Discussion Rule Changes

[Zell 17]

I didn't and still don't have a problem with Cole closing it. But I don't think it necessarily needed to be closed forever. But discussion of that type is simply not productive. It dissolved into people (me too!) trying to score internet points.

I think it's possible to have productive discussions on message boards about sensitive topics, but you need to have strict guardrails. Here are some rules I'm borrowing liberally from another site that I think does this well. If it's not broke don't fix it as they say. Particularly fond of rules 1, 4, 5, and 7.

1. Don't suck.
2. Hate speech is strictly prohibited. Most offensive statements are not hate speech, but the term is broader than just racial, ethnic, misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic slurs.
3. There are some phrases that will be cause for discipline beyond just editing or deletion: The "N" word is an example. The "C" word is another example. And while context is always important, members should understand that when those phrases are used, they are at risk of suspension.
4. Focus on the post, not on the poster. Attacks on a fellow member's character are strictly prohibited.
5. No trolling. Posters who repeatedly derail discussions will be presumed to be doing so willfully.
6. Personal disputes with other members should be handled by PM, or escalated to a mod. Such disputes have no place on the boards.
7. A member's past positions expressed in other threads should not be used to impeach that member's credibility, unless those opinions are germane to the subject currently under discussion.
8. Some posts may be short, or humorous, but every post should represent a reasonable effort to advance the discussion.
9. Posters must cite a source for factual assertions that are not general knowledge. While an isolated instance of failing to abide by this standard will likely not result in discipline, posters should make an effort to reference their sources, even something as informal as "I read on Twitter that ..."
10. A poster who quotes or cites the opinion of someone who is neither a public figure nor a mainstream journalist should briefly explain why that person's opinion is relevant to the discussion. This is especially true when posting tweets, as the source and relevance the individual being quoted is often unknown.
11. When linking to an outside source, a poster should always include context that explains the relevance and/or credibility of the underlying information. To give a specific example, an embedded link with a one word teaser is not considered to be acceptable context.
12. In almost all cases, it is not acceptable to use sites that disseminate misinformation or promote bigotry as support for a post.
13. To be clear, this rule is not intended to limit our discussion of statements by public officials, mainstream journalists or opinion essayists. Even provocateurs can be acceptable as sources, but be warned that if someone links to or quotes a source determined to be promoting misinformation, the consequences may be significant.
14. Forum moderation is the exclusive responsibility of the mods; lecturing other members for alleged rules violations is not permitted (though this does not prohibit raising concerns in an appropriate manner by PM). Instead, members are encouraged to use the "report post" function to bring perceived violations to the attention of the mods.
15. Debates about forum moderation do not belong here, unless the mods invite such comments in a particular thread or choose to maintain a separate, dedicated thread for the community to discuss issues related to moderation.
16. When embedding tweets into a post:
    • If not obvious, identify the source and their connection to the topic.
    • Include context. Specifically, tell us how this tweet is relevant to the point you are trying to make.
    • Post the content of the tweet/sub-tweet that reflects the point you are making.
    • This is important as tweets are often edited / deleted.

 

[TD]

I like that list.

I'm torn because a large part feels like common sense but I think a subset like that would be good to have. Heck, for the forum overall.

 

[Mark]

I didn't and still don't have a problem with Cole closing it. But I don't think it necessarily needed to be closed forever. But discussion of that type is simply not productive. It dissolved into people (me too!) trying to score internet points.

I think it's possible to have productive discussions on message boards about sensitive topics, but you need to have strict guardrails. Here are some rules I'm borrowing liberally from another site that I think does this well. If it's not broke don't fix it as they say. Particularly fond of rules 1, 4, 5, and 7.

