Using the words "rape" and "gay"

[Dooks Dizzo]

First and foremost I want to be clear that I am not complaining in any way about the alert that I recieved, I am simply sighting it as an example of the possible issue that I am trying to raise.

When I first recieved said alert I PM'd the mod in question about it because I wasn't sure it was justified. The mod explained his reasoning and I agree'd that he was correct and everyone was happy. I am bringing this here in an effort to possibly form a preventitive measure for other members of the forums so that they may avoid getting alerted themselves.

The forum issue in question is this:

We're trying to stamp out the use of the word 'rape' in this context so I've edited it out of your post.

Basically I said race X would 'rape' race Z under a certain set of circumstances (talking about 40K table top).

There really wasn't any need for me to use that word in particular in that context. Plenty of other less offensive terms would have gotten the point across no problem. Hence the reason I agree with the mod informing me not to use such terms.

The point I am getting to is that though I do agree with the need to limit such talk, it isn't anywhere in the forum guide lines. (Except of course Rule 1 which stands firm here.)

I was thinking that it might not be too bad of an idea to throw a few things like this into the guide lines for new and old users alike to read before commiting said offense. It would keep people out of trouble and (hopefully) make a bit less work for the staff.

For instance the use of the word 'whore' or 'whoring' out of context would probably also fit into the catagory of things that are being stamped out.

It can't be that uncommon for people to say, "Such and such tactic in game X is just whoring."

There's probably a few more out there.

So, is it plausible to throw down a couple of examples for people of things they don't need to be tossing around out of context into the forum guide lines? Of course it isn't a huge issue but I'm working with the ounce of prevention theory here. I understand that a comprehensive list of 'no no's' would be pretty much impossible, but getting a few glaring ones out there might help poeple form their own understanding.

[QuixotesGhost]

I'm puzzled. Isn't there a voice clip in Company of Heroes (a game that these forums are dedicated to) that uses the word in the exact same context?

"Greyhound being raped by a Puma", IIRC.

[reki]

Its interesting you brought this up, Dooks, because there has been a thread in the staff forums discussing this for a while, and there was some suggestion to open up a thread here & ask the wider community for opinions.

I guess this is now that thread. I've edited the thread title to something a little more descriptive.

[Kapyrna]

i sense that the context will decide what the verdict is on each use. This kind of thing is very hard to regulate as "rape" a a word is a part of wargaming vocabulary. "Pwn" is cleaner, but you sound like a twelve-year-old (I truly mean no offense to the good natured 12yo's here, but about your age, some of you boys can be damn annoying).

Good to know this has been a moderation topic and now is being brought to the larger community. Part of the solution could entail a word-blocker (don't know if there is an existing one, I've never tried it), but that's a big step.

I guess it all boils down to context and the limitations there-in.

[SACSlym]

I'd say no since it doesn't specifically always target a group, anyone and in context anything in reality can be raped, it has been broad in that usage for anything for a great deal of time. That is, by definition (which of course includes forced intercourse as its first definition)

4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object) 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object) 9. to commit rape.

If your looking to tone it down, I'd say continue to monitor activities of users who verbally abuse other users, in that threats of rape towards another user holds a lot more weight then simply referencing how one army completely destroys another, a weapon completely demolishes an area, and so on. In any case users who are already misusing words to abuse others don't need to be caught in such a way, they already are committing an act of aggression and what words they use along the way are just icing on the cake in my opinion.

Otherwise, if it all possible why has it become an issue? Are there specific complaints that warrant attention to it? Or is more of a moral issue?

[FifteenHours]

As much as I love having the mods keeping this place in fairly neat order and weeding out the bad eggs, by the same token I see some of this as overzealous action myself. Yeah if Dooks said "I wanna rape you" or something like that, that's just plain wrong...but in this context I really don't see it being a terrible term to be honest. There are worse things he could have said within context, and even still FAR worse things outside of context.
I guess my point is that while I agree we all can't just run around with racial slurs and hate crimes filling the forums, by the same token some amount of leeway has to be given to context.
@QuixotesGhost: For some reason I do recall that myself as well...not that it justifies the usage completely, but IMHO it does certainly provide some light of context.

[ceejayoz]

This kind of thing is very hard to regulate as "rape" a a word is a part of wargaming vocabulary.

There are lots of things that are part of the wargaming vocabulary that aren't acceptable here.

[severijn]

Thank you for being vague while creating a hostile environment to post in cj.

