Serious debates moderating policy, take 2

[Vicky.]

OK there have recently been a few issues with people complaining about various moderation decisions in this section. I think that maybe some kind of collective decision can be made on this (with a bit of luck). Now obviously everyone won't agree, I don't think we could do anything that literally everyone agrees with...but we can try to get a large majority decision and stick by that. So, my idea for this is

Would people be happy with discussion threads actually being threads full of discussion? Rather than the snipey rubbish we often get in this section. This would mean that


-Posts such as 'but what about X' are no good. You can add your actual opinion and bring up X in relation to your post, yes. But just nothing but a 'what about' post is no good. No bringing up totally unrelated things, unless there is an actual reason to bring up that thing, and of there is, then thats fine.
-Posts must actually be well thought out and address the OP. If the thread has moved on naturally (as sometimes happens), then thats fine too, but posts must have some actual thought put into them.
-The sniping at each other stops. Yes, say you disagree with someones opinion. But just stuff such as 'you like X so obviously you would think that', with no other substance to the post at all, is pointless.

Obviously usual rules about no insulting members and such would apply also.

I would say that anyone persistently making one line 'what about' type posts, or sniping rather than debating should be banned from this section temporarily, and then permanently if it continues, not fully banned.

Finally, I would like peoples actual opinions on this as I basically want to do something that most are happy with tbh.

So if you say no on the poll, pleased tell me why and what you would suggest instead.

We can hopefully come to an agreement between all of us.

Maybe I am being too optimistic though. But lets see

Second attempt at this as my first attempt was clearly questionable in some of the 'rules'

We don't like to have many rules at all tbh in this section..we are more lenient here than elsewhere as we realize people get quite passionate about certain topics. But clearly some decisions made recently have annoyed a lot of members...

[Cherie]

It's like ground hog day :laugh:

I agree!

[Vicky.]

I know :laugh:

I did realise though that the bit about links in posts and such is a bit harsh as many people will just post a news story and then add their opinion later on

Just really really want to sort out this section and if I just start deleting the posts that I mention in the OP, people will go mental about it so...thought it best to be transparent.

I am basically trying to save this section, as I used to love it and I know how good it can be without all of the recent rubbish

Given it seems I am not allowed to step down..this is the next best thing, besides just leaving the bloody site :laugh:

[Cherie]

I know :laugh:

I did realise though that the bit about links in posts and such is a bit harsh as many people will just post a news story and then add their opinion later on

Just really really want to sort out this section and if I just start deleting the posts that I mention in the OP, people will go mental about it so...thought it best to be transparent.

I am basically trying to save this section, as I used to love it and I know how good it can be without all of the recent rubbish

Given it seems I am not allowed to step down..this is the next best thing, besides just leaving the bloody site :laugh:

no you are not allowed to step down :nono:

and thank you for trying to sort this out

[thesheriff443]

The problem is people take serious debates far too seriously, arguing with someone you don't like about a subject that you can't change or won't change.

[Vicky.]

The problem is people take serious debates far too seriously, arguing with someone you don't like about a subject that you can't change or won't change.

Well, thats what serious debates is though, surely. Someone should be able to forcefully argue their point without dissolving into a 'whataboutery' fit or sniping on.

Cherie - I have literally asked to be a normal member again like 3 times now in the past couple of months and I am still green. It was annoying me a bit, but I am now over it I think. I think james may have just thought I was tantruming a bit, which in one of the cases may be true but in the others i was deadly serious :joker:

[Tom4784]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

[Cherie]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

I would agree with that, can we also add words like scum etc, because they add nothing, you don't hear that at PMs questions, Teresa May shouting scum at the opposition

[Vicky.]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.
I agree with this. Its fine to say you consider someones view to be transphobic, but it should be backed up with why you think that, basically?

But I do think random 'you are racist' posts should be considered an insult if the likes of 'snowflake' were

Personally I completely disagree with snowflake and leftie/rightie (never have heard rightie, ever) being insults though. Loony left, possibly. Remoaner is a clearly baiting term I reckon. I know its used in the press, but that doesnt change anything.

