Regarding Subject Line Verbiage

[The Meal]

And in reference to this thread in PC Games by Title.

There are a few issues at work here.

1. Is the subject line vulgar?
2. Is the subject line a personal attack?
2a. Is the subject of this potential 'personal attack' a public figure and therefore legitimately open to personal attacks?
2b. Does this person's relationship to the gaming industry affect whether personal attacks are acceptable?

Staff is currently discussing this situation. There was a complaint made against the thread title on the grounds of "crude name-calling and personal attacks."

Folks are welcome to weigh in on this topic with their own opinions and staff will read these opinons. However, the ultimate decision on the topic will be made by staff members and announced in this thread, including the line of thought based on that decision (which is likely to proceed based on the outline above from 1. through 2b.). I can already say that there will be members of staff who will dissent with the ultimate decision (there has been discussion on both sides of the issue already).

Thanks everyone.

~Neal

[Kratz]

FU, dick.


Whoops... that just slipped out.

[The Meal]

FU, dick.

See vulgarity is posts is not in question here. Although personal attacks are...

Fortunately we've got the opposite of the hate-crime discussion (see R&P) in that we're (somewhat) okay with taking into account intent to let certain stuff slide.

Although it still doesn't sit well with me based on the what-will-the-children-think argument (i.e., what about folks reading the questionable thread who don't understand the intent of the poster and think this sort of posting style is acceptable on OO in general?).

~Neal

[LawBeefaroni]

I think someone digging down into GBT or Gaming in General will have some inkling of what the thread is about. Further, if they bother to click on the topic, they will find out exactly what it is about.

Personally, I wouldn't use a subject like the "is a biased dick" one, but I don't see a big problem with it either.

Dick is synonymous with "jerk" nowdays. Any more "vulgar" connotation is strictly in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. Trust me, I have a good friend who goes by the name Dick and know all about how the poor word had been screwed over.

Granted that raises the issue of "what is the limit" and the "save-the-children/uninitiated" argument. What if he was a "biased fucker?" Clearly not acceptable.

I think "attacks" on a person's professional opinion as a reviewer are fine. They put the review out there, everyone is entitled to express their opinion on the reviewer's opinion. And even indirectly on the reviewer. Calling someone a biased dick is simply an expression of one's opinion and it's clear it is only based on the one review. It's not like someone said "he received $5000 in payments from Blizzard specifically to give the game a good review..."

[Kratz]

I was just kidding anyway.

[Smoove_B]

I think "attacks" on a person's professional opinion as a reviewer are fine.

So what if I said in a new thread title that you were a biased dick for having this particular opinion about this?

Is that a problem because you aren't a professional thread reviewer? Does that mean if OO attracts a famous person, their professional opinions will be subject to attack in subject lines?

Like if I was Erik Mart, Lawn Doctor and designer of "Nettle Cruiser, Adventures in Gardening", could someone here "call me out" in a thread title?

I hate coming with more problems and no solutions...but this one is pretty complex.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

How about no name-calling in thread titles. Seems pretty simple to me. To claim a person is biased is one thing, but to be calling people dicks is another. I'd certainly put it in a higher category of offensiveness than calling someone a jerk. Not that I'm sitting over here all outraged but that kind of name-calling isn't why I come here.

[LawBeefaroni]

I think "attacks" on a person's professional opinion as a reviewer are fine.

So what if I said in a new thread title that you were a biased dick for having this particular opinion about this?

That would be awesome.

Is that a problem because you aren't a professional thread reviewer? Does that mean if OO attracts a famous person, their professional opinions will be subject to attack in subject lines?

I don't know. Direct personal attack, no. But if you attack their work, maybe? That's a tough one.

"Curt Schilling is a head hunting bitch!" Would that fly? Is "this guy is a dick" any worse than some of the Ricky Williams or Bush or Kerry subjects?

And let's face it. OOers always deserve better than your average reviewer or celebrity.

At issue here seems to be the word "dick." If someone said "so and so is a biased idiot" there wouldn't be any thought given to the appropriateness of the title. The particular word, that's a matter of personal opinion. Like I said earlier, the only reason I don't use it more often is because I have a friend named Dick. Everytime I say it in vain in his presence, I get an icy glare or a boxed ear. But in and of itself, even in the "offensive" usage, I don't think it's so bad.

[YellowKing]

Heh, I was wondering when this can of worms was going to be opened.

I was (jokingly) pissed off at the time, so I posted what I was thinking (which is typically my nature, for good or bad.)

I tend to talk on these forums like I talk to my friends, and in my admittedly strange social circle, the word "dick" is about as offensive as the word "idiot" or "dumby dumb-head."

I frankly don't care if some random person is offended by it and chooses to file a complaint - if you read internet gaming message boards and are offended by the word dick then maybe you need to get a new hobby. On the other hand, I have no burning passion to offend women or kids or whoever that may come to the site, nor do I wish to lower the bar on overall acceptable thread behavior.

