Dude, stop abusing your powers to remove content. Especially when you use reasoning that is subjective to a personal line of view. "This post does not support civil discussion." In some eyes, none of these boards do mate.
Zed genius44 votesMods remove whatever. I made a post asking why Zed wears make up and said he looks like a trap in the new skin. Apparently the rules say it's rude to call fictional characters traps
Tahminatrix 22 votesthat rule was put in to protect star guardian 
Arakadia13 votesHow does he look like a trap? He almost could not look more masculine.
Anyways trap is arguably offensive to trans women because it implies they are trying to trick you or that they are a trap. I'm not saying it is or isn't offensive but that's why one might consider it so.
Eedat4 votestrap is arguably offensive to trans women because it implies they are trying to trick you or that they are a trap
How? Trap is not a gender or sexual identity. It's a play on gender stereotypes more or less.
Arakadia10 votesDo you not know why the word used is the word trap? The literal idea is that it is a boy, dressing like a girl, and it is a trap because they aren't really a girl. That they are tricking you into a trap.
Again, the reason it may be offensive to a trans women is because you would be saying that they are trying to trick you and that they are a trap to fall into. I'm not saying the word is inappropriate, I don't care if you use it, but it certainly would be offensive to call a trans person a trap at the very least.
Eedat6 votesThe term trap is not related to trans women at all. A gay male (who identifies as male) can dress as a trap. A straight male (who identifies as being a male) can dress as a trap. Dressing as a trap makes neither of them trans. The term trap is not used to describe a gender or sexual orientation. It's used to describe someone (although to be fair it's far more common to describe males) who is dressing in a way to play on gender stereotypes more or less.
rujitra11 votesGay and straight have nothing to do with being trans.
The term is used to describe someone who is crossdressing to trick other people. That sort of action (crossdressing as a trick, not because you are actually trans) is horribly rude and disparaging to people who crossdress because they are trans.
Eedat7 votesGay and straight have nothing to do with being trans.
A gay male (who identifies as male) can dress as a trap. A straight male (who identifies as being a male) can dress as a trap. Dressing as a trap makes neither of them trans.
Being a gay or straight trap has nothing to do with being trans. Dressing as a trap has nothing to do with being trans. There are completely unrelated. Being a trap is essentially being a crossdresser. A trans woman is not a trap for dressing as a woman.
Misusing the word by calling a trans woman a trap is not the fault of the term itself, but the user. And when that happens, it should be pointed out that the term is being used incorrectly.
Is calling a trans woman a "man" offensive? Absolutely. Does that make the term "man" offensive in a general sense? Hell no. The vast majority of traps actually call themselves traps and find amusement in confusing people. It's practically the entire point to a lot of people who do it.
It's actually you who is implying that traps are trans when it's not related to trans people at all
rujitra2 votesI am not implying that, it is literally the origin of the word. Just as the “n word” is used by some people to refer to friends, but has a racist origin. The origin of the word “trap” is inherently transphobic.
Your ignorance of this fact or refusal to see it is not anyone’s problem. I encourage you to try to see the points you’re being presented instead of trying to obfuscate them behind comments you’re making which are themselves transphobic.
Eedat5 votesNo, the term trap is not used to describe being trans. It is a recent term that cropped up for men crossdressing as effeminate women. People who dress as traps do not find the term trap offensive when it's when its used correctly. A MtF trans person is not dressing up as a trap if they dress as a woman. I have plenty of gay friends and have a close MtF trans friend. None of them find the word offensive when used correctly.
Don't tell me I'm ignorant and transphobic because I actually take the time to talk to people of varying sexuality and gender identities and especially do not tell me I don't know the difference between sexuality and gender after I specifically pointed out they are completely different. The term trap is not offensive. Using the term trap incorrectly to imply a MtF trans is still a man is. Thats does not make the term itself offensive or transphobic. It makes misusing the term to misgender a trans person transphobic. The exact same way using the term "male" to describe a MtF trans person is transphobic, but the term "male" is not transphobic by itself.
rujitra3 votesIt isn’t used now to do so. Just as “the n word” isn’t used now to be disparaging towards black people.
But its origin is in the idea that a trans woman would trick a guy into dating/having sexual relations with her but then the guy finds out that they have not had surgery yet and thus still have a penis. That is the origin of the word. Period.
Eedat3 votesBut its origin is in the idea that a trans woman would trick a guy into dating/having sexual relations with her but then the guy finds out that they have not had surgery yet and thus still have a penis. That is the origin of the word. Period.
