2024 AT 06 Staff and Mandemon discussion thread.

For whatever it's worth, I like the thread culture here in general quite a lot, but pointedly try to keep my head out of the general politics crannies, because the board culture with the glimpses of that stuff I've gotten is a bit confusing to me. There seems to be stuff that's readily permitted that I would have thought was against the rules, from my initial reading. I mean, I am a fairly staunch pacifist personally and pretty easily have my stomach turned by mentions of violence towards people, even bad people, that aren't self-defense. I uncritically like the no monster genocide advocacy provision. So sometimes I see (what strikes me as) mention of hypothetical mass violence being an acceptable thing and I go "Eep" and scurry away. This isn't a disconnect that would lead me to getting infracted, at worst it would make me overly report-happy, but the point is I can directly empathize with personal value judgements making it difficult to quite 'get' things. I don't think things are as uniformly clearcut and obvious as they seem to be to everyone; it really does depend on the person's views in some ways, and not just along the lines of character faults.

But I think it's important not to proceed from there that thread culture has some unitary character and single list of precise judgements on moral matters. In particular I think it's important to distinguish 'You will get pushback from the majority of a thread's participants' from 'You will get in trouble', because the former is definitely politically-colored but also highly thread-dependent and needs no overall consistency; the latter is more consistent and less heavily political so much as it's about maintaining a welcoming atmosphere and healthy, productive conversations (but that does carry some political commitments because of course it does). But there's an everpresent source of potential inconsistency to it in that things mainly only get hit if they get reported, which I think is helpful to keep in mind, as an alternative explanation to 'Oh there's just fully a double standard'.

Things here are pretty transparent, lenient, and as well-run as I've ever seen on a forum, even if I can't really square the acceptable line re: violence as anything but skewed given my fairly strong views on it. But that's a me problem, stuff seems to be working, and if I see something incredibly egregious anyways I can report it; worst that will happen is I'm wrong and have wasted a bit of time. I think things get easier to understand if you don't try to understand them as being of a single universal character, is the main thing of it.

Posting this out of the hope it can be helpful, because uh. This really isn't relevant to the thread it's actually in, wee.
 
Last edited:
DoobleDeeDooble said:
For whatever it's worth, I like the thread culture here in general quite a lot, but pointedly try to keep my head out of the general politics crannies, because the board culture with the glimpses of that stuff I've gotten is a bit confusing to me. There seems to be stuff that's readily permitted that I would have thought was against the rules, from my initial reading. I mean, I am a fairly staunch pacifist personally and pretty easily have my stomach turned by mentions of violence towards people, even bad people, that aren't self-defense. I uncritically like the no monster genocide advocacy provision. So sometimes I see (what strikes me as) mention of hypothetical mass violence being an acceptable thing and I go "Eep" and scurry away. This isn't a disconnect that would lead me to getting infracted, at worst it would make me overly report-happy, but the point is I can directly empathize with personal value judgements making it difficult to quite 'get' things. I don't think things are as uniformly clearcut and obvious as they seem to be to everyone; it really does depend on the person's views in some ways, and not just along the lines of character faults.

But I think it's important not to proceed from there that thread culture has some unitary character and single list of precise judgements on moral matters. In particular I think it's important to distinguish 'You will get pushback from the majority of a thread's participants' from 'You will get in trouble', because the former is definitely politically-colored but also highly thread-dependent and needs no overall consistency; the latter is more consistent and less heavily political so much as it's about maintaining a welcoming atmosphere and healthy, productive conversations (but that does carry some political commitments because of course it does). But there's an everpresent source of potential inconsistency to it in that things mainly only get hit if they get reported, which I think is helpful to keep in mind, as an alternative explanation to 'Oh there's just fully a double standard'.

Things here are pretty transparent, lenient, and as well-run as I've ever seen on a forum, even if I can't really square the acceptable line re: violence as anything but skewed given my fairly strong views on it. But that's a me problem, stuff seems to be working, and if I see something incredibly egregious anyways I can report it; worst that will happen is I'm wrong and have wasted a bit of time. I think things get easier to understand if you don't try to understand them as being of a single universal character, is the main thing of it.

Posting this out of the hope it can be helpful, because uh. This really isn't relevant to the thread it's actually in, wee.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course if you have neither unshakable cool or an ability to disengage, getting pushback can easily lead to getting into trouble as you react increasingly badly to the pushback even if I definitely agree they're not the same thing.
 
