wally Update: Decapitations, Child Sex Bots, and Bubba

From the Politics board: wally's been keeping busy with his brand of personal attack and hostility. Just how far can you go when you're a moderator and the rules don't apply to you? Let's have a look.

We'll start with the big one.

"Westboro Baptist Church Says It is Going to Iraq To Protest ISIS"

wally wasn't alone in hoping that the members of Westboro Baptist Church would end up dead at the hands of terrorists or hit by collateral damage. The difference here is that he claims to be a moderator, and yet his opinion was arguably the most extreme:

On a scale my 0-10 on the giving-a-****-o-meter, I'd be at about a negative seven billion about the thought of those scumbags being beheaded. If ISIS did that, I'd say our response should be to universally yawn, chuckle, and then forget their existence.

Keep in mind that in the past, politics boardgoers have been moderated for saying that they're happy a politician has died. There were even some messages nuked for being too happy that Osama bin Laden was killed.

Is that an offensive thing for a veteran mod to say? To laugh at the thought of a group you don't like being murdered and beheaded by a terrorist group which is just as repressive, but far more violent than this group? The WBC peacefully protests, after all, it's just that their message is found to be offensive. Worthy of being violently killed for their beliefs, because a gamefaqs mod would find the terrorist attack funny?

You tell me if this is a two-way street. If we would allow the WBC to show up and chuckle at people who are killed in terrorist attacks. Of course we wouldn't! How many other messages are out there which have been taken down for less?

Would mods do something to one of their own? Of course we wouldn't! Not trolling or offensive if you're a mod. But it is trolling if you repeat he said it as a regular old user. That was just an nkl, by the way. Gee, thanks?

I'm not up on my social justice warrior hypocrisy, but I'm pretty sure if wally got his wish and he's saying the WBC deserved to die during their funerals, he'd pretty much be filling in for them and doing what they do. If you do it as the WBC you're a vile, hateful scumbag; if you do it as wally, shrug.

But you know, maybe despite that moderation of mine and the lack thereof with wally, we lowly users just don't appreciate how hard the mods are working behind the scenes on our behalf. Maybe someone's pulled wally aside for a little bit and said, "hey bro, you're a veteran moderator here and what you do can reflect badly on us. Supporting any kind of terrorism against anyone is kind of f****ed up." While we're at it, maybe the moon's made of cheese.

My Lesser Quibbles

"Robotics expert claims child sex robots could be used to treat pedophiles."

By the 2nd message we're already telling someone who disagreed with him to stop posting if they know what's good for them. "Geoman, next time you go to post, can you maybe not post, instead?" Chilling effect?

The real offensive thing, in wally's eyes, was that pedophiles didn't have realistic-looking kids to screw and society was to blame for not providing them with this "outlet." Because encouraging people to sleep with robo-kids would mean they're less likely to go after real kids. Kind of like how we encourage kids who like to kill animals to do more of it, so they get their murderous urges out and maybe don't shoot up the school. Don't urges get bigger the more you feed them?

We may see the day when someone gets modded for opposing a pedophile's taxpayer-funded civil right to robo-kid sex toys. We'll know who's responsible for that decision.

"GOP Candidate For State Senate Ends Campaign After Admitting Affair"

wally defends Bill Clinton's serial adultery, arguing that it doesn't really matter and wasn't a trust issue. BUT if a Republican did it, it would be terrible, on the theory that what someone says is more important than how they act. wally essentially said it's okay if you're a Democrat, because Bubba never promised to be family values (he did, however, make vows to his wife and swore to testify the truth in court, but whatever). So because Bill didn't talk about family values on the campaign it's all right, but if Republicans did the same thing Bill did that would be the worst ever, since they said they were family values and lied. Just like Bill. But different. When users did their homework and brought up some of Bill Clinton's family values statements on the campaign, shrug. What mod bias?

"Artificial wombs are coming, and the controversy is already here"

In which wally says "Abortion isn't about killing a fetus. It's about removing a fetus from a woman's body. The fact that it kills the fetus is an unfortunate side effect, not the primary goal."

