# So you are made boss of the politics section. What rules do you enact, repeal or change?



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2020)

It is no secret that this section is somewhat divisive among some number of site members at times. Quite why this is I am not always entirely sure (there is enough new content around here every day that I presume you skip thread for devices/games/hacks you don't know about, don't wish to know about or don't care about. Not sure that makes this section any different). "never discuss religion or politics" is sometimes an informal piece of "wisdom" for setting up sites, however it is what it is and we have this section. Discussions in turn seem to then be getting scattered around in private messages, blog posts, profile posts (a horrible way of conducting a conversation I find), so thought might as well make one here wherein it can stay around for all to see.

There is a line of thought that says doing it in this section might exclude those that already dropped it from https://gbatemp.net/account/new-content but I figure they already made their choice, though one that takes active measures to block something is someone I am also curious to hear from. Might cross post in the site suggestions section.

Anyway

Freedom to discuss things, benefits of blocking things, benefits of promoting things, neutrality of the site, promotion of site goals (if any are had, some places actively avoid having any here -- some don't care if companies/entities donate to a cause, others care very much that they donated, others only care if it is for them, others care if they didn't donate to the current cause célèbre), security (think guest posts), pleasantness for members and visitors (which are different as far as the site is concerned, and all may well have very different definitions of what that is), ease of use of the site (Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death and all that, seemingly termed "friction" in web design parlance)... all these and more are considerations when enacting decrees upon what is and is not permissible.

Feel free to make your suggestions below but some examples of things to follow if you want a jumping off point.

*Waffle section, skip if you want*
Popular (or unpopular as the case may be) examples of things that get called for, or are logical extrapolations of said same are

Blacklisting certain words
Blacklisting certain notions, can be entirely (positive and negative, can be just negative, can be just positive too)
Blacklisting certain viewpoints and world views. This can be anything from political philosophies, to activist movements, to more general philosophies, to blacklisting content from certain individuals and more besides. "If a kid reads it they might look into it and believe it" is a popular phrase in discussing this sort of thing, though the easiest way to ensure a kid does something often is to make it forbidden. Those that lack mental fortitude can indeed find themselves drawn in by various groups (it is how cults work, and note intelligence does not equal mental fortitude). What is the individual once banned from discussion "changed", or simply had a single work that could never trouble anybody? What about the notion that you, or perhaps others, want to know what your "enemy" is doing? Fighting a caricature, a pastiche of disparate but never the less "oppositional" viewpoints.
Blacklisting whole sites. "alt tech" is a popular one here, especially as those banned from those places inclined to seriously restrict content will tend to be among the earliest to populate them. At the same time many will scoff when a politician goes up on stage and says "we should ban email because someone might use it to send something naughty".
Replace blacklisting there with downplaying or hiding certain things. Shadow banning is a term you might have heard here and applies somewhat, though it is far from the whole story.
Blacklisting is in turn, or can easily lead to, forcing someone to say things which is ethically dubious in many cases, or leads to it being done insincerely ("apologise and mean it this time" and all that). If you further believe words are mind control then are you potentially brainwashing someone by doing that?
Should a philosophy, political or otherwise, be promoted as the default one and anything that deviates needs to justify itself? Of course no politician has ever made a mistake either and gone against interests, or sacrificed the good of many for the good of a few. For instance economics has many schools (Classical, neoclassical, Austrian, Chicago, Keynesian, Marxist to name but a few of the big ones) and while they agree on much they also have some fundamental disagreements. If wanted I can include a few different videos that showcase some of the different mindsets here, indeed from rather different people.
All those above might have exceptions. Hard to talk about a word, history, current place, if nobody can say the word and it is not being directed at anybody. It is also noted "speaking in code" is often an immediate side effect of such things.
Jokes, exceptions if the term is considered derisory to a group but members of that group might use it because they are it (prove you are a group member being a rather tricky thing to enact, legally and philosophically in some cases).
Code words and alternative phrases are one thing, however many such things have a great number of fuzzy edges which may be the subject of intense debate. Classic one "magic test is doable tomorrow that will tell just like we can tell if you have a broken leg. Should deaf parents be allowed to ensure their child is deaf?". Legally and philosophically there are no easy answers there.
Does blacklisting do any good even if you keep up to the moment on code words? There is a line of thought that says the best disinfectant is sunlight. Code words and alternative words often themselves become mainstream, sometimes even the old "bad" words become free to use again or at least anybody that remembers them.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a philosophy that many advocate, never the less one can find many examples of people (some claim entire groups, or such huge percentages of them that it might as well be the case) that will be reduced to quivering wrecks with but a few generally innocuous words, or mouth sounds that mean nothing to those speaking other languages. Assuming said word list could be populated then such people might find themselves flocking to the site (or inclined to contribute more than page views), or at least that is the logic. Or is simple the "harm" caused by such things existing enough to blacklist? Alternatively is blocking things likely to see those seeking a good debate take their leave, never join, or take a reduced role? If you are forced to do certain things and unable to have a discussion then why bother being here? Groups are a popular thing here but individuals can also have fairly unique combinations that will do it that one might never know beforehand. Hard to enforce that, and even a list of popular ones is long and restrictive.
If we are inclined to do groups for some of the above are there any groups inherently subject, debatably subject*, inherently not subject (can't make fun of them Nazis and all that. What about the communists?)?

*in something of a joke reply in another debate some posited that short people should be a protected class. It is a genetic condition (or maybe a product of childhood neglect, either way not really a choice), studies on it have shown interesting effects https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775715301448 https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing , the ladies tend to note "tall, dark and handsome" (and if order means anything...) or have lines like "I wouldn't feel safe with a shortarse" (we can do a more objective sample of dating preferences as well if you want). How many groups would justify special consideration at some level with "I was born this way", "society does not like us, here are some stats that show that" and "often it gets in the way of interpersonal relationships".

There are various "rules of order" for debates. Some have, seemingly jokingly, asked to enact such a setup. Full setups are complicated to run and enforce (recall the "ease of use" part from earlier) but there lessons that can be taken from them.
It does however potentially lead to good places if everybody arguing has to be some flavour of expert (which are never wrong, to say noting of the difficulty in establishing credentials for a given area), age is a popular gate but hardly that useful (if countries that speak the same language, have the same genetic and actual history until 300 years ago, and enjoy the same standard of living can't agree on what ages people are allowed to see, or indeed should never be allowed to see, what then what hope do we have?), and everybody gets to source everything or break down arguments before going forward then that does often yield something interesting.

Sourcing everything mentioned above is interesting. What count as valid sources? For instance how many news sites routinely write utterly baseless and completely hit pieces on games? If they can't manage games are they going to do better when it comes to something else? Or if you want another you are probably an expert in something. Go read news articles from general purpose news sites on it (though science and trade journals are hardly free from error either) and tell us that they are essentially correct all the time. Do we allow opinion columns at newspapers? A lot of them are comprised almost entirely of that these days. Does being elevated to the rank of reporter on a news site make you reliable? What if a news site actively avoids reporting on the news event (a lie by omission as it were)? Mass collusion of various forms is fairly well represented in media too. Equally even if most statistics are not made up on the spot (citation needed?) then the ability to use statistics to distort outcomes is a field of maths unto itself and known issues for every field of human endeavour.

"show both sides" is sometimes uttered as a thing to do, however both implies two sides and even some of our simplest games have three sides, some might even make it to four.

If you are an expert in debate then that alone might grant you an advantage. If you are an expert in fallacies ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ) and your debate opponent is not, indeed most times you see someone "destroyed" in a debate it is more likely one is skilled in debate and the other not (and debate, or logic and rhetoric as it would likely have been known at that point in time, is a subject seldom taught as much as it once might have been). If you are an expert in debate, fallacies and statistics with no particular commitment to the truth or a desire to further your philosophy (here are my 30 sources, disprove the lot) then you are seriously potent, and while expert in debate arguably includes persuasive psychology (businesses would not pay a celebrity the silly money if they did not see returns on their endorsements) then that could be a further thing. Control your emotions and it gets better still. This whole post probably broke a key one in not being concise, possibly being flowery language at points and maybe by not having much in the way of a core philosophy underpinning it. https://www.openculture.com/2016/05/george-orwells-six-rules-for-writing-clear-and-tight-prose.html

While some might tell us that free speech is a legal concept it is one that did not magically spring into being with the US' first amendment having never been discussed beforehand. There are also limitations given to it, copyright for example (something that this site walks right up to the line for all the time).

*Waffle section over*
-------------

Generally I see no terribly easy answers to a lot of that, and that is before we account for fuzzy edges of things (not that groups necessarily have exclusive right of determination, nor indeed are they even necessarily going to be accurate or legally persuasive, but if there is inconsistency among them, much less with the law or a more general philosophy, then what does one do?). Discussion though is a good thing and thus we are here in this thread for one. For at least this setup post I have tried to keep this reasonably neutral, however the mere fact I got to choose the contents (recall the lie by omission part earlier, did I omit anything that might be relevant in this?) and frame examples (did I do a strawman? If not a strawman then something disingenuous, leading language perhaps?) might well count.
Without going down the everything is a social construct path (am I mocking the notion with that?) then one might note that I did it in the somewhat more modern western tradition as well for I made no effort to say "well of course the prophet Muhammed and Islam is off limits but everything else is up for debate" (did I just mock Islam, did I mock the social construct people, did that last list entry mock them, is this a rhetorical flourish?).
While this attempted neutrality, with what I think the closest thing to a contentious topic being the deaf example (one we have actually had on the site before), the rest of this, including replies from me, might not be neutral. That is fine, expected even, however something to be aware of if you do find yourself taking offence at things (assuming it is taken, and not given).
What will come of this I do not know, though I will say if you assume your enemy is a fool or evil then you have probably already lost and even if you disagree vehemently then you will do better against them if you understand their underlying logic and reasoning 



			
				Sun Tzu said:
			
		

> If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.


This is also not a battle. You might find someone has more common ground with you than you realise. Do however take to heart the "knowing yourself" part for a weak understanding of your points is seldom a good position to be in.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 6, 2020)

So is this just a hypothetical thread or will our comments actually be noted and perhaps put into action?


----------



## Viri (Dec 6, 2020)

I take a hands off approach and let people go at it as much as they want. Just don't spam, and I'd be okay.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 6, 2020)

As I said to Vins a few days ago this site really should do annual surveys of the site members. You know asking questions like what the site does right and wrong and what forums should be kept and removed and other similar qurstions. Asking these type of questions in a survey lets people answer without fear of being attacked by other members for their suggestions and so on.

This thread is a start but I feel you wont really get the honest feedback that is needed to actually improve things around here.

And as for me you know all my complaints anyway so going over them again seems rather pointless. And I think that's how @Lilith Valentine  will feel about this also. We have both been telling you for ages what needs to change so hopefully in the future we will see it happen.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> So is this just a hypothetical thread or will our comments actually be noted and perhaps put into action?


The staff are always watching everything. Whether they agree with your assessments of things is a different matter. The staff are aware of the contentious nature of this section and actually are actively discussing things that might see it be less so.

Put together a well thought out and well reasoned case (or series of cases if it is fairly different issues that are ill served being bundled) and it could well be adopted, or adopted in a modified form, if the whole risk, reward, underlying principles thing lines up.
Doesn't necessarily have to be completely iron clad or able to stand up in a court of law (though something done to that standard, or aiming for such a thing, certainly would have an easier time) as outlining an issue can still get people to arrive at a conclusion.
Assuming it is to be a ban on certain things then as part of that a general "how do I spot it in the first place?" flow chart or checklist, even if it is and is stated to be a first pass/weak but still useful type deal. If somehow you can produce an authority (a task often fraught with difficulty as one necessarily gets to ask "why would we care what they have to say about this?") then by all means.
Equally while the premise of the thread is basically "for the purposes of this section you are one of those all powerful kings, go" if you did want to do the
"my fantasy world"
"would be nice"
"bare minimum"
or a construction similar then that is not a method that lacks potency.

If I am around I might well play devil's advocate*, or simply try to break the underlying logic. I expect others will as well, and I expect nothing less (rules that are not scrutinised are so very rarely any good). What is good for goose is also good for gander.
If you stick around to defend it then so much the better, should I be unable to successfully attack something then I will also make every effort to detail what attacks I thought might be viable and why actually they did not work.
We already know I like my equivalent scenarios, fuzzy edges (I will skip them for now pending something to apply them to), and from where I sit your pet cause is not short of them (several secondary ones too are somewhat dubious for that matter). Even without that my general preference is towards actually being able to have a discussion without an ill taken comment seeing the ejector seat happen. Such things generally makes for a far better discussion, even if some find themselves unable to take the heat (there is no damage, only those without the mental fortitude, though if they are so numerous and so valuable and the others that would leave if not allowed to express things then there is the pragmatic case for departing from ideals -- I will go to quite some lengths for ideals but economics is a harsher mistress still).

*I realise some places outlaw that particular approach to things. Did also learn the term sealioning that day too, even if I knew it by another name. Fortunately I don't see a particular case to skip that in this instance.
I would also like to believe I am intellectually honest in such things (lies and duplicity tend to only work in the short term, if at all, and even if going long term you have to remember it and play to it and this is text on the internet so memory is not an issue for others... really tiring) but play that as you will. Going on a more my personal values and opinions bit and say if you can't convince me of the righteousness of your approach then you have very little chance of convincing someone that is actually opposed to your pet cause, though at the same time my particular underlying principles might well differ to others that hold opposition (whatever they might be, so maybe try to convince them as well).

As a further prelude. If you are going to make the case to ban negative inferences towards then why not go all the way and ban any discussion.
No blogs saying yay I was accepted, actually I'm one, I'm stopping, commiserating if rejected by family/friends, no profile posts saying yay it is blah month/day/yay in general (or nay of course), no avatars/signatures/custom whatever with those nice trademarked colours (we will assume it is also intelligent enough to find alternatives, inverts and so forth -- already know the issue with alternative words and code words)... Too much of a risk that some negativity slips through perhaps (such people, as a group, are especially vulnerable to it after all) before being caught by the moderators (there is a lag between posting and reporting/one stumbling by, and if it is the mere sight of such words that sends people catatonic or something then better safe than sorry and all that), or maybe just that it avoids the problem entirely by never ever being visible (many times a rule might be made to avoid the prelude to a situation* even if it is ultimately a bit stifling). Not like it particularly distracts from the business of playing games, hacking games, hacking consoles, playing computer/electrical fixer, doing the whole emulator bit, discussing films/TV and whatever else it is we do around here. Avoids the fuzzy edges quite handily as well (though might well shift the position of edges -- if a film stars perhaps or it is notable plot point in a game). Wouldn't care for it myself as some interesting discussions I might not have had would otherwise not have happened, or happened where I am at if it is all going to happen elsewhere what would then be more suitable sites.

