Important Civility Rules Enforcement

Status
Not open for further replies.
My point was, I have never seen anyone make an actual threat on anyone’s life. Either another user or someone else. Or threaten to commit a criminal/terrorist act.
 
Lord Invictus said:
My point was, I have never seen anyone make an actual threat on anyone’s life. Either another user or someone else. Or threaten to commit a criminal/terrorist act.
Click to expand...

I think it's about expectations.

We all don't seem to be having the same expectations and where the line is going to be drawn. Given the history of the forum's userbase, some people are going to get a little nervous when people start talking about "civility standards".
 
Zoe said:
This is exactly correct. The whole point of this website is to have a place for a Viennese coffee house type format where Trotsky and a monarchist can sit down over a cup of coffee and have a polite debate. If the waiters in a 1910 vintage Viennese coffee house would have kicked you out for your behaviour, then you will also be punished for your behaviour here.
Click to expand...
Uh Zoe, that's not what we signed up for.

There is a difference between wanting civility, in that shit-flinging and such are not the norm, and wanting to pretend this is some high-brow, snooty tea house.

Edit: Like, if that truly is what you want this place to be, then all the worries about this place starting down the road SB and others have traveled are completely legit.
 
The forum’s userbase is and this total praise-people who are too free spirited, too bold, open minded, curious, relentless, and daring to be satisfied under SB or SV rules of discussion.

That’s the mainline of what is attractive about this place.

It would be a terrible tragedy for that to be thrown away.

Either because a few people got offended, or the site wanted to expand its userbase and market share of the sci fi forum niche industry.
 
Bacle said:
Uh Zoe, that's not what we signed up for.

There is a difference between wanting civility, in that shit-flinging and such are not the norm, and wanting to pretend this is some high-brow, snooty tea house.
Click to expand...

If a broke communist could afford to have coffee there, it was hardly a high-brow snooty tea house. I apologise for perhaps carrying the example too far.
 
I love purple prose. You can express a lot with it. Often more than you can in dry and more precise language.

I just don’t want to see a narrowing of what ideas can be safely debated or exchanged here.

At the same time, I am the eternal pessimist. So I expect a gradual tightening is inevitable. That is the zeitgeist after all. Very tight corridors of what can be said.

Perhaps that’s the true paradox, free speech and open diverse spaces are ultimately incompatible.
 
Duke Nukem said:
Yea i hope i'm not forced to use super flowery language
Click to expand...

Plain talking is your decision. Even swearing is not banned, though it is informally strongly discouraged in the one general community subforum, and always has been. However, directing slurs or charges of extremism without proof at other posters will result in infractions.
 
I rarely use slurs of the racial kind unless it's for a factual purpose like when someone said it like that man Kyle shot who clearly did said he wanted to be shot but even thinking on it I am reminded I should change it to the n words just out of caution.
 
Sure why not.

Personally I find this crackdown to be unnecessary, but then that ought to be obvious in what I’ve already said here.

It strikes me as being based more on PR considerations, and an overreaction to the heated zeitgeist than an appropriate handling of the inevitable erupting tensions.
 
balom said:
Civility seems like the camels nose of SJW convergence. It's always " can we have a little civility" at first, with the meaning of this civility always being stretched further and further in a leftward direction.
Click to expand...

But Civility has always been in the rules.

Zachowon said:
Oh I have seen how you and others have been, and still are being treated, on SB and our sister sites. Itr just seems that those here will think Power corrupts, especially with you saying that you are trying to get others to come here AND to sister sites. It seems like you are trying to make this a place where Hurtful words to one person are banned and everyone needs to be nice.

TLDR: If i cant say Ship is an Asshole in a thread when it should be said that he is. Is this a site of free speech?
I being a Soldier know that Free speech one can have, but what people don't like is when there is consequence. That is what this is sure, but having such a broad term as civility, can lead to people not wanting to talk any more and start to perhaps do things that are worse for them. Such as talking with Train Dodger. My civility is somewhat screwy there, but the reason is, is because I feel like one should be a little harserh to try and help that. I don't hate
Click to expand...


