The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: xasop on October 22, 2015, 11:13:20 AM
-
While I don't think flatearther43.2's posting was any great contribution to the forum, I do think the way he was handled highlights some deficiencies in the way we do moderation. In particular, being arbitrarily banned for spamming in CN, despite that being its stated purpose, was one of my main complaints about the other site. Regardless of whether we think flatearther43.2 was acting in good faith, the fact remains that we were unclear about what the consequences of his actions would be, which is always a slippery slope to get onto.
I don't necessarily think we need amendments to the rules; we can't (and shouldn't) be trying to cover every possible case. However, I do think it's important that people know where they stand before a ban is inflicted, and the warning log indicates that he was not given any warnings. This is especially important when he hasn't violated any particular rule.
This also isn't an isolated case; we lost Yaakov in a similar bout of inconsistent moderation (he'd had lesser punishments for more severe infractions in the past), and we're now unnecessarily splitting posts off (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3602.0). I'm not saying Saddam's post added anything to the thread, but there's a point at which moderation itself becomes more disruptive than the post being moderated, and I think that's a line we crossed here.
My original vision for this forum, and something I'd still like to see upheld, is that our members (or at least, the regulars who have established themselves in the community) are treated like adults and allowed to self-moderate. Yes, this will result in the occasional off-topic post, but babying them by splitting even the most minor infractions, and hitting them with bans without warning, are both more likely to breed resentment than to produce any long-term gains.
I do think that a good first step would be a public moderation log (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3019.0), although I'm currently travelling through Europe and won't have time to implement that for another few weeks. If someone else wants to have a go, feel free. Beyond that, maybe some manifesto changes are in order, but I'm really not sure of the best way to approach this.
I'm posting this in S&C (rather than the staff forum) because I'd like to open it up for public discussion right off the bat. This is everyone's community, and you should all have a say in how the forum should be run.
-
Yaakov was actually a contributing member, even if prone to bouts of personal attacks against members. FE43.2 was literally just abusing the forum, at least in my opinion. If it is our official stance that we don't care if that happens, even in the lower, then so be it. It would have been beneficial to have more feedback after the concern was previously raised (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3571.0). The ban was to stop the action in progress, which I have no idea how long it would have continued for. I could have warned him against that specific behavior in that specific instance, but I just wanted the behavior occurring at that time to cease. I made a choice, right or wrong, that I can live with given that nothing else was being done. I am happy to refrain from doing so in the future.
-
Yaakov was actually a contributing member, even if prone to bouts of personal attacks against members. FE43.2 was literally just abusing the forum, at least in my opinion. If it is our official stance that we don't care if that happens, even in the lower, then so be it. It would have been beneficial to have more feedback after the concern was previously raised (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3571.0). The ban was to stop the action in progress, which I have no idea how long it would have continued for. I could have warned him against that specific behavior in that specific instance, but I just wanted the behavior occurring at that time to cease. I made a choice, right or wrong, that I can live with given that nothing else was being done. I am happy to refrain from doing so in the future.
I agree, it would have been nice to have feedback earlier, although I was travelling when that thread was made and only had a short while a day to read FES.
In any case, to be clear, I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone. I just want to make FES as good as it can possibly be, and this seems like something that can be improved upon. I don't hold a grudge about anything that happened, I only want to learn from it.
I also want to clarify that I'm not saying he shouldn't have been banned, only that he should have been given the opportunity to correct his behaviour, knowing that the alternative consequence would be a ban. While I agree that it's no huge loss in this particular case, I think it's for the best that we hold everyone to the same standard of being informed of the consequences of their actions. We as admins and mods are only human, and our (potentially flawed) reading of someone's motives shouldn't get in the way of moderation.
-
I would like to know how the moderation in Yaakov's case was "inconsistent". We had discussed the possibility of placing him in the purgatory as a last resort way back in March, and I don't really see how purgatory is a harsher punishment than outright banning him as we had done in the past.
-
I would like to know how the moderation in Yaakov's case was "inconsistent". We had discussed the possibility of placing him in the purgatory as a last resort way back in March
We had, but I don't think a few offhand comments about atheists in an otherwise productive thread warrants a last resort. He had been contributing productively for a few months beforehand, so at the very least, we should have warned him once he started back on that road rather than immediately jumping to the most severe option.
and I don't really see how purgatory is a harsher punishment than outright banning him as we had done in the past.
