[General Battuta]

Debate is all well and good, but having to defend yourself constantly - or even watch others defend you - is exhausting. It has real, quantifiable impact on physical and mental health. It impairs creativity and productivity. I don't speak out of idealism here: this is empirical data. And that's without even touching on issues of stereotype threat and cognition.

I don't want to misconstrue anything here, but this is very much true.  Even though the Uganda thread didn't devolve into some awful flamewar, it still puts me in a very awkward position as both homosexual and moderator.  That kind of discussion engenders a sort of de-facto inability to participate in the discussion - as a member of the group in question, it's by definition impossible for me to keep the discussion impartial and non-personal.  It completely limits involvement both as a member of HLP, and much more severely as an active moderator.

That's all even leaving aside the discomfort that comes with confronting the concept that someone else disagrees with your mere existence or way of life.  It's a serious, serious thing, and I'd greatly appreciate if something to that effect were included in the guidelines.

I am with Scotty with pretty much every moral fiber I possess (I have a high fiber count). And people shouldn't be required to out themselves to express their discomfort, given that outing to strangers can be incredibly scary.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Debate is all well and good, but having to defend yourself constantly - or even watch others defend you - is exhausting. It has real, quantifiable impact on physical and mental health. It impairs creativity and productivity. I don't speak out of idealism here: this is empirical data. And that's without even touching on issues of stereotype threat and cognition.

I don't want to misconstrue anything here, but this is very much true.  Even though the Uganda thread didn't devolve into some awful flamewar, it still puts me in a very awkward position as both homosexual and moderator.  That kind of discussion engenders a sort of de-facto inability to participate in the discussion - as a member of the group in question, it's by definition impossible for me to keep the discussion impartial and non-personal.  It completely limits involvement both as a member of HLP, and much more severely as an active moderator.

That's all even leaving aside the discomfort that comes with confronting the concept that someone else disagrees with your mere existence or way of life.  It's a serious, serious thing, and I'd greatly appreciate if something to that effect were included in the guidelines.

I am with Scotty with pretty much every moral fiber I possess (I have a high fiber count). And people shouldn't be required to out themselves to express their discomfort, given that outing to strangers can be incredibly scary.

Let me make something abundantly clear: I don't give a single **** whether your opinion is "consistent with the majority opinion in your homeland ". If you're going to be a bigot on my watch,  you're going to be called out and smacked. Intolerance for intolerance is a virtue.

I agree 100% with these posts.

[Black Wolf]

Leaving the prohibition in is fine as it doesn't specify a response; i. e. nobody immediately banned Familiar for his opinions, but the community as a whole, including a couple of moderators, came down on him pretty hard. That's where we're at and where we should be at - we're not suppressing free speech, but, as a community, we make it pretty clear which opinions are acceptable and which aren't

[Goober5000]

I don't want to misconstrue anything here, but this is very much true.  Even though the Uganda thread didn't devolve into some awful flamewar, it still puts me in a very awkward position as both homosexual and moderator.  That kind of discussion engenders a sort of de-facto inability to participate in the discussion - as a member of the group in question, it's by definition impossible for me to keep the discussion impartial and non-personal.  It completely limits involvement both as a member of HLP, and much more severely as an active moderator.

That's all even leaving aside the discomfort that comes with confronting the concept that someone else disagrees with your mere existence or way of life.  It's a serious, serious thing, and I'd greatly appreciate if something to that effect were included in the guidelines.

The guidelines already include something to that effect, with its general emphasis on respect and polite disagreement.

As a Christian and a member of the right-wing political persuasion, I have been subject to a number of fairly vitriolic attacks on HLP over the years.  I have similarly found it difficult to keep discussions impartial and non-personal in the past, but the fact that members of the administration and moderation staff respect each other despite our differences makes it work.

Karajorma and I disagree on a whole host of issues, but we are perfectly able to put aside our differences and work together on administrative functions and source code contributions.

Let me make something abundantly clear: I don't give a single **** whether your opinion is "consistent with the majority opinion in your homeland ". If you're going to be a bigot on my watch,  you're going to be called out and smacked. Intolerance for intolerance is a virtue.

Well, now you're quite plainly expressing a bigoted attitude toward people from Russia, Uganda, and Arizona, not to mention the entire Islamic community.  According to the rules, this would warrant an immediate ban.

[karajorma]

I have no intention of watching this thread get derailed by an attempt to allow people to express bigoted views.

The anti-bigotry clause is fine as it is, let's move on.

One kind of logistical thing I'd like to know is when will this ruleset be "done"? Obviously we can't sit here talking it to death, but I'm sure that's something we're all perfectly capable of doing.

