Minimum size of group, to be allowed to criticize them?

Ph03n1xb1rd·Jan 31, 2019·1 votes·3,328 views

Hello everyone!

So i just got banned from Boards on my other account for calling a group of people dicks, which is fine, yet previous examples show that criticizing a group of people is allowed. So my question is, how big the group have to be?

The "people are dicks" and "humans are idiots" phrases were defended by Board Heralds, as allowed phrases.

Well, these groups contain a lot of people. I criticized the Moderators, and i got banned for it, they are clearly a smaller group.

So how many people should a group contain to be allowed to criticize?

Can i say that the NA community is idiot, because they tend to report for useless things? Can i say that white males are idiot, because they tend to get angry at the game? Can i say that asian people ruin the ranked games, because they are too competitive? What if i add groups together, like the moderators + 5billion other people are dicks?

Or is the moderating simply biased? You can criticize the whole humanity, you can criticize flamers, but you are not allowed to criticize moderators?

Thanks for your help and the clarifications! Have a nice day everyone!

16 Comments

ModThe DjinnJan 31, 20198 votes

Intent is super important.

"People are dicks" or "humans are idiots" are fine depending on how they're used:

"God, why do so many people try to flame me in-game? People are dicks, I guess."

vs.

"Man, is that really your opinion? People are dicks, I guess."

The former is acceptable -- you're basically saying that some vaguely defined group tends to act in an inappropriate manner because people are dicks. It's largely non-specific, doesn't directly impugn anyone, and has a very heavily implied "some" in it. The focus is on the fact that non-specific people often act like jerks. The latter is not acceptable: although it's the same sentence, the clear meaning there is "YOU'RE a dick, specifically because of your opinion."

It's worth noting that the default is that most insults are removable. We simply give leeway to those that are suitably non-specific and generally non-insulting. "People can be idiots" is a very different statement from "men / women / racial identity / categorizing trait are idiots."

Ph03n1xb1rdJan 31, 20191 votes

I hope you realize that "people are dicks" contain the "woman are dicks", "PoC are dicks" and everything else you mentioned as not acceptable. It also contains the "YOU ARE DICK", assuming you are a person, not a bot.

"very heavily implied "some" in it" - It has an implied "some" in it, WHEN you want to see it that way. For some strange reason every moderator thinks, that somebody who agrees with Rito implies good things, and anyone who does not agree with Rito implies bad things.

"The focus is on the fact that non-specific people often act like jerks." - What do you mean, by non specific people? Are they not named? When i say "Moderators are dicks" - then i say non specific moderators are dicks, i also IMPLY "some".

These two cases are literally the same, except one of the groups being bigger.

non-specific

This is exactly why i asked the group size. Moderators are too specific, for your taste. Moderators + Specialists are okay? Or "people with privileges on the Boards"? Can you show me where is the border of specific or not specific?

generally non-insulting

I used the SAME word, in the SAME context. If mine was insulting, then the original was too. If the original wasn't then mine is not.

Saying that moderators are dicks, for the random pointless censoring and saying that people are dicks for the random pointless flaming, is basically the same statement. Show me where is the huge difference in it?

EDIT:

Intent is super important.

What is the intent behind calling people idiots and dicks? If not calling them idiots and dicks?

ModThe DjinnJan 31, 20198 votes

{quoted}I hope you realize that "people are dicks" contain the "woman are dicks", "PoC are dicks" and everything else you mentioned as not acceptable. It also contains the "YOU ARE DICK", assuming you are a person, not a bot.

"It's largely non-specific, doesn't directly impugn anyone, and has a very heavily implied "some" in it."

This is exactly why i asked the group size. Moderators are too specific, for your taste. Moderators + Specialists are okay? Or "people with privileges on the Boards"? Can you show me where is the border of specific or not specific?

When you use language to make it specifically, rather than a large generalization. You're making your intent to find workarounds to calling specific groups of people dicks painfully apparent. In this case the appropriate way would be to say something like "people with power over others often use it to be dicks," perhaps, but at this point I'll caution that your intent is pretty clear, and that does get taken into account. If you're legitimately interested in giving feedback to the mod team about how you think we act, I'd recommend doing so in a more actionable and constructive manner.

Ph03n1xb1rdJan 31, 20191 votes

"It's largely non-specific, doesn't directly impugn anyone, and has a very heavily implied "some" in it."

Just like the "mods are dicks". I did not specify WHICH mod, it didn't impugn anyone, and has an implied "some" in it. YOU want to see it otherwise.

When you use language to make it specifically, rather than a large generalization.

"people with power over others often use it to be dicks" - Thanks, i'll keep it in mind, and use this level of generalization to fir YOUR taste of censoring. :) Funny you give me an example of what could be acceptable, and the in the next sentence you keep the right to still punish for it somehow, just to make sure i can not quote this part when the mods will be biased again. I would insert the "outstanding move" meme if i could :D

If you're legitimately interested in giving feedback to the mod team about how you think we act, I'd recommend doing so in a more actionable and constructive manner.

