GUAC News: 6/30/14

wally's Upset at Your Outrage Against Pedophiles

Fresh off that whole boys will be boys attitude about statutory rape, wally is wading back into the subject of pedophilia.

In a topic titled, "NC Lawmaker: Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like homosexuality," something I'm not touching with a 10 foot pole, wally has popped up again and has decided someone just went way too far criticizing someone who likes the kiddies.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/69534220
  
"I don't care HOW liberal and tolerant our society gets.. I will NEVER tolerate pedophiles, and I don't care if it is innate to that person and not any more of a choice than homosexuality is. People don't want to consider homosexuality a mental problem (or a problem at all really), but I will always consider pedophilia to be a mental problem; one that is likely 100% irredeemable. And just because they never act on it does NOT mean we should accept and tolerate them in our society."

Holy crap dude. Even Big Brother from 1984 would tell you that you're a little extreme here.

"100 percent irredeemable" is something I'd disagree with. But more extreme than Big Brother for not tolerating pedophiles? Maybe wally should try this line out on victims and their families, and see where it gets him. There's a lot of posts in the sea...why he felt compelled to call this one out as extremist is anyone's guess.

Rumors of Plagiarism Strike Back

Two separate comments have informed me that there could still be users getting hit for illegal activities after quoting too long from a source they cited. Absent evidence, I'm going to do something strange and trust the two mods who said this is over with. I've got a big red X on my back but haven't had a problem doing it so far. But if this has happened to you recently, send it in to here and appeal that nonsense. k?

Board Outreach

Efforts to reach out to all gamefaqs are taking place slowly but surely. Expansion is our goal here. Some people have told me, hey TaiIs, improve the blog. Make it relevant to my interests. Go big or go home. Well, I can't do it without your help. Politics is my area of expertise, and politics it will remain unless there is more outreach. So with that I've been keeping tabs on a few more boards and keeping an eye out for issues. You can say oh this is just a conservative thing. Not true! I welcome input from liberals if they have a mod story to tell. There's going to be some entries on the things I've gathered from outreach, and if you have something you'd like to see send me a message! I aim to please.

Mod Outreach

Here at Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship, we pride ourselves on giving a fair hearing to all sorts. Over the past few weeks I've made an effort to reach out to moderators for their take on things when I had questions. So as Screw the Mods month dies down, let's unscrew a little bit and take a look at what they have to say. Their comments are greatly appreciated.

When this blog made some waves, a few readers mentioned the name of Admiral as an example of a conservative mod. Having had little to no contact with this mod before, I decided to ask a few questions.

TaiIs82:
What has your experience been like with other mods when it comes to their beliefs? Do you find that they tend to lean a certain direction when it comes to their political stance?

 The Admiral:
I think it's important to distinguish between a moderator's personal bias and a moderator's moderating bias. Certain mods are definitely more right or left oriented than others, and some of them make this known through through their posts on the boards. There is nothing wrong with that, and, in fact, some diversity is valuable in our discussions on determining moderation polices.

However, the mods, in general, are very good at detaching their personal politics from their moderation decisions. Most moderators (myself included) will enforce rules they might not personally believe in because they've made a commitment to uphold this site's rules, and that's part of the job. Others simply avoid handling marks if they disagree with them on a political basis, and this is fine. We always encourage mods to refrain from handling marks if they don't feel they can be objective. Since my time as a mod, we haven't had any issues with moderators pushing their own personal agendas through moderations.

All that being said, there is definitely a disparity over the types of comments that are marked. The user base on this site tends to be more liberal on social issues, so comments criticizing the left or left-wing policies are marked more often than comments criticizing the right. However, this is a byproduct of the community-oriented moderation system, not a result of any bias at the mod level.

The response was supportive of the idea that moderators place their political views aside, but I had some more questions. What exactly was meant by a community-oriented moderation system? I've seen some people claim that if enough users mark a message for trolling, the moderators would have to do something about it. Is there any merit to that, and are unpopular views at risk? There's also the old "your party's political opinions are no different from trolling." When a mod decides whether something is trolling or offensive, aren't there subjective judgments to be made there? My inbox is open if any mod wants to take a crack at those questions.

 Next up I wrote willythemailboy, who had some interesting things to say about his time as a mod.

Personal bias is pretty minimal in most cases. Since there's no reason any particular mod has to handle any specific message, it's easy to skip ones you feel you can't be impartial on. The user relations I mentioned were users that disagreed with my views on the politics board and absolutely believed that any action against them was solely due to a mod trying to suppress their views. Thus I got blamed for any moderated message - accurately, but for different reasons.