*so a while back a streaming website said no underboob in a rules change. Some queried that one as an odd change. I on the other hand visited a site of dubious morality and saw a compilation of accidental nudity from said site all in the name of science (seriously; it was anything but titillating despite the prevalence of tits in the clip). Do you want to guess what often preluded the otherwise apparently bothersome nudity? Seems there was a method to the madness.

If an apparent contradiction in rules exists (whether it does could be a matter for debate, harder one for the opposition to contradiction but not impossible) there is also the option to remove the thing causing the contradiction, and would also in some ways get further back to the ideals.

Once more I appear to be waffling despite knowing that such things work better, although from where I sit then for worse in the long run (I like long form debate if it was not already apparent), if kept brief and concise. Sign of the times perhaps (not that snippy comments did not fly centuries ago, and "openly questioning our betters" is but a few decades old at this point) so I guess I will tie it off there for now.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 7, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> As I said to Vins a few days ago this site really should do annual surveys of the site members. You know asking questions like what the site does right and wrong and what forums should be kept and removed and other similar qurstions. Asking these type of questions in a survey lets people answer without fear of being attacked by other members for their suggestions and so on.
> 
> This thread is a start but I feel you wont really get the honest feedback that is needed to actually improve things around here.
> 
> And as for me you know all my complaints anyway so going over them again seems rather pointless. And I think that's how @Lilith Valentine  will feel about this also. We have both been telling you for ages what needs to change so hopefully in the future we will see it happen.


I am not even going to pretend I have the spoons to read through this thread. But honestly, I feel like the site’s current stance simply isn’t good enough to protect many of the members and the constant debate with little input from the members affected is pretty annoying. Currently, I don’t feel like the much of staff actually cares about lgbt+ members in particular and as a result we’ve seen countless devs avoiding the site because they don’t feel safe on the site. It really should bring into question the environment this site is harboring. I want to be wrong because much of the staff are close friends or at least acquaintances of mine and I respect many of them, but I do feel like there needs to be some more proactive attempts to deal with issues. 
Edit: I have no idea if this is on topic or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 7, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am not even going to pretend I have the spoons to read through this thread. But honestly, I feel like the site’s current stance simply isn’t good enough to protect many of the members and the constant debate with little input from the members affected is pretty annoying. Currently, I don’t feel like the much of staff actually cares about lgbt+ members in particular and as a result we’ve seen countless devs avoiding the site because they don’t feel safe on the site. It really should bring into question the environment this site is harboring. I want to be wrong because much of the staff are close friends or at least acquaintances of mine and I respect many of them, but I do feel like there needs to be some more proactive attempts to deal with issues.
> Edit: I have no idea if this is on topic or not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Pretty much my thoughts and I would imagine its the same for the rest of the trans community on the site as well. Sadly we are left to feel like the outsiders on a site that is meant to be a community for everyone but then that's pretty much the same as it is in real life. Things really do need to change here but that can only happen with a willingness from the site staff to actually listen to what we are telling them is wrong with the type of comments and attitudes towards us they have been allowing for so bloody long. But call me a gullible fool if you want but I actually think there for once is a ray of hope that we could see a change for the good happening.


----------



## Chary (Dec 7, 2020)

I very much try to limit my exposure to the politics section. I find it to be a lot of arguing over topics I don't care about. I will defend the existence of the section, be it as a quarantine or just because these things are popular, and our site thrives with them. 

But that's not to say that there's not improvement that could be done. Please don't take any of my words as any official statement or representation of the staff's thoughts in general, I just wanted to comment, as a forum user. 

I feel that there's a barrier between trying to defend free speech or people's opinions to the death, and trying to keep repeat offenders in line. Politics is and always will be heated. You also can't play favorites with either side--that's just not fair. It's a fine line balancing act.

There's a room for improvement, for certain, and the handling of such subjects obviously doesn't get ignored. The staff is just people, and people make mistakes, people learn from them, and people are always growing. It's not as easy as waving a magic wand and fixing everything overnight. The staff is also a group, with different people and different mindsets, viewpoints, thoughts, and stances. 

That being said, when it comes to the community, that should always be the biggest focus; what the site lives or dies on. Priority #1. And if there's something that's unsettling the community at large, well, then it needs to be addressed.


----------



## elk1007 (Dec 7, 2020)

There would be 4 hard rules:

-No shit posting (all posts must have a point and a valid argument)
-No attitude (post your argument without appeals to emotion)
-No wrong questions (divisive posts are encouraged; bigotry will be argued against rationally)
-No ad hominem/character attacks (we discuss events and ideas; not someones perceived character)


----------



## Mr. Elementle (Dec 7, 2020)

Remove it, there are hundred's of sites dedicated to talking politics, and tons of general discussion forums that have politics sections. I don't see why specialized websites always feel the need to have unrelated sections, it's weird when forums for niche interests feel the need to have this general "Politics" section, I understand having a "General discussion" board and maybe the art board when people are showing off custom consoles, or music remixes (since that's at least gaming adjacent), but the forum is for discussing games, hacking, and gaming news, if the politics is related to gaming it should go in a main thread, if a political issue comes up in general then they can talk about it in the thread it came up in, if you can't pm it and need a whole new board for it, it probably would be better off talking about it on a website Dedicated to talking about it, instead of in a weird side alley of mostly unrelated forum.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 7, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> As I said to Vins a few days ago this site really should do annual surveys of the site members. You know asking questions like what the site does right and wrong and what forums should be kept and removed and other similar qurstions. Asking these type of questions in a survey lets people answer without fear of being attacked by other members for their suggestions and so on.
> 
> This thread is a start but I feel you wont really get the honest feedback that is needed to actually improve things around here.
> 
> And as for me you know all my complaints anyway so going over them again seems rather pointless. And I think that's how @Lilith Valentine  will feel about this also. We have both been telling you for ages what needs to change so hopefully in the future we will see it happen.



Anonymous surveys is a useful tool in some cases, however if you can't argue for or outline reasons for such things I am not sure what merit they have in this instance.

Still we will skip my questions about free speech, sunlight disinfecting things, about whether speech is harmful, whether certain groups are more prone to negative outcomes from it as well as whether that matters, might even skip the equivalent scenarios (I was serious about the short person thing in the opening post and from a logical standpoint they have a case) and assume it is to get smacked down as hard as ROM links. I will pose a few scenarios (the ever fun fuzzy edges).
The basic assumption here being the magic wand is waved and the rule is enacted, I am a moderator on the reports panel or wandering through a thread and see something like the following.

You say I know your position so at the risk of putting words in your mouth

Your primary pet peeve seems to be transphobia and what you apparently deem an almost endless torrent of it you find on the site. I will leave my questions about the prevalence for another time as well.

For those unfamiliar trans in this case = to do with transexuals, transgender and maybe transvestites (though that may or may not apply for this).
This is to say individuals that would claim their internal mind says that they are the opposite to whatever genitals they were born with, give or take transvestites which is more seen as just using the clothes of. They may or may not dress using common clothes of the day of the opposite gender (in much of the western world this might mean a male to female dresses in high heels, skirts, blouses, uses a bra, wears makeup and so forth. High heels, dresses and skirts not being unknown on men in older times, indeed maybe even being the height of fashion, but debate for another thread). Some scenarios will be covered later.
Phobia. Standard suffix for intense dislike or hatred of as opposed the other popular use of "fear of" (as in arachnophobia being fear of spiders). Other ones include homophobia (intense dislike/hatred of gay people), biphobia (intense dislike/hatred of bisexual people, not necessarily the same as homophobia). For some they aspire to have them join concepts like racism (intense fear or hatred of different skin colours/races*), sexism (intense dislike of a given human sex, split between misandry which men and misogyny which applies to men) and various other terms. This is usually done on the basis that such things are an innate trait that does not matter and the person has no choice over. Some aspire to add further categorisations to such lists, and there may be laws too. This can include religion (arguably a choice), age, military service status (a choice), marital status (a choice), being fat (mostly a choice barring a handful of rare medical conditions). This is rapidly getting off topic, though some will combine the goal of ending many such traits into one goal and in doing so create sometimes dubbed intersectionalism. There are also many extra and varied definitions involving terms like "dominant power" or prejudice+power=?ism, no power then no ism but you can still be prejudiced, quite what power is quantified as is left undefined. This would however have to be settled for this discussion. I will assume not though for now and go with classical definitions that most laws, ethics boards and whatever else will use.

*the idea of races itself being a contentious term for some but that is getting further off topic.

A statement or action said to be the result of having transphobia is said to be transphobic.

Common terminology when dealing with trans? issues and a general overview of things (if you are not going to understand a notion then hard to debate things within it). Here I will generally opt for the medical/scientific world view rather than some of the sociological but will never the less attempt to note the latter where relevant. Note that some of these statements are considered contentious by some in and of themselves, and ridiculous nonsense in other cases. I may or may not note notable opposition.
MTF = Male to Female
FTM = Female to Male
Passing = a term for when the combination of luck, hormones, surgery, dress, makeup and the like means that an individual may blend in with the crowd without anybody knowing their birth sex. Commonly seen as a very hard for MTF, especially post puberty, but considerably easier for FTM (FTM also producing some very interesting "living as a man" discussions as depending upon ages involved they might have done both, though that is a different discussion)
Dysphoria. The term given to the mental dissonance caused in this case by "being in the wrong body".
Hormones. A whole series of chemicals produced by many living creatures to achieve different results. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species, that is to say the different sexes have different physical traits. If you take considerable amounts of the hormone of the opposite sex (in humans testosterone is the male one, oestrogen/estrogen the female one) then you will manifest some amount of traits of them, and suppress traits associated with the sex you might have been born with. Generally speaking they have to be taken on an ongoing basis and while not a prerequisite to being trans? in all cases it is almost endemic. Some changes may be permanent (males growing breast tissue being a common one) while others might wear off.
Said traits manifest during puberty and it is the subject of much present legal, medical and ethical debate (serious ongoing court cases in the UK and US on the matter, different rulings obtained as well) as to whether stopping puberty from occurring, both to achieve a better "passing" rate and possibly stop what might be otherwise unpleasant effects (if you are "in the wrong body" then seeing said body manifest traits indicating that to a greater and greater degree is presumably quite unpleasant).
Debates over what causes trans people vary. At present nobody has found a "trans gene" but that is not to say there are none, or it is not a combination. Some have pondered whether trauma is a thing (for instance if a significant fraction of the trans population experienced some amount of trauma above and beyond what the baseline population experienced then it stands to be queried). Some have pondered whether it is socially contagious (the idea being people, often children, could well do it to fit in, especially if they meet what might be a genuine trans individual). Some take exception to attempting to determine root causes, or opt for the simpler "a person is what they say they are" (this typically coming from the sociological approach).
There are also a great many conditions where the more simplistic chromosomes (XX = female, XY = male) model is inaccurate. Generally this is considered a very very small fraction of the total counts but never the less is a concept that gets bundled in here. Though a particularly notable condition is called androgen insensitivity syndrome, here individuals for various reasons (often cancer treatment or physical trauma) see their hormones not be produced and thus be supplemented. Puberty blockers mentioned above effectively induce this condition. The effects of untreated AIS are equally severe.

When a trans? person gains various labels varies with country and also varies "within the community" (some will say you just have to think it is the case for you, others will say you have to actually live it aka there is a "performative" element to it). Some will have to undergo counselling and various amounts of psychological testing, spend a year or more living as the opposite sex, more psychological testing, possibly have hormones be mandated, the nature of surgery (and asking what surgery one might have had is considered rather taboo by many) varies but could be necessary for some and finally be presented with a medical certificate. At that point it might still be tricky to get governments to issue certificates/forms of ID matching things but usually not.
Others can gain it by turning up at the place that does identity papers (passport office, whatever sorts driving cards) and asking, maybe paying the relevant printing fees like you would for a simple renewal, change of address, change of name following a marriage/divorce...
There is contention as to which approach detailed above is the correct one (some viewing the merely rock up and ask approach as the way to go, others seeing that as open to abuse and misuse), or if some middle ground is here.

Trans? vs mental illness. A whole rabbit hole unto itself.
In more recent years then updates to various psychological practice texts does appear to have made the simple notion of your head not reckoning the body matches as not being a mental illness. This is not uncontentious in the medical community (the updates to the big two manuals have some considerable debate over many things) but not out of line with other mental problems and delineation points. Dysphoria however can be an aspect of a mental condition and may be treated accordingly.

While much of this is science talk or legal talk then sociology may also have ideas about what counts as what.

Questions then. I have a great many but will go with just a few more pertinent to set the scene as I waffled above.

We will assume "trans? are utterly disgusting and should die" is beyond reproach.

There are some more subtle ones I got by PM 
"Saying God doesn't make mistakes or using religion against trans? is also transphobic"
If the big book of my religion says it is (straight up, no messing around with thousands of years old translations of languages that have been evolving that whole time) then how do we resolve that? Are we not denying someone their religion?

Sports question
Human sports are generally split by sex. This is as males, especially some examples that end up competing in sports, have considerably more height, muscle mass, bone density, bone structure, possibly reaction time, aggression, and any number of other traits that benefit physical activities.
This is demonstrable as well in terms of world records obtained, level of play commonly seen, that far lower ranked male teams often utterly trounce female teams when pitted against, in terms of injuries taken (the birth canal in females changes the nature of hips and thus leg injuries are far more prevalent in female athletes), time to recover from injury and on and on and on.
Anyway the main question then becomes should MTF athletes be allowed to compete with females. There are many concerns raised here and counter arguments.
Safety. In combat sports, or in real life, a male punch delivered to a female is often quite a dangerous thing. We have examples of things like skull fracture (quite rare otherwise) from such bouts.
Fairness. Generally and for those ranked say 10 that no longer make the team (and a rank 10 at 17 might be a rank 2 or 3 at 19-24 as development happens).
Even if oestrogen serves to reduce muscle mass, bone density and the like there is often still an advantage.
Some sports also regulate hormone levels (that is to say MTF competing must have been under this testosterone level for so long).
There are plenty of examples of sports counting people out of competition for having conditions. Might this be another such example?
Equally there is plenty of evidence that most top athletes are genetic freaks in one way or another. Or more accurately the average say early 20 something can't start training tomorrow and end up a star athlete, same for average kid.
The sociological position in some cases also is "trans women are women, no ifs, no ands, no buts" (and said position might also be posed in answer to many other things in this discussion).
To that end not an easy discussion with many points of view.

So then is a statement of "MTF should not be allowed to compete in female sports" an acceptable thing to read on the forums? If not then delete, warning, ban?

