Important Civility Rules Enforcement

[Lord Sovereign]

I'd like to propose a revolutionary idea.

If someone makes a joke in bad taste, or insults you, or unleashes galaxy brained takes that you don't like, don't engage with them. Use that thick skin evolution spent a few billion years blessing you with and carry on your day because there is no law forcing you to engage with this person. If you want to engage with this person but it would derail the thread, be a gentleman and take it outside (PMs).

There. No need for speech policing. What a novel idea, letting the users themselves sort out their own issues...(how would our generation have survived the World Wars? My God we're soft).

If they post spam, infected links and try to set up a false flag on here, then banhammer their arse into orbit. No one would dispute that.

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.

Well we are a coffee house, just more of the 18th century England stripe than anything from Vienna. Good ideas, bad ideas and actual shit is flung about in equal measure. Given that the 18th and 19th centuries were a political golden age for the British Empire, this might have actually been healthy for political discourse. Besides, this is the fucking internet. We literally can't have pub brawls here so we're about as civil as we can get. If anything, a bit of rowdiness is endearing.

 

[Deleted member 1]

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.

The standard is clearly stated as being focused around other users, not commenting on public figures in the news.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I'd like to propose a revolutionary idea.

If someone makes a joke in bad taste, or insults you, or unleashes galaxy brained takes that you don't like, don't engage with them. Use that thick skin evolution spent a few billion years blessing you with and carry on your day because there is no law forcing you to engage with this person. If you want to engage with this person but it would derail the thread, be a gentleman and take it outside (PMs).

It’s the internet, honor and pride are at stake! If someone insults you are compelled to respond.

Not responding in internet culture is the same thing as surrendering.

If you don’t wish to be seen as losing, or having retreated, your bound to respond.

If you do refuse to engage, the other party can claim you fled because their arguments were superior and you didn’t wish to admit you were wrong.

For third party observers, this is convincing.

 

[Deleted member 1]

It’s the internet, honor and pride are at stake! If someone insults you are compelled to respond.

Not responding in internet culture is the same thing as surrendering.

If you don’t wish to be seen as losing, or having retreated, your bound to respond.

If you do refuse to engage, the other party can claim you fled because their arguments were superior and you didn’t wish to admit you were wrong.

For third party observers, this is convincing.

And that's precisely why we don't allow this behaviour at all. It drags everyone down.

 

[Deleted member 88]

And that's precisely why we don't allow this behaviour at all. It drags everyone down.

I was speaking half in serious observation, half jest.

On a different note, do you care to answer my question regarding moderator motivations as it pertains to PR and marketing?

 

[The Original Sixth]

But Civility has always been in the rules.

It has, but people don't always understand things the same way. We may not even be understanding each other now, which is the big thrust of the confusion. As an example, think to the US and Turkey. When the US armed Kurds in Syria, the US thought it was fine. Turkey thought it was very much NOT FINE. Because the US generally isn't worried about Kurds as a security threat, whereas Turkey is.

So in this example, you don't really have one group you're talking to. You have several.

1. The People who follow the rules 100% of the time.
2. The People who follow the rules 80% of the time.
3. The People who follow the rules 50% of the time.
4. The People who follow the rules 30% of the time.
5. The People who generally don't follow the rules.
6. Trolls

So when you drop a message that says "we need to crack down on this", everyone on this list group is going to turn around and say "Who, me? What did I do?"

And if you say "abusive language", then all six of those people are going to have a different interpretation of what that means.

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.

Your job entails far less and far more power than people give it credit for. The trust people put in you is nothing to sneeze at, but at the end of the day it is entirely optional and either way, doesn't come with a paycheck.

 

[Arch Dornan]

The standard is clearly stated as being focused around other users, not commenting on public figures in the news.

Ok thanks for the answer because it's a pattern I am starting to develop here as I get more and more comfortable posting in this forum I forget what I can and can't do.

Insulting other users, I don't remember doing except commenting on any famous deeds they did.

It has, but people don't always understand things the same way. We may not even be understanding each other now, which is the big thrust of the confusion. As an example, think to the US and Turkey. When the US armed Kurds in Syria, the US thought it was fine. Turkey thought it was very much NOT FINE. Because the US generally isn't worried about Kurds as a security threat, whereas Turkey is.

It's Scott Adam's theory about two people watching different TVs. I can think this behavior is ok but someone thinks it isn't.

So when you drop a message that says "we need to crack down on this", everyone on this list group is going to turn around and say "Who, me? What did I do?"

I did just that when I had to ask if there's any behavior of mine that needs moderated.

 

[The Original Sixth]

It's Scott Adam's theory about two people watching different TVs. I can think this behavior is ok but someone thinks it isn't.

Precisely the problem.

EDIT

Maybe tone banners might be useful for some threads and discussions? Probably not going to be used like, 90% of the time, but if there is a confusion as to what tone is acceptable, maybe pre-empting posters might be an option. Of course, that might just be a pain in the ass. But something like "Silly, Casual, Serious" might be a useful tool in the future.

 

[Husky_Khan]

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.

Oh my gosh. Are you always this dramatic? Zoe always talks in weird flowery prose. Get off your high horse. Viennese coffee tea house is like literally the fancy metaphor someone like her would use for civil free speech, not some descent in Rules LARP and snooty BS.

If anything your categorization of Austrians as being snooty elitists is highly insulting stereotyping.

I can think of one Austrian in particular who probably frequented Viennese cafes and was as far from snooty eloquentisms as can be...

 

[LordSunhawk]

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.

OK, let me give examples, shall I?

News story about Ted Wheeler doing Ted Wheeler Things.

