[NSFW] Clarifying Commenting Guidelines to Respect LGBTI Members

nonbeliever93 on 09/01/2018 - 12:52
Last edited 10/01/2018 - 19:16 by 1 other user

Mod: There will be discussion here that may trigger some vulnerable people (as well as sexual comments). Please be aware.

As neil suggested, I'm making a thread to discuss clarifying commenting guidelines to be respectful towards LGBTI people (including fellow OzBargainers). I dislike that the onus has been placed on us to start this discussion but I'm biting the bullet to ensure it happens. I'm hoping moderators are pro-active in ensuring discussion remains civil.

My argument is that multiple comments in the EndingHiV bargain were found to be inappropriate, discriminatory or trolling and have now been unpublished for that reason. However there was significant lag time compared to clearer cut cases of rules violations (e.g. improper negative votes) which caused consternation for some commenters and suggests the guidelines could be improved.

There were multiple comments denigrating people who are trans, comparing them to identifying as animals or objects. There were jokes suggesting that ACON staff were diseased, queer people with HIV were to blame or were repulsive. Some of these comments are still visible and run counter to the aims of ACON. I am declining to quote or identify particular comments because that is besides the point of this thread. Furthermore, the mods have access to all the unpublished comments and I think it inappropriate for me to repost unpublished content.

I think the right idea would be for the mods to examine the unpublished comments which were found to be in violation of commenting guidelines and consider how the guidelines could be clarified to reduce confusion. Also, perhaps an emergency response (temporarily locking comments?) for future cases where there is a flood of inappropriate comments and controversy around the deal.

Mod:

OK, thanks for all the feedback. While this has been a difficult subject for some to discuss there have been some insightful comments. I don't think we're ever going to come to a consensus between what is inappropriate and what is not, however the key message is to be respectful in your comments.

What we will be doing:

  • For deals mentioned in the OP, which happens rarely but are problematic when moderators are not around on the weekend/middle of the night,

    • We will mark any comments that we are unsure of as "Removed pending investigation" or "Inappropriate pending investigation". So it may mean that many comments are removed from view until a moderator makes a decision or it is discussed and finalised.
    • In cases, that a moderator doesn't have time to do the above, we may hit the so called dumpster fire link. This will either just close comments or remove the deal. In the case of the deal mentioned, the OP ended getting quite upset at us and the community, the community was upset (both those in support of LBGTI, non support, + others), and the moderators were upset after receiving non-stop abuse. The charity, the one most affected by the deal, was actually quite OK and understanding.

  • Inappropriate comments served no warnings or bans and it seem there are a very small minority of users who continually make inappropriate comments. Warnings will now be given for the 1st 2 times, followed by bans.

  • Comments that will inflame a shitfest of comments will be removed as inflammatory.

So going forward as always, we ask that you be respectful in comments. We want a community that people can feel comfortable discussing deals or topics openly. And if you can't do that (and I'm referring to the 2 extreme opinions here), then maybe OzBargain is not for you.

Site Discussion

closed Comments

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 00:07

      I see now that I received a specific mention in the previous thread, to justify my opinions on the moderation.

      Yes, thank you for your comments. As you can see we are looking for feedback.

      Perhaps the mods will find a bit more of an insight into my opinion if they read my TWAM thread they never replied to

      Just had a look and woah, unfortunately that won't get past our swear filters. Sorry but that was an outright personal attack on our staff which is not cool and why we didn't respond but… let's call it water under the bridge.

      (a) Almost every neg vote in that thread was invalid and politically motivated, and yet you allowed them to remain whereas you were strict on them here and most everywhere else.

      Voting Guidelines. You can see what we revoke for.

      Your response basically hinged on the notion that both sides should have a say, despite the concept of one side basically being one enormous personal attack (i.e. you are not equal).

      The Australian government was putting through a plebiscite where they wanted all Australian's to make their opinion heard. Are you saying only people who were voting YES are welcome to make a comment on OzBargain? Sorry, people are welcome to their comments on something everyone was having to deal with, as stupid as you or I may find it. My point was do it in a respectful way.

      But let's move on. I'm happy you are putting your 2 cents in and hopefully we can come to some clarity on inappropriate comments.

      • ProspectiveDarkness on 10/01/2018 - 00:25
        -4

        Sorry but that was an outright personal attack on our staff which is not cool and why we didn't respond but… let's call it water under the bridge.

        Fitting, given the subject matter then.

        Sorry, people are welcome to their comments on something everyone was having to deal with

        Was everyone having to deal with something? Or was a select minority subjected to the unwelcome views of millions of people, without thought or consent? Sorry, but if you're going to follow the coalition's bullshit party line, I'm going to lump you in the same boat. And that isn't water under the bridge in my books, you have no idea.

        My point was do it in a respectful way.

        My point is, there was no respectful way. But even assuming your point is true, my other two example points above do not constitute respect, and those comments were permitted to remain in that thread. You can go look yourself, if you want. There's plenty of examples that went unmoderated. Don't think I can move on past that.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 00:56

          Was everyone having to deal with something? Or was a select minority subjected to the unwelcome views of millions of people, without thought or consent?

          Yes, all Australian citizens were dealing with a postal vote in which they were asked to vote in regards to government legislation. It was covered in every newspaper, television, and website and was in the news daily. Yes it was a turd however lets not pretend it didn't happen, nor can we pretend that people were voting both yes and no.

