I actually think there could be some mental illness there judging from that post. His thoughts seem chaotic and his reasoning doesn't make sense.
*sits back and watches user karma skyrocket with a huge grin plastered across his face*
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I actually think there could be some mental illness there judging from that post. His thoughts seem chaotic and his reasoning doesn't make sense.
I use the term "misogyny" in this case because degrading sexual language was used to a woman in a situation where the poster was certain of her gender, particularly following on from the so called aforementioned "joke", and the term misogyny is I find a more helpful one when discussing insulting behaviour than the culturally loaded, frequently misused and often polarising term "sexism"
Had the remarks been made to an openly gay or transgender man I'd have used the term "homophobic"
had the remarks been made to a straight man I'd have assumed that either A, the poster was simply sighting cultural standards of crudity in order to be offensive or B, the poster was showing an implicit homophobia in implication that the man he addresses was gay and thus a target for sexual based insults.
had the poster been female and addressed a similar level of sexually crude remarks to a man I'd have accused her of misandry.
All this however is rather beside the point, since whatever category of offense you file it under, musical professor was definitely trying to be offensive here. As we all know, personal attacks aren't allowed on this forum, and sexual insults are about as personal as personal attacks get. The fact that said personal attack may or may have some of extra nasty agenda behind it is just the extreme foul icing on the truly disgusting cake, a cake which we shal neither have nor eat around here!
As regards the severity of the ban Jade, also recall this is not the first time musical professor has been offensive (I can actually go and dig the post out if you wish), he received a temporary ban on that occasion, so this was! his second chance.
Yeah..I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, Dark. Crudity, yes. Misogyny/sexism (at least in the posts I saw)? Not necessarily.
I know it was his second warning, or I'd probably have suggested a one-month or three-month ban for a first offense when it comes to personal attacks. This forum is run fairly loosely, so if nothing else, coming down harder on him when other personal attacks have been let off with warnings or less seems a bit odd to me.
I don't like being a traffic cop, citing offenses wherever I can in order to make a quota. I hate that feeling. This is why I don't report every single post I see as somewhat offensive, because frankly I have thick skin and don't want to give you folks even more to dredge through. I also tend to steer clear of certain types of threads, at least at present, because not only am I uninterested in the subject matter but I know the sorts of people which frequent them, and the sort of conversations they incite. Four words. Sam Tupy. Ultra Power. No, they aren't related, I know that, but just look at all the grief over certain games related to Sam, and all the grief about Ultra Power clones, people trying to hack them. One forum member who is currently in good standing has, in the past, gone so far as to say he'd hack and encourage others to learn how to do so because of some sort of unfairness. The decision that was brought down in that case was basically "everybody stop fighting". Never mind the illegality.
So I'm afraid, as I said, we'll just have to not see eye to eye. If you like, though, I'll keep more of an eye out for the kind of things I'm thinking about for review, and flag them to your attention. I am not angry, not trying to micromanage your job nor impugn your decision-making skills. I disagree with you on a couple of things and think maybe this whole reaction was just a bit too strong (but only a bit, mind you), given the decisions and precedents made and set elsewhere, but I can and will leave it there. I can assure you that I'm not looking for an excuse to cause drama. This thread wasn't locked, however, and so I thought it was within my rights to speak my mind. Having done so, I'll shut up now.
Shut up? Please don't! don't turn into one of those guys who basically has this "the mods will flog me because I don't say as they do and do as they say" mentality. That's not who we are and, the day that becomes even one member of the moderation panel I'll be the one bringing it up for deep discussion, or throwing in the towel and making sure everyone and their mother knows why! it's unacceptable!
Your concerns are well articulated and deserve our attention; I am personally giving them my time and willingly so! Honestly, I'm still in shock over the whole thing and, what makes it even more interesting is that what you say may have some truth to it! Perhaps the guy seriously can't help himself for whatever the reason may be! Here's the problem: when he received his ban he decided to continue being threatening, to the point of suggesting that he would personally make sure this entire site went down! We have to draw lines somewhere!
My overall philosophy when running/leading anything has always been a more laid back, laissez-faire type approach where there are as few regulations as possible and few people to clamp down on you. there's enough legalism in the world elsewhere that, especially when it comes to gaming, I don't see why gamers should have to worry about who is going to tell them what to do. the obvious problem with this idea is that anyone has the right to pretty much disregard anyone else. A system like the one here on ag net doesn't allow for such things, and those of us who police it are entirely aware of it.
