Thread: racial slurs are fine now?

Originally Posted by wayninja

If we want to do it right, maybe a poll? Leave it open for a week or two to make sure everyone who visits even semi-frequently has a chance to weigh in?

No, polls are not how we set rules on BF. Has to be by discussing the topic.

Originally Posted by Tned

No, polls are not how we set rules on BF. Has to be by discussing the topic.

Ok, then who decides and what weight goes into the decision?

To elaborate, we decided long ago that polls were dangerous for defining rules for a couple reasons.

First. It's very common to see, "oh, I didn't understand the question. Need to change my vote." or "ok, after reading some of the posts, I see things differently, I would have voted differently."

Second. A poll doesn't give context or detail on what the change should be, which is hard work. It needs to be discussed in detail if a change is to be made. Such as actually listing what will no longer be acceptable, or narrowly defining if not individually listing words.

Originally Posted by Tned

To elaborate, we decided long ago that polls were dangerous for defining rules for a choke reasons.

First. It's very common to see, "oh, I didn't understand the question. Need to change my vote." or "ok, after reading some of the posts, I see things differently, I would have voted differently."

Second. A poll doesn't give context or detail on what the change should be, which is hard work. It needs to be discussed in detail if a change is to be made. Such as actually listing what will no longer be acceptable, or narrowly defining if not individually listing words.

I understand the challenge, but I'm not sure I'm not sure it answers my questions as to who decides and what weight goes into it.

Is parsing pages of opinions easier than the challenges presented by the poll? This is a serious question as like you've said, I don't think the rules have changed here for over a decade. Would be interested in how that process goes.

Originally Posted by wayninja

Ok, then who decides and what weight goes into the decision?

The last time major rule changes were adopted, we had a small board that reviewed the discussions and proposed rule changes for public comment. We don't have a board, so either we would need to form one, or the mods would have to do it.

However, it's important to understand the guidelines. The community at large, not simply a majority must be united in wanting a change. If we had thirty people comment and 17 wanted a change, meaning nearly half don't, then there is no change. While we didn't define at large, I would say something on the order of 2/3 is the target we would be looking for of those that commented on a proposed change before we would implement one.

Originally Posted by Tned

The last time major rule changes were adopted, we had a small board that reviewed the discussions and proposed rule changes for public comment. We don't have a board, so either we would bed to form one, or mods.

However, it's important to understand the guidelines. The community at large, not simply a majority must be united in wanting a change. If we had thirty people comment and 17 wanted a change, meaning nearly half don't, then there is no change. While we didn't define at large, I would say something on the order of 2/3 is the target we would be looking for of those that commented on a proposed change before we would implement one.

Ok, well genuine interest in this seems pretty low at the moment, so I guess there's no reason to poke you for specifics unless that changes.

Originally Posted by wayninja

I understand the challenge, but I'm not sure I'm not sure it answers my questions as to who decides and what weight goes into it.

Is parsing pages of opinions easier than the challenges presented by the poll? This is a serious question as like you've said, I don't think the rules have changed here for over a decade. Would be interested in how that process goes.

I hadn't answered your "who"question yet, which I just did. I'm slow typing on tablet.

As to whether parsing pages of opinions rather than checking a poll is easier. Hell no. But, when we set out to be a different kind of forum/community, such as the owner ceding banning power to others and having no say in who is banned or an owner who doesn't unilaterally set rules, we knew from the start we weren't doing what was easiest.

Originally Posted by wayninja

Ok, well genuine interest in this seems pretty low at the moment, so I guess there's no reason to poke you for specifics unless that changes.

I've given specifics now. So we are all up to speed on the process.

I think we can all see why this thread was created, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid topic to discuss.

It might be worth creating a new thread with the actual goal of discussing whether ethnic or other "offensive" terms should be censored.

Originally Posted by DenBronx

According to a Brit you should stop clinging to your heritage.

Having a heritage is not the issue. Pretending to still be that heritage is what I find weird

Guys, take all the outside convos to another thread elsewhere. Town Hall is to be more serious in nature.

Thanks.

Thread cleaned up. As Gem already stated, the town hall forums are meant to be taken a bit more seriously. We welcome serious discussion of the issue if there is a strong desire to change the rules of the forum regarding racial slurs. If you have a genuine opinion on the matter of whether or not it should change, please make that argument here and stay on the topic.

Originally Posted by Tned

Two suggestions:

1. If you are so easily upset by little things that you must "always" argue with me (your words), or me on ignore.

2. If you truly were offended, which I doubt anyone believes, then you should have just reported it, instead of what you just admitted, always arguing with me.

Life is too short to hold grudges for years and look for opportunities to lash out, but that's just my opinion, others may disagree.

