So he posted it with the expectation that phrasing it that way would be provocative, with the intent to “stir the pot” and get others to react.
Which word fits that better, being a troll or being a jerk?
Should any additional similarly toned posts by the poster be viewed with that in mind?
In any case, the Manda JO rule, shutting down OP’s like that one right off and offering a chance to rephrase has two possible impacts. Someone who is not of ill intent (a jerk/troll) will likely learn where the line is, and those who are will have their trolling nipped in the bud with a minimum of attention gained in the process, with continued efforts to cross the line serving to declare themselves as trolls resulting in a path to warnings and bannination.
No, not really, though. A lot of the threads that get off track with sexist crap are threads started by women to discuss whatever. If all the threads we start get shut down because some guy says something offensive, it’s not better for us at all.
I opine that offers to rephrase should not be automatic and that past posting history is a reasonable moderator consideration. Furthermore and no worries, this opinion of mine will remain in the minority, as I have a preference for greater mod discretion than average.
I also forecast unintended consequences to which I reply, “So what?” Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Also, instant closings can’t always happen, since moderators are part time volunteers. Just saying.
She did say that it does not solve the problem but is just one step. But recognizing that certain ways of saying things are likely offensive, needlessly so, and going down the path of note-warning-warning … ban, because doing so when one is aware that it will provoke and doing it anyway is covered minimally under the existing “do not be a jerk” if not “no trolling” rules, can fill in that gap some.
It won’t make this into a safe space, nor do I think is that what anyone is wanting. But maybe it can go far enough so that this is more of a place that the smartest, hippest, women of the internet choose to hang out?
Again, that result is not just for the sake of female Dopers … it is in the informed selfish best interest of male Dopers as well.
On preview, yes MfM, having to be told to rephrase repeatedly should be met with no such offer, warnings, and eventual banning for being a troll. The Manda JO rule gives a chance to move forward the possible positive essence of an OP, allowing for Hanlon’s razor until proven otherwise. Doing it again means that stupidity (or ignorance) is not an adequate explanation.
I like the idea of being more proactive in shutting down threads that are put forth in an offensive manner, with the option to start over more appropriately. There are those who will have ill intent no matter what, but to ITD’s point earlier in the thread, it provides guidance to those without bad intentions. I don’t see much downside in getting people to think more before they post.
On the Penthouse rules question, I’m obviously coming from a place of recent experience that I wish I’d handled differently. Generally speaking, I don’t feel like I’ve encountered threads all that often that cross the line of that specific rule without breaking some other rule simultaneously (i.e., trolling or being a jerk). I just did a quick search and only ran across only 14 posts that were reported for that rule violation. I would definitely encourage more reports on posts that people believe cross the line. I think there’s a decent amount of grey area between “the medical approach” and “the Penthouse approach,” but we want to be aware of the problem and steer folks away from the line as needed.
I certainly don’t think they should shut down active threads because of what later posters say. I don’t think this would be a perfect solution, but it might be a start. Right now, I feel like the Moderate Males–the guys not doing this, but also not seeing others doing it–are basically tuning out the “flavor text” of these posts: it’s like adults in a Peanuts movie. So they don’t hear it, and then wonder why we are upset. This way people see what’s happening and adjust. And there’s no attempt to stop topics of conversation, or drive people off the board.
I agree 100% – indeed there is a lot of discrimination against men – we are discriminated in Divorce, male offenders get 63% more time for the same crime, male DV victims are more likely to be arrested then get help.
Unfortunately on many forums including SDMB there are posters who consider any mention of these issues and any compassion toward men to be a moral crime.
On SDMB most offenders guilty of empathy toward men have been driven off the board. First they are subject to a long series of very personal attacks. If they respond in kind they will likely be banned. Others (like myself) participate rarely.
It’s such a coincidence that the only time most men worry about men getting raped or discriminated against or getting the short end of any stick is during a discussion of women’s problems. If those things really worried you guys or you felt the need to right an injustice you’d be starting your own threads about them–but no, that shit only gets raised in order to derail a discussion of women’s issues. Fight your own battles.
I’m curious as to why there USED to be more females on the boards. Something must have changed. Was the tone of the Boards different somehow when more females were on here? Were topics different? We’ve been looking at what some women–those few of us on this thread, who might or might not be representative–think the issue is now.
But dammit, something was working back then. It’d help a lot to know what that was and how and why it changed. Could we start by getting observations from current female Dopers who were on the SD boards then?
Well, however the boards rules are enforced I’d like see it handled via transparent, unbiased moderation based on clearly accessible and written rules. What I don’t want to see is a vocal subset enforcing their norms via harassment.
Wanting a change in overall thread tone is so subjective I’m curious as to how that’s going to be handled.
On the subject of women leaving, are the percentages skewing or is it a general decline in membership both men and women? And does the competition from more controllable and closed social networks like private Facebook groups appeal to one gender or the other disproportionately? It may not be the content of the boards it may be the existence of more subjectively engaging/compelling competing platforms. There might not be much message boards in general can do in the face of multi-billion dollar companies that can embed addicting skinner boxes as part of their platform.
It’s a very interesting economic question that has many parallels. I’m hopeful these proposals help though.
Hmm. It was more of a question concerning the real reality as opposed to the polled reality. Maybe the past election has shaken my blind faith in polls? I don’t have the statistics that the board administrator has and I’m not sure if those statistics are different or could be used for different conclusions then the statistics from the polls in the OP. So, what you take as “clear evidence” and as a “fact” I have uncertainties about. I’m not sure what harm there is having the discussion. And discussing how information is gathered and the limitations of the methodologies employed seems topical.
And 3/4 of the polls come up as invalid links. For me at least. So there is that. But ultimately, this is ATMB and I think asking questions is part of this forum, no?
Polled reality is the only possible reality in this case - the mods don’t have magic tools to guess the gender of each poster. Only polls will tell us anything about the question you re-asked - polls that have been done.
Something dealt with later in the thread - again, something you’d have noticed if you were actually interested in the conversation happening.
