All true enough and sorry for like, calling you out then. The sheer amount of unironic "well them's the rules what'y'need" posting boggles my mind sometimes, but they are, as you say, a fine introduction and guide to posting.
-
For all readers and writers
After much ado, our new tagging system is here and being rolled out to the userbase. Read more here!
2024 AT 06 Staff and Mandemon discussion thread.
- Thread starter Tithed_Verse
- Start date
All true enough and sorry for like, calling you out then. The sheer amount of unironic "well them's the rules what'y'need" posting boggles my mind sometimes, but they are, as you say, a fine introduction and guide to posting.
You just upset mandemon got hit over a post that is substantively similar to several you have made in the same thread.
This is the second person in a tribunal for the "I don't support genocide, but...." category I was not looking forward to. Each one gonna age more and more poorly as events progress the way everyone with any knowledge of the underlying conflict knows they will.
People in this thread are getting wrapped around a procedural argument for a post that WAS, in fact, minimizing genocide, from a poster who has, in fact, made several similar posts conducting apologia for IDF warcrimes.
Mandemon
Gentlemen, I love brawl.
- Location
- Cookie Jar
Perfect example of this is in 2023-AT-18: Staff and hghwolf where arbitrator argued reduction of the infraction the grounds of "other guy is a dick" (paraphrasing here, you can read it yourself). Which is very much "reasonable frustration" in spirit and intent, even if not in name.
Exact same happened in 2023-AT-17: Staff and FortePlus, with even more explicit "other guy is idiot".
Last edited:
poaw
The opposite of Doja Cat
I don't actually understand the connection between that post and me being mad about Mandemon being infracted. I make comments about the council and their actions regularly in these threads. "If a Councillor agrees with what you said they will make up reasons to reverse any punishment, regardless of the letter or spirit of the rules, even if it requires them to disavow their prior own actions," is a recurring bit.
Secondly, I think you are fundamentally wrong if you think what was said was substantially similar according to the rules. Explaining what, "war crime," as a legal term, means isn't the same as saying, "war cimes are nbd and I don't care." Or "only 600,000 died." Which is a fairly important distinction.
Third, and most important, even if I had said the same thing as Mandemon, me dodging an infraction while he eats one isn't something that would make me mad. It would be the exact opposite feeling.
I mean, "stratigo pretends she can read your mind and decides what she saw in there makes you an asshole" is a show with a recurring timeslot here on SV, it doesn't really mean anything. Wait for Sweeps, you'll see some shit.
It does beg the question though, are the rules actually easy to follow or do people just run afoul of them infrequently enough due to other circumstances that it doesn't end up mattering? If I recall correctly, someone once posted stats re: comparative infraction rates across fora and what rules they ended up being for. Is that something you can just poil Xenforo for or does it need to be manually gathered? I'd be curious to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.
E: Fixed pronoun usage, with apologies.
Last edited:
Exponent
A character.
She is a she, but the stats would be interesting to see.
- Location
- France
- Pronouns
- She/They
I think the answer is going to depend a lot on the rule. Rule 4 is basically just "the mod didn't like your post in the context of the thread" and I can see people having trouble with it. Rule 3 is very clear but very hard to follow because it requires you to do a lot of things that don't come naturally to people, like not getting angry to people with views you think are murderous or not commenting on patterns in a poster's history so running afoul of it is mostly posting while angry or consciously ignoring it because you think the point you're making is worth the points. And of course rule 2 is where I think the least of the confusion excuses, but even there someone raised in a completely different environment could adopt language that would run afoul of it and eat a few infractions before they learn.
But overall, I used to eat quite a few rule 3 and 4 infractions and just... Decided I didn't like it and stopped? It means making some of my posts less punchy and it means disengaging more when a conversation is making me angry but it wasn't really hard, just annoying and feeling like letting others win at first.
Last edited:
Rule 2 isn't as clear cut as some might think. I would argue that other than Rule 4, Rule 2 is one of the more confusing ones only because it's vague and there really isn't a clear definition of exactly what violates it. I think this is a good conversation and want to be a part of it while avoiding my tendency to make things about me so I won't share any examples... they're long since over with anyway... but I do think that different people have different perspectives on what Rule 2 would be, and often times the response is "it was obvious". But... it wasn't? I thought it "obviously" was not. I've quite literally had Rule 2 described as "if it could offended somebody, somewhere, it breaks Rule 2".
But yes Rule 4... can be largely arbitrary. Although I will say this is where i've seen the most light touch with moderation... it's the one rule where in my personal bad boy experience, i've been less immediately infracted and given a chance with a "Hey, that could be disruptive, maybe don't do that." So, I appreciate that.
- Location
- France
- Pronouns
- She/They
I've never gotten a rule 2 violation and I don't think I ever will. And it's not because I don't post or because I post in quieter areas. So I don't really get it. I think it might get a bit more confusing around active conflicts and heated political moments, but I don't think that's really your problem either?
- Pronouns
- She/Her
what, specifically, is confusing for you about rule 2? What do you want to say that you think will get you in such trouble here that wouldn't in other places. Legit I would love to clear things up for you but I don't understand what is unclear about the summery of "Don't be Hateful" or the example bullet points of:
- Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives.
- Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others.
- Don't use slurs.
- Don't talk about how great it would be if someone was raped, tortured, maimed, etc.
Those points aren't unclear. How they are interpreted could be. The first 2 points are what i'm mostly concerned with, third and fourth are pretty ironclad.