Lmao what? No it didnt. Not even close. The term "trap" originated from a meme on 4chan in the mid 2000s to describe femininely dressed or androgynous looking male characters in anime. Where did you pull that from?
rujitra4 votesYes, which quickly became describing femininely dressed male characters because of the fact they appeared as females which would trick (trap) people into thinking they were female.
Eedat3 votesWe're talking in circles. Trap is not an offensive term when used correctly. It is only offensive when maliciously misused, like most words
Here is a video going into way more detail than I can
y0r1ck2 votesWe're talking in circles. Trap is not an offensive term when used correctly. It is only offensive when maliciously misused, like most words
Here is a video going into way more detail than I can
But the problem is that even using the word humorously, is a problem. When you can't poke fun at someone, censorship has gone too far. We're people and we all deserve to be made fun of, no matter our race or beliefs.
mrmeddyman4 votesAmen, we're all out here eating the shit sandwich. Being offended is a personal problem. Anyone who takes themselves so seriously as they can't take a bit of teasing can honestly go fuck themselves.
This of course is to be distinguished from actually having intent to hurt people (which makes you an asshole obviously) which OP and the OP of this comment string didn't try to do.
Whats' even worse is the people who aren't even in the demographic of people who could potentially be offended, but still can't resist the urge to be politically correct and virtue signal. Have no words for these individuals.
Gay7Deer2 votesfunny you say that because cis people are way more sensitive than trans people when it comes to shit like that, to the point where cis people make up stories to try and victimize themselves, ever hear of the "Down with cis" bus.
Gay7Deer2 votesim trans, its offensive, hey, i bet you aren't going to listen even when im in the demographic of people... if anyone wants to add this account ill gladly explain why its an issue.
Eedat1 votesHow many times do I have to say it's offensive to use to describe a trans person? Like 8?
I don't really care. The lgbt+ people in my life are what formed my opinion. I really don't care that there are some on the internet that find it so. I'm sure you can find people that find the word "idiot" offensive because it marginalizes people who were born with below average intelligence or some crap. Oh well, don't care.
y0r1ck1 votesNo, the term trap is not used to describe being trans. It is a recent term that cropped up for men crossdressing as effeminate women. People who dress as traps do not find the term trap offensive when it's when its used correctly. A MtF trans person is not dressing up as a trap if they dress as a woman. I have plenty of gay friends and have a close MtF trans friend. None of them find the word offensive when used correctly.
Don't tell me I'm ignorant and transphobic because I actually take the time to talk to people of varying sexuality and gender identities and especially do not tell me I don't know the difference between sexuality and gender after I specifically pointed out they are completely different. The term trap is not offensive. Using the term trap incorrectly to imply a MtF trans is still a man is. Thats does not make the term itself offensive or transphobic. It makes misusing the term to misgender a trans person transphobic. The exact same way using the term "male" to describe a MtF trans person is transphobic, but the term "male" is not transphobic by itself.
Why are we allowing such a small statistical anomaly to dictate the majority's language? I have PTSD, if I threw a fit whenever someone said they have PTSD from some triviality I'd have died of a heart attack by now. Yeah, they're being inconsiderate, since when is that something we need to police/moderate?
y0r1ck1 votesGay and straight have nothing to do with being trans.
The term is used to describe someone who is crossdressing to trick other people. That sort of action (crossdressing as a trick, not because you are actually trans) is horribly rude and disparaging to people who crossdress because they are trans.
How long has trap been an offensive word? Is queer offensive? Used to be "gay" was offensive. How long will authority keep up their game of whack-a-word before they realize it's futile?
ModKnightsKemplar35 votesIt is the moderator's role to remove posts that do not meet our definition of "civil discussion." We're not going to stop doing it just because there isn't unanimous agreement about what "civil" means in this context. We do have guiding principles, and we ask each other when it's borderline. If you have a problem with a specific removal or a specific moderator, we encourage you to join our discord and ask to speak to someone about it.
Vague statements pointing out that there may be disagreement about our methods isn't likely to change anything. It is inevitable that not everyone will agree on every part of the rules – nonetheless, we can't have a space like this without them. We're always willing to hear constructive feedback about the rules, even if that doesn't often result in a change.
Terozu24 votesUhhh no. The role of a moderator on a board or forum is to remove what doesn't meet community standards or the board/forum owner's standards of civil discussion.
As volunteer mods your definition doesn't come into play tbh. The only time you should delete something is if it blatantly breaks the rules or is getting reported a lot.
ModKnightsKemplar25 votesMuch like the OP, kind of missing the point.
Of course the community is what guides our rules. We draft the rules based on community expectations, and then we follow them. When something doesn't meet community expectations, and therefore violates the rules, it gets removed.
