StarGateWars Forums

Empy wrote:Well if it's not directed at someone then I would say it shouldn't be against the rules. If it was directed at someone though, it is!

From my mind to your fingertips.

One might consider the 'criminal intent' rule though; "I want to kill .." and "We should bomb.." are both close to that area. It cannot be offensive to say "I will kill you"; that is just a semantic impossibility. What, are you offended someone will kill you? No, either you laugh about it (like most people would have, until a few years ago when apparently killing for the most moronic reasons became legit), or you get scared, call the cops and say you got a death threat, that you are scared and want them to arrest the idiot who said so in public.

JMO.

Ok, lets take the following as an example...

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

This was a judgement by a general mod, i've heard others make much less appropriate action. The current forum policy applies to direct insult of an individual not that of ALL hate speech. So please, using this example, is this against the rules or is this moderator incompetency? My dislike of Jack is not hidden, however, I think technically he is correct in this instance and the rules are not allowing him to protect people accordingly.

Field Marshall wrote:Ok, lets take the following as an example...

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

This was a judgement by a general mod, i've heard others make much less appropriate action. The current forum policy applies to direct insult of an individual not that of ALL hate speech. So please, using this example, is this against the rules or is this moderator incompetency? My dislike of Jack is not hidden, however, I think technically he is correct in this instance and the rules are not allowing him to protect people accordingly.

Like Jack said, that's not against the rules. Just in my opinion...

Empy wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:Ok, lets take the following as an example...

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

This was a judgement by a general mod, i've heard others make much less appropriate action. The current forum policy applies to direct insult of an individual not that of ALL hate speech. So please, using this example, is this against the rules or is this moderator incompetency? My dislike of Jack is not hidden, however, I think technically he is correct in this instance and the rules are not allowing him to protect people accordingly.

Like Jack said, that's not against the rules. Just in my opinion...

Talking as an ex-mod, do you think it should be?

Field Marshall wrote:

Empy wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:Ok, lets take the following as an example...

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

This was a judgement by a general mod, i've heard others make much less appropriate action. The current forum policy applies to direct insult of an individual not that of ALL hate speech. So please, using this example, is this against the rules or is this moderator incompetency? My dislike of Jack is not hidden, however, I think technically he is correct in this instance and the rules are not allowing him to protect people accordingly.

Like Jack said, that's not against the rules. Just in my opinion...

Talking as an ex-mod, do you think it should be?

No I don't think it should be. I understand how it can be generally be "offensive" and just distasteful. But as it's not directed at someone I would say no.

Empy wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:

Empy wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:Ok, lets take the following as an example...

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

This was a judgement by a general mod, i've heard others make much less appropriate action. The current forum policy applies to direct insult of an individual not that of ALL hate speech. So please, using this example, is this against the rules or is this moderator incompetency? My dislike of Jack is not hidden, however, I think technically he is correct in this instance and the rules are not allowing him to protect people accordingly.

Like Jack said, that's not against the rules. Just in my opinion...

Talking as an ex-mod, do you think it should be?

No I don't think it should be. I understand how it can be generally be "offensive" and just distasteful. But as it's not directed at someone I would say no.

Ok, fair enough, your opinion. Next question therefore. Do you think that there is a necessity to ensure compliance with any of the following:

• The User Agreement
• Terms of Service
• Privacy
• Content Guidelines

If you feel the answer to all of these is no, and that no user should be moderated to these standards by the board owner. Then I am indeed completely wrong and barking up the wrong tree.

Now, Jason owns herebegames so they are his rules, fundamentally. He has put the admins in charge of controlling and ensuring compliance with these rules. Now, I think these might be an oversight, as the owner website that I speak of was under construction of Amelia...

" © Copyright Kingdom Games LTD :: Page load took 0.54 seconds. 5:22:28am (America/Vancouver)
Note: This site left abandoned, unfinished by Amelia Lang Kelowna -after taking 3 (paid) years to get it almost done --less than a weeks work to finalize it --then walking away. We sure feel foolish wasting our resources on this site, and her. Please enjoy the site, as is!"

Now, if she has put this in and not told you. That's her error. I am not trying to rustle feathers, I am trying to help you ensure that you are squeeky clean and following the rules. Like we are all expected to do.

Now...I'm not being an **Filtered** here, I've come of my own back to show you something. If someone would kindly help me out here and make me stop writing these long posts because you are replying with illogical sentences that do not address the fundamental issue here?!

The only rules the Mods enforce are the Forum Guidelines.

Mods are neither trained nor expected to enforce or even know what the user agreements or terms of service or anything like that are.

IF they ever reference them it's out of spite just to punish a user they hold animosity towards. So, it should never happen.

Empy wrote:The only rules the Mods enforce are the Forum Guidelines.

Mods are neither trained nor expected to enforce or even know what the user agreements or terms of service or anything like that are.

IF they ever reference them it's out of spite just to punish a user they hold animosity towards. So, it should never happen.

That's my whole point mate.

Should the fundamental rules/guidelines of the forums set by Jason not be included into the forum guidelines to which the mods mod?

Field Marshall wrote:

Empy wrote:The only rules the Mods enforce are the Forum Guidelines.

