New forum for member feedback

[Joker]

Unless something has changed, you cannot add staff to your ignore list.

 

[Alessa Gillespie]

There you go.

Enough of the witch-hunt already.

i complained about being unable to add staff to ignore lists. UNLESS THIS IS NOW SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE? trust me i have tried it.

 

[Octo]

Yeah Masa, you can't ignore mods/staff. Though I do actually think it would be a good idea in this instance.

Like I can see the logic of why normally on a forum you shouldn't be able to ignore mods, but here the only mods Ive ever seen to step into a thread and give people verbal warnings are Mako, Aaron and Road. I honestly don't remember ever seeing another mod do that, and that includes Ryu.

Another issue here was that people found the reporting of such content to be inconsistent, with it not being clear why people like Ryu seem not to be allowed to make certain jokes while others can do so without outrage

I don't see it this way I'm afraid. The way it looks to me is that everyone can/does make jokes in poor taste, and yet its only Ryu who gets into trouble for it.

See where I told Yop to do an asphixiwank in his holiday thread, I barely know the guy and I was taking a bit of a risk saying such a thing. Yeah ok Yops humor is quite dark, but as has already been said, if you don't know the person very well that changes things.

I can think of numerous other instances where myself and others have gotten away with such stuff.

I'm not saying nobody is allowed to find something offensive, but we have a very loose forum here in terms of what people say and joke about, I don't think Ryu should be singled out as if its just him. So if we need to be more explicit and tighten up the rules then thats one thing, but it should be across the board. Even if thats to the detriment of the 'atmosphere' here.

 

[Tifabelle]

To start off with, I have to agree completely with everything hito's said. Such a voice of reason that hito.

one person who reported it got an apology but not Rishi, which is another problem.

To add to this, the person who received the apology was also more or less told to PM people she was offended by instead of reporting posts. I found it to be a bit out of line for a staff member to discourage the use of the report system (despite what good intention he may have had). And one of the problems that was in the past regarding the moderation between two members was that mods didn't feel the need to step in to "private matters between two members". It comes across as a bit shady.

I mean, had Rishi spearheaded multiple attacks against Ryu in the past I could understand wariness at her reporting him now. But as far as I know she hasn't really done anything like that.

Furthermore, Rishi did publicly address Ryu's post with disdain (or at least expressed in a manner that his response to her "gave her pause"). It was painfully obvious that she found the joke to be in poor taste.He followed that up with another poor judgment in humor by saying that "no one was suggesting anything else". So his response to her reaction was to continue the joke.

Now I don't know the order of events. Was Ryu's first post reported before or after he made the second post?

This is now the second time this thread has gotten hijacked by an unrelated issue than the topic of the OP.

Except this is an off-shoot of the general topic. The reasons people gave against support for the new forum - one of them being not being able to trust staff. We're not talking about the actual forum, but about how and why staff aren't trusted - which is in relation to the creation of the forum. This is a current example of such.

Lastly, insulting/mocking members. I have no idea what's been told or said, but I find it interesting that they would go the route of painting us as "The Man Show" back behind closed doors and not giving any fucks regarding the issues we handle. We get into very long t;dr debates regarding the reports we have come across our laps and sometimes things get heated between all of us. Most of us have known each other for a long time, and since we're in the comfort, privacy and (now unjustly) assumed confidentiality of each other's company, we drop the formality and speak casually, because we assume our fellow staffers will know what we mean, and if it really becomes an issue. They'll kindly tap us on the shoulder and tell us so.

No one expects their not to be casual discussion. No one expects you guys to have on suit and ties in the staff section. But there is a certain decorum that is expected - namely not shit-talking members in a place they can't see. And excuse me for saying, but I do believe you were quoted in this exact thread (although your name wasn't put to it) so you may want to examine that before speaking on the subject. Also a former staff member (Dacon) also said in this very thread that staff do say inappropriate things in the staff thread about members. His post was ignored by everyone, including me, but his point remains. That doesn't mean that's all that is done in staff section, but the fact is that it does take place.

Hell, Tennyo had to slap me and get me in line in regards to how I was talking about this, and I apologized and appreciated it.

Tennyo had suspicions that the staff thread was being leaked. I couldn't say if that was her motivation behind saying something to you, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.