1. Don't suck.
2. Hate speech is strictly prohibited. Most offensive statements are not hate speech, but the term is broader than just racial, ethnic, misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic slurs.
3. There are some phrases that will be cause for discipline beyond just editing or deletion: The "N" word is an example. The "C" word is another example. And while context is always important, members should understand that when those phrases are used, they are at risk of suspension.
4. Focus on the post, not on the poster. Attacks on a fellow member's character are strictly prohibited.
5. No trolling. Posters who repeatedly derail discussions will be presumed to be doing so willfully.
6. Personal disputes with other members should be handled by PM, or escalated to a mod. Such disputes have no place on the boards.
7. A member's past positions expressed in other threads should not be used to impeach that member's credibility, unless those opinions are germane to the subject currently under discussion.
8. Some posts may be short, or humorous, but every post should represent a reasonable effort to advance the discussion.
9. Posters must cite a source for factual assertions that are not general knowledge. While an isolated instance of failing to abide by this standard will likely not result in discipline, posters should make an effort to reference their sources, even something as informal as "I read on Twitter that ..."
10. A poster who quotes or cites the opinion of someone who is neither a public figure nor a mainstream journalist should briefly explain why that person's opinion is relevant to the discussion. This is especially true when posting tweets, as the source and relevance the individual being quoted is often unknown.
11. When linking to an outside source, a poster should always include context that explains the relevance and/or credibility of the underlying information. To give a specific example, an embedded link with a one word teaser is not considered to be acceptable context.
12. In almost all cases, it is not acceptable to use sites that disseminate misinformation or promote bigotry as support for a post.
13. To be clear, this rule is not intended to limit our discussion of statements by public officials, mainstream journalists or opinion essayists. Even provocateurs can be acceptable as sources, but be warned that if someone links to or quotes a source determined to be promoting misinformation, the consequences may be significant.
14. Forum moderation is the exclusive responsibility of the mods; lecturing other members for alleged rules violations is not permitted (though this does not prohibit raising concerns in an appropriate manner by PM). Instead, members are encouraged to use the "report post" function to bring perceived violations to the attention of the mods.
15. Debates about forum moderation do not belong here, unless the mods invite such comments in a particular thread or choose to maintain a separate, dedicated thread for the community to discuss issues related to moderation.
16. When embedding tweets into a post:
    • If not obvious, identify the source and their connection to the topic.
    • Include context. Specifically, tell us how this tweet is relevant to the point you are trying to make.
    • Post the content of the tweet/sub-tweet that reflects the point you are making.
    • This is important as tweets are often edited / deleted.

Congratulations, you’ve effectively banned @A Somer Special with the first rule.

My only issue with this set of rules is reflective in the set that we have here currently… When we were all coming up with them, we REALLY didn’t anticipate needing such an in-depth set of rules for such an intimate group of people, and I really don’t want one person who attempted to act as an antagonist or a collective of thread participants to feel like they brought a new wave of ruling on. To me, I would think that would send a bad message to the community.

Maybe we need to split this out, and have a separate discussion about the rules here so we can cherry pick what we can borrow from the list you borrowed? I’m all for making adjustments as necessary, and this is necessary, but I don’t think adding a bunch of girth to the rules is necessary if we can consolidate that set down some.

 

[Jon]

Aren't we all adults?

It feels like 4 is the one we're struggling with.

And 6 feels like the one that needs to be truly enforced.

 

[Mark]

Aren't we all adults?

It feels like 4 is the one we're struggling with.

And 6 feels like the one that needs to be truly enforced.

That’s what I’m saying… it doesn’t even feel right having to tell others how to act to one another, but if we’re gonna do it… we might as well get right to the damn point with it.

 

[Benzine]

wtf have you guys been doing, why are you ruining my ability to abuse

 

[Jon]

wtf have you guys been doing, why are you ruining my ability to abuse

Blame Grubby.

Fuck Grubby.

 

[Kat]

Maybe instead of a long rule list, when a thread that's bound to be controversial is posted, somebody can post a reminder of 4 and 6? And if things do get heated, somebody posts it again with a note that violators will be banned from the thread for a time so they can cool down?

 

[Mark]

Maybe instead of a long rule list, when a thread that's bound to be controversial is posted, somebody can post a reminder of 4 and 6? And if things do get heated, somebody posts it again with a note that violators will be banned from the thread for a time so they can cool down?

I like this idea. A mod can edit the OP and include a reminder, and then we’ll also make better use of the post report feature to catch any shit we miss.

 

[Crystal]

I like this idea. A mod can edit the OP and include a reminder, and then we’ll also make better use of the post report feature to catch any shit we miss.

We can use notices for this, as well:

 

[Mark]

We can use notices for this, as well:

View attachment 4238

I like this idea, too.

I went ahead and split out from @Zell 17 ‘s post on so we can continue to discuss this without derailing the statistics thread.

 

[Crystal]

I like this idea, too.

I went ahead and split out from @Zell 17 ‘s post on so we can continue to discuss this without derailing the statistics thread.

