Rule/Etiquette Updates: Prejudicial Language

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I get the distinct sense that this discussion is referencing a history that I, as a realtive newbie, am unfamiliar with.  Because I understood Mooby to be sayingthat he was looking to alter the rule in such a way as to lighten up on it, yet some people seem to be reacting as if he were tightening it down instead.

The perception is that these new rules/etiquette were put in place to deal with one specific member who has been known to make racially insensitive comments, and that the rest of the forum is burdened with extra rules for that member's benefit.  That is simply not true.  We had been addressing that particular issue for over 2 years, and had an adequate framework in place for it.  There was no compelling need for us to change rules to that member's benefit.  Yes, that member will likely benefit from this change, but that member was not the reason for the change.

In reality what happened is that a couple threads that became racially charged generated a few reports that got us talking casually about our own views on the subject.  What we found was that several staff members (myself included) had a more narrow view of what constituted "hate speech" than what was being enforced at the time, and as we chatted further it became clear that "hate speech" was an umbrella term covering everything from flat-out encouraging people to kill someone of another race to racially biased political views, and everything in-between.  In essence, encouraging hate crimes was equally punishable (and equally bannable) to politically incorrect theories about welfare demographics.

We felt this policy was suboptimal, so we started a formal discussion on the matter.  We made a list of everything we meant by "hate speech," and then discussed whether each of the four components should be addressed by the TOS, Rules, Etiquette, or not at all.  We looked at the views of the original forum founders, the reasons for the addition of "hate speech" to the TOS under the last forum owner, and our goals for the future direction of the forum.  We looked at multiple threads including posts from at least 5 different members, and in the end decided the best approach was a combination rule/etiquette, reserving the TOS for extreme cases.

kevin and Maggie raise a good point about the addition of more rules adding to bureaucracy.  More rules means more complexity, which can make them harder to navigate.  However, having the TOS act as Rules 2.0 adds much higher complexity, as it requires someone to know information not present in the standard Rules/Etiquette and to know a different set of penalties.  By moving hate speech into the Rules/Etiquette we reserve the TOS for extreme cases and thus remove it from what members need to know for day to day posting.  Hate speech acts like threats for groups.  Slurs act like prejudiced insults.  So although the new rule/etiquette add complexity through words, letters, and numbers, they remove it by narrowing our scope and acting more like the rest of the day to day rules.

kevin made a comment about just posting what he wants and taking the consequences.  Which, in practice, is how most of the rules are designed to work: you can make 1 major rule mistake and unlimited minor etiquette mistakes (if you're willing to edit) each month and never get punished.  The rules are not for those who don't need them; they're for those who do.  They're for those who would otherwise trample all over the forum if there was no limit to how disruptive they could be.

Are we more bureaucratic than other forums?  Yes.  Part of that is due to time.  New problems requires new solutions, which means that over time most forums will add new rules.  At our peak, we had 16 rules and 8 etiquette with a total of 28 moving parts; we streamlined that to 4 rules and 4 etiquette.  Since then, we've grown to 6 rules and 4 etiquette with a total of 23 moving parts.  Perhaps at some point in the future it will be necessary to streamline again, but for now I think we still have some room to grow.  Maggie rightly points out that her forum has considerably less rules, but her forum is also newer/smaller and has not encountered as many unique situations yet.

The other part is that many other forums use more general guidelines and boot out anyone who doesn't follow them.  They can afford to have fewer rules because anyone who does something the staff feels contradicts the goals of the forum gets banned.  For better or worse, we have historically provided a home for those who do not fit in at other forums, and as a result need more defined rules to handle those who will press them more often.  Many of our members with long Corner sentences due to habitual breaking of our longer rule list would have been quickly banned on most forums with a shorter list (and many of them have been banned on several such forms.)

Lastly, there's concern that this will somehow be used to silence the viewpoints of right-wing theists.  But this is silly, because some of the key people involved in this discussion are right-wing and/or theists.  In addition, we've explicitly decided not to moderate negative opinions concerning race, sex, orientation, etc. that are a bit more common among conservatives and theists than other groups, when before we felt obligated to consider every little negative remark about these groups as possible violations of the TOS.

