^

(Although I *do* think IshmaelGuantanamoIV offered the only decent reason for keeping the other thread open in this thread.)

The problem, leon, is that you described an entire degree of self-concept as idiotic and tried using that as the driving purpose for making a thread. At times we can easily tell krellin is trying to be all in good fun, and he has a cap. Just because he uses more swear words and comes off as more abrasive doesn't mean his statements are inherently more toxic for the community. You don't see me saying the concept of being American despite not being a citizen is idiotic. There's a reason mapleleaf was banned and krellin wasn't.

Orathaic he didnt disrepect anyone. At no point was there any slander towards transgender. The left in general perhaps you could pass but not transgender.

In regards to paragraph at me, you must be a hypocrite, you say that "you're entitled to your opinion but we dont have to listen" ok dont, walk away we dont need you here. I didnt post anything in the previous thread. The same works against you and i dont want to listen to you. You dont sound intelligent as you offer an argument make from swiss cheese. The difference between you and me is that i dont want to ban you but you seem to want to ban others.
Now onto the rest of the paragraph. I think leon has the right to say that and it isnt degrading at all. He isnt disrepecting anyone. He just thinks it isnt valid. Prove to him he is wrong if you think he is. Same works for the dumbest line after that. As for the last line, it might suprise you but he doesnt need to experience it. He can look at facts, pictures and objective statistics. All of that doesnt disrepect anyone only highlights points in a debate.

For the record that line of reasoning could see you barred from talking Orathaic. Use that as your reasoning and you will be banned from speaking and i wont be able to speak up for you because that statement would have banned me too.

"Orathaic he didnt disrepect anyone. At no point was there any slander towards transgender. The left in general perhaps you could pass but not transgender."

The whole premise is reducing transgender people's lives and experiences to a stupid made-up hypocrisy of 'the left'.

@aha "The difference between you and me is that i dont want to ban you but you seem to want to ban others. "

Actually, i don't want to ban anyone. I may have defended the mod's actions, but i was enjoying tearing Leon's position apart, and am saddened that the original thread was locked - precisely because it was "Sure, the original post was bad, but the thread as a whole was **ENTIRELY PRO-TRANS**""

"Now onto the rest of the paragraph. I think leon has the right to say that and it isnt degrading at all. He isnt disrepecting anyone."

He has the right to be wrong, yes. But again, the mods of the webdip forum don't have to humour him.

Lets be clear - 'freedom of speech' as defined by the US constitution is 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;'

It says, that your freedom to express yourself shall not be controlled by the government. That entirely allows private clubs do whatever they want - so long as that is not hte law of the land.

Now i might prefer a free-er forum, where i can tell Leon why he is wrong, or mute him so i don't see his wrongness. But the webdip mods have decided (after years of discussion and trialing) that this is not in the best interests of the site.

"He isnt disrepecting anyone. He just thinks it isnt valid." - He is saying a person isn't valid. That something about their identity is not real - this is treating them, and their experience without respect.

Like someone came in and said, 'i have heard the good news' and you're like, 'fuck you, you're delusional, jesus didn't come to you in the night, lolz'.

When you disregard someone else's experience, based on nothing but your lack of that experience, you are disrespecting them. Which entirely fits YOUR definition of 'degrading'.

@'. Prove to him he is wrong if you think he is. ' - if you had looked at the thread, you might see that i have done just that.

"As for the last line, it might suprise you but he doesnt need to experience it. He can look at facts, pictures and objective statistics. All of that doesnt disrepect anyone only highlights points in a debate. "

He can, and his facts and statistics, as described in the thread, are incomplete, and fail to embrace the diversity of human experience. The biases through which he views that data (which i also addressed in the thread) are blinding him to a world where that experience could be valid.

Or to put it more directly, he thinks the data backups up his position, because he doesn't understand what he's talking about - having no experience of what the data is describing.

"All of that doesnt disrepect anyone only highlights points in a debate." - it is entirely possible to be disrespectful in a debate.

Add to that the fact that this is not a debating site (despite my enjoyment debating here for many years) and the mods are entirely entitled to lock threads as the see fit.

Could he debate this topic in a respectful manner? I doubt it, his point of view in inherently disrespectful and that is all he seemed to be interested in 'discussing' (though again, he never replied to any of my points, so it wasn't actually a discussion - unlike what we are doing here).

Well via the use of objective analysis it is possible to obtain that view. However lets assume that video clips on youtube, companies forces states to obay their demands and the medias push that we need to accept transgenderism, doesn't exist. That statement in quotation does not presume that transgenderism is a political tool of the left but only states that there was no slander against transgender people but you might pass it the slander against the left.

Orathaic did you not read my comments i said in the original post that the site has the right to block thread. You havent read my point and want the thread to be blocked because it is against your point of view. Please your lengthy comment is fabrication of my position. I was asking for the mods to clarify their definition and a quotation. Is that really that hard to post on locking a thread?

