Kawasaki events and other feedback.

Da Bounca

Moderator julep banned a user for using an allegedly racist term.
The term used was Kawasaki. It was not used in a derogatory way, nor in fact does it have any link to racism that I can see.
It does rhyme with paki, which some would deem a derogatory word, but in fact it is an abbreviation of the full word Pakistani. No racism there.
Kawasaki is part of a cockney rhyming style slang.

Kawasaki by the way was a passing remark and in no way a theme or focus of the thread. julep clarified what kawasaki meant and then decided it was 'fairly' racist, and banned the OP. Fairly racist? It's either racist, or it is not.

It was a funny thread, there for the amusement of many and has continued on. The mod didn't understand the word and asked for clarification. That's fine. It should have ended there. The language used by the mod in his subsequent banning of the user looked like it was a joke:
"Ahh. I see. That's a fairly racist remark. Banned."
Banning someone for that reason, combined with the way the ban was phrased as well as seemingly taking an unserious tone when banning a user(which is a serious matter), one could very easily think that it is a joke. So when I asked if it was indeed a joke, I was told to go to the Help Desk if I had a problem with it.

After using boards for over 10 years I find it highly insulting to be rudely pointed toward the help desk forum, obviously because I know where it is and also because there was no reason for the mod to assume I had a problem with his actions. This shows that the mod doubted his own actions and made a point of making me out to be a thread bandit. So when I responded to his rude comment with a rude question of my own, which was well within reason, I got banned. For arguing. Arguing is to put forth reasons for or against something, to debate, to give an opposition to a view or point. I did none of these things, so at the very least, my ban for arguing should be lifted.

Further, at a later date, the mod admitted in PM and then on a thread that the rule I broke was not arguing but giving attitude to a mod. Yet another reason my argument ban should be lifted and a prime example of how facts are twisted to suit the mod's personal views, to justify his/her actions and to save face at the expense of another user.

So I am banned from Afterhours. I believe unfairly. So I go to the Help Desk as is standard procedure. Wherein I receive no help whatsoever. The matter was not discussed. It was finalised without any sort of proper clarifaction, and the thread was promptly closed.

The issue was being discussed to some degree through private message with a mod named seamus, with some input from julep when he wished to converse through PM. Seamus informed me that he would see if julep would perhaps reduce the length of the ban, which was for a whopping 7 days.
julep then sent a message saying that my ban would be reduced to the same length as the 'racist' had received. A 4 day ban. A 4 day ban for being a 'racist' while I who had simply 'argued' with a mod received a 7 day ban. So julep seems to think that acts of racism are less important than someone questioning a mods actions(which yet again, never actually happened). This again shows that the ban is for personal reasons and not for any breach of the charter. I basically said his attitude sucked after he was rude to me, and he banned me for it. I may have broken the 'do not be cheeky to a mod' rule, but it was in response to an abruptly rude and uncalled for command. I don't think hyprocisy should have a home on boards. Mods should not be allowed to insult boards users while banning any user that defends themselves in kind.

Another boards user began a thread in feedback about the state of moderation and the seemingly decrease in empathy and human understanding that is apparent in some mods attitudes. A lot of valid points were brought up and discussions had begun about the issue and the recent problems surrounding it. Then, another mod decided to delete half the posts and move it to Help Desk so that nobody could continue posting on it, the thread looks ridiculous because all the posts that have been quoted have dissapeared and so nobody will take it seriously, let alone read it. This is terrible behaviour by an smod. When politely messaged about the issue, the smod ignored the pm, this happened more than once. They claimed, it was a Help Desk issue(which it isn't of course - it's a rendition of recent events, aka feedback). Besides that, I don't see how 'it belongs on helpdesk' explains the deletion of posts, but I'm sure another reaching and vague explanation will be provided. Also the fact that any inquest into that issue has been met with a blank wall from more than one mod is further proof of the state of moderation on boards. Ironic that the very thread that questions and depicts mod's morality gets moved, silenced and pillaged of it's content.

