Asking clarification regarding moderation

[Umbran]

Sure. And I truly am not thinking that people should be free insult each other. But implying that you do not believe that a certain mythological narrative is real is not an insult.

There are many ways to be hurtful with words other than simple "insult".

 

[eyeheartawk]

I think the pushback you are seeing is more about the perceived lack of respectfulness in your post rather than what you believe.

The problem is this doesn't apply equally to all mythologies that could have followers. For example, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the point was made about Pagan traditions or about Zoroastrianism, say, since those followers don't hold primacy in the culture.

Looking at the moderated post, I very much doubt action would have been taken if the subject was a very minor religion.

Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms. It's subject to the same discourse, ribbing etc that all other settings are. The OP here is not the one who decided to make a for-profit D&D setting based on a religious text (nor would he be far from the first to do so). You can't open the door, and then complain when people walk through it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyways I feel like this is starting to feel like gang up on @Crimson Longinus which isn’t my intent. I think I’ve said enough to provide some additional perspective and that saying more will detract rather than help my point.


@Umbran for what it’s worth, I’ve gained some respect and understanding for your moderation style.

 

[Maggan]

Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms.

If I made an adventure and said "I wan't to have the PCs travel on the Bifrost bridge to Valhalla", what would it add to the discussion to chime in "the Bifrost bridge isn't real, you know?". And I've never seen anyone express a desire to add that when it comes to for example Norse mythology.

So why does that need arise when we're talking about Christianity?

 

[eyeheartawk]

If I made an adventure and said "I wan't to have the PCs travel on the Bifrost bridge to Valhalla", what would it add to the discussion to chime in "the Bifrost bridge isn't real, you know?". And I've never seen anyone express a desire to add that when it comes to for example Norse mythology.

So why does that need arise when we're talking about Christianity?

Sure, that exact same joke doesn't work when talking about Norse mythology, I agree.

Would that comment be constructive? Yeah, probably not, but then, that's not the threshold for moderation, is it? In your hypothetical, would that comment about the Bifrost being real get moderated? That's the issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem is this doesn't apply equally to all mythologies that could have followers. For example, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the point was made about Pagan traditions or about Zoroastrianism, say, since those followers don't hold primacy in the culture.

I think we would. Provided there was a setting book for those traditions and a few people reported the post of course.

But honestly I don’t think that point would ever be brought up about them by anyone.

Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms. It's subject to the same discourse, ribbing etc that all other settings are. The OP here is not the one who decided to make a for-profit D&D setting based on a religious text (nor would he be far from the first to do so). You can't open the door, and then complain when people walk through it.

I’m sorry, but making a religion focused RPG doesn’t open the door to anything like that. ‘You did this so you invited bad stuff to happen you’ has never been a winning argument.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are many ways to be hurtful with words other than simple "insult".

Sure. You may feel that me saying "I don't believe that your religion is true" is hurtful. Personally I'd argue that you chastising and punishing me for saying it is significantly more hurtful and rather noninclusive.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Provided there was a setting book for those traditions and a few people reported the post of course.

Please show me a post about Norse or any other non-dominant mythology getting moderated for being disrespectful. I think you'll find that there aren't any.

I’m sorry, but making a religion focused RPG doesn’t open the door to anything like that. ‘You did this so you invited bad stuff to happen you has never been a winning argument.’

No, I guess not. But if you happen to make a setting based on the Bible you are afforded special protection from banter not extended to others is a valid argument? So it goes one way but not the other. That's the point I was trying to make. Perhaps it wasn't totally clear there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem is this doesn't apply equally to all mythologies that could have followers. For example, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the point was made about Pagan traditions or about Zoroastrianism, say, since those followers don't hold primacy in the culture.

Looking at the moderated post, I very much doubt action would have been taken if the subject was a very minor religion.

Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms. It's subject to the same discourse, ribbing etc that all other settings are. The OP here is not the one who decided to make a for-profit D&D setting based on a religious text (nor would he be far from the first to do so). You can't open the door, and then complain when people walk through it.