The fact that there was even an issue brought up leads me to the conclusion that I should change the subject line, which I don't have a problem doing. The thread was an over-the-top lark anyway, which I know some people will take more seriously than others. Typically the higher my level of outrage, the more tongue-in-cheek the attitude in which I posted it.

Do I think Greg Kasavin is a biased unfair dick? I don't even know the guy. He seems likeable enough in his video reviews. But "I Am of the Opinion that Greg Kasavin Gave WoW a Higher Review Than It Deserved" just doesn't have the same pizazz. 8)

[Smoove_B]

But "I Am of the Opinion that Greg Kasavin Gave WoW a Higher Review Than It Deserved" just doesn't have the same pizazz. 8)

I am down with the YK - even though his avatar CONTINUES to freak me out. I use a conversational tone here as well, and saying "dick" isn't unusal during discourse with RunningMn or Trent (believe it or not).

And coming up with a title creative enough to encourage viewing is also part of it. I fully admit I wanted to know why Greg was a dick.

[dbt1949]

We need to allow smilies in the subject headings.

[Chesspieceface]

I agree that dick is not a particularly offensive term, and usage and intent plays a bigger deciding factor. That said, what if Greg Kasavin was/is a forum member? What if he was the one who complained?

Certainly, there was a time in recent memory when many people would have liked to post "Derek Smart is a giant <insert adjective here>" threads and that would have been reprimanded harshly.

As a community that harbors a number of gaming industry professionals and would gladly welcome more, we should probably hold ourselves to slightly higher level of discourse.

That said, I had no problem with the thread subject and was a little bummed to see it chnaged.

[The Meal]

Getting back to this (as I promised I would)...

First up, Yellowking, thanks from those who were bothered by your subject line (well I'm assuming they're thankful, at least). That was a kind act of consideration to make the change when you found out it was bothering some other people. Makes me feel all glowy inside when folks go out of their way for their fellow forum users.

Secondly, I very much understand the desire to try and draw as much attention to threads you create as you can. More readers equals a more lively discussion, and that's why we're all here -- for quality discussion. I will make a side note on that, however, and say that there are good ways to try and draw attention/readership to a thread and poor ways. An example of a poor method for doing this would be to make a post in PC Games by Title titled something like "This game is absolutely tremendous!!!" and not mention the title of the game in the subject. I'd imagine that lots of people will end up reading that thread because of the subject line, but as likely many people will end up wasting their time reading a bit about a game in a genre they may not give two squats about. I'd lump vulgar subject lines or those offensive to certain segments of society in this same bucket of trying to draw attention but in an undesirable manner.

I do *not* want to make that the focus of this, however. Especially since I'm about to spell out why the thread's title was not deemed "too" vulgar or over the line.

We had eight different staff members offer up discussion on the specific subject line in question, and opinions ranged far and wide. However, there was a general staff consensus formed. I want to leave this open for folks and/or staff-members who disagree with the consensus opinion to offer up their dissenting opinions. While we're on the verge of releasing a new forum Code of Conduct, it's going to be another flexible document like the CoC we operated under at Gone Gold, and as such, what is currently deemed acceptable may change due to public sentiment or convincing arguments offered up by the dissenters. And while I (especially in my off-forum role as a parent) recognize the value in putting forth a unified opinion, I think that giving adminstrative-type folks the chance to at least mention the places where they disagree with consensus is a valuable thing. I don't question for a moment any of my compadres' ability to moderate and act in line with the consensus opinon while holding an alternative opinion of their own. I know I've had to do so on many occassions, and I'd imagine that each of us, at one point or another, have been in that position. Identifying when you disagree with policy allows you to moderate future events with a clear conscience (as you've already made your personal opinion known, yet clearly are carryinig out the will of the group).

Anyway, I'm going to reiterate the talking points about the subject line that brought this all about, as this was how the staff discussion was framed. I see many posts above this one where folks understood that methodology, but a few posts where folks sort of free-formed opinions and feelings. I'm cool with both when it comes up to solicitation of opinions, but I think it's important that folks know the types of considerations we make when we contemplate various topics. Rarely are we put into a position where we just say "This is my opinion and this is my vote on the topic." We're obligated, when discussing these issues, to back our opinions up with reasonings and (hopefully!) consistency within our framework.

1. Is the subject line vulgar?
2. Is the subject line a personal attack?
2a. Is the subject of this potential 'personal attack' a public figure and therefore legitimately open to personal attacks?
2b. Does this person's relationship to the gaming industry affect whether personal attacks are acceptable?

Vulgarity Specifically, is the word 'dick' in a subject line allowed?
First off, it should be well known that we moderate certain things more stringently than other areas. Subject lines, tags, avatars, login names, and signatures are held to a higher standard that posts themselves. This is especially the case for vulgarity. To some extent we've tried to frame our idea behind what is vulgar in the context of American network television during prime-time. When considering whether something is vulgar or not, one of the first questions I ask myself is whether I'd be surprised to hear it at 9pm while watching a show on NBC. This isn't a perfect litmus test by any means (especially considering that I don't watch much network televison apart from sports), but it helps a little bit with consistency.