'He's a total coward who doesn't deserve to be in office' - PERFECTLY FINE

'What a useless moron' - PERFECTLY FINE

'God what a cuck' - Getting a bit borderline and you might want to think about word choice

'What a f****t c***s***ing n***** loving b****' - CIVILITY VIOLATION BOOM (depending on previous behavior might eat a friendly warning, a threadban, subforum ban, or even full ban)

'Deserves to get shot and die horribly let me get my gun' - TOS VIOLATION BANHAMMER

Does this make it clear what we're talking about? It is perfectly possible to passionately despise somebody and make it clear to everybody that you do, without resorting to violating the rules.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Sorry to ask for a third time, but can a mod address my question regarding PR and Marketing motivations for this action?

Is this crackdown intended at least in part to mainstream the site for prospective members from our sister sites?

Also, is this intended at least in part to prevent moderators who still have accounts on Spacebattles or Sufficient Velocity from being banned like Tippy was?

 

[Arch Dornan]

OK, let me give examples, shall I?

News story about Ted Wheeler doing Ted Wheeler Things.

'He's a total coward who doesn't deserve to be in office' - PERFECTLY FINE

'What a useless moron' - PERFECTLY FINE

'God what a cuck' - Getting a bit borderline and you might want to think about word choice

'What a f****t c***s***ing n***** loving b****' - CIVILITY VIOLATION BOOM (depending on previous behavior might eat a friendly warning, a threadban, subforum ban, or even full ban)

'Deserves to get shot and die horribly let me get my gun' - TOS VIOLATION BANHAMMER

Does this make it clear what we're talking about? It is perfectly possible to passionately despise somebody and make it clear to everybody that you do, without resorting to violating the rules.

Perfectly clear. Never did thought of posting c***s***ing in this forum before as an insult.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Sorry to ask for a third time, but can a mod address my question regarding PR and Marketing motivations for this action?

I'm embarrassed by the behaviour that I've tolerated on this forum. It reflects poorly on me, even though it was toleration by inaction rather than willfulness.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I'm embarrassed by the behaviour that I've tolerated on this forum. It reflects poorly on me, even though it was toleration by inaction rather than willfulness.

Is this embarrassment, motivated even in the smallest degree by concerns of expanding the site’s userbase or protecting mod accounts on SB from banning?

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Also, is this intended at least in part to prevent moderators who still have accounts on Spacebattles or Sufficient Velocity from being banned like Tippy was?

No, not even remotely relevant. If any of us cared overmuch about accounts on SB or SV then we most likely wouldn't be TS mods.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Is this embarrassment, motivated even in the smallest degree by concerns of expanding the site’s userbase or protecting mod accounts on SB from banning?

It is motivated by the fact that you and others have been actively flaunting our rules and behaving like spoiled two year olds.

Now drop it.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Is this embarrassment, motivated even in the smallest degree by concerns of expanding the site’s userbase or protecting mod accounts on SB from banning?

No.

 

[The Original Sixth]

OK, let me give examples, shall I?

News story about Ted Wheeler doing Ted Wheeler Things.

1. 'He's a total coward who doesn't deserve to be in office' - PERFECTLY FINE
2. 'What a useless moron' - PERFECTLY FINE
3. 'God what a cuck' - Getting a bit borderline and you might want to think about word choice
4. 'What a f****t c***s***ing n***** loving b****' - CIVILITY VIOLATION BOOM (depending on previous behavior might eat a friendly warning, a threadban, subforum ban, or even full ban)
5. 'Deserves to get shot and die horribly let me get my gun' - TOS VIOLATION BANHAMMER

Does this make it clear what we're talking about? It is perfectly possible to passionately despise somebody and make it clear to everybody that you do, without resorting to violating the rules.

That is actually really helpful, that's sort of what I think we needed.

I numbered them for my own purpose. I don't see a problem at all from 1-3. 4 is...well, just a string of senseless insults, so I don't think most posters would use them. So I can see that. 5 is I'm going to assume, the poster not joking and being serious, in which case, absolute banhammer.

You'll have to forgive any mistakes I make, in regards to this, but I think what both sides are saying is:

Concerned Posters -- "We think numbers 1-3 are fine, 4 is just whacknuts, and 5 should never seriously be posted on the forum. But we're worried someone might be joking and get TOS banned without warning."

and (again, forgive me if I'm wrong)

Mods -- "1-2 are fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is no, and 5 is absolutely no. Those last two make us look crazy and no one wants to hang out with crazy."

 

[Deleted member 1]

That is actually really helpful, that's sort of what I think we needed.

I numbered them for my own purpose. I don't see a problem at all from 1-3. 4 is...well, just a string of senseless insults, so I don't think most posters would use them. So I can see that. 5 is I'm going to assume, the poster not joking and being serious, in which case, absolute banhammer.

You'll have to forgive any mistakes I make, in regards to this, but I think what both sides are saying is:

Concerned Posters -- "We think numbers 1-3 are fine, 4 is just whacknuts, and 5 should never seriously be posted on the forum. But we're worried someone might be joking and get TOS banned without warning."

and (again, forgive me if I'm wrong)

Mods -- "1-2 are fine, 3 is pushing it, 4 is no, and 5 is absolutely no. Those last two make us look crazy and no one wants to hang out with crazy."

I think that's a reasonable summary of what's happening here, yes.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Is this embarrassment, motivated even in the smallest degree by concerns of expanding the site’s userbase or protecting mod accounts on SB from banning?

Almost everyone involved with that had their account banned for various fictitious reasons. They already laid out the primary concern; expanding the site's userbase. And that is a legitimate concern. If we ask for them to shoot straight for us, we have to shoot straight for them. We all signed up knowing that we wanted to expand this forum so free minded people could enjoy themselves. That requires compromise.