"Addressing Nazrat's Complaint" Topic

Nazrat has complained:

But then I was just recently Dawghoused for calling out a guy on just that sort of thing so my stance shouldn't be a surprise…

TMP link

Nazrat, I've explained this to you, privately at first, and also publicly when you have complained publicly, but you continue to misrepresent the facts.

You were Dawghoused for making a personal attack. If you had simply complained about Otto's post, that would not have violated forum rules. Unfortuntely, you went beyond noting the problem, and made a personal attack on the person.

It is my observation that in society today, there's an apparent belief that it's OK to hate certain groups of people because of their apparent problems or hangups. So you see people making severe attacks on other people they perceive as being racists.

However, since I was raised as a Christian, I have always been taught to "hate the sin and love the sinner." Racism is certainly repugnant, and obviously a sin. But for Christians, that is not grounds for hating someone.

Let me talk a little about my background. I am biracial, being Hispanic and Causasian. This was rather obvious when I was young, because my adopted parents were white people who had trouble getting a tan, and I was out in the sun a lot and definitely was brown skinned.

I don't remember observing racism much until the 1980s, when I served as a volunteer missionary in a southern community in Florida. That is when I had some practical experiences and learned something about human beings.

The first thing I noticed was that, although the community was pretty much evenly divided between whites, blacks, and Hispanics, the congregation I was assigned to was mostly white. Plus one Mexican family, that were fully accepted by the congregation. Plus, curiously, a woman that looked to me to be black, but she identified herself as Cherokee and was also accepted by the congregation and I observed no discrimination against her. Maybe she really was Cherokee, or maybe it was a curious way to accept her without recognizing her actual race.

Another thing I observed was that, as far as I could tell, previous missionaries assigned to that congregation had limited their ministry to the non-black part of the community. I couldn't see any reason for that practice, so I went to whites, blacks, Hispanics, it didn't matter to me.

One of my fellow missionaries when I served there had come from Australia to volunteer. He cooperated with me in ministering to the entire community. Unfortunately, he also had a habit of making what I considered to be racist remarks about blacks when we were in private. I never figured out if he really meant what he was saying, or if this had something to do with other problems (seeking attention?). He also had a few things to say about Australians of Irish descent.

When he was transferred, I served with another missionary who was prejudice free (thank goodness!).

When he too was transferred, I served with a young missionary (from Utah, I believe). I never heard him say anything racist, but for some reason, he began to question whether we should be ministering to the black portion of the community. To resolve his concerns, he spoke with our mission president, who assured him that we were supposed to work with all races.

It is amazing how God works.

In the 1960s, I learned that this community had had a lot of racial strife. There was a group, similar to the Black Panthers, who demanded changes in the schools and threatened violence against school buildings.

Then, in the 1980s, the person who had led that movement and frightened many in the white community, was the first black who asked us to teach him our gospel lessons!

It was at this point that I was able to observe how some members of our congregation reacted to the news that we were teaching "him"!

One older lady, when we visited her at home, told us that among her friends from other churches, they had separate congregations for whites and blacks. She asked if our church would do the same if black people were baptized. (Of course not.)

The president of the congregation was a born Southerner. (He was also a veteran of the Normandy landing, but that's another story.) I could tell that he was troubled by the idea that there might soon be blacks in the congregation, as it went against his traditions and upbringing. Yet I remember vividly the time when he told me that he had prayed long and hard about it, and he was willing to accept the will of the Lord.

What I learned, during my time in this little town, was that racism wasn't confined to "bad people." I saw many good people, who had been brought up a certain way, now having to wrestle with the idea of sharing their church with blacks. Nobody expressed any hatred for blacks. This was just something that was difficult for them to adjust to, and in some measure it forced them to confront whatever racism they had.

And, as it turned out, change came rapidly to that little congregation. Within a year, in fact. (I was transferred myself by then, but I kept in touch.)

So my experience is that racism is a problem that can affect good people and bad people, and that good people will overcome it. Instead of being proud that we are not racist, I think it is more useful to be humble and recognize that (as a political candidate recently said) perhaps all of us have some racism in us that we need to overcome. While there is never a justification for racism, we should also understand that others may have gone through experiences or traditions which make it harder for them to overcome racism or other forms of bigotry.

Some say that children are born without racism, but I think this is not the case. My wife tells the story of when she served as a missionary in the Philippines. She herself is Filipina, but her missionary partner was from the U.S. and was very very fair skinned. When they would walk down the street, the Filipino children would see the white missionary and run away in terror! They had never seen anyone so white!