I was interested in giving feedback, you guys just think that some people IMPLY bad things with the comments which does not contain any malicious intent. I discussed this with some of the moderators and if i remember even you. It was clearly pointless, since you all live in your own bubble.

Where i wrote my removed comment i did not write it as a constructive criticism for the Board mods, since that would be totally pointless waste of time, you never consider anything. I wrote it to other community members who might not be familiar with your biased trigger happy censoring, and i informed them about how to Board works.

EvilDustManJan 31, 20198 votes

I'm going to spit in the moderators face.

Hey, why are the moderators targeting me.

Ph03n1xb1rdJan 31, 20191 votes

Well, you missed the point.

Somebody spits in my face, moderators do nothing. I spit in their face, they ban me.

While in theory they should take action both times. I do not care about the punishment, i care about the inconsistency.

AeroWaffleJan 31, 20196 votes

{quoted}

Well, you missed the point.

Somebody spits in my face, moderators do nothing. I spit in their face, they ban me.

While in theory they should take action both times. I do not care about the punishment, i care about the inconsistency.

I imagine, just like with the punishment system, if the moderators recognize you as someone who has repeatably broken the rules already they are far less willing to give you leeway.

ModUlanopoJan 31, 20193 votes

{quoted}

Well, you missed the point.

Somebody spits in my face, moderators do nothing. I spit in their face, they ban me.

While in theory they should take action both times. I do not care about the punishment, i care about the inconsistency.

In circumstances where you believe we missed a call, you should be bringing that to the Discord. Remembering, of course, that we might view circumstances differently than you, meaning we won't always take the action you want.

Ph03n1xb1rdJan 31, 20191 votes

Well, I stopped that because it is just a waste of time.

When you punish people because YOU think that they IMPLY something, then reasoning loses it's meaning, from that point it only depends on your mood and sympathy.

ModiFeb 1, 20195 votes

{quoted}

Well, I stopped that because it is just a waste of time.

When you punish people because YOU think that they IMPLY something, then reasoning loses it's meaning, from that point it only depends on your mood and sympathy.

With that argument, then EVERYTHING should be permitted, because we cannot know the exact frame of mind of the poster when posting. That is a completely untenable situation, and will never be the case. The moderators use their best judgement (hint: yes, it is still subjective, because they are people, and all people are subjective with respect to their own experiences and understandings).

dnsupFeb 1, 20191 votes

{quoted}

In circumstances where you believe we missed a call, you should be bringing that to the Discord. Remembering, of course, that we might view circumstances differently than you, meaning we won't always take the action you want.

Reliance on Discord is kind of nasty, TBH. A realtime chat isn't really suitable for any detailed analysis, if the intention is to give users a chance to make their cases and to make an accurate assessment of those cases.

ModUlanopoFeb 1, 20192 votes

{quoted}

Reliance on Discord is kind of nasty, TBH. A realtime chat isn't really suitable for any detailed analysis, if the intention is to give users a chance to make their cases and to make an accurate assessment of those cases.

We use the chat for record keeping (we don't do voice except in internal meetings). Discord is also a private place to talk.

DuskDaUmbreonJan 31, 20197 votes

Is it a sweeping generalization of a group of people that is not the grand sum of humanity, that can be proven false?

Then, generally speaking, no.

"Moderators are dicks" also isn't criticism. It's just being a dick to mods. Criticism is "hey, I think <x> rule is punished too harshly" or "you guys are inconsistent at times". That gives a clear thing that you think is wrong, and has a solution (stated or otherwise) to that problem. "You guys are dicks", while able to be interpreted as a valid criticism (i.e. "You guys are too blunt or rude"), that is rarely ever the case.

Ph03n1xb1rdJan 31, 20191 votes

The whole text was: "The ~~moderators~~ dicks, tend to remove post at their will and are biased. So you should know this about the Board." (Not word by word quote, but the main points are the same, the dick was the only "insult" in it.)

I really have no problem with this content removed, since it can be clearly interpreted as an insult (if they want). My problem is, that for some people this is allowed and for others it is not.

And sorry, i didn't really get the first part of your post, maybe my english sucks a bit :D

AsamasJan 31, 20192 votes

Can i say that white males are idiot, because they tend to get angry at the game? Can i say that asian people ruin the ranked games, because they are too competitive? You can't say that bcs it apparently is racist. But ye criticizing moderators is like the no-no thing here. Some of them tend to be self righteous. So it's not about the size of groups. It's like saying something bad about Stalin back in the Soivet Union. You are going to jail (best case). Here you say bad things about the mods (which I call boards overlord for obvious reason) and you get banned. Simple as that... Now I am going to jail too but that will just prove my point...

Still some mods are nice. Like really nice.

ModiFeb 1, 20191 votes

Check: does the generalization apply to everyone? Then it is ok. Does the generalization apply to a specific subset of people? Then no, it is not ok.