At the time, I was the only mod active on the politics board. Wally posts but has stated that he does not moderate anything posted on that board, and I have good reason to believe that to be true. I would moderate any violations I saw while reading topics, regardless of who posted them. Most mods do not, and it really annoys me when I see a mod post in a topic with blatant violations in it; they either didn't read the topic before posting, or did and chose to ignore the violations. For 2 or 3 years nearly every moderation on the politics board was from me, simply because no one else was doing it.

I also asked if it was true that a moderator could no-action their own messages, having heard an allegation on the politics board that someone was doing it  - and due to the nature of the info, if my memory was correct that this happened it had to have been either wally or willy who said it (and it sure as heck wasn't wally):

It was true (I don't know that it still is or not) that *any* mod could no-action their own messages if they got marked. Note that a no-actioned message can still be moderated, but the post shows up with a big "this message has already been no-actioned by another moderator" and is given a very low priority in the queue if marked again. And, of course, the same moderator could no-action it again if it showed up in the queue again. The automatic system could easily be abused by a mod defending their own post, but it could also be bypassed by bringing a blatant violation to the attention of a different mod, and I suspect a mod caught abusing it would not be a mod very long.

Finally I asked Crazymaori about a post of his from last year:

Crazymaori(Moderator)Posted 10/5/2013 4:28:18 AM
"After CE, console boards and GTA5, I think that board receives the greatest percent of marks from what I usually see. An opinion that isn't the same as someone else's is always marked for trolling."

I think you're correct with the part where you mention that unpopular views are more likely to be marked, but perhaps not moderated. I'd like to think that there aren't any moderators on the team which actually take a bias into account. I know when there are marks which involve something I'm sensitive about (which isn't often) I tend to just leave it and see what action was taken on it at a later date. 

I tend to avoid trolling marks for the politics board. Offensive/off-topic etc I'll happily handle since those moderations tend to be straight-forward. Trolling on the other hand is a lot harder because I simply do not understand the intricate details of US politics...

I think trolling is a lot harder to put on someone in general, because you have to look at them and decide motive. Especially when the person marking it can do it just because they don't like that person. With a 'community-oriented' system, could we say the dominant belief dominates what can be said on the board? If someone on 19th century gamefaqs says women should vote and the board says poppycock, this man has been inhaling the vapors and is behaving as if he were a troll, does that view go bye-bye not because it was insincere, but because it wasn't popular enough to be protected as a legitimate view? My assumption is that everyone's not a troll until proven otherwise, and there's a bit of a golden rule going there because there's always someone calling someone else a troll just because they don't agree on the same things.

Give me a shout if you have any thoughts, and keep your eyes open! Maybe you'll hear from me next.

Looking at Other Blogs (Cited Plagiarism Flashback)

While looking around for some old posts to link here, I came across a few old blog posts from other people and they're a little interesting, so why not take a look.

First, here's a response/joke blog from what appears to be a wally cultist, if not wally himself (I can dream...)
Nah I kid, not enough obscenities and suggestions that I kill myself to be wally.

http://progamefaqscensorship.blogspot.com/2014_06_01_archive.html

I'd like to thank wally for all his hard work and dedication in his dealings with the false shepard...Tails82. This unholy blasphemer, this maniacal monster that spreads lies and deceit and corruption everywhere it goes. This vile hellspawn created from the darkest pits of hell. Yes this wretched abomination saint wally deals with on a daily basis for free for our security.     
He keeps us safe from this demonic creature and its heathenous anti censorship ideals. It is only when we accept censorship and fair moderation that we cast out this baron of darkness.

Unfortunately, your wally with his little w cannot do anything against the conservatroll tide. Even though he's a mod he doesn't touch the politics board, so we can take his word over reality.

It turns out someone has actually tried harder than me - to support mods. No I'm not talking about that guy up there. I'm looking at this:

http://thatrandomuser.wordpress.com/

Dude be pissed that people spend so much of their precious time complaining about moderations, so he's spent his precious time with walls of text getting upset over how those other people should not be upset. Though he appears to have been inactive for many a moon now. Dude does not know what paragraph breaks are. It's going to take some time to look at this thing and have some fun with it, not for the guy's opinion but for the stuff he's quoted from. Latest post featuring tmk, where Error is called a troll AND troll apologist (poor guy, and he doesn't even get paid for it):

There are two reasons GameFAQs would even have mods. The first reason would be to keep the site out of any serious trouble, so like, deleting things that would upset companies, or authorities for example. Threats and harassingly revealing personal information, child porn being removed of course, stuff like that. If that’s why the mods are here, then the rules are currently EXTREMELY over-bloated and rather nonsensical to the point of the site’s rules.
Alternative reason is, the above, plus also to try and maintain some degree of order on the boards, to try and prevent things from being overly disrupted and such by troublemakers, to reign in troublemakers. When a mod acts trollish, that is directly counter to this second reason, and tends to be rather disruptive because of this wacky idea of thinking mods should probably be held to a bit higher standards than a 3 week old account.
Trolling also comes across way, way worse when it’s coming from someone with some degree of authority over the site and you, especially on a site where trolling is supposed to be something you can be modded for. Some of the most disruptive dickery I’ve seen on the site came from moderators, in fact.

