Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

looksee

Ah, right, so when you say:

intheclouds wrote: »

This nonsense of "establishing the facts" that always comes off like an interrogation where if the poster doesn't lick up and say things the mod likes, the ban/warning gets upheld. It's pointless. It always appears like a deliberate attempt to make a user publicly grovel.

which I understood to be a broad and general reference, you are referring to just one particular incident

How is the poster being interrogated as to whether or not they agree with the moderation of a forum "establishing the facts"?

since I don't recall this question being asked in other than the one case. That might account for why I missed the point, it was more that the point wasn't where it might have been expected to be, and now I know what you are talking about, I should add that I do not disagree with you. Its not my call though.

intheclouds

looksee wrote: »

Ah, right, so when you say:



which I understood to be a broad and general reference, you are referring to just one particular incident



since I don't recall this question being asked in other than the one case. That might account for why I missed the point, it was more that the point wasn't where it might have been expected to be, and now I know what you are talking about, I should add that I do not disagree with you. Its not my call though.

I'm making a broad and general reference but using one specific example to illustrate the point. If you look through Dispute Resolution you will see it happens regularly.

weisses

looksee wrote: »

On weiss's point, a great deal of work has been put into removing sexism, racism and other bigotry from the site, and it is a great improvement. Many people still do not exactly understand why it matters, but they will have to either figure it out or accept that those days are gone.

Point still stands

For one poster "these days" seem gone by getting a card

For the other poster "these days" seem not over

These comments cannot be taking into context

K-9

weisses wrote: »

Point still stands

For one poster "these days" seem gone by getting a card

For the other poster "these days" seem not over

These comments cannot be taking into context

Yep, they can be taken on context, depends on the forum for a start. I'm not familiar with the cycling forum, are you?

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, they can be taken on context, depends on the forum for a start. I'm not familiar with the cycling forum, are you?

But sexism is sexism .... The definition is or at least should not be forum dependent ?

Even Looksee pointed that out as much

a great deal of work has been put into removing sexism, racism and other bigotry from the site

Now it seems " a joke" displaying sexism is just a joke on one forum (feedback) but cardable on another (cycling)

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I hate those Italians, with their slanty eyes...





Sorry, not Italians, I meant Italics.


Is that racist?


How about the time a Rabbi was standing at the bus stop, when a black man approaches and asks "When is the next bus due?"

...

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

^ I suppose the point I was making is sometimes a joke is just a joke. Sometimes mods need thicker skin, and sometimes if you want a sanitised 'safe space' to play on the internet, sometimes reddit has plenty of those...

Nody

weisses wrote: »

But sexism is sexism .... The definition is or at least should not be forum dependent ?

The definition is pretty set; the interpretation if a post is sexist (which is a contextual) is always going to be individual and vary from person to person. You'll never have 100% consistency on rules and rule applications as long as a human is asked to decide if a rule was broken or not; esp. when it comes to grey zone areas (and sexism is very much so; is a pretty girls thread sexist? In some people's opinion yes while others would say it's simply appreciating them etc.).

Lovely Bloke

Sexist jokes are just as sexist as sexist non-jokey comments

all they do is normalise those kinds of comments, and make them ok.

But that's ok, because it was a mod. In Feedback.

Lovely Bloke

Sexist jokes are just as sexist as sexist non-jokey comments

all they do is normalise those kinds of comments, and make them ok.

But that's ok, because it was a mod. In Feedback.

K-9

weisses wrote: »

But sexism is sexism .... The definition is or at least should not be forum dependent ?

Even Looksee pointed that out as much



Now it seems " a joke" displaying sexism is just a joke on one forum (feedback) but cardable on another (cycling)

Well, to give a politics example, you might get a way with a more "risque" joke in the politics cafe, less chance in politics general or international.

weisses

K-9 wrote: »

Well, to give a politics example, you might get a way with a more "risque" joke in the politics cafe, less chance in politics general or international.

But you have to agree that if a post in the politics general forum is deemed sexist that same post posted in the Cafe is sexist too ?

K-9

weisses wrote: »

But you have to agree that if a post in the politics general forum is deemed sexist that same post posted in the Cafe is sexist too ?

Nope, something that would be considered racist or xenophobic in international wouldn't get actioned in the cafe. That's is when we go back to different contexts and forum standards again.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, something that would be considered racist or xenophobic in international wouldn't get actioned in the cafe. That's is when we go back to different contexts and forum standards again.

So there isn't a sitewide ban on racism, anti-Semitism and sectarianism? It might be best if you put that in the Café charter, where everybody can see it.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

So there isn't a sitewide ban on racism, anti-Semitism and sectarianism? It might be best if you put that in the Café charter, where everybody can see it.

There was always a looser standard in AH when political threads were allowed there, pre the cafe days. Politics always had a higher standard, indeed many wouldn't post there at all, and stayed in AH.

Those looser standards have transferred to the Politics cafe, the AH for politics.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

There was always a looser standard in AH when political threads were allowed there, pre the cafe days. Politics always had a higher standard, indeed many wouldn't post there at all, and stayed in AH.

