So one politics thread got locked because there wasn’t a discussion happening and then another was locked because there was a discussion?
In the interest of justice, if another thread is locked we will cite the exact part of the code of conduct that has been violated. If we want to lock it and can’t cite anything, we will edit the code of conduct with new rules. Then we’ll only lock if the rules are violated after being edited.
Unsure how to best word this but will put the idea out.
If someone BIPOC or non-cis man calls out something as offensive the offending party should be expected to refrain from arguing over whether it was offensive.
excerpt from another forum I’m on, how does this sound?
The Gauntlet prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort.
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints of ‘reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’.
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints against the reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you.”
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints of someone communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial.
- The Gauntlet reserves the right not to act on complaints against criticisms of racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions.
That’s definitely behavior that is not permitted. I believe it is pretty much covered by the “absolutely no harassment” rule. Saying something that offends someone and then not stopping, or arguing, when being told it is offensive is pretty much the definition of bullying/harassment. I guess it can’t hurt to add another bullet point showing it as a specific example of harassing behavior, as it is all too common.
It’s definitely covered by “no harassment” but an emphasis on protecting marginalized groups shows the understanding of power dynamics we have here but people might not pick up just by looking around. Whether that emphasis is part of the guidelines themselves or demonstrated through what you use as examples is up to you guys, cause I think the point comes across either way.
Here’s the problem I’ve come to see with greater clarity over time that I have no solution for. This might deserve it’s own thread, but it would be a sub-thread of this one anyway.
Have you ever been to a sporting event and there’s this guy in the stands (basically guaranteed to be a white guy, usually old) who is a fan of the same team as you, yet the energy they give off is just vile? Even though you are rooting for the same result as them, you want nothing more than for them to shut up and/or be ejected from the stadium. They’re also usually intoxicated to some extent.
Sure, I’m from New York. I boo my own team when they stink, but the worst I might say is “Booo, why’d you swing at that you stiff!” I also cheer for my own team when they do well. But that vile guy in the stands, they never cheer.
A player will hit a home run, and rather than cheer, the bad guy will make a snarky remark like “Where were you last week you bum?!” The team could win the World Series in five games, and they’ll grumble that they didn’t win it in four. Their demeanor and personality is just unpleasant, negative, aggressive, toxicly masculine, and combative. Even though you almost completely agree with them on the desired outcome, they are just awful to be around.
Obviously I’m primarily making an analogy for political debates that happen among people on the left, but the same applies for other areas as well. The Star Wars fan who only ever complain about how shitty new Star Wars things are. The gatekeepy comic book guy who reads every single new issue that Marvel puts out every month, but somehow never finds a single good thing to say. You know the people I’m talking about.
Now, I personally don’t fully agree with the ethos of “don’t yuck other people’s yum.” All things are open for criticism, especially things that have been put out into the public like politics and art. People need to not wrap up their personal identity into external things. A Final Fantasy fan needs to realize that if someone legitimately criticizes Final Fantasy itself, that they are not saying that the fans of it are somehow bad people (unless they are actually saying that).
But at the same time, unconstructive criticism absolutely falls into the “don’t yuck my yum” rule. Someone says they like Final Fantasy, and someone else responds flatly with “Final Fantasy sucks”. What was the purpose of saying that? Just to be an ass? Thankfully, we have a rule for this in our code of conduct. Argument and debate must be constructive.
What we don’t have a rule for, and what I need help with, is when there is constructive debate that is simply unpleasant. People are engaging in good faith. They honestly believe what they are saying. People are not lying, they are debating with actual facts. Neither side is espousing evil. Nobody is harassing anyone, not even one ad hominem attacks. They’re not advocating for violence or endangering the community. The debate is actually constructive.
Despite all that, the personality and demeanor of the debate is much like the sports fan in my first example. No matter how much you agree with them, they’re just acting in an unpleasant and foul manner. You want them to shut up and be gone. Their personality alone drives other people away from the community.
I would like a rule in the code of conduct to prohibit this behavior, but how can I possibly write it? How can we make a rule against a particular personality? “If Scott doesn’t like your attitude, you’re banned?” That obviously doesn’t fly. Only these personality types allowed? If your aura gives off bad vibes, get out? My mastery of the English language is not sufficient to adequately define what I do not like and do not want to see.
Feel free to let me know what you think about this with a constructive discussion.
I think you should let someone you trust ban anyone whose vibes they don’t like.
I am not lying when I say that people I trust want to ban you specifically. Are you saying I should let them?
Okay, that’s the first I’ve heard of that. So yeah, after a warning.
None of the Code of Conduct matters if it continues to be unenforced.
Yeah, this is kinda my point.
Warning with example of bad behavior or bad vibes.
Ban for a week/time period with example.
Ban for good.
There’s been multiple warnings for some people, but Rym and Scott still aren’t banning. It’s all kinda moot as a result.
How can I warn or ban when someone’s behavior did not violate the rules? If I were warned or banned and not in violation, I would be justifiably upset about that.
Please help answer the question I asked rather than make other unhelpful comments. What rule can we make to address this behavior?
Look I don’t want to pull up the DMs to demonstrate that there were direct rule violations you left alone for weeks, but I will if you keep saying there weren’t.
We have a reporting feature. There have been hardly any reports whatsoever. In face the most recent reports were on your posts, but I didn’t find them to be in violation.
I don’t think we are pointing out flaws in the current system here. The system is set up for:
Break rule, be reported, maybe nothing happens, maybe a ban?
But you are proposing something outside of set rules. Which is great!
The best way to communicate the tone you want is to call people out on it, with the very specific and real threat of them being banned for a period of they keep it up.
If you said to me: “never get into a conversation or make jokes about anime or manga again on the forum, or you’ll be banned” then I would do that, and stop accidentally yucking yums, if that’s the problem. I already mute all anime topics by category, so it wouldn’t be any problem for me.
This is your forum. Be a leader.
Ok, I’ll bite. I don’t see it in our current living document, but why not make a rule against being ‘that guy’? I’d say this kind of behavior you’re talking about falls under it.
Clearly and unambiguously define “that guy” using the English language.
No, you make the call.
Having to define everything perfectly is what makes the current rules feeble. You’re not aiming to stop a violation, you’re aiming to set and keep a tone.
If someone is being annoying, report them. Worst case, we clear the report. If the same few people are always getting reported, that is a point of data.
If there continue to be only a handful of people who reliably get most of the reports, that is also a point of data.