Resolved Concerning the Vagueness of Rules and TOS

[The Name of Love]

This being a relatively new platform, I believe that we ought to nip a potential problem in the bud right away. There are many vague phrases that could be abused by future mods, so it’s important to set a precedent for explicit specificity.

Below I will provide examples of what I consider “vague language” from the Rules page and the Terms of Service (TOS) page.

Racial, ethnic, religious and other slurs solely intended to demean a person for a group identity. A non-exhaustive set of examples includes “Nigger”, “Kike”, “Spic”, “Faggot”, “Slant”, etc.

An exhaustive list of these would be appreciated, first and foremost. People are extremely sensitive nowadays, to the point where seemingly innocuous words can become “racial slurs.”

Furthermore, is this website going to search through a user’s off-website content? Does a linked YouTube video where a guy says one of these words count as “material very likely to provoke such exchanges?” And does using these words in the context of a fictional story (such as having a historical fiction story wherein an Antebellum Southern plantation owner calls black people “niggers”) count as “material very likely to provoke such exchanges?”
A minor note: the TOS on the “Rules” Page is different from the TOS on the “Terms of Service page. That will lead to confusion. Uniformity is key to clarity.

Definitions

Any word capitalized outside of usual grammatical rules in this Terms of Service agreement is held to have a specific definition.

I suggest making these definitions public and putting them in the actual TOS.

Hardcore pornography.

What does this mean? And doesn’t this website have a NSFW section? Is “hardcore porn” not allowed there either? Also, IMHO, I would rethink having a NSFW section altogether.

Encouragement or incitement to violence.

What does this mean? Remember, we live in an age where speech is considered violence, where “hate speech” writ large is considered incitement.

Any material that disrupts the operation of the service or causes negative market feedback for Belter Alliance Media LLC.

This could be almost anything. After all, in the era of social media, malcontents on Twitter can create online mobs and smear companies for anything they want, often without justification. Can we expect leniency here, or is Belter Alliance Media going to cave in to every blue checkmark that whines about Nazis on Twitter?

Coordination of “invasions” or other activities.

What in the world does “invasion” mean in this context? And what do you mean by “other activities?” Is this rule supposed to be read as “no coordination of any activity whatsoever?”

Revision. The Sietch and BAM LLC reserve the right to modify these terms of service at any time, without prior notice.

This is very concerning. Being able to modify these terms at any moment without prior notice sounds like a recipie for abuse. Just change the rules to ban someone you don’t like, then change them again. All without informing anybody.

These are just a few of my concerns about this website. I’d like to hear some feedback.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Respectfully, just as the Hawaiians said “The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness”, so we might also say that “the life of the law is perpetuated in righteousness.” If we have righteous people in charge, we will have no problems. If we do not, all the specificity in the world will not save the law from being used as a tool of oppression.

Thus, we will keep our rules flexible, and focus on the ethics of the moderating staff instead.

As for the NSFW matter, explicit erotica is permitted if all the subjects protrayed are mentally and physically above the legal age of consent in New Hampshire. There is no federal or state limit on erotica, we impose one anyway (Lolita the novel would in fact be censored on this board). The ban on hardcore pornography means images, moving media, audio, etc. Anything not literary. To be honest I don’t really like the NSFW fora but I was convinced they serve a purpose, so like with medieval prostitution I will keep my word and tolerate them indefinitely. So far they just contain some parody slashfic by bored housewives.

 

[FriedCFour]

So far they just contain some parody slashfic by bored housewives.

And a Bernie/Trump crack fic.

 

[The Name of Love]

Respectfully, just as the Hawaiians said “The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness”, so we might also say that “the life of the law is perpetuated in righteousness.” If we have righteous people in charge, we will have no problems. If we do not, all the specificity in the world will not save the law from being used as a tool of oppression.

Thus, we will keep our rules flexible, and focus on the ethics of the moderating staff instead.

So you're brushing aside my concerns with a platitude? Fine. I can give you a platitude too: "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins" (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

To be blunt, I don't know what kind of "ethics" your moderating staff is influenced by, and you've given me no reason believe you are "ethical." Ethical leaders assure their followers that their rule isn't going to be arbitrary and whimsical, that there will be consistency in the application of the law. Only unethical leaders want the rules to be "flexible" because they want to be able to abuse people without repercussion.

