Support NeoGAF

[Monocle]

Gaf needs to be more strict against against garbage posting (such as making a post with less than 6 or 7 words in it) and meme posting but obviously less strict on limiting freedom of speech. If certain swear words are off-limits, come on, that's clearly bad.

More quality control, less political correctness.

Quality over quantity.

I agree with the rest of your post, though.* Or at least, I don't think "bitch" and "cunt" should be banworthy in absence of obvious misogynistic intent.

* Assuming by "political correctness" you aren't referring to racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted sentiments, which are rightly forbidden.

Damn straight.



Something Awful does it just fine. I think the difference between a poster who's struggling with a language barrier but genuinely trying and a poster who just doesn't give a shit and has no respect for the English language is usually perfectly clear.

Someone makes a few strange word choices, structures some sentences in weird ways? English is probably a second language.

Someone types like he's in an early '00s chat room? Throws out excessive lols and omgs and emoticons, uses ellipses instead of commas, abbreviates short words like u and r and ne1, and unironically ends sentences with tildes? Clearly he needs a kick in the ass to start typing like an intelligent human being.

fak u if ur so edgicated y ru potsing on a form for nerds.

 

[reggie]

I feel like a lot of GAFers are dancing around issues without saying exactly what their objection is. At least Dr. Eggman said outright he disagreed with the ban on "cunt" if some GAFer has a problem with another topic it'd be nice to hear what it is rather than all these obfuscations.

I think half the reason for this is the big circle jerk mentality of these forums. If you so much as go against the grain everyone shits down your neck.

 

[goldenpp72]

Bans are peer reviewed already, they don't need to be appealed to be viewed by other moderators/admins.



Actually, it does, I'm pretty sure Evil browses at 50ppp too



Precisely.

Some things can be taken out of context however, if a banned user was able to say this post was with this context, and the moderators think oh that makes sense, then I think it would be better.

Some people just deserve the ban, but I think sometimes the ability for the user to at least defend themselves would be nice.

because it's the rules of the forums. if people lack the ability to filter their posts of vitriolic language then don't post




so posting "no" is trash but posting "bitch" is ingenious?

The point of this topic is to ponder the level of strictness the forum may or may not have, not to reiterate that you need to follow the rules, so I don't see your point. My question was one of a more moral standpoint, why is it ok for you to censor others, and should we attempt to censor you for being the way you are?

 

[Jintor]

Not strict enough.

Yep.

On balance I'm pretty happy with the moderation, but sometimes threads can get crazy out of hand.

 

[Gaborn]

I think half the reason for this is the big circle jerk mentality of these forums. If you so much as go against the grain everyone shits down your neck.

While that can be true at times (hell, I'm a libertarian, it's not like I always agree with GAF, especially on politics) one of the best things about GAF is that there seems to be an ability to discuss topics with a level of some maturity. So again, people should say what they have to say.

 

[Trurl]

GAF's moderation needs to be more capricious. Moderators should have a secret list of insane rules that gets updated every week. "Your post began with the letter 'w' and ended with the letter 'e?' 6 month ban!"

 

[Kabouter]

Yep.

On balance I'm pretty happy with the moderation, but sometimes threads can get crazy out of hand.

That is usually down to a mod simply not seeing it in time. We can't read everything (immediately). There's only so many of us.

 

[Kaizer]

i came from IGN

you cant even swear there

I remember racking up quite a few bans a few years ago on IGN. Looking back at my old posts when I like 13/14 is terrifying.

 

[Alucrid]

Some things can be taken out of context however, if a banned user was able to say this post was with this context, and the moderators think oh that makes sense, then I think it would be better.

Some people just deserve the ban, but I think sometimes the ability for the user to at least defend themselves would be nice.




The point of this topic is to ponder the level of strictness the forum may or may not have, not to reiterate that you need to follow the rules, so I don't see your point. My question was one of a more moral standpoint, why is it ok for you to censor others, and should we attempt to censor you for being the way you are?

My point is that I don't think the banning of certain words counts as being overly strict. If certain opinions were banned then it would differ.

 

[ajim]

Sometimes I think it's a bit too strict. But I'm fine with it. Heh.

 

[cutmeamango]

Close to heart ideologies. The gaming side does not have it, so the moderation there manages to be even. And the gaming side is the side that matters anyway.

 

[railGUN]

My point is that I don't think the banning of certain words counts as being overly strict. If certain opinions were banned then it would differ.

They're just words. Context is everything.

 

[Mumei]

Bans are peer reviewed already, they don't need to be appealed to be viewed by other moderators/admins.

Yep. I look at the bans other mods do, and I know other mods look at mine.

Actually, it does, I'm pretty sure Evil browses at 50ppp too

I am so disillusioned right now.

Precisely.

