Moderation show-and-tell, anyone?

[sr71plt]

Tell me why I'm wrong.

Most folk 'round heah seem to be in favor of freedom of speech yet simultaneously seek to deny it for others. Can you imagine the hissy fit the ACLU would throw over an issue such as this?

OK, since you asked, I think you are wrong on this point. By my count, most folks are opposing the moderation that Stell is proposing. A small (very small, it looks like) continue to support it (over and over and over again). So, most folks "'round heah" don't' seem to be denying freedom of speech to others--they seem to be supporting it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

OK, since you asked, I think you are wrong on this point. By my count, most folks are opposing the moderation that Stell is proposing. A small (very small, it looks like) continue to support it (over and over and over again). So, most folks "'round heah" don't' seem to be denying freedom of speech to others--they seem to be supporting it.

This is true in any place where a majority enjoys taking verbal pot shots at a minority. They always call it "free speech," and scream censorship when the minority tells them they don't want to be spoken of like that.

I am spending more and more time over at absolutewrite.com. It's a community as varied as this one-- in the erotica forum there are some of the most prudish people, it's amazing! And there are a million controversial threads, plenty of redneck opinions and personal insults. The moderation policies there do not shut down the freedom to discuss, disagree, or express one's disgust with someone else's views.

They do discourage and control stalking, ad hom insults, trolling, and hate speech.


But-- whatever floats the majority's boats.

By the way, this thread could have been split, and teh "discussion" posts could have been sent to the discussion thread. Kind of a useful tool, IMO.

 

[Liar]

This is true in any place where a majority enjoys taking verbal pot shots at a minority. They always call it "free speech," and scream censorship when the minority tells them they don't want to be spoken of like that.

Are you saying that a majority of the people here enjoy taking verbal pot shots at minorities (or enjoy taking verbal pot shots at all)? Or am I misreading?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Are you saying that a majority of the people here enjoy taking verbal pot shots at minorities (or enjoy taking verbal pot shots at all)? Or am I misreading?

yeah, you are misreading.

 

[Liar]

yeah, you are misreading.

Hockay den.

 

[sr71plt]

I am spending more and more time over at absolutewrite.com. It's a community as varied as this one-- in the erotica forum there are some of the most prudish people, it's amazing! And there are a million controversial threads, plenty of redneck opinions and personal insults. The moderation policies there do not shut down the freedom to discuss, disagree, or express one's disgust with someone else's views.

And yet a third, in-your-face violation of existing forum rules. It continues to be obvious that you don't want a moderator here to enforce existing rules--you have no respect for the existing rules--what you want is a moderator to do what Stella wants done because the site owners aren't doing it.

Well, enjoy your time over at AW--at least until you start trying to redecorating them to your personal liking--because they aren't forgiving over there like Laurel and Manu are here. They'll toss your ass out on the very first post that doesn't toe their little ruling group's line.

ETA: But don't get me wrong. I don't care if you find exactly what you want at AW or you don't and go elsewhere or even increase your presence here. I just don't care. The point is that you just aren't going to get all of your spoiled "wants" filled in life. I'm certainly not going to cater to them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The moderation at absolutewrite is a fine example of how moderation can be set up. I invite anyone who is interested to take a look at the policy statement.

From her second post in her statement;

So. Inclusiveness. This can be really tricky stuff. More so than it seems like it ought to be, sometimes.

You might find a joke gets deleted, or a thread gets locked, that seems perfectly innocent, to you. Usually, if that happens, it's because there were people who were much less comfortable with it. The complexity and diversity in our backgrounds can be much more difficult to face and deal with, honestly, when things are couched in terms of "gosh, it was all just in good fun" because of the built-in refusal to examine underlying attitudes of exclusion, or "I'm normal and you're not" -- which by extension implies that anyone who insists on examining exactly that is humorless and "PC."

Which reminds me -- accusing each other of "being PC" when you disagree really isn't cool. And what it usually boils down to is that someone is being a jerk or a bigot -- maybe inadvertently, maybe not -- and gets called on it which makes that person defensive.

You'll notice, please, I'm also not demanding that anyone agree with my worldview. You don't have to. And you can absolutely debate and discuss and tell me you think I'm wrong, and why you think so -- PMs are usually more appropriate for that, but if it's a discussion that you honestly believe would benefit the community, I'm willing to have that discussion on the boards in public, too.

and srpissalot starts filling his shoes in five.. four.. three..

