Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread

01-19-2023 , 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
Unfortunately my printer was low on ink, so there is just one copy. So for just $100 you can get a raffle ticket with a chance to win the only copy in existence. Don't miss this opportunity to own this unique document that will revolutionize the way people look at forums for days generations to come.

Special offer! For just $50 more you can get a commemorative coin from the Franklin Mint. Supplies are limited so there is a strict 1000 coins per order limit.

Venmo, cashapp and zelle accepted. @browserbucks. No crypto or Sklansky Bucks.
Damn, that's how all my savings is kept.
01-19-2023 , 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
Unfortunately my printer was low on ink, so there is just one copy. So for just $100 you can get a raffle ticket with a chance to win the only copy in existence. Don't miss this opportunity to own this unique document that will revolutionize the way people look at forums for days generations to come.

Special offer! For just $50 more you can get a commemorative coin from the Franklin Mint. Supplies are limited so there is a strict 1000 coins per order limit.

Venmo, cashapp and zelle accepted. @browserbucks. No crypto or Sklansky Bucks.
But how much for the NFT of a picture of the document?
01-19-2023 , 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
But how much for the NFT of a picture of the document?
Damn, I hadn't thought about that. Great idea. I can make it a picture of me holding the rules which will make it even more valuable. I think it will be a while for those though. Im afraid I don't easily fit into my superman, cowboy and astronaut outfits right now. But then again, super tight clothes is actually a good look for me, so...
01-20-2023 , 06:23 AM
I have posted the new guidelines in the guidelines thread. I decided to take a different approach. Rather than emphasize all the things you can't do, in excruciating detail, and try and cover every possible hypothetical, I chose to focus on the the things we can do, in a positive manner, to make the forum welcoming and enjoyable. In the end, it is up to each of us to embrace the positive vision of what this forum should be, and act and post accordingly rather than continue to constantly test the system to see how far one can go before breaking the rules enough to draw discipline.

So I am asking each of you to take a look at how you have been posting previously, and assess if there are things you can modify to support our objectives without losing your ability to fully express your opinions. I think you will find that being nice in no way inhibits getting a point across. And when everyone is nice, the natural tendency for people to put their mental shields up, stop listening, and focus on defending themselves and counterattacking will fade away. So in fact, it becomes easier to communicate a point when the other person doesn't feel under attack.

Take a look at the guidelines; give them a try; then, provide feedback and I will adjust as necessary. But what I don't want to do now is another round of hypotheticals. If you aren't sure about something, just post what you think is a good faith post. If there are any issues or unclear areas, we will resolve them as they come up. But I don't want to have the majority of the posting in this forum to be in the mod thread over imagined problems. Go forth into the real threads and post away.

Thanks for everyones support during this transition. I really appreciate it.
01-20-2023 , 08:16 AM
Banning a long time poster without an explanation and then deleting any posts in reference to it is quite ahem Orwellian? Or Stalinist?
01-20-2023 , 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
Banning a long time poster without an explanation and then deleting any posts in reference to it is quite ahem Orwellian? Or Stalinist?
You have made it clear that you prioritize quality of life over civil liberties, so thumbs up from you I guess?
01-20-2023 , 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
Banning a long time poster without an explanation and then deleting any posts in reference to it is quite ahem Orwellian? Or Stalinist?
Try reading the thread where that topic is addressed fully. You're late to the party.
01-20-2023 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
Try reading the thread where that topic is addressed fully. You're late to the party.
There is a thread about that (other than this one)? Could you direct me to it?
01-20-2023 , 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
There is a thread about that (other than this one)? Could you direct me to it?
It's this thread.
01-20-2023 , 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
This last banning actually helped illustrate the limitations of giving a partial explanation. The decision to ban cuepee wasnt the result of a single post or a couple of posts. Rather, it was the culmination of a process that played out over almost three weeks, consisting of deleted posts, explanations in pms, additional deleted posts, user reports, additional discussions by pm, an official warning, warnings in post replies, and then finally the ban.

A post that simply said he was banned for violating rule XXX would way oversimplify the situation. And therefore it would provide little to no sunshine and serve no oversight function. So it really doesnt have much upside value and doesnt outweigh the downside.
Is it ok to quote this now (even though it's not far away) just to avoid these current questions from growing?
01-20-2023 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman
Is it ok to quote this now (even though it's not far away) just to avoid these current questions from growing?
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking me about. Could you rephrase it pls?
Thanks
01-20-2023 , 01:03 PM
I will probably say more later if I can get a break, but I have one specific suggestion off the top. Here:
Quote:
(c) Extremist views well outside of the mainstream will not be allowed: offensive conspiracy theories, racist views, etc
I think you should explicitly enumerate homophobic, transphobic, and sexist at minimum in your list of two examples. I think from some much earlier comments ITT you probably do intend that to be thought of as in the "etc", but I think explicit enumeration is quite important for sending a clear signal both to potential agitators in these lines that it won't be tolerated as well as to marginalized communities that they are welcome here.
01-20-2023 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I will probably say more later if I can get a break, but I have one specific suggestion off the top. Here:

I think you should explicitly enumerate homophobic, transphobic, and sexist at minimum in your list of two examples. I think from some much earlier comments ITT you probably do intend that to be thought of as in the "etc", but I think explicit enumeration is quite important for sending a clear signal both to potential agitators in these lines that it won't be tolerated as well as to marginalized communities that they are welcome here.
These are pretty broad descriptions.
Would you consider someone against gay marriage to be homophobic?
01-20-2023 , 02:15 PM
Well, "racist" is also broad but in the guidelines. The category was "extremist views outside of mainstream will not be allowed". So while I think someone against gay marriage is homophobic, that isn't the type of homophobia I would expect to be banned given that it isn't a view far outside of the mainstream and something like 30% still oppose it. My claim here is that homophobia etc should be in the same enumerated category as racism.
01-20-2023 , 02:21 PM
A comment about guidelines, standards, and enforcement in general. The is a saying in organization management and leadership theory:

"Your standards are what you allow to occur around you"

It means that regardless of what is written in policy letters or SOPs, your true standard is what actually happens in the office, unit, etc. For example, if your policy says "Everyone must be at work by 9am" but people continue to roll in until 10am without consequences, then your actual standard is 10am, despite what the policy says.

