Politely disagreeing with you over whether a particular piece of media is sexist or not.
Bigotry: the state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions.
Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Someone being polite doesn't mean that they aren't expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions.
I am NOT accusing YOU for being bigoted for disagreeing with me about what constitutes as bigotry.
I'm accusing people who unreasonably or strongly believe that sexualisation in the media doesn't affect women and girls in real life, especially when they are themselves not women or girls and are entirely unaffected.
The points I'm making are in regards to this topic in general, they are not intended to be a personal attack against anyone specific.
Collective "you" would include me in your grouping. I am not part of that group, as I have never claimed authority over a woman's experience of what is or is not sexist, so rather use the collective "them" or "men who believe X" to avoid confusion.
"Be receptive and mindful of criticism when it is from and about a demographic to which you don't belong, or situation that you have not experienced."
I don't believe it's fair to retroactively enforce rules, but since this is a thought experiment:
Was there a unanimous or overwhelming reaction by the women (esp multiple) on the forum that the product (eg the logo, or those designs) is offensive, sexualised or portrays women in a degrading manner?
If not, if people are just like "that logo doesn't make any sense but whatever", then yeah, drop it.
If yes, then it is problematic, and every effort needs to be made to try to show the creator why their product is unintentionally harmful or bad. If, after mutual discussion where the creator is of course given ample opportunity to defend their product, if they fail to convince anyone with a good argument that their product is not enforcing harmful ideals, (repeatedly saying "no you're wrong" without justification isn't a good argument) then it may be best to disassociate the community with a harmful product. It doesn't mean that the product must immediately cease to exist, we don't command that power. If it becomes evident that the creator is disinclined to be considerate of the community, then they aren't entitled to represent or be supported by that community. This doesn't suppress artistry. Of course art can be ambiguous, and if there is ambiguous feedback from the offended group, then no action should be taken without fair debate. But if the reaction from the community is unanimous and justified, but the response is just "I don't care, I like boobies", then, just, no.
Taking these things into account, let's change point 2 under the repercussions list to
2. Allow time for reasonable debate provided that the creator of the product in question is being receptive of feedback. If he does not appear to understand why his product is harmful to real people, then reasonable effort should be taken provide empathetic feedback and accurate and educational resources.
Maybe we can also get some help from someone who understands lawyerism when it comes to writing reasonable guidelines?
I've been following this thread when I have time. I am super happy that it is happening, even if it it difficult to follow and even more difficult to make an informed comment on.
At the moment there seems to be two threads of discussion (simplification): one centered round trying to codify how we deal with this sort of thing, and another one. It seems to me that the former discussion is much more important to do right now so we have something to work with, whereas the latter seems to be more about discussing, attacking and defending various positions (again a simplification based on outside opinion). This latter thread is very important, especially for the long term and I don't suggest it is stopped. However, the latter discussion is possibly detracting from the momentum of the former discussion and that concerns me.
Would it make sense to split this into two threads on the topic, or somehow highlight the former discussion? I for one would really love to see a codified version of how we deal with this, and I look forward to seeing what we as a community can come up with :)
For what it's worth, I've always wanted to crit the Blazing Aces logo, but never felt like anything I said about it would be considered fairly or even listened to because "historical accuracy".
Just for reference here, the Blazing Aces logo was done by a woman. A woman with many many years of experience as an artist in the game industry. So if one woman says that she feels that this sort of thing is fine, and another says that it creates objectification / is sexist, where do we go from there?
If one woman says it's sexist, and another woman says it's not, then discussion is certainly required.
Nevermind, I found the answer! :)
Which is why i said all this is going to do is restrict creative freedom.
Because at the end of the day the people who will be deciding what games are "allowed" to be part of this community are the people who could very well use it to drive their own personal agendas. Easily finding fault in anything they choose to, and just saying well its against these rules so yea tough luck. Meanwhile back the ranch its all a front for personal gain on a few select individuals.
This entire thing smells sour... being masked by a good cause. Yes that's right. The cause is good. The means is not.
I've had the same concerns. All the more reason to formalise a framework and baseline to handle these cases with, as opposed to the anarchic war-of-perceptions that we've seen here.
