|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 27 2014 16:16 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 10:53 motbob wrote:On November 27 2014 08:01 ZeromuS wrote:On November 27 2014 06:19 motbob wrote:On November 26 2014 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 14:36 lichter wrote: Yes I understand the details of what he's trying to say and I disagree with the statement. I think it's a silly thing to say. That alone does not make it actionable, however. I looked at his posts, and for the most part, he tries his best to avoid saying anything too inflammatory or offensive. So in the context of his posts and the fact that he changed it after posting it, it appears like he wanted to avoid being offensive. That's why I ruled that it was exaggeration instead.
But like I said, if he keeps doing that then people should report it and we'll consider it along with past reports. Well I'll hope we can find a Black mod from the US so I could discuss it further with them if they had the time if for nothing but a bit of peace of mind and a blend of perspectives (TLmod, Black, American). Let's not dance around this issue: there are no black TL mods as far as I am aware. This being said we have a very diverse group of people on staff as it is. What is your definition of diverse? I am pretty sure TL staff members are the opposite of diverse. This is a pie chart of TL Staff nationality (not race, mind) based on known data. No actually countries, because, you know, secrets. OK, but I still don't think that a group of 95% male, 90% 18-30 year old, 90% white/east asian, 90% undergraduate educated (or pursuing that path), 90% First World people can be considered diverse regardless of the number of different nationalities. BTW if any of my percentages are wrong to your knowledge feel free to correct them.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
Oh, not saying TL is or isn't diverse, since nationality is only one thing. Just wanted to present some facts. Up to you to decide what it means.
|
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
is TL an equal opportunities employer, or an equal outcomes employer?
|
Why the hell would anyone care about the color of a mod's skin? o.O
Yes, TL staff have been know to be irrationally biased about certain subjects, but it's hardly because of the color of their skin. If you start thinking somebody is superior just because they are black, maybe you are the one that is racist. Start seeing people, not just skin colors.
|
On November 27 2014 20:25 zeo wrote: Why the hell would anyone care about the color of a mod's skin? o.O
Yes, TL staff have been know to be irrationally biased about certain subjects, but it's hardly because of the color of their skin. If you start thinking somebody is superior just because they are black, maybe you are the one that is racist. Start seeing people, not just skin colors.
It's not about 'the color of their skin'. It's about shared experiences. Since there aren't any other black people (afaik) to confirm this for you guys, let me try this:
I and 99% of American's (or people outside of western Europe) wouldn't find the following picture offensive in any way and certainly not worth headlines or a public apology.
But I bet some of the people here know why some would be offended by it. Not because it's 'blatently' racist/classist but because they share important experiences with people who it offended, that people outside of those groups could not understand except through analogy, if at all.
While the offending persons 'group' can see why people would be offended, the posting itself reflects that she and others felt comfortable making such a posting (or comments in private) and many supporters of hers thought it was fine. But because the people she offended had a large enough voice she was 'strongly encouraged' to apologize or step down.
Now imagine there was nothing but people not from the relevant groups making the decision on whether it is offensive or not. For instance, imagine if it was solely up to Americans to determine whether the picture was offensive or not. Does me not thinking it is offensive at all (because I only vaguely understand the context of the offended groups perspective) make it not overly offensive?
I don't think it does.
PS Slipping in the comment suggesting anyone at any point has implied in any way that anyone would be "superior just because they are black" or that "maybe (I'm) the racist" just further inflames the issue. For the record I never (intended to if I did?) accuse XDaunt of being racist, just his comment (there is a big difference).
EDIT: So this cost her her job, but no one even knew why it would offend anyone...? Yet, my point still seems to be falling on deaf ears?
Simon Danczuk, Labour MP for Rochdale, suggested it was “derogatory and dismissive of the people”. He told the Mail Online it was “like the Labour party has been hijacked by the north London liberal elite, and it’s comments like that which reinforce that view”.
On Twitter, the Ukip leader Nigel Farage said Thornberry had “let Miliband’s mask slip” and questioned what she was trying to imply about the area by tweeting the picture.
After the first barrage of complaints, Thornberry said her critics may have been showing “a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington”. She added: “I’ve been down in Rochester … and I’ve been tweeting one or two quotes of what people have said to me on the doorstep, and images that I’ve seen … and then I came across a house that was covered absolutely from the roof all the way down to the ground with England flags – they couldn’t even see out of the window. It was an amazing image, so I took a photograph of it and I put it on Twitter.”
