Question regarding personal offence - staff criteria

[BirdBodhisattva]

Good morning. I have a question about the criteria staff uses for what is an offense to another person.

If a person puts their pronouns in their profile, that is their way to tell us how to call them.

If a user asks another user to "please don't interact with me that way", then the other user is supposed to be respectful to them.

That, I think, is either common sense, something that is policed by staff, or (hopefully) both.


With that in mind, I would like to ask my question.

I write a quest in this site. During that quest, there are sometimes votes. And whenever a vote raises questions, I am the only person who can clarify them because I am the writer. And obviously, whenever I clarify something, people might change their vote or opinion in one way or another.

However, whenever I have to explain anything, I tell people that "I am not trying to influence the vote, so please don't accuse me of that. That upsets me."

During a recent discussion, a person blatantly said I was "tipping the scale" of a vote. That user literally started the posts claiming as much.

Spoiler

Predictable. Three way neck and neck tie, two of them for avoiding accepting and Bird comes out with a post elaborating on all the horrible possible consequences of the non-regrettable action. Whoops, there it goes tumbling down to a firm third place and the regrettable action jumps up to a clear lead.

Click to shrink...

I'm not surprised at all. I'm in fact annoyed at this blatant, no, explicitly admitted, tipping of the scales.

Click to shrink...

Given how I said time and again I did not like that, I thought it was a joke. So, I reacted with a "funny" and kept reading the conversation.

And then I was infracted for using the funny reaction. To quote the staff notice on my profile:
"you have twice used a "Funny" rating with what may be interpreted as a malicious usage of 'making fun of' the users in questions"

So after realizing the post was serious, and retracting the funny quotes, I reported those two posts. Because now I realize those posts were of a user who, twice, said something I specifically explained that upsets me.

And the only response I got from that was the automate message that:
"Thank you for your report, but this is not a violation of the rules of Sufficient Velocity"


I don't even know under what rule I was infracted, so I can't say if this is a rule 3, or a rule 6, or a "staff can police whatever they feel is appropriate" thing.

But what IS the criteria for a personal offense? And how can one user be infracted for clicking the "funny" button while another user is not infracted for doing something they have been specifically told is upsetting?


This is not an attempt to appeal anything. I am an author who posts content in this site, so I have more people looking at my stuff than the average user. So, more people scrutinize my actions, and more people click the "report" button. I also have no idea of who infracted me, so this is not an attack against the quoted poster. I reported those posts, someone in the staff decided that was fine, and that is that.

I really am asking this just to help me be infracted less. And so I can understand how much it is acceptable for me to be harassed by people who read my story.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Estro]

So, I'm not a moderator, or even staff, but I do have a somewhat privileged position as a councillor, and I've had a lot of experience with the rules of SV as they are.

First, you say that you're "infracted", and then call it a Staff Notice. Staff Notices are not infractions, and are merely the equivalent of a roadside caution or something like that. They mostly exist so that moderators can notice patterns of behaviour or repeated toeing of the line. You were not infracted for the funnies, which is also why a rule wasn't cited (it'd probably be rule 3 if you did step over the line, I think that's what most malicious funnies come under).

As for why funnies get... I don't want to say heightened notice, but malicious funnies have been a chronic problem on the site - they're the closest thing we have in this modern day to a negative reaction (the days when we had negative reactions were not great), for fairly obvious reason - and so people using them in ways that look close to that (generally giving funnies on posts which don't contain obvious jokes) get wiggled at.

As for why they weren't infracted... uh, saying you're a bad QM isn't uncivil? I mean, you are the QM, if you want to threadban them you can just request as such - it's one of the abilities all QMs (and UF writers, and Corncop OPs) get in their threads, but like... imo, it's not rulebreaking? They're just saying you're not running the quest well.

 

[Fey'lya]

As for why they weren't infracted... uh, saying you're a bad QM isn't uncivil? I mean, you are the QM, if you want to threadban them you can just request as such - it's one of the abilities all QMs (and UF writers, and Corncop OPs) get in their threads, but like... imo, it's not rulebreaking? They're just saying you're not running the quest well.

Click to shrink...

