds racist, then it is probably sexist. I wonder who that was? Anyway the reverse should also be true. This sentence was about white males, so let's make it about females or perhaps minority females. We get something like the folowing:Women pretend to speak from a more objective perspective, but the result is the same: Whenever there's a risk that women will be portrayed negatively, or whenever someone is talking about something positive about men, or that steps should be taken to enable men (like removing quotas in college sports programs), they pull out their feminist propaganda pamphlets and try to find reasons why it is unfair. It is even worse with minority women.
If I were to say something like that and actually mean it (Note: I explicitly do not believe that quote I created.), I would be lambasted for being both sexist and racist. I believe they would be right. My point is that the effects of such treatment being worse on women as a whole does not mean that it should be tolerated in reverse. In fact, the effects on individuals can be far greater to the effects on a group.It's not off-topic. I know from experience that if I just said “murdering civilians is not considered heroic” some smartass here would think of an example to counter, and if I wrote “murdering civilians is rarely considered heroic” that same person would ignore the 'rarely' part (I should know, I tend to fill my posts with 'sometimes', 'mostly, 'rarely', 'could be', 'is likely', 'many', 'some', and other disclaimers, but just the same, it usually gets ignored by people who accuse me of generalising and not taking exceptions into account) and make the same remark. So I had to include a paragraph showing that I knew this wasn't a universal statement. Of course, now I get flak from TG fans There you see, white males are definitely not less likely to get offended
I do believe that is a correct interpretation of how things often happen, especially in Erato's case. (Note: That is sincerity, no mocking.). However, in this particular case I believe nothing is being taken out of context.
P.S. Are there any guesses as to who told me the 'switch sex and race' rule for determination?
Now for a couple of other things:This will often make it seem like a very egalitarian story with a positive portrayal of women, and tend to attract a larger audience (especially among females), but it also leaves every insignificant or 'bad' character to be portrayed by a male. But this is rarely (if ever) done because someone doesn't want to portray women badly, it's done because that someone doesn't want to portray women as standard, and any inclusion of more female characters will just draw complaints that the story is too 'PC' and contain too few male characters anyway (even if the male characters still outnumber the female).
I have to disagree here. Mainly because I know I have done it. I have done it when writing fiction. I have done it when writing essays. I have specifically changed and rewritten sentences that had gender neutral pronouns even though I think they are proper. I did it for the sole reason that I thought people might be offended. I have done it in this forum and in others. There have been times in this forum (defending someone casually using the word 'sex' when others thought 'gender' should have been used) that I was ridiculed for using proper language. Perhaps you may think it a victory and perhaps you may think nothing of it either way. My point is that I have felt an undeniable pull at times to conform to some 'expectations' that I feel have been lain upon me. Whether I am completely correct in my assessment of the situation or am deluding myself is immaterial. My actions were changed accordingly.
As a side note about the use of female pronouns in the books, I must protest. If you wish to debate that there should be an exclusively gender neutral pronoun, that is fine. However, did it occur to you that the reason people thought there were too many female pronouns as a result of being PC is because there actually were instances of 'she' being used in a gender neutral sense. 'He' is supposed to be the default gender neutral pronoun, therefore any use of 'she' as gender neutral is a result of PC. Comparing numbers does not matter. As I said, it is one thing to argue against the use of 'he' (i.e. arguing that it should not be the default...) in that regard but it is another to say that using 'she' in that regard is not PC. However, we do not want to derail this thread.
Speaking of which:I think there are some sensitive areas (sexism uttered by men tend to have more serious consequences for women than vice versa, just like gays complaining over straight people is not as likely to lead to violence as the opposite), but I don't think it has that much to do with PC oppression of the straight white male.
This is something I have a problem with. If you wish to flame segments of the population of which I am a member, I will be happy to oblige you and run this thread straight into the ground. My point being that race was not mentioned before this. Majority/Minority was mentioned in a way that a loose interpretation could have included a number of things such as ethnicity, but it was not done so explicitly. However, this thread has potential so I will decline the invitation. For now, that is.:P
Edit Note: disagreement with only the last clause.
Dirtyfrank: Why is the remark “Most white, heterosexual males don't have sucky attitudes towards other white, heterosexual males because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation” racist? Especially since I explicitly stated that I meant this to apply generally (people tend to have fewer prejudices about people of the same race, sex, etc.) in my next post (and the group in question happens to compose the majority of D&D players, which is why that group was used as an example on the D&D board where we're supposed to keep as much as possible to D&D). And also, how can a single mentioning of race (in one sentence) suddenly become “racist remarks” (plural)?
It was an unfortunate way of saying it, but honestly, it's a long way from “trying to make a discussion of the differences in participation in D&D of different genders into a rant about racism”. I also don't see why I should start a rant about the racism and oppression by whites, since I'm white myself. I'd really appreciate if you'd stop making claims about the alleged intention of my posts.
Sorry for my "claims" about your posts. It is not intentional but rather from me being absolutely lazy (that and forgetting that emotions aren't transferred via text).
For what I more or less meant was that I myself didn't really find the post as sexist or racist as a whole. After everything that happened I went and reread the post and found a few portions of the post, which if looked at by themselves, that can be misconstrued as racist/sexist. So what I was trying to say is not that your post was intended to be racist/sexist but rather that some people would likely find it as such.
Sorry if I have seemed like a prick with some of my posts. PM me next time and ask me to modify it. I will likely accidentally make the mistake again in the future for I am a lazy poster and will likely leave stuff out do to my lack of wanting to put effort into my posts.
Woah; did I just use a "weak" word, like "offended", when referring to my feelings?
Your response makes me think we should take this back to the original quote and see what the difference would have been if race had been left out.
Erato's original quote
Originally Posted by ToastedAmphibian
Which group of "men/guys" are you comparing to "normal men/guys" ?
