PPR rules

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe you could have phrased that differently if it doesn't reflect your intentions. Else, the poll is not accurate. Same goes for "Keep it civil" and a few others - they are so vague they can be interpreted in too many ways.

As for Fight Club, are you serious? The book is fine and the movie is good entertainment, but what you suggest sounds like jungle law to me. Which would be fine if that's what the majority on WP wants.

I don't intent to gave a pissing contest with you - I didn't start this thread to attack you or your thread and I'm neutral towards the PPR. But if the rules are to be changed only for a specific part of this forum, every member here has as much right as you to have their say. The thread in PPR it didn't get enough exposure. In my opinion.

Even though I won't have final say, because I've removed myself from having any authority, if I did, I would say:

There DOES need to be a line drawn where hate speech is hate speech. PPR is not supposed to be anything goes, just more goes. Similar when it comes to offensive; not everything is supposed to be able to be on the table, just more than anywhere else (with the exception of topics inappropriate for those under 18, which get moved to a less public board). PPR is still a public board, even if it is supposed to be the board with the broadest and most open exchange of ideas. Not everything should be allowed to fly. I've made some unpopular decisions there in the past and I would still lobby to make those same decisions today, for the same reasons I made them then.

Dox47, you will need to be able to draw a line on when hate speech is hate speech, and offensive is offensive. Those are gray areas and the ones that seem to be generating the most difference of opinion. I think you need to include some sort of quideline with examples on those two areas, or the board will continue to get the wide variety of different moderator opinions when topics start pushing the edges of the envelope, and a moderator does happen to see it.

Have you actually found the post that this particular member was referring to? I know that Ruveyn believed that the Israeli war with Lebanon was justified because of the terrorist actions by Hezbollah but I don't think that expressing that opinion is hate speech. I don't think he even knew that a WP member lived in an area being bombed by the I.D.F.

no, i totally didn't confirm that statement, which was why... i didn't include any names... i was using it as an example of hate speech, not asking for moderators to step in, so accuracy of the statement was not important. i think that if any statement did happen as this member had suggested, then it would an example of hate speech.

i could just as easily make something up, but i used an example someone else provided instead. feel free to research the accuracy if you doubt it.

i don't know if it is a good idea to use this thread to start nitpicking actual statements and using names, as it could degenerate into nastiness.

Like I've put forth before, the term "hate speech" is itself a troublesome term, being an "engineered word" designed to instill a certain feeling in people hearing it and to influence opinions, rather than an actually describing a distinct and easily identifiable form of speech. I have even more problems with "offensive", because it can mean so many things to so many people, and if we went by the standard of the most easily offended we'd be stuck talking about the weather.



Well I've already added a post to my thread in PPR regarding when it IS appropriate to call in the mods, but haven't gotten much of a response yet. I'm thinking I'll start a few more threads in there to try to suss out what the general consensus is as far as thresholds for what is too offensive or hateful for the forum. It's going to be tough though, where to draw the line on acceptable content is a much more subtle undertaking than trying to clarify the etiquette. I'm thinking mostly of offensive slurs being used in a serious, non exploratory way, non-constructive, overly broad negative generalizations about certain groups, or certain types of taunting. I really think the reading needs to be as narrow as possible in order to allow for the widest selection of available topics, as well as to avoid a "chilling effect", described by Wikipedia as:

That is my primary concern, vague and overly broad rules stifling legitimate debate.

Given recent events, it seems to me that the primary concern should be hateful speech and personal attacks that stifle legitimate debate.

But if you insist on saying there is no such identifiable thing as hate speech, then you will just go around in circles.

Look, I'm putting quite a bit of time and effort into this, all you're doing is sitting on the sidelines complaining. Put your money where you mouth is and SHOW me what you're talking about; quote or link to some posts that you think are unacceptable and explain why you think so. I'll even give you a big hint; there is a thread about illegal immigrants that's pretty hot right now, that might be a good place to start (though you might be surprised at what direction the personal attacks are going).

I appreciate your time and effort, but it seems to me you have an agenda and are looking for a particular conclusion.

I have posted in the illegal immigrants thread, but when the discussion becomes too personally involved among a few posters I lose interest. And if you are referring to this exchange....



...I think that ruveyn is the one being hateful here, though I don't think either poster is way out of line.

Calling someone on their hatefulness is not as objectionable, it seems to me, as expressing hateful views -- particularly when directed at someone or some group -- in the first place.

Bottom line, the PPR forum should be a place where people don't have to feel that they are under siege, and that I think is what needs addressing.

Props for all your time and effort Dox.

The etiquette thing is fair enough.

Rules on hate speech and offensive content are going to be vague and broad because they will always depend on the context, tone etc of the post. It will always come down to the mod's discretion.

If people don't like what they see they will report it to the mods. If they don't like the mods response (or lack of one) they can report it to the site owner.

If they don't like the site owner's response (or lack of one) then tough.

If the mods can't make good decisions without Dox47's 'rules' then they probably won't be able to make good decisions even with Dox47's rules.

Letting the 'club' make the rules only really works if you are happy for it to be a club. Otherwise debate is stifled because people ''outside the club' will not take part and you will have a narrower set of views represented.

IMO the site owner should decide what goes and what doesn't in the forums and the mods enforce his will.

I've got to get off to work, but just to clarify:

My only "agenda" here is to clear up some common misconceptions about the PPR board, and to make clearer some of the fuzzier issues about posting in there. Yes, I'm going to argue for narrow restrictions, that is MY opinion on how to interpret the rules, and I'm going to explain the reasons for my position when people question them. That's called "debate", and as a non authority figure here it's the only way I have of working things out around here.

My own line comes when an expression of hatred becomes an exhortation to others. You can be as hateful as you like, but once you start encouraging others to adopt your hatred, you cross the line from expression to incitement.

I am loathe to see a restriction against, "hate speech," or, "offensive speech," absent definitions, because they are too open to abuse.

If every post to which another member takes offence is the threshhold for, "offensive speech," we may as well shut up shop. On the other hand, if the approach is, "I don't know what offensive means, but I know it when I see it," then we are inviting subjectivity.

Now, granted we are all in private space, and private space is subject to the whim of the owner. But when private space seeks to establish itself with public credibility, it behooves its owners to adopt the more liberal rules of the public sphere.

Well, yes, but beyond getting the existing TOS put up, writing the kind of more specific guidance posters feel is needed for PPR and some other forums really isn't what our site owner enjoys sinking his teeth into. Or, it may be better for him to stay silent for legal reasons ... not sure which it is, and it doesn't really matter: the pattern is that this sort of thing he'll let someone else tackle.

Accuracy of a statement used as an example of a Thought-Crime© being committed ought to be paramount whether you, or anyone else, is accusing a specific member or, as is the case here, arguing in favor of:

....

i wasn't arguing for a specific person to be moderated. i was providing an example of something that sounds like hate speech to me, not calling for action. people wanted ideas of what could entail hate speech, so i was giving an example.

your copyright symbols are starting make you appear unbalanced.

Don't forget the Trademark™ ones also.

ah! so now you understand, Dox47, that no good deed goes unpunished. At one time this would have given me much satisfaction that you would experience the same consequences of trying to work towards the betterment of your community with hassles and hinderences thrown at you from every side.

But now, I just observe it as a natural consequence of working with the public.

Merle


P.S. Just to let you know this is not in criticism, but simply in observation of the dynamic you have discovered, let me remind you of Theodore Roosevelt's quote:


“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”