SO.
(A) Labelling someone a racist and banning them.
(B) Labelling a slang word racist.
(C) Abusing a forum user.
(D) Banning them for responding to abuse with abuse.
(E) Falsifying and later altering the reason to ban the user.
(F) Proposing that arguing with a mod is worse than acts of racism.
(G) No help at the Help Desk and thread locked to prevent any.
(H) Destroying a thread to prevent further serious discussion on it.
(I) Moving a thread to prevent further serious discussion on it.
(J) Not responding to private messages requesting reason and help on above.


This is shockingly disgraceful behaviour and not by just one person.
The issue began with julep, was justified by seamus, then Beruthiel sabotaged any attempt to rectify the situation.

I am not calling for heads or anything. I just think these actions are preposterous and deserve to be highlighted. Maybe some healthy changes will be made to boards in light of this feedback.

The OP of the kawasaki thread was banned, yet the thread he began was allowed to continue on. If someone starts a thread, and is banned for the use of language they included in the starting post, surely the thread should be locked and further posting prevented? It practically invites a derail.

I would also like to suggest a temporary demodding system for mods that act out of personal interest or fail to uphold the rules and/or honour of boards.

kawasaki thread

Locked HelpDesk thread

Pillaged feedback thread

AlmightyCushion

This is the interaction between Terry and Da bounca that led to his ban.

Da Bounca wrote: »

Joke?

julep wrote: »

No.

If you have a problem with that, take it to the help desk.

Da Bounca wrote: »

If I have a problem with your jump down the throat attitude, do I also take that to the help desk?

It's pretty clear cut and your ban was deserved. I think any one can see that.

Ledgehammer

AC, you seemed to of missed the major point being addressed here and thats the mugabi style tactics of the mods when da bounca tried to appeal the decision

Sherifu

Da Bounca wrote: »

This is shockingly disgraceful behaviour and not by just one person. The issue began with julep, was justified by seamus, then Beruthiel sabotaged any attempt to rectify the situation.

Just on that point, I don't know why the last thread was moved from feedback as Seamus said it was ok to take it here... Wires crossed?

Anyway my take on it is Terry/julep is normally a very solid mod. In this instance he came across a bit snappy when he was asked if it was really a ban. I thought it was a bit out of character for him when I first read the thread. Everyone can have an off day.

turgon

The thread was about drug junkies I think, and maybe Julep was trying to stop a situation arising where some posters might think others judged junkies and foreigners as one in the same. This would obviously be highly offensive.

Tbh for the first few posts in that thread I was a bit confused as to whether the OP was in fact referring to drug junkies or whether junkies was a slang term for person originating from Pakistan.

AlmightyCushion

Ledgehammer wrote: »

AC, you seemed to of missed the major point being addressed here and thats the mugabi style tactics of the mods when da bounca tried to appeal the decision

The thread on after hours isn't the place to appeal or inquire about the ban. We don't allow the discussion of bans/mod decisions on thread as it de-rails the thread and takes it off topic. Terry told him that if he had a problem with the ban he could take it up with the helpdesk. If he had taken it up with helpdesk we wouldn't be here.

Sherifu wrote: »

Anyway my take on it is Terry/julep is normally a very solid mod. In this instance he came across a bit snappy when he was asked if it was really a ban. I thought it was a bit out of character for him when I first read the thread. Everyone can have an off day.

I don't see it as snappy (I can see how someone can though and it could have been). The way I see it, he was just saving everyone a bit of time and effort. If he didn't post up the help desk part it would have increased the amount of un-needed interactions. E.g.

User: Is that a joke?
Mod : No.
User: Well I think that ban is unfair. etc. etc.
Mod: Fair enough, you'll have to take it up with help desk.

Jazzy

i dunno, i have found its like talking to a wall. any time ive seen threads in helpdesk or feedback ive only ever seen one actually been listened to. those 2 forums just seem like a proxy set up to give the illusion u can actually give feedback or get any help.

i blame the circle jerk nature of how many forums on boards are run nowadays. i dont think ill ever bother making a thread in feedback or helpdesk again as i fail to see the point. u just generally get stone walled which leads to further frustration. too many mods are boardsed out of it and the whole place becomes stagnant, unreal and overly hostile. the stick first nature is taken far too seriously. while i understand the need for it on a busy site like this, i just dont get how ready mods are to dehumanise everything and 'moderate'.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If he had taken it up with helpdesk we wouldn't be here.

if terry had been a bit more human in responding and said maybe one or 2 lines we wouldnt be here either. thats exactly the point. versatility. u dont need to have ur mod face on for every single little question (or word) on a thread. ooohhh deary, the thread might have gone OT for 1 or 2 posts. quick, call spiderman.
just relax a bit and try not to be too boards when talking

Winters

MODS = FAGS

Sherifu

Winters, that pic >> all of us.

