Site Management > Site Support / Feedback
Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
General Battuta:
If I have to be respectful of people who think COVID stands for Churches Open, Virus Isn't Deadly I'm going to—well, uh, not be respectful. "Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".
General Battuta:
Pretty nice backronym huh?? Came up with that myself
Grizzly:
--- Quote from: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 09:34:37 am ---If I have to be respectful of people who think COVID stands for Churches Open, Virus Isn't Deadly I'm going to—well, uh, not be respectful. "Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".
--- End quote ---
Pretty sure we have rule 1 and 2 for that kinda stuff.
Phantom Hoover:
--- Quote from: General Battuta on February 07, 2021, 09:34:37 am ---"Don't be a dick" so often ends up meaning "don't say anything superficially inflammatory in the face of things that are actually horrible".
--- End quote ---
Rule 4 does seem strange to me and I think it’s a recipe for trouble as written, but it makes a lot of sense in spirit as a measure against this sort of thing. If there’s one thing we’ve learnt here it’s that massive toxic dumpster fire arguments about someone’s behaviour are a terrible way of managing disagreement, but HLP has had a lot of bitter times resulting from rigid ‘don’t be a dick’ moderating that provides cover for people who are driving a lot of others crazy without using naughty words. For my part, I would suggest an approach to moderation that strongly discourages bitter dogpiling arguments, but recognises that if a bunch of people want to object to someone’s behaviour like that it means there’s a real problem that needs active resolution. Moderator discretion and an ability to read the room will be required, and it’s clear that this can only work if the community agrees to respect their judgements on the ground.
Mobius:
Saying that any situation involving a "bunch of people" who happen to have a particular issue with a [given member] should automatically mark the beginning of some sort of "moderating evaluation" of [said member] is a rather dangerous concept. I don't expect anything good to happen should a similar policy be applied.
We'd rather stick to regular evaluation processes, IMO.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version