So my policy on these forums is to prohibit the expression of racism, but not to allow personal attacks on people who some feel are racists. All of us are human beings. We all have our problems, and none of us are perfect. Perhaps, by a greater showing of love, we can help another person overcome whatever he is struggling with.

Well said, Bill. Very interesting about your background I appreciate you sharing that in such detail.

Bill, I didn't see any hatred in the quoted text you sanctioned nazrat for, nor do I see a complaint in what you're quoting in this thread.

Whilst it's your prerogative to decide what is a personal attack or not, the main complaint in the other thread (which was not started by nazrat) was the lack of sanction for racist language for days on end, even after it had been pointed out to you several times and you had read the post in question. It's not the first time Otto has used racist language and been sanctioned either.

Sometimes its better to be proactive than reactive, particularly when it's evidently a topic which is important to you.

So Bill, let me understand this – if there's no justification for racism as you state above, why do you enable it?

Why not randomly select 15 active members (or as many needed for a 95% CI), who for a period of say six months will form an ethics committee and decide on such issues? Then at the end of the six months, a new 15 member committee will be selected randomly (with the old members excluded from the sortition), and on and on. This way it will be the community that will be deciding the norms.

So you are saying that it is ok to make racist remarks because we should forgive those making them?

I've never forgiven those NF boneheads that beat the crap out of me when I was younger for wearing an Anti Nazi League badge, good job they didn't know I was part Jewish or I'd have ended up in hospital. Berkshire's the lot of them. My mates who used to get chased and attacked by same for being black certainly weren't filled with forgiveness either.

What a huge load of . Now open season for the racists here….

"hate the sin and love the sinner"

Wow that could be such a handy "get out of Dawghouse card" :)

I didn't expect a rules change and I don't think it'd have made any difference.

There's a sizeable portion that have defined site culture as being openly disdainful of Europeans, dismissive of young people and aggressively hostile towards anyone that doesn't hold the correct list of opinions.

I used to think that could be changed, then I see yet another post about how all Europeans are limp-wristed idiots who want to abolish the military and I realize that by virtue of where I was born, I will always be scum in the eyes of some of the posters here.

So why post any ways?

I don't know. You tell me.

Because not everyone(not even a large minority, I'd wager) feels that way.

Let me see if I got this straight.
1. Racism is wrong.
2. But you will not DH anyone unless they are reported via the complaint button behind their back.
3. Calling someone out for racism on the thread where it was uttered, however, is a "personal attack".
4. If you ever bother to do something about it, the person who called out the racist will get a longer DH sentence than the actual racist.

Did I get that right?

5. Oh. I almost forgot. Racism is not really racism, but "inappropriate" language.

@Weasel

I see it both ways. Sometimes it's about the insanity or stupidity of Americans. Especially when gun rights come up.

@IainAF

You need to re-read Bill's post, you have it wrong. What Bill said was you cannot make a personal attack if someone is racist. He also said you cannot make racist remarks. We can argue all day long at how effective Bill is at identifying it but regardless it's not permitted. If you don't like the racist remarks you can't say "You are a racist pig!" You have to smartly use language and say things like "Your behavior is repugnant and is filled with racist hate."

When I perceive a TMPer to be racist, I just stifle them and go on. Life is too short to put up with their drivel, and regardless of the topic, they write nothing I care to read.

the main complaint in the other thread (which was not started by nazrat) was the lack of sanction for racist language for days on end, even after it had been pointed out to you several times and you had read the post in question.

I hadn't read the 'ghetto trash' post. That is why it is useful when our readers use the Complaint Button.

if there's no justification for racism as you state above, why do you enable it?

Nonsense.

Why not randomly select 15 active members (or as many needed for a 95% CI), who for a period of say six months will form an ethics committee and decide on such issues?

It's much better to encourage our readers to use the system that is already in place. Use the Complaint Button.

So you are saying that it is ok to make racist remarks because we should forgive those making them?

Obviously not.

There's a sizeable portion that have defined site culture as being openly disdainful of Europeans, dismissive of young people and aggressively hostile towards anyone that doesn't hold the correct list of opinions.

Welcome to the global internet. However, a minority does not define the site culture.

But you will not DH anyone unless they are reported via the complaint button behind their back.

