Topic: Moderation

@nessisonett

Before we continue to chat, can you post the quotes about jk rowling? I've heard of this but I don't have Twitter or any form of social media. I'm curious as to what was actually said. Then I would love to reply back! Also, hope you know, I'm a laid back dude and not looking for any trouble. Anything you say won't bug me, but I'm also respectful of what I say to others. Not looking to offend. I just tend to see something and think about it from all perspectives!

@NYJetsfan123 I honestly really don’t want to get into that here. She takes up too many brain cells as it is and I wouldn’t want to derail this thread. There have been several issues with her but the current one as of today is that she linked to an online store for people to buy merch that had an entire section dedicated to anti-trans merch including pins that said ‘f**k your pronouns’, ‘lesbians don’t have penises’ and ‘trans-ideology erases women’. While the T-shirt she was promoting was innocuous, that’s the latest in a long line of instances where she has been seen to have been promoting transphobic content or espousing her own personal biases against trans people. I’m being as generic and vague as possible to avoid conflict but quite frankly, she makes me feel ill and the sort of rhetoric she promotes fuels hatred and division. It’s very similar to Notch.

@nessisonett

I agree it's not a good idea to derail this thread. Given the opportunity I'd love to discuss this further though. Anyway, the point in my post was to just give my personal thoughts on moderation. Thanks for the reply!

I feel like I resurrected something that was kind of a settled matter. So my bad on that. I was just bored.

In any case, while I totally get where you are coming from @NYJetsfan123, about the ability to freely discuss things, I do think there's healthy (but lively) discussion and then there's those train wreck examples. Not saying the mods need to go all out but to echo @nessisonet, a tweak to the rules and a few reminders every now and then doesn't sound all that draconian to me and might reduce instances where the comments section turns into an especially bad Friday night at Whetherspoons.

@Tasuki And yeah I kinda feel like if it's in the rules, it's in the rules. We tacitly agree to them when we sign up so we can't get too mad if called on something.

@zupertramp

By the way, welcome to pushsquare! And don't be sorry for replying, you've done nothing wrong. Let's agree to disagree? Who's to say what's healthy and what's not? Who and why do they get to determine that limit.

@Tasuki

I see what your saying. Im gonna refrain from contributing to this conversation. Suddenly remembered why I stopped chatting in discussions like this. Don't want to hurt the sensitive people any further haha. Apparently, it's too easy. I come off harsh to the "sensitives". If that's not a word, I just made it up haha. BTW, not talking about you!

Thanks and I guess the limits would be determined by the mods based on their interpretation of the rules. Naturally not every situation is that simple but if anarchy isn't the answer then someone has to make the call.

Certainly I want to be able to discuss, argue, disagree but when the situation becomes hostile it can have just as much a chilling effect (for some) as over-moderation. I often think people are too sensitive as well but I'm willing to meet them halfway where possible because why not. I just figure that's part of that whole we're all different philosophy. Some people are just sensitive.

But yeah, whatever amount of distance we have between our viewpoints, I'm okay with agreeing to disagree. I'm not out to sound inflexible or unreasonable so hopefully I haven't come across that way. Just wanted one more chance to clarify my position.

Peace and thanks again for the welcome.

@nessisonett I've probably pondered for about 5 minutes whether I should respond or not. But since this topic is about moderation and the blurred lines of it I figured I'd give it a go. Also because I'm a big believer in dialogue. If moderators feel like this isn't the place for a question like this, feel free to delete this comment. But a reminder that this question has no ill-intent, and is merely out of interest. I personally think it's fine, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to report it.

As a biologist, I'm interested how you define ''biological [...]'', because it is personally a term I would only use for biological sex, and not gender (that is, chromosomal differences, gamete production, etc.).

And again, no malicious intent, just curiosity.