          I've been respectful to you in your comments, so please do the courtesy for me.

  • Strahany on 10/01/2018 - 00:17
    +18

    I never understand how discussions such as these gain so much traction for two main reasons:

    1) How weak have we become, as a society, to allow people to whinge whenever they see something they do not like and actually take them seriously?

    And

    2) Why do we have to remind people to act in a respectful manner, and not act to intentionally harm individuals with inflammatory comments?

    The reality is that, so long as people are capable of saying whatever they like (which will never change) there will always be the opportunity to offend someone. If everyone acted like the precious minority does, then nothing would ever get done as everyone would be complaining about being offended by everything under the sun; I would go as far to say that there is nothing that could be said or done that will fail to offend at least one person. It simply is not a tenable solution to be over sensitive, and the more we, as a society, support these people by giving their claims even a modicum of credibility, the more we not only fail to stamp out this toxic behaviour, but also encourage those who wish to promote the opposite (but equally toxic) behaviour in making inflammatory remarks. This mindset derails conversations with legitimate concerns, since for every single legitimate and justifiable complaint, there are dozens of complaints that are completely rubbish.

    To those that are overly precious; today, you read a comment on some of the most amazing technology online that hurt your feelings, most likely whilst sitting in a climate controlled room whilst snacking on readily available food. Meanwhile, another member of the animal kingdom had their offspring eaten by a predator whilst out scavenging for several days. You don't have it so bad; get over it.

    To those that make the concerted effort to offend people; the only reason you have the opportunity to do such a thing is because we, as a species, have spent countless generations making advancements that put us far above our origins amongst other species in the animal kingdom; stop disgracing this progress by acting as if these advancements never happened.

    • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 10:33
      +1

      100% agree. Humans have got to the point where they will throw away their life because of words. Why place so much meaning and weight on something someone says? Why does what they say to you matter? Sure what they say may be "bigoted", but why does it need to effect you? Why have everything online regulated, then go out in the real world where there will always be people saying these things? Might as well learn to shrug it off online, where it is easier to do so as opposed to the real world where this abuse may event turn physical.

    • Speckled Jim on 10/01/2018 - 12:00

      Here is a real example of over-zealous moderation on another site. I'm guessing to "protect the children" but it's by a human moderator, not a bot.
      For my latest Lego MOC I added links to photos of the real thing in a comment. The links:
      https://ibb.co/c5gH0R
      https://ibb.co/eswT76
      https://ibb.co/fZZsZm
      https://ibb.co/khFzEm
      https://ibb.co/grXPfR
      https://ibb.co/hYcCZm
      https://ibb.co/mZDan6

      Their response?
      Rejected reason: Feel free to share your opinion and feelings, but don't campaign for it or try to convert others to your beliefs.

      Now I don't know about you, but if they think I'm trying to "campaign" for a 32 year-old stereo I once owned, they're nuts. Furthermore, if they believe I'm trying to "convert others to my beliefs" by…starting an Akai-worship cult?
      I'm done with them.

  • lord henry on 10/01/2018 - 00:52
    +3

    My 2c.
    I think what this discussion needs is a little balancing.
    Of course there are handfuls of people who on one side believe in very heavy handed moderation of things that might cause offence - and on the other side people who delight in offending others, mah free speech, etc.
    Those people on both sides are vocal minorities in opinion. It can be slightly more complicated because the former group might actually be part of discriminated against minorities as well, but on the whole, most people will sit somewhere more moderate - and more moderate might be more sensible in this case.

    Some people here seem to be taken aback at the idea of even thinking about the consequences of what they want to say - I find this truly bizarre. (Yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre/'bomb' on an airplane, or incite violence and you will get arrested for instance ).
    I think sensible people agree that there should be a limit to what you can say - as does exist.
    Of course, banning users making any joke/comment about any race/sexuality/gender/whatever without further consideration would be excessive.

    My suggestions:
    Perhaps apply the existing rules in a more robust way (or tighten very slightly) - but clamp down on trolls - they don't contribute anything positive to OzB - I fully support bans for trolls.
    I think there would be some utility in OzBargain being more specific about what is acceptable and what is not - eg as suggested before, specifically mentioning race gender and sexuality.
    I shouldn't have to make the point that saying OzB intends to be welcoming of, for instance, LGBTQI Australians doesn't mean to the exclusion of all others. It means as we welcome all others - but we need to mention it because some seem to forget that minorities are people
    Some topics seem to get out of hand and must be a nightmare to mod - and a productive solution to those situations might be to close them down, very quickly, with a mod note at the top that says that OzB values diversity, but we don't have the time to moderate a dumpster-fire (I paraphrase).

    For the record, I didn't think the jokes about what the gloves were for offensive (that I saw - eg gardening), but that is my personal opinion. However, some of the other comments were offensive in my eyes - including the ones promoting the diversion of resources of a charity from the gay targets of the charity.

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 01:15

      Some topics seem to get out of hand and must be a nightmare to mod - and a productive solution to those situations might be to close them down, very quickly, with a mod note at the top that says that OzB values diversity, but we don't have the time to moderate a dumpster-fire (I paraphrase).

      LOL, like this idea. This would save grief from everyone and we can enjoy our weekends.

