All posts by Obi the LEGO Fan

@Keps and AP

I could be wrong, but the ban on hate symbols/images only applies to historical figures insofar as they are images right? So like it bans people from having a picture of Hitler on their page or as their avatar. I don't think it bans people from mentioning Hitler, because if it does we have not enforced that policy.

Alemas can you confirm? :P

Keps and BNR:

http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:291970

That seems unneeded, we just came to an agreement on what to do. How about we start a thread in the discussions forum for people to ask the admins about what is and isn't appropriate?

@BNR: Sounds good.

@Keps: Yeah, hopefully in the future we catch these things earlier / people ask you to stop while it's happening. I'm glad we can come to some closure on this whole deal :P

You do make a good case. However, it seems to be that only a handful of users are having this kind of trouble. Since there are so few of you, how about you ask us about the specific things you want to say, that some allow and others don't? Then you can get an authoritative answer from the admins. If a mod kicks you for what we allow, you can tell them what we said — and we will take action accordingly.

This way, all that needs to be done is you ask us questions. The fact that 99% of the wiki hasn't been banned or kicked recently means that most of us understand what is appropriate and what isn't, so the problem isn't the rules it's just that a few people are unclear on what they can say. Let's clarify that by having open communication instead of a massive list that will never be perfected and can easily be abused.

Thank you for clarifying your argument. From your perspective, I can see why you came to those conclusions. If you don't mind, I will supply you with some information from the other side, to allow you to see things from my perspective.

When I returned to LMBW during Christmas break, I was chatting with an old friend when they brought up some crap that had been said recently. I asked for specifics and got some logs. These same complaints had already been made to the admin team, who was currently discussing how to deal with them. I discussed things with Rio and he told me that currently, Alemas and AP thought their hands were tied — they had to allow this behavior because of UCS.

Now, after reading the logs I was rather angry — the fact that phrases like "autistic screaming" and even transphobic slurs were being thrown around in chat and no one did anything was surprising to me. So I went on to the admin's site and explained that UCS does not protect this kind of language. This is not a new interpretation, but the original meaning of the policy — that I wrote. The original admin team understood this, but now that new admins were largely interpreting policy, the original meaning had been forgotten (apparently).

Now, to solve this some had proposed a specific policy banning discriminatory/bigoted comments completely. I supported this but also made the case for the original meaning of UCS. Alemas (who hopefully doesn't mind me telling you this, lol) then said I should just make a blog and we don't need a new policy if that was what UCS meant. AP also agreed, saying the blog was enough without a new policy.

Thus, I wrote the blog, targeting specific rhetoric that I read in the logs and also being clear that moderators cannot allow that kind of language. This clarified the meaning of UCS so that a consensus could be built. Now that that is over, there haven't really been any such problems.

For me, it never had to do with you or your group. In fact, I thought that everything was going to be fine with you, Keplers, after you sent me a private message and we discussed this issue. I genuinely thought we had an understanding. My vendetta was not against you, but against the fact that such language had been allowed at all. This is why I didn't outright ban you and your friends. My goal is to end specific behavior, not to ban specific people.

Hopefully that lets you see things from my perspective.

As to your note on "ableist rhetoric," I think we are using rhetoric in a different way. Obviously, I am not referring to rhetoric as in the science of persuasion, the eminent part of the trivium of classical education. I am using a more recent use of the word — rhetoric as a particular system of phrases. I'll try to avoid this usage, since it's a pet peeve of yours lol.

I definitely see your point, but I think the problem of consistency was solved already. The admin team came to a consensus — all active admins agreed with the main point I made in my blog. I made that blog at their prompting after discussing the issue with them. So the admins all agree.

After we agreed, we told the moderators to comply with our consensus via my blog. Moderators who blatantly disregarded this were demoted or warned via private messages.

Thus, there has no longer been a disagreement. And as a result there haven't been any conflicts of the sort after you and Keplers were banned.

I am precise in my argumentation, and rarely allow my conclusions to go beyond what is justified by the evidence I have — even if that evidence is limited. From limited evidence I can still make a limited but completely true conclusion that is relevant to our discussion.

There were two bans you brought up. I was present for one — Slice's ban. I have full knowledge of that event and can speak authoritatively about it. Thus, when I see you using Slice's ban for your own gain (to make the admins look corrupt and blatantly unjust), I am clearly justified in calling you out. Slice's ban was unjust, and was reversed by Rio with the agreement of myself and Bubbles — it was not indicative of administrative corruption, which you have had to concede.

