If I go on my tiny, essentially no following Bluesky and post “man, someone on the boards really pissed me off today” then that’s ok because it’s nonspecific and I’m yelling at clouds.
If I name the person on public social media, that’s kind of a gray area but shouldn’t be an issue as long as the person is not getting directly contacted by myself or the people I’m talking to. If someone does then contact the person then I probably need a stern talkin’ to from the mods.
If I actually post at their handle angrily, which clearly would be unwanted since why would someone want to take an argument here anywhere else, that runs afoul of on forum harassment rules and the person should absolutely report me to the mods.
If I look up their friends, family, coworkers, etc and reach out to them holy shit that’s straight up stalking and harassment and I should probably be permabanned instantly.
the second one still seems like it should be a problem
It feels too much like policing what people do or do not get to talk about. You can be talked about. It sucks if it’s negative, but you can. Lots of grey areas around intent, relationship, interpretation, etc. If someone snitches on you somewhere else specifically to get you in trouble or even something like deported, absolutely a problem.
If someone is just complaining about an interaction they had with a poster from here, or bringing them up as an example or story based on something they’ve heard from someone on CoRe, that’s a lot more grey. If you worry about this level of being talked about, well that definitely sucks as a feeling for you but it’s also part of the cost of doing business.
I don't think it's a big ask to not air grievances in public spaces that could encourage harassment. If it's a private spot or area or DMs, that's whatever, but as soon as you're slapping names and usernames in a public spot where others see it, it can be websearched, or the other person is going to run across it, I think that's definitely a clear overstep of being a good member here.
Also sorry I thought rhylith’s second example included the need for contextual reads before any action should be taken. I would add that in to that interpretation there, but I definitely would not advocate for that being a hard rule. It’s simply too much and too hard to enforce.
That was exactly what I was trying to get at and failed in my quick example. People are people, they are going to vent, they are going to gossip. But while it isn’t polite, it is not harassment to talk about someone behind their back.
+2
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
edited February 21
Air all the grievances you want just learn how to vaguepost
long as nobody registers the handle "this one MFer y'all I swear" then I'm good
Tox on
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
i think there's a line between someone going to another space and saying "Chanus is really pissing me off today" and someone making a point of going to other places they know i frequent and ranting about how i piss them off
i mean obviously in either case it would be patently false as i am just an adorable little fella but
i don't have much of a problem with one-off venting of frustrations
Not posting anything that could get the forums shut down (e.g., actionable threats, links to piracy sites, full text of articles behind paywalls, etc.), especially in current sociopolitical climes.
That last bit is a little concerning, because the definition of what could put the site at risk in the "current sociopolitical climes" is very debatable. Some could make the argument that openly opposing the current administration or their policies puts us at risk of being shut down, in certain hypothetical scenarios. Maybe instead just include a bucket rule about "illegal activity"?
I oppose a blanket/bucket rule stating "don't post about illegal activity" when things like talking about the systemic racism in American history, talking about QUILTBAG identities as full human beings deserving of equality and respect, or being critical of an apartheid ethnostate are being declared unlawful opinions to express.
Also plausible in the near future is states passing laws banning birth control that include language that suggest people can be pursued with criminal charges against anyone who assists someone in obtaining birth control, does that mean we would no longer be able to talk about reproductive health on the forums?
Question for the authors of this doc specifically (not the peanut gallery): when, not if, someone inevitably makes a thread in the chat / CHAOS forum titled "Free Palestine From The River To The Sea" under these rules what are the moderators obligated to do? Seems very clear as written it gets moved to the appropriate politics subforum but, as this is certainly going to happen, it would be good to hear from the TT whether that is the case.
Chanus on
+3
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
i think there's a line between someone going to another space and saying "Chanus is really pissing me off today" and someone making a point of going to other places they know i frequent and ranting about how i piss them off
i mean obviously in either case it would be patently false as i am just an adorable little fella but
i don't have much of a problem with one-off venting of frustrations
I think it's also worth noting there's a huge difference between a private vs public space as well. If I'm getting dunked on in your gc then go wild that's none of my business, imo
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
Question for the authors of this doc specifically (not the peanut gallery): when, not if, someone inevitably makes a thread in the chat / CHAOS forum titled "Free Palestine From The River To The Sea" under these rules what are the moderators obligated to do? Seems very clear as written it gets moved to the appropriate politics subforum but, as this is certainly going to happen, it would be good to hear from the TT whether that is the case.
In my mind that would need to be moved to the politics subforum. Beyond that I will refrain from saying much. I don't think relitigating that exact point will do much for the discussion here. At least not much positive.