 

[sr71plt]

No, no, Stella, I'm quite pleased with how you are exhibiting to the folks here at AH.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's a good policy, IMO. It protects free speech and at the same time, acknowledges the things I've been talking about.

 

[Verdad]

Now honestly, Stella. Laurel seems to cut some leeway with the rules to the regulars, but you've been abusing that generosity for far too long. In addition to openly and repeatedly breaking rule 6, you've persisted in spreading dissatisfaction with the site and campaigning aggressively against it. I won't report you, but if someone does, and if you find yourself banned, no one will be able to say it was anything but fair and square, and even overdue.

 

[jomar]

It has to be said...

Also from the same AW policy statement:

We've always, first and foremost, used "respect your fellow writer" as our guiding principle. It's a really good one, in general. I absolutely believe in it. And we're not going to be making a bunch of rules and regulations to quote, because that's a whole can of worms with its own set of special problems. (Edit and Admin wars on Wikipedia are a perfect example of how quickly and horribly that goes awry.)

It's really not complicated. Seriously. It means don't act like a jerk. You don't name-call, or bait, or sneer, or taunt, or generally be unpleasant to the people around you; at least, not if you want to stay here very long.

AW's bold.

 

[Recidiva]

Stella, you're progressing from being a protector of the innocent to someone overstating the opposition in order to escalate and justify your tactics. Those tactics are becoming what I consider to be abuse. You don't refrain from extremely ugly and stereotypical abuse of the character or lifestyle or living prospects of those that oppose you. And worse, it's hypocritical abuse where you're doing what you are accusing others of doing.

Although I appreciate the ferocity of spirit that makes you want to go to extremes to stand up for what you believe, you've crossed several lines that make me lose respect for your methods and your manner. You also qualify for spam to boot. I don't know why you're here any more except to complain about how much better other places are, while providing links to them.

I hope you find a place where you're happy, and I hope you find your place as a protector again. Right now you're becoming a perpectual victim that storms into the boxing ring, accuses everyone who is a boxer or a boxing fan of being fearful cowards, and then taking jabs below the belt yourself and pretending you were pushed to it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Okay guys, I believe you. I appreciate the respect with which Verdad and Recidiva have worded their posts.

I know-- I kinda knew-- that I would squander most of the respect I've garnered here. it seemed worthwhile to me, but that's the gamble.

You guy do know you've been gulled by our own little Carl Rove aka srplt., don't you?
He can't argue with me about the hate speech issue, since he's experienced it himself. But he can remind us over and over about the heiniosity of violating rule number six. Personally, of course, i feel that it's relevant to the discussion, since so many people here say that moderation is evol.

And as I've pointed out several times before, if there were active mods here, this entire conversation would have been significantly different.

Has anyone got anything to say about the particular passage that I quoted?

 

[Liar]

It's a good policy, IMO. It protects free speech and at the same time, acknowledges the things I've been talking about.

Now, I haven't been to absolutewrite, but I've been a member of other forums that applies roughly the same kind of moderation philosophy.

And maybe it works over there, but it has never worked where I've been.

Because after a while, some people begin to be afraid to say what they think and feel, because their opinions (or even their mere notoriety) trigger the "self-righteous-indignation" boner of some other denizens, who lash out with pitchforks and knee jerk "Bigot!" catcalls, at anything not aligned with their definition of what's acceptable. (That type of ad hominem never seems to bother the moderators at those places, by the way. Since they usually see it as their main task to keep hate speech out, they don't have to reflect much on what that kind of bullying does.)

So there's a quiet drainage of the "uncomfortables" to the benefit of the "normies". Until the forum is as diverse as a glass of milk.

You can imagine what happens then, when some hapless newbie wanders in and don't know the distilled decorum.

Inclusiveness that doesn't also encompass tolerance towards things that chafe, is not real inclusiveness. Only if the official reaction is "oi, stop frothing, maybe you misunderstood" when someone raises a flag against something that resembles, for instance, hate speech, can we begin to talk about functional moderation.

 

[Recidiva]

Okay guys, I believe you. I appreciate the respect with which Verdad and Recidiva have worded their posts.

I know-- I kinda knew-- that I would squander most of the respect I've garnered here. it seemed worthwhile to me, but that's the gamble.

You guy do know you've been gulled by our own little Carl Rove aka srplt., don't you?
He can't argue with me about the hate speech issue, since he's experienced it himself. But he can remind us over and over about the heiniosity of violating rule number six. Personally, of course, i feel that it's relevant to the discussion, since so many people here say that moderation is evol.

And as I've pointed out several times before, if there were active mods here, this entire conversation would have been significantly different.