It doesn’t engender a lot of respect or cooperation between the userbase and the authority on GameFAQs when the mods come across as dismissive and trollish and above all else, hypocrites.

the moonlight knight could not be reached for comment. And that's a shame too, because I'd give him more fair treatment than this guy did.

Here's an entry that's a bit old and known around town, but may be worth a read. The secretive environment of mod decisions is arguably still a problem today, with that whole unannounced flip-flop on cited plagiarism.

http://poker-over-killing.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-was-gamefaqs-moderator-for-5-yrs.html

The level of consistency was ridiculous. I remember making topics on the mod boards that some of us worked on to try and get an idea on where people's heads were and it was amazing to see the complete mess it was. Some people would NKL one thing while some would warn for the same thing, a couple would suspend, and a couple would notify, and then about 50 mods would never even bother to read or participate on the mod boards. It was a mess.

the basic theme is that they think all their users are a bunch of retarded monkey children who will do anything they can to break a rule so may as well live in the old ages of internet forums...The reason people get mad and frustrated is that keeping such ridiculous secrets does make it look as if the mods are vastly superior to the regs. Like the regs are too stupid to handle it.

Speaking of secrecy, images of Willy Wonka popped in my head there for a minute there. "Nobody ever goes in, nobody ever comes out." Starring the Oompa Loompas as retarded monkey children. I'd pay for a seat in that theater.

Where it really gets interesting though, is this comment. Tell me if it sounds familiar.

Things like the issue of "consistency" combined with the secrecy are what bugs the shit out of most users, especially the vets like me who are going on almost eight years of posting. A few years back there was a flareup on the main board I visit (WOT) about large copy-pasted posts of news articles being deleted as "illegal activities". Yet that was tolerated and indeed part of the normal function of the mostly politically-oriented board for years.

Fine, okay, suddenly we respect copyrights down to the letter, right? The problem is, there was no clear idea of what "fair use" length was being considered, whether you could fill one post, half a post, one eighth of the article, etc., etc. and any attempt to question the local mod staff only received bullshit responses about how they couldn't say things that would actually inform us as to how to NOT BREAK THE FUCKING RULES.

So what happened? When the controversy died down, so too did the moderations, and nowadays it is again normal for a full post of text from a linked article to be posted and not moderated. At the same time, post public domain text from something like Wikisource going across a few posts and you get told how it is "illegal". Yes, comrade, it has always been a violation, it is only now that mod consciousness has fully awakened to it.

Think they have a book lying around of ways to screw with users, and every once in a while they dust it off to briefly retry some silly rule? The way things happen behind closed doors, could be, we'd never know. Maybe the rules go in and out of fashion like hairstyles. Thus, I called it a fad. I guess they've never really figured it out because they're still going at it. How strange to punish users because mods are indecisive and can't agree on what the rules are.

So it turns out in this big sea known as the wide wild web, I'm not quite alone. Who knows what lurks around the bend or the next google search? One thing's for sure, there's bound to be more adventure out there, more things to find. We'll keep you up to date as we go along.

wally, wally, wally...

I'm working on a few leads right now that aren't quite story worthy yet, so let's have a blast from the past ("write what you know").

When you're on the politics board, it's only a matter of time before you come across this here character. As the only liberal moderator on gamefaqs (yeah right), poor old wally is unable to stop the tide of rascally conservatrolls gripping 261 because he swears he doesn't moderate the politics board. This is a source of great frustration because whenever someone is losing an argument, they would just love to call up the mod squad and have wally go to town on the other guy's account. While wally says with some regret that he cannot do this, he will however tell you to stop making topics if he doesn't like you, talk with himself about maybe moderating you if he can find a reason (for chilling effect), and express his anger at you in pointed terms if you rub him the wrong way. And it is usually only a matter of time before that happens.