Has anyone ever walked out of an abortion, shocked that an abortion is an abortion? "My baby's DEAD!? How'd this happen? I'll sue you for everything you got!"

a·bor·tion

əˈbôrSHən/

noun

noun: abortion; plural noun: abortions

1.

the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

 

Kermit Gosnell's infamous abortion mill saw the children born alive, he would then snip their spinal cords or dump them in a toilet to die. As a state senator Barack Obama voted "present" to letting born-alive infants die on the floor. The intent is to kill the unwanted child.

wally's attempt to put a smiley face on abortion ignores the textbook definition of what a surgical abortion is. If he's this mixed up on the definition of abortion, what about his definition of a ToU violation?

 

goatthief writes: "tails has a history of harassing [wally]. To the point of making a blog about how much he hated him."

 

I didn't make this blog to hate wally. He just shows up a lot on it because he stands out as an exceptionally terrible case.

Stats Aren't Allowed on Gamefaqs. Stats Rustle Jimmies.

With a warning on my history, here comes the full cavity search again. As you read, see if you can guess what we got in trouble for this time.

Christians for samesex marriage also more likely to buck other Biblical teaching

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/survey-christian-supporters-of-same-sex-unions-show-other-moral-divisions/

Churchgoing Christians who support “gay marriage” are more likely to approve of commitment-free sexual relations, pornography, adultery, polyamory and abortion than other churchgoers, says one researcher who calls the differences a “massive divide.”

“More than seven times as many...think pornography is okay. Three times as many back cohabiting as a good idea, six times as many are okay with no-strings-attached sex, five times as many think adultery could be permissible, thirteen times as many have no issue with polyamorous relationships, and six times as many support abortion rights.”

Only 5% of churchgoing Christians opposed to “gay marriage” said commitment-free sex is okay, compared to 33% of pro-“gay marriage” churchgoers, 49% of same-sex attracted Christians and 81% of homosexual non-Christians.

Regnerus’ analysis found great differences on the morality of pornography. About 5% of churchgoing Christians opposed to “gay marriage” said that viewing pornography is okay, compared to 33% of churchgoing “gay marriage” supporters, 57% of homosexual Christians and 78% of same-sex attracted non-Christians.

Churchgoers who support “gay marriage” were more likely to approve of marital infidelity, with 7% saying it is sometimes okay, compared to 1% of churchgoers who did not support “gay marriage.” About 14% of same-sex attracted Christians said marital infidelity is sometimes okay, as did 26% of non-Christian homosexual persons.

Churchgoing Christians who support “gay marriage” were also more likely to support polyamory than were Christians who do not support redefined marriage. Only 1% of Christians opposed to “gay marriage” supported polyamory, compared to 16% of those who support “gay marriage,” 32% of homosexual Christians and 58% of non-Christians who are same-sex attracted.

Entirely factual topic with all the statistics cited. An obvious political difference noted in the survey that was common-sense and expected by many. Nothing controversial here. But there's one problem: one person didn't like it (or, we can safely say, doesn't like me), so it must be taken down.

Here we have an nkl for "trolling." Nkls are those things mods give out when they themselves can't think of any legit reason to punish you, but want to take down the message anyway. One definition of trolling on gamefaqs is noted in the terms of use as "posting false information as fact." But here we have a case of posting true information as fact, and modding it because someone didn't like it. Another part of "trolling" on gamefaqs is defined as "someone posting a message designed to get others mad enough to violate one of the other rules." Here's the problem. As has been noted by others, anyone can get mad at pretty much whatever you say and, on gamefaqs, you're blamed for it. The other person isn't modded for flaming. The mods point the finger at you because you don't control the mind of the person who flamed you, and it's clearly your fault for not stopping them from insulting you. If you say the sky is blue and someone else calls you an ugly baby killer, well, you only brought this punishment on yourself.

Of course the terms also say "Trolling is not someone posting an opinion that differs from yours" and "Even if you disagree, you can either debate the user on their points or just ignore it," gamefaqs mods overlook these parts. It's their job to take messages down, and they will stretch what the terms say as much as they want, to take down as much as they want.

Don't let anyone tell you the trolling rule on gamefaqs has been loosened up from previous years, as long as they continue to make decisions like this.

Here's how "trolling" works on gamefaqs. In the half hour my topic was up before mods rushed to take down this clearly dangerous topic of mine, I was able to get a look at all 7 responses. A few below.

"In 2014 are religious people even taken seriously anymore? I mean come on..." -Red_Sm7

"I have pre-marital sex w/ my gf, I watch porn, I drink, I sometimes smoke weed. And despite all the "immoral acts" I commit, I'm still a more decent human being than some garbage tier troll." -DeathMagnetic80

"Good. The Bible is immoral." -Magus1947

If the typical gamefaqs mod scanned the topic (keep in mind "hate speech" against a religion is seen as "offensive"), if someone said "The Quran is immoral" or "why are Muslims taken seriously anymore?" this would be an awful, h8ful thing and you would lose much karma. But in this case we're talking about the Christian Bible, so do whatever you want. Under the gamefaqs terms of use, not only do you receive these slights, you are then punished for what they said to you on top of that under the "trolling" rule. Because you supposedly made them mad.

If you'd like to understand how gamefaqs works, picture the image of a cave during the stone age. If you do something a Neanderthal doesn't like, he grunts for another Neanderthal to come over with his club to whack you. No need to debate! Debate means forming thoughts. That can be hard for some people. The only difference between back then and now is that the Neanderthals didn't pretend to be the wise arbiters of serious political discussion. Today we have a Neanderthal with a necktie.

Let's see, are we done for tonight? Not just yet. I went to Hellhole and asked about the mod ID so I can avoid doing whatever I did in the future (though I daresay they should avoid making bad decisions in the future). Which resulted in a quick lock of my topic followed by a topic from RaptorLC, who says "Boring trolls are boring." Glad we got to the bottom of that.

Keep in mind that while I've been nothing but entirely open about my opinions and provide full disclosure about everything I said and did, they're the ones who make the decisions behind closed doors and avoid telling you as much as they can.

So remember kids, if someone else comes into your house, makes a mess and punches you, under gamefaqs logic it's your fault because you somehow made them mad enough to do that, even if you were standing there doing nothing. I mean, where do you get off just standing there like that? I oughtta slug you for it right now, ya little punk.

A Recent "Hate Speech" Mod - Here's Why It Isn't

Now, of course I expected this message to have problems within 24 hours of its posting. I wanted to make my point and dangle some bait here, since there's a teachable moment to be had. One needs to push for change and rattle the cage a bit to bring it about.

Today's subject involves criticism of a religion, a great taboo over at gamefaqs since it wasn't an anti-Christian message. From 261: "How Much Do Americans 'Disapprove' Of Arab-Americans & Muslim-Americans?" The implication in the topic being that all Americans are wrong and bad to not auto-approve of a religion many of them don't happen to believe in. This is an acceptable generalization. As usual, the criticism cannot go both ways. Let's have a look.

There's nothing wrong with being an Arab-American. One's skin color or country of origin is unimportant; what someone believes in means everything. Any bad system deserves criticism.

Why do I not agree with Islam? Christians understand that Jesus was the ultimate revelation of God on this earth and the power of his love. He warned of false prophets (e.g. Mohammed, Joseph Smith) who would divide and lead people astray. Mohammed was a particularly bloody warlord whose name is still uttered by plenty of bloody warlords today. A big division among the sects of Islam in the present day involves conflict over which human being was the heir of Mohammed's regime. They do not answer to God, but have diverted their attention from him to pick a man to follow instead.

The founder of Islam was a violent warlord and this is reflected in its ideology, as well as its history. The Crusades were not fought because Christian white people were mean. They started as a defense because Muslims wanted to place Europe (and the known world) in bondage to their ideology and demands. This desire, as well as the violence, continues to this day with efforts to re-establish a caliphate and forcibly convert or kill those who will not bow to Mohammed. They murder in Nigeria. They murder in the Middle East. They murder in Israel. They murder in Europe if someone draws a picture of their violent warlord. Recently there was murder in broad daylight on the streets of London. They are the violent aggressor in virtually every conflict across the world that they are involved in. They killed thousands of our men and women on September 11, an attack that originated from a desire to hit financial centers and kill as many Jews as possible. When news of the tragedy reached Palestine, there was dancing in the streets.

