Updated rules - Hate Messages [W:27, 43, 103]

Jerry said:

Has Familial relation or Veteran status been mentioned yet? Is there any particular reason those are being left out?

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Not covered by the HS rule. The Mod Team has included all groups that it intends to include.

Jerry said:

Regarding all the recent rules changes: has the rule about noting in-thread warnings in the thread title been removed? After noting that this thread's title was not changed to reflect the 2 in-thread warnings I checked the forum rules and I did not see that rule. If it has been removed, thank you, it was kind-of annoying and hardly anyone checked the noted posts anyway.

Click to expand...

This is beyond the scope of this thread.

Bob Blaylock said:

Indeed, without the contributions and participation of all the members of this site to the discussion here, what would this site be? It would be nothing of any worth.

The owners of this site certainly aren't retired to give us any voice in how it should be run, but I think it is very foolish to dismiss us in the careless manner that the one mod who I have so far seen participating in this thread has repeatedly done. We certainly have a lot more to do with what this site is, and how much worth it has, than the moderators do.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

I will say it one more time. Either discuss the issue presented in the OP, remove yourself from the thread, or I will remove you. From here on, any further variations will be met with thread bans and possibly infractions.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Moderator's Warning:

OK. One gone. Kal presented concerns about potential ambiguity of the HS rule. That's the focus here. Either stay on topic, or you will be removed from the thread. This is not a place to bitch about he existence of the rule. It's not going anywhere.

Click to expand...

CC, I'm a bit confused about the protected groups and if this protection extends to the Basement. I get the groups, but the rule says DP......but sometimes the Basement is different. If I find what I saw, I'll PM you about it because it added to my confusion.

CaptainCourtesy said:

That's one possibility. The other is that one or two members are having difficulty with their perception of the rule's clarity. This is going to happen no matter how well a rule is spelled out.

Click to expand...

Or MAYBE it's just that some of us never have and never will give a **** about following rules that restrict our ability to speak the TRUTH rather than some neutered, politically correct version of reality.

You can change the rule any way you want, it will not change how we do things.

I'd like to see the forum more strictly prohibit the "N" word about race and the "F" word about gays upstairs. Too often people think they found excuse by disguising it as satire or sneering at racists or bigots. There is virtually no instance, unless actually quoting a very public figure from a source elsewhere, where it is necessary.

For example, for one member I won't name I did a search and found upstairs he had posted the "N" word in something like 100 different threads at least once. Of those messages I read, none were necessary for him to be able to fully make his point otherwise.

No hate-language against "religion," however, it is a bit tricky as it is a fine-line between condemning a tenant of a religion and condemning the members of it WHEN that tenant is fairly universally followed - for example some Persian Gulf and Arabic cultures in regards to women and gays. There also is huge political-correctness extended socially to the Islamic religion that is not extended to Christianity (in my opinion).

Just my thoughts on the topic.

I see it as a very good upgrade to the rule for some specific reasons. Here's a few of those:

1. Most people don't use that language in general, in public discussion of politics and certainly not in public debates. Particularly typical new visitors will tend not to stick around if political-debate is at the bar-room and trailer trash level. In short, it limits participation and at lower quality levels.

2. The USA is what, 54% white, but the forum is 95+% white. Slurs don't mean much if at others. It does if at you. Again, such completely unnecessary language restricts diversity and quality of debating politics and other topics.

3. It invites the wrong-sorts of people to, in a sense, raid the forum. Most forums will not tolerate such language. So people of such racist, bigoted etc views will tend to gather on forums that do. Do we really want to open the door to Stormfronters? The reason not to? Because if you do, many who aren't Stormfronters will leave.

I am aware there are those who quickly will say "if a person doesn't like unrestricted free speech then they don't have to stay." My response is that if a person is incapable of constraining themselves to civil language that is not intensely offensive (and crude), go join Stormfront where you'll fit right in.

BTW, I'd like to see the words "whore" and "slut" restricted at least somewhat. Since it is nearly always aimed singularly at women, it is often then a gender slur. This forum also is predominately male, although 51% of voters are women. Although not currently, time to time it seems we are raided with advocates of pedophilia and rape - and always just about women.

A person can make any and every point they want to make without using a VERY short list of words recognized as ignorant, highly offense, and that are used specifically to set people off and express hatred.

American said:

CC, I'm a bit confused about the protected groups and if this protection extends to the Basement. I get the groups, but the rule says DP......but sometimes the Basement is different. If I find what I saw, I'll PM you about it because it added to my confusion.

Click to expand...

^ That is a very good question.

joko104 said:

I'd like to see the forum more strictly prohibit the "N" word about race and the "F" word about gays upstairs. Too often people think they found excuse by disguising it as satire or sneering at racists or bigots. There is virtually no instance, unless actually quoting a very public figure from a source elsewhere, where it is necessary.

For example, for one member I won't name I did a search and found upstairs he had posted the "N" word in something like 100 different threads at least once. Of those messages I read, none were necessary for him to be able to fully make his point otherwise.

No hate-language against "religion," however, it is a bit tricky as it is a fine-line between condemning a tenant of a religion and condemning the members of it WHEN that tenant is fairly universally followed - for example some Persian Gulf and Arabic cultures in regards to women and gays. There also is huge political-correctness extended socially to the Islamic religion that is not extended to Christianity (in my opinion).