I fully understand what you are doing, and why you are doing it. I just think it's wrong and will continue to call you out for doing so. For someone who has been continuously banned for various offenses over the years, you are lucky we even allow you on this wiki at all. Many users have been permanently blocked from this wiki (Klintrin comes to mind) because of their repeated offenses and continuous habit of getting banned. One month is nothing. We know for a fact that you know better.

For the record, I would have listened to you. I never ignore people's messages if I am active and have always brought people's requests to the other admins when they ask. Contrary to what you seem to be arguing, I don't hold grudges or play favorites when it comes to administrating — and the record shows as much.

Alright, so you are making the specific claim that I am treating you, BNR/Ulrich, Sat, and the rest of your group (??) than I am treating any other party. First, I'd like to clarify whether you are referring to me specifically or to admins in general, as I never banned you or anyone in your group in the last year. I also haven't seen Sat get kicked or banned for anything recently by any admins.

I haven't taken action against anyone for mentioning hate groups. This policy was passed when I was inactive and I've had nothing to do with it, tbqh. Also, and this is the most important part — you were not banned for mentioning hate groups. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Rio ban you for using the f-bomb on top of trolling/ignoring warnings? And BNR was also banned for a combination of problematic language (including his ableist rhetoric I already mentioned) and behavior, not for simply mentioning a hate group.

You said BNR got banned for a single comment, I said that was facile — for reasons I supplied. I have not made any claims that rely on evidence I cannot provide/do not have access too. Notice I did not make any claims about Rom's involvement, you brought that up. My initial argument had nothing to do with Rom.

I wasn't "scolding" you for improperly understanding the event, but for presenting a single-sided account of why BNR was banned and for making Slice's ban look like something we all approved of. I think you understand perfectly well why you and others were banned, but are publicly simplifying matters to make those who banned you look worse.

(Edit: Also, if you really thought Rom should have been demoted, you could have said at the time. Or maybe you did? In which case I would agree there was an oversight.)

Well, to be completely honest, I don't know. I was not on chat (or I was not at my computer) when BNR was banned.

Proof of targeting? Care to elaborate what you mean by targeting? If you mean we sit around discussing how to get rid of you, then no, we don't. Don't flatter yourself. :P

Obviously, I hadn't been active for many months prior to December. But during my activity over Christmas break I and the moderators I have seen have been very lenient (before and after your bans). As long as nothing abusive or harmful is happening I honestly give no fricks about what people say. Over the few days where I logged chat for most of the day, nothing happened that fits your description. I have witnessed no targeting or favoritism.

So please, be specific if you want to make such accusations. Use some evidence; make some good arguments. Otherwise neither I nor anyone else can work with you on a solution.

This is a very one-sided and facile account of what happened.

Slice's ban was of course absurd, and was quickly reversed. We don't ban people for being gay or bi — the two admins on at the time happened to be gay and bi ourselves, so that would be complete nonsense. :P This ban was a singular and clearly incorrect decision that is not representative of any larger problem.

And no one was banned for a single comment - it was just the tipping point. BNR said things in the logs (such as mocking autistic people) definitely worthy of a ban, and we elected to give him another chance — hence my blog. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that going directly against the administration's requests and violating policies will result in bans.

A lot of the conversation in this thread seems a little off the mark. Chat has been fine recently. Moderation has been competent, people haven't been banned, nothing terrible has been reported.

Not only that, but chat has been leniently moderated. It's been quite chill lately, at least when I've been on. Plenty of stuff is allowed, no one's fun is being ruined by new oppressive crackdowns.

Such a comprehensive list is definitely not needed. What's needed is common sense and decency. It seems to me the only problem is that a few select users just don't know how to handle themselves on chat. We shouldn't have to make an extensive, tedious master-list for the benefit of a few people who don't know how to behave.

These users should take their cues from the vast majority of people on this wiki, who use chat without getting banned.

Lol "cracker" is a word on par with "redneck" not an actual racial slur. To suggest that it is such is absurd and relies on several false, problematic premises. Obviously this is a satire vote, but that just makes it worse since OP thinks that a real slur against people with disabilities is the equivalent of "cracker" or "redneck."

As someone with friends and family members that have disabilities I find it offensive. So do many people with disabilities who are high-functioning and could easily be on this website if they wanted.

Impossibubbles wrote:

Skyblade743 wrote: B.Theres better and more witty ways to offend people.

It's not about offending people, but okay.

<noscript></noscript>

This is a genuine question, not meant to be hostile or anything, but does it matter to you that disabled people find this word offensive? Even if it's not used as an insult?