intfiction.org

The Interactive Fiction Community Forum
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1668
First off, up-front, front and foremost, 100% transparency: this is about the now-locked thread "Is Charlie Hebdo racist?". I know I will not garner any love by opening a thread about something that was locked, but in fact I just got home, saw this thread, saw some of the posts, and quite frankly I don't give a damn about what Charlie Hebdo is or isn't, but it seriously rubs me the response this got here.

First post: The opening gambit, brought on because - apparently - someone else does have this declaration in their signature and it irked the OPoster who thought it merited discussion.

Second post: a warning that this discussion would come to no good, which was made fun on on the fourth post.

Fifth post: the first to try and tackle the question, who insulted the OP by asking it in the first place and attacking him, as far as I can see, completely out of left field.

Sixth post: a good, reasonable post about the topic at hand (finally!).

Then namekusejin got in and things got hairy because he was being himself (and seriously, either ban him or deal with him, he behaved pretty much as he always does, and if you don't want to go in his direction you can ignore his posts). Then a mod comes in and says the conversation sparked various reports.

I find that quite interesting, because the conversation is horribly sparse. Everyone involved seems to know what they're talking about; I didn't and I would have quite enjoyed the discussion which is quite current and was actually triggered, apparently, by a concern the OP had over a signature of another forum member. Except that the whole thing was shotgunned at the start, and apparently tons of people got highly offended by I-have-no-idea-what. Most of the discussion, right at the start, involved "let's not talk about this" or "you just want us to tell you you're 100% right and correct".

Soooooo...

Having a CoC is one thing. Wanting a nice place to discuss things - off-topic as they may be, as this IS the off-topic board - is one thing. Being civil and respectful and not wanting trash in your back yard is one thing.

This was something else. And it scares me. Well, no, not really, it doesn't scare me because there are other places to talk about things, but is this what IntFiction has become? Everything's roses as long as no one touches upon a number of forbidden subjects, lest they be shot down instantly?

I wonder how many people will just look at this thread, completely overlook the concern, and just conclude I'm a troublemaker. I wonder how many people will report this. I wonder.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:52 am
Posts: 1400
If someone has concerns about the signature of a forum member, it's appropriate to either a) take it up privately with that forum member, or b) report it.

Starting a thread to pick a public fight with someone is not cool. Most of the replies were unconstructive at best. Multiple people reported to ask for mod intervention (which is the appropriate way to handle a situation like that, per the CoC).

If someone had started a "Hey, what's your opinion on Charlie Hebdo?" thread out of the blue, that would have been another situation entirely, and I see no reason why it couldn't have been discussed, as long as the discussion stayed civil. But that wasn't the situation here, and the thread was going downhill fast.

_________________
Carolyn VanEseltine


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 505
it got hairy because of me?! I didn't even notice the thread was in need of a hairdo...

I was banned for a week for stating my opinions in non-conforming (TM) ways... perhaps next time it'll be a month and then whole-life so there can finally be peace and mindless, conforming cheerleading among the users of a site that wrongly calls itself a forum... and wrongly about IF

waiting for yet another MP telling me this is a violation of conduct for conforming netcitizens

_________________
puzzleless IF is puzzling


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:46 am
Posts: 647
Is the CoC a means for the mods to lock any thread they dislike on the grounds that it breaches the CoC because of vaguely specified reasons?

If there was any reason to lock that thread, it was because of namekuseijin - or Pudlo mark 2 as I tend to think of him these days - so wouldn't it have been fairer to simply lock him from the threads and let the adults have their own discussion?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 505
you didn't like the rape victim metaphor that Victor suggested and I expanded upon, David? The magazine made satire after satire of a most sensible group, one which has proven times and times again that it's ready to kill infidels. I didn't mean it's right to kill infidels or that freedom of press should be suppressed. Just that they (CH) had it coming.

what is wrong in CoC terms with that opinion to close threads?

_________________
puzzleless IF is puzzling


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:23 pm
Posts: 951
Location: Truth or Consequences, NM
I just couldn't believe anyone would be so egotistical and full-of-himself to swoop in and decide what we peasants can and can not discuss in the off-topic section, even when it is fully within the CoC. If a Charlie Hebdoe thread makes you uncomfortable or if you think we idiots can't handle it, here's a thought: don't effing read it.

_________________
__________________________________________________________
I own a rare photograph of Harry Houdini locking his keys in his car.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 am
Posts: 1211
Location: The Netherlands
namekuseijin wrote:
you didn't like the rape victim metaphor that Victor suggested and I expanded upon, David? The magazine made satire after satire of a most sensible group, one which has proven times and times again that it's ready to kill infidels. I didn't mean it's right to kill infidels or that freedom of press should be suppressed. Just that they (CH) had it coming.

