To the Mods: No Rules in Stone

The BBQ Pit
1

In Homosexual Adoption, someone asked whether a poster had been banned for his bigotted opinions about homosexuality.

Gaudere responded:

Fair enough. And in fact, I came to her defense, recalling how Gaudere handled our visitors from Storm Front:

But then yesterday, in Marriage for Fun and Profit - How bad is this?, someone made a bigotted remark about Koreans.

TVeblen responded with this:

Now, I understand as much as anyone that the mods and administration are not the Borg. As Coldfire said in Namecalling in GD, a thread that asked about clearing up whether or not we could call people liars in Great Debates:

That’s okay. And I don’t think for a minute that I could do any better than TVeblen, Buck, or any of the other mods.

But I would just ask that you realize that we, like you, have no rules in stone to go by. In fact, we are at a greater disadvantage since we sort of just have to guess and then do the best we can.

It has been suggested basically that when in doubt, don’t. But unfortunately, without some indication of a modicum of consistency, people will always be in doubt and therefore never will.

I’m not really complaining here. I put it in the Pit because my understanding is that ATMB is for technical questions, and this is for “other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”. And e-mail to four or five mods and admins seems tactically problematic.

Besides, I know that you mods do this work for free, and I’m a firm believer that you get what you pay for. I’m not expecting the codified Laws of Hammurabi. In fact, I’m not really expecting anything much, just hoping that I could make the suggestion that y’all discuss this in your private forum or whatever and establish a consensus among yourselves.

I’ll abide by your call whether I’m happy about it or not. I still think that allowing rampant disrespect for people of faith is a mistake, but I’m living with it. I just grimace and move on whenever I see the vulgarities about Jesus and so forth.

In the meantime, could you explain maybe why at least some of you believe that racist or bigoted statements are bannable offenses? It can’t be because they hurt people’s feelings. Nothing could hurt my feelings, or Poly’s feelings, or Tris’s feelings, or RT’s feelings, of CJ’s feelings (and many others) more than cursing Christ and mocking God. But that’s not bannable.

So what is it, exactly? What’s so bad about mocking Koreans or Indians or Irish people generically? I mean, if somebody said something about a wooden Indian or an Indian giver, I wouldn’t want them banned. If I thought the offense were intended as personal, I can defend myself sufficiently.

I can’t speak for Koreans, but I feel a kind of condescension when somebody holds that I ought to be protected from someone’s bigotry because I’m too fragile to withstand it.

Anyway, I know that you can’t criticize each other publicly because that might compromise your appearance of authority and order. That’s understandable, and a mod fight would undermine the integrity of the board and create a nightmare for the administration.

But could you just argue about it among yourselves and then get back to us with at least some sort of guiding principle, if not a rule in stone? Something other than when in doubt, don’t? Something that will make us feel like we’re not tip-toeing on glass?

And when I say “we”, I’m not speaking for anyone else except people who are as confused as I am. It might be that Duck or someone else has a firm grasp on this, and I’m just thick headed.

Thanks for listening.

2

Add this to the mix:

3

I guess that I’ve just never really thought of the SDMB as a preaching to the choir kind of place. There’s something about squelching dissent — however unattractive and unpopular it may be — in the name of diversity that evokes an image of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And just to anticipate a possible strawman, I’m not arguing that racism ought to be encouraged. I’m just saying that, if allowed, we members in good standing will snuff it out with rational debate or flames as appropriate.

If a bigot is accosted by twenty intellectually armed Dopers, he looks clueless. But if he is banned just for being a racist or a homophobe, we look afraid.

4

I feel this mis-characterizes (sp?) what we have at the SDMB.

I feel that we most certainly do NOT get what we pay for on the SDMB - we get infinitely MORE than what we pay for.

What we get is a huge community which requires a serious amount of resources and network expense to serve as a place where a very broad range of issues and ideas can be discussed in many contexts.

We get a large active Staff who cares about the Community - not just the whole, but the individual parts of the whole - the Members - as well.

And the actions and acts of the Staff here seem to be, barring maybe 1 out of 10,000 events, showing strong foresight, thoughtfulness, consideration, intelligence, diligence, attention to detail, and effort.

As to the rest of your points - I see you mention Jesus and God many times, but I feel that what you really intended was to say “why can Religion be mocked without imminent fear of banning” - is this your message here?

Well, one possible thing…I know you and others may not like this, but Religion is the result of a personal choice and decision that you make for yourself. Being black, white, Korean, Canadian, straight, gay, transgendered, handicapped, of sound body, etc. is NOT a personal choice or decision.

It seems like the separation lies between things that are the result of choice, and things that are not the result of choice. Does that make sense to anyone, or am I way off-base here?

5

I don’t think you’re off-base. The usual objection (which isn’t off-base either, mind, except that it’s generally grossly over-simplified) is that faith is not viewed as being much of a choice either by many. One of those detours that don’t really go anywhere, however.

Agreed also that the SDMB is a place where far more is received than paid for. Seems to me that getting-what-you-pay-for is far more exemplified in the “evolution” of Usenet from the net’s early days to the present.

Contained there is an excellent rebuttal to the kinds of folks who insist that “the net isn’t real life!” and such. The tactical challenges between the two are much the same.

6

Ant

If you don’t mind, I don’t want to twist this into a religion debate. Set aside that you have no idea what my personal experience with God is like and whether it is something that I have chosen, but as many Gays have pointed out here on the boards, the matter of whether they are gay by choice or birth is irrelevant — they still deserve respect for being people.

That said, you misrepresented what I was saying about the mods and admins. I’ve come to their defense eagerly and often, and your lifting an aside joke in order to hijack the thread forty ways from Sunday so that you could suck up is most unfortunate.

I understand your compulsion for intercepting questions to and about mods, but in this case, you have not been helpful.

7

No disrespect intended, Lib, but that’s pretty harsh telling Anthracite she has “not been helpful” when you impliedly invited comment from the community by opening the thread in the first place. If you want to question the mods/admins without the distraction of other posters’ opinions–and in this case, they’re perfectly polite and thoughtful opinions–perhaps you should just email the staff directly.

8

As for the substance of the complaint, I hope you’ll recall that I was right there with you in the Pit threads about the Nazi invasion of a few months back, arguing that they should be permitted to express their noxious racial opinions in the proper forum as long as they otherwise abide by the rules. Thus, I’m troubled by the implication of Lynn’s statement that racist posts are against the rules of the board. It’s somewhat ambiguous though, so I would think a simple request for clarification would be a better course than just opening up the whole can of worms again.

I have no problem whatsoever with the actions of Gaudere and TVeblen in your linked threads. The guy Gaudere banned showed up in a GD thread, spewed a bunch of idiotic anti-gay sentiments, and announced he wasn’t going to discuss it with anyone. That’s nothing more than trolling, and that is indisputably against the rules. He’s outta here.

In the IMHO thead , the precise statement Veb was responding to was this: “Go Korean. They’ll let you slap them around a little.” It’s one thing to express racist thought. It is another thing to encourage or condone racial violence. The jerk got warned, and the thread got closed because it was a discussion of illegal activities. Once again, all within the stated policies of the SDMB.

So basically, except maybe for Lynn’s ambiguous statement at the end of the Feistymongol thread, I’m not seeing a problem here.

9

Without going into the philosophical conundrums underlying why one thing may be offensive to some people while another thing is not, and what possibly-offensive posts are allowed and what not, I think what’s being asked is “What’s the rationale? How can we, debating in our own minds whether a questionable post is appropriate, know where the lines are drawn?” I can understand the point about racism, the one about copyright violations, the sense of combativeness about religious issues – but where do the lines get drawn, and what’s the underlying logic behind that being the place, if any? (Not implying that the administration is being obnoxious in saying, “this is how it goes, and we don’t have to have an underlying rationale” – but if there is one, it would be easier for the desiring-to-abide-by-the-rules-and-questioning-his-possible-post poster to apply that rationale. E.g., if raising the question about whether B.E.T. as a network targeting black Americans is racist is itself being racist, one would know that such a question violates the rules, and not raise it in the first place. Minty may have a handle on it, and if so, that’s a position I’d be glad to abide by – but some confirmation from a quasi-official source would be most useful.

(And no, I don’t have any personal issues that might be in that grey area, but I can see, with the breadth of perspectives that regulars bring to this board, where others might – and, like Lib I think, I’m asking in their behalf.)

10

That’s more or less the distinction we’re shooting for. If one wants to make a racist argument, or be a racist, or whatever, that’s something we want to allow. If one just wants to be a racist jerk and not make an argument, s/he’s a goner.

Forum choice is also important. IMHO is a “nicer” forum than GD. GQ is just for the facts, so we’re stricter still there. Make a bunch of comments mocking anyone’s god in GQ and you will in fact be outta here. Same with racism.

11

What ** Anthracite ** brings up is IMHO not a hijack given your OP. If I said that religion is an opium and religious people are drugged, am I as offensive as someone who is explicitly racist? I don’t think so.

There is an element of choice that cannot be overlooked and attacking that choice be it by the teeming masses or not is clearly not as offensive as being racist.

This should be a point of consideration when the rules are formulated and applied.

12

Lynn’s statement was not only ambiguous but it was also inaccurate. Saying all of a group does A or B is stereotyping and only becomes racist is you believe that you are superior to that group because they do A or B.

13

I think you’re pretty darned close to it. Have a little respect for your fellow posters, huh? We’ve got a diversity of beliefs around here, and I like it that way. That doesn’t mean anyone should get all touchy feely when it comes to religious discussions, but it does mean that you should avoid going out of your way to slam people based on their faith or lack thereof.

14

minty
Personally, I would never think or say that! That was a hyperbolic hypothetical to illustrate a point.

15

That’s fine, didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

16

I didn’t want to debate religion, nor will I. I merely wanted to know if you were applying the metric evenly across religions, or were most concerned about bashing of Christianity specifically. If you recall, your OP was the one which introduced the topic of bashing of Jesus. What I wanted to know was if your concern was driven by a perceived bias against one religion, or religion in general. I thought that in a logical discussion of policy, this distinction would have been important.

I also thought this was going to be an honest and forthright discussion on the difference between denigration of what a person is versus what they choose to do. However, this following response makes me sad, especially when I really was trying to attempt to communicate with you honestly:

I most certainly did not misrepresent anything, but I evidently misinterpreted it. There is a difference, which although minor is yet important. I said it in terms that that was what I felt you were saying. If that’s not what you meant, then it’s not what you meant, no argument here. As-worded, I didn’t feel that it was respectful to the Staff. Now, ex post facto, I find out it was all a “joke”. I suppose it’s my fault for not immediately knowing which parts of your OP were serious and which parts were “joke(s)”. Well, mea culpa.

Your accusation of me “hijack(ing)” the thread to “suck up” (a term which I find highly offensive - and let’s get one thing straight here - I don’t “suck up” to anyone online :mad: ) is unwarranted, unfounded, without any basis whatsoever - and most of all, just plain rude. And with all due respect, if you feel that I have a “compulsion” to “intercept() questions to and about Mods”, then you don’t respectfully “understand” me or my message.

17

<< hears voice say… >>

"It might be that Duck or someone else has a firm grasp on this…"

Um, what? Me?

<< puts down magazine >>
<< hastily reads OP >>

Oh, it’s Constructive Criticism Time for the Administration, eh? :smiley:

For some reason the words of Chairman Mao spring to mind, no idea why, I stayed up reeeeeally late last night:

  • snerk *

:smiley:

Anyway…

Pretty much “what Manhattan said”. One vote here for allowing the dyed-in-the-wool racists/sexists/Republicans/Democrats/Earth Firsters to post freely, as long as there seems some point to it, as long as it’s not simply idiotic trolling.

Which means that it’s always going to be a judgement call on the part of some Mod or Admin. And I think the carved-in-stone “Don’t Be A Jerk” rule and the FAQ’s equally monolithic "you will not use the SDMB to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory-inaccurate-abusive-vulgar-hateful-harassing-obscene-profane-threatening" pretty much covers it.

<< goes back to magazine >>

18

Thanks, Manny. That’s the sort of guideline I was looking for.

Ant

I would sooner throw myself upon a sword as to mock anyone’s faith, whether that faith is in the God I recognize or in some other.

19

Minty

I had no problem with it either. That’s why I said that it was “fair enough”, and then reprinted my defense of Gaudere. Did you see it?

20

I hope you can find a distinction between a group being too “fragile” to withstand bigotry and a poster advocating actual physical violence against them. If you read that as condescension, so be it. I stand by the call.

Veb