Rules can be changed. We have a committee (that we vote for) to raise our concerns with. We have mods that I like to think we can trust not to act robotically in these cases too. There are democratic systems in place to limit power.
It's better than, y'know, THIS, and I don't think the community environment is such that anyone will let it devolve into some sort of memetic dictatorship. As has been stated, the aim should be to aid and guide and educate, not for Evil Overlords to launch orbital strikes on games they dislike.
Lets hope that is what happens. My fears are not baseless. I have seen similar things happen to other local associations. If a clear non generalized ruleset is laid out... then awesome.
But as soon as it turns into a "i'm a girl and i have the last say if this is offensive" mentality comes into play, then the guidelines and rules no longer apply and the former concerns become a reality.
But as soon as it turns into a "i'm a girl and i have the last say if this is offensive" mentality comes into play, then the guidelines and rules no longer apply and the former concerns become a reality.
1. I don't see what's wrong with people being the accepted authority on what they find offensive.
2. Your point does not follow. There is no reason why accepting that people who have more familiarity with the experience of any kind of systemic oppression should automatically mean rules and guidelines suddenly cease to apply.
This feels like scaremongering. There's also no reason why we can't try it out and see what happens. Prototype new rules, if you'll allow the phrase...
@AngryMoose sorry I didn't see your post. Woman aren't immune to creating sexist content either. I have also created sexist content in the past, before I was aware of the effect it has on real people. To justify my response you quoted: The reason why it is OK for women to decide what or why something is sexist, but not men, is because this is not something that affects men. (Unless you count being turned into a leering creep as an effect, which is why more men are also becoming aware of these issues :).) And by that I don't mean that men are not allowed to have an opinion about it or talk about it, it just means that on this specific topic women do have more experience and authority.
@Crocopede you're just going to have to trust that women aren't a single hive minded organism. It's not going to come down to one person to decide whether or not content needs to be removed, nor should that decision be rash or robotic. No matter what system you have, or don't have, people who are prepared to hurt others for personal gain aren't going to let a few guidelines (designed to protect those who are currently being exploited) stop them.
As has been stated, the aim should be to aid and guide and educate.
Exactly.
Sorry I'm going to go slightly off topic here and quickly talk about something that I think makes people more nervous than they need to be when it comes to drawn out discussions like this.
I don't think there is anything wrong with healthy debate, and I think it's a pity that we don't learn how to do this in a more structured way in school, because there is a very important social purpose to debate.
"I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer the truth." Karl Popper
"Debate is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals. More broadly, and more importantly, debate is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democracy and open societies. More than a mere verbal or performance skill, debate embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for divergent points of view and rigorous self-examination.”
Debate helps us to develop decisive awareness. In modern culture, there seems to be a belief that opinions are inherently groundless and everyone is entitled to adopt opinions without consideration or questioning. Sure, if it only affects yourself. No, if it affects other people. In Buddhist culture, and I think academic, if you take a position, then you welcome a debate to challenge it from many points of view. If you can defend the position against all objections and you find that it has no logical inconsistencies and there are no contradictions, you can focus on that position or view with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken.
Now, this is the important part: The point where it becomes hostile is when someone who harbors an opinion that is actually harmful to other people, but refuse to entertain critique on the grounds that they are "entitled to their opinion". This is bigotry. This is where a set of guidelines may come in handy, because then you can point them at it and go "this is an issue that transcends your opinion."
Also it does eventually get very impractical to have 4 day long debates arguing about HOW to deal with something, instead of actually dealing with it, every time something comes up, which is why this discussion is happening now, but in the future, having guidelines (established by this discussion) will quicken things up a tad.
Personal observation. The debate is no longer applicable. It has been dragged out, concerns have been raised. Personally i would create a public document of the ruleset and hold it open for commenting for a few days.
Then implement. Google docs work well for this and could server as a much more constructive platform than a loooong thread about it.