This section is the key to your overall question w/r/t civility, by the way. There is no rules based expectation for people to interact with you in a specific way, outside of the rules themselves. Asking users to respect others' pronouns should be treated as an outlier rather than an example in this case.

E: Also, looking at the things you've mentioned lately? It might seem like you're in a lot worse odour with the rules than you actually are, due to how many things are coming up at once. Don't worry about that too much tbh - the report backlog is growing quite a tail and as Estro said, most of this is extremely minor stuff. You're fine, broadly speaking.

 

[BirdBodhisattva]

So, I'm not a moderator, or even staff, but I do have a somewhat privileged position as a councillor, and I've had a lot of experience with the rules of SV as they are.

First, you say that you're "infracted", and then call it a Staff Notice. Staff Notices are not infractions, and are merely the equivalent of a roadside caution or something like that. They mostly exist so that moderators can notice patterns of behaviour or repeated toeing of the line. You were not infracted for the funnies, which is also why a rule wasn't cited (it'd probably be rule 3 if you did step over the line, I think that's what most malicious funnies come under).

As for why funnies get... I don't want to say heightened notice, but malicious funnies have been a chronic problem on the site - they're the closest thing we have in this modern day to a negative reaction (the days when we had negative reactions were not great), for fairly obvious reason - and so people using them in ways that look close to that (generally giving funnies on posts which don't contain obvious jokes) get wiggled at.

As for why they weren't infracted... uh, saying you're a bad QM isn't uncivil? I mean, you are the QM, if you want to threadban them you can just request as such - it's one of the abilities all QMs (and UF writers, and Corncop OPs) get in their threads, but like... imo, it's not rulebreaking? They're just saying you're not running the quest well.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it. Although I do disagree with two points.


The first point I disagree with is that this is "not an infraction". Of course, I am a regular user and you are a Councillor, so this is definitely coming from the perspective of a person who is not privy to what is behind the veil.

But that is my point. You can say that this is only a roadside caution, and that it could be used to notice patterns and behaviors. But you also have a lot more contact with staff than a regular user, and you are more involved and used to the site than a regular user is.

On the other hand, my experience as a user is that I logged into the site, was greeted by a screen-sized warning that could only be closed after I clicked a button which read "I understand." and said warning is now in display under the "Infractions" part of my profile. Furthermore, you just told me (and I trust you) that this can be held against me in future staff actions.
Again, you can tell me as a Councillor that this is not a big deal, and a "roadside caution", but the experience I had in this site as a user is presented in another way entirely.
Naturally, you are not part of the staff. There is nothing you can do about it, and this kind of configuration is not up to you. And your experience in hearing appeals and whatnots can definitely educate you in another matter. However, as a regular user who is not used to this, I can only see that I now have three "infractions" in my profile.



The second point I disagree with is that the user was not just saying I am a bad QM. His action was not simply criticism.

Criticism is fine. I receive criticism on my work all the time, and I try to engage with it whenever I can. I also realize I display my work on the internet, and that I can't expect to not have people disagree with me.

The problem here, on the other hand, is that I very specifically asked people not to do something, and that user did it. I go out of my way to tell readers that I don't do "trap options", and that I will tell them when a voting decision might have bad outcomes, and that I am very careful with keeping the trust of my readers.
So, that wasn't just a user saying that I am a bad QM. Saying that is fine, even if rude. People have already told me that on occasion. That user, on the other hand, went out of their way to accuse me of breaching my reader's trust despite the lengths I go to keep it, and the times I have mentioned those accusations upset me.

The problem here is that "I specifically asked people not to accuse me of something" and then one person went and did it.

And that is why I am asking this question on this thread. Is it fine to ignore a user's request and say something after they asked not to? Should I just "grow thick skin" because "this is the internet"? Am I beholden to different standards and treatment on that thread because I am the QM, and it is acceptable for people to be less civil with me?

I know in the grand scheme of things it isn't a big deal. Still, I am a user in this site, and I want to know what to expect when I interact with people here. And all I know right now is that I was infracted for clicking a "funny" reaction, and that one of my readers was not infracted for saying something that I already said would make me upset. That really is just it.

