So do we even have any form of moderation here?

So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.

What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere. Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.

Why? Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that? Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?

Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?

Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?

So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like? Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Michael Ignacio on September 1, 2014 at 8:00am

Apparently we did. All of us.

Granting both of them the benefit of the doubt, the Michelle v. Gabe exchange came down to "I'll fight hate speech however I perceive it" against "You can't tell me what to say whatsoever." And it looks like we collectively decided to protect hate in the name of free speech.

For the record, I'd never call anyone 'retarded'. Period.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 1, 2014 at 8:51am

Language suppression IS hate speech.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 1, 2014 at 8:52am

Oh Douglas, did u read page one or did u roll out of bed and think of me again? And what we came down in favor of was to not bow to whiners. People are gonna hate curse words of any kind. Twat and cunt make peoples skin crawl but there they are. If you dont use a word kudo's to you. But people will always be offended by something and let me remind you this is the internet.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on September 1, 2014 at 9:06am

Following is the beginning of a simple discussion of "hate speech" from an American Bar Association web site. For anyone interested in reading further discussion and a straightforward explanation of two Supreme Court cases this is the link. The bottom line is that generally, even in real life, we in the U.S. do not ban or regulate "hate speech".

Debating the “Mighty Constitutional Opposites”

Debating Hate Speech

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.

In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.

Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt M. 18.5KM on September 1, 2014 at 10:28am

If we don't "push the limits" sometimes it's hard to know where we stand..... :-)

notoriousDUG said:

I;ve made it clear in the past that I am OK if the things I say that are pushing or outside the rules are edited or deleted. I'm an adult and aware that pushing those limits can result in repercussions. I've never complained when I have gotten in trouble over breaking the rules; I just told you or Julie to delete or edit what you thought was a problem if you felt it was required. I have also stopped certain behaviors when the moderators asked me to.

But that really has nothing to do with my question beyond the fact that some of the crap I do is covered by it. Why should I be allowed to get away with breaking the rules when other people aren't?

Again, what is the point of having rules if they are ignored or only enforced selectively? Why was what Michelle did worthy of a banning but what Gabe did let slide completely with no repercussions? She was being an idiot yes, but Gabe was blatantly harassing her. It seems to me that purposefully using language a member finds really offensive is a worse offence than not being able to drop the issue.

Of course if somebody has stepped in and done something about it in a timely manner there would be no questions about who should have been banned or rules because there never would have been an issue. More often than not addressing conflict before it gets out of hand can be more effective than banning people.

When I used to moderate forums I used to try and think of how I would react if I saw the interaction in real life.

Ask yourself this, if you were in a room full of people and you saw two of them start to go at it like Michelle and Gabe were would you step in or just let them yell at each other?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on September 1, 2014 at 11:53am

Well now we do know where we stand. We have established that we are an online community that will ban people who highlight the use of alienating language in order to protect people who bully them out of the community.

How do you feel about that.

Matt M. 18.5KM said:

If we don't "push the limits" sometimes it's hard to know where we stand..... :-)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 1, 2014 at 12:05pm

I think it was that 'we' are more in favor of protecting peoples right to use a slur here because, you know, free speech...

But yes, basically being an asshole who uses hate speech is more acceptable than being an asshole who stands against hate speech in the eyes of The Chainlink.

I feel the need to add that there is no 'free speech' issue here. Our rights to free speech protect our right to say what we want free of censorship from the government via public forums, but private entities can still decide what they will and will not publish or allow. If The Chainlink wants to keep people from saying certain things or prevent people from expressing their opinion they have every right to do so.

There are two things here that have me continuing this discussion...

1. Why is it that rules are not evenly enforced?

2. Why was Michelle banned and Gabenot? Gabe used language that is pretty accepted as not nice and easy to understand as offensive to somebody. When asked not to he not only refused not to use it but made it a point to antagonize the person who made a complaint. Then things escalated the moderators here banned Michelle only which makes it look as if The Chainlink protected his 'right' to do so rather than curtail the use of a word widely accepted as offensive to make somebody comfortable.

Not something that makes this look like an open and accepting community.

Is keeping somebody from using the word 'retard' really limiting their ability to express themselves that much?

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

So did we do that thing where there was a kerfuffle over using a slur and when the dust cleared we'd basically drawn our line in the sand in favor of: use them slurs?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on September 1, 2014 at 12:16pm

That's the trouble with the free speech banner, she was exercising her speech too. So there's basically no avoiding making a decision as to what speech is acceptable and what is not, and in a very practical sense total non-intervention consistently steers any online community into the dump as aggressive jackholes overwhelm anyone interested in being conscientious.

Witness the "women, what are your peeves" thread getting trolled by someone pretending to be a transwoman in addition to all the additional basic clown shit. All of that biz has been refined over decades to effectively stifle a large set of discussions by filling them with noise. Online spaces are going to stifle discussion one way or another, and moderators choose what kind of community they want through their action or inaction.

It seems to add an additional dimension when this is an online community that is an extension of an actual physical community.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on September 1, 2014 at 12:38pm

As an aside, I've been on another forum for a number of years which opted to employ word filters for slurs, such as:

tusken raider

grand moff

the spice mines of kessel

fully armed and operational battlestation

eclipse-class star destroyer

the mose eisley cantina

max rebo band

and so on and so forth, and it's worked pretty well, but we've also had a few years to refine what sort of community we want to be & work out what the sweet spot is. Spoiler: it is valuable but it is not easy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 1, 2014 at 12:41pm

That has to be the most Jar-Jar thing I've ever read.

Peenworm "8 mile" Grubologist said:

As an aside, I've been on another forum for a number of years which opted to employ word filters for slurs, such as:

tusken raider

grand moff

the spice mines of kessel

fully armed and operational battlestation

eclipse-class star destroyer

the mose eisley cantina

max rebo band

and so on and so forth, and it's worked pretty well, but we've also had a few years to refine what sort of community we want to be & work out what the sweet spot is. Spoiler: it is valuable but it is not easy.