Debate helps us to develop decisive awareness. In modern culture, there seems to be a belief that opinions are inherently groundless and everyone is entitled to adopt opinions without consideration or questioning. Sure, if it only affects yourself. No, if it affects other people. In Buddhist culture, and I think academic, if you take a position, then you welcome a debate to challenge it from many points of view. If you can defend the position against all objections and you find that it has no logical inconsistencies and there are no contradictions, you can focus on that position or view with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken.
Now, this is the important part: The point where it becomes hostile is when someone who harbors an opinion that is actually harmful to other people, but refuse to entertain critique on the grounds that they are "entitled to their opinion". This is bigotry. This is where a set of guidelines may come in handy, because then you can point them at it and go "this is an issue that transcends your opinion."
This. So much this.
I would dearly love it if we could move away from trying to defend what-if scenarios from shadowy cabals of ban-happy feminists that don't exist and actually start trying to codify how to deal with this as a community. We've already had the suggestion of warnings (and multiple warnings being required for any form of banning) with some sort of time window.
We also know that punishment and/or consequences work better than debate in situations where debate has ostensibly failed:
I am dealing with the issue of Fight the Monster with the developer; and it will be resolved by Wednesday.
Note that this admin-level engagement in private happened before @Pierre changed his art. Was it the cause? I can't say, but it DID occur and interaction changed afterwards.
As such, I would like to suggest that warnings be something that can be issued in response to behavior that contravenes the guidelines that @Jelligeth has outlined above. A warning lasts for a week. 3 warnings simultaneously = a limited time ban. Successive bans get longer. I run a very similar system on the QCF forums and it works really well - we've only ever had to ban 1 user that wasn't a spambot and that user is still a productive member of that forum now.
There is the potential to "game" a warning system like this and constantly mill warnings as old ones expire. This can be dealt with by saying that accumulating X bans in 3 month window earns a ban too. If we find that people are getting warnings and merely going quiet for a while, then going right back to interacting in ways that warrant warnings, we can increase the length of time warnings last.
I think that warnings like this can be a general response to multiple types of unacceptable behavior, and that, yes, if someone is truly vile then instant bans are still an option for moderators to limit damage. But at least the rolling window and expirations might help some of the people here that seem to be deathly afraid of any form of consequences for being called on sexism realise that this isn't a pogrom, it's a call for civilised, reasoned discussion and acknowledgement of the damage that sexism causes.
Bigotry: the state of feeling, or the act of expressing, strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions. Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com is for non English speakers and contains gross simplifications of complicated topics.
Personal observation. The debate is no longer applicable. It has been dragged out, concerns have been raised. Personally i would create a public document of the ruleset and hold it open for commenting for a few days.
Then implement. Google docs work well for this and could server as a much more constructive platform than a loooong thread about it.
What authority? this entire discussion is about questioning the way in which things are done, questioning our own MO as a community. We're holding ourselves accountable, we're becoming the authority. Super healthy
How is this debate no longer applicable if we're still policy building?
I'm not being facetious, I really not understanding what you're saying.
As for the method, what would moving to gdocs gain us that we don't have here? I imagine it would obscure the discussion from view, which really doesn't help.
The consensus is that there should be rules. There will be rules. Yes? So what is there to debate? What the rules are? Yes.
The suggestion regarding the document will create better clarity and visibility about the rules being created.
A forum post is inadequate due to the fact that you have tons of posts to sift through to get to the actual suggested rules. You also then have arguments which are not tabled against a specific rule. Hence the suggestion to find a better way to establish the rules. Even Trello would be a better.
So have the document listed in the 1st post as a point of reference. Its a means to create order and not obscure everything with garbled information that people have to patch together by deciphering all the posts.
A collaborative document or trello board would allow for arguments against a specific rule to be tabled against that object. Creating clarity, and visibility.
I feel your lack of understanding this concept is purely based on the desire to obscure what the rules are going to be. Who is going to read through all this to get to the suggested rules? 5% perhaps. People actively involved in the discussion will then also be emailed automatically should someone make an argument on a specific point.
It will also create an environment with no useless information such as this post and it will keep things on point.
We the community are not the authority.
Edit: Also out of curiosity i would very much like to see one example of a game posted here that was one of the motivating factors behind the push for this. Surely the concern regarding this matter is warranted due to events that occurred here.