Mods are neither trained nor expected to enforce or even know what the user agreements or terms of service or anything like that are.

IF they ever reference them it's out of spite just to punish a user they hold animosity towards. So, it should never happen.

That's my whole point mate.

Should the fundamental rules/guidelines of the forums set by Jason not be included into the forum guidelines to which the mods mod?

If there is something in the TOS/Legal/UA that you think should be added in the Forum Guidelines then bring it up. I suppose you sort of brought up one point already, but I disagreed that it should be added. My opinion on that means 0 anymore. Maybe the Admins agree it should. You'll have to wring an answer out of them.

Nothing should be added just solely on the fact it's in the TOS/Legal/UA though. Everything should first be discussed and should have a clear and reasonable reason for being added to the Forum Guidelines.

Empy wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:

Empy wrote:The only rules the Mods enforce are the Forum Guidelines.

Mods are neither trained nor expected to enforce or even know what the user agreements or terms of service or anything like that are.

IF they ever reference them it's out of spite just to punish a user they hold animosity towards. So, it should never happen.

That's my whole point mate.

Should the fundamental rules/guidelines of the forums set by Jason not be included into the forum guidelines to which the mods mod?

If there is something in the TOS/Legal/UA that you think should be added in the Forum Guidelines then bring it up. I suppose you sort of brought up one point already, but I disagreed that it should be added. My opinion on that means 0 anymore. Maybe the Admins agree it should. You'll have to wring an answer out of them.

Nothing should be added just solely on the fact it's in the TOS/Legal/UA though. Everything should first be discussed and should have a clear and reasonable reason for being added to the Forum Guidelines.

If someone, upon registering, agrees to abide by the TOS/Legal/UA, and then breaches it, wouldn't that make their registration on this forum void? Obviously that's a bit unfair if they accidentally breach them, so wouldn't it be better to include them in the Forum Rules/Guidelines, with appropriate consequences included? Especially in cases of racism/discrimination/hate speech?

Empy wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:

Empy wrote:The only rules the Mods enforce are the Forum Guidelines.

Mods are neither trained nor expected to enforce or even know what the user agreements or terms of service or anything like that are.

IF they ever reference them it's out of spite just to punish a user they hold animosity towards. So, it should never happen.

That's my whole point mate.

Should the fundamental rules/guidelines of the forums set by Jason not be included into the forum guidelines to which the mods mod?

If there is something in the TOS/Legal/UA that you think should be added in the Forum Guidelines then bring it up. I suppose you sort of brought up one point already, but I disagreed that it should be added. My opinion on that means 0 anymore. Maybe the Admins agree it should. You'll have to wring an answer out of them.

Nothing should be added just solely on the fact it's in the TOS/Legal/UA though. Everything should first be discussed and should have a clear and reasonable reason for being added to the Forum Guidelines.

I am bringing it up, that's the whole point of this. I am merely suggesting that the admin team look at the relevant rulings and decide if they feel it is appropriate that those entities should be moderated or not.

Like you, my opinion means 0 too, so it would be a pointless exercise to offer further advice other than showing them path!

Empy wrote:Maybe the Admins agree it should

When you look at the dark side, careful you must be ... for the dark side looks back.

Haz wrote:If someone, upon registering, agrees to abide by the TOS/Legal/UA, and then breaches it, wouldn't that make their registration on this forum void? Obviously that's a bit unfair if they accidentally breach them, so wouldn't it be better to include them in the Forum Rules/Guidelines, with appropriate consequences included? Especially in cases of racism/discrimination/hate speech?

No, currently there is no penalty for breaching any of the terms of service.

There is nothing to stop me creating a new thread and attacking groups of people based on immoral choices that I usually wouldn't choose in life, as long as I don't offend an individual. Even then I believe the mods will choose to overlook it.

Fundamentally, over the years I have seen some users make some terrible choices on this forum. Yet they remain unpunished whilst others are punished for replying directly to a moderator order (a worthy rule, just unjust in the circumstance imo).

Field Marshall wrote:When you look at the dark side, careful you must be ... for the dark side looks back.

*chuckles* The famous Obi Wan maxim!

"For when you gaze long into the Abyss, the abyss gazes into you."

Field Marshall wrote:but if you could actually read my post, it would make it a lot easier, a tell tale sign of the current admin/moderator incompetence.

I am slightly amused by your inflammatory comments regarding Mods and GW staff given the very nature of this thread. That'll get em on side!

There is always such a push for more regulation in the game and on the forum. I can't for the life of me figure why.

I would hazard that at this stage, the relative influx of newer players is small. Thus any regular members that make inflammatory comments should be taken aside, and spoken to by their peers. I'll be perfectly honest, the vast majority of forum posters, especially when it comes to heated discussions (read: blatent ego battles) the vast majority of content in the thread would easily be banned if mods took to literal interpretations of every term and condition.

Evidence: Every NORM war/vendetta thread ever.

If it gets incredibly out of hand, a complaint, followed by moderator action. But isn't this what normally happens? Considering I've been lurking on this forum for five years now, though I have really only taken to posting recently, I have always found most mods highly reasonable.