I was going to post it as soon as the discussion went dead, but I'm perfectly happy with Monday as the preliminary deadline.

[General Battuta]

Leaving the prohibition in is fine as it doesn't specify a response; i. e. nobody immediately banned Familiar for his opinions, but the community as a whole, including a couple of moderators, came down on him pretty hard. That's where we're at and where we should be at - we're not suppressing free speech, but, as a community, we make it pretty clear which opinions are acceptable and which aren't

Unfortunately, diffuse social sanction won't stop some people in the long run (which, you're right to point out, is also covered by the existing wording - it doesn't forbid harsher action on repeated offenses).

The number of 'thanks for trying, but this place is wrong for me' PMs I've had from women users is a testament to the chilling effect the forum culture can have on people who don't feel comfortable reading and don't feel safe speaking up about it. Heck, even I've had hate mail threatening me and (in one hilarious case) asking which Islamist terrorist cell I was affiliated with.

*snip*

A lesson in why it's important to remember that self-selected political beliefs are not remotely analogous to facts of biology: you might make a false equivalence between bigotry and rational response to bigotry.

e:

I have no intention of watching this thread get derailed by an attempt to allow people to express bigoted views.

The anti-bigotry clause is fine as it is, let's move on.

Sounds goood.

[Scotty]

Goober, as much as I would really like to respect the content of that post, the last part makes it really hard.  You're not just not condoning those viewpoints, you just actively defended them.  The content of those viewpoints is effectively that I should be legally a second class citizen for who I am.

If you want to expect me to remain inclusive of those viewpoints as valid, you should ban me this instant, because it will not happen.

Apologies to Kara, but despite the desire to move on I think that needs to be said.

[NGTM-1R]

Here's something I already had written last time which was meant to deal with the High Maxs of this world.

Finally ask yourself one last question before hitting that post key "Is this post worth posting? Does it actually add anything significant to the discussion? Is it something the other people discussing this issue will want to read? Is it an attempt to explain your point of view or just an attempt to show why you're right? Will it antagonise somebody else simply because you're annoyed?

If your answers aren't going to make this a more enjoyable place to visit for everyone, perhaps you should edit that post one more time.

I don't think this is sufficient, primarily because High Max/Lorric/et. al. would have posted anyways, and kept posting, honestly believing that what they were saying was of interest.

Something to the effect of "you should only debate topics you have some grounding in, and if the community decides you do not have that grounding, you should gracefully bow out before more serious measures have to be taken".

I'd also like to see an option to eject troublemakers from threads in which they make trouble on pain of future punishment, rather than forcing a lock or removing them from entire forum sections; Karaj kicked Mobius out of Diaspora once with a threat to Monkey, so we have precedent. If they disobey they can always be given a read-only or monkey or a (very brief! these should not be long because there is potential for screwup, and they should not be multiplicative like others; 1-3 days only) ban.

[zookeeper]

Please split if this is too off-topic, but none of the other recent moderation-related threads seemed to fit any better:

I believe the makeup of the forum populace combined with the established forum culture is simply a combination which constantly breeds conflict. In addition to being a place to create nice things, the forum also has the off-topic section which mostly everyone seems to treat as a second living room where they just have to get their say on a hot topic. I'm guessing that a lot of people think that it fosters a sense of community when people discuss their personal views and daily lives on a regular basis and get to know each other and all that, but frankly I think the negative effects of constant flamewars or otherwise heated topics along with the resulting moderation disagreements and interpersonal grudges carrying to other parts of the forum are clearly greater.

Solution? Shut down GenDisc or simply disallow off-topic discussion relating to politics and religion on the basis that they're a problem with very few if any redeeming qualities, and encourage people to rather spend their time on creating more of the nice things or talking about them. It almost seems like there's no collective awareness of how the politics/religion topics almost exclusively cause grief and distract from more important things, so the simple solution of stamping them out doesn't even come up.

[NGTM-1R]

Shut down GenDisc

You are not the first person to suggest this, you will not be the last, and it has always been unconvincing in a more than superficial way. GenDisc gets people spending time on the site. It has been immensely educational to myself, and to others, thanks to folks like MP-Ryan. It's a marvelous mechanism for retention as it keeps people interested in visiting during droughts in the release of playable content. And it offers the ability to segregate topics that would otherwise naturally emerge in other places and times for those who really feel they ought to be.

Those who think these things won't come up if GenDisc goes away, I encourage you to remember that even with GenDisc as an outlet Goober's gender-related meltdown which drove Rian out of participating happened in GenFS and we've had several impressive fights over gender, religion, and consent issues in Gaming Discussion, Diaspora, and even Wings of Dawn. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not the answer.

The answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship, something that a lot of people here have struggled with. (c.f. why you ought to reply to rather than ignore people stating intolerant opinions)

[karajorma]

Let's try to keep this constructive and avoid potshots at other members please.

I don't think this is sufficient, primarily because High Max/Lorric/et. al. would have posted anyways, and kept posting, honestly believing that what they were saying was of interest.

Something to the effect of "you should only debate topics you have some grounding in, and if the community decides you do not have that grounding, you should gracefully bow out before more serious measures have to be taken".

I don't think something that confrontational really belongs in the  guidelines. But I do agree the community and especially the moderators should come down heavily on anyone passing themselves off as an expert they have no actual knowledge of, especially after being given the evidence that they are wrong. As for the guidelines not stopping High Max, I don't give a **** if he thinks his posts were of interest, after being told that they weren't and continuing to post them, we'd have sufficient grounds to punish them.

I'd also like to see an option to eject troublemakers from threads in which they make trouble on pain of future punishment, rather than forcing a lock or removing them from entire forum sections; Karaj kicked Mobius out of Diaspora once with a threat to Monkey, so we have precedent. If they disobey they can always be given a read-only or monkey or a (very brief! these should not be long because there is potential for screwup, and they should not be multiplicative like others; 1-3 days only) ban.

I'm definitely in favour of doing that more. Once the guidelines are sorted I'm planning to have a serious discussion on here on how to implement them.

[MP-Ryan]

Let's try to keep this constructive and avoid potshots at other members please.

I don't think this is sufficient, primarily because High Max/Lorric/et. al. would have posted anyways, and kept posting, honestly believing that what they were saying was of interest.

Something to the effect of "you should only debate topics you have some grounding in, and if the community decides you do not have that grounding, you should gracefully bow out before more serious measures have to be taken".

I don't think something that confrontational really belongs in the  guidelines. But I do agree the community and especially the moderators should come down heavily on anyone passing themselves off as an expert they have no actual knowledge of, especially after being given the evidence that they are wrong. As for the guidelines not stopping High Max, I don't give a **** if he thinks his posts were of interest, after being told that they weren't and continuing to post them, we'd have sufficient grounds to punish them.

I'd also like to see an option to eject troublemakers from threads in which they make trouble on pain of future punishment, rather than forcing a lock or removing them from entire forum sections; Karaj kicked Mobius out of Diaspora once with a threat to Monkey, so we have precedent. If they disobey they can always be given a read-only or monkey or a (very brief! these should not be long because there is potential for screwup, and they should not be multiplicative like others; 1-3 days only) ban.

I'm definitely in favour of doing that more. Once the guidelines are sorted I'm planning to have a serious discussion on here on how to implement them.

I concur with this.

The point of guidelines is to give people an indication what they can get in trouble for - and disruption is already amended in there under the explanation of what is 'respectful.'

How that is enforced and interpreted is a matter of admin/mod policy.  I don't see a need to expressly tell people they shouldn't continue in debates where they contribute nothing, as that's already a disruptive behaviour that the admins/mods should explicitly warn them for.  Which brings up another point for you kara - make sure whatever guidance the HLP staff gets includes the need to tell people explicitly why they are being warned/banned/whatever, in detail, and relate that back to how they are breaking the rules (e.g. being disrespectful).

As for GenDisc - I'm biased because I spend far-and-away the majority of my time in the Off-Topic sections these days, but I think free discussion of topics of interest is a good thing for the community as a whole for all the reasons NGTM-1R listed.  And if you think about it, in the last 6+ years we've only seen a half-dozen or fewer problem children in GenDisc, and all of them have eventually been dealt with.  The problem is not really the forum so much as the way moderation has been delayed in the past.... which is something that hopefully these discussions, a new set of forum guidelines, and a shift in admin/mod proactivity will change in the future.

[karajorma]

Funny thing is that I advocated banning every single one of those problem children long before it happened, but without them having ever broken any rules, my hands were rather tied.


When it comes to moderation itself, that's a discussion I intend to have with the moderators. One big problem I foresee is people getting annoyed with the increased moderation as the new system settles into place.

There are going to be a lot of people getting warnings for things that would previously have been left alone (to fester).

[Zacam]

1st off: Thanks for this. I've been uneasy about trying to shoulder this myself, namely because of "Surprise, BUSY!" leading to feelings of guilt and because I really am much more of a technologically minded person than I am a people person.

