User blocking / thread blocking feature Added Spirituality/Philosophy and Sexuality forums Surveys post type IMPORTANT: How the community feedback model works
Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & World
General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding Creative Forum
The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum Sexuality
Community feedback needed: Should GTX0 be geared towards kids or adults? add_comment New add_comment New request

GTX0

Trust system/consensus-based moderation Notes

Posted 2 Weeks ago by Riven

This update would add a "trusted" property to accounts. This would then allow normal users to have more power without just allowing troublemakers to create an account and cause havoc.

What I'd like to do with it is phase out the old duties of moderators (outside of literal moderation) and hand those tasks over to the community instead. So things such as forum image or icon selection, forum appearance, stickying threads, putting stuff on the announcements up top, etc.

Community decisions are independent of this system -- anyone using the site in any capacity should be able to weigh in unless they're currently banned (even then there might be exceptions for shorter bans).

Consensus-based moderation (still a ways out)

I'd also like to introduce consensus-based moderation -- basically community members would be able to do moderation themselves, but couldn't do it alone or with too much disagreement.

I would make this change very carefully -- would like to think it through more and get a lot of community input given the potential for abuse or creating *more* drama. However, I feel like this would do several beneficial things:

  • Bring moderation in line with the community-run aesthetic -- the people who make the rules are in the best position to interpret them as well.

  • End the complaints forum permanently -- if you think a post should be tagged or untagged you'd be able to put in a vote to do exactly that collectively. Meanwhile large enough consensus should be able to reverse or prevent moderator decisions -- this is how it works anyway but this way there's less drama around it.

  • Full moderators would have a "soft" option in cases where they're unsure of their judgment, and would therefore also not be liable for mistakes. These would basically be just votes.

  • Finally ends the separation between mods, ex-mods and people who I trust or respect the judgment of that don't want to be mods for whatever reason.

  • Cleans up the moderator list, letting people transition between full moderator responsibilities or trusted (and less accountable) status as desired.

    Long bans stay in my domain. I have zero plans of putting that up to community consensus ever again.

    Conclusion

    Consensus-based moderation is still a ways out, but I'd like to implement the trust system pretty soon, and get forum features back online and on that system.

    Any thoughts? Probably a lot of feedback on the second system if anything.

  • There are 76 Replies


    This strikes me as so ambitious that I would never try it except in one of my hypomanic episodes I used to have.
    For the computing implementation I have come to trust Riven’s extraordinary competence; if anyone can pull it off probably he can.
    For the social engineering I do not yet have that much confidence in anybody, not even Riven.
    Nevertheless I’m glad someone’s trying. And I’m glad Riven is that someone.

    1 Week ago
    chiarizio
     

    If I could "like" this as I can on facebook, with a LOL smiley, I would. If old GT had this system, it would never have been successful.

    You're creating a situation where people can be flamed and bullied as long as the common consensus (from a vote) is that this should be allowed. Stop avoiding responsibility and step up and act as the authority you clearly try to avoid acting as at every turn.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    For the social engineering I do not yet have that much confidence in anybody, not even Riven


    Yeah me neither. So something that should be done very carefully and transitionally.

    You're creating a situation where people can be flamed and bullied as long as the common consensus (from a vote) is that this should be allowed.


    That doesn't seem likely -- the civil atmosphere one had a pretty solid consensus backing it. I'm more worried about controversial rulings not getting enforced properly, though that's probably fixable with having actual moderators as well and maintaining some kind of balance depending on how large the consensus is. I also have a creative solution that absolutely no one would like because of its appearance of "protecting troublemakers".

    So again, something to be carefully considered and implemented very very slowly.

    If old GT had this system, it would never have been successful.


    Wikipedia runs on a similar system, including its use of consensus, unchallengable principles, and the balance between the will of the community and the will of the people that own it. Forums are obviously not the same thing as encyclopedias but there's a similar focus of user-created content.

    Stop avoiding responsibility and step up and act as the authority you clearly try to avoid acting as at every turn.


    We've been over this, dude. Also I like how your go to arguments are either "you're avoiding acting as an authority" or "you're a dictator". Can't go both ways, pick one.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Yeah me neither. So something that should be done very carefully and transitionally.


    Are you really planning on implementing something, you don't believe in? Maybe you should take a course in how leadership works?

    That doesn't seem likely -- the civil atmosphere one had a pretty solid consensus backing it. I'm more worried about controversial rulings not getting enforced properly, though that's probably fixable with having actual moderators as well and maintaining some kind of balance depending on how large the consensus is. I also have a creative solution that absolutely no one would like because of its appearance of "protecting troublemakers".


    So now you want moderators now? That's not what it sounded like...

    So again, something to be carefully considered and implemented very very slowly.


    First smart thing you said.

    Wikipedia runs on a similar system, including its use of consensus, unchallengable principles, and the balance between the will of the community and the will of the people that own it. Forums are obviously not the same thing as encyclopedias but there's a similar focus of user-created content.


    Like you said, you cannot expect to compare a forum to wiki.

    We've been over this, dude. Also I like how your go to arguments are either "you're avoiding acting as an authority" or "you're a dictator". Can't go both ways, pick one.


    I am sorry if this is hard for you. The dictator thing is something YOU confirmed when I asked you if that was your intention when you created IV-B. You also banned Weird for rule IV-D, which you said was 'unspoken' at the time of the banning. Additionally, she insisted to me she neither confirmed nor denied that she was HallowHalo in any DMs, and even told you that you could be wrong about HallowHalo being me. And that aside, banning people for stuff that isn't even happening on site is absolutely an overreach.

    It's even crazier because you intentionally pull people into DM's every time you want to "reason with them", just so you can ban things they say to you in private, and then the best part is, there's no public proof of what they did wrong because it was all in DM's. Manipulative much?

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    Can't go both ways ...

    Obviously, some people take that as a challenge.

    Like, whenever someone gives me directions to some place and finishes up with
    “you can’t miss it!”,
    my reaction is “you don’t know me; you don’t know what I can do!”.
    And lots of times I do miss it!

    1 Week ago
    chiarizio
     

    Are you really planning on implementing something, you don't believe in?


    I believe in the general concept but not in a specific implementation.

    So now you want moderators now? That's not what it sounded like...


    I made it very clear in the OP that there are still "full moderators".

    First smart thing you said.


    It's hard to take you seriously when you're this inconsistent -- I've said almost that exact phrase several times now.

    The dictator thing is something YOU confirmed when I asked you if that was your intention when you created IV-B.


    No, I confirmed my role in that particular context, which is "under my full discretion". I'm obviously not dictatorially creating other policies like the content policy or whether the sexuality forum should allow explicit content.

    And that aside, banning people for stuff that isn't even happening on site is absolutely an overreach.


    No one had a problem with me banning grey based on what had happened in the discord. The issue with PMs is provability, not context.

    It's even crazier because you intentionally pull people into DM's every time you want to "reason with them", just so you can ban things they say to you in private, and then the best part is, there's no public proof of what they did wrong because it was all in DM's.


    That's a pretty crazy narrative. You'd make a good worldbuilder.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    I believe in the general concept but not in a specific implementation.


    Like everything else.

    I made it very clear in the OP that there are still "full moderators".


    Do they have all the rights and jurisdictions as you do? Or are you just going to undermine their authority and decision-making skills? And what if they mess up and overreach? Then what? 'community consensus' for every single individual complaint? This place is going to turn into nothing but people challenging their decisions and letting incompetent mods (if there are any) mess up over and over again and get off with a slap on the wrist called 'consensus disagrees.' Or are you willing to disbar bad mods that create enough rifts in the community? No matter what, you're still the ultimate authority, here, 'Dictator.'

    > It's hard to take you seriously when you're this inconsistent -- I've said almost that exact phrase several times now.

    Actually, you keep fluctuating between wanting mods and wanting community consensus on everything. In the spirit of digging up old beaten horses, what happened to that mediator proposition, anyhow? I believe that was actually an attempt of NOT having 'full moderators.'

    No, I confirmed my role in that particular context, which is "under my full discretion".


    Definition: Dictator

    I'm obviously not dictatorially creating other policies like the content policy or whether the sexuality forum should allow explicit content.


    This is another good thing you've said.

    No one had a problem with me banning grey based on what had happened in the discord. The issue with PMs is provability, not context.


    I don't recall mentioning Grey in the previous comment...

    That's a pretty crazy narrative. You'd make a good worldbuilder.


    You must be too, if you're denying this reality. I remember a recent post where you even said you do this to try to reach some sort of consensus privately. I believe it came up in HallowHalo's Abuse of Power thread, where Tek then asked if your goal was to create an echo chamber, and you said GT has never been one. Either way, you never denied this before. You're only doing it now because it suits you, like every other time.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    Riven, I just want you to keep in mind this actually happened:
    https://www.wired.com/2013/01/white-house-death-star/
    Community consensus is not always the right way to go. When decisions need to be made, they need to be made by people who know better. And someone who posts more doesn't necessarily "know better." If a consensus system results in a tie, guess who's the tiebreaker? You are. And sometimes you need to do what's best for the people on your site, not necessarily yourself personally.

    For FBLA we had a couple game tournaments and sold out. Everyone loved it. But our President didn't want the club to be known for gaming tournaments. Next project was selling candles. We exploded in membership, and lost half of them with that decision. Then he continued to make stupid decisions for the next two years until we went down to FIVE members. That's when he came to me to discuss the possibility of opening gaming tournaments again. After initial excitement, we realized it was literally impossible without the people and equipment we had in the first place. We lost the room, the projectors, the after-school capabilities, and we hardly had anyone to sell tickets during all three lunch periods. Because of the absence of strong leadership, our President put himself over the expressed wishes of everyone else, and the club lost its purpose. I'll never forget that stratospheric rise and long fall.

    People will follow an attractive leader. Have a good reason for saying something, say it, and people are more likely to follow than disagree. But if you can't convince yourself, then you're going to have trouble convincing others to follow suit.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Riven, I just want you to keep in mind this actually happened:




    https://www.wired.com/2013/01/white-house-death-star/




    Community consensus is not always the right way to go. When decisions need to be made, they need to be made by people who know better. And someone who posts more doesn't necessarily "know better." If a consensus system results in a tie, guess who's the tiebreaker? You are. And sometimes you need to do what's best for the people on your site, not necessarily yourself personally.




    For FBLA we had a couple game tournaments and sold out. Everyone loved it. But our President didn't want the club to be known for gaming tournaments. Next project was selling candles. We exploded in membership, and lost half of them with that decision. Then he continued to make stupid decisions for the next two years until we went down to FIVE members. That's when he came to me to discuss the possibility of opening gaming tournaments again. After initial excitement, we realized it was literally impossible without the people and equipment we had in the first place. We lost the room, the projectors, the after-school capabilities, and we hardly had anyone to sell tickets during all three lunch periods. Because of the absence of strong leadership, our President put himself over the expressed wishes of everyone else, and the club lost its purpose. I'll never forget that stratospheric rise and long fall.




    People will follow an attractive leader. Have a good reason for saying something, say it, and people are more likely to follow than disagree. But if you can't convince yourself, then you're going to have trouble convincing others to follow suit.


    I concur with everything you said, it was a very good point.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    Community consensus is not always the right way to go. When decisions need to be made, they need to be made by people who know better.


    Right, definitely depends on the decision -- having the site principles around balances the system a bit, though I haven't needed to invoke that yet.

    If a consensus system results in a tie, guess who's the tiebreaker?


    Cold, hard RNG.

    And sometimes you need to do what's best for the people on your site


    That's unfortunately very subjective, especially in cases where there's a literal tie (or close). I'm definitely done with attempting to solve those kinds of crises -- if the community can't come to a decision on its own then one will be made for it instead of me or higher staff spending days trying to find the perfect compromise.

    For FBLA we had a couple game tournaments and sold out. Everyone loved it. But our President didn't want the club to be known for gaming tournaments.


    I mean, your example is showing why centralized leadership that ignores the will of the community is bad. It makes more sense for a community to have power over itself and for leadership to only step in when absolutely required (or asked). Or for leadership to promote and build communal power. Top-down hierarchies can sometimes work, but only in homogeneous communities -- in polarized and anti-authoritarian communities you need a very different approach.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Cold, hard RNG.

    Damnit NO

    That's unfortunately very subjective, especially in cases where there's a literal tie (or close). I'm definitely done with attempting to solve those kinds of crises -- if the community can't come to a decision on its own then one will be made for it instead of me or higher staff spending days trying to find the perfect compromise.

    Once you've exhausted the creative solutions that would appease everyone, at the end of the day it's your site. And whatever you decide is what the site is going to be. But you need to be able to convince yourself that's the right decision. If you want white nationalist posts to fly, then you need to have an answer when people get hurt and feel uncomfortable and leave. And if you can't convince yourself, then you definitely won't be able to convince anyone else. Not all sides in an argument are equal, it's an imbalanced decision. With the white supremacy example, the best case allowing it is free speech. The fact that you can means speech... is free. But it's terrible speech that puts people down, alienates users, makes everyone uncomfortable, and no one actually wants it except the people who are only proud of one more ideological victory for free speech that plays out terribly in the real world.

    Banning discrimination would only piss off people who really wanted to discriminate. They would still be here to talk about games, politics, etc. with a ban in place. Allowing discrimination was going to piss off everyone and turn the site into a toxic dumpster fire. When you leave big decisions like this to a random number or some weird, arbitrary community voting system with no proper quorum, you're just asking for trouble. Good decisions aren't that hard. Figure out which is the better outcome and do it. You don't need benevolence or ideological government nonsense to just make good decisions.

    I mean, your example is showing why centralized leadership that ignores the will of the community is bad. It makes more sense for a community to have power over itself and for leadership to only step in when absolutely required (or asked). Or for leadership to promote and build communal power. Top-down hierarchies can sometimes work, but only in homogeneous communities -- in polarized and anti-authoritarian communities you need a very different approach.

    We were all on-board with doing something other than video games. But he didn't have any ideas at all! Just gave a big fat NO to the one thing we did that was immensely successful and popular. A girl suggested we sell candles and he hopped on it simply because it was something other than video games. He asked us for ideas, and when we didn't have another idea besides a video game tournament he declared we sell stupid candles. It wasn't just the fact that he didn't listen to the community, it was the fact that he didn't have any effective or competent leadership to bring us over to his side. He forced us to give up everything we wanted that was already working well with nothing better in place. It was a perfect storm of both dictatorship and the absence of good, proper leadership that brought us down. You don't strike down good ideas with nothing better in place, good leaders just don't do that.

