Controversial Statuses

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Fairly certain I got called out for doing just that a couple of times when I was a mod. I’d suggest making it as clear as possible what is and is not punishable.

That's an age old question that probably won't be solved in this thread. The entire history of the mod time, literally, is full of "How detailed should we be".

 

I think we should be careful in defining foul language. You know as well as anyone that my normal speech is very course, but I firmly believe that me using the word "sheet" instead of "stuff" is in no way a problem.

 

Calling myself a dumbass ought to be fine, while calling someone else one is obviously an issue.

Which is why when I say foul I mean foul.

Slurs and the like.

[Phantom Roxas]

I had a thought.

Note it's late and I didn't fully think on this and it is not an official statement in the slightest.

 

I wonder what it'd be like if we allowed these but were much more harsh on name-calling, sheet-stirring, and foul language and the like on the statuses. One of my concerns is how often these devolve and how it's harder to punish them.

 

So like people could post controversial thoughts but if anyone steps out of line then bam, punishment. It'd likely be more strict than threads but it could be a way to allow these while making sure people know it's still not okay to get hostile.

 

Again, this is just a thought that came to mind and idek if it's what I'd prefer yet.

 

I think that's fair. The biggest issue I'd say is that in the case of some statuses, they kind of "have" to devolve before they really become egregious enough to punish. Often that leads to the rule being perceived as unfair because it's trying to prevent a discussion that may not necessarily turn out that way. This is hyperbole, but it's like punishing a crime before it happens. The difficulty in having a broad rule is that something that risks creating a situation that would violate the rules would be deemed a problem, which raises another issue. You could let the status progress to a conversation naturally, and if that conversation gets out of hand, you can deal with it accordingly. But it's just as possible that a conversation that goes poorly could be resolved with people coming to a form of compromise, so if there's reason to believe that's possible, leave them be, though stay vigilant.

 

And yes, I think we all know each well enough to accurately anticipate how a conversation will progress, but heading that off at the pass is not the answer. Your solution sounds fine. People can post controversial thoughts, but if someone responds to those thoughts, and then a hostile argument breaks out, then while the initial controversial thought did contribute to the eventual argument, ultimately it may not necessarily be the most offensive comment in the exchange.

 

Basically, advise caution when posting controversial thoughts, but don't punish them necessarily. Though if someone is just opening with flamebait, that's not a "controversial thought". That's just being an jabroni for its own sake, and should definitely be punished on first site. "I voted for this" or "I hope this passes" is innocuous when all is said and done. People may not like what the person is supporting, but they're not targeting anyone or picking a fight. But if you open with "Hey, f*** that guy!" to target someone on the site, then you should be punished.

[Dad]

Punishing foul language is bullshit. If it's not flaming then there's no funking reason for it to warrant punishment unless it's being used to describe something sickeningly explicit (like sexual content).

 

If you gon punish somebody for using swears then you niggas might as well censor every funking thing again.

[Phantom Roxas]

Punishing foul language is bullshit. If it's not flaming then there's no funking reason for it to warrant punishment unless it's being used to describe something sickeningly explicit (like sexual content).

 

If you gon punish somebody for using swears then you niggas might as well censor every funking thing again.

 

Foul language to emphasize flaming would be one conceivable situation to punish them, but even then, the foul language itself is not necessarily the problem. Someone has already chosen to resort to flaming. That is the problem, so if anything, the punishable offense in question is flaming. Foul language just means that the person is making it all the more obvious how inappropriate their flaming is, but they should be punished for flaming, not for saying a dirty word.

 

Foul language is just a supplement to other negative behaviors, and I think the problem is when flaming is only treated as such just because it involves foul language. Even if someone sounds as polite as they possibly can in their choice of words doesn't mean they're not still trying to insult someone else.

 

(EDIT: Noticed some generalizations in my post and wanted to scale that back.)

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Punishing foul language is bullshit. If it's not flaming then there's no funking reason for it to warrant punishment unless it's being used to describe something sickeningly explicit (like sexual content).

 

If you gon punish somebody for using swears then you niggas might as well censor every funking thing again.

 

Which is why when I say foul I mean foul.

Slurs and the like.

Calling someone an idiot is wrong

Calling someone a "Stupid baka" is worse

[Dad]

So foul = flaming? Is that right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Also how are you guys addressing intent. Polaris by most measures is one of my best friends on this site, and I call him a stupid baka, is that foul?

Why not just take a Laissez-faire approach for once

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So foul = flaming? Is that right?

I'm saying that one would probably result in harsher punishment. As Roxas said you can flame with ""polite"" language but it could still be flame.

But if you're foul while you're at it it makes things even worse.

Also how are you guys addressing intent. Polaris by most measures is one of my best friends on this site, and I call him a stupid baka, is that foul?

Why not just take a Laissez-faire approach for once

Personally I think that kind of thing should be reserved for private. But as for a rule we'll see.

 

It's funny because cursing in general used to be against the rules for a long time but we HAVE been "Laissez-faire" about it for years.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So I'm sorry it took so long to answer fully. We had more/less come to a decision before this but there was some discussion to iron out (and admittedly I kept it going longer probably trying to make sure we knew what we wanted).

 

But in the end, and after a near-unanimous vote, the decision was for now to keep such statuses against the rules and to have discussion of such matters in the Debate section.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So I'm sorry it took so long to answer fully. We had more/less come to a decision before this but there was some discussion to iron out (and admittedly I kept it going longer probably trying to make sure we knew what we wanted).

 

But in the end, and after a near-unanimous vote, the decision was for now to keep such statuses against the rules and to have discussion of such matters in the Debate section.

Tormey, maybe Black. Predictable tbh

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Tormey, maybe Black. Predictable tbh

Actually I was the only one to vote to get rid of the rule lol

 

But yeah gonna lock this thread now given the discussion was basically dead and I mostly wanted to just inform people of the choice.