A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content

[Goodspeed]

The question about overall content being racist seems a little weak. I do not think that the overall content of the off-topic forum is racist so I voted 3. If the question was do I think the off-topic sections contains racist posts it would be full agreement.

It's not the question. I want to know to what extent people think the content posted here is offensive.

[fightinfrenchman]

@RefluxSemantic You can just be reasonable in setting limits, and when people try to test them you can gauge whether they're acting in bad faith.

[HeadKilla]

The question about overall content being racist seems a little weak. I do not think that the overall content of the off-topic forum is racist so I voted 3. If the question was do I think the off-topic sections contains racist posts it would be full agreement.

It's not the question. I want to know to what extent people think the content posted here is offensive.

Even if its .001% it should be removed.

[zoom]

It seems the discourse is suffering. While I greatly respect popular opinion and the right of everyone to have any given opinion, you should not be considering, seriously, the option of allowing users to flame each other, freely—let alone in categorically derogatory and generally offensive terms.

[RefluxSemantic]

@RefluxSemantic You can just be reasonable in setting limits, and when people try to test them you can gauge whether they're acting in bad faith.

It's my actual opinion that religion is terrible and should be forbidden. But according to headkilla I'm not allowed to express that opinion?

[fightinfrenchman]

@RefluxSemantic Well, it depends on what you mean by "forbidden"

[RefluxSemantic]

The thing is, the statement that Headkilla tried to phrase (due to the fact that he failed to use proper grammer it's somewhat vague, but I'm assuming what aligator said is what he tried to say) is something that I don't agree with and actually consider an extremely dangerous statement. When you are not allowed to say something on any of those subjects that someone potentially could consider offensive, then you're just removing freedom of speech.

[RefluxSemantic]

But then if someone considers the statement "religion is bad" offensive, that means it shouldn't be allowed?

Saying "religion is bad" or "following religion is bad" isn't necessarily offensive, Its a point of view. A correct example would be killing of cow in front of hindu despite being fully aware of the sentimental hurt he is going to face.

But what if you want to eat that cow?

[princeofcarthage]

But then if someone considers the statement "religion is bad" offensive, that means it shouldn't be allowed?

Saying "religion is bad" or "following religion is bad" isn't necessarily offensive, Its a point of view. A correct example would be killing of cow in front of hindu despite being fully aware of the sentimental hurt he is going to face.

But what if you want to eat that cow?

What if I want to kill you and eat? By your logic nothing should stop my freedom of action. Freedom comes with responsibility, as long as it is used for personal growth and the growth of community. If it is causing social problems, outrage and/or problems to vast majority of people it isn't allowed. Sure we can just scrub all our laws developed over thousands of years for betterment of humanity, allow whoever whatever the hell they want to do and go live back in caves.

[Goodspeed]

With a sample size of 31, I think we can start drawing some conclusions. Assuming nothing changes significantly from here, based on the response so far I can't quite settle on a policy/rule set yet. I will post a second poll this weekend in order to flesh it out more, but we can conclude some things:

First, the community is overwhelmingly against turning off topic into a strict no-controversy place, as is the case with many other gaming forums. Only 7% thinks potentially controversial topics should be banned.
An additional 17%, for a total of 25%, thinks controversial opinions should be removed. We can rule that out as well.

We are left with a 75% majority who thinks people should be able to express controversial viewpoints in off topic. Two thirds of that thinks we shouldn't allow the use of offensive language. One question I will want to get more detail on in the next poll is: What constitutes offensive language?

Another thing that sticks out is that almost 40% of the community thinks we are too lenient with controversial post(er)s, and 20% thinks we are far too lenient. In the next poll, I will ask some questions about how we should deal with controversial content. One thing I will say immediately is that posters shouldn't forget that they can make a difference themselves. If controversial content is consistently and unequivocally dismissed by a majority of posters, it sends a message both to new members and to the people posting them. Censorship is not the only way to deal with it.

A good suggestion I read was to use the [serious] tag for topics where the OP wants to prevent spam and/or derailment. This is in line with my intent to extend significant "power" to thread starters. I will flesh that policy out more and put it into words, so that thread starters know what kind of influence they have and how they can use it. Relevant to the current question about controversial content is that I intend to extend influence to thread starters not only in order to prevent spam, but also to prevent their thread from going into a direction that might offend them.