    Sorry Riven, but you can't lead this site with no opinion, leaving everything to community consensus and random numbers. You also can't lead with brutal stubborn dictatorship. You've gotta stand for something, bring us to your side, and humble yourself and acknowledge those times when you actually can't do that. You need a mission statement that encapsulates what you want this site to be, something we can all get on board with. As our leader, you are a walking, living, breathing mission statement. Your word is law. Being benevolent is hard, but making good decisions is not.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Once you've exhausted the creative solutions that would appease everyone, at the end of the day it's your site. And whatever you decide is what the site is going to be.


    Yes, I'm well aware of that. What I've decided is the three documents at the bottom of the site. I have good reasons for them.

    then you definitely won't be able to convince anyone else.


    It isn't my job to convince anyone else, especially people who are unconvincable. I strongly doubt I could bring you to the side of free speech, for example. What I can do is give you a platform where you're heard and where the decisions you've helped the community make are binding (for example, swearing in post titles). This also isn't my job, but I've taken it on due to my own personal conviction.

    and no one actually wants it except the people who are only proud of one more ideological victory for free speech that plays out terribly in the real world.


    I mean, 8 people want it. 9 if you count me. I don't want it to bring literal nazism, and I also don't want it to engender an atmosphere of uncivility, but I do definitely want people to be able to express their own opinions on politics/religion/etc without fear of censorship.

    Despite this though, I actually believe in the community making its own decisions more. If the decision had gone the other way I would have respected it, much like I respect the decision about the sexuality forum or swearing in post titles, despite personal differences of opinion.

    Allowing discrimination was going to piss off everyone and turn the site into a toxic dumpster fire.


    The site actually seems to be significantly less of a toxic dumpster fire lately, despite its stance on "hate speech". There are probably a lot of factors in that, but I think giving the keys of the site to the community has helped a lot.

    Good decisions aren't that hard. Figure out which is the better outcome and do it.


    They absolutely are. "Better outcomes" are very subjective and it's very easy to be blind when you're in a position of power. Or to be manipulated by single voices. The #85 saga is an excellent example of this -- my own personal opinions about "better outcomes" were very wrong.

    We were all on-board with doing something other than video games. But he didn't have any ideas at all! Just gave a big fat NO to the one thing we did that was immensely successful and popular. A girl suggested we sell candles and he hopped on it simply because it was something other than video games. He asked us for ideas, and when we didn't have another idea besides a video game tournament he declared we sell stupid candles.


    Now see if the members of that club had been running themselves then you would've continued doing video games, or maybe also candles if they were popular enough with the group.

    Sorry Riven, but you can't lead this site with no opinion


    I have plenty of opinions. See the "Principles" document at the bottom of the page, or the community-run system as a whole. I don't really mind either kind of content policy -- what's important to me is consistency.

    You've gotta stand for something, bring us to your side


    Yes, that's why I'm continuing to respond to this thread (though maybe not denida's posts since he's not really listening).

    You need a mission statement that encapsulates what you want this site to be


    I have one of those. See Rule V.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Yes, that's why I'm continuing to respond to this thread (though maybe not denida's posts since he's not really listening).


    Aw, don't I feel special, lol.

    Not listening? It is you who only answer what you want and make up on the fly whenever someone criticizes you too much.

    As a LEADER, you need to answer everything, not just what is easy... but you want to be a dictator, rather than a good leader from your own words...

    Weird had to make another account just to get you to realize you needed to apologize, something you said you would and then wouldn't to only do it again... what two months

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    It isn't my job to convince anyone else

    Yes it is. If you make a decision and GTX0's members get hurt, you have to accept the consequences of everything that happens as a result.

    I strongly doubt I could bring you to the side of free speech, for example.

    Call it what it really is. Racist discriminatory derivative psychotic hate speech. Ideological nonsense is the only thing good about permitting discrimination, and much of the world's pseudo-intellectuals love ideological nonsense because people can sound smart spewing it without actually thinking or doing anything good. It's not constructive, it's demeaning to people and users, and nobody wants to hear it. It even directly violates your own principles that we can't insult other members. Give murderers too much freedom and suddenly there isn't any more freedom for anyone else. Sure, I can use my free speech to constantly humiliate people who think whites are genetically superior, but I really shouldn't have to. And GT's community shouldn't have to keep explaining why they don't want hate speech to you. If hate speech goes away, people can still talk about normal things and that's fine. But if hate speech is allowed, that's where we get the toxic dumpster fire. You're making both sides a false equivalence when it's really not. The 50% of users who want good speech have an actual good legitamite point, the other 50% who just want to spread hate speech really do not.

    Despite this though, I actually believe in the community making its own decisions more. If the decision had gone the other way I would have respected it, much like I respect the decision about the sexuality forum or swearing in post titles, despite personal differences of opinion.

    GT has never been a site where "anything goes." We didn't even have swearing at all back then. I'm not saying we go back to that, but you are actively making decisions to change things and you don't have a good reason for doing it. Sure, you'll open up voting, but as soon as the numbers seem to tip in your favor that's where you cut it off and write it in stone and call it a "decision." But if you can't actually back up your decisions, then you're not going to get people on your side.

    Now see if the members of that club had been running themselves then you would've continued doing video games, or maybe also candles if they were popular enough with the group.

    There's more you don't know. In order for that decision to be made, he needed 3/5 votes on the council. The girl and him were 2 votes. He managed to get another voting member on the council to agree. So it was still handled democratically, but it's a false equivalence.

    I have plenty of opinions. See the "Principles" document at the bottom of the page, or the community-run system as a whole. I don't really mind either kind of content policy -- what's important to me is consistency.

    Consistently bad decisions aren't good, though. The 3/5ths compromise, Jim Crow segregation, voting harassment, redlining, and the war on drugs were all laws and practices done to maintain consistency in keeping African Americans in a diminished state after slavery was outlawed. Sometimes consistency is BAD.

    --

    4a. GTX0 is neither a free-speech platform nor a community-standards platform. Ideas can be expressed freely, however the way they're expressed is important, and those that express offensive opinions in disruptive or bad-faith ways will be removed from the site.

    --

    Does this rule ban white supremacy? Because discrimination is always offensive, disruptive, and in bad faith, no matter how pseudoscientific it seems at the time.

    Yes, that's why I'm continuing to respond to this thread (though maybe not denida's posts since he's not really listening).

    But Denida is making a lot of good points that you're evading. When the community is torn over decisions, it does come down to the leader to get everyone back on the same page. And the longer you ignore the problems, the more chaos will ensue.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Weird had to make another account just to get you to realize you needed to apologize


    Actually the other account didn't do anything but help get me to a point of absolute apathy. Her spending 10 minutes to actually reason with me is what did it.

    I don't ever mind responding to people with actual constructive criticism, like mariomguy here or acca larentia in the free speech thread. If you did more of that and less petty insults I'd take you more seriously.

    Incidentally, what is your end goal here? If it's something other than messing up your own reputation so badly that Clarkey thinks you're an imposter, we could maybe reason it out. I don't ever mind doing that with *anyone* here. As it stands though it makes more sense to continue to "childishly ignore" you until you also quit acting like a child.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Yes it is. If you make a decision and GTX0's members get hurt, you have to accept the consequences of everything that happens as a result.


    I do take responsibility for my own fucked-up actions and the fallout from them. I'm not even going to try to convince you that I was right (because I wasn't).

    Call it what it really is. Racist discriminatory derivative psychotic hate speech.


    The 50% of users who want good speech have an actual good legitamite point, the other 50% who just want to spread hate speech really do not.


    Yes, well, this is all your opinion. An opinion which is shared in an outspoken way with five other people, but an opinion nonetheless. There are also other opinions, and at the moment they outweigh you. Trusting the opinions of one person (or small group) to the expense of the community at large is a terrible idea and has led to a lot of issues over the years, including my recent set of very bad choices.

    It even directly violates your own principles that we can't insult other members.


    No, it doesn't. If you take someone's opinion about a group personally it's on you. It isn't your responsibility to determine which of your opinions may be offensive, it's your responsibility to not attack other users just because those opinions aren't shared.

    Sure, I can use my free speech to constantly humiliate people who think whites are genetically superior, but I really shouldn't have to.


    If you're using your "free speech" to humiliate other users then you're breaking the content policy on civility regardless of what opinion they have.

    Granted, expressing that whites are genetically superior would also break policy I-A. Maybe a better example would be people that feel that republicans are the best party for the working class -- you strongly disagree with this and may even feel that their policies are harmful when applied, however if you humiliate the users who express that opinion, then you are the person breaking rules.

    Sure, you'll open up voting, but as soon as the numbers seem to tip in your favor that's where you cut it off and write it in stone and call it a "decision."


    My own personal opinions have been decided against many times:

  • Should GTX0 have mediators?
  • Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"
  • Swearing in post titles
  • Anything related to the sexuality forum

    I also try to keep voting posts up for long enough to gather last-minute opinions or allow people time to clarify where they stand. As I pointed out on the hate speech issue in particular:

    "I'll leave this post up for an additional half a week -- if the majority on the hate speech issue flips the other way (or in the middle) I'll RNG it, or if there's a consensus the other way I'll respect it. "

    There's more you don't know. In order for that decision to be made, he needed 3/5 votes on the council. The girl and him were 2 votes. He managed to get another voting member on the council to agree. So it was still handled democratically, but it's a false equivalence.


    So only 2/5 of the members on the council wanted to do video games? You made it seem like that had broad and widespread popularity in your group. Unless the council is a small minority compared to the group's population as a whole, in which case you have an oligarchy on your hands and all the issues that come with that territory.

    Does this rule ban white supremacy?


    That's a principle, not a rule. Rule I-A bans white supremacy and anything else associated with literal nazism.

    When the community is torn over decisions, it does come down to the leader to get everyone back on the same page.


    That is occasionally literally impossible, especially with highly polarized groups. Again, let's look at the free speech issue where you don't even recognize that your beliefs are opinions. You instead see yourself as objectively right, so it would be impossible to convince you of the other side since you don't even recognize the existence of the other side as anything other than "ideological nonsense".

    Now, sometimes with decisions that are torn in half, someone can come in with some kind of compromise that both parties are okay with. This tends to work well when both parties have the same set of values and are just misinterpreting each other's viewpoints. However, when the parties have different values, compromises serve only to make both sides upset, because both sides are having their values unfulfilled.

    There's not really a solution to this, unfortunately. The sanest thing to do is to make some kind of decision and stand by it and maybe get better at justifying it over time. The longer you go without choosing a side, the worse things get. And similarly, the less consistent you are about enforcing a side, the more issues arise. The actual side doesn't matter as much as you'd think.

  • 1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Actually the other account didn't do anything but help get me to a point of absolute apathy. Her spending 10 minutes to actually reason with me is what did it.


    What you don't realize is that this is what she was going for. What happened on the site made you ready to listen, manipulation 101...



    I don't ever mind responding to people with actual constructive criticism, like mariomguy here or acca larentia in the free speech thread. If you did more of that and less petty insults I'd take you more seriously.


    I never gave any insults, only said what you needed to hear... hoping you cared about users, but you chose to play dictator instead.


    Incidentally, what is your end goal here? If it's something other than messing up your own reputation so badly that Clarkey thinks you're an imposter, we could maybe reason it out. I don't ever mind doing that with *anyone* here. As it stands though it makes more sense to continue to "childishly ignore" you until you also quit acting like a child.


    Unlike you, I never gave any insult as I said, only pointed out what is wrong here.
    Clarkey thinks I am an impersonator, and you as the 'great' leader you are, didn't decide to explain I wasn't. And I really couldn’t care less what he thinks, partially because I’m convinced you put him up to that whole conversation. But as it stands, my reputation here doesn’t matter... I’m no longer a moderator. And not everyone is like you. Someone obsessed with their reputation will never be ready to look past themselves...

    My reputation was doing what is right, what is right is calling you out when you abuse the free speech you so claim are here...

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    What you don't realize is that this is what she was going for. What happened on the site made you ready to listen, manipulation 101...


    Making it seem like you or your group is all-knowing just betrays that nothing you're saying is actually grounded in reality and you're just posting in bad-faith.

    Clarkey thinks I am an impersonator, and you as the 'great' leader you are, didn't decide to explain I wasn't.


    I did actually.

    what is right is calling you out when you abuse the free speech you so claim are here...


    Principle 5b is always in effect, but I do have limits. I apologize for any sudden actions I've taken without explanation when those limits are breached. Rule exception III-A seems like a realistic compromise between the two extremes.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Making it seem like you or your group is all-knowing just betrays that nothing you're saying is actually grounded in reality and you're just posting in bad-faith.


    What group? What are you talking yoabout? And how can you be sure what I’m saying isn’t grounded in reality?



    I did actually.



    Then why bring it up, it has no relevance here...

    Also, I thought you said you weren’t going to reply to me ...did I strike a nerve?

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    Yes, well, this is all your opinion. An opinion which is shared in an outspoken way with five other people, but an opinion nonetheless.

    You've just ignored everything I said, deliberately beat around the bush, and completely dissolved all my hardcoded actual logic to an "opinion" and cast that opinion to the wayside. Sorry, Xhin, but nothing I said was an opinion. White supremacy is always demeaning to other races, always. You can't have a discussion about how you think an entire race is stupid in good faith. It is going to alienate users, always. If it was banned, just as most forums ban it, no one would have a problem with talking about literally everything else on Gametalk. But if it stays, you're just going to permit toxic behavior and drive more people off the site. Let's say it's an even 50/50 split and the vote is up to you. Wouldn't you side with the people who don't want hate speech so the atmosphere can be good for everyone? Both sides of this argument are not even. This is what will happen if you continue arguing in favor of supremacy.

    Or, just go ahead and make a white supremacy forum. I'll go there and make sure everyone feels like an idiot for defending it if you really think free speech is more important than a peaceful atmosphere.

    No, it doesn't. If you take someone's opinion about a group personally it's on you. It isn't your responsibility to determine which of your opinions may be offensive, it's your responsibility to not attack other users just because those opinions aren't shared.

    If hate speech is permitted, what about all these?

    - Republicans are ignorant assholes
    - Anyone who buys a laptop is an idiot
    - Whites are superior, it's all in the genes, baby!

    ^ Because if this is what you want Gametalk to be... man... this would be the end of good conversation.

    If you're using your "free speech" to humiliate other users then you're breaking the content policy on civility regardless of what opinion they have.

    So people can say stupid things, but I can't correct them? And if I do speak the truth, I'm the one in trouble? Supremacy talk is degrading to tens of millions of people. The truth is only humiliating if the person on the receiving end is wrong. You've really got this backwards if you think I'm the problem in this scenario.

