Enhanced Expiration Dates for Major Violations [W:51]

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

This is an announcement thread and we left the thread open to answer questions and clarify the minor changes to a very, very small percentage of infractions that are issued. This is not a thread for snarky comments towards each other or bickering back and forth. Anything that violates this will result in an enhanced violation of an infraction and a thread ban.

 

[Zyphlin]

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

You can look at the Moderator Action page for the specifics, but point totals for those run anywhere from 3 points (for the most benign form of vegas violation) to 20 points (for hate speech).

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

Correct. With the standard exception that the expiration period always auto-expands if you have an active infraction of the same type.

 

[Zyphlin]

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.

The plan is to continue to deal with those in the fashion we have been. As they do not relate to the topic of this thread, I'd suggest starting a separate thread in the Feedback/Suggestions forum if you want to discuss them in a broad fashion, PM a mod or use "Contact Us" if you want to point at more specific things for a suggestion, or head to the basement if you'd like to criticize or complain about the manner in which those things are currently handled.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Can we get a list of "slurs"?


Being called a nazis, "alt-right" and racists constantly has me wondering what constitutes a "slur" these days given that most of us being called as such are neither. Thanks!

 

[chuckiechan]

I am troubled by this: a poster can refer to Trump as a “moron” and his supporters as “Ma and Pa Kettle”, yet if I call the poster a moron, I get dinged.

Am I missing something? Or just not clever enough with my insults?

 

[RedAkston]

Can we get a list of "slurs"?


Being called a nazis, "alt-right" and racists constantly has me wondering what constitutes a "slur" these days given that most of us being called as such are neither. Thanks!

The slurs rule clearly describes what constitutes a slur and this thread is not about the slurs rule. If you need more information about that specific rule, if suggest contacting a moderator or the mod team.

 

[Zyphlin]

Can we get a list of "slurs"?

Answered earlier at post #25. I will requote it here. Note that political parties, movements, organizations, etc are not a protected group under rule 20 and so terms like "alt-right" or "Nazi" are not slurs under the rules.

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.

 

[Zyphlin]

I am troubled by this: a poster can refer to Trump as a “moron” and his supporters as “Ma and Pa Kettle”, yet if I call the poster a moron, I get dinged.

Am I missing something? Or just not clever enough with my insults?

First, this is not a catch all thread for posters to just declare what they're "troubled by". If you have a suggestion or feedback regarding the forum, I'd suggest using that section to make a point in a manner that is within the rules. Note, referencing SPECIFIC instances that have happened on the forum in an open thread will not get you an answer; such questions should be addressed via "contact us" or PMing a mod.

Second, it has never, and will never, been a legitimate argument or defense on this board saying "so and so can do X, why am I getting infracted for Y". In your example, your calling a poster a "moron" is a wholly self contained notion and is judged on it's own merits.

This is not the thread for the broader discussion of what you've talked about.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Answered earlier at post #25. I will requote it here. Note that political parties, movements, organizations, etc are not a protected group under rule 20 and so terms like "alt-right" or "Nazi" are not slurs under the rules.

Great thanks for the clarification. I missed that one. Interesting.,

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I am troubled by this: a poster can refer to 45 as a “moron” and his supporters as “Ma and Pa Kettle”, yet if I call the poster a moron, I get dinged.

Am I missing something? Or just not clever enough with my insults?

It is against the rules to insult a specific poster.

Trump is not a poster on DP. You can insult him, as he is not a poster on DP as far as we know.

The rule is there to keep the debate itself more civil by preventing posters from devolving into a slap fight.

 

[TheGoverness]

Cool beans. I have no problem with this.

 

[Chagos]

Very thoughtful approach, and I appreciate the time you took analyzing it.

....seconded, thirded and carried.

 

[danarhea]

I am troubled by this: a poster can refer to Trump as a “moron” and his supporters as “Ma and Pa Kettle”, yet if I call the poster a moron, I get dinged.

Am I missing something? Or just not clever enough with my insults?

Easy solution here. Call Nancy Pelosi a moron. LOL.

 

[Tangmo]

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.

The posts focus on a real factor.

That is, when one poster gets busted there is no way for the busted guy or for anyone else to know if the other guy in the tandem got his comeuppance too. One can want to trust that the other guy also got busted but we never know. Trust but verify is the need and it is both fair and reasonable to seek out the surity if there is one.

It's sort of like in hockey when the official has missed the initial infraction but catches the player retaliating and sends the player who retaliated to the box. The player initiating the infraction gets away with it which means he'll surely do it again. Meanwhile the player who got crosschecked got penalized besides for his response.

It is also the case that the three (blind mice) officials in hockey often decide to just let 'em play. The boyz will be boyz approach to officiating is almost always a crowd pleaser that also tends to sell both tickets and hot dogs. The approach demeans the contest. When the approach is taken for months on end it brutalizes the league. Matters are aggravated when officials observing the contest from the grandstand shout down to the crosschecked player that he is a jerk.

