Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 26, 2014, 02:06:13 pm
-
There are rules to this thread:
1. If you derail it, you will be tied to the rails and run over by the community train.
2. If you disrupt the discussion, you will be ejected from it.
3. All feedback is to be constructive - simply posting you don't like something and not explaining why will result in the rail treatment in point #1.
Current version (admins or myself will update the text below based on suggested changes. This first post will be the consolidated version).
The Rules
HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra. While we may disagree on certain issues, a core HLP value is that we will be respectful of one another when discussing them. Being respectful means that you debate the arguments, and you don't attack the person making them; you contribute meaningfully to discussion, and do not disrupt it for others. This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban. All warnings, temporary restrictions, and bans are at the discretion of the moderating team, based on the respect principle. HLP's moderators will strive to intervene early to correct unacceptable behaviour instead of resorting to immediate formal actions; if you are the subject of a warning, this is an opportunity to change your behaviour and learn from it.
The games and mods here on HLP were made by people willing to give up massive amounts of their free time, often over the course of several years, in order to provide people with something to play. This can only happen when people are willing to be giving. Giving of their time to make games. Giving of the models, graphics and code they make. Giving of their expertise in teaching people how to do what they do. The worst community members just take what they're given and then complain about what they were given for free. The best community members are the ones who are willing to give back. Even if you haven't got any game design skills you can still give back. You can still tell people what worked and what didn't. If you find a bug you can give up a few hours to help the person who spent years making the game you're playing ensure that the next person doesn't have the same problem.
The discussion in the off-topic areas are also only productive because of members who also give up their free time to participate. HLP has many passionate and often highly-educated members. Please don't take our membership for granted. Making any areas of the forums hostile places, and especially the truly optional areas, will merely eliminate them.
This community lives or dies on ability of its members to be respectful toward each other, and for this reason, this is the foremost rule on HLP. Finally, posting activities which are illegal in most democratic countries (e.g. warez / piracy / phishing / spam) or content that is generally unacceptable for consumption in public (e.g. pornography) are also not permitted.
In summary: before hitting that post key, ask yourself "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 antagonize somebody else simply because I'm 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.
Helpful Tips and Reminders
- HLP has a 'Report Post' Function. In FreeSpace terms, think of this as "Call Support." When you have a problem with a post or thread, use this function to bring it to the attention of the HLP staff.
- Criticism is a valuable part of the creative process, but please remember that creators can't work without motivation, and criticism usually stings. Try to be compassionate and constructive when providing feedback - think of the process as a collaboration, working together to build something better. It's okay to say 'this doesn't work for me', but try to point to things you liked as well and offer a path forward. Conversely, please value thoughtful feedback you receive, even when you decide not to act on it.
- Unless a post violates the guidelines, it is freely made. The member has a right to say it, and your right is to engage with and debate it or ignore it. Your right is not to try to suppress it and advocate for its removal. Conversely, posts which aren't meaningful or otherwise useful - in short, noise - serve no purpose and are heavily discouraged, particularly in the mod-specific forums. Stream of consciousness posting (e.g. a forum-based Facebook/Twitter page) is noise; there are dedicated threads for these types of posts, please use them.
- HLP is not the place for you to bend all discussions toward a particular item of your focus to the detriment of everyone else (don't bring your soap-box to every thread). Bumping ancient threads without a meaningful contribution to them, double-posting, or spamming multiple threads with the same question or comment are also frowned upon.
- Off-topic forums will generally have more latitude given by moderators than will the project or mod-specific forums, as the latter exist exclusively to serve those projects, and disruption has greater negative effects there; however, this does not mean the off-topic areas are a free-for-all where the rules may be flaunted.
- The HLP staff have a variety of technical moderation tools which they can and will use to improve the forum environment should informal reminders prove inadequate to deal with you. Follow the guidelines and don't become subject to one of them. Among the more common tools are: Warning, Moderated (posts require approval), Muted (read only access), Ban (temporary or permanent), Monkeyed (restricts you to projects of which you are a member), and Political Prisoner (a ban from General Discussion). There are more creative options. Don't be a test subject.
-
First suggestion:
1. Guidelines are absent a prohibition on illegal/problematic activities - e.g. warez, porn (add to this list).
2. While this should go without saying, some sites do permit this sort of thing, so an express prohibition is a good idea.
3. Add the following text instead of the last line:
This community lives or dies on ability of its members to be nice to each other, and for this reason, this is the foremost rule on HLP. Finally, posting activities which are illegal in most democratic countries (e.g. warez / piracy / phishing / spam) or content that is generally unacceptable for consumption in public (e.g. pornography) are also not permitted.
Any issues or additions?
-
Another item for discussion - there are a few salient points in the current guidelines stickied at the top of the Site Support board that are likely worth retaining - notes about the report post function, "stream of consciousness posting," etc. That sort of thing falls more under the category of "good to know" than "rules," so I'd be curious to see how they are best incorporated. Similarly, the various formal moderation tools wouldn't hurt as an FYI either.
There are also things from that list that I personally think should be ousted - the prohibition on community moderation being one of them (see the other hot thread in site support for those thoughts in detail).
It would be useful to gauge general reaction on these particular items. My suggestion, to be added under the quoted guidelines in the first post:
Points to Keep in Mind:
- HLP has a 'Report Post' Function. In FreeSpace terms, think of this as "Call Support." When you have a problem with a post or thread, use this function.
- Unless a post violates the guidelines, it is freely made. The member has a right to say it, and your right is to engage with and debate it or ignore it. Your right is not to try to suppress it and advocate for its removal. Conversely, posts which aren't meaningful or otherwise useful - in short, noise - serve no purpose and are heavily discouraged, particularly in the mod-specific forums. If your post is more suitable to a YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/MySpace comment than a conversation you would have with other adults, rethink it.
- Stream of consciousness posting (e.g. a forum-based Facebook/Twitter page) is noise; there are dedicated threads for these types of posts, please use them. Similarly, HLP is not the place for you to bend all discussions toward a particular item of your focus to the detriment of everyone else (don't bring your soap-box to every thread).
- The HLP staff have a variety of technical moderation tools which they can and will use to improve the forum environment should informal reminders prove inadequate to deal with you. Follow the guidelines and don't become subject to one of them. Among the more common tools are: Warning, Moderated (posts require approval), Muted (read only access), Ban (temporary or permanent), Monkeyed (restricts you to projects of which you are a member), and Political Prisoner (a ban from General Discussion). There are more creative options. Don't be a test subject.
-
I think it's a bad idea idea for rules to state that you don't even need to be polite, so I'd suggest removing the "or even always be polite" part.
-
Maybe change that to say that there is no need to be overly polite.
-
I likewise think it's a bad idea to codify the concept of quote chain argumentation.
-
Maybe change that to say that there is no need to be overly polite.
Done.
Also, see update two posts up where I consolidated some of the existing guidelines.
-
I likewise think it's a bad idea to codify the concept of quote chain argumentation.
Sorry, where are you seeing that?
-
There are rules to this thread: If you don't like a provision or have a suggestion as to a modification, you must:
1. Quote the lines you take issue with.
2. Brief description as to why you take issue with them ("Waa waa i don't like it" does NOT count)
3. Post suggested revision to the text.
Hmmm, my mistake. I misread this as your intent with all disagreement.
-
Another item for discussion - there are a few salient points in the current guidelines stickied at the top of the Site Support board that are likely worth retaining - notes about the report post function, "stream of consciousness posting," etc. That sort of thing falls more under the category of "good to know" than "rules," so I'd be curious to see how they are best incorporated. Similarly, the various formal moderation tools wouldn't hurt as an FYI either.
You could add bumping old threads and double-posting to the list of things not to do.
-
Another item for discussion - there are a few salient points in the current guidelines stickied at the top of the Site Support board that are likely worth retaining - notes about the report post function, "stream of consciousness posting," etc. That sort of thing falls more under the category of "good to know" than "rules," so I'd be curious to see how they are best incorporated. Similarly, the various formal moderation tools wouldn't hurt as an FYI either.
You could add bumping old threads and double-posting to the list of things not to do.
Done. And rolled in the other changes since no one has objected to them yet.
-
This seems pretty good. I might add something explicit about criticism:
Criticism is a valuable part of the creative process, but please remember that creators can't work without motivation, and criticism usually stings. Try to be compassionate and constructive when providing feedback - think of the process as a collaboration, working together to build something better. It's okay to say 'this doesn't work for me', but try to point to things you liked as well and offer a path forward. Conversely, please value thoughtful feedback you receive, even when you decide not to act on it.
-
I'd clarify "Bumping ancient threads" somehow by stating that bumping is verboten only when you're not actually adding anything new and relevant to the discussion. For example bumping old threads about specific features or models or whatever can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do in many circumstances, whereas bumping just to drop a comment isn't.
-
This seems pretty good. I might add something explicit about criticism:
Criticism is a valuable part of the creative process, but please remember that creators can't work without motivation, and criticism usually stings. Try to be compassionate and constructive when providing feedback - think of the process as a collaboration, working together to build something better. It's okay to say 'this doesn't work for me', but try to point to things you liked as well and offer a path forward. Conversely, please value thoughtful feedback you receive, even when you decide not to act on it.
My concern, as with the original discussion on this back in June, is that we end up with a massive set of guidelines. I'd be hesitant about including nice to haves in the rules, so perhaps this should be filed under "Points to Keep in Mind" which can be separated by a line or something from the main guidelines. The main guidelines should be short and to the point so people frickin' read them.
-
Rolled in the latest suggestions, separated rules from tips by a heading.
-
I'd clarify "Bumping ancient threads" somehow by stating that bumping is verboten only when you're not actually adding anything new and relevant to the discussion. For example bumping old threads about specific features or models or whatever can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do in many circumstances, whereas bumping just to drop a comment isn't.
I also believe that campaign release threads are somewhat excluded from the "don't bump old threads" rule?
Scratch that, I missed the line in the OP re: "...meaningful contribution...", that's more concise == better.
-
I'd clarify "Bumping ancient threads" somehow by stating that bumping is verboten only when you're not actually adding anything new and relevant to the discussion. For example bumping old threads about specific features or models or whatever can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do in many circumstances, whereas bumping just to drop a comment isn't.
I also believe that campaign release threads are somewhat excluded from the "don't bump old threads" rule?
Yeah, I tweaked that line. We don't need to be too specific on exceptions, though.
-
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.