    Granted, expressing that whites are genetically superior would also break policy I-A. Maybe a better example would be people that feel that republicans are the best party for the working class -- you strongly disagree with this and may even feel that their policies are harmful when applied, however if you humiliate the users who express that opinion, then you are the person breaking rules.

    So now you're saying very clearly white supremacy discussion is not allowed... Well, which is it? This flip-flopping back and forth is one reason why people are losing confidence in your decisions, Riven. Aligning with supremacy will drag your name and this site in the mud. And when you clap back with empty threats and start banning people who say things you don't like... that's not cool. That's being a hypocrite. I have studies that prove Republican brains are wired differently than Democrats, if you want to allow white supremacy speech then you should also allow the truth. If you shut down supremacy discussion I wouldn't need to correct people. And I WILL correct people. That's my duty as a decent human being: don't let people put others put down without question. And I can't just sit back and allow lies.

    So only 2/5 of the members on the council wanted to do video games? You made it seem like that had broad and widespread popularity in your group. Unless the council is a small minority compared to the group's population as a whole, in which case you have an oligarchy on your hands and all the issues that come with that territory.

    It was weird. The swing vote didn't say why she swung, she just did. With an attitude like "meh." She loved the tournament, though, and hated the candle thing. It was definitely an oligarchy situation, but it was one hell of a storm. IDK what happened behind the scenes.

    That's a principle, not a rule. Rule I-A bans white supremacy and anything else associated with literal nazism.

    OK... So for sure it's banned? Because if it isn't I'm going to have to correct people when they say things that are wrong, and there's no way to do that without being humiliating. It would be the child calling the emperor naked sort of situation.

    That is occasionally literally impossible, especially with highly polarized groups. Again, let's look at the free speech issue where you don't even recognize that your beliefs are opinions. You instead see yourself as objectively right, so it would be impossible to convince you of the other side since you don't even recognize the existence of the other side as anything other than "ideological nonsense".

    It is ideological nonsense. Millions of people are not all better than millions of other people with a different skin tone, and the only reason anyone would allow this kind of demeaning speech on Gametalk is ideological nonsense, not practical evidence. Ancient Egypt taught the Greeks how to make statues stand upright on their own, and their skin tones were varied. Native Americans helped America send coded messages in WWII using the Najevo language, and Japan couldn't decode it. Some of the best pilots were also African Americans, the Tuskegee airmen, but they didn't receive the same recognition. And when the cotton trade ruined the soil in the south, George Washington Carver figured out plant species that would replenish nitrogen in the soil and allowed the land to recover very quickly. The first George Washington freed all his slaves upon passing since he saw African American soldiers help him during the Revolutionary War and struggled to justify their slavery after his death. And much of the south's civilization and food owes a debt of gratitude to one black guy with a masters degree in agricultural science.

    There are mountains taller than the Himalayas that every single white supremacist would have to climb before they can prove their pseudoscience ass-pulls are not actually baseless discrimination masquerading as "an opinion," and I will make sure to throw those mountains in front of each and every one who dares consider such blatant racial discrimination an appropriate "opinion" like any other "opinion." It's cruel, it's wrong, and it's more of a psychological disorder than a valid point of discussion. Just because Tucker Carlson is on TV doesn't mean we all have to stoop to his level.

    There's not really a solution to this, unfortunately. The sanest thing to do is to make some kind of decision and stand by it and maybe get better at justifying it over time.

    Justify it now. So long as white supremacy is officially banned, I hope I can count on mods to do the right thing. If you can't justify something, there's a good chance you probably shouldn't do it.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Sorry, Xhin, but nothing I said was an opinion. White supremacy is always demeaning to other races, always.


    We're not even talking about white supremacy, we're talking about "hate speech", which has a very broad definition, and whether preventing anything classified that way should be a goal. Both of those are *very* subjective, which is my point here.

    Your idea that anyone who allows "hate speech" is prescribing to ideological nonsense is an opinion. A lot of people have given very good arguments as to why free speech should be valued in the free speech thread, and I doubt very seriously that those arguments are merely ideological nonsense.

    Despite this though, how convincing or unconvincing their arguments are is ultimately irrelevant -- what's relevant is that 8 people sided that way compared to 6 who did not.

    But if it stays, you're just going to permit toxic behavior


    I seriously doubt that with the way the rest of the content policy looks. "Toxic behavior" is threads spiralling out of control because someone is offended and has decided to personally attack the person expressing a controversial opinion. Among other things, this makes people feel unsafe to express controversial opinions. Do you think you would have been able to express your furry leanings if people were allowed to come into your thread and insult or humiliate you? There's a lot more at play than just whatever opinions someone happens to have.

    Protecting people's rights to their own opinions also means that if *you* have some controversial opinion (for example, about video game graphics) you can't be run off by the community. Instead, you might just get less replies or get blocked. Free speech principles protect *everyone*, not just opinions you don't like.

    Let's say it's an even 50/50 split and the vote is up to you.


    If it was an even 50/50 split I'd base it on RNG. It makes sense to give myself the ability to side with a majority (which will be clarified when I remake the community document), but if my opinion is in the minority (or I don't have one) and the vote is split or close, then making a random choice is the best way to ensure impartiality.

    Or, just go ahead and make a white supremacy forum. I'll go there and make sure everyone feels like an idiot for defending it if you really think free speech is more important than a peaceful atmosphere.


    As I've pointed out, when you go into a forum for the sole purpose of making the people there feel like idiots, *you* are creating a toxic atmosphere. If you want a peaceful atmosphere, then stay out of threads that you can't read without getting angry, or alternately, fuel that into actually viable arguments and attempt to change their mind.

    So people can say stupid things, but I can't correct them?


    No, you're free to correct their stupidity in a civil way.

    So now you're saying very clearly white supremacy discussion is not allowed... Well, which is it? This flip-flopping back and forth


    I'm not flip-flopping.. "Literal nazism or neo-nazism is not allowed" is pretty unambiguous -- so much so that I didn't bother to define it in the rules (and said as much). White supremacy very clearly falls under that category since that was a driving policy of nazism and the main characteristic of neo-nazi thought. However, I do have the word "literal" in there for a reason -- there's plenty of gray area that isn't considered white supremacy by all people (such as the phrase "wuhan flu"), and so anything in that category is allowed.

    and start banning people who say things you don't like


    Well, that's at least codified in the rules now. It makes sense to have full discretion over site posts since I run the site -- however that doesn't extend to posts that *aren't* about the site. A balance is probably key here -- tag/ban too much and you silence dissent and constructive criticism, but tag/ban too little and people come on the site solely to start drama and disrupt things.

    If you shut down supremacy discussion I wouldn't need to correct people. And I WILL correct people. That's my duty as a decent human being: don't let people put others put down without question. And I can't just sit back and allow lies.


    You're free to correct people with faulty ideas, just be civil about it.

    It was definitely an oligarchy situation


    Well I wouldn't trust the votes of an oligarchy to represent the population as a whole. GTX0 very definitely isn't an oligarchy, though it was at one time -- moderator consensus and admin consensus have been used at different times to make decisions. The new system is based on those (and also the petition system), but is more global. It's also like a feedback forum, but actually binding, and decisions made there have a great deal more permanence. I therefore don't *have to* listen to the community in order to make good decisions, the community can just make those decisions directly -- and if I disagree strongly with something (and it doesn't break site principles), I have to just suck it up because I'm not the final arbitrator anymore. Overall it works a lot better to give the community a voice and to keep policies consistent.

    OK... So for sure it's banned


    Literal white supremacy is banned through the anti-nazi rule, yes. Again, it should be obvious what that looks like.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    We're not even talking about white supremacy, we're talking about "hate speech", which has a very broad definition, and whether preventing anything classified that way should be a goal. Both of those are *very* subjective, which is my point here.




    Your idea that anyone who allows "hate speech" is prescribing to ideological nonsense is an opinion. A lot of people have given very good arguments as to why free speech should be valued in the free speech thread, and I doubt very seriously that those arguments are merely ideological nonsense.




    Despite this though, how convincing or unconvincing their arguments are is ultimately irrelevant -- what's relevant is that 8 people sided that way compared to 6 who did not.




    I seriously doubt that with the way the rest of the content policy looks. "Toxic behavior" is threads spiralling out of control because someone is offended and has decided to personally attack the person expressing a controversial opinion. Among other things, this makes people feel unsafe to express controversial opinions. Do you think you would have been able to express your furry leanings if people were allowed to come into your thread and insult or humiliate you? There's a lot more at play than just whatever opinions someone happens to have.




    Protecting people's rights to their own opinions also means that if *you* have some controversial opinion (for example, about video game graphics) you can't be run off by the community. Instead, you might just get less replies or get blocked. Free speech principles protect *everyone*, not just opinions you don't like.




    If it was an even 50/50 split I'd base it on RNG. It makes sense to give myself the ability to side with a majority (which will be clarified when I remake the community document), but if my opinion is in the minority (or I don't have one) and the vote is split or close, then making a random choice is the best way to ensure impartiality.




    As I've pointed out, when you go into a forum for the sole purpose of making the people there feel like idiots, *you* are creating a toxic atmosphere. If you want a peaceful atmosphere, then stay out of threads that you can't read without getting angry, or alternately, fuel that into actually viable arguments and attempt to change their mind.




    No, you're free to correct their stupidity in a civil way.




    I'm not flip-flopping.. "Literal nazism or neo-nazism is not allowed" is pretty unambiguous -- so much so that I didn't bother to define it in the rules (and said as much). White supremacy very clearly falls under that category since that was a driving policy of nazism and the main characteristic of neo-nazi thought. However, I do have the word "literal" in there for a reason -- there's plenty of gray area that isn't considered white supremacy by all people (such as the phrase "wuhan flu"), and so anything in that category is allowed.




    Well, that's at least codified in the rules now. It makes sense to have full discretion over site posts since I run the site -- however that doesn't extend to posts that *aren't* about the site. A balance is probably key here -- tag/ban too much and you silence dissent and constructive criticism, but tag/ban too little and people come on the site solely to start drama and disrupt things.




    You're free to correct people with faulty ideas, just be civil about it.




    Well I wouldn't trust the votes of an oligarchy to represent the population as a whole. GTX0 very definitely isn't an oligarchy, though it was at one time -- moderator consensus and admin consensus have been used at different times to make decisions. The new system is based on those (and also the petition system), but is more global. It's also like a feedback forum, but actually binding, and decisions made there have a great deal more permanence. I therefore don't *have to* listen to the community in order to make good decisions, the community can just make those decisions directly -- and if I disagree strongly with something (and it doesn't break site principles), I have to just suck it up because I'm not the final arbitrator anymore. Overall it works a lot better to give the community a voice and to keep policies consistent.




    Literal white supremacy is banned through the anti-nazi rule, yes. Again, it should be obvious what that looks like.


    Still arguing instead of listening, I see...

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    As long as you're forbidding white supremacy, good. Because that was the issue with #85 and a couple others.

    Your idea that anyone who allows "hate speech" is prescribing to ideological nonsense is an opinion.

    Controversial opinions that can actually be justified are far different than discriminatory hate speech over massive swaths of people. I think the distinctions are pretty clear.

    "Toxic behavior" is threads spiralling out of control because someone is offended and has decided to personally attack the person expressing a controversial opinion. Among other things, this makes people feel unsafe to express controversial opinions.

    People who are proven wrong will feel really bad about being wrong, but that's not toxic.

    Do you think you would have been able to express your furry leanings if people were allowed to come into your thread and insult or humiliate you? There's a lot more at play than just whatever opinions someone happens to have.

    I dare them to try! Nothing I said was demeaning or stereotyping negatively. I was very careful, too, not to throw people under a bus, even the people who admitted they liked weirder stuff than I. If anyone has a problem with me liking SFW furry art, that's petty. And their opinion is no longer worth anything. But if they say everyone who likes cartoon animals is a degenerate, that's discriminatory hate speech, and also quite stupid. And if other people start agreeing and form a bullying ring and start targeting other users, that's the toxic behavior we need to prevent. You don't prevent it by stopping conversation around controversial subjects, just stop the bullies. Easy.

    Free speech principles protect *everyone*, not just opinions you don't like.

    The reason the government has free speech is because they would need to form a means of regulating speech if they made a law disallowing it. A department of whatever that regulates content and forces certain content to be taken down. Those systems can easily be abused once created and transform the U.S. into North Korea. But on this website there's nothing stopping us from saying we don't want bullies here, we don't want hate speech. This is why I think the freedom of speech argument is ridiculous: people who claim freedom of speech aren't addressing specifically why they think hateful discriminatory stereotyping is OK. They just say the words "free speech" and that's their entire argument. In long form, "We don't want to put any barriers between the user and denying free speech." Famov could probably find a way to write an entire book using extensive language where it all boils down to those two words, and at no point address the problems caused by discrimination, racial, or otherwise.

    As I've pointed out, when you go into a forum for the sole purpose of making the people there feel like idiots, *you* are creating a toxic atmosphere. If you want a peaceful atmosphere, then stay out of threads that you can't read without getting angry, or alternately, fuel that into actually viable arguments and attempt to change their mind.

    The pseudoscientific beliefs of white supremacists are whites are genetically superior, accounting for greater intelligence and lighter skin, and once skin goes dark it never gets lighter again. This is complete and total bonkers. Over 6,500, about 1/3 of our genes determines the structure of our brain, but only a few genes account for a significant portion of our skin color, with the details left to other genes we don't know about. When Neanderthals spread from Africa to Europe and India their genes spread as well, and researchers even found those genes in Britains with predominantly white skin color. That's proof the genetics and skin color theory are complete bonkers. The intelligence theory has some merits, but if we're going to go by something so mundane as IQ, Malaysia and Chile have comprable IQ averages with California. But it's hard to argue IQ measures intelligence when the US ranks 27 in the world for IQ but can't get a $6 drug to people who need it without wasting 20% of our GDP for healthcare and 1/6th of our population is uninsured.

    So next time I see a bunch of "well-meaninged discriminatory racists with a controversial opinion," the truth will humiliate them for me. I'm going to tell them they have Neanderthal genes just like everyone else on planet Earth, they're not acting as smart as they proclaim to be, even if their opinion was right it wouldn't matter because inbreeding is worse than crossbreeding, and we all swallow a gallon of mucus every 3 days.

    If your opinion is not grounded in real cold hard facts in reality, then it's just an opinion. But when you can prove your opinion is actually true and back it up with real evidence, then it upgrades to a theory. And if a theory was proven correct you can't do anything to disprove it, all you can do is come up with a better one that accounts for all the issues. So if I believe someone's opinion isn't valid, that's because ALL opinions are invalid. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And if a racist can't handle contradictory evidence, the problem is not with me, but with their stupid opinions running rampant because of free speech.