In case you really do not understand what went on there, let me try to explain it. When you point out that Charlie Hebdo 'had it coming', you could mean that in one of several ways. First, completely literally; they had it coming because, in fact, it came. That point is too obvious to make, so it can't be what you mean. Second, you could mean it purely objectively, in terms of rational prior expectations: given that Charlie Hebdo was in situation X, the probability of result Y appearing was larger than 50%. Given that they repeatedly published satirical cartoons about Islam, it was to be expected that they would be murdered. That point is very probably false, and if you wanted to make it, you would have had to present at least some rough estimates of the number of people who publish such cartoons and the number of murders that ensue. You did not do this, and so this cannot have been your point either (or at least nobody will have understood it to be your point, and that is, in the end, more important than your subjective intention).

So what does it mean in these circumstances to say that someone "had it coming"? What it means, what absolutely everybody is going to read it as meaning, is that these people were at least to some extent responsible for and complicit in whatever it was that came. In other words, it is the claim that the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were complicit in their own murder, that they share some part of its guilt. That is a terribly offensive statement. It was coupled to the -- also implicit but very non-ambiguous -- claim that people who flirt and run around half-naked share some part of the guilt when they are raped.

They do not. People get offended when you suggest that they do. In fact, my own post in that thread pointed out that it would be offensive to make such a suggestion. And yet you come along in that thread and make exactly this -- highly contentious and in no way factual -- suggestion, while at the same time claiming that you are just stating the facts. I do not think that it is terribly surprising that people are less than happy with that. And I also think it is pretty clear how to avoid that in the future, without, I might add, having your right to free speech violated too much. (There is of course no right to say whatever you want on any particular website, but we can ignore that.)


Last edited by VictorGijsbers on Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:59 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 am
Posts: 1211
Location: The Netherlands
MTW wrote:
I just couldn't believe anyone would be so egotistical and full-of-himself to swoop in and decide what we peasants can and can not discuss in the off-topic section, even when it is fully within the CoC. If a Charlie Hebdoe thread makes you uncomfortable or if you think we idiots can't handle it, here's a thought: don't effing read it.

Marshal, I do not think anything will be gained by calling other people "egotistical" and "full-of-themselves", even if some posts i that thread might certainly -- and much more fruitfully -- have struck a more friendly tone. (I agree with you on that.) But the way to react to that is, of course, by being friendly ourselves. :D (All the emoticons on this forum make me feel like an idiot, but sometimes you need one. ;) Actually, the winking one is the only one that is half-way acceptable. I mean, what kind of idiot is this: :D ?)

Our moderator has explained that a major factor in deciding to close the thread was that it was started as an attack on somebody's signature, and that the minor factor was that people were placing some rather non-constructive posts. Both of those appear very true. So I don't think we need to have a discussion of whether or not discussing Charlie Hebdo is within the CoC: nobody has suggested that it is not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 505
VictorGijsbers wrote:
claim that people who flirt and run around half-naked share some part of the guilt when they are raped


just to clear up: I wasn't thinking about a girl clad in bikini flirting at a beach and then being raped. More in the lines of that Jodie Foster movie, where she goes up a bar, have a few drinks, gets licentious with men in the bar and then afterwards claims to have been raped or led to it.

yeah, in that case I I believe they share part of the guilt in their own rape/murder. You know, it's not because people are murdered that all of a sudden they become saints or something, that they don't have faults, that they didn't have it coming indeed. They may very well be suicidal. It doesn't make it less rape or less murder.

I know nothing of Charlie Hebdo to suggest that he was a douchebag or something, but he no doubt turned into a martyr of freedom of speech.

what is ironic is that that freedom of speech doesn't seem to apply when we suggest an opinion such as the one I'm stating. Seems like he died in vain.

_________________
puzzleless IF is puzzling


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:46 am
Posts: 647
MTW wrote:
I just couldn't believe anyone would be so egotistical and full-of-himself to swoop in and decide what we peasants can and can not discuss in the off-topic section, even when it is fully within the CoC. If a Charlie Hebdoe thread makes you uncomfortable or if you think we idiots can't handle it, here's a thought: don't effing read it.


The thing is, some people just like to complain about everything. They see a subject crop up that someone out there might possibly conceivably in a million years be offended about and they pounce on it and demand that the subject be banned. Look at the fuss kicked up because the white actor Benedict Cumberbatch used the word "coloured" in an interview (apparently the PC brigade have now decided this is racist - the mind boggles) for an example of how ridiculous this gets at times. Funny how you get many black rappers using the N word time and again and no one bats an eyelid.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group