Sadly, we'll never get it entirely right, and there are times when, even while I'm handing down a verdict I'm wondering what the overall consequence is going to be to the forum collectively. Nevertheless, I keep on trying and, as I stated in post 16, if it's an issue called to my attention personally, and I can be sure of how the majority is spelling it, I'll make sure to the best of my abilities the majority wins.
My two cents.
Whatever decision the staff of audiogames.net comes to when dealing with problem members is fine by me because this isn't a democracy, it's their site and they have the right to do with it what ever they feel is best for it.
End of story.
You misunderstand me a bit here. I'm not saying I have to shut up because I'm afraid of the mods. I'm not. I know I haven't done anything that breaks rules or seriously insults anyone. I've made a bit of a challenge to something I'm a bit concerned about while also conceding that Musical Professor needed dealing with. If I for some reason thought that doing so was dangerous, I frankly wouldn't be here. No no. When I said I'd shut up, all I meant is that I really have nothing else to say that wouldn't be repeating myself.
Regardless of that guy's ability to help himself or whatnot, threatening the site and whatever, no matter how nebulous the treats might seem and how powerless he might actually be to carry them out, is also not acceptable. That might have justified the ban in and of itself (i.e., if he'd argued the way I am, maybe he gets a hearing, but the way he dealt with it just slams the door on him). I'm not sure.
I wasn't going to comment any more, but I feel like as if I should. I kind of, OK, more than a little, have to agree with Jade here. there have been a number of personal attacks, towards sam tupy, or just other members during threads, I can even send a link to one, where we only had standard warnings. others have raised concerns of how people aren't banned here. with that said, after this guy getting the warning, from what I understand, he had a fit privately, which caused him to get banned. having said that, I know some of what I said above, they didn't get their first warning. I'm not disagreeing with admin actions either, in fact, I guess what I'm saying is, maybe we need to revise the wrong and the right, and perhaps edit the rules/warnings/bans, if need be.
Back in my professional life before I lost my vision, I administered our user's forum. One of the features of the forum software we use was a warning system that kept track of how many times a member was warned, when they were warned, and why they were warned. These warnings were visible to anyone who was logged in as a member simply by viewing a member's profile.
This way when somebody got banned, everyone could see the history of warnings the banned member received.
This also had the benefit that me and the moderating team rarely had to explain ourselves or our actions.
Okay I'll be fairly brief because i have a rotten cold and am feeling quite crappy this morning.
@Jade, you have articulated your points well. I don't personally agree but I respect the argument you've made and consider the point before discussing future possible misogyny.
yes certainly, had Musical professor discussed his warning reasonably, we would not be having this conversation now since it is trivially true that had he not sent an offensive response to his initial warning he would not be in trouble over that offensive response, however this doesn't say much.
You can say that if the mugger had been able to make himself money some other way he wouldn't have done the mugging, however it is equally true that it is the mugging, and not the lack of money that got the mugger in trouble with the police, and it is also logically true that while all muggers want money, not everyone who wants money commits muggings.
In the same way, it might be true that it was musical professor's lack of facility for rational discussion that caused him to resort to insults, however not everyone who lacks articulation automatically resorts to insults either.
As to the talk of the democracy etc, that's a hole can of worms.
My personal philosophy on this is that no, the forum is not itself a democracy, however as staff we are manifestly here for the good of our members, not the other way around. As most libertarians will tell you, acting in the best interests of a group or individual automatically implies that you respect that group or individual's freedom of choice.
This means for all practical purposes, no we are not absolutely bound! to do something just because the majority say we should, but if we're going against people's preferences, we better have a bloody good reason for doing so.
Dark, that's a fair point. And as I've said a bunch of times now, I'm not trying to make excuses for the guy. I'm worried about precedents and such more than anything else. I'm glad I haven't stepped on your toes, sorry to hear about the cold, and I guess the best I can hope for is that after a goodish while has passed, maybe this will be something you and the mod team will consider revisiting in some capacity. Not to tacitly admit that you were wrong - that's not what I'm after here - but more to suggest that times, people and situations change. There is, after all, a reason why most criminals, even the ones who do some pretty bad stuff, aren't put in jail for life with no chance of parole. It takes a pretty grievous offense to get that sort of sentence.
