Context > Linguistic Morphology, Appealing for strike removal, and requesting a mod be inspected...

deadlychuck·Apr 28, 2018·2 votes·2,798 views

I don't want to publicly call out the moderator who did this, but I will provide a screenshot of the notification or name of the mod if necessary for an appeal to remove the punishment escalation flag attached to my account.

But simply put, I had a comment removed for "hate speech", by a mod. While I'm not concerned with the particular comment being removed, I do think that the mod in question who reviewed and removed the comment should be inspected, because it was a gross misapplication of the board rules. At the very least, i'd expect the mods to be held to a standard of competency above what was displayed.

The exact statement was in response to a thread asking, essentially, "What's wrong with the game". The response I provided was

> ~~HOMOGENIZATION~~ No Homo = Good game. Lots of Homo = bad game. I ain't no homophobe, but there are just objectively some extremely necessary aspects of development that being homo just doesn't work for, and until riot straightens themselves out and stops making the game so homo, these problems will continue to get worse.

Now, the reasoning I was provided was > We take hate speech and homophobic slurs very seriously. Dont think worldplay around using it is clever and the next time we will issue an escalated punishment. If you wish to post in a more meaningful manner please feel free to do so.

There's one key problem that you might notice with this excuse... Not once did I use a homophobic slur, unless you're to assume that "homophobe" itself is now a slur. Simply the use of the prefix of "homo" in a negative way, doesn't comply with your own Board Rules definition of "hate speech" (speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which can include attacks a person or group), because homo doesn't uniquely refer to homosexuals. Even a tacit reading of the comment clearly indicated that the context of the use of the prefix "homo" was related to the concept of homogenization, not homosexual people. The fact that this moderator in question had a prejudicial assumption of the context calls into question their competency for applying the board rules.

I'd rather not make this mod's name public if unnecessary, assuming that the ticket/notification can be reviewed by other mods in it's entirety. Though, again if this is how this moderator is implementing and interpreting the Board Rules, then they need to be informed of their misapplication at the least or stripped of moderation powers at most (assuming that this is a persistent problem).

21 Comments

ModKagenoOuApr 28, 20188 votes

Dear deadlychuck,

Actually we DID look at the post as a group, and the way in which you used the term "homo" was deemed to be (at the very least) suggestive in a way that we deemed against the universal rules.

Imagine that a summoner said "from here on our every time i say the N word i actually mean elephants" and then continued to say that "******s belong in a zoo" or something of the sort, even if he claimed that the phrase was not meant to be offensive, it would STILL be offensive to some of the people who read the post, and perhaps rightly so.

Also you are welcome to post the name of the moderator who performed your action, that is precisely why we post our names in our messages (it wasn't me for anyone else wondering) so that you, the community, know who has handled your case, not just some nebulous "riot moderator" group.

I'm sorry that you feel that you have been slighted in this case, but upon further review I can conclude that there was no mischief or foul play in this case, I know that sometimes we say things in a way we don't mean for them to come out, but from just looking at the post I believe the moderator was justified.

Demacia Now and Forever, KagenoOu

deadlychuckApr 28, 20181 votes

Pointing out that you reviewed it as a group doesn't help your case... assuming that it wasn't unanimous, that means that the final decision was made in favor of ignoring the context of the statements that were made, instead opting to punish someone arbitrarily based on the correlation between a word (or in this case an abbreviation/prefix), as opposed to the context of their usage. If you want to talk about offensive, then let's talk about the fact that this group of mods suggests that they think so little of homosexuals, that they think they'd apparently be offended simply by the use of "homo", in a negative context.

The example you just provided isn't even equivalent to my post. Your example takes a word, "the N word" (estigmatizas la palabra "negro" cuando lo evitas [that will translate verbatim in google translate]), and arbitrarily re-purposes the entirety of the word, where as all i did was abbreviate the word homogeneous to the likeness of the abbreviated "homosexuals" as a means to tongue and cheek use the rhetoric surrounding homosexuals against homogeneity in the game. The only word which could be argued to have been re-purposed was "homophobe", but even that is reasonably a valid definition of the word. Yeah yeah, "don't think wordplay around using it is clever", except that if you do choose to ignore the context of the statement, and ASSUME that it's being made in reference to homosexuals, then that wouldn't be wordplay, it would just objectively be anti-homosexual statements. Hell, even mentioning the wordplay would require acknowledging the joke that was being made, then willfully ignoring that it's a joke, based on personal biases. It might be done knowingly or unconsciously, but to consider my post "hate speech" would require one to lie about the content of my post, be it to themselves or others, when trying to convince them of the vulgarity of the statement.

