I've started this thread as my comments relating to a rape joke made on a thread were removed along with the joke itself. This double delete removed the offensive content, and also removed nearly all trace of it ever existing. Maybe it's me, but this feels wrong. I would prefer an approach that removed the content, protected the anonymity of the poster and yet acknowledged that offensive content had been removed. I can see the merits of both approaches, and while I sway more to the 'acknowledge it' rather than 'hide it' sides I support the BT mods to make the calls as they see fit at the time. It aint easy being a mod and dealing with all the petty little disputes that come up and I don't envy their roles. I was informed immediately that my post was edited and understand fully the reasons why. Which approach do people feel is best? Delete it and pretend it never existed or acknowledge that mistakes were made and have been corrected? I do not wish this thread to become an argument on what the BT mods should or should not do, but more a general question for all of us: There's a lot of misogyny in this 'gamer' culture and in the press quite a bit at the moment. Should we: A) Join in B) Ignore it C) Sweep it away without a trace D) Point it out as something we should not tolerate
Within my friends and damily I'm well know to be very un-PC and very dry humored and have no issue with taboo jokes BUT I have always made them aware I am actually very respectful and anything refernced is for humour, alot of the time I will always apologise if a joke may have caused some offence even if non is shown. (my favourite comdeian is Jimmy Carr) I personally accept all matters for humor as sometimes its the only way these subjesct get brought up but I will not tolerate racism, sexism etc etc I can imagine though to the people that don't knwo me of for example this forum where you can't tell how I am expressing something, even the simpliest of harmlesss jokes can be misunderstood. If I was a mod i'd probably go with removing any potential risk just for the easier life
I suppose one of the questions I have is, was the content in question removed because it was seen to be encouraging (or perpetuating a culture of) misogyny (even unintentionally), or just because it was offensive/inappropriate. I think the 'correct' response does vary slightly depending on the answer to that.
I'm not entirely sure of that. I've found that tolerating misogyny in of itself seems to be a "oh it's an exception" sort of deal. I would say that a warning for the first two or three offenses is fair game. But after that careful treading.
*ok, let's get the qualifier in there first. Tell you what, why not make it bold italic type?* In my opinion, the misogyny is driven by a very vocal teen male contingent, and amplified through the insecurity of others, who don't want to get called out as "pussies". Insecurity of adolescent boys isn't going to change EVER. Although, the marketing of games and gaming related materials could stand up and be counted and stop actively targeting the male sex. If it's not portrayed as some butch macho hero-type, it's got sexy girls draped all over it - real or otherwise - don't get me started on the fetishist obsession with cutesy/sexy cartoon female images which, in my opinion, is downright f***ing creepy. Like that's ever going to happen - money talks. I'd like to say otherwise, Guinevere, but while ever there's money to be made out of promotion of it, it's never going away. I'd go with option e) Draw the battle lines and fight back. Maybe it'll reach critical mass and draw enough attention that people have to stop ignoring it (or deleting it).
I think it's extremely important to draw attention to bad attitudes, explain why they aren't tolerable, and to not punish too much. We all believe, think and say dumb things sometimes. I used to be a massive misogynist when I was about 19; I now consider myself an active feminist (active insofar as I harp on about it whenever I hear someone express stupid sexist views in my company). I also used to be a global warming skeptic. I moved away from these views because people tolerated them but explained to me why they didn't agree with me, and it sunk in. If I'd been shunned, punished or ostracised for thinking dumb things I'd have moved on and found regions of the internet and society where everyone shared my dumb beliefs, a comfy echo chamber of idiocy, and I'd be a much worse person right now. Tolerate sexist individuals, but don't tolerate their sexist beliefs. If they get nasty about it when challenged and really won't respect the dissent, then they can be punished, shunned and ignored. Yes, it takes longer and it's more tedious than just shuffling it all under the carpet, but it's the difference between being part of the solution and being part of the problem. People with these kinds of attitudes perceive silence as approval, and they perceive silent censorship as unfair oppression.
