New Style of moderating Viki's main page of a show's comments


Yes, unfortunately, some aspects of the “all inclusive” do seep in here within Discussions. At one point, I was so turned off by racism - in my case, ethnicity (Asian/Chinese), nationality (American), and political jabs - that I just stopped visiting and posting here.

So, everyone, please be mindful of what you post. Please vet your post before you hit “submit” if you are responding/posting with some degree of disturbance in your mind.


I agree with @jadecloud88’s statement above, do ask
yourself why, and do I need to reply? Ensure the community discussion guidelines are observed.
Thank you, each, and everyone :slightly_smiling_face::slightly_smiling_face::slightly_smiling_face:


As @irmar said, I was referring to the original poster’s comment.

On this forum, I have not experienced discrimination, nor has there been opportunity for it to happen to me.

I use this platform to only engage in discussions. Our opinions differ from one another and expressing ourselves with words can be challenging, but I have never seen anything that is mean spirited.

This does not mean that discrimination doesn’t happen on this site, I just can’t discuss it given my experience.


I respect your choice.


Those people are probably talking about pre-subs which do not come from our Viki translators. My editors and I have noticed that the subtitle quality of our translators exceeds that of pre-subs. When I accept being CE with pre-subs, I actually have editors whose role is only to fix the pre-subs so the TE doesn’t have to wade through all that. I use TE trainees and GE trainees to fix pre-subs. They are mostly experienced subtitlers and translators, though not always in the origin language. The TEs have said it makes their work much easier.

Our translators have better English, do much more thorough work, and are highly committed although most are university students or have full-time jobs. I stand behind them and their work!

The segmenters get credited first on Team Credits: Timing and Subtitles by ____ Team


My answers in bold

I’m used to ppl mansplaining shit to me already, most of the mansplaining can actually be proven incorrect, you just need to get past all the standard self-justifications ppl have for doing it, which takes energy. Same with these rules, their so broad that anything can be considered against them, thus leaving it to others to enforce them, according to their own cultural norms. Also, I’m active in politics, it’s part of my daily life, I know exactly how broad the topic of “politics” itself is. Basically anything that concerns a community of more than one person. So technically discussing this topic is de-facto against the rules, since it discusses the rules, which “guide” the “community”. Let’s se if we can’t prove it to boot…

Ok, so according to @mariliam (see Sources section) “Politics” is among “no longer accept[ed] topics”. Ok, then what is politics? According to Wikipedia (see Sources section), it’s “the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.”. Now then, what is this thread? It’s an activity to set/discuss/attempt to set things associated with making decisions in groups/community. Thus this thread should according to the guidelines be banned. Still it isn’t. Why? Because of a positive moderator bias?
This is just for “politics”, what about another topic such as “nationality”?
This topic; Which country are you from? should probably be ban-able, just based on the set “Community Guidlines” alone, not to mention places where “nationality” has been discussed.

These are just a few points from one source that I very quickly and easily picked apart. I could go on. Should I? Ok, sure. Let’s jump over to the Viki Community Guidlines.

Here it mentions a lot more specifically stuff, which I’m glad about, though still way too imprecise on certain topics. Like what? Uhm let’s pick the first runner up, “Personal attacks”, ok so? I mentioned @mariliam above, in form of citing him/her/it/etc, thus the mention is meant as an citation of what @mariliam has said, not an “personal attack”, right. So why do I now mention it then? Because of the tone of my current post being negative in it’s tone. It is conceivable that @mariliam could get upset or se it as an personal attack, thus have I or haven’t now broken the “Viki Community Guidlines”? Who has the responsibility in communications? The sender, the receiver or both? is it reasonable to expect that the sender should know the cultural norms of every potential receiver or should we also expect some sort of understanding in these sorts of situations from the receiver? Where does the line go? Can I cite a person in a negatively toned post about a topic not about the “receiver”? What if this form of citing is tabuu in country x but normal in country y? Again I could go on and pick more stuff out of these, but I think my point is starting to get illustrated, I hope.
" Follow the law " Lol, yeah, I tend to follow Finnish and EU law, what about you viki? Should I run out and buy some law books…

Honestly, I don’t know if I should cry or laugh at the horrible state of the rules that this community is based around.

As I commented in another place;

“At this point tbh, I’m stopping to care, considering leaving completely Viki”



I am already stuck at your comment when the word “mansplaining” appears. What does it mean, no dictionary, no translator gives me a hint? Okay, the third try brought me to Wikipedia …
Still, it gives me hard time to read any further …
Anyway, to replace it, so I can go on and understand, or at least try to understand what you mean, or what you want to tell?