Nyvis said:
Of course if you have neither unshakable cool or an ability to disengage, getting pushback can easily lead to getting into trouble as you react increasingly badly to the pushback even if I definitely agree they're not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I can see that this exactly where several of my past issues have come from. I got pushback for a thing, and am not great at disengaging. But because i'm getting pushback and i'm already so afraid of getting infractions, it... seems like I said something "wrong" i.e. rule-breaking, and then feel the need to defend what I said as not "wrong"/rule-breaking... which is what ends up getting me in trouble.

It took a long time but I think I finally understand that "somebody doesn't like what I said" doesn't mean "I will get in trouble for saying the thing." The only real exception being "dogwhistle" stuff which i'm trying to understand, but honestly don't really. By very definition, only some people will hear it and it's based on what other people in the past have said. Without the shared experiences and knowledge of what has been said, I don't know the "dogwhistle" until after it's been said... and infracted. I try to just not say anything at all about certain topics now. It's not ideal, but it's fine. I think it would be a bit more reasonable reaction for it to treated as "Hey, some people have said a similar thing meaning x", and then responding with "Oh sorry I didn't mean it in that context.", then "Ok no worries." And we all live happily ever after.
 
Evilchumlee said:
I can see that this exactly where several of my past issues have come from. I got pushback for a thing, and am not great at disengaging. But because i'm getting pushback and i'm already so afraid of getting infractions, it... seems like I said something "wrong" i.e. rule-breaking, and then feel the need to defend what I said as not "wrong"/rule-breaking... which is what ends up getting me in trouble.

It took a long time but I think I finally understand that "somebody doesn't like what I said" doesn't mean "I will get in trouble for saying the thing." The only real exception being "dogwhistle" stuff which i'm trying to understand, but honestly don't really. By very definition, only some people will hear it and it's based on what other people in the past have said. Without the shared experiences and knowledge of what has been said, I don't know the "dogwhistle" until after it's been said... and infracted. I try to just not say anything at all about certain topics now. It's not ideal, but it's fine. I think it would be a bit more reasonable reaction for it to treated as "Hey, some people have said a similar thing meaning x", and then responding with "Oh sorry I didn't mean it in that context.", then "Ok no worries." And we all live happily ever after.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a general rule, what you've posted is what happens with a very important distinction. There is a very fine line between "Sorry, I didn't know that" and defensively digging in to defend it. The second is the one that will get you infracted. I know it can be frustrating but we're in a kind of diverse environment here and normal language in your area probably won't match language in other areas. So you need to be flexible.
 
Winged_One² said:
Shorter than that, I'm pretty sure it was still there when I joined.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I found a post by Squishy about it not being a rule anymore in Nov 2015, but in a part of the forum I can't link to, so I guess I can't prove it. (Which does kind of hint at a communications difficulty there...)

Night said:
This is because despite what you've been told hornyposting about adults is actually reasonably okay here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, it IS usually off topic.
 
The Last One said:
As a general rule, what you've posted is what happens with a very important distinction. There is a very fine line between "Sorry, I didn't know that" and defensively digging in to defend it. The second is the one that will get you infracted. I know it can be frustrating but we're in a kind of diverse environment here and normal language in your area probably won't match language in other areas. So you need to be flexible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah - I think that a lot of people (me probably included) need to work harder at recognizing when a person's neurospiciness or linguistic difference means that their interpretation is not universal, confirming what was meant, and (especially) acknowledging when something they said was wrong. (Either factually or because of responding to a mistaken interpretation.)
Because a lot of the conflict I have seen in the threads that are peripheral to active conflicts comes from people jumping to conclusions about what was meant. (And what the logical consequences of that are, which is often where people get into trouble by way of different axioms being used.)
 
Evilchumlee said:
We may have different experiences with forums, which is ok. I have never encounter a forum such as what you described. I'm sure the exist, but I have not encountered them personally. My experience at SV has been one of the more draconian forums I have encountered, which is also ok. I have certainly found it much more difficult to not break rules here on SV than in any other community I have been a part of. Which makes temp bans less constructive... as I will frequent less restrictive boards in the meantime and have to almost relearn the very deliberate form of speech required at SV.

That's all ok. It's just a confusing place. Thank you for your perspective. SV as a whole please take no disrespect, despite what I see as outright draconian moderation, I keep coming back, trying to piece it together more and more and try to be as deliberate and mindful of every single word that I type so as to ensure there is no offense that could be interpreted. I hope I am successful. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


SV isn't that draconian compared to other places. At the very least you get chance after chance. THe first infraction you get only gets you a 3 day threadban, and most folks who get hit don't get beyond 25 points, 50 at most, which is just a bit.

Most places when you break the rules you get a week off minimum. It is easier to break the rules here, but the consequences are less, and it's still pretty easy to know the line once you learn where it is.