Ledgehammer

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The thread on after hours isn't the place to appeal or inquire about the ban. We don't allow the discussion of bans/mod decisions on thread as it de-rails the thread and takes it off topic. Terry told him that if he had a problem with the ban he could take it up with the helpdesk. If he had taken it up with helpdesk we wouldn't be here.

He did, after he was banned he wasnt able to post on AH. And when he went to the help desk forum to appeal it he was basicly fobbed off and the actual thread itself was butchered to suit to suit the mods.

Mugabi, Sadam, Kim Jong-il Tactics.

Ledgehammer

Wincest is best! wrote: »

MODS = FAGS

No need for that keep this a legitimate conversation.

dr.bollocko

I dont see how we are covering any new ground here between the on-thread original interaction, the charter of AH, the other feedback thread and the helpdesk thread.
These bans have been explained time and again.
I don't really care for a witch hunt over any intent in any of Terry's posts. I doubt too many will. Everybody has a bad reaction to a ban. We extend users of AH every courtesy in moving threads, explaining rules, PMing users when necessary etc. and will continue to do so. This matter has been explained already.

Terry

Your ban will be up in two days.
I will not be lifting it before that.

If an admin wants to overrule me on that, then fair enough. Otherwise the ban stays.

Da Bounca

The unfair ban is not the point. This would be in Help Desk if it was.
I am providing feedback on the behaviour of moderators and their actions when dealing with a ban, an appeal, a seperate thread dealing with mod behaviour, and mod power regarding the decision of what is right and wrong.

dr.bollocko

Da Bounca wrote: »

The ban is not the point. This would be in Help Desk if it was.
I am providing feedback on the behaviour of moderators and their actions when dealing with a ban, an appeal, a seperate thread dealing with mod behaviour, and mod power regarding deciding what is right and wrong.

You went on an anti-mod attack and the mods backed themselves up with valid points relating to the incident.
That is all.

Jazzy

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You went on an anti-mod attack and the mods backed themselves up with valid points relating to the incident.
That is all.

pretty much exactly wat im talking about right there. no actual response to the queries brought up - just the standard boards response we have come to know and love.
want to actually put in some interaction instead of just stone walling things? are you not seeing the point of the thread?

dr.bollocko

Jazzy wrote: »

are you not seeing the point of the thread?

No.
No I am not.

Terry

Da Bounca wrote: »

The unfair ban is not the point. This would be in Help Desk if it was.
I am providing feedback on the behaviour of moderators and their actions when dealing with a ban, an appeal, a seperate thread dealing with mod behaviour, and mod power regarding the decision of what is right and wrong.

What do you want done then?

Funky

It'd be cool if I could have an explanation of why my posts were deleted from the original feedback thread. Cause Beruthiel was kind enough to ignore my PM regarding that.

Da Bounca

Just questions answered julep, and them answered honestly.

First of all, I would like to know why the Overbearing thread was moved so that people couldn't post on it and it's posts deleted.

Why have I received no repsonse from Beruthial or Seamus with regard to the Overbearing thread?

Also, why is it that you decided kawasaki was racist?

Why is it you banned me for arguing, when all I did was get up your nose and point out your blunt attitude wasn't ok when dealing with people?

What measures are in place for when a mod steps out of line and needs to be reprimanded. Is it done by other moderators? The closed circle of friends that incessantly thank each other all day long.

Why is it you allowed a thread to go on that had the first poster banned in it for racist remarks? Normally it would be locked. Or why not edit/reprimand, especially when it is only 'fairly' racist.

Why did you not respond to the OP of the kawasaki thread in a resonable and professional manner when you were banning him?

Why have I received no repsonse from Beruthial or Seamus with regard to the Overbearing thread?

Why don't all moderators have the moderator tag under their names? They are public figures who enforce the forums rules. They should be marked as such for everyone's sake.


