A Question of Context

[a completely inoffensive name]

Contrary to the at times playful tone of the two posts above, I do seek serious replies, for a serious question that has occupied my mind. I would not want to post anything that is offensive to anyone, and fag is a word which can evoke strong emotion.

So don't use the word fag at all.
So don't make stupid and not clever jokes, like poles going inside you.
So just apologize for being in bad taste in the gender thread, instead of acting as if this backlash against you is because of a lack of stated rules regarding context.

There are many, many ways to make a silly joke about someones sexuality as an in-joke. However, "fag" is not one of them, at least when you are posting in public.

EDIT: Not to mention slut, or the fact that everything about you said about PJ is also crossing the line when joking about homosexuality because it plays up a stereotype.

I can say 100%, that if you were to call Secura and not Furun the slut, that crap would have been stomped on, but since you called a female slur to a guy, everything is all fine and dandy right?

[Populus Romanus]

Context, context, context. Just placing a blanket ban on a word is bad, next up would be a ban on a belief or an idea.

Also, was it intentional that one could select all options for the poll?

[Louis VI the Fat]

So don't make stupid and not clever jokes, like poles going inside you.

I did not make a stupid joke about poles going in me.

They were Czechs.



Thank you for your opinion that one has best not used the word fag at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I can say 100%, that if you were to call Secura and not Furun the slut, that crap would have been stomped on, but since you called a female slur to a guy, everything is all fine and dandy right?

I don't see what the confusion is.

If someone made a thread accusing gandhi of something bad, a sarcastic person might reply "oh yes, gandhi that fascist!". They would say that because they think gandhi isn't a fascist. And that's the tone of all of Louis's descriptions. He doesn't think TinCow is a woman, etc

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't see what the confusion is.

If someone made a thread accusing gandhi of something bad, a sarcastic person might reply "oh yes, gandhi that fascist!". They would say that because they think gandhi isn't a fascist. And that's the tone of all of Louis's descriptions. He doesn't think TinCow is a woman, etc

At last, somebody gets it! ~:worship:



Why does it not make sense when I say that I would immediately resign from the .org if we were ever allowed to call anyone else a Muslim fag?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see what the confusion is.

If someone made a thread accusing gandhi of something bad, a sarcastic person might reply "oh yes, gandhi that fascist!". They would say that because they think gandhi isn't a fascist. And that's the tone of all of Louis's descriptions. He doesn't think TinCow is a woman, etc

I agree, but the main point was lack of consistency. Numerous times i have been given infractions and warnings under the pretense that the org is for all intents and purposes, "PG-13". A lot of this isn't "PG-13". If it was up to me, I would be 4chan style of whatever goes, but unless someone wants to say to me that the org is rated R, then I have a few issues here.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree, but the main point was lack of consistency. Numerous times i have been given infractions and warnings under the pretense that the org is for all intents and purposes, "PG-13". A lot of this isn't "PG-13". If it was up to me, I would be 4chan style of whatever goes, but unless someone wants to say to me that the org is rated R, then I have a few issues here.

There's a hybrid system. One the one hand, there's a semi-standard set of rules. But rules are inexact and clumsy. You can't write a set of rules to properly moderate a forum. So the other part is that the moderators follow their instincts and common sense. But that results in inconsistent moderation from forum to forum, mod to mod.

Ergo, sometimes people will be infracted when they don't deserve it because the moderator is trying to follow a standardized rule. Other times that same thing will pass because they are following their instincts. But both rule following and instinct following are necessary. So injustice is a necessary byproduct of the ideal yet realistic system.

However, complaining about the injustice is also necessary for the ideal, to keep everyone's sights set high. So your post is a-ok. Realism is necessary, so my post here is necessary as well. The proper follow up from you is acknowledging the glorious wisdom of my philosophy and asserting your renewed faith in this forum.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's a hybrid system. One the one hand, there's a semi-standard set of rules. But rules are inexact and clumsy. You can't write a set of rules to properly moderate a forum. So the other part is that the moderators follow their instincts and common sense. But that results in inconsistent moderation from forum to forum, mod to mod.

Ergo, sometimes people will be infracted when they don't deserve it because the moderator is trying to follow a standardized rule. Other times that same thing will pass because they are following their instincts. But both rule following and instinct following are necessary. So injustice is a necessary byproduct of the ideal yet realistic system.

However, complaining about the injustice is also necessary for the ideal, to keep everyone's sights set high. So your post is a-ok. Realism is necessary, so my post here is necessary as well. The proper follow up from you is acknowledging the glorious wisdom of my philosophy and asserting your renewed faith in this forum.

Man Sasaki, you really are genius....wait, what just happened?

EDIT: But seriously, once again you have given me something to think about. I don't think I necessarily agree, but it is something I'm gonna think about.

[Gregoshi]

To add to Sasaki's points, moderator experience and forum being moderated are also factors that can contribute to inconsistent moderation across the board.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Your post was clearly a joke but still inappropriate Louis.