@aha, i'm afraid i can't parse your last paragraph, please try to explain better.

also 'Transgenderism' isn't a thing.

(looking this up: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ism )

the -ism postfix indicates an action, like baptism.
You are either Baptised or not baptised. At sound point you become baptised, that is your baptism.

There is no equivalent for transgender. You either are Transgender or Cisgender.

You may transition by changing your gender expression. You may or may not decide to have surgeries (SRS: Sexual Reassignment Surgery). But as far as we know gender is pretty much fixed. (except apparently in genderfluid people) We know of no way to affect the neurology of gender - we do know that it is a 'mental illness' which can be 'cured' with physical surgery. (more accurately, perhaps, body dysphoria is an anxiety disorder - a treatment for this dysphoria can include SRS, which has been known to reduce the anxiety and help people live healthy lives)

There is no transgenderism. I did discuss in the other thread the fact that there is a difference between expression, identity, and socially constructed roles.

The socially constructed idea of 'transgenderism' is that people decide at some point in their lives to change their gender expression. And therefore are caused to become transgender. (perhaps by evil spirits) But gender identity is pretty fixed.

If you don't understand the distinction between gender identity, gender expression, and gender roles. Please review my comments in the other thread.

"Orathaic did you not read my comments i said in the original post that the site has the right to block thread. You havent read my point and want the thread to be blocked because it is against your point of view. "

I never claimed that i wanted the thread to be blocked. In fact, i stated as much.

Thanks for proving you're not reading my posts. I can stop replying to you now.

"Though I agree that threads are locked too frequently and with insufficient justification"

I want to address this claim with some data.

Other than the two threads locked today, here is the breakdown of all thread locks made by moderators this year:

9. Passport/oil painting spam threads
5. Signup threads (3 Mafia, 1 SoW, 1 Local Tournament)
2. Cheating accusations
2. Scoring system threads (threadID=1330820 and threadID=1330316 - because we already had another thread on the same issue, and we wanted to keep it contained)
1. Discussion of ongoing gunboats
1. Mention of a user exercising their right to be forgotten ( threadID=1359389 )
1. By request, because of a misspelled title (threadID=1358623)

I think the only really controversial one there is threadID=1359389. Everything else is either within the site rules (which are generally widely accepted), or intended to keep one topic from filling up the whole forum.

I don't think it's reasonable to say that the mods have been stifling discussion.

" I was asking for the mods to clarify their definition and a quotation. Is that really that hard to post on locking a thread?"

The mods have no requirement to do so, infact, i have reason to believe that appeals to unfairly locked threads will not be taken up via public forum threads.

I wouldn't be surprised if this thread is locked. If you want to appeal, or discuss it, please email the mods privately. (i actually pm'd Hellenic Riot on the forum, instead of using the mod email... but at least it wasn't public...)

My mom says that I should ignore them and then they will treat me nice also =)

Really. People know what i am taking about. Your use of the ism argument is because you cant refute my point. I dont care what you call it, so long as for argument sake we can agree it means the same thing.
I have read it and i disagree with it. I dont care about your opinion and i didnt note it or mention it. You and lethologica made this political thread. I was asking for the mods to clarify their points on how locking of threads work and a suggestion of improving how to handle these situations. You dont understand what this thread was for and made it a political thread. If disrespect is what you are on about that means you disrespected the goal of this thread,to improve the mods ability to increase an understanding of the thread. I will not be lectured by someone who cant undestand that. If you want to continue to talk about the transgender topic get the mods to open up the previous thread. That is where this topic was and you brought it up here.

"I was asking for the mods to clarify their definition and a quotation."

In the past, we have given clear definitions of what was and was not ok, and what happened was members used that definition as a game, skirt the line where possible. That's not what forum rules are intended for.

For this reason, I don't think it's a good idea to provide a cut and dry definition for acceptable forum content. In more recent times, we've pointed people to the bit of the rulebook which says: "Use common sense and respect other players."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

For those who would like more information, there are clearer forum-specific rules under "site moderation" too, which I think sets a reasonable expectation for the kind of behaviour that is acceptable. You can find the full site rules here:

http://webdiplomacy.net/rules.php

We occasionally hear the "well, the forum is dead now" argument - and I don't think that's backed up by site data either. If I have time next week I might look in to graphing some forum statistics for those who are interested - but no promises. There are other webdip projects (like GR) I want to get to first.

Bo my problem is with the method you mods used. There was no quotation so even if you are right, members dont know what the problem words or pharse was so it will be repeated again. If you were wrong in your decision then threads like this can open them up again. In any case there should be a procedure that members can understand where the mods are coming from rather then a statement saying that the thread is closed. Otherwise members would think that the mods are stifling discussion.

I can't stand my methods either, not gonna lie.