There's more, but that'll do for the moment.

Overheal

Also, why is it that you decided kawasaki was racist?

Who decided ****** was a racist term for blacks, or cracker a racist term for whites, or spic a racist term for mexicans - i think you can see where this is going.

Da Bounca

Overheal, you're way off.

They ARE racist terms. Not rhyming nicknames for people from other cultures.

Terry

Da Bounca wrote: »

Also, why is it that you decided kawasaki was racist?

Because the dude told me it was.
I asked what it meant,. He said it was slang for Paki. Paki is a racist term, therefore kawasaki, by default, is also a racist term.

I suggest asking for a Pakistani person's opinion before disputing this.

Why is it you banned me for arguing, when all I did was get up your nose and point out your blunt attitude wasn't ok when dealing with people?

You broke one of the cardinal rules of AH and most other forums on this site.
You could just as easily have taken your arguement to PM instead of posting on thread.

What measures are in place for when a mod steps out of line and needs to be reprimanded. Is it done by other moderators? The closed circle of friends that incessantly thank each other all day long.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not a friend of any moderator on this forum.
I have had a drink with a few, but I would not call them friends. I don't know any of them well enough.

A Cmod will usually step in first. If problems continue, then it is taken up by an available Admin.
If a moderator is deemed to have stepped too far out of line, then they are demodded and sometimes site banned.
Sometimes the moderator in question will just step down and avoid any further complications.

If you are referring to me as a moderator who has stepped out of line in this question, they'll have to kill me to strip me of my modship of AH.

Why is it you allowed a thread to go on that had the first poster banned in it for racist remarks?

It was a good premise for a thread.

Normally it would be locked. Or why not edit/reprimand, especially when it is only 'fairly' racist.

You're wrong there.
There's a certain user who keeps re-regging and starting threads. sometimes they will be left open after he has been site banned because sometimes people are interested in the subject of the thread. If a thread gets enough replies, we usually leave it open because people have shown an interest.

Why did you not respond to the OP of the kawasaki thread in a resonable and professional manner when you were banning him?

He was given a reasonable reason for his ban via PM.

Why have I received no repsonse from Beruthial or Seamus with regard to the Overbearing thread?

Like the first two questions, I cannot answer that.
You'll have to wait for them to come along.

Why don't all moderators have the moderator tag under their names? They are public figures who enforce the forums rules. They should be marked as such for everyone's sake.

Some are subscribers and choose to change their tag.
The list of forums they moderate are still visible.

Overheal

Da Bounca wrote: »

Overheal, you're way off.

They ARE racist terms. Not rhyming nicknames for people from other cultures.

Do you not ever stop to wonder where and how racist terms originate? Or do you just think god put the word n*gger there to be funny?

By the way, Dr. Suess would turn in his grave if someone tried to tell him kawasaki rhymed with pakistani.

Hank Scorpio

a moderator banned you because you used the word television. In some countries that word is forbidden.

Your a racist, the ban stands.

Dont try to fight, you no your wrong

Winters

The word "boards" is now a recist term for retards. I propose that from now on, anyone using the word "boards" should be instantly banned for using what is now considere a racist term.


To clear things up. This simple guide will be handy:


All non-racist and surprisingly sexy things...

V9

Wincest is best! wrote: »

The word "boards" is now a recist term for retards. I propose that from now on, anyone using the word "boards" should be instantly banned for using what is now considere a racist term.


To clear things up. This simple guide will be handy:


All non-racist and surprisingly sexy things...

I'rd rei d er, thats not sayin much BAGN

Agent Smith

This useless Thread was brought to you by


"Salem Cigarettes"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r44Va1OPLA8

javaboy

Well I think the question about why the thread was moved to Help Desk has been adequately answered.

K-9

Wincest is best! wrote: »

The word "boards" is now a recist term for retards. I propose that from now on, anyone using the word "boards" should be instantly banned for using what is now considere a racist term.


To clear things up. This simple guide will be handy:


All non-racist and surprisingly sexy things...

Feck it, I think my last thought was Deja Vue and I was going to make a valuable contribution to this thread...................seriously distracted.

Terry

Well played, Winters. I did laugh.

Now if you have nothing useful to add, please go away.

