• Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!

Civility rules

Megadeath

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Reaction score
239
Hi,

So recently I reported a post on the grounds that it was uncivil, since it was effectively a prejudiced insult aimed at half the population.

The rejection notice I received seems to suggest that as long as an insult doesn't single out a specific user it's not considered a violation of the civility rules. Whilst the particular post doesn't violate any specific subsection of the rules, it would seem to go against the spirit of the preamble of section 2, which states "The purpose of this website and forum is to promote the exchange of ideas in a civil manner" and "material very likely to provoke (exchanges between users which are unproductive) may not be posted on the boards."

I for one find it very hard to imagine the statement "Most women I have talked to are overly emotional and suicidally empathic" could be considered to fit the dictionary definition of civility, given as "courteous and polite". and it also seems likely to promote unproductive and uncivil exchanges in the case of a female audience.

Now, of course I don't mean to argue your interpretation of the rules. They are what you say they are. I'm simply looking for clarification on the staff position on this issue. If it's considered civil discourse to insult large swathes of people for their personality, opinion or identity so long as no particular target is singled out then of course I am fine with that and happy to work within that framework. Due to some recent misunderstanding with exact interpretation of the rules I just thought it best to ask.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Comrade
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,975
That's not what I said in the rejection notice, my exact words were "Rule 2 is mostly for things said to other users, general statements, even ugly ones, are usually not infractable under Rule 2", emphasis on the usually.

For the most part, rule 2 is focused on comments made to and about other users because those cases are clear cut and relatively easy to judge, and because comments targeted at other users are far more deleterious to overall discourse than more general ones. There are exceptions for that, however it's very, very hard to draw a clear line between comments that are inflammatory and provocative, and those that are merely disagreeable and contentious.

That is not the same as the rules allowing you to say whatever you want so long as you don't name any specific person, merely that it's much fuzzier. Had the comment you reported been something more like, say "I don't think those dumb c**** should be allowed to tell us men how we should run the countries we built, because they're too f****** stupid and will just vote whatever their stupid fee fees push them to do in the moment", then it almost certainly would have been infracted, because that's past the line between merely saying something other users will likely disagree with (which is allowed, and indeed something the forum was founded to allow), and saying something that invites an openly hostile response. The comment you reported, while disagreeable, didn't rise to that level of insult.

I would also note that this is also not to say that you're free to tip toe right up to the line of what's considered acceptable and be as aggressive and inflammatory as you can get away with. These rules are interpreted this way to give people some benefit of the doubt during an otherwise productive exchange, not to set up a "you are allowed to be this rude without getting in trouble" policy.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Comrade
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Reaction score
3,624
This is a lot of whining about a general statement.

One presumes that civility rules are in place to prevent as @Battlegrinder pointed out, the kind of vicious personal attacks that can cause a spat online to escalate into crazy town and RL recriminations.

Generalized statements are statements an adult should have the emotional maturity to ignore.
 

Megadeath

Comrade
Comrade
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Reaction score
239
24 hour Threadban - Rule 2 being racist to a fellow poster is clearly extreme incivility.
This is a lot of whining about a general statement.

One presumes that civility rules are in place to prevent as @Battlegrinder pointed out, the kind of vicious personal attacks that can cause a spat online to escalate into crazy town and RL recriminations.

Generalized statements are statements an adult should have the emotional maturity to ignore.
I mean, I'm not surprised you'd think that. I've never met a South American with better intellectual or emotional maturity than the average 5 year old.
 
Don't be racist to posters.

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Osaul
Comrade
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
5,729
Location
Before the Ninth Gate
I mean, I'm not surprised you'd think that. I've never met a South American with better intellectual or emotional maturity than the average 5 year old.
Being racist to a poster is a clear civility violation, and thus hits rule 2. Don't.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Comrade
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Reaction score
3,624
Being racist to a poster is a clear civility violation, and thus hits rule 2. Don't.
I'm sad...I was hoping for an "I've never met a nice South American!" retort. Instead I got something boring...

Never the less, OP raises an interesting question though not in the way he meant too. I'm going to assume generalities are fine..But I'm also going to assume Generalities like "Lel Blacks have smooth brains and no ridges" are where your ass would get infracted into a coma?

I'm also assuming no one who posts here would be retarded enough to say that and mean it. But you never know.

So yeah....For clarificationsake "Generalities up until the point of obvious malice"?
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Comrade
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Reaction score
3,624
We keep our options open, so we're not going to give you a line in the sand so certain trolls can play the 'I'm not touching you' game.

Best practice? Don't be a douchebag and you'll be fine.
Makes sense..reasonable position.

Thanks for clarifying!
 
Top Bottom