Yeah, seems like we could just have a notice that essentially says "Reminder -- Topics in this forum can potentially be controversial. Please remember to focus on the topic and not to attack one another on a personal level." That kind of thing.

 

[Mark]

Yeah, seems like we could just have a notice that essentially says "Reminder -- Topics in this forum can potentially be controversial. Please remember to focus on the topic and not to attack one another on a personal level." That kind of thing.

Prefix as well, maybe? In line with the NSFW one?

 

[Crystal]

Prefix as well, maybe? In line with the NSFW one?

Yeah, something like "Trigger" or "Intense" so people know it's a hotter topic and likely being watched closer. We don't want to stifle discussion, we don't want to start posting what should be common sense rules, so I think a notice and a prefix just as reminders would be the right approach.

 

[Mark]

Yeah, something like "Trigger" or "Intense" so people know it's a hotter topic and likely being watched closer. We don't want to stifle discussion, we don't want to start posting what should be common sense rules, so I think a notice and a prefix just as reminders would be the right approach.

That might be a little too bubble wrapped, but something simple to denote it’s a heated discussion could work. Even something basic like the old hot thread icon would be great for the purpose.

 

[Crystal]

That might be a little too bubble wrapped, but something simple to denote it’s a heated discussion could work. Even something basic like the old hot thread icon would be great for the purpose.

Ah, yeah, fair enough. So long as it gives the idea that this is one of those topics to be mindful of. We're all adults, personal attacks go nowhere

 

[Benzine]

@Zell 17 what is this c word you're referring to i'm not sure i know of an unusable c word

 

[Scott]

@Zell 17 what is this c word you're referring to i'm not sure i know of an unusable c word

I assume it's the racist one that goes with the "N" word, rather than the C word that Australasia and a fair amount of the UK use.

As for rules, surely it's a set of enforceable guidelines that are designed to be more "You're all meant to be adults, but you'll be treated like children if you keep acting like it". Which for me, basically boils down to "don't be a dickhead".

 

[Raine]

I assume it's the racist one that goes with the "N" word, rather than the C word that Australasia and a fair amount of the UK use.

I would actually assume it is the Nuclear Option for (American) Women, given the way the other rules are written. I don't know the source Zell is borrowing from, but it's generally in line with what's outlined elsewhere I visit. Which are pretty strict by necessity rather than by choice.

The "context" part would be important there.

 

[Scott]

I would actually assume it is the Nuclear Option for (American) Women, given the way the other rules are written. I don't know the source Zell is borrowing from, but it's generally in line with what's outlined elsewhere I visit. Which are pretty strict by necessity rather than by choice.

The "context" part would be important there.

Ahh yeah, of course. My mistake, I always forget the connotations of that word for an American audience, and can understand why it would be included on a banned word list.

 

[Mark]

These are our current guidelines:

https://gwforums.com/threads/community-guidelines.435/

Based on what I’m reading here… we need to expand on the whole “go after the post, not the poster” thing, the trolling thing, the whole idea that people can express an opinion you don’t like without being inherently “bad” for it, and what else?

 

[Kat]

[

I would actually assume it is the Nuclear Option for (American) Women, given the way the other rules are written. I don't know the source Zell is borrowing from, but it's generally in line with what's outlined elsewhere I visit. Which are pretty strict by necessity rather than by choice.

The "context" part would be important there.

That's my guess too (I can't even think of a racist term that starts with C, although I'm sure they exist), but I don't have any problem with people using it here. I hear it in foreign media enough that I'm not personally bothered by it.

These are our current guidelines:

https://gwforums.com/threads/community-guidelines.435/

Based on what I’m reading here… we need to expand on the whole “go after the post, not the poster” thing, the trolling thing, the whole idea that people can express an opinion you don’t like without being inherently “bad” for it, and what else?

That seems to cover everything already. My guess is people forget about those guidelines when emotions run high, and no amount of elaborating on "don't be a dick" there will help.

 

[Mark]

That's my guess too (I can't even think of a racist term that starts with C, although I'm sure they exist), but I don't have any problem with people using it here. I hear it in foreign media enough that I'm not personally bothered by it.

That seems to cover everything already. My guess is people forget about those guidelines when emotions run high, and no amount of elaborating on "don't be a dick" there will help.

That’s what I thought, but some elaboration never hurt anybody.

