Enhanced Expiration Dates for Major Violations [W:51]

[Zyphlin]

Perhaps, but I would like clarification because I might use such a statement against a person or group in one of those 'protected groups' when I think it is warranted. Just because a person is in a 'protected group' does not necessarily make them in the right or as pure as the driven snow or whatever.

As is the case with the baiting/flaming/trolling rules, shouting "but it's true" is never a defense. It doesn't matter if you think the person is the most disgusting individual ever, doesn't matter if they are black as coal rather than pure as driven snow, doesn't matter if you really REALLY believe they truly are stupid....that doesn't justify flaming them. Similarly, none of those things justify using a slur towards a person or group that's listed under rule 20, if that slur is being used in an offensive (ie attacking / belittling / negative fashion).

 

[Fledermaus]

The slur rules are such that using a known slur in an offensive manner (ie, using the slur essentially as a slur / for the purpose of slurring) is punishable. Simply uttering the slur is not.

In a music thread saying "I absolutely loved Nigga's in Paris when it came out" is not a violation. However, someone going "I can't stand rap. That nigger music sucks" would be.

If you're linking to a list of slurs as part of some legitimate debate/discussion and not in a manner that appears to be for the purpose of delivering the slurs in an offensive/attacking manner, you'd probably be fine. However, understand that if it's being linked for reasons that aren't heavily tied to, or useful to, the debate/discussion being going on that, while it may not be a slur violation it could be trolling/baiting in nature.

Sorry for the somewhat more vague answer to your specific situation, but the situation itself is a bit uncertain as there's a lot of context that could go into the situation and judgements about it.

Well.... At risk of a major violation....

I present the racial slur database....

The Racial Slur Database

Some examples.

Slur -- Target -- Reason & Origins

8 Mile - Whites - When white kids try to act ghetto or "black". From the 2002 movie "8 Mile".

ABC - Chinese - American-Born Chinese. An Americanized Chinese person who does not understand Chinese culture.

Abeed - Blacks - Arabic term that means Black, many Middle Eastern immigrants to the United States use this

Petrolero - Hispanics - Hispanics Who Are Attracted To Blacks. Means "Oil Drillers".

The list is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE..................

You can slur and not know it.

 

[American]

I think we have to keep a couple things in mind. First, we don't know when someone else gets infracted, so we don't know that they're being handled "unevenly." And second, mods can only infract posts they see. "If you see something, say something," as it were.

BINGO!!! Hit the nail on the head. Plus we don't know about any extenuating circumstance surrounding an infraction that the mod team is aware of.

 

[American]

Just like we don't have a big long running list of "flames", we're not going to make a big long running list of slurs.

What I can say is that for it to constitute a slur, per the rules, it must be a term who's meaning and focus is one that is directly tied to one of the protected groups listed in rule 20. "Snowflake" in no way fits that at all; it is not a term focused and based around a religion, a sexual orientation, a nationality, a disability, etc. It's an insult aimed at a personality type, a political lean, a mentality, etc; those are not protected classifications under rule 20 so it doesn't fit the slur infraction.

Thank God! :mrgreen: We need to keep that for Millennials. :mrgreen:

 

[Redress]

From a points stand point, no. However, when looking at what would qualify as a "major" we basically focused on four things (not necessarily broken down exactly like this, but its a good summary of the discussion).

1. Does the infraction have a higher point total
2. Is the infraction something we want to seriously discourage from occurring
3. Do we see people making a habit of violating the rule repetitively
4. Is it a rule that we don't usually jump to an auto-ban on the second/third iteration of?

Generally, for it to make our list it needed a "yes" in either 1 or 2 and a "no" on the other.

That's why something like Graphic Images or Harassment isn't on the list. Those are things where people RARELY have multiple infractions for it, because it's typically one lower point infraction and if it happens again they're often gone. So while those violations tend to have a high point total, they don't fall into this category.

Vegas is a weird one because while it's not a huge point total (typically it can be up to 5), it's something we want to severely discourage from occurring. And, in doing research, while repeated violations weren't common, there were instances of it happening by a single person routinely to the point where we felt it was problematic.