I know that sometimes we say things in a way we don't mean for them to come out, but from just looking at the post I believe the moderator was justified.

No... That's EXACTLY how I intended for it to come out. Any degree of hateful rhetoric that can be attributed to my comment (even wrongfully so) is dependent on the innuendos which the moderators themselves follow. At least I'm not the one who thinks that homosexuals are incapable of taking a joke, but hey, I know that sometimes we say things in a way we don't mean for them to come out.

{quoted}

Now let's see how consistent about punishments you mods are for discriminatory statements made against a group on the basis of sexual orientation... I'd hope that you all are required to abide by the same rules and standards to which you hold others. I'm not much of an ultimatum kind of person, but based on the rules and the manner in which you applied them to my post, you've kind of backed yourself into one. Either you'll need to remove the strike on my account and ignore the (at the very least) suggestive nature of both our comments or accept your equally valid strike for making such a suggestive comment. Idk, can you be a mod with such a blemish on your account? I'd imagine that all of you have to have even better behavior than is expected of the average board user, but I truthfully have no idea.

Also, I understand that it's normally alright to name mods, but I'm abiding by the rules of the boards (specifically naming and shaming), because I would've made a post accusing a mod of possible malicious activity by name.

ChermorgApr 28, 20184 votes

Hey there.

You've explained quite nicely what your post was intended to do. You've openly admitted that you knowingly and willfully used the insinuation of homosexual rhetoric to create shock value in the post - which is not acceptable. The removal was justified, as even hinting at hateful ideologies such as racism, sexism, etc is not appropriate here.

There was nothing "suggestive" in Kageno0u's reply to you, and even if there was, suggestive is not necessarily prohibited. What is prohibited is referring to and using anti-homosexual rhetoric as a joke as you did.

deadlychuckApr 28, 20181 votes

What is prohibited is referring to and using anti-homosexual rhetoric as a joke as you did.

Bullshit, I didn't use any anit-homosexual rhetoric, I used the structure of anti-homosexual rhetoric, which people are familiar with, in order to convey that homogenization is bad for the game. The suggestion that I am "hinting at hateful ideologies" goes against your naming and shaming policy of "Posts accusing others of malicious activity". There was no malicious activity, unless you lie about the context in which the statements were being made.

Also it was very suggestive. The idea that a group of people would be offended on the basis of a phrase common in usage to them, but set in a different context, with a negative connotation is about as "suggestive" as you can get. How are you going to claim that the use of the ideas of the rhetoric (that Kageno0u used), is less suggestive than the use of the common words/phrases of the rhetoric in a completely different context?

ChermorgApr 28, 20182 votes

Rhetoric and structure are virtually synonymous. You have been made aware of why your post was in violation of the rules, and the team has not changed its opinion on the issue. Any form of homophobia, sexism, racism, or other hate speech, even inferred by using similar structure, is not welcome on the boards.

Suggesting someone may be offended is not what "suggestive" means. Using normal logical arguments will not be punished. Using hateful rhetoric/structure will.

ModUlanopoApr 28, 20184 votes

No... That's EXACTLY how I intended for it to come out. Any degree of hateful rhetoric that can be attributed to my comment (even wrongfully so) is dependent on the innuendos which the moderators themselves follow.

I'm afraid that's not how language works. You can't argue on the one hand that you used the term in an effort to be clever or provocative, then turn around and assert that people misunderstood you or that it's the reader's fault they're offended. When one chooses to be edgy, one has a responsibility to consider the venue and context of the things they say. Your comment may have been clever for other places, but it has to be considered in situ.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as protected speech on the boards. Anything can be removed if, in the opinion of the moderation team, it has even the potential to cause problems. I was one of the people who reviewed your content. All you did was find an indirect way to suggest that LGBT people should feel less welcome in League, which may seem funny or clever to you, but is in no way consistent with how the Boards are supposed to work.

deadlychuckApr 28, 20181 votes

Ultimately, there is no such thing as protected speech on the boards.

It's not a matter of having "protected speech", it's a matter of not misapplying, or arbitrarily changing the application of, the rules which you enforce as moderators on the boards. If you can't be consistent about how you apply the rules, then you shouldn't be responsible for moderating the rules in the first place. This include biased lack of enforced against other moderators.

I'm afraid you don't understand how language works, especially a very contextual language like English. The meaning of words in english is almost completely based on the context in which they're used. E.g. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/humor/why-english-is-hard-to-learn/ (just an excerpt from that link "When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.")

