Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Casiella on 29 Jun 2011, 21:23
-
Normally, one can of course report a moderator's post as with any other member's post, and an individual moderator stays hands-off for those situations. This has happened before on a number of occasions and the results have covered the spectrum. However, one shouldn't respond to a post one believes to violate the rules.
Bacch, if you wish to discuss the specifics of why I posted a reminder about your word choice, please feel free to PM me or discuss it here.
-
Can anyone weigh in regarding discussion of the word choice, or is it just between you and Bacch?
I find myself having opinions :P
-
Feel free. I just didn't want to clutter the other thread further.
-
It's a forum and a public post... Enjoy.
Since you responded to Bach's original comment it either didn't get reported or you were acting as a moderator. I'll assume the first since there are no indications of the latter.
So the post is ok as is, as far as the forum rules go.
Secondly, I think I am starting to see a trend where " X does not in ternet spaceships" comments getting more common.
Look at the total derailing of anatomy of a revolt given by Merdaneth. It illustrated well -I think - how it's not only about the small spark(s) but also of having a good pile of firewood to feed the inferno.
What is happening here? Why do I get a feeling of political correctnes movement here?
Trying to suggest rape is not a serious issue or claiming the revolts being of equal importance to humanity would be absurd. -Neither of which has happened here.
Bach used a descriptive word and Merdaneth looked how a revolt and a revolt function in the same way, no matter the issues inherent in a revolt. So maybe, mayyybe there is no need to draw these kinds of "Thats offencive for those who suffer IRL!" kinds of things?
If however you feel it is needed and helpful somehow: "Let me point out that your flippant disregard of the men that have suffered the same is appalling."
I for a short moment there considered censoring that last one myself, but it is about as relevant as everything else in this discussion.
-
OK, well, while this is entirely correct and I agree with it:
FYI, rape =/ anything that happens in an internet spaceships game.
(though I'd interpret that as actual, real-life rape does not equal anything that happens in an internet spaceships game)
I'd argue the word 'rape' is very often used to describe events in an internet spaceships game. So much so that it's become common parlance; for good or bad I've heard it more in EVE than anywhere else. And no, this doesn't neccesarily make it right, just that it often occurs.
I'm going to quote here (not the whole thing, as only a tiny bit is relevant to EVE/gaming):
But to take these general principles about causing offence and feeling offended and apply them to something specific:
The word ‘rape’, the meaning of the word and it’s increasing casual useage, and the idea that this makes rape seem more permissable and acceptable, resulting in a ‘rape culture’.
I can’t disagree that ‘rape’ has taken on a different connotation other than it’s literal meaning. I’ve encountered it being used as such in the gaming community (which, it should probably be mentioned, is largely male dominated) – when one player ‘defeats’ another player in a particularly humiliating way, completely dominating them, they ‘own’ or ‘pwn’ them. And, sometimes, they rape them.
And while that does show some overlap with the integral meaning of the literal definition of ‘rape’ (violence, dominance, humiliation) it is also sometimes taken completely out of any real-life context whatsoever. For example, in the game Eve-Online it might not be unusual to read:
“Dude, that kestrel raped your ship!”
To someone with no knowlege of the context, that is a ridiculous sentence and mental image. It’s something dubious involving a bird and a boat. Is it making light of real-life rape because of it’s nonsensical ridiculousness? Well, in my opinion, it doesn’t bear much resemblence to real-life rape: someone being forced into non-consentual sex, which is traumatic, serious, devastating, gritty and real with long-term repercussions. This is, instead, absurdist.
And I don’t think anyone using ‘rape’ in that context means it in any way outside of that context. (A context which would be impenetrable to a wider audience, and is actually talking about spaceships fighting eachother) I don’t believe that the casual use of the word implies that the speaker condones actual, literal rape or is making it more or less acceptable as they are using it in a way that is not interchangeable.
This is how language works – it’s not static, it’s dynamic and it takes on new connotations, implications and is largely dependent on context. It’s a similar kind of thing to useage of the word ‘gay’ – which once had a meaning of ‘happy’ then meaning ‘homosexual’ and then taking on a negative connotation of something being ‘gay’ as something teenagers have interchanged with ‘sad’ (pathetic/uncool). And often the word ‘gay’ is used unthinkingly and on it’s own terms, without really considering this negative connotation is insulting homosexuals – without really making the link in meaning.
And yet that negative connotation, whether intended or not, is still implicit in the use of the word. No matter how many new meanings and connotations words take on, they will always retain their old meaning.
Which is the main problem.
So does that mean we shouldn’t use words which have conflicting meanings? Can we trust the context to make sense of the word?
