The Logic of Free Speech

[janmb]

True, but I don't ever attack people for their views. On the contrary what you write is actually often applied to the ones who I argue with, they start attack me based on my opinion.

That is very much a matter of (biased) perception

[tied4u]

OK. i'm kinda new here and no i don't really post , but that is because i have not had much to say. I have been a mod elsewhere and know how truely screwed up things can get ,with that said, A mod should never just plain attack a poster because of personal dislike of that person but for a community to grow and be strong he/she must become invovled when the poster uses terms that are in there very nature just blatent attacks. nezhul wrote very racist threads that as a whole would offend far more than they would not. Was , indy wrong in how he handled it to degree yes but from what i have heard and read he did not have much support from "the team" that is the most effective way of dealing with pardon me Assholes you sereph or some other member could have stepped in and said something to tone down the explosion before it happened.Take the time to reread nezhuls posts and note just how imflamitory they are.I personally would stomp a mud hole in someone who said those things to me in person because if you loook at the worlds trouble today you will note hate and racism is the main cause . i have faught for the ideals that made the consitution one of the most important documents ever written and stand by free speech ,but i don't stand by when it is nothing more than b.s. .i grew up in a place where people could not succeed because the color of their skin or their religious belief . today the KKK is nothing more than a joke and we did not change them by playing their game but by true debate .Hate in any form is wrong and if you are half the man it takes to be an admin you would not turn a blind eye. whew , now i do know the best way to beat trolls is to not respond ,but sometimes the words said require it and it is those times when it is most important that the "team" comes to the head and pulls shit apart before it starts to stink.

[Nezhul]

Excuse me, but my posts were never racist. I indeed say that I don't find black people attractive in the very least, for me they bear the same type of appeal as trees or buildings - i.e. I can't actually find beauty there. I still respect their rights (although I'm convinced that so-called african-americans are actually starting to push white community's rights there, so it all slowly goes the other way around. Simply the fact of calling racist everyone who has something to say about your color (let alone if it's disapprooving of sort) is a perfect example.
I'm no racist. If you are offended by me having my own TASTES and saying it aloud - that's your problem.

Also, thats not an offence but simply also - your post is very difficult to read because of long sentences that start with one thought, go through several others, and end up in yet another thought completely unrelated to the one in the start. Use dots more, man! Also Capitals seem to be lost in your post, they often stand in the middle of a sentence while you actually start it with small letter.

p.s. I'm a mod on other forums too, btw, and actually I have an opinion that while personal attacks SHOULD be moderated, so should flood. But I don't believe that views should be, even if they offend someone.

[masterstroke]

*Steps on soapbox.*

Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should say it. If do want to say it you can try saying with tact first. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tact. Tact means telling someone to go to hell in such a manner they look forward to the trip. Of course, some people are clueless or don't care so you'll have to eventually verbally hit them over the head.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean I have to agree with it and if you're going throw verbal punches you better expect someone to hit back. You can also win the battle and lose the war. There's something called a pyrrhic victory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory. You may win those verbal battles but the cost may be your reputation or credibility. Of course, if you don't care about those qualities then continue being a jerk. It may not immediately affect you but it will eventually come back to haunt you.

Finally, your actions have consequences, some have more impact than others. Indie you chose to be an administrator. One of the unwritten duties, like it or not, is dealing with assholes. It comes with the job. You chose to lock Nezhul out of a thread. seraph0x offered you probation. You chose quit. Those are all the consequences of your actions.

In every organization there's that one person who makes everyone else's life miserable, there's that one person who whines about everything, there's that one person who will make the worst of a good situation, there's that one person who has make sure he/she has the last word, there's that one person who will find flaws with everything, there's that one person who will disagree with everything you say just to piss you off.

The world's not perfect...never will be. There will always be flaws. The key to surviving is taking what available, even if it's not perfect and using it to be best of your ability. If you're looking for the perfect world, you're going to be looking for a very long time.

Somewhere in that rant is a point.

*Steps off soapbox*

[Snare]

Well guys here goes my post #50. seraph0x I only have one problem with your response which I will put in bold below.

This seems like a red herring to me. While it's true that this seems like an unfavorable situation, apply it to someone breaking a different rule - say, posting child pornography. If this post is deleted, they may feel oppressed as well.

You're correct that the fact a rule can be circumvented says nothing about the morality of the issue in question. But remember that we're not arguing the morality. I'm totally agree that people shouldn't make personal attacks. I'm merely disputing that it's a good idea for us as moderators to get involved.

To that end this point is very much relevant. Of course a child pornographer might also feel oppressed however there are much stronger arguments in play there that outweigh these types of concerns. The child pornographer does real and serious harm. The person who does personal attacks doesn't do any harm. The closest you can argue in terms of harm is that he might ruin somebody's mood. Remember that we are only talking about basic personal attacks, such as insults. Many more serious attack like blackmail, harassment, etc. are prohibited by various laws, which we have to abide by as moderators.