 

[Potato Anarchy]

Estro is right, though. Staff notices are not infractions. They are understandably like....emotionally borderline? And for legacy code/navigation reasons they are, yeah, stored in the infractions tab. But procedurally they are not infractions, and they are only procedural objects to begin with so that is the nature that matters here. It is a common appeals issue for people to try to appeal staff notices because they have missed the part of the rules that says staff notices are not infractions and not subject to appeal.

They potentially affect future infractions in the same way that messages persisting for more than 24 hours does; despite some philosophical desire to, I cannot liberate the forum from linear time and persisting context.

 

[Elfalpha]

And that is why I am asking this question on this thread. Is it fine to ignore a user's request and say something after they asked not to? Should I just "grow thick skin" because "this is the internet"? Am I beholden to different standards and treatment on that thread because I am the QM, and it is acceptable for people to be less civil with me?

Click to shrink...

As I understand it you have the right ability as the QM to ask the staff to to remove someone from the thread if you feel like they are being disruptive or affecting your ability to run the thread. People do not need to be breaking the site rules for you to do that.


I cannot find it now, but I remember reading a thread where a discussion came up about kindness vs civility on the forum.

The user was arguing that people should be kind to each other and staff said that that was something they weren't interested in enforcing and that trying to do so would actively hurt the forum. That this is not a safe space, and trying to protect one persons feelings would almost certainly lead to hurting the overall forum experience for far more people.
It was mostly in reference to combatposting in N&P I believe, but the point may be relevant. Someone can be unkind but as long as they are, what was it, "playing the ball not the man" that's not uncivil in and of itself.

 

[BirdBodhisattva]

Estro is right, though. Staff notices are not infractions. They are understandably like....emotionally borderline? And for legacy code/navigation reasons they are, yeah, stored in the infractions tab. But procedurally they are not infractions, and they are only procedural objects to begin with so that is the nature that matters here. It is a common appeals issue for people to try to appeal staff notices because they have missed the part of the rules that says staff notices are not infractions and not subject to appeal.

They potentially affect future infractions in the same way that messages persisting for more than 24 hours does; despite some philosophical desire to, I cannot liberate the forum from linear time and persisting context.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for your point of view. I appreciate it.

Still, I think your point also reinforces my own. Because you can say that staff notices are not infractions, procedurally speaking. But you still have users who try to appeal them, because they believed they were infracted.

So, there is the point that the way it is presented makes me, a user, think I am being infracted. That is the impression that the current setup gives to us users. And this is what I am giving this site feedback about. The staff can conclude that this is not a problem, or that they don't have the time or inclination to address it, and that is fine. Still, this is feedback, and staff notices will continue to be appealed, and users will continue to think that they were infracted, under this system.

There is also an argument to be made that, even though it is a "mere procedure", it is still a point on the record. Which makes it more relevant and noticeable than "a message that persists for more than 24 hours". But that is not something I created this thread to ask about.

As I understand it you have the right ability as the QM to ask the staff to to remove someone from the thread if you feel like they are being disruptive or affecting your ability to run the thread. People do not need to be breaking the site rules for you to do that.


I cannot find it now, but I remember reading a thread where a discussion came up about kindness vs civility on the forum.

The user was arguing that people should be kind to each other and staff said that that was something they weren't interested in enforcing and that trying to do so would actively hurt the forum. That this is not a safe space, and trying to protect one persons feelings would almost certainly lead to hurting the overall forum experience for far more people.
It was mostly in reference to combatposting in N&P I believe, but the point may be relevant. Someone can be unkind but as long as they are, what was it, "playing the ball not the man" that's not uncivil in and of itself.

Click to shrink...

Thank you as well!

To be honest, I don't interact with the site in its entirety. I don't think anyone does. Still, the things I see and hear would have made me think this is a safe space. After all, this entire question began because of an infraction caused by reacting to a post with a "Funny".

And I only have posts such as these two (one, two) to go by. And since I don't interact with most of the site, those are the only kinds of things that can set my expectations.

Well, that and asking the staff directly. Which I am doing here.

 

[Ford Prefect]

But what IS the criteria for a personal offense?

Click to shrink...