[Cherie]

Well, thats what serious debates is though, surely. Someone should be able to forcefully argue their point without dissolving into a 'whataboutery' fit or sniping on.

Cherie - I have literally asked to be a normal member again like 3 times now in the past couple of months and I am still green. It was annoying me a bit, but I am now over it I think. I think james may have just thought I was tantruming a bit, which in one of the cases may be true but in the others i was deadly serious :joker:

I am glad he has made you see sense :hee:

[Vicky.]

I would agree with that, can we also add words like scum etc, because they add nothing, you don't hear that at PMs questions, Teresa May shouting scum at the opposition

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

[thesheriff443]

Well, thats what serious debates is though, surely. Someone should be able to forcefully argue their point without dissolving into a 'whataboutery' fit or sniping on.

Cherie - I have literally asked to be a normal member again like 3 times now in the past couple of months and I am still green. It was annoying me a bit, but I am now over it I think. I think james may have just thought I was tantruming a bit, which in one of the cases may be true but in the others i was deadly serious :joker:

Only on an internet site would you continue to argue with some one who views you don't agree with, you don't mix with people you don't like in real life.

As members look for ways to undermine another members opinion it gets personal because that's their personal opinion.

[Withano]

How do you detemine what a well-thought out post is? A minimum word count?

I'd like to add, I'd say a good 30%+ of the arguments stem from people misinterpreting posts - I think that needs to be addressed somewhere.

But all good ideas in the op

[Vicky.]

How do you detemine what a well-thought out post is? A minimum word count?

I'd like to add, I'd say a good 30%+ of the arguments stem from people misinterpreting posts - I think that needs to be addressed somewhere.

But all good ideas in the op

I have no idea. I have actually asked James before if we can have a minimum word count in this section and he said it could not be done with the software. But I think thats maybe a good idea. Issue there is, sometimes a single word would be fine. Depending on the thread. So yet again, its all about context, which is why its extremely hard to have these 'set rules' that people demand of us.

[thesheriff443]

A bit off topic but a serious question, is Josy ok as she as not been posting.

[Niamh.]

A bit off topic but a serious question, is Josy ok as she as not been posting.

She's fine, just busy I think

[Tom4784]

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

I'd agree to that.

[thesheriff443]

She's fine, just busy I think

That's ok then, thanks.

[Vicky.]

A bit off topic but a serious question, is Josy ok as she as not been posting.

She was on recently but not for long. Shes taking a break from the forum. I think thats a good plan tbh, will probably end up doing the same if this crap continues as its draining and I cannot really be arsed at all :joker:

[Tom4784]

I don't think minimum word counts would be the way to go, some people can succinctly explain their points in a few sentences and make just as much sense as someone who writes an essay.

I think it's just something you judge on a case by case basis, you can tell a good post from a bad one.

[bots]

Anything that better defines an understandable, even handed approach is fine by me.

This being the serious debates section, I don't think its unreasonable to make considered and thought provoking posts rather than generalised snipes.

[thesheriff443]

She was on recently but not for long. Shes taking a break from the forum. I think thats a good plan tbh, will probably end up doing the same if this crap continues as its draining and I cannot really be arsed at all :joker:

I don't blame you Vicky, life is hard enough with out the constant conflict on here.

[Withano]

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

I'm a bit confused with this too, because sometimes under the correct context, 'she is scum' could be fine? Like that rees-mogg thread where the OP was of a video that highlights the awful things that he has done under his time in parliament. A natural response could be that he is scum, and that would be for the reasons that the video brought up, is there need to reiterate why he is scum? If there was a thread on a mass murderer some time in the future, why cant people use that space to vent? Why must they give reasons to vent, the reasons are going to be obvious sometimes..

I dunno, I'm not being purposely difficult I promise.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I disagree and don't really think it needs changing and never get the whole vexation with SD or all the dire warnings

I don't want huge posts and polite. ' yes you have an interesting point there Hugo but I must take issue with point 3 if I may be so bold '

F that

Get your points made in a few lines and grow a thicker skin imo

[Vicky.]