So really, I do think that kevin and Maggie raise some legitimate concerns, but I also think they're a bit overestimated and offset by the actual implications of the change.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

I too wish IGI would pick up steam again.

It'd certainly be nice.  However, in most communities the greatest period of growth is at the beginning, with new registrations slowing as time goes on.  While the core group keeps a site going, members of that group will eventually leave for various reasons and need to be replaced by newcomers.  We're at the point now where most of the people who want to find us have already done so, and we're picking up the trickle of those who haven't.  This could always change with a new influx (such as the Otters) or if we found new ways to advertise (in the past we've mostly used Facebook groups), but over the long haul we're looking at a plateau into an eventual decline if nothing changes.

Firing all the staff and replacing them with the hypothetical greatest admin in the world would probably increase retention, but it wouldn't do anything to improve acquisition.  We've tried a couple different ideas in the past to get our name out there but none so far has really had a huge effect.  For-profit sites with the ability to change format often to offer fresh content (like Facebook) are able to keep the new influx going longer, but eventually even that starts to plateau (like Facebook.)  We don't really have that flexibility.

It's just the life cycle of a forum.  I still like posting here though.  As long as there are good users here I'll keep paying for it, so you don't need to worry about it disappearing for a while.

[kevin]

Rules. Rules. Rules! Rules that cover every possible eventuality up to and soon to include when you can blow your nose.

being curious . . .

It's illegal to blow your nose in Portland

The City of Portland's new rules designating "prohibited conduct" officially take effect today. Recent amendments to the city code, many of which have been controversial, are now in place on the city's website; you can read them here.

I'm surprised that it's drawn so little attention, but the new code makes it illegal to blow your nose anywhere within the city limits. Here's section 20.12.030 of the city code:

    No person shall urinate or defecate in any park except in a convenience station designed for that purpose; or blow, spread, or place any nasal or other bodily discharge; or spit, urinate, or defecate on the floors, walls, partitions, furniture, fittings, or on any portion of any public convenience station or in any place in such station, excepting directly into the particular fixture provided for that purpose; or place any bottle, can, cloth, rag, or metal, wood, or stone substance in any of the plumbing fixtures in any such station.

As you can plainly see, the law against "blowing nasal discharge" is not limited to parks, or to any other location, for that matter. Thus, one can only assume that it applies throughout the city.

If you don't like this law, you have the First Amendment right to pick it.

and of course . . .

Related laws:

    Picking your nose on Saturday is forbidden.

    It is illegal to let your pig run free unless it has a ring in its nose.

    The Fire Department may blow up your house.

    It is illegal to cook Fugu (Blow Fish) for more than 80 seconds. Fugu contains deadly poison in the organs. Despite of the risk, fugu dishes are considered special feasts in Japan.

    Blow guns are not allowed to be used within the city limits.

[kevin]

kevin made a comment about just posting what he wants and taking the consequences.

maybe i should point out that this works for me because i also consciously impose filters on my speech. in spite of what it sometimes appears to be. there's lots of stuff that doesn't get past my internal measuring sticks, so it isn't like i have no control over my mouth.

[nateswift]

^Indeed, and the point is that most of us do and some of us learn to after spending some time in jail.
Sometimes some of us need to learn the lesson all over again, but that's what we get for dealing with people.

[Assyriankey]

Some great insights above.

I'd rather post on a forum with 50 well-considered members than a forum with 500 f*ckheads.

I think predictions of IGI's demise are somewhat premature but even if/when that happens it's still been a successful and worthwhile endeavour and one that anyone involved in running the show over the last 6 or so years can feel at least a little proud of.

Maggie obviously feels threatened at the moment but this is quite understandable in the circumstances.  It is pure coincidence that the forum's best attempt so far to define troll posts seems to read like a technical analysis of her typical posting behaviour.

[Assyriankey]

Maggie,

Rules grow because people get their ?rocks? off trying to beat them such that you need more and more expansive rules to cover the nit picking that these people go on about.  It becomes an unofficial sport for them to participate in

I am on another board where there was no administrator for a long time and self regulation worked well and it still does when the members are happy to exhibit responsibility for what they post and why they post.  Administrators/mods became necessary to control the marketing trolls and once they began to operate a member or two required them to become their stooges to do their dirty work to get rid of those whom they had a dislike for because some other members dared to disagree with them and their own self righteousness.

