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.

 

[Mark]

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.

Agreed. And as it stands, no one is above reproach. As we’ve seen while fucking around with the forum software… even staff can be reported. I’d much rather see us make use of the reporting system to keep a semi-public record of infractions simply to avoid that “nobody told me” or “I didn’t see the post warning me” debate that’ll inevitably happen when someone conveniently ignores a warning and continues to be problematic. It’ll make justifying further action easier because all we’d have all the proof justifying the action right there in one spot.

 

[Ants!]

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.

I vehemently disagree. If I think it’s OK to rape people, am I not a dick or do I just have a shitty opinion? Sometimes it’s the same thing.

In any case, my point is that saying “don’t be a dick“ is a vague and stupid and interpretive rule.

 

[canadaguy]

I think the idea of "don't be a dick" is moreso about how you go about debating your point, less about if your point makes you a dick.

 

[Kat]

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.

Sounds reasonable to me, and I hope more than just you will do so.

I vehemently disagree. If I think it’s OK to rape people, am I not a dick or do I just have a shitty opinion? Sometimes it’s the same thing.

In any case, my point is that saying “don’t be a dick“ is a vague and stupid and interpretive rule.

I gave this some thought after I responded to your post, and I have to agree with you to some extent. Some opinions are too shitty. I actually have had a conversation with a guy who claimed it was impossible to rape your wife/that you should be allowed to force them. While we kept it as civil as a conversation like that could possibly be, I wouldn't want it allowed here.

I dunno, that's a tough one.

 

[Smacktard]

I vehemently disagree. If I think it’s OK to rape people, am I not a dick or do I just have a shitty opinion? Sometimes it’s the same thing.

In any case, my point is that saying “don’t be a dick“ is a vague and stupid and interpretive rule.

Undeniably a shitty opinion, but
1. How realistic is it that someone would take that stance
2. If someone does, would you demand mods ban them?

I'd rather be able to call them a cunt and then just ignore them

 

[Raine]

I vehemently disagree. If I think it’s OK to rape people, am I not a dick or do I just have a shitty opinion? Sometimes it’s the same thing.

In any case, my point is that saying “don’t be a dick“ is a vague and stupid and interpretive rule.

More simply: Some things aren't "opinions," they're idiotic beliefs. Calling them opinions and saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion is functionally a form of gaslighting, and this is further exacerbated by "agreeing to disagree" whereupon certain elements want to paint the picture that two opposing ideas are both equally valid opinions to have.

...But this is all very philosophical and I don't have time for a full rant. Also hopefully none of this ever applies to GWF or I'll volunteer as first person to get banned by ripping someone a new asshole myself.

 

[Kat]

Undeniably a shitty opinion, but
1. How realistic is it that someone would take that stance
2. If someone does, would you demand mods ban them?

I'd rather be able to call them a cunt and then just ignore them

I think his point is if we have the rule "don't be a dick" then that "opinion" would be in violation of the rules. If you don't want to outright prohibit that behavior, then we shouldn't have the rule "don't be a dick".

I'm going to have to agree with him. If we're going to distill this into one sentence, let's make it "attack the arguments made, not the person."

 

[Ants!]

Guys… “no flaming”, “no trolling”.

 

[Kat]

Guys… “no flaming”, “no trolling”.

Yeah, why reinvent the wheel.

 

[Kat]

Maybe just "no flaming". Trolling can be hard to tell, it depends a lot on intent.

 

[TD]

Gonna be honest - no flaming and no trolling falls under the same idea as don't be a dick to me and I honestly don't see a real difference.

Again, this is being overthought too much. I don't think we need to focus too much on the specific term we are using.

It's rather obvious when someone is being egregious.

 

[Smacktard]

Guys… “no flaming”, “no trolling”.

I'm fine with this

 

[Fool's Requiem]

I'm not a fan of the "no trolling" rule. There was a reason they got rid of it late in GW's life. It leads to "I don't like what you said, therefore you must be trolling" situations or instances in which people troll to be funny. There is a LOT of trolling that goes on in this forum.

If someone says "I think Russia is right to invade Ukraine" they can be assumed they're either crazy or just messin'.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

I'm not a fan of the "no trolling" rule. There was a reason they got rid of it late in GW's life. It leads to "I don't like what you said, therefore you must be trolling" situations or instances in which people troll to be funny. There is a LOT of trolling that goes on in this forum.

