Forum "cleanup" policy

[aelle]

My understanding, from experience, not from explicit rules, is that the moderation policy here is to delete all traces of problematic messages, including the answers that they receive.

I understand wanting to keep the boards free of spam and blatant trolling. But when it comes to deleting opinion posts, I have to say that it rubs me the wrong way, and I know I am not alone. Why pretend that these problematic opinions don't exist among posters, especially when the community's response is unanimous? Just to take today's example, is it undesireable to show that the community globally takes a stand against hate crimes (physical violence against homosexuals, in this case)?

[cacheborn]

One of the rules of the forum is

Exercise good judgment, reasonableness, and mutual respect - This is a community for smart people who share an interest in personal growth, so please treat it as such. Personal attacks and name-calling as well as profane, pornographic, racist, sexist, or otherwise demeaning or offensive messages will not be tolerated. Recognize that there's a human being behind every post, and behave accordingly.

So as a policy we delete all the posts that fit into this category. Also, we delete all the posts that have replied to the post in question. If we do not do this, then further trolling may occur from the original post and it could become an unending cycle which simply means more cleanup work.

I agree that in this case the replies to the original post may not be warrant deletion on their own, it's just that we have to follow some guidelines. It is for this reason that we always ask members to report offensive posts instead of replying to them.

There is nothing wrong in discussing any of the problematic issues in society, as long as it is done in a manner that adheres to the forum rules.

[aelle]

I just don't see that rule being consistently applied. As far as I can judge, maybe 30% of the posts in Social and Relationships are painfully, blatantly sexist. And I'm okay with these opinions being out there, by the way, as long as those who find them problematic have the means to respond accordingly. We haven't had any Islamophobes in a while, but when we did, Steve's personal response to the outrage was that "questionning authority, including religion, including other people's religion, is ok and even encouraged as long as there are no *personal* insults". Etc.

I don't see a clear guideline being followed, and I guess that it makes sense because the limits of what is rascist, sexist, and otherwise demeaning can be fuzzy. I find it problematic, in a place that encourages conscious living and critical thinking, to pretend that it is in fact a clear cut line and sweep the issue behind the curtains rather than allow frank discussions (as long as they don't turn to insults, obvs.)
We've had discussions on heated, controversial issues that remained cordial. Calling any response to an offensive post "further trolling" is not a fair way to frame the issue.

[ZephyrusX]

Are you talking about the post in the... male... bisexual thread? I actually saw that one. I didn't reply to it because I was too taken aback. 'Wtf? Seriously?'

On the one hand, I agree with you. I don't feel as if censorship serves a useful purpose in the long run. You can delete the post and tell the original poster why it was removed, but he/she (and everyone else who is lurking) cannot benefit from a discussion that may shed new insight into their worlds. Rejecting someone doesn't change their world view or their behaviour. He'll just take his comments and behaviour else where.

Actually, when I was younger, I was once kicked off a forum for making an offensive comment. But no one bothered explaining it to me so I didn't understand what was offensive about what I said till years later. If the community took the time to discuss it, I would have learned something (and they would have learned something from me because what I said actually had some merit to it - but that is another story!).

On the other hand, I'm really ****ing tired of hearing sexist, racist, classist things on this forum. Quite frankly, I don't want to participate in a thread just to have some random jackass make a post bragging about beating on homosexuals and then claiming that 'he giggles' about the experience years later. I'm running out of steam here; I don't want to perpetually call people out on their BS. It shouldn't be my obligation to try to change someone else. I'm spending more and more of my time on the Fun section just so I can avoid people saying... ****ed up things... (and that doesn't always work). So I can definately see why the post was deleted.

I suppose tit is not an either/or problem. It really depends upon the objectives of the forum.

[cacheborn]

As for inconsistency, I can only say that S & R is one of the busiest sections of the forum. It's not really humanly possible to go through each and every post to determine if it's according to the rules. Hence we ask the members to cooperate. If you think any post/thread is sexist/racist/trolling/personal attack/spamming, please report it. It makes the cleanup so much easier.

