Ask the CC Anything!

[mesonoxian]

I think that is the catch 22, if how they are written and applied are significantly different than one of those should change, and we know at minimum there is a lot of nuance to them that is never officially explained.

I know the argument for not explaining the rules
"The staff aren't robots and context is important" and mostly "If we explain the rules then people will go right up to the line without crossing it"

Which to point 1, I have to wonder if the nuance is explained to the staff fully. Like squishy calls it gradients or degrees of protection was the CC ever given or shown these? Is there a larger rules explanation sheet that the CC has access to the average user does not? (I know you can't speak of other staff who may)

Given the role in appeals it would seem odd if other staff members did but the CC did not.
And if the CC does not, then certain actions they can do seem questionable or odd to me.

If the CC does well that isn't better to be fair.

For point 2, well yes some people will, and generally that should be regarded as fine, the rules are a balance of freedom of expression VS freedom of comfort certain people and things will fall on opposite ends and as long as it doesn't go to far it is fine. However more importantly, I don't think most people breaking the rules have carefully read and analyzed them and planned their rule breaking behavior, in fact most of the appeals we see are hot heads acting on emotion or idiots. I haven't seen this "super clever barely breaking the rules for as long as possible" bogey man that gets brought up every time people ask for rules clarifications in large.

Click to shrink...

I didn't mean to imply this rule in particular wasn't being implied consistently. Every rule (not just on SV but everywhere) is enforced imperfectly and with interpretation.

The rules are the rules so far as I know. There is no additional guidance for councilors.

While malicious compliance is a reason not to elaborate on the rules, it isn't the only reason. There is also the problem no reasonable level of explication is going to cover every circumstance, and excessively detailed rules would create a false impression of how they are interpreted and enforced. Like providing too many significant digits, it implies an inaccurate degree of precision.

The counter to that flexibility is the two tiered appeals system. When an infraction is appealed, an arbitrator reviews it and has the option to reduce or overturn the infraction. And if their decision isn't satisfactory, it can be appealed again and reviewed by council. I think that provides a significant safeguard against capricious application of the rules.

It doesn't make things perfect, but I think it is a balance that provides a good compromise between letting abusive users run roughshod over others and arbitrary mod caprice.

 

[Night]

Reading tribunals, here is someone they consider to be the 'skirting the rules and barely breaking them' types.

Click to shrink...

Your analysis of this case is rather seriously flawed, because Jean wasn't remotely "skirting the rules"; they were clearly broken in just about every discussion Jean participated in at length. Jean was almost incapable of civility in argumentation.

 

[Zedalb]

I didn't mean to imply this rule in particular wasn't being implied consistently. Every rule (not just on SV but everywhere) is enforced imperfectly and with interpretation.

The rules are the rules so far as I know. There is no additional guidance for councilors.

While malicious compliance is a reason not to elaborate on the rules, it isn't the only reason. There is also the problem no reasonable level of explication is going to cover every circumstance, and excessively detailed rules would create a false impression of how they are interpreted and enforced. Like providing too many significant digits, it implies an inaccurate degree of precision.

Click to shrink...

You see I'm kind of tired of that false dichotomy.
I've seen staff talk about how law summaries are 1000's of pages, and we couldn't possibly make things more clear without it devolving into massive lawyer RP (Paraphrasing actual quotes here)

But like, 50 more words?

Like rule 2 is 242 words 1500ish characters.
Rule 4 is 627 words 3800'ish characters

Explaining "While ideas, faiths, profession and anything other than people are not protected under rule 2 being hateful to people through those things is still infractable in proportion to how much those things are held as a persons identity"

Would presumably help. Honestly that is a first draft, an extra 200 words to give some layout of the idea of the tier system in play would IMHO reduce the amount of work staff have to do by making rule 2 violations (or non-violations) more clear. I'm sure someone could write up a much better explanation then that.

"What he said was terrible about Christianity- ah but he talks about specific practices and traditions and why, not people, that doesn't seem to match the requirement to be hateful to the person through the faith" To use an example we both know from recently.

As well as I believe clarity has value, especially that the highest level of staff has a different idea on how rule 2 works than the lower levels, I feel that deserves to be addressed.

 

[mesonoxian]

You see I'm kind of tired of that false dichotomy.
I've seen staff talk about how law summaries are 1000's of pages, and we couldn't possibly make things more clear without it devolving into massive lawyer RP (Paraphrasing actual quotes here)

But like, 50 more words?

Like rule 2 is 242 words 1500ish characters.
Rule 4 is 627 words 3800'ish characters

Explaining "While ideas, faiths, profession and anything other than people are not protected under rule 2 being hateful to people through those things is still infractable in proportion to how much those things are held as a persons identity"

Would presumably help. Honestly that is a first draft, an extra 200 words to give some layout of the idea of the tier system in play would IMHO reduce the amount of work staff have to do by making rule 2 violations (or non-violations) more clear. I'm sure someone could write up a much better explanation then that.