I don't think minimum word counts would be the way to go, some people can succinctly explain their points in a few sentences and make just as much sense as someone who writes an essay.

I think it's just something you judge on a case by case basis, you can tell a good post from a bad one.

Yup, again, its all about context.

Again, this is why set rules do not really work. And yes, its generally very easy to tell regardless of word count if something is meant to be baity or not

How would everyone feel about a separate forum for actual debates. Where mention of current politics and such are basically, banned. So you could have a discussion about, maybe abortion rights, without it turning into a tory v labour thing? Its something I have brought up before (after it was suggested to me by PM) and I think this would help matters a lot as people sick top death of all the politics stuff could just go there

[Vicky.]

OK you know what, I may totally abandon this attempt to sort stuff out. As yes, context really is important and set rules do not really work. Ugh. I really don't know what to do here tbh

[Marches]

considering the demographic of this forum and where everyone leans politically in general nothing i have to say will have much impact and as such i prob won't gauge upon much political discussion here

i agree with the sentiment of the op but like political debates on forums ALWAYS end up messy. Its just how things are. People are very passionate about this kind of stuff. Theres a lot of subjectivity that gets perceived as objectivity and it can frustrate some people when they see an opinion they deem to be objectively wrong. you'll just never be able to tame discussions like this. Ive been on various forums and it always ends the same way.

[Ashley.]

I have no idea. I have actually asked James before if we can have a minimum word count in this section and he said it could not be done with the software. But I think thats maybe a good idea. Issue there is, sometimes a single word would be fine. Depending on the thread. So yet again, its all about context, which is why its extremely hard to have these 'set rules' that people demand of us.

I don't always go into great detail with my contributions in this section, but I always try to make sure that they are adding something to the discussion even if it's just a couple of sentences. It's just there are times when I am willing to put my two cents into a discussion but I don't have the time to write more than a few words. I don't think "well thought-out posts" should be a requirement, but perhaps a clamping down on what is considered a constructive or a non-constructive post is necessary?

[bots]

OK you know what, I may totally abandon this attempt to sort stuff out. As yes, context really is important and set rules do not really work. Ugh. I really don't know what to do here tbh

whisky works for me :laugh:

[Vicky.]

I don't always go into great detail with my contributions in this section, but I always try to make sure that they are adding something to the discussion even if it's just a couple of sentences. It's just there are times when I am willing to put my two cents into a discussion but I don't have the time to write more than a few words. I don't think "well thought-out posts" should be a requirement, but perhaps a clamping down on what is considered a constructive or a non-constructive post is necessary?

Yeah I agree with this. But then there is the issue of..people considering their own posts to be constructive, no matter what, So people would still be kicking off. This is the issue we are currently having actually.

People are going to kick off no matter what really aren't they. So yeah, **** this idea of attempting to sort stuff, as it won;t work at all :laugh2:

[Withano]

Yup, again, its all about context.

Again, this is why set rules do not really work. And yes, its generally very easy to tell regardless of word count if something is meant to be baity or not

How would everyone feel about a separate forum for actual debates. Where mention of current politics and such are basically, banned. So you could have a discussion about, maybe abortion rights, without it turning into a tory v labour thing? Its something I have brought up before (after it was suggested to me by PM) and I think this would help matters a lot as people sick top death of all the politics stuff could just go there

A News and Politics section, and a separate Serious Debates section might work... maybe.. idk

[Tom4784]

When we clamp down on posts like that we get accused of censorship :laugh:

[Vicky.]

What I meant by addressing the OP was basically about this 'whataboutery' stuff. Like, going into a thread about Corbyn doing something and just posting 'but May is ridiculous' or 'what about Rees Mogg, he voted against gay marriage' when it has nothing at all to do with the thread and is not actually addressing whatever the OP is about, if this makes sense?