Normal men/guys are just that: normal, which means around average when it comes to social competence. But some of the more awkward guys, the ones who always makes the inappropriate jokes, who don't know when to stop, whose words often reflect a narrow-mindedness, and lack of empathy and understanding of other people, seem to be more off-putting to women than to other guys.I don't understand this. Are you saying that more people think about women more often than men, or something else all together?
I was talking about the context of gaming, in which the majority of people involved are men.
Let me put it this way: My uncle honestly believes that Muslims are just here (in Denmark) to secretly overtake the country from within, and that they should be thrown out before killing us all. Naturally, this can lead to some pretty heated discussions in the family, but often, we simply avoid talking about it, and we still invite him for Christmas, anniversaries, and other social occasions, because he's part of the family. When it's just us (white, Christian/atheist/agnostic Danes, whose biggest amount of 'foreign' influence is having some Swedish or German ancestors 6 generations removed), we can make it work, because we're not as personally invested (though many of us disagree strongly). But this would never work with a Muslim at the table, because s/he would be more personally affected.
Most white, heterosexual males don't have sucky attitudes towards other white, heterosexual males because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation, but some of them do have a sucky attitude to women. Male chauvinism is a lot more common in gaming circles than female chauvinism, if for no other reason than the majority of gamers being male.
But as I don't have much time, and since you've apparantly decided to go trough my posting history (or rather, whatever suits your purpose presented in whatever context you prefer, which conveniently includes not quoting was I was answering), I'm not going to dwell on that.
As for your first example, you more or less proved my point. When this line of conversation started with a post about how minority members (which would have included blacks, and was also mentioned to specifically include women) was portrayed too positively, and how they didn't want to be portrayed badly, and that equal representation of minorities wouldn't happen until people learned to also accept negative portrayals of minorities (because lesbian stripper ninjas aren't negative enough). You didn't complain. The post you quote in particular was an answer to a man who claimed white men didn't get offended over sexism or racism uttered against them like women and minorities did.
But as soon as I made a frustrated less than polite reply, and generalised to a roughly equal degree, you start objecting. (Have you ever wondered that maybe if you held your precious white males to the same high standards as everything with a ******, and objected to the sexism of the post I was answering, as well as calling the poster out for his inclusion of minority-issues that didn't belong in Astrid's, there wouldn't be a need for frustrated and hasty replies?)
The sentence you then took out of context was also, well, taken out of context. As I already mentioned, some pretty unflattering remarks had already been made about the desire of non-white females to not be negatively portrayed, and I was basically saying “you white males aren't any better”. It wasn't friendly, but neither were any of the posts about women and minorities you chose not to respond to.
As for your last reply in your first quote: I needed an exception, and the first thing that sprung to mind was the notorious “Evil Pacifists” in SoT, so I used that. Considering how much Twilight, WoW, and anything anime has been bashed on this board, there's no reason to make such a big deal out of it. But then again, I've been told that negative generalisations of women are fair and justified because some girls had disagreed with guy's taste in art.
I'll be back soon with a reply to the next post, but I'd seriously prefer if we didn't start digging through each other's old posts to find an excuse to start a flamewar.
I have difficulty accepting that 'heterosexual and white were included merely to include those other groups being oppressed and had nothing to do with singling out heterosexual white males when the poster explicitly stated elsewhere that a damn was not given for the 'PC oppression of the straight white male'.
I see little evidence to support that the term was not included to single them out in a poor light.
Are you serious? Is it actually necessary for me to rummage through months of threads, merely to point out that the term “straight white men” has been used (by straight white men) often as synonymous to 'the majority/the norm'? I've seen plenty of posts stating that straight white (sometimes protestant of Lutheran) men were the true oppressed group, and heard plenty of complaints about how they were always discriminated against. I use that term because I learned it on this very board, as meaning a group who always thought the PC-police was after them.
Whether I agree with them or not, it (both SWM and the complaints about PCness) has been used enough by people themselves for me consider it fair to refer it back to them.
I honestly don't think I'll be able to write anything remotely related to what I tried to communicate in that post without offending you. I'm still thinking of a different choice of words I can replace in the post, since it bothers you so much, but I'm not sure it's even about that any more, as you've refused to take my word for it that I didn't mean for it to be offensive (or about race).
We've had our differences before, mostly because of misunderstandings, but I've really enjoyed most of our conversations in various threads and over PM. But in this case, I suggest you follow KillerGM's advice and put me on ignore. The fact that you dragged this single post of mine into 4 different threads (the actual thread where it started, the thread you made in Astrid's to discuss it, this thread, and the “Guide to dealing with problematic posters” thread in which you asked questions dealing with the issue) without ever once PMing me, speaks volumes.
I'm not going to change. I've spent years on this board observing American culture and learning how to present certain issues without hitting some foreign minefield I didn't know existed. Based on this, I'm convinced that even if I wanted to offend you less often, changing my language too much in a direction acceptable to you would just raise other issues.
First, about never sending a pm on the issue.
I believe how I felt about the use of the term 'straight white male' was pretty evident from my responses to the previous two uses of it. I didn't see any use of sending a pm.
I believe you misunderstand why it was in four threads. The first is where it started. The second which I created in the parlor was to address the situation without forcing the thread it started in to be closed. The third, this thread, was to draw attention to the second and first because I thought the topic should have been out of bounds. It was to necessitate the closing of the second by bringing attention to it. The fourth had nothing to do with you. It was because the ORCs did not leave any indication that anything was done, I assumed the topic was up for discussion. Webster said in this thread that just because I didn't see anything being done did not mean nothing was being done. Since the problematic poster thread talked about addressing ORCs decisions through customer service, I thought it might be a good place to find out what I'm supposed to do to find out how I'm supposed to know what they did in a situation.
