I don’t want it to derail this thread, so I started a separate thread for all key moderator actions. I’ll be posting mine there, other mods are free to do as they wish as there are no rules about it. I banned NotBruceZ for 48 hours for a suggestion of, essentially, doxxing the MLB umpire in response to a post calling for him to have an “accident.”
I posted it here because I don’t want any accusations that I’m trying to hide it, but please contain discussion of NotBruceZ and specific moderator decisions to the NotBruceZ thread or the log of moderator actions.
I didn’t mean “broad” as in coverage. I meant “broad” as in vague. Lumping everything into a prohibition against “hate messaging” is problematic to say the least. “Jews own all the banks.” “Women are too emotional to be effective leaders.” “The US was better off when white people ran things.” Etc. It might be hard to call any of those statements “hate messaging”, but I sure as hell don’t want posts like that on this site.
My specific listings were meant as an addendum to JT’s rule, not a substitute.
That’s all fair enough, but it should be fairly simple to make clear to anyone who is crossing that line and we can also refine stuff like that more down the line. I don’t think we should get too bogged down on that type of stuff just yet.
Also, JT, I’m currently on vacation all week which is part of the reason I haven’t spent more time on this yet beyond that quick list.
Reposting from the closed thread. JT if this kind of discussion is ahead of where you want to be lmk
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.
You ask a great question for which there is no easy answer.
I will say that I think a good set of rules is critical for the long-term success of any internet forum. The best rules are “bright line” rules with clear definitions and applications. Unfortunately, not all rules can be bright line and their application will often require keen moderation judgment (like a prohibition against trolling).
Nevertheless, as I said above (echoing Wookie), having a rule against trolling is very important. A mod can point to that rule to sanction a poster who otherwise is breaking no other forum rule. To give an example still fresh in my mind, we recently had two annoying posters on 2p2 that were breaking no rules except they were very very likely trolling. I temp-banned them for posting indistinguishable from trolling. (One came back after the temp-ban and apologized and is now a member in good-standing. The other came back after the temp-ban, racheted up the trolling, and got perma-banned.)
Having said all that, you are undoubtedly correct that it is sometimes difficult to discern true trolling from garden-variety terrible posting. Pattern of behavior can be looked at, history, etc. But there is no easy answer.
All this so someone could tippy toe around the line of acceptability and push boundaries. The guy basically admitted to purposely trying to get a rise out of people. Well done. ffs
Think of the recent NBZ “fiasco” as highlighting the importance of having an agreed upon list of forum rules/moderation protocols.
If you don’t think this forum needs an agreed upon list of forum rules/moderation protocols, I don’t know what to say other than you should probably not post much in this thread.
You know what, it’s definitely abusive speech and I apologize, @jmakin. It was not one of my finer moments. I was out of line, and I’m sorry. I should not have responded in kind when you called me “fucking unhinged” and a “thin skinned, dictatorial mod” or to any of the other abusive speech you directed at me throughout that thread.
That doesn’t make it okay for a mod to use abusive language, I should be held to a higher standard and I failed to live up to it. I’m sorry. I should not have taken the bait, and I do think people should be allowed to be harsher to and more critical of mods than other posters.
I don’t think I deserve a ban for it, though, but if another mod disagrees I won’t fight any punishment doled out.
On the topic of violent rhetoric, we could try to define it as something that a reasonable person could think has a chance of inspiring/causing/encouraging/etc violence in real life. It’s still subjective, but it gets to the crux of the issue for me. It’s not about offending us/other readers, it’s about the moral risk of letting it go unchecked because of what it can mean in real life.
There is a massive difference between saying “fucking unhinged” as a descriptor and “fuck you” as a directed attack. I am also not a mod. This is also in response to repeated attacks like this towards me.
Also, fuck you. You are clearly too emotional and reactive for this.
I’d rather someone say “fuck you” than call me “fucking unhinged,” but it’s not a big deal. My “repeat attacks” were in response to your repeat attacks, but there’s no need to litigate who attacked who first because I’ve already stated that it was bad behavior as a mod and I was in the wrong. You have every right to be very critical of my modding if that’s how you feel, and I should handle it better. I thought your attacks on my character were out of line, and I wish you didn’t escalate it so rapidly and attack me so harshly, but it was my job at that point not to escalate it farther and I failed at that. I’ll admit that criticism and attacks on my responses in that regard are fair. Nobody is perfect, but I have to be better.
I also apologized, so there’s not much more I can do here. I’m sorry jmakin. I should have handled your response to this better. I stand by my moderating decisions, but my behavior in the arguments about them was bad and embarrassing. You’re right, I was too emotional and reactive to the attacks on me and I have to do a better job of that as a mod. I’m sorry.
I am a passionate and emotional person about things that are important to me. I think it makes me an asset to this community, but reasonable minds can disagree. It gives me various strengths and weaknesses as a person, and I embrace that.
If you want to continue to attack me and use abusive language at this point after two apologies, I’m just not going to engage anymore. I’m doing my best here to admit where I was wrong and out of line, so you either accept that apology or you don’t.
Either way, hopefully you’ll engage in the process of discussing rules/policies and where the boundaries should be with the group that’s getting to work on that.
While I’m at it, I’d like to apologize to anyone else who I may have used abusive language toward or been an ass to while we argued about this. I’m not going to go through the entire thing, but obviously @anon10387340 comes to mind as someone who feels driven to leave the forum over this. I’d tag Will, too, but he’s already gone.
I stand by my modding decisions but I’m sorry I didn’t handle the heat over it better, that’s incumbent upon me to be able to handle as a mod. If I said anything out of line or abusive to you or others, I apologize to you as well.
I think I told you or jmakin, I forget who, that they should leave as far as I’m concerned or something like that. That was unnecessary, I hope you’ll both stay and continue to be part of the community and especially to crafting rules/policies.
I promise to do my best to check my emotions a bit when I’m on the receiving end of criticism, no matter how heated. I may not be perfect at that, but I’ll do my best to stand up for my principles and defend my decisions without lashing out at my critics.
It was particularly hurtful that people were accusing me of trying to be a dictator or suggesting I was on a power trip (I’m paraphrasing and not attributing it to anyone in particular), given that I have put a lot of time into this community and done my best NOT to grab for power and NOT to impose my will, especially in the move from 22 to Exiled to here. But I shouldn’t assume people noticed or paid attention, and modding decisions may often be analyzed in a vacuum anyway.
But as a result, I took that particular line of criticism personally, which I can’t do as a mod. Sorry, everyone. From here on out I’ll be doing my best to keep my arguments limited to the subject at hand and not attack others.
And even beyond that, if the vote on NBZ was reversed and a healthy majority found the posts objectionable, nobody would have even given 1 shit about what was done with him. Now there is apparently some sort of clause that mods can do what they want and claim “I just can’t let this go unpunished” which I think plenty of people don’t want and is causing many members to decide to spend less time here.