Joesph Smith WAS a con artist!

incoming Tabitha ban!

Does Tabithaban sound sort of Muslim?

incoming SnP ban!

Not that I believe it? Who said anything about me? I was asking a hypothetical question.

Code of conduct should be intentionally grey.

 

There will always be challenges regarding interpretation.  The more you attempt to refine those rules the more challenges there will be.

 

You either trust the folks who understand the intent of the space, or you do not.

 

This is quite clear and fair I think Mendalla.  

 

As people comment - it's also important to remember context - mods are not going to be searching out infractions -  I think the community will deal with most such issues as we do now.  But there does need to be some written standard (as there is now, here) to deal with those who go beyond common decency and to evaluate reported posts. 

I think because of the fact that WC2 is not owned by a church, it can be more tolerant of things that insult specific religions. It was bad form for people on WC to do so, because it would seem as the UCC was hosting an attack.  Many say my thread on The Fall of Pope as an attack on the RC church, howevr WC saw that it was a discussion about the ongoing split in the RC church and the implications of the coverup of the sex abuse scandal, and how it affect the Papacy.  

I think we have host discussions about the Mormons and other churches that were attacks, howevr becasue they were followed up by posts that explain or defended those churches, it was not needed to delete the posts 

 

Agaain context is evrything. And a few anti muslims posts are OK, as again the present a format to talk about issues. For eample during the Draw Mohammed day it would have been Ok to post a picture, as it was in the news, however if we have a poster or a group of them that does it ad nauseum, it makes the site an unwelecoming place and it's just plain ugly. However hundreds of posts over years and with links to neo nazi groups that call for violence and present inaccurate information shoul not be allowed. HOw

I also second Pinga post. Howevr I would like to have admin explain through email on in a forum, why posts are deleted.  LAst week I posted a bad joke, that talked about Rob Ford's potential sex tape. Using metaphors that used plain langugae to describe sex acts.  So I assumed it was banned as being vulger, but I am not sure as I used everyday language that is not consider obscene, even if it was a metaphor for a sex act that has been talked about before on WC using other words.

 

I suspect my post seemed vulger, so I would have appreciated knowing why..

Alex, that's an excellent point and one that I completely forgot about. Mods should never just delete a post with no placeholder there explaining why, or if it's just one word, they should remove the word with some note it its place. Disappearing posts is incredibly bad form on the part of the mod, and it's one of the reasons I'm happy we're starting WC2.

 

That's why I put that in the mod processes. It's how almost every other board I'm on handles it and I like it that  way. rpg.net also has a forum just for announcements about sanctioning of posters (save for spammer accounts that aren't worth the effort), which I think is what Alex is getting at. I hope we won's have enough to justify a whole forum just for it.

 

Mendalla

 

Point taken. It is the sort of thing you do, however.

 

Tell that to a Mormon.

 

The point is, I think it's important to be able to criticize deities, messiahs and prophets, and because I've seen people here try to equate criticizing biblical characters with a personal attack on a real person, I'm trying to make sure no one expects they will be.

 

 

Personal attacks should really be limited to board members and related for the most part. I have no problem with someone calling Harper (or Trudeau or Mulcair or Paris Hilton) an idiot. Ditto any celebrity or public figure, including religious ones. I do have a problem with someone calling another board member an idiot. That would be a warning for sure.

 

Also, criticism =/= personal attack. If I say something about a person's opinion, even tear it thoroughly to shreds, without reflecting that back on the person (e.g. "only an idiot would hold this opinion" type of statements) then it is not a PA no matter how viciously I savage that opinion.

 

Mendalla

 

PS. Do be careful about potentially libelous statements, though, where public figures are concerned. You never know whose lawyer may be reading the board.

 

If you reply to someone's posted opinion and say "only an idiot would hold this opinion", that's a personal attack.

 

 

To be clear, this is what my post is meant to say, though my wording is rather convoluted. You can criticize the opinion all you like but avoid attacking the person was the gist of it.