Now as far as how this was handled by mods, here's my two cents for whatever they're worth. When Omega made his offending post in the What Makes Your Day Thread, it was reported by I believe at least two members, one of them being Rishi. He was infracted for this post in a fairly timely manner. Ok, no problem. Ryu makes his joke in the Forever Alone thread and it was reported by at least two members, one of them being Rishi. There has been a long drawn out discussion and investigation into the matter. And my question is why? Why was Ryu not infracted in the same manner that Omega was? And how come Ryu was given an opportunity to take a poll in the IRC and PM one of the reporters to apologize? As far as I know, Omega was not given such an opportunity. It was a joke of similar, and imo, far more aggregious nature. So the fact that it is given more consideration than Omega's post is sort of baffling to me. Only after Ryu's post was reported did staff begin to question their handling of Omega's post. Was it because Ryu is a staff member? Was it because (being a staff member) he could voice his thoughts on the report in the staff thread? Was it because it was Rishi who made the report?

This is all an aside to any distasteful or inappropriate things that might have been said in the staff thread.

What is the status on this btw? Has Ryu been infracted?

Enough of the witch-hunt already.

(Aside from the fact that staff can't be ignored.) This is exactly the sort of thing we discussed previously. This is not a witch-hunt. And exactly the sort of attitude exhibited by staff in the past that has made people feel like they can't trust them. This is not to be dismissed as a "witch-hunt" because it's not and it's also about a larger issue at hand.

See my post above. I have nothing against Ryu personally and no bad history with him. This discussion is not just about Ryu's poor taste in humor, but also about the moderation team and their handling of it.

 

[Octo]

T
Furthermore, Rishi did publicly address Ryu's post with disdain (or at least expressed in a manner that his response to her "gave her pause"). It was painfully obvious that she found the joke to be in poor taste.He followed that up with another poor judgment in humor by saying that "no one was suggesting anything else". So his response to her reaction was to continue the joke.

I have to disagree with this, her first post was 'uh..' which is not exactly explicit in saying 'I am offended by this' is it? It could mean she found it stupid or silly or whatever.

Again I've seen instances where people might similarly respond to a post like that (Rishi's) and its taken in a jokey manner, usually followed up with a macro of some sort.


EDIT: Can someone link to Omegas infracted post?

 

[Tifabelle]

I don't see it this way I'm afraid. The way it looks to me is that everyone can/does make jokes in poor taste, and yet its only Ryu who gets into trouble for it.

I'm not saying nobody is allowed to find something offensive, but we have a very loose forum here in terms of what people say and joke about, I don't think Ryu should be singled out as if its just him. So if we need to be more explicit and tighten up the rules then thats one thing, but it should be across the board. Even if thats to the detriment of the 'atmosphere' here.

I don't know where this perception of Ryu being singled out is coming from. Omega was reported and infracted for the very same manner of post.

 

[Tifabelle]

I have to disagree with this, her first post was 'uh..' which is not exactly explicit in saying 'I am offended by this' is it?

Again I've seen instances where people might similarly respond to a post like that and its taken in a jokey manner.

Her post was not explicit in its wording, but quite clear in its meaning. Especially given the history between these two (which even Ryu stated as a reason for not PMing Rishi after her report). And after Ryu made his second joke, she replied with "stop". So he acknowledges that it's pointless to attempt to make amends with her, but doesn't realize that he shouldn't make these jokes toward her in the first place?


EDIT: Omega's post- http://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=446819&postcount=4511

 

[Zee]

I have to disagree with this, her first post was 'uh..' which is not exactly explicit in saying 'I am offended by this' is it?

It was a clear sign that she was uncomfortable.

See where I told Yop to do an asphixiwank in his holiday thread, I barely know the guy and I was taking a bit of a risk saying such a thing. Yeah ok Yops humor is quite dark, but as has already been said, if you don't know the person very well that changes things.

I can think of numerous other instances where myself and others have gotten away with such stuff.

That doesn't really apply to this situation because you were both okay with it. This is a situation where one party was clearly not okay with it and has voiced this before. If you know the person you're trying to joke with isn't very fond of you and also has called you out on making inappropriate comments before, why would you continue to do it?

edit: damn you belle stop making excellent posts before i can reply

 

[Octo]

Well now I'm totally confused.

