Offensive Posting

[FM]

So, everyone in favor of banning GT say Aye! "Aye!"
LOL, just kidding.
I didn't take offense at his remark, as you said, I just don't think the term is appropriate due tot he fact that several OTHER Forum members endorsed that policy, and THEY might be offended by it, so I asked him to change the word. Just that. But he seems to have cooled down a bit. I'll save his trike-one for later, I already made it clear on that Topic he's been marked, so if he acts up again, I won't waste my time explaining everything again, I'll just go "strike one". Thanks, Kralik.

[DáinIronfoot]

Still kind of catching up here (and yes, I am as "back" as much I'm going to be in the near term now), but my initial thoughts line up mostly with Menace and Kralik.

I like the three-strike policy, but I think they should work loosly like this:

First strike is bascially a warning shot. "Hey, we're watching you closely now. Pipe down or else the next shot won't miss, m'kay?"

Second strike comes with a week-long ban attached. Obviously this one (and the next) would be only after some careful consideration and, if feasible, consulting with other mods/admins. IF feasible. If not...well, that's why you're a mod!

Third strike...well, I think you can guess what this equates to.

How's that sound? Obviously, if we agree to this, I'll update the official guidelines as such and make sure to direct attention to it.

[FM]

I think this way people may fire the first strike too soon... I'd like the personal PM'ing to be the second one, and the week-long ban to be the third. Also, I think it's ok to have MORE than a week-long ban sometimes. I think permanent bans are for serious issues, like urstinkenface, that tried to hack into other members' accounts. However, after the first one, every "second-strike" infraction would be another ban. So they can still curse if they want to, to make a point in a discussion (although the psot will be moderated anyway), but knowing it'll earn them a week-long ban.

[Thranduil]

I agree with FM - I don't think a permanent ban should be on the table here at all. At least, for the moment.

Thranduil

[AgentDrake]

I'm thinking maybe a few sub-strikes for the first one.

Ie:
1a - Note to the person that their manner of communication/their message is potentially offensive
1b - Warning that they're being watched
1c - Direct Threat of Temporary Ban for next substantial violation

2a - 1 week ban (or whatever length)
2b - 1 week ban (or whatever length)
2c...
2d...

3 - Serious Offense - Kick 'em off


Of course, depending on the degree of offense, we can skip over strikes. For example, if some chump is posting... erm... let us say "certain sorts of things" then they get banned right off the bat. On the other hand, if it's somethign along the lines of simply the manner of communication to which they are accustomed (like Kralik said about GT's use of "retarded.") Don't ban them for that, rather inform them that, within this community, that is considered offensive for reasons X, Y, and Z. If they're shown the logic and rationale behind our rules and STILL fight back, then that's different than some chump who doesn't realize that what they just said is offensive, because they're used to a system of communication where people don't get offended by that-- or, if they do, the offended don't take it seriously.

Part of the problem is also one of the great things about TLHH. We have a lot of people from lots of different areas, ages, et cetera. Diversity. Yipee. Problem comes in that basically, minuscule differences in culture (I mean, how different are we all really?), born not only from geographical location, but age, religion (or lack thereof), personal interests, et cetera. Within each of our groups, some things are considered offensive that aren't considered offensive by other groups. Why? Not necessarily because the other group is more politically correct, more stringent, more this or that. Simply because each group has miniscule dialectical and cultural differences. Some things don't mean the same to other people.

Ie, if I was to say, in some argument, that someone's point wasn't significant, that would, in my personal dialect, be saying that "your point, while perhaps valid, is not sufficient cause for disproving my overall argument; there is not a substantial impact upon my own argument." If someone else said it, they could be just as easily saying "That doesn't matter, so stop saying stupid and meaningless stuff." Or if GT says "retarded" he's not intending to insult -- even by etymological implication -- that retarded people are inferior beings, nor that Conor was mentally handicapped. The word, in his dictionary, simply does not have that meaning in context. Why? because he's younger, and has received the word as meaning two two distinct things.
I mean, if we really want to start chomping down on stuff that is offensive dependent on who's reading, as opposed to simply requesting a change of wording in certain instances, we need to remove all uses of the word "Man." Because I'm offended by it. (Actually, I'm not, but let's talk hypothetically.) Why? Because it's an Old English word meaning "human." No, not "male human." There was a different word for that: "were". (Yes, as in werewolf.) So don't tell me that the English language is sexist because it uses the word for an adult male human as the generic ("All people are MEN"); rather, it uses the generic word for human to refer to an adult male, as well (There are no WERES. MEN consist of WIFS and those other ones). Weres have been linguistically castrated, my good friends. Instead of weres, we're only Men. (Granted, we now have a new word for generic human: human. That's not the point!)