The Labour MP said she thought there was “a lot of mischief-making” going on. “You know, I think the truth is, while the byelection’s going on, people haven’t got a lot to say,” she said. “They can say there’s people out on doorsteps knocking on doors. And I suspect that those kind of people are trying to promote a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington.
“I was brought up on a council estate and I’ve never seen a house where people can’t see out of the window because of England flags. It was just trying to give, to the people who follow me on Twitter, a kind of picture of what the Rochester byelection is like.”
She subsequently tweeted an apology, after receiving a dressing-down from Miliband, for “any offence caused” saying: “People should fly the England flag with pride!” A Labour source said: “It is fair to say that he made his view very clear that people should fly the England flag with pride.”
Just after the polls had closed in Rochester at 10pm, it emerged Thornberry had resigned. In a statement released by the party, Thornberry said: “Earlier today I sent a tweet which has caused offence to some people. That was never my intention and I have apologised. However, I will not let anything distract from Labour’s chance to win the coming general election. “I have therefore tonight told Ed Miliband I will resign from the shadow cabinet.”
Source
|
If they had a valid point about why something was offensive; they should be able to provide links/explanations to show why such an image was offensive.
|
The point I was trying to make is that you care more about race than the racists. You implied that TL should pick up some random black guy just to fulfill some multi-cultural quota. I highly doubt the administrators of this forum ask someone about their skin color when they evaluate whether to make them a mod.
Why should someone made a mod only because he/she is black? Or gay? Or whatever. We need people that actually know how to do their job, because nobody should really care about the country you are from, your religion/non-religion. Just the work that you put in.
|
On November 28 2014 01:03 zeo wrote: The point I was trying to make is that you care more about race than the racists. You implied that TL should pick up some random black guy just to fulfill some multi-cultural quota. I highly doubt the administrators of this forum ask someone about their skin color when they evaluate whether to make them a mod.
Why should someone made a mod only because he/she is black? Or gay? Or whatever. We need people that actually know how to do their job, because nobody should really care about the country you are from, your religion/non-religion. Just the work that you put in.
You are just completely making stuff up now at this point. All I asked is if there are any Black (American) TL Mods so that I discuss shared experiences and perceptions and perhaps they could provide some insight.
This is bullshit.
|
Ignore Zeo, for the love of God.
|
On November 28 2014 07:56 farvacola wrote: Ignore Zeo, for the love of God.
I thought it sounded familiar. Wasn't he one of the people who was causing problems in a the Ukraine or some other Eurasian thread?
|
On November 26 2014 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I'll hope we can find a Black mod from the US so I could discuss it further with them if they had the time if for nothing but a bit of peace of mind and a blend of perspectives (TLmod, Black, American). Maybe I lost something in translation but your opinion was that a black mod would do a much better job than a white mod just because he/she is black? Mods are normal people like any normal user, talking to a black mod would give you as much incite into the matter as talking to any random black person. Any mod should give you the same answers about moderation, so the color of their skin kind of doesn't matter, they all have to follow the same rules.
I was under the assumption that you thought TL needed a black mod because we need a black guy, again, if something was misinterpreted on my side I apologize though what I wrote still stands to anyone thinking the color of someone's skin means anything.
Oh, looks like one of my stalkers followed me into this thread. Amazing one-liner, zero input post as always.
|
On November 28 2014 08:17 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 15:05 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I'll hope we can find a Black mod from the US so I could discuss it further with them if they had the time if for nothing but a bit of peace of mind and a blend of perspectives (TLmod, Black, American). Maybe I lost something in translation but your opinion was that a black mod would do a much better job than a white mod just because he/she is black? I was under the assumption that you thought TL needed a black mod because we need a black guy, again, if something was misinterpreted on my side I apologize though what I wrote still stands to anyone thinking the color of someone's skin means anything. Oh, looks like one of my stalkers followed me into this thread. Amazing one-liner, zero input post as always.
Yes it was lost in translation. I thought they (through shared experiences and perspectives) could help me understand why what I thought was a pretty over the top statement was being treated like common discourse (although most agree it was at least intentionally provocative).
Groups don't "need a black guy, because they need a black guy". Groups benefit from multiple perspectives, different people have different experiences which predispose them to different interpretations of events. Different interpretations give rise to different arguments or suggestions that simply wouldn't come up without those parties being there. I wouldn't expect/want a black mod to be a mod for any other reason than everyone else if that's unclear still.
A conversation exclusively among men about what is an appropriate approach to maternity leave is inherently going to miss/gloss over/dismiss some key points from people who have exclusive experience with the subject (AKA Women). It doesn't mean anything women say about it is right, or they need a woman because they need a woman, just that they offer a perspective/set of experiences that CAN'T come from her male counterparts.