The right to "free speech" has associated with it responsibility to communicate in a manner where we do not inflame a situation simply because we can.  We sometimes have to choose to pull in our horns and let the other people be the other people and allow them to have their opinion until they become hoarse or bored with the topic and it is possible to enter into the conversation again.  When we do this we have to let go of the past history and begin posting again with a clean slate.

Unfortunately there are one or two members that believe that only their opinion has any value and anyone who posts differently is a fool.

Maggie, it would seem that it is time for you to permanently move on as your forum will begin to take on a heavy administration role because of all the people that you have upset with your style and attitude who just might begin to inhabit your form site just to cause it to fail.  For them it will become a sport.  It will become ?them against you? and you will be swamped by the increasing work load and burn out will come a knocking at your door like it did here before the new management sign was put up. 

Maggie let go and Let God do what you are trying to do.  You may be surprised what God will do if you are able to show Him that you actually do trust Him just a little to deal with the situation.  At present, it seems that you have the same issues as King David had when Nathan the prophet came to bring correction to him.  Adultery was not the issue that God wanted to deal with in David.  It was something more disturbing which many people even today fall into.

Now if God has called you to run a ?religious discussion forum,? then embrace that calling and let ?God? be ?God? here.  He is not imaginary, even here.

Shalom

Tom

Quoting all of that ^ in the hope that anyone who skimmed over it earlier will read it properly this time round.

Tom, +1, great post.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Some great insights above.

I'd rather post on a forum with 50 well-considered members than a forum with 500 f*ckheads.

I think predictions of IGI's demise are somewhat premature but even if/when that happens it's still been a successful and worthwhile endeavour and one that anyone involved in running the show over the last 6 or so years can feel at least a little proud of.

Maggie obviously feels threatened at the moment but this is quite understandable in the circumstances.  It is pure coincidence that the forum's best attempt so far to define troll posts seems to read like a technical analysis of her typical posting behaviour.

Is there anyone less self-aware on the planet than you? Surely such a thing is not possible. That lack of ability to recognize reality leads you into some very odd places. You have completely missed the point, made up some sort of story that you like and off you go, oblivious to reality. Just exactly what is threatening me? Just exactly what circumstances provoke this feeling of being threatened? Can you come up with something that won't make a dying man laugh? I am skeptical.

I continue to hold that the truth is better than a polite lie. Perhaps if you had been regularly slapped down for your foolish posts and received the ridicule they deserve, you would have learned to try to post something of value. As it is, you can't. I have never seen you contribute a sensible word to any thread. You are simply there hurling the occasional insult.

Funny thing. I had the pleasure of welcoming another IGIer to my forum yesterday. One of the earliest members mentioned recently that he wanted to encourage certain others to join up. I said no-- I was not going to go poaching on someone else's territory. Even so, some of them come. Most of them don't post here any more or do so very rarely. What do you make of that? My little, inactive forum might yet become an interesting place to visit and chat with old friends in. The question is why? Why isn't the mothership welcoming them back? While you can't answer that, your attempt, should you be brave enough to undertake it, will be highly amusing.

[Assyriankey]

Maggie, what's your opinion of Tom's sentiment, that it's time for you to move on?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Who is Tom and why should I care about his opinion? I think this place would do better if it were about something more than the rules and scolding people for their faults. That is why I edited my last message. I value truth but it is most useful to those who can benefit from it. I don't think you can.

[Assyriankey]

Tom's just another valued member of IGI, nothing special beyond that.

You don't need to consider him personally when reading his opinion.

Well, you've already read his post, of course.  What I should say is that you don't need to consider him personally when trying to assess his post for merit.

But you know this.

So, what's your opinion of what he actually wrote?

[Shawna]

I have never seen you contribute a sensible word to any thread. You are simply there hurling the occasional insult.

I've seen you contribute a sensible word to a thread before, Assy.  Rumors of your worthlessness are greatly exaggerated.

So, um, Maggie's gone?  She only comes back now and then to hurl the occasional insult?  She has her own sandbox to pee in now, and she mostly stays there?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[Assyriankey]

I've seen you contribute a sensible word to a thread before, Assy.

