Bad precedent

About This Message Board
41

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:33, topic:535594”]

Okay, tell you what. Let us chat about this in the mod loop and shoot for some kind of consensus instead of all of us (mods and admins, that is) going our own directions.
[/quote]
It sounds, from your post, like the discussion is going to be about whether the word “cunt” can be used in Cafe Society. But what the discussion should be about is the issue of moderators making up rules as they go along, and then punishing people for not following their arbitrary and capricious rules.

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:33, topic:535594”]

Personally, I’m of two minds on this. As I’ve said many times before, I don’t understand the kerfluffle. If people are offended by the word “nigger,” I won’t say it around them. If they’re offended by “cunt,” I don’t use it around them. But there seems to be a core group of people who demand the right to any offensive words they wish any time they wish. I don’t get it, and don’t think I ever will, but that’s the way you feel and you certainly have a right to feel that way.
[/quote]
Jesus, that is about the most disingenuous interpretation possible of what this whole thread is all about. It is specifically NOT about the right to use that word. It is about the arbitrary nature of the moderation around here, and the fact that a single mod is apparently allowed to impose her own sense of proprietary behavior on everyone who visits the forum that she moderates.

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:33, topic:535594”]

You have a valid point that we need to be consistent on this stuff. Please give the staff a bit of time to chat about it and decide what we’re going to do, and then all of us will do it consistently.
[/quote]
Again, this sounds fine, as long as what you’re talking about is consistency in moderating. No-one is asking for any rules to be changed. All we are asking is that you moderate to the actual rules, and not allow each moderator to set some unknown and unknowable standard which we will never learn of until we violate it.

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:33, topic:535594”]

NOTE: Deciding that the word “cunt” is fine and acceptable would NOT change our desire that thread titles outside the Pit be kept SFW, and would not change rules on personal insults, threadshitting, being a jerk, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I’d still like to see that “desire” codified somewhere if you expect people to follow it.

42

I feel like anything I say in my defense could possibly make it worse, so I will simply say this.

Context is everything. Cunt is not something I go around using to maliciously malign women in the American sense. However, when speaking about this particular English celebrity, I thought that dropping into his vernacular quite appropriate, and the context of the offending posts do drop a couple of dialectic hints. I’m sure Jamie has been called “a stupid fecking cunt” innumerable times in his Homeland with little more invective and comparable insult than being called an “insensitive dickhead” in America. I simply wanted to make him feel at home, and give him a good down dressing in the manner of Gordon Ramsey.

I do apologize for offending anyone, but then again, I also am slightly more and arguably, more importantly, offended by being censored for no reason and out of context. Words have multiple meanings and contexts, they are not served well by outright restriction.

43

OK, i want to make a point about the issue of bad words, specifically the frequent moderator claims that complaints about this rule are just about people wanting to be offensive whenever they like.

I’ve been vocal on this issue since the rule change last year, probably enough so that i fall into Gary “Wombat” Robson’s “core group of people who demand the right to any offensive words they wish any time they wish.” I probably swear as much as anyone around here, and have probably used the word “cunt” as much as anyone.

So let’s see how big a problem this is, and how my overwhelming desire to use the forbidden word has dominated my posting style on this message board.

I’ve been here since August 2001, which means that i’ve been here for almost 9 years. In that time, i’ve racked up over 15,000 posts in over 6,700 threads. Do you know how many threads i’ve used the word “cunt” in, based on a search? Exactly 31.

And here’s the breakdown of those search results:

[ul]
[li]Discussions about banning the word, and about the use of swearing on the Dope:[/li]9 threads

[li]Instances where i quote other people using the word (but don’t use it myself):[/li]4 threads

[li]General, gratuitous use of the word (not specifically directed at anyone):[/li]4 threads

[li]Threads about the general offensiveness of the word, or its use on TV:[/li]4 threads

[li]Calling another SDMB member a cunt:[/li]3 threads

[li]Calling an offboard person (someone in the news, etc.) a cunt:[/li]3 threads

[li]Linguistic discussions of the word (etymology, translation):[/li]2 threads

[li]Discussions of insults as slander/libel:[/li]1 thread

[li]Misspelllings (meant to write “count,” but mistyped):[/li]1 thread
[/ul]So, of the 31 threads where i’ve used this awful word, almost one third were discussions about the use of swearing on this message board.

I’ve used the word as a direct insult against another member of the board on exactly 3 occasions, and one of those was Carol Stream, so i plead mitigating circumstances on that one. On three other occasions, i’ve used it as an insult against non-members, people who weren’t even part of the conversation. And four occasions fall into what i have called “general gratuitous use” of the word.