Not posting anything that could get the forums shut down (e.g., actionable threats, links to piracy sites, full text of articles behind paywalls, etc.), especially in current sociopolitical climes.
That last bit is a little concerning, because the definition of what could put the site at risk in the "current sociopolitical climes" is very debatable. Some could make the argument that openly opposing the current administration or their policies puts us at risk of being shut down, in certain hypothetical scenarios. Maybe instead just include a bucket rule about "illegal activity"?
I oppose a blanket/bucket rule stating "don't post about illegal activity" when things like talking about the systemic racism in American history, talking about QUILTBAG identities as full human beings deserving of equality and respect, or being critical of an apartheid ethnostate are being declared unlawful opinions to express.
Also plausible in the near future is states passing laws banning birth control that include language that suggest people can be pursued with criminal charges against anyone who assists someone in obtaining birth control, does that mean we would no longer be able to talk about reproductive health on the forums?
That is a rule we need to be able to exist, unfortunately. There isn't much we can do about that. Inviting legal action to shut down the forums just isn't a good idea.
Also sorry I thought rhylith’s second example included the need for contextual reads before any action should be taken. I would add that in to that interpretation there, but I definitely would not advocate for that being a hard rule. It’s simply too much and too hard to enforce.
That was exactly what I was trying to get at and failed in my quick example. People are people, they are going to vent, they are going to gossip. But while it isn’t polite, it is not harassment to talk about someone behind their back.
I would say in public spaces I also don't know why people would need to name names, so to speak. Vague posting gets you to the same place. Name checking people invites a lot of unpleasantness on the person in a very troublesome priest kind of way.
I feel the basic idea behind the off-site harassment is that people have different social circles, and the extent to which those circles overlap should be entirely up to them, full-stop. If you are going onto bluesky and posting something that clearly identifies me, using my bluesky identity, in the context of things I said on CoRe, that is wrong and should be actionable.
If you're going on there and griping about ElJeffe, I'd say that's a gray area - most people won't know who that is, though a select few could maybe make the connection, and that's not great.
If you're complaining about this shitty bandito PA ex-mod eating crackers like he owns the place, I don't care at all.
And the same should apply in reverse in terms of IDing someone on the forums as their identity on another venue.
To use a real world analog, you wouldn't go into someone's place of work and talk about dirt from their private life. Separate circles are separate.
ElJeffe on
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
0
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
edited February 22
I think it's okay for there to be gray areas. Something like "if you think it's actionable, PM a mod, but understand the Mod team will use their best judgement on this" sort of thing
Tox on
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
+5
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
I think it's okay for there to be gray areas. Something like "if you think it's actionable, PM a mod, but understand the Mod team will use their best judgement on this" sort of thing
i definitely would rather it be a report i can decide whether or not is actionable than a concrete rule where i don't feel great being obligated to investigate people's other lives
Question for the authors of this doc specifically (not the peanut gallery): when, not if, someone inevitably makes a thread in the chat / CHAOS forum titled "Free Palestine From The River To The Sea" under these rules what are the moderators obligated to do? Seems very clear as written it gets moved to the appropriate politics subforum but, as this is certainly going to happen, it would be good to hear from the TT whether that is the case.
Wanting a reply from the TT or committee about this is fine but referring to others contributing to discussion in this thread as “peanut gallery” is setting a tone here that is not welcome. Don’t do this.
The reason you want the rule in regards to offsite stuff is to shut down the bullshit where people take their petty grudges and make it a global shit storm. It's also a good way to discourage toxic content creators from setting up connections with the site, you know the ones that intentionally create drama to farm the algorithm. I will say, people need to learn to not engage. If there is decent moderation and someone isn't getting banned, that's where one just need to acknowledge that they just don't like someone, but that doesn't mean they are the worst, nor does the net need another shitty petty crusade over someone's personal beefs.
Now, I do have a suggestion for the section dealing with slurs. Particularly in regards to cases where marginalized groups might be trying to reclaim a term. To save us all some bullshit, I'd suggest making it clear that if one isn't the group being targeted by a slur, they are in no position to claim they are redeeming or reclaiming the term. I also see this shit with the r word, from people that do not have any disabilities that impair their cognitive functions. Usually they get butthurt over being called out for it and then try to claim that they are just using the term the way it was originally used, ignoring that it has always be a slur against those with mental disabilities. I'm sure it isn't the only one that people pull that shit with. Pretty much, respect the wishes and agency of the impacted communities, don't just ignore their wishes because one would really like to use a certain term and believes it's not hateful.