(remember disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean mods are out of control power trippers like the current trend of posts seem to be suggesting)

I hate to take the condescending approach, but doesn't feeding into any hatred, or taking offence to any post immediately satisfy the author? Feeding trolls means they win.

I mean if someone is literally stupid enough to give voice to hate speech (if indeed it is deemed hate speech), again, Complaint -> Formal Warning -> Failure to comply = Ban.

Sounds to me like you just want some more interventionist moderators (oxymoron I know!), which I tend to be against on principle.

And to be fair terms like immoral, and justice are both loaded terms. Justice synonym for popular revenge, and immoral carries so many negative connotations.

Eärendil wrote:I am not reasonable

As for the rest of the thread, It's been a nice ...'debate'? lol.

Personally, I don't care about any tos/policy on the actual herebegames site, this is a forum for sgw, it has it's own set of rules/terms...etc.

Kinda of the general attitude I've come to expect of most of the admins/mods. Didn't expect anymore or less...Fair enough an answer for the TOS/Legal policy.

So what about the user agreement on the talk.gatewa.rs site?

Don't care about that one either? Like everyone else, you read what you want to read...and ignore the rest

Sylus wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:When you look at the dark side, careful you must be ... for the dark side looks back.

*chuckles* The famous Obi Wan maxim!

"For when you gaze long into the Abyss, the abyss gazes into you."

Field Marshall wrote:but if you could actually read my post, it would make it a lot easier, a tell tale sign of the current admin/moderator incompetence.

I am slightly amused by your inflammatory comments regarding Mods and GW staff given the very nature of this thread. That'll get em on side!

There is always such a push for more regulation in the game and on the forum. I can't for the life of me figure why.

I would hazard that at this stage, the relative influx of newer players is small. Thus any regular members that make inflammatory comments should be taken aside, and spoken to by their peers. I'll be perfectly honest, the vast majority of forum posters, especially when it comes to heated discussions (read: blatent ego battles) the vast majority of content in the thread would easily be banned if mods took to literal interpretations of every term and condition.

Evidence: Every NORM war/vendetta thread ever.

If it gets incredibly out of hand, a complaint, followed by moderator action. But isn't this what normally happens? Considering I've been lurking on this forum for five years now, though I have really only taken to posting recently, I have always found most mods highly reasonable.

(remember disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean mods are out of control power trippers like the current trend of posts seem to be suggesting)

I hate to take the condescending approach, but doesn't feeding into any hatred, or taking offence to any post immediately satisfy the author? Feeding trolls means they win.

I mean if someone is literally stupid enough to give voice to hate speech (if indeed it is deemed hate speech), again, Complaint -> Formal Warning -> Failure to comply = Ban.

Sounds to me like you just want some more interventionist moderators (oxymoron I know!), which I tend to be against on principle.

And to be fair terms like immoral, and justice are both loaded terms. Justice synonym for popular revenge, and immoral carries so many negative connotations.

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

Is this immoral? Was it moderated? Did I post this all over the forums? No, we did it by PMs. It was the unsatisfactory answer that showed that made me come here.

Read Eari's post, these 2 elements are the reasoning for what I am saying.

If you feel that these are satisfactory, fair enough, I don't.

Eärendil wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:Don't care about that one either? Like everyone else, you read what you want to read...and ignore the rest

And did I say that? But since you assumed that, well, ya know.

So you commented on the things you don't care about and won't mention the things you do care about?

Logical.

You're still not casting a judgement on it Eari?

Field Marshall wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:This:

yellow eyes wrote:Blow up all muslim that then ends half the worlds proberlems

Really isn't against the rules.

Is this immoral? Was it moderated? Did I post this all over the forums? No, we did it by PMs. It was the unsatisfactory answer that showed that made me come here.

Read Eari's post, these 2 elements are the reasoning for what I am saying.

If you feel that these are satisfactory, fair enough, I don't.

No. It is in no way immoral. Offensive, yes, and ignorant. But saying it's immoral is a combination of blatent stupidity and a highly judgemental attitude. You know, to orthodox christians, homosexuality is immoral. I don't personally believe strongly in any sort of moral judgement, and will ridicule anyone who thinks morality is universal.

I can also hazard one of two motives.

One it is a product of analytical skills, most likely also a symptom of poor media coverage regarding racial and religious conflict across the globe. If I were to take the way the vast majority of media outlets cover issues relating to Islam, I might not have a different opinion (I'll cite the recent Muslim riot in australia, and how poorly covered it was - certain parts of the mainstream media cited it as an uprising).

If this is the case, you could try to have a discussion about what has made them think that. I dare say if he has in anyway experienced Muslim communalism, or some other negative fringe element, then you could argue that it is in no way representative of the greater muslim population.

That said, I also think that if the comment offended you, then you should just avoid and report it (which is what you did to no effect, thus I can understand some frustration; but make no mistake, this is starting to resemble a crusade which I dont care for).

The other motive is that it is blatent trolling, and aimed at being offensive to elicit a response; which...succeeded.
Sorry for asking, but why do you care what an ignorant person thinks?