Site Management > Site Support / Feedback
Community and Moderation Standards Discussions (Consolidated)
Mongoose:
--- 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 ---
I think in my mind the distinction should be made between attacking the position, and attacking the person. If someone is pushing the argument that you gave as an example, then by all means, absolutely tee off on that argument. But keep it there: don't denigrate the individual as a basic person. If someone truly is espousing ridiculous opinions on a regular basis, quite frankly their reputation is going to take care of itself, without any need for you helping it along.
General Battuta:
Their reputations are taking care of themselves to the tune of 400,000 dead people, though. Denialism kills. It's hard not to call someone who wants to minimize that an absolute monster.
I guess there's always oblique phrasing like "anyone who believes this is an accessory to murder" but that's weaselly.
Phantom Hoover:
--- Quote from: Mongoose on February 07, 2021, 12:03:31 pm ---
--- 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 ---
I think in my mind the distinction should be made between attacking the position, and attacking the person. If someone is pushing the argument that you gave as an example, then by all means, absolutely tee off on that argument. But keep it there: don't denigrate the individual as a basic person. If someone truly is espousing ridiculous opinions on a regular basis, quite frankly their reputation is going to take care of itself, without any need for you helping it along.
--- End quote ---
I disagree, and sorting out this disagreement is probably the most important part of this discussion. It's not healthy that if many community members find someone's views deeply objectionable or obnoxious, the position of the moderators effectively becomes hostile to the majority: "well you'd better make sure you follow the rules of Polite Debate with Jim the antivaxxer, or the guy who complains that any symmetrical ship model is uninspired garbage". I think effective moderation needs to actually listen to people when they express objections to someone's behaviour, and you need to be ready to take someone aside and say "your behaviour is actually annoying the hell out of a lot of people; you need to adjust course", rather than only telling everyone to cool off. God knows I've benefited enough from people telling me stuff like that over the years.
The 'geek social fallacy' Battuta keeps linking to is very much on point: you can't keep a healthy community running if you start off by saying you'll never rebuke or exclude anyone no matter how disruptive they're being to the actual happiness of the group.
Mongoose:
I'm not trying to imply that aberrant behavior shouldn't be taken to task, and I don't think that we should be moderating by dropping a "play nice kids" without actually considering the viewpoints in question. But I do believe that there's a clear distinction between a response like, "Your opinion is abhorrent and is going to get a lot of people needlessly killed" and one like, "You're a subhuman monster." Both are ostensibly trying to accomplish the same thing, but the latter is ****-stirring just for the sake of doing so. Maybe the other moderators feel differently about this, but that's my own take on it.
Rhymes:
--- Quote from: Mongoose on February 07, 2021, 01:12:44 pm ---I'm not trying to imply that aberrant behavior shouldn't be taken to task, and I don't think that we should be moderating by dropping a "play nice kids" without actually considering the viewpoints in question. But I do believe that there's a clear distinction between a response like, "Your opinion is abhorrent and is going to get a lot of people needlessly killed" and one like, "You're a subhuman monster." Both are ostensibly trying to accomplish the same thing, but the latter is ****-stirring just for the sake of doing so. Maybe the other moderators feel differently about this, but that's my own take on it.
--- End quote ---
I don't agree with this. Certain opinions--specifically ones that deliberately minimize, ignore, or advocate for mass death and suffering--should be met with hostility. If someone comes along and says "vaccines are the devil" or "COVID is a hoax" or "Hitler was right" or "the Holodomor and the Cultural Revolution were good things, actually," members of the community should be free to say "**** all the way off, you piece of ****" without worrying about whether they're going to get sanctioned by the moderators.
You can't separate the person from their opinion because their opinions are informed by who they are, and are the primary basis by which we, as humans, figure out who other people are. If they uncritically support things that they know will cause death and suffering, that makes them a bad person.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version