I am tired of hearing about "moderates." The current leader of Iran was said to be "moderate" when he continues to pursue nuclear weaponry and a coming war to wipe Israel off the map, just like his predecessors who were also said to be "moderate" but had the same goals. Fatah is said to be "moderate" and yet it teams up with Hamas and airs television spots that call for suicide bombings and jihad. When one's ideology is centered around a brutal tyrant and his edicts, it's difficult to be a moderate.

www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/

The following event happened in my area while I was at college. Here is a "moderate" who was upset that people profiled Muslims after 9/11, so he started a TV station with his wife to counter stereotypes. He is now in jail because a few years later, he murdered his wife, stabbing her over 40 times, beheading her in cold blood.

Honor killings, Sharia law, suicide bombings, holy war, death to those who convert to other religions - just a selection of actions that Islam is known for. So instead of wagging our fingers at Americans in general for their intolerance and mean words and disapproval of Muslim-Americans, maybe we should be taking an honest look at why they disapprove of Islam and the violent practices/history behind it.

How about taking a guess at what followed?

a) 261 users continued discussion to address my points, agree, disagree, criticize, or whatever.

b) 261 users zeroed in on an account they hate and ran to mods, eager to censor as if they were running an Islamic theocracy themselves, where no debate is allowed, and didn't bother to respond to any of the points.

Social justice warriors of our day spend a lot of time talking about "hate speech" (e.g. anyone who disagrees with them), but I think we should instead be looking at a phenomenon known as hate censorship. The idea that no matter what facts you use, if those facts offend a single person that makes you an evil person who should be hated on and silenced. Gamefaqs mods have successfully enabled a cesspool of such behavior on the site.

Gamefaqs mods really hate it when you define a group by what what its definition is. It's as if Webster's dictionary is their worst enemy. Because if we categorize people into the categories they have placed themselves in, that's just really, really mean of you. If you criticize a political party, that's a stereotypical generalization. Same if you criticize pedophiles (because 'not all pedophiles are into children' - ponder that one). Say goodbye to your account if you oppose any group of people over anything, unless you're rich, straight, Christian, white or male. Those generalizations are OK because you're fighting da power.

Now, I could run down through what I said and we could agree on the facts - Jesus did say there would be false prophets, Mohammed engaged in violence and waged war, majorities or significant minorities of Muslims surveyed believe in enforcing Sharia law, honor killings, Islamist political parties, and the death of any Muslim who converts to another religion. This would be besides the point though, I'm not going to be on the receiving end of an Inquisition. I don't have to justify my worthiness to hold an opinion to them, mods don't have to agree with what I say, but that doesn't mean they must mod it. The problem here was that someone on their end was not an adult, decided not to allow debate, because regardless of whether or not these were facts, the facts offended someone. And so the Politics board becomes a "this is what you must think" board rather than a "what do you think?" forum. We are to agree with the topic creator that Americans are foolish and cannot have any serious criticism of Islam, ignorant cowboys that we are.

If I had to predict the responses: those who don't immediately say "Good! You mods dun censored that bigot fer havin' different views'n mine!" will instead say something like, "you can criticize Islam on gamefaqs" followed by a ton of unstated asterisks. You can do that, just not the way I did. I get that a lot on the gay marriage issue. You can say you oppose gay marriage in theory, it's just that you will never be allowed to explain why because then we'll mod you for it.

My comments were unflattering sure, but modworthy? I laid out the case of the other side, along with why I disagree with Muslims. Gamefaqs mods can't exactly make you be one, and logically anyone who is not a Muslim would have a reason or criticism as to why they aren't. But noting this could hurt someone's feelings. Not potentially any Muslim's, mind you, who might have actually tried to make their case in response to my criticism. I'm talking about the feelings of leftists on the board, who don't feel good about themselves unless they censor someone they don't like, then pat themselves on the back over how "tolerant" they are and how they made a big difference.

