FAQ Update - Harassment

[Moderator 09]

From the Rules/Etiquette:

c) Harassment: The deliberate and repeated engaging of another member for reasons unrelated to any recently posted content.

Reports and feedback have indicated that this rule is too vague.  Thus, we have added the following FAQ entry:

18. How do the Moderators determine harassment?

If a member is reported for harassment, the moderators use the following procedure:

1. Is the member repeatedly attempting to engage another poster in posts or private messages in a manner that causes her or him distress?

IF NO THEN NOT GUILTY,

IF YES:

2. Is the member continuing to engage in the same sort of behaviour after being asked to stop by that poster or by a member of forum staff on behalf of that poster?

IF NO THEN NOT GUILTY,

IF YES:

3. Can we justify a verdict of Not Guilty without any appearance of bias?

IF YES THEN NOT GUILTY,

IF NO:

4. Is the harassment unlawful and/or excessively harmful, threatening, abusive, sexual, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable in nature?

IF YES, TOS VIOLATION

IF NO, GUILTY E1c

Thank you for your continued feedback.

[Moderator 09]

Also added the TOS and FAQ to the Rules tab at the top of your screen, and gave the FAQ a table of contents so you can find things more easily.

[Jay]

I have a question on this policy.....say I didnt like the opinion of a member on a subject....lets say, by their posting style, I thought they were Anti-Theist.

And whenever I saw said poster make a post that I deemed was Anti-Theist, I told them...."you just hate all theists, regardless of what they say" or, I said..."yes, we know you like to bash on theists" or I made snide comments about how that person was in league with other theist haters.

And these comments went on over a period of time, and I finally the poster told me to stop....if I continued on....then I could be in violation of harassment?

[Jezzebelle]

3. Can we justify a verdict of Not Guilty without any appearance of bias?

IF YES THEN NOT GUILTY,

[Jay]

3. Can we justify a verdict of Not Guilty without any appearance of bias?

IF YES THEN NOT GUILTY,

Okay....my example may not have been the best...but I was purposefully trying to make my example as ambiguous as possible.

and I also find it difficult to believe that one could not be biased on just about any claim of harassment. 

If one didn't like my views on gun-ownership, abortion, Sarah Palin, Republicans, the military, The color purple, or whether OBL deserved to die....one could still harass me on those subjects.  And the moderators opinions on those subjects could certainly lead to bias. 

So....it is safe to say than, that one can harass another and cause distress, as long as it is on a subject that the mods could be deemed to be biased on. 

And how does one judge another's distress?  One may get distressed over the smallest thing, another may have a much higher tolerance of it.

I think this rule has its heart in the right place, but is fraught with ambiguity.

[Jezzebelle]

oh sorry jay, i wasn't commenting on your post... i was reading that and thinking it was worded it backwards....

shouldn't it be:

3. Can we justify a verdict of Not Guilty without any appearance of bias?

IF NO THEN NOT GUILTY

as far as what you are saying, i *believe* as long as your posts are on topic to the thread (a thread about guns, or whatever) then i would find it not guilty.  harassment would be akin to you following one person all around the forum, spouting the same stuff at them for the purpose of provoking a response, AND they already asked you (or a mod asked you) to please leave them alone and keep your comments on topic.  so, that's what i think of when i would find something guilty.

[Jezzebelle]

I think this rule has its heart in the right place, but is fraught with ambiguity.

i think a rule about harassment needs a bit of ambiguity, so that we can judge it when it comes along.  i would hate for a poster to get "legally" harassed because the the harasser found a loophole in the rules and is tech. following them.  this type of rule allows us to more or less judge the intent of the rule. 

[JustMyron]

I have a question on this policy.....say I didnt like the opinion of a member on a subject....lets say, by their posting style, I thought they were Anti-Theist.

And whenever I saw said poster make a post that I deemed was Anti-Theist, I told them...."you just hate all theists, regardless of what they say" or, I said..."yes, we know you like to bash on theists" or I made snide comments about how that person was in league with other theist haters.

And these comments went on over a period of time, and I finally the poster told me to stop....if I continued on....then I could be in violation of harassment?

In a case like that, it would seem to me there's an outside chance you could (provided that the person you were engaging in this manner appeared to be distressed by it, and you engaged them even when your comments weren't easily linked to recently posted forum content) be found in violation for rule E1c, but not the terms of service. Which could lead to you getting cornered if you kept it up, but not banned.