So i’ve used the word in an insulting or gratuitous manner exactly 10 times in almost nine years, out of 15,000 posts. And, as i said, my experience suggests that i use it much more than average around here.

Does this level of usage really suggest that all my criticisms are based on an irresistible commitment to using the word with monotonous regularity? That my main concern is “demand[ing] the right to any offensive words * wish any time * wish”? All i’m asking, and all most people have been asking since the rule change, is that you consider whether a rule will actually solve any problems before implementing that rule, and that, one the rules are made, you moderate them with some sort of consistency and reasonableness.

Please, please, please stop saying that it’s all about wanting to swear. It’s simply not true. At best, it suggests that you, as moderators, don’t even read or understand our criticisms. At worst, it constitutes a disingenuous and dishonest attempt to misrepresent our arguments.

44

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:33, topic:535594”]

You have a valid point that we need to be consistent on this stuff. Please give the staff a bit of time to chat about it and decide what we’re going to do, and then all of us will do it consistently.

[/QUOTE]

I hope the issue you are discussing is whether a moderator has the authority to issue an “instruction” forbidding anything they choose, even when there is no rule being broken, and then issue a “warning” for failure to obey said instruction.

Under the rationale used to justify this particular warning, Moderator X could wake up one day, decide that the word “purple” is patently offensive, and issue an instruction to all posters in a thread about the Minnesota Vikings to refrain from using the word purple. Regardless of the fact that there is no rule against using the word purple, and the fact that the Vikings wear purple helmets, violation of Moderator X’s instruction is now worthy of an official warning.

Also, consider that the instruction at issue in this thread was posted on page one of a four page thread. Does the instruction apply only to that thread, does it apply to all threads in Cafe Society, or does it apply board wide? Is someone who has not previously participated in that thread considered to be on constructive notice of the instruction on page 1, even if their first post in the thread comes on page 4,5,6 etc? Is someone in a completely different thread considered to have constructive notice of that instruction, and subject to warning for calling some other celebrity a cunt?

Essentially, Twicks has usurped legislative, judicial, and executive authority at her whim. Previous board practice suggests that this is not proper. New rules are generally announced and discussed before taking effect.

45

Twickster Ya know I like you and respect your intellect, but I think you made a mistake here.

First, you warned somebody for doing something that isn’t technically against the rules.

Then, you warned him officially for not following your previous warning for doing something not technically against the rules.

I think you made a mistake.

46

That bit of moderation fucking sucked, I want to go on record as saying.

47

Well, just in case the mod discussion does turn out to be just about the word “cunt,” I’m putting everyone on notice that the following things offend me, and that I will report any posts that contain them*:
[ul]
[li]references to Bayesian statistics[/li][li]references to university sports rivalries[/li][li]references to any reality show, sports show, or movie made before 1960[/li][li]the words “ginormous” and “irregardless,” and the phrases “have went,” “could of,” “ustacould,” “God-fearing,” and “VIN number.”[/li][/ul]
Now, since these things offend me and at least some of them probably offend at least one other poster, I think we can call these topics “offensive to other posters.” I hope the moderation will assist me in purging this board of these vile topics so that we can have a better class of discourse.

The mods have my back on this one, right? Right?

*Just to cover my ass in case someone is really satire-challenged, I don’t actually plan to do this.

48

Add Monty Python references for me.

49

All right! That makes two of us at least. We’re gonna perfect-ify this board yet!

Oh, and let me amend my list. I actually don’t mind Bayesian statistics per se; it’s those who think it is somehow the next generation of statistics that get on my nerves.

50

I agree with both of the above sentiments: I don’t normally comment on modding; This moderation action is bad for the reason stated.

Unfortunately, I’m offended by any post that doesn’t have a Monty Python refernce, so reconcile that!

51

Damn! I wasn’t expecting this. How do we make this fair to everyone? If I ask my mod to police Monty Python, you could ask your mod to crack down on topics I like. Jeez, it seems like there should be some clear direction as to what is and is not acceptable. Sure, it won’t make everyone happy, but then at least there’d be no surprises. What am I thinking of…um…RULES! That’s the word. That way, you don’t get to mess with my posts, and I don’t get to mess with yours. Sure, I guess I’ll have to live with some Monty Python quotes. I’m willing to accept that.

52

Bingo. Short, simple and to the point.

Read that post, then read it again. Then forward it to Ed. I can’t imagine he will find this acceptable behaviour, especially since he is trying very hard to build this into a profitable and professional business.

53

Ed? What Ed? Wait, are you referring to the guy who refused to add a Politics forum because we have so many already and then dropped the barn house in order to plug his book? The guy who shows up every 6 months to drop a new rule based on a pet bugaboo and vanishes leaving the staff to deal with the fall out? That Ed? Somehow, I think he’s not going to care.

54

Edited and deleted post. Why bother? It’s not like anything we say makes a difference on anything substantial.

55

I agree that Ed is often absent and his management style leaves much to be desired, but I disagree that he doesn’t care. There is no question that he wants this place to succeed.

And I hope (and think) he will have the sense not to allow this kind of nonsense to take place. Ultimately it will make the mods jobs that much harder if crap like this is allowed to happen.

56

That’s how I have been feeling for over a year. When the big Project Ruin the Fun of the Pit by Banning Certain Obsenities thing first happened, I was all up in these threads, saying how stupid it was. Then, when Domebo and The Giraffe board hit the scene, I figured, forget it. If I want to read threads that offer lots of yummy, funny profanities, then I’ll mosey over there and check it out. No need going on and on about it over here, it is like talking to brick walls anyways.

But now they are just getting cocky with it. That modding there was garbage. And her attitude is like she is daring us to complain, lest we all be told, “we’ve been over this hundreds of times, and it’s not changing, and I aint a-changing my mind, so shaddup”.

Maybe we shouldn’t just shut up after all, but at least go on record, every time this kind of thing happens, officially just state, ‘this is some sloppy, emotional, petty modding’.

Maybe one day they will figure it out, fix the pit and I can spend my lil’ 15 bucks to get fully back in the game.

57

Actually, it does quite often. As the unofficial Board Historian :slight_smile: you should know this.

I think the outcries of the members have caused mods/Admins to quite often rethink decisions, and quite often reverse them. This would almost never have happened in the first five years of the Board.

Why nothing's going to change (from the "Bad Precedent" thread)
58

At the risk of seeming combative, i would suggest that, in the first five years of the board, there were far fewer ridiculous decisions that needed rethinking.

I wasn’t, for example, a big fan of manhattan’s political views, and we butted heads on quite a few occasions. His personality was also, shall we say, abrasive. But i never felt he was anything other than fair and reasonable in moderating GQ. Tough? Yes. Sarcastic? Quite often. Capricious and uneven? Not in my recollection.

In fact, for much of my early years of membership here, my memory of the mods and their decisions is characterized by a general sense that they used a light touch. I barely noticed their existence most of the time. And, as with referees in sporting encounters, the sign of a good official is that you barely notice them.

Sure, there was the occasional blow-up, but nothing like the sort of sustained dissatisfaction that is happening now. I know it makes some mods/admins feel better to believe that this is simply a function of a few malcontents looking to cause trouble, but that’s simply not the case.

59

As an aside, I can point-blank say that I’m not going to follow mod instructions for made-up rules. I may be a pain-in-the-ass, but I’ve never knowingly broken a rule here, I’ve got no warnings and I’ve tried to be a good member. But I’m not a 6 year old kid who’s being babysat by his big brother. The “Mom left me in charge. They said you have to listen to me. So I’m the boss of you. Now clean my room, shine my shoes, oh…and eat a bug. Or I’ll tell mom you didn’t listen to me.” thing is a totally bullshit bit of behavior.

The “Obey mod instructions” rule was never meant to apply to mods inventing new rules out of thin air to satisfy their own prudish standards and to make posters jump through hoops for their own amusement.

Frankly, it’s such an egregious breach of trust of that position and such a totally bizarre bit of modding that Twickster should be de-modded. This wasnt’ a mistake or a misjudgment, it’s an abuse of power and a total, utter lack of understanding of the limits of the job of a mod…her behavior went completely outside the norm for this board-. I have no hope that there will be any real consequences for this misbehavior (The Amazing Fenrisi predicts: The specific rule will be struck down, the warning will be rescinded. There might even be a tissue-paper thin “clarification” of the “Obey mod orders” rule put into place.) and frankly, it’s just another case where the gulf between mods and posters will widen further.

60

I can see some defense of twickster’s modding if she somehow felt pressured to resolve the reports that were coming in. She shouldn’t have; we’ve been told time and again that all reports are looked at, but not all of them are actionable, and even fewer require public intervention.

This raises several questions. Why were the posts reported at all? Do the people who reported them simply not fully understand what is and what isn’t allowed here, or do they feel that their own personal dislikes should trump the rules and culture of the board? Why were the reports acted on, despite the admitted lack of any violations? Did she feel pressured to do something to appease those who made the reports?