- on the legality front: I tentatively remind folks as well this is going to have a hell of a lot of variety if we're an international forum and not just focusing on US law. Not asking mods to go out there and start doing legal studies or anything but... if we get too specific there it could make moderation weird
- @rhylith , were you trying to distinguish social media here? Like, I got the vibe you meant to nod at closed social media like Discord rather than throwing someone's searchable name out there on Xitter; might be a point worth distinguishing what we think of as public v private spaces (but we also might be fine leaving some malleability for mods on this point anyway)
Generally I think this has great coverage and is going to do a lot in allowing us to have more consistency and presence in moderation, great work folks!
- on the legality front: I tentatively remind folks as well this is going to have a hell of a lot of variety if we're an international forum and not just focusing on US law. Not asking mods to go out there and start doing legal studies or anything but... if we get too specific there it could make moderation weird
- @rhylith , were you trying to distinguish social media here? Like, I got the vibe you meant to nod at closed social media like Discord rather than throwing someone's searchable name out there on Xitter; might be a point worth distinguishing what we think of as public v private spaces (but we also might be fine leaving some malleability for mods on this point anyway)
Generally I think this has great coverage and is going to do a lot in allowing us to have more consistency and presence in moderation, great work folks!
@cello I mean I’ve seen people on Twitter post some frustration venting as well, occasionally with names, but they’re not like going out of their way to directly speak to or harass the person. It may not be polite, but it’s NOT permaban worthy harassment like if I was to post directly at you on Twitter. That’s why I was talking about a stern talkin to from mods for this should it get reported and proliferate.
Also would not want to see things like people venting in private or semi-private spaces without directly harassing someone resulting in bans if the content of those conversations somehow leaked. The discord example you brought up is a good one, I brought up guild chats in earlier threads too. Those are their own spaces with their own rules and moderators and shouldn’t incur punishment here unless it resulted in direct harassment.
If I go on my tiny, essentially no following Bluesky and post “man, someone on the boards really pissed me off today” then that’s ok because it’s nonspecific and I’m yelling at clouds.
If I name the person on public social media, that’s kind of a gray area but shouldn’t be an issue as long as the person is not getting directly contacted by myself or the people I’m talking to. If someone does then contact the person then I probably need a stern talkin’ to from the mods.
If I actually post at their handle angrily, which clearly would be unwanted since why would someone want to take an argument here anywhere else, that runs afoul of on forum harassment rules and the person should absolutely report me to the mods.
If I look up their friends, family, coworkers, etc and reach out to them holy shit that’s straight up stalking and harassment and I should probably be permabanned instantly.
the second one still seems like it should be a problem
It feels too much like policing what people do or do not get to talk about. You can be talked about. It sucks if it’s negative, but you can. Lots of grey areas around intent, relationship, interpretation, etc. If someone snitches on you somewhere else specifically to get you in trouble or even something like deported, absolutely a problem.
If someone is just complaining about an interaction they had with a poster from here, or bringing them up as an example or story based on something they’ve heard from someone on CoRe, that’s a lot more grey. If you worry about this level of being talked about, well that definitely sucks as a feeling for you but it’s also part of the cost of doing business.
Isn't that what this is all about? Setting acceptable boundaries for posting?
It is, but that’s not charitable read on what I’m trying to say here. If you want, I could be more explicit and make it clear that I meant policing what people do and do not say OUTSIDE THE SPACE WHERE THE RULES APPLY.
You opt into the forums, you’re agreeing to follow forum rules. But that gets hazy when we try to tell people what they can and cannot do EXTERNAL to the forums.
It’s like at work you agree not to be shitty to customers, but when you get home or are out with mates for drinks you’re like omg this MFer at work today… work can’t and really shouldn’t come at you for that. Work could, however, come at you for using their database to identify the person and then find them or talk about them publicly in other spaces that poses severe ramifications for their reputation.
Generally speaking, de-identifying people when you’re complaining about them in other spaces is just good practice.
There will be fringe cases. There always are. But rules should not be written just to cover every possible fringe case, cuz otherwise we’d still be writing them. For those kinds of situations, having the CoC to measure an action against to guide moderation is exactly why it exists.
Also as a generic note about the way the rules are broken down: it’s not harassment to talk about someone in a negative way. There are other terms to describe problem behaviour that takes that form (defamation, labile, smearing), but generally speaking harassment is done TO a person rather than done ABOUT a person.
Is there overlap and grey spaces between TO and ABOUT? Yes. That requires closer examination and does not benefit from cut and dry rules. I strongly agree with Chanus’ point earlier that in such cases I’d appreciate the opportunity to review the issue and use my judgment rather than be directed to take action that does not feel like it fits in that specific situation.