-
Also added to the Tips section.
Everyone like the wording of what we have in the OP so far? Tweaks? Modifications? Hatred? Anyone? Bueller?
-
I like most of it. The only comment I currently have is that there 2 points seem to have some overlap. In the interests of conciseness could they be combined or have redundant info removed?
- Unless a post violates the guidelines, it is freely made. The member has a right to say it, and your right is to engage with and debate it or ignore it. Your right is not to try to suppress it and advocate for its removal. Conversely, posts which aren't meaningful or otherwise useful - in short, noise - serve no purpose and are heavily discouraged, particularly in the mod-specific forums. If your post is more suitable to a YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/MySpace comment than a conversation you would have with other adults, rethink it.
...
- Stream of consciousness posting (e.g. a forum-based Facebook/Twitter page) is noise; there are dedicated threads for these types of posts, please use them. Similarly, HLP is not the place for you to bend all discussions toward a particular item of your focus to the detriment of everyone else (don't bring your soap-box to every thread). Bumping ancient threads without a meaningful contribution to them, double-posting, or spamming multiple threads with the same question or comment are also frowned upon.
...
How about something like this?
- Unless a post violates the guidelines, it is freely made. The member has a right to say it, and your right is to engage with and debate it or ignore it. Your right is not to try to suppress it and advocate for its removal. Conversely, posts which aren't meaningful or otherwise useful - in short, noise - serve no purpose and are heavily discouraged, particularly in the mod-specific forums. Stream of consciousness posting (e.g. a forum-based Facebook/Twitter page) is noise; there are dedicated threads for these types of posts, please use them.
- HLP is not the place for you to bend all discussions toward a particular item of your focus to the detriment of everyone else (don't bring your soap-box to every thread). Bumping ancient threads without a meaningful contribution to them, double-posting, or spamming multiple threads with the same question or comment are also frowned upon.
...
-
I did actually intend for my post to be the end of the guidelines section rather than in tips. In the end it's a succinct way of stating many of the tips. (i.e we don't want to read your noise, twitter posts, etc).
I know the way it's written is somewhat different from the rest of the guidelines but I posted it cause I think with some editing it makes a nice summing up of the rules.
-
The primary rule on HLP is simply "Be Nice." That doesn't mean you must always be in agreement, or even always be overly polite, but it does mean you have to be respectful of the person if not their views. This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban.
I take issue with "be nice" as the prime directive. Does that mean you can't offend anyone ever? Because as much as I dislike people being quick to take offense at certain things, on the other side of the coin I don't want the board so sanitized that nobody's feelings must be hurt, ever. Fury's feedback about technical administration isn't nice, but it's constructive and useful. NGTM-1R's posts often are not nice, but there's usually a good point underneath the brusqueness. Karajorma's and The E's moderation actions aren't typically nice, but they're effective. And so on.
And as for taboo topics, what happens if there's a thread in General Discussion specifically about that topic? Okay, you say, maybe we'll make an exception for that (and I think that's in the rules already, somewhere). But then along comes Dekker talking about his bar exploits, or Nuke talking about a dead hooker in his trunk, and it's hilarious. That would seem to trangress upon the rule. (Now, by drawing attention to that I don't necessarily want there to be a crackdown on Nuke or Dekker, but I think we're all mature enough to accommodate different views without defining them as thoughtcrime.)
EDIT: For an alternative, maybe something like this...
HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra. While we may disagree on certain issues, a core HLP value is that we will be respectful of one another when discussing them. In friendly discourse, we are polite; in heated debate, we are mindful to argue the topic, not attack the person. Please do not take this accommodation for granted; abusing it may lead to a ban.
-
This is the point of having moderators, though - they're not just operating on a punchcard program, they can evaluate context and make a call.
-
I take issue with "be nice" as the prime directive. Does that mean you can't offend anyone ever? Because as much as I dislike people being quick to take offense at certain things, on the other side of the coin I don't want the board so sanitized that nobody's feelings must be hurt, ever. Fury's feedback about technical administration isn't nice, but it's constructive and useful. NGTM-1R's posts often are not nice, but there's usually a good point underneath the brusqueness. Karajorma's and The E's moderation actions aren't typically nice, but they're effective. And so on.
No it doesn't mean that you have to be overly nice, what it means is that you have to try to avoid deliberately being nasty. It means that they have to avoid making HLP a worse place to visit for everyone. Fury's feedback might have gotten further if he hadn't got people's back up with the way he said it (Then again if he hadn't said it that way, and I hadn't been deliberately provocative about how I replied, we might not have gotten to this point).
And as for taboo topics, what happens if there's a thread in General Discussion specifically about that topic? Okay, you say, maybe we'll make an exception for that (and I think that's in the rules already, somewhere). But then along comes Dekker talking about his bar exploits, or Nuke talking about a dead hooker in his trunk, and it's hilarious. That would seem to trangress upon the rule. (Now, by drawing attention to that I don't necessarily want there to be a crackdown on Nuke or Dekker, but I think we're all mature enough to accommodate different views without defining them as thoughtcrime.)
I don't get where this is coming from, where have we said either of those things are taboo?
-
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.
And as for taboo topics, what happens if there's a thread in General Discussion specifically about that topic? Okay, you say, maybe we'll make an exception for that (and I think that's in the rules already, somewhere). But then along comes Dekker talking about his bar exploits, or Nuke talking about a dead hooker in his trunk, and it's hilarious. That would seem to trangress upon the rule. (Now, by drawing attention to that I don't necessarily want there to be a crackdown on Nuke or Dekker, but I think we're all mature enough to accommodate different views without defining them as thoughtcrime.)
To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely ok with the kinds of posts you're referencing. I realize that HLP is hardly a 100% formal, professional site, and GenDisc is far less than that, and WHIYL is further below that, but I wouldn't really expect to joke about dead hookers until I joined #hard-light. I would certainly oppose a "It's ok to be stupid here, here, and here" provision in the rules.
-
To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely ok with the kinds of posts you're referencing. I realize that HLP is hardly a 100% formal, professional site, and GenDisc is far less than that, and WHIYL is further below that, but I wouldn't really expect to joke about dead hookers until I joined #hard-light. I would certainly oppose a "It's ok to be stupid here, here, and here" provision in the rules.
That right there is the problem. There's no standard for what is acceptable and what isn't - it varies from person to person, nation to nation, religion to religion, etc. to etc. All we can do as mods is enforce our own personal beliefs, and even those vary considerably - we have admins and mods from the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum on issues like these.
That said, both prohibitive (i.e. these are the things you can't say) and permissive (these are the areas where you can be controversial) systems are terrible. So I think that this is an area that we will always struggle with - maybe we can ask for a bit of flexibility from forumites here.
I'm generally pretty positive about the ruleset as it stands now. One thing I'd like to add (though possibly not something that needs to go into the rules formally) is that moderation should be stricter in modding, fredding and campaign related topics. These are our lifeblood, and we should acknowledge that through greater respect in those areas.
-
Folks, the point in the guidelines as they are written is to convey an attitude, rather than specific behaviours. This gives the most flexibility to the moderation team while also putting form members on notice as to what kind of posting behaviour is generally expected. The flexibility is the important part - while we can turn around and write a lengthy list of "don't do this," that just leaves loopholes. There is no loophole in the current set, because it is discretionary.
All that said, I do like Goober's suggestion as the lead in instead of "be nice" because it does a better job of conveying the expectations of posting attitude. He's right - many of us are not 'nice,' but still able to be respectful.
I'm going to roll some of these suggestions into the OP; everyone take a look and we can do some specific wording tweaks or revert the changes once its put together and we see them in place. Give me a few minutes.
-
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.
To pick an arbitrary date - Monday. Obviously if there becomes a glaring issue they can be tweaked again, but I see no reason why there can't be enough input in the next five days to do this as meaningfully as possible. I realize I have no clout or authority whatsoever, but I long ago discovered that if you act like you know what you're doing and have the authority to do it, people generally roll with it :p And since this place is like herding cats at the best of times, if someone doesn't like that they can overrule me and propose a better alternative :D
-
OP updated. Goober, I took some liberties with your suggestion, but I believe I've changed all references from 'nice' to 'respect' now, which IMHO actually works a lot better.
Instead of mucking about with wholesale changes, why don't we see if we can tweak what we've got so far.
-
This is the sentence I had hoped to avoid with my suggested phrasing:
This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban.
Look what happened today (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86940.msg1737508#msg1737508) on the Uganda thread. Familiar stated his opinion, one that is consistent with public policy as well as public opinion in Russia, where he is located. But The E implied that his opinion wasn't welcome on HLP.
-
I hope you'll excuse me from heartily agreeing with the idea that it most assuredly is not.
-
That opinion should not be welcome on HLP and that should be enshrined in the rules. In fact it currently is. Are we going to actively remove: "HLP will not tolerate any posts of a racist, sexist or bigoted nature."
Holocaust denial, ideologies of racial or eugenic supremacy, all that kind of **** - definitely a no go here. No HLP member should be made to feel unwelcome or afraid because of who they are. Challenged on what they believe, sure, but nothing that intrinsically makes someone unwelcome.
-
Actually, I don't have an issue with what transpired in the Uganda thread - and I don't think it broke the rules. Rather, someone stated an opinion that is rejected by the majority of HLP members' values, and was soundly called out and debated on it. That's the kind of "community-directed" moderation I was talking about in the other thread that is appropriate here. His post was definitely borderline on the rules, but again, I think flexibility is important because reasonableness was far better served by people debating him on this than a ban being handed out.
Now, that said, I still think the current prohibition on racism/sexism/homophobic slurs/etc is both reasonable and necessary because it is useful to dispense with horrendous and persistent arguers than cannot be debated, but in general more public good is served by calling these attitudes out than simply shutting them down, especially when its a matter of wrongheaded opinion, as it was today (though it walked the line), rather than outright attacks on particular people or groups.
Conversely, the rule is important because if a poster showed up repeatedly asserting something outrageous and offensive like "all women are *****es and whores" (etc) and didn't respond to the first warning, then I'd hope they'd be banned forthwith - and the rules should make that clear.
-
I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.
-
I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.
And they are - if anything, the Uganda thread made it abundantly clear that someone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with tolerance or "promotion" (whatever that means) of gays is going to find themselves very unwelcome by the forum as a whole. The rules in this thread guarantee that he can't attack our LGBT members outright (which he didn't directly) and also guarantee that people who debate him on his wrongheadedness are free to make it clear his views were not welcome here long as it is done respectfully (which it was).
