[NSFW] Clarifying Commenting Guidelines to Respect LGBTI Members

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multiple comments in the EndingHiV bargain were found to be inappropriate, discriminatory or trolling and have now been unpublished for that reason.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 Furthermore, the mods have access to all the unpublished comments and I think it inappropriate for me to repost unpublished content.

I think the right idea would be for the mods to examine the unpublished comments which were found to be in violation of commenting guidelines and consider how the guidelines could be clarified to reduce confusion.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.

closed Comments

      • Ah, fair enough. That explains it. It'd be too much moderation work, otherwise, I guess. Not to suggest you guys aren't up for that, but we have to be reasonable here.

    • +1

      This is true, but sometimes few off-topic comments are harmless and make things brighter, and I think a clear cut line between good and bad off-topic is hard to draw.
      How about if we have this feature: One or more users report an off-topic comment. Anyone that feels offended by the comment can click the report button. A moderator then flag it as off-topic. The non-logged-in users and all the users that reported it then won't be able to see the off-topic comment at all. Everyone else can click the show button if they're curious and want to see it. Of course all replies to that comment will be hidden as well.

      • I agree with you, but as far as I know the feature you're talking about already exists, i.e. where something which has been reported as off-topic gets auto-collapsed by moderators.

  • +5

    I think this kind of discussion is healthy but the precursor to this discussion is deceptive and disingenuous.

    OP clusters malicious attacks with facts when he/she decided that stating HIV is a disease of the "queer" is part of the malicious insults. Of course HIV exists in other groups but any level of study will show that in Western Civilization, it is a homosexual disease just as cocaine usage is a problem of the rich.

    As for trans identifying with animals and objects, let's clarify. This does not mean people think of trans people as animals or objects, merely that they believe that trans people identify as something they are not. Sure some hateful people may be saying or thinking that they are animals but these are usually intellectual cripples and their comments should receive all the down votes available.

    However, the notion that trans people think they are something they are not is exactly what it is. A boy thinking they are a girl is not a girl. It does not matter to me whether they identify as a different gender, species, object, whatever. As long as they do not impose on me that I should somehow behave differently around them or for them is simply wrong. If I know someone is a biological male, I will treat them as a biological male, which most times, is the same treatment I give to a biological female because I, like most Australians, are not sexist. If I have to actively watch my gender pronouns and avoid certain topics that are factual, then the ernest is on them to distance themselves.

    I am not implying I should say malicious things like "transgenders are animals", because that would be incorrect and intentionally hurtful. I'm saying I should be able to address them in their accurate pronoun and if I should feel uncomfortable around them, I can leave. I shouldn't have to feel guilt, shame or apologetic doing so, just as much as trans people do not have to feel the same way.

    • +1

      Jeez how hard is it to use the pronouns someone wants you to use? Why is it such a challenge?

      • +1

        It's not a challenge just as much as watching your home being burgled isn't a challenge.

        • -1

          Really? You're equating altering your language by 2-3 letters as being the same thing as watching your home being burgled?

        • +2

          @MissG:
          I wonder if African Americans would like to continue calling white Americans 'Mazza".

          Freedom of speech isn't at everyone's discretionary convenience (especially based on number of alphabets).

        • @tshow: I don't understand the point you're making because you're referring to everyone changing their language to be more inclusive. It's why we don't use the term 'nigger' for African Americans, or 'kike' for jews, or any of the other derogatory terms. African Americans asked to be called African Americans and while there was a lot of 'discussion' from people about why they could use whatever term they wanted, by and large, society changed to be more inclusive. This is what is happening here. This strange assumption that including one group automatically excludes another is the worst kind of simplistic binary thinking.

          Also, we live in Australia. We don't have a bill of rights, freedom of speech is not constitutionally recognised in this country. Furthermore, the concept of 'freedom of speech' is a politically contextualised one - ie you have the right to criticise your government and not get thrown in jail for it. Secondly, where does your right to express your 'opinion' intersect with the communities right to feel safe?

          Thirdly, as Gannon already mentioned, choosing not to use the correct pronouns and and choosing to refuse to recognise someones identified gender, is already illegal and discriminatory.

        • +1

          @MissG:
          You argued the point of convenience and now you're criticizing the same argument in reverse.

          How does me calling a man pretending to be a woman a man makes someone feel danger?

          I certainly have not used any language that can be remotely construed as violent. If anything, I have been told legal action can be used to bend me to acknowledge someone's self image.