Personally, I see this as dooks dizzo being at the wrong place at the wrong time, where a mod was inconsistent with how things get done here. Profanity(yeah I know that "to rape" is not profanity, but I'm saying this anyways...) is allowed on the forum. I also recall numerous moments that used the word "rape" to designate something completely dominating something else, on these very forums.

I can't think of a reason why not to allow the usage of the word rape, as long as it is not used in some kind of bullying way against someone, also known as flaming, which is forbidden anyhow.

[whats_true]

If "rape" was used often if your context, then it might be considered acceptable and ignored. However, I hear this word very rarely, and though I take no offense to it (cause in the context, I know what your talking about), my ears perk up when it is stated. It's noticeable and to me, seems like an immature word to use (I mean no offense Dooks ).

EDIT: Immature might not be a good word. Un-professional? Un-Civilized maybe?

[Kapyrna]

Um, CJ, yes I know the average wargamer's vocab contains more profane things. We also understand the meaning of 'beats', 'owns', and 'destroys'. these are substitutes for 'rapes', in this context. Yes, I fully understand that to use the substitutes instead of our not-quite-taboo word here would be preferred in some eyes. It gets to point across without rambling, and people understand what we're talking about, since it is a common idea. Also, it can be immature, yes, but more often just the first thing that come to mind, since it's been used effectively before to the same extent.

I'm babbling, but with something only slightly short of a cohesive idea rolling around in my head.

[El Russo]

I'm not sure it needs to legislated for per se but in the context it was used it was dubious, and the way it was dealt with seems fine.

I think the situation as it is is more than adequate and "we" don't need to go around specifying what words are acceptable, what aren't and when and where they are and are not allowed.

As long as this thread is referenced (even just the OP) or seen widely enough I would say that the debate itself has already moved the issue forward, even if only in terms of awareness. Can't believe I'm gonna say this but..

"Kids, if you're going to use the word 'rape' use it in the right context please!"

-- Russo

ps: This might sound a bit feminist, but I suppose if "we" wish to attract more female members (have they all disappeared now?) then the word "rape" would definitely be seen as inappropriate. Essentially, it must be intimidating enough for a girl/woman to want to post here in the first place...

pps: About time I agreed with the party line I suppose eh..

[whats_true]

I think that is one of the problems. If the words we use can only be right in it's context, then why use the word at? Be on the safer side and pick a different word.

[Octopus Rex]

This reminds me of that thread about New York banning Bitch and Ho to be honest.

Getting an alert (or is it a friendly reminder? I can never tell these days) for something that isn't against the rules, isn't a swear word and hasn't been stated as being frowned upon? Hmmmm.

Guys, don't you have better things to do than waste your time deciding what good English is for the rest of us?

and CJ: please elaborate just for illustrative purposes, as I am unfamiliar with wargaming vocab I genuinely can't imagine what words you mean.

[radical ed]

the word has different uses, not all of them in the bodily harm sence. one context as mentioned above refers to "raping the countryside". I believe that this was the context that dooks used the word in. I belive that banning this word youd be wrong, we cant just go around editing the english language becuase someone winces due to one possible usage of the word.

[El Russo]

whats true; because the "current" social/communal definition of the word "rape" is loaded in favour of the perjorative meaning surrounding forced sex(ual intercourse). It used to generally mean (a bit more loosely) "be beaten down" or perhaps "taken over fast and harsh" but nowadays when one uses it in general discussion it invariably refers to the first definiton.

On gaming boards, and probably among youth culture, it's a less sensitive word - but for outsiders it could easily be misconstrued or be seen as offensive. We're not talking about banning the word at all, just hoping that it won't be used in such a vulgar way. To protect standards I think the most sensible course of action is to allow everyone to still be able to make the mistake, but just as DD was pm'ed I'm sure the present policy is working fine!

[Dyntheos]

/me sits down with a coffee to watch thread evolve

Will be putting my thoughts down on this at a later date. As reki stated, Dooks you beat me to the punch so to speak.

My original thoughts on making this thread was going to have the title as "Gay Rape"

[reki]

I just made the title of this thread 16% gayer, to reflect the whole discussion in the staff forums.

[El Russo]

I move we ban "gayer", seriously!

...


"more gay" is more correcter..


ps:

[Octopus Rex]

OK, all flippancy aside I think that the forum needs to decide about its stance on de-sensitisation because with all swear words and offensive phrases this is the important thing. Fuck is certainly acceptable now, but was not always that way. It's okay now because we're de-sensitised to it. If I say the infamous C-word enough times then you'll stop being offended by it, it'll only be a word and the important point would not be the word but the fact that I was trying to piss you off.

