Rule/Etiquette Updates: Prejudicial Language

[Moderator 09]

Hi Everyone,

Up until now, any post content that was disparaging of a group of people (such as racist comments) were handled via our Terms of Service.  When reviewing these reports, we found that the following were all being considered TOS breaches:

• Advocating harm to a group ("We should kill/jail/bomb all X")
• Using slurs
• Sharing prejudiced opinions ("This country is falling apart because all X are greedy/selfish/want handouts")

Based on this, we think we have been moderating prejudicial language too aggressively compared to the rest of our policies.  So we're making the following additions to the Rules/Etiquette:


R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people.

Advocating violence against a group is now a rule violation (meaning it adds to Corner time) rather than a TOS violation.  This puts it on par with threatening a member.



E1c) Slurs: Labels used to describe group of people that are generally regarded as hateful and/or offensive.

Slurs are now Etiquette violations, same as insults and directed profanity.


Prejudiced opinions will not be moderated provided they follow the Rules/Etiquette.  Instead, we will leave them open to public discussion and critique.


Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

[Dr H]

Sounds complicated, but reasonable.

[Gnu Ordure]

I see what you're trying to do; seems fair enough, hope it works...




Just to be picky though, I'm not too sure about the wording of the new rule.

R6. Hateful Speech.  Hateful speech is speech that advocates harm against a group of people, e.g. "We should kill/jail/bomb all X".

As that stands, it would catch statements such as:

'All child murderers should be executed by the State'.
'All paedophiles should be jailed, not merely treated in hospitals'.
'We should bomb Syria'.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Yes, we talked about whether to keep it general or to specify things such as race/creed/gender/sexuality.  We opted for the former, which gives us a little more latitude if we have to tweak the rule later.  I think for enforcement purposes we'll be leaning more towards groups people generally don't elect to be members of, but for now it applies to all groups.

My guess (not word of God, but a guess) is that we'll use a FAQ entry at some point to give us a bit more of a framework.

[FGOH]

If we are leaning towards groups people don't elect to be members of then "We should bomb Syria" would still be caught.

Which actually is not a bad thing imo. If someone didn't want to breach rules they would have to think more about what they say when advocating taking action against a county for humanitarian breaches; after all the idea of a government taking action is not to bomb Syria willy nilly but to take specific action. That would make for a more constructive conversation.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Conversation would be more constructive if you left out all swear words, sexual innuendo, and slang. Ditto text "speak". Oh, and don't forget how much more constructive "conversation" would be, if grammar mistakes were rule violations too. Then there is correct punctuation-- man, misplaced commas cannot be tolerated!

Is there no end to your need to control? The forum appears to be imploding as it is. And you want to tighten your death grip on what people are allowed to write?

I cannot wish you good luck with that. Quite the opposite. I hope you fail miserably. Then the forum might survive.

[Inertialmass]

...Then there is correct punctuation-- man, misplaced commas cannot be tolerated!...

There should be a space between the final "n" in "punctuation" and the double dashes.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Is there no end to your need to control? The forum appears to be imploding as it is. And you want to tighten your death grip on what people are allowed to write?

Actually, we want to loosen it.  Up until now people have been reporting them as Terms of Service breaches, which can bring harsh punishments like post moderation.  Now it's just a simple edit and everyone goes on with their lives.

[Gnu Ordure]

One downside, if I understand it correctly, seems to be that if someone now makes hateful slurs, such as referring to gay people as faggots, or black people as n****rs, those slurs can stay posted for up to 24 hours after being reported - whereas previously, the Mods could remove them immediately.

Is that correct?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Correct.  Whether that's an upside or a downside is a value judgment.  I personally think the short-term harm is minimal and that the long-term goal of keeping the overall frequency in posts should be the main focus.  Compare this to something like a threat or sharing personal information, which can lead to short-term harm and possible real-world consequences.

Your mileage may vary, though.  If the terms really offend you, most of the bad ones are in the swear filter (and we could always add more.)

[Dr H]

Yes, we talked about whether to keep it general or to specify things such as race/creed/gender/sexuality.  We opted for the former, which gives us a little more latitude if we have to tweak the rule later.  I think for enforcement purposes we'll be leaning more towards groups people generally don't elect to be members of, but for now it applies to all groups.

My guess (not word of God, but a guess) is that we'll use a FAQ entry at some point to give us a bit more of a framework.

How about simply adopting the generic legal definition of "hate speech":

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.

This is how it's defined by the feds, and the state statues where I live use an almost identical statement.

For purposes of the forum you might want to replace the phrase "provoke violence" with "undermine civil discussion".  That's reasonably definitive, but still allows latitude for interpretation in specific cases.

[Dr H]

Conversation would be more constructive if you left out all swear words, sexual innuendo, and slang. Ditto text "speak". Oh, and don't forget how much more constructive "conversation" would be, if grammar mistakes were rule violations too. Then there is correct punctuation-- man, misplaced commas cannot be tolerated!

Is there no end to your need to control? The forum appears to be imploding as it is. And you want to tighten your death grip on what people are allowed to write?

I cannot wish you good luck with that. Quite the opposite. I hope you fail miserably. Then the forum might survive.

Hi Maggie, welcome back.

I agree with the spirit of what you say -- after all, I'm an anarchist.

But anarchists don't necessarily believe that there shouldn't be any rules; just that the rules should be the result of negotiable social contracts. 
Mooby proposed a rule change, and threw it up here for discussion -- that's the "negotiation" part.

And as always, if you, or I, or anyone else doesn't like the rule that finally results, we are free to go elsewhere. 

If you want no rules at all, try the Usenet newsgroups.  They're about as rule-free as you can get, and still be remotely functional (those that are still functioning).  Personally, I enjoy the anything-goes chaotic Usenet environment.  But I'm also capable of keeping it in my pants for fora like this one, where I find things other than a constant dog-fight to hold my interest.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I am too busy with my own forum to be "back". As long as I have to come here to answer PMs (and surely that will not be for much longer) I will run the risk of being distracted by absurdities. Rules that continue to choke discussion and are scattered in what must be close to a dozen different places now are absurdities. I didn't think anything could top the bone yard for sheer stupidity. I was wrong. They managed it again.

Come get me the first time anyone is dinged for insulting any group considered "right wing". Ditto mocking believers. I will be dead and buried before it happens.

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

[Dr H]

I am too busy with my own forum to be "back". As long as I have to come here to answer PMs (and surely that will not be for much longer) I will run the risk of being distracted by absurdities. Rules that continue to choke discussion and are scattered in what must be close to a dozen different places now are absurdities. I didn't think anything could top the bone yard for sheer stupidity. I was wrong. They managed it again.

Come get me the first time anyone is dinged for insulting any group considered "right wing". Ditto mocking believers. I will be dead and buried before it happens.

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

I will keep your warnings in mind, as I continue to gather my own evidence.

And I will note that your forum also has rules. 

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I like how Maggie's criticizing something that (if memory serves) she never does.  Yes, it's quite absurd that we don't want people running around spouting how much they hate "fags" and "n****rs" on a board that's open to people of all sexualities and races.  I'm more than fine with choking that sort of "discussion."

Come get me the first time anyone is dinged for insulting any group considered "right wing". Ditto mocking believers. I will be dead and buried before it happens.

These rules aren't intended to stop people from insulting the "right wing," "left wing," believers, atheists, or any other group.  You can call liberals "raging f**ktards" if you want, so long as it's not directed towards any specific member of this forum.  However, you can't go around advocating that people start assassinating House Republicans or mail anthrax to Senate Democrats.  There really aren't any slurs against the left or right wings (slurs are more of a gender/race/sexuality thing), so it's unlikely E2c would ever apply to someone insulting the Democrats.

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

This is an announcement thread, not a voting thread.  We encourage in discussion in them because of transparency and because when we look to see how a rule is working, we take into account test cases (early reports without precedents to fall back on) and reference the points of discussion.  In the case of trolling, we did make some minor adjustments to how we enforced it based on those things, but we weren't going to remove it entirely unless it just seemed to be completely not working.

In this thread, potential issues have been raised with regards to Rule 6 being too general, slurs being allowed to stay until they're edited, and improving the wording.  Once we start getting test cases, we can evaluate.

My guess, based off experience, is that the first concern will be the most relevant.  This will probably be the main focus of mod discussions during test cases, which I'm guessing will lead to refinement via FAQ entries, precedent, and possibly a wording tweak if it becomes pervasive enough.  I'm guessing the second one won't be a huge issue if we are processing the reports quickly, especially since etiquette reports tend to get processed faster than TOS reports (meaning in practice they might actually sit around less time.)  The legal wording is a bit more subjective than we usually like to use here, it'd be more appropriate for the TOS than the rules I'm thinking.  Though the TOS already has a clause about "hateful" so it'd be redundant.  But all three are points we can look at, and if something doesn't seem to be working right we could use any of them as a launching point for how to improve the policies.

So yes, Maggie's right in that we're unlikely to completely rewrite or remove the rule due to feedback alone, but she's wrong in thinking that we're not interested in feedback and discussion.

[Dr H]

So yes, Maggie's right in that we're unlikely to completely rewrite or remove the rule due to feedback alone, but she's wrong in thinking that we're not interested in feedback and discussion.

That seemed pretty obvious from the fact that you requested comments. 
Had you simply wanted to make an imperious declaration, you could have posted the announcement and immediately locked the thread.

"Negotiation" has a pretty broad meaning to an anarchist. 

[Airyaman]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

Sinners deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

That looks like a question, a comment, a concern and a confession wrapped all in one!

[Bordeaux]

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

Sinners deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

Says the man who sins daily. The Irony...LOL

[nateswift]

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

Sinners deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

Says the sinner who sins daily. The Irony...LOL

Clearly it's an attempt to test the guiedline and it fails miserably.  Possibly "sinners should..." but not as written.  Oh, and QM's theology allows him to say that and be a sinner at the same time.....you see he doesn't get what he deserves....

[kevin]

E1c) Slurs: Labels used to describe group of people that are generally regarded as hateful and/or offensive.

Slurs are now Etiquette violations, same as insults and directed profanity.


Prejudiced opinions will not be moderated provided they follow the Rules/Etiquette.  Instead, we will leave them open to public discussion and critique.


Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Confessions?

atheists are stupid pinheaded gits. their beliefs are s**t.

especially educated athiests. the dumbest things i have ever listened to come from educated atheist assholes, those ones who hate anybody who isn't like them.

please substitute "theist" for "atheist," should you find these observations troubling.

[kevin]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

that's what substitutionary atonement is all about.

[Assyriankey]

QM, try again please.

Kevin, don't waste your time.

[QuestionMark]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

If spoken honestly, this is one of the best arguments for God I've ever heard. I use this on the street with non-atheists, but to a true atheist it should make no sense.

To a true atheist, no one should deserve anything. If anyone deserves anything, then there must be a God.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

please substitute "theist" for "atheist," should you find these observations troubling.

I find them trolling.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I said:

And don't think for one second that this new rule is up for discussion or negotiation. If you think that I invite you to read how the dissenters to the bone-headed bone yard rule were treated.

Any further questions?

And no, the fact that I don't go around disparaging different groups or casting slurs on people's ethnicity or gender and so will never be charged with this crime was never the point of my criticism. It is telling that you think that I was concerned that I would be caught by yet another of  your "rules".  Not even you could make such a charge stick--even with the help of your pet mod. It isn't the concern of the Great Sage of Ohio, either. But we have let you know what we think of this latest move of yours and have been met with the same disdain for the opinions of the membership that you display whenever you are challenged. That may explain why there are only two (possibly three) who can be bothered to think about these matters and offer real, substantive criticism.

By the way, I think most of us know who will be hit by this the most often. The thing is, he has only overstepped the bounds in any serious way once that I have ever seen. His opinions are colorful and very unpopular but that does not justify them being choked off in a forum that is supposed to be open to discussion. Rather, his right to hold them ought to be defended. I am sorry if the people he insults are so fragile that the opinions he expresses oppress them. But since he is hardly the only one who holds such opinions, exactly what is gained, really, by pretending that they don't exist and that the beslurred has never heard them before?

[Airyaman]

Sometimes people don't get what they deserve.

If spoken honestly, this is one of the best arguments for God I've ever heard. I use this on the street with non-atheists, but to a true atheist it should make no sense.

To a true atheist, no one should deserve anything. If anyone deserves anything, then there must be a God.

Atheism has nothing to do with what people do or don't deserve. It is purely a judgment call.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Why haven't these messages been moved to the bone yard? If you are going to have such a rule, why enforce it so selectively? QM, Airy and Assy need to take it elsewhere.

[Captain Luke]

Posts need to be reported.

[Gnu Ordure]

Correct.  Whether that's an upside or a downside is a value judgment.  I personally think the short-term harm is minimal and that the long-term goal of keeping the overall frequency in posts should be the main focus.  Compare this to something like a threat or sharing personal information, which can lead to short-term harm and possible real-world consequences.

Your mileage may vary, though.  If the terms really offend you, most of the bad ones are in the swear filter (and we could always add more.)

I'm not offended; but then, I'm not a faggot or a n****r. They may well be offended - that's why those words used to be removed immediately, right?

I'm just saying that you guys could cut yourself some slack in continuing to proactively remove the worst examples of unacceptable language.

According to a recent poll I conducted in my head, 96.7% of IGI members wish to engage in civil discourse. So they will accept reasonable efforts on your part to encourage civility.

According to a similar poll: whatever you Mods do, 1.9% of members will accuse you of Stalinist or fascist tendencies; try to ignore them...