    • Krizy on 10/01/2018 - 05:15

      Closed forum threads should have trigger warnings. Don't go through and delete the comments one by one, just lock any thread with the f-slur inside and put a trigger warning: contains homophobia. That would make me really happy.

  • mitt on 10/01/2018 - 01:20
    +6

    Any attempt to control for hurt feelings can (and is) leveraged to assert control of what can and cannot be discussed.

    I have no issue with any group or sexuality, but the activists that claim to act in the name of these groups, despite being unelected and unjustified in their claims of authority, have demonstrated their true and primary objective is power. This pearl clutching pantomime has played out enough times that I will never support any proposal to limit what can be said.

    While things said may range from distasteful to malicious, the activists that always set themselves up as the arbiters of what is and is not a violation of rules of offence are always more egregious on average than the comments they use to justify their power grabs.

    If you kowtow to these activists it only damages your community in the long run. Multiple industries, fandoms and forums have learned this.

    The cure is worse than the disease, do not let power politics disguised as moral righteousness kill OZbargan too.

    • Krizy on 10/01/2018 - 05:12
      +2

      That's some pretty convincing rhetoric but the only thing 'activists' won for LGBTQI people is inclusive sex-education (i.e. to supplement existing programs that help some kids but not others) and the equal recognition of relationships.

    • tryagain on 10/01/2018 - 12:08
      +1

      Sounds like someone is a Peterson fan, he is an underrated thinker.

      • smux on 10/01/2018 - 16:37

        Peterson definitely has a lot of interesting things to say. But, in my opinion, he tends to meander a bit. At least that's the way it seems to me. So I find after having listened to him for a bit that I'm not sure exactly what his points were.

        But, he's influenced me a lot when it comes to ideas around freedom of speech. Until I started listening to him I thought it was a good idea to force everyone to be nice and respectful to each other.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 02:26
    +7

    Yay, more censorship, more pandering. Exactly what this world needs.

    • Krizy on 10/01/2018 - 05:08

      Plenty of people have pandered to you, too late to change the game now.

  • Krizy on 10/01/2018 - 04:58
    -5

    Honestly the one thing that would really help is if you added one guideline: to not misgender people.

    If people called you a woman constantly, what would you do? You could correct them but they'd say you were making a fuss and asking for special attention/consideration. The more upset about it you get the more power those people have, but the alternative is to just say 'fine, I'm a woman' — and think about if you'd actually do that. If you didn't question the pronouns people use for you then you'd implicitly tell others that your gender is female. So you argue back, but the majority of the community thinks you're either dumb or mentally ill for thinking you know your own gender. They know you're a woman and while they care about your feelings, there's really nothing they can do to help you except make you realise you're not a man.

    That's the experience transgender people go through every day. They get shat on by LGB people and feminists, too. Conservatives think gender isn't arbitrary — that it means something, even more holistic and significant and important than just your genitals — and transgender people agree and want to conform to that idea. They get shat on by the left for wanting to conform to a gender and shat on by the right for conforming to the 'wrong' gender. Can you please give them one thing, and screw everyone else?

    I'm not trans, I'm part of the rabid left left left wing that doesn't 'get' trans people at all but that gets their support/fealty because we're the least abusive home for them, given the alternative. If conservative people exercised more critical thinking they'd realise how transgender people fit their ideology because they're the opposite of 'genderless', they actually believe in gender stereotypes enough and feel strongly enough to know what gender they are — even if it doesn't match their body.

    So if you want the biggest impact on the most disenfranchised with the smallest change, just add that one guideline. It really is all they're asking for. Thanks!

    • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 14:46
      +7

      Are you kidding me? Misgender? Are you that insecure about your identity? Its the internet! People just guess when they say someone is a man or a woman because it is a 50/50 chance….If you dont like it….make it clear what "gender" you are….I've had people think I was a woman because I was asking about baking recipies (cookies)….I didn't get offended….who cares.

      • bobbified on 10/01/2018 - 17:43

        when they say someone is a man or a woman because it is a 50/50 chance.

        In New York, there's 31 genders.
        So there's a 1 in 3.226% chance of guessing correctly! ;p

  • Neptunesblood on 10/01/2018 - 07:37
    +1

    I think this sums it up perfectly with whats wrong in today's society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

  • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 10:23
    +11

    asks to be treated fairly and equally

    wants special safe spaces, rules and guidelines specifically tailored to them, and people to treat them differently and softly

    Righto.

    Even Ozbargain is going down this road now…if you see some words on a screen that "offend you"…who cares? Report them and keep scrolling-as with any other "offensive" comment (racism/sexism etc etc…). If you let these words effect you, you need some character building. This goes for everyone, not just a specific "group".

    Besides, the current rules are inclusive of everyone, its not that a certain group is not covered by them, its just that certain group loves to over-inflate "oppression".

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:10
      +4

      Character building is a term bullies use to justify their horrible behaviour.

      • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 14:27

        You wish. I was bullied my whole Primary>High school life based on my ethnicity. Character building and taking it on the chin is how I and many others dealt with it and came out the end stronger because of it.

        You people who dont like character building, are coincidentally, the people who are unable to build their character through these scenarios. Life is all about being adaptive and improving constantly, this is no different.

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:24
          +3

          Your personal example does not speak to a population example. For many, getting the sh*t beaten out of them on a regular basis for some arbitrary reason is not character building, it is traumatising. The onus should not be on the bullied to have their character 'built' by the bully.