Beruthiel

Da Bounca
As has been said before, complaints about Mods are for the Help Desk.

The ban has been handed out, the Mods of AH agree with it, it's up in two days.
I'm not sure what it is you wish to accomplish by starting up yet another thread.

As for dealing with appeals. They are dealt with on a case by case basis.
Some are resolved well for the OP if it deemed they were unfairly treated.
This is not one of those cases.

Winters
You're not helping.
Which is why threads like this never go well in Feedback.

Overheal

D-Generate

I'm confused about what boards.ie's position on what constitutes a racial slur is. Perhaps Kawasaki is rhyming slang for someone from Pakistan (never heard it myself), but if that is a blacklisted word then where does it stop? Should posts including the words Brit, Paddy or Yank also be blacklisted under the same conditions that it isn't the correct term to refer to citizens of that country?

Also I am slightly worried with the way that the thread moved to Help Desk was heavily edited and posts were removed. I can understand posts being edited for legal reasons in certain situations but there was no necessity to delete posts from the "Overbearing" thread.

Its hugely disappointing that the general "pub" atmosphere that once was After Hours is being steadily abolished in favour of threads that contain little substance but are deemed "safe family-friendly" topics. The community as a whole is mature enough to be self-governing in all but the rarest of situations. Flippantly banning members for replying to posts with the same level as respect they have received from moderators does nothing to stimulate intelligent discussion or to promote clean discussion, it just alienates long term members who feel that After Hours has lost something. Castor Troy used to be seen as the toughest mod to hit After Hours but he is just a quiet lamb compared to this lot.

AlmightyCushion

D-Generate wrote: »

Its hugely disappointing that the general "pub" atmosphere that once was After Hours is being steadily abolished in favour of threads that contain little substance but are deemed "safe family-friendly" topics.

I'd hardly consider the "What's the weirdest place you've ever wanked" type threads to be family friendly.

dr.bollocko

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I'd hardly consider the "What's the weirdest place you've ever wanked" type threads to be family friendly.

But you can't say they are lacking substance.
Even if it is white.
And sticky.

Karl Hungus

Da Bounca wrote: »

The term used was Kawasaki. It was not used in a derogatory way, nor in fact does it have any link to racism that I can see.
It does rhyme with paki, which some would deem a derogatory word, but in fact it is an abbreviation of the full word Pakistani. No racism there.
Kawasaki is part of a cockney rhyming style slang.

Let me see if I'm getting it right, you're saying that racist terms aren't racist if they're veiled in cockney rhymes? So if someone was to say "I ****ing hate them Pooh & Tiggers who live up the apples and pairs" then that would be alright? Nah, I don't buy that. Obviously there's some disagreement over whether the term Paki is racist or not, but the person who started the thread obviously found it questionable enough to disguise the language he used, and that fact alone tells us something.

Ivan

The OP referred to Kawasaki meaning Pakistani, not a Paki.

I'm inclined to admit that I probably would have taken the same steps that Julep did, but that doesnt necessarily mean it was correct. If AH mods are too rushed or under so much pressure that they must ban people from the proverbial hip, then there is definitely a need for more AH mods.

On any other forum Da Bounca's actions would have resulted in an infraction or a PM. Certainly not a ban, but absolutely not a 7 day ban.

A poster should be afforded every right to question his or her ban, especially once s/he has exhausted every other means at his/her disposal to do so. The tradition of burying feedback threads in lolcats and other exciting expressions of too much time combined with too much nerdism; dont help anybody even if they are often hilarious.

But a system is defined by how it reacts to criticism just as much as by its actions that draw said criticism. Based on this test, I'm concerned about the current state of boards politics.

Da Bounca

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No.
No I am not.

I don't know if that's sarcasm or if you haven't read what's going on.
Either way your remarks are neither helpful nor informative.

This is one of the reasons that all moderators should have that tag under their name, so that all users can see who it is that's posting. It could seem to someone that it is a standard user posting, when it is not. Knowing who says what is important.

dr.bollocko wrote:

But you can't say they are lacking substance.
Even if it is white.
And sticky.

Just stop posting, please. You are not funny and you bring absolutely nothing to the thread.