    You're free to correct people with faulty ideas, just be civil about it.

    If I have to be civil, people who are discriminatory have to be civil, too.

    I therefore don't *have to* listen to the community in order to make good decisions, the community can just make those decisions directly -- and if I disagree strongly with something (and it doesn't break site principles), I have to just suck it up because I'm not the final arbitrator anymore. Overall it works a lot better to give the community a voice and to keep policies consistent.

    You are the babysitter: if the rules were up to the three-year-olds, they'd rather play in the mud and eat cake. I hope GT doesn't act like a bunch of 3-year-olds. I notice things are improving a lot now, but we need to keep going forward. And if a problem arises, one way or another, the rules might have to be reassessed, and voting might not be the best way to do it.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    As long as you're forbidding white supremacy, good. Because that was the issue with #85 and a couple others.


    No, that seems to have been his general toxicity level. Which is currently very definitely banned by the "civil atmosphere" policy.

    I dare them to try! Nothing I said was demeaning or stereotyping negatively. I was very careful, too, not to throw people under a bus, even the people who admitted they liked weirder stuff than I.


    No, I mean, would you feel comfortable making a thread like that if you knew people could come in and troll you over it?

    But if they say everyone who likes cartoon animals is a degenerate, that's discriminatory hate speech


    Right, well, that isn't banned -- unless of course they do it in a way that it's very clearly an attack on you (or any other user). Merely making a thread called "Furries are degenerates" isn't an attack on you, it's just an opinion.

    And if other people start agreeing and form a bullying ring and start targeting other users, that's the toxic behavior we need to prevent.


    Yeah that's covered by the civil discussions policy.

    The reason the government has free speech is because they would need to form a means of regulating speech if they made a law disallowing it.


    They can't make a law disallowing it without either breaking the constitution or amending it. The bill of rights is a set of things telling the government what kinds of laws it can't make.

    Similarly, the Principles document at the bottom of this page is a good description of the things the community cannot change.

    people who claim freedom of speech aren't addressing specifically why they think hateful discriminatory stereotyping is OK


    No one's arguing that hateful discriminatory stereotyping is okay, just that it shouldn't be enforced in a heavy-handed way. Making rules to ban a particular (and vague!) type of speech makes it harder and harder to actually express opinions, and invariably leads to some kind of thought police. Having very clear laws (or rules) works pretty well though, for example Germany doesn't allow neo-nazi thought and the EU doesn't allow genocide denial. Both of those things are very clearly defined and so don't go down a long slippery slope towards authoritarian control of speech.

    So yeah with GTX0 we can't have literal nazi (or neo-nazi) content, we can't have inherently violent ideologies, we can't use words like "gay" or "bitch" in a negative way, and that's as far as it goes. These three things are very obvious, well-defined, and are therefore rules that are easy to abide by.

    If someone expresses something controversial that a lot of people don't like, they can't come in and say it's "hate speech" (with its very broad umbrella), they instead have to invoke one of the rules that's very well-defined. If they express their support for voter IDs for example, it isn't literal nazism and their ideology isn't inherently violent so it's allowed, regardless of those laws impacting minorities more or w/e.

    ...


    And if a racist can't handle contradictory evidence, the problem is not with me, but with their stupid opinions running rampant because of free speech.


    I think we're on the same page about white supremacists. """Racists""" aren't banned though (whatever that word means in 2021).

    If I have to be civil, people who are discriminatory have to be civil, too.


    Yes, they also have to be civil. For example, they can't come into your furry reveal thread and call you a degenerate.

    And if a problem arises, one way or another, the rules might have to be reassessed


    I expect that'll happen as needed. At least there's an actual process now, and at least community members get a solid voice now. In the past it seemed to have been a lot of discussion and attempts at compromise that didn't really go anywhere or make any party happy (including staff).

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    I expect that'll happen as needed. At least there's an actual process now, and at least community members get a solid voice now. In the past it seemed to have been a lot of discussion and attempts at compromise that didn't really go anywhere or make any party happy (including staff).


    Except for the ones you choose to just ignore cause you're too intimidated to reply or have no argument because you know they are right...

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    No, that seems to have been his general toxicity level. Which is currently very definitely banned by the "civil atmosphere" policy.

    That's good.

    No, I mean, would you feel comfortable making a thread like that if you knew people could come in and troll you over it?

    Trolling over me has been the norm forever.

    Right, well, that isn't banned -- unless of course they do it in a way that it's very clearly an attack on you (or any other user). Merely making a thread called "Furries are degenerates" isn't an attack on you, it's just an opinion.

    But you see how there is a clear distinction between something that could be an interesting conversation and hate speech? If mods can't agree on what constitutes hate speech, then it falls on users to combat dumb opinions. Easy for me to do, not sure about everyone else.

    They can't make a law disallowing it without either breaking the constitution or amending it. The bill of rights is a set of things telling the government what kinds of laws it can't make.

    Anything in the Constitution can change. Just requires supermajority vote in Congress. The Bill of Rights were actually an amendment to the Constitution. If 2/3rds of Congress said no more free speech, it'd be gone. Same for the right to bear arms, and the right for women to vote. 2/3rds majority and they're all gone.
    No one's arguing that hateful discriminatory stereotyping is okay, just that it shouldn't be enforced in a heavy-handed way. Making rules to ban a particular (and vague!) type of speech makes it harder and harder to actually express opinions, and invariably leads to some kind of thought police.

    I think banning hate speech can be done without turning mods into the thought police. Most forums call them discriminatory content. I do actually want GT to be open for discussion, but gross generalizations are just never going to end well.

    If someone expresses something controversial that a lot of people don't like, they can't come in and say it's "hate speech" (with its very broad umbrella), they instead have to invoke one of the rules that's very well-defined. If they express their support for voter IDs for example, it isn't literal nazism and their ideology isn't inherently violent so it's allowed, regardless of those laws impacting minorities more or w/e.

    This is how Tucker Carlson gets taken seriously by hordes of supporters. He makes sure to very carefully not outright say he's racist, but then ask questions like "does diversity really make us stronger?," and implicates racism up the ass in absolutely everything he says. Whatever these people are permitted to do, they will do. Just take a look at the Georgia law banning water. Not only do they have ridiculously long voting lines and have a long history of suppressing the African American vote (site of Bloody Sunday and march to Selma), but they continue to do these things to hurt people and it's very obviously one-sided. And they get away with it because hate speech is permitted, because discriminatory speech is permitted, and because they simply don't call what they're doing Nazism or Fascism. That doesn't change what it is or the results - turns out Georgia is a blue state, the voters there have just been oppressed for a while, and it's getting worse.

    Germany banned the Swastika, but they also banned Volksverhetzung, or "incitement of popular hatred." Hate speech. Because that's how Nazism started. It started when free speech was abused and used to incite hatred.

    Yes, they also have to be civil. For example, they can't come into your furry reveal thread and call you a degenerate.

    I'd like to see them try.

    I expect that'll happen as needed. At least there's an actual process now, and at least community members get a solid voice now. In the past it seemed to have been a lot of discussion and attempts at compromise that didn't really go anywhere or make any party happy (including staff).

    So, just Famov, or...?

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    I think banning hate speech can be done without turning mods into the thought police. Most forums call them discriminatory content. I do actually want GT to be open for discussion, but gross generalizations are just never going to end well.


    If a mod needs to be thought police, or even step in to handle actual rule-breakers, the administrators are not giving them the tools to do their 'job' right.

    So, just Famov, or...?


    There a few mods here who were clearly against how GTX0 operates, myself included. I left because it felt like xhin just created this weak imitation of the original gametalk and made everything ruleless like the life forum. Besides mods, there are users like Weird who made the HallowHalo alt debacle to try to enact a change. Then, of course, there's Xhin, who only hears what he wants, and doesn't even bother replying to things he doesn't want to hear... even though he says he wants this place to be community run.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    If a mod needs to be thought police, or even step in to handle actual rule-breakers, the administrators are not giving them the tools to do their 'job' right.

    Or, you know, at all.

    There a few mods here who were clearly against how GTX0 operates, myself included. I left because it felt like xhin just created this weak imitation of the original gametalk and made everything ruleless like the life forum.

    There were also plenty of mods and users who sided with Xhin on this.

    Besides mods, there are users like Weird who made the HallowHalo alt debacle to try to enact a change. Then, of course, there's Xhin, who only hears what he wants, and doesn't even bother replying to things he doesn't want to hear... even though he says he wants this place to be community run.

    Well, he's replying to me, that's a start. I don't think he's really understanding the problem and solutions, but he's at least responsive and making changes, which is a whole lot more than I can say for any of Gametalk's original leadership. We had mods that would ban people who just wanted good conversation, and in the OG Gametalk there were mods who would persistently ban me. Meanwhile, #85 got to post whatever white supremacy content he wanted in politics and on site feed. Xhin/Riven actually changed a lot of rules and a lot of things are turning for the better from that time. Problem is, right now I'm seeing a lot of people making a whole lot of excuses and justifications to allow poor behavior, and compromises are being made in that favor. The sides are not equal: one side wants decency, another wants hate speech permissible, and they will say or do anything, make every excuse in the book to keep mods from having to do their jobs. They can moderate hate speech reasonably, they just really don't want to, and it's upsetting Riven is still arguing in favor of it.

    White supremacy has gone away, Riven said it's not coming back, things have calmed down for now. It makes no sense debating an issue that doesn't actually exist, or accusing Riven of not changing anything when things have actually changed for the better a LOT. Once issues come up they will be brought up again. Let's just see how things go with the current policy for now.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Well, he's replying to me, that's a start. I don't think he's really understanding the problem and solutions, but he's at least responsive and making changes, which is a whole lot more than I can say for any of Gametalk's original leadership. We had mods that would ban people who just wanted good conversation, and in the OG Gametalk there were mods who would persistently ban me. Meanwhile, #85 got to post whatever white supremacy content he wanted in politics and on site feed. Xhin/Riven actually changed a lot of rules and a lot of things are turning for the better from that time. Problem is, right now I'm seeing a lot of people making a whole lot of excuses and justifications to allow poor behavior, and compromises are being made in that favor. The sides are not equal: one side wants decency, another wants hate speech permissible, and they will say or do anything, make every excuse in the book to keep mods from having to do their jobs. They can moderate hate speech reasonably, they just really don't want to, and it's upsetting Riven is still arguing in favor of it.


    I think you have the best chances to get through to him, besides Weird.
    May I ask who you used to be at original Gametalk? I didn't feel bans were needed unless their action were severe or they were repeat offenders. Ragu did watch over mods who abused their power. NO ONE was ever permanently banned. Neither in pointless or globally.


    White supremacy has gone away, Riven said it's not coming back, things have calmed down for now. It makes no sense debating an issue that doesn't actually exist, or accusing Riven of not changing anything when things have actually changed for the better a LOT. Once issues come up they will be brought up again. Let's just see how things go with the current policy for now.


    Problem here is still that he has a rule where by his own admission he is a 'dictator' and can ban anyone. 4-b still remains where he can make any rules counting after, not one stated in rules.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    I think you have the best chances to get through to him, besides Weird.

    Trying my best.

    May I ask who you used to be at original Gametalk?

    Same name! mariomguy!

    Ragu did watch over mods who abused their power. NO ONE was ever permanently banned. Neither in pointless or globally.

    There was a period I was getting persistently banned globally.

    Problem here is still that he has a rule where by his own admission he is a 'dictator' and can ban anyone. 4-b still remains where he can make any rules counting after, not one stated in rules.

    Riven, as an administrator, is also a mod. If the ban was unwarranted, that would be the bigger problem.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Trying my best.



    Wish you luck.



    Same name! mariomguy!



    Didn't encounter you then.



    There was a period I was getting persistently banned globally.



    Sorry, I meant PERMANENTLY. I'd say on average, most bans were only one to two weeks, though repeat offenders got longer sentences. And all users could appeal bans in Complaints where most mods owned up to mistakes when they made them.



    Riven, as an administrator, is also a mod. If the ban was unwarranted, that would be the bigger problem.



    It has been a few times already. At Gametalk, he handled two of the worst modded forums.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    and it's upsetting Riven is still arguing in favor of it.


    Honestly I think I may be more on your side now. I'll address some of that when I get back to this post. It's irrelevant though because the decision has already been made, and not by me. We can review it a year from now.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    I think you have the best chances to get through to him


    This isn't how things work anymore. Either:

  • The community has some issue or policy that doesn't break site principles, and they implement it directly whether I want it or not.

    Or

  • I create policies and systems based on what I want for the site, which is hardcoded in the Principles document.

    Either way, trying to convince *me* is pointless. If you want change, get a consensus of the community on your side and it'll be done, provided that it doesn't break site principles (and also provided the issue hasn't already been decided within a year). If opinions are split down the middle (or close) you still have a 50% chance of getting the policy enacted.

    Rule IV-B not subject to change -- it's in there for a reason. See policy 8-B.

  • 1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    However I will point out that the community discussions forum will have very clear rules and probably some leeway for bans to make sure everyone who uses the site is represented.

    1 Week ago
    Riven
     

    Aw, so much for you wanting to ignore me, did I hit a nerve again? As a mod you should stick to your word and not play favorites at the risk of the community. You've seen firsthand what happens when a specific user, like Grey, had your ear...


    Either way, trying to convince *me* is pointless. If you want change, get a consensus of the community on your side and it'll be done, provided that it doesn't break site principles (and also provided the issue hasn't already been decided within a year). If opinions are split down the middle (or close) you still have a 50% chance of getting the policy enacted.


    Pointless? Is this a pun to the forum that was miles ahead of this?

    Rule IV-B not subject to change -- it's in there for a reason. See policy 8-B.


    As long as you can abuse it, this site will never be popular again.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    Didn't encounter you then.

    I was most frequently on NGVS: Wii Vs. PS3 Vs. Xbox 360. Then I frequented Politics and Religion later. Funnily enough, I don't think I ever visited any forums Xhin moderated. I think I mostly dealt with Vandy.

    Honestly I think I may be more on your side now. I'll address some of that when I get back to this post. It's irrelevant though because the decision has already been made, and not by me. We can review it a year from now.

    It's only a problem if it's actually happening. I haven't seen hate speech recently, so it really doesn't matter. Most of the issues were focused around #85's barrage of implied racism, and that stopped. If it comes back you bet I'll have something to say about it. But I'll say it to him, first. If it becomes a real issue and mods are unable to fix it, I'll let you know.