          And thirdly, as I responded to Gannon, show me the legislation. There's an "inclusivity" guide but it's by no stretch a legal requirement. False premises aren't constructive.

        • @tshow: The fact that you're still referring to a transgender person as someone who 'pretends' to be another gender demonstrates your absolute lack of knowledge and experience in this area. They are not pretending, the science has established that. Secondly, gender identity is explicitly covered in many of the discrimination acts - here is a list. Feel free to search for 'gender identity' amongst those acts.

          https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-…

        • +1

          @tshow: Instead of being a (profanity) about something that literally has no effect on you at all, have you considered just respecting people instead?

          I know it's really, really hard for you people, but I'm sure if you scrounge around long enough you'll dig up enough empathy to just call people how they'd prefer to be called.

        • +1

          @MissG:
          I still do not see where I have to pretend they are who they claim to be. I have no issue with equal opportunity. I have made absolutely no mention that we should discriminate against transgender but I am being told discrimination begins with my concept of gender. No, it does not. I have not imposed any action that would put anyone at an unjust disadvantage.

          I believe everyone has a right to dress and have whatever surgeries they want. It's not my body, I don't care. That's their thought process, so be it. I respect that. I'm being told I am not allowed the same respect.

        • @tshow: The fact that you insist on saying that transgender people are people who are 'pretending' to be another gender is discriminatory because they are not pretending. They are identifying as another gender. It is pejorative and discriminatory to call them pretenders. Transgender people have incredibly high suicide rates partly because of the persistent refusal by society to recognise their unique situation. Everyone involved in their care is trying to bring this rate down.

        • @MissG:
          You misunderstand the word discriminate.

          I believe you are trying to say that my choice of words may be inferred as offensive.

          Suicide rates of pre op and post op transgenders are similar. Interpret it in a few different ways but this isn't a fact that would help your argument. If surgery doesn't improve their sense of self worth, why are we encouraging behaviour that appears to doom them to the same outcome? That's clinical negligence and misconduct as far as I'm concerned.

          Of course, the argument would naturally progress to discrimination. Again, saying something that may be interpreted as offensive is not discrimination.

        • @tshow:

          Suicide rates of pre op and post op transgenders are similar.

          Probably thanks to assholes like you, so good job on that.

          That's clinical negligence and misconduct as far as I'm concerned.

          Well then, it's lucky you're not concerned, isn't it?

        • @ProspectiveDarkness:
          Thank you for illustrating the point of censorship.

          I was corteous and factual. I've been called profanity, belittled and "you" people. No actual facts, just random rambling.

          And all this time you are asking me to be inclusive.

          I suppose is better to have people of your opinion published and mine silenced.

          Once again, thank you.

        • @tshow: Hey man, I'm just going along with the rest of this thread. Apparently censorship isn't cool and anything goes. I try making decent arguments and in return I get negs and (profanity) trying to argue with me with "REE censorship REE snowflake lefties REE", so why bother, right?

          You don't want to give trans people respect, well, I don't feel like giving you any respect. Seems reasonable to me.

          And just so you don't misconstrue my last few comments, just because I'm intentionally being rude, doesn't mean I don't believe it. I 100% hold people like you responsible for trans and gay people committing suicide. So again. Thanks for that.

        • @ProspectiveDarkness:
          Now it's starting to look like I'm sock puppeting to discredit your point.

    • +1

      You saying that 'trans people think they are identifying as something they are not', and 'a boy thinking they are a girl is not a girl', are discriminatory and transphobic statements. For example, if you said this to somebody in the context of your employment and refused to address them by their identified - rather than your 'accurate' pronoun - you would be counselled, and if you continued to do it, you would be sacked and referred to the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission at the very least (or the relevant body of your state). You do not have the legal right to tell a colleague, client, customer, service provider etc. that they are a biological male, and that they should only be referred to as such. Their accurate pronoun is how they choose to identify, not whatever 'facts' you choose to believe in. This is common decency, and exactly what I believe should be extended to all users of OzBargain.

      • +4

        I wouldn't tell them they are a biological male but if they are a biological male, I would use all the accurate pronouns.

        Show me any legislation that requires me to intentionally delude myself otherwise. Show me the part where humans have the rights to impose their gender "dysmorphia" upon me.

        You claim that I have no choice but to acknowledge another person's gender "choice". That's not a human right. I don't believe in "facts", just plain old facts (the ones without the bunnies). It turns out, I haven't chose the facts, transgenderism has and has imposed it on others.