If someone says "I think Russia is right to invade Ukraine" they can be assumed they're either crazy or just messin'.

Don't worry, I'll be the arbiter of trolling. I'm familiar enough with The Art of the Suck to know it when I see it.

 

[Ants!]

I'm not a fan of the "no trolling" rule. There was a reason they got rid of it late in GW's life. It leads to "I don't like what you said, therefore you must be trolling" situations or instances in which people troll to be funny. There is a LOT of trolling that goes on in this forum.

If someone says "I think Russia is right to invade Ukraine" they can be assumed they're either crazy or just messin'.

It can be left up to Alu’s discretion, I trust him.

 

[Advocate for Ants! Mouth]

It can be left up to Alu’s discretion, I trust him.

The Suck Tsar is in the building.

 

[Ants!]

I challenge you all to find anybody more experienced.

 

[Raine]

I'm not a fan of the "no trolling" rule. There was a reason they got rid of it late in GW's life. It leads to "I don't like what you said, therefore you must be trolling" situations or instances in which people troll to be funny. There is a LOT of trolling that goes on in this forum.

The irony with that, besides the administration just not wanting to deal with people's shit anymore, is that concern trolling itself killed the no trolling rule. People hemming and hawing about "But what even is trolling? It's sooo nebulous and could mean anything!" specifically to muddy the waters - and still got banned for trolling after the official removal of the no trolling rule anyway.

No Trolling has always meant "Do Not Argue in Bad Faith." It's simple and to the point: If you're having a discussion or debate with someone, then actually engage with them. Don't move goalposts, don't bait them with non sequiturs or cherry picked phrasings/data citations, say your piece and be done with it. Don't play Devil's Advocate just for the sake of doing so, without saying that's what you're doing up front, and then change tune later when the water starts to boil. Stuff like that, y'know?

Again, this is being overthought too much. I don't think we need to focus too much on the specific term we are using.

But generally this.

Snapple probably should've just received formal punishment or copped a ban outright when he started dunking on/attacking Dean for zero goddamn reason and with zero provocation, regardless of anything that may have happened in the Hamas thread. Making rules for future potential problems from potential ill-mannered strangers is... I get the desire to warn people of what to expect up front, but I'm not sure it's actually necessary. Besides this thread being good for metrics and whatnot, that is.

Undeniably a shitty opinion, but
1. How realistic is it that someone would take that stance
2. If someone does, would you demand mods ban them?

Spoiler: You know what you're getting if you click on this.

1) They're not going to phrase it like that, and it's actually extraordinarily common which is probably why Ants! chose that instead of something more "innocuous" like Flat Earth.
1A) Age of consent. People will argue with you until they're blue in the face - preferably from you throttling them - that, say, 18 is too western-centric and But Acktually... some countries have Age of Consent set to 13 and that's totally okay. All of those people should 1) FUCKING DIE and 2) not be on this forum. Zero exceptions.
1B) "Rape" isn't actually a universally well-defined thing, and people actually don't agree on its usage. To... blood-boiling degrees.
1B.1) The UK's legal definition of rape in the Year of Baphomet 2023 is phrased in such a way that women people without a penis can't rape others. Like, literally, rape is defined as putting your penis into their orifices. I'm sure I've heard of other highly questionable definitions in other countries but I'm trying very hard to not make this a novel!
1B.2) Marital Rape is still a relatively new concept, and many countries aren't on board with it. Similarly, even in countries where it's recognized as what the fuck it is (that is, rape!?), religious fuckwads, misogynist movements (MGTOW, MRA, PUA, et al) and general shitstain conservatives push back against the notion that
1B.2.1) YOU DO NOT FUCKING OWN YOUR FUCKING SPOUSE JESUS CHRIST WHAT THE SHIT IS WRONG WITH SOME PEOPLE
1B.2.2) You are not owed sex from your spouse, generally, at any point, ever. No means no. This is doubled down upon by lack of or insufficient amounts of sexual intercourse being a "legitimate" excuse to file for divorce. (Which, I mean, is a bit good and a bit bad depending on how you look at that in a vacuum.)

Article:

Divorce from a Sexless Marriage
In some jurisdictions, a sexless marriage can be grounds for divorce. This is often referred to in legal terms as “alienation of affection” or “constructive abandonment.” These terms imply that by withholding sexual intimacy, one spouse is depriving the other of a fundamental marital right. However, the laws regarding this issue vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, and it’s important to consult with a legal professional to understand the potential implications and outcomes of divorce on these grounds.