"What he said was terrible about Christianity- ah but he talks about specific practices and traditions and why, not people, that doesn't seem to match the requirement to be hateful to the person through the faith" To use an example we both know from recently.

As well as I believe clarity has value, especially that the highest level of staff has a different idea on how rule 2 works than the lower levels, I feel that deserves to be addressed.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure that adds significant clarity. In fact, I think as an addendum to the rules text it probably provokes more ambiguity than it resolves, whereas the original text explains the actual principles by which Rule 2 infractions are evaluated. Of course, I am not the arbiter of the rules text, and you can make that suggestion to staff. But that's my opinion.

But I don't think it is pertinent to the original question of whether rule 2 provides sufficient protection for atheists. Hatred or contempt directed towards atheists is just as forbidden by the rules as towards Muslims, Christians, Satanists, or whatever else. If we've fallen short of enforcing that standard as a community, I don't think that can be laid at the feet of the rules text.

 

[Zedalb]

I'm not sure that adds significant clarity. In fact, I think as an addendum to the rules text it probably provokes more ambiguity than it resolves, whereas the original text explains the actual principles by which Rule 2 infractions are evaluated. Of course, I am not the arbiter of the rules text, and you can make that suggestion to staff. But that's my opinion.

Click to shrink...

Sure as I said it was a short first draft example, and maybe the answer is that staff of all levels need a document where "The intended functioning of the rules" is laid out at greater length, I don't like the secrecy but it's better than the function of the rules being a secret to much of the staff.

It also does not provide any new ambiguity to users. (Mental shrug here)

But I don't think it is pertinent to the original question of whether rule 2 provides sufficient protection for atheists. Hatred or contempt directed towards atheists is just as forbidden by the rules as towards Muslims, Christians, Satanists, or whatever else. If we've fallen short of enforcing that standard as a community, I don't think that can be laid at the feet of the rules text.

Click to shrink...

Actually.....

No I think it is not "just as forbidden" how squishy described it was rather different

Or I think from reading multiple of squishies post it does provide different levels of protection take these three statements

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.c...eady-does-problem-solved.57543/#post-13014825

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.c...ready-does-problem-solved.57543/post-13015010

https://forums.sufficientvelocity.c...oes-problem-solved.57543/page-4#post-13018925

Squishy see's atheism as less central to someones identity via it being an inactive state (I agree)
Squishy then goes on to say that the rules account for how central something is to a persons identity.
The third post goes onto indirectly admit to seeing atheism as less central even if for some people it may be just as central.

Ergo, while atheism and theism are technically identical under rule 2 because rule does not protect ideas.
In practice atheism receives less protection because it is treated as harder to hate atheist via hating atheism.

Like, the ideas are equal, the practitioners of said idea are not.

Which implies negative things about theist to my great amusement.

 

[mesonoxian]

Ergo, while atheism and theism are technically identical under rule 2 because rule does not protect ideas.
In practice atheism receives less protection because it is treated as harder to hate atheist via hating atheism.

Like, the ideas are equal, the practitioners of said idea are not.

Which implies negative things about theist to my great amusement.

Click to shrink...

Given that the rules were largely written and are largely enforced by atheists, an implicit lack of respect for the minority of theistic users wouldn't seem like an amusing surprise but an example of unconscious prejudice bleeding through.

Fortunately I think your analysis is wrong. Atheists are given the same protections as theists. Your assumption that theism is more identity forming than atheism isn't sound. Plenty of people believe in God or gods on philosophical grounds without having much emotional attachment to that belief.

Religions on the other hand are active practices people adopt that define some aspects of identity in relation to the larger reality. They aren't exclusively theistic. Atheists can be heavily invested in some religious identities like varieties of Buddhism, Wicca, and Satanism and others.

And there are identities other than religious identities that are protected. Sexual, gender, racial, and philosophical to varying degrees.

So no, theists are not given priority or special protections. People with religious beliefs are protected from being attacked due to their belief. Those without religion are protected from attacks due to their lack of belief. Theism and atheism don't enter into it.

And I think we've reached the very edge of this topics relevance to the larger thread.

 

[Pidl]

Reading tribunals, here is someone they consider to be the 'skirting the rules and barely breaking them' types. 2019-AT-14: Staff and Jean Danjou Upheld
It's pretty clear reading what they wrote, that he's exactly the 'type' of person that they want to keep the rules vague for. They talk about how he dances along the line, then accidentally steps over it. I feel that it's clear that they feel that if he had a more clear set of rules, they wouldn't have a pretext to discipline him even though his behavior is consonantly borderline, because they feel that's it's unfair to discipline someone for long-term consistently borderline behavior (and because such behavior is much more work-loaded to prove)

Click to shrink...

Did you mean to link to a different tribunal, because that one has basically the opposite of what you claim?

 

[Tithed_Verse]

Did you mean to link to a different tribunal, because that one has basically the opposite of what you claim?

Click to shrink...

More likely I missunderstood what I was reading. I've been saying all month that my mental health is low. This sort of misunderstanding is what happens when my IRL stressors make it hard for me to function. Sorry.