As for the neurospiciness/linguistic differences, that is what appeals are for. You can make your case there, though you may have to provide evidence on the differences, like what Zionism is in Europe vs the US.
 
The Last One said:
As a general rule, what you've posted is what happens with a very important distinction. There is a very fine line between "Sorry, I didn't know that" and defensively digging in to defend it. The second is the one that will get you infracted. I know it can be frustrating but we're in a kind of diverse environment here and normal language in your area probably won't match language in other areas. So you need to be flexible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That door should swing both ways though. I've personally had infractions (rare, but they happened) where it wasn't due to defending it, it was just infracted immediately, no warning, no "maybe rephrase that", just infraction. Flexibility should extend to also understanding that... this is a diverse environment and not everyone speaks and thinks the same way. I've been pretty much told that a Rule 2 violation can be an infraction if someone, somewhere, possibly, could read what was said as offensive. That's draconian, and an impossible standard... which also is not equally applied. I have been offended by things, reported them, and not only was there no infraction but the report was denied.

But yes on the first point. That's something that took me a few too many times to learn. My problem is sometimes I care too much, especially if someone slaps an -ist or -phobe label on me. I'm none of those things, and it offends me when people falsely claim such, which leads me to burning a thread to the ground in defense. It kind of sucks but I guess i've learned to... not care. If you think i'm something, that's your opinion and it's ok to have your opinion even if I disagree. It feels weird and alien to me to just... not care what people think of me, but it feels necessary for self-preservation.

I do very much enjoy this conversation though. This feels... safe to discuss right now. I don't normally feel safe discussing this. I don't feel safe discussing much of anything on SV. Every time I open the site I wince, expecting to see that i've been blindsided by a temp ban. I'm thankful for having a space to speak about this without being worrisome that i'm going to step on a landmine.
 
Evilchumlee said:
That door should swing both ways though. I've personally had infractions (rare, but they happened) where it wasn't due to defending it, it was just infracted immediately, no warning, no "maybe rephrase that", just infraction. Flexibility should extend to also understanding that... this is a diverse environment and not everyone speaks and thinks the same way. I've been pretty much told that a Rule 2 violation can be an infraction if someone, somewhere, possibly, could read what was said as offensive. That's draconian, and an impossible standard... which also is not equally applied. I have been offended by things, reported them, and not only was there no infraction but the report was denied.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The reason this doesn't happen despite it seeming to make sense is actually pretty simple. There are plenty of people out there eager to use things that "maybe need to be rephrased" on purpose while knowing what they're doing, and it isn't possible for the moderation staff to tell innocent mistakes from malicious shitlords hiding behind disingenuous surprise that what they said could have been "misinterpreted" that way. There's enough of these phrases and tactics that offering an amount of understanding that sounds reasonable on paper lets someone get away with this for years with a new example each time. and to say there are dozens who would do this if they could is understating, offering each this understanding means it never ends and it comes from all sides. This does mean sometimes people are caught up where the surprise is real and they didn't know better, but frankly, the more times you step on the same issue with a different instance, the more likely people are to think you're secretly a shitter. It's statistically unlikely to stumble into rake after rake.

Now, sometimes there are people who will, over and over, and still on accident. These folks are often around awful people IRL they personally don't recognize as such for the same reasons they're perpetually rake-stepping. Part of the policy of protecting the majority of users from subtle, coordinated harassment by groups of assholes does occasionally mean someone eventually gets the boot when they don't morally deserve it... but the kind of person who falls victim to this does so because they will likely never stop stepping on rakes, and frankly that still does hurt people, regardless of intention. Most users run up against it once or twice ever. Well, no, actually most users are never ever infracted in the first place. But of those who are, there aren't many hitting this same issue over and over.

It doesn't matter how accidental your neighbor running over your mailbox is if he does it every morning, eventually you have to call the cops because even if he's telling the truth and earnestly apologizing every time, it's clear the guy shouldn't be driving that car. Ultimately, this is one place on the internet that cares about this, most places don't bother. It can be frustrating for people to face a problem they don't face elsewhere but it's because here folks get protections they don't get elsewhere. It's a great big wide internet out there if it comes to that, it's much easier to find places that you can say something insensitive, accidentally or on purpose, and not get called on it, than it is for the people here who need those kind of rules not to get chased out to find another place for themselves. Sad as it is, there's not many other places for them to go, and especially none this big. Meanwhile, there's like four spin-off sites of this place that don't care near as much if that's genuinely a huge issue for you, and there's a lot of cross-pollination.
 
Last edited:
K put it best, because they are a phenomenal human being, but I'll try and put it shorter:

SV moderation doesn't exist to protect you from the masses, it exists to protect the masses from you.