It's not appropriate for banter. This is a PG-13 site, and I suspect you don't understand the full meaning of that word in some regions.

Ban it outright.

CR

[Kekvit Irae]

Context is always important. In the UK and some other parts of the world, "fag" is slang for a cigarette.

It's like "the N word." If you use it in an improper context, such as just saying it in normal conversation, that's not a good use. However, if you use it academically, then it is. Example in question, you cant really give a historical point of view of Agatha Christie's novel "And Then There Were None" without mentioning its original title.

The point being is that you cant please all the people all the time, and you shouldn't even try to. The only thing you can do is remain professional and hold a sense of decorum.

[PanzerJaeger]

I voted for numbers two and three, but I only meant to vote for number two.

First of all, the drama surrounding the post in question is completely ridiculous. In my opinion, it was brought up purely to serve the interests of a particular member and his alter-account who has way too much time on his hands and a chip the size of Nebraska on his shoulder. The feigned outrage and innocence abused act is pretty obvious, especially considering the complete lack of it in the actual thread.

re:Fag. It is definitely a slur, and when used in serious conversation it almost always carries a negative connotation. By the way, the common phrase 'that's gay' used to mean something is bad or messed up is also pretty hurtful and I've read it here quite a bit, but that's beside the point.

What is the point, is that it was obvious that Louis' use of the term was not serious in any way, shape, or form. I think the vast majority of members (who are not pursuing alternate agendas) are perfectly capable of interpreting context, and it would be somewhat insulting to make blanket pronouncements about language use that sterilize conversation for the benefit of the greatest common divisor that make us out to be a bunch of morons.

In general, people need to understand that the mods are members first and foremost. They are here to enjoy interacting with their friends and the community. Becoming a mod certainly comes with significant behavioral expectations, but they are still allowed to have fun. At this point I can remember most of the mods before they wore the green - and, quite frankly, I miss a lot of their more aggressive posts in the Backroom. BQ, for example, was never rude but he was much more willing to engage in a bit of less-than-cordial repartee over sensitive subjects he cared about. From what I can tell, the job already comes with a lot of self-censorship and an assumed air of seriousness that must be at least a little constraining.

There seems to be an expectation among some, though, that dealing with a mod should in some way resemble customer service, where you can ceaselessly abuse the poor Indian girl working for slave wages on the other end of the phone for receiving the blue socks when you know you ordered the red socks (even though you clearly ordered the blue socks) and all she can do is apologize and ask you if there is anything else she can do for you today. Mods are not employees, they are not operating off the same script, and they do not owe you any particular experience. They are doing their best to make this an enjoyable place to spend time. Litigiousness as a tool to right past wrongs, score points, and generally create drama does nothing to further that purpose.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Again, Drunk Clown isn't really my alternate account PJ.

[Catiline]

I think he's refering to our Phantom.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think he's refering to our Phantom.

Oooooh, kk. I thought my joke a while back was biting me in the ass.

[Louis VI the Fat]

First of all, the drama surrounding the post in question is completely ridiculous. In my opinion, it was brought up purely to serve the interests of a particular member and his alter-account who has way too much time on his hands and a chip the size of Nebraska on his shoulder. The feigned outrage and innocence abused act is pretty obvious, especially considering the complete lack of it in the actual thread.

I couldn't agree more.


Nevertheless, the subject may be raised. I value serious opinion on the matter. There have been previous threads in the Watchtower were we ask the opinion of members on what language they deem appropriate in what context, and what should be moderated. Sensitivities change over time, differ from place to place. Words take on different meanings, PC seems to ebb and flow.

[Cute Wolf]

fag can refer to english sausage or cigarretes as well

[Kekvit Irae]

fag can refer to english sausage or cigarretes as well

When I eventually visit the UK, I'm definitely going to taste some local faggots.

[Andres]

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Org, is discouraged. The Org expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

It doesn't say anything about "context"

And please, don't compare "you spaghetti eating Sicilian" to "Fragony is our resident Muslim fag". That's so utterly ridiculous.

I don't understand why the appropriateness of the phrase "Fragony is our resident Muslim fag" even needs a discussion. Seems like a complete no-brainer to me. This whole thread is absurd.

We need more Political Correctness. Never allow fag.

Never allowing "fag" on this site doesn't mean "more" PC, since it wasn't allowed before this question was asked. Your poll is , because it's suggestive.

[InsaneApache]

fag can refer to english sausage or cigarretes as well

Or a junior schoolboy.

Frinstance I'll bet BG has had a fag or two thrusted onto him from his old school.

[InsaneApache]

@ Husar what is unacceptable about the word cripple? I know we live in pc times but this is just ridiculous.

[InsaneApache]

So don't use the word fag at all.

I love to put a fag in my mouth in the morning and blow away.

You see, being an international board I can say that.

Damn Kekvit Irae beat me to it.