Rules and Moderator information

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It’s a subjective call, so we must be very cautious.

I do admire your optimistic cautiousness, and erring on the side of your ethos. There’s a lesson in your approach that can be applied to more than moderating a message board.

- Doc

[Marcus]

Shades, you asked a question in response to me, I provided as much detail as possible; still hoping you might respond and clear this up:

No, you decided how to deal with them, which of course is your right. I, for one, do not agree with how you decided to deal with sexual harassment. Earlier in this thread, one of your mods expressed a similar sentiment.

Didn't we agree to delete such comments or, at the very least, reclassify them to a lower kingdom?

Didn't we agree. No, Shades, your kingdom is not a democracy. We didn't 'agree.' you 'decreed', as of course you have every right to do.

But no, your statement above doesn't quite match what we were recently told, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. I know you've had your plate full lately, so here's a quick recap, if you don't mind reviewing it:

Res Ipsa had a discussion with us about it, here is his first where he quoted the new rules:
viewtopic.php?p=2759500#p2759500

Then my response, where i give some thoughts about sexual harassment here and ask for clarification re: delete vs. move:

Thanks for posting the early notes, as well as the ruling. If you will forgive a little rumination, this explains, for me at least, why there was a little confusion in my mind over the sexual harassment ruling.

To explain, I recall when Shades posted the first part, especially the first sentence:

I think what happened was I stopped there and thought, 'that's great, no more sexual harassment,' but it wasn't until the rules came out and I read this

...that I realized there would NOT be a 'curtailing' of sexual harassment, as I understood the word 'curtail.' There would be no decrease or diminishment in the actual sexual harassment, but simply a restriction in where it was allowed. The only possibly new part was identifying sexual harassment as a personal attack, but that seems pretty obvious and was likely the rule all along (I hope), so it just felt like although the rules were presented as not allowing sexual harassment, nothing actually changed. If the deletion part is new, that helps.

Given how few female posters there seem to be and how specific the sexual harassment of them has been, it just didn't feel like the issue had been adequately addressed.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Regarding mod choices whether to delete or move personal attacks, personally, I'd vote for deleting every time, if only to improve the level of discourse here in general.

If the mods will permit a question, is there a framework for deciding delete vs. move? Do you think Shades might be open to always deleting if personal attacks occur anywhere but the two allowed forums? Kind of like how family-related attacks are always deleted? I can ask this separately, if it would help, but, probably more importantly, can we bribe you into considering it by adding pool tables to that mod-only Casino game room I heard about!? Or maybe spot you guys a couple free rounds of fantasy quidditch?

And RI's response, with the part bolded that relates to delete vs. Move, plus his assessment of the sexual harassment part of the rule:

Shades vetoed the Fantasy Quidditch, so that avenue of bribery is right out. I started this thread as an open thread for any and all questions having to do with rules and moderation, so your questions are most welcome in this thread.

In answer to your question, the general philosophy of the board is to honor free speech to the extent possible, as long as the speech happens in the right sub-forum. The delete option, as it was originally presented, was applied in cases in which a post that was substantive and otherwise within the rules contained a personal attack that was thrown in almost as an afterthought. In that case, to preserve the integrity of the substantive conversation, the personal attack could be deleted to allow the post to stay in the forum in which it was posted. On the other hand, if the "sting" of the post was a personal attack, it would be moved.

That's the general idea. It's an option that has been used more and less over time. But the intent is to use deletion to benefit the user by allowing a post that breaks the rules to remain in the forum in which it was posted. Using it consistently to make words disappear would be contrary to the intent as I understand it.

I appreciate your feedback on the sexual harassment rule. My initial reaction was that it didn't solve the problem people had been complaining about at all. Most of the sexually harassing posts we were dealing with qualified as personal attacks anyway, so the rule didn't change much in my opinion. But, given the lack of objections by those pushing for the rule change, I didn't express my opinion. In retrospect, maybe giving the new rule a try instead of objecting at the time was a mistake.

If there is a possibility you are now leaning more toward consistently deleting comments that constitute harassment, you certainly have my vote.

Bumping in the hopes Shades will clarify his comment that seemed to indicate his approval of deleting harassment. and in particular of deleting sexual harassment comments. Shades' comment seemed to indicate this was a first response, with moving the harassment a lesser response, but acceptable ("at the very least...")

According to the mods, if I understand correctly, their policy is the reverse, the first response being to move, and only delete if unavoidable.

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but the pattern seems to be to vaguely ask open-ended questions, then quietly disappear as the squeaky wheels gradually exhaust themselves and stop squeaking. Doc's analogy fits quite well here.

So, could we get some clarification, Shades, on whether the plan is to delete sexually harassing comments? This has my vote, and seems to be what you intended, but it's not clear.

[Res Ipsa]

According to the mods, if I understand correctly, their policy is the reverse, the first response being to move, and only delete if unavoidable.

That’s not quite correct. Some rule rule violations require us to delete because what is posted is not permitted in any forum. Examples include revealing someone else’s real life identity or attacks on family members. Those are the only cases in which deletion is unavoidable.

Personal attacks, in and of themselves, are permissible in some forums but not in others. In those cases, deletion is never unavoidable; we can always avoid deletion by moving the post to the forums in which personal attacks are allowed.

Deletion was proposed as an alternative to moving some years ago as a method of bringing the post in compliance with the rules in cases where the personal attack was a small and severable portion of an otherwise permissible post. That allows us to preserve the continuity of the thread, but at the cost of permanently deleting the users words. The purpose of the option is not to make someone’s words disappear, but to benefit the user by leaving the substantive portion of the post in place. To apply the rule as you suggest would require us to completely delete an entire post if it consisted entirely of sexual harassment — something we would not do with any other personal attack.

From a moderation standpoint, I think the current rule as Shades stated it is clear: sexual harassment is treated as a personal attack. If what Shades wants is for sexual harassment to be treated differently than we treat other personal attacks, that’s perfectly fine with me as long as that intent is clearly stated: “sexual harassment will always be deleted” or “sexual harassment posted anywhere but Spirit Prison or Telestial will always be deleted” or something that is equally clear.

From a personal standpoint, I think the rule as it stands does not adequately address the sexual harassment problem raised by board participants. The definition of sexual harassment is too narrow (it excludes targeted harassment of women as long as the harassment doesn’t identify the target’s sex) and the conduct that drives women away from the board or causes them to post under a male identity is still permitted. If those two aspects of the rule remain as is, I suspect we’ll be having the same conversation down the road.

[Marcus]

From a personal standpoint, I think the rule as it stands does not adequately address the sexual harassment problem raised by board participants. The definition of sexual harassment is too narrow (it excludes targeted harassment of women as long as the harassment doesn’t identify the target’s sex) and the conduct that drives women away from the board or causes them to post under a male identity is still permitted. If those two aspects of the rule remain as is, I suspect we’ll be having the same conversation down the road.

No argument here. In looking back at the archives, this issue has been under discussion for a VERY long time.... check out this bit of sexism from 2007

[MODERATOR NOTE: Thread moved by originator's request.]

I think Book of Mormon thinks Romney is a hawt and wishes that his sneakers were underneath her bed.

Come on, thestyleguy! Was that comment really necessary? Wasn't discounting the substance of barrelomonkeys's argument and then sexualizing it (and her) just a wee bit sexist?

Compare that to the X rated sexual harassment posted recently... we're going backwards, folks.

[Dr. Shades]

X-rated sexual harassment must always be deleted, ‘cause X-rated content isn’t allowed in any forum.

[Marcus]

[

No argument here. In looking back at the archives, this issue has been under discussion for a VERY long time.... check out this bit of sexism from 2007

[MODERATOR NOTE: Thread moved by originator's request.]



Come on, thestyleguy! Was that comment really necessary? Wasn't discounting the substance of barrelomonkeys's argument and then sexualizing it (and her) just a wee bit sexist?

Compare that to the X rated sexual harassment posted recently... we're going backwards, folks.

X-rated sexual harassment must always be deleted, ‘cause X-rated content isn’t allowed in any forum.

Sigh. What was it Doc said? Oh yeah...

You fantastically misread my exegesis if you read it at all, and you perfectly ‘object lessoned’ my point about the absentee father archetype. Again, it’s your sandbox, so if you mind the cat using it to do his business and having your mods picking up the crap and moving it to another box then cool. The slow bleed will continue unabated. Personally, quarantining the cat on occasion would seem the wiser course, but like I said it’s your show and despite the turbulence I still want to express gratitude to you and the mods for the forums. Some of the conversations here, that are still happening, are *chef’s kiss*.

- Doc

[Dr. Shades]

So should X-rated content NOT always be deleted?

[Marcus]

So should X-rated content NOT always be deleted?

you are incorrigible, Shades.



Technically no longer 11 I'm sure, but still... incorrigible!

[Dr. Shades]

Please just tell me what’ll make you happy.

[dantana]

Please just tell me what’ll make you happy.

I would be happy to hear your explanation of the differences between the moderation of this forum and the moderation of forums controlled by Daniel C. Peterson who is fat.

Years ago on the MAD board DCP. once told me my post was deleted by the moderators because it broke the rules. He was courteous. Years ago on this board Shades once told me he moved my post because it broke the rules. He was even more courteous. A few days ago my wife told me I spend too much time reading the Mormon board. She wasn't very courteous.