"Got a problem with the site or staff? Post (constructively) in here. No one shall be punished for any opinions they post in here so please tell us how we can improve!" At least, that's the claim. However, when I had a problem with the staff concerning what I consider to be an unfair ban, and attempted to have a reasonable and constructive PUBLIC discussion about it, the thread was locked with no response, and I instead received a PM on the issue. I feel like I was treated unfairly. I want this addressed, openly and honestly, without hiding in PMs. I feel like I've been a part of this site long enough to have earned the right to a little civility. So here's the deal. I'm not letting this go. You can go ahead and ban me again if it'll make you feel better, but I'm not letting this go until we've talked about this.
The materials the bans were issued for are something that could easily cause a cataclysm of crossed wires. I made the call to contact you privately to ensure discussion remains on target and doesn't bleed out into any accusations against yourself. Please resepect that the idea was to get this sorted without further anger. Please talk to our team members via PM.
Before I continue, let me explain my reasoning for wanting this to be a public discussion; I've seen many online communities go sour after the moderators there, for whatever reason, began abusing their power. They start to care more about being right than doing what's right. We have enough former MLP Forums members on this site that I know you know what I'm talking about. I know the mods care about this site. I also care about this site, and that's why I don't want to see any of you turn into the kind of mod that drives members away. I'm sorry Tyro, I really am, but I don't think I'm going to be able to just forget about this. I need a drink. I'll be back tonight once I've had some time to think.
As I did three years ago, I'm gonna have to point out that in all things, transparency is paramount. Especially when there are consequences for users. If there's no public postmortem on a contested ban, then there's no guarantee that what warrants a ban is aligned with what the community feels does, nor is there a guarantee that the given reason was the actual reason. Both of these trusts are key to an administration keeping the trust of the users. It's true, some people might take the discussion a bit further than would be civil. That always happens. However, removing the discussion is far too lazy a way to keep the discussion from getting heated. Posts can be deleted, users can be warned, banned if need be.
^Yeah, what he said. I know I'm not the perfect member. I've pissed a lot of people off over the years, I've bent the rules, and hell, I've probably earned a few bans that I didn't get. But I did not earn this ban, I certainly didn't earn the insulting label of "racist." This is the post in question. First of all, I'm going to point out that "Mexican" is not a race. It's a country, full of Hispanic, black, white, and Asian people. To imply that all Mexicans are the same race is a false statement. Nationality and race are not the same. Second, look at the context of the post. I'd had a bad day at work. The people responsible for that were, every single one of them, Mexican. Thus, I was, at that moment, angry at Mexicans. Not Hispanics. Mexicans. I was even angrier because, a week before, I'd made a post speaking well of the same taco truck guys that cheated me. Had they been British, I'd have been angry at British people. Had they been American, I'd have been pretty pissed at my own country. Now, let's look at the definition of racism: It should be obvious that my "racist" post in no way implied that I considered myself superior to anyone because of race. I was mad at them and the country that sent them, in the same way that I occasionally get annoyed at Canada for sending us Justin Bieber and Avril Lavigne. Racism is a serious thing, and not something that somebody should be accused of lightly.
I'd like to add to the discussion that Ridley had NEVER treated Prince of the Night differently because of their Mexican background.
Sounds to me like you were more or less venting on being a VICTIM of racism. What's also unfair is that in our "politically correct" society, it's not called racism when it's against a white person.
Yeah, all right. That's not a bad way to look at this. Though, Dan; Ridley had been warned before about similar behaviour, he was reported about this comment and we all debated the best course of action together. We rarely, if ever, just throw down pronouncements from on high. Though, it looks like we might have jumped the gun a bit, on this one.
It doesn't completely null your ban though. There could've been many better ways that you could've said that. You said that you were "really, really, really pissed off at Mexicans right now." Which still falls under the category of ethnic discrimination; as I stated earlier in a PM. I (personally) think a giant part of this issue is that what is said here needs to be filtered more by the people who post it. Users should think a bit more before they post.