Terms of choice.
It is widely held that those that are black can freely use the term "n****"/"n****" (often considered one of the more offensive terms there is) and there are any number of widely regarded comics, musical artists and actors using the term freely by dint of being black themselves, often in works regarded by millions as the pinnacle of an art style. At the same time netflix notably had one of its higher ups chastised for using the term, in a meeting about what offensive terms might be. Here for this discussion I will opt to use terms rather than euphemisms but this may be subject to debate.
Gays have made similar claims to the word faggot. Some have also claimed the term homosexual is offensive.
Those of Pakistani origin have made similar claim to the word Paki.
Nobody quite knows what goes with the term Jap (short for Japanese) these days but may be offensive. Oriental when applied to a person (and not an object or food) is considered offensive in some parts of the US but not in the UK (unknown for other English speaking countries) and no equivalence for any other ethnic group that I am aware of (European cars, European people, American food, American people...) which is potentially a different one but hey.
Some in the trans? community have claimed the term "tra nn  y" sans spaces as similarly potent in offensiveness. This is the subject of some debate (to say nothing of having multiple unrelated meanings) but we can assume it is for today. Do those members in, maybe quoting ones in, quoting a work (I did hear it in a work) or otherwise quoting, possibly even quoting from a historical work before it obtained an offensive categorisation, get a pass? Do we ask if someone is to determine this or take their word? Taking someone's word in text form is obviously a dubious practice as far as veracity goes.

"Womxn" (you may also see Latinx for a similar concept to avoid troubles with Latina and Latino as Spanish will note this). Some attempted to coin this term to be inclusive to MTF people/trans women. If we take the rallying cry of many that "trans women are women" as correct (and is unlikely many pushing the concept of womxn would disagree) then is it not exclusionary or othering on its very face?
So do we ban it, encourage it, enforce it, ignore it, ridicule it?

Some claim that only trans ? actors should play trans characters in film,TV shows and such.
Would opposing this (I mean actors are generally noted as playing a role after all, I don't think the actors in Lord of the Rings are really elves, dwarfs, long living humans and all master warriors, still manage to lose myself in it). If it is somehow unacceptable would a FTM playing MTF be acceptable?


Sleeping with.
Should you be unwilling to sleep with a trans person then some consider that bigoted behaviour. Among various sects of feminism it is actually quite a contentious issue. If you want to read more then while those that practice it consider it a demonym (that is to say a derogatory word) then the term TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) would be a starting point.

Would then a statement of "I don't sleep with trans people" be acceptable? Is it any different to I don't sleep with [hair colour], [height range], [weight/BMI range], [skin colour] (it is generally held one can pick at this, else all those dating websites for [racial demographic] have a serious problem, never mind the even more fun getting married/having kids bit)? Which is to say personal choice to do something which is generally viewed as kind of important when doing the whole sexual intercourse bit.

Speaking of TERFs
"woman = adult human female"
That was the entirety of an advert (and tshirt) made by a group of what might be dubbed TERFs.
This apparently upset some in the trans community, so much so the advert got taken down despite being just that.
Do we ignore this, note the distaste, delete, warn, ban... for such a statement? Does it have to be in conjunction with?

Bisexuality. I did hear that bisexuality was transphobic on this site. Though more generally some do make a distinction between pansexual (all genders) and bisexual (don't mind if male or female) when it comes to sleeping with people. Some arguing that bisexuality excluded trans folk (not generally historically noted as being that, not contemporarily in most cases I have ever seen).

Now I have mostly avoided multiple genders but it is a source of contention within the wider trans community (and world at large). Some claim their gender (or gender expression) is basically infinitely variable (mathematically or linguistically that means it loses almost all descriptive power). The sociological set may well agree with that (possibly under the idea that you describe what people say there is as language is the thing). Some quite prominent members of the trans community (or at least the video making set) have been chastised for not recognising the infinite genders thing.

Pronouns. English as a general concept has gendered pronouns. He, She, Him, Her... some in the trans (or just "ally") community will state the ones they prefer to be used. Some opt for neutral, some opt for things like "xir".
Do we mandate them? Do we mandate a subset ("you will address MTF as her/herself or be banned, xir is bloody ridiculous though so ignore that").
Is "hey guys" as an introduction a problem for this (or maybe just a problem for gendered use of words)? Even if everybody addressed is MTF?
While I said I would avoid free speech questions this does however bring up the idea of mandating speech (we love the dear leader, the leader is good, the party is wonderful, the gods of my parents are false gods...).
"I will do it to be polite" is a tacit admission that they don't agree, and in many ways from a scientific perspective it is not unfounded (and if nothing else if there is more to do beyond just whatever trickles down from general approaches to medicine then yeah). Do we punish that?

Hormones for the troubled.
I once saw a discussion on this very site wherein people were instructing a younger member on where to obtain hormones when it became apparent that their parents would not allow such things.
Given the radical nature of the taking hormones, the presumed lack of informed consent, the presumed lack of an initial assessment, the lack of any patient history, the presumed lack of monitoring, in this case the source being unreliable (online pharmacies of dubious merit and all)... that would be an egregious breach of medical ethics to say the very least.
Whatever the debatable nature of harms of words then this almost unquestionable banhammer time from where I sit (repeat that for "I think I have ADD" and someone sends a pharmacy that accepts cash on delivery/bitcoin and no questions asked), even if I could stand to hear how someone suffering might be assisted by it and it was ultimately well meaning. If any medic did such a thing (without consultation, history, expertise...) then their abilities to practice medicine would be in serious jeopardy.

New wonder drug is made that cures dysphoria with no, minimal, comparable or otherwise acceptable side effects (if your baseline is untreated dysphoria or life outcomes for trans? people that is some latitude). Some claim this can never happen. I claim that nobody has yet made such a thing. The effects of psychedelics are mind blowing, pun intended, and getting better all the time as are all medicines. Also here is a nice brick of heroin. Shoot it up at this dose when you feel like you are getting low. You will not care one jot about dysphoria when under such a regime. Obviously the impact on your life is unbearable in this case but it never the less is a "cure".
Now a common term heard in these sorts of discussions are phrases like "erasing" or "not acknowledging" my existence and things to that effect. I would say most such talk is hyperbole and bluster. This however would be something that in many ways erases the existence of this class of people, or at least a good chunk of them.
There are analogous issues in other areas. Deaf people and cochlear implants for one, some ponder its nature for disabilities in general, scans in the womb for autism were looking to be a possibility. All questions to ask.
Anyway question then would be
"it would be good if there was such a drug"
Is this a bad thing?
Do we/can we host a discussion on whether it should be the suggested course of action? What about mandated? There are cases wherein someone suffering a breakdown can be force medicated and it is generally accepted by the medical community. We have hosted plenty of others on vaccines, drugs, euthanasia, abortion, raising kids in religion, circumcision (female and male) and plenty of other things if it is somehow deemed outside the scope.
What about "I don't believe we should fund transitions from insurance (be it general insurance, state provided or something in between)"? Similar questions do exist for things like abortion, euthanasia, many aspects of elective procedures and a whole load of things besides, including limitations (getting a set of glasses on insurance might well only get you a basic set with basic abilities, fancy stuff costing extra). Could we stand to have a discussion on that? Risks and medical ethics is covered a bit elsewhere but very much a fun one in all this.


Joe Rogan podcast, various incidents but the main one subject to much scrutiny was Abigail Shrier who wrote the book "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters." https://open.spotify.com/episode/4SIh4Pt39AtGQYzMJMNkv1 being the episode in question. In it it detailed the research performed on a considerable number of female to male prospects, successfully transitioned, detransitioned (which, while apparently rare never the less happens and is large enough in number that other treatments with similar failure rates* have been removed from circulation for being unsafe, is not an easy or terribly successful procedure -- permanent changes happen as a result of transition after all) and families of all of said same. As best as I can tell performed honestly and the results compiled accordingly. I have not done an analysis of it myself though.
Some however considered it utterly horrid, though seldom attacked the underlying science.
From where I sit that was then proper research conducted and results being shared. Would the would be moderator want to remove it?
If Joe Rogan now tainted (or perhaps otherwise tainted) and now we can't link to any works from him, even one wherein he talks to a musician about their new album and nothing even vaguely contentious comes up. An odd question perhaps but Spotify quite notably had a staff revolt of sorts when he joined the service, with them citing that episode among others as to reasons why.
By similar token it was noted Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychiatrist and lecturer, was having a new book published. He is not uncontentious in the trans community, indeed having rose to prominence initially off the back of opposition to mandated use of pronouns for trans folk. Anyway some members of the publisher apparently raised a massive stink with their bosses over the publication of such a book (the previous having been a massive bestseller, none of it really dealing with any trans related issues and by no indication was/is this one to either). Do we ban discussion of him (I mean if employees attempt to censure their employers for "giving a platform" and that was a righteous act then are we really to argue or do just that?

*and that is those that medically detransitioned. If we are to consider the percentage of those that engage with the services in the first place to those that reach some meaningful milestone in transitioning (completing is a tricky distinction in quite a few cases, even if it is unarguably there) then the ratio may be far higher which speaks to risk assessments in any number of treatments.


So then. Not an easy thing even we forgo free speech arguments (which I am not inclined to or considering a settled issue). All those are examples I have seen on this site, ripped from recent headlines or have been widely circulated enough that it reached me (though I am at least somewhat plugged into the culture wars aspect of videos if nothing else, mainly as I watch everything). Even taking a hardline (which is a dubious position from where I sit) approach on all those does not leave you without contradictions or potential reproach from those interested in logic, those also in the community (if we are assuming such people are to be the arbiters of such things -- generally we allow anybody to do their own research to come up with their own ideas and present a case).

Answers to one or more questions if we can. If I have made an egregious error, omission or oversight in the opening description then please do say. There are many more questions (do we do the prison question?)

Personally I find this trans bit rather trite as an issue. Would much rather discuss what we might do about the anti vaccination bit (or not do), the religion question, "toxic philosophies" (would I be allowed to ponder men's rights activists, MGTOW, WGTOW, incels, science of racial differences, and indeed I might question whether some of those are even toxic at all), some might claim various political philosophies are beyond the pale (and if we ban national socialism do we also ban socialism, which is presumably not what a lot of Americans are inclined to tell me it is). However it was asked for so here we have it as I understand it and questions I might have if playing moderator.


----------



## elk1007 (Dec 7, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Anonymous surveys is a useful tool in some cases, however if you can't argue for or outline reasons for such things I am not sure what merit they have in this instance.
> 
> Still we will skip my questions about free speech, sunlight disinfecting things, about whether speech is harmful, whether certain groups are more prone to negative outcomes from it as well as whether that matters, might even skip the equivalent scenarios (I was serious about the short person thing in the opening post and from a logical standpoint they have a case) and assume it is to get smacked down as hard as ROM links. I will pose a few scenarios (the ever fun fuzzy edges).
> The basic assumption here being the magic wand is waved and the rule is enacted, I am a moderator on the reports panel or wandering through a thread and see something like the following.
> ...



I forgot the 5th rule: No walls of text. Be concise. Length is not an argument.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 7, 2020)

There are some things to reply to but it is 4am so I will have to leave it with just the last one for now.



elk1007 said:


> I forgot the 5th rule: No walls of text. Be concise. Length is not an argument.


Don't know if that works, even if I am not me. Sometimes length is necessary to explore a topic. I do agree forums are occasionally as ill suited to long form text as the 30 second video and 120 characters is to any kind of useful discussion but I can try to make do.
Concise prose is something I value (there is a reason I linked https://www.openculture.com/2016/05/george-orwells-six-rules-for-writing-clear-and-tight-prose.html in the starting post, and https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/ is good stuff whatever you may think of the man that wrote it), even if my writing itself does not always live up to the ideal.

Of that quoted post there then 1300 odd words of the 4400 or so was a setup of the topic at hand for those unfamiliar with it (and it is not something I would expect people to necessarily be familiar with, not to mention it highlights a few issues in and of itself), maybe 300 more for the ending and starting bit. The rest is some of the questions I would need answered to start to enact such a rule as the simplistic response of "just ban it"* some might imagine there to be does not stand up too well in the rather more messy and complicated nature of the world (particularly amusing for a group that might be inclined to tell others that the world is more messy and confusing than the simplistic binary model they use). Maybe it could have been trimmed further or lacked context and explanation for a few things but I doubt it would have got it down too far, and for me would have suffered for it. I could have lost some example questions as well I guess but I am not sure anything there is particularly a duplicate of any other.

*maybe we could with the "I can't explain what it is but I will know it when I see it" approach. Though that leaves nobody with a clear idea what goes, be it those with a vested interest in the outcome, those posting and not knowing and those having to enforce rules.

Or if you prefer I will happily state it is never my intention to baffle people with fancy words and phrasing. I understand it happens from time to time, especially if English is not something you toy with just for fun, but still never my intention. Any length is usually a function of me explaining a position/concept and then trying to provide enough examples to drive whatever point home I wanted to make beyond any reasonable doubt, to head off certain avenues of attack at the pass, or look a things from multiple angles. This possibly while being distracted a few times as things are rarely so simple and without interesting asides that might spawn further discussions, and if nothing else the only reason I am here is for interesting discussions (another reason I value the ability to potentially discuss anything and not close down avenues of discussion, especially not for the sake some hypothetical person that may not even exist's feelings).


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 7, 2020)

If anything changes I'll probably just leave the section. This only ever goes *ONE WAY.* It's *ALWAYS* those on the left trying to censor and silence others they disagree with. He who cries loudest wins it seems. Just because certain members of this community make themselves out to be victims and look for ways to victimise themselves doesn't mean they are, and their right not to be offended doesn't trump my right to say what i like, as long as I'm not breaking any rules, which I haven't done, I'm guessing this post isn't hypothetical and the incessant whinging of a certain member in here has prompted this thread. I expect the culling to commence.

It's always fascinating to me how the minority who screams the loudest tends to get their way. We all know any change will only lean one way, It will lead to people like me and people who have similar views to me and airing those views being banned and or silenced just because some people don't have the mental capacity to handle someone else who disagrees with them.

I've seen plenty of posts in here I disagree with, I don't think I've ever reported one though. How hard is it to ignore someone you disagree with and go about your day. Too hard apparently, thou shall conform!

It's like not being liberal is becoming illegal. Lets just be real, any changes will be to police speech. You'll be trying to compel me to use speech that basically Amanda doesn't feel offended by, that won't be happening, you won't compel me to speak a certain or different way just because a small minority lacks the mental well-being and capacity too accept the fact that they don't control the universe and there's things and people out there who may disagree with them. GET OVER IT.

Anyway that's all I have to say with my initial thoughts, because we all know it'll only go one way. It only ever goes one way. I guess I should've DM mods too and gone around the official channels like other people have because clearly it's worked.



elk1007 said:


> There would be 4 hard rules:
> 
> -No shit posting (all posts must have a point and a valid argument)
> -No attitude (post your argument without appeals to emotion)
> ...



1. You serious?? shitposting can have a valid point. Who's to say whats a shitpost? Is your post a shitpost, it comes across as one too me, who gets to say, shall we have a vote, everybody who leans left gets 2 votes and everyone else gets 1. That seems fair.

