Forum for discussion of issues by posters who can't start a thread in the Customer Service Forum

Discussion in 'Customer Service' started by Oarboar, Mar 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JeremyEritrea

    JeremyEritrea Member+

    Jun 29, 2006
    Takoma Park, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQ-ISsDm8M"]YouTube - Where are the white women at?[/ame]
     
  2. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Isn't that really up to the group that that's directed at?

    I mean, I don't think the NAACP has had to lambast any professional sports teams for imagery that is rarely seen outside of Klan newsletters, nor has NCLR had to ask any High Schools to stop using Speedy Gonzales as their mascot, nor has AACRE had to ask any school to stop using/bastardizing various cultural items/practices from Asian Nations and/or Eastern Religions in comical or "school spirit" related activities.


    Case closed, then.
     
  3. TallTowerMan

    TallTowerMan Member+

    Apr 8, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Club Tijuana
    Nat'l Team:
    China PR
    Well, after you told me to ******** off in your first PM, I wasn't exactly in the mood to move sprightly in the direction you wanted me to go just after getting off a plane from Japan.

    There is no way I'm going to give equivalency Mike. If you want to argue that word, start a thread in Politics and I might even post in it.
     
  4. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wahhhh. TTM's pussy. Someone buy him some Vagisil

    Can't. I accepted a permanent ban from there to removed the permanent yellow card I got appease the fragile egos of Iranian Monitor and his minions. Apparently, it's OK to joke about driving the Zionists into the sea, but you make one crack about the Vincennes dumping a plane load of Persians as "a good start", that makes you a bad, bad man.

    I'll let your refusal to state whether or not you knew the connotation of word or that you just didn't care, stand on it's own merits.
     
  5. TallTowerMan

    TallTowerMan Member+

    Apr 8, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Club Tijuana
    Nat'l Team:
    China PR
    Nope. I'm simply not going to change the subject of you repeatedly using the "w" word by going over ********** here. You were wrong. Dead wrong. I would hope my friends would never, ever, go to bat for me if I used such a word. I would expect them to take me out back and knock some sense into me.
     
  6. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    Seems to me this is precisely the point -- both the lack of knowledge and your evaluation, both of which, I suspect, are interrelated. There are all kinds of slurs and offenses that most Americans (we're talking Americans here, right) would know immediately. Any one of you could come up with a list of common-place racial slurs in a couple minutes and the lists would overlap a lot and we'd all agree on the rest. But in all likelihood these lists would by and large contain slurs and pejoratives aimed at a select few "big name" groups -- probably mostly blacks, Jews, middle-easterners and Latinos (and probably women). But would the lists contain things like peckerwood and coolie? I'm thinking they wouldn't. What about something more esoteric like golliwog? Seems likely to me that there's a strong correlation between our familiarity with these sorts of slurs and our appreciation of the degree of their offense.

    The case with ********** is even worse: not only wouldn't it be included in a list of common-place racial slurs, but the widespread use of the word in geographic naming has lent the word an apparently innocuous aura. If I wasn't familiar with the ********** Valley skiing resort and the in recent years regular controversies surrounding its name, then I probably would not know just how offensive that word is to some groups.

    Point is, it seems to me that on these sorts of issues the reporting party should be given a strong benefit of the doubt, not because they are the ones offended, but because they are likely to know more about the actual nature of the slur and the true level of the offense than the moderators who, frankly, may be completely oblivious to the whole thing.

    An example -- Just coincidentally last night I reported an antisemitic post on the politics board. It was kind of esoteric stuff and at first glance you likely would not recognize it as antisemitic. I almost didn't report it because I dreaded having to explain it to what I feared might be a skeptical moderator audience. I was defensive about the whole thing from the start, not because my claim was weak (it was not), but because I feared that if the report got to the wrong mod, it would be a major headache. When I woke up this morning without response from a mod and with the post still on the board I was really irate -- felt like my initial dread had been confirmed. Long story short: I reported the same post again, really pissed off at this point, finally got a curt and non-committal response from a mod, which only increased my anger, so I replied in a terse and quite committed fashion which the mod did not appreciate, and then in the end the mod looked into it himself and did the right thing by binning the initial post (and some of the ensuing discussion).

    Seems to me none of that should have happened -- from my initial hesitancy about reporting the post to the very unpleasant exchange I had with the mod. I knew what I was talking about. So does Mr. Warmth. He merits a hell of a lot more benefit of the doubt than he's getting here.