My point here is that the community doesn't have unanimous agreement about what this means. There are people unhappy with us on both sides of this issue. There are people who feel were are too strict, and there are people who feel we are not strict enough. We cannot please everyone. This is an undeniable fact in a community where people want different rules. We can't have several different sets of rules for different sets of people on the same Boards. That kind of defeats the purpose.
It is our role to aim for the middle and try to include as many people as possible. And that is why we take feedback. But there will always be people who are not happy, and it is not our role to try to please those people at the expense of the community.
Terozu10 votesUmm, my comment is kind of unrelated to his post tbh, so there's no point to miss.
You stated "It is the moderator's role to remove posts that do not meet our definition of "civil discussion.""
This is objectively false. As a volunteer mod your role is to remove posts that do not meet the community's definition of "civil discussion".
If you were on a pay roll, owned the boards or in the actual employ of those who do and given that power, then it's your definition. But as a volunteer, your definition does not matter against the community's definition. It's like how just because someone being toxic in game thinks their chat was okay doesn't nessecarily mean it was okay, because the community finds it to be toxic.
If posts you're removing are not being downvoted/consistently being reported/contain what most would find offensive/explicitly breaking Riot's rules, you really don't have any reason to remove them, and doing so would be an abuse of your power as a mod.
The fact that this post has gotten some traction indicates that the mod he is speaking of is well known and possibly abusing his/her power, and you should be looking into this.
Of course if the posts that were deleted do meet standards for deletion and this post is a select few who are simply mad about it sure, keep them deleted. But If this guy/woman seems to be a consistent problem, he should be looked into as a mod.
Silly Neeko24 votesYou and the OP are both missing the point of the fact that moderators remove posts that are deemed against the rules. They also implied they had talked to other moderators if it was on the cusp of against the rules or not.
What you should be asking is "how did it not meet the rules of 'civil discussion?'" Rather than trying to avoid the discussion all together because you have a personal vendetta against moderators.... or whatever the problem is here.
Moderators are given a definition by the creators of the boards. It is like you saying that a manager of a store can not fire you because they do not control the rules. No, the rules are set due to higher ups and they follow them. It does not matter if they are paid or not, they have to ENFORCE the rules whether you like the rules or not.
If someone has a lewd picture of Ahri up in no clothes, it could get 1000 upvotes. That does not mean it is not against the rules.
While moderators are not above being out of line as well.... I am having a hard time believing that things did not get out of hand. Especially seeing how people are starting to act over a post being removed....
Terozu4 votesUhhh no, no that's what I said. The mods should enforce rules based on the community's standards and the company standards, not their own standards.
What Knights is saying that the managers can ignore both the owner's rules and the costumers issue and focus on things only they deem unnessecary.
I said, "If posts you're removing are not being downvoted/consistently being reported/contain what most would find offensive/explicitly breaking Riot's rules".
In the case of a lewd picture that violates riot's rules as the game isn't for that mature an audience.
Knights is saying "It is the moderator's role to remove posts that do not meet our definition of "civil discussion."", when again, that is objectively false.
If the post does not break Riot's rules, and the post is not being consistently disapproved of by the community, the mods have no right to remove it regardless of their own personal beliefs and definitions.
Silly Neeko11 votesThey have rules that they follow. "Dont shoot the messenger" is a good term here. If you are wanting to appeal the removal.... then talk to those who chose to remove it and do not be coming and saying "mods are bad mods are bad mods are bad!". Go to the discord where you can talk to the mods and ask why it did not go with the civil discussion.
Knights did not say they can ignore everyone and just remove posts willy nilly as they so choose. They said that "our definition of 'civil discussion'". That does not mean moderators definition..... that means the definition they were given. Moderators are given the rules that they must follow.... so they become "our rules" to them. If this is unable to be understood, then trying to explain anything to you is a waste of time. The fact that someone is even trying to explain to you is that they hope you have some sense and will listen.
And true, it is against the rules and therefore is removed. However just because people like it does not mean it is not against the rules is the point. What Knights ALSO was saying is that there are people who view things as against the rules.... and those that view they follow the rules. So it is comes down to the moderator to be the person who says one or the other. If it is on the cusp... they talk to other mods, and that way it is a unanimous, and unbiased opinion.
Terozu4 votesit literally does mean 'their definition', as inm, he literally said that verbatim. the fact you dont get that means you're ignoring things that make me not want to talk to you.
ModThe Djinn22 votes{quoted}it literally does mean "their definition."