Calling any response to an offensive post "further trolling" is not a fair way to frame the issue.

That is not what I meant. My statement was "Responses to trolls are deleted when they may not warrant deletion in themselves." That does not mean responses are trolls also.

It is to prevent the matter from escalating (in case OP responds with more offensive remarks.) Also, keeping the responses when the original offensive post has been removed makes the discussion inconsistent.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Are you talking about the post in the... male... bisexual thread? I actually saw that one. I didn't reply to it because I was too taken aback. 'Wtf? Seriously?'

On the one hand, I agree with you. I don't feel as if censorship serves a useful purpose in the long run. You can delete the post and tell the original poster why it was removed, but he/she (and everyone else who is lurking) cannot benefit from a discussion that may shed new insight into their worlds. Rejecting someone doesn't change their world view or their behaviour. He'll just take his comments and behaviour else where.

Yes, that's the one. And yes yes yes, it's exactly what I mean! If a guy needs to be walked step by step through the reasons that make physical violence against gay men not okay, and if he can find a lesson, any lesson, in the conversation, then it's a conversation that needs to be had!

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

On the other hand, I'm really ****ing tired of hearing sexist, racist, classist things on this forum. Quite frankly, I don't want to participate in a thread just to have some random jackass make a post bragging about beating on homosexuals and then claiming that 'he giggles' about the experience years later. I'm running out of steam here; I don't want to perpetually call people out on their BS. It shouldn't be my obligation to try to change someone else. I'm spending more and more of my time on the Fun section just so I can avoid people saying... ****ed up things... (and that doesn't always work). So I can definately see why the post was deleted.

Sadly, I'm also with you on that one (although a liberal use of the block-user function helps), but overall I'm more irked by the double standards, the seemingly arbitrary distinction between the problematic posts that get magicked away and the ones that stay. I do report some posts, but often the reasons why they are offensive aren't obvious to everyone and deserve an in-depth argumentation, and it deserves to be public. I don't know if mods discuss between one another if and why a post makes the cut, but if so, there would be much to gain by having these discussions publicly!

[Le Roi]

I'm not aware of the specifics involved or refereed here.

However, we do as a policy tend to delete posts that quote or explicitly refer back to deleted posts. The main reasons is to keep the flow of the thread well and avoid people people coming later and getting confused about what's going on.

I know sometimes this means deleting other wise fine posts. Usually when I have to do this, I send a message to the person whose post I deleted to let them know why I did it and that there was nothing wrong with their posts. Most of the time, they understand and appreciate it.

As for the racist/sexist views, that's a difficult thing to moderate. We want a friendly environment, and we also want people to be able to have serious discussions about non-pc viewpoints. It's not an easy tasks trying to balance the two, and frankly, sometimes we aren't perfect about it. However we do our best.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by aelle

I don't know if mods discuss between one another if and why a post makes the cut, but if so, there would be much to gain by having these discussions publicly!

Yes, we have these discussions on a private forum. I like your idea, but really only Steve can say if it's plausible.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

That is not what I meant. My statement was "Responses to trolls are deleted when they may not warrant deletion in themselves." That does not mean responses are trolls also.

Gotcha. However, in this case at least, I didn't get the impression that the poster was purposefully trolling, rather that he was clueless about how offensive he was.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by aelle

Gotcha. However, in this case at least, I didn't get the impression that the poster was purposefully trolling, rather that he was clueless about how offensive he was.

He made consistent racist posts in multiple threads at the same time. Looking at the overall behavior, it was thought better to delete all of them.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Yes, we have these discussions on a private forum. I like your idea, but really only Steve can say if it's plausible.

What I'd suggest is create a rank between moderator and normal user, if possible, which would allow a larger group of people to come in and discuss it without making it fully public. That way there's quality control on the feedback.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Cado

What I'd suggest is create a rank between moderator and normal user, if possible, which would allow a larger group of people to come in and discuss it without making it fully public. That way there's quality control on the feedback.

But again, they are also going to be humans, right? I am not sure if increasing the number of checks would lead to improvement, it will cause delay however.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Yes, we have these discussions on a private forum. I like your idea, but really only Steve can say if it's plausible.

Making this forum public but read-only would be great. It'd also save you all the time spend moderating "so and so got banned!" and "such and such got deleted!" threads

[Cado]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

But again, they are also going to be humans, right? I am not sure if increasing the number of checks would lead to improvement, it will cause delay however.

Aye. Just a thought if it were opened up as I doubt it would be beneficial to let everyone have a look-see.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

But again, they are also going to be humans, right? I am not sure if increasing the number of checks would lead to improvement, it will cause delay however.

Agreed, we already have long discussions between us few mods. Especially when we have new mods .

[Cado]

Originally Posted by aelle

Making this forum public but read-only would be great. It'd also save you all the time spend moderating "so and so got banned!" and "such and such got deleted!" threads

You know, that's not a bad idea either-but then I think this was mentioned before, wasn't it? The response was something like, "it would be a forum full of, 'banned for trolling, banned for spam, etc.'" and wouldn't be particularly useful.

It's murky as people who want to delve into these things just as often want to create drama, so no answer is satisfactory. You've already laid out some of the pros but there are some hefty cons to consider as well.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by aelle

Sadly, I'm also with you on that one (although a liberal use of the block-user function helps), but overall I'm more irked by the double standards, the seemingly arbitrary distinction between the problematic posts that get magicked away and the ones that stay. I do report some posts, but often the reasons why they are offensive aren't obvious to everyone and deserve an in-depth argumentation, and it deserves to be public. I don't know if mods discuss between one another if and why a post makes the cut, but if so, there would be much to gain by having these discussions publicly!

I don't think the block-user function helps very much. I've made the same observation as cachborne. Once an offensive remark is made, people tend to jump on it and the entire thread is derailed. A perfectly, delightful thread could be completely ruined by just one remark. I suppose I could go elsewhere.

I actually agree with you on the arbitrary distinction between the problematic posts (no offense mods). Especially with sexist remarks. I had one of my posts removed because I called someone a doorknob. Some of the things that remain on the forum are far more offensive. I agree with your explanation. I think some of the sexist things that people say on this forum are taken so matter of factly that it would cause a lot of ruckus if the mods were to take them down. The only other alternative is to discuss the remark, as you said.

On the other hand, I don't think 'beating on homosexuals' and 'giggling over the experience' is going to warrant much sympathy from the majority of other posters. Some posts can still be taken down for quality control. The issue, in my mind, is whether the individual's interests (the original poster, in this case) trumps the interests of the community. I really do feel conflicted about the issue. I know that removing the post and not discussing it is not going to benefit the original poster. In a way, it won't benefit the community.

To what degree are you going to favour the individual though? Indianna said that one of the reasons she left (temporarily hopefully) was that she was fed up. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that Laky and Kali left for similar reasons. I haven't left yet (I like playing with people on here too much), but I really do feel fed up at times. I doubt I'll leave, but I have been purposely avoiding certain threads.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by aelle

I just don't see that rule being consistently applied. As far as I can judge, maybe 30% of the posts in Social and Relationships are painfully, blatantly sexist. And I'm okay with these opinions being out there, by the way, as long as those who find them problematic have the means to respond accordingly. We haven't had any Islamophobes in a while, but when we did, Steve's personal response to the outrage was that "questionning authority, including religion, including other people's religion, is ok and even encouraged as long as there are no *personal* insults". Etc.

I don't see a clear guideline being followed, and I guess that it makes sense because the limits of what is rascist, sexist, and otherwise demeaning can be fuzzy. I find it problematic, in a place that encourages conscious living and critical thinking, to pretend that it is in fact a clear cut line and sweep the issue behind the curtains rather than allow frank discussions (as long as they don't turn to insults, obvs.)
We've had discussions on heated, controversial issues that remained cordial. Calling any response to an offensive post "further trolling" is not a fair way to frame the issue.