 

[TD]

Yeah, something like "Trigger" or "Intense" so people know it's a hotter topic and likely being watched closer. We don't want to stifle discussion, we don't want to start posting what should be common sense rules, so I think a notice and a prefix just as reminders would be the right approach.

This is the one that jumps out to me if I'm honest.

I'm the type that'll pretty much avoid things flagged as Trigger, so it gives a good warning of what people are getting into.

I'm guessing these tags can be added as a topic evolves?

 

[Mark]

This is the one that jumps out to me if I'm honest.

I'm the type that'll pretty much avoid things flagged as Trigger, so it gives a good warning of what people are getting into.

I'm guessing these tags can be added as a topic evolves?

Yup, they can be changed at any time.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

What? No.

The racist word that begins with a C is a shortening of racoon.

 

[Raine]

(I can't even think of a racist term that starts with C, although I'm sure they exist)

Aww! Stay uncorrupted. But it's definitely...

Spoiler: Open racial slurs, obviously!

Coon, for when insulting more than Black people is the primary objective and you have a couple extra IQ points (so, ~3) more than garden variety trailer trash and want to opt for something better than "Sand N----r."

Coon, a racial slur, used pejoratively to refer to a dark-skinned person of African, Australian Aboriginal, or Pacific islander heritage.

See also:

If it's in South Park, it's definitely something offensive.

Cracker will never not make me laugh, and I don't know why.

I'm the type that'll pretty much avoid things flagged as Trigger, so it gives a good warning of what people are getting into.

I'm very much pro-TW, as well. Some subjects will straight up ruin a person's entire mood and day just hearing about them, even if they don't have personal trauma related to them.

 

[Mark]

What? No.

The racist word that begins with a C is a shortening of racoon.

Cracker will never not make me laugh, and I don't know why.

…and this is why I posted it.

 

[Benzine]

I was raised poorly so I knew what word Zell meant, do not worry ahah.

 

[Ants!]

Will suck for $50. Clearance sale before rule #1 gets implemented.

 

[TD]

Will suck for $50. Clearance sale before rule #1 gets implemented.

 

[Mark]

Will suck for $50. Clearance sale before rule #1 gets implemented.

Clearly, we don’t have the appropriate post reactions for all scenarios yet.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

Clearly, we don’t have the appropriate post reactions for all scenarios yet.

Eggplant emoji reaction.

 

[Smacktard]

These rules seem like an overcomplication of a simple concept: don't be a dick.

Anyone who needs the rules spelled out as explicitly as they are above was being a dick. Tell them, "hey, you're being a dick. Don't be a dick" and if they decide to continue being a dick -- say, by continuing to make personal attacks, pointing out that there's no explicit rule about being a dick, etc. -- that person can be thread-banned, banned, whatever.

I think with the exception of a couple of dick-ish outbursts we're grown-ups capable of mostly moderating ourselves and acknowledging when we've overstepped boundaries, and correcting course. People that are being dicks know they're being dicks. I don't think there's any need to outline every potential infraction for in order to have something to reference or point at when someone steps over the line.

Also, and this may be a bit off-topic, but I find it funny that so many people who are advocating for overpolicing in these forums (by virtue of establishing these rules) are very against over-policing IRL. Yes yes, they're not the exact same thing, but there are parallels for sure.

So that's it. That's what I think the list should be condensed to. One rule:
1. Don't be a dick.

(and maybe also something about piracy/illegal activities because yeah I could see someone making an honest mistake, but I'm paranthesizing this so my argument has more heft)

 

[Ants!]

I don’t agree with yalls interpretation of what makes somebody a dick.

For example: somebody who’s victim-blaming in every police shooting? Not breaking the rule at all, even though they are 1000 times the bigger dick than the person who calls them out on it a little heatedly (understandably). Which is why I think I’m better off just not engaging in those topics at all.

 

[Smacktard]

I don’t agree with yalls interpretation of what makes somebody a dick.

For example: somebody who’s victim-blaming in every police shooting? Not breaking the rule at all, even though they are 1000 times the bigger dick than the person who calls them out on it a little heatedly (understandably). Which is why I think I’m better off just not engaging in those topics at all.

Right but do you think that people should be banned for expressing an opinion that's different from yours, regardless of how abhorrent it is? That's a slippery slope

 

[Ants!]