I see a win here on all sides. If anything, the combination of the proposed rules and the community reaction reinforces that HLP is a place where people of all stripes have their basic humanity protected by its members as well as its rules.
-
Actually, I don't have an issue with what transpired in the Uganda thread - and I don't think it broke the rules. Rather, someone stated an opinion that is rejected by the majority of HLP members' values, and was soundly called out and debated on it. That's the kind of "community-directed" moderation I was talking about in the other thread that is appropriate here. His post was definitely borderline on the rules, but again, I think flexibility is important because reasonableness was far better served by people debating him on this than a ban being handed out.
Now, that said, I still think the current prohibition on racism/sexism/homophobic slurs/etc is both reasonable and necessary because it is useful to dispense with horrendous and persistent arguers than cannot be debated, but in general more public good is served by calling these attitudes out than simply shutting them down, especially when its a matter of wrongheaded opinion, as it was today (though it walked the line), rather than outright attacks on particular people or groups.
Conversely, the rule is important because if a poster showed up repeatedly asserting something outrageous and offensive like "all women are *****es and whores" (etc) and didn't respond to the first warning, then I'd hope they'd be banned forthwith - and the rules should make that clear.
This is a reasonable post, and I would have no problem qualifying that sentence to apply to slurs. "Language", or "nature", however, are open-ended enough to be interpreted any number of ways.
I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.
Please point out where anybody is withholding basic recognition of their humanity.
-
I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.
And they are - if anything, the Uganda thread made it abundantly clear that someone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with tolerance or "promotion" (whatever that means) of gays is going to find themselves very unwelcome by the forum as a whole. The rules in this thread guarantee that he can't attack our LGBT members outright (which he didn't directly) and also guarantee that people who debate him on his wrongheadedness are free to make it clear his views were not welcome here long as it is done respectfully (which it was).
I see a win here on all sides. If anything, the combination of the proposed rules and the community reaction reinforces that HLP is a place where people of all stripes have their basic humanity protected by its members as well as its rules.
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.
Day to day life for a lot of people - people who face discrimination, people with PTSD, people whose children or loved ones struggle with disabilities - is a gauntlet. Let's keep HLP a space for creativity about FreeSpace, not an extension of the warzone.
Let's retain the rule against posts of a bigoted nature. It's important to my respect for HLP. Losing it would be a big step back.
-
"Language", or "nature", however, are open-ended enough to be interpreted any number of ways.
Which, at the risk of repeating a theme, is why you have moderators and admins with judgement and discretion who should be trusted to exercise it appropriately. IMHO, that particular wording is fine and the consensus seems to lean that way as well. Unless the admins/mods or a broad consensus in the thread are going to over-rule me, I'm not comfortable narrowing it further from its current form. It's fair to point out that of all the people who commented on this proposed guideline in both the June thread and this one, you are the only one who has raised that particular wording as a problem.
EDIT: I'd like to point out that "earn you a ban" is immediately preceded by "can," not "will." So again, admin/mod discretion is the key here.
Let's retain the rule against posts of a bigoted nature. It's important to my respect for HLP. Losing it would be a big step back.
It would seem we are in agreement, then ;)
EDIT2: I am now going to bed. I'll check in tomorrow morning.
-
I think our active gay members should be guaranteed basic recognition of their humanity.
And they are - if anything, the Uganda thread made it abundantly clear that someone expressing an opinion that they don't agree with tolerance or "promotion" (whatever that means) of gays is going to find themselves very unwelcome by the forum as a whole. The rules in this thread guarantee that he can't attack our LGBT members outright (which he didn't directly) and also guarantee that people who debate him on his wrongheadedness are free to make it clear his views were not welcome here long as it is done respectfully (which it was).
I see a win here on all sides. If anything, the combination of the proposed rules and the community reaction reinforces that HLP is a place where people of all stripes have their basic humanity protected by its members as well as its rules.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Walton_with_Leicester_-_Peterborough_East_train_geograph-2791492-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg).
-
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.
-
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.
Definitely agree with this.
-
I put it into the News ticker as a start.
-
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.
I would like to second this. Pretty much all the suggestions I had were made by others who worded them far more effectively than I could, but I am very pleased with the direction the new guidelines have taken. I'm not going to post much in this thread, but it definitely has my attention and support.
-
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)
also, my somewhat bad memory speaks of a time without gendisc and it sorta spilled out over to the rest of the forums. with it being the way it is, keeping it at the bottom is good enough
-
I think I speak for all us ****posters when I say this persecution will not stand :P
The rules look great, I think it's a solid step forward for the community.
Whether we can actually draw and retain people who would have been driven off under the old ruleset will come down to execution, but it's nice to see the community being treated as a work in progress with actual potential for improvement rather than people just shrugging their shoulders.
-
I want to give the whole thing a better read-through when I'm not distracting myself with 50 things at once (like right now for instance), but so far what I've read looks great. :yes:
-
Where do I go to ask for review on Luis' monkeying :wtf:
-
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.
This is the sort of approach I take when doing performance appraisals at work. I try to recognize potential/budding problem areas and deal with them immediately and informally, before they require some sort of formal action or notice. I tell my people they should never be surprised by something negative on an appraisal, but I personally will feel like I have failed them if things get to that point.
I do really like having the rules and suggestions codified. Another suggestion may be to add something along the lines of "If you are not sure if something you want to post falls within the rules, it probably doesn't." Any thoughts on that?
The site support board is far more interesting that I had thought if would be!
-
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.
I wasn't talking about formal warnings. We've had plenty of cases of people flipping out at being publicly told to behave precisely because they were told to do so in public and felt that they were humiliated in front of their peers as a result. And in several of those cases I couldn't see a thing the moderator in question did wrong.
What I'm getting at is that people need to realise that they are going to get more informal warnings on the thread and not get upset at that. What I'm saying is that there are going to be a lot more cases of an admin or mod saying "Users X, Y and Z. You don't post on this thread any more" in cases where the thread would have been locked before.
Those of us reading this thread get it, but I suspect the wider HLP audience will need to be informed in some way.
-
Multiple ways of doing so.... when the new regulation is considered finished and polished enough, perhaps you could put this in the announcements, but even better would be an automated way of PM'ing every single one of the posters with the new link to the new regulations, a message which clearly states everyone's being PM'd too (so people don't get paranoid) with an advice to take the regulations seriously and thoughtfully.
-
I just ran across this interesting and somewhat relevant post on constructive criticism: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=75164.0
I think it is a good read for anyone posting in the forums. Even though it is specifically about criticism, it has general principles that can be applied everywhere: be respectful, be specific, don't take it personally, etc.
-
Lorric has PM'ed me (and apparently Goober) a lengthy post he would like added to the thread. I'm not going to add it to the thread without admin/moderator permission, but I will briefly summarize the ideas presented in it and give my take on them. If people disagree, then we can discuss further and add them as necessary.
The suggestions are as follows:
1. Split up the rules and post them in their most relevant locations. Some of the points apply more to certain areas than others.
2. It appears he is also suggesting that section-specific FAQs be rolled into the guideline posts in those areas.
3. Split up General Discussion into a section devoted to debate/politics/religion/etc, and a separate section devoted to everything else.
4. There is a lengthy section on his own behaviour, but a salient point that he brings up is that, the current system of moderation which we are apparently now finally on the way to changing has formalized responses to behaviour, unclear guidelines, and a definitive prohibition on community moderation. This is problematic because people report people like Lorric, get no feedback, and see nothing happen, but are forbidden from engaging in more informal moderation - public disapproval, basically - that would set him on the right path. This creates MORE problems, not less.
My response:
1. While I can see posting the Gudelines in multiple areas, I think they need to remain a single cohesive document.
2. More section-specific FAQs for help/advice are not necessarily a bad idea, but should be written by the people most knowledgeable in those areas. That, I think, is a discussion for another day.
3. Firmly opposed to further splitting the Off-Topic boards. People can either learn to debate in a meaningful way - which is frankly nothing but educational and a self-improvement exercise, which is GOOD for them - or refrain from posting in debate-style discussions when it becomes clear they have no idea what they're talking about compared to everyone else. As with all things in life, there are times when it is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt. IMHO, the formula for the Off-Topic boards is fine; what has been lacking is a cohesive and comprehensive approach to actual moderation there.
4. I actually agree with this point quite firmly, though I don't think it necessitates a change to these guidelines, but rather the internal mechanisms used by the moderators. In point of fact, the present guidelines do not prohibit community self-moderation, but rather emphasize the reporting function and that responses are to be respectful and in the form of debate if they are made. Personal attacks are, as always, out... but there is nothing stopping one community member from reminding another that they are misbehaving in this proposed set, and I think it's important that it stay that way. Furthermore, I think the ability of the community to self-moderate respectfully should be codified in the new moderator guidelines kara is proposing to write.
If Goober is away and one of the other admins OK's it instead, I'll post Lorric's whole writeup.
-
I don't mind community moderation but I will warn people that the penalties will be severe for anyone using it to discourage people from speaking simply because they disagree with their opinion, etc. If you do engage in community moderation, you'd better be damn sure you're in the right about it. Because the last thing I want to see happening is every topic devolving into a "I think the post was okay/I think it was out of order" debate. That is a significant problem with community moderation and is in fact the main reason why HLP moved away from it. I'm willing to give it a try again though.
Furthermore, anyone telling the mods how to do their jobs will also get it in the neck. Calling for thread locks, bans, etc will still get you punished instead of/as well as the other user. That stuff should definitely still be in a report and not in the thread itself. If the infraction isn't bad enough to report it, you shouldn't be calling for the same actions in public.
However I disagree with the argument that community moderation would actually have helped much with the Lorric issue. There are people it would help but I don't believe Lorric is one of them. Lorric's problem was that he didn't do any one particular thing wrong but instead steadily built up to the point where every post he made was like thousands of tiny hammers beating on the inside of your skull. This is exactly the wrong problem to be dealt with via community moderation cause it simply leads to him being shouted down in every single thread he posts in. Different people would get sick of him at different points and the moderation ends up becoming more of an issue than the original problem because there are lots of people sick of Lorric and even more people sick of seeing the same faces on every single thread saying that they are sick of Lorric.
Situations like that are much better handled by the moderators than the community. The problem was the issue of reporting back on moderation decisions and also of notifying the person who caused the report that while no action was taken, the post was bad enough to trigger a report.