This was partly why the harassment stuff is written in a person-centered, contact-focussed sort of way.
That feels kind of getting into dictionary-definition weeds, especially if the definition ends up implicitly (or explicitly?) ruling out behaviour that's broadly understood as counting. If someone followed me into another online space and started libelling me there I'd be pretty comfortable saying I was being harassed even if I wasn't directly spoken to. People have done that to me in the past and I stand behind the choice of verb.
To me it's a user safety angle, not a "do we really have jurisdiction?" or "is it really harassment if it isn't direct?" angle. A lot of the scenarios people are discussing would be someone here seeking to cause harm to someone else here as a result of a dispute they're having here. If Poster A feels unsafe posting (or existing!) here because of Poster B inserting themselves into A's life in some way or another then that's causing harm here, and CoRe's leadership/mods/etc have a responsibility to act on that.
+5
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
That feels kind of getting into dictionary-definition weeds, especially if the definition ends up implicitly (or explicitly?) ruling out behaviour that's broadly understood as counting. If someone followed me into another online space and started libelling me there I'd be pretty comfortable saying I was being harassed even if I wasn't directly spoken to. People have done that to me in the past and I stand behind the choice of verb.
To me it's a user safety angle, not a "do we really have jurisdiction?" or "is it really harassment if it isn't direct?" angle. A lot of the scenarios people are discussing would be someone here seeking to cause harm to someone else here as a result of a dispute they're having here. If Poster A feels unsafe posting (or existing!) here because of Poster B inserting themselves into A's life in some way or another then that's causing harm here, and CoRe's leadership/mods/etc have a responsibility to act on that.
i'm pretty okay saying direct or indirect harassment or threats in other spaces warrant action here
but "this person is a real shithead in general on MySpace" isn't really something i would want to be obligated to investigate and regulate as a mod of Coin Return
That feels kind of getting into dictionary-definition weeds, especially if the definition ends up implicitly (or explicitly?) ruling out behaviour that's broadly understood as counting. If someone followed me into another online space and started libelling me there I'd be pretty comfortable saying I was being harassed even if I wasn't directly spoken to. People have done that to me in the past and I stand behind the choice of verb.
To me it's a user safety angle, not a "do we really have jurisdiction?" or "is it really harassment if it isn't direct?" angle. A lot of the scenarios people are discussing would be someone here seeking to cause harm to someone else here as a result of a dispute they're having here. If Poster A feels unsafe posting (or existing!) here because of Poster B inserting themselves into A's life in some way or another then that's causing harm here, and CoRe's leadership/mods/etc have a responsibility to act on that.
Look that’s absolutely fair and I did not meant to gatekeep with pedantry or anything like that. Mostly meant to try to frame how that section came to be the way it is.
It could certainly be explicitly edited in that someone from CoRe clearly attempting to insert themselves into another CoRe poster’s circle of influence in ANY SPACE also constitutes harassment, but whether or not moderation action is taken is judgment-based rather than strictly rule-based. Would that cover your (very fair) point without also boxing mods into a corner?
Honestly, it is a good practice to not name job in other spaces. That's just inviting unneeded drama if those spaces are public and possibly even when they are private. You never know when weird and receipts will make it back to someone.
It's worth keeping in mind that sometimes it's a miscommunication and sometimes it just a case that your personality is just incompatible with someone. The name dropping can leave a ton of context out and invite shit stirrers and assholes looking for a justification to show up to fan the flames for their own benefits. If someone is really shitty, use the moderation channels. I'd wager CoRe will probably get things sorted when we're at least talking about people with the worst behaviors or beliefs. So probably more a case of other spaces not doing good moderation and it's probably worth considering leaving spaces that don't have good moderation. Ignoring the algorithm bullshit that rewards toxicity, it's worth keeping in mind that a number of trolls want the attention and the fight. Punching back actually doesn't worth well on them because they feed off of that shit and actually don't do too well, if they don't have a source of drama to feed off of.
That feels kind of getting into dictionary-definition weeds, especially if the definition ends up implicitly (or explicitly?) ruling out behaviour that's broadly understood as counting. If someone followed me into another online space and started libelling me there I'd be pretty comfortable saying I was being harassed even if I wasn't directly spoken to. People have done that to me in the past and I stand behind the choice of verb.
To me it's a user safety angle, not a "do we really have jurisdiction?" or "is it really harassment if it isn't direct?" angle. A lot of the scenarios people are discussing would be someone here seeking to cause harm to someone else here as a result of a dispute they're having here. If Poster A feels unsafe posting (or existing!) here because of Poster B inserting themselves into A's life in some way or another then that's causing harm here, and CoRe's leadership/mods/etc have a responsibility to act on that.