Okay, and I get where you're coming from. However, as I've pointed out, Mexican is not an ethnicity. It's a nationality. A Mexican, by definition, is a person from the country of Mexico, be they black, white, Asian, indigenous, or Hispanic. I understand that what I said may have offended some people, and I am sorry if anyone took it to mean that I was insulting Hispanic people. Yes. I said I was mad at Mexico. I've also, in the past, been mad at Canada, the United States, the state of Idaho, North Korea, the United Kingdom, Europe in general, Japan, China, the northern US (damn Yankees), and Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Keep in mind that the original definition of racism Ridley posted has been cherry-picked. The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition (I was forced to use a screenshot, as the site ends up prompting for a subscriber login shortly after using it): The post in question (as well as other ones he has posted) clearly fits the description here. No matter how ones looks at it, an entire group was generalized based on the actions of a few, even though that same standard would not have been applied if a few whites were the ones doing the cheating. Some things simply shouldn't be said on public forms, even if one sincerely believes them.
@M14Brony It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that you have some sort of personal problem with me. Alright, fine. I don't expect everyone to like me. Thing is, though, that now you're trying to take Everypony-- something I care about-- away from me. And that needs to stop. God knows I don't agree with everything you say. It baffles me that someone so intelligent can come to such illogical conclusions about important issues. However, I've tried to remain civil, except on the one occasion that you chose to make the argument personal. I'll say it again. THIS NEEDS TO STOP. So, as long as we're getting everything out in the open, let's go ahead and deal with this, too. What the hell is your problem with me, man?
Regarding the actual ban, I do believe that it is reasonable to interpret the phrase as and, seeing as in english, race refers interchangeably to ethnicity and nationality, it's also not a stretch to see how the former can be interpreted as a far more racist Whether or not race should refer to the two interchangeably is a separate question, and getting off topic. Although it would make a good cornerstone for a lawyer's defense if not for the fact that the rules specifically forbid hateful language in general, and that last one is definitely hate directed at a large group of people. Literally. All that having been said, nothing happens in a vacuum, and even here there is relevant context. after all, Ridley did post another post soon after. Notably, after being called out for the remark, he says "We're not having this discussion" or something to that effect. Which can easily be interpreted as not wanting a confrontation because he believed the phrase was meant as racist, even if it was in reality a dismissal simply because arguing would just make Ridley angrier and more tiered for less gain. Overall, was the statement problematic? Undoubtedly, yes, seeing as people called it out even at the time of posting, and there is a clear rule that has been broken. Did it necessitate some action? Yes, because when mistakes are made, they need to be dealt with. Did the action need to be a ban? Not at all. There are far less intrusive ways to fix a mistake, and really, a ban is only necessary as a preventative measure. Was Ridley likely to go on a rant about how them mexicans really need a lynching or two to teach them their place? Probably not, seeing as even discussing the original post was off-limits. Even if coercing Ridley to re-word the post wasn't feasible, after citing the relevant broken rules, the the post simply could have been deleted. Regarding a past history of offenses, while that is an important factor, it is just as important to consider the likelihood of a repeat offense. I don't have the stats, nor the time to do a proper Bayesian analysis, but somehow I doubt we would have gotten much more racism over the duration of the three day ban, at least given that some other action was taken to demonstrate that the behavior was undesirable.
Instead of getting a rebuttal to the post I made, which disproves what you have said above, I am getting fatuous accusations of some sort of vendetta against you (this is on top of calling the administration "goddamn cowards" after they did something with which you do not agree). Is this really a serious approach to refuting contrary posts? I am seeing abuse in place of arguments. If I generalized Mexicans in a workplace setting, and a supervisor heard me say it, I think it is safe to assume I would be having a very uncomfortable conversation with HR and a union steward (and this is assuming I would not be written up or terminated). Such language is simply unacceptable, whether online or offline. The original admin/mod decision is quite straightforward and clear-cut in my opinion.