But, as I repeated, why should I pm you when you still liberally use the term straight white males, bringing race into it when it was not necessary.
As I said, you previously stated that you don't give a damn about the pc oppression of the straight white male. So, when you toss in straight white on top ofmale to include minorites and homosexuals who may complain they have problems too, why should I not think that you didn't give a damn about what straight white males might think.
If you want to know how to say it without offending me, look at the sblock in the previous post where I removed the phrase. That is all there is to it. Race need not be mentioned because it is out of the bounds of the forum.
This is what I find so frustrating:
I honestly don't think I'll be able to write anything remotely related to what I tried to communicate in that post without offending you. I'm still thinking of a different choice of words I can replace in the post, since it bothers you so much, but I'm not sure it's even about that any more, as you've refused to take my word for it that I didn't mean for it to be offensive (or about race).
It is so simple. If you do not want me to think it is about race, then do not use race. If race is inextricably linked, then it is about race. Why is that so difficult?
That should be about all I have to say.
I have to agree with Stix on this one; it seems like the post could've just said "Males" rather than singling out "White, Heterosexual" Males.
Except for the number of times I've been flamed for not 'realising' that women aren't unique in this. Ask any poster who've ever been labeled 'feminist' (I didn't start out by calling myself a feminist, and I didn't refer to feminist literature, web pages, or anything like that, mostly because I didn't know any – and yet, I was quickly accused of having a feminist agenda, and even of belonging to some very specific (mostly American) fractions of feminism, and having taken women's studies classes which don't exist in my country. Just goes to show that 'feminist' is really just synonymous for 'woman I don't agree with'), if they've ever experienced being told how narrow-minded and selfish they were for only caring about women's issues (never mind the fact that it's a board about women). I guarantee the vast majority of them will have been involved in a “Why isn't feminist/this board/whatever more inclusive?”-debate.
Woah; did I just use a "weak" word, like "offended", when referring to my feelings?
Yeah, but you're also a feminist :P
Anyway, as I already said, that post was a response to a pretty offensive post about white males not being as offended as other people, and coming after a line of “minorities are just portrayed so positively, unlike the majority (which I wont say the name of, but doesn't include women), that they probably don't want equal treatment”. It's easy to find heated debates in Astrid's, where people act less than polite, but it's rarely one-sided. You might find it offensive to be singled out because you're a white male. My boyfriend found it offensive to be singled out because he's male, and told he couldn't be truly happy unless he made more money and did less housework than me (I can find the quote if you want). In a climate like that, I sometimes stop being polite, but I don't think RUMPLESTIX is any better in that regard.
I do not know which of my posts or which parts of posts you are referring to in post 20. Please point it out.
As for your last reply in your first quote: I needed an exception, and the first thing that sprung to mind was the notorious “Evil Pacifists” in SoT, so I used that. Considering how much Twilight, WoW, and anything anime has been bashed on this board, there's no reason to make such a big deal out of it. But then again, I've been told that negative generalisations of women are fair and justified because some girls had disagreed with guy's taste in art.
In that quote, I was agreeing with you often being taken out of context. My part saying in this instance you were not being taken out of context was a reference to my interpretation of your quotes above that quote. I was referring to the paragraph which was rewritten by me not the criticism for TG bashing when I said this is in context.
I honestly don't get you
Maybe one has to think along the lines of “Erato maliciously attempted to single out heterosexual, white males, with her knowledge of the sensitivity to the words “heterosexual, white male” (but only the words, apparantly not the meaning) of RUMPLESTIX (who hadn't been present in the thread for a month) fresh in mind, aiming deliberately to hurt with her prejudiced remarks about her own race” for this to make sense.I'm more along the lines of “Erato was tired and frustrated after attempting for the third time to explain something she thought was very simple, to an American who kept asking her questions using only one or two lines to tell her what he didn't get, while she had to meticulously craft a new post in a foreign language, knowing full well that the poster probably wouldn't care anyway, but knowing also that whenever she'd previously allowed herself to relax her standards, this particular poster had been very offended over some ambiguity in her language (ironic, considering that he himself had trouble grasping basic Danish concepts such as 'modspil'). She realised that another fraction of the board would probably be offended over some insinuation (though unintended and unspecified, but probably still readily perceived by attentive native speakers) supposedly hidden in her post about men being sexists or blacks not receiving attention, so she absent-mindedly added the standard phrase “heterosexual, white” to the word “males”, an expression she had learned on the boards (along with words such as 'feminazi', which means “woman who prefer loincloths over chainmail bikinis”), after previously having observed several members of this group refer to themselves this way, to indicate their belonging to an American “majority”, and then she went to bed.”, and from that perspective, it's hard to make sense of a lot of this.
Also, most of those instances where people were speaking of minorities, I interpreted it to mean women.
Is it such a bad thing that I do not criticize them when their posts have already been thoroughly answered by you?
In fact when you look at the posts where I listed my complaints against the use of 'straight white male', I explicitly agreed with your points which challenged other's posts. Is it so difficult to believe that I was not also in agreement in the posts which I did not respond to?
My complaints were when the term was used negatively and not when the term was used positively.
If someone had used minorities (black, chinese, or whatever) in a condescending and/or discriminatory way they would have been in serious trouble of violating the CoC.
If I had said 'black people pretend to be objective', I very well might have been in violation of the CoC. If nothing else, I would have been terribly off-topic.
Yes, some people do say stuff that bad and worse about women. However, as I have said, it is within the scope of the forum to post pages of material and 'put them in their place.' Their own personal opinion may not be changed, but the opinions of the readers can be influenced.
There is no such option for race.
If someone was generalizing in a condescending manner about minorities and it was not addressed by me or someone else, I am sorry. I wish I had. Am I responsible for addressing every grievance committed by every poster?