We'll DH them if we see it, but it is unreasonable to expect us to be aware of every post on every topic on every forum without the help of the readership.

Calling someone out for racism on the thread where it was uttered, however, is a "personal attack".

Calling out someone for racism is not automatically a personal attack. It was in this case, however.

If you ever bother to do something about it, the person who called out the racist will get a longer DH sentence than the actual racist.

Same sentences as always – 3 days, or 5 days if a weekend is included.

What Bill said was you cannot make a personal attack if someone isn't racist. He also said you cannot make racist remarks. We argue all day long at how effective Bill is at identifying it but regardless it's not permitted. If you don't like the racist remarks you can't say "You are a racist pig!" You have to smartly use language and say things like "Your behavior is repugnant and is filled with racist hate."

What I basically said is, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone else breaks the forum rules, it doesn't give you the right to break forum rules too. Just hit the Complaint Button and let us take care of it.

Welcome to the global internet.

I Have tendency to see the Internet like many things that once humans get involved. It creates as many problems as it solved.

I found myself amazed at all the unwarranted vitriol, derision, etc., that not only directed at Bill. That he experienced as the site Editor. But I too was a target of as well as some others. It makes it too easy for some to make verbal attacks without suffering any real punitive actions. Save for Bill banning them from the site. Which I highly laud/recommend. As some can get away with saying things that they would probably not say to your face. By using the net as your protective barrier.

Unfortuntely, you went beyond noting the problem, and made a personal attack on the person.

And like in any "society"/tribe, etc., once someone violates the norms, standards, etc.,. of the group … Like in the real world you receive some sort of punishment. Like a speeding which I was "awarded" a few months
back. Didn't like it … but I was guilty … so I paid the local LEOs/PD …

Just hit the Complaint Button and let us take care of it.

So I think Bill has it correct … If you think something violates the TMP Rules hit the [!] … And see if Bill agrees with your "accusation" … I do it, when I believe it is warranted.

Hafen – It is a minority. They just get to define the conversation.

So let me see if I got this straight:

"You're a racist" = dawghouseable

"What you said was racist" = not dawghouseable

Bill:

'Nazrat has been dawghoused for expressing surprise at racist remarks made by Otto.'

'I guess calling someone who says racist things a racist is personal attack'

'So what did Otto say, exactly?'

'Otto did, among other things, refer to a whole class of people as "ghetto trash".'

'If people choose to make racist comments, board members should be able to call them out on it without fear of being punished.'

To which you responded: 'If they do so in a civil manner.'

So after two days you acknowledged that the comment was racist, but despite forum rules banning bigotry, you did nothing, because despite people explaining where these comments were to be found and how they were bigoted, that doesn't count as a complaint and isn't enough for you to take matters into your own hands and review a thread?

Then ochoin said:

'This astonished me. I realise you can't be everywhere & some horrors might slip through if unreported but you were reading that particular thread: you Dawghoused three of us contributing.

What was written by Otto was blatant & quite unmistakeable.'

So you had read it but either didn't see it as a racist comment or couldn't take 30 seconds to re-read a thread, even as you were busy hiding behind 'the only complaints I listen to are complaints logged through a button.'

Bill, this thread seems to be nothing more than an attempt to blame nazrat for your inability to take responsibility for enforcing your own rules and you misrepresented him in the OP.

You should actually be thanking posters for highlighting the issue though, so it can be addressed, rather than unpleasant comments disappearing with a quick snip, but leaving a sour taste.

It's also not helpful bringing religion into a discussion about race, given the Religion rule for the forums.

I think Bill followed his own rules. Maybe not as quickly or as efficiently as some wish. Justice is rarely instant, (except for Darwin awards) it's a process.

Bill, you need to consider that you cannot exactly have it both ways. You want readers to participate in "raising the bar" on forum behavior but you only want them to hit the complaint button. I believe being politely excoriated by your peers is much more effective then a couple days in the clink.

So let me see if I got this straight:

"You're a racist" = dawghouseable

"What you said was racist" = not dawghouseable

Nazrat said that Otto had "shown his true stripes" – which was unnecessary and, in my view, crossed the line to a personal attack.

… isn't enough for you to take matters into your own hands and review a thread?

I just don't get that riled up by what happens on the forums. What a few wargamers say on some forum is not that big a deal.

It's also not helpful bringing religion into a discussion about race, given the Religion rule for the forums.

Note that I never mentioned a specific religion.

? Now I'm really confused.