Very significantly higher than someone saying they think that you intervene in votes to sway their direction which, apart from anything else and regardless of your protests to the contrary, actually does appear to be true? If your intention is not to do this then I would recommend making a greater effort so as to avoid giving that impression.

 

[Gurrent]

Very significantly higher than someone saying they think that you intervene in votes to sway their direction which, apart from anything else and regardless of your protests to the contrary, actually does appear to be true? If your intention is not to do this then I would recommend making a greater effort so as to avoid giving that impression.

Click to shrink...

To be fair the question of "how much information to give when clarifying a choice" is hard to answer without someone having some grasp of a argument for saying your trying to sway a vote, like, how would you answer a question about a option someone asked without "swaying a vote" since the argument could be "any additional info could make any option more or less appealing"

 

[BirdBodhisattva]

Very significantly higher than someone saying they think that you intervene in votes to sway their direction which, apart from anything else and regardless of your protests to the contrary, actually does appear to be true? If your intention is not to do this then I would recommend making a greater effort so as to avoid giving that impression.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for your answer!

 

[Squirtodyle]

Still, I think your point also reinforces my own. Because you can say that staff notices are not infractions, procedurally speaking. But you still have users who try to appeal them, because they believed they were infracted.

So, there is the point that the way it is presented makes me, a user, think I am being infracted. That is the impression that the current setup gives to us users. And this is what I am giving this site feedback about. The staff can conclude that this is not a problem, or that they don't have the time or inclination to address it, and that is fine. Still, this is feedback, and staff notices will continue to be appealed, and users will continue to think that they were infracted, under this system.

Click to shrink...

To clarify this, Staff Notices and Infractions are noted as separate things under the rules.

Staff may issue Staff Notices. These are warnings to a specific user, logged on that user's profile, noting a specific instance or course of behavior that is needs to be corrected.



Staff may issue an Infraction. An infraction is an official notice that a user has violated the Rules. Infractions are logged on a user's profile. Infractions may also appear as a small banner attached to the infringing post. Infractions, by default, carry a 3-day ban from the thread where the infracted post was made, though a moderator may increase the duration at their discretion. Infractions also come with infraction points: 25 is the default, but a moderator may, at their discretion, increase that number. Infraction points are given in multiples of 25, from 0 up to 200.

Click to shrink...

The specifics of what you can and cannot appeal are also in the rules.

You can appeal:

Infractions
Thread-bans
Suspensions
Subforum bans
Permanent bans

You cannot appeal:

Policy decisions, such as the existence of a rule or a determination that something should be against the rules;
Administrative decisions, such as the decision to lock or unlock a thread, move posts/threads, rename threads, and so on;
A warning, whether given to you personally or generally in a post in a thread or banner;
A staff notice that doesn't come with infraction points, threadban, or other sanction;
A decision by the Operations staff relating to spam, alternate accounts, and so on;
A decision to spam-clean an account which falls within the account limits (age, number of posts, etc.) of the Spam Cleaner tool.
A disciplinary action imposed because the Directors have determined you have violated the Terms of Service.

Click to shrink...

 

[Random832]

Honestly it might be nice to chill on the overreaction to presumed-malicious 'funny' reacts, just a warning or no. The combination of how thin your skin would have to be to be meaningfully harmed by someone doing it vs the real consequences of people having to walk on eggshells around posts that they sincerely do think were intended as jokes is a problem.

 

[Nyvis]

Honestly it might be nice to chill on the overreaction to presumed-malicious 'funny' reacts, just a warning or no. The combination of how thin your skin would have to be to be meaningfully harmed by someone doing it vs the real consequences of people having to walk on eggshells around posts that they sincerely do think were intended as jokes is a problem.

Click to shrink...

This is already the state of thing. You don't usually get points for the first funny offense unless it's really egregious.

 

[hghwolf]

I know explaining the humorous anecdote murders it but it appears a fairly simple resolution to explain to an arbitrator why you thought a post was intended to elicit laughter and thus deserving of a 'funny'.

If you don't have a habit of inappropriately rating things 'funny' it's gonna be maybe half an hours appeal writing once in... I dunno, a year ?