    RE: community moderation... It's only a problem if it becomes a problem. If community consensus gets hate speech permissible sitewide, that's when you have to start asking if community consensus is really a good idea. I think this discussion of rules has already made a positive impact on the community. We won't know if we keep arguing about it... best to just try it out and see how it works. Glad to hear you're being receptive!

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    Also, if the community gets so hotly divided on issues that we can't agree what a positive atmosphere is anymore, then maybe instead of RNG you should consider something else. It shouldn't be up to a coin toss, not ever. If there's a problem you'll be not just hearing about it, but seeing it physically on the site. Stuff like this should never be down to a coin toss.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    I was most frequently on NGVS: Wii Vs. PS3 Vs. Xbox 360. Then I frequented Politics and Religion later. Funnily enough, I don't think I ever visited any forums Xhin moderated. I think I mostly dealt with Vandy.


    Ah, didn't have much contact with Vandy, myself.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    I'm breaking my not-posting streak.

    Honestly I think I may be more on your side now. I'll address some of that when I get back to this post. It's irrelevant though because the decision has already been made, and not by me. We can review it a year from now.


    This is my fundamental problem with community-run sites.

    Consider the following facts:
  • You already know that never have perfect consensus and you'll never please everyone.
  • Once you give something to people, namely functionality, power, or control, it's nearly impossible to take it away.

    All of this has already been beaten to death but I'm saying it anyway:
    Now, you may not want all the responsibility of being an admin, or being in charge of the site, or making decisions.
    But you'll always have people freaking out about both sides of the "muh free speech!" bullshit argument that mariomguy has so aptly pointed out is frankly stupid.
    GTX0 isn't a soapbox; it's a forum. Forums *must* be regulated. Mods *must* be empowered to put their foot down to defend the community from hateful speech, cruelty, stalking, harassment, and anything else that hurts the community. The community feeling safe and secure is what matters above all else and is what will keep people coming back (and help you acquire new users).

    Cold, hard truth:
    At this point, this site is stagnant. There are 15 users here, tops. If you're satisfied with that traffic at this point, as it is, that's great, but some things will be needed to bring new people in. And quite frankly, I'm extremely torn on the community consensus direction. Here's why:
    If I were a new user, and I came to a site, and saw suggestions being utilized heavily, like new forum requests, functionality requests, etc - and saw you responding to them, I'd be wowed by it. I'd feel like you really care and that's awesome and amazing.

    But if I come to a site as a new user and the first thing I see is a community discussion about whether literal Nazism should be allowed because "free speech", I'd be mortified for the reasons mariomguy pointed out; it's quite frankly disgusting that that even had to be put to community consensus. It's also quite disgusting that we had a post, with thread title examples, to ask if we should allow 'Fuck this fucking shit I want to fucking kill my friend' as a thread title.

    That's gross. And disgusting. And HORRIBLE practice. And something I'd *HOPE* mods and admins decided amongst themselves is inappropriate content ages ago. And honestly, if you were even considering having this shit active, what you should've done is created a Secret forum that isn't hotlinked on the main page, that you can only get to with a URL, where anyone can post degenerative, horrible content and visit on their own discretion. At least that'd protect the site's reputation from prying eyes and acquire new users without actual fucking discussions as to whether or not questionable content should be allowed. That said, I swear a lot, so I'd be a fucking hypocrite to want to restrict it outside of thread titles. But Riven, it's YOUR SITE, whether or not you want to deny that responsibility. It's YOUR site, YOUR rules, YOUR PRINCIPLES, and people who cannot abide by those can leave because their values clash with a site's values and you'll get an influx of users who agree. This is in-line with building a respectable, healthy community. The community shouldn't have a say in totally non-subjective rules that are going to bring down a site's reputation.

    Feels like this has to be said, too:
    You modded special forums back in the day, so you had more power over your rules, but most forums did NOT allow threads to be deleted if they had less than three posts and did NOT allow cussing, advertising other sites, etc. So your principles were asked from the orig GT's principles from the start - and that's okay because the site leader denoted it as such. I don't know if I *agree* with him giving you and several other mods special rights for your forums, but I'm not here to question it. I'm just bringing it to your attention. I'm a strong fan of consistency.

    Now all this said, back to the original quote, and the reason I'm calling it out:
    It's really asinine that you made a rule, based on a consensus that you're uncomfortable with, and it cannot be reevaluated again for a year. Do you know how much changes in a year? Do you know how many users may leave over that year? Or how many new users may come? GTX0 isn't the same place it was, even a year ago. This, and consistency, are the main reasons I argue that you should really really reconsider how much power you want to put in the community's hands in terms of rule making. I'm going to take a chance here and suggest that the whole Grey-situation hit your confidence pretty hard, making you think if you'd just listened to the community, maybe the worst of it could've been avoided. But the fact of the matter is, the community making the rules isn't the same as listening. Suggestions <> Rule-making, community ideas <> rule-making.

    The only thing you've said that I agreed with even a little is that the community should be able to approach you to discuss whether they feel a rule is too strict or loose and you'll reevaluate it... But you should be able to shut down any proposition that opposes GTX0's values and principles without bringing it to a discussion. I know you say you're the final judge of community decisions and polls, but I think that's limiting your jurisdiction far too much, as is saying you're not willing to reevaluate GTX0's rules for a year because the people have spoken.

    Ultimately, if you *really* want this place to be community-driven, fine. I can't sway that. No one can. But I really think this is a bad decision that's going to hurt you and your site by making it something that goes against your principles and what you intended for it. Part of me just kind of worries that you're going to grow to hate this creation of yours when it becomes the antithesis to everything you believe, at which point you will step back or start losing interest in it.
    The X in GTX0 stands for Xhin, right? So you should have your authority and your place in deciding what this place should be like and if you fundamentally disagree with an idea / proposition, you really should stand up for it. Dissenters have all the power to find or make a site all about their principles and values. That's kind of the beauty of the internet.

    And I don't care how much hate I get for this. I don't care how many people scream that I'm violating free speech by indicating that Riven should stand by his principles. I think it's really fucking important for a creator to put a bit of himself into his work / projects and will always stand by that belief.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

  • 1 Week ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    I don’t think the site is stagnant.
    I hate reading people say it is because I’m worried in case they’re right.

    1 Week ago
    chiarizio
     

    I don’t think the site is stagnant.



    On the old Gametalk, the Pointless forum was the busiest on the site and I modded it for years. At its busiest hours, an entire page could be filled within ten mins. Ten people was a game forum's population size, not the entire site, so think it is a shadow of what the original was.

    GTX0 has a few users, and how it is run will NOT attract more, this is fine as Weird said, if he doesn't want more...

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    1 Week ago
    Denida
     

    I remembered how busy Pointless was! It's true, there was page after page of stuff on there.

    I think we've given up on GT reclaiming its former glory. RandomDave's The Old Gametalk went completely defunct. GTX0 has stuck around the longest of ALL the Gametalks, even the original. Most of the games you'd want guides for (ZELDA) have already been made professionally and posted online, and most games are multiplatform nowadays (many are multiplayer only). The saving grace for a site like this is conversation that you can't have in other forums.

    But yeah, allowing discriminatory speech is a total death sentence.

    1 Week ago
    mariomguy
     

    If mods can't agree on what constitutes hate speech, then it falls on users to combat dumb opinions.


    Well yeah. Couldn't agree more. Just keep it civil.

    He makes sure to very carefully not outright say he's racist, but then ask questions like "does diversity really make us stronger?," and implicates racism up the ass in absolutely everything he says.


    Yeah see this is the kind of thing that shouldn't be banned. Like overt actual racism, sure, I don't think anyone would have a problem with banning that. But there's far too many attempts at classifying people as racists due to them having controversial opinions about multiculturalism or w/e.

    Just take a look at the Georgia law banning water.


    Yeah that was pretty gross.

    but they continue to do these things to hurt people and it's very obviously one-sided. And they get away with it because hate speech is permitted, because discriminatory speech is permitted, and because they simply don't call what they're doing Nazism or Fascism.


    Or, they're doing the things that they're doing for completely unrelated reasons, because they value things you don't value, or maybe they value the same things but have a different idea on how to achieve them. Reductio ad hitlerium is a literal logical fallacy, and it seems to be in wide use by everyone against everyone else right now.

    It started when free speech was abused and used to incite hatred.


    Yeah I can see that. There's a lot of hate going around on all sides. Very good point.

    I don't think he's really understanding the problem and solutions


    Well, let's talk some more and see if we can come to some kind of mutual understanding of each other.

    which is a whole lot more than I can say for any of Gametalk's original leadership. We had mods that would ban people who just wanted good conversation, and in the OG Gametalk there were mods who would persistently ban me.


    Yeah OG gametalk was also a circus. As is most of the internet. One of the better lessons I've learned is that giving people actual power helps them get over their need for drama. Took a long long time to figure out how to do that best.

    It makes no sense debating an issue that doesn't actually exist


    Especially in a thread with a completely different topic.

    Once issues come up they will be brought up again.


    Future issues are going to go one of two ways:

  • It's going to be very obvious what to do (or not do) with them, because of our unified content policy.

  • It is outside the scope of the content policy, so the community will get together and collectively determine what direction the site should go in on the issue.

    That's it. No more weird compromises, no more having ten threads dedicated to the same issue, no more Xhin coming in to undo everything, no more bullshit.

    I think this discussion of rules has already made a positive impact on the community. We won't know if we keep arguing about it... best to just try it out and see how it works.


    Agreed to all of that.

    then maybe instead of RNG you should consider something else


    Grey convinced me to drop the RNG originally, but after using it I really like it. It's far more impartial than I have any hope of ever being. It also gives minority votes a chance, provided there isn't strong opposition against them.

  • 6 Days ago
    Riven
     

    You already know that never have perfect consensus


    Most issues/ideas have been resolved through community consensus:

  • User blocking
  • blocked people should be able to see threads made by the blocker, provided that the OP is completely sanitized of both content and a username.
  • GTX0 shouldn't have mediators
  • GTX0 should promote a civil atmosphere
  • We should disallow literal neo-nazis from posting.
  • The spirituality forum should be split off world
  • There should be a sexuality forum with an age lock
  • swearing should not be allowed in post titles or usernames
  • explicit content should be allowed in the sexuality forum, provided that it's hidden

    An additional two were decided through RNG, and one I sided with the majority on.

    Once you give something to people, namely functionality, power, or control, it's nearly impossible to take it away.


    I don't plan on taking this away. It's here to stay.

    Now, you may not want all the responsibility of being an admin, or being in charge of the site, or making decisions.


    I have a different set of responsibilities now -- namely, making sure that the community is able to make its own decisions. Guiding it and giving it the tools it requires. Learning to stand back and not succumb to pressure. Learning how to appreciate being wrong, or learning from other people's ideas. Also on the other side of things, learning how to be more assertive with my own needs.

    The community feeling safe and secure is what matters above all else and is what will keep people coming back


    Agreed. Glad the civility policy went the way it did.

    but some things will be needed to bring new people in.


    For example, actually advertising. This is planned, and seems way way more viable now that GTX0 is capable of dealing with its own issues.

    It's YOUR site, YOUR rules, YOUR PRINCIPLES, and people who cannot abide by those can leave because their values clash with a site's values and you'll get an influx of users who agree.


    Well, I really don't mind either way. I just want consistency -- many of GTX0's past issues were caused by inconsistency and the solution was also more inconsistency. So yeah it does make sense to put controversial parts of free speech up to a vote and figure out where we should draw the line.

    The community shouldn't have a say in totally non-subjective rules that are going to bring down a site's reputation.


    It is subjective though. Highly subjective. Maybe this community values ideological purity over reputation. Maybe it just doesn't care about reputation in the age of cancel culture. Whatever the case, a lot of people voted in favor of free speech. We were at least able to draw some firm lines in the sand though, like the literal nazism thing or the civil atmosphere thing. There are certain things that are technically free speech but just don't belong here.

    It's really asinine that you made a rule, based on a consensus that you're uncomfortable with, and it cannot be reevaluated again for a year. Do you know how much changes in a year? Do you know how many users may leave over that year? Or how many new users may come? GTX0 isn't the same place it was, even a year ago.


    Yes, that's why I chose that length of time. What I don't want to see is issues get decided one way, then get challenged and immediately get resolved the other way, and so on. Community decisions deserve more respect, they deserve to at least be tried out. Overturning decisions immediately (or very close) is a big part of what made the issues here as bad as they were, and this is not something I'm going to be doing in the future.

    All that said, the "year" timeframe was arbitrary and so is negotiable. Provided it's still a reasonable length of time, feel free to get binding community feedback on a better length if you're unhappy with the current one:
    https://gtx0.com/new/survey/community-decisions
    I'm going to take a chance here and suggest that the whole Grey-situation hit your confidence pretty hard, making you think if you'd just listened to the community, maybe the worst of it could've been avoided.


    Actually, the community-run system was in place a couple months before the discord-situation:
    https://gtx0.com/thread/important_community_feedback_model
    But the fact of the matter is, the community making the rules isn't the same as listening.


    It's very different. Doing it the "listening" way has an implication that you know better than other people in the community. Which you genuinely don't -- you might have more experience, but that doesn't mean you're more skilled or even more knowledgeable about a particular situation. You might even be in a worse position because you're more likely to be manipulated.

    If you do it the other way, then people in the community get to share their own very subjective experiences with each other. Instead of one person listening to you or vice-versa there are a lot of different perspectives. These can interact with each other until they form one solid idea (or sometimes two). It works better all around.

    But you should be able to shut down any proposition that opposes GTX0's values and principles without bringing it to a discussion.


    Yes, I am able to do that. Haven't needed to invoke that yet, but it'll probably happen eventually. GTX0's values and principles are in the "Principles" document at the bottom of this page.

    I know you say you're the final judge of community decisions and polls, but I think that's limiting your jurisdiction far too much


    It's a good balance. I'm the arbiter of whether something is a solid consensus or needs more time or has two very clear sides and needs to go into the RNG. It's a better use of my experience in settling disputes than actually settling the disputes would be. I don't make decisions, I just make sure that they're made fairly, that those threads stay on topic, and that those decisions are actually respected.

    Part of me just kind of worries that you're going to grow to hate this creation of yours when it becomes the antithesis to everything you believe


    I've been down that road a few times. The consequences of fixing it are not fun.

    at which point you will step back or start losing interest in it.


    I've been down that road a LOT. I always bounce back eventually.

    I don't care how many people scream that I'm violating free speech by indicating that Riven should stand by his principles. I think it's really fucking important for a creator to put a bit of himself into his work / projects and will always stand by that belief.