Overheal wrote: »

Do you not ever stop to wonder where and how racist terms originate? Or do you just think god put the word n*gger there to be funny?

By the way, Dr. Suess would turn in his grave if someone tried to tell him kawasaki rhymed with pakistani.

Yes I do stop to wonder those things Overheal.
It is important to know the meaning and origin of the words you use. This is something that I believe julep overstepped the mark on. He is the one who made the term kawasaki racist, not the OP. By banning him for it he has made the term paki racist, and I do not believe it is. Is brit racist? What about turk? Or maybe ruskie? Even Paddy?
They are nicknamed through association to the name of the country, and not through the association of oppression, slavery, war or some other indignant act.
Again, you obviously haven't read the threads properly if you think that this has anything to do with kawasaki and Pakistani rhyming. That, or you are being sarcastic, which is derailing the thread, in which case I would be glad if a mod jumped in with a de-railgun to the face.

nuxx. I think you were trying to be funny, but failed miserably.

Wincest. Well, I don't know what to say. Bravo is the first thing that springs to mind.

julep wrote: »

Because the dude told me it was.
I asked what it meant,. He said it was slang for Paki. Paki is a racist term, therefore kawasaki, by default, is also a racist term.

I suggest asking for a Pakistani person's opinion before disputing this.

You suggest that I ask a Pakistani's view? You were the one who decided it was racist, not me. When you asked what it meant, the OP responded with 'It's dub code for Pakistani' , not that it is dub code for a racist slur.

julep wrote:

You broke one of the cardinal rules of AH and most other forums on this site.
You could just as easily have taken your arguement to PM instead of posting on thread.

You should have taken it to PM. I responded to your publicly blunt attitude, not the other way around. Then when it did go to PM, you didn't want to discuss the matter.

julep wrote:

I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not a friend of any moderator on this forum.
I have had a drink with a few, but I would not call them friends. I don't know any of them well enough.

You converse with them every day, even if they aren't your real life friends, they are associates. Moderating the lesser beings such as myself and repeatedly thanking each others posts. (It's quite lame. Thanking is the most retarded thing to hit boards yet. If there is thank, then there should be a do not approve tag also.)
There is no doubt that mods in general have an aloof attitude, especially toward people that may not be regular posters. As jazzy said, the stick first has become the way of things around here, and it needs to stop. Additional mods may be needed. It could be the sheer mass of posts which need to be moderated by the few moderators that has caused this descent to guilty before proven innocent.

julep wrote:

If you are referring to me as a moderator who has stepped out of line in this question, they'll have to kill me to strip me of my modship of AH.

No, I don't want this. I did want you to be temporarily demodded, but I don't anymore.
I think you were presumptious and placed your opinion higher than everyone elses. You have no right to decide what is racist and what isn't. Thousands of people read this site and will go away thinking paki is a racist remark, simply because a moderators word is gold here. Pakistani folk use the word paki regularly when conversing with each other. It would not be common practice for someone other than a Pakistani to use the term though. At the same time it can be a racist remark if you want it to be and are actually calling a pakistani a paki personally with intent to hurt.
Half a century ago, the term paki was used by a small amount of people(crackers/whites) to describe everyone with a similar skin tone, simply because foreign cultures weren't familiar enough to them and they could not discern which culture was which.

julep wrote:

He was given a reasonable reason for his ban via PM.

After a humiliating ban, he was given a reasonable reason for being labelled a racist? Hmmm.

julep wrote:

Some are subscribers and choose to change their tag.
The list of forums they moderate are still visible.

If you are a moderator, it needs to be visible immediately. Bollocko is a troll, and It looks to the uninformed that a regular user is posting, when it is not. How many unlabelled mods are there?

Beruthiel wrote:

Da Bounca
As has been said before, complaints about Mods are for the Help Desk.

Important feedback with constructive criticsm. I do believe it would be more useful in feedback.

Beruthiel wrote:

The ban has been handed out, the Mods of AH agree with it, it's up in two days.
I'm not sure what it is you wish to accomplish by starting up yet another thread.

Wow, the other AH mods agree on someone's ban? God forbid you disagree and step on each other's toes. You're not friends afterall, wouldn't want to be too frank with these internet strangers.
The reason for starting up 'yet another' thread was because the discussions had not been finished, but you made sure that they came to an end.
I will ask you again why posts were deleted?