One of the opening sentences to the Universal Rules is "Moderators will evaluate all posts based on the Universal Board Rules and unique sub-board guidelines, and punishment will be at their discretion." This is because it is not possible to have a fully cut-and-dry list of all offenses that we can compare to any given situation, and we are chosen and empowered by Riot specifically to make those calls that are otherwise difficult to make. Removing hate speech is easy, but finding the line between intentionally insulting passive-aggression and a simple expression of frustration is not something you can write up specific guidelines for. As a result, we're well aware that some of our actions utilize that discretion, and that there are people on both the "too harsh" and "too lenient" side that are frustrated as a result.
If you wish to discuss a specific removal, I'll be happy to reevaluate it and explain/take action as appropriate, but I'm afraid the long and short of it is that we are specifically entitled to use our discretion as part of our responsibilities, and Riot's guidelines and community feedback help us reach our decisions but are not the sole factors (Because, for example, there's a large portion of the community that wants to be allowed to rank shame each other, and another large portion that does not want people to be allowed to do so. Some portion of that community will always be unhappy.).
Vegito1011 votesWhich means you can abuse your power and remove any context you personally do not like and say it is against rules,and you do not have to answer to anyone...Ok I can understand that..Riot give you power why would not you abuse it ...It say more about riot then mods...It is not mods fault riot decided there is no one to control their actions...
ModThe Djinn2 votes{quoted}Which means you can abuse your power and remove any context you personally do not like and say it is against rules,and you do not have to answer to anyone.
We definitely answer to Riot. At the end of the day Riot has the ability to view every moderator removal and every moderator conversation on Discord. Additionally, we as a moderation team do not all have the same opinions, and we look at each other's actions to ensure that moderator abuse is not happening. It's not like we're a collective of shared opinions, save where we agree to enforce the board rules.
It's also worth noting that at this point the volunteer program has been around for about 2 years, and during that time we've had frequent check-ins by Riot on how the program is holding together and how accurate our judgments are. While I understand that not everyone likes or agrees with the statement I am about to make, one of the reasons that the program still exists is because we've proven to be pretty accurate, pretty self-reliant, and pretty free of abuse cases.
Vegito1011 votesyeah.But everyone in power can abuse rules and interpret them on their own way...So when some comment agrees with his line of thinking, he will spare it even if its obviously against rules... But if there is comment which is against his Ideas he will find the smallest mistake to ban it ,because its against his interpretation of rules.. Rules are not perfect,but what is worst people who implement them are far from perfect,and can abuse them for personal vendeta ,Specially because there is no one to control their decisions... Do moderators have to answer to anyone for their decisions...???
SpiritOfOdysseus6 votesI don't get why you're being downvoted. It should be blatantly obvious what constitutes a permitted forum post. To me it speaks of the poster's character: morals, critical thinking skills, general social skills(would you say this to a person in real life?), and restraint. I should know because sometimes I am seething with anger which makes me say things I regret. This is basic humanity, something it seems toxic folks forget to realize- you're talking to other people, not a reply bot.
It's one thing to make a topic to vent. I think that is absolutely necessary and what forums are for. What is absolutely unacceptable is berating others in their own topic, not just disagreeing with them but also provoking a reaction. I totally disagree with those who love eating Olaf in lane as Teemo for instance, but I am not going to cut them down for it. Thus the same applies for every disagreement.
Tl;dr: It is a forum requirement to be respectful (I've never read the rules, I'll be honest. It's just common sense to me.) to others. We're all humans with our own issues, great ideas, and strong opinions. If you don't like a topic/reply so much that it infuriates you; either don't post on it or post a thought-out and meaningful response to express your opinion otherwise. Humor works too if you like! :)
y0r1ck1 votesI don't get why you're being downvoted. It should be blatantly obvious what constitutes a permitted forum post. To me it speaks of the poster's character: morals, critical thinking skills, general social skills(would you say this to a person in real life?), and restraint. I should know because sometimes I am seething with anger which makes me say things I regret. This is basic humanity, something it seems toxic folks forget to realize- you're talking to other people, not a reply bot.
It's one thing to make a topic to vent. I think that is absolutely necessary and what forums are for. What is absolutely unacceptable is berating others in their own topic, not just disagreeing with them but also provoking a reaction. I totally disagree with those who love eating Olaf in lane as Teemo for instance, but I am not going to cut them down for it. Thus the same applies for every disagreement.
Tl;dr: It is a forum requirement to be respectful (I've never read the rules, I'll be honest. It's just common sense to me.) to others. We're all humans with our own issues, great ideas, and strong opinions. If you don't like a topic/reply so much that it infuriates you; either don't post on it or post a thought-out and meaningful response to express your opinion otherwise. Humor works too if you like! :)
Sorry, cutting down teemo players is a LOL tradition. You must be new here.