As the rule still does include the phrase "for reasons unrelated to any recently posted forum content", that would be taken into consideration. This prevents people from stifling opposing views by claiming they're being harassed.

New rules/procedures often need to be tested to make sure they work well, and maybe tweaked after a bit of use. We'll see how this one pans out.

3. Can we justify a verdict of Not Guilty without any appearance of bias?

IF YES THEN NOT GUILTY,

In other words, as with the insult rule, just worded slightly differently.

Can we justify a verdict of not guilty without any appearance of bias?
                                 |
                                 |
                  ----Yes--------No---
                  |                           |
                  |                           |
           Not guilty                 Guilty

[Jay]

I JUST reported a couple of posts that I would deem were harassing to me personally and my opionions that were not relevant to the thread at hand as an example.

While I did not inform said poster to knock it off prior to this exchange, I wonder if I should do so now, although....I took the easier way out, and simply ignored the person.

I wonder why the ignore feature is even here now, if we have this rule in place.

And I am not stating my opinions to simply stir the pot, just so you know.

[Jezzebelle]

the ignore function is so you can ignore posters you don't want to read


if someone is going out of thier way to harass you, please ask them to stop (or ask a mod to ask them for you) and report the posts

[JustMyron]

I wonder why the ignore feature is even here now, if we have this rule in place.

One more tool that can be used to manage your forum experience - no harm by having it available, I don't think. Plus, letting people manage their own ignore list is much less work than having all of the moderators discuss the case in order to do something about it.

The harassment rule is there because sometimes the ignore button isn't sufficient, but it can be a good first step.

[Jay]

I wonder why the ignore feature is even here now, if we have this rule in place.

One more tool that can be used to manage your forum experience - no harm by having it available, I don't think. Plus, letting people manage their own ignore list is much less work than having all of the moderators discuss the case in order to do something about it.

The harassment rule is there because sometimes the ignore button isn't sufficient, but it can be a good first step.

True, and it is working out well for now.

It just does seem that some posters go out of their way to 'harass' another member on a specific subject or them personally.  It happens alot, and I don't think anyone else could probably judge one persons distress, besides the one that feels the distress. 

Again, while I think the rule has its heart in the right place, sometimes we all(even myself) just need to suck it up, because I think this rule as written can be ambiguous, and that is why the ignore feature is there. 

While I understand Jess's stance that sometimes a bit of ambiguity can be a good thing, my understanding of the way you have all tried to setup previous rules was to cut out as much ambiguity as possible. 

Ambiguity and 'leaving it up to the discretion of the judges' leads to calls of bias.

[Jezzebelle]

[ It happens alot, and I don't think anyone else could probably judge one persons distress, besides the one that feels the distress. 

i think the mods could fairly judge it if someone told us what was happening, how they felt distress, and we saw it cont. to happen...

IMO, that's what the rule is for

[JadedPulse]

if the mods were biased in situations like this, there would be one less member on this forum right now.

just sayin'.

[Jay]

if the mods were biased in situations like this, there would be one less member on this forum right now.

just sayin'.

My understanding is that this rule came about AFTER and party BECAUSE of the incident I think you are describing. 

I dont think this rule has been tested yet as far as I know.

[JadedPulse]

obviously.

but thats not what i mean. even without this rule, theyve proven to be pretty unbiased in situations such as the ones being described, with or without this "rule"

but nvm. forget i said anything. shouldnt have anyways.

[Rox]

 

[Jay]

[ It happens alot, and I don't think anyone else could probably judge one persons distress, besides the one that feels the distress. 

i think the mods could fairly judge it if someone told us what was happening, how they felt distress, and we saw it cont. to happen...

IMO, that's what the rule is for

And that leads to almost a trial by jury.  Something I didn't think we did, although maybe I am wrong.

My understanding with past rule violations is that the words themselves stood on their own ground.  One did not petition the 'judges' to say how or why they were distressed.

As has been said before in other 'mod bias' threads....such and such person gets all heated about the fact that they felt personally insulted by a certain thing.  And that the mods did not take into account a persons feelings...only if it simply followed a set of criteria.  This rule breaks that pattern if you all are judging a persons level of distress, with or without their justification

[Jezzebelle]

trial by jury?

well everyone knows that mods vote on every single rule break... so i don't know why this would different.

and if you don't ask the person to stop, or have the mods ask them for you... then you haven't given that person a chance to correct and stop the behavior.

[Jay]

obviously.

but thats not what i mean. even without this rule, theyve proven to be pretty unbiased in situations such as the ones being described, with or without this "rule"

but nvm. forget i said anything. shouldnt have anyways.

Yes, they have proven themselves to be fairly unbiased because they are not taking into account someones 'feelings'

And dont nevermind me. You are allowed your opinion, but that doesnt mean I will agree with you.  Jess is my friend too, and I am disagreeing with her opinion.

Why?  because my problem isnt with her, or Mooby, or JM, or any of the mods....I just think the precedent that this rule could set is not a good one.

We have an ignore feature, I have used it, others can as well. 

[JustMyron]

I wonder why the ignore feature is even here now, if we have this rule in place.

One more tool that can be used to manage your forum experience - no harm by having it available, I don't think. Plus, letting people manage their own ignore list is much less work than having all of the moderators discuss the case in order to do something about it.

The harassment rule is there because sometimes the ignore button isn't sufficient, but it can be a good first step.

True, and it is working out well for now.

It just does seem that some posters go out of their way to 'harass' another member on a specific subject or them personally.  It happens alot, and I don't think anyone else could probably judge one persons distress, besides the one that feels the distress. 

Again, while I think the rule has its heart in the right place, sometimes we all(even myself) just need to suck it up, because I think this rule as written can be ambiguous, and that is why the ignore feature is there. 

While I understand Jess's stance that sometimes a bit of ambiguity can be a good thing, my understanding of the way you have all tried to setup previous rules was to cut out as much ambiguity as possible. 

Ambiguity and 'leaving it up to the discretion of the judges' leads to calls of bias.

Indeed it does. But there are some cases (particularly if the harassment is of a threatening or sexual nature) where the ignore feature simply isn't sufficient. Yes, there is ambiguity, and the requirement for moderators to use judgement about what is likely to cause distress to (a) a typical person and (b) this particular member.

Ideally we would be able to codify the rules to the point where there is no ambiguity. This would be ideal because then I could write a rule violation processing program, and we wouldn't need human moderators, which would free the moderators up to just enjoy posting on the forum. Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get there, and we'll have to deal with some objections of bias, and muddle through as best we can, attempting to judge things fairly enough and for good enough reasons that people won't call bias very often.

The mods will still try to judge things fairly and consistently, regardless of whether we show our processes to the members. We have internal processes that are more detailed than the FAQ entries you all see. But the more we go by process rather than whim, and the more of our processes we expose to public view, the easier it is for someone to hold us accountable, which in the long run is better for both the staff and the members.

[Jay]

trial by jury?

well everyone knows that mods vote on every single rule break... so i don't know why this would different.

and if you don't ask the person to stop, or have the mods ask them for you... then you haven't given that person a chance to correct and stop the behavior.

I dont disagree with that, as it is written, one must ask the person to not harass them.  That is pretty cut and dry.  The level of distress is not.


I DO BY HERE ASK ALL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM AT THIS TIME TO STOP HARASSING ME ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:
My political views
My religious views
My views on culture
My views on my attitude
My views on your personality
My views on Race, creed or color
My views on homophobia
My views on Guns
My views on abortion
My views on my hair color
My views on my eye color
My views on the weather
My views on music
My views on movies
My views on books
My views on anything I say is important to me
My views on me as a person

There, I have indemnified myself.

ETA:  My views on the United States and its laws, as I do like to discuss them alot.

[Jay]

Indeed it does. But there are some cases (particularly if the harassment is of a threatening or sexual nature) where the ignore feature simply isn't sufficient. Yes, there is ambiguity, and the requirement for moderators to use judgement about what is likely to cause distress to (a) a typical person and (b) this particular member.

Then simply say Harassment must be in the form of threats or sexual in nature.

And I thought we already had a rule to take care of threats....this is simply redundant and not necessary for such a purpose.

Ideally we would be able to codify the rules to the point where there is no ambiguity. This would be ideal because then I could write a rule violation processing program, and we wouldn't need human moderators, which would free the moderators up to just enjoy posting on the forum. Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get there, and we'll have to deal with some objections of bias, and muddle through as best we can, attempting to judge things fairly enough and for good enough reasons that people won't call bias very often.

Cant you see how judging ones level of distress is bad.

Not too long ago, I reported a post that distressed me.  To the point that I didnt sleep very well that night, and thought about it until I got the report back saying it was not justified.  I wanted to make a thread calling for bias.  I was pissed off.  I WAS PERSONALLY DISTRESSED BY THE POST.  But I didnt.  I did the bigger thing, and spoke to the person who made the post, explained to said person that the post had offended me, and that it was ruled NOT a violation, but asked said member to edit it anyways.  Said member did so to the persons credit, and I dropped the whole thing.  Why???  Because I wanted to save the forum the drama of yet another "MOD BIAS" thread. 

If level of distress is considered in this instance, I hereby ask for it to be considered IN ALL CASES!

[Rox]

Why be pissed off at the staff? I've reported a number of posts and all of them have been rejected. It doesn't mean the mods are biased. They're accountable to each other, too. As I understand it they see each other's votes. I bet they don't all agree all of the time. Sometimes they'll vote it wrong, too, as they're only human volunteers.

Mod bias has to be one of the first complaints that gets thrown up by unhappy members. When you've spent a lot of your personal time moderating and you're rewarded with cries of bias, it can be a real drag.

[JustMyron]

Hey Jay:

You are correct, this FAQ entry hasn't been tested. You raise some good thoughts about potential problems. We need a rule, though, because as I said sometimes the ignore feature isn't sufficient and mod intervention is required. I think some of what you have said here is spot on. Harassment needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, considering the past history of the people involved, and the things that are distressing to a person can be subtle and open the moderators to accusations of bias. We will do what we can to minimize these accusations, but in the end providing an environment where our members feel safe and comfortable to post is very important to the staff here, and if that means we have to do our best in sticky, ambiguous territory that involves feelings, we'll go there. If we have to, to provide a good environment for our members to post in. Otherwise, if we're so tied down by process that we can't do anything when it matters, what's the point of having moderators? It should be kept in mind that the point of having clear, transparent process and an attempt to avoid bias, the reason why those are things we aim for, is the overarching goal: having a good forum.

On that note, I'm sorry that you were distressed enough that you had difficulty sleeping. Had I known that this was the case, I'd have made sure it got taken care of, instead of putting you in the position where you had to handle it yourself. The mods can only act on what they know about, but where we know someone is having serious difficulty with another member, we will take action to correct the situation. Whether it's formally through the rules, or informally as members of the community, will vary from situation to situation, but... that's what the mods are there for, not just to mechanically follow rules, but to make IGI a good place to be.

[Jay]

Why be pissed off at the staff? I've reported a number of posts and all of them have been rejected. It doesn't mean the mods are biased. They're accountable to each other, too. As I understand it they see each other's votes. I bet they don't all agree all of the time. Sometimes they'll vote it wrong, too, as they're only human volunteers.

Mod bias has to be one of the first complaints that gets thrown up by unhappy members. When you've spent a lot of your personal time moderating and you're rewarded with cries of bias, it can be a real drag.

I am not pissed off at the staff. 

In the past, level of distress was never a factor in any decisions.  Now they are saying it is...in this instance.  I feel that is going to lead to even MORE claims of bias.  I feel it opens up too much ambiguity. 

I was pissed that the post I reported did not take into the level of distress I experienced, but I sucked it up, because NONE of their previous actions took that into account.

Now that they have allowed a persons level of distress into account in this instance, it should be carried into all other infractions.  Or it should not be carried into ANY infractions, including this one.

Precedents that can be set by this are bad imo. 

[acctnt_shan]

Is the Survivor board excepted from this rule?  Because being voted off caused me quite a bit of distress 

[Jezzebelle]

The mods can only act on what they know about, but where we know someone is having serious difficulty with another member, we will take action to correct the situation.

this.

[Jay]

Hey Jay:

You are correct, this FAQ entry hasn't been tested. You raise some good thoughts about potential problems. We need a rule, though, because as I said sometimes the ignore feature isn't sufficient and mod intervention is required. I think some of what you have said here is spot on. Harassment needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, considering the past history of the people involved, and the things that are distressing to a person can be subtle and open the moderators to accusations of bias. We will do what we can to minimize these accusations, but in the end providing an environment where our members feel safe and comfortable to post is very important to the staff here, and if that means we have to do our best in sticky, ambiguous territory that involves feelings, we'll go there. If we have to, to provide a good environment for our members to post in. Otherwise, if we're so tied down by process that we can't do anything when it matters, what's the point of having moderators? It should be kept in mind that the point of having clear, transparent process and an attempt to avoid bias, the reason why those are things we aim for, is the overarching goal: having a good forum.

On that note, I'm sorry that you were distressed enough that you had difficulty sleeping. Had I known that this was the case, I'd have made sure it got taken care of, instead of putting you in the position where you had to handle it yourself. The mods can only act on what they know about, but where we know someone is having serious difficulty with another member, we will take action to correct the situation. Whether it's formally through the rules, or informally as members of the community, will vary from situation to situation, but... that's what the mods are there for, not just to mechanically follow rules, but to make IGI a good place to be.

Thank you JM, and yes, I want this place to be comfortable for all members too.  And I hate the mod bias threads that pop up and start a s**tstorm of drama, get everyone involved, and disrupt the entire forum for days.

I also don't want anyone claiming they have been sexually harassed, and I think that should be written into some rule somewhere.  My understanding of physical threats is that they are already covered by the rules.

If we open the door for simply harassment....in the form of the level of distress felt, we could be opening up a pandora's box of problems.

I hope my words have struck a cord, and that this will be considered in more detail.  I know you all take the forum and moderator actions seriously, as well as forum member feedback.  I hope this is discussed further, but if not, I have said my peace.  It is all I can do. 

[Rox]

I am not pissed off at the staff. 

Ok. It was these comments, directed towards the mod bias issue, that seemed like you were pissed off at them.

...until I got the report back saying it was not justified.  I wanted to make a thread calling for bias.  I was pissed off.

Because I wanted to save the forum the drama of yet another "MOD BIAS" thread.

So just to clarify, you weren't angry at the mod bias and thinking about starting a thread about it?

[Tish]

I hope my words have struck a cord, and that this will be considered in more detail.  I know you all take the forum and moderator actions seriously, as well as forum member feedback.  I hope this is discussed further, but if not, I have said my peace.  It is all I can do.

For me, harassment is completely different to a giant argument in a single thread.  There could be a lot of behaviour that would affect my decision, but a pattern of following a poster to different threads, harping on about a topic or opinion, posting in threads they wouldn't normally, making a point of addressing a specific member, would all be examples of an ongoing problem.  That's not to say that someone who did all of those things would be found guilty, because the recipient of the attention might not care about it, or might enjoy the attention.  Taking into account how upset someone is by a single post is not what we're doing here.

[JustMyron]

Why be pissed off at the staff? I've reported a number of posts and all of them have been rejected. It doesn't mean the mods are biased. They're accountable to each other, too. As I understand it they see each other's votes. I bet they don't all agree all of the time. Sometimes they'll vote it wrong, too, as they're only human volunteers.

Mod bias has to be one of the first complaints that gets thrown up by unhappy members. When you've spent a lot of your personal time moderating and you're rewarded with cries of bias, it can be a real drag.

I am not pissed off at the staff. 

In the past, level of distress was never a factor in any decisions.  Now they are saying it is...in this instance.  I feel that is going to lead to even MORE claims of bias.  I feel it opens up too much ambiguity. 

I was pissed that the post I reported did not take into the level of distress I experienced, but I sucked it up, because NONE of their previous actions took that into account.

Now that they have allowed a persons level of distress into account in this instance, it should be carried into all other infractions.  Or it should not be carried into ANY infractions, including this one.

Precedents that can be set by this are bad imo.

Hey Jay.

I get what you're saying - whether someone is experiencing distress isn't considered in the judgment of, say, our insult rule. This is by far our most common rule breach, so  our processes for it tend to influence how people see our processes for every other rule. And in the case of the insult rule, we have a clear and objective process for getting to a guilty or not guilty, which we think works quite well generally. On the other hand, if someone lay awake at night unable to sleep because of something they read on the forum, I would conclude that the process for the insult rule had not worked as intended in that case, and I would do something about it. What would be done would depend on the case, but something would be.

When it comes to harassment (the repeated engaging of another member for reasons unrelated to recently posted forum content) we don't have an objective process as clearly nailed down, and because the nature of harassment can be more... tricky, than a simple "f**k off, asshole", I'm not sure we'll ever get to as objective a process as we have for the insult rule. Luckily, harassment occurs far less frequently than insults. In any case, if we didn't put in something about it being unwelcome/causing distress, then technically speaking I could blurt out something about eggs repeatedly, you could go "um... you're incoherent, go away" and someone could report me, and that would be harassment according to the rule. That would be stupid. Even more stupid, you and I could be friends, having conversations off-forum, and it appears from your posts that you're saying things to me that are unrelated to recently posted forum content, but they're causing me no distress. Someone reports you: harassment. Another example: In the sexuality threads, people joke around all the time. We might all have an idea where the line between creepy stalker and fun friend is, but codifying that is hard, because it goes far beyond looking up the meaning of a word in a dictionary to find if the definition we expect is being used is derogatory (which is at the centre of our process for insults). We have to figure out, to the best of our ability, how the recipient will take it, or else we will end up making decisions that make 0 sense.

Basically, an insult can cause no distress because the recipient doesn't take it seriously, and still be an insult because there's no positive way to take "you're a f**ktard". "Harassment" that causes no distress is not harassment, it's just being paid attention to. Similarly, something that by most objective measures to the casual passerby who doesn't know the people involved and their history appears innocuous, could be very hurtful and distressing, and it is that specific type of interaction that we want to deal with. The key to successfully harassing someone is doing it in a way that they are bothered by it, but they have nothing to point to to say "look, you person who doesn't know what's going on, look how bad this is!" Snide jabs, references to personal history, repeatedly communicating your interest in someone when they've made it clear they're not interested in you, and then claiming you thought it would be a compliment, repeatedly bringing up stuff that someone is embarrassed about, but (quite often) in a way that only those in the know would catch on to... that's what the worst kind of harassment is made of. It is by nature sticky, troublesome, ambiguous, hard to pin down when you're trying to stop it... and 100% toxic to the recipient, and anyone else who has to helplessly stand by and watch because the rules don't cover it. So, if the mods want to do something about that, we have no choice but to take into account level of distress caused. There are of course less serious cases of harassment that we also could cover with this rule, but that ^ is what I'm really worried about stopping.

[rickymooston]

forget i said anything. shouldnt have anyways.

You say something perfectly intelligent and then add this qualifier. 

Frankly, your opinion is as valid here as anybody's. 

trial by jury?

well everyone knows that mods vote on every single rule break... so i don't know why this would different.

and if you don't ask the person to stop, or have the mods ask them for you... then you haven't given that person a chance to correct and stop the behavior.

I dont disagree with that, as it is written, one must ask the person to not harass them.  That is pretty cut and dry.  The level of distress is not.


I DO BY HERE ASK ALL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM AT THIS TIME TO STOP HARASSING ME ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:
My political views
My religious views
My views on culture
My views on my attitude
My views on your personality
My views on Race, creed or color
My views on homophobia
My views on Guns
My views on abortion
My views on my hair color
My views on my eye color
My views on the weather
My views on music
My views on movies
My views on books
My views on anything I say is important to me
My views on me as a person

Bahaha

[Jay]

I am not pissed off at the staff. 

Ok. It was these comments, directed towards the mod bias issue, that seemed like you were pissed off at them.

...until I got the report back saying it was not justified.  I wanted to make a thread calling for bias.  I was pissed off.

Because I wanted to save the forum the drama of yet another "MOD BIAS" thread.

So just to clarify, you weren't angry at the mod bias and thinking about starting a thread about it?

I was not angry at them as individuals.  Have you ever been pissed off?  Does it have to be directed at a specific individual? NO
Was I mad at the ruling...yes!  But I told myself, well, they followed the letter of the rule.  They did not take my feelings into question, because they never do, and that is their job.

And the purpose of the thread I wanted to start dealt with the specific ruling and would have been to call into question what I perceived as a loophole in the rules.  You would have to know more about the specifics of the post I reported to understand more, but I WONT get into any more details about it.

But....these types of threads always either end up or are seen as the classic MOD BIAS thread, as I have seen tons of them since I have been here.  It is what I would call a category of a thread where you are not happy with a ruling done by the mods.  And it always ends up generating tons of drama....drama, I would much rather have our forum avoid if possible

And I made my decision to not make the thread based on the following factors:
1. I didnt want to call attention to the perceived loophole, as I didnt want it to become the 'goto insult'
2.  I didnt want to cause undue drama
3. I didnt want people to roll their eyes, and think, oh look, now Jay is creating a 'Mod Bias' thread...