I began collecting wally quotes early on, so let's share them with the world shall we? Hypocrisy strikes me as a terrible thing. With my recent moderation over a stereotypical generalization of a political party ("liberals are always angry because their policies always fail"), it's rather eye-beamy to see the public face of the mods on board 261 make statements that go a lot further. You might think the messages below are not mod-worthy, and that might be true. But. When I brought up a selection of things wally has said on Hellhole, my message of simply barebones quotes was moderated, and in appeal I learned that this was for quoting wally's "potential violations." Of course this punishment is reserved for the messenger, while the original messages are there for you to see and are safely archived without problem.

So today, we'll be looking into the wally vault at some of these potential violations:

TaiIs82 Takes Even More Reader Comments

Also, defusing the latest rumors about yours truly.

Cited Plagiarism, Part 2: R.I.P.

As mentioned in my last news entry, the rash of plagiarism allegations from mods, even when you cite a source, is said to be over. I cannot help but think that the sizable opposition to such an unofficial plagiarism rule, along with the fact that it was just plain silly, played a part in ending the fad. Of course a silent repeal of the rule didn't take away my three-month moderated message history with no appeals, after everyone up to Dear Admin stuck with the original moderation, but three karma lost is nothing really and this is more of a moral victory.

One thing I can say is without this effort, we may not have learned as quickly about the higher-ups deciding to change the rule. What I'll never really know is, who knew this unofficial rule was on the books so quickly and marked me for it? Since I was an early victim of enforcement, the guy who marked it must have been following the mods pretty closely to have got wind of the rule and tried it out on me. How would you like that life? I can just imagine that person complaining I spend too much time on this blog, right before they go scour the terms of use for any obscure, hidden mod rule to launch a gotcha game against anyone they don't like. (There's just gotta be a way for gamefaqs mods to punish someone for speaking offsite, right?)

In memory of the cited plagiarism fad, here's some quotes from affected users and people of all persuasions who thought the rule was just plain dumb:

"The topic got modded for illegal activities. Terrible mods." -bsballa09

"That can't be true...That is absurd." -JIC X

"Please dispute it, thats so stupid" -TheRealJiraiya

"Thanks, mods, for killing the first borderline-productive discussion I've ever had with Tails...I love when 90+ post topics suddenly disappear without explanation after having stayed up for weeks, so that I can sit vainly blinking at my posted messages list wondering if I've gone senile or selectively blind." -JIC X

"For the first time ever, I am on Tails's side. The mods literally don't know what the word "entire" means. I'm not sure if I should be laughing or weeping." -TheRunner PD

"On Tail's side for this. Then again, a mod taking Tails seriously is a snowball's chance in hell." -GBALoser

"This is pathetic" -goatthief

"This is f****** stupid. I am usually the last person to complain about the ToS or the moderators. I actually enjoy posting on this site, and have had no issue in the past. This is pretty ridiculous, and such a loosely enforced rule." -StarDestroyer

"Doesn't posting the link along with the text credit the original writer? What the hell gamefaqs?" -biohazard1775

"The mods on this site will never be good at their job. It's not surprise. Just keep chugging along and try to ignore their constant gaffs." -SepirothSama

"What sort of people does the site hire to be a mod? Seems to be mostly jerk high school types who think they're much smarter than they actually are. They consistently provide inane and mind boggling dumb and illogical judgements even after facts are used. I've been lucky to get a couple disputes overturned in the past, but it required A LOT of reasoning and explaining on my part and a bit of luck. They consistently lecture us about following the rules, but those rules often seem arbitrary and inconsistently enforced, and are usually not made with the demographic of this website in mind." -Orange Clockwork

"The one thing everyone on the politics board can agree on: The mods suck at their job." -bsballa09
 
"The mods' vision of copyright isn't based on law or reason; it's raw power, and they wield it like a battleaxe." -JIC X

And finally, the most recent quote from someone who didn't get the memo that the party was over - but who can really blame him when the decisions were all done behind the scenes:

"...and we'll get randomly modded for quoting 4 sentences instead of three because that's how one moderator decided copyright infringement works. never change, gamefaqs." -YouAreCrumbs, in a topic with a cited quote that was four posts long.

After my mid-February moderation, I began to keep a running count of all topics and messages on the politics board alone that broke gmo's definition of plagiarism: 4-5 lines from a source, just like in papers (apparently we've never heard of block quotes). For good measure I even kept a little notepad file of every account that broke the 4-5 line rule at least once. First report can be seen here. The point of the list was to keep a running count of how many messages broke the rule but were not moderated. My point of course was not to say "mod hundreds of these people too" but instead "that one time you modded me was a mistake." And yes, if I heard a message had been moderated I lowered the count by 1, but since that rarely happened the number of non-modded messages remained high. I officially stopped the count yesterday. Here's the final list...