  • Speckled Jim on 10/01/2018 - 10:29
    +4

    Existing moderation criteria is sufficient. We can downvote, report or (drumroll…) collapse comments we don't like. If they're a serial offender we can hide all their posts.
    No need to reinvent the wheel

    • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 10:36
      +2

      Exactly right! Read something you dont like? Collapse it! Done! Those people can have their jokes, while you simply dont even see it! How amazing is that!

      Wish I could do that with audible conversations…..

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:14
      -1

      Is it? You're making a huge assumption there. How do you know we don't have LGBTI moderators? Who then have to go and review all these reported comments that say vicious things, ad nauseum about them? It might be anonymous but it's still really hurtful and I am just so surprised so many people are arguing that they should have the right to be hurtful.

  • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 10:52

    I guess I better repeat this as people are going off in tangents.

    So again, OzBargain CURRENTLY has guidelines for personal attacks, trolling, and ALWAYS asks you be respectful to all.

    The question at hand is inappropriate comments, which is a reason for comments removal (for 6+ years). Comments like these are up the discretion of the moderator or after discussion with other moderators. The issue as the OP brought up is these in regards to LBGTI related deals. We are asking to look at actual examples from the comments on the deal or elsewhere for opinions.

    That's it. Repeating "be respectful to all", "replace gay with black", "I'm a white guy minority", "why are having guidelines for this group" are all useless to this conversation as none of them actually tackle the issue we're asking.

    • enzioFirenze on 10/01/2018 - 11:24
      +4

      I was contemplating on contributing to this thread and figured might as well offer my 2c. I think the current guidelines are fair and sufficient and generalized enough to the point where they neither penalize the minority or majority. If we want to draw up special guidelines for LGBTIQ+ focused deals / community, we might as well draw up special guidelines for black communities, Sudanese youth gangs, various racial/ethnic groups etc etc.

      I know you said "why are we having guidelines for this group" is useless to the conversation, but it isn't useless to the outcome of this thread because we could, as a result of this thread, impose specific guidelines for a specific group. My entire point is that, this will become a slippery slope, where would this end?

      • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 11:53

        We aren't making special guidelines for certain groups. We are just seeking feedback on the community's interpretation on inappropriate comments in regards to LBGTI. We need to draw a line in the sand so that we can moderate inappropriate comments in a uniform way irregardless of the group or the topic involved.

        • leiiv on 10/01/2018 - 12:14
          +5

          Your statements here are contradicting. The line that you use to moderate comments in a uniform way then, in essence, IS a guideline, no? And how come that it is "irregardless of the group or the topic involved" while we are just talking about one specific topic here.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 12:37

          @leiiv:

          IS a guideline, no?

          No. A guideline are these: Deal Posting Guidelines & commenting guideline. Publicly facing written guidelines.

          We are seeking feedback on what is inappropriate in terms of LBGTI comments based on community feedback in order to moderate inappropriate comments.

        • Speckled Jim on 10/01/2018 - 12:41

          Add keywords you find offensive to your mods' sheet. Poof, carpet-muncher, faggot, gaytard etc.
          There must be a nexus point for this, and that is you and your staff.

          If (when) someone is offended by another trigger-word, consider adding it to the list.

          Canvassing the opinions of members is a hiding to nowhere.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 13:01

          @Speckled Jim:

          All of those words listed would currently result in the comment removed. So yes, those keywords are an easy pickup. It's just the comments that don't mention any of those words or even gay as seen in the examples listed above.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 10/01/2018 - 14:07
      +2

      Are you honestly surprised at this response? You're asking the same people who post inappropriate comments - and upvote them en masse - if they should be allowed to continue doing it. These people don't care about being respectful or tolerant, they care about vomiting their shitty opinions and jokes out, and getting upvoted for it. They probably take pride in "triggering" as many "snowflakes" as they can - the comments in this thread are a pretty good indicator of exactly how much they care about other people.

      Again, the comments in that Gorman thread are also evidence enough of how members of this community deal with minority issues. Which I'll again remind you, went unmoderated. This isn't just about a few jokes in a thread about condoms. It's the underlying, entitled disrespect that's the problem. You need to decide if you want the kind of community where that can flourish, or one where it can't. You're not going to get an answer from the ignorant masses. You say you want to find a middle ground that makes most of the community happy? Most of the community already is happy doing what they're doing. It's called a majority for a reason. If you need to put a content warning on a thread because of the shitty opinions within, you really need to think twice about where your moderating priorities are.

      Anyway, I'm done. Not going to waste any more of my life arguing with the shitty members of this website.

      • payton on 10/01/2018 - 14:54
        +3

        Get well soon

        payton on 10/01/2018 - 14:54 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
      • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 15:06

        Which I'll again remind you, went unmoderated.

        Sorry but that's false.

        Some stats compiled from another moderator in relation to that Gorman thread:

        • 70 Comments were removed (Includes requested by commenter threads and inappropriate neg votes)
        • 2 accounts were banned (1 for personal attack, 1 for ghost account)
        • 2 negative votes revoked by mods (not including any community revoked votes)
        • Moderators commented/warned users within thread 11 times.
        • The other 16 didn't fit our list for mod revoking (Any negative vote that falls into any of these reasons will be revoked by a moderator. Negative votes for any other reason will not be removed by a moderator.)