We all understand de-sensitisation, but what stance do you want take on it? Allowing a free-for-all would be bad news, but the opposite is also terrible, to view the English language as fixed and immutable and to allow no play in it, no room for change.

Also, is it the concept that bothers you? Or simply the casual throw-away usage? A ludicrous example would be: Unit X would forcibly sexually penetrate Unit Y in a humiliating and degraded way. Would that be acceptable? Is it just the use of "rape" the bothers, or the implicit meaning? Are contentious words acceptable when joking? Like Reki above? (uhuh huh huh, I made the thread GAYER - LOLZ! isn't exactly sensitve now is it?)

Lastly, (again flippancy aside) who are you trying to protect/not offend? Who is it that is stumbling across the site and thinks "oh...my...God....they say rape here!!"

[Magus Zeal]

This is my opinion.

The use of the word rape, where it's used in it's intended meaning ("rape the countryside", the act of forced sex, etc.) is fine, as it's a valid word. At the same time, the use of the word "gay" in an appropriate context (homosexuality or even rarer, 'happy') is fine.

The problem arises when the words are used in a confrontational/immature manner. Saying that one thing will 'rape' another is an improper use of the word, as a different word can be utilized without evoking potentially disturbing images. After all, rape is not a trivial act, it is an extremely mentally and psychologically damaging act. Similarly, calling something 'gay' is of the same vein. It's likening homosexuality to an item of worthless stature; basically, it's a minor form of homosexual-bashing. Like the aforementioned 'rape' example, you can substitute another word: lame, stupid, etc. whilst still getting your point across.
Another example would be calling the staff Nazis. You can use the same term 'dictator' (note that this is an EXAMPLE, staff, I'm not calling you anything ) to get the same point across. But when you call them by the N-word, you're likening them to mass-murders, just like how you can liken a game to an act of demonic-style brutality when you use the term 'rape'.

I suppose I can end this post on a light(er) note.
"You don't know what rape is like. For years, I thought it was funny. Oh yeah, rape, so funny. 'Til you've been raped." --Carl Brutananadilewski

Edit:
Octopus Rex: I think the reason that they're trying to get rid of the word is the negative connotation and the fact that it's lazy/bad English. Remember, this is a forum that discourages (with a sledgehammer) AOLese. Saying that 'this will rape that' or 'that's gay' is a lazy form of English and can potentially dredge up unwanted material.

[Moe]

This kind of thing is very hard to regulate as "rape" a a word is a part of wargaming vocabulary.

As your local CS server will demonstrate, any and all words that can vaguely be used as insults (and some that make no sense whatsoever) are part of the wargaming vocabulary.

[General Nuke Em]

While I am certain that the vast majority rapes in real life involve men raping women, rape as a word is gender neutral, especially when used in a context that doesn't involve sexual assault. The "rape is bad and using it liberally trivializes the crime" angle begs the question of why words such as "kills" (murder) or "owns" (enslave) are tolerated when "rape" isn't when used in the exact same context. Why is murder ok to trivialize while rape isn't?

Gay, on the other hand, refers specifically to one sexual orientation and often its only purpose is to demean people. While I personally have issue with using "that is so gay" to describe something when the context is clear (e.g. something that has nothing to do with homosexuality), I also have no problem with refraining from making such statements and have no issue with restricting its usage in that context.

[edit]
I would just like to make it clear that I generally have a thick skin regarding issues of vocabulary, and just don't give a damn as opposed to wishing to promote sexual assaults/homophobia. If that wasn't obvious to begin with.

[El Russo]

Nuke Em, I have homosexual friends (of both genders) who wear that t-shirt and call me "gay" as often as I use it to refer to something lame/homosexual/happy myself (yes, I'm referring to my new home as "gay Paris" - 'Paree' - atm). In England it's mostly lost ALL meaning now...

As for censorship, it seems to me now that the word replacement tooly thing does a good job (as I assume it has a sparring influence) but perhaps "rape" should never be used so freely - it's most obvious primary usage in modern English speaking societies is as in forced sex and I would honestly question anyone who said/implied otherwise. Not that we should ban it completely, but perhaps educate people not to use it so "recklessly"?

[Benjamin]

If "gay" is banned, then a move to ban the word "retarded" and "retard" is the next step.

"gay" is not acceptable, while "retarded" is?