I honestly don't get you
I'm more along the lines of “Erato was tired and frustrated after attempting for the third time to explain something she thought was very simple, to an American who kept asking her questions using only one or two lines to tell her what he didn't get, while she had to meticulously craft a new post in a foreign language, knowing full well that the poster probably wouldn't care anyway, but knowing also that whenever she'd previously allowed herself to relax her standards, this particular poster had been very offended over some ambiguity in her language (ironic, considering that he himself had trouble grasping basic Danish concepts such as 'modspil'). She realised that another fraction of the board would probably be offended over some insinuation (though unintended and unspecified, but probably still readily perceived by attentive native speakers) supposedly hidden in her post about men being sexists or blacks not receiving attention, so she absent-mindedly added the standard phrase “heterosexual, white” to the word “males”, an expression she had learned on the boards (along with words such as 'feminazi', which means “woman who prefer loincloths over chainmail bikinis”), after previously having observed several members of this group refer to themselves this way, to indicate their belonging to an American “majority”, and then she went to bed.”, and from that perspective, it's hard to make sense of a lot of this.
About the last being hard to make a lot of sense from this.
You also said that you had no idea how could rewrite it and still mean the same thing without me thinking it was based on race.
I said just leave race out when you rewrite it. If you can't leave it out and still mean the same thing, then it is about race.
Does that make sense?
I honestly don't get you Maybe one has to think along the lines of “Erato maliciously attempted to single out heterosexual, white males, with her knowledge of the sensitivity to the words “heterosexual, white male” (but only the words, apparantly not the meaning) of RUMPLESTIX (who hadn't been present in the thread for a month) fresh in mind, aiming deliberately to hurt with her prejudiced remarks about her own race” for this to make sense.
First, no one had been in the thread for a month.
Did you ever read my rewritten version of your paragraph where you talked about straight white males pretending to be objective? Whether you think it was correct or a misinterpretation, I pretty much smacked you over the head with it. How could you forget that?
Did you not even point out in the second post that you were specifically using them because they had a greater effect since they were a majority? You were deliberately placing a lion's share of the load on them. I said I saw no reason not to include the other races in with them because the sexism was the same regardless of race. What about that does not make sense?
About the last being hard to make a lot of sense from this.
You also said that you had no idea how could rewrite it and still mean the same thing without me thinking it was based on race.
I said just leave race out when you rewrite it. If you can't leave it out and still mean the same thing, then it is about race.
Does that make sense?
No. The line question was a comment on the nature of prejudices in general, and which people are most likely to be targeted with them in D&D (including race), within a larger post about women in D&D. The fact that you focus so excessively on the mentioning of race, making it out to the point of the whole thread, and yet rarely mention that sexual orientation was also brought up by that post (and likewise have tolerated plenty of 'minority' remarks before), doesn't say anything about the post, but show to me that you actually have no problem with other aspects than gender being briefly mentioned, but will simply turn every single mentioning of race into a flamefest, especially if it's done by me.
Did you ever read my rewritten version of your paragraph where you talked about straight white males pretending to be objective? Whether you think it was correct or a misinterpretation, I pretty much smacked you over the head with it. How could you forget that?
Simple. The post you objected to was a response to similar claims being made about women and minorities which you hadn't objected to, so I assumed it was the usual double standard. Just to put things in perspective:
The forum topic is not minorities and gaming, it is women (gender) and gaming.
My point was that minority members, while they can get away a little more with negative portrayls of their minority dont tend to want to portray their minority in any more negative a light than others feel comfortable doing. They, too, tend to prefeer to portray the majority in a negative light as well.
This post didn't say 'women', it said 'minorities'. It could just have said 'women' there was no reason to single out minorities, so I assume the poster meant to speak about minority members in general. Kind of how I mentioned the majority in D&D in my post (I was just specific enough to define which majority I was talking about), but unlike my post, this wasn't a single mentioning of “women, and minorities in general”, but rather at least 3 posts specifying that the reason a poster was afraid to portray women badly, was because women operated under the same favourable rules as minorities.
Seriously, this seems less and less like a problem about people bringing other aspects than gender into Astrid's, and more about you having a problem with the specific words 'heterosexual white male', and me in general.
I prefer to be more specific, both because I think it's a good idea in general, and because I, as a non-American, will be misunderstood by a larger number of posters, and catch a lot more flak, for referring to things from my perspective. When I talk about 'football' I have to mention that I'm talking about the kind of football where you kick the ball with your feet, not the kind in which you run around with the ball your hands most of the time. When I'm talking about the majority of university students, especially in medicine and psychology, I have to specify that I'm talking about females. When I talk about the majority and the minority, I feel it prudent to mention which majority/minority I'm talking about.
