My problem is this is as I said earlier, a slippery slope... I can see a case for banning someone for spreading nazi sentiment or making death threats, of course I can. But where does it end? Where's the line? People are going to get banned just for some off the cuff curse words? Really? I swear when I get passionate about things sometimes, I don't direct them with malice towards individuals and I believe words can only offensive if there is intent behind them. Will the banhammer come own on a heated debate when an opinion or choice of words hurt someone's feefees? Or because a mod simply didn't like what someone said?
I'm already highly unhappy with GOG's curation system, a feature where I feel implicit biases are definitely at play, and I'm simply not yet convinced the forum mods know how to stay impartial. The fact TinyE got a ban already shows how restrictive the system has the potential to be.
Actually, will I even be allowed to express negative views on GOG now?
There's a reason that the slippery slope argument is often considered a fallacy during a debate. That's because "X happening means that Y will also inevitably happen" frequently involves large leaps of logic that don't necessarily match with reality. Saying stuff like "they may start with nazi talk, but where will it end" assumes two things:
- It assumes that forum moderators have "ban quota" they need to fill and while they start out with nazi's and bigots, they'll eventually move on to lesser evils in order to keep those quota filled once the greater evils are gone. I've never visited a forum where the administration staff operated in this manner, so I'm not sure why you feel this could be the case here. From my experience, admins don't think this way. Something either blatantly violates the rules, violates the rules but the poster isn't considered a lost cause yet or skirts the limits. In the first case, you use a perma-ban, in the second case you issue a temporary ban and in the third case you give a warning. There is no sliding scale and admins issue warnings or temporary bans for minor infractions at the same time while they're perma-banning irredeemable trolls.
- It also assumes that "nazi talk" and "minor cursing or criticism" are part of a spectrum rather than two completely separate things. This would naturally imply that nazi talk is simply a more extreme version of criticism of GOG and that minor cursing or complaining about something GOG does is simply a more subdued variation of hate speech. That's REALLY not the way things are in the real world.
If someone's feelings are hurt because you said their favorite game is crap, then that's a different thing than if someone's feelings are hurt because you launched an ad hominem attack at them or their ethnic/religious group. In both cases, feelings were hurt but you're not doing yourself any favors if you fail to distinguish those cases.
So apparantly TinyE got a temp-ban. But he's posting again and I'm not even seeing him going on about how unfairly he was treated, so maybe he just tested some boundary, crossed it by a few inches, GOG pushed back and now boundaries are set, he has a greater understanding of what he can and cannot get away with and we can all move on instead of making a big deal out of it.
So yeah...I think you're making this a bigger thing than it is, really.