My point in this whole long spiel is to emphasize that we need to remember more than just clamping down on offenses. We need to remember that not all "offenses" are offenses. mm had that little incident where he accidentally offended TheJord with some ill-chosen wording asking on an apparently touchy subject. If someone says something that offends, try to figure if it's actually an offense, or if they're simply saying something that, to them, is entirely innocent. (At the same time, keep in mind that there are tons of things, even in cases like this, that are easily potent enough to warrant a warning/strike anyway.)

Anyway, there's my for the moment.

[SomeRandomDude]

I believe that permanent bans are a last resort. Almost never use it. Use up to a month ban if necessary, I doubt anyone's going to get banned, a month later do something stupid, get banned again, they'll probably learn their lesson.

I don't think we should codify the system, because everyone will be saying "oh hey, we get [a] free strike[s]!" And I think we could inform people via PM that a repeat offense will indeed equal a week ban. But adding it to the rules, none of that. Let's just kinda assemble a "mod only" guideline and sticky it in the White Council so that we're aware of the procedures, but nobody knows that we'll let the first time slide.

I kinda favor AD's system, though its extremely codified. Some things, though, transcend culture, like, calling someone a Nazi, openly defying the mods, etc. I think AD's system could be used for offensive language, see the whole cursing thread and stuff like that, British vernacular, etc, etc.

But with other offenses, like, GT's, I don't think this applies. He openly defied F_M and letting that slide is inviting chaos.

(BTW, AD, the whole were, wiff, human, man section makes NO SENSE at all, how is this relevant?)

[AgentDrake]

Some things, though, transcend culture, like, calling someone a Nazi, openly defying the mods, etc. I think AD's system could be used for offensive language, see the whole cursing thread and stuff like that, British vernacular, etc, etc.

But with other offenses, like, GT's, I don't think this applies. He openly defied F_M and letting that slide is inviting chaos.

Granted, calling someone a Nazi is way beyond acceptable boundaries. There's still limits on this sort of stuff. But keep in mind the context of GT's complaint. He's being modded a LOT (whether justified or not isn't the point... yet.) Assume that, in his mind, most/all of his "offenses" are harmless. Perhaps he thinks so because he's only 14, that's not the point (yet). He'd get understandably frustrated at that. In his mind, he probably sees this as exactly what he said: "enforcing [the mods'] own brand of morality." Is he right? Objectively, no. Was it well-stated? No. Was it justified? He probably thought so. In a LOT of circumstances, his comments most definitely needed modding, even with the tolerance-mindset I tried to argue above taken into account. Not all his comments, though. Retarded, for example. While I easily understand FM's response, I think he probably interpreted it as another attempt to "reform" him and enforce our own version of political correctness. Is that what we're trying to do? Certainly not. Though it could be incorrectly interpreted that way.

(BTW, AD, the whole were, wiff, human, man section makes NO SENSE at all, how is this relevant?)

The whole point there is that, to me, something entirely harmless offensive-wise to you guys could be incredibly offensive to me (it's not actually, but assume that it was). There's absolutely no reason why you would know that, or should have to use the now non-existent word "were" instead of "man" just so that I don't get ticked off. Point being that we shouldn't reform everyone's linguistic norms just so that they don't say something that someone might find offensive-- so long as it's something which isn't on a level of calling someone a Nazi, et cetera. Another example: GT said retarded. Harmless in his eyes, potentially offensive in other people's eyes. If its something fairly insignificant like "retarded" or "man", then it should just be left alone. We can (should?) engage in a discussion to determine whether or not it is insignificant, but if it isn't an actual problem, don't come cracking down on it.

As for GT's current state, justified or not, it requires some sort of response. That response need not be as severe as a ban, YET. We're still working out what to do about stuff like this, and honestly, that is another part of the problem. If members don't know the (approximate) boundaries, they'll get mad when they suddenly get figuratively yelled at for pushing them. I know we have the guidelines, but what's considered offensive? That's a problem.

[AgentDrake]

Okay, update.