From what I'm reading, people aren't disputing that women need to be made more comfortable in the forums, or their opinions ignored. In fact, I'm seeing unanimous support for making people feel comfortable and safe and included here.
However, this is a creative community, and it makes sense that people are going to get antsy when it seems like The Man (heh) is going to dictate what you can and cannot make, and what you can and cannot post. The core of the counterargument seems to be a concern that decisions of what constitutes "bigotry" will fall to a select few (regardless of gender), and that those few will go power-mad and abuse that power to banninate all who dare to express dissent. Dramatic way of putting it, but that's the neatest way to sum it up.
Given the governmental information and media-control tactics that our country has struggled with for a few decades now, it's not surprising that it's something people are sensitive to.
So why have Da Rules?
Much like any other Internet forum you can name, the rules are designed as guidelines to encourage a constructive and inclusive forum culture by setting behavioural baselines - much like rules on other forums governing etiquette, discouraging discussion of piracy on gaming forums, or forbidding pornographic content. The idea is to be constructive, conducive to proper discourse, and minimize harm to minors and minorities.
It's worth noting at this point that negative reactions to sexy characters have nothing to do with Victorian "Oh Noez! The mere suggestion of sexual congress has made me lose my monocle!" thinking. It's about suggesting that people, regardless of gender, are soulless pieces of meat to ogle. Even as a dude, I find that offensive. And women get the brunt of it. All the time.
So is it at all surprising that someone posts a game with a main character whose sole intent seems to be "Man, this girl, whatserface at the place with the gun, she's sure got a hot pair of tits, yeah? LOOK AT THEM! LOOOOOOOK!", people will feel a bit upset? (for context, reverse it to "Man, this dude, whatsisname, he's got a dick you could wave a flag from! LOOK AT IT! LOOOOOOOK!", or being a black person who wanders in to find a game that's essentially "Look at this black dude in a loincloth who doesn't even understand how a gun works! HURRR!" and I think you get the point).
The spirit of the law is to foster inclusivity. The letter of the law exists solely to educate. Unlike, say, racism, which is pretty well understood to be wrong in these enlightened times (ha!), and which would be called out pretty much instantly, the whole "entrenched sexism" thing is new to a lot of people. A rule that says "Don't be racist" is well-understood. "Don't be sexist" is not. Which is why it's wise to state explicitly what sexism entails in the rules themselves.
The idea isn't to create Ten Holy Commandments that Robo-mod A345B will check to determine that you should be instabanned because your game contains breasts (gasp!). It's so that (a) people won't perceive themselves to be unfairly blindsided when people "suddenly" take offense and (b) so that people consider their content and its impact so as not to alienate others.
And THAT, to MY mind, is the thinking behind instating The Rules. And they can be changed. Iterated. Disputed. Improved. And they're a damned sight better than people launching into fresh angry debates every single time. And if they don't work, we try something else.
Now can we please get around to making them, in the spirit in which they're intended?
I feel your lack of understanding this concept is purely based on the desire to obscure what the rules are going to be.
Makes no sense. Think about it. What possible motive could anyone have for this? Are they formulating oppressive rules in some sort of secret shadow-cabal? To sneakily legislate themselves into power as absolute despots of an internet forum? You'll forgive me if that sounds a teensy bit implausible, especially since we could all collectively shrug it off, abandon the forum, and create a brand new one pretty much overnight.
Edit: Also out of curiosity i would very much like to see one example of a game posted here that was one of the motivating factors behind the push for this. Surely the concern regarding this matter is warranted due to events that occurred here.
It started with this game. It's been going on for over a week. No wonder you believe that a there's no way people could exchange information on a forum...
Suffice it to say that other people don't have the same difficulty. Please don't stifle debate here just because you don't like the medium, debate can happen in multiple places.
I feel your lack of understanding this concept is purely based on the desire to obscure what the rules are going to be.
Wow. Just wow. @Jelligeth has been the person that has suggested the best rules so far. You can scroll up and read them. Why on earth are you accusing her of trying to obfuscate what she's already written? WTH guy?
