I liked the bit when someone found the pastebin that one of the raiders was getting their posts from.
My favorite was some rando's thread on another platform like 'Hey maybe we should use the PA forums to organize GG!' and Tube responding 'Hi, I'm the admin of those forums and you absolutely may not'.
You've expressed several times a total dissatisfaction with the corporate/commercial routes available to you as a community manager. I can understand that.
You also make frequent comments alluding to, apologies if I misquote you, the idea that you don't really want to be the cat herder around here forever. We ARE a reprehensible lot.
So if the dream career isn't making $texas hawking your understanding of people management to companies, but you also don't want to be in charge of forum management forever, where WOULD you like to see yourself? What's the core skillset that you really identify with most? I really enjoyed reading your blog posts about community management, and while you have interpersonal skills and psych/management capabilities, it seemed like one of your passions was more along the lines of system design. You managed the flow of the community systems. Is there another path down that way for you?
What is this I don't even.
+1
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Also, are there any improvements to the forums that you think we need, are there any that are in the works, and are there any aspects of the forums you think are underutilized?
The Carmen Sandiego games were fuckin rad.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
H/A used to be much more active, but also more of a cluster duck (you can have that one, Siri). What happened, and do you like the current state of H/A.
Also, why did the workout thread go away?
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
You've expressed several times a total dissatisfaction with the corporate/commercial routes available to you as a community manager. I can understand that.
You also make frequent comments alluding to, apologies if I misquote you, the idea that you don't really want to be the cat herder around here forever. We ARE a reprehensible lot.
So if the dream career isn't making $texas hawking your understanding of people management to companies, but you also don't want to be in charge of forum management forever, where WOULD you like to see yourself? What's the core skillset that you really identify with most? I really enjoyed reading your blog posts about community management, and while you have interpersonal skills and psych/management capabilities, it seemed like one of your passions was more along the lines of system design. You managed the flow of the community systems. Is there another path down that way for you?
There's some stuff I'm going to be doing in the future that is more like the kind of things that I like, but it's too soon to talk about and I don't want to jinx it. It's PA based.
H/A used to be much more active, but also more of a cluster duck (you can have that one, Siri). What happened, and do you like the current state of H/A.
Also, why did the workout thread go away?
People got more venues to ask for help I guess? I don't know, that forum gets insane traffic as it is, I don't care that much if activity has dropped off. As for less of a cluster fuck, people just get used to the atmosphere you're trying to create I think. These forums drift away from entropy over time.
The fitness thread was a shithole, and wasn't really within the remit of H&A. It's not supposed to be a place that has huge recurring threads about a particular topic.
Also, are there any improvements to the forums that you think we need, are there any that are in the works, and are there any aspects of the forums you think are underutilized?
I've never played Carmen Sandiego so Where's Waldo (Wally) wins by default. For the second I think badging could be improved a lot and it's something we're looking into.
I have a question about the glorious edict, because I am a massive pedant. The wording is that “silly goose” is the only insult that can be used on the forums, but it doesn't specify whether this just means "to other forumers" or just in general. I.e, I know I'm not allowed to call people here names, but I've seen other forumers call various people/characters horrible things without repercussions so I'm assuming there's some sensible amount of leeway here. Does the edict apply to equally to Donald Trump and Donald Duck for instance, given that the former is unlikely to be a reader of these forums, and the latter is fictional?
... and also I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Civ and XCOM myself.
I have a question about the glorious edict, because I am a massive pedant. The wording is that “silly goose” is the only insult that can be used on the forums, but it doesn't specify whether this just means "to other forumers" or just in general. I.e, I know I'm not allowed to call people here names, but I've seen other forumers call various people/characters horrible things without repercussions so I'm assuming there's some sensible amount of leeway here. Does the edict apply to equally to Donald Trump and Donald Duck for instance, given that the former is unlikely to be a reader of these forums, and the latter is fictional?
... and also I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Civ and XCOM myself.
The latter is also extremely close to a literal silly goose.