The balance forums would have no vocab left

[Retroboy]

I don't have any issue with a preference to remove "rape" and "gay" from the forum vocabulary given the context you're all shooting for. However, it IS something that I feel must be documented in the forum guidelines, because it's so substantially different from most of the other participative media that's available to gamers.

But warnings are the wrong way to do it IMO because they're so permanent and it's like an incorrect "black mark" on an otherwise good poster's record. A moderator-edit explanation in the post is much better - something like "Reason for editing: see new forum vocabulary guideline - rule 2.4.". Of course writing a new guideline that explains the decision is part of that.

It's a bit like a cop writing you a ticket for going 50 in a place where it was legal to go 50 last week, but now the speed limit is 40 and they haven't got around to changing the signs yet.

-- Retro

[Dooks Dizzo]

You know, CJ issued me a warning about a year ago for saying 'my gay space ship'.

Here's my thought on the matter: the words should not be banned in any context. We have PLENTY of rules around here already and the forums have been running quite well with the current set for some time.

Calling some one gay or threatening to rape someone (yech) falls under flaming and you get in trouble for that already.

If the words in whatever context do get banned, updating the forum guide lines is a must.

[Energizer Bunny]

Interesting topic.

If "gay" is banned, then a move to ban the word "retarded" and "retard" is the next step.

Nope. I got a formal warning for exactly that about six months ago. It wasn't directed at another member, it was in a similar context of the OP's use - believe I said that the fact that the painting of a model had not been given a higher score was retarded. I didn't contest it for precisely the reasons stated by the original poster, that is, I was aware it was a word that could be taken in an offensive light and felt that on that basis I didn't really have a leg to stand on even though it had not been said or interpreted in an offensive way.

I appreciate it's difficult to have hard and fast rules here, since if I were to target a specific forum member and start calling them gay, or a retard, that would be entirely deserving of action. However, I really think this is an area where a bit of judgement has to be applied, and as has been said earlier, who exactly are we trying to protect here, considering this is a forum where we discuss facts and issues that are (at times) highly adult in nature.

Personal attacks are one thing, but general use of offensive terms which do not fall into that category is not something I would have particularly thought in need of enforcement (assuming of course that the subject matter fits within the forum guidelines, and is not something like 'why rape is great').

EDIT: Dooks beat me to it and managed to say it more succinctly.

[SquidDNA]

If "gay" is banned, then a move to ban the word "retarded" and "retard" is the next step.

"gay" is not acceptable, while "retarded" is?

The balance forums would have no vocab left

My goodness, they'd actually have to start maturing as human beings then!

"But Squid there's a lot of young people on this forum!"

I don't know about you but my own vocabulary had excluded these words by the time I was fifteen, although to be fair I don't think "rape" had any usage but the most commonly accepted one at the time.

The point I see CJ trying to make is that this forum has, since the ending of the dark times, had high standards. Whether or not this is to be one of those standards it yet to be fully decided, but that's the only justification we need to enforce a ban on certain words.

For people bringing up the point that it's not mentioned in the guidelines, have you looked at the guidelines? They're enormous. While we want people to read through them, we are consistently unsurprised when people violate the unambiguous flashing neon rules like "DO NOT MENTION WAREZ" for the reason that people don't read them. If we put in everything we expected from forumgoers, they'd be twice as long, as possibly even less people would actually read them.

Instead we often attempt to change the culture of the community by pointing out when people do something we don't like. And here's the thing: WARNINGS ARE NOT POINTS ON YOUR LICENSE. There are people with over ten warnings (seems like a lot, right?) that I wouldn't consider for a ban because they're all for different things. Warnings are to track what we have told you. If we have to keep telling you the same thing over and over again, it's a problem, but having to tell people how to behave (most generally, when threads have lost any coherence) is the core purpose of a moderator.

To sum up:
1) We do possess the authority to make a change like this
2) We are currently discussing the change, both in moderator forums and here
3) It may be helpful to update the change in the forum guidelines but I personally am skeptical that it would be more effective than sending warnings and making public comments in threads
4) The above mechanism of enforcing unstated rules is not somehow unfair entrapment: YOU GUYS STILL TAKE WARNINGS AS SOME KIND OF PERSONAL AFFRONT.

Also:

5) Problems with the tone and vocabulary of warnings are still being addressed.

[Cyberbob]

I was about to counter 4)... when I noticed 5).

Well played.

-Edit-

Though I feel I should really point out that it's a little much to expect users to not take warnings the wrong way before having corrected the wording + tone issue.