    I agree with you. I've been saying both of these for a while -- it's a balance between what I want and what the community wants and always has been, so it makes way more sense to just structure the site like that.

  • 6 Days ago
    Riven
     

    Riven, of all the things you've said in your last two posts, this is one of two things I agree with:

    Reductio ad hitlerium is a literal logical fallacy, and it seems to be in wide use by everyone against everyone else right now.


    This is true and I appreciate that the rules don't ban someone for bringing up controversial ideas that aren't overtly racist. This is where I favor your opinion over mariomguy.

    This is going to be fun, per my last post:
    Most issues/ideas have been resolved through community consensus:

    User blocking


    Feature / Suggestion
    blocked people should be able to see threads made by the blocker, provided that the OP is completely sanitized of both content and a username.


    Feature / Suggestion

    GTX0 shouldn't have mediators


    Feature / Suggestion

    GTX0 should promote a civil atmosphere


    Feature / Suggestion, not quite a rule

    We should disallow literal neo-nazis from posting.


    Common knowledge rule, as I don't think you want to be associated with a site of white nationalists, but hey, if you did want that, good for you man, I don't think anyone here would stay to see that happen, though.

    The spirituality forum should be split off world


    Feature / Suggestion

    There should be a sexuality forum with an age lock


    Feature / Suggestion

    swearing should not be allowed in post titles or usernames


    A rule, and one that would hurt the site's reputation, but you countered this at a later point so I'll take it on then

    explicit content should be allowed in the sexuality forum, provided that it's hidden


    This is both a rule and a suggestion, as this is a user requirement for that forum and was part of the initial forum suggestion

    AS YOU CAN SEE, most of these things were feature requests. And as I said in my post, FEATURE REQUESTS are a good thing. And you responding to them is a good thing. It shows you care about the community. I'm talking critical things like how this site presents itself (as being a white nationalist hang-out v. not - and like I said, I'll get to the cussing in post titles after this :))

    I don't plan on taking this away. It's here to stay.

    I'm just saying, if in 5 years you change your mind because community feedback's gotten insane and detracted from site values... [insert preemptive "I told you so" here]

    Agreed. Glad the civility policy went the way it did.

    Fucking... WHAT IF IT DIDN'T?!
    You would've been a-okay with that and done it anyway because the site wanted it?
    Sorry, Riven this is in direct contrast with your - what was it now...

    Yes, I am able to do that. Haven't needed to invoke that yet, but it'll probably happen eventually. GTX0's values and principles are in the "Principles" document at the bottom of this page.


    So these really ARE super flexible aren't they? So you won't be invoking this? Or will you?
    This isn't the consistency you've claimed you want to maintain, just saying...

    It is subjective though. Highly subjective. Maybe this community values ideological purity over reputation.

    For example, actually advertising. This is planned, and seems way way more viable now that GTX0 is capable of dealing with its own issues.


    Uhm...
    You DO KNOW the reason Mike's GT barred swearing, especially in thread titles, was to get ad revenue?
    From my understanding, he got ad revenue from Microsoft by keeping his site family-friendly, and that's ad revenue he wouldn't have gotten if he allowed swearing to get out of hand.
    That said, I don't hate the fact that we're all allowed to swear. Like I said, I'd be a hypocrite if I asked for this place to be cuss-free. But there are certain things that work in direct contradiction to each other. There are certain places you're really going to need to put your foot down to achieve other goals. If this site wanted to be an impure hell-hole, and you were all in favor of supporting that, good luck getting adverts. But hey! You'd be upholding the community's ideals, so who cares!

    There are certain things that are technically free speech but just don't belong here.

    Agree and this is 10000000% true of *any* forum.

    It's very different. Doing it the "listening" way has an implication that you know better than other people in the community. Which you genuinely don't -- you might have more experience, but that doesn't mean you're more skilled or even more knowledgeable about a particular situation. You might even be in a worse position because you're more likely to be manipulated.


    Mike's GT had a Moderator Forum where MODERATORS would get together to hash things out (away from the public eye) and represent the community as a voice of the community like delegates for the community. Denny was telling me about this and I think it's quite the viable system. To be honest, I get the point of wanting community feedback and community discussion, but I think the mods should represent the site values, rules, and what makes sense and bring it to you for your consideration. With all due respect, I think this is better than putting control in the hands of all the people. You have mods to uphold site values and recommend changes and suggestions based on community behavior, feedback, suggestions, questions, challenges, etc. This seems far more viable than having everyone argue for weeks about enacting a certain rule, while you have mods sitting here saying they stepped down because they were unable to do their job because they were overruled by you or the community's bullshit. Just saying this system would have more people than just you (namely, the mods) listening to the users, interacting with the users, and taking their feedback. Different people might feel more comfortable with different mods and it still stops it from all falling on you, and allows you to listen to actual organized thoughts instead of searching for reason in chaos - and it actually gives your mods a place of respect in the community. Validation, so to speak. Win-wins all around.

    If you do it the other way, then people in the community get to share their own very subjective experiences with each other. Instead of one person listening to you or vice-versa there are a lot of different perspectives. These can interact with each other until they form one solid idea (or sometimes two). It works better all around.


    Can do this with moderators as the filter for feedback, opinions, thoughts, ideas, and have mods discuss those and then you bring them back to the community for validation if you really want. It doesn't all have to fall on you, but some element should fall on the people who are in control here, which, honestly, isn't just you. You don't have to sound like a martyr all the time, you know.

    All that said, the "year" timeframe was arbitrary and so is negotiable. Provided it's still a reasonable length of time, feel free to get binding community feedback on a better length if you're unhappy with the current one:

    https://gtx0.com/new/survey/community-decisions


    You sure love your links and rule citations...

    It's a good balance. I'm the arbiter of whether something is a solid consensus or needs more time or has two very clear sides and needs to go into the RNG.


    Or, you know, you could poll your mods...
    Granted, this is only effective if you've selected mods who aren't blind yea-sayers and who actually think for themselves and have opinions of their own.... which takes me to the fundamental features of a good mod:
    Good listener, respectful, active on their forums (in terms of moderation duties, specifically), unbiased towards, rule/principle oriented (an embodiment of rules/principles, even as they change and adjust), humble, and passionate about their modding

    Nothing in there about opinions, walks of life, etc. If you picked the right people, you should have no problem leaning on your moderators. If you have mods that don't meet these characteristics, well, RIP.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    That's it. No more weird compromises, no more having ten threads dedicated to the same issue, no more Xhin coming in to undo everything, no more bullshit.


    If only this was true, yet you have a history in saying something only to backtrack. Like saying to Weird her post was good, but in your remarks to her it was clear you were baiting her. Either you did this on purpose, or you don't have a sense of right and wrong...


    Grey convinced me to drop the RNG originally, but after using it I really like it. It's far more impartial than I have any hope of ever being. It also gives minority votes a chance, provided there isn't strong opposition against them.


    So admitting Grey manipulated you... how exactly could you not think you needed to apologize if you knew that you did stuff you were manipulated into.

    I have a different set of responsibilities now -- namely, making sure that the community is able to make its own decisions. Guiding it and giving it the tools it requires. Learning to stand back and not succumb to pressure. Learning how to appreciate being wrong, or learning from other people's ideas. Also on the other side of things, learning how to be more assertive with my own needs.


    So what you are saying is you are a leader who doesn't want to take responsibility. If it goes wrong, it isn't your fault... it's the community. That is not a leader, that is a wannabe.

    The only decision you made here is admitting you were a dictator, you reached this conclusion yourself after you've been 'thinking of it a lot.'
    As you may have forgotten 'Denida,' was a mod who knew what to do. I had a 55k word file on troublemakers, even Ragu sometimes asked me if certain troublemakers were on. If you ever bothered to look in complaints (which had amazing mods too) you would see I backed up stuff. Including now, evidence YOU admitted being a dictator, even justified it!



    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    You DO KNOW the reason Mike's GT barred swearing, especially in thread titles, was to get ad revenue?


    From my understanding, he got ad revenue from Microsoft by keeping his site family-friendly, and that's ad revenue he wouldn't have gotten if he allowed swearing to get out of hand.


    Family friendly is better if you want new users as parents will NOT want their kids in here under this version, what would be their justification? Games? WHERE IS THERE ANYTHING about games?




    Mike's GT had a Moderator Forum where MODERATORS would get together to hash things out (away from the public eye) and represent the community as a voice of the community like delegates for the community. Denny was telling me about this and I think it's quite the viable system. To be honest, I get the point of wanting community feedback and community discussion, but I think the mods should represent the site values, rules, and what makes sense and bring it to you for your consideration. With all due respect, I think this is better than putting control in the hands of all the people. You have mods to uphold site values and recommend changes and suggestions based on community behavior, feedback, suggestions, questions, challenges, etc. This seems far more viable than having everyone argue for weeks about enacting a certain rule, while you have mods sitting here saying they stepped down because they were unable to do their job because they were overruled by you or the community's bullshit. Just saying this system would have more people than just you (namely, the mods) listening to the users, interacting with the users, and taking their feedback. Different people might feel more comfortable with different mods and it still stops it from all falling on you, and allows you to listen to actual organized thoughts instead of searching for reason in chaos - and it actually gives your mods a place of respect in the community. Validation, so to speak. Win-wins all around.


    I am sorry to say, he knows GTX0... I am senior over him at Original GT by years... he knew Daavias/ Plubius and didn't even know what the situation was even by the fact that he was already hired then.
    Mike had a better system yes, and it showed in its popularity...

    Can do this with moderators as the filter for feedback, opinions, thoughts, ideas, and have mods discuss those and then you bring them back to the community for validation if you really want. It doesn't all have to fall on you, but some element should fall on the people who are in control here, which, honestly, isn't just you. You don't have to sound like a martyr all the time, you know.


    How can his mods do anything if EVERYTHING is decided on a community level?



    You sure love your links and rule citations...


    Laziness... maybe cause he doesn't remember all of his own rules...



    How many of the users here are even mods?

    Welcome back Hallow Halo/ Weird Occurance. He sure didn't ban you long... but at least he banned you, unlike others.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    Denida, love the screencap.

    Family friendly is better if you want new users as parents will NOT want their kids in here under this version, what would be their justification? Games? WHERE IS THERE ANYTHING about games?

    Yeeeeeep.
    This site, in its current form, is geared almost exclusively to adults. Which, weak audience to target since most adults have jobs, families, and responsibilities that will keep them away from a chat forum. Target audience is everything. This site's target audience is going to prevent significant growth.

    How can his mods do anything if EVERYTHING is decided on a community level?

    So true.
    There's no hierarchy here. It's community + RNG and mods have no power to gatekeep their forums outside of sheer randomness.
    My favorite lines from the movie Bruce Almighty seem awfully relevant...even set the timestamp to start at the right moment for anyone who's interested in hearing my true take on community-run stuff: https://youtu.be/sLsxQcB7O2Y?t=296
    Laziness... maybe cause he doesn't remember all of his own rules...


    At least I read the rules before doing my HallowHalo bullshit to make sure I wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any, but I still got banned :)

    Welcome back Hallow Halo/ Weird Occurance. He sure didn't ban you long... but at least he banned you, unlike others.

    For a rule that wasn't even written, yet, no less.
    So I stayed away an additional week on my own accord.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    At least I read the rules before doing my HallowHalo bullshit to make sure I wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any, but I still got banned :)


    Incompetence...



    For a rule that wasn't even written, yet, no less.


    So he made up a rule just to ban you? You got him to make a rule? You just really have gotten to him... Having so few rules, that is an accomplishment, congrats!



    So I stayed away an additional week on my own accord.


    Impressive.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    Or, they're doing the things that they're doing for completely unrelated reasons, because they value things you don't value, or maybe they value the same things but have a different idea on how to achieve them. Reductio ad hitlerium is a literal logical fallacy, and it seems to be in wide use by everyone against everyone else right now.

    African Americans had to wait 5 hours to go vote in a state where white people can walk right in and vote immediately. They close voting booths on purpose to discourage African Americans because everyone in state legislature is Republican and they want to force the vote to maintain their power. The law saying you can't give water to people is worded so it sounds nice, but it's all part of a larger group of policies that force African Americans to get discouraged from voting. Many can't afford a car, but the state requires driver's licenses to vote. Then they close licenses all across the state so it's as difficult as possible to get one. It's not just one policy, the whole state has voting rights issues. Since they're a state in America and not a third-world country the UN can't do anything, but this is where we're at. The UN said the 2016 Democratic primary was a case of voter manipulation, but because of our military and business power they're too afraid to condemn us.

    A lot of what's happening with the rise of right-wing extremism mimics the rise of Adolf Hitler and Germany's Nazi party very closely. Hitler used his speech to rally people to his side and promised great things for Germans during an economic recession. He used nationalism and hate speech to bring Germans to his side and positioned himself as a great leader. But even before he got power he was killing people who disagreed with him (Night of Long Knives). If we can't call this literal Nazism, then we're leaving the door open for racists and corrupt leaders to get away with murder of a different sort: when people can't get a living wage, can't get healthcare, and die. The problem nowadays is supremacists know full well that racism as-a-nametag is not publicly accepted. So they will be careful not to say it overtly while attempting to rationalize and brainwash Americans on every single piece of their ideology. When people who listen to that are uneducated, it takes a lot longer for them to realize what they're saying and doing is absolutely incredibly wrong. In the meantime, they think Tucker Carlson makes for fine television.

    I strongly recommend John Oliver's breakdown of Tucker Carlson's tactics to understand how this got normalized. You don't need to be a cross-burning Klansman with a nametag that says "I am a racist" in order to actually say and do racist things. When taken to court for defamation, lawyers said no one should take what Tucker Carlson says seriously, and he won the case with that argument:



    Well, let's talk some more and see if we can come to some kind of mutual understanding of each other.

    If hate speech is permitted, people will hate this site. Maybe not the vocal minority of supremacists who complain they're just trying to ask the hard questions, or people who worship freedom of speech at any cost, but to everyone else with half a brain that actually understands belittling people is wrong, yeah, that is racist, that is discriminatory, and that is so incredibly toxic and wrong to allow on GAMETALK.

    Riven, I'm surprised you think we need more discussion on why hate speech is wrong. What happened with #85 should not be allowed to happen ever again. We don't have a problem right now because most users seemed to get the message, but in a month or so people will forget and go right back to it. If you make discriminatory hate-filled comments, you ARE insulting at least one person who uses this site and possibly hundreds who frequented Gametalk in its glory days. Discriminatory hate speech needs to be banned at some point. Right now I'm just waiting for the inevitable.

    Yeah OG gametalk was also a circus. As is most of the internet. One of the better lessons I've learned is that giving people actual power helps them get over their need for drama. Took a long long time to figure out how to do that best.

