TaiIs82 Takes Even More Reader Comments

Also, defusing the latest rumors about yours truly.
A bit lengthy but it clears the backlog. Let's start off with the rumors. This comment came from a new user who wishes to be known as "deepfails" rather than standing by the allegations on his actual account. The account seems to be made because someone wanted to spam the same message as part of an ad hominem campaign having nothing to do with the topics, and because for some people it's easier to hide rather than be a man and stand behind your arguments. My analysis will explain why the user in question didn't want to be tied to this message.

"User Tails82 discriminates against homosexuals out of spite due to an "unfair" moderation in the past. http://i.imgur.com/0UW0ttj.png"


I had completely forgotten about this, seeing as it was said four years ago as a one-off statement not to be taken seriously, so there's no sinister h8 agenda here. In retrospect I suppose I have grown since then and would not say the same thing now. Also, audience. It was a very different world. As part of a board with like 5-6 accounts, little old me took moderations more lightly and could not imagine that one day, with my greater public profile, people would conduct a full cavity search on silly things I said. And yes I did a lot of it on that board. It went so far I actually decided at some point to put a little :P emote at the end of a post if I wasn't being serious.

But lol at the idea that I have had a four-year vendetta against gays over an anti-marijuana moderation. For one, there are plenty of legit reasons to dislike the militant LGBT movement (people are not immune from being wrong just because of their orientation). Those who have winning political arguments would not try so hard to silence their critics. I've said on the boards, and have been modded for it, that I don't think any social movement should be able to bypass the constitution or force people of a certain religion to violate their beliefs by impressing them into service. The way it is now, these groups could practically eat babies and if you opposed that you'd get modded for "hate speech." Anyway let's move on before I go into a grandpa rant. Show me a single victim or a shred of evidence I ever started a vendetta on gamefaqs, then we'll talk some more.

"And is also apparently a brony."

I love how the tolerant liberal answer to stopping "homophobia" is to make fun of a guy for watching a girl's show. Big scandal.

"Also: http://laharlswrath.proboards.com/thread/928 
He also appears to be sharing his account with another user, which is a major TOS infraction."

Not true. What happened was that an account at a higher level once approached me and said she was thinking of getting out of gamefaqs. The proposed account handover was not initiated by me, nor did it ever happen.

And of course the conclusion is, ban TaiIs from talking about anything ever. I'm such a rabblerouser.

"Why is this rule breaker, who also is so petty as to discriminate against a class of citizens over a mere video game message board moderation allowed to alter discourse here in Politics on any topic?"

So someone should be banned if they're a brony, said something silly offsite four years ago, and if someone else accuses them of sharing an account? Dream on, sucka.

More comments

"I don't think the mods are biased, but 261 IS an extreme liberal hugbox, so its no surprise that conservative opinions would get modded for riling people up. Unfortunately, political discussion isn't encouraged on that board unless it's two people trying to be more left-wing than each other." -Icewitch

There was one moderator who said on Hellhole that something like this is true. The reason more moderations occur against conservatives is that it reflects the skewed amount of messages in the queue marked by liberals. I think this only explains so much. Mods are responsible for acting on the messages, after all.

"one thing i learned recently from mods is that the community of a board dictates what is trolling. You could get away with bashing nintendo on one board, but doing so on a board with mostly nintendo fans is considered trolling...so if 261 has mostly liberals(makes sense as most young people are very liberal), then it is more likely to be considered trolling if you bash liberal policies. but again, this isnt mod bias, its the community bias that the mod rolls with...its a really dumb tactic, tho. TOS specifically states that having an unpopular opinion isnt trolling... but mods dont seem to get that..." -BANGSBASS

The thing about it is that it's one-sided. If Facebook only allows Likes, Gamefaqs only allows Marks. Which is an issue because if one person decides to complain, that potentially puts your message on trial and with these opinions the mods are making subjective judgments.

