Q: Doesn't a website have the right to ban anyone for any reason?
This is 21st century America, and American culture places an intrinsic value on debate and free expression. These members are also guests of these websites, and have contributed to their success or continuity by visiting there.
Q: What is the main audience of this website?
There are two audiences, members of NeoGAF and SomethingAwful. NeoGAF is a gaming website, while SomethingAwful is best described as a black comedy website. "Which side is the majority audience" can move from week to week.
Q: Which of the two websites is less transparent?
It's actually not a difficult question to answer. There are no protections of any kind for NeoGAF members. Even after waiting 6 months for activation, an account can be deleted for any reason and no one except the poster would ever know. SomethingAwful is transparent in a positive way among websites on the internet because anyone can read the ban list and decide for themselves whether a ban was fair. It appears that SA admins need to approve bans. I have no idea if SA admins ever decline a ban recommendation from a moderator, but it at least creates the appearance of checks.
Another plus on the SA side of the aisle is that the overwhelming majority of bans are just probations, whereas I would imagine that 50% or so of bans at NeoGAF are permanent bans for ridiculous reasons.
Q: Is that an endorsement of SA?
Not in the slightest. If the three Paris terrorists had been regularly posting at SA, they would have been treated better than I was by the SA staff.
Q: Which set of members is scarier?
I think people have to be out of their minds to attend an SA meetup.
Q: Why does the Preamble or Campaign post always show up as today's post?
I consider the Preamble post to be more important or the most important, and blog posts are generally viewed in reverse chronological order.
Q: How often do you plan to update IronKnuckle 2016?
Anywhere from daily to twice a week.
Q: What is the idea behind the debate?
I am looking to debate a liberal on any topics. This person would preferably be an American and be able to express themselves without the use of profanity. The debate would be 60 to 90 minutes on the internet. I would probably need a moderator and someone to review questions. Not many people agree with the Democrats on most issues but it probably wouldn't help to debate someone who couldn't agree with the Democrats on at least a few issues.
Q: Why can't I can't read your older posts? My browser is redirected to the front page.
A redirect code was added to the "NeoGAF fail" post, in light that about 800+ visitors from NeoGAF were looking at that specific post. I felt it was important for them to see the front page. You can access older posts by clicking through the Blog Archive > 2014 > December on the right hand side. I will probably turn off the redirect in a week or so. If you are being redirected to the main page, it's means the HTML is actually working properly.
Q: Isn't it harder to moderate a thread since the Bible says that being gay is immoral?
The NeoGAF staff has also banned people for simply saying that they are opposed to sex changes.
Q: Aren't you wasting your time?
How many people have been posting on these websites for years, who have either not expressed their views out of fear, or who have been banned for doing so?
Q: Why did you disable commenting on IronKnuckle 2016?
Because similar to the 2012 cycle, one commenter appears to be using multiple nicknames to express himself.
Q: Can you prove to me in one sentence that NeoGAF has a liberal bias?
Bill Maher said the other night that hundreds of millions of muslims support an attack like the one in France.
People have been banned for saying less at NeoGAF. If he had made that comment on NeoGAF itself, he would have been gone; in fact, the admins would have bragged about banning him the way they did with Dennis Dyack.
Q: Can you prove to me in one sentence that SomethingAwful has a liberal bias?
There is no shortage of people who will stick up for Iran in any thread about the Middle East, and you can be put on probation or banned for challenging them.
Q: And the difference is?
For instance, I was able to argue at great length against the Occupy Wall Street protesters on their own website back while OWS was still in protest mode.
Q: What other biases are at play?
NeoGAF's moderators allow Sodom and Gomorrah style threads where the authors express sympathy for pedophiles. One such poster lamented that pedophiles should be called "pedosexuals" instead because it would engender more sympathy. NeoGAF banned four posters for expressing outrage at the despicable behavior committed by these offenders, and that these threads were still open. Thomas Jefferson once signed a law to have homosexuals castrated; he would have been banned at NeoGAF for expressing these views.
NeoGAF is accused of a pro-Sony or an anti-Xbox bias in its moderation on almost a daily basis now (note: I am not saying they're right, just that I hear it almost everyday). Both SA and NeoGAF show a bias against Americans even though both sites have an American origin.