It is, ultimately, on every individual poster to make good posts, and infractions are meant as a tool to help you do that.
 
Evilchumlee said:
That door should swing both ways though. I've personally had infractions (rare, but they happened) where it wasn't due to defending it, it was just infracted immediately, no warning, no "maybe rephrase that", just infraction. Flexibility should extend to also understanding that... this is a diverse environment and not everyone speaks and thinks the same way. I've been pretty much told that a Rule 2 violation can be an infraction if someone, somewhere, possibly, could read what was said as offensive. That's draconian, and an impossible standard... which also is not equally applied. I have been offended by things, reported them, and not only was there no infraction but the report was denied.

But yes on the first point. That's something that took me a few too many times to learn. My problem is sometimes I care too much, especially if someone slaps an -ist or -phobe label on me. I'm none of those things, and it offends me when people falsely claim such, which leads me to burning a thread to the ground in defense. It kind of sucks but I guess i've learned to... not care. If you think i'm something, that's your opinion and it's ok to have your opinion even if I disagree. It feels weird and alien to me to just... not care what people think of me, but it feels necessary for self-preservation.

I do very much enjoy this conversation though. This feels... safe to discuss right now. I don't normally feel safe discussing this. I don't feel safe discussing much of anything on SV. Every time I open the site I wince, expecting to see that i've been blindsided by a temp ban. I'm thankful for having a space to speak about this without being worrisome that i'm going to step on a landmine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, I can't speak to the details without trawling extensively through your post history but there are a couple of cases that probably just need some extra lurking. SV is a lot stricter on, say, "trap" than a lot of sites but we're also not that secret about it. That's pretty much an everyday interaction thing, though, everyone is bound to say "Stealers suck" amongst a crowd of Stealers fans at one point or another.


A Small Bird said:
I feel the hand of death upon me. I will not survive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They meant to say that it is on every user to make good shitposts.
 
Evilchumlee said:
That door should swing both ways though. I've personally had infractions (rare, but they happened) where it wasn't due to defending it, it was just infracted immediately, no warning, no "maybe rephrase that", just infraction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean...I'm gonna be real with you, that door could swing both ways but I don't think it'd help you with any of your recent issues. It's not a question of you needing to rephrase. Like...the Gaza thread, for example. The first time you ate an infraction there, it was pretty clear. You said you weren't concerned that much about war crimes. Rule 1b of active conflicts says you have to treat them seriously, as Kei pointed out. It's not a question of interpretation as such. There was no way to take that phrasing and somehow remake it acceptable while conveying the same meaning. Kei noted other problems but that was just factors in aggravation.

There are things that just cannot be said under the rules, no matter how you choose to say them. The most recent example of you digging in, for example, it was a Rule 4 for lasting nearly a dozen posts beyond the time you first said it and consuming the thread in fire and brimstone. But even if you'd only posted four times in that thread, it probably still would have been Rule 4 simply for being an opinion that no amount of phrasing could have saved from precipitating some kind of derail. For that matter by post five it could just as easily have been a Rule 3 problem instead. Sometimes respecting the nature of the discussion means holding your silence.
 
Evilchumlee said:
I sincerely don't want to make any waves or anything for obvious reasons but this comment speaks to my very soul.

SV is a confusing place. There are such an incredibly rigid, byzantine rules that are enforced with extreme prejudice. Sometimes. Othertimes they seem to be ignored. Sometimes the same exact thing can be said, one is an infraction, one is not.

This is an oddly unique community in that regard. I've never found a forum that was so downright confusing on what is allowed to be said and what is not. Not trying to excuse any of my past behavior, i've done and said some dumb stuff, but in general this place very much feels like walking on egg shells and trying to find the correct position to have on something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The only reason I can think of why somebody would consider the rules obsucre is if they missed the 'rules' button in the bar on top of each page
forums.sufficientvelocity.com

The Rules and Procedures of Sufficient Velocity

Contained in this thread are the rules and procedures of Sufficient Velocity, indexed and threadmarked for easy navigation. Our Mission Principles for Posting Rule 0: The Mission Comes First Rule 1: Follow the Terms of Service Rule 2: Don’t Be Hateful Rule 3: Be Civil Rule 4: Don’t Be...
forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com
And N&P and war and peace has a extra set of rules described here:

I don't think that breaking N&P rules in other forums would be smart, though. Making a thread about how 'The Ents had it coming for them, Saruman was right.' is already covered by the general rules rules after all.
 
Thanks for all the insights and replies. Let's move on, I don't want this thread to be about me. Appreciate the conversation, I think it has run its course. Appreciate the opportunity to say a few things.
 