        As for the rest of your comment, thanks. Feel free to hit us up in private as I think you have some good intentions. Cheers.

      • bobbified on 10/01/2018 - 17:58

        Wow, you're really not doing yourself any favours by throwing tantrums and insulting everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 10/01/2018 - 18:17

          You're so right, clearly I should just respect other people who don't respect me, what a great solution, that just solves everything now doesn't it.

          So what's your solution to the problem? You have bitch about censorship when we want shitty comments banned. You're having a bitch now that I'm being mean to people with "different opinions". So clearly, you just think people should lie down and take the bullshit that gets doled out to them.

          Nah. Don't really feel like being a doormat, so (profanity) off.

  • congo on 10/01/2018 - 10:58

    Maybe we can have some voting options?

    congo on 10/01/2018 - 10:58 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • Plug on 10/01/2018 - 11:10
    +4

    If people don't like reading the comments in case they see something they don't like then how about just looking at the bargains on offer instead? There's no need to look at the comments at all.

    If thine eye offends thee pluck it out. If you don't like the heat get oit of the kitchen. I could go on.

    • Scab on 10/01/2018 - 11:33
      +3

      If thine eye offends thee pluck it out.

      I hope you don't mind but I'm getting this as a neck tattoo.

      Scab on 10/01/2018 - 11:33 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
      • Plug on 10/01/2018 - 16:45

        Matthew 18:9.

  • Duram on 10/01/2018 - 11:36
    +7

    Lol while people are getting blown up, starving and living in pure hell we are policing language in a first world nation.

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 11:48

      and looking for deals, entering competitions, etc…. Do you have anything to contribute to this thread? If not, then move on.

      • Duram on 10/01/2018 - 14:09
        +3

        Let idiots say what they want on either side. Don't get offended by words on the internet or words in real life.

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:01

      This is why we are a first world nation. Because we care about our community. Have a look at the countries around the world that persecute their minorities - want to be like one of those?

  • Whomastadon on 10/01/2018 - 12:01
    +3

    My opinion on any subject like this is if you get legitimately offended by something you read online, maybe don't go on the internet.

  • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:04
    -5

    Mods may I make a suggestion? I would contact Transgender Victoria and show them the original thread and this one and ask their advice on making some rules. I thin you really need some input from the LGBTI community and this group are very experienced with these situations. We've had a lot of workplace training from them which was very helpful and allowed us to understand some of the attitudes displayed toward this community which while extremely disappointing, aren't unique to Ozbargain.

    http://www.transgendervictoria.com/

    • gannon on 10/01/2018 - 14:35
      +1

      I've had this training before too, as well as Diversity training from Multicultural Affairs. Both would be extremely useful for mods of all public websites, especially Ozbargain, but realistically can be expensive and time consuming.

      • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 16:23

        And yet here come the downvotes ;)

  • SuperMid on 10/01/2018 - 12:20
    +10

    im starting to notice a trend on ozbargain of "should we ban this" or "should we ban that"

    the internet is a great place for freedom of speech, from views and inputs from many different people from different backgrounds and of different opinions

    the moment we start limiting who can say what, we start to become exactly along the lines of place like communist china and north korea

    ive also seen time and time again, forums which go down this path, eventually lose all members due to control freak rules and moderators

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:38
      +1

      Freedom of speech does not equal freedom to be abusive or hurtful, as a phrase it exists in the context of the right to political protest. It's one thing to stand up for a political point, quite another to say horrible things about a group and argue you were just joking. I think we SHOULD pull people up when they say nasty stuff.

      Communist China and North Korea throw people in jail and kill their families and persecute people for questioning their political regime. That is true oppression. It is not the same thing as setting rules to be respectful to a long-persecuted group on a bargain forum.

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 12:45

      the internet is a great place for freedom of speech, from views and inputs from many different people from different backgrounds and of different opinions

      Yes, which is why we are asking for feedback.

      im starting to notice a trend on ozbargain of "should we ban this" or "should we ban that"

      It's not about banning this or banning that. It's about finding middle ground that makes the majority of the community happy. Unfortunately, for this issue and many issues, people think its all or nothing.

      Do you have any feedback on the topic at hand, inappropriate comments regarding LBGTI?

      • SuperMid on 10/01/2018 - 12:51
        +3

        i do have feedback on any inappropriate comments, regardless what the topic is, and that is that comments should be relevant to the topic at hand. if someone is just swearing and carrying on, name calling etc then yes those types of comments should be deleted.

        my point was more along the lines of actual discussion, we shouldnt ban or delete a comment just because someone disagrees with someone

        eg: if i was to go into that particular lbgt topic and say i dont agree with homosexuality, should that comment be deleted and the user banned?

        i dont want ozbargain to go down the path of some universitys and have "safe" areas where no one can say anything bad and the student live in a bubble. these students then eventually go into the real world, where people can be mean, and struggle. these same students are potentially the same ones who might constantly run to hr as everything to them can be classified as "abuse"

        • leiiv on 10/01/2018 - 13:02

          eg: if i was to go into that particular lbgt topic and say i dont agree with homosexuality, should that comment be deleted and the user banned?

          Deleted yes, banned no, because that comment would be irrelevant, unless the topic is about asking people opinion on lbgt.