Source: https://familytexas.com/sexless-marriage-and-divorce/

2) I would probably instead demand one of the admins give me their IP address and everyone collectively agree to look the other way and let nature take its course. Banning should be the least of their worries in this specific scenario.

 

[Kat]

Spoiler: You know what you're getting if you click on this.

1) They're not going to phrase it like that, and it's actually extraordinarily common which is probably why Ants! chose that instead of something more "innocuous" like Flat Earth.
1A) Age of consent. People will argue with you until they're blue in the face - preferably from you throttling them - that, say, 18 is too western-centric and But Acktually... some countries have Age of Consent set to 13 and that's totally okay. All of those people should 1) FUCKING DIE and 2) not be on this forum. Zero exceptions.
1B) "Rape" isn't actually a universally well-defined thing, and people actually don't agree on its usage. To... blood-boiling degrees.
1B.1) The UK's legal definition of rape in the Year of Baphomet 2023 is phrased in such a way that women people without a penis can't rape others. Like, literally, rape is defined as putting your penis into their orifices. I'm sure I've heard of other highly questionable definitions in other countries but I'm trying very hard to not make this a novel!
1B.2) Marital Rape is still a relatively new concept, and many countries aren't on board with it. Similarly, even in countries where it's recognized as what the fuck it is (that is, rape!?), religious fuckwads, misogynist movements (MGTOW, MRA, PUA, et al) and general shitstain conservatives push back against the notion that
1B.2.1) YOU DO NOT FUCKING OWN YOUR FUCKING SPOUSE JESUS CHRIST WHAT THE SHIT IS WRONG WITH SOME PEOPLE
1B.2.2) You are not owed sex from your spouse, generally, at any point, ever. No means no. This is doubled down upon by lack of or insufficient amounts of sexual intercourse being a "legitimate" excuse to file for divorce. (Which, I mean, is a bit good and a bit bad depending on how you look at that in a vacuum.)

Article:

Divorce from a Sexless Marriage
In some jurisdictions, a sexless marriage can be grounds for divorce. This is often referred to in legal terms as “alienation of affection” or “constructive abandonment.” These terms imply that by withholding sexual intimacy, one spouse is depriving the other of a fundamental marital right. However, the laws regarding this issue vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, and it’s important to consult with a legal professional to understand the potential implications and outcomes of divorce on these grounds.

Source: https://familytexas.com/sexless-marriage-and-divorce/

2) I would probably instead demand one of the admins give me their IP address and everyone collectively agree to look the other way and let nature take its course. Banning should be the least of their worries in this specific scenario.

Spoiler: you'll probably be happier not reading this

I have personally been physically in a room with two grown, adult, married men who looked me in my eyes and argued with me about whether it was possible to rape your wife. Their argument was you shouldn't marry someone if you don't want to have sex with them. While I do agree you shouldn't expect someone to be in a monogamous relationship with you and then consistently refuse to sleep with them, that's obviously not a justification for rape. It was a decade ago and still makes my blood boil and stomach turn.

The kicker is one of the guys had just married my (then) sister-in-law, and I was in town for their wedding. Luckily they got divorced within the year; I hope it's because she stuck something up his bum against his will.

Bonus: my then husband was present and silent for this entire conversation. We never discussed it afterwards, and he never ever pressured me to do anything, but it always made me wonder about him.

Fucking gross AF.

 

[Mark]

I'm not a fan of the "no trolling" rule. There was a reason they got rid of it late in GW's life. It leads to "I don't like what you said, therefore you must be trolling" situations or instances in which people troll to be funny. There is a LOT of trolling that goes on in this forum.

If someone says "I think Russia is right to invade Ukraine" they can be assumed they're either crazy or just messin'.

Agreed, but I think the context outlined here doesn’t really include that kind of trolling, so I think everyone should be safe on that front. You messing with me about this or that doesn’t equate to you calling me a piece of shit because of an opinion I have.

The irony with that, besides the administration just not wanting to deal with people's shit anymore, is that concern trolling itself killed the no trolling rule. People hemming and hawing about "But what even is trolling? It's sooo nebulous and could mean anything!" specifically to muddy the waters - and still got banned for trolling after the official removal of the no trolling rule anyway.