As for the NSFW matter, explicit erotica is permitted if all the subjects protrayed are mentally and physically above the legal age of consent in New Hampshire. There is no federal or state limit on erotica, we impose one anyway (Lolita the novel would in fact be censored on this board). The ban on hardcore pornography means images, moving media, audio, etc. Anything not literary. To be honest I don’t really like the NSFW fora but I was convinced they serve a purpose, so like with medieval prostitution I will keep my word and tolerate them indefinitely. So far they just contain some parody slashfic by bored housewives.

So "hardcore pornography" means non-literary porn then. Good. Now perhaps you can place that specificity into the rules, please? Also, add more specificity into the other parts?

 

[Deleted member 1]

@The Name of Love , it isn’t a platitude. A story for us: The US invests massive amounts of money into a system of permissive action links (PALs) to control its nuclear weapons. There is a massive, elaborate command and control system to avoid a rogue launch.

The British put a letter in a safe on the SSBN which is written by the PM. If the BBC stops broadcasting for long enough, the Captain and Commander of the boomer open the safe, read the letter, and execute the orders.

The Americans rely on technology and regulations, the British rely on people.

You’re asking me to rely on regulations, but I have made a decision to rely on people instead. The guard against abuse is that any infractions have two layers of appeal instead of one. The first to the admins, the second to me. Half of those terms are in there for corporate liability reasons and aren’t changing, the other half are ones where if the modstaff were replaced by bongos they would get you no matter whether or not more specific rules existed. The rules as written let us be as lenient as possible. I will note that despite 10 days of sustained attack and many cases of obvious trolling we have banned only two people, both for explicit illegal advocacy or explicitly Strasserite Nazi content. I understand being suspicious but we are working to establish a reputation and I hope you will work with us.

Do you want to be a mod?

 

[The Name of Love]

You’re asking me to rely on regulations, but I have made a decision to rely on people instead. The guard against abuse is that any infractions have two layers of appeal instead of one. The first to the admins, the second to me. Half of those terms are in there for corporate liability reasons and aren’t changing, the other half are ones where if the modstaff were replaced by bongos they would get you no matter whether or not more specific rules existed. The rules as written let us be as lenient as possible. I will note that despite 10 days of sustained attack and many cases of obvious trolling we have banned only two people, both for explicit illegal advocacy or explicitly Strasserite Nazi content. I understand being suspicious but we are working to establish a reputation and I hope you will work with us.

I'm not asking for leniency, nor do I want leniency. To the contrary, you can be as ban-happy as you like. What I want is consistent. I would rather have an consistent autocrat than an inconsistent anarchist. I want rules I can follow and understand so that when I or one of my friends try to do something, your mods can't just use the vague language of the rules in order to just pull the rug out from under us.

Please recognize the social context: every single mainstream social media outlet, from YouTube to Facebook to Twitter, has these really vague rules that they always use to push their political agenda. In fact, Patreon actually said that they'd rather have lenient rules so that they can apply different standards to different people, with the people they don't like getting the boot first! The point is: if you aren't clear and specific on what these rules are, people like me will not know if they are following those rules or not. And if people are unsure what the rules are, they will be unaware of whether you are enforcing the rules fairly.

Take for instance the "incitement to violence." A lot of people claim that reactionary views on transgenderism amount to "violence" because they are a denial of their "personhood." So you could decide one day that criticizing transgenderism or just "misgendering" people counts as violence and should be banned, resulting mass banning of people who didn't know the rules because they don't know what definition of "incitement to violence" even means. Even if you have a surefire way to make sure the mods are all saints, I don't know what their definitions of those words are. By contrast, I do know what Twitter's definition of "incitement to violence" is: "anything we don't like that a Conservative says." That's clear by the number of blue checkmarks on Twitter that called for high school kids to be assaulted without repercussion.

Do you want to be a mod?

I actually... don't know. Don't you have to pay to work as a mod?

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I actually... don't know. Don't you have to pay to work as a mod?

No. What gave you that idea?

