I addressed this issue as a hypothetical in my policy post, but will address this specifically here to make sure it's clear. This is the reported post in question:

This post was made in the discussion where posters were expressing concerns about the modding rules. So the question is, does this post cross the line as a personal insult, calling someone a bigot, or not?

It does not. And here is why. This post does not actually accuse anyone of being a bigot or of having made bigoted posts in the past. Rather it simply says that if bigoted posts are avoided then no one will have problems with the new modding. So in a way, it is saying the same thing as our forum guidelines: don't post stuff against the rules and be fine.

What would make it an unacceptable post is if it said this:

In this case the post is actually accusing the other posters of having posted dumb bigoted **** in the past. That's an insult and would be deleted.

It's a small but important distinction. If you read the first post and take it to imply you are a bigot, you are adding additional meaning that is not stated.

I hope that clarifies this issue.

it does and I will adapt to it.

I think you will find that line to fine (or maybe not) as that not directed language gets used to over and over to insult others in a drive by fashion and just starts flame wars.


browser2920 - 'this is my good faith on issues around homosexuality and challenges in today's society'
Qp - 'good points and i agree with some but not others'

Trolly - if you guys would avoid posting bigoted and homophobic stuff this place would be a lot better

browser2920 - wait... what... what if anything that i said was bigoted or homophobic


Trolly - :: walks off his work done, drive by accusation of you engaging in bogited and homophobic stuff delivered ::


In that instance, which is Trolly template, you browser2920 have every right to react to the drive by accusation you are saying something bigoted and homophobic and what DOES NOT happen, is that Trolly NEVER tries to explain what is the core of his issue as the accusation is all he cares about, and then the flame war that arises from it that derails the discussion he did not like seeing engaged.

But again as long as the rules are consistently applied I am fine with it. I can adapt to 'drive by' slanders too, that is no problem.

Drive-by folks are easy to deal with. It's called the ADD TO IGNORE LIST button.

Context matters when I evaluate posts like this, and each situation is considered on a case by case basis. The context in your example is different. And there is a distinction between a personal insult type infraction and a general trolling infraction.

I hope you do not chose to make gratuitous posts out of spite because this particular ruling didn't go the way you thought it should. That would not contribute in any way to the forum. Should you chose to do so, they will be evaluated individually in the context they are made, as all other posts are

I'm sorry, but I don't believe this post address the core criticism I made. I don't disagree with deleting egregious examples of racism and of course the mod ultimately decides what counts as that. However, what I pointed out is that there is a wide swath of comments that some people will find racist, some won't, and a lot of political discourse is effectively negotiating the boundaries of how we frame and term racism etc. In these cases where people disagree - where people will disagree with you - you have imposed silence. There is no room for people to articulate the reasons why they find a phrase or statement or argument racist, for people to debate what does and does not qualify, and ultimately to learn and grow as a result of political discourse.

We have no idea how you will rule on issues of racism. If you are very sensitive and take a nuanced progressive view of it, you are going to be silencing a lot of statements without giving those people the opportunity to learn through political debate. If you are not very sensitive and only delete the more egregious types of statements, your demand that one is silent and not respond to the person again silences the discussion and prevents learning opportunities through discourse. Your policy might make sense in the extremes of clear and overt racism, but it just doesn't work in the vast middle ground.

i probably should report this post, but since it was done in the mod thread and presumably seen by browser already, I think it might be worth publicly seeing your response as we negotiate the boundaries of your new rule set.

This post seems like a clear example of a personal attack against me. I wasn't responding or talking about Cuepee. The post makes many false claims about me, about my alleged (but incorrect) motivation, that seem to be to be clearly trying to paint a negative narrative about another forum poster. And to emphasize: literally every single claim he makes me attacking me is untrue.

I should perhaps also clarify that I have no issue with highly uncivil posts like the above continuing in the forum, but my understand in browser does and hence my considerable shock that this post was left up.

I deleted it. Even though it is the mod thread, feel free to report any post you feel should be deleted. Given the current high volume of modding questions and replies due to the transition, I may see a post, make a mental note to revisit it, but then forget to double back as I move on to the next issue. There are likely more in this category right now that I will relook as time permits.

As you stated, there is a vast middle ground of things that may or may not be considered racist. And as I stated I will be carefully considering the input of all posters before making a decision. So you and everyone else will be able to weigh in. But because this is an area of great variation, there is no way i can write out for you in advance every thing I consider racist and what will or won't be banned.

So I'm not really sure what you are seeking from me. Say I will not moderate posts on the topic of racism at all? Abdicate my mod responsibilities and instead put every possibly racist post up for a community vote? It seems like you are against mod involvement in the forum altogether irt racist posting.

