Bad precedent

About This Message Board
1

Swearing has never been against the rules anywhere on the boards. devilsknew swore in Cafe Society – directed against a celebrity he dislikes – and got told to knock it off by twickster. Notice how twickster states very clearly that devilsknew didn’t break any board rule. Only her personal sense of propriety.

I maintain that twickster overstepped her role as a moderator by telling a poster he couldn’t use a naughty word. There is no rule against it; she simply decided to impose her own personal code of decency in that thread by fiat. Totally overstepping her role, IMO.

After she made up the rule on the fly that never existed before and told a poster not to do it, the precedent now seems to be that that becomes an official rule. Later in the thread she issued a formal warning for using the naughty word again. When I pointed out that using the word isn’t against the rules, she claimed the warning was for ignoring a moderator’s instructions.

When the mods can just make up rules on the fly, that sets a bad precedent.

2

The word in question is a very naughty word and should not be used in polite company. :slight_smile:

Checking the rules the only limitation on cunt that I can see is that it must not be directed at other posters in The Pit. I too would be interested to know if the word is taboo everywhere on the board now.

3

It wasn’t just for swearing, it was the special, magical word that makes Baby Jesus cry.

4

Mediocre?

5

I like Twicks, and I think she’s a pretty good mod, but Ellis Dee has a point here. Being a moderator does not mean you can give people instructions to obey rules that don’t exist, and then warn them for failure to obey instructions. May as well just make up the rule and issue the warning at the same time. More efficient that way.

If you intend to enforce “No calling celebrities “Cunts” rule” in a particular forum, you need to add it to the sticky, and preferably enforce it with “Mod Note-No Warning Issued” for a while.

Or maybe just not have a rule like that. The guy used the word twice in a 4 page thread. It’s not like he was using it for punctuation.

6

The word is irrelevant. She gave him a warning for disobeying a moderator, not for swearing.

I’m very uncomfortable with that precedent, where a moderator can create a rule that doesn’t officially exist, tell posters about it in a thread, and then warn you if you break it.

For example, in Survivor threads the normal procedure is to openly discuss the “next week on…” previews. If the OP explicitly says to spoiler boxes for them we do, but if it isn’t mentioned it gets openly discussed. Yesterday’s episode had a particularly interesting preview for next week, that has already been openly discussed in the thread.

For whatever reason, twickster felt the need to come into the thread and post this:

Emphasis on “any.” If we continue to discuss the preview, and then if someone complains that it wasn’t spoilerboxed, are we now in danger of getting official warnings for disobeying a moderator?

This is a real question/concern.

7

This is crazy.

I for one tend to use a lot of invective in my posts. Its just how I am, I dont intend to justify it.

Do I now have to watch my step. I try to follow the rules, I try to follow the spirit of the rules, do I now have to try and judge what random choice of phrase might set off some mods internal squicky alarm?

Reading the thread, I thought that the phrase in question was inconsistent with the tone of the thread, but why does that need mod intervention? The community can deal with crap like that quite well on its own you know.

:rolleyes: You guys really dont help yourselves sometimes.

8

I thought it was Creationism.

9

No way. That would just be pushing your luck.

10

In the TV show case I would have assumed that she was posting as a participant making a request.

In any case, I agree that mods should not be able to enforce ad hoc bannings of “bad words” in situations in which the general rules do not otherwise prohibit them.

11

I have to agree with Ellis Dee. Are we censoring people now? I know it’s not a nice word, but it wasn’t directed at a poster. We’re adults. We won’t faint at rough language.

12

Nevermind

13

As far as I can recall, I’ve never gotten involved in these “WTF?” posts on ATMB, but creating a rule and then punishing a poster for breaking said created rule sounds a bit Orwellian to me.

Yes, the word is offensive to many people. But so is discussion of how tasty a medium-rare steak is to a vegan. So what? Is it now the goal of the mods that no one should be offended? What about all of the anti-religion posts? Those are bound to offend some of our posters.

Are the mods really that hard pressed to find real board violations? I would think that working a volunteer position would make one wary of seeking out trouble.

14

The word is offensive, and was reported to the Cafe Society moderators as such both times that devilsknew used it in the thread. Although it isn’t specifically against the rules, it was bothering people – not just me, since I wasn’t reading the thread, and wouldn’t have seen the posts if they weren’t reported.

It’s not exactly a secret this is a hot-button word, and its use inside the Pit has been discussed till we’re all totally freaking sick of the discussion. I consider its use outside the Pit unnecessarily provocative and offensive.

I thus asked him not to use that word. Although I phrased the request politely, it came from a moderator, posting as a moderator, so the request needed to be taken seriously. He ignored my request, so I gave him the warning for ignoring my instructions. I stated that those were the grounds when I gave him the warning.

Sorry, I’m not seeing a reason to change my mind on this one.

PS: See the “Survivor” thread for an explanation of what I did there and why – it actually isn’t at all relevant to this issue.

15

First:

Followed by:

When called on it:

Finally justified with:

If you think that’s proper moderation, twickster, you need to either resign or be fired.

There are proper and improper methods of adding or modifying the rules. Making up and enforcing new rules on the fly is one of the improper ones. Did you just not feel like going through the regular channels today?

16

Let me explain something about moderating the SDMB, SoulFrost: We do not want this to become a place where members have to memorize hundreds or thousands of rules. We don’t want moderating to become, “You have just violated Rule #948-B(41), which carries an automatic penalty of a level-3 warning and 5 points against your suspension allowance.” Then the moderators become simply enforcers.

It is much better to have the moderators–well–moderate.

When a moderator says, “you’re offending people by saying ‘nigger’ in this thread, stop it,” or “do not bring up prescient elves again in this thread about the LHC,” it does not create a board-wide instant rule against ever using the word “nigger” or discussing prescient elves. It is, instead, an instruction just like a moderator in a formal debate might issue. Ignore the instructions, get thrown out of the debate.

Twickster did not create any new rules.

One of the side-effects of this type of moderation is that it leaves things somewhat open to interpretation. Moderators are humans. That’s why we have an overriding “Don’t be a jerk” rule here, but the overwhelming majority of first-offenses on that rule are met with a mod note rather than a formal warning or suspension. We don’t want an individual mod’s interpretation of behavior to create an insta-warning. We do our best to be consistent. In return, we need the membership to do your best to accept our moderation in the calm spirit in which it is usually issued, and not let slip the dogs of war every time you receive a mod note that can’t be backed up chapter and verse from the Official Rules.

I am Twickster’s peer–not her superior–thus my opinion of what she did in that thread is largely irrelevant. But I believe she did precisely what moderators are expected to do, and have done to varying degrees on the SDMB since 1999.

17

Bolding mine.

I don’t give a flying fuck if your request came with a cherry on top. It was still complete bullshit, a ridiculous attempt to impose your own standards of propriety on a thread where NO RULES HAD BEEN BROKEN. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your hubris on this issue is incredible.

18

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:16, topic:535594”]

Let me explain something about moderating the SDMB, SoulFrost: We do not want this to become a place where members have to memorize hundreds or thousands of rules. We don’t want moderating to become, “You have just violated Rule #948-B(41), which carries an automatic penalty of a level-3 warning and 5 points against your suspension allowance.” Then the moderators become simply enforcers.

It is much better to have the moderators–well–moderate.

When a moderator says, “you’re offending people by saying ‘nigger’ in this thread, stop it,” or “do not bring up prescient elves again in this thread about the LHC,” it does not create a board-wide instant rule against ever using the word “nigger” or discussing prescient elves. It is, instead, an instruction just like a moderator in a formal debate might issue. Ignore the instructions, get thrown out of the debate.

One of the side-effects of this type of moderation is that it leaves things somewhat open to interpretation. Moderators are humans. That’s why we have an overriding “Don’t be a jerk” rule here, but the overwhelming majority of first-offenses on that rule are met with a mod note rather than a formal warning or suspension. We don’t want an individual mod’s interpretation of behavior to create an insta-warning. We do our best to be consistent. In return, we need the membership to do your best to accept our moderation in the calm spirit in which it is usually issues, and not let slip the dogs of war every time you receive a mod note that can’t be backed up chapter and verse from the Official Rules.

I am Twickster’s peer–not her superior–thus my opinion of what she did in that thread is largely irrelevant. But I believe she did precisely what moderators are expected to do, and have done to varying degrees on the SDMB since 1999.
[/QUOTE]

I, too, prefer human moderation, with all of a human’s quirks and foibles, over modbots. But, as to the rest of your post, Wombat, I absolutely disagree. This isn’t about quoting chapter and verse from some official ruleset; this is about twixter throwing a screwball that interferes with the the consistency and expectations of the moderation here.

While nobody wants a chapter and verse ruleset here, we also don’t want rules that spring from hiding. If there’s a problem with language in a forum, then bring it up here and discuss it with the Membership. If not that, then at least pass the word from on high that saying “cunt” is now outlawed in CS. Don’t just decide that it suddenly is.

19

I think implicit in the “don’t ignore moderator instructions” rule is that those instructions be based on actual rules of the board, not the moderator’s personal feelings.

You also wrote “Your usage here isn’t against the rules per se”, so I don’t think you can legitimately claim that devilsknew ignored your instructions, when you explicitly told him that use of the word was not against the rules.

20

Words are only as offensive as we allow them to be. I think it’s sad that people were hitting the Report a Post button complaining that a word was “bothering” them.

Additionally, twickster, just because you find a word offensive doesn’t mean you need to moderate it.