I was bullied as a kid, I know exactly how personal attacks can do harm. I don't want sympathy, I want a fact known. Personal attacks single out one individual and can do a lot of harm. Even something as simple as "You are stupid" can hurt more than you know. Given this is not real life, this is just a forum, it hurts just the same seeing as this is supposed to be a "safe" environment. Reminds me of what one of the worst bullies in my life used to do, he used to befriend me during lunch, find some personal things out about me, and by recess he was making fun of me JUST because I was different. Is this any different? Trolls can come here, find out anything by just reading a post, and just attack! I'm sorry if I or any user has no protection against this sort of abuse, I don't feel safe here anymore. I REFUSE to ignore personal attacks in The Catacombs, and will take action if I see it fit. If you disagree with my statement seraph0x, please revoke my rights as a chat moderator. If I cannot protect someone being bullied with my authority allow me to do it as a user. Thank you for your time.

Snare

[Alliteration]

The only reliable way I've found to limit this type of arbitrariness is to minimize the amount of subjectivity in your rules.

How do you square that with this:

You can, but our moderators will apply their own judgement as to whether your posts are a genuine contribution to the site with a minimal reference back to your commercial venture (allowed) or whether they are purely for advertising (spam; not allowed).

So while we have very strong free speech guarantees for non-commercial posts, we do reserve the right to somewhat arbitrarily decide what is a valuable contribution and what is spam when it comes to commercial postings.

-----

The person who does personal attacks doesn't do any harm. The closest you can argue in terms of harm is that he might ruin somebody's mood.

This is patently FALSE! Obviously you haven't read any of the many, many recent news stories about kids and even some college students who've turned to suicide because they were being constantly bullied. Continued personal attacks damage mental health quite a bit, any psychologist will tell you this.

But for personal attacks, the benefits are so minimal vs. simply letting the community deal with troublemakers

If you're so sure that the community can police itself effectively...why do you even have mods?

In about half the cases I end up reversing the decision.

Again, why do you have mods? This is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

The main reason is bias, even the best moderators will play favors all the time, whether they realize it or not.

Why in the world do you think this? Mods aren't politicians, they're more like charity workers. Are people who volunteer in soup kitchens unable to be unbiased as well?

I'd disagree with that. To me freedom of speech very much is both, because if you put restrictions on the how then people who want to censor the what can just pretend they take offense to the how.

This is where moderator judgment comes in. Oh wait, you don't trust your moderators to do their jobs, and you reverse half their decisions.

Seraph0x, to be quite honest, you're not a very good admin. You don't inspire confidence in your users at all.

[tied4u]

Nez , i accept your critisim of my grammer or lack of but i'm just an ole hillbilly and not so used to gettin thing right wit my spellin but you can im sure understand what i
m saying

[Nezhul]

yes I did and I did reply.

I didn't reply on your view of moderation because I don't have anythyng against it. I have my own views on moderation (and they differ from you and from seraphox's too), but I wouldn't dare choose which one's better. I kind of must admire the fact that I don't know forum as free as Milovana. And It actually wins a bit. What you say is true - my views would be banned on many other forums as offensive, discriminating or insulting. But not here. Is it for the best or for the worst - is a personal decision for everyone. I myself think there should be more forums like that where anyone can speak their mind and not being banned.

If you want to discuss my other views further more, there's another threads or PM. Instead of discussinf speech freedoms this topic falls to the side over and over.

[janmb]

Excuse me, but my posts were never racist.

To make perfectly clear, I for one never said they were - nor have I ever thought so.

I merely used that as a fictional example since it is such a sensitive subject and thus easy for people to latch on to.

p.s. I'm a mod on other forums too, btw, and actually I have an opinion that while personal attacks SHOULD be moderated, so should flood. But I don't believe that views should be, even if they offend someone.

Completely agree on that one - deliberately derailing a topic or spamming it with clutter is no better than throwing insults.

[shell]

Nez , i accept your critisim of my grammer or lack of but i'm just an ole hillbilly and not so used to gettin thing right wit my spellin but you can im sure understand what i
m saying

Before I add my two cents here on this thread....I wanted to say something specific to you.

Please don't give one thought to what Nezhul said to you about the way you expressed yourself. I think you did a wonderful job. *soft smile*
I would like to see you say more in the forums. *smile*

[Human]

Nez has accused me of flooding a topic - oddly enough, I'm the only one he mentions in the continued attacks - and that may very well be true. I don't agree with the definition, but it's definitely true that at one point, I did post to the topic at hand, both directly addressing the issue, and somewhat sidelining it in a debate with another user. I was attacked - it got personal - and I felt that the spirit of the topic/argument at hand got subverted, and my own opinion was oppressed by the myriad personal attacks that had gone on. Thus, I locked the topic. And I contacted Seraph0x.

As to the justification for my actions - I felt I acted in the best interests of the site, both by not allowing further posting to the thread until the topic had calmed, and the personal attacks had been addressed properly, and by notifying seraph0x - who was supposed to be impartial to the topic.

His response - he put me on probation.

Mention has been made (repeatedly) that a mod should behave more professionally and impartially to a given situation. I agree. My expression of my thoughts, feelings, and opinions is my own. My actions - however - were always taken with the best interests of the members at hand.

