Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Forum-related topics
User avatar
Madrigal
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:59 am

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Madrigal » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:04 pm

Utisz wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:41 pm
I see it like a safe-word for when members have had enough. Previously people just left the forum. This gives them another option.
I see the reasonless policy as liable to being expoloited by people who simply don't want their views countered by x, y or z. While I think this is in line with the style of a moderated comments section of a publication, for example, I think it goes against the spirit of forums.

But a lot of the things I like about forums, like making a thread called "Is Guess Who a Right-Wing Radical?" would be a no-go under these policies since they now go against contemporary sensitivities, apparently.

Re: social distancing requests. I would not ask for evidence, or start up a whole trial to determine the validity of a claim. I would simply expect the claim to be based on decidedly unsportsmanlike behavior on the forum, or even bad behavior off the forum. If someone has a claim of harassment that cannot be proven, who cares, I would take it as valid. I donot see the need to investigate. I would also make these "restraining orders" publicly accessible knowledge, albeit not the reasons for them (you're probably going to disagree with that too, lol). Edit: if you've set up a restraining order against 10 people, as a forum member I'd love to know that.

Ultimately these differences are not terribly important to me. I'm not going to pretend to agree with them but neither are they going to discourage my participation. I'll just see it as regrettable and move on, hoping it's going to be okay.

User avatar
Utisz
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:35 am

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Utisz » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:15 pm

Madrigal wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:04 pm
I see the reasonless policy as liable to being expoloited by people who simply don't want their views countered by x, y or z. While I think this is in line with the style of a moderated comments section of a publication, for example, I think it goes against the spirit of forums.

But a lot of the things I like about forums, like making a thread called "Is Guess Who a Right-Wing Radical?" would be a no-go under these policies since they now go against contemporary sensitivities, apparently.
Only if Guess Who opts out of you talking about him of course.
Re: social distancing requests. I would not ask for evidence, or start up a whole trial to determine the validity of a claim. I would simply expect the claim to be based on decidedly unsportsmanlike behavior on the forum, or even bad behavior off the forum. If someone has a claim of harassment that cannot be proven, who cares, I would take it as valid. I donot see the need to investigate. I would also make these "restraining orders" publicly accessible knowledge, albeit not the reasons for them (you're probably going to disagree with that too, lol).
We can do it like that, but I don't see how this would avoid any potential abuses of the system. I guess it would clarify that the measure is only intended for cases of harrassment, stalking, etc., but it would not seem to avoid abuses of the system.

I like the idea of being able to simply opt out. If there are apparent abuses, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Julius_Van_Der_Beak » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

What is the policy regarding misinformation about Covid, QAnon, bogus stories about the oppression of white South African farmers, or Holocaust denial (I don't care what people say about certain foreign government and listen to Chapo Traphouse regularly, but holocaust denial is a different story)? Is this Facebook rules or Claverhouse rules? I think, given the political climate, people will demand a decision be made about what paradigm to use about potentially toxic misinformation, and I don't think a weird hybrid mixed paradigm is going to be sustainable.

User avatar
Utisz
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:35 am

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Utisz » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:37 pm

Julius_Van_Der_Beak wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm
What is the policy regarding misinformation about Covid, QAnon, bogus stories about the oppression of white South African farmers, or Holocaust denial (I don't care what people say about certain foreign government and listen to Chapo Traphouse regularly, but holocaust denial is a different story)? Is this Facebook rules or Claverhouse rules? I think, given the political climate, people will demand a decision be made about what paradigm to use, and I don't think a weird hybrid mixed paradigm is going to be sustainable.
The proposal would be to create an off-topic sub-forum in members-only to move certain posts to.
If a user continues spamming such stuff after a warning, they would be exiled there.

Which exact posts are off-topic, and thus subject to moderation, would be the moderators call, and the proposal is to eventually elect moderators. But in general stuff like denying the holocaust, posts presenting flat earth or QAnon-style theories as facts, etc., would be the target.

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Julius_Van_Der_Beak » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:38 pm

Utisz wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:37 pm
Julius_Van_Der_Beak wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm
What is the policy regarding misinformation about Covid, QAnon, bogus stories about the oppression of white South African farmers, or Holocaust denial (I don't care what people say about certain foreign government and listen to Chapo Traphouse regularly, but holocaust denial is a different story)? Is this Facebook rules or Claverhouse rules? I think, given the political climate, people will demand a decision be made about what paradigm to use, and I don't think a weird hybrid mixed paradigm is going to be sustainable.
The proposal would be to create an off-topic sub-forum in members-only to move certain posts to.
If a user continues spamming such stuff, they would be exiled there.

Which exact posts are off-topic, and thus subject to moderation, would be the moderators call, and the proposal is to eventually elect moderators. But in general stuff like denying the holocaust, posts presenting flat earth or QAnon-style theories as facts, etc., would be the target.
That may work...

User avatar
Madrigal
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:59 am

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Madrigal » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:55 pm

I'm changing my mind on the no-contact thing.

I think that in order to avoid abuses, justification should be offered to the mod(s), and it should be at the discretion of the mod(s) to grant the request, including when simply having to take the claimant's word for it.

In general I am against people picking and choosing who gets to address them on the forums. I think that's really silly, sorry. Maybe I'm just too old school.

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Julius_Van_Der_Beak » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:39 pm

Madrigal wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:55 pm
I'm changing my mind on the no-contact thing.

I think that in order to avoid abuses, justification should be offered to the mod(s), and it should be at the discretion of the mod(s) to grant the request, including when simply having to take the claimant's word for it.

In general I am against people picking and choosing who gets to address them on the forums. I think that's really silly, sorry. Maybe I'm just too old school.
I would agree with that. I don't think stalking and harassment (especially if it is occuring in real life) are fine or that people should have to put up with it. I think requiring a private justification is a good safeguard against abuse and also protects the person making the claim.

User avatar
Spartan26
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:13 pm

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Spartan26 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:49 am

I'm confused. My attention span is really short today, so even my skimming skills are limited. I also don't know what functions are available on this site. But, what's a restraining order per this site and how can it be indirectly violated? Is that what this is about? Is there no ignore function one can click on to not hear from someone directly or skip over that person's posts? Is that not a viable option?

User avatar
Utisz
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:35 am

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Utisz » Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:20 am

Spartan26 wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:49 am
I'm confused. My attention span is really short today, so even my skimming skills are limited. I also don't know what functions are available on this site. But, what's a restraining order per this site and how can it be indirectly violated? Is that what this is about? Is there no ignore function one can click on to not hear from someone directly or skip over that person's posts? Is that not a viable option?
A restraining order sounded a tad dramatic, so I changed the name to "social distancing". (Suggestions of better names welcome.)

If someone doesn't want a particular member to message them, talk about them, reply to them, etc. (due to feeling harrassed or uncomfortable with the interactions) they can basically say that they don't want that member to continue interacting with them. That's basically it. It will work both ways, so neither member can interact with or talk about the other.

The issue it is trying to address is that certain members do not want to be on the forum with certain other members due to past history, things that happened in real-life, whatever. So this might be an option for the broader community to hopefully get to enjoy the presence of both members in these sorts of cases rather than some member or members just staying off the forum to avoid another member.

The question is whether or not any member can just ask for this social distancing thing, or if they should give a specific justification (like feeling harrassed). I'm not too fussy about that so long as when a member says that they are feeling harrassed, that's taken on face value and considered justification enough. There doesn't need to be a trial in the mod-box or whatever to "prove" harrassment. I guess I think it's just cleaner that anyone can ask for it without justification, but that way it might not be clear what the intention is.

The key difference with the ignore feature is that member A could ignore member B, but then member B could continue to talk shit about member A on the forum. The ignore feature is still available (under Friends & foes in the user settings).

User avatar
Spartan26
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:13 pm

Re: Rules and all that (feedback welcome)

Post by Spartan26 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:13 am

Utisz wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:20 am
If someone doesn't want a particular member to message them, talk about them, reply to them, etc. (due to feeling harrassed or uncomfortable with the interactions) they can basically say that they don't want that member to continue interacting with them. That's basically it. It will work both ways, so neither member can interact with or talk about the other.
OK, thanks for the clarification. If one member can't keep another member's name out their mouth, you'll do it for them.

Image

Post Reply