@Crocopede The game that initially raised questions about how the forum should deal with sexist content had been resolved via admin-level involvement outside of this discussion. The reason for this thread, and for proposing guidelines, is to attempt to make the process less jarring and distended for everyone involved in the future.
The first and roughest copy of the guidelines was created just over 24 hours ago, and was still undergoing discussion. It continues to live on this thread because there were points being raised and addressed that influence the contents. The unfortunate result of that is that it can get buried behind filibusters and faffery.
I'm hoping that those who have asked relevant questions about the guidelines and influenced its re-writes have had the chance to read them.
But indeed, since there don't seem to be any opposition towards the actual creation of guidelines, perhaps we have made progress!
I think the use of a Google doc as a central authoritative copy of the rules while we discuss them is a good idea. I liked the initial proposed rules, but some improvements were made with subsequent comments, and it can be difficult to figure out exactly how the rules look right now. Google docs would make it easy to comment on individual rules and suggest alternatives. This seemed to work fairly well for the general forum rules (which I assume this will be added to once a static page is created for all the rules).
EDIT: just for clarity, I'm recommending we continue the main discussion here, as well as discussion on specific rules that warrant it, but that we have somewhere we can point to for a reference and make use of the Google doc collab features where it makes things easier. I don't want the discussion to move to a Google doc
@dislekcia I did not accuse her. I stated my opinion which was not a factual statement but the way i feel / felt.
I feel your lack
Lets go with felt because jelligeth's last response strikes me as someone who appears focused and more professional than ridiculous statements i have seen here that makes my blood boil.
That being said. I lost interest in this now. Because truthfully i was never against the idea of the rules. But i get really annoyed at people making statements that they are superior.
Ok. Back on topic Writing up a new draft at this very moment, gimme a sec
-Edit: Ok, longer than a sec :) Conversing with other women and real people, doing research, evaluating fairness, and different codes of morality and justice, and generally editing stuff. Will update with progress.
Comments
Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Someone being polite doesn't mean that they aren't expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions.
I am NOT accusing YOU for being bigoted for disagreeing with me about what constitutes as bigotry.
I'm accusing people who unreasonably or strongly believe that sexualisation in the media doesn't affect women and girls in real life, especially when they are themselves not women or girls and are entirely unaffected.
The points I'm making are in regards to this topic in general, they are not intended to be a personal attack against anyone specific. Yes, that is what I meant, sorry for ambiguity.
This is why rule number 1 is rule number 1.
"Be receptive and mindful of criticism when it is from and about a demographic to which you don't belong, or situation that you have not experienced."
I don't believe it's fair to retroactively enforce rules, but since this is a thought experiment:
Was there a unanimous or overwhelming reaction by the women (esp multiple) on the forum that the product (eg the logo, or those designs) is offensive, sexualised or portrays women in a degrading manner?
If not, if people are just like "that logo doesn't make any sense but whatever", then yeah, drop it.
If yes, then it is problematic, and every effort needs to be made to try to show the creator why their product is unintentionally harmful or bad. If, after mutual discussion where the creator is of course given ample opportunity to defend their product, if they fail to convince anyone with a good argument that their product is not enforcing harmful ideals, (repeatedly saying "no you're wrong" without justification isn't a good argument) then it may be best to disassociate the community with a harmful product.
It doesn't mean that the product must immediately cease to exist, we don't command that power.
If it becomes evident that the creator is disinclined to be considerate of the community, then they aren't entitled to represent or be supported by that community. This doesn't suppress artistry. Of course art can be ambiguous, and if there is ambiguous feedback from the offended group, then no action should be taken without fair debate. But if the reaction from the community is unanimous and justified, but the response is just "I don't care, I like boobies", then, just, no.
Taking these things into account, let's change point 2 under the repercussions list to
2. Allow time for reasonable debate provided that the creator of the product in question is being receptive of feedback. If he does not appear to understand why his product is harmful to real people, then reasonable effort should be taken provide empathetic feedback and accurate and educational resources.
Maybe we can also get some help from someone who understands lawyerism when it comes to writing reasonable guidelines?