Now, on a site that claims free speech to be paramount, isn't it odd that the minute I spoke publicly about any of this, I was immediately removed from not only admin status, but Team status, and chat admin status as well? What this reminds me of, is a political strategy in which the current administration has a problem with being disagreed with, and light being shined on the subject, so they silence the person bringing it to light by political pressure, discrediting the other person, or outright murder. Seraph0x has outright stated that his issue with me, and the reason he doesn't want me back is because I spoke out against his policy - and was silenced for it.

Just some things to ponder.

Dear God Indigo. How can you not SEE why Seraph did what he did????? You must see. And if you can see, you are deliberately sullying Seraph's reputation.

The reason Seraph put you on probation was NOT because you locked the topic (while waiting for Seraphs reponse). That was 100% ok. What was absolutely NOT OK was that you insulted and flamed Nezhul and THEN locked the topic before he could respond. That gets you probation and rightly so for abuse of power. How can you not see this????

The reason Seraph would not want you as admin is not because you spoke out against his policies; but is because you cannot keep your cool and you indulge in high drama.

OK, I dont know Seraph, and I'm just guessing....

[seraph0x]

The only reliable way I've found to limit this type of arbitrariness is to minimize the amount of subjectivity in your rules.

How do you square that with this:

You can, but our moderators will apply their own judgement as to whether your posts are a genuine contribution to the site with a minimal reference back to your commercial venture (allowed) or whether they are purely for advertising (spam; not allowed).

So while we have very strong free speech guarantees for non-commercial posts, we do reserve the right to somewhat arbitrarily decide what is a valuable contribution and what is spam when it comes to commercial postings.

Well, the last paragraph there is precisely meant to address the apparent contradiction. What is the point of the free speech protection? It's to make sure that no legitimate critic gets censored. Whether a post is commercial or not is objective - either it links to a product or service or it doesn't. So in order to make sure that you won't get censored you just need to avoid adding any advertising to the post.

Can we make a similar distinction about personal attacks? Are personal attacks something that you can look up and say - yes, this is one or no, this isn't one?

The most evil trolls aren't the ones who go around cursing at people, the worst bullies - the ones who make people commit suicide - are the ones who are master manipulators, who get everyone on their side and then make you look like the bad guy.

If you're so sure that the community can police itself effectively...why do you even have mods?

Again, this is a pretty simplistic view. There are plenty of instances where moderators can make good decisions. Deleting spam, moving threads to the correct forum, delete posts where people are breaking the law.

Good rules lead to good decisions. If you have rules that are clear-cut and all moderators who look at a case agree which way to rule, everything works great. But if you make a rule like the one against personal attacks, sure there will be some clear-cut cases that are handled well, but there will also be cases we're it's less clear and you end up with a tremendous amount of grief internally and externally.

This is where moderator judgment comes in. Oh wait, you don't trust your moderators to do their jobs, and you reverse half their decisions.

Again, I was only referring to decisions on personal attacks. Things like spam etc. there are hardly ever any disputes. Good rules -> good decisions. Bad rules -> bad decisions.


Let's do a test run. For the next couple of months I'll put out a rule that personal attacks should be deleted. I'm going to use your suggestion that when a mod is personally the target of the attack or criticism, he himself can't act, but other moderators can. I've never actually run quite that model, so it's worth giving that a try.

[Human]

Excuse me, but my posts were never racist. I indeed say that I don't find black people attractive in the very least, for me they bear the same type of appeal as trees or buildings - i.e. I can't actually find beauty there.

This example has been brought up many times before, so I'll add my views on this. AFAIK Nezhul has been careful in saying that HE doesnt find black people attractive. I dont belive he has ever said that "black people are not attractive". There is a world of difference between the two statements.

[Human]

Let's do a test run. For the next couple of months I'll put out a rule that personal attacks should be deleted. .

But how do you define a personal attack?
If someone calls Nezhul a racist based on his statement, or a homophobe is that a personal attack?
If I call someone a bigot is that a personal attack?

[seraph0x]

But how do you define a personal attack?
If someone calls Nezhul a racist based on his statement, or a homophobe is that a personal attack?
If I call someone a bigot is that a personal attack?

Good question.

I'm writing an announcement right now, here is what I have so far:

Title: Open letter to the Team: An experiment

Dear Team,

Unusual times require unusual measures, so let's try something out. A lot of people have been asking for us to crack down on personal attacks. One of my biggest practical objections to a rule against personal attacks was that I've seen, again and again, such a rule used by mods to silence critics.

Alliteration suggested as a solution to add a clause that an admin cannot take action if he or she is the victim of the attacks - but another admin, of course, can.

I'm still worried that this might lead to abuses for the simple reason that we all kind of look out for each other and we might have a tendency to side with fellow Team members rather than with some random user. You might think that's a good thing, in my opinion it's not. If we are going to ban personal attacks, it should be the seriousness of the attack that matters, not who makes it.

How serious does an attack have to be?

What standard should we use and how should we formulate it? Suggestions welcome.

Edit: 2000 posts, wooo.