I guess you will just have to wait and see how this all plays out. You seem obsessed with the idea that I am going to silence all discussion, even though I have yet to delete a single post for being racist. And you admit you don't know at all where on the spectrum i will fall on racist stuff for deletion. And it's impossible for me to detail that in a policy post.

This is a topic where we will all work through as each situation arises. I don't know what else I could tell you.

Can we all just settle down and stop pestering the new mod? Thanks.

He seems like a reasonable person who is open to feedback. Can we not just let this play out for a bit before complaining? Maybe it will all work out ok.

Thanks, but it's not pestering. I value the feedback. And just like with psyop products back in the day, sometimes I write something that I am sure perfectly captures my intent, only to find many people read it for a completely meaning. So followup comments are always welcome.

PS. i'm not shy about raising issues if something is bothering me, so there is no need for you to address the troops on my behalf. Thanks.

It seems to me that if people abstain from calling any poster a bigot or ....-ist with any negative connotations, and abstain from directing towards any poster they believe to have posted something bigoted any form of negativity such as insults, condescension, or relentless trolling there shouldn't be any problem with giving people nearly absolute freedom to claim that a post contains bigotry so long as they specifically explain why they feel that way without the negativity. If the mod feels that it is sufficiently demonstrated that a particular poster repeatedly posts bigoted things of a certain level of unacceptability, then he can be the one to take disciplinary actions against that poster, which, it should be pointed out, doesn't involve insulting said poster, but just executing various levels of warnings and bans.

What I want is the space for a substantive, respectful discussion about whether a statement in the "vast middle group" is or is not racist. I think this is crucial to a functioning democracy. I believe I've been pretty clear (for instance either my prior post ITT or In this post where I detail my view on how I would approach moderating an accusation that a statement is racist.) that I'm not advocating no moderation of racism or abdicating responsibilities entirely! For clear, egregious cases of racism, please just go ahead and delete them. But in the murky middle ground where we can all learn from debate, don't silence that!
I'm focusing on the silencing part because that is the part of your post I disagree with. I don't know how it will shake out, but I believe your current framing is so bad it must be called out. Specifically, here is the quote that I think suppresses debate about what constitutes racist statements or not.
In a case where effectively everyone agrees a statement is racist, the above would make a lot of sense. But in a case where there is wide political disagreement about what constitutes racism, an approach that silences any engagement or discussion about it is suppressing.

I'm sorry, but I pretty fundamentally disagree with the framing established right now. I think having societal debate about what constitutes bigotry is absolutely essential in a democracy and that political forum like this one is precisely the type of place where we SHOULD be negotiating the boundaries of what constitutes bigotry through public debate. I think an approach that silences people from explaining why they think a statement is racist is just a bridge to far to accept even provisionally.

Dealing with the tension between allowing free speech and curtailing hate is not easy. Every major social media platform struggles with this. So I think it is important to make sure our foundation is strong regardless of how reasonable he does or does not turn out to be when implementing them.

I think I agree with this. There is a big different between making accusations of bigotry as a troll, insult, condescension etc, and between a good faith explanation as to why you think a particular statement is bigoted. The policy should allow space for the latter even if it bans the former.

Here's the thing. Most conversations involve two people going back and forth in real time. Others may see the post later and add their comments, but usually there are just two people engaging at a time.

So you and I are having a discussion. If you believe a statement I make is racist to the point that YOU think it violates our forum standards then you should report the post and stop the conversation. But if YOU believe the post, while discussing a racist topic, is OK and within our forum rules, then you continue. So YOU would actually be the first person making the determination on posts in the gray area, not the mod. Each user has the power, realtime to decide if a gray area post is OK or not. The mod won't be there to silence anybody.

So again, I don't see the great mod driven silencing you keep talking about. The initial decision will be by the posters themselves. Yes, a mod may review a post later and decide it needs to be deleted. Esp if the poster ignored an obvious egregious racist post because he wanted to challenge the racist argument. But otherwise it will be the users making the initial calls.

Uke making sense here of course.

Again, Browser seems to be operating under the assumption that people are going to be randomly spouting off Klan slogans-- and occasionally there is a random drive-by poster where that happens, but generally the racism discussions involve a lot more subtlety than that.

Like I for example would argue that the people who want to teach race to three year olds (e.g. My anti-racist baby are themselves the racists (which they literally are). And those sorts of discussions and the discussions that surround finding racism everywhere and racializing everything do deserve to be had.