Right but do you think that people should be banned for expressing an opinion that's different from yours, regardless of how abhorrent it is? That's a slippery slope

Not at all. In fact, I agree with what the rule is TRYING to implement. I just think the wording is stupid because, who is really the dick there? That is up to interpretation.

 

[Smacktard]

Not at all. In fact, I agree with what the rule is TRYING to implement. I just think the wording is stupid because, who is really the dick there? That is up to interpretation.

I mean, the point of "don't be a dick" is to expect reasonable people to be reasonable.

Case in point: You don't think discussion should result in a ban, but you probably agree that repeated name-calling, insults, and racism should result in a ban.

 

[Smacktard]

To drive the point home, I'm going to resurrect a bit of GW lore:
About 15 years ago, some PIMI members thought it would be clever and funny to put an image of a topical pain reliever in their signatures because they were angry with the admin team or something. Anyway, althought it wasn't technically and outright trolling/slurring, as it was simply an image of a popular product without any other context, we were all still given warnings.

Why? Because we were being dicks.

People who want to be dicks will find ways to be dicks, regardless of what the rules explicitly state.

And that's not getting into the anti-activity rules like "source every claim you make that isn't widely-accepted knowledge", which shouldn't be something that's enforceable by mod actions.

 

[Ants!]

I mean, the point of "don't be a dick" is to expect reasonable people to be reasonable.

Case in point: You don't think discussion should result in a ban, but you probably agree that repeated name-calling, insults, and racism should result in a ban.

In other words, the old-school “no flaming“ and “no trolling“ were more specific, and enough to accomplish what we are trying to do here.

Don’t be a dick? From whose perspective? Everyone in a heated argument thinks the other side is the one being a dick. It’s a stupid rule.

 

[Smacktard]

In other words, the old-school “no flaming“ and “no trolling“ were more specific, and enough to accomplish what we are trying to do here.

That's the opposite of the point I was trying to prove

Edit: with the PIMI sig example, I mean

 

[Mark]

To drive the point home, I'm going to resurrect a bit of GW lore:
About 15 years ago, some PIMI members thought it would be clever and funny to put an image of a topical pain reliever in their signatures because they were angry with the admin team or something. Anyway, althought it wasn't technically and outright trolling/slurring, as it was simply an image of a popular product without any other context, we were all still given warnings.

Why? Because we were being dicks.

People who want to be dicks will find ways to be dicks, regardless of what the rules explicitly state.

And that's not getting into the anti-activity rules like "source every claim you make that isn't widely-accepted knowledge", which shouldn't be something that's enforceable by mod actions.

I don’t think this makes as much need for a deep dive on GW lore as it does for me to address a point that has finally been made specific enough for me to address in this comment:

For example: somebody who’s victim-blaming in every police shooting? Not breaking the rule at all, even though they are 1000 times the bigger dick than the person who calls them out on it a little heatedly (understandably). Which is why I think I’m better off just not engaging in those topics at all.

I get what you and the others were saying then, and I get the point you’re trying to make now. The harsh reality that I still stand by, and the harsh reality that every single person who’s familiar enough with “that life” knows is that when you play with fire, you’re going to get burned. It isn’t a matter of race. It isn’t a matter of just policing. It isn’t a matter of society or culture. Yes, all of those are contributing factors, however, at the core of the issue… if someone tells you that if you continue to go outside in a thunderstorm with a lightning rod in your hand, you’re not going to get struck by lightning, but you’re going to increase your odds of it. There’s nobody that’s engaged in any level of regular criminal activity that isn’t aware of the risks associated with it… one of them being the police. Is it right? Hell no. No one should have to fear a rogue cop being a dick. It doesn’t matter what they look like, and it isn’t JUST one color who has to look over their shoulder and it isn’t JUST one color behind the badge that behaves like Chauvin’s punk ass. To be clear, the only people whose lives hold no value in my eyes are rapists, child molesters, murderers, and people like that. Those are the only people I wouldn’t flinch over a cop taking out, and I’ll take that strike on my character every day if that makes me the bad guy for believing it… but if someone were to touch any of our children inappropriately or take the life of one of us, all I’d wish for them is death so they couldn’t hurt another.