Indeed. There actually is a context. This is not about bringing up religion is some random unconnected thread. And the other moderated matter was another poster bringing up the atrocities and other problematic content in the source material. This is the sort of thing we talk here about a lot: how to deal with potentially problematic content. It is rather bizarre that the subject matter being connected to a religion would somehow make such an examination inappropriate.

 

[FrogReaver]

Please show me a post about Norse or any other non-dominant mythology getting moderated for being disrespectful. I think you'll find you can't find any.

There would need to be actual disrespectfulness in those conversations to show you that. Please show me disrespectfulness about Norse mythology or other non-dominant religions occurring here. I don’t believe it’s ever happened here.

No, I guess not. But if you happen to make a setting based on the Bible you are afforded special protection from banter not extended to others is a valid argument? So it goes one way but not the other. That's the point I was trying to make. Perhaps it wasn't totally clear there.

There’s no special protection here. The principal that’s being invoked is pretty clear - ‘be respectful’.

 

[eyeheartawk]

There’s no special protection here.

No?

Show me the moderated comments about people talking about Zeus' problematic behavior towards mortal women and wondering how that will be/will not be addressed in a given work vs the moderated comment in the source thread wondering about the infanticide, rape, slavery etc that's present in the Bible. How are they different? I can't think of any reasons other than the fact that within the culture this board's users exist in believing this particular thing?

I think we would. Provided there was a setting book for those traditions and a few people reported the post of course.

We don't know for a fact, at this point, that either of the two moderated posts we're talking about here were reported, as a matter of procedure. That aside, I have a hard time believing that if somebody actually did report a post where somebody said that Thor isn't real it would get the red text.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Indeed. There actually is a context. This is not about bringing up religion is some random unconnected thread. And the other moderated matter was another poster bringing up the atrocities and other problematic content in the source material. This is the sort of thing we talk here about a lot: how to deal with potentially problematic content. It is rather bizarre that the subject matter being connected to a religion would somehow make such an examination inappropriate.

I think the honest answer is ... it's difficult. There is a very good reason that this board has a no religion rule- from the T&C:

And in this category I should mention the "no religion, no politics" rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature. This last may seem a rather draconic rule, but it has helped keep the peace around here for a long time. There are plenty of places on the internet where one could have those sorts of discussion.

Which is a great thing! Because ... yeah those don't tend to go well.

But then we get into issues when we do have the intersection of valid forum topics (in this case, a 5e setting based on Biblical themes) with a desire to not have the thread go off course. I don't think that there's an easy answer.

I would agree that it's further complicated because, in this case, people are more familiar with this specific issue. In the past, we've had a specific poster who adheres to less mainstream beliefs (Neo-Norse? I'm not sure how s/he prefers to describe it) that felt marginalized in conversations.

I don't think there is a single correct answer to this. In the end, the unsatisfying, but correct, answer is that this is similar to a dinner party at someone else's house, and in the end you have to pay attention to rules of the host of the party.

 

[Cadence]

Please show me a post about Norse or any other non-dominant mythology getting moderated for being disrespectful. I think you'll find you can't find any.

No, I guess not. But if you happen to make a setting based on the Bible you are afforded special protection from banter not extended to others is a valid argument? So it goes one way but not the other. That's the point I was trying to make. Perhaps it wasn't totally clear there.

I'm guessing the mods often take a close look when something is reported. I'm assuming if something was posted trying to make a joke of any religion (say if in the bible thread someone said "well Jesus sure needs more HP than any of those mythological ones like Krishna/Ahura Mazda/Allah/Odin" - or shuffle all five of them up and change the thread name) and someone said they found it offensive to have their religious figure called fake and reported it, that the mods would step in.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. You may feel that me saying "I don't believe that your religion is true" is hurtful. Personally I'd argue that you chastising and punishing me for saying it is significantly more hurtful and rather noninclusive.

The person who throws the first punch doesn't get to complain about the bruises they take in the scuffle.