Look that’s absolutely fair and I did not meant to gatekeep with pedantry or anything like that. Mostly meant to try to frame how that section came to be the way it is.
It could certainly be explicitly edited in that someone from CoRe clearly attempting to insert themselves into another CoRe poster’s circle of influence in ANY SPACE also constitutes harassment, but whether or not moderation action is taken is judgment-based rather than strictly rule-based. Would that cover your (very fair) point without also boxing mods into a corner?
Making that explicit would leave me feeling much more comfortable with how the rule's presented, yes.
That feels kind of getting into dictionary-definition weeds, especially if the definition ends up implicitly (or explicitly?) ruling out behaviour that's broadly understood as counting. If someone followed me into another online space and started libelling me there I'd be pretty comfortable saying I was being harassed even if I wasn't directly spoken to. People have done that to me in the past and I stand behind the choice of verb.
To me it's a user safety angle, not a "do we really have jurisdiction?" or "is it really harassment if it isn't direct?" angle. A lot of the scenarios people are discussing would be someone here seeking to cause harm to someone else here as a result of a dispute they're having here. If Poster A feels unsafe posting (or existing!) here because of Poster B inserting themselves into A's life in some way or another then that's causing harm here, and CoRe's leadership/mods/etc have a responsibility to act on that.
Look that’s absolutely fair and I did not meant to gatekeep with pedantry or anything like that. Mostly meant to try to frame how that section came to be the way it is.
It could certainly be explicitly edited in that someone from CoRe clearly attempting to insert themselves into another CoRe poster’s circle of influence in ANY SPACE also constitutes harassment, but whether or not moderation action is taken is judgment-based rather than strictly rule-based. Would that cover your (very fair) point without also boxing mods into a corner?
Making that explicit would leave me feeling much more comfortable with how the rule's presented, yes.
I’ll run it up the chain!
Meanwhile cheers for inviting a line of discussion that helped me realise that, I, the social worker, made it almost entirely through this process without ONCE using the term “circle of influence” to refer to the system or set of systems in which a person would care about their standing. I am probably more than a bit out of my depth, so that exchange helped me feel a bit more like I know what I’m doing here.
Please provide context for any links you share, where appropriate. This may vary from thread to thread. For example, context would be mandatory for external links in threads about Politics and Current Events, however context is not normally required in threads that are effectively a collection of links to YouTube videos. Please use your best judgment, and if someone requests context for a link you’ve posted, we ask that you oblige. Please limit yourself to only quoting the applicable portions of the text of any article or essay you link to, and allow others to follow the link to read the full text. This ensures traffic goes to the source for any writing that we find valuable enough to use in our discussions, and it reduces the likelihood of unwanted outside attention and accusations of content.
Looks like you accidentally a word at the end of this section.
+1
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Please provide context for any links you share, where appropriate. This may vary from thread to thread. For example, context would be mandatory for external links in threads about Politics and Current Events, however context is not normally required in threads that are effectively a collection of links to YouTube videos. Please use your best judgment, and if someone requests context for a link you’ve posted, we ask that you oblige. Please limit yourself to only quoting the applicable portions of the text of any article or essay you link to, and allow others to follow the link to read the full text. This ensures traffic goes to the source for any writing that we find valuable enough to use in our discussions, and it reduces the likelihood of unwanted outside attention and accusations of content.
Looks like you accidentally a word at the end of this section.
I have no idea what you’re talking.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
Please provide context for any links you share, where appropriate. This may vary from thread to thread. For example, context would be mandatory for external links in threads about Politics and Current Events, however context is not normally required in threads that are effectively a collection of links to YouTube videos. Please use your best judgment, and if someone requests context for a link you’ve posted, we ask that you oblige. Please limit yourself to only quoting the applicable portions of the text of any article or essay you link to, and allow others to follow the link to read the full text. This ensures traffic goes to the source for any writing that we find valuable enough to use in our discussions, and it reduces the likelihood of unwanted outside attention and accusations of content.
Looks like you accidentally a word at the end of this section.
No quality posts on CoRe. Anyone caught not saying something useless or wrong will be immediately banned. We wanted the place to feel like home.
+11
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
The Rules
Moderator decisions should not be openly questioned in the body of the thread, as there are other established pathways to contest a moderator's call. Openly questioning the moderator's decision will derail all other conversation which can violate our values of connectedness, equity, and accountability. We expect our members to take ownership of their mistakes and move forward. Repeatedly ignoring warnings will lead to an action being treated more severely than normal.