Outright bans have expiration dates. He always knew when he could come back and return to posting. Purgatory is indefinite, and given that he was placed into purgatory for a relatively minor offence after a long period of good behaviour, it must have seemed impossible for him to redeem himself. I'm honestly not surprised he gave up and deleted his account, but I am disappointed, because he had just seemed to be getting under control at that point.
-
I would like to know how the moderation in Yaakov's case was "inconsistent". We had discussed the possibility of placing him in the purgatory as a last resort way back in March
We had, but I don't think a few offhand comments about atheists in an otherwise productive thread warrants a last resort. He had been contributing productively for a few months beforehand, so at the very least, we should have warned him once he started back on that road rather than immediately jumping to the most severe option.
and I don't really see how purgatory is a harsher punishment than outright banning him as we had done in the past.
Outright bans have expiration dates. He always knew when he could come back and return to posting. Purgatory is indefinite, and given that he was placed into purgatory for a relatively minor offence after a long period of good behaviour, it must have seemed impossible for him to redeem himself. I'm honestly not surprised he gave up and deleted his account, but I am disappointed, because he had just seemed to be getting under control at that point.
It wasn't for "offhand comments about atheists", it was for targeted insults much like what he had gotten punished for in the past. I don't believe there's any reason to warn him when he already knows what behaviour is expected from him, nor do I think several months of good behaviour counts for anything if he then goes and reverts back to the behaviour that has gotten him banned several times. That is not "getting under control". If he had the intention or willingness to change his ways, he wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over again. I told him that he'd be taken off purgatory if he showed improvement, and clearly he wasn't up to the task.
If anything, it would be inconsistent to arbitrarily place Yaakov back into a blank slate. It wasn't an issue with his previous bans, and if it had been, you should have raised concern about it. Perhaps you think it was too severe in retrospect since he ended up deleting his account? I couldn't have possibly predicted that, much like Junker couldn't have predicted that fe43 would delete his account. I don't think moderation should be based on guessing what the user's response might be.
-
Here's how you can fucking solve this: Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
-
Here's how you can fucking solve this: Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things? Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
-
Here's how you can fucking solve this: Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things? Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
Yes. No.
-
Here's how you can fucking solve this: Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things? Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
Yes. No.
Are you able provide supporting arguments for your stated needs and inabilities to self-host a website?
-
Here's how you can fucking solve this: Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
I mean, do you need to have a place where you can just spam things? Can't you just host your own web forum and then post to your heart's content?
Yes. No.
Are you able provide supporting arguments for your stated needs and inabilities to self-host a website?
No. No. Anymore questions before I report you for low content posting?
-
No. No. Anymore questions before I report you for low content posting?
Just one, then what I'm sure is going to be an ineffectual meandering.
Why do you need to post in a manor detrimental to others enjoyment?
I understand that the rules may seem like guidelines at times, this is because they are designed to create a culture of openness; as in not overbearing moderation or worrying about stepping on egg shells when posting. This latitude grants a user many freedoms to do many things, including some that may not be considered tasteful, socially healthy, or even good for the forum.
Just as in life, I can do many things that, upon reflection, may not be the best. For example, I can drink my own urine. I probably shouldn't drink it, but I can. It's not breaking any laws and I may even enjoy it. However, just as I can and shouldn't drink my own urine you both can and shouldn't try to exploit the maximum amount of rule bending that you can. It will lead to more rules being created and a stricter moderation team that will produce an antithetical culture to the one that drew you here in the first place.
-
A warning first was the thing to do, in my opinion. While I agree that stopping the posts immediately was a concern, there are other methods. Not sure how much power mods have, but can they set group permissions? Like, make pergatoy non-posting anywhere, just for an hour? Or lock posting in CN? Just enough to stop the behavior until the warning is visible?
-
It wasn't for "offhand comments about atheists", it was for targeted insults much like what he had gotten punished for in the past. I don't believe there's any reason to warn him when he already knows what behaviour is expected from him, nor do I think several months of good behaviour counts for anything if he then goes and reverts back to the behaviour that has gotten him banned several times. That is not "getting under control". If he had the intention or willingness to change his ways, he wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over again. I told him that he'd be taken off purgatory if he showed improvement, and clearly he wasn't up to the task.
