This forum is for mature, civil discussions. It is for people who are genuinely interested in free exchange of ideas, with an open mind. It is not for people who want to troll, make oh-so-witty one-liners or to derail decent discussion. It is not for chatting about the weather or the random-rants type threads.

It will be moderated quite tightly. No trolling. No name-calling. No insults. No ad-hominem attacks. Debate in a mature manner.

What exactly is name calling? So would calling someone a Nazi be classified as name calling even if you link their views to the views of the Nazi Party?

lame, I didn't see there was a split. Now I'm glad it's not for real. I liked the idea that all of OT was going to be regulated as the taberna was.

What exactly is name calling? So would calling someone a Nazi be classified as name calling even if you link their views to the views of the Nazi Party?
I agree with the previous speaker. I feel that this is something which should be cleared up.

If someone deserves the name, calling him nazi wouldn't be of any use: the things he had written would speak for themselves.

On the other hand, if someone hasn't deserved that label, then it falls in the same category that calling for example anti- or pro-abortion people nazis.

Ainwood: Is this thread meant to be open and for people to comment, or is it just a noticeboard?

Erm, why is calling a racist person a racist infracted as trolling?

Spam posts deleted. This is not a chat room.

Post that in the FT if you must, it does not belong here.

My question above still stands and I'd like an answer.

Same reason it always has been. The standards of this subforum follow the standards of the forum rules. If you wish to discuss why the forum rules are as they are, it would be best to open a thread in Site Feedback about it.

Erm, why is calling a racist person a racist infracted as trolling?

Same reason it always has been. The standards of this subforum follow the standards of the forum rules. If you wish to discuss why the forum rules are as they are, it would be best to open a thread in Site Feedback about it.

Would this also include asking someone if he is racist based upon his posts?

example: Do you concider yourself racist and if not how do you call yourself/ justify your posts?

If someone say yes, case closed, you might not like that the person is a racist but you have to deal with it.
However if the persons says no + explination that would open a whole new level to the discussion and an insight into human pshyche.

By allowing such questions the forum can reach discussions with even more depth.

I agree. We should be able to be critical without flaming. Saying that someone's beliefs or position(s) might be offensive to them, but it's not flaming unless you say someone is a racist simply for the sake of it. Such inquiry is often necessary for further understanding, and such observations (that policy is very racist, your position is a racist one) while not a very nice thing to hear about your positions, is not the labeling of a person but of a position, and that labeling may be a necessary step in the "convincing the other person to abandon their position" aspect of a debate. Being able to call a spade a spade in a way constructive to discussion is an indispensable part of debate.

What exactly is name calling? So would calling someone a Nazi be classified as name calling even if you link their views to the views of the Nazi Party?
It is not exactly conducive to civil debate, is it? So in this forum, yes.


Being able to call a spade a spade in a way constructive to discussion is an indispensable part of debate.
Not when its actually a spoon, and its only one side's biased opinion that it is a spade.

You can call a 'spade a spade' in this forum provide you keep it civil, and don't set out to deliberately provoke or upset someone. If you want a different style of debate, where people have more leniency to call others out on their positions and in a more confrontational manner, do it in Forum Taberna. That way, the target of your debate can decide to participate in that style of debate, tit-for-tat. Or not.

As I see it, saying 'that statement is racist' is fine, provided that you genuinely think it is, but calling somebody a racist isn't - if only because you can argue civilly over whether a particular statement actually is racist, but any argument over whether a poster is racist becomes nasty very quickly. That aside, giving anybody a label that they don't like automatically makes the conversation more hostile. You wouldn't shout 'Nazi!' at somebody in 'the real world', after all.

Flying Pig, you'll like this

b0Ti-gkJiXc

Flying Pig, you'll like this

b0Ti-gkJiXc

Probably ought to be required viewing for all internet discussions. Also (almost) raises the very valid point that 'I didn't mean it to be offensive' != 'it wasn't offensive' and the converse: another one that we sometimes forget.

It is not exactly conducive to civil debate, is it? So in this forum, yes.

It's very constructive, because it puts a label to something that is being disguised as something else.

Not when its actually a spoon, and its only one side's biased opinion that it is a spade.

Duh, that's why it's a debate. If you expect to dance around the word while trying to demonstrate it, then it's never going to be productive at all. But, once again, you guys don't understand that the rules you've made up to try and crack down on trolling are only going to enable the real trolls to spread their nonsense while the people who would call them out on it suffer the most. What you don't seem to understand is: we don't care about a racist being infracted for saying racist things or having racist positions, we care about making the point in the debate that this person or their positions are such, as part of the debate. So the answer isn't punishment like this.