When I receive lectures about the sexual freedom and tolerance in the black community, I have to mentally substitute it with “blacks in America, not the Somali immigrants in Denmark” myself, because the poster sure as hell isn't going through the trouble of explaining his use of 'black culture', but merely assumes it's American and that everybody gets that
When people talk about 'minorities', it's usually instead of more precise expressions, and given people's (including you, with your 'Dom Imus' comment which was completely unintelligible for people not familiar with the context) tendency to argue only from their own perspective and experiences, without bothering to explain what that is, I think it's fair for people to assume it's a comment on American minorities in general. Since you only complained when I specified 'the majority' to mean straight, white men, but not when this group was otherwise mentioned, I found it reasonable to assume that you agreed, which I still do.I'm not sure continuing this conversation will make sense. You obviously have a personal problem with me, and while you pretend to care about my comment being off-topic, the fact that you completely ignore other 'off-topic' remarks, including the mentioning of sexual orientation in the very same post, shows otherwise. You've even gone as far as to quote your replies (not my actual posts, including what I was answering, but your replies with your interpretation of what was being said, with a strong personal bias, such as your obsession about pronouns) to show people that I have a 'history' of brining race into the question (because 'minority members' apparantly don't include races, even if racial minorities might feel so
). This is a low point, even for you, and the fact that you don't seem to care about the flamewar (and demands to get Astrid's closed from people who never post there) it can start, has pretty much convinced me that you have no idea how it really is to be singled out and flamed on this board. I also don't believe your claims about not knowing what you're allowed to respond to, since it has always been custom on this board that you're allowed to make a few remarks about more general issues than D&D, but not turn them into a whole thread like you did. As a result, I'm withdrawing my offer to change the wording, because you're simply not worth not offending.But if it's any consolation, I will now aim to include the words 'majorities' and 'majority members' in my posts. I will aspire to never say outright what I mean by these words, and even if you find reasonable cause to assume I'm speaking of
And then we can all go back to talking about how women shouldn't play D&D, how only men can be truly heroic, how women who aren't sufficiently naked and strutting their ass (or have a large enough cleavage in their breast-plates) are compromising their femininity and obviously just wish to be men, how women aren't supposed to make more money than their husbands, how men don't have enough power today, how they're better than women at a number of activities solely because of their superior biology, while everything women excel at (except prostitution and care-taking) is only due to a feminist conspiracy given them unfair advantages, how men shouldn't be asked to identify with a female protagonist but women should be able to relate to male protagonists, and how women should start using sex to get influence more often, instead of trying to take get 'male' power, and then top it off with a bunch of PMS jokes. After all, these subjects are on topic for Astrid's Parlor
I hope the spirit of the thread, to learn the how and why the hobby is so inundated (sp) with 'white, heterosexual males' and how it could be more accessable to those not in that class continues beyond the semantics.
Or it could turn into an unending finger pointing contest becoming pointless.
If only such energy and passion as these posters display could be turned to the forces of unity and understanding... or even marketing!
If only such energy and passion as these posters display could be turned to the forces of unity and understanding... or even marketing!
I choose marketing! Where's the money in unity and understanding?
Oh, and you definitely need to check out my blog where I combine unity, understanding, and marketing.
Booyah!
First off: A disclaimer: There are a lot of smart, reasonable people that bring up good points and further discussion in a mature fashion.
That being said, there's a small minority (two or three people at most) who are untiring "Gotcha" players. Which means they will pick your words, run all crazy with them, and come up with bizarre and highly insulting conclusions based on what you said.
I one time said I was reading a book that taught you how to best promote your strengths and make you more appealing, and I literally spent dozens of posts over multiple threads defending things I never once said. For example, one of the biggest sticking points was because I didn't specify I didn't purposefully do things to make women feel bad about themselves, that was proof that was what I was doing. Another time, I was called a name, given a fake apology, then flamed severely for not accepting "I'm sorry you misunderstood me" as a valid apology. (It's not. You apologize for things YOU did, not for things I did. I apologize for those, not you.)
It's a valid forum, with valid discussion happening, but the Moderators are not doing enough to stop people from making personal attacks and lying through their teeth in order to demonize others. Back in the day, about four or five years ago, if someone stepped out of line, the mods stepped on their throats and ended it IMMEDIATELY. (One famous poster was banned for life despite not receiving one warning or breaking the CoC in any way because his very presence caused so many arguments that he was deemed disruptive). Now, they don't do anything unless someone questions their lack of power. That gets you banned. Anything that's actually a CoC violation is pretty much ignored despite repeated reports over periods of multiple days, and if a post gets edited, put it back. Nothing will come of it if you don't openly mock the moderation.
This thread illustrates one of my problems with Astrid's in the first place.
First off: A disclaimer: There are a lot of smart, reasonable people that bring up good points and further discussion in a mature fashion.
That being said, there's a small minority (two or three people at most) who are untiring "Gotcha" players. Which means they will pick your words, run all crazy with them, and come up with bizarre and highly insulting conclusions based on what you said.
Sorry Count, but you're no stranger to playing the “Gotcha!”-game yourself.
For instance, the books you read were not (as you described them) “to best promote your strengths and make you more appealing”, they were about getting laid. To be more precise, you talked about pick-up artists. One of the most (in)famous moves by these people is the 'neg', which is to walk up to a girl and deliver a backhanded compliment (really an insult, but framed in a way that make it harder to prove) to heighten her insecurity, make yourself seem much more unimpressed and uninterested than you really are, and basically make her want to prove her worth to you.
I could make a long post about why this is unhealthy, but sufficient to say this tactic is very similar to what psychologists refer to as 'mate retention behaviours' (men (usually) who're afraid of losing their partner will try to control and break down the confidence of their partner to make her (or him) believe s/he can't get anything better. This often includes controlling behaviour, and psychological or physical violence in the relationship), which makes it, at best, very dangerous ground.
You didn't specify that this (to many people, the key behaviour of pick-up artists, and among the most well-known and controversial elements) was something you were against, you praised the whole concept, as well as the pick-up artists themselves (“I've seen real pick-up artists work their magic”), and continued to do, and defend it, even after this issue had been raised. There was no way for people to know that “I think books, and methods used, by pick-up artists is a fabulous idea when trying to get into a relationship” really meant “I think books, and methods, used by pick-up artists is a fabulous idea when trying to get into a relationship, except these specific ideas”. It was very late in the debate you saw fit to inform people that even though you were in awe of these people, you nonetheless didn't agree with this tactic. But as soon as you'd done that, you were quick to play the victim.
To many people on Astrid's, you're among the biggest “Gotcha!” players on the board, and making even the slightest mistake in addressing you (even though you're no stranger to posting easily misunderstood arguments) will result in you carrying it with forever, and constantly bringing it up to tell people how wrongfully you (think you) have been treated.