EDIT started here'ish: It's not because they hate women or because they don't care about them, simply because they can't possibly have had specific experiences that would shape one's perspective in relevant ways. It's also not to say they that with intelligent rational males they won't generally arrive at the 'right' conclusions, but that, nuance and specific experiences can shed light on things or put them into different contexts that can drastically change minds.
Imagine if blacks were not in the conversation for emancipation, for desegregation, for civil rights, etc... It's not that there weren't groups of whites (and others) who arrived at the same conclusions on freedom and equality or that they couldn't have without blacks, but without Fredrick Douglass, The Little Rock 9, MLK, black leaders/elected officials, etc... it sure would of taken a hell of a lot longer for the system to recognize there was even a significant problem. Not because everyone within was corrupt or racist, but because none of them had ever been whipped and chained, or spit on and pushed down stairs for going to school, or had their life threatened for expecting the treatment demanded by God and promised by the Constitution, etc...
Now I'm not trying to compare this, to those, in scale or significance, just make clear that conversations about discrimination, inflammatory rhetoric, unequal treatment, etc... benefit greatly from informed people from the class/group allegedly being mistreated.
|
I understand what you are saying, its just that first and foremost General forum is kind of a secondary part of the site. Starcraft, DOTA and Hearthstone is why we have mods and why these sites exist. General is kind of a way for TL users to talk about world events with fellow SC, DOTA ect. players.
TL won't solve any problems in the world, its not really that big of a deal if all bases of a certain subject are covered, or all opinions/points of view are not allowed no matter how non-biased and rational they are because they don't fit into the accepted world-view of moderation staff.
In the end the mod staff are here to stop us from flaming each other and shitposting in General. Helping us solve the worlds problems is asking too much. Whether a thread is shit or not isn't really up to the mods, rather the users that post in that thread. When mods start manipulating discourse in a thread to better fit his/her agenda or biases it ruins that thread. Even if we had a black mod, they wouldn't want to get involved in a thread about black rights because could they really trust themselves to not manipulate discourse? Even if one person become's afraid to voice their relatively moderate opinion because they think a mod would become over-sensitive, doesn't that automatically devalue the discussion in that thread?
edit: Of course people who know what they are talking about, or have personal experience with xyz subject should be more than welcome in xyz thread. But those people should be regular users, not mods.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 28 2014 09:08 zeo wrote: I understand what you are saying, its just that first and foremost General forum is kind of a secondary part of the site. Starcraft, DOTA and Hearthstone is why we have mods and why these sites exist. General is kind of a way for TL users to talk about world events with fellow SC, DOTA ect. players.
TL won't solve any problems in the world, its not really that big of a deal if all bases of a certain subject are covered, or all opinions/points of view are not allowed no matter how non-biased and rational they are because they don't fit into the accepted world-view of moderation staff.
In the end the mod staff are here to stop us from flaming each other and shitposting in General. Helping us solve the worlds problems is asking too much. Whether a thread is shit or not isn't really up to the mods, rather the users that post in that thread. When mods start manipulating discourse in a thread to better fit his/her agenda or biases it ruins that thread. Even if we had a black mod, they wouldn't want to get involved in a thread about black rights because could they really trust themselves to not manipulate discourse? Even if one person become's afraid to voice their relatively moderate opinion because they think a mod would become over-sensitive, doesn't that automatically devalue the discussion in that thread? Certainly there have been impositions of mods' worldviews on TLers in the past. See: Kwark on rape, all mods on transgender issues. To become worried about discussion being "devalued" in those instances is to raise the good ol' "free speech" argument once again. In certain circumstances, censorship increases the value of the conversation. The question is where those circumstances lie. They may or may not lie in aggressive mod actions in the vein that GreenHorizons is asking for.
|
On November 28 2014 09:19 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 09:08 zeo wrote: I understand what you are saying, its just that first and foremost General forum is kind of a secondary part of the site. Starcraft, DOTA and Hearthstone is why we have mods and why these sites exist. General is kind of a way for TL users to talk about world events with fellow SC, DOTA ect. players.
TL won't solve any problems in the world, its not really that big of a deal if all bases of a certain subject are covered, or all opinions/points of view are not allowed no matter how non-biased and rational they are because they don't fit into the accepted world-view of moderation staff.