Friends of GUAC: GoemonFan471986

Send your messages in to TaiIs82!

The following is a guest article and does not reflect the personal views of TaiIs82, but has a pretty kickin' message regardless. -Editor





Re: Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship

I still think there's basically a 0% chance of this causing any changes at GameFAQs but it is nice to see someone point out that the emperor has no clothes. I've had problems with the moderating staff since before I even found 261, when it was apparent that several of the gaming boards were ruined by trolling that the mods refused to do anything about.

Meanwhile, on Politics trolling appears to be defined as anything that upsets the liberal majority on 261. I don't have the details because most of my modded messages have disappeared into the ether, but one thing I've noticed is that any time I post about how Obama's policies have effected me, that post is modded. Yet, oddly enough, people can quote those posts without getting modded.

It certainly doesn't help that the visible moderator presence on 261 is wally who, aside from having obvious vendettas against certain users, adds nothing of value to the board since most of his posts are trolling in the form of stupid one liners or image macros.

Of course, as bad as wally's posts where he just replies with something like "XD" or where he makes sweeping generalizations about parts of the country he's never been to are, they're nothing compared to when he brings his daughter up.

In the thread you pointed out where he defends statutory rape, note that in one post he specifically does so by heavily implying that he'd blame his daughter for a hypothetical scenario in which she is taken advantage of by an older man. In an earlier thread, he posted about a scenario in which his wife had an affair and he discovers at age 16 that he is not the biological father of his daughter and doesn't want to pay to help support her. When I called him out on his shockingly cold posting about his own daughter he of course ignored the real issue and replied as though my issue was his views on the child support system and not his habit of making borderline sociopathic remarks about his own daughter. That's where he crosses the line from bad poster/mod to bad person.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/67429962

The fallout from Message #19 in this thread is probably the most ridiculous example I can come up with of how the mods operate here. My defense of George W. Bush was considered such egregious trolling that not only was it deleted but my status was set to warned over it. Meanwhile, none of the liberals who quoted the post for the sole purpose of mocking me were [not] modded in any way.

And seriously, how is that trolling? Strong worded, sure. But I doubt a similar defense of Obama would be modded.

GUAC News - 6/13/14

Is the cited plagiarism fad over? Nitro378 joins the team, Error being Error, and more!

Cited Plagiarism: Yes, It's A Thing

Mods seem to love it when they can find any excuse to moderate you. If they can't find a reason in the terms, they will make up something new. They will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you and wait for something to stick. Such was the case with the cited plagiarism fad.

A few months ago I made a standard topic on the politics board that involved a few paragraphs from an article critical of Obamacare. I was modded for it. Since I didn't think it was "illegal activities" to oppose a certain bill, I asked about it on Hellhole.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/573081-hellhole/68622288

This is where I learned that after 5 years of doing what I've been doing, I was actually "plagiarizing" by quoting from a news article (a widespread practice that continues on the politics board to this day). I was then told the full story behind why I was moderated. Because I had quoted the "entire" thing. Because I plagiarized. Neither were true of course - I linked to the page and counted 40 percent of the article wasn't quoted in my message, which is far from the "entire" thing. But since this was the full story from moderators it was accepted as fact, even from the mods who could see directly in front of them that I hadn't quoted the entire thing, I had linked to the article, as I showed them the above topic and why it was wrong. The mod didn't read or didn't care because he doubled down on the plagiarism charge.

Looks like the moderators in that topic already explained why you were moderated. Please refrain from committing plagiarism.

Same in appeals up to admin. It didn't matter that I linked to the source and never said the work was my own. Didn't matter that I hadn't quoted the entire thing. All that mattered was some mod thought I quoted a bit too much, and they were seriously arguing this was an illegal activity itself, as in, I was guilty of copyright infringement. That's quite the charge. So in my dispute I asked what standard our legal experts on the mod staff used to come to their conclusion.

Is it really copyright infringement when you link to the article you're talking about?...The implications of an upheld moderation would produce more questions, namely what exact quota would someone be allowed to cite before being accused of plagiarism, even when they cite the source? A preset quota would raise problems with short articles or tweets - would users be allowed to post the entire thing?

These questions were never really answered. Since this isn't in the terms (and rarely enforced), the best rationale we could get came from ex-mod gmo:

 Generally speaking for report writing, one cannot put more than four or five lines directly into a report. I would say the same applies here.