        • SuperMid on 10/01/2018 - 13:05
          +3

          @leiiv: you seem to be exactly part of the demographic i mentioned above. by stating that you want to delete the comment, tells me you cannot accept what the real world has to say, and want to live in a safe/non realistic bubble where only people who have the exact same opinion as you can talk freely.

        • leiiv on 10/01/2018 - 13:12

          @DiscoJango: I was just responding based on what you said before:

          then yes those types of comments should be deleted

          You need to clarify what you mean by "relevant, name calling, swearing, etc".

          From my perspective, you just name-called me with "part of the demographic i mentioned above".

        • SuperMid on 10/01/2018 - 13:18
          +2

          @leiiv:

          you just answered your own question:

          you are part of "the same ones who might constantly run to hr as everything to them can be classified as "abuse"

          you fit into this category perfectly. you have taken offence to a simple statement. if you think that what i said is "name calling" then i sincerely hope you work somewhere like a child care center where you will not have to deal with real adults with real opinions and statements, as you will take offence to most likely every single thing anyone can say.

        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 14:15

          if someone is just swearing and carrying on, name calling etc then yes those types of comments should be deleted.

          Swearing = Foul Language. Our system automatically detects swears and substitutes (Profanity).
          Name Calling = Personal Attack. Personal attacks are removed, user warned if 1st offense, banned temporarily for further offenses.

          The issue is defining inappropriate comments

          eg: if i was to go into that particular lbgt topic and say i dont agree with homosexuality, should that comment be deleted and the user banned?

          Good question. It's definitely off-topic and would be collapsed. However, if someone said something like "While I am against homosexuality, I'm glad this organisation is offering free condoms to at risk people"?

          The big picture is that we want all people of all walks of life and values can feel comfortable participating and commenting on OzBargain.

        • J23SD on 10/01/2018 - 15:05
          +2

          @neil: Hi Neil, I would be interested to know if someone posted one of the following examples would "The big picture is that we want all people of all walks of life and values can feel comfortable participating and commenting on OzBargain." still apply and because the comment was posted "respectfully" it would not be deleted?

          • "While I am against Muslims living in Australia, I'm glad this organisation is offering free Halal meat packs to needy people"
            • "While I am against women leaving the house to work, I'm glad this organisation is offering free driving lessons to women who want to drive to work"
            • "While I am against black people living in my community, I'm glad this organisation is offering a community centre for black people to hang out in"?
        • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 16:02

          @JamesVincent:

          I'd say you could counter with the following statements:

          • "While I am against the practices of Islam, I'm glad this organisation is offering free Halal meat packs to needy people"
          • "While I am against the practices The Seventh Day Adventists, I'm glad this organisation is offering free Weetbix to needy people"
          • "While I am against the Catholic church, I'm glad this organisation is offering free meals to needy people"

          The latter is probably quite relevant to LBGTI.

          So I guess the question is defining the difference between hateful speech and having a inflammatory (and possibly dumb) difference of opinion. Where do we draw the line between the two?

        • J23SD on 10/01/2018 - 16:14
          +2

          @neil: Yeah I understand the dilemma in trying to find the line. From my perspective simply saying you are against homosexuality is the exact definition of Homophobia. The reasons I use so many examples of other races and sexes is because for me it is the easiest way to describe how homophobia makes me feel. WIth the examples you gave I believe they are different to my examples because my examples target the way people were born, ie black/female (Muslim one may not be a good example) When somebody says they are against the way I am born that is a completely different level than someone saying "I am against the church you believe in" because in theory, every religion believes that every other religion is fake/ made up saying you don't believe in a religion or a church or respect that organisation is not saying the way you were born is wrong and I don't agree with it.

  • tryagain on 10/01/2018 - 12:25
    +3

    I think I have found an interesting deal to compare too, It also is targeted at a minority group (based on an innate quality), offers a free product (only to the group), the comment section is full of jokes, this minority group is often the butt of similar jokes in society. A difference though is there doesn't seem to be the hateful comments as well but I think it makes an interesting comparison. Can you guess what it was first https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/321241

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:41
      -3

      The difference is that red-haired people were not thrown in jail for the colour of their hair, denied healthcare, and told their hair was punishment. Their families have not been isolated and vilified and jobs lost when people found out they had red hair. They did not have to fight for a decade to get the 'disease' recognised because doctors, scientists and politicians told them that the disease was because of their hair, they did not have to fundraise and find sympathetic scientists to research for them, and finally, they didn't advance the medical sciences because of all of that. It's not a comparison.

      • tryagain on 10/01/2018 - 12:57
        +2

        If you really want to go down that rabbit warren, there are actually other points to consider, they are in a far higher risk category for skin cancer, but unlike the LGBTI community they don't have specialist Gov funded organisations to help them deal with and prevent it to the tune of 13mil//pa like ACON does. I am all for removing discriminatory practices, but you seem to be advocating for reverse discrimination on the basis of historical discrimination.

        • J23SD on 10/01/2018 - 15:12

          Tryagain for the reasons Miss G pointed out there can not be any comparison made between what the LGBTQI+ community has gone through and the stigma that that has left in our community and will remain for a long time to that of someone with red hair.

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:27
          +2

          There is no such thing as reverse discrimination, simply discrimination. The government funds many programs that benefit many groups, are you against them funding the LGBTI community?