I have a question about the glorious edict, because I am a massive pedant. The wording is that “silly goose” is the only insult that can be used on the forums, but it doesn't specify whether this just means "to other forumers" or just in general. I.e, I know I'm not allowed to call people here names, but I've seen other forumers call various people/characters horrible things without repercussions so I'm assuming there's some sensible amount of leeway here. Does the edict apply to equally to Donald Trump and Donald Duck for instance, given that the former is unlikely to be a reader of these forums, and the latter is fictional?
... and also I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Civ and XCOM myself.
The latter is also extremely close to a literal silly goose.
I have a question about the glorious edict, because I am a massive pedant. The wording is that “silly goose” is the only insult that can be used on the forums, but it doesn't specify whether this just means "to other forumers" or just in general. I.e, I know I'm not allowed to call people here names, but I've seen other forumers call various people/characters horrible things without repercussions so I'm assuming there's some sensible amount of leeway here. Does the edict apply to equally to Donald Trump and Donald Duck for instance, given that the former is unlikely to be a reader of these forums, and the latter is fictional?
... and also I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Civ and XCOM myself.
The latter is also extremely close to a literal silly goose.
The edict has gotten enforced in regards to non-forumers in the past, or more accurately people who may technically have forum accounts but don't actually post (like Ben Kuchera or other current or former PA staff members).
I've also seen it not so much directly enforced but firmly suggested to be followed with regards to a variety of different folks, ranging from gaming journalists to politicians.
As a rule of thumb, I don't know that it's a bad idea to ask yourself "What are the realistic odds the person I'm about to insult would actually Google their name, find the PA forums, and see I said something shitty about them or in regards to them?" before saying something really insulting and rude about a famous person of some stripe.
Because the answer "of course not, they'd never know about or care about anything I post on the PA forums" is not as uh... bullet-proof as you think.
It's deliberately ambiguous. Realistically, you are not going to get hit with an edict violation for insulting a non-forum member. The reason it's ambiguous was, at the time, known to me as the "Sarah Palin Is A Cunt" stipulation. I leave it there in the event that a personal insult is sufficiently odious that we need a stick to ward it off with. It's much more likely to be a "hey, knock it off, edict" than a warning, because the SPIAC stipulation is so rarely applied. I think it's come up three or four times.
Like much of the edict, it was left relatively open because of the edict's potential to be a complete fucking disaster. People forget that, at the time, the edict was seen as my biggest fuckup and a clear sign that my adminship was about to end. There's a lot of hedging in the legislation of it for that reason, but it turned out that purely by chance the original drafting of the edict pretty much nailed it.
I have a question about the glorious edict, because I am a massive pedant. The wording is that “silly goose” is the only insult that can be used on the forums, but it doesn't specify whether this just means "to other forumers" or just in general. I.e, I know I'm not allowed to call people here names, but I've seen other forumers call various people/characters horrible things without repercussions so I'm assuming there's some sensible amount of leeway here. Does the edict apply to equally to Donald Trump and Donald Duck for instance, given that the former is unlikely to be a reader of these forums, and the latter is fictional?
... and also I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Civ and XCOM myself.
The latter is also extremely close to a literal silly goose.
Literally nothing but Silly Goose is acceptable. I'm not even a big fan of just "goose". That's really pushing it. If you change the adjective I would throw out a warning for it. A lot of people think they can get away with "stupid goose" or whatever.
Also it cannot be stressed enough that people should not attempt to put any kind of stink on silly goose. It will not work. You will sound stupid.
It's funny: I remember a time before the Glorious Edict, I remember a time after, but I don't remember the move from the one to the other. Perhaps it happened at a time when I was busy otherwise and was less active than now, but it still seems a weird lapse of memory.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's deliberately ambiguous. Realistically, you are not going to get hit with an edict violation for insulting a non-forum member. The reason it's ambiguous was, at the time, known to me as the "Sarah Palin Is A Cunt" stipulation. I leave it there in the event that a personal insult is sufficiently odious that we need a stick to ward it off with. It's much more likely to be a "hey, knock it off, edict" than a warning, because the SPIAC stipulation is so rarely applied. I think it's come up three or four times.