In the end the mod staff are here to stop us from flaming each other and shitposting in General. Helping us solve the worlds problems is asking too much. Whether a thread is shit or not isn't really up to the mods, rather the users that post in that thread. When mods start manipulating discourse in a thread to better fit his/her agenda or biases it ruins that thread. Even if we had a black mod, they wouldn't want to get involved in a thread about black rights because could they really trust themselves to not manipulate discourse? Even if one person become's afraid to voice their relatively moderate opinion because they think a mod would become over-sensitive, doesn't that automatically devalue the discussion in that thread? Certainly there have been impositions of mods' worldviews on TLers in the past. See: Kwark on rape, all mods on transgender issues. To become worried about discussion being "devalued" in those instances is to raise the good ol' "free speech" argument once again. In certain circumstances, censorship increases the value of the conversation. The question is where those circumstances lie. They may or may not lie in aggressive mod actions in the vein that GreenHorizons is asking for.
I wasn't ever suggesting even a temp ban, just a warning maybe, if that.
I was once told by a mod that
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to reprimand or punish you here - that's not the point of Warnings. Instead just see it as an FYI I'm dropping (in) asking if you could just pull it back a bit.
I just thought such a warning might of been appropriate here. It's not like I want the guy tattooed on the forehead or something.
|
Since that discussion has died down I want to go back to the original point. I also have the feeling that moderation has become more lenient over the last months/year. Dodgin said;
On November 24 2014 12:21 Dodgin wrote: Back on topic, I'm wondering if the change in moderation is possibly a product of a declining userbase? I've heard some theories about " nazi " modding scaring away users and since TL isn't as active as it once was, the standards were relaxed for that reason. but I have the exact opposite problem. I used to like the stricter moderation and the leniency has put me off posting. It seemed as though the balance complaints against Protoss earlier in the year were mostly ignored, compared to the end of WoL when merely saying "patchzerg" would earn a ban. The example that stuck in my mind was when Classic beat Maru in a Code S semi-final and the first post in the recap thread was "Protossed." but no action was taken.
It looks like a similar problem is starting with PvT and there have already been many balance complaints about it, and even a thread about it. The thread became a little heated but there no bans and only one warning (for claiming Protoss are "OP as fuck".) I don't want TL to become as bad now with Protoss complaints about balance as it was several months ago with Terran complaints.
And there are some people who seem immune to moderation. In the Dreamhack LR thread (for day 1) TB told someone to "fuck off" but didn't even get a warning. I understand he was upset and there were some posts in the LR thread that would make him angrier but why is telling someone to "fuck off" okay? I know he has contributed a massive amount to SC2 (and I am grateful for that) but does that mean he has the right to say whatever he wants?
Another example of someone seemingly immune to moderation is TheDwf. Several months ago he would often complain about how much Terran struggled and although he could make some valid points he would often do so in a very condescending and unnecessarily confrontational and antagonising way. In the now-closed thread about Terran MU stats he had a long post which included the line "Waah, what a "Terrancraft" indeed…" but since there was no warning for this (and it is not an isolated incident) I wonder if the mod team thinks it is okay for TheDwf to continue posting this way.
Was a decision made to moderate more leniently (overall)? Are there fewer active banlings around now? I know there are quite a few people with the power to ban but nobody appears to ban as often users like KBB or ETT or GMarshal or Nyovne (sp?) used to. Have I just got it wrong and moderation is the same as always?
|
If there were any mods with self-reflection, they would have already renamed this thread to "Stockholm syndrome on TL"
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On December 03 2014 00:17 opisska wrote: If there were any mods with self-reflection, they would have already renamed this thread to "Stockholm syndrome on TL" As I do not have self-reflection, could you explain what you mean?
|
On December 03 2014 01:01 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2014 00:17 opisska wrote: If there were any mods with self-reflection, they would have already renamed this thread to "Stockholm syndrome on TL" As I do not have self-reflection, could you explain what you mean?
That I consider a situation when people are complaining about being policed too little curious, to say the least. In many cases such as these of which you or someone else reminded above (heck, since we are in website feedback, does someone note how annoying it is that you can't see the rest of the thread once you get to the large reply window by quoting a post?), the only TL-sanctioned opinion has been literally forced upon everyone who wished to discuss the topic and remain not banned - yet we have people arguing for stricter moderation? I understand that we are not held here by force and our general liberties are not at stake, but the use of the term has to my understanding broadened at least in a mild hyperbole, to any situation where an oppressed group of people starts to support their oppressor (is that a word? chrome things it is, but it feels strange).
Also, just some mildly disgruntled attempt at sarcasm.
|
I like xdaunt, but saying 'I doubt there are any sane blacks left' is probably worth a warning is a touch inflammatory
I certainly would love to know how the op's post was only a two day because goddamn.
|
|
|
|