I really feel that I must interject. If we were ever at the point that we were using Bayesian models of any sort, we'd have been either very drunk or taking something far too seriously.
You must be new here; taking things to logical extremes is literally what I do. A Bayesian system to determine whether a ban level is warranted wouldn't even be a bad idea though. It would be very impractical unless everyone was constantly breaking rules or you had millions of members, due to low sample size, but it is in theory a workable model.
The issue we face there is that we would need to somehow account for context, otherwise we might run into the problem of elements such as sarcasm and satire being misinterpreted as intended offence, and even more difficult elements such as in-humour (which might not even be understood by others). Unless of course you meant that we collect all input parameters manually, in which case we a grander issue: Absurd input state size. It might take more time to collect all requisite data that it would to rule on a generally acceptable decision. The primary issue is now practicality. Hence, this approach is simply not a viable one for us to take, and therefore, this really isn't a discussion we need to be having. Nor is it one I intend to continue.
The statement I posted after had less to do with not wanting to have the discussion than it did with not wanting to have the discussion with that particular member. As I stated in my previous post, I've had some rather unpleasant disagreements in the past with M14Brony, and at the time, I wasn't in the mood for another one.
If you'll go back and read the "goddamn cowards" post, you'll see that it was later edited. I reacted instead of responded, and I shouldn't have done that. For what it's worth, I do apologize to the mods for that. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion, as that was between me and the mods, and didn't involve you. Now, on to vendetta, or grudge, or whatever you choose to call it. What the hell am I supposed to think? You've insulted me multiple times, you've attacked me, and you brought up the worst experience of my life as 'evidence' in a pointless internet debate. Hell, maybe it's not a grudge. Maybe you just have boundary issues. Either way, I'm sick of it. And now there's this. This whole damn mess was nearly resolved. Why, then, would you come in here and try to stir it up again? Implying that I "cherry-picked" the definition of racism is ridiculous to the extreme. I used the first definition that popped up when I Google searched "racism definition." Interestingly, the definition that you provided does absolutely nothing to "prove" that I made a racist post. It's basically the same definition I provided, worded a little differently.
All this over a 3 day ban? Yeesh...This is why I opted for talking in PM. A slap on the wrist and some timeout time isn't worth rallying the rest of the site over. I will concede that Ridley wasn't being racist, just angry at a subset of people. He wasn't putting them down, just expressing being annoyed with a broad scattershot of disapproval that was mistaken for something more untoward than it is. It happens and was taken as such from several staff members as such thanks to factors like Ridley's previous outbursts and a thin line of semantics mugging things up. I'm sorry for the action. However, and this has to be said, what the hell are you doing Ridley? We have avenues for complaint. Even when you're banned from the site, you can talk to us. Slapping away the initial channel of contact through PM when it was offered telegraphs more a need to soothe your bruised ego or prove some grand point rather than get to the bottom of the problem. Doing it this way just creates a little maelstrom of unneeded drama that just bogs down the issue at hand. You're now attempting to tackle M14Brony when this has nothing to do with the rest of us. Members usually chip in their little bits, whether helpful or not (we're attempting to locate the extra long pole with a hook on the end originally used for getting Dan out of a thread. We need to sort through Berry's private reserve and a curiously large volume of Derpy Hooves merch) or stay away in droves because someone's throwing a tantrum again. This whole exercise has been nothing but needless. When a staff member contacts you privately, there is often a reason and it's usually so that we don't have thirteen different people jumping in to say their piece, muddying the issue. To add to this, please be more careful in future Ridley. Comments being taken the wrong way, that can't be helped but I'm still saying to be careful and think things through. You might say something you don't actually mean or really say something as offensive as we mistook your post for. Prevention is better than a cure. I'm going to close this thread. Anything further in this matter, you will take this up with me privately, Ridley. If you and M14Brony have some issues to patch up, then please do them in privately. Invite a staff member to listen in if you think it would help. Please, let this one rest.