We have twoplustwo rules and guidelines that every poster, in every forum must follow in order to participate in the forums. Our forum has guidelines that provide some more specific examples of types of things that are considered violations of the site-wide rules. I recognize that in the past, for a variety of reasons, enforcement of certain actions that violated forum policies may have been intermittent. And during my transition period, where I was assessing the situation and gathering input from members, I said that there would be a bit of a grace period for the enforcement of certain rules.

Now, with the posting of the revised guidelines, that transition period is over, as is the grace period for rules violations. As the saying states, it's meaningless to say on paper that personal attacks, trolling and other things are not allowed if in fact there are no consequences for those who violate the rules. As I outlined in the rules post, there is a graduated process for disciplinary action. My goal is to get users to voluntarily meet our standards so our forum will have the desired atmosphere and culture. I would hope that I would never have to get to the point of needing to ban anyone.

But there is another saying:

"Organizations will continue to act as they always have until forced to do otherwise".

Despite policy changes, some peoples' behavioral "muscle memory" kicks in and they continue to behave as they did before the changes. We may have some members who are used to acting in certain ways that violate the guidelines and so continue to act that way. If necessary I will use appropriate disciplinary action to try and help adjust the behavior. But I very much prefer to not get to that point.

So I'm asking each of you before you hit post, to just check to see if you are responding by "muscle memory" or are you following our guidelines.

Thanks
01-20-2023 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I will probably say more later if I can get a break, but I have one specific suggestion off the top. Here:

I think you should explicitly enumerate homophobic, transphobic, and sexist at minimum in your list of two examples. I think from some much earlier comments ITT you probably do intend that to be thought of as in the "etc", but I think explicit enumeration is quite important for sending a clear signal both to potential agitators in these lines that it won't be tolerated as well as to marginalized communities that they are welcome here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
These are pretty broad descriptions.
Would you consider someone against gay marriage to be homophobic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Well, "racist" is also broad but in the guidelines. The category was "extremist views outside of mainstream will not be allowed". So while I think someone against gay marriage is homophobic, that isn't the type of homophobia I would expect to be banned given that it isn't a view far outside of the mainstream and something like 30% still oppose it. My claim here is that homophobia etc should be in the same enumerated category as racism.
Good points from both of you. I will develop clarifying wording and add it later today. Thanks
01-20-2023 , 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
You have made it clear that you prioritize quality of life over civil liberties, so thumbs up from you I guess?
they are the same thing in general. I prioritize civil liberties of individuals over those of corporate cartels and oligarchs.
01-20-2023 , 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
Try reading the thread where that topic is addressed fully. You're late to the party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman
Is it ok to quote this now (even though it's not far away) just to avoid these current questions from growing?
well right, I dont think that is sufficient explanation.
01-20-2023 , 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
well right, I dont think that is sufficient explanation.
OK, so you don't agree with the policy that I am not going to explain the details of every users' ban to the public at large. Noted. But for the reasons I discussed above, that's the policy.
01-20-2023 , 03:16 PM
Thanks for doing all this browser. I agree with uke's point but overall it looks great.
01-20-2023 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
Good points from both of you. I will develop clarifying wording and add it later today. Thanks
Changes made to guidelines.
01-20-2023 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I will probably say more later if I can get a break, but I have one specific suggestion off the top. Here:

I think you should explicitly enumerate homophobic, transphobic, and sexist at minimum in your list of two examples. I think from some much earlier comments ITT you probably do intend that to be thought of as in the "etc", but I think explicit enumeration is quite important for sending a clear signal both to potential agitators in these lines that it won't be tolerated as well as to marginalized communities that they are welcome here.
If by "homophobic", you mean posts that express hatred toward homosexuals, then that should indeed be banned.

But if " homophobic" includes folks who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and bad for the homosexuals themselves, that should be allowed imo.
01-20-2023 , 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstacker
If by "homophobic", you mean posts that express hatred toward homosexuals, then that should indeed be banned.

But if " homophobic" includes folks who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and bad for the homosexuals themselves, that should be allowed imo.
The idea that anything is "sinful" sounds like something for the religion forum, not politics.

Personally, sinful is a term without any meaning to me, and I don't think it has any meaning outside of a religious context.
01-20-2023 , 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
The idea that anything is "sinful" sounds like something for the religion forum, not politics.

Personally, sinful is a term without any meaning to me, and I don't think it has any meaning outside of a religious context.
For example, should I be fired or somehow penalized by an employer who insists I wear a "Pride" decal on my work boots and I politely decline to do so
01-20-2023 , 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstacker
For example, should I be fired or somehow penalized by an employer who insists I wear a "Pride" decal on my work boots and I politely decline to do so
Of course not. I don't see how that relates to believing homosexuality is sinful or bad for anyone though. I don't believe either of those is true, but I would also object to being required (or even asked) to wear a pride flag.

      
m