Not to mention that's just not how ideas work. Language exists as a medium to convey ideas to those who read/listen to it. To be incapable of understanding the meaning of a word/phrase due to ignoring the context in which a statement is made, is a failure to understand how to communicate. I didn't "suggest that LGBT people should feel less welcome", i suggested that homogenization has been detrimental to the quality of the game. You're ascribing intent behind my words, while actively ignoring the context of the statements. Context is always necessary to determine the intent behind the statement, yet by foregoing the context scope which I had initialized at the start of the post, you personally construct the context based on correlation with the terminology which you most frequently hear.

Let me make this clear one more time. I recognize and acknowledge that moderators can remove content on a whim. The issue here is that my account has received punishment based on the inaccurate, and uncharitable, interpretation of the statements I made. I'm simply requesting that there be no escalation flag attached to my account with the comment having been removed (as expressed in the notification that was sent to me), and that the moderator(s) who decided that punishment was appropriate be inspected for incompetency in accurate application of the rules. To be honest, it probably doesn't matter for me that my account has the flag, because I don't break the Board Rules, aside from the occasional accidental "wrong subsection" post. It's about the principle of moderators having to accurately follow the Board Rules to punish players, as opposed to tyrannically punishing based on their own biases or personal vendettas.

ModUlanopoApr 28, 20183 votes

It's not a matter of having "protected speech", it's a matter of not misapplying, or arbitrarily changing the application of, the rules which you enforce as moderators on the boards.

Nothing about that statement is correct.

THE RULE WAS NOT MISAPPLIED

It does not matter, how you intended the speech. If, in the opinion of the moderation team, the speech has the net effect of insulting, denigrating or otherwise excluding other players, then it is subject to removal and attendant sanction. That's the rule.

Your post was discussed by the moderation team, myself included. Our determination, as expressed in the removal message, was that the post had the net effect of using "clever" wordplay to disguise speech intended to exclude LGBT people. I use quotation marks because the phrase "no homo" has a clear cultural meaning and your subsequent posts make it highly unlikely you were unaware of that meaning.

Had this been a case of genuine ignorance, the reasonable response would have been, "Oh, my bad. Let me edit that to make it inoffensive/less unclear." Instead, you continued to argue that there could have been no misunderstanding your intent. Clearly, a large group of diverse, not-unintelligent people thought otherwise. I will also point out that your post was not discovered by a random moderator meandering through the Boards. It was reported to us as offensive, so there were others who agreed with us, at the very least with regard to its potential for misunderstanding.

Should you continue to have concerns or questions about this policy and how it was applied, please feel free to join us in the Moderation Discord

THE RULE WAS NEITHER CHANGED NOR APPLIED ARBITRARILY

Admittedly, we can't get to everything on the Boards. We remain human, after all. Our inaction on another post has no bearing to our action on your post.

I'm simply requesting that there be no escalation flag attached to my account with the comment having been removed (as expressed in the notification that was sent to me),

Actually, your removal was addressed with significant leniency. You did not receive a suspension and were given a fairly routine warning regarding repeating this behavior. If the removal verbiage was unclear, perhaps this will help:

Hate speech of any type is not acceptable on the boards, regardless of how it is intended or expressed. Future violations of this rule can result in an escalated response, up to and including permanent removal of boards posting privileges.

and that the moderator(s) who decided that punishment was appropriate be inspected for incompetency in accurate application of the rules.

The action was already reviewed and determined to be appropriate. Again, you are always welcome to join us in the Moderation Discord for a more real-time response to your questions.

deadlychuckJun 17, 20181 votes

Hey, haven't been here in a while. Just saw the notifications :P Figured I'd go full [zombie-brand-clap] [zombie-brand-facepalm] [zombie-brand-mindblown] though

It does not matter, how you intended the speech.

I use quotation marks because the phrase "no homo" has a clear cultural meaning and your subsequent posts make it highly unlikely you were unaware of that meaning.

Evidently the intent did matter, because if it'd been a result of lack of intent, then punishing the account would've been unjustified.

Instead, you continued to argue that there could have been no misunderstanding your intent.

You didn't seem to really have an accurate grasp of my argument, not that I'm surprised, you contradicted yourself within a paragraph, because the argument wasn't "that there could have been no misunderstanding." The argument was that, in the case of a misunderstanding that the fault of an inaccurate interpretation of the meaning behind the words cannot be justly laid at my feet. In the case that someone took offense to the post, such as the person who reported it, then that person was failing to comprehend the actual meaning of the statement, ignoring the clearly expressed context and instead reacting to their biases/assumptions based on the verbiage alone.