So Vegas is odd in the sense that we don't want to be overly punative to isolated incidents (thus it having a much smaller point total than 6a or rule 20, and even at times smaller than a slur violation) BUT we want to make sure that someone isn't making a habit of bringing things upstairs and basically not caring about the points because they'd just let them keep expiring.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[X Factor]

Well.... At risk of a major violation....

I present the racial slur database....

The Racial Slur Database

Some examples.

Slur -- Target -- Reason & Origins

8 Mile - Whites - When white kids try to act ghetto or "black". From the 2002 movie "8 Mile".

ABC - Chinese - American-Born Chinese. An Americanized Chinese person who does not understand Chinese culture.

Abeed - Blacks - Arabic term that means Black, many Middle Eastern immigrants to the United States use this

Petrolero - Hispanics - Hispanics Who Are Attracted To Blacks. Means "Oil Drillers".

The list is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE..................

You can slur and not know it.

ABC can also mean "Anybody But Cowboys" so yes, that's a clear slur.

Fled, is this really about how slurs are handled at DP or is it more about the ever expanding list of slurs in general? All this does is expand the expiration of infractions. It's not about how much they're going to infract the hell out of somebody who mentions the the movie "8 Mile", but rather its about someone who intentionally and repeatedly uses slurs.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Make no mistake this is a huge change, it will have a major impact on the culture here.

We'll see how it goes.

 

[Zyphlin]

You can slur and not know it.

I disagree that it's likely that one can use a slur, AS a slur, and not realize that it's a slur.

But lets say you do.

Nothing new happens to you today than would have happened to you yesterday. You would receive a 5 point slur infraction with a 60 day expiration; the exact same thing that would have happened to you prior to me posting this.

It would take someone essentially "slurring and knowing it" THREE TIMES over a two year period for any kind of extra action to be taken against them; and at that point, I think everyone would reasonably agree it starts begging the question if the person is really "not knowing it".

If your issue is simply with the slur infraction itself, that's a separate issue and not necessarily appropriate with this thread. But the situation you're talking about....where THIS change in the rule impacts someone simply for accidentally unknowingly using a slur...is wholly implausible.

 

[JANFU]

The slur rules are such that using a known slur in an offensive manner (ie, using the slur essentially as a slur / for the purpose of slurring) is punishable. Simply uttering the slur is not.

In a music thread saying "I absolutely loved Nigga's in Paris when it came out" is not a violation. However, someone going "I can't stand rap. That nigger music sucks" would be.

If you're linking to a list of slurs as part of some legitimate debate/discussion and not in a manner that appears to be for the purpose of delivering the slurs in an offensive/attacking manner, you'd probably be fine. However, understand that if it's being linked for reasons that aren't heavily tied to, or useful to, the debate/discussion being going on that, while it may not be a slur violation it could be trolling/baiting in nature.

Sorry for the somewhat more vague answer to your specific situation, but the situation itself is a bit uncertain as there's a lot of context that could go into the situation and judgements about it.

Question- Hate speech/slurs and increased penalty- is this to address the number of hateful threads from new members- possibly from Stormfront and other despicable sites??
Seen a number of those.
Last one for now- Can a person receive more than 1 infraction for a post??

 

[JANFU]

Perhaps, but I would like clarification because I might use such a statement against a person or group in one of those 'protected groups' when I think it is warranted. Just because a person is in a 'protected group' does not necessarily make them in the right or as pure as the driven snow or whatever.

AO- Youcan call me snowflake anytime- I am Canadian and we are used to it- snow that is.

 

[Zyphlin]

Make no mistake this is a huge change, it will have a major impact on the culture here.

Sorry, but the facts of the matter just don't back up your initial assertion. As it relates to the user base, this is a miniscule change for the overwhelming majority of them. As I said, over 99% of the people who used the forum over the 6 month period I analyzed would not in any way be affected by this.

If the culture is going to change, it's most likely going to change in the sense that these habitual distractions and negative individuals to the overall health of the forum will be deterred and/or removed rather than being allowed to game the system.