Even after the league board of directors finally takes corrective action the league continues to suffer for its having turned a blind eye to the carnage. So improving and enforcing the new rules becomes imperative and present the new test going forward.

 

[Tangmo]

I was being intentionally obtuse to a point.

I really do like the new rule changes.

The new changes are profoundly welcome.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The posts focus on a real factor.

That is, when one poster gets busted there is no way for the busted guy or for anyone else to know if the other guy in the tandem got his comeuppance too. One can want to trust that the other guy also got busted but we never know. Trust but verify is the need and it is both fair and reasonable to seek out the surity if there is one.

It's sort of like in hockey when the official has missed the initial infraction but catches the player retaliating and sends the player who retaliated to the box. The player initiating the infraction gets away with it which means he'll surely do it again. Meanwhile the player who got crosschecked got penalized besides for his response.

It is also the case that the three (blind mice) officials in hockey often decide to just let 'em play. The boyz will be boyz approach to officiating is almost always a crowd pleaser that also tends to sell both tickets and hot dogs. The approach demeans the contest. When the approach is taken for months on end it brutalizes the league. Matters are aggravated when officials observing the contest from the grandstand shout down to the crosschecked player that he is a jerk.

Even after the league board of directors finally takes corrective action the league continues to suffer for its having turned a blind eye to the carnage. So improving and enforcing the new rules becomes imperative and present the new test going forward.

Yeeaaah, I know nothing about hockey, so... no clue what you're talking about.

But, we have a lot of ways to assess how the mods are doing. Firstly, our own infractions. As a general rule, do I believe I deserve the infractions I get? Yep. Do I see generally decent members of DP saying they don't with any regularity? Nope. The only people I've seen saying that the mods are out to get them are the people the rest of us are surprised aren't already banned. If anything, the mods are surprisingly charitable.

We can also look at it like this: do abusive members last on DP? In most cases, no. Do respectful members last on DP? In most cases, yes.

We can see how the mods are doing by observing how DP is doing, and observing how people talk about their experience with the mods, and how the general culture of DP is working. Expecting the mods to list every infraction they hand out publicly is both onerus (c'mon, these people are unpaid volunteers), and potentially violates the sense of privacy of the poster. I don't think anyone really wants that when they look at the full implications.

There's no carnage to fix on DP. The general consensus of most of the members is that our system works quite well. That's why this place has been relatively stable compared to most other political boards.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The posts focus on a real factor.

That is, when one poster gets busted there is no way for the busted guy or for anyone else to know if the other guy in the tandem got his comeuppance too. One can want to trust that the other guy also got busted but we never know. Trust but verify is the need and it is both fair and reasonable to seek out the surity if there is one.

It's sort of like in hockey when the official has missed the initial infraction but catches the player retaliating and sends the player who retaliated to the box. The player initiating the infraction gets away with it which means he'll surely do it again. Meanwhile the player who got crosschecked got penalized besides for his response.

It is also the case that the three (blind mice) officials in hockey often decide to just let 'em play. The boyz will be boyz approach to officiating is almost always a crowd pleaser that also tends to sell both tickets and hot dogs. The approach demeans the contest. When the approach is taken for months on end it brutalizes the league. Matters are aggravated when officials observing the contest from the grandstand shout down to the crosschecked player that he is a jerk.

Even after the league board of directors finally takes corrective action the league continues to suffer for its having turned a blind eye to the carnage. So improving and enforcing the new rules becomes imperative and present the new test going forward.

This board is financially funded on a monthly basis primarily by the general board populace ... both male and female, from teenagers to seniors, with constitutional/civic convictions that span the political spectrum. Such a broad coalition of support would not be possible and forthcoming if the DP staff were considered biased, incompetent, or abusive.

 

[Tangmo]

Yeeaaah, I know nothing about hockey, so... no clue what you're talking about.

But, we have a lot of ways to assess how the mods are doing. Firstly, our own infractions. As a general rule, do I believe I deserve the infractions I get? Yep. Do I see generally decent members of DP saying they don't with any regularity? Nope. The only people I've seen saying that the mods are out to get them are the people the rest of us are surprised aren't already banned. If anything, the mods are surprisingly charitable.

We can also look at it like this: do abusive members last on DP? In most cases, no. Do respectful members last on DP? In most cases, yes.

We can see how the mods are doing by observing how DP is doing, and observing how people talk about their experience with the mods, and how the general culture of DP is working. Expecting the mods to list every infraction they hand out publicly is both onerus (c'mon, these people are unpaid volunteers), and potentially violates the sense of privacy of the poster. I don't think anyone really wants that when they look at the full implications.

There's no carnage to fix on DP. The general consensus of most of the members is that our system works quite well. That's why this place has been relatively stable compared to most other political boards.

I posted in scrolling the changes are profoundly welcomed by me.

One doesn't need to be a hockey player or fan to receive my offering, which is that DP is delinquient in making the changes it has made. Slow as cold molasses I'd say. Overly indulgent if not complic or at the least bizarrely passive in the face of the matters that finally and after an eternity got 'em shaking and moving.