Okay, perhaps my recollection of the incident is faulty. I don't want to get into an argument over a fait accompli, so I won't go back and check. What I will say is that the purpose of the warning wouldn't be to tell him that the behaviour is unacceptable -- he obviously already knows that -- but to tell him what the consequences will now be, given the ramp up in severity.
I think it is vitally important that everyone knows what the penalty for a particular offence will be prior to its implementation, regardless of who they are or what the offence is (barring very obviously obscene cases like posting CP). It may not have made any difference in the long run in Yaakov's case, but if we can maintain a high standard of consistent and transparent moderation even in such cases, we will engender a similarly high degree of confidence from posters.
If anything, it would be inconsistent to arbitrarily place Yaakov back into a blank slate. It wasn't an issue with his previous bans, and if it had been, you should have raised concern about it.
I'm not suggesting we give him a blank slate, only that we make it clear to him what the revised consequence is to be. By all means, at the first sign of trouble after that point, he should have been placed into Purgatory.
Perhaps you think it was too severe in retrospect since he ended up deleting his account? I couldn't have possibly predicted that, much like Junker couldn't have predicted that fe43 would delete his account. I don't think moderation should be based on guessing what the user's response might be.
I agree, and that's not the case at all.
-
Here's how you can fucking solve this: Just create a shitcan of s sub forum called shit dump or whatever the fuck, then I can pots HR tags till i fucking die.
-flatearther43.2
Probably the only thing this imbecile has ever written that I agree with.
CN has become the de facto dump for all that is crap on our site. But it also doubles as the only place you can truly be candid in views and expression without retribution of any sorts. You can be racist, bang on about Nazis, how much you hate Bruce Jenner, compare homosexuals to animals, things that don't readily sit in any other forum. Whilst we call it complete nonsense, some of the more amusing and edgy threads end up there because its free rules allow that kind of conversation. And then a halfwit like flatearther43 uses browser breaking posts purely because he is an anti-social moron without the capacity to engage in a conversation with another human.
A dump would allow purely facile posts to be separated from those in which the user does at least attempt to construct a sentence, even if it is deliberate troll bait or of an extremist nature. There is a difference between wanting to remind everyone that Blanko kisses boys and making a post with 20,000 hr tags in it. One is mindless content, the other is deliberately to ruin other people's enjoyment of the forum.
-
But Thork
Every single thing you've listed here would belong in "shit dump" anyway.
-
nah. There are some threads that in general are well maintained and everyone plays along. The greatest out of context quotes, get involved, what a self-absorbed douche, post a funny fail/funny, nowant/dowant/picture/porn thing, Markjo jokes edition ... and at the moment all those things that have some kind of meaning to members here can be shat all over by someone writing in 86pt text for 40 posts.
It is also annoying when one person makes 70 threads in CN, all just noise and everything else is bumped down the reading list. The fact is some people are just anti-social when they come here. If we are to continue to give everyone a voice no matter how annoying it is, we need a place where that voice can be ignored without losing the complete nonsense threads we are interested in.
-
So what you're saying is you've made a bunch of threads in CN which should have been made in the Lounge, and now you want to promote CN to be a second Lounge while creating a new CN.
How, exactly, will that stop the problem from reoccurring? If people want to post their threads in the "anything goes" section, surely they should be aware that anything may go in that section. Creating a new CN board and redefining current CN as something else will only delay the problem. You'll make new threads there and then regret that you haven't made them elsewhere.
If anything, it sounds to me like an appropriate solution may be to lift some of the CN threads back up to the Lounge.
-
Has it been decided that CN is an "anything goes" forum? Until recent events, it's never been a problem, so I think a formal definition needs to be made. If that is the case, then I agree. I'd also agree that any of the warnings/bans of FE43.2 would have been unjust.
-
As I recall it, that was the agreement, but admittedly I can't find it written down anywhere. I'd argue that board descriptions make a strong case for that being the case right now, though:
The Lounge
A place where users can introduce themselves or talk about anything that doesn't fit in the other boards. Light chat and socialising are encouraged!
Complete Nonsense
If you have something to say that doesn't make any sense and probably doesn't need to be said, this is the place to do it. Also, every day is Christmas here.
The Lounge is for things that don't fit other boards, but which still constitute an actual discussion. It's also hidden away from search engines and newcomers, so it offers the same level of "privacy" as CN. CN is for, well, complete nonsense. I honestly don't think the current descriptions could be misconstrued.
I'm not advocating that these things be set in stone, but the current proposal really doesn't strike me as making much sense.
-
The difference is that CN affords protection that the lounge does not. Only people registered to the site can access those threads and they are not available via google search - proper freedom of speech. It means people can say anything they like in CN. That is what makes CN one of the more popular parts of the site.
So what you're saying is you've made a bunch of threads in CN which should have been made in the Lounge, and now you want to promote CN to be a second Lounge while creating a new CN.
I made very few of the threads I mentioned. I do use them though. I'm not sure I'd want some of the discussions in the lounge, but I don't think they should be subject to destruction by anyone who feels like it either.
-
The difference is that CN affords protection that the lounge does not. Only people registered to the site can access those threads and they are not available via google search - proper freedom of speech. It means people can say anything they like in CN. That is what makes CN one of the more popular parts of the site.
Perhaps you should try reading the post you're replying to.
-
Perhaps you should try reading the post you're replying to.
Yes:
The Lounge is for things that don't fit other boards, but which still constitute an actual discussion. It's also hidden away from search engines and newcomers, so it offers the same level of "privacy" as CN. CN is for, well, complete nonsense. I honestly don't think the current descriptions could be misconstrued.
-
The problem with allowing too much innocent bullshit cluttering the forum is that it makes many of the important search functions useless. It becomes a final tool of the impotent shill.
For instance, when I log into the forum, I load up the Recent Posts function. What do I get? 99% is nonsense that has nothing to do with the true form of the earth. Fruitful discussion is hidden within a mess.
You are being had.
-
it makes many of the important search functions useless
The search function (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=search) can be restricted to specific sub-fora. Simply click on "Choose a board to search in, or search all" and uncheck the boards that don't interest you.
For instance, when I log into the forum, I load up the Recent Posts function. What do I get? 99% is nonsense that has nothing to do with the true form of the earth. Fruitful discussion is hidden within a mess.
Okay, so we could introduce functionality to restrict the Recent Posts function to the upper boards. The sidebar of our home page (http://www.tfes.org/) already does that.
-
At the moment, we have two boards for junk, AR and CN, which are largely redundant. I don't think that is necessary. I propose that CN can remain rule free with the exception of NSFW and excessive spam (to be determined by the moderators if a case comes up). I feel there is some level of posting between the more lax rules of The Lounge and a total free-for-all of shitpost spamfest. AR can easily become this "dumpster" that has been mentioned previously (which would prevent creating another board), and if it can be excluded from being displayed on "unread posts," that would be great. Either way, I don't think that both of those boards are necessary as they exist today. Since we are moving forward with a new theme to better differentiate us from the other site, maybe it is worth revisiting the existing forum structure in regards to existing boards.
-
At the moment, we have two boards for junk, AR and CN, which are largely redundant. I don't think that is necessary. I propose that CN can remain rule free with the exception of NSFW and excessive spam (to be determined by the moderators if a case comes up). I feel there is some level of posting between the more lax rules of The Lounge and a total free-for-all of shitpost spamfest. AR can easily become this "dumpster" that has been mentioned previously (which would prevent creating another board), and if it can be excluded from being displayed on "unread posts," that would be great. Either way, I don't think that both of those boards are necessary as they exist today. Since we are moving forward with a new theme to better differentiate us from the other site, maybe it is worth revisiting the existing forum structure in regards to existing boards.
Let me alleviate your boring paragraph with the following sentence: We simply need a sub where we can do whatever the fuck we want except NSFW shit.
Though this does raise the question: Are ASCII penises emitting fluid considered NSFW?
-
At the moment, we have two boards for junk, AR and CN, which are largely redundant. I don't think that is necessary. I propose that CN can remain rule free with the exception of NSFW and excessive spam (to be determined by the moderators if a case comes up). I feel there is some level of posting between the more lax rules of The Lounge and a total free-for-all of shitpost spamfest. AR can easily become this "dumpster" that has been mentioned previously (which would prevent creating another board), and if it can be excluded from being displayed on "unread posts," that would be great. Either way, I don't think that both of those boards are necessary as they exist today. Since we are moving forward with a new theme to better differentiate us from the other site, maybe it is worth revisiting the existing forum structure in regards to existing boards.
Let me alleviate your boring paragraph with the following sentence: We simply need a sub where we can do whatever the fuck we want except NSFW shit.
Somehow, you repeating what I said but with no details or anything useful is less boring. Makes less sense than your usual posts.
I would say that ASCII art NSFW is still NSFW.
-
At the moment, we have two boards for junk, AR and CN, which are largely redundant. I don't think that is necessary. I propose that CN can remain rule free with the exception of NSFW and excessive spam (to be determined by the moderators if a case comes up). I feel there is some level of posting between the more lax rules of The Lounge and a total free-for-all of shitpost spamfest. AR can easily become this "dumpster" that has been mentioned previously (which would prevent creating another board), and if it can be excluded from being displayed on "unread posts," that would be great. Either way, I don't think that both of those boards are necessary as they exist today. Since we are moving forward with a new theme to better differentiate us from the other site, maybe it is worth revisiting the existing forum structure in regards to existing boards.
Let me alleviate your boring paragraph with the following sentence: We simply need a sub where we can do whatever the fuck we want except NSFW shit.
Somehow, you repeating what I said but with no details or anything useful is less boring. Makes less sense than your usual posts.
I would say that ASCII art NSFW is still NSFW.
And what about calling people fuck head and other NSFW language like that? Bannable as well?
-
And what about calling people fuck head and other NSFW language like that? Bannable as well?
I'd say no. There isn't much risk there unless it is in a monster size font. Including a warning beforehand, as mentioned in the rules, should suffice. I don't have a hard line on ASCII NSFW (within reason, see:subjective), but if it is allowed, it should also have a warning. An explicit rule for every possible scenario will never exist, that is why we have capable moderators/admins.
-
So penis ASCII is ok as long as it's below a certain size. What is that size please? How large can the penises be?
And what about calling people fuck head and other NSFW language like that? Bannable as well?
...that is why we have capable moderators/admins.
lol
-
So penis ASCII is ok as long as it's below a certain size. What is that size please? How large can the penises be?
I don't know, I am not in a position to make that determination, I am offering my opinion.
And what about calling people fuck head and other NSFW language like that? Bannable as well?
...that is why we have capable moderators/admins.
lol
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
What is the actual difference between this poster spamming the lower forum and an actual spam bot? Would the spam bot be banned simply because it isn't human? The bot has rights too.
-
What is the actual difference between this poster spamming the lower forum and an actual spam bot?
I would say not much from what we have seen so far. At least spam bots can give the inside scoop on some amazing deals for prescription medications. This poster is worse than all of the spam bots we have encountered combined.
-
I would say that ASCII art NSFW is still NSFW.
What
-
I would say that ASCII art NSFW is still NSFW.
What
What would be the actual difference between ASCII and some other medium? Anything that appears here is a collection of pixels.
-
I would say that ASCII art NSFW is still NSFW.
What
I was initially saying that ASCII art drawings that would be the equivalent of an NSFW image of humans or similar should be in the same category. I thought about it and don't want to commit to that, which is why I said in another post that warning before posting NSFW should be fine. I'm really not sure what our line in the sand is for what is considered NSFW.
-
Seems to me that I've really shed some light on the blatant inconsistencies on these fora.
-
Seems to me that I've really shed some light on the blatant inconsistencies on these fora.
While "blatant" is an obvious exaggeration, there are inconsistencies with gray areas because 99.99% of the time, we don't have to treat our user base like children. One user coming in and pushing the boundaries and finding loopholes doesn't mean a problem exists anywhere but with that user. We are always looking to improve this place, which is why there has been a ton of discussion. It would've been just as easy to make a rule banning the behavior, but we felt it best to engage our community.
-
Seems to me that I've really shed some light on the blatant inconsistencies on these fora.
...We are always looking to improve this place, which is why there has been a ton of discussion. It would've been just as easy to make a rule banning the behavior, but we felt it best to engage our community.
Well then you're welcome Junker :) Sure glad I could help! If I can be of any further assistance, don't hesitate to reach out in the future. Until then, again, I'd recommend creating a shit dump sub for users such as myself. Again, best regards Junker!
-
I appreciate the recommendation. I'd like to see more of them and a decision made.
-
From what I recall back when I was more involved in the management of the forum, these "inconsistencies" are deliberate. Our approach was always meant to be less rules and more common sense. Personally, I would like to think that this approach is still the right one. We want to treat our members like adults.
That said, I don't think we should consider ASCII-art to be NSFW, especially in CN. I'd say that would be the equivalent of the old site banning the word "nigger". A certain combination of characters shouldn't be forbidden.
Outside of CN, I can't really imagine a situation in which ASCII-art wouldn't be considered off-topic or non-contributive, so I imagine there shouldn't be a problem.
-
What's the difference between a NSFW ASCII image and a NSFW JPG image? It sounds like you think we should only recognize NSFW material that is above a certain resolution.
-
What's the difference between a NSFW ASCII image and a NSFW JPG image? It sounds like you think we should only recognize NSFW material that is above a certain resolution.
That's precisely right. I would consider an otherwise NSFW JPEG with the crucial parts pixelated to be OK. This tends to be common practice within all kinds of media.
-
That's precisely right. I would consider an otherwise NSFW JPEG with the crucial parts pixelated to be OK. This tends to be common practice within all kinds of media.
I don't agree with that practice.
-
I don't agree with that practice.
ok
Would you like to propose an alternative?
-
I don't agree with that practice.
ok
Would you like to propose an alternative?
An alternative to what?
-
An alternative to what?
My proposal for where to draw the line between NSFW and non-NSFW content, of course.
-
An alternative to what?
My proposal for where to draw the line between NSFW and non-NSFW content, of course.
How is there a line that requires drawing? If it looks like it's NSFW, we remove it. This shouldn't necessitate some asinine semantic debate on the qualities of NSFW.
-
How is there a line that requires drawing? If it looks like it's NSFW, we remove it. This shouldn't necessitate some asinine semantic debate on the qualities of NSFW.
I agree, but you decided to start one, so I thought you wanted your claims to be addressed.
-
How is there a line that requires drawing? If it looks like it's NSFW, we remove it. This shouldn't necessitate some asinine semantic debate on the qualities of NSFW.
I agree, but you decided to start one, so I thought you wanted your claims to be addressed.
This is always what happens.
-
Rule 7 is currently:
7. Do not post NSFW material (applies in all fora)
Do not post material which is overly pornographic, shocking or otherwise inappropriate for being viewed without warning in a public or work place. As much as we would like for you to be able to post freely, we also want to keep this website a safe places for people of all professions and ages to use.
Material of this nature will be removed on sight, and the offending poster warned. On your second offence, you will receive a month-long ban, with increasing ban duration for repeated offences upon your return.
If I am browsing at work and open a thread with a giant ASCII penis, that seems to violate the spirit of the rule, as it would be frowned upon in most work environments. However, I also think that can fall under the category of needing a warning tag and not necessarily be banned content. To me, crude ASCII art is different than a graphic porn image of people. Granted, it would be simpler to ban all NSFW images of any kind, even if our favorite post what you'd hit thread would have to be removed.
-
Rule 7 is currently:
7. Do not post NSFW material (applies in all fora)
Do not post material which is overly pornographic, shocking or otherwise inappropriate for being viewed without warning in a public or work place. As much as we would like for you to be able to post freely, we also want to keep this website a safe places for people of all professions and ages to use.
Material of this nature will be removed on sight, and the offending poster warned. On your second offence, you will receive a month-long ban, with increasing ban duration for repeated offences upon your return.
If I am browsing at work and open a thread with a giant ASCII penis, that seems to violate the spirit of the rule, as it would be frowned upon in most work environments. However, I also think that can fall under the category of needing a warning tag and not necessarily be banned content. To me, crude ASCII art is different than a graphic porn image of people. Granted, it would be simpler to ban all NSFW images of any kind, even if our favorite post what you'd hit thread would have to be removed.
If I am browsing at work and open a thread with the n-word repeated over and over again, that seems to violate the spirit of the rule, as it would be frowned upon in most work environments.
Please address this as the n-word is showing up in many CN posts, many times as of late.
-
This forum does not ban the word "nigger" or consider it NSFW.
-
This forum does not ban the word "nigger" or consider it NSFW.
but there is a potential problem with ascii dicks? Wow...