    (And, by the way, I've hardly been a great fan of Mr. Warmth. Back when I was a mod I happily put him on permanent ban from the DC United board and the WC2002 boards -- speaking of racist trash, remember that picture of Scooby Doo? So I'm not defending him because I've got some great warmth for Mr. Warmth. I just think he's got a legitimate point here.)
     
  7. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    I understand your point Knave - but I'm not disputing that for some it's offensive. I'm just saying that if a poster says they didn't mean it with racist or bigoted intent or were completely ignorant of anything charged about the term as I was, we give them the benefit of the doubt the first time because it's not our business to look into people souls to divine whether they are bigots.
     
  8. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    Sure, though you should still bin or edit the post and give a warning to and/or have a few words with the poster. But that's not the crux of the matter. Seems to my eye that the problem is that some mods seem to be doubting the legitimacy of Mr. Warmth's claims about the offensive nature of the word. I think that's wrong, not only for the reasons I stated above, but from a practical moderating standpoint as well. Mods should want posters to report racist speech, ethnic slurs and so on. In fact, that's what mods always say: report that stuff, don't respond to it on the board.* I said that when I was a mod. I'm sure you do to. I suspect all mods do. So why make it hard for posters to report those things by treating their reports with doubt and suspicion? It should be just the opposite.

    * This is, of course, where Mr. Warmth so often goes awry.
     
  9. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Has anyone said I was right to use word? I have yet to see it. I don't have a leg to stand on there, though as we all know, I don't tend to trouble the mods when insults are directed at me. People seem to be asking why if I (rightfully) got punished, lightly as it was, why the post that used "**********" was not, or even discussed with the poster who used it.

    That either says you didn't bother to look at it, only my post with the dreaded "W-word" in it, and/or didn't know or care about the connotations of the word "**********", which I see has yet to be added to the superbad list. I wonder if "Injun" has been (NOPE).

    Which is all I'd like to know. Did TTM not know, or not care because it was me

    I still have a link to that pic if anyone wants it :D. It was apparently benign enough to get referenced by Grant Wahl in SI.

    Awry is my middle name.
     
  10. TallTowerMan

    TallTowerMan Member+

    Apr 8, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Club Tijuana
    Nat'l Team:
    China PR
    "Dreaded"? Mike, this says more about how you feel about that word than you probably know. This, for me, has come to a conclusion. Don't ever use that word again.
     
  11. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Does it, or do I have to put sarcasm tags around everything?

    It's been how many days since this has blown up and "Injun" and "**********" remain off the list. We're still at a level where it's up in the air for Administration/Moderators to decide, as if they really get to, if those words are as bad as the "W-word" for your eyes/ears.

    No one has said I was right, and plenty of people personally in e-mail or rep (though I can't see who) said I was wrong to use that word, but they do understand why someone who just had what fully appeared to be troll/attack with a racially charged words, might just respond in kind.

    Look at it from my POV, say that you're not a moderator, if someone asked you a question about Mexican women, out of the blue, using a borrowed/bastardized Spanish word that roughly translates to "Dirty Mexican Whore", are you going tell me you're going to just passively report the post and wait a week or so for a response and/or politely explain to them that that word has racial and gender overtones?

    If so, pretend I found a 1920X1200 pixel rolleyes smilie and posted it here.

    If you saw the provoking post and didn't know ********** had that connotation, that's fine, just admit it. I still respect you and think you're a great mod.

    But if you saw it and knew the connotation and didn't at least take time to explain to ICF why I might have responded the way I did, while still hammering me for "W-Word", or didn't do anything because it was me or you don't think the word is offensive enough (not your decision, BTW), well, I'd like to know that too.
     
  12. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "**********"

    Just Checking
     
  13. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    I already answered that question - that I'm not smart enough to know whether that term belongs on the censor and I'm open to hearing a case for it. Per wikipedia, aren't there tribes that use the term ********** dance? Isn't there some controversy about the historical origins of the word and some debate about whether should be viewed as such? Aren't there uses within literature that would not be considered objectionable?

    Terms typically get added to the censor because people are using them on the site in objectionable ways - and as I said, I'm not aware that this is an issue for this site. And does adding it to the censor accomplish something?
     
  14. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Last I checked, you lived in New York. There have been plenty of high schools in the NE part of the us that had Indian monikers that dropped them, including the term "**********" in the naming of women's teams along with Brave/Savages/Etc. I would have thought that would have been enough of a case.