 

[Zyphlin]

Question- Hate speech/slurs and increased penalty- is this to address the number of hateful threads from new members- possibly from Stormfront and other despicable sites??

It's not specific to any current issue of new threads or new members, though it may have a side effect of dealing with some of them. However, such new posters that immediately start running afoul of major violations tend to be weeded out quickly. Those that fall into this category tend to be longer standing posters who, as described in the OP, cause these disruptions...then duck their head down for some time waiting for points to expire...to simply come back and repeat the cycle.

I will note, some of the members in my analysis that I discovered would've been subject to these harsher penalties have ultimately already gotten themselves banned in other ways. Had this rule been in place, it simply would've expedited that process, saving moderator time and forum angst of dealing with the habitual offenders.

Last one for now- Can a person receive more than 1 infraction for a post??

Generally, no. Multiple violations may be identified in a post, and if those violations are of separate rules then they MAY be acted on concurrently (for example, if you flame someone AND you bypass the word censor in doing so). Typically this is either done by issuing the standard points for one of the infractions but noting the violation is for both, or going with a custom DBAJ infraction that notes both of the rule violations and gives you an enhanced point total but a total that would be less than infracting each thing separately.

What never happens is an infraction being issued for each violation in a post separately for full points; IE if someone violates the word censor, flames someone, and violates 9a's fair use rules all in one post, they would never be issued 3 separate infractions, each worth 3 points. One infraction noting all three would be issued for 3 points, or for some form of enhanced points that would be greater than 3 but less than the 9 (likely 5). This is a RARE occurrence.

Typically, if one infraction is clearly greater than the other, we'd only go with the greatest. For example, if someone made a post that qualified as Hate Speech and during it also flamed someone, they'd likely simply be hit with a 20 point hate speech infraction.

 

[JANFU]

It's not specific to any current issue of new threads or new members, though it may have a side effect of dealing with some of them. However, such new posters that immediately start running afoul of major violations tend to be weeded out quickly. Those that fall into this category tend to be longer standing posters who, as described in the OP, cause these disruptions...then duck their head down for some time waiting for points to expire...to simply come back and repeat the cycle.

I will note, some of the members in my analysis that I discovered would've been subject to these harsher penalties have ultimately already gotten themselves banned in other ways. Had this rule been in place, it simply would've expedited that process, saving moderator time and forum angst of dealing with the habitual offenders.



Generally, no. Multiple violations may be identified in a post, and if those violations are of separate rules then they MAY be acted on concurrently (for example, if you flame someone AND you bypass the word censor in doing so). Typically this is either done by issuing the standard points for one of the infractions but noting the violation is for both, or going with a custom DBAJ infraction that notes both of the rule violations and gives you an enhanced point total but a total that would be less than infracting each thing separately.

What never happens is an infraction being issued for each violation in a post separately for full points; IE if someone violates the word censor, flames someone, and violates 9a's fair use rules all in one post, they would never be issued 3 separate infractions, each worth 3 points. One infraction noting all three would be issued for 3 points, or for some form of enhanced points that would be greater than 3 but less than the 9 (likely 5). This is a RARE occurrence.

Typically, if one infraction is clearly greater than the other, we'd only go with the greatest. For example, if someone made a post that qualified as Hate Speech and during it also flamed someone, they'd likely simply be hit with a 20 point hate speech infraction.

Thank you

 

[Fledermaus]

I disagree that it's likely that one can use a slur, AS a slur, and not realize that it's a slur.

But lets say you do.

Nothing new happens to you today than would have happened to you yesterday. You would receive a 5 point slur infraction with a 60 day expiration; the exact same thing that would have happened to you prior to me posting this.

It would take someone essentially "slurring and knowing it" THREE TIMES over a two year period for any kind of extra action to be taken against them; and at that point, I think everyone would reasonably agree it starts begging the question if the person is really "not knowing it".

If your issue is simply with the slur infraction itself, that's a separate issue and not necessarily appropriate with this thread. But the situation you're talking about....where THIS change in the rule impacts someone simply for accidentally unknowingly using a slur...is wholly implausible.

Point taken....