          I'm not advocating for any form of discrimination, I am arguing for respectful language used in comments on deals related to the LGBTI community as per the original post.

        • pyramid on 10/01/2018 - 15:33
          +2

          @MissG: Tell me atleast 3 deals that were targeted for LGBTI community only. You are going too far in this discussion thread. There may be nasty comments which can be reported and mods can close/delete it. Do we need separate deal category as well "TARGETED FOR LGBTI". Please note that i do not have anyting against LGBTI or any other community. Take rest pls.

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:38
          +3

          @pyramid: I'm responding to the original request, because it's clear the comments made on that deal were unacceptable to both the mods and a lot of the Ozbargain community - and as I mentioned, the mods may be LGBTI themselves and having to moderate a lot of hurtful comments that apply to them would be awful. I see the same handful of people defending their right to say vile things about their fellow man, but no more than that. I'm curious to know why you think it is I am going too far?

    • tryagain on 10/01/2018 - 13:00

      Should have probably added that I think the comment about Natural Selection, would if used in a similar context to the thread in discussion here be considered extremely offensive.

  • smux on 10/01/2018 - 12:28
    +7

    This is the internet, get over it. I get annoyed and offended when I see negative things said about Arabs and Muslims on this site, or any site for matter, but I personally think that the freedom to say whatever you want is more important than my feelings. If you don't like what was said or think it was incorrect, then respond to the comment. We shouldn't be creating rules (laws) that protect certain groups from feeling offended.

    However, the line should be drawn at expressions supporting violence towards groups, in my opinion. This is the only kind of thing I have reported in the past.

    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 12:42
      -2

      I really don't think freedom to say what you want should include freedom to be nasty to people. I really don't. This is not the country we live in. No one abuses people on the street, no one would ever proclaim loudly to watch out, they might catch AIDs from licking postage stamps. The same standards should apply here.

    • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 14:35
      +1

      Agreed. What is "offensive" is down to opinion. I could be stating a fact about something scientific, for example, but that fact could "offend" people because they disagree with it or hold an opinion on the subject matter. Many times I see people taking offence from something someone said (happened to me many times) even though there was no malicious intent at all, just speaking their mind on a subject.

      It is a can of worms really. I believe the current rules on here are fine.

  • leiiv on 10/01/2018 - 12:55
    +1

    This is a bargain site and it should not concern itself too much in this matter. As long as great bargains are to be found here, like minded people will come here no matter what race, religion, or group they are in. As neil said it:

    there is a grey area between inappropriate comments, jokes, banter in LIFE and on OzBargain and is a subjective area

    What is written on internet forums is the reflection of the society itself in real life. I think it is pointless and not really feasible to moderate all the comments based on a clear uniform way. Why not just leave it to the dynamics of the community to sort it off?

    We already have the voting system on the comments which I think is enough and is a middle ground. The so called "tyranny of the majority" is still hold true, so we need to ensure that the majority are all good, nice and respecting people.

    I think comment removal by moderators should be reserved for only the most extreme cases to keep ozbargain from legal trouble. For poinless or inappropriate comments, the moderators can just penalize them with heaps of negative votes (for whatever reason they have). A determined and strong-hearted person can still opt to read it, so I think that is a middle ground without needing a clear cut rules that not everyone can agree of.

    In any case, would you consider having a feature in which a "qualified" member can opt in to be able to see all the unpublished comments and deals?

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 14:44

      In any case, would you consider having a feature in which a "qualified" member can opt in to be able to see all the unpublished comments and deals?

      No. From Novembers stats, 288 of the 544 deals removed were duplicates. Believe me, there is nothing interesting to see. As for comments, based on 2016's stats, most of the removed comments, if we exclude replys to deleted comments are requested by the commenter themselves. So given they don't want it published, probably best we leave as is.

      As for the rest of the comment, it's quite insightful so thank you.

  • MrSammyMcG on 10/01/2018 - 13:11
    +2

    Do we really need LGBTI whatever discussion on here? I mean granted its going to come up someday but if we don't really need it (like avoid posting 'deals' and topics for it) then why have it. Its only going to create more controversy

  • dogboy on 10/01/2018 - 13:23

    The mods on this site are very lucky we cannot downvote them. Otherwise they would be downvoted into oblivion on this thread.

    • neil on 10/01/2018 - 13:58
      +9

      Here ya go, feel free to go wild on this comment. Turned off the mod tag.

      P.S. The reason for the mod tag is so that our comments don't disappear. Given this is a moderation issue discussion, our comments need to be shown.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 13:48
    +1

    Would it not be more effective to simply remind members that there is a report function in place to highlight any kind of comment/s that could be perceived or considered offensive to any individual/group?

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 14:06

      It's definitely a good idea to remind people of the report link. The one thing I can say is that many, many people reported the HIV deal and some of the comments. However some of the reports of inappropriate comments were either difficult to make a decision on or were not deemed inappropriate by moderators to the disagreeal (is that a word?) of members as voiced in this thread.

      • Scab on 10/01/2018 - 14:37
        +3

        disagreeal

        You should add that in as a moderation option:

        "Off Topic", "Trolling", "Inappropriate" and "Disagreeal".

      • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 15:03
        +1

        Then perhaps some people just need to get disagreeal.
        You also might want to consider if a deal is worth the potential blowback. Sad as it may be, If you look at that original post again https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/354004 it would be naive to think that this was ever going to chart a serene path through comments.

  • Psy1 on 10/01/2018 - 14:22
    +8

    Identity politics has taken over the media and eaten it's way into our thought police culture. We don't need it taking over the forums as well. The guidelines are quite clear on what is acceptable, with anything severe being removed. Special privileges don't belong here and we are all equal.

    • Ahbal on 10/01/2018 - 14:42
      +2

      Yes exactly. It is at the point where it is "as a [insert group here] I can say [insert stance here]".

      I am guilty of this. Why? Because on certain issues, that needs to be stated or else my opinion will be completely ignored. Example, when I comment on middle-eastern politics, if I mention that middle-eastern is my background, people will read it. If not, people will assume I am a "islamophobic cis white male far right" etc etc and discard my input (this attitude is exclusively leftist from my experience).

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 15:15

      The guidelines are quite clear on what is acceptable

      There are no guidelines for inappropriate comments, which is why we are looking for feedback.

      • Psy1 on 10/01/2018 - 15:41

        Personal Attacks

        Abuse, name calling and malicious comments directed at a person or a group of people are unacceptable. Disagreements and debates are fine and encouraged but please respect everyone's opinion. Comments of this nature will be removed and if a vote is attached to the comment, then the vote will also be revoked.

        • I think this rule is more than adequate. I like that debates and explanations are encouraged to get ones point across and that the community has the ability to judge the comments merit and usefulness by voting on it. If the comment is in breach of said rule, then it's removed.
    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:28

      What special privileges exactly are you referring to?

  • simontadaa on 10/01/2018 - 14:40
    +9

    I had no idea what this thread was for and then I realised it was about that very joke that I and 99% of people had forgotten but some people took it way too seriously and decided to make it into such a huge deal??? First thing those offended should've done was to leave but instead are trying to change something unnecessary in terms of what forums are supposed to be. I do not even understand how they got butt hurt as that post was about free lube.

    • Scab on 10/01/2018 - 14:53
      +7

      I do not even understand how they got butt hurt as that post was about free lube.

      Maybe they didn't use enough lube?

      Scab on 10/01/2018 - 14:53 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:31
      +1

      " I do not even understand how they got butt hurt as that post was about free lube."

      You have just proved exactly why this post was created. For goodness sake, it's a deal forum, not a place for you to talk about anal sex and lubrication in the context of a deal for HIV/AIDs. I know that 'snowflake' and 'butthurt' are the du jour of the Internet at the moment, and people seem to feel very satisfied with themselves using thes two terms, but they are nothing but a reflection of an absence of knowledge and a disturbingly low level of maturity.

      • pyramid on 10/01/2018 - 15:35
        +3

        So anyone using 'snowflake' and 'butthurt' are immature or idiot or mad or animals?

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 15:39

          I have not yet come across anyone who has used those terms both here and on Twitter who have been in any way experienced or educated about the topic in which those terms have been used.

        • hippyhippy on 10/01/2018 - 16:23
          +3

          @MissG: you need to get our of your echo chamber…

        • MessyG on 10/01/2018 - 16:25

          @hippyhippy: Oh that made me chuckle, I don't think I'm the one in the echo chamber here! ;) And if you're saying Twitter is an echo chamber…

      • simontadaa on 10/01/2018 - 15:55

        I do not know how to respond to your comment. You are making me sweaty. Stop it please.

  • SpaceNinja on 10/01/2018 - 14:57
    +3

    lol

    SpaceNinja on 10/01/2018 - 14:57 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • [Deactivated] on 10/01/2018 - 15:49
      +1

      Henceforth, will a 'lol' always be (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)?

  • smux on 10/01/2018 - 15:02
    +1

    My main issue with the kinds of comments the OP is talking about is that they fall into the general category of being off-topic and unnecessary. This is a deals site. The main purpose of this site is for finding deals. As for the comments on deals, there have been several (slightly more controversial) deals where there has been so much noise from people posting off-topic comments, that I've been unable to find the comments that actually provide a review on the product. A perfect example of this are the firearms deals.

    I don't want to silence people from voicing their opinions about the appropriateness of firearms on this site, or about LGBTI issues or whatever, but I feel that the place for that kind of discussion is in the discussion forums, and not as comments on deals. Otherwise this place just turns into something worse than reddit, where you have a bucket-load of off-topic, worthless comments, but no sorting by votes in descending order.

    So, that's what I'd like to see on deals: less irrelevant, off-topic comments, so that I can get information from actual people who've used the product or service. So then it's really up to the moderators to hide those off-topic comments, and up to the users to report them. This is different from what some people are proposing here, i.e. creating rules for 'protected groups', so that they don't get offended. I think in the discussion forums anything goes.

    • Moderatorneil on 10/01/2018 - 15:42

      So, that's what I'd like to see on deals: less irrelevant, off-topic comments, so that I can get information from actual people who've used the product or service.

      Sure that makes sense.

      Generally when it comes to off-topic comments, the rule of thumb is if most comments in the deal are off-topic then we'll just leave comments as is. If most of the comments in the deal are on-topic, then we'll mark off-topic which collapses the comment. As you say people want to find information pertaining to the deal/product/service especially if they are coming in through a Google search.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join