-
May I also add:
I may be a shit poster, but this takes shit posting to a hole new lvl. Let me ask you this: How is seeing a pic of a woman's breasts considered NSFW, but swastikas and infinite amounts of n-words completely fine?
Just take a look a this thread: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3678.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3678.0)
-
May I also add:
I may be a shit poster, but this takes shit posting to a hole new lvl. Let me ask you this: How is seeing a pic of a woman's breasts considered NSFW, but swastikas and infinite amounts of n-words completely fine?
Just take a look a this thread: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3678.0 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3678.0)
They're trying to be more lenient in rule-making, however it seems like they've simply made a set of different rules that are still just as poorly thought out and implemented as the old site. Maybe your perspective changes when you become a moderator. Who knows. But I think swastikas and racial slurs are definitely NSFW material. If they aren't, I'm not really sure what is. I love freedom of speech, but that's not really what the lower boards promote. More of a pseudo, cherry picked style of freedom of speech is what they're going for I reckon.
-
How so? You seem to misconstrue intent behind posts simply for your own reasons. It's very much a "freedom of speech" thing, and I practically never see any complaints about it, so it mustn't be hurting anyone.
-
Again, I can't discuss the current execution of the rules, since I'm not involved in it, but allow me to clarify what my (and, I believe, general) understanding was around the time of the rules' creation:
For a moment, let's pretend that CN/AR doesn't exist. They're a special case to which I'll return later.
Our forum is supposed to imitate a content-liberal-but-still-legal medium of a more traditional type (like a TV station). On such a hypothetical station, most content would be generally allowable in the right context. For example, you wouldn't get banned for discussing the history of racial slurs and naming them plentifully as part of that conversation. However, you would probably have your post moved elsewhere if your contribution was nothing but a slew of insults and threats. Now, pornographic or otherwise graphic content wouldn't work quite the same. Usually, the expectation would be that the imagery be at least partially censored in most cases.
CN/AR is where it gets slightly trickier, because most contextual clues for rules execution no longer apply. This may things seem contradictory or poorly thought through, but to me it's a sensible balance between no censorship at all and thorough censorship of anything and everything that someone may consider controversial. On the Internet, it's quite feasible to run into a swastika while browsing relatively uncontroversial sites (let's use Wikipedia as an example). It is, however, extremely unlikely for one to encounter (uncensored) porn or gore within the same context.
In the end of the day, I believe it was always a general consensus that CN wouldn't really have a strong set of rules or guarantees surrounding it. We have on several occasions explained that CN and AR come with a content advisory, and that people will need to make their own call for whether or not these boards are safe to browse at their workplace/school/indoor soccer hall/bar. We have also offered the option for people to opt out of CN/AR access if they feel that it affects them negatively in other ways.
-
In the end of the day, I believe it was always a general consensus that CN wouldn't really have a strong set of rules or guarantees surrounding it. We have on several occasions explained that CN and AR come with a content advisory, and that people will need to make their own call for whether or not these boards are safe to browse at their workplace/school/indoor soccer hall/bar. We have also offered the option for people to opt out of CN/AR access if they feel that it affects them negatively in other ways.
If, "in the end of the day", people will need to make their own calls, why have the NSFW rule at all since it seems impossible to define NSFW?
-
If, "in the end of the day", people will need to make their own calls, why have the NSFW rule at all since it seems impossible to define NSFW?
To provide a bit of a cushion, as would be the case with any other medium. To me, your response reads like an attempt at rendering all risks equal. They're not equal. Running into a few instances of "niggers" (especially after I stop you from making the font size 99pt :-* ) is much less of a risk than running into, I dunno, a lemonparty thread.
-
The more the discussion continues, the more I am convinced that few, if any changes need to be made to the rules. Things run smoothly, and there are not many instances of people abusing the rules. There is an occasional baw from people who break rules that are pretty clear, but insist on arguing them anyway. I am not seeing a need to lock things down further.
-
The more the discussion continues, the more I am convinced that few, if any changes need to be made to the rules. Things run smoothly, and there are not many instances of people abusing the rules. There is an occasional baw from people who break rules that are pretty clear, but insist on arguing them anyway. I am not seeing a need to lock things down further.
You think people posting the n-word over and over again (hundreds of times?) along with huge scrolling swastikas is an example of things running smoothly?