I will also point out that your post was not discovered by a random moderator meandering through the Boards. It was reported to us as offensive, so there were others who agreed with us, at the very least with regard to its potential for misunderstanding.

In effect, I'm saying that it takes two to tango. I'm not ignorant of the connotations surrounding the verbiage that I used, but necessarily neither was the person who reported my comment. Had a reader been ignorant on such connotations, or done an unbiased reading of the comment, then nothing said literally broke the board rules.

Subjectivity is a complex beast that's not easy to comprehend, there's a reason that it took a literal genius Heimerdinger to figure out that time was subjective, and as a result two descriptions of the same event could be both different and correct.

Clearly, a large group of diverse, not-unintelligent people thought otherwise.

While I'm not inclined to assume, that those who made the decision were unintelligent (I always assume that myself and a listener are of equal standing, within an unnoticeable margin of error anyway), based on the decision that was made to flag the account for escalating response <Removed by Moderation>.

Oh yeah, and how are you going to say that it was addressed with "significant leniency", if it's a "fairly routine warning"?

Totally Not JinxJun 18, 20183 votes

Evidently the intent did matter, because if it'd been a result of lack of intent, then punishing the account would've been unjustified.

This is incorrect. The impact of your words, regardless of what you meant to say, especially when using or manipulating problematic language, is considered of primary importance in issues like this. Just because you didn't mean to upset anyone, doesn't mean you did not upset anyone, and it doesn't mean you didn't break a rule. And again, as said, the reasonable response is 'I'm sorry, I didn't realise, let me re-word it so as to make it less upsetting.'

You didn't seem to really have an accurate grasp of my argument, not that I'm surprised (you contradicted yourself within a paragraph, because the argument wasn't "that there could have been no misunderstanding."

We understand your argument. What we're doing is explaining why your argument fails to land in relation to the Universal Rules.

The argument was that, in the case of a misunderstanding that the fault of an inaccurate interpretation of the meaning behind the words cannot be justly laid at my feet.

You said the words. You upset at least one person by doing so, and used language that is against the Universal Rules. It will never matter how funny, glib, sarcastic, or light-hearted you're trying to be;

If you upset someone, and used problematic language, it is not tolerated here.

In the case that someone took offense to the post, such as the person who reported it, then that person was failing to comprehend the actual meaning of the statement, ignoring the clearly expressed context and instead reacting to their biases/assumptions based on the verbiage alone.

It is not on the person who is upset by your choice of words to sit back and allow you to continue using upsetting or problematic language. The person who reported your posts was aware of both the impact and acceptability of such language on the Boards, and took action to ensure that the rules were enforced properly. Further, calling into question the intelligence of someone who disagrees with you can also lead you down a dangerous path towards penalties, should you phrase them more aggresively.

Additionally, I've edited out some of the last portion of your post, because conjecture of that sort isn't necessary, and does not really lend credence to your argument that you weren't intending to be harmful. If anything, it makes your argument look less convincing.

If you have questions about that, feel free to talk to us in the The Boards Moderation Discord or the Discuss the Boards sub-board.

Oh yeah, and how are you going to say that it was addressed with "significant leniency", if it's a "fairly routine warning"?

Hate Speech is a zero tolerance on the Boards. While you are not privileged to know the escalation path of such matters, we are able to and willing to tell you when we're being soft on penalties, because it gives you a chance to do better.

deadlychuckJun 21, 20181 votes

Hate Speech is a zero tolerance on the Boards. While you are not privileged to know the escalation path of such matters, we are able to and willing to tell you when we're being soft on penalties, because it gives you a chance to do better.

"significant leniency", if it's a "fairly routine warning"?

This still doesn't explain the contradictory meta description of the escalation path.

Further, calling into question the intelligence of someone who disagrees with you can also lead you down a dangerous path towards penalties, should you phrase them more aggresively.

No, not the intelligence, the biases. They're biased interpretation of the verbiage lead to failure to comprehend the meaning of the statement. Your intelligence is irrelevant if you preemptively exclude a logical path of thought at the onset.

does not really lend credence to your argument that you weren't intending to be harmful. If anything, it makes your argument look less convincing.

Again, that's not been my argument and the removal of that portion of my comment actually supports my argument... so thanks... I'll spell it out again, but try to be a little bit more technical.

There were two aspects to this whole situation.

I posted something which used verbiage similar to that of another topic
Someone (might have*) got offended by that verbiage

1a) If deemed too risque -> 1b) the comment gets removed to avoid offending someone (valid & fair) 2a) Someone gets offended -> 2b) Escalating of punishment (invalid & unjust)

The reason I disconnect these two, and 1a -/> 2b, which is perfectly demonstrated by what you did to my last comment where you removed part (or all) of the post without punishment being made to the account, is because punishment doesn't necessarily follow risque behavior.