Still, and as I regret profoundly to suggest, the first and initial indications around the threads are that it ain't over cause it ain't over. If this might be true then it ain't never going to be over. Consequently, methinks the outcome when it does come will be as predictable as it wuz throughout the many moons that passed before the changes were made and announced.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I posted in scrolling the changes are profoundly welcomed by me.

One doesn't need to be a hockey player or fan to receive my offering, which is that DP is delinquient in making the changes it has made. Slow as cold molasses I'd say. Overly indulgent if not complic, or at the least bizarrely passive in the face of the matters that finally and after an eternity got 'em shaking and moving.

Still, and as I regret profoundly to suggest, the first and initial indications around the threads are that it ain't over cause it ain't over. If this might be true then it ain't never going to be over. Consequently, methinks the outcome when it does come will be as predictable as it wuz throughout the many moons that passed before the changes were made and announced.

...What?

Most of us just aren't seeing this "delinquency" you speak of. Most of us think this place is pretty well run, and always has been.

This change did take quite a while for them to review, but why shouldn't it? If they're going to toughen up certain rules, it's good to be sure that they aren't creating unintended consequences. I'd have been more skeptical if they had just slapped it on without any research and couldn't tell me exactly who this was going to affect. Doing one's diligence is good.

This is a rule meant to address a tiny minority of posters with whom there are disproportionate problems. "Tiny minority" is the key set of words. There will never be any perfect system that is totally above abuse, but the problem was never some sort of massive issue to begin with. It was tinkering with an already pretty good system.

If your problem is that there are some people you just don't like, well, welcome to politics. Kitchen, heat, yadda yadda. If you want a forum where people don't argue or hold views you find distastful, then I don't get why you're on a forum where the entire point of it is to debate.

 

[PoS]

It is against the rules to insult a specific poster.

Trump is not a poster on DP. You can insult him, as he is not a poster on DP as far as we know.

The rule is there to keep the debate itself more civil by preventing posters from devolving into a slap fight.

Wouldnt it be cool for Trump to actually be a member here and engage in debate. :mrgreen:

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Wouldnt it be cool for Trump to actually be a member here and engage in debate. :mrgreen:

He wouldn't last a month. :lol:

 

[polgara]

Wouldnt it be cool for Trump to actually be a member here and engage in debate. :mrgreen:

Greetings, PoS. :2wave:

Yup, although he does have the tendency to change the rules if he doesn't agree with them! :lamo

 

[Tangmo]

...What?

Most of us just aren't seeing this "delinquency" you speak of. Most of us think this place is pretty well run, and always has been.

This change did take quite a while for them to review, but why shouldn't it? If they're going to toughen up certain rules, it's good to be sure that they aren't creating unintended consequences. I'd have been more skeptical if they had just slapped it on without any research and couldn't tell me exactly who this was going to affect. Doing one's diligence is good.

This is a rule meant to address a tiny minority of posters with whom there are disproportionate problems. "Tiny minority" is the key set of words. There will never be any perfect system that is totally above abuse, but the problem was never some sort of massive issue to begin with. It was tinkering with an already pretty good system.

If your problem is that there are some people you just don't like, well, welcome to politics. Kitchen, heat, yadda yadda. If you want a forum where people don't argue or hold views you find distastful, then I don't get why you're on a forum where the entire point of it is to debate.

I do like your username. I'd heard it for several decades as Blue Smoke And Mirrors but then again that would be unlikely to fit the format here. So much for the first three grafs.

The final paragraph of course confuses the apprentice-master relationship by getting it bassakwards. Rather sophomoric methinks. In a hallway of a House office building in Washington right after the Jonestown lunacy I once overheard a Congressional office student intern ask a Congressman from California if he'd ever heard of cults. The immensely patient and generous Congressman replied ever so softly and in character, "I think we invented them."

Returning here to Sophistication Central I would merely note that, as with the typical DP post over an extended period of time to include all of 2017 to date, your focus is wrong. You are posting to the wrong poster. I reiterate the new rules are profoundly welcomed by me. I also further state no new rules were needed to deal with what in my judgement have been the calculatingly provocative nutbag aggressions without cause that have occurred in a humongous proliferation and with a weak minded rote repetition.

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

We've been EXTREMELY lenient up until now in terms of handing out infractions and potentially closing this thread. Tango, you're doing a very good job of pushing that leniency past a point of acceptability. As I've said repeatedly, this thread has a VERY specific focus and is here for people to ask questions about this specific topic; not for you to muse about your mistrust of the Mods doing their job or your belief of how things should have been working on this forum. Nor is it the place to throw out baiting insults towards forum members, no matter how much you THINK you're getting away with it and hiding it by dressing it up in fancy language. Stop it, now, or you're going to exhaust my patience on this

 

[X Factor]

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

My mistake. You're right. Tha last example date wasn't supposed to Oct. 20 again.