4-5 lines. This really isn't a standard though, nor is it enforced, as we'll see in part 2. Lines vary based on what you're using to view the message. Pretty much no one had been modded for this before, and few have been modded afterward. I pointed out during the dispute that while I had been modded for linking to my source, another moderator didn't include a source in something he quoted from, but cited from that source way longer than I did to the point where it passed message character limits and had to be broken up into two separate posts (WALLY ALERT). It remains up for you to see, despite my marking it AND bringing it up on Hellhole AND bringing it up in disputes. Why do you think that is?

My conclusion's best summed up at the end of my initial dispute:
 
Right now it's the politics board operating as the politics board does: someone marks your message if they disagree with you. I really don't think there's an issue here, other than the desire of the other side to keep embarrassing information off the board, using any argument they can throw at it. Illegal activities this is not.

Stay tuned for part 2: widespread opposition, and my ongoing count of how many accounts have broken the rule since last February.

TaiIs82 Takes More Reader Comments

A Few of my Other Warnings...

A couple months before my most recent warning, there were a few other messages I got warned for that were a real stretch...

Democrats refuse to pass budgets. The Senate willfully obstructs and then Obama claims this is proof he needs to act unilaterally.

This warning was over I don't even know what. Maybe from what we know now, it was a stereotypical generalization. But really, this is pushing it. What else can be modded on the board, if this can be modded?

Some will say it's the Republicans who are obstructionist. Well, how many times was that said on the politics board and was anyone moderated for it? On the subject, Democrats obstruct too. Just as many Democrats as Republicans voted against Obama's budget...all of them. The House passes things while the Senate holds things up. Anyone following politics knows Obama has said he will act unilaterally, as I noted at the time when I brought this moderation up on Hellhole. This is more of a statement than an argument. Now I had some messages on my history so that explains the warning, but why would a message like this be touched at all?

By the way, another reason for a blog. Many people at the time were asking me just what I said and could not believe it was this simple. It was, but for me to post it directly on the site would be "quoting a violation." So here it is now.

Second warning about a month later, right before that last one cleared from history:

To any observer this should be another easy 9-0 ruling against Obama.

On the Hobby Lobby case. Not a popular opinion on the board but not a crazy one either. I think it's around 8 cases where the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against Obama's arguments, such as when it came to religious liberty in the Hosanna Tabor case. I think the case I commented on would be as straightforward enough as those cases.

 Some comments have noted that my history was bad, justifying my latest warning. Full disclosure yes, as I said in the posts that these were building upon a past moderation. I'd disagree that it was a violation, but when it came to moderation it made sense to be more strict. However, these past warnings occurred with a history that wasn't close to what it is now. I also found it strange that during that time, I would comment throughout the month but it was only toward the end of warning 1 on my history when warning 2 popped up. Murphy's law or a timed response. Either way the warnings were totes bogus.

TaiIs82 Takes Reader Comments

Why I Do What I Do

After contacting about two dozen gamefaqs users and hearing from many more, some have supported this project but have also raised questions as to why I'm doing this, what I expect to accomplish, and so on. Fair points. I feel like we can go a little more into our goals.

The premise behind Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship is simple: to allow a suitable outlet for users to raise complaints about an overly-aggressive moderation system, regardless of their personal beliefs or affiliation. There are many people who disagree with my views. There are many views I disagree with. But there is common ground to be found in agreeing that your views should not be censored just because they're unpopular, or are popular but were simply opposed by a single person who marked you. I will accept entries from pretty much anyone, and even though I might not agree with everything you want to say I will support your ability to say it.

Some complain that I put too much effort into this little blog these past few days. I say moderators put too much effort into targeting users and overzealously removing their messages. I say they put too much effort into shutting down discussion and locking topics, often arbitrarily, on Hellhole and elsewhere. People who are concerned with the level I'm putting into this need only remember that I'm spending roughly the same amount of time here that I would have spent posting on gamefaqs, if I could state my political beliefs unmolested. They put the effort into silencing me, so I'm putting the effort into taking them on.

Some have also said that my project here is too small and not worth it, there are bigger things to worry about, but then they go on to say that it's too hard to fight city hall and why try because I'm taking on something too big. If it's too small, why not start small, and have some success at improving the boards? If it's too big, then I cannot help but feel this is something that cannot be dismissed as unimportant.

There's no doubt that there are personal motives as well. For years my opponents have labeled me a troll in an attempt to end debate and bring in moderators to close down what is basically political opinion in line with a major party's political platform. They started this conflict, to the point where their malicious rumors have reached the level where lead moderators have called me a troll account in appeals and a veteran moderator said my usermap was something it was not. I have never been banned and I am not a gimmick account. I contribute to the site and cause no problems elsewhere. As long as I am targeted based on false assumptions and straight-up lies, I will go after their reputation the way they have gone after mine. It is a matter of honor. As time goes on you will see the ridiculously-high standard they place upon me, while refusing to follow these same rules themselves.