The reason that 2a -> 2b is invalid, is because it's a completely subjective standard on part of the biases shared by the offended and the moderator(s). Someone could get offended over any comment being made, but simply because your biases of the verbiage and terminology which is "hate speech" over lap with what the reporter considers "offensive", means that punishment is necessary. Now, if there was a subjective judgement being made on an otherwise objective rule, then it could be valid, but when the entirety of the decision is done subjectively without any objective standard, you've got an unjust system.

Now, i remember what I said in the part of the comment you removed, and let's juxtapose these two events.

Both were deemed too risque, and subsequently removed. Yet while you only removed what was said, based on the fact that (well unsurprisingly) your biases of what could be considered offensive and what you consider "hate speech" overlap. The difference is that I didn't receive a punishment for having posted it, despite using the same verbiage from the original post. Presumably because, while it might have been potentially offensive, you weren't actually offended by it.

* [might have, because... well... it's not exactly uncommon now to see people assume "that's offensive to people X", while not taking personal offense]

So back to what I said before, "in the case of a misunderstanding that the fault of an inaccurate interpretation of the meaning behind the words cannot be justly laid at my feet." This still stands true, demonstrated by the fact that when a 3rd offended party (2a) isn't involved, the escalating punishment isn't administered, despite there being no effective difference in the two situations for myself. Had the biases of the reporter been absent, or particularly different, then there would be no one offended and upset over the comment. Your current criterion of "you upset someone", is a terrible qualifier because the game theory behind it encourages escalation and creates a prisoner's dilemma situation. Arguably exaggerated by having such a low standard of a single person being upset.

I think that one of the major mistakes that you mods keep making about this is the assumption that I care at all about what I posted and that it was removed. When my only concern is myself having been, and preventing others from being, unjustly punished based on the degree to which someone else is passionate about their biases, in the direction of responding with discomposure.

Oh, but I will admit, that the intent doesn't matter. That was me admittedly being argumentative. Given the design of this system, the intent of the perpetrator would be irrelevant to the outcome, as the response of the reader is the only detail under consideration.

ModKagenoOuApr 28, 20183 votes

Ultimately, Deadlychuck it doesnt matter if you dont agree with the rules, you have to follow them and thats just the way it is

Shukr4nApr 28, 20182 votes

Can u tell me whats the meaning of the first sentence? "Lots of homo" is terribad use of prefix.

deadlychuckApr 28, 20181 votes

Lots of homogenization.

I simply referenced the word "homogenization" with the abbreviation "homo", as many people do for other contexts with words that use the prefix "homo".

{quoted}

the context of the use of the prefix "homo" was related to the concept of homogenization, not homosexual people.

Shukr4nApr 28, 20182 votes

But lots.. Homogeneization is already a complete word.

Whats the meaning of "few homogenization"then?

deadlychuckApr 28, 20181 votes

"lots" is also an antonym of "little"

"little homogenization" makes perfect sense, but given that there are different aspects of the game which can be homogenized then, "lots" can refer to the aspects independently, where as little would refer to the degree homogenization of the game as a whole.

Shukr4nApr 29, 20182 votes

well, since homogenization means :the process of making things uniform or similar,

little uniform or lot uniform, to me, in my own language, means nothing. just that. probably in english u can say that.

sorry

5d0x4allx0Apr 28, 20181 votes

Sounds like deadlyshmuck got exactly what he deserved. Hopefully a permabanned of both his board account and in-game account follow suit.

deadlychuckApr 28, 20181 votes

Naw, first time offense anyway.

That said, why exactly do you think that I should be permabanned in any regard? I've broken no rules, so to permaban me would mean that they are exercising the ability to permaban anyone, regardless of behavior or rule breaking.

In which case, you seem to just be hoping that they'd increase the chances that they'd permaban yourself... I'm having trouble understanding why you'd like to increase the odds that you'd be permaban... can you explain the rational behind that desire?

5d0x4allx0May 5, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Naw, first time offense anyway.

That said, why exactly do you think that I should be permabanned in any regard? I've broken no rules, so to permaban me would mean that they are exercising the ability to permaban anyone, regardless of behavior or rule breaking.

In which case, you seem to just be hoping that they'd increase the chances that they'd permaban yourself... I'm having trouble understanding why you'd like to increase the odds that you'd be permaban... can you explain the rational behind that desire?

None of that makes any sense at all. Enjoy your ban.

Good day.