Not always, as there are always people willing to take the word out of context.
But that's a ramble about the word being problematic (which we already knew) and aside from 'rape' being commonly used in EVE as a slangy-word (and debating the rightness and wrongness of that) the specific use of the word in this scenario wasn't inappropriate or incorrect useage.
Edit: in retrospect (and to connect the above and below paragraph) I wonder if that isn't the problem here...that we're so used to the (argueably inappropriate) casual use of the word 'rape' in eve that it was automatically assumed that when Bacch used it to describe something in eve, it was being used in the same slangy casual way - x raped x's ship etc. However, despite discussing something eve-related, this was not the way he used the term...
While 'rape' is always a loaded word, I do think applying the meaning of real-life non consentual sex to someone saying "It'll rape the economy." is taking the comment out of context. The context here is evident: he's talking about the effect on the economy. Use of the word 'rape' being applied to the economy does not seem dissimilar to, for example, rape of the land. Modern useage can encompass both, and has been used in an official-and-not-slangy-way in recent years, e.g:
2003 EnRoute Apr. 34/1 We aren't out to rape and pillage the countryside.
2007 Penrith (Austral.) Press (Nexis) 22 June 16 The gravel company has raped the best rural land in the area leaving only dry land which‥is no longer useable.
It would be fairly unreasonable for someone to take the above examples personally, as it would be taking it out of context. And I don't think the above examples should be moderated any more than Bacch's comment, as neither are incorrect or inappropriate useage.
Yes, 'rape' is a loaded and emotionally charged word, but it is (like everything else) context-bound. You can, of course, object that the term is being used to describe rape of the land or rape of the economy, and argue that useage should be restricted to one meaning and one context only (sex forced on another), and the word should only (respectfully) be used to describe this. But it isn't restricted to one meaning and one context only in language or modern useage...
(and as an aside, after reading Chell Charon's comments, I'd agree there does seem to be a bit of a trend to leap onto something and decry it lately... Particularly how things like analogies are being taken absolutely literally and then people complain the comparison makes light of something more serious. I think often things are meant slightly less literally and a bit more figuratively than that - for example, I do not think anyone was saying there was a literal abusive relationship between CCP and the playerbase, just pointing out the similarities in both seperate scenarios. It did seem a bit off to moderate that analogy, given I first came across it by one of the mods (I think by Casiella?) on twitter. And yes, I do realize the forum has it's own rules whereas posting freely on twitter has different rules, but the analogy itself is not inappropriate - or at least, you can argue it's applicability within the scenario (CCP and the playerbase is like an abusive relationship because of x,y,z or CCP and the playerbase is NOT like an abusive relationship because of x,y,z), but to say even making the analogy is offensive to people in actual abusive relationship seems, to me, to be missing the point of what an analogy is.
It almost seems like being offended by something is the 'I win' button here and is being abused slightly in a (misplaced) clamour of righteous indignation. I have to wonder if (/theory) in the same way as the lack of moderation in chatsubo made it more likely people would be offensive, the increased moderation here makes it more likely that people will be offended? (Like "nature abhoring a vaccuum" or "If You Build It, They Will Come", though neither quite fit...) )
-
http://boiseguardian.com/2007/08/25/raping-the-land-for-profit/
Guess the regional newspaper in Boise, Idaho are a bunch of insensitive oppressive misogynistic men. Or they use the literal meanings of words in the English language. One of the two.
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001201
When Romans spoke of the legendary mass abduction of unmarried women from the neighboring Sabine people by the city's founder, Romulus, in order to provide wives for Romans, they undoubtedly used the Latin verb rapere 'to snatch away hastily; carry off by force'. The English word rape stems from that, and did indeed originally have the same meaning. It still can be used in the sense of seizing or plundering, as in the 1983 movie The Big Chill, in which, if memory serves, a lawyer rationalized her abandonment of criminal defense work for corporate law by saying "Now my clients only rape the land."
...
But the word rapine is no longer common, and rape now usually replaces it. Consequently, rape and pillage is now used not only where a sexual meaning for the first word is intended but also when such a meaning is clearly excluded: "This is rape and pillage of a beautiful area." (Sunday Telegraph of London, 2000.) "If I rape and pillage the fishery now, in 10 years my licenses won't be worth anything." (New York Times, 2000). As with so much language, context is everything!
EDIT: As for the moderation, I generally feel like it's downright ridiculous about 60% of the time, and also feel like there's generally a double standard insofar as the moderators seem to get away with the same things that they moderate themselves.
-
Seriously, if you see me (or any other moderator) post something inappropriate, you can report it. I like to think I stay within the guidelines, but I make mistakes. If you report something I post, the other moderators will take a look and decide. It has happened before, to me and to other moderators.