In a way, it's very similar to what happened with my quote. I used a wording that, when read a certain way, could come of as offensive. When I realised it, I immediately went back and made post detailing what I meant, and a lot of people accepted it. But some just couldn't let it go, and continued to tout it around the boards in a typical “gotcha” style. I urge people to read the post after the 'offending' post, and the posts after that, and judge for themselves. As TeePeeKay said, straight, white males are the norm to which others are compared, if not in the world in general (lots of irrelevant arguments can be made about that), then at least in D&D where they constitute the majority of gamers. I can start saying 'the majority' instead, but the meaning will still be the same, only now subject to even more misunderstandings (such as comments about women being more numerous than men), so it seems utterly pointless.
I suggest stopping this mudslinging, and stop bringing up old arguments that have been mercifully buried until now. This is getting nowhere, the OP seems to have stopped posting, other SWMs have accepted my explanation and moved on, lots of non SWMs are bewildered about what the big deal is, personal vendettas have resurfaced together with conflicts that can't be resolved anyway, and for every “she said” people can bring up, I'm confident that I can find an even more offensive “he said”..... but quite frankly, I don't want to.
Back in the day, about four or five years ago, if someone stepped out of line, the mods stepped on their throats and ended it IMMEDIATELY. (One famous poster was banned for life despite not receiving one warning or breaking the CoC in any way because his very presence caused so many arguments that he was deemed disruptive).
Without knowing the specifics of that particular sitiuation (I know only what you just said now, and I'm assuming it's accurate), there's no reason to assume that "permanent ban" was fair, or that it represents better standards that need to be returned to. As it is, what you said taken at face value actually implies the opposite.
Without knowing the specifics of that particular sitiuation (I know only what you just said now, and I'm assuming it's accurate), there's no reason to assume that "permanent ban" was fair.
It wasn't. It was a giant pile of crap. But I honestly think the CoC anarchy we have now where everyone can do whatever without reprisal unless they're pointing out the failures of the moderation is worse, not better.
I've had to remove some content from this thread because it violates the Code of Conduct. Discussions about sexual predators and other related topics are not permitted, because we've found that this medium causes too much miss-communication and bad feelings on such a sensitive topic. Thanks for understanding.
You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Erato, that's just what I was talking about. I dare to disagree with you, and you continue to spout your lies in order to demonize me.
This is what I'm talking about, everyone.
I'm sorry if white heterosexual males feel that they're singled out, but as long as they compose the majority of D&D's audience, their overall behaviour is likely to have a greater effect on the hobby than that of any other group. I didn't decide this, but I'm not going to ignore it either.
I interpreted it to mean that she was going to continue the use of the term rather than she was not going to ignore using it in answering TA's question regarding minorities. So, I'm a moron. Case closed.
As to the new discussion opened in this thread...
Alright then, a repost removing the objectionable bits.
Erato, that's just what I was talking about. I dare to disagree with you, and you continue to spout your lies in order to demonize me.
This is what I'm talking about, everyone.
She's not lying. You are. You are intentionally misrepresenting what happened in the thread to portray yourself as the victim.
For those still interested, I accept that I misinterpreted Erato's explanation in her second post.
I interpreted it to mean that she was going to continue the use of the term rather than she was not going to ignore using it in answering TA's question regarding minorities. So, I'm a moron. Case closed.
LOL, you're not a moron. But I'm glad to see something was resolved. Come on back to the Parlor, now. *gives RUMPLESTIX a nice juicy tuber* ;)
This is insane. Do I have to report these posts for being off-topic?
I'm tired of reporting stuff. Drop it or make a new thread for it. Don't forget the original thread was removed completely.It will be fun to watch a bunch of posters dancing in circles avoiding using words that are the topic. Please do it for my entertainment.
The OP:
Since I found a post bothersome for going to the trouble to single out 'white heterosexual males as not having problems with other white, heterosexual males but having problems with women (to be fair it said 'some' had problems with women) I reported it. Race should be off-topic in that forum because it can be so explosive.
But, none of the ORCs seemed to mind my report so I guess it is an OK topic. (Did I mention it is the third or fourth such post in a month there?)
So I started this thread.
Feel free to join in.
However, the advertised thread is closed which is ok with me and the other discussion is basically resolved. So, as I said take this elsewhere.
This post contains the OP and if you see the thread it advertises as well as the source of that thread, you will say that the above conversation is off-topic.
This is insane. Do I have to report these posts for being off-topic?
It will be fun to watch a bunch of posters dancing in circles avoiding using words that are the topic. Please do it for my entertainment.
The OP:
However, the advertised thread is closed which is ok with me and the other discussion is basically resolved. So, as I said take this elsewhere.
You're right. My bad. See, it does happen to everyone. :D
LOL, you're not a moron. But I'm glad to see something was resolved. Come on back to the Parlor, now. *gives RUMPLESTIX a nice juicy tuber* ;)
mmmm! Tubers!
I'm glad thie case isn't closed on me being a moron.;)
(The Rumplestix wanders back into the threads, still consumed with hunger. Given the availability of nourishment, perhaps it will not hibernate this year after all.)
Not only was the post left intact but there was no pointing out by the ORCs that it was off-topic/inappropriate.
Maybe they noted your complained, reviewed the issue and decided that it wasn't off-topic/inappropriate.
I don't know whats the exact post you're concerned about, but just because someone complains about something doesn't mean that WotC-stuff agree with this complaint.
The quote I was responding to stated this:
As for why it remains, I can suggest two. One, leaving something visible helps point to things that aren't okay as an example
I was merely pointing out that it did not apply in the case being asked about.
Yes, I am aware that ORCs may decide that a post does not need moderation and I am fine with that.
