Should or shouldn't topics be discussed

La Belle Sauvage·Apr 13, 2018·2 votes·2,673 views

My intent was to ask why a post (not mine) was locked. Then I decided to read the rules and came across the following:

"Inappropriate Discussions

Moderators will be looking for topics discussing: Religion Sex Politics Any social issues, though some exceptions may be appropriate (e.g., internet legislation)"

I realize that these topics can and maybe often descend into chaotic ranting and locking a thread that is out of control is good sense.

But listing the above as inappropriate topics, especially if and only if, good discussion is happening (I feel heated discussions are fine so long as they're not derogatory) is a little puzzling.

If we as a community want to have a discussion about social issues and post to in the general board, I think it should be allowed.

The post I read and originally read alluded to was about in game sexism. Most of the posts were discussion worthy but it was shut down citing this rule.

I'm not questioning the mod who locked it, they were well within their right to do so.

I'm questioning why the board in general are afraid to allow its members to start a discussion about "Any Social Issue".

I've made a few posts about suicide both in regards to in game and even posts that were not related to the in game experience. None of those were locked and certainly I'd count that as a social issue.

And being part of a very large online community we should embrace healthy, lively, and even heated discussions of "Social issues".

At the very least we will read different perspectives and that's a good thing even if we disagree with poster's opinions.

And mods should lock posts that descend into derogatory mudslinging no doubt. But we should not have such a broad rule that limits the ability to create posts on social issues.

Just my two cents though.

12 Comments

ModThe DjinnApr 13, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bello Bagheera,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=NR4TNYy5,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-04-13T13:12:17.583+0000)And mods should lock posts that descend into derogatory mudslinging no doubt. But we should not have such a broad rule that limits the ability to create posts on social issues.

Just my two cents though.

Your two cents is appreciated.

Ultimately, however, we've seen what happens when we relax this rule -- it's a lot of mudslinging, and the more mudslinging there is the more clean-up we as moderators have to do. We're ultimately volunteers, so we have to consider not only what would be good, but also what is feasible.

While it is a shame that we have to lose out on the few fully respectful, polite, interesting discussions that I have no doubt would emerge, those threads aren't worth the level of frustration, rage, vitriol, and insults we see on threads about a lot of these topics. At the end of the day it simply isn't worth the risk to allow them, especially as there are many other places online where communities come together to have meaningful discussions on those topics.

As a result we allow some similar topics when they're relevant (representation in the League cast, sexualization of Kai'Sa, etc), but we disallow some of the other, less-relevant topics that have tended towards being inflammatory in the past.

La Belle SauvageApr 16, 20181 votes

I meant to respond sooner, Djinn and your point is well taken.

Aren't most moderators on most board volunteers?

My biggest gripe with the rule is how broad the language is. It gives carte blanche to the mods to claim anything is a "social" issue.

Dealing with and responding to negative people, is part of the experience of being in an online community.

I quite disagree, the rage, vitrol, and even mudslinging should be embraced, if only as a shiny example of how not be when facing people who hold different opinions.

"especially as there are many other places online where communities come together to have meaningful discussions on those topics..."

This is what I'm getting at; we should not want the people who would post here to go to other communities. We should allow them to post here in the general forum.

I appreciate your post by the way and wasn't the person who down voted it.

ModThe DjinnApr 16, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bello Bagheera,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=NR4TNYy5,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2018-04-16T12:45:09.233+0000)Aren't most moderators on most board volunteers?

Depends on the company and the board, frankly.

But this board is a fairly active one, and we have -- unfortunately -- a somewhat high level of toxicity at times.

My biggest gripe with the rule is how broad the language is. It gives carte blanche to the mods to claim anything is a "social" issue.

I'll admit that it is intentionally a bit vague, because we've found that if you have highly specific rules then people will always try to skirt JUST on the other side of the line, and that opens up problematic situations. Moderator discretion allows us to leave up things that aren't a problem, and the Moderation Discord lets people run their topics by us if they want, which I see as a good compromise.

Dealing with and responding to negative people, is part of the experience of being in an online community.

Well, two points here.

The first is that you can still be negative, so long as it's within the rules.

The second point is related to this comment:

I quite disagree, the rage, vitrol, and even mudslinging should be embraced, if only as a shiny example of how not be when facing people who hold different opinions.

I appreciate that you disagree, but, in my mind, this sort of engagement may traditionally be part of an online community, but it doesn't have to be. If someone in my social group is full of rage, vitriol, and insults, we don't keep them around once it's shown to be a consistent thing. This behavior doesn't really add any value to the community, and I'd rather have shining examples of how TO act than examples of how NOT to act. Letting people who engage in discourse in that manner run rampant creates an environment where people don't want to interact, as they'll get others insulting, belittling, or otherwise intentionally frustrating them.

This is what I'm getting at; we should not want the people who would post here to go to other communities. We should allow them to post here in the general forum.

And this is where we strictly disagree. I don't see the League boards as needing to be the one-stop-shop for all online interaction, especially if opening up one type of interaction or discussion creates all the behavioral and moderation issues that we usually see for social issue threads. In this day and age people are -- often -- members of multiple communities, and I see no issue with that. Do you want to discuss the current political situation in [insert country here], and engage in in-depth and/or mudslinging political discussion with those who hold other viewpoints? More power to you -- just find another place to do it.

La Belle SauvageApr 16, 20181 votes

I really thought most moderators are strictly volunteer.