Personally, it’s not a matter of not wanting to deal with anyone’s shit, it’s more about doing what we can to avoid the same pitfalls we’ve fallen in before. Yeah, there’s something understandably frustrating about potentially reiterating the same points you had to make to people when they were decades younger, but that’s nothing different from the real world.

Snapple probably should've just received formal punishment or copped a ban outright when he started dunking on/attacking Dean for zero goddamn reason and with zero provocation, regardless of anything that may have happened in the Hamas thread. Making rules for future potential problems from potential ill-mannered strangers is... I get the desire to warn people of what to expect up front, but I'm not sure it's actually necessary. Besides this thread being good for metrics and whatnot, that is.

That’s the wild thing… he was told to chill it out without a “formal punishment”. He was fishing for a reaction then, just like he was fishing for a reaction in the more recent thread. I shouldn’t have to wave around a little banner under my name or threats of account restrictions to get someone to speak to someone else with some goddamn respect. He wouldn’t walk up to someone and speak to them like that without worrying about losing teeth, so he should take the same approach to folks online. If he is the kinda guy that’ll talk that kinda shit to someone in the real world because of their opinion on an actor/wrestler, that’s on him and one day that’ll catch up to him. Either way… I’m not gonna sit here and trash talk him. He’s not banned. He’s welcome to log in and post anytime he wants. As long as he treat people the way he’d like to be treated. It isn’t like anyone had a problem with him until he started insulting people for whatever topic of the day.

Spoiler: you'll probably be happier not reading this

I have personally been physically in a room with two grown, adult, married men who looked me in my eyes and argued with me about whether it was possible to rape your wife. Their argument was you shouldn't marry someone if you don't want to have sex with them. While I do agree you shouldn't expect someone to be in a monogamous relationship with you and then consistently refuse to sleep with them, that's obviously not a justification for rape. It was a decade ago and still makes my blood boil and stomach turn.

The kicker is one of the guys had just married my (then) sister-in-law, and I was in town for their wedding. Luckily they got divorced within the year; I hope it's because she stuck something up his bum against his will.

Bonus: my then husband was present and silent for this entire conversation. We never discussed it afterwards, and he never ever pressured me to do anything, but it always made me wonder about him.

Fucking gross AF.

This came in while I was typing. People like this disgust me, and it’s unfortunate that you had to be subjected to that kind of idiotic thinking. I promise you… there are some of us out there that are relatively sensible and mostly harmless. As a “normal” (not like those two) dude, I’ll speak up and say that those guys are typically the last ones to get laid… willingly. They spend more time scheming than actually putting forth the effort to be a decent person, and make it extremely difficult for normal guys to be taken seriously. I could rattle off some horror stories I’ve heard from women, and yours definitely sits right in the middle of some of them. Others… I’m not even comfortable retelling because of how sick some dudes are.

 

[Raine]

you'll probably be happier not reading this

It was true.

I immediately pounded the table after reading just the first sentence. lol

Spoiler: But whyyy

Their argument was you shouldn't marry someone if you don't want to have sex with them.

This is always the crux of their argument I find, and it's like... sure, maybe, but also maybe she doesn't want to have sex all the time? Or specifically just in that very brief window, and doing it against her will is obviously not the answer to this alleged problem?!?

Bonus: my then husband was present and silent for this entire conversation. We never discussed it afterwards, and he never ever pressured me to do anything, but it always made me wonder about him.

Yeah, shit sucks. Like I get not everyone's wired for pushing back or making a scene or whatever, but leaving that hang is no good.

Glad he didn't do anything untoward at least!

 

[Kat]

I promise you… there are some of us out there that are relatively sensible and mostly harmless.

I know! I wholeheartedly believe most people (regardless of gender) are generally decent. But yeah, don't underestimate how shitty some people can be.

 

[Mark]

I know! I wholeheartedly believe most people (both men and women) are generally decent. But yeah, don't underestimate how shitty some people can be.

Absolutely, there are some horrible people out there regardless of what’s between their legs. I wish that I had as optimistic of an outlook as you, but my encounters with decent folks have only really begun to stack up in the more recent years, so I’m trying to play catch-up and hope that at some point… I’ll be able to say that I know more decent people than I do.

 

[Raine]

Personally, it’s not a matter of not wanting to deal with anyone’s shit, it’s more about doing what we can to avoid the same pitfalls we’ve fallen in before. Yeah, there’s something understandably frustrating about potentially reiterating the same points you had to make to people when they were decades younger, but that’s nothing different from the real world.