We understand moderator actions can be upsetting, especially when you feel like it does not align with our Values. In these situations avoid publicly berating a decision or a member of the moderator team on the forum, and refrain from doing so privately to a member of the moderator team. If you feel the rules have been applied unfairly, we encourage you to appeal the decision.
Your first option is to consider engaging respectfully with the moderator who sent you the original warning. It could be a matter of misreading perspectives, intent, or word choice; again, this is a written form of communication and these things are extremely possible.
If direct moderator dialogue is not a safe option (or if the outcome of the dialogue was not satisfactory), you can choose to make a formal Appeal [PROCESS TBD]. Appeal decisions are final. Complaining about Appeal decisions on the forums will not alter the result and may, depending on the circumstance, result in moderator action.
Clarification request: Is stating publicly that you intend to seek appeal (or have started the appeal process) regarding a moderator decision considered as 'openly questioning?' (provided it meets other standards for conduct within the forum rules and values).
Moderator decisions should not be openly questioned in the body of the thread, as there are other established pathways to contest a moderator's call. Openly questioning the moderator's decision will derail all other conversation which can violate our values of connectedness, equity, and accountability. We expect our members to take ownership of their mistakes and move forward. Repeatedly ignoring warnings will lead to an action being treated more severely than normal.
We understand moderator actions can be upsetting, especially when you feel like it does not align with our Values. In these situations avoid publicly berating a decision or a member of the moderator team on the forum, and refrain from doing so privately to a member of the moderator team. If you feel the rules have been applied unfairly, we encourage you to appeal the decision.
Your first option is to consider engaging respectfully with the moderator who sent you the original warning. It could be a matter of misreading perspectives, intent, or word choice; again, this is a written form of communication and these things are extremely possible.
If direct moderator dialogue is not a safe option (or if the outcome of the dialogue was not satisfactory), you can choose to make a formal Appeal [PROCESS TBD]. Appeal decisions are final. Complaining about Appeal decisions on the forums will not alter the result and may, depending on the circumstance, result in moderator action.
Clarification request: Is stating publicly that you intend to seek appeal (or have started the appeal process) regarding a moderator decision considered as 'openly questioning?' (provided it meets other standards for conduct within the forum rules and values).
For me the openly questioning thing was for everyone, not just the person receiving the mod action, to ensure they do not do. It is intended to prevent threads from being derailed into litigating a mod’s decision (by anyone).
IANAM but I would not think that calmly saying that you intend to submit an appeal would necessarily be openly questioning the action, since it would not disrupt the thread overmuch, and in some cases may actually help the thread move forward. But lots of factors will determine what is “calm and acceptable statement” vs snarky, sarcastic, or passive aggressive statements about seeking an appeal. So this would be case and context-driven.
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Also not a mod, but I’d say that it’s all about context and positioning.
“Understood, but I think I’m going to submit an appeal request about this.”
Is very different from
“Let’s see what your fucking boss has to say about this!”
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
Also not a mod, but I’d say that it’s all about context and positioning.
“Understood, but I think I’m going to submit an appeal request about this.”
Is very different from
“Let’s see what your fucking boss has to say about this!”
But wouldn't both cases largely be intended for a PM back to the mod instead of posted in an open thread?
I could see the former example as a 'understood on point A...on the rest of the discussion, points B C and D blah blah' but even the former without other content probably doesn't need to be aired publicly.
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Yeah, pretty much. Taking it to PMs is better in either case, usually. But if someone did decide to address it in thread, the latter is a much worse way to do it.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
I would think that while we may want to allow the target of an action to calmly announce their intent to appeal, we definitely don't want anyone else opining. Lest you get fifteen "I calmly and coolly think that this action was straight up bullshit and X should definitely appeal."
(I generally don't think we should encourage even courteous appeal announcements, because now a mod gets to litigate what counts as "courteous" when someone inevitably is kind of a passive aggressive dick, gets dinged again, then loudly asserts that that was also bullshit, and he's going to appeal that, ad infinitum. I don't think any good will ever come of someone publicly stating that they're going to appeal that cannot be achieved much better by just PMing the mod.)
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Posts
I don't think it's a big ask to not air grievances in public spaces that could encourage harassment. If it's a private spot or area or DMs, that's whatever, but as soon as you're slapping names and usernames in a public spot where others see it, it can be websearched, or the other person is going to run across it, I think that's definitely a clear overstep of being a good member here.