[Plasma]

Do we not already have rules in place to deal with people using personal attacks on people?

Why add to the mods burden and restrict posters more for words that are not intended as offensive. As the Bunny said, who are you trying to protect?


As for El Russo's belief that the use of such words in a non-directed way 'scares' off girls/women...thats seems to be a major assumption about women in general and the gender of many of our posters.

Unless the mods are recieving lots of (valid) complaints about someones language (that's not already breaking rules) then I cannot see why this is even an issue.

[El Russo]

Plasma, you're taking me out of context there old chum! I'm saying that it has the potential to do so on the rare occasions a female of the species actually arrives/lurks on our boards. Not all of them understand the use of the word "rape" in that context and yes, it is a possibility that they will be put off by it - note, not "scared". I would never wish to speak on behalf of all women, but I do know quite a few and what they're like, especially on the internet!

As for the use of the word gay, I would reiterate my post above:

I have homosexual friends (of both genders) who wear that t-shirt [see even further up!] and call me "gay" as often as I use it to refer to something lame/homosexual/happy myself. In England it's [pretty much] lost ALL meaning now...

No one I know gets offended when it's used in decent context (see Shaun of the Dead as a great example) and I wouldn't want to use it around people who might get offended, even if they had no real reason to do so beyond political correctness.

HOWEVER, I never use it here though - neither deliberately nor accidentally - because it's more difficult to convey 'teh funnees' with written words, let alone joviality with words on an internet forum... where there are lots of random (immature, d0ltish, etc..) strangers!

In my honest opinion, if someone uses "gay" with decent non-disrespectful context and no one is offended maybe it should be left alone? After that I would place edit requests via PM, warnings and then actual censorship as a sort of ranking order...

I can understand why the c-word is banned - it's very loaded and rarely used in a context outside of hurt/hatred.

As for this debate itself, I feel the issue is fast becoming more weighted than any problems the boards may be experiencing in the first place. Hopefully, we can retain that perspective and not feel forced to do something if we can't agree on anthing...

-- Russo

[reki]

I think that the problem of you "GUYS STILL TAK(ING) WARNINGS AS SOME KIND OF PERSONAL AFFRONT" is less to do with the "GUYS" and more to do with the warnings system itself.

As we've mentioned several times, the warnings system is both due for, and expecting a change in structure sometime soon. Godspeed.

[Retroboy]

It's a bit like a cop writing you a ticket for going 50 in a place where it was legal to go 50 last week, but now the speed limit is 40 and they haven't got around to changing the signs yet.

Sorry, meant that to say "write you a warning".

(mildly o/t) And, yes, Reki, from my perspective, that's definitely the case. Hopefully the new system won't have the stigma of seeing a "view your warnings" link next to every single post you make for the next six months.

-- Retro

[Cyberbob]

the next six months

I think it's more than that, actually - I still have a warning from early February.

[Benjamin]

I wasn't being sarcy squid, I was serious. I was pointing out that this stance against the word "gay" is a bit weak since "retarded" regularly appears in this forum. Until bunny said so, I had no idea it had ever been an unwritten rule in this forum, even then I have a feeling not many have been pulled up on this. I've seen the staff take up issues with "gay" a few times, but "retarded" seems to pop up too oftern for it to be seriously against forum conduct. (yeah, it does seem to be almost a Balance Issue exclusive word )

It seems like an issue you will have to be either all or nothing with. If word such as "gay" is too offensive and decided to be violation of forum rules, then "spastic" "retarded" also fall into this.

I'm with the context look on things, which is loosely what has been in place already from what I have seen.

[Retroboy]

I'd add the word "nazi" in there somewhere too, but I think the stance on that one is already extremely clear.

-- Retro

[Octopus Rex]

Yeah, it's a year (warnings that is).

On Topic: I still stand by the "who are you trying to protect?" question. Humour and slang is almost always offensive to someone. You can't protect EVERYONE SINGLE PERSON from offence. It's simply not going to happen.

Edit: what the FUCK was I on about? (and no that was not a reaction to you Dyn!)

And Squid: clinging desparately to spelling, grammar and "proper" language is just snobbery. Language belongs to and is evolved and changed by the common masses, not by the custodians or archaicisms.

[ÜberJumper]

In light of the dictionary definitions of the word "rape", and its contextual use in threads here, I don't think it needs to be banned from use (in the right context) here in the forum.