Aside from the above reasons, I simply enjoy speaking my mind on the issues, something that gamefaqs moderators unfortunately seem to have a problem with. If nothing else is gained from this project, I will know that I at least made my case the best I could make it, the way I wanted to make it, and that it got people talking.

Look Who's Defending Statutory Rape!

Today's moderator shenanigans come from wally, someone who we'll be seeing in many, many future installments. As a veteran mod and the face of the moderators on board 261, wally helps make sure the boards are cleaned of all offensive material that happens to not be his own. From derailing topics to derping it up (the gamefaqs-friendly way to call someone a retard), wally has gained a well-deserved reputation for adding nothing of value to the topic by sinking into tirades and insults that even his traditional supporters regard as below troll-level quality.

Recently wally had the chance to speak his mind on statutory rape and how sometimes it's not really a big deal:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/69376260

If somebody has more than reasonably [sic] cause to think somebody is over 21, and there is no evidence of coercion or force, it would be a cold day in hell before I'd vote to convict if I sat on a jury.

Setting aside the liberal argument that having someone show you an ID is racist, wally's argument is hard to defend. If you're an adult and you're inclined to sleep around with someone you've just met, but are a little fuzzy on the details (like how old she is and what her name is), the primary responsibility lies with you, the adult.

But wally wasn't done, and continued to stumble through his position for a few more pages. At some point he must have realized this argument wasn't looking good for him, because soon enough the mod who swore he never ever moderates the politics board was threatening his critics not to continue their arguments:

Also, I'll go ahead and suggest that you don't bump this topic again, if it dies again.

The elapsed time between the "bump" and its earlier post that would merit a moderation from wally? About 8 hours. The topic was not two days old before wally wanted to bury it and berated the topic creator for his "obnoxious-ass habit" of responding to him too late for his liking. It's almost as if there isn't already a clear distinction between active topics and archived ones, and the active topic list is just something there for you to look at and admire from a distance once a moderator deems the discussion is over. TC was supposed to read wally's mind and know his topic was under a de facto lock.

If you want to know why the bar's set so low on the politics board, look no further than wally - a guy who apparently thinks it's his job to moderate anything above the bar.

June is now Screw the Mods Month

Yes it's that time of the year again, as we head into summer and you can practically hear the great outdoors say, "Come outside!" In the meantime mods have crawled out of their dens and can be heard saying, "Get off our site!"

Today's moderation is a warning over the only message I posted within the last 24 hours. And yes, this is the kind of message that will get you warned when the mods have their foot in the door from a previous moderation - they're like piranhas, once they have a taste of blood they're all over you.

White House official calls Bergdahl's platoon "psycopaths"

In an attempt to justify charges of desertion...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/05/administration-official-apologizes-for-tweets-bergdahl-platoon-psychopaths/

“Here's the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”

He went on to argue that Bergdahl might have grown “disillusioned” with leadership and walked off – and that this might give those who served with him “reason to smear him publicly now.”

To those who believe the prisoner swap shows the White House cares about troops: how does smearing a bunch of other soldiers to defend a single deserter accomplish that?

Here's a rundown of the mistakes I made:

1) I added my own comment. Don't ever do that. When the mods are on you, you could make a post about puppies and conclude "I love puppies" at the end of it and this would be considered trolling. Because when you're a troll you're a troll, and if you say anything at all about anything that's only more proof you're trolling.

2) I brought up a policy issue, which is a no-no. Left wing narrative and personal attack trumps actual political subjects. The narrative right now is that Obama cares so much about a deserter that we had to trade away every Taliban leader the terrorists wanted, and if you didn't do this it meant you hated our veterans and wanted them to die (because it would just be nuts to deny a false dichotomy and think the Taliban wasn't going to immediately kill a guy they've already been holding for several years, and who was their only bargaining chip). You must hate our troops if you don't love Obama's bad deals. That's fine to say in pretty much any topic you want. But one topic that blows through the narrative, that shows a White House official saying the troops they supposedly care so much about are just a bunch of Swift-Boating psycopaths? That's not going to be allowed.

3) Finally, of course I posted something embarrassing to liberals.

Here's how to do things right on the politics board:

1) ONLY generalize conservatives. My problem yesterday was that I was so mean and stereotyped liberals, which is total trolling. But everyone knows all those dumb conservatives are against breathing. When you say things like this, the mods give you a gold star and actually take your advice seriously when you go around marking other people you don't like for "trolling."