Basically, explaining things to you that you obviously already know.
According to Wiki “explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer, often done by a man to a woman” Though I use a more gender neutral and evolved view of the word.

Edit: In otherwords, the current rules have a ‘talking down to’ tone imo and is thus a relative word to use.


I have read that, but anyway.
As you said, I may already know to a certain point what you do not like about certain restrictions.

I too, would be happier, if we could have general discussions about “God and the world” as we in Germany say, but yeah there are some guidelines here that stop us from doing so.
I understand it to a certain point, as I saw the outcome of people getting hurt and not always taking the time to properly “talk it out”.

Anyway, I long gave up on the point to let Viki’s policy keeping me from coming here. I still like the community, but I understand taking a break or leaving, I did take a break myself for several months, so I know what it is like.

About commenting at Viki, I am here at discussions sometimes at the help page, but commenting on Viki channel pages, I gave up, to the point, I refused the cookie settings, so I am not able to see any comments there at all.


I respect that :slight_smile:, though my own view is more ‘it’s all of me or none of me.’ Instead of what many of my friends, colleagues etc. would prefer in similar situations to just ‘cut a piece’ off one-self in order to fit into the group.


Ditto! As for me, I wouldn’t go as far as naming it a cut to my own personality. You might find your freedom being restricted, in some ways I would say, yes. On the other hand, I know that Viki didn’t have in mind to have politically/religiously/nationally clashing discussions here. (And on another side they do not have that much staff to constantly take care of screening the forum.) From the get go when I joined Viki in 2010 it was always about staying positive and keeping harmony …
You may think of it what you like, it is not that I didn’t have my problems with that as well, but still as I said I like the community more, than I dislike the policy of the company.
I might be part of a community, but I don’t see this community trimmed in a way that all people are now shaped alike, so they fit in, if that were the case it would be pretty boring in here, but that is just my point of you.
If you stay or leave, I wish you many pleasant encounters in life, stay safe.


I think we are talking about identities and how we as individuals identify our selves. Some identify with being good at gardening or what ever, for me it’s being allowed to be me. I don’t feel as a worthy person if I’m restricted from being me, then I would feel like I’m just dirt to throw away, why should that be ok, imo it’s not. I think it’s the essence of a healthy community where you can discuss things and that there should be rules, but in such case the rules should be as precise as possible. As I mentioned in my sort of rant, that I’m into politics, I se politics all over and the rules are oppressive against someone like me and I’m also a person just like everyone else. Just my two cents. :slight_smile:

Sure, the same. :slight_smile:


It doesn’t say not to discuss nationality at all. The way I interpreted it is not to insult someone’s nationality, since it says “race nationality, and other sensitive topics that might be construed as derogatory

I also interpreted “personal attacks” as insults to a person’s character or beliefs. Talking in a way that provokes or puts another person down. Asking for clarification or disagreeing with someone’s views isn’t an attack. I doubt anyone was hurt or flagged @misswillowinlove for calling @kdrama2020ali a slave-driver because whoever had been reading the topic knew it was done in fun.

Now I feel like I’m “mansplaining”.

Regardless of country or culture, I’m pretty sure everybody knows that insulting anyone is wrong and creates fights. But however many rules we put in place, there will be people who get hurt. I don’t view it as “cutting a piece out of myself”, more like the porcupine scenario. When humans get together anywhere, they can hurt each other. Giving way to another doesn’t take much effort and keeps the peace, so it’s a win-win from my perspective.


Exactly my point :slight_smile: , your interpretation, my interpretation, the moderator’s interpretation, everyone’s interpretation etc etc. Thus too broad of a definition imo. Thus why I complain under the ‘personal attack’ section over where the line should be drawn and who has what responsibility etc. Also what’s the difference between a misunderstanding and insult? Is it when the receiver feels insulted or when the sender attempted to insult and what about if the sender didn’t try to insult, but tried it’s best not to, bust still the receiver interpreted it as insulting. These rules goes so far that they “mansplain” what you can’t and can say, with such broad interpretations. So is thus “Giving way to another doesn’t take much effort and keeps the peace” mean that all the responsibility should be on the sender regardless of any factor as long as no one feels insulted? Thus keeping the peace. :slight_smile:

These are things I come across all the time, ppl thinking I said x while I said y or me misinterpreting them.


Keep it clean. Do the above.

I hear ya’!


I’m clueless as always - Did I say something wrong???