Like much of the edict, it was left relatively open because of the edict's potential to be a complete fucking disaster. People forget that, at the time, the edict was seen as my biggest fuckup and a clear sign that my adminship was about to end. There's a lot of hedging in the legislation of it for that reason, but it turned out that purely by chance the original drafting of the edict pretty much nailed it.
Indeed, I had no idea this was the case but I guess it doesn't surprise me that people reacted this way.
The Edict is pretty much the only reason I've kept reading these boards over the years. Every once in a while I'll remember or actually read some of the old pre-edict threads (like looking up old ghost story threads and what have you) and it was not an environment I would have any desire to participate in as a ~30yo adult. I don't know how much of that was the GE itself and how much of it was simply that there's a fairly stable user base here that's aged together over the years, but the number of people in their 30s and 40s who are willing to be atrocious at full volume on other platforms (like twitter) lead me to believe it's got more to do with the former.
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
+47
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
it could be that very slightly restricted speech on an internet forum has absolutely no real life consequences for the speaker, and thus nothing could have been expected to happen other than the community surviving it
The restrictions on speech aren't even really content based. There are some content restrictions but they're for such obvious reasons it's hard to be too riled up about them.
Add on top that ultimately we are all guests here enjoying Mike and Jerry's hospitality and I've always found the "Free Speech!" arguments a bit silly.
I understand what you're saying, but they've been true for other communities as well, yet the ones I've seen have come down hard on any perceived threats to what they consider the baseline for FoS, regardless of your points. And those were fairly mellow communities on the whole. Tube himself wrote that "Like much of the edict, it was left relatively open because of the edict's potential to be a complete fucking disaster. People forget that, at the time, the edict was seen as my biggest fuckup and a clear sign that my adminship was about to end," so it seems that there was a fair bit of resistance.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I understand what you're saying, but they've been true for other communities as well, yet the ones I've seen have come down hard on any perceived threats to what they consider the baseline for FoS, regardless of your points. And those were fairly mellow communities on the whole. Tube himself wrote that "Like much of the edict, it was left relatively open because of the edict's potential to be a complete fucking disaster. People forget that, at the time, the edict was seen as my biggest fuckup and a clear sign that my adminship was about to end," so it seems that there was a fair bit of resistance.
There's always resistance to change, especially to things people feel entitled to. Doesn't really mean it's a tangible problem.
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
I have to explain that concept to people in the UK, it's just not americans who don't get it.
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
I have to explain that concept to people in the UK, it's just not americans who don't get it.
Well, sure. But as it's mostly Americans that it applies to, the fact that they don't get it is much more frustrating.
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
I have to explain that concept to people in the UK, it's just not americans who don't get it.
I don't know how laws work in the UK regarding that, so I didn't want to comment
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
I have to explain that concept to people in the UK, it's just not americans who don't get it.
I don't know how laws work in the UK regarding that, so I didn't want to comment
The Edict is pretty much the only reason I've kept reading these boards over the years. Every once in a while I'll remember or actually read some of the old pre-edict threads (like looking up old ghost story threads and what have you) and it was not an environment I would have any desire to participate in as a ~30yo adult. I don't know how much of that was the GE itself and how much of it was simply that there's a fairly stable user base here that's aged together over the years, but the number of people in their 30s and 40s who are willing to be atrocious at full volume on other platforms (like twitter) lead me to believe it's got more to do with the former.
The GE is more of a figurehead for a general shift in moderation strategy. It didn't do much on its own. The moderation staff is, broadly speaking, older than the average member and are uniformly exhausted with hostile internet culture. I certainly am, and legislate against it at every opportunity.
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
The forums are overwhelmingly American.
People who bring up FOS on the internet are, broadly speaking, talking about FOS as it applies to their right to be an arsehole. No other form of FOS is ever so enshrined, and this applies to both the right and the left. Our policy, again broadly speaking, is "do not be an arsehole". I don't really care about your political or social views as long as you are capable of expressing them without being an arsehole. I believe pretty strongly in the platonic ideal of freedom of speech, but in the context of this community I believe more strongly in "don't be an arsehole".