And I'm sorry, I'm unaware of any past history between Rishi and Ryu but I still think 'uh..' is not a clear sign of anything.

Omegas post was 2 days prior. But I don't think it's the same thing at all, even if it was considered 'poor taste' so I don't really know why it was brought up in this thread.

EDIT: Yeah, Yop was ok with it, but he might not have been, and he would have been entitled to take offense even if I thought it was a joke.

Obviously things are too loose around here, so we've either got to tighten up the rules or resort to the ignore function.

And as an aside: a more consistent approach towards moderation is needed, but this had been said over 9000+ times.

 

[Zee]

Well now I'm totally confused.

how are you confused

ryu made a joke in poor taste towards a person he's not friends with who said before his comments were creepy in nature and he should not have done this thing there is that good

 

[Alessa Gillespie]

I don't see it this way I'm afraid. The way it looks to me is that everyone can/does make jokes in poor taste, and yet its only Ryu who gets into trouble for it.

generally when someone makes a joke in poor taste, they get infracted, no harm no foul. look at meggy's recent joke and nikkolas' behavior and subsequent ban if you wanted proof of this.

yes, generally, it only becomes a big deal when someone was offended by something a mod said and nothing happens about it.

 

[Joker]

For clarification: Rishi thanked my post, but as she thought about it she got more and more upset with me. I guess she didn't remove it?

 

[Octo]

For clarification: Rishi thanked my post, but as she thought about it she got more and more upset with me. I guess she didn't remove it?

Were you quoting Rishi in that post, or was it directed at her?

EDIT: Like some input from mods on the idea of implicating an 'ignore mod' function, dunno if we need a separate thread for that but it looks like a few of us think its a good idea.

 

[Joker]

A quote. I took something she said in private and posted it entirely out of context. That tends to upset people.

 

[Cthulhu]

I guess I should maek poast as well. Revised it before poasting, since Mako pretty much made all my points, only better.

First, the case in question: Ryu makes a politically incorrect joke, Rishi takes offense, reports, does not get taken seriously; that's the gist of it. Not denying Rishi did in fact take offense or was creeped out; the main problem here is "Where, and if so, do we draw the line?" We have a few options here:

* Forbid politically incorrect, sexually flavored jokes referencing abduction, rape, child molestation, chloroform, what-have-you from this point on; previous offenses will have to be forgiven, since retroactive warnings for stuff aren't very helpful; although if desired it could be considered in this case. For this, we'd have to reach a consensus of where the line is; is it okay to post suggestively about what happened with Cloud in the Bumblebee Inn? Is it okay to post fanart with discutable consent from the depicted parties? Is it okay to say 'fuck you!'? This is hard and, even if we manage a consensus, very hard to maintain; I can already see the complaints about people getting warned (and feeling it was unjust) coming. I don't care about that though.

Pro: Single policy on politically incorrect jokes
Con: Hard to define where the line is.

* Warn / take action on a case-by-case basis; if a post was reported, we warn / take action, regardless of who posted it or to whom it was addressed, in the assumption that whoever reported it took offense.

Pro: Those who take offense get what they want
Con: Those who get warned may not get why they're warned, because other politically incorrect jokes are considered OK, apparently. Actually, this is the main source of the debate; why take action on Ryu while politically incorrect jokes haven't seemed to be a major problem until now?

* Write this off as an incident and carry on; welcome to the internet.

Pro: Nothing changes
Con: May alienate certain members

In any case, I don't think this is or will remain an isolated incident; this particular thing has come 'round before, action was taken, everything was fine again (iirc), and I'm sure it'll come around again - I dread the day when someone will take offense to hints / threats of tentacle rape, and knowing Ryu, I know he'll make a less than politically correct post again sometime. Can't be helped, really, just who he is. Note that he's not a creep or a robot (iirc, that was what he was accused of last time); it helps if you get to know him, preferably IRL via skype or something. I know that's probably not an option though.

