Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hbelkins]

I posted this to the Off-Topic board, but it's being cross-posted here for discussion purposes in case it gets deleted where it was originally posted.

Thread has been gone through and the dross culled with extreme prejudice. Note this well: This is not a discussion thread for your opinions. If you find yourself having an opinion, lie down until it goes away. See a doctor for opinions lasting longer than four hours.

This thread is for LGBT+ folks to identify themselves and get to know one another. If you're not LGBT+, this thread is not for you. There are plenty of other threads out there for you to do things like have opinions in. Move along to one of those.

Unless something got censored before I had a chance to read it, I saw nothing in this thread that could be considered objectionable, prejudicial, or anything of the sort. Another classic case of over-moderation.

Are you gonna start labeling people LGBT+ on their profiles? I mean how else could you know who is and isn't LGBT?

Instead of active censorship, maybe the forum profile mechanism could be tweaked so as to allow those who wish to do so to state their preferred identification?

And this is another good argument for moderation transparency. Was this a unilateral decision by Scott, or were the other moderators polled?

I'll be glad to take this discussion to the meta board, but it's a discussion worth having.

Because...

If you find yourself having an opinion, lie down until it goes away. See a doctor for opinions lasting longer than four hours.

In what other discussions are opinions unwelcome? Or are only some opinions unwelcome?

[Scott5114]

The purpose of the thread is to allow LGBT people to get to know each other. If you're not an LGBT individual, why would you want to post in that thread?

[kphoger]

The purpose of the thread is to allow LGBT people to get to know each other. If you're not an LGBT individual, why would you want to post in that thread?

I'm not sure why it matters to know his motives.  Unless you're going to start moderating people's thoughts and intentions.

But, since you asked, I'll point out that you prohibited Allies from posting there too.

[Alps]

We're having a discussion about it.

[Scott5114]

Which is a decision I'm okay with. I'm basically trying to give the folks that have a reason to participate in that thread space to do so without a bunch of off-topic nonsense about DST, or people's opinion about terminology that doesn't apply to them, or whatever other garbage getting in the way.

There are 26,339 threads on the forum. It should not be too much to ask that one is left alone if it does not apply to you.

[kphoger]

Which is a decision I'm okay with. I'm basically trying to give the folks that have a reason to participate in that thread space to do so without a bunch of off-topic nonsense about DST, or people's opinion about terminology that doesn't apply to them, or whatever other garbage getting in the way.

And yet your 'extreme prejudice' has prompted you to delete posts of mine, for instance, in which I stated that one's sexual preference or gender identity wouldn't even be a thought in my mind during a roadmeet.

The OP never said straight or cisgender members shouldn't post.  There are no forum rules prohibiting the discussion of gender or sexuality.  But some of our opinions and thoughts in the thread were nonetheless deemed by moderators as being unacceptable.

I totally understand getting rid of the DST dross and off-topic nonsense, and–let's be honest–we all saw that coming.  But what happened really smacks of the Thought Police deciding that only certain members' opinions are valid.

[webny99]

There are 26,339 threads on the forum. It should not be too much to ask that one is left alone if it does not apply to you.

I'm glad I actually came to this on my own regarding the very thread in question.

And yet your 'extreme prejudice' has prompted you to delete posts of mine, for instance, in which I stated that one's sexual preference or gender identity wouldn't even be a thought in my mind during a roadmeet.

So if posts were deleted simply because the poster was/was not LGBT, I think that's going too far. Everyone should be allowed to participate if they have something relevant and non-controversial to contribute.

[Scott5114]

The problem here is this thought that simply because you have an opinion it must be shared. People are gay or not, and opinion has nothing to do with that. And when you are attempting to have a thread where people are getting to know one another and potentially discussing their experiences, then other people that have no experiences of their own are expressing their opinions don't add to the discussion at all–well, what do you do there, let them drown out the voices of those who the thread is for?

Another problem here is that the way we delete posts is to split them to a new thread and mark it hidden, so we can recover the post later (unhide it) if necessary. There is no way to split a post in two before doing that, so you have to either keep an entire post or toss it. So some posts got deleted because half of them responded to an off-topic portion of the thread.

I have things to do this afternoon and evening so I may not be able to respond further until later.

[kphoger]

Specifically, posts by 1 were allowed to remain–even ones in which he specifically said he's neither LGBT+ nor an Ally.

BTW, are you LGBT? This is a judgment-free zone.

No.

An ally is part of the LGBTQ+ group (hence the A in some of the extended abbreviations) despite being straight. I support the group, but I am not an ally as I don't identify as being part of the group.

Meanwhile, the post of mine below was for some reason determined inappropriate.

I was originally just replying that one doesn't need to be an 'ally'–or even care about it–to welcome people here.

Apparently, I cannot participate in the discussion without being LGBTQ+ or an Ally, but it's perfectly acceptable for 1 to do so.  What else should I conclude, except that you have something personally against me and my beliefs that you don't against his?

[Scott5114]

The reason I deleted that particular post was because the other half of it was about your preference for using the term "transsexual" instead of "transgender" because you find it more accurate. Which is exactly the sort of conversation that ends up distracting from a simple LGBT getting-to-know-each-other thread.

Like I said, there's no non-destructive way to keep half of a post and delete half. I would have had to keep the post, then delete the part that was off-topic, and if I do that there's no way to get it back or see what was written there originally.

[kphoger]

That makes sense.

[hbelkins]

And my joke about aromatic/aromantic was deleted as well. Even though nothing controversial had been posted in that thread, humor is always good as a diffusing mechanism.

But by using the logic stated for limiting participation in that thread, should someone who's never been to a particular state be prohibited from posting about that state? I've never been in North Dakota, so I'm not allowed to talk about the change in state route signage practices from the Indian head to the state outline?

[Scott5114]

Right. And under normal circumstances there would be nothing wrong with that. But my goal was cleaning the thread down to what met the strictest standards of on-topicness, not whether it was broadly acceptable under the forum guidelines or not. If I left some off-topic posts but not others, we would be having the same discussion, but even worse because "well you left HB's joke but not mine".

Again, the purpose of removing those posts was to remove posts that distracted from or got in the way of the purpose of the thread.

[SectorZ]

At least the comment that stated that people who aren't "allies" should be removed from society was removed (along with my response to it - but I am cool with that)

Honestly, that person should be removed from the forum for that. Dystopian stuff like that from any angle is disturbing, and is literally a call to violence over something as stupid as not actively defending a particular subset of people.

[Alps]

I suggest that we keep the mod/admin discussion over this internal until a decision is reached, then we post and explain the decision.