Why a non spanish speaker can't use 'gringo' to address a Mexican

[Peikko 1,575]

not speaking for anyone other than myself: cleo this thread is beneath you really.

I don't understand the purpose of your quote.

As to the issue of transparent and fair moderation, no, I don't think it is beneath me at all. I have to accept moderation but it is applied in very stupid ways so it pisses me off. I don't think anyone should be suspended for calling someone a #######, nor for that matter would I demand BY be suspended for his use of gringo - neither name calling was that big of a deal but if a particular moderator takes offense at the use of ####### and not at gringo there is something very wrong that needs to be openly addressed.

If it was up to me, name calling of this type would illicit warnings but would never lead to thread closures, suspensions or removal from a thread. Persistent offensive name calling is a very different matter. If I constantly called someone a wanker for no apparent reason and without attempting to address any of the issues in the thread I would expect action to be taken against me, even a suspension, but calling someone a wanker as a reaction to something someone says that one finds ridiculous seems to me normal and acceptable, even if there are people who seem incapable of reading mild profanities without coming out in a rash. There are opinions that naturally that lead perfectly civilized people to react in this way and that these reactions are normal, even therapeutic. It is not possible to always be nice, and VJ would be incredibly boring if we always were.

No, you're not a lowly scumbag: you're an attention ####### of the worst variety, someone who needs adversarial combat daily in order to feel superior in your daily life. One who thrives on drama and bickering.

I'm not defending BY here, but if you felt there was an issue, hit the damned report button first...no, instead you create this huge parlarva over the word 'gringo'...one which doesn't even make sense as a racial comment in the scenario in which you described.

Much ado about nothing. As per usual when it comes to you, but even so...this one is surprising.

Yeah, that's it, an attention ####### - because my life is so boring I need to feel superior to people like you on message boards. Get a grip Lisa, seriously.

[Peikko 1,575]

idk who did what & i don't really care. maybe posting history has something to do w/ it, maybe it doesn't. again idk & idc. but, the constant whinning about moderation is childish & the looking for a reason to whine about moderation on this board is ridiclous. any post refering to any race, religion, sex, political view...etc. could be offensive to someone. is it going to come to the point we can't even have an adult discussion here anymore?

You are entitled to your opinion that wishing to see a moderator act fairly in a thread as childish. I however think it's important. As I said, it's not about how anything could be viewed as offensive if someone is determined to do so, the point is that moderators choose to berate members for name calling yet fail to do so in a fair and impartial manner, yet they leave hate speech untouched because they have no ability to recognize it for what it is. I would gloss over much of the name calling and concentrate on the hate speech, this being a multicultural message board and all, but apparently that's too difficult.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[SMOKE 1,426]

I don't understand the purpose of your quote.

you're acting like a child & looking for a reason to be outraged. because you like AJ & don't like Booyah. need more clarification?

[Peikko 1,575]

you're acting like a child & looking for a reason to be outraged. because you like AJ & don't like Booyah. need more clarification?

Your conclusions are completely wrong. True, I find AJ's posts entertaining, but I find most of BY's posts equally entertaining until he launches into hate speeches. Neither one should have been suspended for name calling, no one should be suspended for name calling that is part and parcel of the rough and tumble of normal interaction.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Your conclusions are completely wrong. True, I find AJ's posts entertaining, but I find most of BY's posts equally entertaining until he launches into hate speeches. Neither one should have been suspended for name calling, no one should be suspended for name calling that is part and parcel of the rough and tumble of normal interaction.

i disagree. i feel my conclusion is spot on. i don't see you throwing a fit when someone calls someone you don't like a name or posts a derogatory generalization about caucasians or christians & doesn't get a suspension.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's entirely reasonable to question the consistency of moderation over racist/hate speech. After all, it IS something that has been brought up many times before over the past few months by different posters.

Whether the problem is that some of the mods don't take the time to read through a thread before rendering judgement, whether they don't understand racist/bigoted connotations or if things aren't being reported - it's obviously a continuing and ongoing problem.

As to BY - he in the past specifically singled out Mexican and South American VJers, referring to them as "Mayans", "Bowl cut Incas" or similar and even implied that the non-USC spouse was somehow substandard. Against that context it's very difficult to see innocent or humourous intent in the application of hispanic slang terms to hispanic VJers.

So long as it is explained clearly and reasonably why the referenced speech is racist or bigoted, threads like this are perfectly legitimate.

i disagree. i feel my conclusion is spot on. i don't see you throwing a fit when someone calls someone you don't like a name or posts a derogatory generalization about caucasians or christians & doesn't get a suspension.