That was exactly what I was trying to get at and failed in my quick example. People are people, they are going to vent, they are going to gossip. But while it isn’t polite, it is not harassment to talk about someone behind their back.
long as nobody registers the handle "this one MFer y'all I swear" then I'm good
i mean obviously in either case it would be patently false as i am just an adorable little fella but
i don't have much of a problem with one-off venting of frustrations
I oppose a blanket/bucket rule stating "don't post about illegal activity" when things like talking about the systemic racism in American history, talking about QUILTBAG identities as full human beings deserving of equality and respect, or being critical of an apartheid ethnostate are being declared unlawful opinions to express.
Also plausible in the near future is states passing laws banning birth control that include language that suggest people can be pursued with criminal charges against anyone who assists someone in obtaining birth control, does that mean we would no longer be able to talk about reproductive health on the forums?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think it's also worth noting there's a huge difference between a private vs public space as well. If I'm getting dunked on in your gc then go wild that's none of my business, imo
In my mind that would need to be moved to the politics subforum. Beyond that I will refrain from saying much. I don't think relitigating that exact point will do much for the discussion here. At least not much positive.
That is a rule we need to be able to exist, unfortunately. There isn't much we can do about that. Inviting legal action to shut down the forums just isn't a good idea.
I would say in public spaces I also don't know why people would need to name names, so to speak. Vague posting gets you to the same place. Name checking people invites a lot of unpleasantness on the person in a very troublesome priest kind of way.
If you're going on there and griping about ElJeffe, I'd say that's a gray area - most people won't know who that is, though a select few could maybe make the connection, and that's not great.
If you're complaining about this shitty bandito PA ex-mod eating crackers like he owns the place, I don't care at all.
And the same should apply in reverse in terms of IDing someone on the forums as their identity on another venue.
To use a real world analog, you wouldn't go into someone's place of work and talk about dirt from their private life. Separate circles are separate.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
i definitely would rather it be a report i can decide whether or not is actionable than a concrete rule where i don't feel great being obligated to investigate people's other lives
Wanting a reply from the TT or committee about this is fine but referring to others contributing to discussion in this thread as “peanut gallery” is setting a tone here that is not welcome. Don’t do this.
Now, I do have a suggestion for the section dealing with slurs. Particularly in regards to cases where marginalized groups might be trying to reclaim a term. To save us all some bullshit, I'd suggest making it clear that if one isn't the group being targeted by a slur, they are in no position to claim they are redeeming or reclaiming the term. I also see this shit with the r word, from people that do not have any disabilities that impair their cognitive functions. Usually they get butthurt over being called out for it and then try to claim that they are just using the term the way it was originally used, ignoring that it has always be a slur against those with mental disabilities. I'm sure it isn't the only one that people pull that shit with. Pretty much, respect the wishes and agency of the impacted communities, don't just ignore their wishes because one would really like to use a certain term and believes it's not hateful.
Thank you for the no AI art rule, that's a huge thing for me
- on the legality front: I tentatively remind folks as well this is going to have a hell of a lot of variety if we're an international forum and not just focusing on US law. Not asking mods to go out there and start doing legal studies or anything but... if we get too specific there it could make moderation weird
- @rhylith , were you trying to distinguish social media here? Like, I got the vibe you meant to nod at closed social media like Discord rather than throwing someone's searchable name out there on Xitter; might be a point worth distinguishing what we think of as public v private spaces (but we also might be fine leaving some malleability for mods on this point anyway)
Generally I think this has great coverage and is going to do a lot in allowing us to have more consistency and presence in moderation, great work folks!
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Out of curiosity, what slander will you endure?
Keeping it sleazy!
@cello I mean I’ve seen people on Twitter post some frustration venting as well, occasionally with names, but they’re not like going out of their way to directly speak to or harass the person. It may not be polite, but it’s NOT permaban worthy harassment like if I was to post directly at you on Twitter. That’s why I was talking about a stern talkin to from mods for this should it get reported and proliferate.
Also would not want to see things like people venting in private or semi-private spaces without directly harassing someone resulting in bans if the content of those conversations somehow leaked. The discord example you brought up is a good one, I brought up guild chats in earlier threads too. Those are their own spaces with their own rules and moderators and shouldn’t incur punishment here unless it resulted in direct harassment.
It is, but that’s not charitable read on what I’m trying to say here. If you want, I could be more explicit and make it clear that I meant policing what people do and do not say OUTSIDE THE SPACE WHERE THE RULES APPLY.
You opt into the forums, you’re agreeing to follow forum rules. But that gets hazy when we try to tell people what they can and cannot do EXTERNAL to the forums.
It’s like at work you agree not to be shitty to customers, but when you get home or are out with mates for drinks you’re like omg this MFer at work today… work can’t and really shouldn’t come at you for that. Work could, however, come at you for using their database to identify the person and then find them or talk about them publicly in other spaces that poses severe ramifications for their reputation.
Generally speaking, de-identifying people when you’re complaining about them in other spaces is just good practice.
There will be fringe cases. There always are. But rules should not be written just to cover every possible fringe case, cuz otherwise we’d still be writing them. For those kinds of situations, having the CoC to measure an action against to guide moderation is exactly why it exists.
Is there overlap and grey spaces between TO and ABOUT? Yes. That requires closer examination and does not benefit from cut and dry rules. I strongly agree with Chanus’ point earlier that in such cases I’d appreciate the opportunity to review the issue and use my judgment rather than be directed to take action that does not feel like it fits in that specific situation.
This was partly why the harassment stuff is written in a person-centered, contact-focussed sort of way.
To me it's a user safety angle, not a "do we really have jurisdiction?" or "is it really harassment if it isn't direct?" angle. A lot of the scenarios people are discussing would be someone here seeking to cause harm to someone else here as a result of a dispute they're having here. If Poster A feels unsafe posting (or existing!) here because of Poster B inserting themselves into A's life in some way or another then that's causing harm here, and CoRe's leadership/mods/etc have a responsibility to act on that.
i'm pretty okay saying direct or indirect harassment or threats in other spaces warrant action here
but "this person is a real shithead in general on MySpace" isn't really something i would want to be obligated to investigate and regulate as a mod of Coin Return
Look that’s absolutely fair and I did not meant to gatekeep with pedantry or anything like that. Mostly meant to try to frame how that section came to be the way it is.
It could certainly be explicitly edited in that someone from CoRe clearly attempting to insert themselves into another CoRe poster’s circle of influence in ANY SPACE also constitutes harassment, but whether or not moderation action is taken is judgment-based rather than strictly rule-based. Would that cover your (very fair) point without also boxing mods into a corner?
It's worth keeping in mind that sometimes it's a miscommunication and sometimes it just a case that your personality is just incompatible with someone. The name dropping can leave a ton of context out and invite shit stirrers and assholes looking for a justification to show up to fan the flames for their own benefits. If someone is really shitty, use the moderation channels. I'd wager CoRe will probably get things sorted when we're at least talking about people with the worst behaviors or beliefs. So probably more a case of other spaces not doing good moderation and it's probably worth considering leaving spaces that don't have good moderation. Ignoring the algorithm bullshit that rewards toxicity, it's worth keeping in mind that a number of trolls want the attention and the fight. Punching back actually doesn't worth well on them because they feed off of that shit and actually don't do too well, if they don't have a source of drama to feed off of.
Making that explicit would leave me feeling much more comfortable with how the rule's presented, yes.
I’ll run it up the chain!
Meanwhile cheers for inviting a line of discussion that helped me realise that, I, the social worker, made it almost entirely through this process without ONCE using the term “circle of influence” to refer to the system or set of systems in which a person would care about their standing. I am probably more than a bit out of my depth, so that exchange helped me feel a bit more like I know what I’m doing here.
I have no idea what you’re talking.
No quality posts on CoRe. Anyone caught not saying something useless or wrong will be immediately banned. We wanted the place to feel like home.
Clarification request: Is stating publicly that you intend to seek appeal (or have started the appeal process) regarding a moderator decision considered as 'openly questioning?' (provided it meets other standards for conduct within the forum rules and values).
For me the openly questioning thing was for everyone, not just the person receiving the mod action, to ensure they do not do. It is intended to prevent threads from being derailed into litigating a mod’s decision (by anyone).
IANAM but I would not think that calmly saying that you intend to submit an appeal would necessarily be openly questioning the action, since it would not disrupt the thread overmuch, and in some cases may actually help the thread move forward. But lots of factors will determine what is “calm and acceptable statement” vs snarky, sarcastic, or passive aggressive statements about seeking an appeal. So this would be case and context-driven.
“Understood, but I think I’m going to submit an appeal request about this.”
Is very different from
“Let’s see what your fucking boss has to say about this!”
But wouldn't both cases largely be intended for a PM back to the mod instead of posted in an open thread?
I could see the former example as a 'understood on point A...on the rest of the discussion, points B C and D blah blah' but even the former without other content probably doesn't need to be aired publicly.
(I generally don't think we should encourage even courteous appeal announcements, because now a mod gets to litigate what counts as "courteous" when someone inevitably is kind of a passive aggressive dick, gets dinged again, then loudly asserts that that was also bullshit, and he's going to appeal that, ad infinitum. I don't think any good will ever come of someone publicly stating that they're going to appeal that cannot be achieved much better by just PMing the mod.)
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!