    Certainly none of 181 federal or tribal Indian schools in the US refer to their women's sports teams as "the Squaws"

    1) The english reference to a Navajo cultural dance really shouldn't be used as a defense of the word, particularly since the word is Algonquin in origin.

    2) As America moved west, the use of the word became more and more derogatory.

    3) There there is this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/**********

    The terms Often offensive & usually disparaging should be the trigger here.

    See also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/**********

    What the word might have meant in one dialect isn't how it's been used since it was borrowed into English.

    I assume then that you'll be taking "ni99er" out of the censor now since it's used in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

    It was used in an objectionable way to me?


    Oh and just checking "Injun".
     
  15. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    Better you should argue for the abolishing of the auto-censor and more responsive moderating. I mean, I agree with you about ********** being offensive. I'm sure you agree with me about hebe, hymie and kike being offensive to Jews. But I'm not asking for those words to be added to the auto-censor even though their offensiveness is never subject to dispute. Why? Because the auto-censor is stupid and a very poor substitute for actual moderating. (F'ck the auto-censor, I say!) I'm betting you agree with me. So what's the point of pushing for an auto-censor? Especially when it's so easily defeated.
     
  16. Andy TAUS

    Andy TAUS Member

    Jan 31, 2004
    Sydney, AUS
    I think Mike would see a public & universal acknowledgment by BS that those words ARE offensive, by them being included on the BS auto-sensor.

    All I've read on this thread from the BS establishment is lots of obfuscation and resistance to such a public acknowledgment ........ to the point of painting themselves as being partisan & hypocritical (eg by having the opposite view on acknowledging terms offensive to Mexicans).
     
  17. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    Give me a break - obfuscating? Yes - the white executives at BigSoccer are hemming and hawing about making a public acknowledgement that that term is offensive because it's in our best financial interest.

    Somehow if we don't pay this lip service to our member who routinely skirts our censor and uses slurs, it means we support bigotry. I don't know about you, but that sounds a little like political correctness gone wrong.

    As Knave has pointed out - we don't censor every slur in the book - nor is the slur meant to be a guide to all the slurs that count. I don't doubt that ********** is offensive to many people - to do so would be foolish since there's ample evidence of it. But as I've asked before - is censoring words really the solution here? We censor words like the F word because it would be routinely used if we didn't and we aren't dying to be that sort of website.

    And I totally understand and support changing place names - although if it were my fight, and obviously it's not, I'd be much more interested in getting the Redskins to change their name and it bothers me that somehow because it's so popular it's considered a non-starter or political correctness to even consider it - but that isn't really the criteria for what goes on the censor, nor is it indicative of BigSoccer's view on what forms of racism count.

    Tell y'all what - if Mike agrees to never use any slurs on others again - which includes things like "mow my lawn" - I'll happily add ********** and injun to the censor. Deal? (Although any deal has to have terms for what happens if this is broken.)
     
  18. Barbara

    Barbara BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 29, 2000
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    DK, no offense but are you absolutely sure that if it was any poster other than Mike who was complaining about these slurs that you would be arguing with them?

    Can you honestly, 100% say that your feelings toward Mike aren't inhibiting your ability to be fair and objective?

    Statements like this one make it crystal clear that to you this is a personal thing, not a fairness thing.

    So you're basically admitting that the words are offensive but you don't like the person who is offended so the hell with anyone else?




    Anyway, I agree with Knave the auto-censor is stupid. This is the only message board I know of that uses one.
     
  19. Riz

    Riz Member+

    Nov 18, 2004
    R-ville, Murrlin
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Are there any offensive/derogatory words for women in the auto censor?

    Just curious.

    "Bitch"

    edit: Guess not.
     
  20. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    You may be right Barbara - I can't deny that snarky requests from someone who has repeatedly skirted our censor and who repeatedly posts slurs may be clouding my judgement here, but I still don't think the censor is meant for adding every term that folks find objectionable or is meant as representative of the only slurs that matter, or is meant as a "fairness" gauge.

    And you are mistaken - I don't dislike Mike nor am I immune to his charms, I can't speak for Mike, but I don't think he thinks I strongly dislike him or necessarily have it out for him but I think he knows that my tolerance for some of this stuff has dropped of late and I openly admit that. I don't think you know half of the history here.

    But are you asking because you strongly feel that it belongs on the censor? If you are admitting you think the censor is stupid, not sure what your own motivation here is. Your initial contribution to this thread was that "it's open season on Mike" - I would turn around the question to you - are you sure that your own personal biases aren't clouding your judgement as well?