The point I was making is that if the ORCs look at a post and decide moderation is not necessary, then it should be acceptable to respond to the post.
So, how can one know that it is acceptable to respond to a post since no taken action means no visible deletions? Also, as Webster also mentioned, just because something is not 'visibly' being done does not mean that something in fact is not being done. I also already mentioned that I think having to contact CS to seek permission seems silly.
Thus the dilemma. If oyu wish to address a post that you find offensive and it 'appears' that nothing is being done, at what point is it acceptable to respond?
The point I was making is that if the ORCs look at a post and decide moderation is not necessary, then it should be acceptable to respond to the post.
So, how can one know that it is acceptable to respond to a post since no taken action means no visible deletions?
I think you're exactly correct. If there's no action taken, you can assume the WizO who investigated determined there was no infraction. How do you know if the WizO has looked? That part's a guessing game, sort of. There's always a WizO on call. (actually, more than one, to be picky.) It's been my experience that a reported thread is looked at within 5 minutes or so of the report being sent in. So, I think if you build in a little extra time for the mod to read the thread and perform whatever actions, I think it's safe to say that if nothing is done within 30 minutes of reporting the post, you can freely reply to it.
Note, though, that just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should. That's also a judgment call, obviously.
Yes, I am aware that ORCs may decide that a post does not need moderation and I am fine with that.
The point I was making is that if the ORCs look at a post and decide moderation is not necessary, then it should be acceptable to respond to the post.
So, how can one know that it is acceptable to respond to a post since no taken action means no visible deletions? Also, as Webster also mentioned, just because something is not 'visibly' being done does not mean that something in fact is not being done. I also already mentioned that I think having to contact CS to seek permission seems silly.
Thus the dilemma. If oyu wish to address a post that you find offensive and it 'appears' that nothing is being done, at what point is it acceptable to respond?
As Zherog says, after half an hour or less, any action that will be taken has probably already been taken. It's acceptable to respond. But it's not acceptable to make a whole new thread/conversation not about D&D, based on a single remark. Personally, if I disagree with someone's choice of words, or if a remark they made (relevant to the conversation, but not concerning D&D specifically) seems out of place, I usually either address it with a small “(I disagree with , I think it's a case of )”, or put it in a spoiler block titled “off-topic”, and then go back to the original conversation. This hasn't given me any trouble with the ORCs so far.
For instance, mentioning “I think women's love of chocolate is seriously overrated” in response to someone suggesting that “loves chocolate” is a good trait to assign to female NPCs to distinguish them from male ones, is not out of line. Making a whole new thread titled “Why do men always think all women love chocolate?” is. Except perhaps in the Off-Topic Tavern.
Close Astrid's Parlor.
If we take a general consensus of the entire world that everyone is either "Black", "White", or "Asian" each races only accounts for 33% of the entire population. Which is why we don't have racial versions of Astrid's Parlor.
But yet the divide between Male and Female is roughly 50/50%.
With a game so heavily influenced by male ideologies, the inherent lean toward the male interest was greater in the last few editions than is present, and yet since we have a supposedly growing female population of gamers who play DnD, we feel we must now give them a separate voice than is given to everyone else?
Excuse me if I sound sexist, and report me if I offend thee, but last I checked, the only things dividing everyone are a couple of strands of DNA and genitalia. And that warrants that a place be established for the feminine interest, why?
Gaming has never been segregated between men and women, only the artwork and promotion of which has, simply because the artists and producers where inherently male or catering to a larger male fan base.
Women were never banned from hobby shops. They were never told they couldn't buy books or figurines.
And last I checked, a leader of the Anti-DnD movement happened to be a mother who blamed the suicide of her son on DnD. I'm not saying all women are like that, obviously they aren't, or else we wouldn't have Astrid's Parlor to debate about. But a coalition of women wanted the eradication of DnD for purported Satanist ties. Is it not ironic that we now cater to women by giving them a forum to express biased and skewed views (as much so as everyone else's)?
Again, I'm not trying to be sexist about this, but why not allow Ethnic Parlor's for the expression of 'minorities' on playing DnD? This is an entire debacle over the fact that someone was trying to reverse segregation by catering to it.
Much like Affirmative Action: It is prejudicial. Racist and Sexist in and of itself.
When we open accounts, we're asked to put our age and gender. Why not ethnicity? Why not our economic caste? Why not ask us for a family tree?
Because it doesn't matter.
Female heroines are just as common as male heroes.
We are all DnD players. There is nothing we can not discuss as players on a forum about DnD that needs to be viewed predominately by one sex, one race, or whatever.
So again, I reiterate: Astrid's Parlor and problems like these are debacles, counter-intuitive to the progress of the Public View of DnD as well as to the relations between forum members.
Without it problems and posts like these would not arise because there'd be no room for it. The very fact it has survived on the forums to this day astounds me at the ignorance and haughty subjectivism of the Big Bads and the willingness and irrationality of those who enjoy it. Were the Civil Rights of Women not fought for tooth and nail for equality? Did not Susan B. Anthony demand to be jailed, like a man, for breaking the law? Do we not provide enough equality for female players to discuss DnD in discourse on the same boards men?
So then we arrive at the stage where some are more equal than others. You put down the majority just to perpetuate a minority? In what logic is there that we give in to dictates of emotion rather than wisdom?
What we've arrived at is far ghastlier, because not only do we disregard equality, but we perpetuate a type of servitude in the way of Hammurabi's Eye for an Eye. We've moved past such civil injustices and none may ask for retribution, the greatest social injustice is that we fail to learn of our own mistakes and repeat them without regard for the greater injustices we create groping for self-ordained equilibrium.
Equality and Fairness under Wizard's of the Coast, remove Astrid's Parlor and any posts discussing anything other than Dungeons and Dragons.