You can call a 'spade a spade' in this forum provide you keep it civil, and don't set out to deliberately provoke or upset someone. If you want a different style of debate, where people have more leniency to call others out on their positions and in a more confrontational manner, do it in Forum Taberna. That way, the target of your debate can decide to participate in that style of debate, tit-for-tat. Or not.

So saying someone is a racist or that their ideas are racist is provoking and trollsome, but espousing racist ideas, whether obviously so or not (not all racism is people saying, for example, that "Black people are lazy" in such clear language) isn't provoking and trollsome?

This is all the more worrisome because it leaves it up to you moderators to decide when something is correctly or incorrectly being labeled as racist, or Nazi, or fascist, or whatever the label may be. Your opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than ours.

There has always been a standard of debating the point and not the poster here. Calling someone racist is discussing the poster, not the point.

If you can't debate someone without attacking them as a person....

Calling a post rasist is discussing the point. "What you said was rasist" is not attacking a person.

Yes, usually. In a perfect world that would be the way it works. But part of trolling is getting the rise out of the person, and while the statement itself shouldn't be trolling it can be trolling dependent on the reaction of the other poster.

I would love nothing more that to allow "That's a racist statement" in the forums....

Why are we not allowed to use the word 'racist'?

rasist is a meme.... I forget who it was, but there was a poster who used it instead of racist.

Ah, I thought it was an autocensor issue.

The only times you'd need to point out that something is racist is when it's not already obvious to others. If it's not obvious to others, then the chances are you're imputing a meaning that isn't actually there (possibly because you know the poster's history and what they might be hinting it, even if they haven't actually said anything that is racist in itself). Labelling a post racist is making a pretty hefty accusation; one that's inflammatory and isn't going to be conducive to civil or productive discussion. I don't think it would be a good idea to declare open season and allow people to label the posts of others racist (in the Debating Chamber, as it's currently called), because it could easily just become a standard debating tactic to derail a thread--> "I'm losing this argument so I'll just make an accusation of racism to switch the focus".

And if we were to try and allow you to call a post racist just in the cases where it actually is, though that's fine for the obvious cases (where there's no point in labelling it racist in the first place, given everyone can plainly see that), for other cases, where you might feel a need to point out racism where you see it because it's not plainly obvious to others, we're going to have to take a side of contentious arguments. You'd then be asking us to adopt your opinion. I might think one side is right and the other isn't, but that shouldn't influence moderating.

--> "I'm losing this argument so I'll just make an accusation of racism to switch the focus". Or just in general to make insinuations about the poster. (Even to the point of stopping posting and making them on an entirely unrelated thread.)

So should I be of the understanding, then, that labeling someone's position as racist is not de facto trolling, and also that it's part of the debate, and is debating the point and not the poster?

C'mon, Cheesy.... You know it's more complicated than that. You know it's not only what you say but how you say it as well.

I just want it to be clear that, in theory, someone could perform labeling in the above nature and not fear an infraction for doing so.

And I just want it clear that in reality it doesn't always work that way.

So whether or not it's possible - in theory - to make such a statement is determined by...what? It's very simple, either it's possible to make that statement in some way, shape, or form, or it isn't. "In reality it doesn't work that way" sounds like "whether a moderator at that specific moment wants to infract me or not," which is no sound basis for any rule system.

No, it means there are many ways in which a word can be used. 'Racist' and 'racism' are not on the autocensor list, so yes, there are obviously ways in which you can use them. It is conceivable that there may be circumstances under which, if you were very careful, you could in a polite, civil and noninflammatory manner label a post as such. But in the vast majority of cases, that's not going to happen, so you do so at entirely your own risk.

If you want to contend that it's very simple and not complicated or dependent on context, then your answer is no, it's not okay.

No, I wanted approval for the possibility that - in theory - one could say that and not be guaranteed an infraction. Turner's answer only made clear the subjective nature with which it would be prosecuted by a moderator.

What you're saying, Camikaze, is that there is a specific context and situation, both of which, if met, would allow for an unprosecutable labeling of something as racist? That doing so is not, independent of context, trolling?

I'm aware you wanted that, and what I was saying was that you aren't getting any such guarantee. We're not going to give you a ticket to label things racist. If you insist on an answer, the answer is 'no'.

There may be a situation in which we feel you labelling something racist meets the criteria of conduciveness to civil and productive discussion. That is not a definable context. What this means is that the rule is that you cannot label something racist, but the reality is that there are circumstances under which we will choose not to infract. That's entirely up to moderator discretion. You label something racist at your own risk.

That's entirely up to moderator discretion.

I just wanted you to admit that you all rule by fiat and that the rules you supposedly enforce are a masquerade for this, and do not govern your decision making. Thank you for making this clear.

I'm aware you wanted that, and what I was saying was that you aren't getting any such guarantee. We're not going to give you a ticket to label things racist. If you insist on an answer, the answer is 'no'.