This might be something to take to DM's. I'm not really comfortable going through past issues or bringing up any specific examples here. I'm happy to talk and potentially learn something, but I just don't think the nature of the conversation is appropriate for here.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
You say you are uncomfortable about discussion past issues or specific examples of your problems with Rule 2 yet you where the first person to raise any issues with rule 2 in this thread (here). But since you said it was the first two points you had issue with lets try and address those. What concerns you about how "Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives." and "Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others" could be interprated? Particularly, since you raised the topic in this way, in relation to your own posts?
Arthur Frayn
Fake God by Occupation, Magician by Inclination
- Location
- Land of Do As You Please
- Pronouns
- They/Him
Coming out of semi-retirement to say that if you're worried stating your real views will run you afoul of Rule 2, it might behoove you to examine said views and why you might get infracted for stating them
Just a thought
Just a thought
Last edited:
Mandemon
Gentlemen, I love brawl.
- Location
- Cookie Jar
Well, I can see issue with "Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others" is that some people will intentionally take the worst possible interpretation. Because they aren't actually interested in what you say, just on dunking on you. Let's not pretend SV is free of "feuds".
So if you feel that there are people who are actively looking to make sure you fall into trouble, it makes presenting views difficult because you need to double check everything to make sure that, under no circumstances, can what you said be twisted to possibly mean something else.
So if you feel that there are people who are actively looking to make sure you fall into trouble, it makes presenting views difficult because you need to double check everything to make sure that, under no circumstances, can what you said be twisted to possibly mean something else.
Maybe we should move this unrelated discussion of an unrelated person who is actively (poorly, but actively
) trying to not make another public spectacle of himself out of the public eye?@LilyWitch
I'm happy to speak outside of the thread. I know the thin ice i'm on and am proceeding with extreme caution. I shouldn't have really posted in this thread at all and already regret having done so.
I'm happy to speak outside of the thread. I know the thin ice i'm on and am proceeding with extreme caution. I shouldn't have really posted in this thread at all and already regret having done so.
Also, having spoken with Evilchumlee and y'know, also given the matter some thought, I can probably help you out here. "Be understanding of other viewpoints and perspectives." and "Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others" seem to have somewhat different meanings and different depths in different threads.
In one place it can simply be a reminder to take your fellow discussion members and their concerns seriously, in another it can apparently mean that you have to approach the topic at hand with a level of nuance and care beyond the reach of mass media and into actual historical research. Is this a thread where I have to try and figure out the 'correct' opinions to say or can I just post honestly and that's enough? Do I have to engage with other people's posts or will that get me in trouble here? Will taking what other people say as a truthful intellectual argument count as "being understanding" or do I have to sympathize too? Do I have to sympathize instead?
Maybe you find this task simple and straightforward, but for say, someone not neurotypical you may as well be asking them to shatter a boulder with their bare hands. Then you have the confounding effect of being visibly, publicly scolded for failing this task, and to seek any redress you have to go and try and explain yourself (!) (!!!) to what can often seem like a terrifying monolith of authority. This entire process is one that I've become familiar with (even the last one) through a lot of practice but I remember a time when it was sufficiently daunting to not even want to try - "how can you possibly know how someone else will interpret my posts? I never know that!" - and whenever someone ends up in trouble with it, they're met with acerbic skepticism that this could even be an issue.
Hm, how'd that Arthur Frayn quote get in there? Weird!
Is that "dunking culture" sneaking its way into Staff Comms? I can't think of any way this would echo the kind of treatment autistic kids get in school where not understanding what's going on in the principal's office would translate into "being defiant" or any other kind of triggering stuff from their past!tl;dr though, "understanding other people" is a hard ask for many, especially without clear guidance, and especially especially in the context of online speech where there's zero metadata about what people are talking about.
This isn't a callout post, because I do think SV has good systems in place for dealing with it, but sitting there pretending there's no way anyone could be confused about this isn't helping anyone.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- She/Her
You know I'm autistic right?
I didn't! What do you think I should do with that information in this context?
If you're implying that I'm preaching to the choir, well, you set the hymn order.
I'll respond to this and then i'll take my permanent leave from this thread and... I agree. I think life is a constant learning experience and the best I can do is learn as I go. Apparently some learn faster than me, and that's great! I hope I learn quickly enough to remain a part of this community.
This is a not atypical response, but Rule 2 is extremely broadly structured and many people's views potentially run afoul of Rule 2. Some political views that potentially run afoul of Rule 2 are "being pro death penalty", "being pro abortion", "being anti abortion", "supporting self-defense", declaring that Republicans are Nazis, arguing in favor of restricting immigration, and saying that democrats are socialists.
You don't exactly have to tread very far to find views that could potentially run afoul of Rule 2.
Non-neurotypical users can get hit by the other end too, where statements come across as casually hateful (or uncivil) towards them, and not only do the staff not seem to care (or notice) but they get infracted for calling it out because bringing the offense to people's attention looks disruptive.
I think of this particular pattern as getting Cloak'd after a high profile serial recipient of it.
Last edited:
I think supporting genocide, like poaw and Mandemon are doing in the hamas thread, is bad.
How bout you?
Mandemon
Gentlemen, I love brawl.
- Location
- Cookie Jar
I have never supported genocide. I would kindly ask you to stop lying about this.
All I did was question if IDF was actively causing as much civilian damage as possible, rather than being utterly callous about civilian deaths and going "Eh, killed on alleged terrorist, good enough for us" while ignoring 100 dead civilians. This is not "supporting genocide".
I think that there's value in actually reading people's posts rather than just going off your vibes for them, but that might just be a "me" thing. If Mandemon had actually been supporting genocide, he'd have been smacked for that rather than for getting testy with people who were also ignoring what he actually wrote.
Last edited: