posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Snarf
Originally posted by Retseh
Your main problem is weak enforcement, I have seen overt racism dealt with via nothing more than a "warning".
You need to ban a few of the more notable perpetrators and you will see instances of abuse disappear overnight.
couldn't agree more.
Civility & Decorum, in my opinion, are pipe dreams when you deal with topics like religion, politics, abortion, etc.
So the balance, it seems, becomes whether or not to enforce a topic like "religion" the same way you would enforce a topic like "UFOs" or
If you choose to enforce as vigorously, you'll loose some variety in rhetoric and ban more people
if you choose to enforce less vigorously, you'll get more complaints about people being mean.
IMO, politics, in its nature, is "mean" and people shouldn't partake unless they can par-tay.
edit for clarity - any name calling like "hey fag" or "you are gay" or anything like that simply should not be tolerated, and, IMO, should be met
with a temporary ban every time.
Calling someone closed minded, sheeple, etc, shouldn't be against rules...after all, saying someone is "ignorant" while acceptable by ToC, just
simply doesn't cover it with some people.
Ignorant means the person just doesn't understand the topic. But there are lots of people on this site that DO understand the topic, but still
choose to ignore the urge for a civil tone, and go against the grain anyways.
I don't see that as having thin skin, i see it as fostering an intelligent environment to carry out civil conversation.
I think one of the biggest problems here is that, as is said, people who are racist or overtly offensive get warned, instead of banned, and so -
instead of ceasing to be insulting and aggressive - those who receive warnings simply resort to passive-aggressive, indirect attacks and insults. For
example, if someone gets warned for saying "muslims suck" in a pro-peaceful Islam thread, then they'll start their own thread which says, "All
Muslims want to destroy America!" Simply warning people for being offensive usually fails to correct their behavior in any kind of meaningful way.
All they do is rephrase their attacks to make them less overt.
The biggest problem is that, frankly, I think the heuristic the staff uses for what is and isn't offensive seems grounded in nonsense. I'm not
hating on the staff, I just think that their efforts to determine what is and isn't offensive rely more heavily on how much somebody swears or how
many times they call someone else an idiot than what the comment insinuates or what the intention of the comment is. That is, the way that comments
are judged seems very superficial and ill-defined. The T&Cs are very explicit, but I see violations all the time and they aren't moderated.
Specifically, I see breaches of 1g and 2 of the T&C all the time
and yet nothing is done about them. I feel like it's very difficult to take
the rules seriously when you see flagrant violations on a regular basis and very little is being done. I realize the staff are not superhuman and
cannot be expected to omnisciently moderate every single post, but there are still many instances where I see threads with many posts removed for
"displeasurable behavior," yet there are still blatantly bigoted and biased posts being made that can only be described as political baiting. I
think even just reading which posts the "displeasurable" posts are replying to would have an effect, because often the displeasure didn't begin
with the person being moderated.
That's just my two cents, sorry for the wall o' text.