Worth noting: my recommendation at the end was to keep these concerns and criticisms of Islam in mind before rushing to declare all those Americans are too judgmental. I do not believe that Muslim-Americans should be hated on. I did not tell anyone to do anything against them. I simply gave personal and broader reasons as to why critics of an ideology think it's bad. But because my answer was more complicated than the liberal argument that "'Mericans-slash-'Publicans-slash-righties are eeeevil people," it gets punished.

If you aren't allowed to say an ideology is wrong, you aren't allowed to say much of anything.  How can you have a true political discussion?

As usual, there's a companion topic on the board that illustrates a double standard and shows what you can get away with if you're making an argument from the other side of the aisle:

"Should the US ban Mosques that preach radical Islam?"

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/69815035

My answer to that is no, we should accept all sorts of speech because one's political opinions are harmless and only "dangerous" to people of an authoritarian bend who want to keep their opponents from making their case. But what do I know, I'm just a dangerous account who shouldn't be allowed to make his case.

...

For those of you who actually know what real intolerance looks like, please do take a look at this topic and offer some support:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584997-private-eye/52383991

Some Stuff from Error's Very Public Twitter Account

Here at Gamefaqs Users Against Censorship, we seek to not only inform but entertain. We've seen that everyone's favorite lead mod Error1355 can dish out some unflattering comments towards his critics, but what about the other side of the story? In the interest of balance, let's take a look at Error's twitter account and pick it apart, so that future recipients of his wrath will be on a more level playing field.

NOTE: by gamefaqs standards this is not harassment in any way - Error's messages are very public and depending on who you ask, bringing this up for belittlement purposes would truly be the adult, professional thing to do, just like when Error did it. Also I don't care because we aren't on gamefaqs.


What sort of picture can we paint here? The somewhat frequent tweet rate, combined with the job complaints, reveal a man who needs an outlet for his frustrations (don't we all) and who is willing to tell about strange or insignificant things in his life to anyone out in the wide wide web. Unfortunately, as the case often is on Twitter, there are so many messages, yet so few people who care.

Perhaps a little overcome by his twitter loneliness, one day Error decided to set up a challenge for himself:

Like many underappreciated individuals, Error found himself alone and in front of the TV for yet another night, possibly while making chocolate pudding.

A desperate plea for help? It was clear Error needed a companion. And he would leap into any bargain bin he could find to get one.

It's okay, we understand.

Since Error is one of those guys who tweets about pretty much anything, it wasn't a surprise that he'd inevitably bring up gamefaqs, where again, his talents are not appreciated enough.

For someone who doesn't seem to like his job on account of having to take complaints, was Error expecting to kick back and take it easy by volunteering to do more of it as a mod? Maybe it's all he knows. Maybe the control makes up for it. As Bill Watterson once wrote, "The secret to enjoying your job is to have a hobby that's even worse."

Politics, politics, politics, Error gets complaints about politics. Some of them from me. Here's what he has to say.

Fair enough. Or as he once put it to me in an email, his stance is not to be a jackass. Which is fine, no one says you have to pick sides personally. But I will say, when it comes to picking what others get to say, then it becomes our business. Here's where you have to define what an "extreme" view is, why it's "offensive" and if it's moddable (because anyone can get offended over anything). Error's retweets come into play here.

We now have a clash of opinion. Error believes a conservative is equal to an extremist (so would all their opinions be offensive?) I think it's extreme to lump the wife of an American soldier in with a terrorist who wants to kill them both. Error's a mod, while I am not. Guess who wins?

I'm not one to go for these types of arguments myself, for at the same time it tries to insult someone by comparing them to a terrorist it also attempts to downplay what the terrorist is doing. It just comes off as a sleazy oversimplification that ignores real differences. We here at GUAC can surely slap together something just as easily. Here's a little piece we like to call Obamahitler:

But I suppose it could be worse...

We could be getting modded by this guy.

Anyway I wouldn't recommend wading through the sad, sad life of a disgruntled guy working at a call center and occasionally taking his anger out on gamefaqs users. That's why I do it for you and get the big bucks...at least ten times the pay you'll get for not doing it.

Let's not delve too much into his trippy, (intentionally) dated website beyond the passing mention. An artifact from his 13 year old self's newfound web prowess, or a domain to mark his gradual descent into madness? These questions will have to be answered some other time.