        If acknowledging XY makes a male and XX makes a female has now become unpopular opinion, then we are no longer engaging in healthy debate. Debates are not based on mass delusion.

        • No, debates are based on facts. The discovery of XY and XX chromosomes were scientifically made, as is the burgeoning literature on transgender and intersex people. So if the science first points in the direction of concrete definition, and then 50 years later, as scientific technology progresses, then discovers that the definition is more of a spectrum than initially thought, why on earth would you cling to outdated science?

          There aren't different kinds of facts where science is confirmed. It's hypothesised, theorised, tested, proven, and repeated, as per the scientific method. That science is now moving towards a spectrum of gender, it is early days but we already know there are structural brain differences between controls and transgender brains.

          And you can either say it's a 'mass delusion' of scientists, medical and allied health professionals, the judiciary and our government…or you can recognise that medical science is rapidly progressing, and with it, our recognition of groups of people who were thought to just be crazy, when in fact, they are not.

        • @MissG:
          You yourself say it is early days. This doesn't mean that the hypothesis is going to become physics, however, your next paragraph assumes that transgenderism is no longer just a hypothesis. Let's keep the standards universal.

          At the moment, a male is still classified as having XY chromosomes. Other than a ridiculously small number of true hermaphrodites, this is true. Yet my science can be outdated without a nee theory becoming science.

          Theoretically, if you have an island of men and transgender women (man who has now identified as woman, post-op or otherwise), is there any potential of procreation. I can qualify and quantify my results and we all know what the result is. Correct me if I am wrong.

        • @tshow: Okay well it's never going to become physics, it will become medical science for a start. Secondly, we are beyond the hypothesis stage. Hypotheses don't get government funding. Thirdly, we don't use the term hermaphrodites anymore, that is incredibly old-fashioned, the term is intersex. Fourthly, theory IS science (it's not the same as a hypothesis fyi, they're quite different).

          I suggest you familiarise yourself with the medical literature on transgenderism because it's very difficult to discuss with someone who is not up to date.

        • @MissG:
          Government funding does not define where a hypothesis starts and ends.

          It seems you have made several arguments from a point of authority. Whatever, I surrender you may have a PhD from any University of your choosing. That's an argument from a point of authority.

          I'll read the journals and I it is at my discretion what is a good study and what is fluff. If I accepted every study as science purely because it was published in a renowned journal (again using a point of authority) I would have seriously conflicting ideas.

          I suppose we can call me outdated. My arguments does not require labels for merit.

        • Different paradigm I suppose. How do you find out the biological gender of a person? I suppose through your physical senses, visual and hearing? But what you see and hear is not always the truth. And who defines and imposes that the most "accurate" version is the biological one? It is only imposed by your limited point of view.
          So what is the real reason of why using the pronouns someone wants you to use is as hard as watching your home being burgled? If the treatment to both side in the same, then why the pronoun matters? I think it is because that home is the ego or the principles you believed in.

          Imagine you, who have been living as a male for more than 30 years are taken to a fantasy world and are given a new body as a woman. In there, some people know that you were actually a male and some people don't. Which pronoun do you prefer that other people use to call you? Irrespective of your preference, what do you feel for other people who do not agree to use your preferred pronoun?

        • @tshow: Your terminology is outdated, not you. And you don't need to accept every study as study, just the ones that cause professional practice to change. I'm not a PhD, just medical and our practice has already changed, we manage a lot of transgender patients - they are very complex with unique requirements both medical and psychosocial. I don't get to choose to believe or not, I don't get to write a manifesto on why my opinions are being oppressed, I have to go where the science is and this is where it is. The next time there is practice-changing evidence, I will change again. I don't think it's a bad way to be or live.

        • @leiiv:
          If this fantasy world exist, I will recognize that males can be females and females can be males.

          I am consistent. If new facts present, and I don't mean pseudo science, I will adapt.

        • @tshow: Oh it does exist. If you and your male friend play an MMORPG together and he plays as a woman character, and he wants you to address his as a she in that game, would you do it? If you interact with another character in the game that seems to be a woman by the looks of it, you would use a she right. Why would it be different in a case of your friend just because you know him in real life as a male?

  • +11

    For the love of god.. Lets not turn my beloved ozbargain into whingepool.

    #itsoktobewhite

    The current state of moderation is excellent. If you can't take a joke.. Get off the internet… Disconnect your buzznbn now if its actually working. Disconnect from your cheap slowarse vodafone network.