Whether I would have been questioning the level of bias of the mods or not, it still would have been perceived as such. And I try NOT to question the mods level of bias.  Which is the one reasons I am most unhappy with the way this is written, as I think it will lead to calls of bias....whether it is imaginary or not.

[Rox]

Got it. But chill, dude. A simple 'no' would have sufficed. 

[Jay]

"Harassment" that causes no distress is not harassment, it's just being paid attention to. Similarly, something that by most objective measures to the casual passerby who doesn't know the people involved and their history appears innocuous, could be very hurtful and distressing, and it is that specific type of interaction that we want to deal with. The key to successfully harassing someone is doing it in a way that they are bothered by it, but they have nothing to point to to say "look, you person who doesn't know what's going on, look how bad this is!" Snide jabs, references to personal history, repeatedly communicating your interest in someone when they've made it clear they're not interested in you, and then claiming you thought it would be a compliment, repeatedly bringing up stuff that someone is embarrassed about, but (quite often) in a way that only those in the know would catch on to... that's what the worst kind of harassment is made of. It is by nature sticky, troublesome, ambiguous, hard to pin down when you're trying to stop it... and 100% toxic to the recipient, and anyone else who has to helplessly stand by and watch because the rules don't cover it. So, if the mods want to do something about that, we have no choice but to take into account level of distress caused. There are of course less serious cases of harassment that we also could cover with this rule, but that ^ is what I'm really worried about stopping.

And I get that JM.

And as I said early on, I think the heart of the rule is in the right place.

I guess we will just have to see what happens...and if it leads to calls of 'bias'  If and when it happens, I hope it doesn't cause a s**tstorm...

I like my rules as concrete as possible, but I understand sometimes that can not be done.  One of the reasons we left the last forum we were on was the perceived level of ambiguity with its rules. 

However, I will think on this more, and if I have any further ideas, I may share them with you here or via PM.

[Jay]

Got it. But chill, dude. A simple 'no' would have sufficed. 

I am chilled.  I am sitting in an air conditioned room.  :P

[JustMyron]

For the reference of all members: if you don't want to start a thread, but you do want the mods to consider something you don't think they have considered, or a case where you think they got a ruling wrong, another alternative is to respond to the PM they sent you saying "thanks for reporting, we have found the post to be _____ of rule ______". Your response would then be posted in the mod box and discussed by the mods.

Again Jay, I'm sorry that one of the moderator rulings affected you in the way it did. I didn't know, and from talking to some of them, it appears that neither did the other moderators. I've now found the thread in question (I think). It's one I'd missed somehow (sometimes that happens when mods take care of things quickly). In this case, I think either you or a moderator asking the member involved to show some sensitivity was the right way to go - it wasn't technically guilty through the insult process, but I can certainly see why you would find it disturbing. This would be similar to how we might handle a harassment case, in that 1. You were distressed, 2. either you or a moderator would ask the member who had caused the distress to stop. In this case, that was the end of it, problem solved.

More generally, if we've got something that really distresses a member, and it isn't covered by our rules, either the member or a moderator would probably have a few words with the member who posted it (maybe not officially, but that's what would happen). If the member then continued to do the same thing again, we would now possibly have grounds for calling that harassment. Which is an improvement to our rules, I think.

As for sharing ideas about how to make the harassment rule more concrete/objective while still achieving its purpose, please do! I know it's a bit icky as it stands, and that opens us up to problems, and I would love if it gave us less leeway while still allowing us to do what we've got to do. I just think (and have thought for months now) that we need something to cover harassment. It took a long time and a lot of argument to even get this far, even though it's far from perfect. Actually, this goes right back to the PM that Kerlyssa did not initially report to us because she (correctly) thought that we didn't have a process in place that could deal with it. If we'd had this in place back then, much less of a sh*tstorm would have happened. Certainly some would have happened, but if instead of waiting several months and stewing while being poked all over the public forum, there had been something she could do, and if instead of arguing amongst ourselves for months while the situation got worse we had followed a process and gotten the situation addressed in some way... things could have been a lot different, for everyone.