Moderation rules

[smrk4]

Reposting from the closed thread. JT if this kind of discussion is ahead of where you want to be lmk

@whosnext

See if this helps.

Imagine a spectrum of posts that mention violence. Maybe it goes from the mere mention of violence, … , condoning violence, … , encouraging violence, … , advocating violence. This is far from perfect but you get the idea.

Forum rules need to draw the line somewhere on this spectrum dividing the allowed vs. disallowed posts. For simplicity let’s call this “loose” (the line is drawn towards the advocate end of the spectrum), “medium”, and “strict” (the line is drawn towards the condoning end of the spectrum).

Okay, every forum post can have multiple interpretations. Let’s say that posts that mention violence can be interpreted in the least favorable light (most violent) to medium to the most favorable light (less violent).

My view is that it is untenable for a forum mod to apply a “least favorable” reading with a “strict” standard. That would inevitably break down and lead to too many infractions, temp-bans, etc., and too much work for the mod.

On the other hand it is also untenable for a forum mod to apply a “most favorable” reading with a “loose” standard. That would also inevitably break down since far too few infractions, temp-bans, etc. would be meted out.

Maybe the above doesn’t make any sense to anybody else, but it kinda crystalizes my view of the current situation.

This is a perfectly fair framework to start with or even end with, but you’re taking a general approach to all posts without trying to find/possibly not agreeing with a more specific approach to address the more problematic subset of posts.

For example, if a person posted “I’m advocating that so and so be killed” that seems like an open and shut case of advocating violence. Let’s say this is severe enough the first time and you give the person a one day time out. They come back a day later and post again, “I’m advocating that so and so be killed”. You decide to tell them that if they say that again they willed be banned forever and give them a three day ban. Now that person comes back in three days and says “I’m not advocating that so and so be killed, but I wouldn’t mind if somebody killed so and so”. Is that a post you let stand? Is that poster no longer advocating violence but simply condoning it, which triggers the looser response flowchart? What if they only said, “I’m not advocating that so and so be killed, but I wouldn’t mind if somebody killed so and so” the first time, no action?

I don’t propose we go insane covering every possible good faith/bad faith case, I’m just proposing that we consider prohibiting posts in which the heads of state where most of us live and travel meet grisly and untimely ends by means of intentional violence. But I don’t want the standard limited to advocacy. I don’t want to see it condoned, trolled about, or ideally even joked about. Perhaps @lawbros can help clarify this standard or at least help explain the problems a person may face if they, even on twitter, had dozens of serious but not serious, well I’m joking but not joking, but joking posts where, punchline, somebody in government gets killed.

If this is too nebulous, take any post, and if you can substring find some proposition “kill x” or “x is killed”, then the propositional attitude concerning that proposition better be something like “hey shut the fuck up about this”. In cases where we can’t substring find that, we use the judgment of a community supported mod enforcing this standard, assuming it is adopted, it may not be.