    People deserve to be heard. Problem is not all their ideas are actually good and useful for this site. We'll have to see how the consensus system works going forward, but recently we had too many dangerous close calls, and I do feel there is a majority unvocal population that does NOT want hate speech, they're just too afraid to get involved. I joined GT when I was 14. The same kid I was back then coming in here and seeing hate speech on the site now would've made me turn around immediately. You don't like the way Denida and Weird Occurrence are speaking to you, but they have a real point with everything they're saying. A point that you personally might not like to hear (especially when it's branded with a hot iron), but definitely need to.

    Grey convinced me to drop the RNG originally, but after using it I really like it. It's far more impartial than I have any hope of ever being. It also gives minority votes a chance, provided there isn't strong opposition against them.

    NO. Rules have to be made for a reason. If you're getting a tie on something as simple as hate speech and a coin toss rules in their favor, then community consensus with a coin toss is clearly not the way to go. Permitting hate speech is what alienates people. Banning it isn't going to hurt #85, he'll just have to find topics that don't alienate massive swaths of people instead of implying America would be better off if it was all white with a massive border around the edges and no international airport.

    Ban hate speech, and you might actually have genuine good discussion which will attract new people and lead to greater and better things. No amount of advertising or community consensus or RNG is going to fix these issues. If users now feel empowered to belittle groups at large, and new users feel powerless to stop it, our community will turn to poison. The reason I feel you're not seeing that poison now has a lot more to do with me being very good at combatting people's stupid opinions and taking the fun out of discrimination, not so much the actual mods and site rules. That's a real shame it comes down to users to regulate the site when the rules fail to do so. I have no problem doing this, but I shouldn't HAVE to.

    6 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    People deserve to be heard. Problem is not all their ideas are actually good and useful for this site.

    Yes!! I wish I could like this comment a thousand times. This is the real bottom line.
    And I'd say this is why a site needs something more like a "delegate" system OR some other counter-balance that doesn't treat "all opinions as equal". Not all opinions are equal.

    I joined GT when I was 14. The same kid I was back then coming in here and seeing hate speech on the site now would've made me turn around immediately.


    Agree. I also joined at 13 or 14 and like I said earlier, if I came to a site and the first thing I saw was a community thread about whether literal Nazism should be allowed pinned to the top of the fucking page, I'd leave *immediately*.

    NO. Rules have to be made for a reason. If you're getting a tie on something as simple as hate speech and a coin toss rules in their favor, then community consensus with a coin toss is clearly not the way to go.


    Exactly. Again, not all opinions are equal. And not all opinions should be treated as equal.
    I may think your definition of hate speech is *a little* more restrictive than mine, but I agree with this 10000% in principle. And honestly, for a chat forum that's supposed to be user and community friendly, I'd actually be in favor of tightening the definition of hate speech to, again, focus on the community comfortability. And a coin toss doesn't solve the problem of people offering up bad ideals / rules to uphold here.

    If you disagree with something, Riven, and it violates your principles / rules, there's probably a reason it violates them and it probably should be struck down. You're the final arbiter whether you want to be or not.

    Ban hate speech, and you might actually have genuine good discussion which will attract new people and lead to greater and better things. No amount of advertising or community consensus or RNG is going to fix these issues.


    Cannot agree more.
    Like I said before, the ad rev even *depends* on you keeping this site somewhat pure. Can't have hate and horrible cred AND good ad revenue AND a wholesome, safe community....

    That's a real shame it comes down to users to regulate the site when the rules fail to do so. I have no problem doing this, but I shouldn't HAVE to.


    Nice mic drop. And the truth has been spoken.
    Do NOT make your users your admins and mouthpiece.
    That's a mod's duty, and *your* duty, Riven...

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    Like I said before, the ad rev even *depends* on you keeping this site somewhat pure. Can't have hate and horrible cred AND good ad revenue AND a wholesome, safe community....


    The only type of ad he could get here are R or X rated content. The site is never going to focus on younger audiences...

    And ad for what? A chat site with a population of 10-20 users (with a fraction of those being mods?) How much is money is that gonna generate?

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    AS YOU CAN SEE, most of these things were feature requests.


    No, most of these are policy changes (or policy creations). User blocking is technically a feature, but has broader implications for how visible posts are, so it's sort of a hybrid of the two. Spirituality forum split-off is definitely a feature but I wanted to see community input on it regardless.

    I'm talking critical things like how this site presents itself


    Right, well, as I pointed out, I don't mind either way. The site has been a lot of very different things the last twelve years.

    if in 5 years you change your mind because community feedback's gotten insane and detracted from site values


    It can't detract from site values (see: principles). Those discussions get shot down immediately. I guess you have a point if site values change, but that seems like a very inconsistent site.


    Fucking... WHAT IF IT DIDN'T?!
    You would've been a-okay with that and done it anyway because the site wanted it?


    I mean, that's what the site had been like for years. We had rules against harassment or whatever but they were very specific -- they weren't hardcoded into a content policy. It's easy to get around rules, it's not so easy to get around guidelines for what's acceptable and what isn't.

    And yes, if the community had decided that way (or RNG did, if there wasn't a consensus), I would uphold it. Civility isn't a site principle, it's a personal belief. The site principle around content is very ambiguous and probably needs to be reworded to embrace that ambiguity.

    So these really ARE super flexible aren't they? So you won't be invoking this? Or will you?

    This isn't the consistency you've claimed you want to maintain, just saying...

    No, they're hardcoded at the bottom of the site. If I want to say no directly to something, I have to invoke one of them. I don't think I'd do that unless it was a very clear violation of one of them though (like if the community wanted to keep people from having multiple altnames).

    Regardless, though, invoking that would stop a discussion when it began, not long after the fact. I can't change my mind about something and then revert the will of the community.

    You DO KNOW the reason Mike's GT barred swearing, especially in thread titles, was to get ad revenue?


    Do you see ads? I don't really mind losing money on GTX0, so long as it isn't 100$/month again (that was ridiculous). It would be nice to make money from it, but that isn't a goal, definitely not a primary goal, and is way less viable at its current size.

    where MODERATORS would get together to hash things out (away from the public eye) and represent the community as a voice of the community like delegates for the community.


    Yes, we had that for a while. It worked very well. It makes sense to extend that to the site as a whole, since plenty of people are invested in the site but don't necessarily want to be a mod.

    If the community wants to elect delegates to represent them instead of making decisions directly, that's fine. That may make more sense when the site gets bigger.

    Since it affects representation itself, I wouldn't leave that up to RNG -- that one either has a consensus or it doesn't happen. There might also be other stipulations as well -- again, this is the system itself so I'm going to be more involved in the process since I crafted the system in the first place.

    while you have mods sitting here saying they stepped down because they were unable to do their job because they were overruled by you or the community's bullshit.


    Yes, that's definitely been a problem for a while. As I've been saying for a while now it makes more sense to just set the site up to run like this then have it happen randomly as my opinions change. So something like the actual OP (which hasn't been addressed much) would solve some of those problems.

    This seems far more viable than having everyone argue for weeks about enacting a certain rule


    When it's clear that there are two sides that aren't shifting, then it goes into RNG. Or I could side with the majority opinion if I feel strongly about it.

    and allows you to listen to actual organized thoughts instead of searching for reason in chaos


    I do think almost all people are capable of having actual organized thoughts. Certainly everyone on this site.

    and it actually gives your mods a place of respect in the community. Validation, so to speak.


    Basing anything on validation is a good way to ensure that it fails. If people are able to sway the community to their opinion through passion and reason, they'll feel something a lot more substantial than hierachial validation. It isn't my job to make people feel good about themselves, it's my job to give them a place where that can happen naturally.

    but some element should fall on the people who are in control here, which, honestly, isn't just you.


    That other group would be the community. It's always been like this -- take a look at feedback for example. GTX0 works as well as it does because the community is actually respected -- the issue lies in invoking hierarchy to randomly go against it. I'm not the only person guilty of that, though I am certainly responsible for enabling all of it.

    You sure love your links and rule citations...


    That's not a link, that's a "You can change this issue right now". Don't waste time trying to convince me, just get the community to collectively make that call.

    If you have mods that don't meet these characteristics, well, RIP.


    I'd say all of them meet those characteristics. Some didn't start out that way.

    6 Days ago
    Riven
     

    If only this was true, yet you have a history in saying something only to backtrack.


    Yep. I guess we'll have to wait and see which of us is right this time.

    Like saying to Weird her post was good, but in your remarks to her it was clear you were baiting her. Either you did this on purpose, or you don't have a sense of right and wrong...


    Or that isn't what is happening at all, and you're very very biased.

    So admitting Grey manipulated you...


    No, he convinced me. As I said. The problem with it was that there was never anything around to replace it, so when it literally turned into a tie vote it made sense to just go with the original plan.

    how exactly could you not think you needed to apologize if you knew that you did stuff you were manipulated into.


    I'll again point out that most of the discord events were me and had nothing to do with Grey. There were definitely parts of it that were based on who I believed, which was ultimately based on lies and actual manipulation at one point, but I got to the bottom of it eventually.

    Including now, evidence YOU admitted being a dictator, even justified it!


    "Having similar thoughts" and then thinking that no, it's actually a balance between what I want and what the community wants, is not admitting to being a dictator. There are definitely parts of the site that are important to me and aren't going to be up to the community in any capacity, and that's just the way things are. Call that being a dictator if you want. However, that isn't everything; the vast majority of the site really is subject to change by whatever the community wants.

    Family friendly is better if you want new users


    Depends on who you're targeting.

    How can his mods do anything if EVERYTHING is decided on a community level?


    Implementation of rules isn't decided on a community level, though it might make sense to go that way -- see OP.

    This site, in its current form, is geared almost exclusively to adults. Which, weak audience to target since most adults have jobs, families, and responsibilities that will keep them away from a chat forum. Target audience is everything. This site's target audience is going to prevent significant growth.


    Very good point. Will require some thought for sure.

    There's no hierarchy here.


    That's a very good thing.

    At least I read the rules before doing my HallowHalo bullshit to make sure I wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any


    Yeah, that kind of thing definitely needs to stop. Spirit of the rules is important. And again, having a unified content policy fixes a lot of these problems. Instead of having rules specifically against harassment, baiting, discrimination, etc, you just have a single policy that bans incivility in general.

    I guess I'll get to mariomguy/etc when I get back. Unless I'm still here in an hour.

    6 Days ago
    Riven
     

    If the community wants to elect delegates to represent them instead of making decisions directly, that's fine. That may make more sense when the site gets bigger.


    It will NEVER reach what you dream of with this 'communist' style of leadership. IT WILL FAIL!

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    Yep. I guess we'll have to wait and see which of us is right this time.



    Well, I have been right about you since the original Gametalk so far...


    Or that isn't what is happening at all, and you're very very biased.


    Not based on what Weird showed me. From what she showed me, it is clear you drag users into private chats to bully them into agreeing to your points.

    No, he convinced me. As I said. The problem with it was that there was never anything around to replace it, so when it literally turned into a tie vote it made sense to just go with the original plan.



    Convincing is manipulating, just like Weird did making you think Hallow Halo was me...


    "Having similar thoughts" and then thinking that no, it's actually a balance between what I want and what the community wants, is not admitting to being a dictator. There are definitely parts of the site that are important to me and aren't going to be up to the community in any capacity, and that's just the way things are. Call that being a dictator if you want. However, that isn't everything; the vast majority of the site really is subject to change by whatever the community wants.



    I don't need to call you a dictator, you called YOURSELF a dictator, justify it all you want, it doesn't change the fact.

    Depends on who you're targeting.



    So you are targeting people who have limited time to go to a site when they already have better places to go to?

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    No, most of these are policy changes (or policy creations). User blocking is technically a feature, but has broader implications for how visible posts are, so it's sort of a hybrid of the two. Spirituality forum split-off is definitely a feature but I wanted to see community input on it regardless.


    Adding a feature, like a new forum, or a new feature like user blocking, is a feature that you add and therefore adjust the principles around. This is a chicken-and-the-egg argument so let me get some definitions down:

    Feature: UI / backend change, adding something to the site, adding new functionality, things you actually have to dev to enhance the site, enhancements

    Policy: Rules / guideline changes, adjustments, additions, things that don't require actual functionality changes (except maybe changing your filters)

    So a new forum, or functionality like blocking, is something users should obviously request and give requirements for.
    Policy changes are absolutely not the same and should not be nearly as flexible as a request to add some new functionality. Both should be vetted, but policy changes should be consider with significantly more caution.
    And I think what you're getting at is that Principles should define policies, which I agree with. But I think your Principles should be quite firm.

    Right, well, as I pointed out, I don't mind either way.

    Right, well, don't expect any ad revenue. You touch on this in your post, this still covers that thought too.

    The site has been a lot of very different things the last twelve years.

    Nothing wrong with this, as long as it remains a safe community.

    I mean, that's what the site had been like for years. We had rules against harassment or whatever but they were very specific -- they weren't hardcoded into a content policy. It's easy to get around rules, it's not so easy to get around guidelines for what's acceptable and what isn't.


    Yes, guidelines / principles beat rules. Finite rules should be stated to be "samples" of negative behavior. Principles and rules should be conflated into the same document and should go hand-in-hand with each other and they should only be flexible IF values somehow change. Which, as you said, makes for an inconsistent site.

    And yes, if the community had decided that way (or RNG did, if there wasn't a consensus), I would uphold it. Civility isn't a site principle, it's a personal belief. The site principle around content is very ambiguous and probably needs to be reworded to embrace that ambiguity.


    This is disgusting. I'm tempted to screencap it for future reference. You're okay with maintaining and owning a site that would uphold negativity and piss-poor treatment of others because the community wants it? Yikes....
    This reminds me of when Ceta commented in your "Should hate speech be allowed" thread, and said they would never want to be associated with a site that's overtly cruel to its users. Their post is still burned into my mind as a reminder of what this place has the potential to become if mishandled. And this, Sir, is quite frankly not a healthy community if civility is not baked into the values.

    Also, mariomguy, take note. If the community had voted for us all to call each other slurs and flame each other, that would've been okay.

    ...definitely not a primary goal, and is way less viable at its current size.


    Chicken and the egg again, here.
    Can't get more users without ads, can't get ads without more users (and sane content, but hey.)
    Idk, I think you'll be more likely to get ads and more users in a civil atmosphere so I'm glad that principle was upheld (though I shudder at the alternative consideration), but you also commented on these notes in a future response to me so I'll consider this acknowledged.

