Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Customer Service' started by Bill Archer, Apr 23, 2018.
Thanks. I thought it was that, but thought the cutoff was June 30, 1996.
Right you are. I just looked it up.
We are indeed perma-banned.
You're making signatures a much bigger deal than they are in reality. We're talking about small gray text on a white background that literally nobody reads. Moreover, you can't even see them unless you're logged onto your account. Sigs in BigSoccer are basically invisible, especially compared to a number of other message boards I've been on.
This comparison is completely and utterly ridiculous. There is zero ambiguity when someone uses the n-word or f-word. "Globalist" isn't even close to either of those words, or to actual anti-Semitic slurs.
The Red Cross thinks I'm gonna go crazy...well, I am a BS moderator...
But it is anti-Semitic. It is not a ki[k]e, but it has the same meaning. Some people negatively* refer to Blacks as "animals." Some people negatively* refer to Jews as "globalists."
* - There is a better term, but I don't want anybody to think I'm calling them that when I'm not.
1. As has been explained many times, it was not simply the word "globalist" that was the problem, it was the context in which it was used and the refusal to use an alternate signature. Why is that difficult to understand?
2. If Jewish people consider it a slur, then it is an actual anti-Semitic slur. They are the best determiners of what anti-Jewish slurs are, not you.
Yeah but I'm getting the impression that it was less that he was banned outright for having that in his sig, and more that the connotation was pointed out to him (possibly combined with prior issues) and rather than just changing it on the off-chance that people may be offended by it, he refused.
I mean if it was pointed out to you that the plaid skull was synonymous in some parts of the country, with the Nazi swastika, wouldn't you just say "Well, I kinda like the avatar, but if it's going to be interpreted as that, I'll use something different"?
You can't pass off the augment that the word itself is beside the point, since it has been directly mentioned by several staff in this thread.
If we need a reason to ban him, then use one of linty of examples that have been much more direct, offensive, and on-the-nose. This specific instance is kinda flimsy, which is where I take issue with it.
That's bullshit. How many mature language filters can you name off the top of your head that block the word "globalist"?
That really depends on how the conversation played out.
He was directed to change his sig so he made the minuscule change of putting quotation marks around the word "globalist". Then got banned.
I only say that based on the stuff I see from media members showing the horrible antisemitic hate mail they're getting with swastikas and Holocaust imagery and all of that. And they seem to all say this is genuinely new despite those folks having been reporting on contested political topics, and absorbing negative reaction to it, for years.
It is certainly clear that Trump himself is no anti-semite, but his internet vanguard has chosen that as a hobby horse for some reason. It has definitely been a notable addition to the discourse in my eyes, and I can hardly blame Jewish people for having a particular sensitivity to that sort of thing, hate speech of the most vile sort.
I don't think I'd agree that the mere use of the term "globalist" ought to be painted with that brush, but I didn't see the original context.
Yeah, that's why contrary to KCbus, it's not a stupid argument. He's basically being called a Nazi over his use of a word that has a rather standard meaning. If he said "Globalization and Liberalism are ruining America", people should certainly feel free to disagree or ignore it but nobody sane would say that amounts to antisemitism. Blaming practitioners of globalism and liberalism is the same thing.
No, I'm not.
A signature is content that a user chooses to put on the site. Nobody hacked his account and typed it in there on his behalf; he posted it himself. And the argument that "well, it's not so bad because there are other sites where signatures are more visible, and many posters can't see it anyway" is as unpersuasive as it is nonsensical.
As for the word "globalist"...
Look. I'm no political junkie. I had no idea that word had anti-Semitic overtones until the topic came up in this incident. I have no idea what percentage of people would view it that way, or how offensive it really is overall. It's not my field.
But I have read enough to know that it can be viewed that way. It's a borderline word. Maybe beyond the border.
Here's the thing, though: Given the fact that Fiosfan has gone out of his way to post political stuff where it doesn't belong, has been repeatedly asked to curb his behavior, has enough infractions on BigSoccer racked up over time that I can't even view them all at one time on my mobile browser, and most of those involve political trolling -- I'm going to guess that Fiosfan isn't some naïve poster who just happened to stumble onto a borderline word and is just a victim of circumstance. Especially when he coupled it in his signature with the word "libtard".