I didn't mean to suggest that this was a dictatorship, just that it's not a democracy in that the staff isn't under any edict or decree to make everyone happy but to consider the community as a whole and do what is best for it, regardless of what some members may think.
Agreed with jade on this one. I’ve seen much worse flaming and insults that only got warnings.
Meh, slam the door on the guy, why do we want that type of thing going on, people like that will not change, not that are that far over the edge. This isn't 4chan.
@Jade, the above comments about adaptive moderation will answer your question about precedents, namely that we do things according to the situation with the best of our ability at the time. so the ban might be effectively permanent and will not end according to an automated schedule, but we wouldn't be against discussing the situation with musical professor again at a relatively distant future time.
I will say though, I have usually noticed when things have got to this sort of pass it is precisely because! the person cannot admit themselves that they might have been in the wrong, therefore matters are unlikely to change, hence the permanent ban at this stage, still we'll see what happens, and for now at least the forum is free from one source of insulting behaviour.
I have heard you guys arguing that there have been less significant punishments for more severe attacks. I'd like to speak on that.
For one, the mods even with posting stuff that they've seen publicly probably have a better grasp of the situation than we do, and they are doing the best they can. You heard that they discussed this sort of thing with one another before coming to their decision.
Also, bringing up examples of others who have made as bad personal attacks and gotten just warnings does not actually, if we're following logical rules of argumentation, strengthen your points. You acknowledge that at least for the most part, you agree that Musical Professor was in the wrong and should have been banned, but it seems he was overpunished to you.
When you bring up examples of worse behavior and minor punishments of those people, I seem to perceive that the argument you are actually going for, whether you are aware or not, as the conclusion for this one makes more sense, that more people should be banned. from the site rather than punishments ought to be lightened.
You use worse behavior to excuse slightly better behavior which none of the people arguing has said was permissible or allowable. To me that means that the argument is more against those who are still around and being inappropriate than arguing for clemency for Musical Professor. You do say a permanent ban seems a bit harsh, but arguing by nature of the crowd is a logically fallacious means of argumentation.. If you are going to use the general forum approach to wrongdoers, you first have to convince me or your opponents that their light sentences aare what they deserve an they don't deserve what Musical-professor got. I'd also like to see evidence rather than vague ascertions. I am aware that there's a lot of flaming going around from my short time here, but Musical Professor is near the top on inappropriateness that I've seen and I also have little tolerance for personal attacks. He also has a history which should and did come into play.
Also, if the harsh environment on the forums bothers you and you think the moderators aren't catching it or are being too lenient, tell them about it when you see it and don't just trust them to catch it. There's a lot of activity on this forum and we can't expect them to catch everything.
That said against those who are somewhat questioning the severity of the punishment. I am very pleased that you guys are speaking out on it. I have my own reservations despite what I said above especially with posting the private message and e-mail publicly which I understand the logic behind it as Dark explained it but I feel still shows a great lack of respect and is a breech of privacy, though I understand Dark and the other mods in doing it and don't want to argue that point any further.
I also think that it is the obligation of any member of a community to speak out against wrongdoing or to question where they think it might be, whether that is big things on a forum like reporting trolls or another forum example, discussing policies with Mods or the community at large.
There was a forum user last year who used a tool to edit stats in Manamon. Nothing happened to him.
There was a player who said he would do whatever it took, including hacking, to have a game he didn't like taken down. The game in question was, I think, an Ultra Power clone, but again, no punishment.
I've seen people warned for flaming other users who backed off for a day or two, then started up again later, and presumably weren't dealt with in any way that stuck.
These precedents tell me that either 1. the mods are more permissive than I'd probably be in the same situation, or 2. there are elements of all those situations that I don't understand. God knows that's possible.
But when MusicalProfessor got himself a permanent ban and then made things worse, it's a case of "lock the door and throw away the key until further notice". Bear in mind, please, that I'm not arguing that his ban should be lifted right here and now. No, he's not going to get a slap on the wrist just because others have.
The real question here is whether this behaviour on the part of the mods was accidental or deliberate. If it's accidental, then bringing it to their attention the way I've done may help a great deal in setting future precedents. If it is deliberate, though, it goes back to what I said before...either there's stuff I don't know, or there's a bit of an issue based on which buttons are being hit.
I'm clarifying this for you so that you understand that no, I'm not actually suggesting this is a deliberate precedent. I think it's very likely just happened, and I've gotten to see it in progress.