Lol!? Power? What power? This is a duty and responsibility. Seriously, I've had real power and authority before. I didn't much like it. When things are going great no one gives it a second thought. When things go wrong then everyone is looking at you to fix it.

Calling someone an asshole for their behavior I dont see an issue with it. Throwing out racial slurs or saying Cops or insert other group should be killed is quite another. I'm trying to be consice and to the point I can be. Because I don't want to add other rules I just want people to follow the agreed upon ones.
 
Lord Invictus said:
I think she meant diversity of ideas. Which is fine, I’m all for that.

My concern, is that the tea house might become too strict for the communist and monarchist to you know debate in.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd be cutting myself off, then, since my ideas are extremely far outside of the mainstream.

Bacle said:
No, Zoe, you showed what you truly want in that example, and it's not a good image.

It justifies every concern about overzealous enforcement that has been leveled here.
Click to expand...

As someone who believes in divinely ordained matriarchy, I've politely not raised my hand once to interrupt a great deal of patriarchal consensus among the posters. Do you really think that's my intent with what I said, when things like that are factored in? I'm not trying to make this into the Aphrodite Cocktail Bar circa 2005.
 
I have to ask, is the site trying to make itself more palatable for the mainstream of SB and SV? Or is a matter of the staff not wishing to have themselves infracted on these sites(as happened with Tippy) due to their associations here?

Is this based at least on part on marketing or PR concerns? Or to ensure that SB doesn’t ban more Sietch mods from SB(which would no doubt be a poor look if you wanted to expand the site from SB members).
 
You are taking the example far too literally.

We have civility rules, they are publicly posted, and they pretty much all boil down to 'don't be a douche'. Argue as passionately as you wish, but when you become a douche, don't be surprised if you get smacked for it, either with a rolled up newspaper or a ban.

Ideally we want people who passionately disagree on subjects to be able to argue their points, then at the end of the day agree that everything else being equal the Dodgers still are the worst team in the history of baseball.

Is that too much to ask for?
 
LordSunhawk said:
You are taking the example far too literally.

We have civility rules, they are publicly posted, and they pretty much all boil down to 'don't be a douche'. Argue as passionately as you wish, but when you become a douche, don't be surprised if you get smacked for it, either with a rolled up newspaper or a ban.

Ideally we want people who passionately disagree on subjects to be able to argue their points, then at the end of the day agree that everything else being equal the Dodgers still are the worst team in the history of baseball.

Is that too much to ask for?
Click to expand...
Are you responding to Bacle?

I had a different question.
 
Zoe said:
As someone who believes in divinely ordained matriarchy, I've politely not raised my hand once to interrupt a great deal of patriarchal consensus among the posters. Do you really think that's my intent with what I said, when things like that are factored in? I'm not trying to make this into the Aphrodite Cocktail Bar circa 2005.
Click to expand...
LordSunhawk said:
You are taking the example far too literally.

We have civility rules, they are publicly posted, and they pretty much all boil down to 'don't be a douche'. Argue as passionately as you wish, but when you become a douche, don't be surprised if you get smacked for it, either with a rolled up newspaper or a ban.

Ideally we want people who passionately disagree on subjects to be able to argue their points, then at the end of the day agree that everything else being equal the Dodgers still are the worst team in the history of baseball.

Is that too much to ask for?
Click to expand...
Need I remind you are certain 'f***st' quip and how that hurt this place?

Overly flowery language and appeals to things like a 'tea house atmosphere', when there are concerns about overzealous use of the rules, do not help things.
 
Zoe said:
Plain talking is your decision. Even swearing is not banned, though it is informally strongly discouraged in the one general community subforum, and always has been. However, directing slurs or charges of extremism without proof at other posters will result in infractions.
Click to expand...
In regards to the matter of civility in posting a user's reaction to news like recent going ons of Prince Harry's sad behavior with his wife and Mayor Ted Wheeler's cowardly behavior that I would call them a cuck would you prefer less potshot insult reactions of their character like that? The majority of my posts is to share links to news where I would in many cases leave some pithy or insulting response to people I clearly show contempt for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top