As for people who try to invoke the first amendment, they get nothing out of me. It simply doesn't apply. This is private property, we can kick you out of our garden for any reason we want. Making a first amendment argument in any form to me regarding forum misbehaviour will not only get you nowhere with me, it will also cause me to immediately file you under "idiot".
There's a good community analogy that I did not come up with but am happy to co opt: if you run a bar and a group of hell's angels move in and act according to stereotype, there are only two paths available to you:
A. You kick the hell's angels out
B. You run a biker bar now
Your regular patrons are, one way or another, going to stop coming to your bar if the problem is not checked. User curation is a concept that community managers are legitimately fucking terrified of, and it's about 30% of what I do here. There are a lot of occasions when a user will say "this action that you have performed has made me not want to post here!" as they point a virtual finger at me and quiver. This is generally a thing that I am doing deliberately. I am making the forums a place where hell's angels do not want to hang out. I'm going to swing this back around to free speech now, check it out.
Online communities at present are dominated by two groups who each want to pull the community in mutually exclusive directions:
Group A cares nothing for free speech, and often actively resents it, and wants a community that is insulated from world views that they consider harmful. They are, stereotypically, liberal, but conservative communities also exist with this mindset. They care that people are "decent", where the given value of decent is "aligns with my liberal progressive worldview".
Group B cares nothing for being "decent", and often actively resents "decency". They want a community where they can say and do whatever they want without being fettered by such concepts. They are stereotypically conservative, but liberal communities exist with this mindset. They care that the forum has "freedom", where the given value of "freedom" is "I can treat people however I want without consequence"
Both groups essentially want the same thing: a community where no one is allowed to disagree with them. They just want it enforced in different ways. Group A wants me to do it for them, to create an environment where dissent is not tolerated. Group B wants to do it themselves, through hostility and rhetoric that drives out anyone who disagrees with them. Both sides are simply hiding behind a banner. Group A doesn't really care for decency unless it's applied in a way that suits them, and Group B cares little for freedom of speech unless it suits them. Neither group has a problem using coercion to apply their whims to this, a piece of private property.
These groups exist on a spectrum, and only the extremes present a problem. If we see A as up and B as down (deliberately avoiding left/right for obvious reasons), I desire a community that is centre up. A healthy regard for free speech and the free exchange of ideas, but with a low tolerance for being a hostile shithead. I don't want extremes of either group to exist here, and will actively push them out through legislation that makes this a hostile environment for them.
The free exchange of ideas is limited in some ways however. I have no desire to make this a forum where people can denigrate transgender people or express racist or misogynistic viewpoints. The juice is not worth the squeeze, that particular brand of free speech brings the community nothing that I am interested in housing. There is ample precedent in other communities that allowing those discussions is allowing the figurative hell's angels to roost. See: reddit, twitter.
Tube, do you have a rough breakdown of users' nationalities? I'm asking in connection with the Glorious Edict: most of the communities I've been a part of had clear majorities very much in favour of US-style freedom of speech (with any perceived restriction of FoS being described as outright censorship), yet this community seems to have survived the move to more qualified freedom of speech intact. I'm wondering if this may at least partly be due to a relatively large proportion of non-Americans.
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
that doesn't really speak to the intrinsic value of free , open and safe communication venues. Yes the first amendment only protects speech from government suppression, but there is value in open dialogue where people can express unpopular opinions. if limitations are placed on speech by private organizations, ideally they support a free exchange of ideas(as the glorious edict and anti-dickbaggery rules do) rather than enforce an echo chamber. sure suppressing descenting opinions isn't unconstitutional, but it is not a good thing.
Posts
I liked the bit when someone found the pastebin that one of the raiders was getting their posts from.
Heck, we found actual active 4chan threads they were organizing from.
As if it was some deep secret we couldn't possibly have heard of.
My favorite was some rando's thread on another platform like 'Hey maybe we should use the PA forums to organize GG!' and Tube responding 'Hi, I'm the admin of those forums and you absolutely may not'.