Which leads to a suggestion. Moderators have an "Issue a warning because of this message" button. Since when reading a reported thread we will probably already be looking at the post that was reported, an idea might be to simply click on that and send a message saying "This post was reported for being insulting, etc. The decision of the moderation team is that while the post is impolite no action will be taken as a result of this report." i.e a no consequences warning. If you get one of those messages, you know that whatever you did wasn't anything the moderators considered too bad, but that someone, somewhere thinks you crossed a line. So you might want to avoid doing things in quite the same way next time. If you start seeing these appearing very often, you know you're acting like Lorric, annoying people but never doing anything bad enough to actually trigger a response.
Cause the biggest problem with the posts that we saw report from Lorric was that very few of them were actionable. So they were simply closed. Doing this gives us a good way to get feedback to the person causing the trouble without actually punishing them in any way.
-
Which leads to a suggestion. Moderators have an "Issue a warning because of this message" button. Since when reading a reported thread we will probably already be looking at the post that was reported, an idea might be to simply click on that and send a message saying "This post was reported for being insulting, etc. The decision of the moderation team is that while the post is impolite no action will be taken as a result of this report." i.e a no consequences warning. If you get one of those messages, you know that whatever you did wasn't anything the moderators considered too bad, but that someone, somewhere thinks you crossed a line. So you might want to avoid doing things in quite the same way next time. If you start seeing these appearing very often, you know you're acting like Lorric, annoying people but never doing anything bad enough to actually trigger a response.
Might not be a bad idea.
-
This idea is potentially capable of being more annoying and irritating than the things we are trying to solve, it really depends on the execution, implementation of it. I can also see it being used as a form of bullying. People do have different sensitivities to what is nice or rude (see Scotty vs Spoon 2014), and some people will always be under the spotlight for their traits.
I wrote a lot of words regarding this, but it's a hard subject and I can't quite grasp it.
-
If the number of reports stays constant, I doubt it.
It would only become a problem if people started abusing it, in which case they run the risk of having that backfire on them quite badly. Trying to bully someone by repeatedly sending emails to every single admin and moderator (which is what happens on a report) is likely to end up annoying the **** out of the admins.
-
3. Split up General Discussion into a section devoted to debate/politics/religion/etc, and a separate section devoted to everything else.
I think this was attempted once, and we eventually folded it back into GenDisc because it wasn't working. (And because people abused the distinction.)
-
Yeah, we definitely tried that once, and it didn't last very long.
-
Lorric has PM'ed me (and apparently Goober) a lengthy post he would like added to the thread. I'm not going to add it to the thread without admin/moderator permission, but I will briefly summarize the ideas presented in it and give my take on them. If people disagree, then we can discuss further and add them as necessary.
Thanks for extracting the ideas. I had gotten pretty oversaturated with Lorric stuff this past week and didn't have time to sift through all the chaff for the few kernels of grain.
Since Lorric has been obeying the terms of the ban and since MP-Ryan has already summarized it, I'll post Lorric's entire message unfiltered:
Hello everyone.
First, I would like to share an idea I have on the structure of this system of guidelines. I’ll start with this early post:
This seems pretty good. I might add something explicit about criticism:
Criticism is a valuable part of the creative process, but please remember that creators can't work without motivation, and criticism usually stings. Try to be compassionate and constructive when providing feedback - think of the process as a collaboration, working together to build something better. It's okay to say 'this doesn't work for me', but try to point to things you liked as well and offer a path forward. Conversely, please value thoughtful feedback you receive, even when you decide not to act on it.
My concern, as with the original discussion on this back in June, is that we end up with a massive set of guidelines. I'd be hesitant about including nice to haves in the rules, so perhaps this should be filed under "Points to Keep in Mind" which can be separated by a line or something from the main guidelines. The main guidelines should be short and to the point so people frickin' read them.
While you could keep the whole set of guidelines together in one place, like Getting Started, Announcements or Site Support, I think it would be good to split it up into different boards as well or instead. This one for instance has no place in General Discussion, but would be very valuable on the forums where we do what this forum exists to do. I have seen plenty of flare-ups on these forums over the way criticism is delivered and received, and this is excellent advice for both the critic and the one being critiqued, and would be more likely to be followed if placed on the appropriate forum/s.
The mood is very different in Gaming than it is in General Discussion. You could have tweaked guidelines accounting for this stickied at the top of each forum.
The Fred Forum could perhaps contain tips for asking for help and receiving it, how to solve your own problems before asking for help, and detail the solutions to some of the most common problems.
Personally, I would split General Discussion into two separate boards. We have a separate one for Gaming. How about a split from general discussion, something like Religion, Politics and Debate? Name up for discussion. I want something to reflect what I say next. Here is where the serious discussing and debating takes place, and it is not acceptable to enter topics without a good grounding on the facts of the issue at hand. Topics posted here are expected to be discussed by people educated on the subject, or who are able to grasp it quickly, and those who are not, and/or who spout uninformed opinions or stream of consciousness posts are not welcome and will be ejected. A Political Prisoners group for this specific forum could be created to keep repeat offenders out.
General Discussion would remain, and be a place where people can discuss topics of a lighter nature or without pissing off the big debaters in general discussion as they’d have their own place to discuss subjects under their own social expectations, while at the opposite end of the scale, someone could post a Youtube video of some cat doing something funny or meander off topic and it not be regarded as annoying ****posting. Here, people who are not well versed on certain topics could discuss them. You could have two topics with exactly the same subject matter running at the same time, and the less educated/aware could still be able to discuss it while the more educated would also be able to discuss it without the topic veering off course when someone like me is there trying to learn and asking questions and slowing things down. As much as the better debaters feel aggrieved by certain actions on threads of this nature, it slams the door on other forumites getting their teeth into subject matter and expressing their opinions.
We have a tremendous diversity of boards on the subjects that HLP exists primarily to cater for, but just two for anything else. I would like to see further split for more diversity besides my single split idea, but my idea for a single split I think would be a great start. Imagine what HLP would be like if we had only two boards for our primary reason for existing. We have too many strong personalities. Too many people who will clash over what is perceived to be socially right or wrong on a forum. We can do more I think to accommodate all types and allow all types to be themselves when discussing non-Freespace issues, and end up in threads with likeminded people. The current system cuts down people’s options for discussion and expression.
It gratifies me that the person driving this understands me so very well. I refer to this, which is exactly what I am and exactly what I need:
The major issue that I think most of us have with how things are run around here is the complete lack of transparency when there is no need for secrecy. Everyone could point out that Lorric was being a problem, but it was improper to discuss that outside the admin internal. Why? Like I keep emphasizing, this is one of the communities most fit to self-policing of any I've been a part of. And by self-policing I don't mean giving admin rights to everyone, but I do mean that admins/mods should be making their informal and formal actions transparently within the expectations of the broader community.
That guideline in the thread would cover every possible justification for both the community and the admin/mod team saying "enough" to the disruptive elements and dealing with them immediately. No, Lorric hadn't broken any particular rule, but virtually everyone on this bloody board could tell you that his behaviour was destructive and disruptive, and the issue could have been dealt with much sooner. As it is, the fellow really doesn't have a clue what he's doing that gets everyone so perturbed; if the shackles came off the community at large and the mod team intervened early, directly, and with the minimum force required (there I go channeling work again) then it would not have reached this point... or if it did, we could at least say we've tried everything. As it stands, can anyone here REALLY say that?
Frankly, the admin board should only exist to discuss internal, technical issues with the site management. For that, limited access by trusted community members is appropriate.
All the design, rules, disciplinary measures, disruption, etc should be part of a board that can at least be publicly read, if not necessarily commented on. There is no need for policing of posting behaviour, etc to be a secretive thing, and the fact that it is - and is done by a very small percentage of community members - is perhaps one of the biggest reasons you get pushback. If moderation were a community activity enforced technically by moderators and admins, it would be a much less controversial thing. And that has to be preciptated by both a rulset change and a governance structure change.
I struggle to understand social rules that are not clearly defined. I do not break the forum rules because the forum rules are clearly defined, so I understand and obey them.
I am a big believer in treat others as you would wish to be treated. I do not set out to offend anyone. If another Lorric came to HLP, that Lorric wouldn’t cause me any offence.
People can't talk to me for backseat moderation, so they report me, then the forum mods and admins talk about me in their internal forum, and I can't see any of it so I don't know what is happening and just carry on as normal. These new guidelines fill me with hope that I can coexist with you, as both of these things would be reversed under them.
I am sincerely sorry for all I might have done to hurt any of you. I hope you understand me better now, and why I do the things that I do, and that when my ban expires we can all get along. I hope you all enjoy the peace and quiet while I am away. I mean this sincerely.
Lorric
-
Just a reminder, folks, 24 hours until the arbitrary deadline expires =)
-
An item that might be worth discussing is the tendency towards "collateral offense" during a discussion or debate. The community has a very vocal contingent of socially progressive/scientific viewpoints and tends to sometimes dog pile on subjects or members that run counter to those views. Granted this typically occurs as a foil to a particularly vociferous poster, however, better throttling of the response would be beneficial. Just because a particular member of a group spouts something disagreeable should not trigger general attacks on that group or affiliation. It's a difficult urge to suppress I know, one that I can't claim to always succeed at. However, it is something I've noticed occurs and I feel that member alpha who shares a religion, political view or nationality with member bravo shouldn't feel like they are unwelcome because bravo is a pain in the ass and gets the communities' hackles up.
-
I second that statement, InsaneBaron brought it up on the other thread:
If tolerance of homosexuals is required on HLP, why is tolerance of Christians optional?
I'm not attacking homosexuals in this post, I'm simply pointing out that there's a double standard here. If it's wrong to chew people out for their sexual orientation, it should be equally wrong to insult people or call them names because of their religious views. This came out in the Ham/Nye thread as well, where we got a lot of "Religious people are idiots and here's why" posts. This goes against the very principles that were discussed in the forum guidelines.
-
An item that might be worth discussing is the tendency towards "collateral offense" during a discussion or debate. The community has a very vocal contingent of socially progressive/scientific viewpoints and tends to sometimes dog pile on subjects or members that run counter to those views. Granted this typically occurs as a foil to a particularly vociferous poster, however, better throttling of the response would be beneficial. Just because a particular member of a group spouts something disagreeable should not trigger general attacks on that group or affiliation. It's a difficult urge to suppress I know, one that I can't claim to always succeed at. However, it is something I've noticed occurs and I feel that member alpha who shares a religion, political view or nationality with member bravo shouldn't feel like they are unwelcome because bravo is a pain in the ass and gets the communities' hackles up.