I have very fond memories of that post, thank you for remembering :D

Welcome back, x

[Captain Luke]

Yay, Shawna! That should add fuel to the fire. 

[Shawna]

It was a great post, Assy.  I remember it well.

Hi, Luke!  What kind of combustibles are you looking for?  I have some fireworks around here somewhere........      (<-- No fireworks emoticons!.... but this is me and kevin and the kids getting ready to light them.....)

[Captain Luke]

I think that you are quite enough "hot stuff" for this thread. Carry on!

[Shawna]

I consider that flattery, Luke, and as always I reward flattery unashamedly.  +1

OK, back to the discussion at hand.....   how about I just write whatever I think is appropriate, and edit it (or not) when someone fusses?  I can work with that.

Carry on.

[Assyriankey]

how about I just write whatever I think is appropriate, and edit it (or not) when someone fusses?  I can work with that.

That's okay but you are foregoing yet another opportunity to distance yourself from kevin (he said something similar above).

While I advocate never letting a chance go by, it's not as if you will lack for future opportunities so yeah, carry on :D

[Shawna]

That's okay but you are foregoing yet another opportunity to distance yourself from kevin (he said something similar above).

While I advocate never letting a chance go by, it's not as if you will lack for future opportunities so yeah, carry on :D

Yeah, we all know you desperately want me to leave Kevin, move to Oz, and marry me yourself......  (Like you'd survive a month....)   

I haven't read everything in this thread, so apologies for not realizing that I was siding with my husband.  :)

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Tom's just another valued member of IGI, nothing special beyond that.

You don't need to consider him personally when reading his opinion.

Well, you've already read his post, of course.  What I should say is that you don't need to consider him personally when trying to assess his post for merit.

But you know this.

So, what's your opinion of what he actually wrote?

I have no opinion. I haven't read him. I am sure he is a very nice man, although if you approve of him, I probably need to rethink that. But I don't read lengthy posts from people who don't interest me. It is as simple as that. Since I do not know who he is and don't recall ever reading anything by him, I will pass. But I will say that if what you report is accurate, he needs to butt out, as do you.

[Assyriankey]

Thanks Maggie, you can go now.

I read you like a book.

[Shawna]

Tom is a wonderful patient and kind man who has been on this forum for years.  He and I don't always agree, but he is always worth reading, if only because he is so thoughtful.  I am surprised Magpie doesn't recognize his name.  (Yes, Tom.....   I remember your council about not calling her Magpie..... just once for old times' sake....)   

[Assyriankey]

I'm a little torn, even ripped maybe :D

Either Maggie is taking ad hominem to a whole new level (i.e Tom's argument is not worthy because I can't discredit him personally) or she is introducing a brand new logical fallacy called "Argument from non-authority".

[nateswift]

It's the forum that's imploding, right?

[Shawna]

no, just my brain.

[Assyriankey]

Tom is a wonderful patient and kind man who has been on this forum for years.  He and I don't always agree, but he is always worth reading, if only because he is so thoughtful.  I am surprised Magpie doesn't recognize his name.  (Yes, Tom.....   I remember your council about not calling her Magpie..... just once for old times' sake....)   

^ read Tom's posts to Maggie in her corner thread, ignore his taunts to associated members.

[Shawna]

Tom is a wonderful patient and kind man who has been on this forum for years.  He and I don't always agree, but he is always worth reading, if only because he is so thoughtful.  I am surprised Magpie doesn't recognize his name.  (Yes, Tom.....   I remember your council about not calling her Magpie..... just once for old times' sake....)   

^ read Tom's posts to Maggie in her corner thread, ignore his taunts to associated members.

LOL!  He learned that from me.

[nateswift]

It's the forum that's imploding, right?

I keep hearing someone crying, "I'm melting....I'm melting!"

[Shawna]

Um, actually, what you keep hearing is someone saying, "You're melting! You're melting!"  Oh what a world.

[Jay]

Lol. What are the complaints now? Come on peeps, find something better to do in life than b***h about the rules on a forum.

All this change does is prevent some posts from getting caught up in A TOS violation.  That's really it.