  • +2

    nonbeliever93: a post about how we should have a discussion on LGBTphobia because it's kinda not being dealt with properly
    ozbargain: replies full of homophobic and transphobic comments

    • +2

      ozbargain is like 4chan .. except it has some bargains on it.

      im more excited and amused about the fact that a bargain listed on ozbargain made front page news.com.au and the whinge when the deal didnt go through.

    • +1

      Yep, this.

  • +3

    I completely agree with everything lord henry said, especially this:

    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).

    Example alternate reality: Moderator smells smoke Sunday 2pm. dumpster-fire button pressed. Comments replaced with "OzB values diversity, but we don't have the time to moderate a dumpster-fire" and link to the ozbargain mental health page. All Mods review during business hours and decide it wasn't just smoke, it was fire, leave the post disabled.

    Just chuck it in the too-hard basket rather than trying to figure it all out. It's not censorship … its just not bargains.

    But in regards to this topic specifically…

    I read through the comments from the ACON post and think gannon did a good job of pulling out the remaining comments that are more inappropriate than others. If I were to pick out the top 10 I would probably have the same list.

    So in regards to the comments gannon listed I'll give my opinion.

    I can imagine some LGBT+ people would have felt worse after reading those comments than they did before.

    And an entire thread is greater than the sum of the comments within it:

    • It could seem like a lot of people were chipping in with jokes
    • It's funny when it's one or two but it came across like a bit of a roar at times, especially about the gloves (!)
    • Sometimes it's hard to tell who is being light hearted and who is being nasty
    • The community seemed divided about the deal itself which was adding to the ill-feeling
    • There were strong opinions about lifestyle choices (e.g. "stop shoving things up there")
    • HIV is no laughing matter but a lot of people are clearly laughing in the comments
    • The comments began Saturday evening and ran mostly over the weekend when perhaps discussions are largely unmoderated
    • LGBT+ possibly offended (discussed at length)
    • Moderators possibly offended: "OMG ozbargain is a business? Why aren't you paid employees working at midnight on Saturday you bastards!", "You must have agendas because you're taking so long to clean all this up!"
    • The OP possibly offended: "How dare you post this!", "Gosh I thought you were the best because you post so many deals. But now I think you're evil incarnate you hater"

    I think we're going to struggle to assemble a neat set of comment examples still remaining that clearly violate guidelines. Or that could be used to derive new guidelines to ensure specific comments would be removed in the future.

    If I speak for myself, one gay guy, none of the comments offended me. But I have it easy. Many others have heartbreaking stories. I can't speak for those who could be significantly more sensitive about LGBT+ issues than me.

    On that note, I can't recall somebody saying "comment XYZ hurt me personally [maybe giving reasons]".

    Comments, like mine, mostly refer to a group like trans, gays or lesbians where the author is speaking on their behalf. Maybe those at risk of being affected badly by these comments won't speak up? Maybe they're not even reading the thread? Defending those who can't or won't defend themselves is important.

    However it might be making the discussions all seem a bit vague.

    • Great comment. Depending on availability I think dumpster fire button is a last resort, given it doesn't happen often, however what we could consider doing is for comments where we're not sure we'll just remove pending investigation which we can probably do at speed in a couple of minutes.

      • Can we get a special dumpster mode where registered users can opt in to get in to it?

    • Sometimes it's hard to tell who is being light hearted and who is being nasty

      Really?

  • +1

    In my opinion this whole discussion is not establishing what it seems to have been set out to do, initiate an open discussion and debate that results in some degree of self moderation and guideline review.
    I think there are valid points being made repeatedly and others that are not.

    I love reading the forums and there are times I read comments I don't like or disagree with or I think could be offensive to others. There are also times I roar with laughter at some comments that I know for sure would be offensive to some. Sometimes there is intellectual debate initiated by members with different viewpoints and sometimes not.

    There is no doubt in my mind that ozbargain members reflect the diversity of the population we live in. Due to that there will always be some us who are potentially offended by some remarks and I believe we should all be trying to be inclusive.

    I reckon there does need to be a balance between censorship, freedom of speech and political correctness which I think is the point of the discussion, can we as members determine that? After reading most but not all of this discussion, I don't know if we can reach a conclusion.

    There does seem to be one point flowing through though and that is all of us value the ability to have a voice and comment without being censored and maybe thats what makes ozbargain have a point of difference that we want to retain.

    I think we do need to remember that we live in a society that does not tolerate discrimination and legislates against it.