There may be a situation in which we feel you labelling something racist meets the criteria of conduciveness to civil and productive discussion. That is not a definable context. What this means is that the rule is that you cannot label something racist, but the reality is that there are circumstances under which we will choose not to infract. That's entirely up to moderator discretion. You label something racist at your own risk.

I don´t see any problem with labelling the Republican McCain campaign as implicitly racist. Some points would - and could - not have been raised if Obama had been white. (Like the whole ridiculous birth certificate thingy. It actually came to the point that McCain - a longtime collaborator with Obama in the Senate on many issues - had to explicitly confirm that Obama was indeed a US citizen, and culminated in the ´You lie!´ incident. And then ofcourse the filibustering began, but let´s not get into that.) From the Republican view it probably was very cleverly done - and utterly pointless -, but I can see how a man who made his career through white institutions would have no trouble keeping his cool.

@Cheezy- that's exactly what it states at the top of the rules section on trolling:
Trolling is posting something with the intent to annoy or to generate a negative reaction from other people. It can be interpreted as anything for which it is reasonably foreseeable (in the moderators' opinion) that someone will react to it. It can be a very grey issue, and moderators will use their discretion and judgment.

If you'd like to think that means we moderate via random number generator, you're free to do so. But pretty obviously the rules do govern how we apply our discretion and judgment and come to decisions. I'm not sure what you're finding so hard about this concept of moderators applying rules.

@JEELEN- labelling a public figure racist is completely different to labelling another poster or their post racist.

What you don't seem to understand is: we don't care about a racist being infracted for saying racist things or having racist positions, we care about making the point in the debate that this person or their positions are such, as part of the debate.
So you're saying that you don't care about racism at all, as long as you can score points in a debate?



So saying someone is a racist or that their ideas are racist is provoking and trollsome, but espousing racist ideas, whether obviously so or not (not all racism is people saying, for example, that "Black people are lazy" in such clear language) isn't provoking and trollsome?
We're saying that being trolled is not an acceptable defence for flaming.

This is all the more worrisome because it leaves it up to you moderators to decide when something is correctly or incorrectly being labeled as racist, or Nazi, or fascist, or whatever the label may be. Your opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than ours.
Actually, it is. But if you think something is racist, then report it with the reasons why, and we will deal with it.

So you're saying that you don't care about racism at all, as long as you can score points in a debate?
Of course we care and you know that very well.
This is not about "scoring points" in a debate. This is about the freedom to call something what it is.
We're saying that being trolled is not an acceptable defence for flaming.
So in the case that a fellow poster makes a racist post and I call him out on that, I'm flaming? wow.. just wow..
Actually, it is. But if you think something is racist, then report it with the reasons why, and we will deal with it.
ehm, no... You're opinion/voice has more weight on this site, which is only logical, but it is definitely not more authoritative unless one of you is a judge/lawyer, specialised in discrimination.

But to combine your first accusation with your last sentence. We care about racism however we do not care that someone is infracted for it or not, as long as we are allowed to call it as we see it.

I can understand that a post saying only "that is racist" without further argument is infracted, as should all accusations without argument in 'The Chamber'. Such a post would be useless and wouldn't contribute to the debate.

However a post saying 'Because this and that I conclude that you post is racist, do you agree and if not why?' you make a well funded statement and leaving the other space to make his own case on the issue. Allowing this sort of posts, and not just for racism but also for misogynysm, homophobia, anit-semitism etc, gives the opportunity for 'The Chamber' to reach debates with more depth which was the purpose if I recal correctly.

Actually, it is.

I love our moderators.

@JEELEN- labelling a public figure racist is completely different to labelling another poster or their post racist.

Agreed on the second part - I haven´t labelled any public figure racist. If you are calling something racist, you should make very clear why - as I tried to illustrate in my post.

@JEELEN- labelling a public figure racist is completely different to labelling another poster or their post racist.
By using cunning colour codes I crafted my conclusion on what's acceptable and what isn't (within reasonable limits) on this here forum.

How did I do?

So in the case that a fellow poster makes a racist post and I call him out on that, I'm flaming? wow.. just wow..
Calling someone a racist is flaming. What you're really arguing for is being able to flame people in certain situations, such as them posting something racist. My point is that if they have posted something racist in this forum, then report it and let the mods deal with it.

ehm, no... You're opinion/voice has more weight on this site, which is only logical, but it is definitely not more authoritative unless one of you is a judge/lawyer, specialised in discrimination.
I, and the moderating staff, have the authority to deal with posters who post racist or otherwise inflammatory posts on this site, by anything from warnings to infractions to banning. You do not. That is my point, and that is the purpose of a moderating team: to evaluate the posts and determine whether they are disruptive enough to adversely affect the forum experience for other posters.