-
Seriously, if you see me (or any other moderator) post something inappropriate, you can report it.
A personal view here, which it seems is out-of-sync with the views of my hosts on this site.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the first course of action when there might be a dispute is to go to arbitration. I have a lot of background that you decide whether it's a matter that you wish to raise and, if it is, you first raise it directly with the other person. This means, among other things, that I'm unlike to report something for moderation unless it's spam or very clearly over-the-top; I feel slightly dirty when I request moderation for something that's just "they said bad things!"; and -- the particular matter here -- I have reservations about engaging in a culture where, as one person has recently described it, the winning strategy seems to be claim offence and report others for moderation.
I find it perplexing trying to decipher the actual rules of the site from the moderation judgements. I'm currently running with the hypothesis that my hosts here have their own customs which are opaque to a guest such as myself.
(Those things said, I've very much enjoyed a number of conversations here and the whole thing is a fascinating experiment to watch.)
-
I think I'm okay in noting that we receive far more reports than we act upon. Reporting a post certainly doesn't guarantee "winning" anything. But Bacch had specifically noted that he couldn't report my post because I'm a moderator, and I want to make sure everyone understands that that is not the case.
And, hey, if people can resolve their issues via PMs or other means without trashing a thread, I can't imagine any moderator complaining. ;)
-
There are a number of points I want to make here.
First of all, as Cas pointed out, moderator posts have been reported in the past and no doubt will be again in the future. The reports are dealt with by the other moderators.
Secondly, I also want to note that no moderator action was taken, neither Cas nor I used the report button or wore our [gmod]modhats.[/gmod] I also note that Merd's post re: Arab Spring wasn't moderated. So, in response to Chell and Kala's comments on 'political correctness' and 'being offended is the "I win" button', I'm not sure what people have 'won' except having other readers of the forum know that something offends them. Do you object to that? It seems to me that unless someone speaks up in such cases, the original poster has no way of knowing their words have had an (I'll assume) unintended impact or meaning. Would you prefer to continue causing offence in blissful ignorance of the effect your words have had? Devaluing the opinions and feelings of those who object by tagging them with loaded terms like 'political correctness' and 'clamour of righteous indignation' operates rhetorically to both dismiss criticism and, by impugning the motives of those who object, make it less likely that others will run the same gauntlet to make their feelings known. I find it ironic that on a forum that has been criticised for perceived overly-strict moderation, we are now having a discussion in which forum users suggest that other forum users not make critical posts.
Thirdly, the use of the word 'rape'. Kala is right, in that I did read Bach's post as using the word the way it is commonly used in its Eve context. As he has clarified that he did not mean it as a metaphor for 'defeated me in a contest of computer pixels' but in its older metaphorical use of 'raping the land', let me clarify my response. The use of 'rape' to mean spoil, ruin, despoil or damage (all euphemisms for sexual assault) originates in the direct metaphor, first found in the anti-development movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but largely popularised by late twentieth century environmentalists, of environmental destruction as sexual assault of the (characterised as female in binaristic gender constructions) earth. It has been consistently criticised by women within the environmental movement, for example by Tzeporah Berman in "The Rape of Mother Nature? Women in the Language of Environment Discourse", published in Fill and Muhlhausler The ecolinguistics reader (2006).
It is not a hold-over or equivalent to the phrase 'rape and pillage', in which 'rape' does not mean plunder, ruin etc, but 'carry away by force', but a development subsequent to and dependent on the understanding of 'rape' as sexual assault. Like the use of 'rape' as a metaphor for 'defeat in a game', it does not operate independently from, and indeed is meaningless without, the understanding of what rape is. And actually, Bach's quote of the Big Chill makes the point: the former criminal defence lawyer's reference to now having clients who 'only rape the land' relies for its meaning on the audience's understanding of the parallel drawn with former clients who, we are to assume, raped people.
I can understand that the transition of the term 'raping the land' into more common usage, and the general elision of objections to it from the wider popular discourse can easily have left people under the impression that it is a neutral and non-offensive term. However, it is in fact one under consistent contestation, not least because for 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men it is an immediate and painful reminder of something they have experienced.
As I noted above, I did not think Bach's use of the word - in either metaphorical context - was mod-worthy. I would however prefer people spend a second or two finding another word, in consideration for those of their readers for whom discussions of rape will never again be hypothetical.
Fourthly, internet gaming language.
I strongly disagree with Kala's quoted material on the use of 'rape' and 'gay' in gaming slang as unrelated, for the users, to the broader understanding of the meaning of those words.