Ok. Let me clarify perhaps excessively, because I believe this is substantially different from what you suggested before. If I understand correctly you are saying that YES we can indeed continue to have a vibrant good faith discussions about whether a statement made by someone is or is not racist provided it is that vast "gray zone". You as the moderator might come in and delete that statement, or you might come in and not delete that statement, but neither direction is going to restrict that good faith vibrant debate?

The reason why this is such a big change in my mind is because originally you said "a statement you believe to be racist" and now it is "a statement is racist to the point that you think it violates our forum standards". Those are significantly different because it changes from what I personally believe to what I am guessing you as the moderator believes. For myself, I'm quite likely to have a more nuanced view on racism than, perhaps, the average person on this forum, and I think it is important to have a space to be able to explain why I think that way and why I'm identifying certain types of statements as problematic even if that has no negative animosity against the specific poster.

I will attempt to navigate these rules as best i can which is all I can do and anyone can do.

So i have a Trolly template as acceptable just above and repeated more than once, so I will try to tailor my coming use of such language tightly to his when accusing others of being bigoted, '....ist', etc, as either a general slur or a more direct response to things people are debating.

Again i believe in do as you would want others to do onto you but failing that do onto them as they do onto you. I will not cede sole slur ground to Trolly or anyone else no matter how much ganstaman or others say it is 'different' because Trolly does it now and constantly, but you are saying you will do it in the future, once the mod gives the ok.

That difference ganstaman thinks is the only reason to criticize one but not the other is meaningless to me. the person who has wielded that weapon for ages prior is the one who should be blamed and yet is not.

Luckbox and myself are actually a pretty good example here. If you don't mind me saying, luckbox is somebody that rejects the concept of race and gender. He isn't racist or transphobic at least nothing indicates it in his public commentary from what I can tell, and we don't have any particular animosity to each other beyond sometimes thinking the other is a bit ridiculous. But I think we have substantially different world views on what racism ends up being under these viewpoints. I don't want to report his posts. I don't want you to delete his posts. But sometimes we have interesting discussions about it that include stating that something is or is not racist.

Those discussions should be absolutely allowed.

Ignore this.^^^

On Rotten Tomatoes people quickly learned thru trial and error and what would pass and what would not even with different mods who had slightly different moderation views.

it was not hard, and the rules tightened as people became more accustomed to what the mod would do.

it became so easily predictable with posters warning one another 'better edit that' if it was clear it crossed a mod line.

The point is not whether uke or I agree with each other or you, as uke and I will almost never agree with each other and we may both or neither agree with you. As long as you show some consistency, people can and will adapt to that.

Certain people here are terrified about losing the ability to be able to label others and hide behind 'but that is how i see it' regardless if they can quote any specifics. They want their 'feelings' of what the person really means to be what matters.

I have had direct disagreements with uke where he has suggested he knows what i 'really meant' in direct contrast to what I actually said and he maintained he knew what i meant and refused and clarifications. He had assumed my label and was sticking to it. And he is terrified to lose that and to instead debate more civilly what was actually said.

I think the objection then Uke is giving is your desire that people not call things racist.

I for example believe that we should strive for a colorblind society and basically continue MLK's vision when it comes to race. There are people reading this right now who think that believing in a colorblind society is itself racist and a tool of white supremacy. Now obviously believing in a colorblind society is not going to be against the forum rules, but you shouldn't take away the ability of people to call it racist just the same.

I'm giving our moderator a hard time - perhaps harder than anyone else on this forum - and to his credit he is comporting himself well in the face of my arguments and doing a pretty good job. We disagree, but I think quite respectfully.

So what my approach for the coming months is to focus on good faith debating - which I always do - but specifically good faith debating sans overt animosity - which I haven't always done. I'd encourage you to try and do the same. I'm not sure I read this post entirely correctly, but it sounds like you are sort of planning to deliberately toe the line of the rules and to uh not "cede slur ground" and reciprocate bad language....i dunno. I think you should try a reset. I think you should try to argue in good faith and if someone else isn't doing that, then you can report them. Report me. Report trolly. I think that's ok. But I think a tit for tat approach doesn't respect the opportunity for a reset in the debate given by our new moderator.

BAM!

Nailed it. Well said and i agree.


But what about the posters who simply do not want 'certain topics' engaged in discussion and know by lobbing such slurs and insults it can create a multipage diversion and allow them to engage in flame wars? What about their needs?

I say that sincerely as not everyone believes it is proper to discuss certain topics. They see the act of discussing certain controversial things as wrong, if they are forced to read the posts of people they disagree with.

That's supposed to be my job and eventually the plan is to start talking about what constitutes a "conspiracy theory" .