[Withano]

A News and Politics section, and a separate Serious Debates section might work... maybe.. idk

Or maybe keep news and debates as it is, and add a politics subforum which will be affectionately known as a ****ing mess

[Crimson Dynamo]

What I meant by addressing the OP was basically about this 'whataboutery' stuff. Like, going into a thread about Corbyn doing something and just posting 'but May is ridiculous' or 'what about Rees Mogg, he voted against gay marriage' when it has nothing at all to do with the thread and is not actually addressing whatever the OP is about, if this makes sense?

But that happens on QT and in the commons!

[Marches]

What I meant by addressing the OP was basically about this 'whataboutery' stuff. Like, going into a thread about Corbyn doing something and just posting 'but May is ridiculous' or 'what about Rees Mogg, he voted against gay marriage' when it has nothing at all to do with the thread and is not actually addressing whatever the OP is about, if this makes sense?

you could always warn/infract but then people yell 'censorship'

as long as its within reason id doubt anyone but the person trying to deter from whatever is being discussed would have an issue

[Ashley.]

Yeah I agree with this. But then there is the issue of..people considering their own posts to be constructive, no matter what, So people would still be kicking off. This is the issue we are currently having actually.

People are going to kick off no matter what really aren't they. So yeah, **** this idea of attempting to sort stuff, as it won;t work at all :laugh2:

I think you should definitely leave it open for discussion. It all seems pretty fair to me, and there's no denying that a lot of discussions lately have only resulted in a battle of words between two parties, this past month especially. The fact of the matter is that something quite clearly needs to be done about all the sniping etc., so you were right to bring it to everybody's attention.

[Maru]

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

[jet]

I hit I Agree as I think Vicky's OP is a good step forward. I haven't read all the comments yet though, but basically I'm just for even - handedness and fairness all round really.

[Ammi]

....hmmm, I’m not sure about the discussions having to be ‘more thought out with reasons given’ type thing...because sometimes a simple question could apply to the discussion...or a simple short statement, which would stare a view...also its 13+yrs forum age, so
maybe younger members might want to take part in discussions, but don’t feel yet, that they could give reasons...they might just think..’oh, I think that’s wrong’, but not really have gathered thoughts enough to post to expand on that...more an instinctive opinion they have...?...anyways, making too stead fast rules of post content, may achieve an opposite of putting of as well...it also could feel a little exclusive, maybe..

[Kazanne]

Yeah I agree with this. But then there is the issue of..people considering their own posts to be constructive, no matter what, So people would still be kicking off. This is the issue we are currently having actually.

People are going to kick off no matter what really aren't they. So yeah, **** this idea of attempting to sort stuff, as it won;t work at all :laugh2:

Kudos for you trying Vicky,maybe it would be better if people didn't snipe in their responses as that will always get peoples backs up,I've been in here and just one person sniping can derail a thread and make it nasty,so maybe an instant days ban (or two) might work,I don't envy your job tbh. Crack that whip Vicky:wavey:

[Ammi]

...I actually like that some people might say...oh he’s rubbish or whatever and that’s that of that...and then others expand more and expand the debates...it makes for a great mix, I think...because we all are individuals, not only in our thoughts but how we convey them in type as well..

[Vicky.]

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

So basically, more transparent moderating but leave things as it is? That could work. Like, when stuff gets deleted, post that there has been a deletion and why? Stuff like that?

The issue here would be that then the person who has been deleted will argue back that their post should not have been removed, and then we have to either delete that comment, or explain further and then the thread would turn into 'the modding is unfair' arguments :laugh:

Honestly, this whole thing has made me really think I should just step back from moderating for a while. I really feel we are in a 'cant win' situation where half the forum agree with the deletions and stuff and half disagree D:

[Vicky.]

Kudos for you trying Vicky,maybe it would be better if people didn't snipe in their responses as that will always get peoples backs up,I've been in here and just one person sniping can derail a thread and make it nasty,so maybe an instant days ban (or two) might work,I don't envy your job tbh.