2) DON'T talk about real policy issues. Just make stuff up about imaginary fantasy worlds. That kind of stuff is awesome, as long as you say "politics" once to make sure it's on topic. The way liberals run the place, we're already used to these fantasy narratives anyway. Be sure to hit up the Politics board as your #1 source for the latest news on how gun control in Atlantis is coming along, how great a leader Barack Obama is, and how Joe Biden still has a brain.

3) ONLY post stories embarrassing to conservatives, even when they're just plumb made up! Dagnabbit man, don't you know you can't post real stories about Democrats on the site because that's just trolling and pushing an awful stereotype? You should be spending your time on false stories and call Republicans a bunch of lunatics. That's PC. Also when you tell Republicans to "suck it" and come in to just give a big f*** you, that's not trolling. That's just valid political discourse and beautiful liberal tolerance talking.


Anyway, that's the last new moderation you'll be seeing for a while. Since the mods have made it impossible for me to post pretty much anything, I hereby declare the month of June as "Screw the Mods Month." Instead of spending my time on the politics board, this month I'll be spending that time here eviscerating moderators for their nonsense. You brought this on yourselves, guys.

Breaking News: Conservative Criticizes Liberals, Gets Modded

Totally never happened before, right?

We might as well start this blog off with my latest moderation, as it's received some attention on the board:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/69361375

I could say I'm surprised but, based on the past actions of moderators, not really. We'll get into some of the crazier mods in later entries. Note that BobGeorge has also been moderated, but for what I don't know since it wasn't quoted. It was probably for something really bad, I say as I roll my eyes.

My appeal just goes up one level because I'd gone to a lead mod over another message in my history. Here's what he has to say.

A Mod/Admin replied on 6/4/2014 11:58:32 PM
When you lump and [sic] entire political group into a stereotype like this, you're trolling. Most of this post would have been fine without the sweeping generalizations about libs/Dems.

That's right, because nobody but joke accounts would make critical remarks about the opposite side that they disagree with. This also never happens in pretty much all political rhetoric. I could have posted that message just fine if I had only said "nothing sucks! No one is terrible!" and threw my remarks into a black hole before anyone could see them. No, the criticism itself was fine on its own but it ran afoul of the terms as soon as I said my criticism was toward liberals.

Perhaps opposition to political parties will now fall under hate speech, for attaching dirty words like "liberal" or "conservative" to your posts is upholding the stereotypical notion of a  two-party duopoly. This mod would be a great candidate for the No Labels group.

Yes, I did conclude by saying "Liberals are always angry because their policies always fail." That's probably the big bad stereotype that was hurtful to say to the guy who was totally not angry as he angrily marked my message. I'm not going to go into a political justification for that belief, but do you really think someone would be modded on 261 if they said Republican policies always fail? I would also like to point out that I almost always speak in general terms with political arguments, rather than go into personal attacks on individual accounts (which we see happen on the board far too frequently). So for sticking to the issues, that's the mistake I made here. I've noticed that you're safe from moderation if you call TaiIs82 or other conservatives a troll account, which is apparently the gamefaqs pinnacle of achievement when it comes to finding meaningful political conversation, but that strategy wouldn't work very well if I tried it myself now would it? It would just be a downright case of multiple personalities, so you see the bind I'm in.

Of course, as usual, you can quote my message all you want (as long as you make sure to say you disagree with it), because it isn't the message itself that's the problem. The problem is that I thought it.

Welcome to Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship! I'm your host, TaiIs82. All those looking for open, honest debate are welcome.

Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship cuts across partisan boundaries and seeks to unite all gamefaqs users who hold a simple, essential belief: that gamefaqs moderators are terrible at their jobs, and that the message boards are often worse off after their intervention than they would be if there was no action taken at all.

If you've been modded on gamefaqs over something ridiculous, or have witnessed equally ridiculous actions taken by moderators, feel free to share your story with TaiIs82 over PM.

---

Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship began as a result of persistent moderator harassment. After a string of godawful moderations on the politics board, along with continued mistreatment and stonewalling on Hellhole, TaiIs82 decided it was time for gamefaqs users on the receiving end of the mods' wrath to have a more fitting place to come together and tell their stories. Over the following weeks, longtime mod-muckraker TaiIs82 will offer his unique perspective on the current state of censorship and moderator shenanigans at gamefaqs. Others are invited to join in with their own assessments, and we hope that we will become your one-stop shop as to why the moderation system on gamefaqs is so terrible.

Cheerfully yours,

TaiIs82