In regards to that entire conversation back then, I would wholeheartedly agree with reprimanding me if I were making personal attacks against people. I would wholeheartedly support reprimanding me if I baselessly blamed Floyd for his own death, and not supported his role in his death by his actions leading up to it. Lightning rod in a thunderstorm. He knew better, as an adult, as a man who had been in the system repeatedly, and as a man who grew up a black boy in America. He is not responsible for his death, Chauvin very clearly is and has been convicted of it. That’s not up for debate. What is up for debate is what I questioned… “could this have been prevented?” Yes. On many fronts, one of which is if Floyd had never been in that position passing off counterfeit currency to begin with, another if cops like Chauvin were weeded out with the quality control measures that SHOULD have flagged him through Internal Affairs and had him taken off of the force, and the final being if people weren’t prejudice… which is simply intangible, because people are always going to have apprehension about those different than them. Case in point… the apprehension about my beliefs and I following that thread because they differ from the popular consensus.

You and anyone else that want to revisit that discussion publicly or in private are welcome to, because I feel a lot of the points I was attempting to make were overlooked in the heat of the discussion. A lot of people read what I wrote, saw red, and immediately interpreted it as victim-blaming or boot-licking, and anyone that knows me personally would attest to that being the furthest thing from the truth. If anything, I play devil’s advocate to a fault. At no point did I, or do I, want to have a negative interaction with any of y’all. That’s why, despite being insulted and having my words misrepresented, I still refused to get shitty with anyone, I just held my ground and kept defending my point. I still don’t take any of it personally, because I know that it’s just one of those perspective things that would make much more sense to people exposed to certain things. I can’t fault any of y’all for not seeing it the way I do, and like I told @A Subcontrabass Sax privately when that all went down… I’m glad y’all don’t see it the way I do, and I’m glad to be in the minority of people here that have had to do that kind of risk assessment with their own life. Having the perspective I have comes from decades of watching everyone I grew up with flow in and out of the system, toe the line between good and bad, moral and immoral, whatever the case may be. I will readily admit that I’m jaded, but that doesn’t mean I want bad things to happen to people… I just recognize that bad things happen regardless.

Trust and believe, it sucks being that guy that has to sit back and reflect on a thread like that and re-read it and wonder if I’m really that callous, but it also sucks being that guy that has seen so much shit that I break those kind of stories down and ask myself difficult questions like “did he REALLY do all he could have done to avoid this?” Where I’m from, I’ve seen the truly innocent, children burned alive in their sleep, because their parents tipped police off about drug dealers selling shit on their block. Beyond that, nationally, we’ve seen an autistic kid killed by police and regularly see stories of folks like that abused by police. That’s despicable and deserves protests in the streets. However, in regards to Floyd… that should have never happened, but for more than one reason. The autistic kid couldn’t help his behavior, but the cops could have handled it differently. In my opinion, saying that Chauvin shouldn’t have still been on the force, should have handled it differently, pointed out the insecurity in his eyes while attempting to restrain Floyd, and pointed out that Floyd should have never been passing off counterfeit currency to begin with is no different, and in no way blaming Floyd for his own death… just the decision that he made resulting in his presence at the setting of the incident leading up to his death. There is a big distinction between the two examples… and that distinction is the autistic kid couldn’t help what was going on, but Floyd could have avoided the entire situation by not using counterfeit money. That, in essence, is the core of my argument.

So, yeah… to wrap this up, I’m sorry that what I said rubbed people the wrong way back then, and I hope this doesn’t reignite anything now. My only intent in addressing this is to try to make amends with people that have felt differently about me since that discussion, because I have no desire to have internet beef with anybody. Y’all are good people in my book, and exchanging perspectives can only help all of us learn and grow. I get how some of my opinions come across, but I encourage y’all to look past that knee-jerk reaction and think about it from a perspective that isn’t your own. It isn’t pretty, but it’s not supposed to be, it’s an observation on the missteps of all sides that led to something terrible… countless lives changed over bad decisions.

 

[TD]

Can I be honest and say that I feel like this is becoming overcomplicated?

For me - it's common sense when you cross a line. I understand topics get passionate, but when you openly bash a member here or even a non-member, it should be expected that not everyone will agree.

I think personal attacks need to stay out and that's my main thing - you can debate someone else's opinion but do it tastefully and with respect.

I think that's what Kelly's trying to say with the don't be a dick thing, it should be common sense when your behaviour is crossing a line.

If you're ever in a spot where you're thinking "should I say it?", the answer is probably you shouldn't. There's the mantra of write it down but throw it out and that concept can be used.