Yeah I agree with this too. But again, whoever is banned from the section would think it was an unfair ban, and we are really back to square one :laugh:

[Ammi]

If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.

When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.

I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.

The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.

..I think the only thing with locked threads, Maru...from my forum experience anyway...is that the thread becomes locked, so silliness can’t continue or whatever reason it has been...but that can then spill into other threads more/ a new thread...because people still want to say..:fist:...but the locking didn’t allow them..:laugh:..

[bots]

if members could vote to give mods a days ban, i think it could increase the fairness aspect :smug:

[Cherie]

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

yeah that's fine, just to stop people from just posting scum, or he/she's gross kinda posts which add nothing and are more aimed at the member rather than the party

[Vicky.]

if members could vote to give mods a days ban, i think it could increase the fairness aspect :smug:

Y'all can ban me permanently if you like. I don't mind :joker:

Admin did ban me once, IIRC. Just to show me it could be done. Not sure if it was Josy or Ben (when he had admin powers)

[RichardG]

i mean i think the debates section as a whole is a damn mess both in terms of its content and some occasional questionable moderating decisions but i also think the same applies to the main big brother forum as well? i think that everything will carry on as before regardless of what rules you may or may not introduce.

[Smithy]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.



That was me

https://media.giphy.com/media/w0jr3kVEbl7eU/giphy.gif


I think regardless of what extra rules get out in place, some people will always break them so is there really much point? :laugh:

[Brillopad]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

SO there we are again - you want to be able to infract people who say snowflake or leftie but still want to be able to use far more insulting words such as racist unles it is used in conjunction with a word such as wanker.

Might be fair if it also only applied to those who say something along the lines of leftie wanker. Waste of time when the mods still want to practice double standards.

[user104658]

Make a separate elite subforum for the cream of the crop and make it that you have to earn your way in there by consistently making insightful posts,and after a while there will be one small but excellent little SD subforum. The promised land, so to speak, where the riff-raff may never tread. Every member there will have mod privileges and the ability to edit each others posts - but will never do so, on a trust based system.

I will obviously be the first member because A) we all know I'd get there quickly anyway and B) I don't really need anyone else to reply to my posts, I can just have discussions on my own...

And then eventually others will reach a high enough level to join me there.

Just a thought.

[Tom4784]

SO there we are again - you want to be able to infract people who say snowflake or leftie but still want to be able to use far more insulting words such as racist unles it is used in conjunction with a word such as wanker.

Might be fair if it also only applied to those who say something along the lines of leftie wanker. Waste of time when the mods still want to practice double standards.

Like I said, if someone finds a view racist and they can explain why then it should be allowed because that is adding to the discussion, calling people remoaners and snowflakes only serves to bring a discussion to a screeching halt.

[Maru]

..I think the only thing with locked threads, Maru...from my forum experience anyway...is that the thread becomes locked, so silliness can’t continue or whatever reason it has been...but that can then spill into other threads more/ a new thread...because people still want to say..:fist:...but the locking didn’t allow them..:laugh:..

Isn't that what suggestions is for? :laugh: If it's done pretty consistently and frequent enough though, it shouldn't appear to be partial to the average user.

There's no way to end disputes, that's part of the job.

[Brillopad]

Like I said, if someone finds a view racist and they can explain why then it should be allowed because that is adding to the discussion, calling people remoaners and snowflakes only serves to bring a discussion to a screeching halt.

That is your opinion not fact. So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay? You are not willing to change your stance one iota. Nothing will change clearly.

[Tom4784]

So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay?

There's other words you can use, snowflake is just an insult through and through. It'd be like saying 'you can call people stupid or ugly, just as long as you explain why.'

Thinking that someone's post is racist, in itself, is not an insult, especially if they explain why.

[user104658]

So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay?"snowflakey" isn't an opinion though, it's a silly jibe.

What you are basically saying when you say "they are snowflakes!" is;

"In my opinion, those people are being too sensitive"

... And the latter would be totally fine to say. You can see the difference, surely.