Thing is, we as staff (generally) fail to comprehend why someone would feel creeped out by Ryu, and thus we side with him. In this case, there's two parties, two strong opinions on a matter, and well, one side will always lose. We fail at looking at certain issues objectively; guilty as charged. I don't actually know how to handle this; removing Ryu from staff (again) is an option, but then comes the fact that politically incorrect jokes - harsher than his - have been made in the past and nobody - to our knowledge - took offense, so in that case it looks to us as if it's because it's Ryu, which feels like unjustly singling someone out over someone's opinion of that person. If that makes sense. See the problem we're having?

Yes, we weren't taking the report very seriously in the staff section; that's the problem, we believe that everyone in there adheres to a certain code of conduct and keeps it behind closed doors. I'm all up for staff transparency, but you have to remember that everyone in there (including myself) believes they can speak their mind in there - something I also agree with and encourage, by the way. If everyone thinks the joke wasn't more offensive than others, and that the person that took offense, well, shouldn't, they will say so, and in harsh words if they feel like it. But because those opinions and the manner they're voiced in are not exactly politically correct or very "staff-like", if you will, they're not suitable for the public - and as such should remain behind closed doors, to prevent stuff like this from happening.

I'm not inclined to tell staff to remain politically correct, level-headed, or nice in the staff section. I know I wouldn't be able to adhere to that, for one, .

If there's a general desire to put staff on ignore lists, I can flip that switch and make it so; a 'yea' or 'nay' would be adequate, and if a mod's warnings about, for example, derailings of threads are not seen, we'll just warn people for repeat offenses. Own risk, etc.

I forgot any other point I wanted to make. Disclaimer: above poast may not be politically correct.

Edit: Aaron suggested a 4th option, a BBcode similar to the spoiler tag that masks politically incorrect jokes for those that would take offense.

 

[Makoeyes987]

To add to this, the person who received the apology was also more or less told to PM people she was offended by instead of reporting posts. I found it to be a bit out of line for a staff member to discourage the use of the report system (despite what good intention he may have had). And one of the problems that was in the past regarding the moderation between two members was that mods didn't feel the need to step in to "private matters between two members". It comes across as a bit shady.

Please explain to me what's shady about encouraging two members who have a disagreement or an issue between each other, to actually talk about it like civil, rationale human beings?

When you report a post to us (the staff), you're asking us to directly get involved in moderating the post and potentially warning/infracting the post that is being reported. The Report system is meant to report posts that you feel to be at issue with in terms of either breaking the rules, being not allowed, or generally being problematic in terms of their existence on the forum. So making it a moderator issue to be discussed and looked at in terms of the rules, is what we usually do.

If the reason you're reporting the post is something aside from that, and is more along the lines of vocalizing how you felt the person spoke out of line in terms of bad taste, and you do not want this to be a moderator issue or infraction. It's best to talk to them first. Or rather, use the new forum now that we've created for this purpose, in the first place.

The reason Aki's report was handled with differently was because Tennyo got to the root of the matter immediately and made me aware of just what Aki and the anonymous member's exact problem was, and what needed to be done to correct it. A joke was made that triggered someone and made them feel uncomfortable. They wanted an apology and acknowledgment of said consequence of the joke, and then I apologized. Realizing that that had been the issue, I also stated that in the future, if I were to say a joke or something that had such a negative impact on someone, they should feel free to tap me on the shoulder (i.e. private message me, or visitor message me) and let me know what I did wrong. I'll gladly own up to it, apologize, and if need be, edit the post.

I made this recommendation because it would expedite the acknowledgment of the issue, and get to the remedy faster than having the actual intent and reason for the report examined and puzzled over, because again. When something comes through the Post Report system, it's looked under the lens of moderation, rule breaking, and what consequence from the moderator end needs to be done. If the issue is something along the lines of a personal apology or personal issue. It's best to personally contact the person and rectify it through there.

I don't find anything at all shady or questionable in trying to make issues like these not be held up by bureaucratic confusion or discussion.

Furthermore, Rishi did publicly address Ryu's post with disdain (or at least expressed in a manner that his response to her "gave her pause"). It was painfully obvious that she found the joke to be in poor taste.He followed that up with another poor judgment in humor by saying that "no one was suggesting anything else". So his response to her reaction was to continue the joke.