I'm all for freedom of expression: the freedom to say dickish things, and the freedom to be called out as a dick; the freedom to slander and the freedom to get sued for it; the freedom to make threats and the freedom to be sent to prison for it. Freedom of expression protects your right to express yourself, but it does not protect you from the consequences of doing so. People learn best by experiencing the consequences of their actions. The really bright ones learn from other people's mistakes.
It's hard enough to judge sometimes when people are joking in real life, it's incredibly difficult to do so in written form. Most jokes offend/insult someone but we generally don't stop telling them. While I wouldn't consider myself racist or sexist, it won't stop me bringing in either race or sex into a joke. While I didn't see what the original joke was, or your response/reaction to it Guinevere, I'd like to point out that rape doesn't just affect women. While I assume the joke was about a woman, and I know a lot of people would probably argue that rape jokes/insults are really only targeted at women, they've obviously played different games than I have.
The original comment was IMO expressing an opinion that imaging oneself raping a mother and her two young daughters would be nice distracting pastime to while away the days. The comment has gone and we don't need to discuss it any more. My (also deleted) comment was me saying it was offensive with an addition that I was expecting several 'Welcome to the internet' come-backs that bring little to the discussion and only belittle anyone who is willing to stand up and be a voice against offensive content. This is not the first time I have taken such a stand. On previous occasions in addition to my input being belittled I have witnessed the OP being given positive rep for their humour after my comments were made. In my experience people ignore the abuse, and once someone comments on it you get some agreeing and others following the 'It's only a pedophilia joke - don't get all fussed about it' approach. I always stand up as a voice against abuse, offence or misogyny. Today, I feel my voice was listened to (Thanks) and then erased from history (Not so much thanks). Maybe it wasn't a 'Thanks for your feedback, we've cleaned up the mess, now please don't mention it again as we'd rather not admit such things happen around here.' But it sure felt like that
Having been variously deleted, edited and temp banned in the past for tangential involvement in larger ****storms, I know them feels. But in the case of Bit-Tech I suspect it's just a question of resources - if they allowed these discussions to grow organically (as I think would be nice in a perfect world), the discussions would get heated, the original perpetrators would remain involved and get more angry, and it'd mean loads more moderating time, drama and - eventually - bans. To put it another way, ff they played it like the Police, using minimal force and dutifully following the trail of damage and waiting for just cause to arrest someone, it'd eat up all their time and cause frequent visible conflicts, and lessen everyone's respect for their authority. As it is, they're more like the Stazi (no disrespect intended, mods). They're silent and efficient, controlling a large population through pre-emptive action, fear, harsh measures and censorship. It produces the cleanest, most approachable forum atmosphere and requires the least amount of mod time. The cost is free speech on the forum, but as Nexxo said, in real life free speech means dealing with the consequences of your speech. The distinction you didn't make, Nexxo, is that on this forum, unlike in real life, there are virtually no consequences - no reprimands that stick other than bans, and bans gradually result in an empty forum. It feels like censorship because it is censorship, but it's the only sustainable approach.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats_(joke)#undefined I always found this "joke" a step too far. But it's well supported amongst the professional circuit. I just don't get it. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Moreover, most of the moderators here are just some young (from my 48-year old perspective) geeks trying to keep the forums a pleasant place to be. They're not professional diplomats, conflict resolution counsellors or mediators trained to deal with the social snake pit that is human discourse. It is hard work and tricky to get the balance right, even for an experienced clinical psychologist like me when I was a Mod. You certainly can't please everybody. I know that many members felt that I usually got it right (enough), but I also remember some members being quite vocal in their opinion that I was a power-mad little depot (but that's what I am, so that's how it comes out...). I think that the current moderators are doing an excellent job, and I know that they value feedback. They're doing their best, and that is the best we can ask.