In terms of interpretation, I don't think we have to explicitly outline what in every way is against the rules. It's impossible. That's why we have a mod team who can interpret rules, hell, other members can step in and tell someone to chill.

It doesn't neee to get this complicated.

 

[Ants!]

I’m not getting into that can of worms. I’m just saying that the old rules of no flaming and no trolling were enough. They were specific without being overly wordy and they did the job.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

Alright so the deal for CE (since that's probably the only forum where this would come up) is that I'll be issuing temporary thread bans when people cross the line, and permanent thread bans when they continue to cross it after coming back to the thread.

When people make claims about events, I expect a source of some sort (provide a link, or a screenshot with a link as well) rather than just writing it out yourself as if it's a known fact.

 

[Kat]

I don’t agree with yalls interpretation of what makes somebody a dick.

For example: somebody who’s victim-blaming in every police shooting? Not breaking the rule at all, even though they are 1000 times the bigger dick than the person who calls them out on it a little heatedly (understandably). Which is why I think I’m better off just not engaging in those topics at all.

Having what you feel is a shitty opinion isn't being a dick. It's possible to call out something as a shitty opinion also without being a dick. Mark and I got into that policing topic once, and we vehemently disagreed, but I feel we were both civil about it, despite our strong and diametrically opposed opinions.

 

[Kat]

When people make claims about events, I expect a source of some sort (provide a link, or a screenshot with a link as well) rather than just writing it out yourself as if it's a known fact.

What will you do if somebody claims something without a source?

 

[Mark]

Can I be honest and say that I feel like this is becoming overcomplicated?

For me - it's common sense when you cross a line. I understand topics get passionate, but when you openly bash a member here or even a non-member, it should be expected that not everyone will agree.

I think personal attacks need to stay out and that's my main thing - you can debate someone else's opinion but do it tastefully and with respect.

I think that's what Kelly's trying to say with the don't be a dick thing, it should be common sense when your behaviour is crossing a line.

If you're ever in a spot where you're thinking "should I say it?", the answer is probably you shouldn't. There's the mantra of write it down but throw it out and that concept can be used.

In terms of interpretation, I don't think we have to explicitly outline what in every way is against the rules. It's impossible. That's why we have a mod team who can interpret rules, hell, other members can step in and tell someone to chill.

It doesn't neee to get this complicated.

It is, and that’s ultimately why when writing the rules we leaned heavy into the whole “golden rule” thing for people to treat each other the way that they want to be treated… the conditions in which that applies seem to be contended, though. Rather than just being respectful because it costs nothing extra, some choose to put forth the effort to be disrespectful because their views don’t align, and those are the ones that end up derailing discussions.

It seems like more people are in favor of the simpler approach, which is what I’d personally prefer. So, we need to iron out enforcement from the way it’s looking, and go from there.

What options should we go for?

First step would obviously be a warning, as long as it’s something that warrants a “hey, knock it off” and not something more, at which case it’s up to the mod’s full discretion. We have mods to oversee specific forums for a reason, and as @A Subcontrabass Sax outlined above, each forum will have different rules based on the content that will require different enforcement.

Beyond permanent thread bans, we could also impose forum bans disallowing individuals access to entire forums, like the old forum blocks. They could be actively enforced, or individuals can request their access be restricted to specific forums they find offensive content in.

Having what you feel is a shitty opinion isn't being a dick. It's possible to call out something as a shitty opinion also without being a dick. Mark and I got into that policing topic once, and we vehemently disagreed, but I feel we were both civil about it, despite our strong and diametrically opposed opinions.

That’s because neither one of us made the expectation of the other to agree with our positions, and we respected the fact that our differences led to different outlooks, and in the end… we shared a lot of common ground (training, mental health resources, over-policing, etc.) but from drastically different perspectives.

 

[TD]

I do think the idea of warning an individual specifically should be the first step before any thread ban, especially if they've never been thread banned before. I also don't think it should be a generic "hey guys keep it civil" but directed specifically at a person, whether by tagging them in the thread or by DM.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

What will you do if somebody claims something without a source?

Ask them to provide a source. If they don't then I'll personally refuse to respond to anything else they have to offer and recommend the thread do the same.

If you can't provide a source for something and don't want to say "this is my opinion" as part of it then you shouldn't be stating it as a fact. If you provide a source that turns out to be shit, at least we know you didn't just make something up out of thin air.