There's a difference between tersely saying you find the joke in poor taste, and saying that you were personally offended/triggered/hurt by the joke's telling and you would appreciate an apology. Rishi did not express the latter. Furthermore, Ryu's response to her "uhhhhhh" was as such, because according to him, he was unaware of just what she had a problem with and what he expected her to do.There was a serious communication gap that unfortunately occurred along with staff trying to figure out just how we were supposed to handle and moderate such an issue.

No one expects their not to be casual discussion. No one expects you guys to have on suit and ties in the staff section. But there is a certain decorum that is expected - namely not shit-talking members in a place they can't see. And excuse me for saying, but I do believe you were quoted in this exact thread (although your name wasn't put to it) so you may want to examine that before speaking on the subject. Also a former staff member (Dacon) also said in this very thread that staff do say inappropriate things in the staff thread about members. His post was ignored by everyone, including me, but his point remains. That doesn't mean that's all that is done in staff section, but the fact is that it does take place.

There wasn't any shit-talking of members, as I said. Context goes a long way, and my statement in the discussion was not in reference towards insulting Looney or any other member. It was in reference to how on one hand a post can be interpreted as a joke, and then on another, said post could be construed as a disgusting joke regarding sexual violence. Road's reference to the Buffalo Bill character from "Silence of the Lambs" was brought up, ignored and not seen as anything tasteless or offensive. So I pointed out the inconsistency within the context of that discussion how that was allowed to fly.

If whoever your supposed leak was gave you the full story, Tennyo very accurately countered my point in stating that perhaps they are offended by that as well but that was an entirely different matter in the first place, and then in the same thread I apologized for my leap to a conclusion.

I'm more than aware of what I say, and the context of my words since I'm the person who says them. If I was made aware that someone would try to parse and take the words I say in the privacy of conversation with another member of staff and try to use it against me, I would naturally amend my words to be better interpreted outside of the context of the whole conversation. Again, I find it very interesting that someone amongst us seems more interested in vilifying and negatively portraying our methods of discussion than actually telling the truth of how we worked on the issue.

Tennyo had suspicions that the staff thread was being leaked. I couldn't say if that was her motivation behind saying something to you, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.

If that was her suspicion then she never told any of us that, and merely continued presenting herself as she normally does. Likewise for myself.

Now as far as how this was handled by mods, here's my two cents for whatever they're worth. When Omega made his offending post in the What Makes Your Day Thread, it was reported by I believe at least two members, one of them being Rishi. He was infracted for this post in a fairly timely manner. Ok, no problem. Ryu makes his joke in the Forever Alone thread and it was reported by at least two members, one of them being Rishi. There has been a long drawn out discussion and investigation into the matter. And my question is why? Why was Ryu not infracted in the same manner that Omega was?

Because at first, we were under the assumption that Omega made a trolling, flipant rape joke for no reason, but due to further investigation there were other particulars that came into play.

Furthermore, Omega's joke clearly had the connotations of rape. It mentioned rape. That was the reason for the timely and immediate infraction. The previous other people we've infracted for offensive behavior (Nikkolas, Sylvie, etc) were infracted due to egregious trolling and insulting other members. Ryu's post did not qualify under either category.

Ryu's post however, makes no mention of sex or rape. It was a reference to the movie "A Clockwork Orange" and what happened to the character Alex in terms of his brainwashing and conditioning to no longer be the same person that he was. No mention of rape or sex was in said post. The "long drawn out discussion and investigation" regarding this post was because of how dissimilar these two posts were, and how we had members clearly wanting something to be done regarding these two posts and how we could fairly justify infracting them both for the same thing. Again, when looking at issues such as these, we look at them in terms of consistency, and precedence.

And how come Ryu was given an opportunity to take a poll in the IRC and PM one of the reporters to apologize? As far as I know, Omega was not given such an opportunity. It was a joke of similar, and imo, far more aggregious nature. So the fact that it is given more consideration than Omega's post is sort of baffling to me. Only after Ryu's post was reported did staff begin to question their handling of Omega's post. Was it because Ryu is a staff member? Was it because (being a staff member) he could voice his thoughts on the report in the staff thread? Was it because it was Rishi who made the report?

No, it was because the entire tone and content of his joke was different than the joke Omega made. His joke clearly referenced rape, Ryu's made no such mention of the issue.