[Goodspeed]

The question about overall content being racist seems a little weak. I do not think that the overall content of the off-topic forum is racist so I voted 3. If the question was do I think the off-topic sections contains racist posts it would be full agreement.

It's not the question. I want to know to what extent people think the content posted here is offensive.

Even if its .001% it should be removed.

That's not what the question was about. It's covered in the question about whether we should allow controversial topics/opinions in off topic.

[fightinfrenchman]

@RefluxSemantic I don't think people should have freedom of speech on ESOC.

[RefluxSemantic]

Also I found the rules, this is the relevant one:
9) No discrimination. Bigotry, racism and other forms of discrimination, as well as fragile or offensive religious, political or origin references, will not be tolerated. Most topics are open to discussion on ESOC, as long as such topics remain respectful and have well-thought arguments in them. Bigotry does not contribute to any discussion. While you may disagree with others, do so respectfully.

I agree with no discrimination. I find that "fragile or offensive religious, political or origin rferences, will not be tolerated" is very vague though. I don't quite understand what that explicitly means.

For the record:

Bigotry:
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

[RefluxSemantic]

@RefluxSemantic I don't think people should have freedom of speech on ESOC.

Me neither, but I find the thing that Headkilla suggested absolutely outrageous.

I also think it's important to understand that the culture in many parts of Europe is pretty different from that of the USA. I feel like the forum members from the USA are imposing their standard on this subject on the rest. I think that's somewhat inconsiderate towards the rest.

[fightinfrenchman]

There is no one "culture" in the USA

[HeadKilla]

@RefluxSemantic You can just be reasonable in setting limits, and when people try to test them you can gauge whether they're acting in bad faith.

It's my actual opinion that religion is terrible and should be forbidden. But according to headkilla I'm not allowed to express that opinion?

I would challenge why it is you would post that in a video game forum to begin with. But if there is an off-topic place where this is acceptable, I dont know why you think I have a problem with that statement.

When someone makes a post about why I should not be offended when my family members are called niggers, it's not acceptable. Discovering discussions about black-face being funny and anyone offended just doesn't get joke, is either ignorant or a bigot. It is my opinion that these sorts of discussions have ZERO place in a public forum focused on Age of Empires, off-topic or not. Additionally, it is my opinion that, in some regard, being an admin for ESOC means I represent ESOC and ESOC represents me. Having this forum, the home of ESOC, not only tolerate but provide and welcome place for these "discussions" is not what I want to represent and absolutely not a representation of who I am. Knowing full well people are offended and the prevailing attitude is avoidance of these discussions by forum members, why not default to a non-tolerant stance of these extreme instances? That is my stance on this matter.

[chris1089]

I find @HeadKilla 's opinion 1% offensive.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[RefluxSemantic]

Whats exactly wrong with essentially saying "I am for complete freedom of speech and I believe that words shouldnt offend you"? That just seems like an opinion someone could have? An opinion that by the way isnt offensive at all.

[Kaiserklein]

@RefluxSemantic I don't think people should have freedom of speech on ESOC.

Me neither, but I find the thing that Headkilla suggested absolutely outrageous.

I also think it's important to understand that the culture in many parts of Europe is pretty different from that of the USA. I feel like the forum members from the USA are imposing their standard on this subject on the rest. I think that's somewhat inconsiderate towards the rest.

Have to agree that american are (from my point of view) way too PC. And I'm not talking about this specific thread, I don't even want to start arguing about it. Just overall, they seem to get offended so quickly, even in a non serious context.

Even just the fact so many of them say "the f word", or whenever you watch a TV show they beep it... It's like they're talking about voldemort or something, it's kinda ridiculous to me

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[HeadKilla]

What constitutes offensive language?

Hate speech? The use of certain words that are obviously harmful to a certain category of people based on their inherent traits. Skin color, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

If I were to state that "niggers should be hung from trees" or something overtly hateful like that, then no-go. That's obvious though. The trickier ones are for example ((())) or "88" which are more subtle in their use. Subtle slurs are harder to deal with.

I think the recent use of "trannies and aspies" is also offensive because it just shits on those people for being who they are, as opposed to what they're doing.