At the moment there seems to be two threads of discussion (simplification): one centered round trying to codify how we deal with this sort of thing, and another one. It seems to me that the former discussion is much more important to do right now so we have something to work with, whereas the latter seems to be more about discussing, attacking and defending various positions (again a simplification based on outside opinion). This latter thread is very important, especially for the long term and I don't suggest it is stopped. However, the latter discussion is possibly detracting from the momentum of the former discussion and that concerns me.
Would it make sense to split this into two threads on the topic, or somehow highlight the former discussion? I for one would really love to see a codified version of how we deal with this, and I look forward to seeing what we as a community can come up with :)
Because at the end of the day the people who will be deciding what games are "allowed" to be part of this community are the people who could very well use it to drive their own personal agendas. Easily finding fault in anything they choose to, and just saying well its against these rules so yea tough luck. Meanwhile back the ranch its all a front for personal gain on a few select individuals.
This entire thing smells sour... being masked by a good cause.
Yes that's right. The cause is good. The means is not.
Rules can be changed. We have a committee (that we vote for) to raise our concerns with. We have mods that I like to think we can trust not to act robotically in these cases too. There are democratic systems in place to limit power.
It's better than, y'know, THIS, and I don't think the community environment is such that anyone will let it devolve into some sort of memetic dictatorship. As has been stated, the aim should be to aid and guide and educate, not for Evil Overlords to launch orbital strikes on games they dislike.
...Right?
If a clear non generalized ruleset is laid out... then awesome.
But as soon as it turns into a "i'm a girl and i have the last say if this is offensive" mentality comes into play, then the guidelines and rules no longer apply and the former concerns become a reality.
2. Your point does not follow. There is no reason why accepting that people who have more familiarity with the experience of any kind of systemic oppression should automatically mean rules and guidelines suddenly cease to apply.
This feels like scaremongering. There's also no reason why we can't try it out and see what happens. Prototype new rules, if you'll allow the phrase...
Woman aren't immune to creating sexist content either. I have also created sexist content in the past, before I was aware of the effect it has on real people.
To justify my response you quoted: The reason why it is OK for women to decide what or why something is sexist, but not men, is because this is not something that affects men. (Unless you count being turned into a leering creep as an effect, which is why more men are also becoming aware of these issues :).) And by that I don't mean that men are not allowed to have an opinion about it or talk about it, it just means that on this specific topic women do have more experience and authority.
@Crocopede you're just going to have to trust that women aren't a single hive minded organism. It's not going to come down to one person to decide whether or not content needs to be removed, nor should that decision be rash or robotic. No matter what system you have, or don't have, people who are prepared to hurt others for personal gain aren't going to let a few guidelines (designed to protect those who are currently being exploited) stop them. Exactly.
Sorry I'm going to go slightly off topic here and quickly talk about something that I think makes people more nervous than they need to be when it comes to drawn out discussions like this.
I don't think there is anything wrong with healthy debate, and I think it's a pity that we don't learn how to do this in a more structured way in school, because there is a very important social purpose to debate. Debate helps us to develop decisive awareness.
In modern culture, there seems to be a belief that opinions are inherently groundless and everyone is entitled to adopt opinions without consideration or questioning.
Sure, if it only affects yourself. No, if it affects other people.
In Buddhist culture, and I think academic, if you take a position, then you welcome a debate to challenge it from many points of view. If you can defend the position against all objections and you find that it has no logical inconsistencies and there are no contradictions, you can focus on that position or view with totally decisive awareness that cannot be shaken.
Now, this is the important part: The point where it becomes hostile is when someone who harbors an opinion that is actually harmful to other people, but refuse to entertain critique on the grounds that they are "entitled to their opinion". This is bigotry. This is where a set of guidelines may come in handy, because then you can point them at it and go "this is an issue that transcends your opinion."
Also it does eventually get very impractical to have 4 day long debates arguing about HOW to deal with something, instead of actually dealing with it, every time something comes up, which is why this discussion is happening now, but in the future, having guidelines (established by this discussion) will quicken things up a tad.
Personal observation.
The debate is no longer applicable. It has been dragged out, concerns have been raised.