By allowing people to "call others out" (which is just a euphemism for flaming them) on things they post, you might as well not bother with moderators at all.


But to combine your first accusation with your last sentence. We care about racism however we do not care that someone is infracted for it or not, as long as we are allowed to call it as we see it.
Right. So you don't care about letting the staff actually deal with racist posters, you want to take it into your own hands. The problem is with your point: as we see it. The problem is that when you are involved in a debate, you are not as objective. This is why the moderating staff are not supposed to moderate discussions that they are directly involved in. Also, what you consider to be racist may be completely different to what someone else considers to be racist. Rather than vigilantism flaming, we are requesting that the poster "calls someone out" by reporting racist posts and letting the moderators deal with them. Honestly; how does calling someone a racist in any way improve the standard of debate, over and above what can be achieved by reporting the post and letting the moderators deal with it?


However a post saying 'Because this and that I conclude that you post is racist, do you agree and if not why?' you make a well funded statement and leaving the other space to make his own case on the issue. Allowing this sort of posts, and not just for racism but also for misogynysm, homophobia, anit-semitism etc, gives the opportunity for 'The Chamber' to reach debates with more depth which was the purpose if I recal correctly.
And from this, we are probably 'violently agreeing'. There is a difference between calling the poster a racist and dissecting their post to show why it is racist. You get more leniency on the latter.

No, calling people out is not a euphemism for flaming.

And from this, we are probably 'violently agreeing'. There is a difference between calling the poster a racist and dissecting their post to show why it is racist. You get more leniency on the latter.

From my experience here, that is simply not the case. You get infracted for both.

Right. So you don't care about letting the staff actually deal with racist posters, you want to take it into your own hands. The problem is with your point: as we see it. The problem is that when you are involved in a debate, you are not as objective. This is why the moderating staff are not supposed to moderate discussions that they are directly involved in. Also, what you consider to be racist may be completely different to what someone else considers to be racist. Rather than vigilantism flaming, we are requesting that the poster "calls someone out" by reporting racist posts and letting the moderators deal with them. Honestly; how does calling someone a racist in any way improve the standard of debate, over and above what can be achieved by reporting the post and letting the moderators deal with it?
That was the point I was trying to make.
How am I to know that a post is not, intentionally or in the mind of the poster, racist. All I can see on my side of the internet is a post that I judge to be racist without knowing the string of thought behind it. What I want is the ability to get to know that string of thought without being infracted for my... curiousity(?)

And from this, we are probably 'violently agreeing'. There is a difference between calling the poster a racist and dissecting their post to show why it is racist. You get more leniency on the latter.
No further questions :)
for now

Given the entirely helpful PDMA rule it would be best if noone posted anything. Opinions are outdated man.

How am I to know that a post is not, intentionally or in the mind of the poster, racist. All I can see on my side of the internet is a post that I judge to be racist without knowing the string of thought behind it. What I want is the ability to get to know that string of thought without being infracted for my... curiousity(?)

You do not have to call someone a racist to ask them to explain their string of thought. In fact, I think you'd find that they are much more likely to do so if asked in a civil manner, than if accused of being a racist.

If someone posts regularly on Stormfront, they are probably racist.

No, calling people out is not a euphemism for flaming.

Given the entirely helpful PDMA rule it would be best if noone posted anything. Opinions are outdated man.

Guys - if you want to discuss the topic at hand, then you are welcome to do so. These posts don't really contribute much at all, so it is unclear what you want me to address.

It's not terribly difficult, ainwood. You say that calling people out on what they are is a euphemism for flaming, and I say it's not, and if it isn't flaming it should be allowed.

It's not terribly difficult, ainwood. You say that calling people out on what they are is a euphemism for flaming, and I say it's not, and if it isn't flaming it should be allowed.
If you want a serious discussion about it, then post your reasoning. A one-liner statement from you provides me exactly zero understanding of why you think like you do.

Ainwood my friend. I must say i agree with your judgment and why you do the things you do. I just hope that you treat all fairly and make sure all involved in incidents are dealt with in a just manner :)

I have decided to stop posting in this forum altogether as I do not think that the moderators can reasonably and equitably exert this level of control given the language and cultural barriers that obviously exist.

This entire idea is folly in that the effort will only result in stiffling the creative exchange of ideas.

And this can never be sensibly efforced as human beings think and communicate on different levels. You cannot moderate out misunderstandings. Nor does the moderation team have the time to properly evaluate posts in context with the discussions at hand. This inevitably leads to arbitrary action.

I'd suggest that this forum be merged with the Tavern and follow a lighter moderating hand.

Fantastic thing! I abandoned this forums for a looong time because of massive trolling. Glad that you finally decided to do something against it.