What do you mean, "Precisely"? charlequin's avatar was so wonderful.

Some things can be taken out of context however, if a banned user was able to say this post was with this context, and the moderators think oh that makes sense, then I think it would be better.

We read the posts in context, so I'm not sure what your complaint about context making a difference is about.

 

[Gaborn]

Some things can be taken out of context however, if a banned user was able to say this post was with this context, and the moderators think oh that makes sense, then I think it would be better.

Some people just deserve the ban, but I think sometimes the ability for the user to at least defend themselves would be nice.

Are you speaking from personal experience here? What have you been banned for?

 

[Broder Salsa]

One thing that I think GAF is way too soft about is people thread shitting on debated with "XXXX defense force all over this thread". It never adds anything to the debate and only serves to try and rile up users. There is seriously hardly any discussions on here without defense force being thrown around.

Oh and 50 post per page is best.

 

[goldenpp72]

My point is that I don't think the banning of certain words counts as being overly strict. If certain opinions were banned then it would differ.

But banning on language is based on an opinion, some think the swearing is inappropriate and others do not, so ban the people who think it's appropriate or, force them to censor themselves. Since this a privately owned forum, they can make any rule and regulation they want, so if they say anyone with anime avatars is up for a permaban, you either change your avatar or take the ban.

It's a difficult thing to balance, I do not personally feel people should censor their language, but if I am aware of a rule I will try not to break it since I enjoy posting here, that doesn't mean I don't censor myself unfortunately.

Are you speaking from personal experience here? What have you been banned for?

The only ban i can recall anytime in the last few years occurred in a topic about a pretty sensitive issue I won't be bringing up here, and while I could see 100 percent where my comment could be taken out of context (as I did not flesh out the comment very well) it was entirely not the intent I meant to convey on that subject. If someone had asked me to elaborate in that topic, I would have and it would have diffused any real problems, or at least been seen as a fair even if you disagree point I think.

Annoying I know, but just because we're talking about strict rules doesn't mean we're allowed to talk about anything we want

 

[Anteater]

Then you have stuff like gamefaqs that's also like a cesspool or terrible posts.

I like gamefaqs for the traffic, sometimes they actually talk about games there, I go there whenever a game is announced and releases some info, gaf is usually either outraged about random stuff for 20 pages, or shows no interest so the threads don't make it past 1 page, sometimes it feels like people just don't want to discuss about the actual game unless there's something controversial.

Difference is that gamefaqs turns into shit when a game is released, while gaf OTs are a legitimate place of discussion and are generally more clean.

 

[ShirAhava]

I used to think so until this last batch of juniors (not all but many) ....I saw a few posts and said to myself "I get it now."

Site has been rather dry lately but its better than having internet memes and shock threads all over the place.

 

[Nemo]

From the removals I only miss the two smilies, they made things a bit more happy so to say. Animated avatars was a good move in hindsight

 

[FutureZombie]

Gaming side is well moderated, but the off topic moderation is basically thought policing.

 

[Gaborn]

I used to think so until this last batch of juniors (not all but many) ....I saw a few posts and said to myself "I get it now."

Site has been rather dry lately but its better than having internet memes and shock threads all over the place.

The last batch of juniors had some AWFUL posters. Some good ones though (some of them obviously liked my threads!)

 

[Trurl]

Is a certain offshoot of GAF down for anyone else?

 

[UrbanRats]

One thing that I think GAF is way too soft about is people thread shitting on debated with "XXXX defense force all over this thread". It never adds anything to the debate and only serves to try and rile up users. There is seriously hardly any discussions on here without defense force being thrown around.

Agree.
I mean it's fine if it's in some videogame discussion, but with more delicate subjects, can shit up a discussion real fast.

Oh and 50 post per page is best.

And i thought you were a cool dude...

 

[BeautifulMemory]

Even if it feels too strict, it at least feels like it's civilized here. I can't say that about the other forums I have visited

 

[The Technomancer]

Gaming side is well moderated, but the off topic moderation is basically thought policing.

Any particular examples? I usually think Gaming is the weaker moderated side, basically any time I see anyone get banned in the OT its for something truly offensive ("all the gays are going to burn in hell") or directly insulting another poster as part of an argument. Although there have been a few graveyard threads lately.

 

[hateradio]

I think it can be strict in some cases, ie censored words . . . due to a partnership with Google . . . who owns YouTube, which houses horrible user comments, and is ad-supported by . . . Google.

 

[shintoki]

Some things I'd like to see regress back(Most of it has to do with Google which isn't going to change). Though some good came out of it.

Other than that, I really just wouldn't mind them cracking down a bit more on a few things.

 

[Jintor]

That is usually down to a mod simply not seeing it in time. We can't read everything (immediately). There's only so many of us.

I lay no blame on the moderators! I merely wish you were sentient programs lurking GAF at all hours, that's all.