In defense of weazel (and this isn't an attack on you, just trying to point this out) It is a pain in the ass conversing with you tned (to the point I'm sure you've noticed I rarely respond to you unless you ask me a question directly) You are kinda confrontational if anyone calls you out on something. It's not just weazel that notices this.

I've gotten to the point where despite the fact that you bring up good conversational points, I would rather avoid participating in conversation with you directly just to avoid unnecessary conflict than to respond to your talking points. This is meant peacefully, hopefully it is received peacefully.

You also (as you have done here) have a bad habit of twisting (or maybe unintentionally misunderstanding) what people are saying and using that as an excuse to lash out at us.

Again, this is simply my observation, feel free to disagree with it, but hopefully you can recognize that there are more problems here than just other posters and try to take a calmer approach to confrontation going forward.


As for the topic of the slur, I didn't see the discussion in question, but even if the slur was discussing people without your ancestory, I think we should still be above that. Just because I've got a lot of Irish blood in me doesn't give me the right to speak derogatorily about other Irish people. Racism is racism.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

In defense of weazel (and this isn't an attack on you, just trying to point this out) It is a pain in the ass conversing with you tned (to the point I'm sure you've noticed I rarely respond to you unless you ask me a question directly) You are kinda confrontational if anyone calls you out on something. It's not just weazel that notices this.

I've gotten to the point where despite the fact that you bring up good conversational points, I would rather avoid participating in conversation with you directly just to avoid unnecessary conflict than to respond to your talking points. This is meant peacefully, hopefully it is received peacefully.

You also (as you have done here) have a bad habit of twisting (or maybe unintentionally misunderstanding) what people are saying and using that as an excuse to lash out at us.

Again, this is simply my observation, feel free to disagree with it, but hopefully you can recognize that there are more problems here than just other posters and try to take a calmer approach to confrontation going forward.


As for the topic of the slur, I didn't see the discussion in question, but even if the slur was discussing people without your ancestory, I think we should still be above that. Just because I've got a lot of Irish blood in me doesn't give me the right to speak derogatorily about other Irish people. Racism is racism.

I feel the exact same way about several people on here, some I rarely respond to. I nearly didn't respond to you when you talked about how easy it would be to free up cap space, because we very often talk past each other, not to each other. I tend to look at things very matter of fact/analytical and don't free wheel, so when it looks like someone pulled something out of their ear, I sometimes ask how they reached that conclusion. So, I post stats, contract details, etc. when I'm making a point, or like in the case of my concerns about Cousins, state it as such, which is it's my concern/feeling that is in play. For some, they don't like that approach. We all have different ways of communicating.

If I break a rule and/or personally attack someone, by all means, report it. Otherwise, if I just rub you the wrong way, you have to get over it or put me on ignore, just like I have to get over the people that rub me the wrong way.

I really don't know what else to say to this and I'm not going to make a laundry list of what bothers me about the posting style of various posters, but I do realize that pointing out Tned's flaws because he pays thousands a year to run the place makes it a more topical conversation, than me or anyone else posting something similar about a non owner/admin.

Technically, being Irish, Polish, Italian, French, etc. are not racism because these are not races.

There was a time 90-100 years ago when "ethnic" humor was common regarding various white ethnic groups who often settled in the New World in neighborhoods of same heritage. The big change in that came with World War II. Suddenly, a soldier had to depend on someone of a different ethnic group to have his back in a gunfight. They slept in the same foxholes and they discovered there was more they had in common than how they were different.

Overcoming racism is accomplished this way - discovering commonality rather than promoting how we are different.

Originally Posted by Tned

I nearly didn't respond to you when you talked about how easy it would be to free up cap space, because we very often talk past each other, not to each other. I tend to look at things very matter of fact/analytical and don't free wheel, so when it looks like someone pulled something out of their ear, I sometimes ask how they reached that conclusion. So, I post stats, contract details, etc. when I'm making a point, or like in the case of my concerns about Cousins, state it as such, which is it's my concern/feeling that is in play. For some, they don't like that approach. We all have different ways of communicating.

I'm glad you did ask about that one. I don't mind sharing my research. I am a lot like you in that I am not a big fan of pulling things out of my ass. I prefer to have something to back it up. I don't come to a conclusion lightly, that doesn't mean that I always come to the right conclusions. I was clearly 1,000 percent wrong on Trevor and all of the data I gathered regarding him.

Now obviously, we don't see eye to eye on the interpretation of the data in the case of freeing cap, that's fine, everyone views things differently. But I agree, it's good to at least be able to support your argument with facts and data and your interpretation of those. Everything else, we'll just leave it at what was said because I have no desire to stir up further trouble.