This is certainly something to look out for for us moderators, but I am not sure how to codify it into a coherent rule.
-
When debating another forum member over a contentious issue (such as religion, nationality or politics) please attempt to address the member and their specific points and when possible avoid general attacks on a particular group they maybe affiliated with. Consider whether the content of your post may offend or otherwise alienate other members due to a lack of specificity and unwarranted scope.
Something similar to the above? I'm not of the opinion this needs to be a hard and fast rule. I do think its something that requires some consideration though.
-
I second that statement, InsaneBaron brought it up on the other thread:
If tolerance of homosexuals is required on HLP, why is tolerance of Christians optional?
I'm not attacking homosexuals in this post, I'm simply pointing out that there's a double standard here. If it's wrong to chew people out for their sexual orientation, it should be equally wrong to insult people or call them names because of their religious views. This came out in the Ham/Nye thread as well, where we got a lot of "Religious people are idiots and here's why" posts. This goes against the very principles that were discussed in the forum guidelines.
In general I'm in favor of tolerance, but most criticism of religion on HLP takes the form of 'here are logical , scientific, and political problems created by religious ideology', not 'religious people are literally bricks of ****'. This isn't against any kind of principle, and frankly trying to equate it with homonegativity is an untenable position.
Christian belief is open to criticism for the same reason Scientology is: it is a club you choose to join, and individuals can choose which parts of the doctrine to adopt. I've been vocal in my defense of religion against some of the more radical atheists on HLP, despite being a total monist atheist myself, so I understand the position. But this here is a false equivalency.
I am not worried about scientific dogpiles. History is the story of empirical evidence dogpiling ignorance.
When debating another forum member over a contentious issue (such as religion, nationality or politics) please attempt to address the member and their specific points and when possible avoid general attacks on a particular group they maybe affiliated with. Consider whether the content of your post may offend or otherwise alienate other members due to a lack of specificity and unwarranted scope.
Something similar to the above? I'm not of the opinion this needs to be a hard and fast rule. I do think its something that requires some consideration though.
This seems pretty okay to me, I guess.
-
The problem I was aiming at was that HLP seems to have more Liberal members than Conservatives like myself, and this sometimes leads to a double standard, even on the part of the moderaters. Anti-Christian attacks seem to slip through the system more often than they should.
To begin with, the rules do mention the variety of "Spiritual" viewpoints. It would make sense to include "Religious attacks" in the list of "crimes" in order to stress the point.
A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."
Lastly, I don't agree with many things that were said in the other thread, but I'm glad that at least most of us recognize that respect is essential to any communication. I don't hate anyone here or elsewhere, even if I disagree strongly with them.
@Battuta: I'm not concerned so much with legitimate discussion/debates like you and I had for a bit during the Ham/Nye thing. I'm more concerned with a tendency on the moderators part to let a swipe at religion go when similar swipes at homosexuals (etc) are rapidly shot down.
There's a big difference between making fair arguments against a position (fair =/= correct, just respectful and logical) and just insulting it. Problem is, fair criticism of Liberal viewpoints often gets shot down as if it were an offensive message, while insults aimed at Churches/Religions/Conservatives get tolerated as if they were fair arguments.
-
@Battuta
Well most of these issues are impossible to make "equivalencies" of unless you are willing to give a bit of leeway. They are always pretty specific in themselves. I'm also in agreement with StarSlayer's wording on this.
-
The problem I was aiming at was that HLP seems to have more Liberal members than Conservatives like myself, and this sometimes leads to a double standard, even on the part of the moderaters. Anti-Christian attacks seem to slip through the system more often than they should.
To begin with, the rules do mention the variety of "Spiritual" viewpoints. It would make sense to include "Religious attacks" in the list of "crimes" in order to stress the point.
A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."
Lastly, I don't agree with many things that were said in the other thread, but I'm glad that at least most of us recognize that respect is essential to any communication. I don't hate anyone here or elsewhere, even if I disagree strongly with them.
I moderately to strongly disagree with this post. Opinions should be debated. Criticism of organized religion is criticism of a theory about the world, a theory that makes consequential social prescriptions. I suspect most of the 'anti-Christian attacks' referenced here are people talking about consequentiality, and frankly, consequentiality is Real. It is empirical.
Like, consider this:
A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."
Attacks on viewpoints are great! That's what discussion is all about. People attack viewpoints they dislike and they say why.
What's important and what should be retained from InsaneBaron's feedback is the need to stay focused on the issues rather than individuals. When criticizing Christianity, leave room for the variance between believers and the compatibility between magisteria.
HLP should not assume an explicit political stance of any sort. Some kind of attempt at a quota system is a political stance.
-
The problem I was aiming at was that HLP seems to have more Liberal members than Conservatives like myself, and this sometimes leads to a double standard, even on the part of the moderaters. Anti-Christian attacks seem to slip through the system more often than they should.
To begin with, the rules do mention the variety of "Spiritual" viewpoints. It would make sense to include "Religious attacks" in the list of "crimes" in order to stress the point.
A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."
Lastly, I don't agree with many things that were said in the other thread, but I'm glad that at least most of us recognize that respect is essential to any communication. I don't hate anyone here or elsewhere, even if I disagree strongly with them.
I moderately to strongly disagree with this post. Opinions should be debated. Criticism of organized religion is criticism of a theory about the world, a theory that makes consequential social prescriptions. I suspect most of the 'anti-Christian attacks' referenced here are people talking about consequentiality, and frankly, consequentiality is Real. It is empirical.
Like, consider this:
A passage should be added along the lines of: "HLP is neither a conservative nor a liberal organization. Both conservatives and liberals are welcome, and offensive attacks on one side are just as bad as attacks on the other. Moderators will not permit attacks on a viewpoint simply because they dislike the viewpoint."
Attacks on viewpoints are great! That's what discussion is all about. People attack viewpoints they dislike and they say why.
What's important and what should be retained from InsaneBaron's feedback is the need to stay focused on the issues rather than individuals. When criticizing Christianity, leave room for the variance between believers and the compatibility between magisteria.
HLP should not assume an explicit political stance of any sort. Some kind of attempt at a quota system is a political stance.
I should clarify. We're looking at two different definitions of "attack". I'm defining "attack" as an offensive post, you're defining it in debate terms as an argument in general. Instead of attack, I'll use the term "offensive post".
I'm not asking for a quota. Just for fair treatment for everyone here, including minorities.
In summary, if two people want to discuss whether or not God exists on HLP, fine. But if one starts insulting the other, not fine. I'm concerned that the moderaters are more likely to let it go if the Liberal attacks the Conservative rather than the other way around.
EDIT: I'm honestly not sure what your point is regarding consequentiality. I don't think it's what I'm refering too.
-
Oh, definitely. But more of the active moderators I can conjure off the top of my head are explicitly Christian than any other faith or belief. I don't think you have much to worry about.
You're also drawing a weird and simplistic picture of 'liberal' and 'conservative' - the political beliefs in play on HLP are way more complex than that, and there's no clear dyadic tie to religious conviction there either.
-
I'm not advocating a censure on well formatted debate, I want to make that clear most adamantly. "I disagree with X, Y or Z because of A, B and C" is perfectly legit. Any restrictions in that regard I disagree with vehemently.
I'm wary of the occasions when comments are not proving a point and are just offensive, such as "Members of Group C are all X". I've noticed that occasionally unnecessarily belligerent comments get lost in the shuffle because they conform with the overarching momentum of the community. I don't really care if forum poster B is being a pain in the ass, it shouldn't be carte blanche to be abusive to an entire group. If members of the forum haven't done anything to brook offence they shouldn't be generically labeled then made to feel alienated.
At the end of the day this is a forum about Freespace modding and we should be as tolerant and inclusive as possible.
-
This balance was what I was trying to strike with my paragraph that began "HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra..." This covers liberal/conservative, authoritarian/libertarian, and athiest/Christian difference without being too explicit about it.
And yes, dogpiling does happen.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong about dogpiling. Some opinions are wrong and unsubstantiated. Some beliefs are immoral. These deserve social sanction. As long as the dogpile's content abides by the other forum restrictions - substantive, articulate, debates the point rather than the person - there's no problem.
-
Just so we're clear, then, how would you define dogpiling?
-
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85410.msg1708103;topicseen#msg1708103
Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way, those who support him are warned off by The E and Karajorma. MP-RYAN does the same thing, more offensively, from the other end of the spectrum, and gets away with it.
EDIT: What Nakura did was post an article that took a side in a political debate, and then explain that he supported it. Same thing that whoever started the Nigeria thread did. And I'm not the only one who saw a double standard in the way things turned out.
Look, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of misbehavior. I'm asking that
A. The forum guidelines make it clear that offensive posts are not to be tolerating whether their targets are homosexuals, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Fox News, or whoever (and the guidlines already indicate that, although an explicit "this applies to both sides" would be nice).
and
B. The moderaters work to apply these rules consistently.
Because there have been multiple cases of a double standard here, and Nuke, Lorric, Luis Dias, and Dragon have all called it out as well.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong about dogpiling. Some opinions are wrong and unsubstantiated. Some beliefs are immoral. These deserve social sanction. As long as the dogpile's content abides by the other forum restrictions - substantive, articulate, debates the point rather than the person - there's no problem.
If its a focused and targeted debate that's fine. It's just sometimes there is a tendency for it to lose scope and devolve into a generic attack. If someone decides to be a dick and post some confrontational bull**** about religion and sexual preference by all means pile on like water pressure on a sub at crush depth who's designers skimped on HY80. That said, some UU doesn't need to look in the thread and see folks commenting on people being stupid because they have faith. That's what I'm worried about.
I'm not religious and I'd like to think social progressive on most issues. So when I feel sometimes like people are swinging an axe at the entire tree when all that needs doing is snipping off a twig its not because I'm worried mother church or my party is being attacked.
-
@Goober
Oh, I see your point - a lot of people jumping on someone with fairly minimal content, just to say 'you're wrong and you should feel bad'.
Yeah, I think that is different from someone making a point and getting reamed by nineteen articulate and well-informed posters (something I strongly encourage and always enjoy seeing), but I don't think it's something we see much of. In any case, the requirement to debate the post, not the poster and our push for higher-content posts already covers that territory, doesn't it?