Sadly atc that is what people do. They will find ways to make the rules benefits themselves. But without consistency the forums will be seen as biased. Apparently there have been greater infringement on the rules which havent been locked which suggests that the mods have a biased. I dont have the best answer but locking up a thread without quotations to back your decision is wrong. The members have no method to defend themselves before being proved guilty. If that isnt your cup of tea then why not say in the forums that the language needs to be changed or this thread would be blocked on these grounds. At least with a warning you inform members directly involved in the thread. Then put a fortnight or month ban on a member speech in the thread if they continue to abuse it. Or if multiple member then close the thread. That way each member has some clue into what the mods are thinking.

@"Your use of the ism argument is because you cant refute my point. I dont care what you call it, so long as for argument sake we can agree it means the same thing. "

Actually no, words have meaning. 'ism' as an action, like in baptism, suggests a person takes an action to become trans. Which is very much a different thing from a person taking an action which reveals that they have been trans all along.

This is not mere semantics.

@"You and lethologica made this political thread. I was asking for the mods to clarify their points on how locking of threads work and a suggestion of improving how to handle these situations. You dont understand what this thread was for and made it a political thread."

No, you said the thread in question didn't fit your definition of 'degrading' - where in myself and leth repeatedly explained why it does. (not the mod's definition, your very own.)

But you are right that this conversation has gotten away from your original intent.

Unfortunately there is no rule about threads being derailed on wbediplomacy. (and i do wish we had a better piece of technology for splitting off derailments... but i don't know that such a thing currently exists)

If I cut my junk off and put on a dress, I am courageous because I identify as a woman.

If I cut my leg off and put on a peg leg, I am mentally ill because I identify as a pirate.

Arrrggh.

God orathaic, the mods have responded to the thread now we are trying to make the practices of the forums better. Save your agrument for the other thread. If you dont want to be of assistance to the site say nothing in this thread and wait for the transgender thread is re openned. If you want to be of assistance come up with methods to improve the site.

"In the past, we have given clear definitions of what was and was not ok, and what happened was members used that definition as a game, skirt the line where possible. That's not what forum rules are intended for."

I believe that there should be a clear-cut line of what is and is not acceptable. It is perfectly acceptable to skirt the boundary so long as no one crosses the line. The problem with your "common sense" argument is that it differs from person to person. My common sense tells me what I wrote in the op of the locked thread. My common sense told me that nothing I said could possibly be construed as degrading. Obviously, it differs from that of others here on this forum. Clearly defined rules are never a bad thing, although I recognize the mods' rights to ban or punish whoever they want without any basis as well.

As someone who was a mod during the time that ATC is talking about, I 100% agree with him. The more you try to strictly define rules the more certain people will try to test the boundaries, and then the rules have to be made much more strict (to try to eliminate the unclear cases) and you end up with a far more strictly moderated forum than before, and even then the line isn't absolutely clear-cut.

You were given a reason as to why the thread was locked - just accept it and move on. It's just a forum thread.

Common sense is common. You do not have your own Leon. It is common. Because you lack that communal sense that pretty much everyone else that responded considered your degradation of the identity of trans people terrible, does not entitle your threads to operate on your own sense.

I think ATC explained the reason the thread was locked. If not, I would suggest emailing him. Otherwise, I would suggest this thread be locked as more offensive thing have been said in this thread than were said in the original thread

Patburu, my senses are certainly not common on this forum, and I refer you to the political bias thread that used to exist here. It used to be common sense, but years of liberal indoctrination have taken their toll. But I'll stop there before someone accuses me of being "degrading" again.

"more offensive thing have been said in this thread than were said in the original thread"

Like what?

Sorry my liberal indoctrination would conflict with your uncommon sense and what I point out won't be considered offensive by you. In fairness to you, I don't think the other thread should have been locked because I don't think you were deliberately trying to offend people. That being said, if we're operating by the same rules, this thread has gone off the tracks

@ captainmeme the flip side to that is that the more vague the rules are the easier it is to impose bans and locks on threads. Also offensive can only be taken never given. Anywho maybe a policy shift is nessisary for handling threads. I gave two suggestions earlier. They might handle the issue for future cases in a better manner. In any case repeats of this will happen as there is no reference to terms or phases used by the mods to justify the case. In addition the current policy can be abused just as easily if we report it is offensive apparently, as it is abusive or disrepecting of other experiences apparently. That seems much more damaging that having a few feeling hurt. Remeber that if you dont like what you are reading, change to a game and wait for the forums to move onto a new topic.

technically this thread does break the rule about starting threads about topics that have been locked since this thread has started to deal with not only the ethics of locking the previous thread but has now begun to venture back into the trans discussion.

"the flip side to that is that the more vague the rules are the easier it is to impose bans and locks on threads."

Not really seeing the downside, mod-wise. I look forward to your presentation on the flood of unjustified bans, silences, and locked threads arising from forum rules that allow for mod discretion.