Oh yeah, I feel you. I think it was specifically the tail end of @Ben's stint where the No Trolling rule got nuked? That feels about right. Basically the height of malicious trolling, in that "OMG So Randumb" period of the internet, and then people obfuscating what trolling meant so they could have free reign to do as they pleased.

My super hazy memory is that most of the mods and like basically all of the upper staff were over it at that point and just let go so they could spend less time being... trolled...

 

[Mark]

Oh yeah, I feel you. I think it was specifically the tail end of @Ben's stint where the No Trolling rule got nuked? That feels about right. Basically the height of malicious trolling, in that "OMG So Randumb" period of the internet, and then people obfuscating what trolling meant so they could have free reign to do as they pleased.

My super hazy memory is that most of the mods and like basically all of the upper staff were over it at that point and just let go so they could spend less time being... trolled...

We definitely still had trolling rules when I was around… but there were thousands of trolls on the forums at that point.

There was definitely a lot of trolling going on from staff back then, though. It was entertaining.

 

[TD]

Spoiler: you'll probably be happier not reading this

I have personally been physically in a room with two grown, adult, married men who looked me in my eyes and argued with me about whether it was possible to rape your wife. Their argument was you shouldn't marry someone if you don't want to have sex with them. While I do agree you shouldn't expect someone to be in a monogamous relationship with you and then consistently refuse to sleep with them, that's obviously not a justification for rape. It was a decade ago and still makes my blood boil and stomach turn.

The kicker is one of the guys had just married my (then) sister-in-law, and I was in town for their wedding. Luckily they got divorced within the year; I hope it's because she stuck something up his bum against his will.

Bonus: my then husband was present and silent for this entire conversation. We never discussed it afterwards, and he never ever pressured me to do anything, but it always made me wonder about him.

Fucking gross AF.

Sorry what the fuck?
Wow. Yeah there's opinions and there's just being stupid.

Snapple probably should've just received formal punishment or copped a ban outright when he started dunking on/attacking Dean for zero goddamn reason and with zero provocation

Oh Snapple came out attacking someone? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I had several altercations with him in OG GW.

 

[Mark]

Oh Snapple came out attacking someone? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I had several altercations with him in OG GW.

Once over a wrestler being fired, and then in the Israel/Hamas thread he just dropped by to let me know how he feels about me or something. I dunno. I just press buttons here.

 

[TD]

...wow. I guess some people never change. I know you said you won't dunk on people, but when a guy has over 10 years to change and won't then I wouldn't have your restraint.

 

[Crystal]

Once over a wrestler being fired, and then in the Israel/Hamas thread he just dropped by to let me know how he feels about me or something. I dunno. I just press buttons here.

No no no no, you do far more than press buttons here. You can Cole are the sex appeal to counter my nerdiness so we balance out to be a well rounded team

 

[shortkut]

 

[Mark]

No no no no, you do far more than press buttons here. You can Cole are the sex appeal to counter my nerdiness so we balance out to be a well rounded team

I want whatever drugs you’re on.

 

[Crystal]

I want whatever drugs you’re on.

 

[Mark]

Because that’s what this forum needs. Me with tits and mood swings.

 

[Crystal]

Because that’s what this forum needs. Me with tits and mood swings.

Not gonna' lie, the tits are fun

 

[Ants!]

Yeah…Stalin/Snapple never had a filter. Like, ever. Lol

 

[Mark]

Yeah…Stalin/Snapple never had a filter. Like, ever. Lol

That whole “no filter” thing might work for teenage girls that use curse words to look cute, but it doesn’t fly in the face of grown ass adults that are trying to have a serious discussion about global issues. Yeah, I get that opinions got heated, but he wasn’t even engaged in the discussion to begin with. He simply showed up to try to be the match that ignited more of a shit show, he wasn’t bringing anything of value to the conversation that wasn’t already present, just more accelerant.

 

[Ants!]

I’m not praising him by any means. I agree with him on most issues but he will definitely drag a discussion down.

 

[Mark]

I’m not praising him by any means. I agree with him on most issues but he will definitely drag a discussion down.

My bad, I wasn’t implying that you were. I wasn’t sure if you caught what went down in that thread, so I just gave a rundown of his involvement in it from what a spectator would have seen. There were a lot of heated exchanges, but they were typically wordy or short but in rapid succession. His might not have stood out because of how sporadic and brief they were.