We don't need rules about 'fair teams' or anything like that. People should be free to absolutely demolish an argument, en masse and in great numbers, as long as they are doing so with civil, constructive, well-informed posts.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85410.msg1708103;topicseen#msg1708103
Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way, those who support him are warned off by The E and Karajorma. MP-RYAN does the same thing, more offensively, from the other end of the spectrum, and gets away with it.
EDIT: What Nakura did was post an article that took a side in a political debate, and then explain that he supported it. Same thing that whoever started the Nigeria thread did.
False equivalence. The merit of opinions is not purely subjective. MP-Ryan tore apart ****ty journalism; Nakura went to bat for an ignorant, hateful polemicist.
Frankly I think this accusation of a double standard on your part is an illusion. You are viewing things from a very slanted angle. You want bad arguments and untenable positions to be treated the same way as solid arguments backed by empirical fact and education, and this simply isn't going to happen. Young Earth creationists (for example) are never going to get respect on this forum, because their opinions can and will be demolished trivially. But they can be treated just like any other user when they aren't talking about Young Earth creationism
-
Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way, those who support him are warned off by The E and Karajorma.
There is no possible way you can "support...in a non-offensive way" what was posted, because it is itself offensive, and as Battuta noted, itself ignorant and hateful. When you express support for something offensive, no matter how you do so, you are yourself being offensive. The same goes for being ignorant and hateful.
Supporting inflammatory content is inflammatory action. Film at eleven.
Now, we have had occasions where people have launched wide-scale attacks on religion et. al. I'm pretty radically atheist myself, to the point atheist is probably not a good description since I think that if divine beings existed we would have a moral obligation to attempt their destruction, but some of the things that have been said in the past as broad-based attacks on the very concept of faith are disgraceful. Those who have made them, however, are no longer active participants for the most part. Their behavior is similarly covered by existing rules.
-
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85410.msg1708103;topicseen#msg1708103
Prime example. Nakura gets banned for supporting Ben Carson in a non-offensive way
He was trolling there. He did that kind of thing several times, and it was getting annoyed already. He likes to do that kind of thing, posts a very provocative idea, post, link, quotes, whatever, knows he's going to rile up a lot of people with it and then before he presses "post" he adds a line "Discuss" or something to that effect.
This is not appropriate posting and Nakura had been warned of this several times before (nevermind that the very first posts he made were exclusively this sort of thing, probably weeks if not months before he posted about anything other, people were even suspecting he didn't even know what Freespace was in the first place, he just wanted a place to rile up people and laugh at it).
The ban was appropriate and welcomed. It's not a good example.
-
Battuta, I respect you when I say this, but you have your own "slant" in a different direction.
Unfortunately, it looks like enough people dislike Nakura that they reject my example, despite the fact that there was nothing hateful in what he quoted. Same with this thread:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84920.0
He does the very same thing MP-Ryan did: bring up a article he likes. No hate in this essay either. Is it or is it not allowed to bring up political issues and articles/essays supporting them on HLP? Because right now it seems that you can do it IF the HLP majority and the moderators in charge like your viewpoint.
I've heard it said that all Nakura did was GenDisc. Assuming that's true (I can't substantiate), is he somehow required to take part in discussions he doesn't choose? Granted it's unusual, but it's not wrong.
Just look at this from Joshua:
tl;dr: Your essay is full of factual inaccuracies and misinterpretation of sources, it's very bad, and you should feel bad. You should also not own a handgun, as you are clearly delusional. Moving on...
Or how Nakura responds to MP-Ryan:
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. This is not for a grade at all, but rather a quick essay I wrote up in about 45 minutes to send to a friend of mine. I never intended it to be formal to begin with, I should have stated that to begin with, sorry.
Ultimately, I don't want to get overly distracted with whether Nakura was a good person or not. I'm asking for something simple: that the moderators avoid applying a double standard.
-
Everyone has a slant. Reality provides a plausible coselector of belief, though. Not all slants are equally valid.
You clearly disagree with how Nakura was handled. I don't. I don't think you have the full context and I think your judgment on the topic is poor. But more urgently, by supporting Nakura's post, you are now trying to make a political argument about race, homosexuality, socialism, capitalism, and American exceptionalism. Is that really appropriate for this thread?
-
InsaneBaron: You are not seeing the bigger picture. Nakura had a nasty habit of posting long screeds like the one you linked to, filled with bad statistics and even worse preconceived notions, then defend them to death against anyone who would come up to actually call him on his inaccuracies (Note: That wasn't an external article he linked to. That was an essay he himself wrote!). There's also a few instances where he crossposted posts on several forums around the internet, with the expressed intention of trolling. He himself told me that was why he was doing it.
Nakura has, in his time here, expressed little to no interest in the "meat" of this board. Given that a large portion of his posts in GD were quite trollish, we felt that a GD ban was in order.
So yes. You can bring up any political viewpoint you like. You can and will be challenged on them though, by people with vastly different political outlooks. If you bring up the same points with the same arguments again and again and again though, you will not be considered a good poster. Keep up that behaviour long enough, mix in a bunch of real weirdness, and we can and will decide that we do not want to hear from you again.
-
I should note that one of the reasons we've been having this discussion, and the one preceding it, is precisely because the previous rules did not give us an adequate handle to deal with trolls who are perfectly courteous but ultimately just disruptive, like Nakura.
-
enough people dislike Nakura
If you're going to be dismissive of the arguments against you in this fashion, then...the irony here is thick enough I could cut it with a knife.
Argue the post, not the poster, etc.
-
I don't even think people "dislike" Nakura. I think he seems to be nice and was always polite. The problem was his posts, the way they completely dismissed anything said previously, the way he asked for a discussion endlessly and when he got one, he dismissed every single point offered with the ****tiest of evidences and arguments.
When told that this behavior was not proper, he continued doing it. He didn't seem to care. We also didn't know him very well, he could be just a troll (and The_E basically confirms this to us) that was here *not* to have a discussion but to have fun riling us up. I think HLP isn't remotely interested in being such a place. And we didn't know him "well" because he posted nothing other than that pile of trolling stuff. It's not that it was somewhat against the "ideological environment" of HLP, it was also that it was deliberately designed to be so, the ideas he showcased were not even remotely thought through before he posted them here (and then valiantly and stubburnly defended, this was also obvious), etc.
We have (I think) no interest in incentivizing these kinds of absolutely unproductive discussions where people are just shouting arguments and facts to an unmoving wall. Want to discuss how Conservatism is actually a much more valid point of view than many here believe in? Great! Have fun with it, try your best, be polite, address the arguments, don't be stubborn, admit your mistakes and move on with the strongest points you have, and eventually you will get to a point where perhaps no one has really changed his mind about the core issue, but everyone is better informed and, why not, entertained. This is what is called a productive discussion.
Nakura posts were just annoying, irritating and disruptive. And deliberately so. This is unacceptable.
-
@Battuta: We each have a slant, but we're both civil and don't insult eachother over it. I wish the same could be said for the rest of HLP. Also, I'm not endorsing everything Nakura says. I'm making the point that he's treated differently than people with different standpoints.
@Nightmare: exactly. People argued against Nakura rather than his points, and he was banned on that logic. I'm not petitioning that he be unbanned, I brought him up as an apparent example.
Ultimately, Nakura is a tangent to the discussion that I'm ready to drop. It's not going anywhere.
Having said that, I'm running out energy to continue this debate. I've made my point, and I believe I've been fairly civil about the matter. I don't have much to say that hasn't been said, and unless something comes up that I really ought to answer, I'm going to leave things as they are.
-
I think your point has been countered. Luis Dias' post in particular was valuable. You should read it carefully.
The problem has less been with conservative posters than with the fact that they do not engage with fact and debate in a productive, informative way.
-
I'm leaving things in Goober's hands at this point. I don't having anything new to say. Hopefully the very fact that we had this discussion will encourage moderators to be more careful.
Finally, no hard feelings. I don't harbor any ill will to anyone over this, and hopefully no one harbors any to me.
-
No ill will, but I think your point is unsubstantiated, and I think your request for a mostly Christian moderation team to be more careful towards Christians is spurious.
-
InsaneBaron: You are not seeing the bigger picture. Nakura had a nasty habit of posting long screeds like the one you linked to, filled with bad statistics and even worse preconceived notions, then defend them to death against anyone who would come up to actually call him on his inaccuracies (Note: That wasn't an external article he linked to. That was an essay he himself wrote!). There's also a few instances where he crossposted posts on several forums around the internet, with the expressed intention of trolling. He himself told me that was why he was doing it.
Nakura has, in his time here, expressed little to no interest in the "meat" of this board. Given that a large portion of his posts in GD were quite trollish, we felt that a GD ban was in order.
So yes. You can bring up any political viewpoint you like. You can and will be challenged on them though, by people with vastly different political outlooks. If you bring up the same points with the same arguments again and again and again though, you will not be considered a good poster. Keep up that behaviour long enough, mix in a bunch of real weirdness, and we can and will decide that we do not want to hear from you again.
While there is a degree of truth to what The E says, I have never "trolled" on Hard-Light. I used to intentionally post controversial posts on MMO-Champion and d2jsp (other forums), but if you look at my recent posts on those forums, I haven't been doing that at all, as I've grown as a person. It was never my intent to rile people up and I never "changed my views," because I believe that I am right and that the evidence shows I'm right. I'm not right about everything, of course, and I have conceded points before; like in the discussion on IRC in regards to universal healthcare. I'm a very opinionated person, but I don't try to start fights; debates, yes, but not fights.
-
OK boys, back on topic -and away from Nakura
Dogpiling
While this can be an issue, I think it comes under the "be respectful" blanket. I don't see a problem with five or six people debating one if they raise separate points of debate from each other and do it in a respectful manner. If it just happens to be a "Me-too" scenario, then that's something the mods can deal with as a respect issue. I don't see an issue that needs explicit mention. Again, the rules are designed for maximum flexibility in moderation while defining a few boundaries, and this is such a case-by-case issue that it isn't appropriately dealt with in any other way.
Stereotyping
Since this is basically what StarSlayer's suggestion is getting at, let's call it what it is. Again, this is covered under be respectful - it's inappropriate to disparage an entire group of HLP users based on what one person says, and this comes back to debate the issue, not the individual. I lean against including yet another tip to deal with something that's a respect issue and is a case-by-case matter.