Beruthiel wrote:

As for dealing with appeals. They are dealt with on a case by case basis.
Some are resolved well for the OP if it deemed they were unfairly treated.
This is not one of those cases.

I don't know if the OP is unhappy with his ban or whatever, and I really don't think it matters if he is or isn't. He was told he was racist, so he either believes it and thinks he was(which he wasn't and isn't), or he has sent requests to have his ban lifted, which of course was met by: 'No, the ban is fair, we have all agreed this without discussing it with you'. If anything, the OP's casual reference to pakistani's as kawasakis was a term of endearment.


Winters
You're not helping.
Which is why threads like this never go well in Feedback.

kaimera

to urbandictionary kids...this needs defining.

all i can see is

kawasaki
"kidney donor" in Japanese

Boston

So let me get this straight, Da Bounca is an English racists who hates black people ?

Overheal

Da Bounca wrote: »

If you are a moderator, it needs to be visible immediately. Bollocko is a troll, and It looks to the uninformed that a regular user is posting, when it is not. How many unlabelled mods are there?

D-Generate

Overheal wrote: »

You are ****ing hilarious. You know my sides are splitting because you are such a riot. Some might call you the Oscar Wilde of our lifetime such is the enormity of your wit. Your comical observations are smack bang on the button such as to rival Bill Hicks. I was expecting a well thought out reply but no, wham, you hit me with a perfectly suited motivator picture! Your well timed hijinks have taken me by surprise with comical effect!

Overheal

D-Generate wrote: »

You are ****ing hilarious. You know my sides are splitting because you are such a riot. Some might call you the Oscar Wilde of our lifetime such is the enormity of your wit. Your comical observations are smack bang on the button such as to rival Bill Hicks. I was expecting a well thought out reply but no, wham, you hit me with a perfectly suited motivator picture! Your well timed hijinks have taken me by surprise with comical effect!

*bow*

Or if you prefer my more constructive response:

DaBounca wrote:

If you are a moderator, it needs to be visible immediately. Bollocko is a troll, and It looks to the uninformed that a regular user is posting, when it is not. How many unlabelled mods are there?

He is a Mod of After Hours; you are more than capably informed he is a Mod of After Hours, and you have no case by pleading ignorance. Whether or Not he is feeling Dandible today, is quite irrelevant.

If thats still too hard to grasp, I point your attention here. Or, if you prefer, you can report your grievances to US# 1-877-SEAN-930

Who the hell is Bill Hicks?

DeVore

ow. That hurt to even read that burn.

I'm not without sympathy regarding the grey area of language but this was a 50/50 call. Kawasaki doesnt rhyme with Pakistani, it rhymes with Paki.... kinda like "our little Paki friend" as nearby royalty were slammed for recently.

Didnt want to get involved in this thread because its simply more symantic nit picking and rhetoric-lawyering but man, you walked into that one. I find that if I'm going to be a snide smarty pants, it really helps to be right.

DeV.

seamus

DeVore wrote: »

ow. That hurt to even read that burn.

Though Tom, I'm shocked you allowed the "Who the hell is Bill Hicks?" comment go without question.

DeVore

ah you know, these young 'uns. I dont know what they teach them in school these days....

DeV.

Terry

Da Bounca wrote: »

Yes I do stop to wonder those things Overheal.
It is important to know the meaning and origin of the words you use. This is something that I believe julep overstepped the mark on. He is the one who made the term kawasaki racist, not the OP. By banning him for it he has made the term paki racist, and I do not believe it is. Is brit racist? What about turk? Or maybe ruskie? Even Paddy?
They are nicknamed through association to the name of the country, and not through the association of oppression, slavery, war or some other indignant act.
Again, you obviously haven't read the threads properly if you think that this has anything to do with kawasaki and Pakistani rhyming. That, or you are being sarcastic, which is derailing the thread, in which case I would be glad if a mod jumped in with a de-railgun to the face.


You suggest that I ask a Pakistani's view? You were the one who decided it was racist, not me. When you asked what it meant, the OP responded with 'It's dub code for Pakistani' , not that it is dub code for a racist slur.