? Bill, you referred to Christianity by name, as well as its teaching, not that seems to get a mention in the rules.

I'm not expecting you to get riled up, but one would think that if you have numerous people saying that there were racist comments, you might check they were being accurate, otherwise it reflects poorly on your site.

If you're really saying that what people say on here is no big deal, then why have rules at all?

"Nazrat, I've explained this to you, privately at first, and also publicly when you have complained publicly, but you continue to misrepresent the facts."

Bill, I do not believe you have EVER explained anything to me privately or publicly, nor have I ever complained about this issue on TMP or even in a PM. I think you have me confused with somebody else.

All you said to me about my "personal attack" was something like, "Sorry I have to Dawghouse you." to which I replied "Okay". The quote you refer to in the OP is one of my only posts since I was DHed and I'd hardly consider it a complaint, just a statement of fact.

I learned years ago not to argue with you about your judgements because you rarely if ever change your mind, and when pressed (even by a huge majority of TMPers) you simply dig in your heels and go until everyone else gets worn out.

Oh, for the love of Pete! Can we all move on from this pointless navel gazing. Otto uttered some racist statements. Nazrat called him out. The Editor in Chief, for whatever reason, chose to overlook Otto's racism and chose to interpret Nazrat's most civil musing as a personal attack. Otto screwed up big. The Editor in Chief screwed up big. Nazrat became innocent roadkill along the shoulder of the information superhighway. We are all human and thus screw up more frequently than we would like. No one here is a saint and is incapable of error. We are all flawed and we are all falable.

The solution in a utopian world. Otto publicly apologises to all for his ill-considered words and then privately reflects on why he said them. The Editor in Chief mans up and takes responsibility for mistakenly allowing Otto's transgressions to go unnoticed and unpunished and for not seeing Nazrat's comments in a more innocent light. Saying someone is 'showing their true stripes' is not an attack if the evidence supports the argument, as it does in this case. Nazrat gets the satisfaction of knowing that he stood up for a principle honourably despite the heavy hand of an erring authority. He also has the esteem of many here. Peace and harmony break out and good will returns to us all. Then we all can go back to discussing how best to simulate wide-scale killing and destruction using miniatures as proxies for real human beings. Everybody needs to chill and kill, man or we'll all suffer a collective brain aneurism from teeth-grinding and hand-wringing.

In a non-utopian world the squabbling and excuse making will continue ad nauseum.

Which shall it be? The choice is ours to make. This is of course only my opinion.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

'I just don't get that riled up by what happens on the forums. What a few wargamers say on some forum is not that big a deal.'

Sorry Bill – haven't read the posts that are being discussed, but in the context OF THIS FORUM what 'a few wargamers say' is a very big deal – in fact, if they are coming out with racist comments, and that is being reported to you by a number of people, it should be considered as just about one of the biggest deals.

Once again can't some of you recall that you are adults and men and stop being butt hurt over something typed on Internet forum that has no impact in your life what's so ever.

Ah, Irish Marine, what a refreshing concept.

If you're so keen on a rules-light approach, perhaps you can lobby Bill to get rid of all that nonsense about not tolerating bigotry and banning religious talk? Bill's House, Bill's rules after all.

Better yet, get yourself over to Frothers and enjoy the freedom?

"Once again can't some of you recall that you are adults and men and stop being butt hurt over something typed on Internet forum that has no impact in your life what's so ever."

Perhaps it would be better to address that advice to the typer's of such posts? They too are supposedly adults. Why should only we behave as adults? They should too.

I should have known better.

What a few wargamers say on some forum is not that big a deal.

I think the absence of Mexican Jack/Howard, Katie L and several others who are genuinely missed would argue differently.

Oh, for the love of Pete! Can we all move on from this pointless navel gazing. Otto uttered some racist statements. Nazrat called him out. The Editor in Chief, for whatever reason, chose to overlook Otto's racism and chose to interpret Nazrat's most civil musing as a personal attack. Otto screwed up big. The Editor in Chief screwed up big. Nazrat became innocent roadkill along the shoulder of the information superhighway. We are all human and thus screw up more frequently than we would like. No one here is a saint and is incapable of error. We are all flawed and we are all falable.