And although I'm not sure I fully agree with you, and again I haven't been here long, I'm not blaming you for your objections @jade, on the contrary, I'm applauding you for bringing them up, as long as there is deliberate commitment to discussion, which I still see here, though I have seen it die in other threads in awful ways, only good can come from it so keep it up.
Since Jade has dragged me into this discussion -- at least this new branch of the discussion, as it were -- without actually mentioning my name, I will state here that cheating a game is not against the rules. The mods cannot punish me, someone who cheated my stats with a free and open source cheating engine, for doing something I did not do on the forum. I said I had done it, yes. But I didn't break any rules whatsoever. The fact that it may or may not be paid is irrelevant. If we banned people for cheating games from the forum then most, if not all, of the people on this forum would not be here today, since I'm sure that all of us have used cheat codes or other cheating methods in games before. Was cheating it wrong? Yes. Did it make it fun? In a way, it did. Did it give me a significant advantage over the rest of the players when in online mode? Yes. Is it reproducible? Yes, with difficulty. The fact of the matter is you can't say that cheating is against the rules since I have no doubt that ever single person on this forum has cheated a game in one way or another, whether it be cheat codes (legally or illegally obtained), cheat engine, memory modification, etc.
Can we please avoid bringing up lots of old history here, those sorts of things never go well, particularly because to be honest I don't exactly recall which incidents your talking about specifically there jade..
For future reference I can say every reported post that gets submitted to the mods gets read. Not just the post itself but the topic, so if there is an issue, report it and it will! be dealt with.
@Ethin, same goes for you too, lets let the past lie please, unless something new comes to light I'd prefer to move forward than backward.
@Dark, I know. I was just stating for the record my thoughts since Jade did involve me by mensioning what I did with Manamon.
A couple of things here.
I've read Jades posts, and my initial reaction was reflected in his extremely well thought out argumentation which I won't be able to reproduce. But to put it simply, the emails shared did not necessarily prove misogonistic (can't be bothered to look spelling up) intent. Crudeness, anger and frustration, sure. Unwarrented and silly, sure. But a direct attack against someone's sex or sexual preference? No.
The error made here is a logical fallacy in which the
victim gets to pick the perps motive by the virtue that he or she was offended, so it must be misogonistic (fuck, I should really look up the spelling of that, seeing as politically I'll probably have to use it a lot in the future).
What you fail to understand if applying this lable
is that the victim does not get to decide the motivation or intent of the perp. In short, no one here can read thoughts. And even if you could, no thought no matter how cruel or messed up is illegal, it's the actions that define us.
I did not see any direct misogonistic ... fuck, I'm looking that up right now. BRB ...
misogynistic ... ahh that's not even a word, well it is now. I'll let the above post remain as it is to show my ignorance. Now let's continue:
I did not see any direct misogyny in said emails. What I did see
was the moderators slapping the lable onto the evidence based on what they personally felt about it instead of out right proof, and here there were no such proof in this case.
My second point about people returning from bans. My philosophy goes like this, when it comes to the world in general.
We all do good things, and bad things, good and bad is of course up for definition but for me good amounts to something positive for the human experience, or to further the progress of humanity while bad of course means the contrary. So while there has been people here who have done
terrible things in the passed, me included, we have also learned from said experiences and even in the middle of my broken English mental clusterfuck I was still contributing to the forum. I haven't seen musical professor contribute from my definition of the word, enriching knowledge or perspective, or if he has, the bad outweighs the good, which can't be said for people like me or Sam Tupy if that was who you were referring to when someone said ... ahh I can't remember.
A one-year ban should suffice, after all this person might, just like me,
experience something enlightening and come back with a better understanding and tolerance and contribute to the forum. My understanding is that we want as many people from as many backgrounds and perspectives as possible, yes?
Furthermore, I'd drop the misogyny angle on the whole ordeal. Outlined by both me and Jade and possibly others, it is nothing but someone being offended and trying to justify the lable by playing the feelings game, and to me that just looks pathetic and unprofessional.
I hope you consider what I've said and understand that I don't intend to offend anyone but at the same time these are my opinions and I have to stand by them. That is not to say my opinions and thoughts aren't up for debate or being challenged, I love new perspectives but so far in this topic I've seen just the same old debate we've seen the last 10 years or so.
even if the misogyny label doesn't fit, the behavior I feel was still unacceptable, also when one writes on a public forum or to someone, one must be careful to speak and write in such a way to avoid confusion. I don't quite see messogyny in the posts myself, but I feel from the description of the original post that there very well could've been some or the claim was at least viable.