No, I don't want this. I did want you to be temporarily demodded, but I don't anymore.
I think you were presumptious and placed your opinion higher than everyone elses. You have no right to decide what is racist and what isn't. Thousands of people read this site and will go away thinking paki is a racist remark, simply because a moderators word is gold here. Pakistani folk use the word paki regularly when conversing with each other. It would not be common practice for someone other than a Pakistani to use the term though. At the same time it can be a racist remark if you want it to be and are actually calling a pakistani a paki personally with intent to hurt.
Half a century ago, the term paki was used by a small amount of people(crackers/whites) to describe everyone with a similar skin tone, simply because foreign cultures weren't familiar enough to them and they could not discern which culture was which.

Just to address the emboldened parts:
Dub code? Why would you need a code to refer to those of a different race?

As for Pakistani folk using the word regularly, I suggest you think hard about another people who use a word regularly to refer to each other. It begins with "N".

My first experiences of the word "Paki" are as follows:
Like most people in this country, I grew up in a place with very few foreign people, apart from white British.
A friend's cousin was here on holiday from Sunderland. He told us of his "Paki basking" exploits.
Another friend's cousin came over from Birmingham. He also spoke of his "Paki bashing" adventures. The fact that he then told us that "the ****in' Paki's bet me up though" is neither here not there.

Now you will forgive me if I associate the word "Paki" with racism, but that exactly how I see it.

Also, what DeVore said about the British royals.

D-Generate

Then why is it not a censored word like the 'N' word? Is there degrees of severity as to what constitutes a racist slur? All I'm saying is that a very fine line is being walked as to what is deemed correct and it is moderators personal opinion coming in to play as the deciding factor rather than boards.ie policy. So since it now has been confirmed that "Paki" results in a ban and is a censored word will we now see **** in its place?

The original intention of this post was the accountability of a moderators actions. This whole thing could have been avoided if Julep had made it clear why he was banning the original poster. Would it not make sense that when a post is made that receives a banning that a little edit is appended to the bottom of said post to show why a ban was received. It would give the moderators actions some transparency and also allow users to see what is acceptable and what isn't. From that thread unless you read in a good 10 posts it is not clear that Kawasaki is not an acceptable term to call someone of Pakistan origin. Bannings given with no explanation to others is only a punishment and not a deterrent to further postings with similar content.

Oh and any word yet as to why the "Overbearing" thread was censored?

Terry

The reason for the ban was made clear on the thread.

I've said my piece and counted to three.

seamus

D-Generate wrote: »

Then why is it not a censored word like the 'N' word? Is there degrees of severity as to what constitutes a racist slur? All I'm saying is that a very fine line is being walked as to what is deemed correct and it is moderators personal opinion coming in to play as the deciding factor rather than boards.ie policy. So since it now has been confirmed that "Paki" results in a ban and is a censored word will we now see **** in its place?

It's nothing to do with censored words. It's the intention of the word. Same as someone who started a thread complaining about "f*cking pikeys" would get a ban, but the word "pikey" isn't censored. The censor is something that comes as standard in the vbulletin package, and very little customising of it has been done. We're all adults (or close to it) and we don't need protecting from words. The filter is left in place because an idiot's post full of f's and blinds gets turned into a load of asterisks and makes you look like an idiot having an unintelligible rant from a mile away. Besides, trying to add every random piece of slang to a content filter would be the ultimate exercise in futility. There are so many normal words out there with offensive or sexual connotations attached to them in certain contexts that you'd end up censoring out half of the english language.

Would it not make sense that when a post is made that receives a banning that a little edit is appended to the bottom of said post to show why a ban was received. It would give the moderators actions some transparency and also allow users to see what is acceptable and what isn't.

What is acceptable and what isn't is part common sense and part charter. Mods actions are very transparent and tbh it's only necessary to tell others why someone was banned if you want to discourage similar postings. In this case, julep made it very clear why the ban was being handed out - racism. He said it, there on the thread.

From that thread unless you read in a good 10 posts it is not clear that Kawasaki is not an acceptable term to call someone of Pakistan origin.

If you know what "kawasaki" means in this context, then you should know that it's not an acceptable term. Let's go back to the word "pikey". If you know what that means, then you'd know that you don't use it.