Hellmaximus14 votesIt is the moderator's role to remove posts that do not meet our definition of "civil discussion." We're not going to stop doing it just because there isn't unanimous agreement about what "civil" means in this context. We do have guiding principles, and we ask each other when it's borderline. If you have a problem with a specific removal or a specific moderator, we encourage you to join our discord and ask to speak to someone about it.
Vague statements pointing out that there may be disagreement about our methods isn't likely to change anything. It is inevitable that not everyone will agree on every part of the rules – nonetheless, we can't have a space like this without them. We're always willing to hear constructive feedback about the rules, even if that doesn't often result in a change.
This mod has admitting repeatedly to removing post without fully looking into the actual post and taking it at face value, it pretty bad when most of the community agree that he is a shit moderator that has not only clashed with other moderator but also heralds as well.
He has a history of have repeating this biased behavior, mind you he once locked a thread for 3 days before unlocking it after the entire mod team decided it wasn't against the rules and by then the discussion was buried.
ModKnightsKemplar8 votesAgain, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even know which mod this is about.
There's nothing I can do if people aren't even willing to speak plainly. The passive aggressive posts aren't helpful to your cause. As a team, we're definitely interested in looking into situations, but this doesn't help us do that. Best place to do that is the discord, and if there are specific mods that you don't want to talk to, then ping for someone specific. It's not like there aren't avenues to have a fruitful discussion. This isn't one of them.
PlzGodKillME2 votes"Best place to do that is the discord"
Y sure cuz that's what people want .. to waste more time talking to people who don't listen anyway, sure waste more time to help YOU DO YOU'RE JOB, AMAZING.
That's like saying "fix this car for me" and the mechanic says "ok but first remove the engine for me !!"
Eedat16 votesKinda depends on what you said. Without knowing that nobody can really say one way or the other really. But yeah, there are no real standards for the boards outside the most super blatant stuff and moderation is a crapshoot of whatever mod happens to get the report
ModRowanstar7 votesKinda depends on what you said. Without knowing that nobody can really say one way or the other really. But yeah, there are no real standards for the boards outside the most super blatant stuff and moderation is a crapshoot of whatever mod happens to get the report
We discuss it on Discord and when there are grey areas we try and be lenient. The standards for the boards are pretty clear and available to everyone. The issue is when someone does something that may or may not be inappropriate.
Eedat3 votesI dunno. I reported something that one herald said for sure should be removed just to be told by another herald + a mod that it isn't. Really is not a lot of consistency even among the heralds
ModRowanstar2 votesI dunno. I reported something that one herald said for sure should be removed just to be told by another herald + a mod that it isn't. Really is not a lot of consistency even among the heralds
We are individuals after all.
Eedat5 votesBut thats the thing. One herald says it is definitely removable and tells me to report it. Hours later it's still up so I go to the discord and a different herald + a moderator do not remove it. It's not even the gray area. Its the area of absolutes differing drastically between who looks at it
GatekeeperTDS5 votesWhat is your end goal here, a black & white, cut & dry definition of what will happen in any and all given situations? Come on man, nothing works like that. You're setting yourself up to be aggravated.
iamthegoatofwar6 votesFor all intents and purposes the heralds of all people should be able to more or less agree on the removal or approval of something when all the facts are in.
DuskDaUmbreon4 votesExcept they won't always, because they're individuals, not some hive mind.
Everything that happens ever is always tempered by personal biases, experiences, and expectations. What one moderator might not see another likely will. What one moderator knows from personal experience is trolling the other might know from personal experience that it's not trolling.
And certain important contexts can be missed. "KYS" is zero-tolerance, but there are instances where it's acceptable to say (on the boards at least), such as in response to someone going "Hey what words are part of the zero-tolerance list?"
And that's ignoring the fact that they don't all have the same interpretation of the rules, especially when it comes to rules regarding "low-effort" and not meeting community standards. To one mod, they might see low-effort as any post under 3 paragraphs, while another might just require a unique topic. (It's an extreme example, of course - in reality their guidelines will likely be far closer together). This is why you can ask a mod something and get one response, but when reporting something that same mod might give a differing action.
All of the above applies to the heralds as well.
Silly Neeko1 votesJust because it is removable.... and can be reported... does not mean it is not a grey area that can be disagreed upon. The one herald felt it was wrong, the other didnt see a problem. They are two different people and just because it is reportable does not mean it is 100% just removed on the spot or anything like that. It just has a chance to.
Terozu7 votesI don't think it counts as name and shame with the mods, since, well, they're the mods.
AirKingNeo4 votesI would agree. Mods are public figures as they should be accountable by the public for how they moderate.
