The rule doesn’t say “only really bad hate speech will not be tolerated”. That it was hate speech had already been decided by the mod on the ground.
Doubt about where on the spectrum can mean doubt about the speech even being on the spectrum. I’m not saying that is or is not the case here but I am saying I don’t think it’s unreasonable for mods to confer with each other when it concerns subjective standards. Furthermore, these standards have been morphing over time and what is or was acceptable may not always be. I know folks who belong to groups who refer to themselves and others in said group in ways that would be modded. Many times they don’t believe they are engaged in hate speech. It’s just that they haven’t gotten the latest memo.
Yes, promised. In writing.
~Max
Yes, but with respect to the present discussion, that’s neither here nor there.
~Max
They must have really wanted you to be a member. Congrats!
I may have been too cryptic. I was referring to the registration agreement.
~Max
That is not a promise.
p.s.: Yeah. I was under the impression you were originally referring to the registration agreement.
The nuance you are missing, @Max_S, is that one person’s hate speech is another person’s invitation to censorship. In this instance, you and I agreed – along with many others – that what Jim_B engaged in was hate speech. For a different perspective, simply review his Pit thread.
These are ever-shifting norms. Norms we’re very concerned over getting right as much as possible. So even if it seems obvious to you that something is hate speech, it may be far from obvious to others.
I encourage you and others to allow for this and be generous in your understanding why we consult each other frequently.
We can agree to disagree. I consider it a promise and would leave if I thought it was broken.
I’m sure Aspenglow did not intend to say hate speech is unworthy of a warning. Her heart seems to be in the right place and I think I understand where she’s coming from. She may not have been confident that it was hate speech. But her post came across as if it was a settled thing. It’s just that her post could give someone the wrong idea - that the response to hate speech is a slap on the wrist.
~Max
What makes you think they’re not?
What makes you think that wasn’t what was said?
It very much is here and most definitely there. The concept of hate speech is not universally accepted and what falls under the category of so-called hate speech has both a temporal and spatial component. My former black neighbors referred to black folk as Negros and as colored. Were they engaged in hate speech? Seriously? That language could very well be modded here as hate speech when in my opinion it’s merely anachronistic and in the opinion of my neighbors that’s just how language is used.
The reason I bring it up is not to detract from the thread which neither here nor there implies but to highlight that when one is going to act to sanction someone based on subjectivity that taking a bit of time to confer is not behavior that needs to be chastised.
These nuances are not applicable in this case, because the moderator in question wrote, with her modhat on, that the post “is unabashed backhanded hate speech”.
~Max
We know that, because she didn’t say anything of the sort. She said she wasn’t issuing a warning, but also that further discussion would take place in the mod loop. Three hours later, the warning and topic ban came down.
Only by misreading the first post and completely ignoring the second.
A good real-life analogue would be if I fucked up at work and was told, “Go home for the day. Further action may be taken after I discuss your fuckup with the board of directors.”
I would be pretty dim to assume that going home was the totality of my punishment. A better response would be to spend that free time practicing my groveling and polishing my resume.
Again it’s a matter of opinion and if one is adjudicating writings based upon opinion before applying a serious, with respect to this board at least, sanction conferring with others and seeing if one’s judgement on a subjective matter is reasonable is not problematic. Even if I label a particular post x, y, or z and x, y, or z is understood to be subjective then it should be implicitly understood that my labeling has a subjective component.
This is unabashed backhanded hate speech, in my view. […] No warning this time, but it is noted that you have a history of starting such threads. I strongly urge you to stop doing this. Further action may follow here after consultation with other MPSIMS staff.
Or it could have been interpreted, “I think you broke the rules but don’t deserve punishment. But other mods might decide you need to be punished.” I don’t think that was the intended meaning of that post, but I do think it lends itself to such an interpretation.
In contrast to your outcome-based approach, my criticism is about perceived intent and process, not outcome.
~Max
That’s a completely unreasonable interpretation, especially if someone has any experience with how moderation works on this board.
In my opinion alone. Mine is not the only one that counts.
I think that requires willful misinterpretation of intent. Another example:
“Max_S, I can’t believe you buried your brother head-first in the sand. That was dangerous and stupid! Go to your room until your father gets home so I can talk to him about this!”
Is “I think you did a bad thing but don’t deserve punishment, but maybe your father disagrees and might decide otherwise” a reasonable interpretation of mom’s intent?
This is a minor thing, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to give your opinion alone with the modhat on unless you are adding flavor to a decision you are confident represents all the moderators.
~Max
You need to work in the words, “no warning this time”.
So maybe, “I’m not taking away your phone this time, but we’ll see what Dad has to say when he gets home.”
ETA: You can see how it undercuts Mom’s authority when she follows up a couple hours later with, “We’ve decided to take away your phone after all.” Is it really appropriate to hint that Mom and Dad may not be on the same page? I guess it depends on your parenting style.
~Max