Perceived double standards
The important word is the first one - perceived.
The guidelines, as drafted, are designed to protect who and what a person is - essential characteristics that are traits, not choices.
Religion is a choice. Anyone here has the right to choose whatever beliefs and religion they want to follow (or not); similarly, anyone else has the right to question/debate those choices because they are choices and not pre-determined. So, while some religious members of the board and some of various political slants may feel picked on, ultimately they have one of two choices:
1. Engage in respectful debate - the forum guidelines embrace most of the principles of free speech, so you always have the option of MORE speech, so long as it is respectful.
2. Disengage and ignore the discussion entirely.
Among those is not "3. Report the thread because waaa waaa someone on the Internet disagrees with my views/choices and I have the right not to have anyone else discuss them." No. You have the right to be treated and debated respectfully as an individual, you have the right to refuse to debate, and you have the right to hold whatever beliefs you wish. Your beliefs do not have the right to be free from debate or scrutiny, whatever they may be.
In short, the rules cover this - if someone is being disrespectful to someone else, we have moderation for that. If someone is disparaging a belief set and not an individual, they are free to do that. The way the guidelines are written, you are protected from offensive personal remarks or attacks. The same is not true of a belief you hold. Examples:
Not OK: Battuta, you're an overly-analytical scientifically-bigoted bastard and should be shot into a black hole.
OK: Battuta, I have to disagree with the science behind your views, and frankly I think the science responsible for the theory of gravity should be shot into a supposed black hole.
Not OK: Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
Not OK: MP-Ryan, you're a liberal commie-loving douchebag.
OK: Liberals are practically Communists, and history shows that a lot of Communists are douchebags.
I think this quite adequately demonstrates the difference between an attack on a person, and an attack on a series of beliefs. You'll also note that there is no shortage of ways to debate these attacks on beliefs and make it abundantly clear that anyone making those sorts of generalized attacks is being pretty facile/foolish in their methods, and counteract those points entirely.
In short: I don't think changes are required. People are free from disrespect toward their person; they are not free from being offended because someone disagrees with beliefs they happen to hold. Any attempt to reverse that smacks of anti-blasphemy laws, wherein people seem to think they have the right not to be offended by someone else who isn't disrespecting them individually. The "double standard" is one where people confuse criticism of traits with criticism of choices; the first rightfully is protected, the latter rightfully is not.
-
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
OK: Liberals are practically Communists, and history shows that a lot of Communists are douchebags.
I just ask the audience if you are ok with both of these, I am unsure. The second one is probably a pass because it doesn't really logically imply anyone in particular, but the first one does.
Am I being oversensitive? A very good chance of that, so I ask thee.
-
Sounds good to me for the most part.
Though I would argue there is grounds, that, for many people religion isn't as cut and dried as "free choice" but that's probably a sidebar discussion.
-
Sounds good to me for the most part.
Though I would argue there is grounds, that, for many people religion isn't as cut and dried as "free choice" but that's probably a sidebar discussion.
I'm agnostic, but I agree with you. Isn't it odd that criticizing homosexuality is against the rules, but criticizing Muslims, Christians, etc. isn't? To many people, religion isn't just a choice.
-
This argument is happening in two threads at once. The difference is clear: one is a trait with no external or social relevance beyond which consenting adults you seek out. The other is a moral system whose prescriptions are EXTREMELY consequential for how you value the moral worth of others. The fact that religion is socially and morally consequential opens it to discussion of those social and moral consequences.
-
I think that, in the past, there have been some (relatively isolated) cases of people getting piled-on primarily because they were expressing viewpoints that were in the decided minority here, where the criticism went beyond the views involved to the people stating them. However, I think that the guidelines as-written (particularly the first paragraph) provide an adequate framework for dealing with those incidents, and I feel like they're something that the mods will be able to recognize and address if they occur in the future.
More in general, after getting the chance to read through the current write-up, everything looks fairly comprehensive, and I think it leaves plenty of leeway to address situations at the individual level. And if there's any sort of recurring issue that comes up that hasn't been addressed here, we can always amend them as necessary. I think we're good to go. :yes:
-
This argument is happening in two threads at once. The difference is clear: one is a trait with no external or social relevance beyond which consenting adults you seek out. The other is a moral system whose prescriptions are EXTREMELY consequential for how you very the moral worth of others. The fact that religion is socially and morally consequential opens it to discussion of those social and moral consequences.
Precisely.
The converse argument - that religion is a part of identity that isn't subject to the same sorts of examination that other beliefs are - means that suddenly we're going to codify the need not to offend people on religious grounds? So we're going to have forum guidelines that ensure equal protection of all religious belief sets from scrutiny and possible discussion? Not only is that unrealistic, it's an untenable position.
People may feel that religion is part of their identity, but it is not a fixed trait than cannot be changed. Therein lies the difference. To use the example of democratic countries, virtually all of them codify freedom of religion and association; virtually none of them codify freedom from critique for religion.
Much as some people may feel otherwise, their religious views do not enjoy protection from discussion, debate and critique any more than do my views on evolutionary biology, politics, or a myriad of other topics precisely because they are a chosen affiliation, not a permanent and unchosen part of their identity. I don't think we would be having this discussion if it hadn't been triggered in a thread about homosexuality instead of something less politically-controversial, like racism.
Ultimately, religious people enjoy the same protections on HLP under the proposed guidelines as everyone else - they have to be respected, even when disagreed with. That said, someone criticizing the views of their religion is not and should not be subject to moderation because a person belonging to that religion might be offended by a respectful discussion.
I guess what I'm really getting at is another distinction we should all be familiar with:
All Muslims are terrorists. VS MP-Ryan is a Muslim and therefore a terrorist.
The former statement is a stupid generalization that deserves to be roundly condemned, debated, and discussed in order to be shown how wrong it is. It does not deserve to be moderated out and buried to be perpetuated in other channels. On the other hand, the latter statement is a bit of ignorant bufoonery that was also a personal attack and therefore deserves to be moderated.
-
I think that, in the past, there have been some (relatively isolated) cases of people getting piled-on primarily because they were expressing viewpoints that were in the decided minority here, where the criticism went beyond the views involved to the people stating them. However, I think that the guidelines as-written (particularly the first paragraph) provide an adequate framework for dealing with those incidents, and I feel like they're something that the mods will be able to recognize and address if they occur in the future.
More in general, after getting the chance to read through the current write-up, everything looks fairly comprehensive, and I think it leaves plenty of leeway to address situations at the individual level. And if there's any sort of recurring issue that comes up that hasn't been addressed here, we can always amend them as necessary. I think we're good to go. :yes:
:nod:
-
Not OK: Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"
-
Pretty sure MP Ryana examples were deliberately OTT, and they're not binding by any stretch. It's sometimes tough to tell a personal insult, but I'm pretty sure that in 90% of contexts, those would all get a response.
-
Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"
There's a difference between "those Conservatives and Christians are collective assholes who should be smacked" and "those Conservatives and Christians who believe homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked", but I'm actually kind of uncomfortable with saying "stupid generalizations shouldn't be moderatable"... but then again, I guess that's not what MP-Ryan is saying; rather, he's saying that they shouldn't be moderated as personal attacks, because they're not. Similarly, "atheists are all pedophiles" isn't a personal attack, but it's a violation of other guidelines, and would be subject to moderation anyway... right?
-
Not OK: Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"
Not OK: Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"
My same thoughts, although I understand what Black Wolf is saying. I guess it will come case by case, and the guidelines sort of give the mods the power to analyse and deal with such situations. However, I would refrain from officially posting that example near the new guidelines. It is ambiguous and might give the wrong idea.
-
Not OK: Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"
I'm pretty sure that in my example, as in reality, Goober is not one of "those specific individual :confused: conservative Christian assholes who believe homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law." :p (I realize in retrospect that I was emphasizing 'those' to mean a select group, not all conservative Christians, but it can be read not ways which just goes to show I suck at non-ambiguous examples)
The examples were intentionally over the top. Point is, groups are not and should not be protected from criticism by the guidelines. I agree, it would be pretty backhanded to imply a forum member is a member of a group and THEN disparage the group with the intention of implying disparagement to the member individually, but the guidelines already cover that under a broad banner of be respectful.
The examples were over the top on purpose and are designed to show statements that, without context or relation to each other, should be not OK or OK. The key is without context. Had you seen the OK phrase below the Goober example on its own and without the previous example, you wouldn't even have pondered a connection.
Again, HLP members deserve the protection of the guidelines - but just because one HLP member may take offense to a discussion of a religious or political issue does not mean they should be able to shut down that discussion if they are not being specifically and personally disrespected per the guideline prohibition.
-
Random senario: I have a beef with Axem. I know he really likes Hockey team A. I can't insult Axem directly under the new guidelines. I therefore will take every possible opportunity to make snide remarks about how Hockey team A is teh worze thing ev4r. Maybe I really hate Hockey team A, maybe Hockey team A passed through my town and trampled all over my favorite flower garden like the barbarians they are. But more likely I'm just constantly hating on Hockey team A to get under Axem's skin. However you can't really tell for certain from my posts alone.
When finally fed up with this, Axem reports my post, but in my defense I say "I'm not saying mean things about Axem's favorite hockey team to get to him, I just hate that hockey team!" and I continue my reign of terror. Technically I am not violating any guidelines here! I am however deliberately terrorizing Axem.
How would the mod team go about this situation?
-
Well, leaving aside any tip toeing I'd do around the exact language of the situation, the moderation team would discuss it behind the scenes (like we do already), and then the person would likely get a strongly worded but respectful official request to kindly **** off.
I think you're forgetting that the moderation team is actually people, not a sorting algorithm for who to ban at what time.
-
Random senario: I have a beef with Axem. I know he really likes Hockey team A. I can't insult Axem directly under the new guidelines. I therefore will take every possible opportunity to make snide remarks about how Hockey team A is teh worze thing ev4r. Maybe I really hate Hockey team A, maybe Hockey team A passed through my town and trampled all over my favorite flower garden like the barbarians they are. But more likely I'm just constantly hating on Hockey team A to get under Axem's skin. However you can't really tell for certain from my posts alone.
When finally fed up with this, Axem reports my post, but in my defense I say "I'm not saying mean things about Axem's favorite hockey team to get to him, I just hate that hockey team!" and I continue my reign of terror. Technically I am not violating any guidelines here! I am however deliberately terrorizing Axem.