WallFlower said:
The only reason I can think of why somebody would consider the rules obsucre is if they missed the 'rules' button in the bar on top of each page
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This sort of glib "the rules are right there!" posting isn't helpful.

Staff and Arbs and Mods have been consistently on-record talking about how enforcement of the rules is more about interpretation and circumstance than it is the rules themselves. This serves to obscure the path to correct posting, and unless your vibes are immaculate from post one you're going to eat infractions to get there. Technically, sure, "be civil" and "don't be hateful" are straightforward guides to how to post properly, but if you can find a way to predict in advance if a given post will be hit by Mods, I'd like to buy your scanner, magic lady.

Where SV differs from other sites is that that acclimatization process is baked into the design, hence being allowed to eat multiple infractions so long as you, y'know listen to what they say. It's a unique and rather nice approach, but it's not at all clear from the jump and acting like it is does everyone involved a disservice. If the rules weren't obscure why would SV have so many staffers helping people figure out their way through them?
 
Last edited:
Fey'lya said:
This sort of glib "the rules are right there!" posting isn't helpful.

Staff and Arbs and Mods have been consistently on-record talking about how enforcement of the rules is more about interpretation and circumstance than it is the rules themselves. This serves to obscure the path to correct posting, and unless your vibes are immaculate from post one you're going to eat infractions to get there. Technically, sure, "be civil" and "don't be hateful" are straightforward guides to how to post properly, but if you can find a way to predict in advance if a given post will be hit by Mods, I'd like to buy your scanner, magic lady.

Where SV differs from other sites is that that acclimatization process is baked into the design, hence being allowed to eat multiple infractions so long as you, y'know listen to what they say. It's a unique and rather nice approach, but it's not at all clear from the jump and acting like it is does everyone involved a disservice. If the rules weren't obscure why would SV have so many staffers helping people figure out their way through them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, this is inconsistent with statements by admin ?

The one thing the admin will keep banging on about is that the average user of SV does not get infracted, and that even a single infraction makes you a problem above and beyond most users of the site. Infractions aren't first order a corrective trim that allows people to tailor their posts into acceptability over time, they're there to mark that you broke the rules and punish you for it.
 
hghwolf said:
The one thing the admin will keep banging on about is that the average user of SV does not get infracted, and that even a single infraction makes you a problem above and beyond most users of the site. Infractions aren't first order a corrective trim that allows people to tailor their posts into acceptability over time, they're there to mark that you broke the rules and punish you for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Most infractions come out of N&P, most users don't post in N&P, and most of the rules and their application thereof come into play in contentious situations. The fact that most users don't end up taking infractions is irrelevant to how the process works, merely when it begins for a given user.

The average user of SV doesn't get infracted because the average user posts something like once a month and lurks a couple quests, cmon now :V
 
Last edited:
Pidl said:
I rather doubt they consider users with even a single infraction 'a problem'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Probably not, but it's a statement of relativity, not absolutes.
Fey'lya said:
The average user of SV doesn't get infracted because the average user posts something like once a month and lurks a couple quests, cmon now
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know that, and you know that, and the admin probably knows that too but that's not what they say.
 
Fey'lya said:
This sort of glib "the rules are right there!" posting isn't helpful.

Staff and Arbs and Mods have been consistently on-record talking about how enforcement of the rules is as more about interpretation and circumstance than it is the rules themselves. This serves to obscure the path to correct posting, and unless your vibes are immaculate from post one you're going to eat infractions to get there. Technically, sure, "be civil" and "don't be hateful" are straightforward guides to how to post properly, but if you can find a way to predict in advance if a given post will be hit by Mods, I'd like to buy your scanner, magic lady.

Where SV differs from other sites is that that that acclimatization process is baked into the design, hence being allowed to eat multiple infractions so long as you, y'know listen to what they say. It's a unique and rather nice approach, but it's not at all clear from the jump and acting like it is does everyone involved a disservice. If the rules weren't obscure why would SV have so many staffers helping people figure out their way through them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I won't be going too deep into this, because the person I was replying to asked everyone to drop it.

Just;
Having nobody point out what appears obvious to you sucks when missing the obvious. I know this from experience.
Some people need to be told that 'turning the device off and on again' is an option. Putting myself in their shoes made me realize that they might have been missing the obvious.
I did not make a dig against the infraction system, which is genuinely great.
I did not mean to demean the person I was replying to.
Knowing the rules is not a perfect shield, but the "fine print" section under the rules goes through a large portion of the vagueness, which I think might be helpful to clear up confusion or prevent future problems/confusion in this specific case.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top