You've expressed several times a total dissatisfaction with the corporate/commercial routes available to you as a community manager. I can understand that.
You also make frequent comments alluding to, apologies if I misquote you, the idea that you don't really want to be the cat herder around here forever. We ARE a reprehensible lot.
So if the dream career isn't making $texas hawking your understanding of people management to companies, but you also don't want to be in charge of forum management forever, where WOULD you like to see yourself? What's the core skillset that you really identify with most? I really enjoyed reading your blog posts about community management, and while you have interpersonal skills and psych/management capabilities, it seemed like one of your passions was more along the lines of system design. You managed the flow of the community systems. Is there another path down that way for you?
The Carmen Sandiego games were fuckin rad.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Also, why did the workout thread go away?
Master of Magic has to be on the list
I mean, I like it a lot.
Outsiders reading ma chans?
It's more likely than you think!
There's some stuff I'm going to be doing in the future that is more like the kind of things that I like, but it's too soon to talk about and I don't want to jinx it. It's PA based.
People got more venues to ask for help I guess? I don't know, that forum gets insane traffic as it is, I don't care that much if activity has dropped off. As for less of a cluster fuck, people just get used to the atmosphere you're trying to create I think. These forums drift away from entropy over time.
The fitness thread was a shithole, and wasn't really within the remit of H&A. It's not supposed to be a place that has huge recurring threads about a particular topic.
I've never played Carmen Sandiego so Where's Waldo (Wally) wins by default. For the second I think badging could be improved a lot and it's something we're looking into.
Civ 2 wins in a barely contested field
honestly I just miss getting to customize my throne room
No complaints, noble leader.
When I was a much younger man I believed that the peak of in-game success was having that throne room pop up to add another piece to it.
Needly to say I was not very good at Civilization 2.
... and also I'd be hard-pressed to choose between Civ and XCOM myself.
The latter is also extremely close to a literal silly goose.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Daffy's closer.
Well, would silly gander be acceptable?
What about silly gosling?
I've also seen it not so much directly enforced but firmly suggested to be followed with regards to a variety of different folks, ranging from gaming journalists to politicians.
As a rule of thumb, I don't know that it's a bad idea to ask yourself "What are the realistic odds the person I'm about to insult would actually Google their name, find the PA forums, and see I said something shitty about them or in regards to them?" before saying something really insulting and rude about a famous person of some stripe.
Because the answer "of course not, they'd never know about or care about anything I post on the PA forums" is not as uh... bullet-proof as you think.
Maybe take my word on that. Maybe take Tube's.
Like much of the edict, it was left relatively open because of the edict's potential to be a complete fucking disaster. People forget that, at the time, the edict was seen as my biggest fuckup and a clear sign that my adminship was about to end. There's a lot of hedging in the legislation of it for that reason, but it turned out that purely by chance the original drafting of the edict pretty much nailed it.
Literally nothing but Silly Goose is acceptable. I'm not even a big fan of just "goose". That's really pushing it. If you change the adjective I would throw out a warning for it. A lot of people think they can get away with "stupid goose" or whatever.
Also it cannot be stressed enough that people should not attempt to put any kind of stink on silly goose. It will not work. You will sound stupid.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Indeed, I had no idea this was the case but I guess it doesn't surprise me that people reacted this way.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I feel it's pretty important for Americans to realize that "Freedom of Speech" is only protected from interference from the government. I think a lot of people here probably understand that.
it could be that very slightly restricted speech on an internet forum has absolutely no real life consequences for the speaker, and thus nothing could have been expected to happen other than the community surviving it
Add on top that ultimately we are all guests here enjoying Mike and Jerry's hospitality and I've always found the "Free Speech!" arguments a bit silly.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
There's always resistance to change, especially to things people feel entitled to. Doesn't really mean it's a tangible problem.
I have to explain that concept to people in the UK, it's just not americans who don't get it.
Well, sure. But as it's mostly Americans that it applies to, the fact that they don't get it is much more frustrating.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't know how laws work in the UK regarding that, so I didn't want to comment
it's just whatever the queen says right?