Close Astrid's Parlor.
While I agree on a lot of what you said, I don't think we need to close Astrid's Parlor, because there is a lot of good intent that is going on in that forum, but I get the impression that it is a little one sided. Instead, maybe the ORCs could make it where it is on-topic for people to talk about both genders.
Astrid's Parlor, again, is not the "girl forum". It isn't intended to be discussed by girls only. It is a place to discuss the issues that the different genders face in D&D (both in-game and out-of-game).
And just because the discussions hadn't been brought up elsewhere (but some of them had!) doesn't mean there's not a reason to discuss them! I mean, come on!
It's funny that you bring women's civil rights into it, because I understand the resistance to a "women's place" (I was one of the nay-sayers for Astrid's because of that).
But Astrid's isn't a "women's place"; it's a place to discuss issues relating to gender and D&D. The discussions have to do with D&D, and when they don't, they get locked/moved to a more appropriate forum. It's just another sub-board, like one for discussing Forgotten Realms or Psionics.
I'm only trying to clarify because it seems you have a mistaken assessment of what Astrid's Parlor is. Please try to see beyond your assumptions and take a look without prejudging it.
Let me offer a different perspective:
Before Astrid's Parlor was created, the subject of women and gaming still came up regularly. One of the most popular and acclaimed threads on the General Board was a thread about the experiences of a guy DMing for his girlfriend. These debates where never forbidden, and were only closed if they turned into flamewars, just as every other kind of thread. People never made threads about how these kinds of threads weren't about D&D.
The subject of (real life) race and gaming, on the other hand, didn't show up with the same frequency (if it even showed up), for reasons we can only guess about (maybe it was because gender relations are more personal in nature, maybe it was because women are much more frequent in the western world where D&D is most often played), but for whatever reason, it didn't seem to concern people as much.
The problem with these threads, was that they were horribly one-sided, with a 5 to 1 ratio of males being considered among the more balanced discussions. This often meant that many female posters (at least according to the ones I've talked to) felt discouraged from posting, because the tone simply became too hostile, and that male posters looking for advice about how to include one or more females in their group would miss out on advice given by actual females.
It wasn't until Astrid's Parlor was created that people began questioning the validity of the subject women and gaming, or pretend that such questions had always been explicitly forbidden. But ironically, it wasn't before AP that we had debates that were even remotely balanced (though male posters still seem to be almost twice as frequent as females posters) discussions about the issue, and judging from the number of posts, it seems to be a large enough subject for its own board.
It's strange that people who never bothered to bring up ethnicity and gaming on the old boards, are now suddenly arguing for a separate board for this subject, just because another area that they don't care about is being given a forum (which has a higher post count than than most other forums here). There are lots of boards here I'm not particularly interested in, but I just refrain from visiting them, rather than trying to get them closed.
It's also worth noticing that apart from a majority of male posters, Astrid's also has a lot threads that are as much (or more) about men and gaming as women and gaming. After a long time lobbying (mostly done by KillerGM, one of 'teh Evil feminazi' female forum leads
), we even got a clearance from Solice to change the subject away from 'women and gaming' to the more inclusive 'gender and gaming' which is a much better fit for the actual debates going on, though unfortunately, she left before it got officially implemented (we're still hoping though). Now I'm still in favour of making Astrid's a forum for diversity in gaming, rather than singling out women, but considering how little this subject tends to show up by itself (compared to gender issues) I can understand WotC not prioritising it.
While I agree on a lot of what you said, I don't think we need to close Astrid's Parlor, because there is a lot of good intent that is going on in that forum, but I get the impression that it is a little one sided.
Yeah, it is a little one-sided sometimes, because the 2 sexes aren't equally represented, but I don't think we should forbid males to post just because they're more numerous.
Instead, maybe the ORCs could make it where it is on-topic for people to talk about both genders.
I've never seen a thread in Astrid's being closed because it dealt with men in gaming more than women in gaming. As I've already said, in practise, Astrid's is about gender issues in general, not women's issues. Even though the official description says women, there's no demand that everything must be from a woman's perspective (or there wouldn't be any men there).
There have been threads about making believable female characters and making believable male characters, debates about the social mechanisms of all male and all female gaming groups, a thread about gender-based problems at the gaming table, a survey about gaming styles (for both genders), a thread about why men choose to play cross-gender characters, and even a thread about why men play D&D and what appeal to them in the game, with mainly male participants (obviously), which has been going on for 15 pages without getting closed.
In fact, the reason the people who most often express that Astrid's should be described as being about gender and gaming are female, is because the people wanting to talk about men's issues in D&D already have what they want, and it's us women who have to listen about how unfair it is that we get a forum to express ourselves when men don't.
Yeah, it is a little one-sided sometimes, because the 2 sexes aren't equally represented, but I don't think we should forbid males to post just because they're more numerous.
That's not what he meant and you know it. It's one sided towards women because anyone who disagrees gets shouted down. You should know, you do more shouting than anyone else.
That's not what he meant and you know it. It's one sided towards women because anyone who disagrees gets shouted down. You should know, you do more shouting than anyone else.
It's funny how you think it's one-sided towards 'women', like 'women' is a single group of people with the exact same views, but somehow, men are still diverse enough to let a majority of male posters shout down a minority
Anyway, it's not like I don't feel shouted at and drowned out too, sometimes seeing whole pages with nothing but male posters, half of which are busy complaining about the male point of view not being heard enough in the practically all male thread. You're not some unique snowflake facing problems the rest of us don't, we all experience this. But since RUMPLESTIX has expressed a wish to not drag other problems into this thread, and since you obviously have a personal problem with me, I suggest you take it to PM instead.Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Click the Email Us tab and choose the appropriate topics from the dropdown menu.