[user104658]

To make a couple of direct comparisons;

"I find this over-sensitive"
"I find this a bit racist"

Both fine.

"You are a snowflake!"
"You are a Nazi!"

... Not fine.

[Maru]

To make a couple of direct comparisons;

"I find this over-sensitive"
"I find this a bit racist"

Both fine.

"You are a snowflake!"
"You are a Nazi!"

... Not fine.

"You are a racist" though...?

I have seen that on the forum I think. My idea of insult I try to keep pretty simple... if I can make someone 0-60 super pissed by saying they are XYZ, then that's a pretty good indicator it will be taken as an insult.

Most people where I come from would be livid if you called them racist. And it's said to bait others to get them to throw a punch in a non-criminal/criminal environment.

[Vicky.]

To make a couple of direct comparisons;

"I find this over-sensitive"
"I find this a bit racist"

Both fine.

"You are a snowflake!"
"You are a Nazi!"

... Not fine.

Yes, nailed it tbh.

There is a huge difference between using baity terms for people, and actually stating that you find them/the post/whatever a bit oversensitive or something.

I have now changed my mind on the snowflake thing actually. I supported it earlier in the thread but of course you are right...'I think you are being oversensitive on this issue' V 'you are a being a snowflake'...of course the former is much better and more grown up

[Cal.]

I disagree purely because I think it would be hard to implement and VERY subjective depending on the moderator in question at the time. It's not as simple and black and white as normal forum rules. People could be posting things which they deemed perfectly fine and a moderator could take issue with it etc.

[Vicky.]

"You are a racist" though...?

I have seen that on the forum I think. My idea of insult I try to keep pretty simple... if I can make someone 0-60 super pissed by saying they are XYZ, then that's a pretty good indicator it will be taken as an insult.

Most people where I come from would be livid if you called them racist. And it's said to bait others to get them to throw a punch in a non-criminal/criminal environment.

I think your post is racist because....fine

Random 'you are racist'. No good.

IMO. I guess again, with this stuff a lot of it is context and personal opinion.

[Brillopad]

There's other words you can use, snowflake is just an insult through and through. It'd be like saying 'you can call people stupid or ugly, just as long as you explain why.'

Thinking that someone's post is racist, in itself, is not an insult, especially if they explain why.

Racist is an insult through and through. It is not for you to state what is and isn’t insulting and that is half the problem. People clearly do find it insulting but you think you know best and can insult people that way despite them not having made any reference to skin colour - you just interpret it in a hysterical way and try to label people based on that premise.

[Maru]

I think your post is racist because....fine

Random 'you are racist'. No good.

IMO. I guess again, with this stuff a lot of it is context and personal opinion.

And that's as far as I'd take it really. I think picking and choosing words is a bad way to go about crafting any policy. It's better to go with context... and I think some need to let up off the moderators if they get it wrong. We're human beings with completely different subjective realities. Perception is not an exact science. :shrug:

[user104658]

"You are a racist" though...?

I have seen that on the forum I think. My idea of insult I try to keep pretty simple... if I can make someone 0-60 super pissed by saying they are XYZ, then that's a pretty good indicator it will be taken as an insult.

Most people where I come from would be livid if you called them racist. And it's said to bait others to get them to throw a punch in a non-criminal/criminal environment.I think I've been guilty of saying it in one thread during a temper tantrum. In general, no, it's not really OK. None of us here know each other well enough to make such a definitive statement.

However, I think quoting something and saying "This is kinda racist", or "I think you're being racist" is quite different from "You ARE A racist".

Mainly because I don't think most people are racist, but I do think pretty much everyone is capable of being racist at times, whether intentionally or not.

[Maru]

I think I've been guilty of saying it in one thread during a temper tantrum. In general, no, it's not really OK. None of us here know each other well enough to make such a definitive statement.

However, I think quoting something and saying "This is kinda racist", or "I think you're being racist" is quite different from "You ARE A racist".

Mainly because I don't think most people are racist, but I do think pretty much everyone is capable of being racist at times, whether intentionally or not.

Of course

[Brillopad]

I disagree purely because I think it would be hard to implement and VERY subjective depending on the moderator in question at the time. It's not as simple and black and white as normal forum rules. People could be posting things which they deemed perfectly fine and a moderator could take issue with it etc.

This is something I certainly do agree with. We are dealing with people insulting others based on their narrow interpretation of what they said or think they implied. There is no black and white and will allow some to carry on as usual.

[Tom4784]

Racist is an insult through and through. It is not for you to state what is and isn’t insulting and that is half the problem. People clearly do find it insulting but you think you know best and can insult people that way despite them not having made any reference to skin colour - you just interpret it in a hysterical way and try to label people based on that premise.

Okay, let's see it from the other perspective, you prevent people from finding things racist and voicing but at the same time if someone's misogynistic or says something about the right then you can't voice your disapproval of what they are saying because if you're going to prevent people from being allowed to say that they believe something is racist then you better believe the same rules will apply to issues you care about as well.

It doesn't work because what you essentially want to do is neuter someone's right to reply, you can use a different word to snowflake and still say the same thing but you can't do the same if you find something racist and if someone finds something racist or sexist or homophobic then why can't they say so as long as it's not a one line response or done as an insult?

[Ammi]

I think I've been guilty of saying it in one thread during a temper tantrum. In general, no, it's not really OK. None of us here know each other well enough to make such a definitive statement.

However, I think quoting something and saying "This is kinda racist", or "I think you're being racist" is quite different from "You ARE A racist".

Mainly because I don't think most people are racist, but I do think pretty much everyone is capable of being racist at times, whether intentionally or not.

...but then wouldn’t that be making a comment that would have no substance, which is what Vicky is saying that posts should have, they should be well thought out etc..rather than just throwing out labels, whichever way that label was said and attached, that part seems less important...it’s also like the thread Withano made, which is...are we entitled to..?...and Admin might say yeah, you’re entitled to, it’s within the rules ...but then what purpose does it have to further and progress a discussion ...because it would only serve to put on the defensive....defensive is never an equal in discussion, so it doesn’t make for good debate..

[Brillopad]

"snowflakey" isn't an opinion though, it's a silly jibe.

What you are basically saying when you say "they are snowflakes!" is;

"In my opinion, those people are being too sensitive"

... And the latter would be totally fine to say. You can see the difference, surely.


Racist may have a valid meaning but is also used as a silly jibe - you honestly think you can say it isn’t.

I have been called racist based on my opposition to mass migration and/or Burkha wearing on many occasions by the very same people who claim it isn’t used to insult or shut-down when it clearly is - long before the flag-waving of the Muslim mother and son who had to wash dishes thread.

[Tom4784]

Racist may have a valid meaning but is also used as a silly jibe - you honestly think you can say it isn’t.

I have been called racist based on my opposition to mass migration and/or Burkha wearing on many occasions by the very same people who claim it isn’t used to insult or shut-down when it clearly is - long before the flag-waving of the Muslim mother and son who had to wash dishes thread.

While snowflake can ONLY be used as a jibe, it's not a valid comparison.

[Vicky.]

I am closing my own thread as its now quite clear that no matter what we do, we will be in the wrong. I did think that maybe we could sort something out, but it is clear that this is not possible tbh. I don't know what I was thinking making this thread and being optimistic about it all. Also closing as I can see the direction this is now going to go, in exactly the same direction as most other threads.

Moderating is always going to be subjective. And context is important also so no 'set rules' would really work.

So I guess, I will be doing the same as usual, but I may also be reminding people that they need to be ontopic, and also intervening/deleting when appropriate. This will be my last attempt to sort out this section, and tbh, I am sure it won't work either but it has to be tried. If people do feel victimized, so be it. Its the nature of the job really isn't it..

So yeah, closed as its already going the same way as usual, tbh.

People may PM me if they disagree with this being closed, but I am sure most can see exactly why it was.