Oh yeah, that's right, some of you may not have seen that. Originally, when he first posted that signature, he didn't say "Liberals." He said "Libtards." And only changed it after prompted to do so by us. I don't care how much you want to live in denial about "Globalist," you can't possibly bullshit your way around a term that calls about half the country mentally ill and enemies of the state. There's no way to spin that.
So since he has a history of antagonizing people politically, refuses to alter his behavior to the rules of the site, and paired that slur up with another slur and an insult, it doesn't take an enormous leap of the imagination to assume he knows exactly what he's doing.
AND EVEN THEN... he was given benefit of doubt. In private conversation, it was pointed out that we didn't necessarily tag HIM as anti-Semitic, but he was using a word that could be viewed that way; please change it. And as someone who's been in hot water before, he refused. Not only that, but the only defense he gave was "I'm not anti-Semitic." No explanation of what he meant, no response to anything we had said -- frankly, the people in this thread have offered more of a defense than he ever did for himself. He didn't even try. Nor did he have any interest in conforming to rules. That tells me he knew exactly what he was doing, and just decided the rules didn't apply to him.
If I were him, I would be going out of my way to prove I wasn't what he was being accused of, or alter my behavior. He did neither.
Let me give you a personal example: In November of 2016, I posted something in my home forum, the Columbus Crew forum. It was a thing I used to do called "KC's Shortbus." I described it as the free transportation service I offered to those I'm bored with, tired of, and pissed at. I included a picture of one of those little short school buses for effect. Basically, I used it as a comedic device to make big points when a level of craziness on a certain topic reached critical mass. It's a play on words with my own screen name, and it's a way of acknowledging how crazy I think people are getting.
The last time I used it, I got into a long PM battle with another poster who accused me of being insensitive to people with mental illness.
I got into a long argument with him, during which, I didn't budge. I meant it as a joke, and thought he was overreacting. And I thought the hyperbole I used made it clear and obvious that I wasn't doing what he was accusing me of. I was freaking joking, and I have no desire to insult anyone -- just their dumbass opinions.
Looking back, I think, mostly I was just acting out of reflex. I was pretty amused with myself, and really thought it was funny, and was upset that someone was missing the point. But the more I thought about it, I realized something:
He was right.
He was right, and I was wrong. The way I meant it wasn't the important part, even though it shouldn't be ignored. The point was that what I was doing could easily be construed as something else, and I should have known better than to do what I did. As a result, I haven't used the ShortBus in more than a year and a half.
So, here's the difference: Fiosfan had MULTIPLE, long-time posters bringing this to our attention. And when confronted, he didn't even CONSIDER the possibility that someone else could have a point. He just blew us off. And when you've spent as much time antagonizing people as he has, and you've been warned several times... we had to pull the plug.
Here is the core of the problem, when we are allowed to stretch the meaning of words to the point where they are deemed "offensive" it places us on a slippery slope. Hell, there are some people out there find the term "fat" offensive, because its a "body shaming" word.
Many words these days that are labeled offensive are not in fact. They are just labeled as such often times to completely discredit or silence someone.
How far down this road do we really want to go?
Yeah, but we're taking about something that was relatively ambiguous in a place that basically nobody pays attention too.
It could very well be that he was implying something worse, and if you had comments form other users about it, fine. And if the conversation with Fiosfan lead to a certain direction that really left you with no other choice, fine. I get you guys are trying to act in the best interests of the user-base.
But thats still not anywhere close to the same thing as essentially giving it moral equivalency to something along the lines of "All XXXX should be rounded up and gassed." or something to a similar effect.
Again, I don't actually give a crap that he got the banhammer. He's done plenty to earn it. I'm really just expressing my concerns to see if it was done for the right reasons.
Oh, and one last little thing I want to add, and them I'm done:
Some of you, when wondering why we make the decisions we make behind the scenes, should remember that the name of the site is BigSoccer, and not BigPolitics.
There are Curt Schilling ESPN parallels there. A guy for whom none of his particular infractions seemed exactly firing-worthy, but it just became clear he was never going to stop causing headaches no matter how often his bosses told him not to.