    Can we not all agree as members of this site not to post deals, initiate forum posts or make comments that discriminate against different categories of people specifically defined by the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986?

    see here https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employers/good-practice-good-…

    If we all agree to this as a term and condition of membership, on the occasion this is not followed we can implement the already existing methods of reporting and down voting and leave the decision on whether a membership is cancelled to the moderators.

    At the end of the day, we are all members here to share and interact with like minded people.

    • That link was great, thanks for posting it. And yet people on here are defending their right discriminate on things that are already illegal under the relevant acts and going on about how they're being oppressed. How you can profess to love the society you live in and yet not adhere to the things that make that society great just baffles me.

  • +1

    Re-reading the thread title [NSFW] Clarifying Commenting Guidelines to Respect LGBTI Members I'm just wondering what's happened to the Q's? All during the recent postal survey bollocks that apparently was really a referendum and not a survey we had a Q listed as one of the options. Have we now done away with the Q's? Do they no longer exist? Have they decided to be one of the other five letters instead?

    Maybe we should re-run this whole thread because Q's weren't part of it and doubtless that'll be cause for complaint somewhere. All in favour?

    Quite frankly this entire thread wouldn't exist if that silly offer hadn't been posted in the first instance. I feel, as do many others probably, that it had no place on OzB and I strongly suspect it would have had a lot more downvotes if it were possible to simply neg the post rather than go through a whole, albeit small procedure.

    But no, let's make this into a massive touchy feely tree-huggy event instead. On most other places on the internet if someone doesn't like something they either ignore it or leave and seek their fortunes elsewhere. Why does OzB have to be different? Why must the majority always cede to the minority?

    • What exactly are you ceding?

    • +1

      Here's the dictionary

      Definition of LGBT probably answers your Q (https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/glossary.html)

      • W..t…f…

      • -1

        How about instead of posting American university definitions, we use the definitions outlined by a well recognised and respected Australian organization?

        http://www.transgendervictoria.com/about/definitions

        • +1

          You linked a website that doesn't hold a controlled domain extension and is only affiliated to LGBTI groups. That's like liking your own Facebook posts.

          I'll take the American University studies more seriously if reputation was the determining factor.

        • @tshow: They are responsible for workplace training on LGBTI issues in Victoria and are very well respected by the major organisations that use them.

        • @MissG:
          Phiten was a company that sold "performance enhancing" bracelets and athletes endorsed and raved about it.

          These arguments that someone somewhere endorses something or someone has some qualification is a horrible way to analyze data.

        • @tshow: This organisation is used for workplace training and education across multiple fields by multple workplaces. The Victorian government funded our training by them. I would trust their definitions (which seem quite sensible) over a university level list, especially as American universities aren't exactly known for being particularly centrist on these issues.

        • @MissG:
          Well, at least that's something we agree on - American studies aren't as reputable as they claim.

          I think that's a sufficiently good note to end it on. We disagree but you were corteous so far that, I thank you.

    • The dropping of the Qs like they were hot was pretty funny during the marriage equality saga and a lot of partying by certain people without any improvement in conditions for the Qs. The questioning are the most interesting category, particularly with respect to marriage vows. Do you take person X as your lawfully wedded partner? Still making up my mind.

  • this is a bargain site… i have no idea why these sort of discussions would be entered into. So just ban the topics, this is not a general chat site as far as i am concerned.

    • +1

      Then why post in the forum?

  • I'm really really sick to death of the offtopic flamewars that happen ** on the deals ** every time someone posts an offer around sexual health, or a government rebate. They make me want to come here less.

    So I suggest you make it really simple:

    The comments on the deals are the place to discuss bargains. If your comments aren't strongly related to the product, don't make it and more importantly DON'T BITCH WHEN IT'S DELETED.

    If the comment isn't directly about the quality of the bargain that is; price, availability, alternative options (note I didn't say anything about your personal politics) then the rule is it should be able to be removed without issue.

    You don't need to apply a "is it going to make someone feel bad" test to consider deletion. I'd rather not add to the mods workload.

  • +1

    I think the whole tone of how people treat each other in general here could do with an upgrade. I see a pack of wolves that move about and bolster each others bullying bs a lot. But that's really none of my business I suppose.

  • 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.

    Back to the bargains.

    I'll be closing this thread shortly.

    • -1

      Thankyou mods, that sounds very sensible.

  • I think with touchy topics, you should switch to approved comments only. Also don't be afraid to swing the ban hammer around. Comparing trans individuals to animals should be a quick trip to the penalty box. Do it again and you're banned.

Login or Join to leave a comment