Personally i would create a public document of the ruleset and hold it open for commenting for a few days.
Then implement. Google docs work well for this and could server as a much more constructive platform than a loooong thread about it.
I would dearly love it if we could move away from trying to defend what-if scenarios from shadowy cabals of ban-happy feminists that don't exist and actually start trying to codify how to deal with this as a community. We've already had the suggestion of warnings (and multiple warnings being required for any form of banning) with some sort of time window.
We also know that punishment and/or consequences work better than debate in situations where debate has ostensibly failed: Note that this admin-level engagement in private happened before @Pierre changed his art. Was it the cause? I can't say, but it DID occur and interaction changed afterwards.
As such, I would like to suggest that warnings be something that can be issued in response to behavior that contravenes the guidelines that @Jelligeth has outlined above. A warning lasts for a week. 3 warnings simultaneously = a limited time ban. Successive bans get longer. I run a very similar system on the QCF forums and it works really well - we've only ever had to ban 1 user that wasn't a spambot and that user is still a productive member of that forum now.
There is the potential to "game" a warning system like this and constantly mill warnings as old ones expire. This can be dealt with by saying that accumulating X bans in 3 month window earns a ban too. If we find that people are getting warnings and merely going quiet for a while, then going right back to interacting in ways that warrant warnings, we can increase the length of time warnings last.
I think that warnings like this can be a general response to multiple types of unacceptable behavior, and that, yes, if someone is truly vile then instant bans are still an option for moderators to limit damage. But at least the rolling window and expirations might help some of the people here that seem to be deathly afraid of any form of consequences for being called on sexism realise that this isn't a pogrom, it's a call for civilised, reasoned discussion and acknowledgement of the damage that sexism causes.
How is this debate no longer applicable if we're still policy building?
I'm not being facetious, I really not understanding what you're saying.
As for the method, what would moving to gdocs gain us that we don't have here? I imagine it would obscure the discussion from view, which really doesn't help.
And yes, WOMEN do have the last say if the misrepresentation of WOMEN is or is not sexist.
Offendee gets to decide whether or not they are offended by material that represents them.
This is sorta the whole point.
If you have factual evidence that something being accused of sexism is not sexist, then provide it.
However, opinions simply do not cut it.
Yes.
The suggestion regarding the document will create better clarity and visibility about the rules being created.
A forum post is inadequate due to the fact that you have tons of posts to sift through to get to the actual suggested rules. You also then have arguments which are not tabled against a specific rule. Hence the suggestion to find a better way to establish the rules. Even Trello would be a better.
So have the document listed in the 1st post as a point of reference. Its a means to create order and not obscure everything with garbled information that people have to patch together by deciphering all the posts.
A collaborative document or trello board would allow for arguments against a specific rule to be tabled against that object. Creating clarity, and visibility.
I feel your lack of understanding this concept is purely based on the desire to obscure what the rules are going to be.
Who is going to read through all this to get to the suggested rules? 5% perhaps.
People actively involved in the discussion will then also be emailed automatically should someone make an argument on a specific point.
It will also create an environment with no useless information such as this post and it will keep things on point.
We the community are not the authority.
Edit:
Also out of curiosity i would very much like to see one example of a game posted here that was one of the motivating factors behind the push for this. Surely the concern regarding this matter is warranted due to events that occurred here.
From what I'm reading, people aren't disputing that women need to be made more comfortable in the forums, or their opinions ignored. In fact, I'm seeing unanimous support for making people feel comfortable and safe and included here.
However, this is a creative community, and it makes sense that people are going to get antsy when it seems like The Man (heh) is going to dictate what you can and cannot make, and what you can and cannot post. The core of the counterargument seems to be a concern that decisions of what constitutes "bigotry" will fall to a select few (regardless of gender), and that those few will go power-mad and abuse that power to banninate all who dare to express dissent. Dramatic way of putting it, but that's the neatest way to sum it up.
Given the governmental information and media-control tactics that our country has struggled with for a few decades now, it's not surprising that it's something people are sensitive to.
So why have Da Rules?