2nd: I don't currently (as of this post time) see anything that I feel needs changing. I do think we need to be able to have something in terms of a process for a where and how moderated members can be able to discuss their cases when they happen (I hesitate at the idea of a "Board of Shame" though, at least objectively at it ever having such a title as that construes a negative impact to it where we want and need to encourage fostering growth and development), but I'm summarily at a loss as to what sort of system or mechanics would work "best" for it. I realize that isn't the directly relevant subject explicitly to the purpose of this thread, but I did want to ensure that it has a mindful presence as the next step forward because

3rd: Once a consensus is determined on the rules, the next task would be ensuring the effectiveness and capabilities to allow the moderation (Global or otherwise) to actually enforcing them and making sure that we have viable documentation for how to use them. WHEN they use them would be their case to make and if necessary to defend as a dove-tail in point to the above.

I am really glad to have seen this engine started, I certainly hope that any who are viewing this that feel they have something to say but haven't because they think they don't need to get involved (assuming it is within the realm of the constructive or supportive) give voice to it. Because ultimately (and as part of the reason why I kept having an issue in starting this alone from a singular point of perspective) is that this place will be what we all make of it.

[MP-Ryan]

When it comes to moderation itself, that's a discussion I intend to have with the moderators. One big problem I foresee is people getting annoyed with the increased moderation as the new system settles into place.

There are going to be a lot of people getting warnings for things that would previously have been left alone (to fester).

If - as a number of us have been saying - that increase in moderation takes the form of public, informal feedback ("Hey Ryan, you're being a jerk right now, cut it out" in a reply in the thread) versus private and formal action to minor issues, then I doubt you're going to see much of a problem.

The Zacam intervention in the Descent thread is a perfect example of what TO do.  And on the whole, the moderators have gotten much better at this sort of thing.  So those sorts of warnings are expected, justified, and should come more frequently to course-correct threads.

What I don't think any of us want to see is an explosion in the more formal warnings that can be issued through the forum software done in private.  They have their place, but the goal should be to deal with problems before it needs to reach that stage.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, the formal warnings system is impersonal and puts users on the defensive: 'You screwed up, sit down.' Early corrective warnings should make a user think 'oh, I know what to do instead'.

[Zacam]

Funny thing is that I advocated banning every single one of those problem children long before it happened, but without them having ever broken any rules, my hands were rather tied.

And yet, long before it happened, how much attempts at community correction were there, and what form did they take? I seem to recall several instances where, right or not, the way people presented trying to 'correct' somebody has always ended up leaving somebody on the defensive. Nothing is worse than feeling like you're being cornered when you might not understand why and there have been cases where (well intentioned it may have been) the hostility behind the message ends up over riding the message itself.

When it comes to moderation itself, that's a discussion I intend to have with the moderators. One big problem I foresee is people getting annoyed with the increased moderation as the new system settles into place.

I know you mean well, but it's more a discussion I think that the Moderators need to have with Us as a collective collaborative whole. I know obviously that the discussion will end up taking place in a manner that all involved can contribute to it, but wording is everything.

There are going to be a lot of people getting warnings for things that would previously have been left alone (to fester).

So we start off softly as we go along and we have something definitive and collectively agreed upon that we can point them to as to why with the understanding and declaration that it's universally going to be upheld. Just because we have big sticks doesn't mean we start off with using them, but I think there have been cases where it has been forgotten the step of "speaking softly" while carrying one.

[Luis Dias]

I certainly hope that any who are viewing this that feel they have something to say but haven't because they think they don't need to get involved (assuming it is within the realm of the constructive or supportive) give voice to it.

I read these discussions with big interest and I may say am pleased with the general direction of them. However, given that I am more of a "consumer" than a "builder", and given the OP asked for no "spam comments" without content, etc., I refrained from commenting. Make no mistake though and I think I speak for more people than myself, the discussions and conclusions driven from these threads are really important, the task of moderators and admins are really important, I think the document is pretty good as of this moment, and I couldn't be more grateful for all of it.

So please go on with the knowledge that many will only lurk this thread, but with plenty of interest.

[MP-Ryan]

Everyone's been pretty good, so I can probably prune out the thread rules now anyway.  In fact, I'll do that right now.

EDIT:  I trimmed them instead of removing them outright.  We'd like people's feedback at this point, but constructive feedback.  Also, I will be driving the train that runs over anyone attempting to derail the thread.

[MP-Ryan]

Actually - since there seems to be emerging consensus on the current form, perhaps one of the staff could fire a link to this thread in the forum announcements?  A relatively small proportion of the user base looks at site support, and soliciting wide feedback can't hurt.