@Octane Yes exactly, that’s what I was saying. To me, biological means that they have female sexual organs. That was the quote the person said, that trans women are essentially trying to convince people they are biologically women so the word ‘biologically’ comes from them, not me. That’s literally false because the entire point is that many trans women aren’t biologically women which is why they are trying to transition. As of the point of full reassignment surgery, they are then at that point biologically women by all intents and purposes and recognised fully. So the strawman argument comes from them arguing against a false narrative when in fact, it’s an entirely separate issue. You’re perfectly right, that word means usually the strict tangible side of things.

@nessisonett I see. Thanks. Well, I don't think the word ''biological'' has a strict definition, which may also cause confusion. Had you asked me (or anyone else), I probably would've given a slightly different definition.

@Octane It’s probably not the word I would have chosen to be honest. The problem is trying to work out intent from the original comment.

@nessisonett @Octane Yeah, the statement is tough to discern because “biological” does not equal “anatomical” which does not necessarily equal “chromosomal”. But the terms are often used interchangeably, which leads to further issues with deducing explicit meaning during an online discussion.

To veer away from the actual trans topic but using it as an example of the bigger issue related to moderation and online toxicity, there is an obstacle here (speaking of “here” in broad internet terms) with the cultural language nuances and vernacular, not to mention other inherent cultural biases we all bring to the table. Couple that with the inability to read body language and tone during a discussion (which I think I remember hearing experts say that body language and intonation functions to carry like 90% of a message’s true communication). I would surmise that the vast majority of online discussion and debate would be civil and most people would actually largely agree on many points if they were actually speaking face to face. I have to admit that I have trouble interpreting some typed messages here and elsewhere online and it’s fairly easy to assume the worst, when in fact the user means no ill intent. Most of the time when I see a salty or sarcastic comment from a PushSquare regular I can give them the benefit of the doubt because I “know” them and I know them to be a solid and upstanding person who is just trying to convey an idea or bring a smile to our faces with an inside joke. So although the message may sound rude or it may say something I may not agree with, it’s fine if they make a radical sounding statement because I feel safe because they have banked a lot of goodwill over their many hundreds of comments over the months and years.

So then the problem arises from the short-timer (and no offense to @zupertramp or others who are relatively new and yet have shown to be good citizens in a short time) and the poster who just jumps on the first day spouting off and I can’t tell if they are just communicating poorly through the written word or if they are truly trolling.

Which would bring us back to the ideas that were kicked around several months ago about perhaps a short-term trial period or probationary phase of joining PushSquare — do you all feel it would be helpful if there was a certain time frame or a certain number of posts required before new users were given access to post on the comment sections of certain articles? I know we brought this up before and it was dismissed but I can’t remember why. I know the site might suffer from users choosing not to register because of the hassle factor of a probation, but the benefits may prove more profitable in the long run. Just an idea.

@Th3solution I actually liked the idea of a "trial" account for a set time for new users, restricting the number of posts the can make or comments for a set amount of time when the staff feels that they should know the rules by that time. Also I thinking it will cut down on spammers as they won't be able to flood the site with adverts for Black Magic Pills or whatever as they would quickly use up their allotted amount of posts for the day. Also It would help on trolls too as again they will have only a set amount of posts to make and after that, their argument would die as they couldn't respond after awhile and it will give mods time to remove their comments and clean stuff up.

One of my biggest problems of being a mod is that these spammers and trolls would hit when In wasn't able to keep an eye on the site, like when I was sleeping or at work, only for me to check the site a few hours later and see an article's comment section to be a complete dumpster fire with over 200 comments of users arguing back and forth name calling etc with some trolls. It would take me quite some time to clean up a comment section like that. Having a trial account would help with that for the staff cause as I said it would cut down on the troll response posts.

@Th3solution No offense taken. I could see why newness would be an obstacle. Also all the other differences you mentioned. Very true. I guess I'd just add that while everyone is bringing a whole world of variable life experiences to the table, it's, imo, okay to establish a kind of green zone of acceptable interaction within which we all operate. And one shouldn't be able to excuse behavior outside of that zone by simply claiming they see things differently.