Furthermore we were unsure of just what the complainants wanted to happen. If it was an issue of an apology, that would be easy to understand. If I recall correctly, Ryu apologized to one offended member regarding said joke. If it was in regards to an infraction, then that is what we were discussing. Because again. Omega's joke and Ryu's joke were not the same. Both offended people, but the content of said offending jokes were vastly different.

What is the status on this btw? Has Ryu been infracted?

No he has not been infracted because there is no rule we have that states one cannot tell really bad and/or tasteless jokes. That's why we said that such an issue is a personal one that needs to be discussed.

 

[Octo]

No he has not been infracted because there is no rule we have that states one cannot tell really bad and/or tasteless jokes. That's why we said that such an issue is a personal one that needs to be discussed.

This, we have a tentacle rape joke nearly every day of the week here and nobody bats an eyelid.

Now, if Ryu or anyone else made a joke that someone was offended by, and that person explicitly said I find that offensive, but then they persisted then that would fall under the umbrella of trolling/harrasment and/or flaming/insulting.

Of course by this same logic Omega shouldn't have been infracted either - he said something tasteless that offended someone, but it wasn't directed at anyone in particular and he wasn't persistent with it (quoting Rishi out of context was another issue though)

 

[Cookie Monster]

There has been a long drawn out discussion and investigation into the matter. And my question is why? Why was Ryu not infracted in the same manner that Omega was? And how come Ryu was given an opportunity to take a poll in the IRC and PM one of the reporters to apologize? As far as I know, Omega was not given such an opportunity. It was a joke of similar, and imo, far more aggregious nature. So the fact that it is given more consideration than Omega's post is sort of baffling to me. Only after Ryu's post was reported did staff begin to question their handling of Omega's post. Was it because Ryu is a staff member? Was it because (being a staff member) he could voice his thoughts on the report in the staff thread? Was it because it was Rishi who made the report?

This is all an aside to any distasteful or inappropriate things that might have been said in the staff thread.

What is the status on this btw? Has Ryu been infracted?

Also realize that Omega's joke threatened Rishi with rape, a forum member. Ryu's joke was about Jennifer Lawrence.

 

[Octo]

Also realize that Omega's joke threatened Rishi with rape, a forum member. Ryu's joke was about Jennifer Lawrence.

No, Omega was quoting her. He wasn't threatening her with rape at all.

 

[Strangelove]

This, we have a tentacle rape joke nearly every day of the week here and nobody bats an eyelid.

tbh, I always felt a bit of discomfort about that being banded around all the time but never said anything for a reason Omega mentioned in another thread on another subject ages ago: thinking that any complaint will just end with you being perceived as a big overly sensitive baby and your complaint ignored. because this is the internet, grow a thicker skin you fag

Ryu's post however, makes no mention of sex or rape. It was a reference to the movie "A Clockwork Orange" and what happened to the character Alex in terms of his brainwashing and conditioning to no longer be the same person that he was.

I've not seen A Clockwork Orange, though I know it involved that, but is it clear from the wording of Ryu's post that it is a reference to the film? I don't see anything unique about how he worded that post that would suggest it's a reference to something, or that there was anything in the general context of the thread relating to that film that might clue the reader onto the fact that it's meant to reference the film. So it comes out of nowhere with no clear indication or hint that it from the film.

No, Omega was quoting her. He wasn't threatening her with rape at all.

When it was originally reported and infracted, that wasn't known. It just looked like a post Omega was making directed at Rishi.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Her post was not explicit in its wording, but quite clear in its meaning. Especially given the history between these two (which even Ryu stated as a reason for not PMing Rishi after her report). And after Ryu made his second joke, she replied with "stop". So he acknowledges that it's pointless to attempt to make amends with her, but doesn't realize that he shouldn't make these jokes toward her in the first place?


EDIT: Omega's post- http://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=446819&postcount=4511

Which none of us knew until after the fact. The "Rishi:" at the beginning of his post lead us to believe he was directing that comment toward her, not quoting her.

EDIT: Yeah, what Hito said.

 

[Zee]

tbh, I always felt a bit of discomfort about that being banded around all the time but never said anything for a reason Omega mentioned in another thread on another subject ages ago: thinking that any complaint will just end with you being perceived as a big overly sensitive baby and your complaint ignored.

oh same? sometimes i'm a little put off/weirded out but since the jokes and comments are not made at me i leave that alone to whichever parties are involved. i honestly try to do the same in the case of ryu but it's harder to ignore when he directly responds to one of my friends.

I've not seen A Clockwork Orange, though I know it involved that, but is it clear from the wording of Ryu's post that it is a reference to the film?

I've seen it and I definitely did not get that it was supposed to be a reference.

 

[Makoeyes987]

The post reporting is meant for reporting posts that break the rules. Posts that are offensive sometimes break the rules, but sometimes they do not.

I am not sure when the misconception of the post report system was for anything that bothered you that falls under the sun, but when you report a post to us. We examine if/how the post broke any rules, what action needs to be taken, and if/how we need to frame our action within the context of our rules. That's always been how we dealt with things. That's why sometimes it takes awhile for us to act on said reports.

If you aren't comfortable with telling the person who offended you that you are offended, then I can only recommend you PM another mod and then have said mod PM the person. Although, as stated in the secret that was posted before, a lot of these issues of drama, misunderstanding, and hurt feelings would probably resolve themselve a lot more cleanly if there was more direct contact and interaction, instead of going through 1,001 intermediaries.

And as mentioned before, this new section is also meant to serve as a way of opening up communication in a safe, and respectful way.

Omega's post was dealt with because it was clear. Ryu's joke was not because again. It was nowhere near the same level as Omega's. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make it. It had nothing to do with him being a moderator and everything to do with his joke not being about rape.

I've not seen A Clockwork Orange, though I know it involved that, but is it clear from the wording of Ryu's post that it is a reference to the film? I don't see anything unique about how he worded that post that would suggest it's a reference to something, or that there was anything in the general context of the thread relating to that film that might clue the reader onto the fact that it's meant to reference the film. So it comes out of nowhere with no clear indication or hint that it from the film.

True, it isn't explicitly clear that's the origin, but that was his reference according to him. However, the joke doesn't reference any indication of sex or sexual violence either. So interpreting it as equitable to Omega's joke is extremely hard to justify.

 

[Octo]

Yeah, I didn't get a Clockwork Orange ref specifically but it was clear it was about brainwashing.

tbh, I always felt a bit of discomfort about that being banded around all the time but never said anything for a reason Omega mentioned in another thread on another subject ages ago: thinking that any complaint will just end with you being perceived as a big overly sensitive baby and your complaint ignored. because this is the internet, grow a thicker skin you fag

I know what you mean, there was something said the other day but because of the nature of what was said and who said it I didn't say anything. It's not that I thought it was mega offensive but it did have certain implications, it was more tactless than anything.

It wasn't directed at me though, and because of who said it and their past reactions I just figured I'd let it slide, but I did wonder if the person it was directed at was bothered by it - because they're relatively new and might not feel ok with calling someone out. :/

 

[Ⓐaron]

I'm just going to add that Omega's post was infracted almost immediately because staff thought, at the time, that he was threatening her. That would almost certainly be against the rules. Even with that interpretation, other staff members came in almost immediately (two days before the report of Ryu's post came in) and said, hold up, we need to make sure that we're reading this correctly and that the reports are serious, and to establish a definitive policy on what is allowable content when it comes to joking. This is why when the second post report came in, there was no decisive action - staff had not reached consensus on what, if anything, should be censored as far as offensive jokes go, and in fact we still have not reached anything approaching a consensus. In short, no matter who the subject of the second post report was, it is certain that the post would not have been infracted until some consensus was reached, if indeed it would be infracted at all (we've never been big on retroactive warnings, though I'm not going to say it would be impossible for it to happen). As there is still nothing approaching a consensus, nothing has been done about the second post.

Yop already mentioned my suggestion - create a trigger warning tag and then force all potentially offensive/triggering/tasteless content to go under it. It may be a pain in the ass but it results in the least censorship of content while still allowing people to make the decision whether to view content that may upset them. Obviously, posting such content outside a trigger tag could then become a warn/infraction-worthy offence.

I have read the entire thread, but most of my reactions have already been stated better by somebody else (which makes sense, since apart from making stupid poasts in the staff forum and cleaning up technical issues I haven't been doing much as staff for the last three months, so I'm sort of on the outside of this issue). I did, however, think this deserved clearing up.