 

[Deleted member 1]

You are very concerned about our rules and seem sincerely in trying to help the board establish reasonable policies, so I thought you might be interested in helping. No need to pay.

 

[The Name of Love]

No. What gave you that idea?

I dunno. I just thought that a mod needs to pay in order to gain mod privileges or something like that.

What does a mod do? I am not good at programming with computers or modifying website designs or things like that. I mean, I could try and enforce the rules, but what would that look like?

You are very concerned about our rules and seem sincerely in trying to help the board establish reasonable policies, so I thought you might be interested in helping. No need to pay.

Yeah. Thank you for being patient with me. I come across as rather tactless when I write, and I was trying to communicate my point across. But do you understand what I'm getting at? I want the rules to be clear, both to set the expectations for the community. I'm okay with any kind of rules so long as they keep immoral behavior in check while explicitly stating what is unacceptable. I want people to be able to read the rules and have to follow them to succeed.

 

[Deleted member]

I dunno. I just thought that a mod needs to pay in order to gain mod privileges or something like that.

Moderation is an unpaid position. If you wanted to have your own private subforum, that would cost money Hetman level (20 USD/month. 220USD/year) .

What does a mod do? I am not good at programming with computers or modifying website designs or things like that. I mean, I could try and enforce the rules, but what would that look like?

The roles of various levels of staff are laid out here. A moderator mostly is involved with making sure that content in violation of the rules gets filtered, documentation of any actions conducted, and checking the reported posts when they come in (it's a little box that shows up next to the main forum/thread/post listings)

 

[Deleted member 1]

@The Name of Love, I think the issue here is a philosophical one. I can start a thread to discuss the underpinnings of rules, virtue, and leadership if you like. I would like to at least explain my philosophy and make it open for critique. I think the biggest problem you may have at the moment is that I intentionally created rules to reflect the fact there is behaviour I do not condone, but also do not think socially useful to ban on this forum.

 

[The Name of Love]

The roles of various levels of staff are laid out here. A moderator mostly is involved with making sure that content in violation of the rules gets filtered, documentation of any actions conducted, and checking the reported posts when they come in (it's a little box that shows up next to the main forum/thread/post listings)

I will consider it. In all honesty, I want to be able to find a way to have people coordinate between this website and other alternative social media websites like Gab, Discord and Minds as part of my political project, and be able to do so peacefully without causing any damage to this website. We’d have people contribute to creating political and philosophical discussions and creative content. To do that, I have to be sure that we don’t get burned. We’re already in danger of having our Discord servers be banned because they are paranoid about “Nazis” in the wake of the Christchurch Massacre (meanwhile, they refuse to do anything about the sexualization of minors in the furry community there). So you can see where I’m coming from. I want to sell this site to people have been burned before.

@The Name of Love, I think the issue here is a philosophical one. I can start a thread to discuss the underpinnings of rules, virtue, and leadership if you like. I would like to at least explain my philosophy and make it open for critique. I think the biggest problem you may have at the moment is that I intentionally created rules to reflect the fact there is behaviour I do not condone, but also do not think socially useful to ban on this forum.

Well, yes. I think having a NSFW section is just asking for trouble. But more than that, I don’t even know what your philosophy on violence. I don’t know what the hell an “invasion” is (some Internet lingo? Is inviting a ton of people I know to post content here an “invasion”?).

 

[Deleted member 1]

The use “Invasion” dates back to circa 2004 and refers to a coordinated effort by one forum to mass-post on another until it completely overwhelmed the indigenous members, with a particular agenda to suppress conversation about a particular topic. So, say, if a thousand redditors joined in one day to overwhelm the board with “proof” that Hillary Clinton was really a good person, for example.

Your adherents are welcome.

 

[The Name of Love]

The use “Invasion” dates back to circa 2004 and refers to a coordinated effort by one forum to mass-post on another until it completely overwhelmed the indigenous members, with a particular agenda to suppress conversation about a particular topic. So, say, if a thousand redditors joined in one day to overwhelm the board with “proof” that Hillary Clinton was really a good person, for example.

Your adherents are welcome.

Thank you. We want to just spread our ideas, not have an invasion.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Thank you. We want to just spread our ideas, not have an invasion.

As a regular poster, the more intellectual/ideological/etc diversity the better, I say.

 

[Murica]

@The Name of Love Not even gonna lie, you sound so concerned about your fellows being smashed by vague rules that I would consider being a mod. That's definitely something I want in a mod on a site like this.

 

[The Name of Love]

@The Name of Love Not even gonna lie, you sound so concerned about your fellows being smashed by vague rules that I would consider being a mod. That's definitely something I want in a mod on a site like this.

I am considering becoming a mod, but first, I'd like to know if I can afford to do so for my schedule.

 

[Murica]

I am considering becoming a mod, but first, I'd like to know if I can afford to do so for my schedule.

Fair enough. Real life does take priority, but I would encourage just thinking about it.

 

[S'task]

OK, I think in part that some of your concerns is because our staff has a rather... well, American biased view of how we're looking at some of our rules and definitions. Yes we have some Brits on the admin level staff, but the owner is American and most of the Admin staff is American and even our tolken Brit has a much more, well, American view of Speech and Violence than the typical European.

So, to hopefully clear some things up, when the rules talk about things like "incitement to violence" and the like, we're coming at this from a position heavily influenced by the US conceptions and Court cases involved with Freedom of Speech. Now, our rules are not as expansive as the US Court system's interpretation are, that is why we have the Civility rule and limits on NSFW, but within that framework, the mere expression of an idea can never be understood as violence. Calls to violence must be explicitly and literally that. Ideas that some part of society might find offensive, demeaning, or dehumanizing are not inherently violent and will not be construed as such.

Now, how does this interact with the civility rule? That is an area we are still working out. We want TS to be a place where people can freely discuss even some marginal or outside the mainstream ideas, but we also want people to actually discuss them, and discussion only really happens when people are not acting immediately defensive due to people using hostile or demeaning language. So things normally considered "slurs" (which are protected speech per US jurisprudence) are disallowed* specifically because we want people to actually read and engage with what others are expressing, and using such harsh language tends to shut people down.

I hope this helps explain where we're coming from a bit. If not, feel free to ask more questions and we'll all try to answer.

-------
* As part of the discussion areas and definitely directed towards other members. If used in a fictional story as part of that story that is a much more nuanced discussion.

 

[The Name of Love]

OK, I think in part that some of your concerns is because our staff has a rather... well, American biased view of how we're looking at some of our rules and definitions. Yes we have some Brits on the admin level staff, but the owner is American and most of the Admin staff is American and even our tolken Brit has a much more, well, American view of Speech and Violence than the typical European.

Yes. Different cultures have different standards for what is free speech and what is "incitement." That's why I wanted to make sure you were consistent. There are websites who apply the standard of "if it's a right-winger, they're most likely violent; left-wingers get off mostly scott free." You can never be too careful. Also, the people I am going to recommend this site to have been burned repeatedly by mods on other websites like Discord in the past, so they are very weary about this issue.

So, to hopefully clear some things up, when the rules talk about things like "incitement to violence" and the like, we're coming at this from a position heavily influenced by the US conceptions and Court cases involved with Freedom of Speech. Now, our rules are not as expansive as the US Court system's interpretation are, that is why we have the Civility rule and limits on NSFW, but within that framework, the mere expression of an idea can never be understood as violence. Calls to violence must be explicitly and literally that. Ideas that some part of society might find offensive, demeaning, or dehumanizing are not inherently violent and will not be construed as such.

Agreed. I'm an American, after all.

Now, how does this interact with the civility rule? That is an area we are still working out. We want TS to be a place where people can freely discuss even some marginal or outside the mainstream ideas, but we also want people to actually discuss them, and discussion only really happens when people are not acting immediately defensive due to people using hostile or demeaning language. So things normally considered "slurs" (which are protected speech per US jurisprudence) are disallowed* specifically because we want people to actually read and engage with what others are expressing, and using such harsh language tends to shut people down.

Fair enough. I'd use the same standards or similar standards if I were running my own website.

I hope this helps explain where we're coming from a bit. If not, feel free to ask more questions and we'll all try to answer.

You satisfied my concerns, thank you.