Language is not neutral. Using 'gay' as a synonym for 'lame' or 'weak' only works because of the negative stereotypes of gays prevalent in society. Using 'rape' as a metaphor for defeat only works because of the understanding of rape as a humiliating, painful, traumatic event.
In the context of computer games, I'll note that despite Kala's quote on 'rape' not being meant as a reference to sexual assault, every time the issue is raised on game forums or gaming blogs there are always multiple comments defending the use of the word specifically because losing a contest in an online game is like being raped. Turn that on its head: being raped is like having your internet spaceship exploded. Trivialization of sexual assault complete.
It puzzles me why there is such an attachment to using references to homosexuality as a negative and references to sexual assault in a trivialising manner, and such frequent hostility to those who point out that they are neither neutral nor harmless. Some sociolinguistics have posited that such references have become markers of masculinity for those otherwise insecure about meeting gendered social norms. If so, that's a rather sad comment on the paucity of means of validation for many in Eve and the wider gaming community.
-
I can understand that the transition of the term 'raping the land' into more common usage, and the general elision of objections to it from the wider popular discourse can easily have left people under the impression that it is a neutral and non-offensive term. However, it is in fact one under consistent contestation, not least because for 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men it is an immediate and painful reminder of something they have experienced.
Well Ciarente, I do hope you realise that this kind of justification will just lead to witch huntes over the use/missuse/abuse of other supposedly "loaded" words.
If this moderational descision stands true I suggest you either start using a word filter, or start sifting back through the forums on the hunt for expressions such as "so. being a nazi", because I find that one to be much more offensive than the inappropriate use of "rape".
-
Let me clarify, Laerise, as I clarified twice above, no moderator action was taken in this case.
-
Let me clarify, Laerise, as I clarified twice above, no moderator action was taken in this case.
I never implied that, please reread my post.
The point I was trying to make was that going down the path you outlined would lead moderation on a rather slippery sloap - and I'd much rather see people use the vaunted "self moderation" to accept the use of slangterms / regionaly quirks in language than backstage becoming the UN :D
-
Given that the "moderational decision" in this case was not to mod , I'm not sure how letting it "stand true" would lead to the situation you outline.
-
Let me clarify, Laerise, as I clarified twice above, no moderator action was taken in this case.
I never implied that, please reread my post.
The point I was trying to make was that going down the path you outlined would lead moderation on a rather slippery sloap - and I'd much rather see people use the vaunted "self moderation" to accept the use of slangterms / regionaly quirks in language than backstage becoming the UN :D
Yeah, you did, actually. And the "slippery slope" is, what, to continue to respond politely to people who have offended us? That seems to me a quite reasonable and moderate response.
-
I think Laerise's cnocern is that Cia just laid out very a very cafeful and thoughtful explanation of why such language has no place in talking about internet spaceships. Laerise is therefore concerned that moderation will move in a direction prohibiting its use.
Frankly, I'd love to see this happen, as such language really does have no place in discussions outside the actual topic, but that would apparently hamper people's ability to express themselves or something.
-
So what other words should be off limits? Because I can come up with several dozen that are somehow offensive to someone somewhere even when used in an irrelevant context, so I think we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work here!
-
I think that's a great idea, because any meaning you are trying to convey through a potentially offensive word can be stated more clearly and without the potential to upset someone else by stating what you mean literally rather than figuretively. The only reasons I can see for using such language for unrelated things would be laziness/insensitivity, desire to appear 'edgy,' or desire to be offensive while hiding behind "what I meant was harmless."
-
So what other words should be off limits? Because I can come up with several dozen that are somehow offensive to someone somewhere even when used in an irrelevant context, so I think we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work here!
The test isn't 'somehow offensive to someone somewhere'. As much as labeling this as political correctness run amok is, I'm sure, tempting.
The test is posting in a way that is respectful of other members, who come from a wide variety of backgrounds. If you absolutely can't express yourself without the frequent use of the words 'rape', 'gay', etc., then possibly this isn't the forum for you.
-
Meh, disregard those posts please. Trying to reply to topics inbetween power naps doesn't seem to be my strong point :cube:
-
So what other words should be off limits? Because I can come up with several dozen that are somehow offensive to someone somewhere even when used in an irrelevant context, so I think we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work here!
The test isn't 'somehow offensive to someone somewhere'. As much as labeling this as political correctness run amok is, I'm sure, tempting.
The test is posting in a way that is respectful of other members, who come from a wide variety of backgrounds. If you absolutely can't express yourself without the frequent use of the words 'rape', 'gay', etc., then possibly this isn't the forum for you.