"I appreciate that you disagree, but, in my mind, this sort of engagement may traditionally be part of an online community, but it doesn't have to be. .."

You know, I agree you're 100% correct and this is a fantastic point.

I think your mupltiple members argument is peephaps your strongest point and should have occurred to me. Again you're spot on here too

In general, well said Djinn.

Last point I wonder about is how many times, we as a community, label some post as toxic when in reality it's just posters and responders disagreeing.

People seem to assume that disagreement is a funtion of right and wrong. (aka a long time old friend of mine) that when I disagree with them it means I think I'm right and they're wrong.

I pointed out many times that I did not think they were wrote, just I disagreed. I can't tell you how many times they'd get upset when I continued to argue a point or continued to disagree.

I see that in real life interactions to. Much less in professional life unless of course a position is not well explained.

MordepoolApr 13, 20182 votes

Discussion is meant to revolve around the game. This isn't a place to change social issues

La Belle SauvageApr 13, 20181 votes

Yeah, but that's what I'm making a point about. And the opinion you expressed is often the kind of misunderstanding often seen with most social issues.

Example: Pro Gun Right folks in the USA think that people who want stricter gun control want to eliminate all guns (incorrect) and furthermore they think the reason it's wanted, is it will eliminate gun violence (also incorrect)

Taking that stance allows them to argue a false narrative, ie you can't eliminate all gun violence if you restict all or even some guns, and so they coclude none are warnted.

By the way just an example, not looking to get into any discussion about USA gun policies.

I am under no illusuon that any social issue would change as a result of a post on this board. Nor did I ever express a will to change any issue.

And it's reasonable to think that social issues do have some affecct on the game to some extent.

If you think it doesn't then think about all the sexualization discussion around Kai'sa or Grave's cigar. To point here both are related to the game and both are broader social issues in different parts of the world.

Just because I am advocating for this rule to be at least discussed doesn't mean my intention is to change someone's outlook on social issues. Rather it so I can hear other opinions. We shouldn't shy away from such posts.

MordepoolApr 13, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bello Bagheera,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=NR4TNYy5,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-04-13T16:44:34.327+0000)

Yeah, but that's what I'm making a point about. And the opinion you expressed is often the kind of misunderstanding often seen with most social issues.

Example: Pro Gun Right folks in the USA think that people who want stricter gun control want to eliminate all guns (incorrect) and furthermore they think the reason it's wanted, is it will eliminate gun violence (also incorrect)

Taking that stance allows them to argue a false narrative, ie you can't eliminate all gun violence if you restict all or even some guns, and so they coclude none are warnted.

By the way just an example, not looking to get into any discussion about USA gun policies.

I am under no illusuon that any social issue would change as a result of a post on this board. Nor did I ever express a will to change any issue.

And it's reasonable to think that social issues do have some affecct on the game to some extent.

If you think it doesn't then think about all the sexualization discussion around Kai'sa or Grave's cigar. To point here both are related to the game and both are broader social issues in different parts of the world.

Just because I am advocating for this rule to be at least discussed doesn't mean my intention is to change someone's outlook on social issues. Rather it so I can hear other opinions. We shouldn't shy away from such posts.

Discussion is ideal. 2 stubborn people with opposed views who won't concede even when proven wrong. Is usually what you get and that leads to escalation. I see why they shut down the discussion and I agree with them.

DBS RonovonApr 16, 20182 votes

How about a topic on the word Toxic? It being a label that plagues league of legends and for some reason is acceptable to say in place of any other label regarding race, gender, or sexuality. Its a fast judgement call which is highly abused and for the purpose of getting rid of undesirables, and often used and supported by Riot employees as well, like calling people a Leper or something.

ModThe DjinnApr 16, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=DBS Ronovon,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=NR4TNYy5,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-04-16T13:24:17.852+0000)

How about a topic on the word Toxic? It being a label that plagues league of legends and for some reason is acceptable to say in place of any other label regarding race, gender, or sexuality. Its a fast judgement call which is highly abused and for the purpose of getting rid of undesirables, and often used and supported by Riot employees as well, like calling people a Leper or something.

If you feel like having a discussion on the use of the word, feel free. Player Behavior is probably the best place for that.

La Belle SauvageApr 16, 20181 votes

Too funny I alluded to something similar in my response to Djinn

La Belle SauvageApr 13, 20181 votes

(A response to my original post)

Imperial Pandaa (NA) - 5 minutes ago

This post would probably be better suited for Discuss the Boards, but I get it might gain more traction here.

Topics like those have hair triggers to spiraling out of control and I think they usually want to keep it in a controlled situation. During the election, they had a megathread dedicated to the discussion but was also closely monitored in case it got out of hand.

Full disclosure, I haven't read the one you are referring to yet, it is in another window though.

Suicide discussion is also a touchy subject depending on how it is approached. Largely it comes up when "kys" is used and people explain why that is risky to say. There have been posts or comments about people/players wanting to commit suicide and usually those get removed. Why are they removed? Because risk factor. A troll could come in and go "Do it fucking pussy." and any talking down just goes out the window. They have rules and protocol for those posts which I theorize is as such:

Remove the post.
When a post is removed/locked they send a message.
Message contains information to hotline number or support to reach out to. Would a mod like community members to reach out and show support? Probably. Is it worth the risk of a troll or starting a snowball effect of these posts? I don't believe so.

I agree that this topics could be worth discussion, but they do need to be closely monitored.

Take it with a grain of salt as I am not an authority figure on the boards.

Hope you have a good day.