NEW POLICIES FOR 2014: A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

author=Housekeeping
How is criticizing a public figure (however poorly) grounds for banning based on the terms of service? If the terms of service is about protecting users from being harassed, and the first post in this thread is designed to highlight that aspect of the terms of service, then citing this rule for Max's ban is wrong. It's a miscategorization.

If Max was banned based on him being a dick and derailing a thread with constant gamer gate horseshit, that's totally understandable, and I think if you told him that in the first place then he wouldn't have posted in this thread. I know that not expressing the exact reason for his ban seems like a silly point of contention, but, to Max, he's feeling like one of his core values is against the terms of service, so it's no wonder that he's flipping his shit.

the reason I explained was thus:

You were (and often do) creating a toxic atmosphere of hostility to the point where people don't feel comfortable. You force your way into discussions with hostile language and rhetoric and demand that the debate be re-framed in narrow terms you find more acceptable. Shouted rage is not discourse. We can't tolerate this kind of vitriol as it alienates people and makes them feel unsafe. And there's nothing innocent and morally-defensible about calling someone a bitch or slut or whore or defaming someone's character, and using it to justify or explain or excuse harrassment or worse. I have a responsibility to create a safe environment at RMN, and you were actively undermining that.

For what it's worth, previous administrations (me) that didn't even have "the anti-degrading language towards women rule" specifically spelled out for troglodytes would have banned Max much earlier in the conversation and for much longer. Max's comments were eerily paradoxical and only highlight the need for such specifics in rules where an otherwise more generalized harassment statement alone might suffice.

We linked this thread because apparently "you were being a giant asshole" wasnt reason enough for Max.

author=Housekeeping
The confusion here is that Solitayre did cite this rule's thread in a conversation with Max that Max linked in the opening post. I mean, even if that exchange never happened, Max would probably bring it back to this and claim conspiracy, but I think in this case his tirade is partially justified because of the mixed reasons he's gotten.

How the heck can you interpret Solitayre citing this thread as an implication that criticizing a public figure is grounds for banning? This announcement says absolutely nothing about criticizing a public figure. You're not making any sense.

author=kentona
My wife tells me my dad jokes are super bad. But I will keep on making them!

P. sure that's the point of dad jokes, much like puns: they are a legal form of torture.

I think what confuses people regarding this topic are all the little 'discrepancies' surrounding all these "rules". And I can understand that. I can't say there's much I disagree with, with the actual 'practice' of said rules, but in 'theory' they do left something to be desired.

First of all, what constitutes creating an "atmosphere of hostility and blah, blah, blah"? Because I can think of a couple of users who fit the bill and who have never been warned or banned because of it. And on that note, calling someone a "man-baby" or a "bigot" gets a pass, but how is that not vitriolic or hostile? ...I mention this as well because in the past I used to report people who engaged in "personal attacks" and such, with mixed results. Sometimes they'd get warned, sometimes not. And since I couldn't tell the difference, I just stopped reporting things all together because - I'm not gonnas waste my times doings your dirty works, peoples!

So obviously the "hostility" is not the issue here. So what is it then? Is it the gendered cuss words maybe? But then again, words like "bitch" that could be argued are derogatory to women get tossed around like they're confetti around here, sometimes even by women. And you know that the people who concern themselves with "safe spaces" often concern themselves with "micro-aggressions" as well. So even expressions that for most people would be nothing like: "Stop bitching about it" ARE an issue.

On the flip-side, if the "Don't be a dick" rule was instead called the: "Don't be a cunt" rule. I bet that would raise some eyebrows...

SO! If it is not the "hostility" nor the "gendered cuss words", then perhaps it's an odd mixture of both? Perhaps it's the sheer volume of it? ...I'm kind of Ok with that. But if you were to ask me, I'd say that is the "intent" what counts. So even if you're being classy with your insults, you're still being a dick. (I don't understand this logic of high-brow insults: OK, low-brow insults: BAD. The purpose is the same.) Though, to be utterly honest, I'd prefer less restrictions, not more. I know there's some middle ground to be had for the sake of civil discourse, inclusiveness, fellowship, and all that jazz. But it's all words at the end of the day. "Sticks and stones..."

Anyway, it should not be difficult to better word the rules. Not to be pedantic. Not to spell things out for people. Just to be clear.
_
Also, say whatever you want about Max. But one thing he did not do was: "justify, or explain, or excuse harassment or worse". Nor did he engage on it. In fact he stated several times that that was not what he meant, that his words should not be misconstrued in that way, and he even openly denounced those actions. At the very least give him that.

It's situational. Sometimes what someone thinks is insulting towards a person is merely two people playing together (we've had reports like that before, hell I've had people privately PM me saying that x person is hating on y person stop it!!! by some newbies who didn't realise that it was playful poking by the two in question.)

Sometimes it's not.

It really does depend on the people involved, the situation and the kind of words used - and yes, the kind of words do matter in some cases. If someone were to call one of our homosexual members gay and homo in an insulting, non-jokey manner (and you can tell, most of the time, when something is a joke and when it isn't) then that's a warn, definitely.

But with friends calling each other out for bitching - it's a common use of the word (though personally I don't like it, and get over it). If someone were to say stop acting like a cunt, though... well, cunt is always a very heavy insult.

Fact of the matter is, most male-gendered insults aren't. Insults.

They're often used in a joking, laugh-it-off way. It's not fair but blame society and the patriarchy for that one, my friend. Calling someone a dick isn't the same as calling them a cunt. It's a much gentler word, often used between friends as a friendly insult and doesn't have other connotations added on. Being a dick isn't necessarily a bad thing. Being a cunt always is.

But that's not really what the issue is here.
Attacks toward a specific person* = bad.
Attacks toward an idea = fine.
Creating a hateful atmosphere by using certain words that make others feel unwelcome or unsafe = bad.
People poking each other friendly-like = okay as long as it doesn't devolve into hate speech. Key word there, my friends, HATE SPEECH. Which includes racist, homophobic and, yes, gendered language of a derogatory nature.


*I'm actually going to say that it doesn't matter if they're members or not and float that out there. Should we be attacking anyone? We don't know all the details of their lives or what they have to put up with. A group? Fine. Single people? Not so.
Of course, it's not a rule but it's something worth thinking about, I think.

author=Liberty
well, cunt is always a very heavy insult.

Is it? When I was in Europe everyone threw that word around like confetti. They always gave us Americans flak for finding it so heavy.

author=Feldschlacht IV

author=Liberty
well, cunt is always a very heavy insult.

Is it? When I was in Europe everyone threw that word around like confetti. They always gave us Americans flak for finding it so heavy.

It's not about frequency but use. It's always an insult. People call others dicks affectionately. Not so for cunt.

I don't know where you got that idea. It's probably one of the strongest insults you can use in the UK. I mean, although "fuck" is pretty common in TV nowadays you almost never hear "cunt". So yeah, I agree that it's not a word that you can generally use as a bit of banter.