It is a fun list though.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Sorry, but the facts of the matter just don't back up your initial assertion. As it relates to the user base, this is a miniscule change for the overwhelming majority of them. As I said, over 99% of the people who used the forum over the 6 month period I analyzed would not in any way be affected by this.

If the culture is going to change, it's most likely going to change in the sense that these habitual distractions and negative individuals to the overall health of the forum will be deterred and/or removed rather than being allowed to game the system.

It is not the number of active people effected that is most important, it is the amount of content that is effected, that is what is going to decide how much the culture changes . My guess is that this one percent who are going to get shut down or reformed provide much more than 1% of the content, so the place is going to change more than you figure. These who would go to that much work to game the system are highly engaged members I figure.

This could be a good thing, maybe this rule change makes the place even better than you figure.

Or maybe I am wrong.

 

[JANFU]

Sorry, but the facts of the matter just don't back up your initial assertion. As it relates to the user base, this is a miniscule change for the overwhelming majority of them. As I said, over 99% of the people who used the forum over the 6 month period I analyzed would not in any way be affected by this.

If the culture is going to change, it's most likely going to change in the sense that these habitual distractions and negative individuals to the overall health of the forum will be deterred and/or removed rather than being allowed to game the system.

So the less than 1 % that you reviewed are the problem. Pts awarded, multiples of these as noted from your OP.

They leave for another site when nearing a perma ban, wait till their pts here expire.

They return cause more crap, repeat and rinse, and the effect is causing more work for Mods, from a small but select crew of xxx posters.

I gather the min pts awarded for those listed below runs from 5 to 20 or a perma ban???

Major Infraction
- Rule 6a (Insubordination)
- Rule 15 & addendum (Vegas Rule)
- Rule 18 (Hate Speech)
- Rule 20 (Slurs)

Change in Expiration
1. All major infractions will have a 60-day baseline expiration date.
2. The third, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 2-year span will have a 2-year expiration date.
3. The fifth, and any subsequent, major infraction of the same type in a 10-year span will be permanent.

Hopefully the 60 day limit works. If not perhaps they should be placed on some sort of probation? No ideas on if it would work or not.
From what I gather the 99 % plus members here, are not frequent violators resulting in major infractions.

BFT/BN violations remain at 3 pts max/warning and 30 days. Would that be correct?

 

[Fledermaus]

ABC can also mean "Anybody But Cowboys" so yes, that's a clear slur.

Fled, is this really about how slurs are handled at DP or is it more about the ever expanding list of slurs in general? All this does is expand the expiration of infractions. It's not about how much they're going to infract the hell out of somebody who mentions the the movie "8 Mile", but rather its about someone who intentionally and repeatedly uses slurs.

I was being intentionally obtuse to a point.

I really do like the new rule changes.

 

[ecofarm]

Well.... At risk of a major violation....

I present the racial slur database....

The Racial Slur Database

Some examples.

The list is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE..................

You can slur and not know it.

A list of slurs is irrelevant. Any of those terms can be used in the course of discussion, just not as a pejorative. To use the term as a pejorative, the person would, logically, have to know it can be used as a slur. No one says "I hate those dirty persnickles" (that is a made-up word, right?) without knowing what the term means.

Perhaps, but I would like clarification because I might use such a statement against a person or group in one of those 'protected groups' when I think it is warranted. Just because a person is in a 'protected group' does not necessarily make them in the right or as pure as the driven snow or whatever.

I don't think you understand what protected group means.

1. It's not specific to subgroups as you appear to believe. Sex, orientation, etc goes for everyone. A protected group is not so much a protected group of people as a protected designation. Certain designations, such as sex, religion or orientation, are protected.

2. Using a slur against a person is using a slur against a group. I don't understand why you separated the two things, they are inherently entwined. Calling someone stupid is not a slur against any group (maybe stupid people but they suck so who cares) but using a slur against a person is using a slur against a group because the term is being used as a pejorative. In fact, the target is irrelevant. If one believes a chair is bad and uses a slur to describe it, that's still attacking a group of people. I don't understand how you think you can use a slur against an individual and not a group.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm fairly sure that it took the Mods a good amount of time and discussion to flesh everything out. Well done.