    That other group would be the community. It's always been like this -- take a look at feedback for example. GTX0 works as well as it does because the community is actually respected -- the issue lies in invoking hierarchy to randomly go against it. I'm not the only person guilty of that, though I am certainly responsible for enabling all of it.


    Semi-agree, semi-don't. This is where we get into complexities, so I'll break this down into sections.

    GTX0 works as well as it does because the community is actually respected

    Sorry / not sorry, but this made me laugh. Half the community left because they didn't feel like they had any respect when they so desperately needed it to stop the community from imploding.

    the issue lies in invoking hierarchy to randomly go against it.

    Oh interesting take on things, but I don't think this was what happened, especially in that situation.
    People turned to you to listen, and even with a crapton of evidence, you decided to side with someone who was definitively gaslighting the entire community and everyone was explaining that.
    Sure, you could chalk all this up to "invoking hierarchy", but I call it "not listening to the community that desperately turned to you for help"...with a mixture of "unapologetically backing the wrong side".
    I give you a semi-free pass for apologizing in the end for having hurt people via your own actions, but it still bothers me that you chalk this up to invoking hierarchy. There will always be a hierarchy and that's not an implicit problem. The problem is not being an active listener and coming at things with pre-conceived biases and not getting information from both sides of the problem and making a one-sided decision. Sure you showed a lot of respect for folks backing grey, but I don't believe you sought out information on the other side of the aisle in that situation. Again, hierarchy wasn't the problem, it was invoking it prematurely or without enough information to make a decision you could be confident in.

    I'm not you, though. I can't say whether or not you were confident, so I'll stop with the psycho-analysis and criticism.
    I don't know how you felt at the time that you made a decision.
    I just don't think the hierarchy was the problem. People need someone to turn to. People need leaders and followers.

    That's not a link, that's a "You can change this issue right now". Don't waste time trying to convince me, just get the community to collectively make that call.


    Chill.
    I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.
    I followed the link, but didn't care enough to put in a request to make a change.
    Hence why my comment was on your propensity to post links, and *not* on trying to convince you to make change.
    There was no hidden meaning in my comment.

    I'd say all of them meet those characteristics. Some didn't start out that way.


    Good

    Yep. I guess we'll have to wait and see which of us is right this time.

    Well I have been right about you since the original Gametalk so far...

    I feel like I'm watching two guys having a pissing contest and it's truly entertaining.

    Or that isn't what is happening at all, and you're very very biased.

    ....................

    That's a very good thing.

    Firm disagree, as stated before, but I don't think we will agree on this.

    Yeah, that kind of thing definitely needs to stop. Spirit of the rules is important. And again, having a unified content policy fixes a lot of these problems. Instead of having rules specifically against harassment, baiting, discrimination, etc, you just have a single policy that bans incivility in general.


    Agree. Touched on this before.

    Convincing is manipulating, just like Weird did making you think Hallow Halo was me...


    Noting I didn't actually make a concerted effort to do this.
    I never explicitly confirmed nor denied that I was HallowHalo.
    Proposed it could be anyone, even explicitly stated it might not be you.
    To your point, was still manipulative and wrong, but... yeah.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    I never explicitly confirmed nor denied that I was HallowHalo.




    Proposed it could be anyone, even explicitly stated it might not be you.




    To your point, was still manipulative and wrong, but... yeah.



    Co-ordinated effort?

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    Co-ordinated effort?


    Most definitely.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    I feel like I'm watching two guys having a pissing contest and it's truly entertaining.


    I must better at pissing, considering he made a site that would never have existed if it didn't imitate the original GT. Then there's me, who modded the biggest forum at original GT, and did it so well that I am remembered13 years later...

    And besides, he doesn't even have the guts to respond to all my replies, even though he says he's all about community respect, so...

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    This is disgusting. I'm tempted to screencap it for future reference. You're okay with maintaining and owning a site that would uphold negativity and piss-poor treatment of others because the community wants it? Yikes....

    Yeah... Riven, this community consensus thing isn't going to go over well. When the community gets it wrong, it's set in stone for, like, a year? When the community doesn't have consensus, it's a coin toss, and the coin toss gets set in stone for a year? On issues like allowing hate speech and discrimination?

    6 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    Yeah... Riven, this community consensus thing isn't going to go over well. When the community gets it wrong, it's set in stone for, like, a year? When the community doesn't have consensus, it's a coin toss, and the coin toss gets set in stone for a year? On issues like allowing hate speech and discrimination?


    ... Predicting a response like "Put in a request to make it less than a year"

    But honestly, Riven, this sole point is really scary and says a lot about you as a person.
    You're willing to be at the helm of a community if the community wants to be hateful and cruel?
    What about a pro-nazi white nationalist community, if that vote had passed? You'd be complicit with that?

    To think you'd be okay, not only associating with that sort of content, but also with being the leader of such a place, is a little unsettling.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    Something else that was a huge problem for our club, we recognized our members were aging and graduating, and we really needed to attract a younger audience. BUT WE WERE SELLING CANDLES. I suggested, once again, VG tournament would work wonders, but once again our President adamantly said no. The best thing we did past the VG tournaments was a toys for tots drive around the holidays, that was impressive.

    If you really want to attract new people who are going to stick with us for a long time, attract younger members. Nintendo forum, cleaner rules, more pictures/graphics on the site. We shouldn't be discussing whether or not hate speech should be allowed, we should be discussing ways to make the site appear friendlier to a younger audience. I can make a mascot/logo.

    6 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    I agree, Gametalk was for a younger audience back then and as Mario said, that would make more want to stay... appeal to the ones who would be interested and may have more time, especially with COVID.

    ¤Ð£ŋįd@¤

    6 Days ago
    Denida
     

    If you really want to attract new people who are going to stick with us for a long time, attract younger members. Nintendo forum, cleaner rules, more pictures/graphics on the site. We shouldn't be discussing whether or not hate speech should be allowed, we should be discussing ways to make the site appear friendlier to a younger audience. I can make a mascot/logo.


    I think this is brilliant. For this site to be a success, we should clean things up to target the right audience.

    The only cautionary word of advice is: We don't want this to go the way of Nintendo as a company, where it becomes so kid-oriented it alienates the older audience. There's definitely a balance to strike, but it's not impossible. Hell, back in the day, there were plenty of adults who used GT, despite it being a family-friendly oriented. And some of them were regs like Nighter/Pyar, Denida, Liane, Piccolo, Trinity, TJ, and others.

    That said, if you want to make a mascot or logo, mariomguy, make sure it something that the full GT-audience can appreciate.

    But before we get carried away, Xhin should take some time to think about the direction of the site and if he wants to consider moving forward with this. It's ultimately his call.

    ¤¤♅êîrÐ Øccu®@n瀤¤

    6 Days ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    Take a look at the selection of forums right now: Politics, Science/Math/Technology, Worldbuilding, Nostalgia, Philosophy and Spirituality. Oh, and Sexuality. We have like 3 forums out of 12 that might engage kids (Games, Entertainment, Creative). If we want to keep Nintendo in the general Video Game category and not make it dedicated, we need some more kid-friendly topics and branding to match. I just used Nintendo as an easy example.

    I actually did some branding work before, but that direction wasn't chosen. I do think we at least need some graphics to make this place look more interesting. I always had the idea of the same mascot character used in a custom banner image for every forum. So he'd be playing video games in the game forum, watching movies in entertainment, drawing something in creative, writing in worldbuilding, etc. Same color scheme so it's all cohesive. Would give people a reason to visit the other forums, as well, and act as a way to brand not just the site as a whole, but each forum independently.

    6 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    @mariomguy:
    You seem to be recommending we abandon everything about this site that interests me and concentrate entirely on the parts I never participate in.
    I hope that’s not true.
    But if it is: fuck that noise.

    @Weird Occurrance:
    Thanks for sticking up for older users.

    5 Days ago
    chiarizio
     

    @mariomguy:

    Fuck them kids.

    5 Days ago
    CZM
     

    You seem to be recommending we abandon everything about this site that interests me and concentrate entirely on the parts I never participate in.

    I hope that’s not true.
    But if it is: fuck that noise.
    You're not getting it. This isn't about you, it's about the future of GT. If we can't attract young people, if we cast them aside, the chance of us getting long lasting members is far lower. We all joined when we were kids. If we lose that audience, we will all eventually age out and the site will rot.

    @Weird Occurrance:

    Thanks for sticking up for older users.
    He's just saying it should be appropriate for a full audience, not just kids only. That's the goal. But right now, looking at the forums we have, we are extremely adult-oriented. A kid would not come on this site and think it was a cool place. Not without at least some more relevant forums/discussion, and a little better branding.

    5 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    I still plan on getting to this thread (and exploring the "how it doesn't work" one in more depth), but it'll probably be after I return since phone quoting isn't the best.

    A couple more recent points though:

    Take a look at the selection of forums right now: Politics, Science/Math/Technology, Worldbuilding, Nostalgia, Philosophy and Spirituality. Oh, and Sexuality. We have like 3 forums out of 12 that might engage kids (Games, Entertainment, Creative).


    I think worldbuilding and especially roleplaying would appeal to kids as well. GTX0's roleplaying peak was when most of its userbase were teenagers.

    You seem to be recommending we abandon everything about this site that interests me and concentrate entirely on the parts I never participate in.


    We're not abandoning anything. Even Mike's GT struck a balance between family-friendly areas and adult-heavy areas.

    If we can't attract young people, if we cast them aside, the chance of us getting long lasting members is far lower.


    I honestly think we'd do better with advertising if we appealed to adults than kids. The problem with kids is that they grow up, get adult responsibilities, and maybe quit spending all of their free time at a website. Whereas adults that are willing to spend time at a website already have adult responsibilities and are still there regardless, so they're going to stick around a lot longer.

    If we lose that audience, we will all eventually age out


    Thunderpunch made literally the same exact argument 9 years ago. To be fair, a lot of users have aged out since then, but clearly not all of them.

    But right now, looking at the forums we have, we are extremely adult-oriented. A kid would not come on this site and think it was a cool place.


    One of the things that's been pretty hard to do over the years is maintain a tricky balance between your current demographics and the demographics you want. I finally realized that it's pointless to worry about demographics you don't have yet. Demographic changes are very unpredictable.

    5 Days ago
    Riven
     

    You're not getting it. This isn't about you, it's about the future of GT

    You’re not getting it. A “future of GT” that doesn’t include me counts as “no future GT” to me.
    Why don’t we change it so that everything you care about goes away and we keep only what makes you say “meh”?
    If that attracted thousands of new members, would you think that would be worth it?
    I’m betting “no”.
    If you say “yes” I won’t believe you.

    For each of us already here, any improvement is only an “improvement” if it retains our own interest and at least marginally attracts new users to at least one of our interests.

    4 Days ago
    chiarizio
     

    I think worldbuilding and especially roleplaying would appeal to kids as well. GTX0's roleplaying peak was when most of its userbase were teenagers.

    ...So it's not sexual roleplaying?

    I honestly think we'd do better with advertising if we appealed to adults than kids. The problem with kids is that they grow up, get adult responsibilities, and maybe quit spending all of their free time at a website. Whereas adults that are willing to spend time at a website already have adult responsibilities and are still there regardless, so they're going to stick around a lot longer.

    It works both ways. Because this site was a big part of my childhood, I really don't want to leave. An adult may only have a passing interest and leave more quickly. These subjects, and the way we present them, are quite niche. It's a place to discuss things in a way you really can't in a massive crowded forum. I feel we need both. Teens are perfect starting age.

    Thunderpunch made literally the same exact argument 9 years ago. To be fair, a lot of users have aged out since then, but clearly not all of them.

    People will leave of their own accord, especially once the community dies. If we can include teens, as well as adults, that would be the best case scenario.

    One of the things that's been pretty hard to do over the years is maintain a tricky balance between your current demographics and the demographics you want. I finally realized that it's pointless to worry about demographics you don't have yet. Demographic changes are very unpredictable.

    MLP. Started as a girls show, ended up attracting WAY more guys than girls. I'm just concerned we might not have enough options to satisfy teens or youth. As a result, even if they do find us, even in best case scenario they're not going to stay, because they might not find much of it relatable.

    How about a forum about school life? That's colossal for kids. This is a forum where even adults can relate, and it could probably be the first for a few kids to learn what GT is all about.

    4 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    You’re not getting it. A “future of GT” that doesn’t include me counts as “no future GT” to me.

    Why don’t we change it so that everything you care about goes away and we keep only what makes you say “meh”?
    What exactly do you believe would be going away? It's not. If we want to attract teens, we just need a new forum for them. No big deal.

    If that attracted thousands of new members, would you think that would be worth it?

    I’m betting “no”.

    If you say “yes” I won’t believe you.

    False equivalence. We don't need to "get rid" of anything to attract teens to the site as a whole. Adult forums will remain adult forums. Existing users will remain.

    For each of us already here, any improvement is only an “improvement” if it retains our own interest and at least marginally attracts new users to at least one of our interests.

    Or we have a new forum that generates new discussion that both teens and adults can relate to. You weren't here when GT was in its heyday, it was a much more diverse crowd age-wise. We had plenty of kids. Userbase was in the thousands. I'm not suggesting we go back to that, but we need something to bring in a bigger crowd. A lot of existing users have aged out, and I don't think targeting adults specifically is going to guarantee activity in the long term.

    Keep in mind... I requested the sexuality forum be brought back. I'm not saying we remove the adult stuff, we should just add to what we've already got!

    4 Days ago
    mariomguy
     

    This isn't about you, it's about the future of GT.


    Chiarizio is one of the best posters on this fucking site right now. It doesn't have to be about him specifically, but about the kind of posters that are actually going to make good content for this place.

    Actually, fuck off with this "this isn't about you" bullshit when you try to make everything about what you think and what you feel and what you can do and what you're convinced is right.

    4 Days ago
    CZM
     

    Im gonna be honest. I dont want any kid ever stumbling onto this site. Gametalk at its worst was nowhere near as toxic as GTX0.

    4 Days ago
    S.O.H.
     

    @folks:
    1st, I appreciate being stood up for! Thanks!
    2nd, I hope I didn’t start a fight.
    3rd, lots of mariomguy’s posts on other threads I agree with. A balance would be good. I’m used to age-diversity from about 12 to over 80 and I liked it just fine.
    I might have misinterpreted his posts here that I ... is “complained” the right word? ... about.
    If not I hope we can reach an agreement anyway.
    He seems to be saying he isn’t in favor of cutting out any features that appeal to any of us already here; if so then I’m satisfied I misunderstood him.

    4 Days ago
    chiarizio
     

    Reply to: Trust system/consensus-based moderation Notes

    Username
    Password