The reason why it isn’t done this way has been explained over and over and over again.
And it doesn’t ever make sense. Heaven forbid we define the rules of conversation on a board that encourages conversation on topics that by their very nature are bound to get heated.
“oh we don’t want people getting close to the line!!!”
Why not? If you are uncomfortable with the line and people being close to it then MOVE it. Don’t rely on ridiculous broad and fuzzy labels which are exploitable by people merely claiming over and over and over that something is “jerkish” up until the point that the complaining is so persistent that it becomes so merely because of the labeling.
You won’t even touch whether those examples I gave are “hate speech” or not. Why not? You want to leave the adjudication to a virtual Heckler’s Veto and then make a decision?
“it’s just taking a bit longer than we thought” Nice.
I agree that banning members is not my favorite solution to this situation. I ban this type of wreckage from my real life, so I probably need reminding that I’m in an oasis of my own creation and there is still plenty to fight about. I find it helpful to sharpen my spear on their dull wits.
Banning stupidity doesn’t fix it. It just hides it. Personally, I thought we’d settled this 25 years ago, but apparently we just pushed it underground. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. You’ve to go dig 'em up, dust 'em off, shake 'em til their teeth rattle, and leave 'em in the vile dust from whence they sprung, unhonored, unwept, and unsung.
So you already knew the answer to the question you asked…but you don’t like it.
You do realize we are in the forum that deals with rules, moderation, etc? It’s logical if you are talking about rules and changes to such that perhaps the wisdom that led to such rules as exist in the present may change as well?
At one point the Pit had looser language rules, then it didn’t, now it does again. Assuming a constant set of reasons and state of mind for each of those three rule sets may not be correct.
**I do not see how discussing banning as the only option will get us anywhere. **
Not only is it unlikely to happen, given how this board works, but it opens up to comments about how we should still want to fight this ignorance and all that stuff. Regardless of how many of us would like it, there is a counterargument, and a board culture of fighting bigotry rather than silencing it.
So why not discuss things like I proposed, where being a misogynist is limited to a part of the board? That seems to give both sides what they want: the misogyny isn’t there, driving people away, but it’s still something that can be debated in the proper thread in GD.
Don’t get me wrong. I actually support just banning them. But spending all our time discussing the unlikely seems to me to only make it more likely nothing will be done. And I really, really, really want to see this addressed and fixed.
Can we work on a compromise between banning and not banning that we can get all sides on board? Even if not my idea, maybe another one?
I sure do, which is why I think asking questions that you already know the answers to, just because you don’t like the answers, does nothing but slow down the process.
What part about discussing rule changes without a change in how the rules are thought about being illogical and inconsistent is causing difficulties?
Yes, Czarcasm, if the state is the status quo then the reasons given for the status quo, while dumb, are still satisfactory. But if you want to change the status quo then you are dealing with a new set of reasons and what is and was may not be what will be.
I am honestly perplexed you think a process can be implemented that may result in change without considering the rationales involved with the rules in general. :dubious:
A new set of “rules” where mods just warn, suspend, or ban people because it rubs them the wrong way and the justification is akin to that’s mean or bad is so broad as to be farcical.
But the misogyny is still there. If misogyny is driving people away from the board then it’s a poor bandaid fix to say ok we’ll just let the misogyny drive people away from Great Debates forum.
Nobody is stopping you from discussing rule changes, but it shouldn’t be necessary to start the conversation at the very beginning, almost every single time, with a question you already know the answer to.
So, Shodan makes a joke that implies that one of Kavanaugh’s alleged victims was attending parties in the hopes that she’d get gang-raped. He draws a warning for it. His response?
As awful as the original post was, I want to commend Shodan for his response, and draw it to the attention of other posters who have said similarly terrible things.
Notice that when you get called out for saying something gross or terrible, you don’t need to double down. You don’t need to defend your misbehavior to the death. You can apologize for it and do better.
With the understanding that Shodan’s gonna do better, I appreciate his response.
And no one is asking for the unrealistic task of fully defining terms. But if stuff like be aware of your surroundings is being labeled rape apologizing or victim blaming some sort of less ridiculous standards should be codified. Otherwise, the mere assertion or accusation that a poster is engaged in wrongthink is going to have a chilling effect.
I really disaggree. He made an incredibly vile joke and deserved more than a banning. Then, he makes a quick apology and gets back in the game.
It’s time to admit that the SDMB is a site for sexist trolls.
I think you mean he deserved more than a warning. I fully agree. He is one of many posters who has demonstrated over and and over again over many years that he’s a jerk on many levels, and yet he hasn’t been banned. There comes a point when the mods can’t expect people to take “warnings” seriously.
Huh. Yeah, I may be setting the bar for commendable behavior insanely low here, because the behavior has been so godawful. Fair point.
The board has been pretty clear for awhile that posting reprehensible things about non posters either in groups or as individual was fine. I’m not going to even debate about the tastelessness of the joke but there is all kinds of harm being wished on this board.
I guess I’m agreeing with you. 
This is a large part of the problem right here, where people see things that aren’t there because they’re pre-primed to do so. No one on this board so far as I’m aware has “condoned” attempted rape. The claim is ridiculous on its face and is a aimed at shutting down legitimate discussion.
I have made offers at least four times I can think of where I stated I would mail $100 to various posters if they could prove the false claims they made about what I’ve thought or said or done in these so-called “misogyny” threads, and so far no one has even made an attempt to collect their check. I could make the same offer dozens if not hundreds of times, and may yet, without the slightest fear of losing a penny.
Much of what gets labelled “misogyny” on this board is simply things that a particular subset of women doesn’t like. This is not to say they are a subset on the board, but if the women I know away from here and the ones that pop up on my Facebook feed are any indication, most women in this country do not share their views or their beliefs.
This is why we need “bright line” standards as to what is permissible. Too many people are too quick to make or buy into false claims about what someone has said, and too many are eager to label things misogynistic or “rape apology” when in fact they are are not. One moderator in particular has taken to pre-emptively warning that he is fed up with “rape apology” and people had better give the issue wide berth because he’s had it, and all this is despite the fact that no one on the board that I’ve seen has ever excused rape or supported the practice of it.
So how are we to know what actually constitutes “rape apology” (if such a concept is be accepted on the part of the moderator staff) to the moderator staff when the term clearly means different things to different people? So far what seems to me to be rape apology is any attempt whatsoever to rein in or contest exaggerated, overly emotional and factually inaccurate statements anyone should make in regard to rape or other forms of sexual abuse.
So basically what it boils down to this: How on earth is this board supposed to function as a bastion of ignorance fighting, when false assertions based on nothing but emotion are protected and attempts to factually correct them are prohibited?
Well, precisely. If I made a factual statement about what your post is, as part of a correction of its false assertions based on nothing but emotion, I’d get warned.
Which is why your banning would do so much good.
He better because I, for one, am not going to be accepting this crap silently anymore. BS posts like that are getting reported, every time I see them, and I hope others report them as well. No point trying to argue with it, that’s just playing the game, report it, that’s not a game they want played.
Factual? Or an assessment based on nothing but emotion?
I strongly doubt you could characterize my post in any sort of factual way that would draw a warning.