To quote Will Smith in MiB, "Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'."

Spoiler: okay, this is flip, but still...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The person who throws the first punch doesn't get to complain about the bruises they take in the scuffle.

To quote Will Smith in MiB, "Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'."

Spoiler: okay, this is flip, but still...

I have been not throwing any punches, and this is not a fight. And if it was, it obvious that you as a moderator would "win."

I've been trying to engage with you respectfully, and asked you to consider what sort of opinions about religion tends to get suppressed in the society at large, and whether forcing people with marginalised opinions to show deference to privileged hegemon religion is actually religiously inclusive.

 

[FrogReaver]

No?

Show me the moderated comments about people talking about Zeus' problematic behavior towards mortal women and wondering how that will be/will not be addressed in a given work

1. Does anyone still believe in Zeus?
2. Were his actions condoned or justified in that religion? Or did they find them problematic as well?
3. Has this topic about Zeus and women actually came up on this forum?

vs the moderated comment in the source thread wondering about the infanticide, rape, slavery etc that's present in the Bible. How are they different? I can't think of any reasons other than the fact that within the culture this board's users exist in believing this particular thing?

I think there was a respectful way to bring up that point.

We don't know for a fact, at this point, that either of the two moderated posts we're talking about here were reported, as a matter of procedure. That aside, I have a hard time believing that if somebody actually did report a post where somebody said that Thor isn't real it would get the red text.

I don’t think we can have a productive discussion based on that kind of speculation.

 

[eyeheartawk]

1. Does anyone still believe in Zeus?

Yes.

2. Were his actions condoned or justified in that religion? Or did they find them problematic as well?

Not sure. It probably runs the gamut of opinions the way the other stuff that I mentioned does in Christianity, I suspect.

3. Has this topic about Zeus and women actually came up on this forum?

Yes. First one I easily found, I wont' bother to look for more, not a particularly salient point when discussing equal treatment in any event.

I think there was a respectful way to bring up that point.

What is disrespectful about this post?

I don’t think we can have a productive discussion based on that kind of speculation.

Sure, nothing concrete, but as a means for comparison it's illustrative.

 

[Irlo]

Personally I'd argue that you chastising and punishing me for saying it is significantly more hurtful and rather noninclusive.

@Umbran, is moderation punishment? I’m not familiar with your system, but are there consequences to moderation beyond simply being moderated?

 

[reelo]

I think the honest answer is ... it's difficult. There is a very good reason that this board has a no religion rule- from the T&C:

And in this category I should mention the "no religion, no politics" rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature. This last may seem a rather draconic rule, but it has helped keep the peace around here for a long time. There are plenty of places on the internet where one could have those sorts of discussion.

Which is a great thing! Because ... yeah those don't tend to go well.

As far as I'm concerned, the solution would have been very simple: the thread about the biblical setting (explicitly biblical,too!) should not have been created in the first place, or should have been locked immediately, because it falls under the above-mentioned ban. Problem solved.

Would a theorectical "modern D&D" setting of present day USA with a civil war between Dem and GOP as a central theme be allowed to be discussed in a thread, if there was a KS for such one? I think not (and I think that's a very good thing!)

 

[Cadence]

What is disrespectful about this post?

I know that in threads where race/ethnicity/LQBTQ+ status/gender come up, for example, I usually edit myself a few times before posting (until someone really cheeses me off and then it's a debate about hitting report or hitting post).

I wonder if removing the emoji at the end and rephrasing it a little would have slid by. "Given the various alignment threads that come up on here, I wonder how it will be approached in regards to some of the incidents in the bible (slavery, destruction of cities/opposing citizenry, etc...)."

I also wonder if the follow-up below on continuity errors was viewed as snark and factored in to how the first post one was viewed, and would have slid with. "I wonder how they will select between different translations and differences between various books/denominational defaults."

I think if I were modding (which I'm thankfully for everyone not), how much was passable as snark vs. serious question would help break ties.