 

[Ben]

I fell off for a while so don't really have context as to what specifically went down (aside from reading through this thread after a notification popped on the mention.)

I do find myself thinking the majority of the "cite your sources" rules could be condensed to "do not intentionally mislead/deceive/gas-light other members" or similar. It's potentially going to hamper discussion to expect everyone to include APA format citations on every quote, but less extreme to prohibit pushing clearly bullshit narratives. It's really in the same vein as the spirit of the "no trolling" rule; don't fuck with other members and cause problems for others just because you can.

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.

Oh yeah, I feel you. I think it was specifically the tail end of @Ben's stint where the No Trolling rule got nuked? That feels about right. Basically the height of malicious trolling, in that "OMG So Randumb" period of the internet, and then people obfuscating what trolling meant so they could have free reign to do as they pleased.

My super hazy memory is that most of the mods and like basically all of the upper staff were over it at that point and just let go so they could spend less time being... trolled...

I've blocked out as much of that period of my life as possible, largely in part because of these things. Having a dozen people seeming to make it their sole purpose to infuriate you is taxing. Eventually I just gave up and let the irreverent SomethingAwful-FYAD/4chan mentality win.

Finding the balance between letting people have freedom of speech and keeping control of the community vibe is complicated, but when the intent is to foster a healthy space for everyone to have their voice, the concept of trolling really has no value. Friendly jabs or the occasional scathing bon mot are one thing, but communication with the explicit intent of _angering_ another user has no place in any public setting. It's the same "you wouldn't say that to someone's face in person" position Mark expressed, and it'd be healthy for the internet in general if people didn't lose that perspective. Too many people think they're invincible behind their keyboard.

I'm all for rules against hateful/racist/demeaning comments, though. Anyone who'd feel slighted and oppressed by losing their privilege to say such things doesn't belong in a healthy community to begin with.

 

[Mark]

I fell off for a while so don't really have context as to what specifically went down (aside from reading through this thread after a notification popped on the mention.)

I do find myself thinking the majority of the "cite your sources" rules could be condensed to "do not intentionally mislead/deceive/gas-light other members" or similar. It's potentially going to hamper discussion to expect everyone to include APA format citations on every quote, but less extreme to prohibit pushing clearly bullshit narratives. It's really in the same vein as the spirit of the "no trolling" rule; don't fuck with other members and cause problems for others just because you can.

I keep thinking back to the points made about the sources, and looking through most of the CE threads… they already seem to be adequately cited with local news sources at the minimum, and national/international sources for those articles that applies to. So, I think, at the minimum, adding a mention in the guidelines about providing sources when posting certain threads.

I've blocked out as much of that period of my life as possible, largely in part because of these things. Having a dozen people seeming to make it their sole purpose to infuriate you is taxing. Eventually I just gave up and let the irreverent SomethingAwful-FYAD/4chan mentality win.

Couple that with being a teenager/young adult with plenty of shit going on beyond the screen? Recipe for “fuck this, I’m out” without so much as a goodbye. Been there. A lot of people saw what we did and had a problem with it, it was unavoidable because of the scale of the community. Those small cliques that would make it a mission to fuck with someone? They were the worst because they were comprised of people you were either cool with at some point or on the receiving end of administrative action and had a beef with you. That’s probably why we also had so many anti-cliques and semi-arrogant personalities back then to contend with it, if we’re being honest. After a while… you get kinda used to the abusive nature of some content, so you just lean into it a little and have your own fun with it. You can’t be fucked if you’re doing the fucking or whatever the saying is.

Finding the balance between letting people have freedom of speech and keeping control of the community vibe is complicated, but when the intent is to foster a healthy space for everyone to have their voice, the concept of trolling really has no value. Friendly jabs or the occasional scathing bon mot are one thing, but communication with the explicit intent of _angering_ another user has no place in any public setting. It's the same "you wouldn't say that to someone's face in person" position Mark expressed, and it'd be healthy for the internet in general if people didn't lose that perspective. Too many people think they're invincible behind their keyboard.

Completely agree. Well said.

I'm all for rules against hateful/racist/demeaning comments, though. Anyone who'd feel slighted and oppressed by losing their privilege to say such things doesn't belong in a healthy community to begin with.

Exactly. Take that bullshit to Reddit, we don’t need it here.

 

[Mark]

Alright, I’ve went through the community guidelines post and made a couple edits to it to add the things we’ve discussed that weren’t already included.

Here it is.

Any thoughts or suggested edits?