The hate speech was in an article I linked to illustrate a different point, and it’s apparently perfectly fine to link to as long as you make it clear you don’t agree with it. But I had no idea I needed to do that; it’s not in the official rules, and I never saw the thread where it was discussed previously. If I had seen that thread and knew it was a problem, I could have (truthfully) said that it didn’t reflect my views - but probably I would have just found a different article to use.
I just think it’s unduly harsh to give a suspension for something that isn’t even in the rules, with no warnings whatsoever. And now I’m really fucking paranoid that I’m going to get in huge trouble for posting some innocent comment that would be fine for anyone else, because I have this on my record, and because everyone has decided I’m some terrible troublemaker and rules lawyer who’s desperate to randomly post hate speech.
You were derailing the thread a lot as I recall.
You have a small history of Anti-Trans posts.
I suspended you to review your posting with the rest of the Mods.
If you notice, we decided to not make it a formal suspension and not even a warning.
Your history on CRT suggests that you can back off of topics, I recommend you do the same here.
You have many modnotes and the 1 warning on CRT and have been strongly advised about not posting hate speech to support your position. That is not a get out of jail free card.
But you are not on a fast track to a serious suspension or losing your posting privileges. I will say, you’re not exactly a poster without a history though.
As a P&E Mod, I’m aware of your feelings on Trans issues. You’re welcome to them, but if you share hateful ones, you will be moderated.
Oh one more piece of advice, you skirt the attacking the post rule a bit too often. Another Moderator noted that. So you may want to be careful there also.
Just pointing back to where we started deeply talking about linking to hate speech:
The whole thread is too long to summarize, but I wanted to go over a couple of points that seem germane to the current revival. First, that in this thread, and the followups, no “new” rules were decided on. Because the moderation fell within the existing rules. In that thread, What_Exit quoted the Hate Speech Rules in their entirety, but this time, I’ll point to a specific subsection as it applies to What_Exit’s immediately prior post:
If we detect a pattern of pejorative or otherwise objectionable comments about groups by you that, taken individually, do not rise to the level of hate speech but that, in aggregate, detract from civil discussion, we may tell you to stop; failure to do so may result in suspension or revocation of your posting privileges.
Now, digging into the whole “linking” to hate speech, again, the prior thread made a note of what the thread is about. Linking to a site that is largely devoted to such things, especially if you’re saying it sums up your feelings? Not so good. Linking to a site that discusses the history and consequences of such? That’s furthering a debate. Linking to a government website that uses hate-speech imagery because it’s an example of current political thought and explicitly describing it as such (the circumstances cited in the current OP)?
That was to support the argument and even included (IMHO) fair warning of objectionable content.
I think overall, the feeling in the followup to the followup seemed to be acceptable to the majority (not all obviously) of posters:
This is of course, not a written rule, but I think it’s in line of how I myself view such things. Context is almost always going to play a huge factor, which is where the Mods come into the equation. And I believe the context of the post the in the OP of this thread is extremely clear.
Thank you, this is what I wanted to know. I’m not a mod and don’t know what the difference is between what you did and a formal suspension. I assumed it did mean I was on a fast track to banning, and previous responses did not disabuse me of that idea.
It may not have been a big deal to you, but I found the suspension extremely stressful, far worse than a warning, both because I didn’t know what was happening (which wasn’t your fault, since it turned out to be a Discourse problem) and because other posters were allowed to speculate (inaccurately and unfavourably) about my character and motives while I couldn’t reply.
Plus I had already mostly backed off from talking about trans issues, but they do tend to come up when debating US politics, and I didn’t see what more I could do.
I don’t know that I have any hateful ones, at least by official board standards. Plus I generally try to be polite and non-offensive. Maybe I’m worrying unnecessarily, but the rules seem both vague and strictly applied, and like I said, I’ve been feeling very paranoid since these events that I am on the ‘soon to be banned’ list.
I apologize, I was mistaken. I do believe you have gotten notes for transphobic posts, but I am unwilling to go back and dig to find those.
The bulk of what I posted, that you appear to be trying to ruleslawyer your way into something insidious, stands. Indeed, the decisions in question appear to be a response to your previous attempt at rules lawyering.
Firstly, I don’t think I do have such a pattern - just people accusing me of it seemingly based on vibes. (I’m actually wondering if some of them are mixing me up in their memory with other posters, given the unwarranted accusations about previous moderation.) Secondly, I wasn’t told that I was doing anything wrong (in this area at least; as I said, I know I have a tendency to go off topic) and, apart from this single event, I still haven’t been. I guess that’s why @What_Exit didn’t give me an ‘official’ suspension or warning.
I agree it’s not so good - and if I’d thought about it I would have found a different article to illustrate the phenomenon I was discussing - but I got the impression from the discussion that it was generally not allowed to link to hate speech, even though it was usually seen as a more minor issue. That’s why I reported the post in the OP. It still doesn’t make sense to me that it might have been fine if I had simply made it clear that I don’t agree with or endorse those views in the article (and I genuinely don’t - I wish there was some way of proving that).
My biggest issue is that I’ve been afraid of getting a warning, or even a month’s suspension, if I link to an article or essay which uses the term ‘biological male’, or otherwise phrases something in a way not acceptable on the board. Because I’ve ‘already been warned’ about linking, and because so many posters are making the worst possible assumptions about my motives. I still don’t really know what the rules are supposed to be here, and it’s far more difficult to try to vet the articles you link than to just not write something yourself.
I am not a mod but my sense of this is this discussion has been done on the SDMB more than once. It is considered something there really is nothing new to say about it and it just causes problems. Better you search and read older discussions than start a new one which (for all intents and purposes) has been done.
If you think you have a really new take on the topic I would suggest sending a PM to the mod(s) and asking if the post you want to make is something new you can do and is ok to post (I think I have done this once or twice). Then abide by their decision.
the phrase “biological male” is not to be found.
But as can be seen in the preview it repeats the lie that children are being “mutilated” and has this nifty little bit of bullshit,
There is no such thing as a “trans kid,” who needs to be “protected” from puberty. In fact, there is no such thing as a “trans person”; there are people who identify as “trans,” and people who have gender dysphoria. There are people with chromosomal abnormalities, people with psychological scars, and people swept up in a social contagion. But there is no essential category of being denoted by the word “trans.” There are men, and there are women, real people, children and adults, with gender dysphoria who deserve better than lies and mutilation.
I wasn’t planning on starting any more threads on the topic, because I agree it has mostly been done to death. But I have commented on it in existing threads at times, and people do like to ask for links.
I’ve also asked a mod to check my comment a couple of times when I was unsure about something, but I don’t want to pester them too much. It already seems like a pretty hard job.
I understand being nervous about a warning. But getting one isn’t necessarily as bad as it seems that you think they are.
In the time that I’ve been posting here (I joined in 2001), I’ve accrued a handful of them myself. Usually because I’d go a step too far in criticizing someone, and get dinged for personal insults. I’ve received several mod notes to knock it off or scale back my condemnation of someone.
It’s been my experience that, unless you’re blatantly trolling or a sock of a previous poster, it can take a while before you reach the banning point. The mods don’t really want to ban people, because that can discourage independent thought. This board has always welcomed differing viewpoints and odd questions, because those can promote lively debate (I’m thinking specifically of the threads about the caloric content of pan-fried semen, and whether it’s possible to fart holes in your underwear).
With the majority of posters, the mods will go out of their way to give you a chance to reform before they just kick you out. There have been posters who lasted longer here than they should have (and here I’m thinking of Cesario), but the mods try to be fair, and they will usually inform you that you’re on your last chance before they revoke posting privileges.
Any time that I’ve been warned, I’ve had that thought that I was pissing people off too much, also.
I really only have one piece of advice: the mods will tell you ahead of time if something that could be contentious or controversial, just message one and ask.
I would imagine that a mod would rather preview and critique a contentious post prior to it being posted than have to moderate that post and any subsequent fallout that may occur in response.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not in any way endorse (and do in fact emphatically condemn) the statement I linked to that was referred to in the OP.
And I didn’t link to it because it was a random anti-trans site that I pulled up just to take potshots at it or to comment on trans people themselves. I linked to it because it is an official and current statement from the White House setting out the US government’s policies that it will be actioning in the future, likely in all sorts of horrific ways.
I didn’t freak out when I got a warning in 2021, because I understood what I did wrong and what I could do to avoid it in future.
Before this incident, I always thought the mods were pretty fair, not banning or suspending people until they had had multiple warnings, so they clearly knew they were doing something wrong. But this time, I had no idea that I had broken a rule until I was kicked off the site, and saw that I was being accused of something I hadn’t actually done (ie purposely linking hate speech to get around the rules). That makes me feel that it’s not under my control. Even though I had no bad intentions and was following the rules to the best of my ability, I still got in big trouble.
Sure, I can avoid this specific thing, but who knows what else could potentially be an issue if the mods are assuming bad motivations?
That’s why I’ve been having trouble letting it go, but I will try to do so now.
PS. Do you know where I can find the farting holes in underwear thread? That sounds fun.
This is analogous to the use/mention distinction. It’s quite different to link to a thing that intrinsically matters (like US government policy) so as to discuss it than it is to link to something random that you dug up because it describes your own position.
Suspending sometime for a day is something a single mod can do, and it’s not intended to be a big deal. I did it once when a poster appeared to be drunk and i wanted to protect him from himself. (And on a board i used to moderate that no longer exists, i once did it to a friend who was very drunk, and who was later asked to moderate.)
Suspending sometime for a longer period is a big deal, needs to be discussed among the mods, and should come with very explicit warnings.
Two days, I think. But when several days went by and I never got a message saying I had been unsuspended, and @What_Exit said nothing more about it, I got really worried. Eventually I tried and realised I could log in again. Apparently I was supposed to get automated emails from Discourse, but it wasn’t sending them.
Oh, right. Yes, you are supposed to get an automated email both when you are suspended and (i think) when the suspension is lifted, whether you are suspended for 5 minutes or 5 years. But something didn’t work that time.
I’d never seen it done before and assumed it was a serious thing. Almost always when someone got suspended in the past, they soon ended up banned. Hence me being so worried about breaking the rules unintentionally again.
And I don’t know how I can convince anyone that I didn’t link to hate speech intentionally, and it doesn’t describe my own position. It really bothers me that so many people believe that.
Also, when someone is suspended for a day, we don’t publish that. When someone is suspended for a longer period, after a discussion among the mods, that’s usually announced in ATMB. Not for one-off spammers, but any real poster who gets suspended typically gets a note.