2. Attitude can convey alot, why can't i post with an attitude? Why you trying to restrict my post process.

3. No wrong questions? Who's to say what's right or wrong, no wrongthink people!

4. Sometimes somebody's character deserves to be attacked so basically fuck that.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 7, 2020)

Well, I'm just a simple basket weaver from the great state of Atlantis, but I reckon I got a few suggestions for rules which might help:

1. No memes.  All images should be informational, or relevant to the content being posted.
2. No shitposting or trolling.  Pretty self-explanatory, left to the mods to decide exactly what constitutes a violation.
3. Whenever possible, discussions and debates should remain centered around platforms, policies, and news articles, rather than individuals.

Now, given how much the nature of political discussion and politics in general has changed over the last decade, I recognize that number 3 would probably be the most difficult rule to enforce, but I also think it has the potential to be the most beneficial for this section.  Politicians, journalists, etc are of course public figures and therefore fair game for ridicule or praise, but if the objective is improving the quality of discussion and avoiding mud-slinging, this is the best solution I can come up with off the top of my head.

Not to call out anyone in particular, but I remember a time when people would only discuss politics if they were both informed on the issues, and able to keep a level head.  Now every vegetable who has rotted their brain on 24/7 reality TV thinks they can cure AIDS and bring peace to the Middle East, and they're very vocal about it.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 7, 2020)

From my own observation, it's impossible to make everyone happy.

Based on how things are currently handled, you have one side saying there are not strict enough actions being done, and on the other, there are people crying we are biased on the left and censoring everyone, which contradicts the first point directly.

So it's quite a catch 22 here.

Unfortunately this is just how the real world is, except the real world is a lot worse than an internet forum.


----------



## Chary (Dec 8, 2020)

shamzie said:


> 1. You serious?? shitposting can have a valid point. Who's to say whats a shitpost? Is your post a shitpost,


"ur mum dum" "orang man bad lololoololol" "get rekt liberal memeface memeface memeface" are pretty easily identifiable as crap posts. I'd assume that's obvious. It's why the EOF exists, for joke posts or memes. 



shamzie said:


> No wrong questions? Who's to say what's right or wrong,


I don't see how attacking people for being inquisitive is anything bad. You said that who decides if something is a crap post or not, don't restrict your posting process, then you go and say who's to determine what's right or wrong. Unless something breaks the rules, like "does anyone agree we should kill all trump supporters?" or "all gays r bad, rite?" I see no reason why questions shouldn't be allowed full stop. 



shamzie said:


> somebody's character deserves to be attacked so basically fuck that.





			
				da rulez said:
			
		

> Do not "flame", "bash", "troll" or harass others. Blatantly offensive comments or actions directed at others will not be tolerated. While we do allow members to debate and voice their own opinions, there will be a limit to how far a heated debate can go before it is closed by staff. If you harass someone you will be disciplined. Period.
> 
> Please show respect for all members at GBAtemp


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 8, 2020)

Chary said:


> "ur mum dum" "orang man bad lololoololol" "get rekt liberal memeface memeface memeface" are pretty easily identifiable as crap posts. I'd assume that's obvious. It's why the EOF exists, for joke posts or memes.
> 
> 
> I don't see how attacking people for being inquisitive is anything bad. You said that who decides if something is a crap post or not, don't restrict your posting process, then you go and say who's to determine what's right or wrong. Unless something breaks the rules, like "does anyone agree we should kill all trump supporters?" or "all gays r bad, rite?" I see no reason why questions shouldn't be allowed full stop.



Is there a reason you left out the word 'sometimes' when quoting me? It's almost as if context matters. Yes, It's the EOF, so why is there a need to bring in or enact rule changes.

I didn't attack them for asking questions, I asked questions of my own. Don't you see all the question marks? You seem pretty okay with attacking me for asking questions though.

Cool ending, now go quote it to the people saying I'd send children out with knives. I won't hold my breathe. We know this only goes one way.


----------



## Chary (Dec 8, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I didn't attack them for asking questions, I asked questions of my own. Don't you see all the question marks? You seem pretty okay with attacking me for asking questions though.


Literally where am I even attacking you lol. Way to find a way to get offended. Ok.

I never said you were attacking any post, I just was responding to your thoughts on the guy above you. What's wrong with asking questions? You seemed to want to debate that point. Guess not. In general, people like to attack others for merely asking a question. That shouldn't be the case. 

Cool diversion I guess? Children with knives, okay. Puppies with AK47s? What kinda game are we playing? You got all ruffly over discussion in an instant. But yeah, given how you instantly thought I cared enough to attack you when I wanted to see your take, then yeah, it only ever goes one way I guess lol


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 8, 2020)

Chary said:


> Literally where am I even attacking you lol. Way to find a way to get offended. Ok.
> 
> I never said you were attacking any post, I just was responding to your thoughts on the guy above you. What's wrong with asking questions? You seemed to want to debate that point. Guess not. In general, people like to attack others for merely asking a question. That shouldn't be the case.
> 
> Cool diversion I guess? Children with knives, okay. Puppies with AK47s? What kinda game are we playing? You got all ruffly over discussion in an instant. But yeah, given how you instantly thought I cared enough to attack you when I wanted to see your take, then yeah, it only ever goes one way I guess lol



If you weren't attacking me why are we even talking about the guys questions. Actually, they weren't even questions. They were statements. He said what should happen, I merely played the other side of those statements. Devils advocate. I weren't the one advocating "no wrong questions" so not sure why were even having this conversation.

You seem to be struggling so allow me to clear it up for you.

You could easily see my take by reading my post history and the post's I've replied too, that would mean sending "da rulez" to someone you agree with though. You quoted the rules to me, implying I was breaking them, I suggested you also quote them too the others who were breaking them, unless you condone personal attacks on my character suggesting I'm cool with children carrying knives, maybe It's just aimed at me though. Cool puppy metaphor.

Also the Irony of you saying I found a way to get offended when this whole thread was created because someone got offended is not lost on me. Quite hilarious to be honest.


----------



## Chary (Dec 8, 2020)

shamzie said:


> If you weren't attacking me why are we even talking about the guys questions.


Because it’s a forum and you posed a question so I responded in turn...? Gosh have I been using these darn website thingamajigs wrong all this time? Oopsie. 



shamzie said:


> , I merely played the other side of those statements. Devils advocate.


So then I’m playing devil’s devil’s advocate...okay?



shamzie said:


> You seem to be struggling so allow me to clear it up for you.


Yaaaawwn. 



shamzie said:


> You could easily see my take by reading my post history and the post's I've replied too, that would mean sending "da rulez" to someone you agree with though.


Didn’t really care to respond to anyone else in the thread. Everyone and their dog knows what Amanda’s thoughts are, and I wasn’t jonesing for a 50 paragraph thesis from FAST tonight. I could have responded to Xzi’s “no memes” thing by quoting the rules at him, but I found that to not be worth picking that single piece out of whatever he said. 

You’ve proven you don’t wanna talk about the point anyway so this is such a waste of time.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 8, 2020)

So what you're saying is you could've applied "Da rulez" equally but chose to just pull me up instead. Sounds about right.
Look, we can both be facetious


----------



## Chary (Dec 8, 2020)

shamzie said:


> So what you're saying is you could've applied "Da rulez" equally but chose to just pull me up instead. Sounds about right.
> Look, we can both be facetious


…your point only makes sense if the rules are being enforced, not discussed. Lulz.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 8, 2020)

Chary said:


> …your point only makes sense if the rules are being enforced, not discussed. Lulz.



It makes sense because they are being enforced. Selectively. I've had a number of posts removed, the people making disparaging comments about me, aka 'flaming' their posts are fine though. But you're already aware of that.


----------



## Daggot (Dec 8, 2020)

I'd push it towards complete anarchy. Any and all political opinions allowed even if I don't like the opinions in the first place. As long as nothing breaks US law and people stay on topic it'd be ok to me.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Dec 8, 2020)

*I would add a "Measure your Intelligence" sticky thread sponsored by Buzzfeed.*

By rule, you'll have to take the test before posting in the Politics section in order to know what kind of special snowflake you are in order to keep your experience on the section Safe from any Insults to your beliefs and to promote Inclusion and Political Correctness.



JuanMena said:


> Holy shit FAST. I never thought about seeing you here.
> What's more surprising to me though, is the proper lack of discussion on this thread, given the forum it's posted.
> I guess you didn't expect regular folks reading a text wall followed by a 25min video, when the attention span averages 2 minutes, 8 at max. lol



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



VinsCool said:


> From my own observation, it's impossible to make everyone happy.
> 
> Based on how things are currently handled, you have one side saying there are not strict enough actions being done, and on the other, there are people crying we are biased on the left and censoring everyone, which contradicts the first point directly.
> 
> ...


The other way around... in the real world you can always shout someone's mouth with a punch in the face.
(please don't punch me girl, I like you)


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 8, 2020)

Hmm... If I were the boss of this section... 

It would be funny if there was a multiple choice question asking something like 'what's the difference between communism and socialism?', and anyone clicking the 'there is no difference' option would be thrown off the internet. 

Ahem... But in all seriousness... I'd probably close it. IIRC, this forum was only created because people were discussing politics elsewhere. However, it has since become a home for people who barely or never post elsewhere. Worse : people who don't want to share their opinion but Want To Be Right,and use every argumentation trick to create the perception of just that.

And what's the purpose, really? I'm someone who trusts newspaper articles and am sceptic of anonymous posts on shady sites, and others have the exact opposite belief. So when those sources clash, who is going to convince who exactly? It's just going in circles until it becomes personal.


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Dec 8, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Dec 8, 2020)

Id say 80% of the people in this thread are more 'mad' than the actual debates going on in here for the last six months.

I get people being manipulated by the promise of identity politics, and highly emotional narratives.

I dont get why people would pronounce ownership over something -- they hardly participate in, and then pronounce it "their utopia" coming up with many ideological reasons for banning the other group.

And if they cant have it their way - 'burn the whole thing down". But embedded in polite language of 'shut it down'.

I deal with all the borderline nutcases and extremist meme peddlers in here about twice as enthusiastically, than I'd deal with anyone of you. Partisan politics pendling to the death. Thinking 'on message' and proud of it.

None of you should be granted ownership of this section, not even for a day.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 8, 2020)

=


notimp said:


> None of you should be granted ownership of this section, not even for a day.


excuse me but I am more then capable of ownership... in fact you peasants, can now call me "BIG Poppa Panda"


----------



## notimp (Dec 9, 2020)

djpannda said:


> =
> 
> excuse me but I am more then capable of ownership... in fact you peasants, can now call me "BIG Poppa Panda"


I just dont get the notion.

You want to own your own 'thing'. Then the first thing you do is to make a list of who is not allowed to enter.

Its a mentality I cant wrap my head around.


----------



## TheRedfox (Dec 9, 2020)

Honestly i don't think 99% of the site users would care if this section disappears. It would cleanup the toxic shit that has been going on here.

The most vocal people in the politics section seem to _only_ post here, and not participate in other parts of the website. In a healthy community people should not join for only the politics section and only post there(some of the users there did not post in any other forum sections since october as far i bothered to go back in their history...)


----------



## DBlaze (Dec 9, 2020)

100% north korean dictatorship and censorship. That's the only way to go with politics.


----------



## Searinox (Dec 9, 2020)

As a boss I demand to have my own health bar and battle theme.


----------



## TheRedfox (Dec 9, 2020)

TheRedfox said:


> Honestly i don't think 99% of the site users would care if this section disappears. It would cleanup the toxic shit that has been going on here.
> 
> The most vocal people in the politics section seem to _only_ post here, and not participate in other parts of the website. In a healthy community people should not join for only the politics section and only post there(some of the users there did not post in any other forum sections since october as far i bothered to go back in their history...)







I was a bit bored, and picked 10 random people active here(started threads or participating in controversial ones)

Checked their post history up to 200, something i did not and will not automate obviously. Or up to March 2020(dates are DD-MM-YY xP) if the user is not that active.
GBATemp has so much to offer, why would some restrict theirselves to just this board? From some i even doubt if they're interested in consoles at all as their post history did not go further than EoF and Politics/Worldnews

*Back to the ontopic question, what would i do?
*
Considering the numbers, i would just remove the board and ban politics from all other sections. Ban the people who ignore the rules. People who are not interested in the core of GBATemp will go away and find some other place to do /pol/

Later on i would consider reopening the board when the world cooled down a bit, but have stricter rules to access it(Posts not going for your postcount, have at least X activity in the past few months)


----------



## Bladexdsl (Dec 9, 2020)

you do not want to know....


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> you are right I am just a poor frail little woman who relies on men for support.
> 
> Kid you really don't know me do you



This was a totally unsolicited response from you, forwarding the memo that I somehow made a topic of conversation about gender.  Subsequently you offered a lot more personal information that wasn't exactly solicited.  It's as if you want to dox yourself and to put yourself in the lab, and then you want to be offended when the predictable outcome happens?

If someone talked about their dick, why would questions asking more about their dick be what is what is out of line?  Maybe talking about their dick, or lack thereof, was the primary offense... if you are trying to find offense.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

I think you will find my quote was in response to you saying that I needed backup from male members of the site to defend myself. My reply was a sarcastic reply telling you if you you knew me then you would know I am more than capable of defending myself. Where in that quote do I mention my body parts. Where in that quote am I giving you permission to discuss my body parts?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

I never mentioned that he was a male, or insinuated that his gender was important.  It was you that forcefully injected gender roles into the conversation.  Afterwards, you started talking about your genitalia and the psychological process you went through, prior to surgically remove it.  Then you promoted the emasculation of others.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> I never mentioned that he was a male, or insinuated that his gender was important.  It was you that forcefully injected gender roles into the conversation.  Afterwards, you started talking about your genitalia and the psychological process you went through, prior to surgically remove it.  Then you promoted the emasculation of others.


No I didn't forcefully inject gender roles into the conversation. I explained the process to transition and to get GRS and explained the fact that you need to go through years of evaluation to show you don't have a mental illness before you can get GRS. This was done because the right wing in the thread kept saying being trans is a mental illness which it is not.

Where in the post you are talking about did I meantion what genitals I do or don't have? I didn't so that is outright lies.

And if you want to keep misquoting me thats cool you can easily Dm me to continue the conversation and that way the thread will remain on track and won't be about your continued personal attacks and miss quotes. Thank you


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> No I didn't forcefully inject gender roles into the conversation.



Yes, you did.  I quoted the exact point where you did it.  Nobody ever mentioned the user being a male or female.  You did.  It also seems like, up to a couple posts ago, that you still were suggesting that it is important.   Are you changing your mind now?



AmandaRose said:


> Where in the post you are talking about did I meantion what genitals I do or don't have? I didn't so that is outright lies.