In my opinion, what pushed this post well over the line was the use of the word "fags," and telling a bisexual poster that he used to beat them up *and* that he still finds it funny. In a face to face conversation, I would construe that as a threat. The fact that it's online gives it more distance, but it's still not the same as merely a stated opinion, no matter how distasteful that opinion happens to be.

Also, this member has been banned for making multiple offensive and trolling posts. I'm not sure there's much reason to keep responding to his posts when he's not even here any more.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by aelle

Gotcha. However, in this case at least, I didn't get the impression that the poster was purposefully trolling, rather that he was clueless about how offensive he was.

If you volunteer to serve as a mod, you can read through all the cleaned up trolling, insults, etc. to your heart's content. It will more than satisfy your curiosity.

I think a better solution than making moderated discussions public would be to charge a monthly or annual fee for the forums instead of having them free. That would likely eliminate most trolling, spam, etc. To make moderator discussions and behind-the-scenes clean up public would only add more burden to the mods, inducing them to overly justify every decision for the benefit of members who are ignorant about the daily realities of moderation.

For that kind of effort, the mods deserve to be paid, and the best way to do that is to enact a forum tax. I doubt that an all volunteer group of mods would be effectively sustainable under such circumstances, as the work-reward ratio would be too imbalanced with every little decision publicly scrutinized.

So if you truly desire more openness and transparency, we can do that, but it will involve adding a forum tax to pay for it one way or another. The mods deserve no less if they're to attempt to be as transparent as paid govt officials.

If you really want this, are you willing to pay the mods for it?

Or as a simpler alternative, if you'd like to assume personal responsibility for this, you can volunteer to serve as a mod, and you can take the time to explain all controversial decisions publicly and in sufficient detail to satisfy those who don't understand. And all member questions to that effect can be addressed to you personally as the public face of moderator transparency. It shouldn't require more than 10 hours a week or so. Fair enough?

Beyond that, you could also help to ensure there are no double standards, perhaps acting as a consistency director.

These are all issues that can be addressed, if you're willing to step up and do so. Is it worth the effort to you to do something about it? Or would you rather put the burden onto others who are already doing their best?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by aelle

Making this forum public but read-only would be great. It'd also save you all the time spend moderating "so and so got banned!" and "such and such got deleted!" threads

You mean, making the mod forum public for members to read? I don't think that would save any time at all, and I don't think it's likely to happen. That would create a lot more overhead for us to deal with in the form of arguments, probably via PM or new threads on the forum challenging what the mods are saying. People don't really like seeing their posts being discussed and not being able to weigh in on the issue.

[AlmostGodess]

The owner of this forum has the right to decide what kind of values he promotes and what kind of posts he keeps. If you had your own forum or newspaper, would you like to use it as a mean for people to express their hate towards each other?

The debate is certainly necessary on all topics and we had lots of them that did not involve calling names. This should be and remain the standard even if this involves censoring some posts.

[beast]

Originally Posted by Cado

You know, that's not a bad idea either-but then I think this was mentioned before, wasn't it? The response was something like, "it would be a forum full of, 'banned for trolling, banned for spam, etc.'" and wouldn't be particularly useful.

It's murky as people who want to delve into these things just as often want to create drama, so no answer is satisfactory. You've already laid out some of the pros but there are some hefty cons to consider as well.

Oooh, I think aelle meant making the private moderator forum public & read-only.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Savage

I think a better solution than making moderated discussions public would be to charge a monthly or annual fee for the forums instead of having them free. That would likely eliminate most trolling, spam, etc. To make moderator discussions and behind-the-scenes clean up public would only add more burden to the mods, inducing them to overly justify every decision for the benefit of members who are ignorant about the daily realities of moderation.

And how much would this fee be?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

And how much would this fee be?

Might have to experiment if we went that route, but I think $20/yr would be reasonable.

[Lynn 007]

Originally Posted by Savage

Might have to experiment if we went that route, but I think $20/yr would be reasonable.

That sounds very reasonable. I would be happy to be your first paying member.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

The owner of this forum has the right to decide what kind of values he promotes and what kind of posts he keeps.

Absolutely, and I don't contest that (or I would have left a long time ago). I would just like to understand what these values are, exactly. I would like to see black on white what the editorial line really is. As it is, I don't understand it because it looks inconsistent.

Which is also why I don't want to sign up as a mod just yet. I don't want to join a system without being sure that I support it.

As for personal responsibility, I've been keeping in touch through other means with the posters and former posters whose input I value most (and hopefully vice versa). It's too bad for the community, but forums atmospheres change and I'm not going to let it keep me from great people.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

If you think any post/thread is sexist/racist/trolling/personal attack/spamming, please report it. It makes the cleanup so much easier.

As far as I'm aware (unless a huge shift happened in the last 2 weeks), sexist and racist (and anti-gay, anti-islam, anti religion etc) are allowed on these forums.

Maybe it is a good time for the new mods to read through the pages long discussions about this subject on the Mod forum where Steve and Erin put down their stance very clearly.

personal attacks aren't allowed, opinions against entire groups are.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Savage

Might have to experiment if we went that route, but I think $20/yr would be reasonable.

That sounds fine. It is not as if the fee is prohibitively expensive and it probably would cut down on spammers and trolls.

Originally Posted by Aelle

It's too bad for the community, but forums atmospheres change and I'm not going to let it keep me from great people.

Originally Posted by Zephy

On the other hand, I'm really ****ing tired of hearing sexist, racist, classist things on this forum.

Yah, I think your are right Aelle. There are great people on here and I don't want to leave just because of a few people. I apologize to anyone who actually read the rather angry post I made in world forums today. (though I don't think many people read it since I reported my self ).

Since most of the regular members are reading this thread, I'll use it to announce that I am no longer willing to play 'GI Joe Zephy'. I don't want to talk to people who say sexist, racist, classist things. I've already made liberal use of the ignore list. If you are on it, don't take it too personally. I just don't like you. The moment someone says something sexist, racist, classist, you are going on my list. I don't have the time or patience for you. The moment a thread degrades due to a derailing sexist remark, I'm leaving. Again, I just don't have the patience any more.

I want to create a forum experience for my self that is positive. So I'll continue to talk to people I have good rapport with.

[cacheborn]

Charging fee is not a bad idea. Paying the mods sounds good.

Still, I would not be in favor for one reason. I have seen many members, in such desperate situations, ranging from suicide/harassment/depression and what not. When they come here, they are really out of their minds, and maybe coming here is one last desperate attempt. Not all of them get what they want out of it, but many of them do gain some sense of stability, realize that there are options, even talking about their problems relieves some tension.

These members would not be coming here if there is entry fee. They are hardly in a state of mind to consider if it's worth the money. The only reason they can come is because registration is easy and free. It would be really sad to lose them.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

Charging fee is not a bad idea. Paying mods sounds good.

Still, I would not be in favor for one reason. I have seen many members, in such desperate situations, ranging from suicide/harassment/depression and what not. When they come here, they are really out of their minds, and maybe coming here is one last desperate attempt. Not all of them get what they want out of it, but many of them do gain some sense of stability, realize that there are options, even talking about their problems relieves some tension.

These members would not be coming here if there is entry fee. They are hardly in a state of mind to consider if it's worth the money. The only reason they can come is because registration is easy and free. It would be really sad to lose them.

I agree. I would also personally have some trouble because I have no credit card and can't legally have PayPal yet (without parental involvement, at least); I think if that were to happen we could probably work something out for me, but whenever I hear anything about money changing hands here, that's what comes to my mind.

I do like the accessibility of these forums to everyone, and can see some negatives to charging for it.