Not saying that's what you mean but I just think it's common for people to lean on that kind of thinking. Like because it's acceptable in their everyday circle, it should be acceptable everywhere they go. Belligerence, for example, was the currency of conversation in my family growing up but that doesn't mean everyone else needs to accept that.

Ugh, I'm really trying to make this brief but I also want to add I'm not real fond of the probationary period idea. Feels like a punishment for having been late to the party. I think having new users click to accept the community rules would help. I know there's a box for terms of use (which includes the rules) but really, that's one of those things that feels like it's just there for legal reasons. So maybe alongside the T&Cs there's some condensed statement about being nice and respecting others that serves as a kind of distillation of the entire rules list. Or maybe just require this before commenting for the first time.

Anyway I don't want to just stress the bad. It really is a pretty chill site for the most part.

Edit: @Tasuki Having read your post I can see more of a justification for the trial period. Still don't love the idea but it'd be understandable.

@zupertramp Perhaps a modified version of your idea along with @Tasuki ‘s would be a probationary period whereby the warning / reminder box pops up for the first few dozen posts or for the first few weeks. For example, each time you click to post a comment, a small box pops up saying, “are you sure you want to post this comment? It is subject to review by moderation staff and must be in compliance with the rules and regulations of the site you agreed on...” or some such verbiage. Then on the mods end it would have those “new” user posts flagged for early and quick review so they can jump on those first when they come back to the site.

I know pop up boxes can be annoying and there is a tendency to tune them out after seeing it a few times, but a slight electronic nudge saying “we’re monitoring you” for the first few weeks after joining would be of minimal intrusion to the new member. And I know I’ve personally decided against “ignoring” someone when I get that “are you sure you want to do this?” -type of message that has to be agreed before it becomes final. Sometimes just a slight few seconds of forced introspection is enough to keep from making a rash decision.

@Th3solution I like that idea. I probably would have went back and rethought/rephrased a few posts had a nudge been there. I also recently attempted to ignore someone but thought better of it when prompted with the "are you sure?" message. So yeah, I'm all for any mechanisms of "forced introspection," as you say.

@get2sammyb So when one user calls other users C U N T S, then you choose not to delete the comment in question because it "stifles a civil conversation"?

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2020/09/playstation_girl_poke...

@Kidfried I purposefully didn’t go into the article because I knew fine well what the comments would be. I was not disappointed when I clicked on that there.

A girl.... 👩AND a gamer? 🎮Whoa mama!😮😮 Hummina hummina hummina bazooooooooing😙! eyes pop out 😮😮😮😉AROOOOOOOOGA! jaw drops tongue rolls out 😱😱😱WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF🐶🐶 tongue bursts out of the outh uncontrollably leaking face and everything in reach😛😛😛😛😛 WURBLWUBRLBWURblrwurblwurlbrwubrlwburlwbruwrlblwublr ,🤪😜😜🤪tiny cupid shoots an arrow through heart 💘 Ahhhhhhhhhhh me lady... heart in the shape of a heart starts beating so hard you can see it through shirt😍😍😍 ba-bum ba-bum ba-bum ba-bum ba-bum 🥁🥁🥁 milk truck crashes into a bakery store in the background spiling white liquid and dough on the streets 🥛🐄🥛BABY WANTS TO F*CK ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️ inhales from the gas tank ⛽⛽⛽honka honka honka honka 🚕🚕masturabtes furiously 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🍆🍆💦💦💦💦ohhhh my gooooodd~😮

@nessisonett At first I was thinking that you were joking. But you are probably not.

@antdickens @get2sammyb

Do you have an update regarding the issues discussed in this thread - specifically anti-LGBT hate-speech and bigotry? Of particular concern is the absence of any protection for LGBT people in the site's Terms of Use (via "Abusive behaviour" in the Community rules). As you are no doubt aware there has been a visible increase in the number of abusive - or otherwise discriminatory - posts directed at LGBT people over the course of this year. Updating the Community Rules would be an important step in combating this. Further, it would help alleviate concerns regarding possible discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or Transgender status.