Smoke, the only one throwing around extravagant labels here is you. "throwing a fit", "acting like a child" - could you seriously be anymore melodramatic.

Nothing you've written describes this thread or anything in it - other than your apparent desire to pick an argument riddled with emotional invective.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Smoke, the only one throwing around extravagant labels here is you. "throwing a fit", "acting like a child" - could you seriously be anymore melodramatic.

Nothing you've written describes this thread or anything in it - other than your apparent desire to pick an argument riddled with emotional invective.

*yawn* i was told someone didn't understand my post. so, i explained why i felt the way i do. you have seen me pick a fight with people in the past. do you really see my posts in this thread as fitting into my style of picking a fight with someone or just my giving my pov & explaining it to the person asking questions about my pov?

Edited August 21, 2010 by SMOKE

[Peikko 1,575]

i disagree. i feel my conclusion is spot on. i don't see you throwing a fit when someone calls someone you don't like a name or posts a derogatory generalization about caucasians or christians & doesn't get a suspension.

What part of 'I don't agree with suspensions for name calling' aren't you getting Smoke? This was specific to the events in ONE THREAD - I saw a moderator applying the name calling inconsitantly and made a stink. That said, I do not want name calling that is part and parcel of the normal hurly burly of VJ OT to be the focus of moderators attention. That is clearly my view, always has been and always will be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you lose your temper too easily - especially when you don't understand something or aren't really interested in it (as opposed to say, having a go at someone)

The consistency of moderation over hate-speech in the forums is a legitimate concern, considering the diverse nature of the VJ membership. The mods apparently feel the same if responses on this issue (not just in this thread) are any indication.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I think you lose your temper too easily - especially when you don't understand something or aren't really interested in it (as opposed to say, having a go at someone)

The consistency of moderation over hate-speech in the forums is a legitimate concern, considering the diverse nature of the VJ membership. The mods apparently feel the same if responses on this issue (not just in this thread) are any indication.

i think you use that line too much. i haven't lost my temper due to something said on VJ in ages...since my once frequent dust ups w/ platy & mawilson. whats that been 2-3 years now?

i think it is childish to start a new thread in the 'site & related' forum everytime someone doesn't agree with a mod decision. this thread was started by someone i disagree with on a regular basis. but, i have a great deal of respect for the OP due to their character & conviction in their beliefs. i just felt this theard was beneath them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the OP can be clearly and reasonably explained, isn't based on a personal issue (i.e. "X is such an #######" and does not use emotional invective - then suggesting that the thread amounts to "acting like a child" or "throwing a fit" is ridiculous.

Is or isn't consistency in moderation over hate speech a current issue on these boards?

Clearly a lot of people think so - MC isn't the first to point it out, not by a long way.

So long as the thread provides something useful to the mod team to assist with future decisions - rather than "you suck!", then what purpose is served by attempting to derail it?

[Peikko 1,575]

i think you use that line too much. i haven't lost my temper due to something said on VJ in ages...since my once frequent dust ups w/ platy & mawilson. whats that been 2-3 years now?

i think it is childish to start a new thread in the 'site & related' forum everytime someone doesn't agree with a mod decision. this thread was started by someone i disagree with on a regular basis. but, i have a great deal of respect for the OP due to their character & conviction in their beliefs. i just felt this theard was beneath them.

If I regularly started threads because of disagreements over specific moderation decisions then that would be a good point. I don't. I have issues with moderation, yes, yes I do and normally I address them in a very general way, but on this particular occasion what I witnessed in a specific thread by a specific moderator promoted me to act when normally I do not. It is a very rare occurrence to actually witness a moderator applying the TOS in a way that on the face of it appears blatantly biased, quite frankly I don't think I have seen anything like it before. Was I right about it being biased? I don't know and I expect we will never know because our host prefers to keep moderation decisions private to protect the moderators. Frankly, I think that is also misguided thinking, but then again maybe he believes no one would moderate if their actions were made public? I don't know, all I know for sure is that I saw something in a specific thread that seemed downright biased and I wanted to make a fuss about it because I believed that was the best way to get something done about it.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

"The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the LawyersModerators"

ShakespeareVJ members

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the LawyersModerators"

ShakespeareVJ members

Bad Deputy Mod! No Timbit!

[SMOKE 1,426]

If I regularly started threads because of disagreements over specific moderation decisions then that would be a good point.

you don't. thats why i was suprised to see you were the OP of a new 'mod complaint' thread & you hadn't just posted the concern in another current thread.