Though it wasn't absolutely direct, you made personal accounts of psychoanalysis you participated in in pre-op procedures of your transition.  The insinuation is that genitals, at least, existed.  You made it a topic.


Oh, then you talked about someone else having balls.  Totally inappropriate.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Yes, you did.  I quoted the exact point where you did it.  Nobody ever mentioned the user being a male or female.  You did.  It also seems like, up to a couple posts ago, that you still were suggesting that it is important.   Are you changing your mind now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said do you have the balls to do something. That is a well known statement used in English to inquire how brave someone is. It has fuck all to do with someones genitalia as you well know.






Also there are many different GRS procedures that can be done that have fuck all to do with one's genitalia.

Anyway types of GRS 
vaginoplasty, feminizing augmentation mammoplasty, orchiectomy, facial feminization surgery, reduction thyrochondroplasty (tracheal shave), and voice feminization surgery among others.

Facial feminization, thyrochondroplasty, voice surgery all have fuck all to do with your genitals.

So again in my post about GRS where did I say anything about what genitals I do or don't have or indeed imply what I have had done?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

Okay, I guess it is possible for you to have testosterone but not testicles.  Thank you for educating me.  I will make sure that I won't disenfranchise another person who expresses their experience with gender reassignment surgery in their quest to become more feminine.  Now can you tell me why it was okay for you to assume someone else's gender, or why it is okay for you to assume that I should have known, and considered it wholly relevent?

Btw, emasculation is emasculation, and that's why the well known statement about not having balls ever became a thing.  If you were serious, then it'd be better for everyone if you avoided using such archaic insults regarding sexuality.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Okay, I guess it is possible for you to have testosterone but not testicles.  Thank you for educating me.  I will make sure that I won't disenfranchise another person who expresses their experience with gender reassignment surgery in their quest to become more feminine.  Now can you tell me why it was okay for you to assume someone else's gender, or why it is okay for you to assume that I should have known, and considered it wholly relevent?


Where did I assume someone else's gender? Everyone's gender is plain to see on their profile page right.

And as for you not knowing. it is not my responsibility to educate people in GRS when the information is easily found online. But yesI will do so when asked or someone is blatantly wrong in what they are claiming.


Saying someone has the balls to do something is not a sexiest remark and is used in the west by pretty much everyone and is asked to both males and female's. Again it is a statement about bravery and has nothing to do with gender or genitals. And is not archaic in the least.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

So you are saying that I should look at members profiles, take note of their gender, *and consider it wholly relevent *when talking to them? 




AmandaRose said:


> And as for you not knowing. it is not my responsibility to educate people in GRS when the information is easily found online. But yesI will do so when asked or someone is blatantly wrong in what they are claiming.



I was being sarcastic.  I'm not interested.  I wasn't really that curious, but my interaction with you makes me less interested.



AmandaRose said:


> Saying someone has the balls to do something is not a sexiest remark and is used in the west by pretty much everyone and is asked to both males and female's.



It is 100% rooted in sexuality.  What *should *make it archaic is the notion that you want to depart from sexualizing or gendering people.   "supposedly".


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> So you are saying that I should look at members profiles, take note of their gender, *and consider it wholly relevent *when talking to them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry it has actually been ruled in law that asking someone if they have the balls to do something is not sexiest and is a statement of how brave someone is so there you go.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/telling-woman-has-balls-isnt-21914630.amp

And yes most members take the courtesy to check members profiles to check peoples genders you know so they don't say anything wrong.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 9, 2020)

I feel most (unheard of) news sources should be banned on this Political  subforum (Mostly right wing propaganda/hoax media that spew out more lies than truths) what I'm saying is actual fact checking (at least see if CNN for US news or even Fox is reporting it too)


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Sorry it has actually been ruled in law that asking someone if they have the balls to do something is not sexiest and is a statement of how brave someone is so there you go.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/telling-woman-has-balls-isnt-21914630.amp



So you're now the arbiter of what's sexist and what's transphobic. I thought we were all about respecting the individual, I thought if he says he finds what you're saying is sexist then you should respect it. I guess not, I for one welcome our new word police overlord.



AmandaRose said:


> And yes most members take the courtesy to check members profiles to check peoples genders you know so they don't say anything wrong.



I disagree, I would suggest most people do not check profiles for somebodys gender because most people absolutely do not give a fuck and have better things to do/worry about.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

Quit saying sexiest, and the phrase is 100% sexually rooted, rude, and inappropriate for all the reasons you have mentioned prior.  When said to about a man, it is definitely emasculating, as there is no way it can't be interpreted as a double entendre.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I feel most (unheard of) news sources should be banned on this forum (Mostly right wing propaganda/hoax media that spew out more lies than truths) what I'm saying is actual fact checking (at least see if CNN for US news or even Fox is reporting it too)



So what you're saying is less options are better. No need to think for yourself. Just have one news source giving all the information, a bit like they do in China and North Korea. Nothing dodgy goes on over there.

Good take sir.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> So you are saying that I should look at members profiles, take note of their gender, *and consider it wholly relevent *when talking to them?





AmandaRose said:


> And yes most members take the courtesy to check members profiles to check peoples genders you know so they don't say anything wrong.



So what part of you assumed that I was suggesting that you, female, needed help from a male?   Seems like you are the one imposing gender roles.  It's still repulsive, and more so with every attempt you make to distort it.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> So what you're saying is less options are better. No need to think for yourself. Just have one news source giving all the information, a bit like they do in China and North Korea. Nothing dodgy goes on over there.
> 
> Good take sir.


Yes my racist drunk uncle bob’s Facebook posts should be taken at the same level of an AP REPORTER.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> So what part of you assumed that I was suggesting that you, female, needed help from a male?   Seems like you are the one imposing gender roles.  It's still repulsive, and more so with every attempt you make to distort it.


Nah its repulsive that you continue to attack for no reason and continue to misquote everything I have said. But then you do have a history of misquoting or changing the context of what people have said for your own gain as can be seen in other threads as other users have pointed out several times. And reply all you want to this I will be saying no more about this in this thread.

Thank you and enjoy the rest of your day


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

djpannda said:


> Yes my racist drunk uncle bob’s Facebook posts should be taken at the same level of an AP REPORTER.



Because most people on here are reposting your racist uncles facebook posts as news? Another amazing take by the dumb panda.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Because most people on here are reposting your racist uncles facebook posts as news? Another amazing take by the dumb panda.


lol come one you are in the Joe Biden thread also , half the posters use facebook post about rumors and misinformation and  the other half post real news articles of Trump's Court losses.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2020)

I think post count shouldn't increase nor should XP from likes in this section. It won't solve most problems but at least it might at least help cut down the people who pretty much only post in this section and possibly encourage them to actually take part in the rest of the community. The ultimate goal is just to cut back on the people who join just to argue in this section.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I think post count shouldn't increase nor should XP from likes in this section. It won't solve most problems but at least it might at least help cut down the people who pretty much only post in this section and possibly encourage them to actually take part in the rest of the community. The ultimate goal is just to cut back on the people who join just to argue in this section.


I personally don't think it anything should be done. I mean as long as it stays on topic and People are not being maliciously attacked personally and it does not spill out the other parts of the forum. .. 

I mean I don't want to look at a 3ds Luma Thread and it be 3 pages of the election. 
People can just ignore the Political section, just like you would areas you don't look at


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2020)

djpannda said:


> I personally don't think it anything should be done. I mean as long as it stays on topic and People are not being maliciously attacked personally and it does not spill out the other parts of the forum. ..
> 
> I mean I don't want to look at a 3ds Luma Thread and it be 3 pages of the election.
> People can just ignore the Political section, just like you would areas you don't look at


My suggestion is more about wanting to encourage fewer people to be inclined to literally living in this section. With no rewards coming out of spam posting or just living here, hopefully, users will be less inclined to start pointless arguments or at least venture out of this section and maybe useful in the rest of the forums.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> My suggestion is more about wanting to encourage fewer people to be inclined to literally living in this section. With no rewards coming out of spam posting or just living here, hopefully, users will be less inclined to start pointless arguments or at least venture out of this section and maybe useful in the rest of the forums.


if users want to stay world news and politics? I tend to just lurk for 11 years. I look at almost all the forum areas weekly but just because I don't post there does not mean I don't use the rest of the forum. 
and Pointless argument? I guess you don't remember gateway updates and atmos vs SX threads. PS3 threads. lol


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2020)

djpannda said:


> if users want to stay world news and politics? I tend to just lurk for 11 years. I look at almost all the forum areas weekly but just because I don't post there does not mean I don't use the rest of the forum.
> and Pointless argument? I guess you don't remember gateway updates and atmos vs SX threads. PS3 threads. lol


I am not saying you don't use the rest of the forums nor else of the sort, just making a suggestion that might help with some of the issues found in this section. 
Bickering about homebrew software and video games is literally the point of GBAtemp. Even if they are pointless bickers, it's still literally the reason why this site exists and the reason why those sections after heavily categorized for those purposes. This section only exists because the pointless political bickering kept taking up space in different sections and the staff decided to make a dedicated section just for that pointless bickering. That being said, removing reward for this section might at least help cut back on some of the problems found in this section. If people aren't being rewarded for their posts, they might be a little less likely to literally live in this section.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am not saying you don't use the rest of the forums nor else of the sort, just making a suggestion that might help with some of the issues found in this section.
> Bickering about homebrew software and video games is literally the point of GBAtemp. Even if they are pointless bickers, it's still literally the reason why this site exists and the reason why those sections after heavily categorized for those purposes. This section only exists because the pointless political bickering kept taking up space in different sections and the staff decided to make a dedicated section just for that pointless bickering. That being said, removing reward for this section might at least help cut back on some of the problems found in this section. If people aren't being rewarded for their posts, they might be a little less likely to literally live in this section.


but. im pretty sure a lot of them bicker because want to argue and will still fight even if they aren't rewarded.. restricting the section might have the opposite affect and move it to other areas.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2020)

djpannda said:


> but. im pretty sure a lot of them bicker because want to argue and will still fight even if they aren't rewarded.. restricting the section might have the opposite affect and move it to other areas.


Outright arguing to the point where something breaks the rules should be reported and handled by the staff. Still, if users start bringing a terrible attitude to the rest of the forums, then they should also be dealt with by the staff. It's less about 100% fixing a problem and more about mitigating the problems. People will still be doing the same thing, but just with no reward. If they go about taking their frustration out on the rest of the site, then they will be dealt with.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Outright arguing to the point where something breaks the rules should be reported and handled by the staff. Still, if users start bringing a terrible attitude to the rest of the forums, then they should also be dealt with by the staff. It's less about 100% fixing a problem and more about mitigating the problems. People will still be doing the same thing, but just with no reward. If they go about taking their frustration out on the rest of the site, then they will be dealt with.


I just speaking about an argument of an topic. In no way condoning (racist, sexist, etc) attacks those should be dealt with. but bricking is human nature. I would rather the issue be Isolated in a small section rather then the whole forum.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 9, 2020)

Ban everyone who disagrees with me.

Nah, honestly I think I'm alright with the current way politics are moderated.

There are issues for sure, but it seems like a hard fix.

I will note however that I think it's important that we add some protections for LGBTQ+ members, it's a pain in the ass trying to get involved in a thread without being mobbed by people who would rather debate my existence than the actual topic at hands. Some people may take issue with this but I don't mind because transphobes are terrible at debate anyway and it's a net positive if we censor/get rid of them.

No matter what happens in the way of protections, some snowflake's gonna start crying about the mods being SJWs so it's not exactly a fantastic situation.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Ban everyone who disagrees with me.
> 
> Nah, honestly I think I'm alright with the current way politics are moderated.
> 
> ...



You dont deserve protections more than anyone else, you're not special. The only reason I or anyone else knows you're trans is because you flaunt it. You flaunt it so you can use it as a victim excuse. You've no idea whether im black white asian, english irish scottish etc and you never will, you know why, because I'm not looking to throw it at somebody If i start too lose a pointless debate. I promise you nobody cares if you're trans or not, It's irrelevant.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> You dont deserve protections more than anyone else, you're not special. The only reason I or anyone else knows you're trans is because you flaunt it. You flaunt it so you can use it as a victim excuse. You've no idea whether im black white asian, english irish scottish etc and you never will, you know why, because I'm not looking to throw it at somebody If i start too lose a pointless debate. I promise you nobody cares if you're trans or not, It's irrelevant.


I know .what you are  ....your sad.


----------



## TheRedfox (Dec 9, 2020)

Maybe there should be just one simple rule for discussions here: Instant ban when personal attacks are used.

How hard is it to discuss something without attacking individual members? But apparently a lot of posters here get their fix out of personal attacks, it's like a drug for them.


----------



## Seliph (Dec 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I promise you nobody cares if you're trans or not, It's irrelevant.


Tell that to the people who literally do care lmfao. I shouldn't have to ask for protections but I'd rather not get harassed by people. Literally, the only way you can tell I'm trans is because of my pfp, which I chose because I think it l o o k s  n i c e and because it makes me feel happy to look at. I'm not the one going around devolving discussions by being trans, I've had plenty of discussions on this website that just dissolve into nothing because someone would rather bring up my identity than debate me. The only time I bring up my identity in a discussion is if it's relevant, not if I "start too lose a pointless debate" because I actually know how to debate.

I shouldn't have to hide who I am to avoid harassment, and you saying that people don't care is entirely counter to my lived experiences where people (like you) do very much care.

Like fuck dude I know I'm not special and at the end of the day I deserve to be treated as well as the next person but the reality is that my mere existence engenders hostility on this forum from people like you when factors like my identity SHOULD be wholly irrelevant unless the topic at hand is related.

So yeah, you're lame.

Edit: also I see people all over this website with gender symbols in their pfps and they aren't being harassed for "flaunting" their genders so why should I be harassed for "flaunting" my transness? It's almost as if you don't actually know what you're talking about and just want to invalidate my experience as a trans person on this website.


----------



## Tatsuna (Dec 9, 2020)

Honestly speaking, I feel like the USA is putting itself in a bad place when it comes to politics.
Politics stances cannot be censored in a sane and democratic country, even if what has been said is a proven lie and even when someone is demagouging. That's because people are supposed to think by themselves in democracy and build their own ideas and opinions, even if by lies. Why? Because there are laws for that. It's the principle of separation of powers. It's not the job of communities to proof-read or to censor, it's the judiciary's. If someone istigates, if someone lies, if someone commits a crime, it has to be taken to court and judged by who is supposed to do so.

Internet for the USA has become the place where the trials take place -- and there's nothing that terrifies me as much.

The reason why is not because our founding fathers didn't want to protect us from such things, but because they knew that when you give someone the power to decide what can be said, what can be done regarding ideas/opinions/political values outside of courts... then democracy itself crumbles. Democracy is supposed to defend itself from the people who try to demagouge, by debating, not by censorship. The moment you have the power to censor a thought, that's the end of the line.