As Dark said it was not this that got the person a permanent ban, but their reaction to correction. If you aren't going to play by the rules here and are going to snap and be a jerk when you are corrected, you shouldn't be here. With the e-mail and such I didn't see misogyny but even so I think it warrants a ban.
People fling the word misogyny around way too much, in my opinion. This absolutely does not mean it doesn't happen, and absolutely does not mean that there aren't a whole lot of unacceptable things going on. There are, certainly, many instances of awful behaviour, whether they'd be considered misogyny or not. MusicalProfessor was definitely guilty of that. The only reason I raised the point here is to say that if the reason for his permanent ban was misogyny, it was misapplied. If the reason was for bad behaviour in general, then I still have my concerns but the misogyny thing is just extra. We can agree that something needed to happen without agreeing that his actions were misogynistic.
I deliberately left out names precisely to keep past drama out of things, but memory editing is a very sketchy form of game cheating because it can pretty easily be applied to virtually any part of the game. It isn't, say, a built-in cheat code either. Most times, when you buy a product that doesn't come with such things, editing it in this fashion is, at the very very least, extremely dubious. This is why I brought it up. But as stated, I deliberately left out names so as not to start fights, and also mentioned other issues to show that no, I'm not picking on anyone. The sad fact is that sometimes bad things happen and they aren't really punished in a way that would make sense with the precedent apparently set with this banning. That's all.
According to Merriam-Webster: Misogyny refers specifically to a hatred of women. The word is formed from the Greek roots misein (“to hate”) and gynē (“woman”). According to wikipedia: Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.
If we use the last two definitions as a point of reference, I contend the following statement, straight from the email, falls under the umbrella of sexual discrimination and sexual objectification and does not make any attempt to hide the implication as such and, more importantly, is phrased rather hatefully.
"Seriously, get the fuck off my dick for crying out
loud and go fuck someone else who is actually causing some bullshit on the sight instead of making somehting out of nothing."
I've said it before and I'll say it again; if you don't intend for people to infer something by your writing style, consider editing and or don't write it at all. That having been said, I'm willing to admit I may have missed something here, but as Dark worded well in post 27, had the words been directed towards anyone else male, heterosexual or homosexual, we'd call a spade a spade. A spade is not a shovel, and it is not a pic axe. If we're throwing around the word misogyny too flippantly or frivilously, please show us another definition and or point of reference to go by that we can all universally stand by. I imagine that we can go round and round on this one and come up with any number of subjective views on the matter, but in the end there has to be a basis by which we ourselves make a decision as truthfully and objectively as possible, and as a panel of moderators that want the gaming industry to succeed for everyone across the board, women included, we chose to make a stand and call this one what we believe it to be.
I think Nocturnus has already explained my position and why I believe misogyny was present in this case.
however, the first and formost issue is that of a personal attack of the sort we don't permit on this forum and our response to that attack, I do not believe there is any doubt that a personal attack occurred from the evidence, or at least there was no doubt sufficient to the moderators to deter us from taking the action we have.
as to lord Lundin's claims, we do not, cannot and will give privileged status to anyone on this forum irrispective of past conduct.
If you were the best games developer in the world, but still spent your time belittling and being a general arse to others, you'd still likely get yourself banned for the good of the community, our job here is to keep order and make this forum a welcoming place, and that doesn't happen if some users are allowed to get mistreating others, indeed we frequently here complaints of online environments where that very thing happens.
I did say earlier that moderation needs to be adaptive, this does mean that any permanent ban is not absolutely categorically 100 permanent and will never be reconsidered in the future.
Were musical professor to contact us in a year or so and show that he can and has changed his attitude we would reconsider the ban, (we have done so with members in the past), however the change has to come from his side not from ours.
In a case like this a simple automated ban removal would not be enough to insure that the offender was likely not to do the same thing again, hence why the ban is permanent as far as the forum goes, but why (despite several offensive emails directed at myself and the rest of the moderation staff which I have not shared), I have not blocked Musical professor's email address.
Hope this position makes sense.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2010 PunBB.
Generated in 0.219 seconds (94% PHP - 6% DB) with 9 queries