Has anyone got anything to say about the particular passage that I quoted?

Stella, you said this in this thread.

He's an unhealthy old drunk anyway, he could have a heart attack. Or a stroke.

I'm really not feeling gulled.

 

[Stella_Omega]

how funny, Liar! a C&P of your post can be so easily turned into mine, just a few alterations;

Now, I haven't been to absolutewrite, but I've been a member of other forums that applies roughly the same kind of moderation philosophy.

And maybe it works over there, and I think we are intelligent enough to make it work here.

Because after a while, some people begin to be afraid to say what they think and feel, because their opinions (or even their mere notoriety) trigger the "let's go after the thin-skinned fool" boner of some other denizens, who lash out with pitchforks and knee jerk "liberal faggot nigger!" catcalls, at anything not aligned with their definition of what's funny. (That type of ad hominem never seems to bother the moderators at those places, by the way. Since they usually see it as their main task to keep spam out, they don't have to reflect much on what that kind of bullying does.)

So there's a quiet drainage of the "uncomfortables" to the benefit of the "normies". Until the forum is as welcoming as a pail of boiling urine.

You can imagine what happens then, when some hapless newbie wanders in and don't know the undiluted nastiness.

Inclusiveness that doesn't also encompass tolerance towards people who aren't you, is not real inclusiveness. Only if the official reaction is "oi, stop frothing, maybe you need to get a clue" when someone complains about being sanctioned on something that resembles, for instance, hate speech, can we begin to talk about functional self-moderation.

 

[sr71plt]

You guy do know you've been gulled by our own little Carl Rove aka srplt., don't you?
He can't argue with me about the hate speech issue, since he's experienced it himself. But he can remind us over and over about the heiniosity of violating rule number six. Personally, of course, i feel that it's relevant to the discussion, since so many people here say that moderation is evol.

Perspectives are different on the AH, and, gee, that's part of the point I was--and others have been--trying to make on these two threads. Most of us prefer it that way and are willing to approach the forum like adults rather than wanting it just our individual way or needing a babysitter and/or protection from the real world.

From my perspective, of course, I've been keeping my eye on the central issue(s) and remaining adult and realistic while you have raised yourself above the existing rules here, not responded to the substantive challenges I and others have posed to you--and, in my case, responded with a picture of a troll, babytalk, taunts, derision, name calling, and personal insults.

Before you float back to AW, you might want to reread the highlighted paragraph in AW's posted rules that jomar has provided just a few postings ago. If you don't change your posting behavior, I think your life at AW is going to be very, very short--because as you frequently have said here, they adhere to their rules closely and don't tolerate that sort of behavior.

 

[Liar]

how funny, Liar! a C&P of your post can be so easily turned into mine, just a few alterations;

Yep. It can. That was kind of my point. That I've never seen a general-topic diverse board with moderation, that didn't eventually fall victim to it's owh ambition to smooth out all rough edges.

I just pointed out that inclusiveness must go both ways, or it's not actually inclusive. I don't see that happening very often. I haven't exactly kept count, but I can say that I've seen just as much accusation of racism on this board, as actual racism. If not more. If we had a moderator, and it was me, I'd try to be as much on the lookout for the former as the latter. (I'd probably fail though, since I suck at objectivity.)

Does that mean that we as a forum must tolerate hate speech, harassment and bullying? No, but we must recognise that hate speech, harassment and bullying can take on many forms. Not just the blatantly convenrtional ones.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Now honestly, Stella. Laurel seems to cut some leeway with the rules to the regulars, but you've been abusing that generosity for far too long. In addition to openly and repeatedly breaking rule 6, you've persisted in spreading dissatisfaction with the site and campaigning aggressively against it. I won't report you, but if someone does, and if you find yourself banned, no one will be able to say it was anything but fair and square, and even overdue.

I've been talking about this on on two (2) threads.

No others.

And neither thread was begun by me, please take note of that.

If this really bothers you, you can put Liar on iggy. I've done that temporarily, when shereads started several threads that turned into hatefests.

you can't put pure on ignore.

 

[Liar]

If this really bothers you, you can put Liar on iggy.

... and pretend nothing is wrong? I keeed. C'mon, I had to.

But seriously, I don't see that Stella has done anything wrong with a) saying that she thinks the AH needs a moderator and arguing why that is, and b) mentioning a site that she thinks have good moderation.

People mention different sites all the time here. It's not like it's a competitor to Literotica. It's a fellow forum for creative people. Yah?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yep. It can. That was kind of my point. That I've never seen a general-topic diverse board with moderation, that didn't eventually fall victim to it's owh ambition to smooth out all rough edges.

I just pointed out that inclusiveness must go both ways, or it's not actually inclusive.

You mean "inclusiveness" must include "exclusion" or else it isn't really inclusive?

I don't see that happening very often. I haven't exactly kept count, but I can say that I've seen just as much accusation of racism on this board, as actual racism. If not more. If we had a moderator, and it was me, I'd try to be as much on the lookout for the former as the latter. (I'd probably fail though, since I suck at objectivity.)

yeah. I've seen whites accusing blacks of racism when they talk about the racism they've encountered. And I've watched black members not show up here any more.

Does that mean that we as a forum must tolerate hate speech, harassment and bullying? No, but we must recognise that hate speech, harassment and bullying can take on many forms. Not just the blatantly convenrtional ones.

So how do we go about "not tolerating?" Pretend it didn't happen?

(eta)

But seriously, I don't see that Stella has done anything wrong with a) saying that she thinks the AH needs a moderator and arguing why that is, and b) mentioning a site that she thinks have good moderation.

Thank you. I truly appreciate you pointing that out.

 

[sr71plt]

... and pretend nothing is wrong? I keeed. C'mon, I had to.

But seriously, I don't see that Stella has done anything wrong with a) saying that she thinks the AH needs a moderator and arguing why that is, and b) mentioning a site that she thinks have good moderation.

People mention different sites all the time here. It's not like it's a competitor to Literotica. It's a fellow forum for creative people. Yah?

It doesn't bother me either. But I don't own the site or set the rules--nor am I the one asking for more rules and moderation but not following those already given.

But, if you own the site, Liar, and therefore can make the rules, go ahead and change the ones posted here.

This is rather the point Stella is trying to sweep under the carpet while continuing to assert her right to post and live above the rules.

And what it really does is point to the whole argumentation Stella has--and just feeds on the fears of doing anything she suggests. In round two of this discussion (this being round three in the number of campaigns I've seen Stella initiate on this), I was on her side (go back and check)--and actually a little militant about the site owners erasing the Selena stuff. It's Stella herself who has moved me to looking aghast at doing anything Stella suggests on this issue.

(Of course the AW forum is a competitor to this one. You're not making much sense there. This isn't a nonprofit site).

 

[Liar]

You mean "inclusiveness" must include "exclusion" or else it isn't really inclusive?

Um...no. What on God's green earth made you think that I meant that? What it must include is the prevalent presumtion of non malice.

yeah. I've seen whites accusing blacks of racism when they talk about the racism they've encountered. And I've watched black members not show up here any more.

Not quite what I meant. There are those too, I'm not denying that. But you're on a crusade here it seems, deliberately jabbing at everything I said instead of trying to see if what I'm talking about might be a perspective worth considering too.

So how do we go about "not tolerating?" Pretend it didn't happen?

Um...no. Again with the attack attitude. Come on...

I have no magic solution. But I don' tthink a moderator is it either. Deleting hate speech as part of moderation is in a way just another way to pretend it didn't happen, IMO.

In a perfect world... ok strike that, in a perfect world there wouldn't BE any hate speech and bigotry. In a second best world, this place would have a broad alliance of members who would bring hateful behaviour to light in a non hostile way, maybe even be able to respectfully disagree that that's what it is, and maybe even give the poster a fair opportunity to have a say, before the "go to hell you repressed gaybashing fuckwad!". Not that I believe that that utopia is very likely, mind you. But a bloke can dream, can't he?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would think, srplt, that an adult such as yourself could make the distinction between a personality they clash with, and an issue they agree upon. It's something I've very often been able to do, myself-- many times with you.

I know you don't think you are a hypocrite when you object to something that does not bother you. Myself, I am not a hypocrite-- if it bothers me I object, regardless of what the forum rules say.

I don't denigrate anyone by things that refer to things they have no control over-- their race or their sexuality, for instance.

 

[Liar]

(Of course the AW forum is a competitor to this one. You're not making much sense there. This isn't a nonprofit site).

I disagree. This part of the site is non profit. There may be synery effects between the boards and the revenue making ads on the story pages, but the vast majority of the traffic and page views comes from outside of the forum community. And I do believe that people who are actively writing for this site are not going anywhere in droves anyway.

But that's beside the point. With the repeated complaints over Stella's extrnal links, have someone reported it to the Powers That Be? If it breaks the intent of her rules, I'm sure it will be taken care of in due time.