I PM'ed GT, and here's the basic gist of the conversation. And yes, I am trying to play "good cop" here, so nobody get annoyed at my comments below, please. I also tried to keep to the general idea and POV of GT's response without actually quoting it, because I'm not gonna just reveal the PM he sent me. He can reasonably assume that if it was a PM, I'm not gonna expose it to the world, or whatever. So I paraphrased, and tried to present his point of view without using his own words. Mind you, they were (in this case) perfectly respectful.

ME:

Please read this PM. I dunno what anyone else has said, but I'm not going to tell you to "shape up" or anything. I've been informed that other mods have tried to PM you, and you didn't respond. I dunno if they're trying to chew you out via PM, or what. I'm just going to lay some stuff out for you that you probably don't realize. I've been arguing with a few other mods about some of this sort of stuff already, so for the record, I'm not on anybody's "side."

Just to let you know, there's some minor turmoil in the mod ranks about what constitutes "offensive" and what doesn't. Honestly, some of your posts that've been subject to modding I don't think needed the change (ie, your word "retarded" in the recent Gold topic.) On the other hand, please realize that the point IS NOT to enforce some sorta personal brand of morality.

Remember that, among other things, what some people consider offensive, many people don't. That might include you (or you might get offended by something which someone else does not consider offensive.) Please try to keep this in mind, not only while posting your own comments, but reading other people's. There are, of course, times when this doesn't really matter-- I don't care what the poster thinks, calling people Nazis isn't acceptable, even if the original poster thought it was fine. FM was worried that many people would be insulted by your use of the word "retarded" because they happened to, at some point, support the idea that you were attacking. I think that's being overly sensitive, which is a potential problem.

If you have complaints -- even legitimate ones (ESPECIALLY legitimate ones) -- please try to get them out there as respectfully as possible. If you can PM someone -- the mod in question, myself, Dain or Kralik, that would be a good way to keep the problem on a smaller scale, and keep things from boiling way over. I'm not saying that you HAVE to complain via PM, but in some cases, it might be a better idea. Use your judgment there. Anyway, as I was saying...
A legitimate complaint might start a whole new debate, but as long as you get it out there respectfully, it's far more likely to be recognized as legitimate. Your response, whether justified or not, arguing with FM about enforcing his own brand of morality was seen by certain people as "lashing out against the mods." Whether or not any "lashing out" was your intent or even whether or not it was justified, it is still a problem, in that allowing it (even if justified) encourages more lashing out (even if unjustified.) That's the second reason it's important to keep things extremely respectful in an argument of this sort; to prevent the whole forum from slowly degenerating. I will admit that certain mods aren't very good at that themselves, and potentially take things way too personally. Please forgive them this little flaw, and keep it in mind when responding to them-- they're not so much "lashing out" at you any more than they see you as lashing out at them (again, regardless of whether or not that's your actual intent, or whether or not it's justified). Escalation is a wonderful thing, isn't it? (sarcasm.)

Anyway, if you have any more problems where you consider mod activity to be unfair to you (or anyone else) please PM me about it, with an explanation of your problem and I'll do what I can. I've been told that people consider me a fairly impartial mod, so I'm gonna take a shot at calming down some of the recent conflicts. Due to real life, Dain and Kralik aren't especially active at the moment, but they do get on and will be more than impartial and fair as well. Plus, they'll be even more influential than me in getting an equally acceptable resolution to any problems.

Thank you,
     AgentDrake

GT (Paraphrased):

Complained because of the degree with which FM responded to the infraction. FM could have just asked me (GT) to change it, without (in GT's words) threatening banning and censoring. Also, "hardly something that would endear me to him or his use of his powers." Says that he was not trying to bash the mods in general, but just this particular instance of FM's hostile reaction.

Anyway, point here being:
He's 14. Mod him that way. Keep in mind that he's not going to respond in a particularly mature manner; it's sorta unreasonable for him to be expected to on some levels. Aside from this one, the most recent "offensive" incident I was able to find that he was part of was during the whole US Elections thing, in which I might add that several people were on edge. I strongly encourage giving him another week or so and see what, if anything, happens, before any action is taken. I'll be PMing him still, if needed. And if anyone does have to mod him, try to do it gently. If you have to be brutal about it, fine, but try to be nice. And BTW, try checking his latest posts for a few pages. He can be constructive.

Alright, I'll get off my soapbox, now.

[sickofpalantirs]

yeah...i think  we are letting him personally get too us...