The GE is more of a figurehead for a general shift in moderation strategy. It didn't do much on its own. The moderation staff is, broadly speaking, older than the average member and are uniformly exhausted with hostile internet culture. I certainly am, and legislate against it at every opportunity.
The forums are overwhelmingly American.
People who bring up FOS on the internet are, broadly speaking, talking about FOS as it applies to their right to be an arsehole. No other form of FOS is ever so enshrined, and this applies to both the right and the left. Our policy, again broadly speaking, is "do not be an arsehole". I don't really care about your political or social views as long as you are capable of expressing them without being an arsehole. I believe pretty strongly in the platonic ideal of freedom of speech, but in the context of this community I believe more strongly in "don't be an arsehole".
As for people who try to invoke the first amendment, they get nothing out of me. It simply doesn't apply. This is private property, we can kick you out of our garden for any reason we want. Making a first amendment argument in any form to me regarding forum misbehaviour will not only get you nowhere with me, it will also cause me to immediately file you under "idiot".
There's a good community analogy that I did not come up with but am happy to co opt: if you run a bar and a group of hell's angels move in and act according to stereotype, there are only two paths available to you:
A. You kick the hell's angels out
B. You run a biker bar now
Your regular patrons are, one way or another, going to stop coming to your bar if the problem is not checked. User curation is a concept that community managers are legitimately fucking terrified of, and it's about 30% of what I do here. There are a lot of occasions when a user will say "this action that you have performed has made me not want to post here!" as they point a virtual finger at me and quiver. This is generally a thing that I am doing deliberately. I am making the forums a place where hell's angels do not want to hang out. I'm going to swing this back around to free speech now, check it out.
Online communities at present are dominated by two groups who each want to pull the community in mutually exclusive directions:
Group A cares nothing for free speech, and often actively resents it, and wants a community that is insulated from world views that they consider harmful. They are, stereotypically, liberal, but conservative communities also exist with this mindset. They care that people are "decent", where the given value of decent is "aligns with my liberal progressive worldview".
Group B cares nothing for being "decent", and often actively resents "decency". They want a community where they can say and do whatever they want without being fettered by such concepts. They are stereotypically conservative, but liberal communities exist with this mindset. They care that the forum has "freedom", where the given value of "freedom" is "I can treat people however I want without consequence"
Both groups essentially want the same thing: a community where no one is allowed to disagree with them. They just want it enforced in different ways. Group A wants me to do it for them, to create an environment where dissent is not tolerated. Group B wants to do it themselves, through hostility and rhetoric that drives out anyone who disagrees with them. Both sides are simply hiding behind a banner. Group A doesn't really care for decency unless it's applied in a way that suits them, and Group B cares little for freedom of speech unless it suits them. Neither group has a problem using coercion to apply their whims to this, a piece of private property.
These groups exist on a spectrum, and only the extremes present a problem. If we see A as up and B as down (deliberately avoiding left/right for obvious reasons), I desire a community that is centre up. A healthy regard for free speech and the free exchange of ideas, but with a low tolerance for being a hostile shithead. I don't want extremes of either group to exist here, and will actively push them out through legislation that makes this a hostile environment for them.
The free exchange of ideas is limited in some ways however. I have no desire to make this a forum where people can denigrate transgender people or express racist or misogynistic viewpoints. The juice is not worth the squeeze, that particular brand of free speech brings the community nothing that I am interested in housing. There is ample precedent in other communities that allowing those discussions is allowing the figurative hell's angels to roost. See: reddit, twitter.
that doesn't really speak to the intrinsic value of free , open and safe communication venues. Yes the first amendment only protects speech from government suppression, but there is value in open dialogue where people can express unpopular opinions. if limitations are placed on speech by private organizations, ideally they support a free exchange of ideas(as the glorious edict and anti-dickbaggery rules do) rather than enforce an echo chamber. sure suppressing descenting opinions isn't unconstitutional, but it is not a good thing.
or, like, whatever.