     
  21. Barbara

    Barbara BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 29, 2000
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know the gist and if I ran a message board, I'd probably feel the same way you do.

    My first choice is no auto censor and infractions for people who use slurs in ways that offend others.

    However, given that there is an auto censor, my second choice is that decisions about what is and isn't censored be as fair as possible.


    It's quite possible that I am. I think Mike is a peach of a human, though I can see how that's not obvious to people who don't know him.

    Honestly if I was in your place, I think I'd just add the word to the censor to shut him up so I wouldn't have to talk about it anymore.
     
  22. Dignan23

    Dignan23 Member+

    Jul 6, 2001
    Fort Vancouver, WA
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Don't get your feathers ruffled, chief.
     
  23. Cris 09

    Cris 09 Trololololo

    Nov 30, 2004
    Westfalenstadion
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    This Thread ROCKS!!!!!!
     
  24. It's called FOOTBALL

    LMX Clubs
    Mexico
    May 4, 2009
    Chitown
    Adding words to the censor shouldn't be contingent on whether a user agrees to not use slurs again. No users on this site are allowed to use slurs, period. At least that's what I understood from reading the TOS and mod posts.
     
  25. The Devil's Architect

    Feb 10, 2000
    The American Steppe
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I might as well ask for world peace in the Pol forum before we ever lose the auto-censor, but more responsive moderating that isn't run like a reffing a soccer game where the 2nd act is punished and the first isn't. It's not like we need instant replay for this.

    I would have thought by now that someone would have taken the time to fix that glitch, and it's easily fixed for most words.

    Doubt it. I have yet to see either TTM or ICF acknowledge that.

    Actually, I think it's lazy moderating, or more should we say, entrenched moderating.

    Yeah, so is TTM ever going to show up in here and admit that he either has had his head under a (self censoring ethnic slur about a traditional mexican hat) so that he didn't believe/know that "**********" was an offensive word, or just admit that he was having a bad day after his long flight back from Japan.

    Well, the solution, would have been for the infracting moderator to look at both posts, see the use of slurs/offensive terms, and infract both accordingly, regardless of the intent/knowledge of the term's connotations or the posting history of the respondent. Had this happened, this thread doesn't exist and I'm just ginning up a sock puppet or two :D

    I thought about this on a long drive yesterday to take my kids to watch a cousin Stomp Dance, and you know what, no deal/no thanks. I really shouldn't have to agree to a certain behavioral standard to show that the words in question are slurs and are offensive.

    Such an agreement wouldn't be much different that "TONTO AGREE NOT TO GO OFF RESERVATIONS, BE HEAP GOOD POSTER FROM NOW ON".

    Frequency of usage and/or the number of people that might find them offensive shouldn't really factor into the equation of adding them to the list. I mean, is there a limit that you can add only the worst/most frequently used? What do we need, a software upgrade?

    If I use words on the bad list, I expect to pay for it. Punish me, Red Card me. If I'm that much of a problem then give me the full on Sekrah ban, but I'm not going to sign some treaty so that those words get on the offensive list.

    That being said, now that the "Hex" is back in, I expect to see equivalent levels of punishment doled out in USMen fora during the next US/Mex game or any Hex/Friendly where we have a Mexican or Hispanic ref for uses of the word I used and similar "mow my lawn", "taco truck", "********in' illegals", etc. One would think that TTM and the rest of BigSoccer's latino contingent would be more disgusted at that than worrying about whether or not I used the "W-Word" in a response to "**********".

    In all things on this website, I can honestly say, DK has always been fair with me. I push the envelope and I pay for it when I do, but I don't have to worry, in general about General level mods whines/begs for punishment of me that would be unfair. Particularly since a number of them are guilty of similar TOS violations.

    The AutoCensor has it's benefits since we do have a wider age range than the average message board, though the filter has it's holes and is easily circumnavigated.

    Well since you recognize the request as snark, treat it as such. That being said, I'm not going to waste the moderator's time and/or run the gambit of whether or not they think a word is distasteful enough in their eyes to merit a terse PM to the provoking poster who feels that Injun/********** and similar words aren't offensive. I'll stand my ground and take what I get.

    As stated before, you have been nothing but fair with me in our direct dealings, and dealings that I could read when I could snoop the Star Chamber.

    No fighting over me, please. There's enough of me to go around.

    Smartest thing you've posted yet.
     

Share This Page