The feeling I have when I see the USA political scene is that, no matter whether you talk about leftits, rightists or the forevermore ignored centrists, they all seem to believe that they should hold the power and when they do so, eliminate the opponents. In democracy, it doesn't work like this. Even if one of the sides wins, the other is supposed to partecipate with the political life of the country, because when a party wins or loses, it's not like the people who voted for it vanish. They must be represented too, otherwise we'd talk not about democracy, but oligarchy (i.e. few to command). That's what to me seems like missing nowadays: the perception of the other, the empathy towards the ones that don't think like you but at the same time lives in the same country as you. i.e. Republicans believe that Democrats should disappear when they win an election and Democrats think the same. Doesn't it seem wrong to anyone else?

This lack of empathy makes people gatekeeping in such a violent manner that I sometimes am left scared; "if you don't think like us, you must be cancelled" is a crime whether it comes from the right ("stop putting LGBTQ+ characters in media) or from the left ("you cannot wear space buns because you're not black"). And I see so many places nowadays in which people are not free to express themselves -- just think about gaming boards, which I won't mention because I don't know if I can, that ban people JUST if they don't align with a specific political party. That's scary as hell -- it's like we've totally forgot what we've been fighting for throughout all the last couple of centuries, and in such a fragile time, in which the West is challenged by the rise of authoritarians realities like Russia and China and how they're hindering and influencing our political and social scene.

I'm just hoping that this is just an extreme point reached by the people -- and just like every other extreme point, doomed to standardize sooner or later.

In conclusion, I believe that GBAtemp should moderate as they are supposed to: by punishing and/or banning whoever insults, breaks the law in any way or form, urge their users to be civil and attach sources when they make statements to prove their points and, in case someone is blatantly lie, to just let the rest of the users debating and spread the truth, not censor. When free speech ends, democracy ends. This, of course, if the boards want to keep open a thread about politics in a gaming environment... which I don't think it's proper, but that can be done if it's seriously maintained.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Tell that to the people who literally do care lmfao. I shouldn't have to ask for protections but I'd rather not get harassed by people. Literally, the only way you can tell I'm trans is because of my pfp, which I chose because I think it l o o k s  n i c e and because it makes me feel happy to look at. I'm not the one going around devolving discussions by being trans, I've had plenty of discussions on this website that just dissolve into nothing because someone would rather bring up my identity than debate me. The only time I bring up my identity in a discussion is if it's relevant, not if I "start too lose a pointless debate" because I actually know how to debate.
> 
> I shouldn't have to hide who I am to avoid harassment, and you saying that people don't care is entirely counter to my lived experiences where people (like you) do very much care.
> 
> ...



People like me? Give me one example where I've attacked you and your existence just for being trans. Anybody who makes any counter argument to your posts (i.e not giving children life altering chemicals) you see as an attack on you and your existence, It's not really the case though is it.

Im lame? That's an attack on my existence. I deserve special protections do I not, or are they reserved just for those who make themselves into victims. If your mere presence engenders hostility on the forum then maybe you're the problem. I don't care that you're trans, couldn't care less. That doesn't suit your victim narrative though so nah that must be it right, you're just special afterall, my bad.




TheRedfox said:


> Maybe there should be just one simple rule for discussions here: Instant ban when personal attacks are used.
> 
> How hard is it to discuss something without attacking individual members? But apparently a lot of posters here get their fix out of personal attacks, it's like a drug for them.



What you mean is an a ban for those who disagree with you. I was clearly just personally insulted, I was called lame. Does this not count? I guess not because you liked that post.


----------



## TheRedfox (Dec 9, 2020)

@FAST6191 @VinsCool

Okay cool, staff asked the community for an opinion

Now we see some toxicity in the thread here, going against literally everything stated in https://gbatemp.net/help/terms

My question now, what will staff do to resolve toxicity here now, and prevent it in the future? (and just deleting posts is not really an acceptable answer in my opinion to be honest, most people doing personal attacks do it consistently...)


----------



## Chary (Dec 9, 2020)

You can’t control people. You can establish what is or isn’t against the rules, and then take action, whether it’s removing the post, or warning a user after multiple rule breaking comments. If they break the rules enough times, then they’re gone.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

TheRedfox said:


> @FAST6191 @VinsCool
> 
> Okay cool, staff asked the community for an opinion
> 
> ...


Exactly my argument.


----------



## seany1990 (Dec 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> -



For somebody who moans about liberal snowflakes, you do like playing the victim an awful lot.


----------



## Doran754 (Dec 9, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> For somebody who moans about liberal snowflakes, you do like playing the victim an awful lot.



Why are you attacking me, this has been outlawed.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> Nah its repulsive that you continue to attack for no reason and continue to misquote everything I have said. But then you do have a history of misquoting or changing the context of what people have said for your own gain as can be seen in other threads as other users have pointed out several times. And reply all you want to this I will be saying no more about this in this thread.
> 
> Thank you and enjoy the rest of your day



The quote I gave takes you directly to the thread and shows the context of what happened.  Anybody can read for themselves.  "lies"


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 9, 2020)

tabzer said:


> The quote I gave takes you directly to the thread and shows the context of what happened.  Anybody can read for themselves.  "lies"


I have told you several times in this thread to stop harassing me and that I no longer wish to continue this conversation but no you continue to harass me. So for the last time STOP HARASSING ME. 

Continue to do so and you are breaking the site rules. 

From the site rules. 


Do not "flame", "bash", "troll" or harass others. Blatantly offensive comments or actions directed at others will not be tolerated. While we do allow members to debate and voice their own opinions, there will be a limit to how far a heated debate can go before it is closed by staff. If you harass someone you will be disciplined. Period


Thank you


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2020)

Look.  In the other thread you tried holding the fact that I don't follow you around in other threads, and know about all your quirks, against me by saying that "I should know 'this and that' about you" because I am somehow being insensitive to your person.  I came here and see at the top post something arguably wrong with what you are saying, passively blaming me and others for your idiosyncrasies.  Do you want people to live in Amanda world (a contradictory mess), or can you respect that people have opinions that you don't like?  If you don't want me to respond to you, don't talk to me, or about me.


Or hell, don't say anything disagreeable.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 10, 2020)

djpannda said:


> I just speaking about an argument of an topic. In no way condoning (racist, sexist, etc) attacks those should be dealt with. but bricking is human nature. I would rather the issue be Isolated in a small section rather then the whole forum.


Of course! I don't disagree with your points, which is why I am trying to find means of at least making this place less terrible. Not rewarding people for posting in this section might discourage some of the shit we see.  
I also agree with post


Seliph said:


> Ban everyone who disagrees with me.
> 
> Nah, honestly I think I'm alright with the current way politics are moderated.
> 
> ...


LGBT+ members need some kind of protection because too many threads involving these topics end up being swarmed by anti-LGBT+ members and dogpile on LGBT+ members trying to put in any form of input. It would be nice for the staff to actually take time to listen to LGBT+ when we are trying to point out problematic comments and members. A lot times it's far less "debatable" than people make it out to be if they take time to listen to us when we try to help them understand the issue.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 10, 2020)

I don't think taking away the points from politics is going to discourage anything.  Maybe if people could spend points to post in politics, that'd be fun.  But you'd be catering exclusively to populism.  You can't have a pretty politics section because politics are not pretty.  

There is a handy ignore function if you want to silence opposing views, and posts are generally moderated, and punishable.  I don't know what kind of special protections one would desire that aren't already there.  If there is a special LGBT section where the moderator can be chosen amongst the community and enforce rules about being LGBT friendly then that might be an approach.  I don't think people should be silenced, forum wide, because they express a disinterest, or even disdain, of LGBT lifestyle.


----------



## omgcat (Dec 10, 2020)

elk1007 said:


> There would be 4 hard rules:
> 
> -No shit posting (all posts must have a point and a valid argument)
> -No attitude (post your argument without appeals to emotion)
> ...




I mostly agree with this, I am sick of the constant "you're a communist/Marxist/socialist/racist/fascist" thrown around. like I was arguing that wearings masks helps people, posted links to medical and engineering journals to back up my claims, and was immediately dismissed as being a "marxist". these kinds of ad hominem attacks just lead to more, because how am i supposed to respond to "you're a communist that loves to kill babies"? Some people here are clearly doing work to cite their sources, give more information when asked about claims, and try to refrain from personal attacks, and others flat out don't and just ruin the threads.

I'm not sure i agree with the "no wrong questions" point as some questions are CLEARLY bait. for example there was a thread close to "if you support abortion why don't you support me not wearing a mask?" clearly baiting people into an argument about the morality of abortion, but disguised as a thread about mask wearing. it was a shitshow.

That's my 2c.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 10, 2020)

djpannda said:


> I personally don't think it anything should be done. I mean as long as it stays on topic and People are not being maliciously attacked personally and it does not spill out the other parts of the forum. ..
> 
> I mean I don't want to look at a 3ds Luma Thread and it be 3 pages of the election.
> People can just ignore the Political section, just like you would areas you don't look at




I kind of agree with this.  Except that I'm not particularly bothered by personal attacks to the point that I particularly need someone to step in to save me.  I can play the game, and I like games. Unfortunately, gaming the moderation staff has become apart of that.  Trigger someone to say something that will get them banned or suspended, and you win!  If a comment is technically against the rules, you can report it, even though you intentionally baited the person.

I would definitely not want to be in charge.

I don't normally post in politics, because I every time I see it, I think everyone is stupid.  Then come November when *I keep seeing in my Content Feed*:  "Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States"

It was nice bait.  It got me hooked.  I played.  And I plan on seeing it through.

With a slower moving Switch scene, waiting for Android 10/Q to reach stability for mainstream deployment, waiting to get ahold of a PS5--speculating about the election is a pastime that I enjoy.  Who else will call people out on the presumption that the election is decided?  Fun fun fun.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 10, 2020)

tabzer said:


> I don't think taking away the points from politics is going to discourage anything.  Maybe if people could spend points to post in politics, that'd be fun.  But you'd be catering exclusively to populism.  You can't have a pretty politics section because politics are not pretty.
> 
> There is a handy ignore function if you want to silence opposing views, and posts are generally moderated, and punishable.  I don't know what kind of special protections one would desire that aren't already there.  If there is a special LGBT section where the moderator can be chosen amongst the community and enforce rules about being LGBT friendly then that might be an approach.  I don't think people should be silenced, forum wide, because they express a disinterest, or even disdain, of LGBT lifestyle.


It’s not really “special protection” for LGBT+ members, just a request to not be treated like shit and those treating members like shit be dealt with at an actual decent reaction time to reports and don’t come random unnecessary debate from the staff. Simply put, we are asking for regular respect that should be expected and upheld by the staff, but apparently that’s asking “special treatment.”


----------



## elk1007 (Dec 10, 2020)

*LGBTTQQIAAP is literally everyone who isn't straight. 
Not exactly an inclusive organization. 


*


----------



## tabzer (Dec 11, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> just a request to not be treated like shit





Lilith Valentine said:


> those treating members like shit be dealt with at an actual decent reaction time





Lilith Valentine said:


> random unnecessary debate from the staff



These are three separate issues wadded together as one.  So it gets a little confusing.

It'd be nice if people weren't shitty.  But that's what some people want to be.



Lilith Valentine said:


> those treating members like shit be dealt with at an actual decent reaction time



So, you'd like faster reaction times on moderation?  That's something you can request of the site.  Idk how moderation staff is selected, but more moderators or longer hours is probably what would need to happen in order to accommodate.



Lilith Valentine said:


> random unnecessary debate from the staff



Now, this is were things get a little confusing.  Are you upset that admins/moderators are participating in conversation in which they don't share your views?

Or...

Is it when you report a post, and moderators PM you directly?  Or even talk about the complaint openly on the thread?

There is little context for me to understand.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 11, 2020)

tabzer said:


> These are three separate issues wadded together as one.  So it gets a little confusing.


They aren't really that separate considering they are all simple requests for actual respect.


tabzer said:


> It'd be nice if people weren't shitty.  But that's what some people want to be.
> So, you'd like faster reaction times on moderation?  That's something you can request of the site.  Idk how moderation staff is selected, but more moderators or longer hours is probably what would need to happen in order to accommodate.
> So, you'd like faster reaction times on moderation?  That's something you can request of the site.  Idk how moderation staff is selected, but more moderators or longer hours is probably what would need to happen in order to accommodate.


I understand people are going to be shitty but that doesn't mean they can't be dealt with. There are literally rules against being shitty towards other members. But more often than not those who are being shitty towards LGBT+ members don't really get dealt with by the staff. Often times it takes hours to even days before a report is dealt with and it often takes multiple members reporting the same post before staff members actually step in and remove the post. Or in some cases, some staff members have stepped in and literally did nothing about the posts and just continued contributing to the thread. The issue here is that members who are saying stuff seem to either not be dealt with by the staff or it takes forever for there to be staff intervention, thus allowing the thread(s) to continue. Worth noting the staff are actually volunteers that work their own hours, there's no strict time when they need to be working or anything like that. Although more moderation would be nice or at least faster moderation because there have been times when damn near the entire staff have been online and reports still don't seem to go anywhere.






tabzer said:


> Now, this is were things get a little confusing.  Are you upset that admins/moderators are participating in conversation in which they don't share your views?
> 
> Or...
> 
> ...


Out of respect, I won't call out these members on the forums because even though I have personal issues with them, I still respect them. That being said, there have been members of the staff that have stepped into threads and proceeded to start debating LGBT+ members as to what constitutes a post that violates the rules. The issue with these debates is that the staff member literally doesn't listen to the member and instead of taking time to understand the issue, they pretty much just act like their stance is the right one by default. Now I've talked to staff members in private and it's gone nowhere, so really the most I can do is keep trying but that really just seems wrong for staff members to not listen to users when they are having issues with other users.


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Dec 11, 2020)

ADD PR0N AND G0RE SECTION


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 11, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> That being said, there have been members of the staff that have stepped into threads and proceeded to start debating LGBT+ members as to what constitutes a post that violates the rules.
> 
> ------------
> The issue with these debates is that the staff member literally doesn't listen to the member and instead of taking time to understand the issue, they pretty much just act like their stance is the right one by default. Now I've talked to staff members in private and it's gone nowhere, so really the most I can do is keep trying but that really just seems wrong for staff members to not listen to users when they are having issues with other users.



There are many debatable scenarios, indeed I posed several I had seen before on the site, that got popular elsewhere or were ripped from the headlines, as an earlier thought exercise but have had no comment thus far on any of said scenarios.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/so-you-...u-enact-repeal-or-change.578434/#post-9289031
Any reading thus far can pick any they like (most should be self contained and but a few paragraphs long), or if the background section is questionable then by all means go for that as well/instead.

Now the not listening bit is a different charge. Having spoken to most, if not all, the moderating staff and participated in debates on any number of things (granted I am not actually a moderator so don't see all of them) I struggle to see this happening but I suppose I can't exclude it.