Why a part of the human anatomy is more offensive than racial slurs and symbols, I'll never understand, and is definitely a cause for concern.
-
I appreciate your opinion.
-
"Why a part of the human anatomy is more offensive than racial slurs and symbols, I'll never understand, and is definitely a cause for concern."
Do you agree with this or not?
-
How offensive something is would be irrelevant, because none of our rules mention the word 'offensive'.
-
"Why a part of the human anatomy is more offensive than racial slurs and symbols, I'll never understand, and is definitely a cause for concern."
Do you agree with this or not?
Do I agree with a personal opinion that you'll "never understand?" I'm not sure what you're looking for here...
-
Gonna be pretty hard for lolwut to reply to you.
-
Gonna be pretty hard for lolwut to reply to you.
So it seems. I'm sure he will be back sometime to provide further insight that will be very valuable.
-
How offensive something is would be irrelevant, because none of our rules mention the word 'offensive'.
So you're saying we can post pictures of midgets spreading their buttcheeks because the rules do not mention "midgets spreading their buttcheeks"?
-
How offensive something is would be irrelevant, because none of our rules mention the word 'offensive'.
So you're saying we can post pictures of midgets spreading their buttcheeks because the rules do not mention "midgets spreading their buttcheeks"?
Well you certainly can post that, but I wouldn't advise that you should do so.
-
Gonna be pretty hard for lolwut to reply to you.
What do you mean Thork? I can reply just fine and am glad to see this discussion continuing!
-
How offensive something is would be irrelevant, because none of our rules mention the word 'offensive'.
So you're saying we can post pictures of midgets spreading their buttcheeks because the rules do not mention "midgets spreading their buttcheeks"?
Well you certainly can post that, but I wouldn't advise that you should do so.
Why wouldn't you advise it?
-
Why wouldn't you advise it?
I'd have to remove it, which is hard work, and I don't like hard work.
-
Can we please keep this thread on topic? Please stop with the low-content posting, and take further discussion regarding acceptable content in CN to fe43.2's thread on the subject (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3687.0). I'd like to keep this thread about our stance on moderation in general and what people think we can do to improve it, rather than focusing on the specific details of recent events.
Does anybody have any comments relating to improving our moderation?
-
Gonna be pretty hard for lolwut to reply to you.
What do you mean Thork? I can reply just fine and am glad to see this discussion continuing!
I'd have muted you for at least a week, but then I guess that's why they don't want me as a mod.
Does anybody have any comments relating to improving our moderation?
Perhaps being a little less lenient with those who seek only to post anti-socially to enhance the user experience for everyone else? All this running around pandering to a user whose only interest is in spamming in the most indiscrete methods he can think of seems a huge waste of time and tests the patience of everyone else. There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.
-
I would say that some of the moderators should tone down their usage of n-words and things that are highly controversial since it reflects poorly on the site, even if those posts are meant as jokes. An outside user could interpret them very differently than us. For example, what if some news outlet discovers these posts and reports them in a story called "Flat Earthers are racist" or something like that. This is an actual concern and not just me being contrarian.
-
For example, what if some news outlet discovers these posts and reports them in a story called "Flat Earthers" are racist, or something like that. This is an actual concern and not just me being contrarian.
This. As opposed to "Flat earthers like ascii dongs"
-
I agree with the good Dr and hollo.
It has been said that you want to treat everyone like adults, fine, but they should at least try to behave like one, when the whole point of someones posts are to shit things up then getting them to curb it is beneficial.
I don't complain about the racist shit, but it does make the site less of an attraction, if I had come across this site now, as opposed to when I did, i don't think I would have hung around as long as I have.
-
I'd like to suggest that the mods ought to keep the details of who reports what to themselves. If someone is abusing the report system, then warn or ban them, same as with any other violation of the rules. But bringing it up publicly in an attempt to shame them out of reporting posts is a really petty and juvenile thing to do.
And because I know someone will bring this up if I don't address it myself - yes, of course I'm saying this largely because of the subject coming up during my recent disagreement (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3597.msg78914#msg78914) with Blanko, but this kind of thing isn't an isolated incident. There's a long history on the old site of mods talking about the reports they've received in the interests of going "haha everyone look at this whiner," and I think it's just a really shitty practice that's got to stop.