 

[blame space]

is NeoGAF.com a debate forum?

 

[Gaborn]

The only ban i can recall anytime in the last few years occurred in a topic about a pretty sensitive issue I won't be bringing up here, and while I could see 100 percent where my comment could be taken out of context (as I did not flesh out the comment very well) it was entirely not the intent I meant to convey on that subject. If someone had asked me to elaborate in that topic, I would have and it would have diffused any real problems, or at least been seen as a fair even if you disagree point I think.

Annoying I know, but just because we're talking about strict rules doesn't mean we're allowed to talk about anything we want

That's understandable man. Wouldn't want to catch you in a bad way. People have been getting banned in some threads almost like banning is a communicable disease anyway. Like herpes, ya know?

 

[Sober]

I used to think so until this last batch of juniors (not all but many) ....I saw a few posts and said to myself "I get it now."

Site has been rather dry lately but its better than having internet memes and shock threads all over the place.

Thank god GAF doesn't really let memes run wild, but we do have fun in our own way.

Basically long chains of reaction gifs, the occasional name/tag quoting and first posts hitting their mark.

GAF culture is super different from other forums probably simply by whatever rules the admins set up.

 

[Roland Garros]

I haven't been here that long, but I get a little nervous when I have an opinion that differs slightly from the 'consensus', especially when instead of picking apart your post, people just post stuff like 'TROLL' or 'parachute account' or something like that. And it seems your justifications get lost in the mire while people just harp on certain aspects of your post.

That being said, I haven't seen any unjustified bans and maybe my paranoia is misplaced.

 

[Kai Dracon]

One thing that I think GAF is way too soft about is people thread shitting on debated with "XXXX defense force all over this thread". It never adds anything to the debate and only serves to try and rile up users. There is seriously hardly any discussions on here without defense force being thrown around.

Oh and 50 post per page is best.

I would imagine the mods do keep tabs on trends and memes that are being quasi-abused, debating whether or not something has gone over the line.

It can't be easy. It's a slippery slope into genuine opinion policing and censorship.

From what I can see, the general criteria for memes and conventions being banned is if they infringe on basic rights/respect for people, such as banning misogynistic stuff.

Hell, it's something to see how many people seem to be unhappy with even that; look at the passive-aggressive references to the effect of "don't go into a thread about a minority and say something honest". Think about that - "honest"? The only people who seem to get banned in threads like that are those that come in and repeat popular, derogatory misconceptions about gender, sexuality, or ethnicity. So if that's what a lot of people on GAF are upset you can't be "honest" about... yeah.

It seems relatively easy to come up with rules about that stuff. Other subjects, not so clear cut.

I haven't been here that long, but I get a little nervous when I have an opinion that differs slightly from the 'consensus', especially when instead of picking apart your post, people just post stuff like 'TROLL' or 'parachute account' or something like that. And it seems your justifications get lost in the mire while people just harp on certain aspects of your post.

That being said, I haven't seen any unjustified bans and maybe my paranoia is misplaced.

While some folks on GAF do seem to jump the gun with tossing around 'troll' accusations, by the same token there's a lot of exaggerated and trumped up claims about getting banned if you don't agree with the 'hive mind'. Which is malarkey. There are so many dissenting opinions in virtually every topic on GAF, that the popular opinion seems to go the other way: that there should be more warnings about 'shitting up' threads by disrupting them.

If you have an opinion you think dissents against a perceived majority - and that can be an illusion given how big GAF is - you generally do not get into trouble if you can articulate your opinion in a way that's considerate of others. Even if you feel really strongly and get fired up.

The zones of lowest tolerance for shenanigans on GAF seem to involve threads where basic human respect could be offended, such as the aforementioned issues of gender, LGBT, or ethnic topics. On the whole, those are areas important enough that erring on the side of strictness is probably appropriate. Especially considering what a cesspool the bulk of the internet on those topics.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Am I still posting?

Then no strict it is not.

 

[Liberty4all]

The only thing I dislike on GAF is that in certain politically charged threads there is often only one "ok" opinion to have ... Going against the grain can lead to fairly vicious verbal attacks followed by a pile in from the rest of politicallycorrect-GAF.

I find these threads usually happen in OT ...

An example would be the Trayvon Martin thread. I left that thread not because I actually disagreed with anyone in particular but because the whole thread became a circle jerk of posters agreeing with each other and bashing anyone that held a different view on the case.

Basically i (now) stay away from posting in any threads on religion, politics, sexuality, or any topic with even a hint of racial overtones (in America) be it a trial, equality, social justice, etc ...

 

[IrishNinja]

i used to think GAF was too strict, then i saw other gaming forums/communities...hoooo boy.