 

Mendalla

 

Let's say a person posts "I believe xyz", and a few posts down someone says "people who believe xyz are idiots". That may not be a direct personal attack but could be experienced like one all the same. I propose we, not ban, but ask people not to use or use very sparingly the word "idiot". It's a cruel word and usually said in haste or to be hurtful. It's not very respectful. How much harder is it to say "xyz opinion makes no sense to me or I disagree with it because___"?

Words like idiot and respectful conversation don't go together.

Occasionally, shoes fit. I use "idiot" because it's not really a big deal to me - I call myself an "idiot" when I forget my phone and have to go back home to get it, for example.

 

I can, however, not call anyone here by that word, if it's important. I do think that God is an idiot, and I base that only partly on the story in Genesis where God tried to kill ducks with water.

 

If I can't call God an idiot, then yes, that's a problem.

 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080325063302AASgMSA

If only ducks had some mechanism to keep their bodies above the water in a flood...

 

Look, the point is there is a lot of stupid stuff in religion, and we should, with reasons given, be allowed to point them out.

 

You shouldn't call yourself an idiot for forgetting your phone. "Oops, crap I forgot my phone" or something to that effect, is what I do. I might use the "s" word. Actually, usually I can't find it in my own purse- the bottomless pit. In which case I tell myself to "get my 's' together and organize my purse." it makes me disorganized, but not an idiot.

 

God created them with the ability to normally stay well afloat.

 

 

Just so long as we can point out why we think choosing not to believe is foolish.

I, personally, welcome those attempts. I have no problem with people criticizing atheism or anti-theism. Call it "stupid" if you want - I don't get hung up on language.

 

Again, it goes to intent.

 

I can say "that was idiotic".  

I can say " He is being a twit."

I can write 10 sentences that ultimately say, though never use the words, " she is being a twit"

Ultimately, the same thing is being said.

 

If it is out of line, then the moderator is appropriate to call it if you wish.

 

 

How about:

Respect the privacy of others by not posting personal information or images outside the public domain of another person without their consent.

You're right. We have that choice. It's free speech. I guess I find "idiot" and "idiotic" too strong, mean, to use in everyday criticism. It gets my defenses right up. It reflects a certain meanness that comes across to readers- is unwelcoming, even if not intended that way. I would never, ever, call someone close to me an "idiot". My husband would be hurt by such words for example- even if I'm justifiably annoyed - they are strong and reserved for the worst of examples. "Dork" or "dorky" implies a sense of humour about it. Overall, though, it's better to explain why one disagrees with a certain idea or behaviour or constructively suggest alternative ways of looking at or doing something, rather than crush people along with their ideas, with hard words.

Maybe that doesn't fall into code of conduct but it's relevant to creating an open environment for everyone. "idiot" dampens the spirit of open discussion, IMO. Scares off sensitive people- something to be aware of, that's all.

I have a disability. I'd rather be called 'crippled' directly, than be called an 'idiot' or my ideas be called 'idiotic'. That's how strongly I feel about it. There are people with brain injuries, people with low IQs and even people who been endoctrinated into unhealthy belief systems, or make mistakes, who are valuable people- that's why the word 'idiot' gets my back up. Up to people to consider that for themselves, though. Enough said. Sorry.

Name calling is name calling.  I personally don't think idiot is any more offensive than dork.   Both are hurtful.  So is calling someone a liar.  I don't think name-calling adds anything to a discussion.  

 

Seeler, I don't often use the word "dork" either but these days it implies a sense of humour- it sounds funny. When I was a kid my dad told me it's a swear word- a crude four letter word. Maybe it was when he was young but I never knew it to be. It didn't mean what he thought it meant when he heard me say it. It's similar to "joker", "goof ball", "butter fingers" or "absent minded professor". Meant lightheartedly. When I say it, I'm laughing and the person I'm saying it to is laughing with me at one or the other of our silliness. It's not hurtful in that context. It's okay to have a sense of humour and not take ourselves too seriously. At one time "geek" and "nerd" were insults. Not so much anymore. Idiot is way more insulting, still. It's used to denegrate. It's a strong word that encompasses people merely making mistakes, as well as people with low IQs and brain injuries (that's where the word comes from), therefore, I think it's mean spirited. But, you're right. Name calling is name calling and it's not a constructive or mature way to address a disagreement. Words like that shouldn't be banned, just pointing it out.

This is gettin scary if we have to watch every word so that WC2 police don't get us. This kind of stuff  can go too far.

 

 

Moderation is often about hitting a balance between allowing people to speak as freely as possible and making sure that exertion of that right by some does not infringe on that right of others. The appeals process and the presence of multiple mods (meaning multiple eyes and opinions) is designed to deal with the fact that we won't always get it perfect.

 

Mendalla

 

Exactly. If something is uncalled for, it will backfire. Based on what we have here at WC1, mods at WC2 should be bored out of their skulls, not busy warning and suspending people.

 

I agree, Chansen

I also agree, CH. censorship and over policing aren't cool. But we also want to create an environment that says, "join us", not "we're disagreeable jerks. Deal with it, or go away." (we being the site overall). In some ways, WC is a tough place in that regard (and I'm not saying I'm perfect.), in other ways it's great. I don't know how that can be built into the code of conduct, though. It's just in good faith.

yup, that is my point.  It may happen, it will reflect on the person saying.  There are times it is appropriate.

Who were you responding to?

For example, I normally have good phone etiquette..  I once hung up, loudly, on my manager.    It was appropriate. They knew it. I knew it.  it resolved an issue that needed to be made loud & clear.  

 

It is all about what is right for a time/place/thread

See, hanging up loudly isn't appropriate in my mind. I've done it. I've been inappropriate. But it was a poor way of dealing with someone and not something I'm okay with myself doing. "I can't talk about this. I need to go. I'm saying goodbye now. We can have this conversation when we've both cooled down." , or "i'm too upset to talk about this now." would have been appropriate.

Kimmio, you presume those situations had not occurred or standards of professional conversation had not occurred.  Yuo also presume the behaviour of the other person.

 

My point is, there are times when what appears to be rude is absolutely the right action.

Different strokes. Some people will view what is and isn't appropriate differently, I guess.

This statement made me laugh Mendalla!  I understand what you meant, but it just struck me funny 

I presumed you hung up loudly on someone. That's it. That's all you told me.

It sounds like only board members should be allowed to attack each other. A bit like Parliament. ;)

Then, imagine the various scenarios that could cause someone to make that choice, and why it would be appropriate.  

 

The loudly is because a quiet hangup woud not be heard.

The hangup is because the other natural comments were not heard.

The hangup is because the swearing is so bad, the fist banging is so aggressive, the screaming is so loud....and that the person has been out of control long enough it is not good for them and no end is in sight.

 

There are good reasons to take an action other than what would normally be expected.  My point is, moderators, like others, need to look at the whole situation, not the isolated word or sentence.

 

A good moderator, like a good parent, manager, employee, understands situational rules

I agree. Just wondering why a "I can't listen to your swearing. I'm saying goodbye. Click." wasn't as good as a loud hang-up, though?

For sure pinga - the code of conduct represents a standard against which to evaluate, and will, IMO anyway, not be an absolute dictum in most cases.  I imagine good/effective moderators need to have maturity and a reasoned approach by which to understand context.  We have a good number of those people here in WC - I trust they will guide us fairly.   

Kimmio - your comments are going off topic to this thread, IMO.  

Sort of off topic- just getting to the bottom of why it's okay to deal with disagreement aggressively, with aggressive language or whatever. Whether the initiator or the moderator. That's a conduct question. I agree that problems will come up and they need to be dealt with.

Add:.I guess I'm talking about a general tone / attitude, if we all keep in mind (including me) it might help lessen conduct problems. It can't be 'legislated' though. It just has to be felt.