There have been cases where you and I debate things. For instance that Persona thread a while back wherein fictional gay characters engaged in some rather forward behaviour and in doing so made some other characters uncomfortable. I believe you welcomed its removal under the auspices of "harmful stereotypes" where I find that absolutely ridiculous and would even go so far as to say it is demeaning to the gays that one would presume to censor such things (which do happen in real life) under the auspices of them being too weak to take not even a joke but a story. Now we have a debate it seems.

Alternatively if quoting/linking and framing a debate is too close to questioning decisions for your taste then anonymise things a bit, and reframe it to show how you reckon it should be handled.



Lilith Valentine said:


> I think post count shouldn't increase nor should XP from likes in this section. It won't solve most problems but at least it might at least help cut down the people who pretty much only post in this section and possibly encourage them to actually take part in the rest of the community. The ultimate goal is just to cut back on the people who join just to argue in this section.


Is that going to do anything at all? I have seldom seen anybody claim to chase that likes and XP stuff, especially among the more controversial posters in this section.

I am all for removing XP and likes as a function entirely from the site but that is a probably a different discussion.

Though it seems something that could be subject to an experiment.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 11, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> There are many debatable scenarios, indeed I posed several I had seen before on the site, that got popular elsewhere or were ripped from the headlines, as an earlier thought exercise but have had no comment thus far on any of said scenarios.
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/so-you-...u-enact-repeal-or-change.578434/#post-9289031
> Any reading thus far can pick any they like (most should be self contained and but a few paragraphs long), or if the background section is questionable then by all means go for that as well/instead.
> 
> ...


Debating over the ethics of a homophobic scene in a game is kind of a different topic, but I can see where you are coming from on that one. What I am more referring to is comments that have been directed at members that sparked an unnecessary debate that drags on for far too long before staff intervention. I really can't find an example because they have either been removed or would require digging and that's not worth the time and effort to find very specific posts. 
Now as for my suggestion, it's just a suggestion. Do I think it will fix anything? Not really. Do I think it's worth suggesting for the possibility that maybe it might do something? Yes. I am really just trying to help give suggestions to making this place a better place, so I am trying my best here.


----------



## Flame (Dec 11, 2020)

As a mod we cant win no matter what we do. people want to teach, learn, grow but at the same time what a section of people banned because of reason. teach them why your reason is correct. some people here can write a good simple guide on how to hack a console. but cant debate on simple ideas together.

we have some members who just doesn't leave this section, even don't know what nintendo does. but for some reason the person who loves nintendo comes here reads the comments which that member post about. than gets mad. just add them to your ignore list or debate them civil and give good reason why your ideas are better then theirs.

end of the day a mod is a person too. they make mistake, wrong judgment. mods have jobs, life. how many mods should they be. who should be a mod.

imo a person should only post in this section if they a already mod, because if you are a member than the future chance of them becoming mod becomes zero. *in my opinion*.

one of the best poems which people should read:-



> First they came for the Communists
> And I did not speak out
> Because I was not a Communist
> 
> ...


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 11, 2020)

I would shut down any political forum as this is a game site and we come here to see game news/content. We see plenty of political bs in every other site we visit whether it be government, identity or well, any other political ideologies.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 11, 2020)

"Let's shut this forum down!" No way threads from this forum wouldn't leak into other forums.


----------



## elk1007 (Dec 11, 2020)

DCarnage said:


> I would shut down any political forum as this is a game site and we come here to see game news/content. We see plenty of political bs in every other site we visit whether it be government, identity or well, any other political ideologies.



Users choose to visit this forum. They can stick to games if they want to. I like the fact that a gaming website has different forums; it allows people with common interests to find more common interests.


----------



## wonkeytonk (Dec 11, 2020)

KILL EVERYEONE!


----------



## tabzer (Dec 11, 2020)

Maybe politics threads can be kept for those who like to argue/discuss and just kept off of the main page's content feed.  (Or make it elective/off by default)  I don't know if it's worthwhile.



Lilith Valentine said:


> They aren't really that separate considering they are all simple requests for actual respect.



TBF, I don't find your behavior to be particularly respectable.  Maybe you are reaping what you sow?  In the short time I noticed you, you went from being upset about being the target of people's disrespect, to being happy to play bandwagon social games in attempt to dehumanize others.  I don't have sympathy for people who are being manipulative.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 11, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Maybe politics threads can be kept for those who like to argue/discuss and just kept off of the main page's content feed.  (Or make it elective/off by default)  I don't know if it's worthwhile.
> 
> 
> 
> TBF, I don't find your behavior to be particularly respectable.  Maybe you are reaping what you sow?  In the short time I noticed you, you went from being upset about being the target of people's disrespect, to being happy to play bandwagon social games in attempt to dehumanize others.  I don't have sympathy for people who are being manipulative.


Excuse me, what? At what point did I do any of that?


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Dec 11, 2020)

Please take the test: https://www.buzzfeed.com/spenceralthouse/online-iq-test
or
https://www.buzzfeed.com/thetinyamerican/how-smart-are-you-actually-13cjmv6dk4


----------



## Beware (Mar 10, 2022)

Politics is not bigotry and when you have people routinely spouting xenophobia, transphobia, and anti-science you have not created an “open forum,” you’ve created a violent and unsafe place for a significant chunk of your users. Either moderate it in a reasonable way that seeks to actually build an inclusive community or get rid of it and accept the 0.001% of users who will be pissed they can’t pretend their bigotry is a debate.


----------



## blakeana (Mar 10, 2022)

delete the section altogether because you mfers don't deserve any debate zone  on a serious basis as much as i love free speech i think unironically cheering for an authoritarian regime (RUS, PRC...) should be banned - this isn't the place for you to cherish your beloved leader, you gor VK/Weibo for that shit.


----------



## ital (Mar 10, 2022)

The fact that all of the mods are obviously NPCs (ie Supporters Of The Current Thing) kind of negates any idea of free discussion or the consideration of contrasting views outside the mainstream narrative. 

Source: Their previous behavior.


----------



## blakeana (Mar 10, 2022)

ital said:


> The fact that all of the mods are obviously NPCs (ie Supporters Of The Current Thing) kind of negates any idea of free discussion or the consideration of contrasting views outside the mainstream narrative.
> 
> Source: Their previous behavior.


NPC is when you oppose cherishing totalitarian states and bigotry


----------



## VinsCool (Mar 10, 2022)

Oh this thread has gotten bumped.
Honestly I would delete the section, this would get rid of large overgrown cancer userbase, especially if no-politics banter is then enforced in every other sections, like it was back in 2008
a majority of the staff don't even want to bother with the section altogether, so that goes into anarchy, which in return makes people even less tempted to even bother, that's a spiral of chaos no one sane wants to get into.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 10, 2022)

VinsCool said:


> Oh this thread has gotten bumped.
> Honestly I would delete the section, this would get rid of large overgrown cancer userbase, especially if no-politics banter is then enforced in every other sections, like it was back in 2008
> a majority of the staff don't even want to bother with the section altogether, so that goes into anarchy, which in return makes people even less tempted to even bother, that's a spiral of chaos no one sane wants to get into.


It was not barred in other sections back then -- USN (then quite popular) and general off topic saw many a debate series and general discussion.


blakeana said:


> on a serious basis as much as i love free speech i think


Interesting. Most of the time "rights but" is usually a negation of the comment but I don't think I have seen that construction before.


Beware said:


> Politics is not bigotry and when you have people routinely spouting xenophobia, transphobia, and anti-science you have not created an “open forum,” you’ve created a violent and unsafe place for a significant chunk of your users. Either moderate it in a reasonable way that seeks to actually build an inclusive community or get rid of it and accept the 0.001% of users who will be pissed they can’t pretend their bigotry is a debate.


"unsafe" seems to be a relatively new term in these discussions. It is an arbitrary standard (especially if we are to include whatever "anti-science" is) whether you go with the playground sticks and stones standard or "I am right and you are wrong" standards (according to some racism is prejudice + power as might be other isms, others have said that not wishing to sleep with transgender people* is transphobia even if you are otherwise all "pay for it on insurance/government healthcare, should be included in the big isms for employment/housing/whatever, go ahead and live your life" and that is before the sports debate, identity documents, age of treatment availability or any that fall under the umbrella of what might be dubbed the terfs.

Significant is another fun one as well; volume, risk-reward (all these dropped monocles get expensive), contribution levels (in or outside section).

*I presume with exception for relevant shades of asexual, though I have once or twice seen those that might be physically representing the gay alphabet soup spectrum claim it does not exist which is amusing given the nature of existence in such circles is a rallying cry at times.


----------



## Beware (Mar 10, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> It was not barred in other sections back then -- USN (then quite popular) and general off topic saw many a debate series and general discussion.
> 
> Interesting. Most of the time "rights but" is usually a negation of the comment but I don't think I have seen that construction before.
> 
> ...


Except those questions and comments are transphobic especially coming out of gaming forum randos. The only people who should be commenting on things like that are the licensed professionals that help trans folks affirm who they are. The only way you could even contemplate those “questions” is because you don’t understand what tf you’re talking about and are more interested in othering an entire class of human being. There is no reason for anybody to be discussing any of that, let alone in a gaming forum. Nobody is telling you to sleep with anyone so bringing up that point IS transphobia as is the original point. Stop worrying about the genitals of strangers and children. Let people live their life instead of repeating the “Jewish Question.” This is all just an attempt to other a group of people to then justify Inhumane treatment.

And it’s frankly alarming and disappointing that a literal mod doesn’t see how questioning the basic human rights of an entire class of people would make those people feel attacked and unsafe then use literal transphobic commentary to justify it.

This is also a daily occurrence whether you choose to see it or not. You have people literally saying shit like “gay people groom children to be gay” and “trans people shouldn’t be allowed to [insert basic right here].” Why the FUCK would any marginalized person stay here another day if literally every day their humanity is questioned? That’s not politic, that’s 4chan


----------



## Valwinz (Mar 10, 2022)

ital said:


> The fact that all of the mods are obviously NPCs (ie Supporters Of The Current Thing) kind of negates any idea of free discussion or the consideration of contrasting views outside the mainstream narrative.
> 
> Source: Their previous behavior.


some are if you go against what the mods support they will remove your ability to post in the topic.
Right now we have a mod posting litteral lies and conspiracies and he is still there like nothing is happening. reason i did not bother anymore is not a neutral place


----------



## ital (Mar 10, 2022)

Valwinz said:


> some are if you go against what the mods support they will remove your ability to post in the topic.
> Right now we have a mod posting litteral lies and conspiracies and he is still there like nothing is happening. reason i did not bother anymore is not a neutral place



100%, its like the ref joining in to kick the ball when you're beating the other team. Funny style but self evident based on what I've seen with my past few posts and threads that aren't waving rainbows as we sing kumbaya.

Slowly but surely every gaming board is turning into ResetEra. *shudders*


----------



## ital (Mar 10, 2022)

Locking an old thread I just _replied_ to?

https://gbatemp.net/threads/why-are-most-gamers-liberal.544146/page-12#post-9770523

Dear gosh!


----------



## blakeana (Mar 10, 2022)

ital said:


> Locking an old thread I just _replied_ to?
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/why-are-most-gamers-liberal.544146/page-12#post-9770523
> 
> Dear gosh!


dear god shut the fuck up already because every time i see you replying on this section it's one of the most retarded braindead takes


----------



## Veho (Mar 10, 2022)

ital said:


> Locking an old thread I just _replied_ to?
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/why-are-most-gamers-liberal.544146/page-12#post-9770523
> 
> Dear gosh!


3 year off-topic necrobumps tend to get locked, yes.


----------



## Beware (Mar 10, 2022)

ital said:


> Locking an old thread I just _replied_ to?
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/why-are-most-gamers-liberal.544146/page-12#post-9770523
> 
> Dear gosh!


Sweet double post. So that’s two instances of not understanding basic rules in addition to your usual intellectually bankrupt horseshit. 

PS: The fact that you’re trying to discuss physical attractiveness as it relates to your world view has got to be the second most fragile thing you’ve posted in your time here. That was hilarious to read.


----------



## Beware (Mar 10, 2022)

Fuck unity. I’ve no interest in being in community with people who spend their days contemplating the worthiness of other human lives in a vain attempt to prop up their own insecurities. Take the memes back to whatever pathetic hole Richard Spencer is hiding in.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 10, 2022)

Beware said:


> Except those questions and comments are transphobic especially coming out of gaming forum randos. The only people who should be commenting on things like that are the licensed professionals that help trans folks affirm who they are. The only way you could even contemplate those “questions” is because you don’t understand what tf you’re talking about and are more interested in othering an entire class of human being. There is no reason for anybody to be discussing any of that, let alone in a gaming forum. Nobody is telling you to sleep with anyone so bringing up that point IS transphobia as is the original point. Stop worrying about the genitals of strangers and children. Let people live their life instead of repeating the “Jewish Question.” This is all just an attempt to other a group of people to then justify Inhumane treatment.
> 
> And it’s frankly alarming and disappointing that a literal mod doesn’t see how questioning the basic human rights of an entire class of people would make those people feel attacked and unsafe then use literal transphobic commentary to justify it.
> 
> This is also a daily occurrence whether you choose to see it or not. You have people literally saying shit like “gay people groom children to be gay” and “trans people shouldn’t be allowed to [insert basic right here].” Why the FUCK would any marginalized person stay here another day if literally every day their humanity is questioned? That’s not politic, that’s 4chan


That is a fairly high bar, one generally not given elsewhere in anything. So only presumably relevant lawyers and given specialist doctors then (which have their own massive internal debates all the time too), which in turn is essentially banning its discussion in its entirety (give or take said member being confirmed as capable I guess which is presumably not a service likely to be offered).

So if I can go out and find many talking heads, granted they are not the lawyers and doctors, claiming that not sleeping with trans people (be it generally or the whole superstraight thing, which would be mathematically allowed if there is indeed a difference between bisexual and pansexual as some claim) on the basis of that then that are bad people (though I might go the other way and say OK, but it is an acceptable flavour of it then). I would agree to a statement of it being a ridiculous standard, and ignore anybody that makes it a stupid moron, but it is one that has been floated and not in the "hurr durr dude in a dress next to my daughter in a toilet" sense.

Identity documents is presently happening in part of the UK. They want to change it from "active effort spending time doing + sign off from medics" to not so very far from essentially "rock up and go for it", which is a thing in other places (I believe Canada had this, much to the amusement of some). From where I sit that either means the law in a modern western state is hopelessly bigoted or the proffered one is going against medicine/science (something seemingly a concern in an earlier post).

Age of treatment is also heavily debated in courts and medicine, with much left to understand (guess we have to also add continuing professional development checks* to the be ye medic or lawyer thing) with massively varying approaches between countries as well.