The consensus opinion was that "dick" (in this sense) wasn't a word we'd ever encourage folks to use in a subject line, but that it didn't cross over into the vulgar realm. As with all of our rulings this is something we'd revisit if we saw some kind of trend of folks trying to "push the boundaries" with the word. Excess wasn't one of the seven deadly sins, but I believe gluttony was.

Personal Attack Public figures vs. the gaming industry
Permit me a bit of storytelling and personal experience here. When asking myself about how I felt about the original subject, the second question I posed was why I found it to be offensive. Clearly it wasn't the word "dick." My introspection turned up the fact that I really didn't care to see someone being called out like was done in the subject line. So what part of this "calling out" offended me? I recognized right away that it wasn't the calling out itself (if someone posted that John Kerry was a pinko femine canadain, I wouldn't be too put-off), but the fact that it was very conceviably someone who could be alerted to the thread in question and end up with a very poor opinion of our forum because of it. Quickly, then, my attention was turned from not just public figures, but a public figure in the realm in which this site specifcally dabbles -- PC Gaming. I presented my opinion to the rest of the moderation squad in these terms, and a funny thing happened. Discussion was held and my opinion was swayed. (See, this really *does* happen on the internet.)

The line of discussion went along the lines of: if it's okay to attack public figures in general, why would it not be okay to bash folks specifically related to the raison d'être of the forum? If anything, given that attacking public figures is an acceptable thing, this is actually one of the perfect locations for that sort of attack to take place. And if nothing else, Mr. Kasavin, could conceivably learn of this discussion and engage in the discussion as to why he's not an unfair dick or a scatalogicaly biased game reviewer of any sort. Primarily *because* gaming is what we're here for, this is the type of place where Greg Kasavin would be considered a public figure and treated to all the creature comforts (or lack thereof) that this status implies.

So I've eliminated 2b as a consideration for offensiveness. But what about 2a -- should public figures in general be open to personal attacks? It was not unanimous in our discussion that public figures should be open to these sorts of attacks, and it was quickly pointed out (unanimously, as near as I can tell) that were Mr. Kasavin a member of our forum his personal life could not be publically attacked (but his public activities, such as his game reviews, for instance) would still be open for public debate and commentary, including unfair and unsubstianted bashing. This is pretty much in line with how things were done on Gone Gold. If you'll recall (and I don't want to say the name for fear of having a mytzlplik-kilplztym / Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice type of appearance), but there was a infamous developer on the boards for which we would allow nearly anything related to the games he developed be said on the forums, but for which we would clamp down on discussions unrelated to his body of work in the public domain (which actually was a unique circumstance as that was done as a preemptive strike against the unsubstiantiated bashing this developer's personal life that was unfortunately INEVITABLE whenever conversation began to go in the personal-life category -- discussion related to anyone else was given the benefit of the doubt and we would not step in until actual personal attacks took place) (Just call me the King of the Tangents!). So the general rule is "if you put it 'out there,' you've got to deal with criticism of what you've done." This goes with posting as well as other publicized activities. As soon as folks start attacking the person, not the post or the ideas within the post, howver, we'll step in. (Or at times, as soon as we *find out* about these activities -- the narc icon really is our friend when discussion turns sour.)

Anyway, I know this was long winded, and that not everyone will read through it or understand all the nuances implied within. But I/we thought it'd be a good idea to give folks a bit more to work with to understand how we make decisions and take action (or in this case, choose not to take action) in certain situations. Yellowking, I hope you do not feel singled out or otherwise put-off by the fact that I/we used your thread as an example to spell out our process. If nothing else, I'd think that the existence of this little bit of drama drew a bit more attention to the actual subject of your discussion.

Thanks everyone for participating,
~Neal

[Dirt]

There was a complaint made against the thread title on the grounds of "crude name-calling and personal attacks."

I thought Kasavin only visited the QT3 boards.

[Grifman]

I agree that dick is not a particularly offensive term,

I actually didn't like it. I don't talk like that and personally don't like it being tossed in my face in a thread title that I have to see if I can looking at the boards. That's just me, FWIW.

Grifman

[GuidoTKP]

All of this reminded me of the "Hillary Clinton is a cunt" debate back in the old country. While vulgar and less than ideal, I was always happy that sentiment was never sanitized. While I can understand a greater desire to patrol thread titles, YK's threat title seemed appropriate for his level of agitation (i.e., it helped in the expression of his particular thoughts) and Mr. K's status as a public figure in the world of gaming. As with just about every exercise of free speach, hopefully people are prepared to take a rash of shit for being over the top if the opinion expressed is disagreed with, but it seems to me that the cure for any ills caused by this type of expression is simply more speach (i.e., anyone bothered by the thread title should speak up, and maybe the author will be persauded to edit the title into something more moderate).