Moderation rules

[smrk4]

@tabbaker, sorry for the call out but you were posting in the other nbz thread atm, do you want in on this committee? Your perspective will be both welcome and useful.

[DodgerIrish]

@boredsocial

Jesus if we promise to make it fast I’m on board I guess. Blah. Use me if you need me

Don’t like this post lol. I’m doing it against my better judgement.

You’re welcome here Thomas

[DodgerIrish]

Prbly the wrong crowd for an apostles reference.

[LouisCyphre]

I think a good starting point is to determine the goal of the moderation rules. What do we value more: the liberty to say whatever we like or a non-toxic atmosphere?

[cassette]

Too vague and unwinnable for anyone. I like the idea of getting concrete and just starting with some basic rules no one will object to and building up from there. We have tried and failed to articulate/defend the type of overarching ethos you suggest here. It just isn’t possible with this many people, imo.

[boredsocial]

Non toxic atmosphere. Toxicity is bad for getting new posters, retaining old posters, and that’s because user experience. I say this as someone who veers into toxicity from time to time.

At the same time being super rules lawyery and freaking out about every little thing is awful. The rules should be simple and clear. Complexity and rules is bad. It’s a politics forum board not the constitution of a country. I also think we should have 6 total rules or less and the moderators should have a lot of leeway to interpret them as long as they color inside the lines.

These rules should be easy to comprehend for a fourth grader.

[anon38180840]

@JohnnyTruant

I’d love insight from experienced mods here who have already spent time in the trenches with what is enforceable and what is a problem.

@j8i3h289dn3x7 @MrWookie @goofyballer

Who am I missing?

[RiskyFlush]

@cassette

Come on now, we’re making progress. Let’s enjoy the process of putting some B.S. drama behind us and getting back to memes and arguments.

If this is a formal motion, I second it. cuse has been so exhausted by this affair that he’s had to let nunnehi reign unchallenged.

My hat is in. Or is it throwing something into the hat?

[boredsocial]

@boredsocial :sigh:

[DodgerIrish]

I think following the guideline of not advocating violence or invoking violent imagery, but allowing outside tweets/articles from non-fringe media and politicians, should be fine and pretty clear cut.

Most of that posting feels like venting and/or commiseration and someone like nbz (by repeatedly doing so, instead of one-offs) is the bad apple that ruins it for everyone else. I don’t think it’s a great loss, but I’m not someone who really engages in it, so I’m still hesitant to be too strident about it all.

That’s really the only rule that I feel is necessary atm beyond whatever the current standard was with nudity/porn that I’ve seen posted before. I’m sure we could workshop a list of the obvious things, like doxxing, real quick.

[DodgerIrish]

@JohnnyTruant

to vent, commiserate

My insecurity wants everyone to know I hadn’t read Johnny’s post yet.

[otatop]

@anon38180840

@JohnnyTruant

I’d love insight from experienced mods here who have already spent time in the trenches with what is enforceable and what is a problem.

jman220 MrWookie goofyballer

Who am I missing?

@whosnext @kerowo (? can’t remember if they were a mod somewhere or just had a colorful name)

[boredsocial]

1. No Doxxing
2. No calls for violence unless it’s an article by a t1 newspaper a politician or something absolutely bonkers like Trump losing the election and refusing to leave (although I’ll be too busy packing my shit to go to Costa Rica and at that point there will be plenty of of national politicians and t1 newspapers howling for actual blood).
3. No politics in OT??
4. No overt racism. We’ll call it the Toothsayer rule because he’s exactly who we’d ban for racism basically. If you are as racist or more racist than Tooth you get banned.
   5-6. ???

[DodgerIrish]

• No politics in OT??

Unless this becomes a big issue, seems too restrictive and adds an additional task to mods/gives them more subjective power.

• No overt racism. We’ll call it the Toothsayer rule because he’s exactly who we’d ban for racism basically. If you are as racist or more racist than Tooth you get banned.

Only issue here is if you get someone in here with faux concern about the white man. I don’t know if you add some footnote about the majority or if that’s counterproductive. Probably something about the spirit of the law is to be wary of it specific to minorities, but outright white bashing isn’t allowed - or similar as a token.

[anon38180840]

You’re already ITT and on the committee…

[smrk4]

Some/most of the rules we already have itt and are in effect afaik. A preliminary/personal thought: the aim should be to create a few rules about posts that feature scenarios of violence, whether it’s advocating it (obvious warning/tempban/ban), condoning it (less obvious), and just trolling with it (relatively obvious to me, but maybe not to most) etc. And the aim of whatever rules is to provide a mod with the community’s guidelines for how they as a mod should be making judgment calls, it will seldom be a clear cut thing for every post.

[DodgerIrish]

@JohnnyTruant

If everyone who has raised their hat in the pond or whatever can please come up with the list of rules they think are necessary/vital as table stakes to have a forum that can be moderated with a criteria that is (relatively) easy to understand and enforce, the first thing we can do is match up the lists and whatever is common/universal just gets added

I feel like it’s flowing fine workshopping as a group.

Add to that list and we’ll hammer them out along the way. If anyone objects to one. We’ll hear it out and vote on it.

[RiskyFlush]

@DodgerIrish

Unless this becomes a big issue, seems too restrictive and adds an additional task to mods/gives them more subjective power.

I don’t think this has to be an absolute rule to be a good rule. Everyone can be forgiven a comment here or there if we also understand that if it becomes any kind of conversation beyond a stray comment, the topic needs to be excised into a politics thread. A little mod discretion here is fine.

[DodgerIrish]

@JohnnyTruant

My idea at this point is after that first pass takes place we will end up with a list of rules to present with a wording that we have hashed out high level without a lot of debate yet that will be presented in a poll to the community

Bah, I thought the committee would come up with rules and that’s that.

The whole issue was the indifference to begin with. What happens when the majority don’t want rhetoric toned down? But then cuse takes his stand. But then no one wants to get rid of cuse.

We force him into a tyrant. It’s the committee’s job to come up with rules and then the mod follows them. If he doesn’t, committee demods him and a new mod(s) is nominated to the forum.

[DodgerIrish]

@RiskyFlush

I don’t think this has to be an absolute rule to be a good rule. Everyone can be forgiven a comment here or there if we also understand that if it becomes any kind of conversation beyond a stray comment, the topic needs to be excised into a politics thread. A little mod discretion here is fine.

The other posters could self-moderate (as a group).

If ten people are having a conversation and enjoying it, but then someone well, actuallys and points to a rule and/or a mod just dumps everyone’s convo … not what I’d want.