Member Survey: The Balance Between Free Speech and Maintaining a Civil, Respectful Forum Environment

[sun rise]

proselytizing

People like to try to convince other people. "Jesus is Lord" "I believe Jesus is Lord and you should do the same" "I believe Jesus is Lord with unwritten I believe you should also". Where to draw the line? I think where it's drawn is reasonable - no preaching.

Censorship is never good.

So you're of the "falsely crying fire in a crowded theater" or "we should organize to murder (some politician)" is just fine because censorship is NEVER good.

 

[dybmh]

I voted other. I cannot answer the question. There is zero transparency in moderation.

 

[dybmh]

The problem is that I can't see what is moderated. I have a problem with the intransparency, but you know that.

^^ this ^^

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the balance is fine in general, but if someone is banned for personal attacks then whatever they posted should be expunged as well.

I digress. I think people should know what people say even if they are banned. It won't look good for any forum that's full of deletions. It could be a potential signal that they got things to hide even if it's not true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you're of the "falsely crying fire in a crowded theater" or "we should organize to murder (some politician)" is just fine because censorship is NEVER good.

If the word fire in a theater was actually illegal, then people yelling fire in a burning theater would be arrested.

Plus I'd rather have people publicly say they want assassinate someone. You know why? Because it makes it easier to investigate which is why the Secret Service and authorities pay visits sometimes to people.

See my point?

 

[Debater Slayer]

As far as I can see, the balance is perfect.

The problem is that I can't see what is moderated. I have a problem with the intransparency, but you know that.

I voted other. I cannot answer the question. There is zero transparency in moderation.

All members are able to know the details of individual instances of moderation concerning their own accounts or content, but not details of individual instances of moderation concerning others' accounts or content. The forum rules are publicly visible to everyone, however, and all members are able to post feedback on moderation in the Site Feedback forum.

The confidentiality of moderation—whereby details of instances of moderation are kept between the member whose account or content was moderated and the staff—mainly exists to prevent public shaming or calling out of members, public arguments about moderation where people may take different sides and where major conflict and disruption may occur, and discussion of moderation that may give rise to such due to lacking context or accompanying clarification of the rules and policies.

 

[Alien826]

I digress. I think people should know what people say even if they are banned. It won't look good for any forum that's full of deletions. It could be a potential signal that they got things to hide even if it's not true.

I agree, but more as a demonstration of what is not allowed, for the education of others.

Oh, my general opinion is that the balance is not far off. I would hate it if all contentious text were banned. That's what adds bit of spice to what could be a very boring place.

 

[Alien826]

If the word fire in a theater was actually illegal, then people yelling fire in a burning theater would be arrested.

I think it's meant to be when there is no fire. People could be hurt in the resulting scramble to the doors for no reason.

Plus I'd rather have people publicly say they want assassinate someone. You know why? Because it makes it easier to investigate which is why the Secret Service and authorities pay visits sometimes to people.

See my point?

Yah, but it's much easier to assassinate someone secretly. Heh heh.

 

[Quagmire]

I think this forum is already too biased in favor of people who want a civil environment.

What about the rest of us?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

All members are able to know the details of individual instances of moderation concerning their own accounts or content, but not details of individual instances of moderation concerning others' accounts or content. The forum rules are publicly visible to everyone, however, and all members are able to post feedback on moderation in the Site Feedback forum.

The confidentiality of moderation—whereby details of instances of moderation are kept between the member whose account or content was moderated and the staff—mainly exists to prevent public shaming or calling out of members, public arguments about moderation where people may take different sides and where major conflict and disruption may occur, and discussion of moderation that may give rise to such due to lacking context or accompanying clarification of the rules and policies.

This is the way it ought to be, in my opinion.

I also appreciate that moderation with members is done privately. I don't think it is any of my business how the staff interacts with other members in terms of moderation. If I have a discussion with them about something I said or about a particular thread or post, I don't want the entire forum to know about it.

 

[dybmh]

All members are able to know the details of individual instances of moderation concerning their own accounts

"... are able to ... "

That has not been my experience. I am not able to know the details of my own moderation.

Staff members "are able to" know the details. Non-staff members rely on staff to share the details with them. That is a problem, because, as you know, site-feedback is a hostile environment. It is not a place where questions about infractions are discussed in a friendly and open manner. The staff often become defensive and communication breaks down.

 

[Heyo]

If the word fire in a theater was actually illegal, then people yelling fire in a burning theater would be arrested.

See my point?

Nope. @sun rise explicitly specified "falsely crying fire". You ignored that, and therefore your objection is to a straw man.

 

[Truthseeker]

Hi, all,

This survey is to gauge member opinions regarding the balance between free speech and maintaining a civil, respectful forum environment for debate and discussion.

Please answer the poll based on your forum experience and observation of content on the forums, including both content that aligns with your own views and content that disagrees with them.

Per Rule 2, if you have any feedback regarding specific instances of moderation, please post it in the Site Feedback forum.

Thank you.

It's hard to say. I lean towards it being too lenient about civility and respect, but I'm biased perhaps because of a few that are not civil and respectful about my religion. I own that that I don't report those who do this hardly at all. When I do report I don't know what action was taken, for my reports or others reports and that's as it should be, but my ignorance about that also makes me wonder if behind the scenes nothing is being done about it when the person continues on the same way as before. I don't see people's attitudes soften.

As someone who moderated myself at one time, years ago, I appreciate how hard it is to moderate a forum, the forum I moderated in retrospect was too lenient in moderating people. The system here of the action being secret was not possible in the forum I moderated, so I think that affected how the forum was moderated to being too lenient there.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I digress. I think people should know what people say even if they are banned. It won't look good for any forum that's full of deletions. It could be a potential signal that they got things to hide even if it's not true.

But what does this do for those attacked - since they don't get a reply as to simple accusations? Is that fair? How can you remedy an attack from some anonymous individual who proposes to know someone but probably doesn't?

The moderators often remove posts that go over the guidelines, plus you might be encouraging cowardly hit-and-run attacks by not removing offensive material.

 

[Alien826]

The site is worse off due to all the politics... though I'm not one to talk my name is literally political.

You've probably noticed that we (in the USA) have just been through a very contentious and, to many, threatening election period. It's little wonder that this has resulted in a large number of political threads. I think you will see a large reduction in these now the election is all over.

What's to say now? I'm personally too depressed to do much posting on politics. Leonard Cohen summed it up.

Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost