You see how this creates uncertainty though, right?
You moderate GD. JC moderates GD. The rules of GD do not preclude the use of the word “libtard”. **JC **has indicated that the word should be avoided, but reserves the right to moderate or not, on a discretionary basis. You have said here that the word use is not okay.
These are in conflict. Does a poster follow your direction which seems to incorporate **JC’s **direction and take it further?
In the levels of permissiveness expressed for the use of the word “libtard” it seems like it would go Board rules > GD rules > **JC **guidance > **tomndebb **indications. If this is correct, it seems that tom has banned the word? I am genuinely having trouble parsing the guidance.
Very simply, this is one of the situations where we can’t keep everyone happy. No matter which decision is made someone will bitch about it.
So, in short, amending something with -tard may provoke a mod reaction depending on circumstances, context and so forth. That may be a note or a warning, depending again on the specifics of the case.
The one thing we did agree on is that use of the term is offensive whether used against those on the right or the left.
Personally, and not speaking for Tom or anyone else, I find it a dumb usage that says more about the user than those against whom it’s pointed. But I dislike making blanket statements about what is offensive because each person’s offense list will differ. I don’t want to find myself in six month’s time debating the next thingsomeone finds offensive, and again, and again.
I know this is a hair-splitting decision and I acknowledge that it’s less than completely satisfying to some. Still, if I have learned anything it’s that splitting hairs is an occupational hazard here.
Tom has indicated that libtard is still going to be moderated, as he sees fit to do so. Hence we’re pretty much back at the status quo.
I wish mods realized that giving themselves leeway only makes things worse on them. Now they can’t fairly Warn someone since they can genuinely say they weren’t sure if it was bad or not. People cannot follow rules if they are not clear.
GD mods always seem to find this the hardest to do, and, surprise, surprise, they wind up getting the most flack for not being fair.
OK, then “libtard” will be moderated, because it is insulting to liberals and the mentally retarded, and because tomndebb says so. “Rightard” will be moderated, but only by Marley23 who is not currently moderating. “Freeptard” may or may not be moderated as well, depending on something or other that the mods don’t want to say or don’t know.
I don’t see how that is an improvement.
“Libtard” is definitely out, but “rightard” and “Freeptard” maybe don’t add anything, but maybe do. All three are equally insulting to the mentally retarded. The latter two must have something that the first doesn’t.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Very simply, this is one of the situations where we can’t keep everyone happy. No matter which decision is made someone will bitch about it.
[/quote]
Perhaps it should be decided based on clarity rather than popularity.
“How the mod happens to feel at the moment and there is no way to predict that in advance” does not strike me as very specific.
I’m allowed to hope, FX. Everyone gets to have a dream.
I should break into song.
Shodan, you appear to be wanting bright-line rules. I respect that but don’t think it’s as easy as you think. Even where we have such rules ‘Don’t insult other posters’ there’s enormous grey area. One person’s casual comment is another’s insult.
Even the big overarching rule of ‘Don’t be a jerk’ admits of wildly variable interpretation. There is simply no way to give you want you want without making things mechanistic and inflexible. Speaking for myself, I prefer flexible rules that allow for judgement calls. It keeps things more comfortable and, again IMHO, more hospitable. We’re all friends here - or we should be, otherwise why are we all here? - and should be able to get along.
I respect that less. Bright line rules are easy to game. There is such a thing as constructive ambiguity.
So I loudly, strongly, vehemently oppose attempts to either ban the phrase in general or allow it across the board and I fully intend to make this feeling felt should such a policy be unwisely implemented. Expect a sternly written post.
Welcome to ATMB. This is why we have the cardinal rule, DBAJ.
Why anybody would want to fight for the ability to use this expression is [del]beyond me[/del] actually pretty amusing.
OK, that actually makes thing even more confusing than I thought they were. I thought “libtard” was out. DO NOT USE. Very clear instruction from Marley. But apparently that’s not the case. Now it’s everything on a case-by-case basis. Seems like a lot of work for you guys, but if that’s what you want!
Although a clear rule would be better, I agree that “Freeptard” and the like are things that only stupid people say and should be avoided by everyone. Furthermore, given that ad hoc nature of moderation on the subject, the best thing to do is to report such usages to mods to ensure that they’re seen and can be moderated.
JC, you suggest you don’t want a bright-line rule because you don’t “want to find myself in six month’s time debating the next thingsomeone finds offensive, and again, and again.” Instead, you’re creating a situation where you’ll need to have that debate every single time someone uses the -tard suffix.
Yes, one person’s offense is another’s joke–but that’s why there are moderators, and that’s why you can issue notes instead of warnings when something’s in the gray zone. It seems easy enough to set it as one of those soft rules whose violations earn notes instead of warnings (absent repeated deliberate flouting of the rule).
I see no upside at all to handling something that’s always obnoxious on an ad hoc basis.
I’d be very interested in seeing a situation where someone would use the term “Libtard” and it would not be moderated. And I’m not talking about something where you’re quoting someone else’s use of the term or you are describing why you don’t use the term. IOW, when someone is actively, genuinely using the term to describe liberals, in general.
Wouldn’t it be much simpler to say that the current rule of not insulting on board people stands, and insulting off board anything is fair game?
When the construction goes like, ‘group X is the stupid’ and ‘Poster Y is a member of group X’ then you could step in as being effectively insulting on board people, but beyond that let it go. Then the rest of the board could judge the users of such terms as they see fit.
The Straight Dope, where you hand the people in charge a bucket of silty water and ask them to fix it, and instead of putting it through a filter, they throw in another few handfuls of dirt.
To be honest, while bright-line rules do make life more difficult in some instances, there are also times when they seem to be called for, and i think this is one of them. Either libtard and freeptard should both be allowed in GD (as long as they’re not used directly as an insult against a specific Doper), or they should both be banned.
Personally, i think that the tone and the quality of debate in GD, which Jonathan Chance has been loudly clearing his throat about for many months, would benefit greatly from disallowing both of them. But either allow them or don’t; the “clarification” offered in this thread is truly abysmal.
Here are some possible rulings -
[ul][li]The use of “-tard” insults, like “libtard” and “Freeptard”, add nothing to a debate. Do not employ such terms outside the Pit.[/ul][/li]
[ul][li]The use of “-tard” insults, like “libtard” and “Freeptard” add nothing to a debate, but are not against the rules unless addressed directly to another poster (outside the Pit). [/ul][/li]
[ul][li]The use of “-tard” insults, like “libtard” and “Freeptard” add nothing to a debate, but they may or may not be subject to mod action up to and including Warnings. It depends on how each moderator feels at the moment, and other circumstances that we aren’t going to tell you about. [/ul][/li]
Which of these rulings lends itself to the largest gray area?
This is the second time you’ve said something to this effect and I think this is an uneccessarily negative characterization. Jonathan Chance did not say it’d be modded capriciously or on a whim. He said he’d take into account context, tone and other factors. That’s the opposite of modding based on a whim, but applying thought and judgement to the usage. While not a bright line it’s also not a mod-mood free for all.
If a poster disagrees with how the context is bring applied, there is room for discussion in this forum. I think there’s benefit in avoiding a list of verboten words and I beleive that is what’s being attempted here. Im not a GD mod (I find the GoT threads in Cafe Society challenging enough) so I’m not speaking in an official capacity in that sense.
We are generally not going to make up individual rules for individual words. I cannot predict the specific behavior of every Mod, but I am pretty sure that the use of -tard outside The BBQ Pit is going to get Mod attention.
ETA: While looking over the use of -tard, I found this statement
Given the context, I doubt that it would have been Modded. Similarly, no one is going to go back through this thread handing out demerits to those posting the word.
Despite the popularity of rules lawyering among some posters on the SDMB, the staff would like to think that the majority of posters have the capacity to make some judgments on their own.