 

[FutureZombie]

Any particular examples? I usually think Gaming is the weaker moderated side, basically any time I see anyone get banned in the OT its for something truly offensive ("all the gays are going to burn in hell") or directly insulting another poster as part of an argument. Although there have been a few graveyard threads lately.

Just off the top of my head:

People getting banned for jokes about taboo subjects.

Someone got banned for asking if a woman in a news story may have been lying about being raped.

People getting banned for having unpopular social opinions.


Those should not be bannable offenses. We shouldn't have to worry about being banned for thinking out loud. Bans should be for trolling, insulting, spoilers, and posting NSFW images; not for making jokes or having an open discussion.

 

[THRILLH0]

Rules are fine. Hypocrisy in their application is grating.

 

[blame space]

the gaming community is holding NeoGAF.com back.

 

[The Technomancer]

Just off the top of my head:

People getting banned for jokes about taboo subjects.

Someone got banned for asking if a woman in a news story may have been lying about being raped.

People getting banned for having unpopular social opinions.


Those should not be bannable offenses. We shouldn't have to worry about being banned for thinking out loud. Bans should be for trolling, insulting, spoilers, and posting NSFW images; not for making jokes or having an open discussion.

Well I'm not sure what unpopular social opinions you're referring to since the most unpopular one I can think of ("gay behavior is sinful") has its fair share of believers on GAF who don't get banned for it because they discuss it in a civil manner, and I think a lot of people do find your second example very offensive, but yeah, I can see the first issue being annoying perhaps.

 

[Fisticuffs]

It just seems to me that if you are a popular poster, inevitably you will be permabanned.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The forum has basically become the modern NFL. Questionable bans, weird double standards, too much political correctness, etc.. It's a completely different forum from what I entered in 2003.

I prefer moderation that makes sure debate doesn't veer into questionable territory (insults, personal attacks, etc). Mods swooping in and banning people who have differing opinions from the general GAF zeitgeist is troubling. I don't agree with banning people because they don't support gay marriage; and no, I would not advocate banning someone who argued against interracial marriage either. If the person is not causing trouble or making personal insults/attacks, what does it matter.

Nor do I like the general hive mind that sets in. Whether it's the liberal bias (disclaimer: I am a liberal) in political threads or the inability to have an intelligent conversation on the gaming forum if you offer an opinion that goes against the grain. People get ganged up on, accused of trolling, etc

 

[KillGore]

It just seems to me that if you are a popular poster, inevitably you will be permabanned.

That's a load off my mind

 

[tak]

I don't think it's strict enough! I like the strictness.

 

[The Technomancer]

I prefer moderation that makes sure debate doesn't veer into questionable territory (insults, personal attacks, etc). Mods swooping in and banning people who have differing opinions from the general GAF zeitgeist is troubling. I don't agree with banning people because they don't support gay marriage; and no, I would not advocate banning someone who argued against interracial marriage either. If the person is not causing trouble or making personal insults/attacks, what does it matter.

I guess I just don't see this that often. I see people with opinions against the zeitgest all the time who are still around because they don't get inflammatory about it.
*shrug*

 

[br0ken_shad0w]

Honestly, I do like the laxness of so-called "garbage posting". While I do agree some of the meme posts should be moderated more especially ones that derail threads like that stupid airplane one, those type of posts give GAF its charm. If GAF starts cracking down on blank quoting, few words, and pic-only posts, I might as well just stay on Something Awful.

 

[Fisticuffs]

That's a load off my mind

I know right? high-five!

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Just off the top of my head:

People getting banned for jokes about taboo subjects.

Someone got banned for asking if a woman in a news story may have been lying about being raped.

People getting banned for having unpopular social opinions.


Those should not be bannable offenses. We shouldn't have to worry about being banned for thinking out loud. Bans should be for trolling, insulting, spoilers, and posting NSFW images; not for making jokes or having an open discussion.

It depends on what you're considering just an unpopular opinion.

If based on faulty assumptions you can be damn sure you're screwed.

I mean "Women are always so stupid/bad drivers/manipulative." are opinions. That doesn't make them particularly good ones. And definitely none to be shared.

Substitute women for religion, homosexuals, whatever you consider aberrant behavior and you've got the same problem.

Everyone has an opinion. Moderation gets rid of those that aren't helpful in maintaining a civil dialog.

 

[Trickster]

It just seems to me that if you are a popular poster, inevitably you will be permabanned.

Not surprising, they tend to post a lot and make posts that people notice moreso than other posts.

 

[Kalnos]

Tons of posters here obviously visit less strict boards regularly... that's why you occasionally see someone here doing a ">Implying" type thing or talking about how they saw such and such on /v/ or reddit.

I'm sure a ton of people on here say a ton of stuff in real life or on other boards that would quickly earn them a ban here. It reminds me of how many people restrain themselves from cursing around their parents/grandparents.