*which can vary from region to region and do change with time if we look at the DSM and the other takes on mental health conditions.

The sports question is a perfectly valid one from where I sit. I would generally lean into "sports is a genetic freak show" aspect myself which renders it something of a moot point but there are other paths that can be contemplated, to say nothing of variations between different sports governing setups (which by simple logic means one or more is wrong). Though it does not hurt that I find sports boring as a concept and women's sports even more boring than that (I want to watch the genetic freaks do amazing physical feats and it is vanishingly rare that anbody lacking a y chromosome can compete at human limits for strength, speed, endurance, reaction time or all at once, slim possible exception if that "skill" cap means those sports rendered pointless are not rendered pointless -- baseball is boring mostly because human reflexes are not enough to reliably hit a modern fast pitch).

Technically I am not a mod. Just someone that can review things under the official banner and be trusted to put stuff on the portal, though I suppose that makes me a representative of the site in some capacity. I would equally not see myself as questioning anything on the rights front (the part in quotes in the earlier post is my general position on things -- anything else is poor economic policy as trying to find good people is hard enough and on an individual basis how much melanin you have, what wobbly bits you have, what wobbly bits you like to fumble or if you reckon you were born with the wrong wobbly bits matters little either in the debates on the best version of tetris or your capability to figure out what to solder where to fix/mod this thing). As far as staying here the same reason others would if there is drivel on the forums in any other given topic -- it is nice when you are in an echo chamber of smart people that would never hurt the feelings of even a fly but such things are a fantasy really. If the hypothetical person there is really so fragile then maybe this general internet lark is not for them, can only hope they grow some thicker skin one day. I would also return to the old standard of "sunlight, wonderful disinfectant" and ponder that some in this.


----------



## Beware (Mar 10, 2022)

Stop deflecting. There is NEVER a reason to question the validity of another persons humanity regardless of your views on who they are. That was an essay to say you’re not understanding the point and would rather deflect to a semantic argument instead of address thing actual issue: othering a set of human beings to justify boorish, inhumane treatment of them.

There are literally hundreds of years of history that demonstrate this, the “Jewish question” and the “black problem” being the most glaring examples in recent history. Nobody is telling you that you can’t have shitty opinions, the point is the humanity and fundamental human rights of other people is NOT politic and is NOT up for debate in any place that is interested in creating a space where all peoples can feel like they belong.

This has nothing to do with thick skin from the targets of the vitriol as it is the fragility of bigots that cause those ridiculous outbursts in the first place. Deflecting blame to the people being attacked for defending themselves is asinine and frankly shameful. If you want people to feel comfortable and welcome in your community then make them feel welcome and comfortable in your community. Letting bigots dictate the terms of engagement is creating a hostile environment no different from 4chan. That’s not “free speech,” that’s upholding systemic discrimination to favor your personal status quo.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 10, 2022)

You say deflection, and make assertions about me not respecting humanity (ones I will flatly deny/say citation and explanation needed). Going to have to try harder there as nothing seems in danger of sticking so this is getting boring. I already went as far as my position (live and let live, happy to be my friend, medical standards are good standards and it is enough of an issue to add to baseline medical care, add it to the list of reasons to get slapped if you say "ew we are not hiring/renting/serving you" and so forth) and if that somehow makes me the cunt then cunt I shall be.


----------



## Beware (Mar 10, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> You say deflection, and make assertions about me not respecting humanity (ones I will flatly deny/say citation and explanation needed). Going to have to try harder there as nothing seems in danger of sticking so this is getting boring. I already went as far as my position (live and let live, happy to be my friend, medical standards are good standards and it is enough of an issue to add to baseline medical care, add it to the list of reasons to get slapped if you say "ew we are not hiring/renting/serving you" and so forth) and if that somehow makes me the cunt then cunt I shall be.


No what makes you a cunt is pretending that people not standing for this place turning into a hive of xenophobia are somehow deficient in character or not “thick skinned enough”


----------



## Viri (Mar 10, 2022)

As long as people don't spam, or resort to calling each other vulgar slurs, I'd keep a hands off approach.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 10, 2022)

ital said:


> Locking an old thread I just _replied_ to?
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/why-are-most-gamers-liberal.544146/page-12#post-9770523
> 
> Dear gosh!


You necrobumped a thread saying the people you disagree with are ugly. Then you bitch about a mod decision in a passive aggressive stance here.

It's not my idea of hilarious, but ey... Laugh it up.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 10, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> You necrobumped a thread saying the people you disagree with are ugly. Then you bitch about a mod decision in a passive aggressive stance here.
> 
> It's not my idea of hilarious, but ey... Laugh it up.


All of God's children is beautiful


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Mar 10, 2022)

Burn this entire section to the fucking ground and let it rot in hell.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 10, 2022)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Burn this entire section to the fucking ground and let it rot in hell.


This dude is flamin'


----------



## Norris (Apr 7, 2022)

Beware said:


> No what makes you a cunt is pretending that people not standing for this place turning into a hive of xenophobia are somehow deficient in character or not “thick skinned enough”


you reall do some some thicher skin tho


----------



## Dr_Faustus (Apr 8, 2022)

Viri said:


> As long as people don't spam, or resort to calling each other vulgar slurs, I'd keep a hands off approach.


That is a pretty straightforward approach. I would more or less be in the same mindset.


----------



## appleburger (Apr 8, 2022)

I'd just remove it.

By having that section on a gaming enthusiast site, you wind up immediately weeding out a huge chunk of people who would otherwise contribute to making that content more interesting.  It really castrates the potential on that discussion.

This site is best suited to discussion related to gaming.  That's what makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Pachee (Apr 8, 2022)

I can't avoid noticing that most of those demanding this section to be removed are part of that crowd that loves to have things removed.

Maybe don't show it up anymore on the Site & Scene News section, that would avoid having people who can't handle politics they don't like being exposed to politics they don't like.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Apr 8, 2022)

I'd ban everyone that disagrees with me and I'd give cool stickers to everyone that agrees with me.

Also you have to refer to me as 'Lord Epic Chad Shyguy' or that's a ban.


----------



## DillyDilly (Apr 8, 2022)

-


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 8, 2022)

ItsOver9000 said:


> Why do some sites have politics sections anyway ?  Who would come here for that ?  Who would g to a movies & tv shows & comic book specific forums & theres a politics section ?  There are an infinite number of places online where politics can be talked about.  Not every place needs a politics section


For as long as I have been observing here then GBAtemp has been an open discussion platform, albeit with a focus on GBA and later its successors before branching to general games (which were always discussed anyway -- the E3 sections, back when E3 mattered, were some of the most active parts of the site).

Some places operate under the "don't discussion religion or politics" notion, which can keep things on topic and avoids issues with people getting overly excited about said politics and religion (and some people do get very invested in it, such that any attack on it is considered a personal attack on them and their way of life and thus overreaction which serves nobody well. Sadly intellect is also no great predictor of how well you can handle such things either.). However you then have to curate the other way and go on the hunt for anything political, or anything political not overtly tied to your site mission (some politicos trying a ban on sugar is not really relevant to say a DVD ripping forum, but politicos making moves that will trouble your decryption tools are a different matter).
A useful halfway house then being make a section for it, and actively put things there that fall (not stopping people from speaking, thread is right there for anybody to engage with vs locking and deleting). Anybody that wants to engage with it can do so, anybody that either does not want to go for it can ignore it (possibly even actively -- click customise this page on https://gbatemp.net/new/ to blacklist or whitelist things according to your whims) and be reasonably sure it is not going to crop up elsewhere.

Some ponder whether the nature of things changed -- "everything is political" used to be a ridiculous statement but some do seem to live it these days. You also have those that seem to think nobody should ever be offended ever, though recent times have seen people adopt the phrase "feel unsafe" instead, which is remarkably hard to enforce -- other than my nose I am basically impossible to offend, others not so much, "sticks and stones" tends to be how I roll but for others words are violence, hard to reconcile those philosophies.

I often quote Mentor's last words, something of the hacker mindset really.


			
				Mentor's Last Words said:
			
		

> Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"... Damn kids. They're all alike. But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him? I am a hacker, enter my world... Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me... Damn underachiever. They're all alike. I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..." Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike. I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me... Or feels threatened by me.. Or thinks I'm a smart ass.. Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here... Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike. And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all... Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike... You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.
> 
> This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.
> 
> ...



Compare that to the average terms of use (official and unwritten) of social meeja and tell me they are compatible.


The decision of the site running types then gets to be do we take on the political moderation burden or not, or to the degree necessary to just move things to a section. If it is all happy clappy then maybe you get some more users that can't handle the political discussions without getting all offended, or "feeling unsafe", and maybe banning it entirely avoids those that have the moth to the flame approach to such a section (even with active blocking). Will said lack of discussion mean other users leave or split focus if some site does appear that assumes people are rational adults that can handle a discussion? Similarly if you bias the rules towards political philosophy of the other when someone comes along and makes a site without that will those that dislike having to bite their tongue at something they find disagreeable jump ship? What if said users count among those that make up the bulk of your interesting content (if you were above 13, the legal minimum to join a lot of sites in the world, when the DS lite hit you are probably now in your 30s, GBA SP and definitely in your 30s. Said older types largely being responsible for your hacking, coding and such work).
Occasionally you also get a few laws that might trouble things (rare as free speech is largely a thing in the English speaking world), advertising types not wanting to work with you if there are certain words on your site, vendors not wanting to work with you (not exactly piracy unfriendly around here but places do seem to send game codes and hardware to look at), blacklisting/downgrading in search engines (if nobody comes).


----------



## Veho (Apr 8, 2022)

ItsOver9000 said:


> Why do some sites have politics sections anyway ?  Who would come here for that ?  Who would g to a movies & tv shows & comic book specific forums & theres a politics section ?  There are an infinite number of places online where politics can be talked about.  Not every place needs a politics section


It's a containment board.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Apr 9, 2022)

Veho said:


> It's a containment board.


SCP-Politics. A particularly vile and dangerous SPC. Do not interact, as it leads to insanity.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 4, 2022)

1) no insulting others (saying words like leftist liberal baby killer etc etc)
2)no character attacks of other members (ties into rule 1)
3)no promoting conspiracy theories, no pro russia shit (pertaining to ukraine war) no promoting extremeist views,terrorism, and other illegal political activities (trust me we do not need interpol eyes on this site more than there is already aka no 4chan-ism

or an alternitive delete the political sub forum and ban (temp 1st time perm 2nd) anyone who brings irrelivant politics to other threads i would also recommend in gerneral do IP based bans and blacklist all vpn's


----------



## XDel (Jun 4, 2022)

Oh it's quite simple, let everyone say what they have to say. Science does not censor nor does the scientific method, so we can not come to a decision as to what is true, what is not, and what is most likely the case of sometime or least likely, unless everyone is able to contribute their two cents without being interrupted. That said, not everyone with ears is capable of hearing, and not everyone who sees is capable of seeing. Some people preach science but disregard the method all together in the name of their feelings being more important than others or what not. Needless to say that is not how progress is made.


----------



## elk1007 (Jun 4, 2022)

XDel said:


> Oh it's quite simple, let everyone say what they have to say. Science does not censor nor does the scientific manner, so we can not come to a decision as to what is true, what is not, and what is most likely the case of sometime or least likely, unless everyone is able to contribute their two cents without being interrupted. That said, not even with ears is capable of hearing, and not everyone who sees is capable of seeing. Some people preach science but disregard the method all together in the name of their feelings being more important than others or what not. Needless to say that is not how progress is made.


----------



## XDel (Jun 4, 2022)

elk1007 said:


>





Well shit, that reminds me of our old pal Yuval Noah Harari, Lead Advisor to the World Economic Forum.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 4, 2022)

If I was in charge I would forbid to spam the forum, everything else would be fair game.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 4, 2022)

I delete the politics section.


----------



## AncientBoi (Jun 4, 2022)

I'd [accidently  ] delete the Creamu section.


and maybe the WiiMiiSwitch section. By accident of course.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 8, 2022)

I'd allow what's going on right now to keep going on.

No point uprooting the section just to try and force my beliefs.

Though I'd probably delete anyone who opposes me openly.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Jun 8, 2022)

Get rid of it completely because this sort of discussion is a very sensitive matter and talking about it in a video game forum, it just doesn't make much sense.


----------



## elk1007 (Jun 8, 2022)

I would post a survey detailing various controversial political stances.
After submitted, it's locked to the user account.

Once the survey is completed, the user can only post arguments for the opposing stance (devil's advocate).

I imagine many people would learn something about their own beliefs and everyone else would write political satire.


----------



## KennyAtom (Jun 8, 2022)

elk1007 said:


> I would post a survey detailing various controversial political stances.
> After submitted, it's locked to the user account.
> 
> Once the survey is completed, the user can only post arguments for the opposing stance (devil's advocate).
> ...


all fun and games until they lie about what they believe in just to spread their own ideals around


----------



## Creamu (Jun 8, 2022)

elk1007 said:


> I would post a survey detailing various controversial political stances.
> After submitted, it's locked to the user account.
> 
> Once the survey is completed, the user can only post arguments for the opposing stance (devil's advocate).
> ...


What if expressing the opposing stance would get you banned?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 11, 2022)

Maybe blacklist sites? We already closed a thread because of a nonsensical "source".


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 11, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Maybe blacklist sites? We already closed a thread because of a nonsensical "source".


If we allow mainstream American news though then that gets to be a philosophically hard concept.


----------



## Creamu (Jun 11, 2022)

FAST6191 said:


> If we allow mainstream American news though then that gets to be a philosophically hard concept.


I agree, if we only allow for mainstream thought, we won't have a chance to prevent the phenotypical revolution and mankind would be doomed.


----------



## lokomelo (Jun 11, 2022)

I never knew this post existed, and it is quite old already.

Anyway, as a boss I wouldn't change anything. Sometimes there are messages like "you're too dumb to understand" or something on those lines. Usually are the same people doing that (there is a mod among then), but really I don't know witch measure would be good for that because It is annoying and counter productive, but it is not something big enough to ban or warn people.

Bring discussions here and to EoF from the gaming sections is something good too, but it is already being done, so nothing to say about that.


----------



## HellaJvke (Jun 30, 2022)

does anyone know what the "ignore" button on certain members profiles do?

will it prevent me from seeing threads made by that member, comments by that member, etc?
or is it a useless feature?

mainly interested in using this feature for some of the politcally charged members.
Im here for videos games and immergent tech /mods not to read opinions, speculations, and consipracy theories.


----------



## elk1007 (Jun 30, 2022)

HellaJvke said:


> does anyone know what the "ignore" button on certain members profiles do?
> 
> will it prevent me from seeing threads made by that member, comments by that member, etc?
> or is it a useless feature?
> ...



I think it collapses all their posts (you can choose to look at them) and also prevents DMs.
Ignore me and find out lol


----------