The solution in a utopian world. Otto publicly apologises to all for his ill-considered words and then privately reflects on why he said them. The Editor in Chief mans up and takes responsibility for mistakenly allowing Otto's transgressions to go unnoticed and unpunished and for not seeing Nazrat's comments in a more innocent light. Saying someone is 'showing their true stripes' is not an attack if the evidence supports the argument, as it does in this case. Nazrat gets the satisfaction of knowing that he stood up for a principle honourably despite the heavy hand of an erring authority.

Copied that in because I couldn't have put it better.

Phil

Once again can't some of you recall that you are adults and men and stop being butt hurt over something typed on Internet forum that has no impact in your life what's so ever.

So if someone says something racist about the Irish or suggests the Marines are second rate outfit you're not going to get your panties in a bunch?

Because I think you will.

'that has no impact in your life what's so ever.'

This affair has no impact on my life whatsoever. So should I say nothing?

Can't remember the exact quote, but it goes something like 'All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.'

+1 KTravalos
+1 McKinstry

The reason I stay on TMP is there is still more sense than nonsense…..though it's close sometimes.

Rod +1
Discus23 +1

WOW! You people just reinforced my post.

Says the man with his panties in a bunch.

youtu.be/CsbbEPmfxzI

Cowboy up. It's only harmless banter.

I just KNEW it had been too quiet for way TOO long around here.

What's new…

Impact as defined above has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The whole point of TMP IS discussion; as Garrison Miniatures put it: the actual impact is what the individual respondent believes and or feels about a given situation as presented or discussed on this site.

It is so easy to be dismissive of something that had no effect on 'you'.

I learned years ago not to argue with you about your judgements because you rarely if ever change your mind, and when pressed (even by a huge majority of TMPers) you simply dig in your heels and go until everyone else gets worn out.

I change my mind when persuaded by evidence. I don't change my mind simply when pressured. If I think I've made the right call, why would I change my mind simply because people disagree with me?

one would think that if you have numerous people saying that there were racist comments, you might check they were being accurate, otherwise it reflects poorly on your site.

One would think that if it was such a serious infraction, someone would have pressed the Complaint Button.

One would think taking racism a little more seriously would be better for your reputation and the site's, than several days spent avoiding the issue and two threads that demonstrate inconsistent moderation, at best. :)

'I change my mind when persuaded by evidence. I don't change my mind simply when pressured. If I think I've made the right call, why would I change my mind simply because people disagree with me?'

Everyone is different. The right call to you (or me, or any other individual) on a particular topic or point could be considered way beyond the Pale for most other people. Don't think of it as responding to pressure, think of it as responding to advice.

One of my favourite sayings is 'Just because I know that I'm right doesn't mean that I am right.'

two threads that demonstrate inconsistent moderation,

And here I thought the point was the Editor was consistently doing something wrong.

Don't think of it as responding to pressure, think of it as responding to advice.

There's a difference between pressure and advice. Advice comes with a rationale behind it.

This is wrong, punish it.
This is wrong, punish it.
This is wrong, punish it.
This is wrong, punish it.
This is wrong, punish it.

… is not advice. No critique of what Otto said has as yet been offered that I have seen.

I also don't subscribe to the methodology based in "Lots of people are saying it, so it must have merit."

On the few things were I have hit the complaint button, quoted the issue and provided a rationale for censoring the content, the issue was handled promptly.

Interesting discussion, but I would like to reiterate that what Bill considered a complaint was not, and was never intended to be. It was a statement supporting what I said in that other thread about racist comments at the gaming table. I'd say this whole thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of my original comment by the editor.

And since Bill ignored most of my last post I will say again I have NEVER complained about this DHing either privately or publicly nor has he ever PMed me about the situation except to simply tell me I was busted.

Sigh. So much for utopian pipe-dreams. It's bread and games once more.

Rod Robertson.

Those who feel they can do better are always welcome to offer their own websites or forums.

I'd say this whole thread is based on a complete misrepresentation of my original comment by the editor.

And since Bill ignored most of my last post I will say again I have NEVER complained about this DHing either privately or publicly nor has he ever PMed me about the situation except to simply tell me I was busted.

I'm sorry you feel I was ignoring you. I just didn't feel you had said anything I needed to reply to.

I've already quoted your statement, which I characterized as a 'complaint'. You disagree that it was a complaint. Looks like a complaint to me, but I guess you have some other word for it.

Dare we ask what the latest 3 to be locked said on the subject to justify being kicked out, especially as 2 of them are long standing members of the community? It's been an interesting discussion so far but now it's all going strange again…

I was half-expecting this thread to result in some Dawghousing,but locked accounts?