Saying something like "my opponent went infantry and built four howitzers, which allowed me to rape their base and strategic points with no opposition" would be in context.

Saying something like "my opponent went infantry, built four howitzers, which allowed me to bend them over a proverbial barrel and rape him" would be inappropriate.

As for the use of gay... it's always been my impression that "Gay" can be used ironically in accordance with it's dictionary definitions. Specifically...

1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.

Usually when I hear someone using "Gay" in that manner, they're using it to describe something that is not putting them in a merry, lively mood. They're not describing something bright and showy, and it's not a pleasurable experience.

So, in conjunction with the word "rape", here's an appropriate use of the word Gay.

Saying something like "Man, that was totally GAY. I went infantry and built four howitzers, which allowed my opponent to rape my base and strategic points. There was nothing I could do to stop it!" would be in ok.

Saying something like "I went infantry and built four howitzers, which allowed my opponent to rape my base and strategic points. There was nothing I could do to stop it! So I told him he was a gay!" would be inappropriate.

Doubly (triply?) inappropriate..."I went infantry and built four howitzers, which allowed my opponent to rape me. There was nothing I could do to stop it! So I told him he was a gay and that I was going to rape his mom!".

It's all about the use of words in context.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I can understand why the c-word is banned - it's very loaded and rarely used in a context outside of hurt/hatred.

Heh. I know a girl who drops it into regular conversation every now and again. The logic being (I think) that anyone who gets offended probably wasn't someone she'd want to talk to anyway.

[Dorkdav]

I don't see the problem with something like Mass Reaper rapes ork.

Using gay as an insult isn't appropriate and should be restricted.

[Dyntheos]

You know what I'd like to actually hear from OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FORUM than the usual suspects on this thread.

If it isn't enough to have FI becoming a private bloody club for about 10 individuals. Really in all honesty I'd like to see FI frequented by more individuals and quite frankly if the usuals don't stop spamming every bloody thread in this section I am just going to start removing access to let some frsh blood in here, because I'd like some different views on this subject not the usual essays from the Chess Club

[Octopus Rex]

Just so you know, post edited - came on to edit, but you beat me to it Dyn.

[Blade44]

what octopus rex said reminds me of judge dredd. mods are like the street judges in the movie - judge, jury and in some cases executioner all in one. On topic though, i feel that this forum has a good balance of protecting people from being offended and trying not to limit expression. But reprimanding or "explaining" to people that they cant use the words seems like a step in the wrong direction. Why not just let people use the "report bad post button" if they feel offended by material instead of deciding wholesale what is or isnt offensive. Because thats what this is about is it not? what people are offended or hurt by?

[Dyntheos]

what if I am the one offended?

[Blade44]

obviously you could remove it. but shoudnt there be some sort of moderator impartiality?

edit: obviously you have the power to define your position how you see fit, but i always have thought of moderators as an uninvested third party that seeks to bring balance to a discussion and keep out those who dont want to be civil.

[SquidDNA]

Impartiality to what?

Octo, the masses haven't been in control of this forum for, oh, at least six years. Probably they never have been.

[FifteenHours]

Impartiality to everything I'd think. We all have those personal peeves, fears, hatreds, etc....and being a moderator to me means carrying the heavy burden of trying to not give into those feelings. Mods need to be thick skinned (not saying they're not already), tough, calm, and difficult to offend individuals who need to try and keep their personal feelings out of their decision making.
For an extreme example, lets just say a mod around here didn't like cats...his brother was eaten by a cat or something, idk. Bare with me here. Now if every time someone started talking about cats the mod flipped out and was offended, and started trying to ban discussion of cats and such, then I'd have to say that the mod is not doing his job. No matter what a cat has done to him, unless someone says "I'm gonna kill someone with the cat that ate your brother!" then he needs to be totally non-objective about it as much as humanly possible.

[SquidDNA]

Blade, I think this falls nicely under being civil.

[Blade44]

if no one else has told you that the material is offensive and its just you as the moderator that views it that way, why should you remove something if it wasnt intended to offend someone or flame or anything of that nature. the point im trying to make is, preventive measures on grey area subject matter seems stifling to creativity, word choice, and expression.

[SquidDNA]

If you think that these two words are creative and expressive then I honestly just don't know how to proceed.

There might be a hundred words that demonstrate the destructive superiority of one thing over another, but people like to use the one that also means physical and psychological harm in a humiliating sexual context. I wonder why that is, and I wonder why people are fine with essentially saying that rape is a proper thing. It makes no sense to me.