Much like any other Internet forum you can name, the rules are designed as guidelines to encourage a constructive and inclusive forum culture by setting behavioural baselines - much like rules on other forums governing etiquette, discouraging discussion of piracy on gaming forums, or forbidding pornographic content. The idea is to be constructive, conducive to proper discourse, and minimize harm to minors and minorities.
It's worth noting at this point that negative reactions to sexy characters have nothing to do with Victorian "Oh Noez! The mere suggestion of sexual congress has made me lose my monocle!" thinking. It's about suggesting that people, regardless of gender, are soulless pieces of meat to ogle. Even as a dude, I find that offensive. And women get the brunt of it. All the time.
So is it at all surprising that someone posts a game with a main character whose sole intent seems to be "Man, this girl, whatserface at the place with the gun, she's sure got a hot pair of tits, yeah? LOOK AT THEM! LOOOOOOOK!", people will feel a bit upset? (for context, reverse it to "Man, this dude, whatsisname, he's got a dick you could wave a flag from! LOOK AT IT! LOOOOOOOK!", or being a black person who wanders in to find a game that's essentially "Look at this black dude in a loincloth who doesn't even understand how a gun works! HURRR!" and I think you get the point).
The spirit of the law is to foster inclusivity. The letter of the law exists solely to educate. Unlike, say, racism, which is pretty well understood to be wrong in these enlightened times (ha!), and which would be called out pretty much instantly, the whole "entrenched sexism" thing is new to a lot of people. A rule that says "Don't be racist" is well-understood. "Don't be sexist" is not. Which is why it's wise to state explicitly what sexism entails in the rules themselves.
The idea isn't to create Ten Holy Commandments that Robo-mod A345B will check to determine that you should be instabanned because your game contains breasts (gasp!). It's so that (a) people won't perceive themselves to be unfairly blindsided when people "suddenly" take offense and (b) so that people consider their content and its impact so as not to alienate others.
And THAT, to MY mind, is the thinking behind instating The Rules. And they can be changed. Iterated. Disputed. Improved. And they're a damned sight better than people launching into fresh angry debates every single time. And if they don't work, we try something else.
Now can we please get around to making them, in the spirit in which they're intended?
Also, in light of the above: Makes no sense. Think about it. What possible motive could anyone have for this? Are they formulating oppressive rules in some sort of secret shadow-cabal? To sneakily legislate themselves into power as absolute despots of an internet forum? You'll forgive me if that sounds a teensy bit implausible, especially since we could all collectively shrug it off, abandon the forum, and create a brand new one pretty much overnight.
Suffice it to say that other people don't have the same difficulty. Please don't stifle debate here just because you don't like the medium, debate can happen in multiple places. Wow. Just wow. @Jelligeth has been the person that has suggested the best rules so far. You can scroll up and read them. Why on earth are you accusing her of trying to obfuscate what she's already written? WTH guy?
The first and roughest copy of the guidelines was created just over 24 hours ago, and was still undergoing discussion.
It continues to live on this thread because there were points being raised and addressed that influence the contents. The unfortunate result of that is that it can get buried behind filibusters and faffery.
I'm hoping that those who have asked relevant questions about the guidelines and influenced its re-writes have had the chance to read them.
But indeed, since there don't seem to be any opposition towards the actual creation of guidelines, perhaps we have made progress!
EDIT: just for clarity, I'm recommending we continue the main discussion here, as well as discussion on specific rules that warrant it, but that we have somewhere we can point to for a reference and make use of the Google doc collab features where it makes things easier. I don't want the discussion to move to a Google doc
I did not accuse her. I stated my opinion which was not a factual statement but the way i feel / felt. Lets go with felt because jelligeth's last response strikes me as someone who appears focused and more professional than ridiculous statements i have seen here that makes my blood boil.
That being said. I lost interest in this now. Because truthfully i was never against the idea of the rules. But i get really annoyed at people making statements that they are superior.
Peace
Writing up a new draft at this very moment, gimme a sec
-Edit: Ok, longer than a sec :) Conversing with other women and real people, doing research, evaluating fairness, and different codes of morality and justice, and generally editing stuff. Will update with progress.