"If GameFAQs was biased against conservatives there are a lot of topics on NGS that would have gotten modded, but didn't. It's probably just the mods of the Politics board." -Helix snake

Now here's a blast from the past. I haven't seen this guy since he was making vore posts on the SSBB board. I don't think it's just mods on the politics board. Liberals there complain too that not enough is getting modded, going so far as to say everyone under a certain level shouldn't be allowed to touch their precious board. The mods on the politics board are the mods on the rest of the site.

"Tails is absolutely right. The mods ARE biased. You can have liberal trolls like BBT continuously make personal attacks and attack strawmen for 300 posts, not even one peep from the mods. But we try to have a legitimate discussion topic about serious political issues? Nope mods can't have that and start handing out warnings left and right." -EdwardSnowedIn

"I agree mods find any excuse to give Conservatives trouble on here." -InsaneGamer137

BBT isn't as bad as people make him out to be. That's more of the issue, BBT starts something and the rest of the topic (besides bumps) is personal attack from others, and this happens in a lot of topics where a user isn't part of the clique.

"I have found that I am not allowed to criticize pedophiles, dog-fighters, terrorists, war criminals or corrupt law enforcement officers on this website. There really needs to be a change so we can see who modded us, so we know who the enablers are on this website." -ShroomKingJr

I'm sure there's a story behind each of those posts, and it'd be interesting to go into them. Who are the enablers, users or mods? I think it's moderators who enable users who want to remove messages they don't like rather than debate them. Anonymity is important but, how about some changes from the mod side of things? Assign each mod a random number so you can compare to see if it's the same guy who took down other messages or responds in disputes. This would stop people from complaining that a single mod is out to get them, if they can see the messages were moderated by different people. Mods who want to reveal their numbers can do so, the rest remain behind numbers if they want. I don't know how practical it would be but, it'd be neat to see something like this tried.

"I never understood when argus used to tell us that saying Bush is Hitler is okay but saying any Democrat or CjayC is hitler is wrong and is a TOS violation but I think I understand now. Our side is always right and if you do not agree your a racist or sexist." -Will446

That double standard. I saw something similar a few years ago, when gmo said there was a difference between saying "lol religion" (not moddable) and "lol gays" (moddable) because everyone knows you choose the first but not the second. This should be debatable. What about people who have changed their orientation? It's rather insulting to our intelligence to sideline these accounts and discard people who say they have changed. What about Calvinists and people who think they're predestined followers of a certain religion? These opinions are ignored too for an oversimplification. As it stands, you could be the biggest flag-waving, parade-marching, fundraising LGBT-friendly guy in town, but if you show up on gamefaqs and say these people are choosing who they are, you run the risk of a moderation.

 "Conservative persecution complex is pretty pathetic. They claim "liberal bias" when they make borderline racist posts, when they make stupid conspiracy topics and then claim everyones out to get them. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be the ones banning liberals." -k darkfire

Personally no. That title, lover of free speech, ain't just there to gather dust. My tolerance is a two-way street. People say gamefaqs isn't like the government so this is not a first amendment thing. Sure, but...shouldn't a good organization try to emulate the constitution as much as possible? If you have a politics board, shouldn't it allow an open discussion on politics? I have stood up before to defend other views I disagree with because I think regardless of opinion or political orientation everyone should be heard.

As a group I think conservatives are the same way, looking to win arguments by words rather than by trying to stop other people from saying their words. This is reflected in the above statements on how the messages on the queue are stacked to one side.

The way I see it there are three ways the terms can be enforced, from greatest to least:

1) Loose terms for everyone, minimal mod involvement in debates
2) Stricter terms enforced uniformly
3) Strict terms enforced selectively

Right now we're at number 3. I'd like to skip right to option 1, but at least option 2 would be fair.

There is, of course, an opportunity here. This blog is open to any liberal who wants to put the effort into explaining a silly moderation they received.

"Lets give Tails his own blog on the site." -Crazymaori

Yeah baby! I hope you brought this up on mod social :P

"This is gamefaqs. The mods are biased against being good at their jobs." -WilIDearborn

Hah. And on that note, see you next time!