That story speaks well of your capacity for empathy and introspection. I think where some of the anger about this comes from is the way in which that kind of empathy and introspection is nowhere to be found in the presence of not just faux pas, but really vicious mean-spirited invective directed toward no less immutable characteristics of whiteness or maleness or straightness or Southernness, or less immutably religiosity or conservativeness.
We should be kinder to each other.
1. Curt Schilling is a pretty good analogy. He’s replaceable and he was incorrigible.
2. If he had written “round up all the Jews for gassing” he would have been immediately banned. Basically he did something that on the pitch would lead to a talking-to. But he decided to ignore the ref. The talking-to didn’t work. What is the ref supposed to do? What you don’t sanction, you condone.
You say nobody reads them... yet, I'm confident my sig line has reduced the amount of FYP on the Big Soccer forums I frequent. With that said, I'm confident also that someone here will FYP something I've written recently, just to get my goat... <sigh>
I'm starting to really dislike that plaid skull avatar... but, I'm not feeling like it is an insult to my race, religion, culture, sex, gender, sexuality, or national origin... I just think when I see it 'ewww... I'm getting ready to read icky stuff'.
I was tempted, until I read this. Almost did it anyway, just because you're a Salt Lake fan.
Yes. And always an "interesting" conversation explaining to every girlfriend...
For the record -
1. Politics shouldn’t be allowed in soccer forums. I’ve forum banned liberals including @superdave and conservatives for ignoring this.
2. Ignoring and being hostile to mods is a great way to get banned. You cannot be a jerk to us and then cry about censorship and mistreatment because we didn’t let you be above the rules.
3. The mods in question aren’t a bunch of loser liberals waiting to whack Cool Conservatives for their bad opinions. Some of y’all really should apologize to them.
Arguing over the word globalist misses the point.
A sig line saying liberals are the enemy within and are destroying america is ban worthy. Just as one with conservatives instead of liberals would be.
That 'enemy within' language is straight up dangerous and inciteful. Benefit of the doubt on using it and being unaware of context is fine, but persisting once made aware = good riddance.
The fact we have so many defending it & rampaging on about the left and such says a lot and little of it good.
Again, Nazi propaganda identified 4 main enemies of the state: Jews, communists, intellectuals, and capitalists.
Using a sig line that seems to conflate these 4 groups down to 2 (liberals as intellectuals, commies & Jews? + globalists as capitalists & Jews), and putting the enemy of the state cherry
on top AND refusing to change it takes it well beyond any well-meaning anti-WTO ideology.
The two terms I used in that post ("animal" and "globalist") are historical and documented as racial slurs, in the context they are used to indicate something as racial slurs. In the case in point, in which KCbus explained very well, had he not intended it to have that context, he could have, and probably would have, changed it.
Again, the context in which is it used. It is a descriptor, but it can be used in an offensive manner. But, that word is different in that it is not used to indicate a race, which was the point two words I used.
Language is fluid and ever changing. As we understand the negative connotations behind words, and how some words which we once casually used are not appropriate, we change. Off the top of my head, I know that growing up, me and my friends used to say "That's gay" or "That's so gay" to indicate something was stupid. It took a minute to understand that it was offensive, but I have long since accepted that understood that it is and adjusted my language usage.
If nobody paid attention to sigs, they would not exist. They may not be high traffic, but people certainly do. And it has also been a long standing location for people to write stuff that is intended to antagonize or offend.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
You've read/heard this? Your comment about the "moral equivalently" is what made me think of it. While that may be true, the context of the word usage can be the first step in allowing negative language towards any specific group. In the context of the mods, if we get a report which says somebody used a word, say "queer," in a post and the report is that it was used offensively, we investigate. "Queer" has contexts in which it is both offensive and not offensive. If we find it to be used offensively, then we address as needed. But if we don't address, then what else do we let go? And how long before there is a response? And then we have all kinds of slurs going back and forth. And pretty soon, we become 4chan. So we try to nip things in the bud when we find it necessary.
But, and let me make this clear, we edit (and red card) as a very last resort. We do understand that people night not understand terms they use can be offensive, so we give them the opportunity to self-correct. We also understand that it is a bit shocking/irritating/angering to have your posts/words edited without warning by somebody else. So we give warning and encourage self-editing or self-moderation in posting. And we understand the reaction some (many) have when we have to take action. So we do moderate, but we try to do so in moderation as much as necessary.
We should be.