Has this now transcended into policy? Am I to avoid (or vet) analogies and words that may be interpreted as offencive to a some member of the forum? Even if I happen to disagree with the interpretation?
-
The policy has always been to respect other players. In fact, some of the words used ("gay" as a pejorative) are specifically noted in the rules (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=14.0) and have been since their original publication.
So yes, offensive epithets and similar are forbidden here. That's not new, and it's not something that will change.
-
The policy has always been to respect other players. In fact, some of the words used ("gay" as a pejorative) are specifically noted in the rules (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=14.0) and have been since their original publication.
So yes, offensive epithets and similar are forbidden here. That's not new, and it's not something that will change.
That is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked am I to avoid analogies that some member of the forums may find offencive? Ref. revolt analogy.
Actually as far as the previous posts concerning a word that was used to describe effects of a corporate policy of CCP to ingame market. Am I to vet the use of that word according to how a member of the forum interprets the words use to weaken the position of human rights? Will this policy be inclusive or exclusive?
Is this an official policy I should follow from now on?
-
That was a direct answer. You asked if it was a new policy, and I said that it is policy -- just not new.
-
It seems to me I was right on calling it a political correctivism. I will ofcourse do my best to follow, what to me, seems a new interpretation.
Am I correct in assuming this is an inclusive policy? Meaning all analogies and word use.
-
What does the phrase "political correctivism" mean, BTW? I'm unfamiliar with that second word and want to make sure I don't misunderstand you in some way.
-
Just a non native speaker failing. :)
Political Correctness.
-
I feel like I should note that I believe that phrase gets heavily misused. It's one thing to avoid calling things what they are for simple political gain - "political correctness" in its original form.
But avoiding being rude and offensive isn't being "politically correct," despite the fact that many people use it that way. It's being "polite".
-
I feel like I should note that I believe that phrase gets heavily misused. It's one thing to avoid calling things what they are for simple political gain - "political correctness" in its original form.
[Changed to] No comment.
But avoiding being rude and offensive isn't being "politically correct," despite the fact that many people use it that way. It's being "polite".
Being "polite" does not confer that none will be offended by what one says. Neither does being "thruthful", "respectful" or anything else. [Redacted commentary]
In my opinion calling something pc is justified when having to avoid the possibility of offending somebody leads into enforced selfcensorship exceeding the call to be polite, thruthful and respectful.
-
Really? You guys can't figure out how to post in a civil manner? How do you get dressed in the morning? This isn't rocket science folks.
-
In my opinion calling something pc is justified when having to avoid the possibility of offending somebody leads into enforced selfcensorship exceeding the call to be polite, thruthful and respectful.
Also be wary of using phrases such as "to be honest", or other stylistic affectations.
-
Seriously, if you see me (or any other moderator) post something inappropriate, you can report it.
*snipped stuff by me*
I have reservations about engaging in a culture where, as one person has recently described it, the winning strategy seems to be claim offence and report others for moderation.
To clarify, my concern about claiming offence and reporting others relates mostly to discussion of in-game matters.
An example is that -- as an outsider -- I find it perplexing that references to the relative political alignments and focuses of PIE and KotMC seem to go quickly to moderation about claims of doing it wrong when I see comments about difference rather than about wrongness. It looks like there's a fantastic IC generation gap there. There also seem to be some familiar-looking differences about degrees of support for tradition and openness, duty and freedom which I see in other circles. As an outsider to the Amarrian scene I can't engage with their experience of those things IC, and I'd enjoy being able to discuss it a bit OOC.
I've also been puzzled when different people have said what seem to be very similar things and only one of them's been moderated for it, or a later reference to a previous unmoderated discussion has been moderated. For example:
All of what Revan said, really.
What in hell...
I know, right? Apocalypse. It's coming.
... was fine, but:
For the love of God, people, you're making me agree with Revan. This is a sign of the bloody apocalypse.
... was unacceptable because:
[...] agreeing with someone that you don't like is neither the end of the world, nor is it a reason to go "OMG WTF IS WRONG WITH ME". It is a sign that there are just some things that people agree on. Attacking other users is never acceptable for any reason [...]
Which is a fair enough comment in its own right, it just seemed like some surprised but rather friendly banter between habitual IC enemies with some similar OOC approaches had brought down the ban-hammer, and I'm not sure where it crossed the line.
-
I'm catching up on posts made over the last few days and finding that I may have spoken too soon on my first example about matters Amarrian. Victoria Stecker is using precisely that as a hypothetical example of how discussions might progress (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2489.msg35319#msg35319).
I'm wondering about whether we could run the actual, non-hypothetical discussion. Would anyone be interested in trying?