Just my thoughts on the topic.

Click to expand...

Rule 20... "Slurs" addresses this issue. This rule has also been updated.

Tigger said:

Or MAYBE it's just that some of us never have and never will give a **** about following rules that restrict our ability to speak the TRUTH rather than some neutered, politically correct version of reality.

You can change the rule any way you want, it will not change how we do things.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

And people who do that will continue to receive consequences whether they care or not. And we now have another thread ban.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Rule 20... "Slurs" addresses this issue. This rule has also been updated.

Click to expand...

OK, I see the distinction.

Forum rules are not legal statutes, which tend to be very long and also with then vastly longer relevant case law. Even then, there will always be gray areas and splitting hairs.

For that, neither civil nor criminal law uses the word "extreme." There are obvious problems with prohibiting "extreme" messages. I am an extreme person in some views. Probably most members are.

The word law used in law to deal with such gray areas is "reasonable." For example, in using deadly force the law generally will "would a reasonable person believe his/her life is in danger?"

Reasonable to who? "The average person." The question, then, is who decides what is "reasonable?" In law, it is judge or jury. On a forum it is the moderators.

I don't see reason to have such redundant microscopic clarity necessary in forum rules. If a person is concerned of receiving an infraction, don't push the envelope. However, if felt necessary the word "extreme" should not be added - ie not rewritten to "Extreme hate messages..." Adding the qualifier of "extreme" and is to then bandy over "extreme." Rather, the change then should be "Messages reasonably interpreted as hate message..."

The bottom line in law is if a judge or jury are not going to be "reasonable," no statute language will change that. Same for a forum and moderators. The language of the rule as written seems fine, but if the gray areas of it need be legalistically stated, the word should be "reasonable" and not "extreme."

Look, here's the long and simple of it.

Everything under this new rewrite was already against the rules previously. There's been no massive change that is suddenly going to cause infractions to start being handed out where they previously weren't. If you weren't seeing people getting infracted and suspended for saying to repeal the 2nd amendment then you shouldn't expect to be seeing it now.

What did happen is that we've actually tightened up a bit on WHAT we consider hate speech. IE, if anything, there will likely be less things that get infracted...not more. The #1, primary goal of this website is to foster debate and discussion in an open and honest manner. Sometimes those views and thoughts expressed may be offensive or worthy of condemnation to some people, but that doesn't mean they're against the rules. The rework was done to hopefully more narrowly where the line is between within the rules offensive statements and outside the rules hate speech.

We understand the notion of "extreme" and are discussing adding the word in there. At the same time, understand that while some things are allowable within the rules we do not wish to ENCOURAGE them. In the spirit of what Schweddy would like this website to be, the whole team has came about these new rules to give a bit more leeway to posters discussions. At the same time, if given the choice between "offensive" and "non-offensive" posts, in general we'd take "non-offensive". Something like "Extreme" is still, ultimately, a subjective notion and one that, written in the rules, would likely just give rise to individuals purosefully attempting to skirt it by posting borderline hate speech but trying to make sure it's "not extreme". The benefit of writing it into the official rules may not outweigh the negatives of adding what is essentially an unnecessary clarification.

As with ALL of our rules, we give leeway for some general common sense and understanding that this is a political website. We rarely issue points on a first time offense, instead giving warnings to give people heads up. The entire rewrite is attempting to err a bit on the side of being lenient to posters making arguments as opposed to the stricter former rules.

I understand that we're a bunch of policy and political wonks on this board. Arguing, debating, and discussing issues in a very academic mindset is common place and makes perfect sense on political issues. A wonderful example of this is the discussions that spring forth in terms of the marriage debate when people state "Just remove it from government entirely!" A wonderfully academic stance that can lead to great conversation...but it's entirely realistic at this time when objectively viewing the realities of our population and what is likely to occur. What I see here is a bunch of that "Academic" mindset shining through...arguing certain parts of the rules in VERY obtuse, unrealistic yet principled, "in a bubble" type of ways. These rules are not EXPANDING what was previously able to be done, the Mod Team isn't massively changing it's make up...so asking questions and acting worried that we suddenly may start infracting people for saying "get rid of the 2nd amendment" is like debating what would happen if you walked out tomorrow and the sky was tie-dye colored.

As to the groups selected, these are what the mod team has felt is appropriate to have on the list. They are pretty much exactly the same as before the write up. We understand that some may feel that one group shouldn't be on, others may feel that a group SHOULD be on. If you want to SUGGEST one way or another, that's fine. If you want to argue about how it's "wrong" to have one or "wrong" not to have another then you can expect that not to be engaged in greatly. We're happy for feedback or suggestions, we're not looking to have "Debate Moderation". We understand that everyone doesn't necessarily agree with the idea behind the rule or the thoughts behind what's covered; but ultimately the general notion that this rule IS going to be in place is not going to change, plain and simple. We appreciate the feedback, but understand on that notion your feedback is heard but will not be acted upon beyond the tightening of the rules use that was just done.

Changes have been made for clarity and consistency. Thread closed.