I generally oppose this idea, as it is at odds with the board’s mission. Moreover, it encourages naive posters to over-share and pay a price later. We could have a rule saying, “What happens in Safe Zone, stays in Safe Zone,” a rule that would be broken by trocks in the pit, knuckle-draggers offsite, and posters with imperfect memories of who posted where. If we start a Safe Zone, we should have that rule anyway.
I posted the exact same proposal for a subforum in another forum for probably the exact reason, given the timing of this thread.
The new rule basically makes the entire board a safe zone, but only for certain conditions that posters have and only while in an argument with someone else.
Based on the rulings so far, the conditions are mental health and sexual assault.
If someone starts a thread about how to be more productive. Someone else comes in to say that the OP is a &^^B( idea because they have bipolar and major depression so they can’t do any of that. Under the new rule, you can’t say anything about their issues.
But oddly, if the person started a thread on having bipolar and depression and said they couldn’t do anything, then people could go in the thread and give them “tough love” and tell them to go get help.
Also, as long as it’s in an argument or telling someone off, it doesn’t matter if you’re lying about your condition because no one can question it.
But if you start a thread about your condition, then people can call you out about it.
As for all the stuff people don’t agree with and don’t want to condone, if you’re saying that certain viewpoints are not welcome, then spell those out. As it is, many of those viewpoints have to be guessed at.
If telling someone’s wife to get a sammich for them is not OK here, then be clear that this is not a viewpoint that this board accepts, whether that’s under existing rules or new rules.
Someone creates a thread about aromatherapy is a scam. Someone comes in and says that’s full of it because their major personality disorder and pain in their legs are cured by it, and it’s the only thing that works. Moreover, it would trigger them if you said otherwise. Under the new rule, you can’t tell the person anything about what you think of that.
But if they start a thread about it, they can then get Pit for pushing woo.
The inconsistency in the rules is that people have to care about certain conditions of certain people, but only if they’re in an argument. They don’t have to care if the person starts a thread about it.
I’d prefer it if people care about the conditions others have when they’re not blasting someone else about it because the person getting blasted could have a condition too. Then it’s just a war of maladies.
I’m also OK with not caring about other people’s infirmities, but it looks like the rules are past that now.
If someone really needs to write down their random thoughts and what’s going on in their lives without any pushback from others reading it, they might do better with their own blog. Where they can request only positive feedback.
Or, turn off replies if that becomes an issue.
There have been a number of posters here, over the years, that have been counseled to start a personal blog. Sadly, not all of them have taken that advice…
The new rule hasn’t even been posted yet. How could you possibly know that?
These are far better arguments than mine, although I do think there is a (limited) place for alt cancer treatment.
The ‘new rule’ not only hasn’t been written, the explicit “gist of it” is to make the entire board civil, not a safe zone.
I’m sure there would be no problem having a thread on alternative cancer treatments. But the person starting that thread would have to accept that the responses would discuss both the pros and the cons of these treatments.
How would that work in a safe zone “where only supportive and helpful posts are allowed–not critical comments or flames”? Pro-con analysis is critical by its nature.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant there is a place for such a thread on this board. I agree it wouldn’t be allowed in a hypothetical Safe Zone forum.
Don’t care for the idea. A thread would get no replies or become the ultimate Echo Chamber. We got enough of that already.
I quit a couple boards that allowed the OP to simply vanish any comment they didn’t like. It was bloody pointless.
No, that would be being a jerk. Even without any new rules, I would report anyone who did that. Calling someone out is, by definition, an attack, and using their trauma to do so would be beyond the pale. With a new rule, though, I will be more sure that it will be dealt with.
The scenarios you keep describing don’t seem to have anything to do with this proposed rule. You keep talking about people saying they’d be “triggered” if you posted something. That’s not what this is about. This is about using someone’s trauma or illness in order to attack them. There may be additional restrictions, but they will tell us what they are. There’s no reason to assume the new rule will be hard to follow. The whole point of such a rule is to make it clearer than it is currently.
Furthermore, this board has never been the type that lets someone get away with trying to find a loophole in the new rules. We’ve never treated the rules like a computer program that you can find an exploit in. They’re all held to a “reasonable person” standard.
No one is going to be able to say “Disagreeing with me triggers me” and have that mean that no one can disagree with them. That’s just not what’s being proposed.
If someone fakes a mental illness or trauma to try and garner sympathy, that’s already covered in our rule against trolling. Remember @umkay? They were banned when it was clear they were lying about their condition.
I get being anxious about a new rule, but nothing you have put forth seems to actually be a problem. They either misunderstand the proposed rule, or forget that the board has never allowed exploiting the rules to be a jerk.
I wouldn’t like it either. Even offering advice that isn’t really tough love could be considered ‘non supportive’
If I suggest that someone set minor goals such as showering by 9 am when they’ve been going through rough times, I may not be supporting their current lifestyle of sitting in bed all day and drinking Jack Daniels from 8 am until pass out, but it’s not really jerkish to encourage small measurable changes.
What I posted was that people could call you out for being a liar about your condition if you started a thread about your illness that was fake, as you mentioned here.
But if you’re in an argument with someone and were lying about it, you said that it doesn’t matter if you’re lying about your condition as you mentioned in the top quote in this post…
In the case of starting a thread, it matters if you’re lying about your condition to garner sympathy. In the case of arguing with someone and mentioning your trauma or condition, it doesn’t matter if you’re lying, according to your quotes.
You’re projecting. I’m not anxious about a new rule. I’m just explaining how I see them playing out, based on my experiences with similar rules, the same as everyone else in the thread who are talking about how they see a potential new change affecting things.
We need a Safe Zone like I need a hole in my head.
Sometimes REALITY is unsupportive of our woes. And I don’t want to be modded because I have the hypothetical “bad grace” to point out reality.
Feelings are widely considered more important than reality these days.
Are feelings not a reality?
Just because something is not objectively quantifiable doesn’t mean it’s not real, or doesn’t matter.
The point is whether it’s acceptable to point out reality if it hurts someone’s feelings. Increasingly it seems the answer is no.
It depends on the specific situation.
It depends whether a) what you are pointing out is a fact, or only your opinion, and b) whether there is more harm from hurting someone’s feelings than from insisting on facts.
Certainly if we are talking about treatment for a medical condition, or similar, we should point out facts. In other cases, sometimes ‘tough love’ is appropriate, but whether it’s appropriate or not is often a judgment call.
But this is getting off topic. It may be a good subject for GD.
Or The Safe Zone
No, this would be an absolutely terrible discussion in The Safe Zone. Which is exactly why that forum shouldn’t exist.