Special thanks to Zyph for all his explanatory efforts in this thread.

 

[JANFU]

I'm fairly sure that it took the Mods a good amount of time and discussion to flesh everything out. Well done.

Special thanks to Zyph for all his explanatory efforts in this thread.

Keerect- makes sense to me, and I am sure a lot of work and discussion went into this.

 

[chuckiechan]

Sorry, but the facts of the matter just don't back up your initial assertion. As it relates to the user base, this is a miniscule change for the overwhelming majority of them. As I said, over 99% of the people who used the forum over the 6 month period I analyzed would not in any way be affected by this.

If the culture is going to change, it's most likely going to change in the sense that these habitual distractions and negative individuals to the overall health of the forum will be deterred and/or removed rather than being allowed to game the system.

Speaking of overall heath and culture ... Any thing going on with thread caps, thread hijacks, thread redirects, etc. They may seem minor, but they often derail a productive thread like your kid kicking the back of the drivers seat.

 

[X Factor]

So the less than 1 % that you reviewed are the problem. Pts awarded, multiples of these as noted from your OP.

They leave for another site when nearing a perma ban, wait till their pts here expire.

They return cause more crap, repeat and rinse, and the effect is causing more work for Mods, from a small but select crew of xxx posters.

I gather the min pts awarded for those listed below runs from 5 to 20 or a perma ban???





Hopefully the 60 day limit works. If not perhaps they should be placed on some sort of probation? No ideas on if it would work or not.
From what I gather the 99 % plus members here, are not frequent violators resulting in major infractions.

BFT/BN violations remain at 3 pts max/warning and 30 days. Would that be correct?

Not exactly. Based on more experience than I should have, the first B/F/T (I haven't had a BN violation that I recall) infraction expires in 30 days and as long as that infraction is active, each subsequent infraction adds an additional 30 days from the date of the original. So infraction on Oct. 1 expires Nov. 1. Infraction on Oct. 15 would expire Dec 1. Infraction Oct. 20 would expire Jan. 1. Infraction Oct. 20 gets you a short vacation.

 

[JANFU]

Not exactly. Based on more experience than I should have, the first B/F/T (I haven't had a BN violation that I recall) infraction expires in 30 days and as long as that infraction is active, each subsequent infraction adds an additional 30 days from the date of the original. So infraction on Oct. 1 expires Nov. 1. Infraction on Oct. 15 would expire Dec 1. Infraction Oct. 20 would expire Jan. 1. Infraction Oct. 20 gets you a short vacation.

What is the min for a vacation?
That would be 9 pts???? And from what i understand 10 is the min for a vacation

 

[AlbqOwl]

AO- Youcan call me snowflake anytime- I am Canadian and we are used to it- snow that is.

LOL, thanks JANFU. I probably won't ever see you in the same way as I see American snowflakes, and do try not to engage in ad hominem and personal insults, but who knows. I could have a bad hair day or something. . . .

 

[AlbqOwl]

A list of slurs is irrelevant. Any of those terms can be used in the course of discussion, just not as a pejorative. To use the term as a pejorative, the person would, logically, have to know it can be used as a slur. No one says "I hate those dirty persnickles" (that is a made-up word, right?) without knowing what the term means.




I don't think you understand what protected group means.

1. It's not specific to subgroups as you appear to believe. Sex, orientation, etc goes for everyone. A protected group is not so much a protected group of people as a protected designation. Certain designations, such as sex, religion or orientation, are protected.

2. Using a slur against a person is using a slur against a group. I don't understand why you separated the two things, they are inherently entwined. Calling someone stupid is not a slur against any group (maybe stupid people but they suck so who cares) but using a slur against a person is using a slur against a group because the term is being used as a pejorative. In fact, the target is irrelevant. If one believes a chair is bad and uses a slur to describe it, that's still attacking a group of people. I don't understand how you think you can use a slur against an individual and not a group.

I can't help what you are able to understand. But maybe if you read what I actually was asking you might not be as likely to accuse me or suggest I am doing something I did not do,