I've never overly appreciated casual sexism either? hmm. Because that's also rampant

Another thing that sticks out is that almost 40% of the community thinks we are too lenient with controversial post(er)s, and 20% thinks we are far too lenient. In the next poll, I will ask some questions about how we should deal with controversial content. One thing I will say immediately is that posters shouldn't forget that they can make a difference themselves.

I think a time-out from the forums, ranging from a day to several days?

WTF is this post? These are exactly an example of the problem. If this post is acceptable, I have no desire to even log into this forum ever again.

[Amsel_]

I'm not opposed to a shake-up of off-topic. It's rather irritating to scroll through a thread and not see any actual discussion. I can describe virtually every post you'll find right now: a random shitpost, someone just stating their opinions on something, someone just making a mocking reply that completes ignores the actual discussion that should be had, a question that's kind of stupid, someone knit-picking another person's post, etc. (These aren't all bad things. But it's hard to have good discussions with just those things.) I like to have discussions with people, especially those who are able to provide information I haven't heard before. This is rather rare, unfortunately, and the person who indulges me in new information the most is Dolan when he's telling me about his country.

But Dolan is being named as the most problematic user. Why is that? I've seen him post. He shitposts a bit, but he's fairly consistent about giving proper replies to people who talk properly with him. I disagree with him about a lot of stuff, but he's never argued against me in bad faith - unlike many users who no one sees a problem with. So why is he being brought up? The answer is that there are two separate issues at hand that are being mixed together. One is forum quality and the other is political. People who are unhappy with others' political thoughts are trying to use the issue of forum quality as a vehicle to get rid of people they disagree with politically. But it's difficult to outright promote banning someone for what they believe and still feel good about yourself and what you're doing, so the rhetoric is disguised. We say that we need to fight hate, or that ESOC shouldn't be a platform for racism, anti-semitism, or bigotry.

The problem here is the definition of hate, of racism, of anti-semitism, and of bigotry. Is it hate if I say I hate libertarians, or truck drivers, or Scientologists? Is it okay to hate groups and insult them, so long as it's not a particular "protected" group, the groups protected being decided politically as conservatives, Christians, and Whites never seem to find themselves placed in this protected status? And what about racism? The moderator of real-life discussion thinks most people who support the president are racists. To his credit, he is very hands-off as a moderator, but by virtue of precedent the definition of racist will gradually expand further and further, and the only limit to this expansion would be when it reaches the point that the majority of the userbase is an inch away from being in the realm of "racism." This is certain to happen. When rules such as this are enforced, people immediately switch their debate tactics to trying to bait the other person into getting banned; Ear does this already. And what about anti-semitism? Is it anti-semitic if I say most American news channels and major media companies are owned by jews, and name the owners of those companies with proof that they're jewish, and then use this to argue that "jews control our media?" Would it be against the rules to state facts that necessarily lead to "hateful" conclusions? And bigotry is a non-word at this point. The way it's used is essentially just a way to delegitimize an opposition's views from the get-go by branding them illogical, and recently connotations of hate have been associated with it; but its original definition is closer to "someone who is narrow-minded, stubborn about their beliefs, and unable to tolerate other beliefs and viewpoints." If this is our definition of bigotry, target number one would have to be the people wanting to ban racists and the like. They're technically the ones being closed-minded and intolerant.

It's exceedingly obvious that this discussion is about silencing "right-wing" elements on the forums. Where were the staff resignations when a user called for the president's assassination? Where were the polls when people talked about how they wanted to ban religion? Why is it unacceptable for ESOC to "be a platform for hate," yet it's perfectly fine for users to talk about how they dream of overthrowing the government in a communist revolution? (Note that defenses of these posts will be given a "Well he didn't really mean it like that" defense that would never be given to people accused of making a racist post. Suddenly the term "dog whistling" is used to make sure that even people trying to be respectful about having politically incorrect views can be silenced.) If you want to improve the quality of forums, that is fine; that is good. If you want to ban people for having a different opinion from you, that is your prerogative. But what is absurd is to do the latter under the guise of the former. Not only is it disingenuous and hypocritical, but it sabotages the actual issue of improving discussion quality.

[RefluxSemantic]

I get the feeling that to HeadKilla all posts that do not align with his view on the world should be considered unacceptable and hatespeech.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --