What is acceptable in terms of edgy humor?

[Kingtrin]

This is mostly discord/forums but im going to assume that similar rules will be enforced in game unless otherwise stated because this deals with rule 1 as a whole.

Recently someone caught a warning for an edgy meme regarding the recent shooting in NZ. The meme was relatively low effort but was not trying to support the shooter or make a serious political statement. It was run of the mill average crap. This is what nervere said on the matter.

I asked everyone not to post any memes about the NZ shooting because it's distasteful and Discord has been handing out blanket bans to entire servers for it.
They banned, what, 10,000 people from the HOI4 Tribes server because their off-topic channel was unmoderated with NZ shooting memes?
Then you pinged me with a shooting meme so I banned you. I don't know what you expected, really, you were practically asking to get banned.

We can all agree discord going full retard means we need to consider they may sperg onto our discord due to said memes and that the server not being blanket banned is more important. My issue lies with the statement "because its distasteful". Rustledjimm followed with a similar, more dismissive, sentiment.

I'm so sorry that your ability to post pictures of a shooter who murdered 50 people on specific forumsite was taken from you.
if you really feel the need to make those posts might I suggest you go to 8chan and stay there?

If there was disagreement from the host or headmins they would speak up but I don't see any. This site should not have any images of the shooter or the incident. Sure I personally dislike the incident, don't you? But even if I did not care about it this forum site is still never the place for such content.
You have places for that.

Then obscolene posted something mega retarded that I'm not going to bother dissecting because he deserved a permaban for that shit. I'd like to focus on the part about any images or memes related to the shooter being cast aside as "too edgy". In other words, would anyone give a flying fuck if the tragedy was not recent? Because by god we have dark memes about tragedies that nobody has lifted a finger on before. Are the crusade memes featured in corp mercs too hot for TG? because those god fearing murder loving bastards would have made brevik blush. Speaking of brevik, is he too hot for TG? I know for a fact people have routinely gotten away with joking about mass shooting memes involving brevik and its been generally considered accepted here.

The culture here is absolutely influenced by 4chan and that means you have people who will make edgy jokes. Previously it seemed like the administration was in agreement with the sentiment that you could be fairly edgy as long as it wasn't overdone. This varied tremendously between admins but overall it seemed to hold. Now, it appears that rule 1 has been reinterpreted at some point to be stricter on what level of edginess is considered acceptable. Throughout this shitshow the discussion has derailed into character assassinations and association fallacies. Furthermore, multiple admins are arguing that this has always been the case, and that we should "just know better" on what is considered acceptable as the community has "matured".

Well sorry but we are not fucking psychic. If you guys would like to climb out of your INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower to tell us what your line of reasoning is outside of discord being assholes I'd love to hear it. I can't honestly tell if you actually have changed your policy or if this is just due to recent events.

Here are some random examples: mass shooting memes, ironic support of fascism/racism/anti-semitism, unironic support of fascism/racism/anti-semitism, memes regarding genocide, pictures of dead people in caskets (no decay or gore), rape jokes, joking about sexual harassment, calling someone a faggot/nigger.

I ask these topics as a starting point for discussion, not because I actually believe each one should be allowed.

[PKPenguin321]

Fee fi fo fum, I smell a thread about a specific instance

[subject217]

tgstation award for most entitled policy thread of 2019

Now, it appears that rule 1 has been reinterpreted at some point to be stricter on what level of edginess is considered acceptable.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=336

1. No spam. (Contentless posts, repeated posts, off topic posts)

hmmmmmmmm

as a side note on that you should also check out the policy discussion rules, i'll quote a relevant one

4.) This board is for discussing in-game administrative policy and rules, including in-game server configuration; coding policies and rules is discussed in #coderbus viewtopic.php?f=2&t=150

doesn't really look like an in-game issue to me, you're probably better off finding a different board for this thread methinks
having taken a casual look across the forums for a suitable alternative your best bet is probably making a thread in https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=45, but otherwise this thread has zero relevance whatsoever to in-game administration (or the discord beyond your use of it as a comparison)

[oranges]

People are getting their wires crossed and we can't resolve that without referring to actual instances.

1) malkevin getting banned for 1 week for saying remove kebab in the 2k19 pol thread
this was an overreaction imo, edgy humour, kinda lame, probably not worth banning them
2) obscolene getting tossed for posting a screed supporting the shooter
duh obvious, send em to federal pound town for all anyone cares
3) intig getting an image deleted because it contained a screencap from the video in a meme context
The one most people appear to be debating, and I think some people are assuming they're supporting obscolene instead

This one is up in the air, and I think fairly falls into the too soon m8 category, so you should probably just stack ur shit and post it 12 months down the line instead when people aren't so fresh about it. Plenty of other locations that'll accept your 10 year old humour right now and actually enjoy it instead of just sighing and moving on.

edit:
4) repukan getting banned from discord for posting the image
duh you fucking moron, the TOS are clear, and violators will be annihilated.

[Rustledjimm]

[oranges]

now you're just mocking people seeking a perfectly reasonable clarification on where the line is.

[Kingtrin]

If you guys would like to climb out of your INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower to tell us what your line of reasoning is outside of discord being assholes I'd love to hear it.

I don't understand the hostility here, honestly, and I feel like if anything, this thread is directed to Jimm and not admins as a whole.
Nervere's reasoning is our stance as Head Admins. The reason why the memes, pictures and whatnot are banned on Discord is because of their ToS or whatever they have decided.
I don't know if there's anything else you would like us to say about this. I don't think our personal opinion on the matter is relevant.

I don't have anything against jimm specifically but his attitude is obviously dismissive. I think I explained reasonably well what I wanted out of this thread.

tgstation award for most entitled policy thread of 2019

Again, I think you can understand where I'm coming from wubli because this is the attitude I'm seeing.

Now, it appears that rule 1 has been reinterpreted at some point to be stricter on what level of edginess is considered acceptable.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=336
1. No spam. (Contentless posts, repeated posts, off topic posts)
doesn't really look like an in-game issue to me, you're probably better off finding a different board for this thread methinks
having taken a casual look across the forums for a suitable alternative your best bet is probably making a thread in https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=45, but otherwise this thread has zero relevance whatsoever to in-game administration (or the discord beyond your use of it as a comparison)

Thats completely off the mark. If the forums and discord have a certain expectation of acceptable edgy humor then that does have a bearing over what is acceptable in game. In this case, I should clarify that I meant how this would impact in game conversation. Instead of asking about it in terms of rule 1 I should have just said forum rules 6/7. I think you get the idea of what I am asking about though.

People are getting their wires crossed and we can't resolve that without referring to actual instances.
This one is up in the air, and I think fairly falls into the too soon m8 category, so you should probably just stack ur shit and post it 12 months down the line instead when people aren't so fresh about it. Plenty of other locations that'll accept your 10 year old humour right now and actually enjoy it instead of just sighing and moving on.

Thank you for clarifying this. I clearly missed a lot of info. I'm not partial to this kind of humor, rather I take issue with the fact that we have this unwritten rule about "too soon" that nobody is citing and seems to be the case here. I'm disappointed that the administration is taking such a detached approach but I guess it means business as usual.

Yes, yes there does need to be a rule. I think qustinnus put it best.

>being edgy about tragedies and death is funny as long as it happend more than 3 months ago
haha yes good argument

I genuinely don't care if you want to suppress all jokes on mass shootings or let the memes run wild. Thats not what I'm pointing out here. Stay classy jimm.

[Screemonster]

is it really necessary to actually write down "don't do anything that might bring the long dick of the law down upon the site or breaks the ToS of our service providers"
when goof called ATMs retarded and posted goatse on github his gitban was nothing to do with tgstation's rules or policies, tg literally have no say in the matter of whether goatse is allowed on github and no amount of "it's just edgy humour bro can't you take a joke" will protect you

[oranges]

yeah but in this case we're explicitly discussing matters on our forum, which are only answerable to MSO, american law and the hosting provider.

[lmwevil]

it was certainly way too soon, but Jimm ever since getting gamemaster has also been very dismissive and refusing to explain his actions whenever he kneejerks generally speaking (nothing personal bud).

i support your right to shitpost away on /pol/ about how funny a mass shooting is with degenerates but this is just a gaming server, we don't really want to have to deal with mass loss of life if we don't have to; almost certain we'd get pissy at a holocaust denier thread too for similar reasons of it just being dickish and in poor taste

all in all this is an escape from reality as games media go, and mass shootings are a bit too close to home.. frankly it shouldn't NEED a rule to state that it's really not okay and codifying it to fit one or two people is an oddity for sure

[terranaut]

imagine asking admins not to be arbitrary fuckheads but explain the reason they do things
haha crazy right

nobody is debating the discord blanket ban because of their shitty ToS, nobody wants to lose the server because of one memer
why exactly does the shooting being recent have an impact on whether or not jokes are okay?
time passing doesn't make any incident anywhere any more or less tragic and this is just stupid flipflopping and power fantasies

[Arianya]

I'm not sure how anyone can think that a tragedy doesn't soften with time, and that trying to make light of things that happened very recently might be seen by some as unempathetic.

That's pretty basic stuff?

[Kingtrin]

I'm not sure how anyone can think that a tragedy doesn't soften with time, and that trying to make light of things that happened very recently might be seen by some as unempathetic.

That's pretty basic stuff?

Humor me, how long do you need to wait before it's ok to make memes about the NZ shooting? After how long will the administration no longer see fit to pursue a shitty meme about a particular mass shooting? I'm pretty sure every admin will have a unique answer to this question. Some will give a timetable, others will assert its never ok, a few more will say my question is loaded. None of them will be able to point out where it is in the rules that says the face of a mass shooter is not ok to repost, nor will they be able to prove why their answer is more legitimate than others.

Because theres literally nothing in our rules about this. There are references to it sure, and you are right about it being seen an unempathetic, but nothing concrete enough to rely on.

[Lumbermancer]

Roughly as long as it took for 9/11 jokes to become socially acceptable.

[terranaut]

I'm not sure how anyone can think that a tragedy doesn't soften with time, and that trying to make light of things that happened very recently might be seen by some as unempathetic.

That's pretty basic stuff?

No amount of time will make it not make a tragedy, and even then, what amount of time do you deem acceptable? A month? A year? Five years? Why (x) and not (y)? It's completely arbitrary and you'll probably get 10 different opinions if you ask 10 people.

[Grazyn]

Roughly as long as it took for 9/11 jokes to become socially acceptable.

This can be easily calculated

here's a handy wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor_bas ... 11_attacks

edit: the sources are really interesting, I advise reading section 1 of this paper, page 4, which analyzes the average latency for jokes about tragedies to emerge

[Nilons]

I'm not sure how anyone can think that a tragedy doesn't soften with time, and that trying to make light of things that happened very recently might be seen by some as unempathetic.

That's pretty basic stuff?

please update the rules disallowing people from being unempathetic then

[IkeTG]

No amount of time will make it not make a tragedy, and even then, what amount of time do you deem acceptable? A month? A year? Five years? Why (x) and not (y)? It's completely arbitrary and you'll probably get 10 different opinions if you ask 10 people.

I'm not sure if hard and fast rules will make it easier to resolve situations like this, and I don't get this argument anyways. No matter what, an admin is going to have to interpret the rule in order to ban someone for an offense. You will always get some degree of arbitration. You would be lying if you said you don't understand why people were banned for posting jokes about the recent shooting, so it can't be that arbitrary.
To the rest of this discourse, I find the leap in judgement to more red tape increasing accountability strange. People were going to be banned for the jokes and images either way. I'd argue that the rules wouldn't have stopped people from posting the content in the first place, and it would have just led to a different argument on the same day.

[terranaut]

No amount of time will make it not make a tragedy, and even then, what amount of time do you deem acceptable? A month? A year? Five years? Why (x) and not (y)? It's completely arbitrary and you'll probably get 10 different opinions if you ask 10 people.

I'm not sure if hard and fast rules will make it easier to resolve situations like this, and I don't get this argument anyways. No matter what, an admin is going to have to interpret the rule in order to ban someone for an offense. You will always get some degree of arbitration. You would be lying if you said you don't understand why people were banned for posting jokes about the recent shooting, so it can't be that arbitrary.
To the rest of this discourse, I find the leap in judgement to more red tape increasing accountability strange. People were going to be banned for the jokes and images either way. I'd argue that the rules wouldn't have stopped people from posting the content in the first place, and it would have just led to a different argument on the same day.

I understand it but that doesn't mean I agree with it. As mentioned I don't think that waiting half a year to make jokes about people being shot makes the jokes better or worse, or any more or less acceptable. All time does in cases like this is help those directly affected move on, but I don't think anybody here is affected and feels anything deeper than "that was an awful tragedy"; none of our lives are going to change and nobody here is hurt by a joke in poor taste.
As mentioned before by somebody else this server has deep roots in 4chan and 4chan culture, and part of that culture is being allowed to say what you please. Nobody has to like it and you can and will get called an asshole, but I think banning for this is way too much (again, an excemption being in protection of the Discord because of their garbage ToS), and deleting posts on the forum about this is still nonsensical as long as it's in the Hut and doesn't interfere with on-topic discussion elsewhere.

[Lumbermancer]

this server has deep roots in 4chan and 4chan culture, and part of that culture is being allowed to say what you please.

How often you've been to /tg/?

[terranaut]

this server has deep roots in 4chan and 4chan culture, and part of that culture is being allowed to say what you please.

How often you've been to /tg/?

Not as much in recent years but it was my main board a few years ago.

[IkeTG]

As mentioned before by somebody else this server has deep roots in 4chan and 4chan culture, and part of that culture is being allowed to say what you please. Nobody has to like it and you can and will get called an asshole, but I think banning for this is way too much (again, an excemption being in protection of the Discord because of their garbage ToS), and deleting posts on the forum about this is still nonsensical as long as it's in the Hut and doesn't interfere with on-topic discussion elsewhere.

I always felt like this argument was a false dichotomy because 4chan's culture is carved by anonymity, something this forum doesn't have to the same degree. If you want to argue for the ability to say whatever you please without punishment, that argument should stand on it's own without the chan culture posturing.

[Grazyn]

From what I see, this community looks as much influenced by 4chan as any other vidya forum with the same age range (4chan culture is quite pervasive)

It's definitely not influenced by /pol/ culture or our server rules would be very different.

[teepeepee]

No matter what, an admin is going to have to interpret the rule in order to ban someone for an offense. You will always get some degree of arbitration.

Rules aren't there just to justify the actions of the people in charge, they also work by letting the users have an idea of what the boundaries of allowed behaviour are, so they can in good faith try and stay within them.
When an admin chooses to change the way a rule is enforced or even create new ones and apply them retroactively, but refuse to update the rules so the users can, too, update their perceived realm of allowed actions, they feel like they could (and they do) get banned even when they're acting in good faith.

You would be lying if you said you don't understand why people were banned for posting jokes about the recent shooting, so it can't be that arbitrary.

The people that got banned for posting those jokes surely didn't understand they would get banned, or they most likely wouldn't have posted them (unless they wanted to get banned, but I don't see how that wouldn't have happened way earlier if that was their goal). Regardless of their intent, knowing the clear motive of their bans helps others know how to behave to avoid being punished.

To the rest of this discourse, I find the leap in judgement to more red tape increasing accountability strange. People were going to be banned for the jokes and images either way. I'd argue that the rules wouldn't have stopped people from posting the content in the first place, and it would have just led to a different argument on the same day.

You say the rules wouldn't have stopped people from posting the content the administration has now deemed inappropiate, but having those rules made public would have made it clear who was acting in good faith and who wasn't, and if done now, it would too make that clear from here onwards. Having that knowledge would probably help administrators take a more nuanced approach towards people who did wrong out of malice and those who did out of ignorance, something I'm sure would change their enforcement if taken into account.
Regarding accountability, knowing what administrators are behind the changes they agree or disagree with will inform players' vote for elections to come, even if they can only influence 1/3 of the available positions.

[Rustledjimm]

I posted the image above as I said that in INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS tower and someone joked it would be a terrible joke to post it in the thread so I did.


For all those with the argument "WE'RE FROM 4CHAN" (I can hear the distant REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEing on the wind) I wonder if you've ever actually been to 4chan. Do you know what /tg/ is? Do you know what boards are? Do you know each board has certain topics and are moderated?

If you want to use the argument we're 4chan culture then alright, I can accomodate that. We can post things related to /tg/, rpgs, mtg and other card games, quest threads, warhammer etc. etc.

This is not /pol/station, this is not /b/station. If you want to go make those feel free.


Regarding when is it ok and not ok to post memes and pictures of the shooter?

That's more nebulous, you can't go "ok it's been 67 days it's ok now". Everyone has their own interpretations of when it's ok. I can imagine anyone with any humanity empathy in them at all knows that a few days after the incident is too soon.

Also to assume that nobody here was affected is an assumption you should never make.

I drew a temporary line in the sane that you asked for. People posted his picture and memes, I deleted them and warned that no further posts of such kind would be welcome at this moment in time. If you wish to make a rule regarding this go ahead. I feel that anyone with a shred of humanity empathy can see this is a special case.

Regarding Malk's case he was banned for the same reason as Obscolene however he only received a week ban because he was not as bad. If he wishes to make a post like obscolene professing his belief that he thinks the shooter was right he's free to go ahead and then receive his permanent ban.

[IkeTG]

Rules aren't there just to justify the actions of the people in charge, they also work by letting the users have an idea of what the boundaries of allowed behaviour are, so they can in good faith try and stay within them.
When an admin chooses to change the way a rule is enforced or even create new ones and apply them retroactively, but refuse to update the rules so the users can, too, update their perceived realm of allowed actions, they feel like they could (and they do) get banned even when they're acting in good faith.

Why did you cut out the first point before that? I said that I didn't think making a rule to determine how long one should wait before joking about an atrocity would help resolve a situation like this. I was trying to argue that the rule that people desire be made would be just as arbitrary in practice because there's going to be no agreeable metric to how long one should wait before a topic is considered acceptable to joke about. I don't think this is the right approach for the argument.

The people that got banned for posting those jokes surely didn't understand they would get banned, or they most likely wouldn't have posted them (unless they wanted to get banned, but I don't see how that wouldn't have happened way earlier if that was their goal). Regardless of their intent, knowing the clear motive of their bans helps others know how to behave to avoid being punished.

You have presented two extremes as an example. They either fully understand why they got banned because they wanted to get banned, or they have no idea what is going on. I think that for those who got banned for posting jokes didn't think too hard about the jokes, were just passing on something they found funny and ended up eating a ban for their poor timing. If they don't understand why they got banned, I'm not sure if a rule was ever going to help them.

[Grazyn]

I would like to point out that intig wasn't banned for posting the joke "too soon", the image was just deleted. Even if there's no defined temporal limit, it's a good compromise: you post the joke, if admins think it's "too soon" they delete it and you can just wait a few weeks and post it again, and it will most likely stay.

[Rustledjimm]

I'd also like to note there is an official warning system which is noted permanently on your account.

That was not done in this case, this was merely a warning in the thread which will not be permanent.

[ohnopigeons]

I always felt like this argument was a false dichotomy because 4chan's culture is carved by anonymity, something this forum doesn't have to the same degree. If you want to argue for the ability to say whatever you please without punishment, that argument should stand on it's own without the chan culture posturing.

Anonymity does not prevent IP bans from moderators nor does it prevent moot handing over relevant information about posters to US federal authorities when asked.

[Lumbermancer]

nor does it prevent moot

Somebody tell him...I can't do it myself...

[Rustledjimm]

nor does it prevent moot

how to tell someone has no idea about 4chan outside of reddit in a single post

[Qbopper]

I think it bears repeating that the "this is a 4chan based community" argument is absolutely ridiculous

you know who thinks all of 4chan is like /pol/? Redditors who only browse /r/4chan

that's right, me, the Reddit admin himself, is calling you all out as redditors

[IkeTG]

I always felt like this argument was a false dichotomy because 4chan's culture is carved by anonymity, something this forum doesn't have to the same degree. If you want to argue for the ability to say whatever you please without punishment, that argument should stand on it's own without the chan culture posturing.

Anonymity does not prevent IP bans from moderators nor does it prevent moot handing over relevant information about posters to US federal authorities when asked.

That doesn't matter

[Grazyn]

nor does it prevent moot

Somebody tell him...I can't do it myself...

moot is just a title that is inherited by the owners of 4chan

[ohnopigeons]

nor does it prevent moot

Somebody tell him...I can't do it myself...

The fact that moot is no longer site operator/owner is irrelevant as it was moot who agreed to and implemented the extensive collaboration system with the FBI. Let me restate my holistic point in a more transparent fashion since it's clear that posters here get easily distracted by irrelevant details.

Posters may be anonymous to each other in anonymous imageboards but they never have and never will be anonymous to site moderators and operators. Just as we have systems for catching ban evaders in the game, imageboard owners also have their methods and tools to deal with their respective "evasion" technologies.

I always felt like this argument was a false dichotomy because 4chan's culture is carved by anonymity, something this forum doesn't have to the same degree. If you want to argue for the ability to say whatever you please without punishment, that argument should stand on it's own without the chan culture posturing.

Anonymity does not prevent IP bans from moderators nor does it prevent moot handing over relevant information about posters to US federal authorities when asked.

That doesn't matter

Your entire argument was that the ability to say anything you pleased was due to imageboard anonymity, which is false as I've just posted. If this doesn't matter than please refrain from posting as such in this thread.

[terranaut]

Ah, I get it a little more.
oranges is probably right, and considering all things together, it's probably not safe for websites in general to be posting memes about it (don't take my word for this, I'm just afraid they'll manage to pull something out that will affect everyone but I know nothing about uwu laws uwu)
I would draw the limit when it's targetted harassment or illegal stuff, probably. I don't fancy the "it's a 4chan server!" excuse to be mean, but I understand it's true to a certain degree, so I only care about not being a dick to other people and that we remain -sort of?- civil.
So my first answer basically doesn't change, hope it helps you understand more what I meant. As for headmin ruling on this, it depends on Hulk and Nerv, but do you think it should be clarified somewhere in the forum rules?
I'd like to mention an example from a few months ago: I once banned someone in game from OOC for a day for saying to someone who had just said they were south african, that "all white south africans deserve to be raped". Anyone could try to downplay it as a pol tier ~joke~, but it was directly targetting other player with whom they weren't even arguing. Do you think it was wrong to do that? Do you think it was too much? Was it okay? Is it different if it's banter? Is it fair because telling someone that they "deserve to be raped" is *too much*, maybe?

Edit: I see it has been moved from policy discussion, but I guess it's still useful in case you guys think it should be something clarified in the rules

The whole "it's a 4chan server" thing may be an unnecessary argument but I do believe that we generally should be allowed to say what we please.
On the ban you made, I think that was the right call, if anything it was too lax. Before anybody calls me a schizo here; I think that targetted harassment that goes well above and beyond banter against our own shouldn't be excused.

[Qbopper]

the problem I have with your train of thought is that "banter" is far too vague and subjective

I would tolerate my friends saying much worse things about me than some random person from a server I play on, and I think a lot of people who rail on about SJWs and shit seem to miss that point

Things don't need to be targetted harassment to be a problem - obviously you don't need to make everything a hugbox and ban the f**k word but if someone has a problem with what you're saying to them, why is the reaction consistently "lol ***I*** don't have a problem with it so you should just deal with it"

(You being a general term and not (you))

[IkeTG]

Your entire argument was that the ability to say anything you pleased was due to imageboard anonymity, which is false as I've just posted. If this doesn't matter than please refrain from posting as such in this thread

Selective moderating and precautions to prevent illegal content from being posted doesn't take away from the fact that 4chan's culture is shaped by a level of anonymity that this forum doesn't have. Content that you post on 4chan has to stand on it's own merit, content you post here relies on other optics, and is subject to more rules and regulations that are interpreted by a larger team of admins trained differently from 4chan moderators. If you want to argue how this forum should be run, that argument should stand on it's own without posturing about chan culture.

My entire argument was about something completely different though, I was more keen on addressing the actual meat of the discourse.

[ohnopigeons]

the problem I have with your train of thought is that "banter" is far too vague and subjective

I would tolerate my friends saying much worse things about me than some random person from a server I play on, and I think a lot of people who rail on about SJWs and shit seem to miss that point

Things don't need to be targetted harassment to be a problem - obviously you don't need to make everything a hugbox and ban the f**k word but if someone has a problem with what you're saying to them, why is the reaction consistently "lol ***I*** don't have a problem with it so you should just deal with it"

(You being a general term and not (you))

Because this isn't the Qbopper forum of his friends, although admittedly someone once tried to turn the forum into the Errorage forum (and his friends).

[ohnopigeons]

Your entire argument was that the ability to say anything you pleased was due to imageboard anonymity, which is false as I've just posted. If this doesn't matter than please refrain from posting as such in this thread

Selective moderating and precautions to prevent illegal content from being posted doesn't take away from the fact that 4chan's culture is shaped by a level of anonymity that this forum doesn't have. Content that you post on 4chan has to stand on it's own merit, content you post here relies on other optics, and is subject to more rules and regulations that are interpreted by a larger team of admins trained differently from 4chan moderators. If you want to argue how this forum should be run, that argument should stand on it's own without posturing about chan culture.

My entire argument was about something completely different though, I was more keen on addressing the actual meat of the discourse.

And my argument is that anonymity is irrelevant to the points you've stated, especially as this thread is just about that: moderation and rules, which both sites are subject to. I believe the differences between moderators are not that large. Can you explicitly state the differences? I honestly cannot see them.

[terranaut]

but if someone has a problem with what you're saying to them, why is the reaction consistently "lol ***I*** don't have a problem with it so you should just deal with it"

If somebody has a problem with what I am saying to them then most of the time telling me to stop will work and I might even apologize, and I think (hope) most people will be similiar.
Dropping a meme in the Hut is not directed at anybody and waltzing in and taking offense because of it is a different matter.

[IkeTG]

And my argument is that anonymity is irrelevant to the points you've stated, especially as this thread is just about that: moderation and rules, which both sites are subject to. I believe the differences between moderators are not that large. Can you explicitly state the differences? I honestly cannot see them.

I'll bite, the most explicit differences between 4chan and this forum is that it's smaller in scope, and admins/moderators have a more tangible social presence in the community. I'd argue that alone is a big enough difference to matter.
Besides that, I don't get why you're trying to argue this point. If you want to give credence to our roots that's fine, but like I said, you shouldn't be posturing to chan culture, your argument should stand on it's own. Otherwise, the 4chan culture thing is used as an argumentative crutch. In this medium, nobody gives a shit about 4chan's culture beyond being an excuse to say edgy shit.

[Stickymayhem]

Our roots have no inherent value and any blind desire to return to our 4chan spawning pit is just an appeal to tradition.

[cedarbridge]

Things don't need to be targetted harassment to be a problem - obviously you don't need to make everything a hugbox and ban the f**k word but if someone has a problem with what you're saying to them, why is the reaction consistently "lol ***I*** don't have a problem with it so you should just deal with it"

Because its not the job of other people to avoid offending you and your perceivable sensibilities. We agree, obviously, that pointed harassment for the sake of harassment is incorrect behavior and should be discouraged. That's the sort of thing that is reasonable to police within any group setting because its obviously and objectively bad behavior. Policing offense personally taken is entirely different. If somebody has a problem with what I or somebody else says and all they can point to is "that's in bad taste/that offends me" then the offense is merely taken and is too arbitrary to be worthy of enforcement. So yes, it is something you should just have to deal with. You are the one offended, you decided to take offense at whatever it was, you have to determine how you're going to deal with that decision to take offense. You can do that any number of ways: avoiding the person or topic in question is usually a good start. The problem becomes when you start to apply personal offense as a rule to determine what can and cannot be said by whom about what. Eventually you'll either produce a hugbox, a box of (generally invisible) eggshells or both.

[Qbopper]

but if someone has a problem with what you're saying to them, why is the reaction consistently "lol ***I*** don't have a problem with it so you should just deal with it"

If somebody has a problem with what I am saying to them then most of the time telling me to stop will work and I might even apologize, and I think (hope) most people will be similiar.
Dropping a meme in the Hut is not directed at anybody and waltzing in and taking offense because of it is a different matter.

my post wasn't so much directed at YOU so much as in general - i'd argue that many people here would take a legitimate "hey, can you please not say that" as incentive to double down. the second part of your post is entirely dependent on context and what is being posted

Our roots have no inherent value and any blind desire to return to our 4chan spawning pit is just an appeal to tradition.

good sticky post collected

Things don't need to be targetted harassment to be a problem - obviously you don't need to make everything a hugbox and ban the f**k word but if someone has a problem with what you're saying to them, why is the reaction consistently "lol ***I*** don't have a problem with it so you should just deal with it"

Because its not the job of other people to avoid offending you and your perceivable sensibilities. We agree, obviously, that pointed harassment for the sake of harassment is incorrect behavior and should be discouraged. That's the sort of thing that is reasonable to police within any group setting because its obviously and objectively bad behavior. Policing offense personally taken is entirely different. If somebody has a problem with what I or somebody else says and all they can point to is "that's in bad taste/that offends me" then the offense is merely taken and is too arbitrary to be worthy of enforcement. So yes, it is something you should just have to deal with. You are the one offended, you decided to take offense at whatever it was, you have to determine how you're going to deal with that decision to take offense. You can do that any number of ways: avoiding the person or topic in question is usually a good start. The problem becomes when you start to apply personal offense as a rule to determine what can and cannot be said by whom about what. Eventually you'll either produce a hugbox, a box of (generally invisible) eggshells or both.

you have clearly missed my point

i am not suggesting that hard rules should be laid out so nobody can offend anyone else without being punished, i am questioning why there is a culture of doubling down when someone is unhappy with a post and mocking them for daring to have any kind of feelings

i personally do not understand why this is still a thing that is tolerated - obviously if someone says something that is offensive, you can't always expect a full apology or something, and sometimes it's not entirely reasonable to ask for one. but when someone's posts consistently and frequently include shit that everyone knows is offensive (easy example, using the n word), why is it excusable just because no one is being PERSONALLY targeted? why should anyone continue to support behaviour that is pretty explicitly just to piss people off?

"avoiding the topic" makes no sense because there are people here who will insert offensive shit into any topic (again, easy one, the n word)

I don't understand why people think that I'm in favor of thought policing and shit when my posts are literally just "have you tried using a shred of empathy for once"

also, quick bonus to really convince everyone i am an ess jay double yew, i'm literally a white straight guy, the odds of me being offended personally are pretty fucking low, that doesn't mean i can't call out dumb fucking behaviour when i see it

[Qbopper]

anyways since i'm getting a bit out of scope with that post - can someone please unironically and seriously convince me that anything of substance is contributed by people making these jokes, or that a firm rule about EXACTLY HOW OFFENSIVE YOU CAN BE would help us at all

because it's incredibly hard to shake the feeling that those who are railing on and on about these topics and wanting to know exactly where the line is on what is and isn't acceptable just want to be able to toe the line and rules lawyer their way out of punishment

[Stickymayhem]

It's far easier to argue your case when you take a step away from the implications of your horrific rhetoric and go to the wonderful neutral land of policy discussion where everything is about beautiful objectivity and democracy and everyone can forget that you're fighting to maintain a platform from which you can spout hatred.

[Kingtrin]

That's more nebulous, you can't go "ok it's been 67 days it's ok now". Everyone has their own interpretations of when it's ok. I can imagine anyone with any humanity empathy in them at all knows that a few days after the incident is too soon.

So what do people take away from this, that a week is just fine?

Also to assume that nobody here was affected is an assumption you should never make.

If someone on the team was personally affected in some way and it caused them to make decisions based on personal feelings would that not be abuse of power? I'd at least expect them to step aside due to bias for a particular case. I would not fault them for being angry or responding badly, but I don't see how this should impact the decision making process of where and when to punish someone.

I drew a temporary line in the sane that you asked for. People posted his picture and memes, I deleted them and warned that no further posts of such kind would be welcome at this moment in time. If you wish to make a rule regarding this go ahead. I feel that anyone with a shred of humanity empathy can see this is a special case.

So lets run with the idea that this is something the headmins wanted anyway in some form, and that what you posted can effectively be considered a new temporary rule. Why was this not communicated outside of the thread? Why isn't this sitting in the forum rules right now as an addenum? If someone breaks this rule can you seriously justify punishing them when its possible they didn't know it existed? Even if someone sees your post they aren't necessarily going to reach the conclusion its a forum wide rule.

Actually, far more important than anything on the forums is to clarify that we can't risk a discord shutdown. I really don't know why you think posting in a single off topic thread is good enough in terms of informing the community.what is reading comprehension.

anyways since i'm getting a bit out of scope with that post - can someone please unironically and seriously convince me that anything of substance is contributed by people making these jokes, or that a firm rule about EXACTLY HOW OFFENSIVE YOU CAN BE would help us at all

because it's incredibly hard to shake the feeling that those who are railing on and on about these topics and wanting to know exactly where the line is on what is and isn't acceptable just want to be able to toe the line and rules lawyer their way out of punishment

Are you this traumatized from being an admin that you can't see how this is a legitimate gripe? I'm not asking for a total ruling on ALL offensive memes. I asked where the broken rule was, and we can see now there was none beforehand (in the case of the one posted to the forums).

Ah, I get it a little more.
oranges is probably right, and considering all things together, it's probably not safe for websites in general to be posting memes about it (don't take my word for this, I'm just afraid they'll manage to pull something out that will affect everyone but I know nothing about uwu laws uwu)

This is a good reason to temporarily change the rules on the forums as well.

So my first answer basically doesn't change, hope it helps you understand more what I meant. As for headmin ruling on this, it depends on Hulk and Nerv, but do you think it should be clarified somewhere in the forum rules?

If rustled is to be taken at their word then his temporary ruling should be announced broadly so people know what will get them into trouble. Extra points for going into detail about how the decision was reached.

I'd like to mention an example from a few months ago: I once banned someone in game from OOC for a day for saying to someone who had just said they were south african, that "all white south africans deserve to be raped". Anyone could try to downplay it as a pol tier ~joke~, but it was directly targetting other player with whom they weren't even arguing. Do you think it was wrong to do that? Do you think it was too much? Was it okay? Is it different if it's banter? Is it fair because telling someone that they "deserve to be raped" is *too much*, maybe?

Edit: I see it has been moved from policy discussion, but I guess it's still useful in case you guys think it should be something clarified in the rules

"all white south africans deserve to be raped" is really only something you say when you want to mess with someone. The fact its referencing rape is secondary, the important factor here is that its directed. Banter is different but nobody is going to ahelp banter and its usually clear upon examination when two or more people are bantering on the forums. The harder to police cases are when there is something that is offensive to the point of bothering other players, but without the joke or meme being directed to them. There is no easy rule for those cases and I am not going to ask for one.

[Ayy Lemoh]

anyways since i'm getting a bit out of scope with that post - can someone please unironically and seriously convince me that anything of substance is contributed by people making these jokes, or that a firm rule about EXACTLY HOW OFFENSIVE YOU CAN BE would help us at all

because it's incredibly hard to shake the feeling that those who are railing on and on about these topics and wanting to know exactly where the line is on what is and isn't acceptable just want to be able to toe the line and rules lawyer their way out of punishment

If no line is ever made for jokes then someone could be punished for just making a joke about a group of people that an admin thinks shouldn't be made fun of.

Imagine if Sticky was allowed to punish people for making fun of vegans. Imagine if someone got banned for saying "natural selection" before murderboning the station despite him not meaning to reference Columbine. Imagine if someone mentions their ideology and gets banned because it is alt-right or racist despite them not being a giant fucking asshole about it. What if someone is actually too leftwing and gets banned because they're told that no SJW nerds are allowed? A line is needed to prevent this.

Now if we mean only edgy humor about shootings and shit then it depends. One thing to take note of is I believe almost no one joked about specific mass shootings before this incident. That means that if the admins ever saw a rare 9/11 joke before or some shit and didn't ban it or remove it then why is that? Has that become legal therefore it shouldn't be banned or did they just not care?

edit: I still think it would be wise to not allow any humor of this incident currently just to prevent some sort of fucking bullshit scenario such as"NZ government here and 5 of you saw wrongthink yep time to arrest you" unless it is confirmed that no one will get their IPs leaked to them. I heard something from ohnopigeons and oranges that implies it wouldn't be an issue (consent-asking wise and punishment wise in order), but I would rather be safe on this issue for the well being of others.

[cedarbridge]

I don't understand why people think that I'm in favor of thought policing and shit when my posts are literally just "have you tried using a shred of empathy for once"

Probably because, as I mentioned, you're wanting people to expend extra effort to hide thoughts and beliefs behind something else in case how or what they say offends somebody somewhere for some reason. It sounds very nice when you phrase it as "a shred of empathy" like you're dealing with soulless robots or something, but really it just comes off as "act how I'd like you to act rather than how you would act" but in a very vague and poorly defined way. Sure, some things are generally accepted as "offensive" to a majority of people, but to a very large portion of people those things are really not at all. To some words are words and to other people they are horrific tools that will lead to the end of society and the death of innocents. Expecting these two groups to see eye to eye on what is offensive enough to require policing or self-policing is a pretty big leap.