Nothing occurred to me - but I don’t get offended so - did I offend???


Nope, not at all! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:
I was just giving @mattlock an example…


Ok I’ll run back over to Hottie Posse! Where I belong!


Wow. I am always ready to learn. I’d like to have someone offer a way to visually signal when someone is joking with another person.

@kdrama2020ali and I, as it turns out, have ancestral roots in the same part of the United States where, despite what has been said for about 180 years regarding ethnic marginalization of certain groups, there has always been a strong cultural undercurrent of belief in the dignity and value of every human being.

In fact, this film, based on events in the state of Virginia where I grew up, portrays the lives of a couple whose marriage in the face of anti-miscegenation laws was the catalyst for a Supreme Court case that overturned those laws and allowed many couples of differing ethnic backgrounds to marry and raise families.

‘Loving’ movie gives new significance to landmark court case
By Leslie Gordon
April 1, 2017, 3:30 AM CDT

We can joke around about a lot of things because we share very similar cultural values and idioms, and even though we do come from a part of the United States with an admittedly difficult and troubled past as well as present, that trouble is not the context in which to place my remark.

I would have to do a fair amount of research on it, but i think that, linguistically speaking, when one person calls another person a “slave-driver,” that person is giving a nod to the story of the ancient Israelites struggling in Egypt before they were set free to follow Moses to what some refer to as the Promised Land.

And I am not referencing that story with the intent of stirring up religious debates or getting people to hate on Middle Eastern ethnic groups. I just want to lay a linguistic and cultural foundation in order to say that, under most every circumstance, calling someone a “slave driver” (whether in earnest or in jest) is to call that person an authority figure who is nitpicky, anal-retentive, dissatisfied. And he or she is hyper-critical and will not stop complaining about employee behavior.

@kdrama2020ali is certainly not that, and my remark was made in the context of a very fanciful “conversation” that posits a world in which she and I (and several other Viki volunteers) are famous enough, stunning enough, and rich enough to hobnob in a very noona-oppa-dongsaeng sort of way with several extremely wealthy Korean entertainers.

Like that would ever happen, right?

I think it’s reasonable for someone to say, “I see politics all over.” Politics comes from the Greek language and refers to how life is organized and run so that people can live together well in community.

The PDF file below does a great job of sorting that concept out.

I very much believe that it is the duty of every human being to be political and to care about how the human community gets along. I can’t imagine life any other way.

However, without clues from my body language and tone of voice, any one happening upon our exchange has only his or her experiences and beliefs to draw on in interpreting my comments.

Other than trusting someone who says, “I’m joking” or accepting an apology for ignorance, I don’t know how people can communicate thoughtfully and openly on the Discussion Board when some aspect of language appears problematic.

But if anyone has other ideas that might lead to greater understanding, I am interested to know what they are.


You’re stating the obvious because mattlock doesn’t seem to be getting it.
Nitpicking about the general meaning of politics and how quoting someone might be thought as attacking.

Although there may be some overlapping or grey areas, I think all of us here get the meaning and purpose of the rules: to avoid topics which may make people aggressive and nasty towards each other and spark a flame war. And it has been known -for centuries now- that politics, religion, nationality, race (in my country, one should have added soccer), are things that can very easily spark hostility. Are we hiding our head in the sand, pretending we don’t know this? It’s enough to visit youtube. Even a peaceful, lovely Arabic song, with long shots of the desert with camels in the sunset was able to spark insults to Arabs for being extremist and bla bla bla and one thing led to another, so the next thing, under that romantic song, was pages and pages of people insulting each other, talking about how the prophet got married to a 9-year-old girl and whatnot. I mean, every pretext is good for hate!

Politics in that context means stuff like “I support this president/party and dislike the others” “I resent your country’s interference in my homeland’s power struggles” “If you voted for X you’re a moron” and so on.
Nationality in that context means "Ah, yeah, you’re X nationality. That’s why you’re lazy and you people can never advance/ That’s why you’re an arrogant fascist/ You’re all thieves
Personal attacks are… oh well,all have seen those here in Discussions. Not agreeing with someone’s opinion, however strongly, is not on itself a personal attack -
“You are X and Y”, “You always do this stupid/annoying thing” is.
Because you’re not attacking the opinion, you are attacking the person’s characters and actions. Of course, if you say “this opinion is idiotic”, then it’s an attack because an idiotic opinion can only be held by an idiot, so again it’s disparaging to the person.

(Am I womansplaining?)

So let’s not pretend we don’t get what the rules are about, by saying that they are too general.