I think I agree with what you're trying to say. The point I was trying to make is that, while the distinction can be very blurred (or there is a spectrum), there are cases where a joke is wrong because it encourages poor attitudes and other cases where it's wrong because it is likely to cause offence. Both merit different responses. First of all, if the entirety of your post was directed at my comment, I apologise; it wasn't meant to come across as a challenge to what you stated, rather I wanted to raise a point I felt was important to the discussion. I agree that censoring your objection was a poor move, and that you were right to raise it. Your (and everyone else's) feedback is a valuable asset. With respect to the actual incident in question, I also agree that is not particularly important in the context of this discussion, I meant to use it more as an example. Getting back to the subject matter, it's worth remembering (and I don't mean to say that you haven't) that what is and isn't acceptable behaviour is not a fixed thing, rather something 'decided' by the community. There is no ultimate right or wrong here, merely ones personal viewpoint (although I suppose you could say that some things are arguably better than others). Personally, I feel that the best way to approach these things is with kiddie gloves, since people are easily provoked, and try and explain the reasons for your own position on the matter.
Having been a mod, I can assure you that there is a lot of discussion behind the scenes on how to handle certain scenarios, how to interpret and maintain the rules, where to set the boundaries and how, and how to balance member rights against moderator authority. The mods don't act on personal whim. There is forethought and consideration of the consequences. If you do moderation right, it is almost as if you didn't do anything at all. There are thousands of active members here; I doubt that a few bans would make a difference.
I think it's important we try and correctly associate the reasons behind the actions that happened. I wasn't trying to censor anything, I agree with you, and your sentiment - but even after re-reading it now this morning, I don't think the words that you wrote were a conflict free way of putting your point across. I think potentially they could of offended a wider audience just due to your use of offensive stereotypes and language that implied it was a comment directed at a wider audience. It's good to discuss things. We weren't acting to hide anything. Two things happened in fairly close succession. This is the moderation process that was followed: A user reported a post as they found it offensive, the post contained a link to a video that was deemed offensive by a member a community, they reported it, we removed the link. Then a user posted an inflammatory statement, as I think it would of likely offended a number of readers. It didn't feel like the point of it was to combat misogyny, but more to start a dialogue with anyone who was offended by it. The user was pm'd as to why their post was edited, and a comment was left on the edit. We acted to remove content that a user found offensive, then acted to remove content that we thought would offend other users - that's it really. There was no cloak and dagger cover up, it simply boiled down to fallout, and minimising it. Following on from that, we are now discussing it in it's own forum, without any of the confrontation.
I had been thinking about this on my way to work this morning, and I am not sure that I understand the foundation of your argument, OP. You reported the post which I duly edited, on the basis that it caused you offence. Therefore, the expectation was that a mod (in this case me) would remove it. What you did to report a post, and then to start a post with this: doesn't quite correlate for me - it feels as if you just reported the post, and then posted something inflammatory, solely to bait the moderators! (Yes, I understand the concept of freedom of speech.) As MB says above, we acted to remove content that a user found offensive, then acted to remove content that we thought would offend other users - that's it really. There was no cloak and dagger cover up, it simply boiled down to fallout, and minimising it. It's a tough job as a mod, and largely thankless. It's hard to police this forum, and leaving your inflammatory comment, basically out-of-context, would have been the wrong thing to do. The point of this thread, to my mind, is seemingly less of a discussion about mysogyny and more about censorship - very different issues, albeit linked on many levels. In answer to your question, I will not tolerate mysogyny, much like I will not tolerate racism, bullying, and many other things!
I didn't see the post, so may not be in a position to fully appreciate the magnitude or comment appropriately. What I would say though is if a post contains material that would be considered extremely offensive then it seems sensible to have the post removed and the poster reprimanded accordingly. By not removing the content it could be seen as Bit-Tech endorsing such material. Just my opinion.
I would like posts deemed to be offensive removed but the post left with *offensive post removed* or something to that effect. This would allow the poster the right to respond and would make it clear that the site does have active moderators that won't let just anything fly. Completely deleting all trace of anything happening also deletes the evidence of mods moderating.
It wasn't deleted with no trace, though! The original reported post was edited, as was Guinivere's, but she then edited the mod's comments, which is, as I recall, against the rules "Re-editing an admin or moderators modification is strictly against our rules."