How would the mod team go about this situation?
1. I see nothing wrong with disparaging a hockey team, even if Axem is annoyed by it. He can choose not to read it.
2. ...buuuut, in this scenario you are being a soap-boxing-tool and should be moderated accordingly on that basis.
Unrelated note: posting from my wife's Nexus 5 is awesome. It fixes all my typos!
Anyway, the point I keep trying to make here that Scotty just made far more succintly is that the guidelines as revised already give the mod team the flexibility to deal with this sort of stuff. We don't need further reminders about groups and such.
-
Not OK: Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK: Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.
Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"
I'm with Spoon. Saying "All Christians are ***holes" is as bad as calling me an ***hole- worse, because you're calling a lot of people close to me ***holes.
"I disapprove of Christianity because I don't think couples should have to wait until marriage", however, is not insulting, and it raises a legit point that I'd be willing (in principle, maybe not in practice) to discuss).
-
I think you're forgetting that the moderation team is actually people, not a sorting algorithm for who to ban at what time.
-
I think you're forgetting that the moderation team is actually people, not a sorting algorithm for who to ban at what time.
I hope so. I don't want people saying "MPryan said this about Christians so I can do it too."
-
I think the horse has had enough flogging, personally. Allow me to remind everyone what the first paragraph of the new guidelines says with some emphasis added:
HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra. While we may disagree on certain issues, a core HLP value is that we will be respectful of one another when discussing them. Being respectful means that you debate the arguments, and you don't attack the person making them; you contribute meaningfully to discussion, and do not disrupt it for others. This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban. All warnings, temporary restrictions, and bans are at the discretion of the moderating team, based on the respect principle. HLP's moderators will strive to intervene early to correct unacceptable behaviour instead of resorting to immediate formal actions; if you are the subject of a warning, this is an opportunity to change your behaviour and learn from it.
I think we have it covered.
-
Agreed.
-
Then I'm satisfied with the new rules and will support them wholeheartedly, on the condition that they are enforced consistently.
That said, I'm tired of arguing. I'm going to stay out of GenDisc and Site support for a while and focus on actual FS stuff: finishing Shadow Genesis, working on Unification War, and writing reviews.
Thanks, guys, for keeping things pretty civil, despite the emotional topics.
-
Again, I don't think you've made any case that they were enforced inconsistently, and your refusal to respond to the counterpoints made - with consideration and effort - against you is disappointing. You can't just keep repeating the same point and call it an argument.
-
And I'd rather that any 'arguments' caused externally to this topic be constrained to outside of this topic in order to continue its focus in a germane fashion, thanks.
-
InsaneBaron raised a very valid point earlier though. I was banned for quoting Ben Carson's speech, even though Ben Carson didn't say anything "racist" in that speech. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that Ben Carson himself is African American. You banned me for "spreading racist hate speech," but there was nothing hateful in what I posted.
-
*Karajorma remembers the days back when Kazan would complain how the moderation of HLP had a fundamentally pro-Christian bias.* :p
All Muslims are terrorists. VS MP-Ryan is a Muslim and therefore a terrorist.
The former statement is a stupid generalization that deserves to be roundly condemned, debated, and discussed in order to be shown how wrong it is. It does not deserve to be moderated out and buried to be perpetuated in other channels. On the other hand, the latter statement is a bit of ignorant bufoonery that was also a personal attack and therefore deserves to be moderated.
Actually, I'm quite happy to moderate either post. Sure the person behind the first one needs to be roundly condemned for how wrong it is, but they also don't deserve to be posting again. I don't see how the fact that being of a certain religion is a choice makes that sort of nonsense any more acceptable than "All black people are thieves" or "All gay people are paedophiles" and as far as I'm concerned, someone posting any of those three is likely to find themselves banned from Gen Disc on the ground that either they are trolling or simply not capable of the level of maturity / education required to be part of the discussions.
InsaneBaron raised a very valid point earlier though. I was banned for quoting Ben Carson's speech, even though Ben Carson didn't say anything "racist" in that speech. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that Ben Carson himself is African American. You banned me for "spreading racist hate speech," but there was nothing hateful in what I posted.
Actually you were banned for deliberately starting the post with an anti-Obama rant which had absolutely nothing to do with Ben Carson's speech.
You had been warned not to do this any more, you had agreed not to do this any more, you did it again, you were banned.
-
InsaneBaron raised a very valid point earlier though. I was banned for quoting Ben Carson's speech, even though Ben Carson didn't say anything "racist" in that speech. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that Ben Carson himself is African American. You banned me for "spreading racist hate speech," but there was nothing hateful in what I posted.
I don't think anybody would be 'surprised' to know that at all. If you follow public events you know Ben Carson is black. That doesn't make him magically immune to racism and it certainly doesn't qualify you to unilaterally declare that nothing he said in that speech was racist or to absolve yourself of racism.
-
And I'd rather that any 'arguments' caused externally to this topic be constrained to outside of this topic in order to continue its focus in a germane fashion, thanks.
Hey look, I'm self referential now! How quaint.
We can elect to either
A: Keep the topic more focused on the generation of a rule set document as outlined in the first post
or
B: We conclude that the conversation is done an instantiate the rule set as outlined in the first post
Continuing to hammer on and on about what's already BEEN done and over with or going on about actions that have already been done, arguments that have already been had, will just see me issuing more direct warnings individually. If you want a discussion about currently ongoing issues, then do that in a thread specific to those topics.
And here's a hint: This one isn't it.
-
Though to be fair, I was out of control when I first joined the forum and I paid the price for those mistakes. I'd like to think that I'm a better member of the community and, at least somewhat, more welcomed by the community because of this learning experience.
-
Again, I don't think you've made any case that they were enforced inconsistently, and your refusal to respond to the counterpoints made - with consideration and effort - against you is disappointing. You can't just keep repeating the same point and call it an argument.
Look, I'm content. I may have been misinformed about Nakura, although some of the posts against him definitely violate these rules. But I'm content. I got a clarification on what will and will not be tolerated, which is good; and the fact that everyone insists that they haven't applied a double standard, agrees that double standards are wrong, and promises not to apply them, indicates that I shouldn't have to worry about double standards in the future. which is the important thing. I accomplished my goal, and at this point I just want to end this debate on a friendly note and go back to my real reason for being on HLP.
So: I got what I was after, and I concede you knew more about the Nakura situation than I did. Shake?
Actually, I'm quite happy to moderate either post. Sure the person behind the first one needs to be roundly condemned for how wrong it is, but they also don't deserve to be posting again. I don't see how the fact that being of a certain religion is a choice makes that sort of nonsense any more acceptable than "All black people are thieves" or "All gay people are paedophiles" and as far as I'm concerned, someone posting any of those three is likely to find themselves banned from Gen Disc on the ground that either they are trolling or simply not capable of the level of maturity / education required to be part of the discussions.
Thanks.
@Zacam: I have no further issues regarding the ruleset, and I'd be happy to see it enacted in its current form.
-
Well, it's March 4 here, and it appears that nobody has a beef with anything currently written.
Ergo, I recommend adoption of the rules/tips as posted in the OP. Concur?
-
I second the motion.
-
I have no objections.
-
much wow
-
/me approves of these rules and discussion
-
Nakura Seal of Approval
-
:yes:
-
approvalCount++;
-
Approval +1
-
Sounds great to me.
-
I'll not only approve, I'll give you a coveted "Gold Star". No idea if it really has any significance, but you've earned it.
-
I'm ok with it, sorry I didn't contribute with anything so far, I just had nothing to add to what was being said.
-
Okay, the rules are done. I think we're doing well with the discussion on the internal by the moderators. People seem to be in favour of the changes I mentioned regarding licensing too. So I think I'll get all this stuff up in the correct places later today and we can start running with the new rules.
-
I'll not only approve, I'll give you a coveted "Gold Star". No idea if it really has any significance, but you've earned it.
My preciooooouuuuussss....
Neat!
-
The new rules seem great but my biggest issue with them is that they don't address mod-related issues on the forums like the ones experienced by Spoon a while ago.
Being incredibly immature and causing mod wars, or derailing threads by criticizing what somebody has - or hasn't - done in order to undermine his credibility, should be considered harmful acts, perhaps more harmful than the typical personal attacks we're all used to blame. I mean, if the ad hominem attack is wrong, the "ad modum" attack should also be considered wrong. I don't understand why pointing a community member out as an idiot may result in a warning, but criticizing his portfolio on a thread that has nothing to do with it results in nothing. I'm not posting any examples because I know for sure that this thread would quickly derail soon afterwards and become a flame war.
Considering the particular nature of HLP, which is a site dedicated to modders with a forum, not a forum with mod stuff, "ad modum" attacks should be taken seriously.
Also, I'd like to know how HLP's IRC chat is influenced by this new set of rules.
-
That's a bit late to make that comment, yes? Also, Y no Highlight? This should earn *at least* an highlight, and perhaps everyone should get the memo in pm's.
-
That's a bit late to make that comment, yes?
I've been abroad and I didn't know the rules were changing.
-
Stuff like what happened on Spoon's forum is definitely covered by the be respectful clause.
As for IRC, it's not affected at all. This covers the forums.
-
Indeed, users who attempt to organize concerted campaigns against specific mods out of a personal vendetta should probably face some kind of moderator action. :rolleyes:
-
As for IRC, it's not affected at all. This covers the forums.
This is going to leave a huge hole in moderation. Why isn't IRC affected at all? It is part of HLP, just like the Wiki and the forums.
-
This is going to leave a huge hole in moderation. Why isn't IRC affected at all? It is part of HLP, just like the Wiki.
No, it isn't and never has been. IRC moderation is a lot looser than forum moderation, and has been that way since forever. We basically only make sure that the Esper terms of service are enforced, and ban the occasional spammer. What you do on IRC has no relevance to the forums and vice versa (except for particularly egregious cases).
(Also, Mobius, as far as I am aware, you're not one of the IRC regulars. Maybe you should make sure that a problem exists there first before calling for changes in how it is run? Just a thought.)
-
Not to mention that the HLP mods not necessarily being mods on IRC has been that was since literally ever. I see no reason to change it.
-
As for IRC, it's not affected at all. This covers the forums.
This is going to leave a huge hole in moderation. Why isn't IRC affected at all? It is part of HLP, just like the Wiki and the forums.
And much like the wiki it has its own parallel administration which works absolutely fine.