Those looser standards have transferred to the Politics cafe, the AH for politics.

So racism, sectarianism and anti-Semitism are ok in the café? Is the office staff on board with this or do they have knowledge of it?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Shhhhhh! you'll ruin it for everyone

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

So racism, sectarianism and anti-Semitism are ok in the café? Is the office staff on board with this or do they have knowledge of it?

You wont mind giving me a link to where I said that.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

You wont mind giving me a link to where I said that.

"Nope, something that would be considered racist or xenophobic in international wouldn't get actioned in the cafe. That's is when we go back to different contexts and forum standards again. "

You are essentially saying that something considered anti-Semitic, racist etc, for example, in international politics would be ok in the café. If you aren't, then you might explain the above for me.

Canadel

Nodin wrote: »

You are essentially saying that something considered anti-Semitic, racist etc, for example, in international politics would be ok in the café. If you aren't, then you might explain the above for me.

Only Republican candidates in the US election are allowed to make racist or xenophobic remarks in the international forum.

This discussion does highlight though the wider problem of boards' suppression of disagreeable opinions (racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc.) The problem with banning people for sexist posts is that eventually you begin to wonder what a sexist post it. You've banned all the clearly sexist posts but yet sexism still exists, in society and on boards, so you begin to broaden the definition of sexism depending on reported posts, moderator's perspectives on sexism, misinterpretations and so on. It's a mess. And it applies to sexism, racism, anti-semitism and all the isms you can think of. Transgenderism is the new one I believe.

Of course boards, as privately owned site, is entitled to clamp down on all of these opinions. But by doing so, and not allowing these opinions to be expressed, and challenged and ignored and ridiculed, boards is not only doing its users and the quality of its discussion a disservice, but it is ensuring the continuation and even rise of these beliefs and behaviours, rather than contributing to their demise. And that is a terrible shame, and the reason boards will always be looked upon as a discussion site that could be brilliant, but bans itself from being so.

Nodin

Canadel wrote: »

Only Republican candidates in the US election are allowed to make racist or xenophobic remarks in the international forum.

This discussion does highlight though the wider problem of boards' suppression of disagreeable opinions (racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc.) The problem with banning people for sexist posts is that eventually you begin to wonder what a sexist post it. You've banned all the clearly sexist posts but yet sexism still exists, in society and on boards, so you begin to broaden the definition of sexism depending on reported posts, moderator's perspectives on sexism, misinterpretations and so on. It's a mess. And it applies to sexism, racism, anti-semitism and all the isms you can think of. Transgenderism is the new one I believe.

Of course boards, as privately owned site, is entitled to clamp down on all of these opinions. But by doing so, and not allowing these opinions to be expressed, and challenged and ignored and ridiculed, boards is not only doing its users and the quality of its discussion a disservice, but it is ensuring the continuation and even rise of these beliefs and behaviours, rather than contributing to their demise. And that is a terrible shame, and the reason boards will always be looked upon as a discussion site that could be brilliant, but bans itself from being so.

They are entitled to allow what they want. I, for whatever reason, was under the impression that there was a sitewide ban on the things mentioned earlier and indeed there are actual on-thread mod warnings in the café that state that - much as in any forum that I frequent - they are not tolerated. However that has - in fact and practice - not been the case for some time. I'd just like a straight answer, as I think its rather unfair on all parties that there is doubt as to what is and is not permissible.

Nodin

Canadel wrote: »

Only Republican candidates in the US election are allowed to make racist or xenophobic remarks in the international forum.

This discussion does highlight though the wider problem of boards' suppression of disagreeable opinions (racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc.) The problem with banning people for sexist posts is that eventually you begin to wonder what a sexist post it. You've banned all the clearly sexist posts but yet sexism still exists, in society and on boards, so you begin to broaden the definition of sexism depending on reported posts, moderator's perspectives on sexism, misinterpretations and so on. It's a mess. And it applies to sexism, racism, anti-semitism and all the isms you can think of. Transgenderism is the new one I believe.

Of course boards, as privately owned site, is entitled to clamp down on all of these opinions. But by doing so, and not allowing these opinions to be expressed, and challenged and ignored and ridiculed, boards is not only doing its users and the quality of its discussion a disservice, but it is ensuring the continuation and even rise of these beliefs and behaviours, rather than contributing to their demise. And that is a terrible shame, and the reason boards will always be looked upon as a discussion site that could be brilliant, but bans itself from being so.

Considering that the last post(s) I had assumed were outside the rules (wrongly, it now appears) involves comparing 1.2 billion people to parasites and justifying the ethnic cleansing of the rohinga, while - in other posts- simultaneously trying to imply it didn't happen
http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/35290/
I'm somewhat doubtful about this "brilliant" discussion bursting forth on us all, given the obvious parallels with attitudes taken towards other minorities and historical events involving them.

I could of course be entirely wrong, and posts like the above and the one regarding refugees that starts 'Don't let rapists in your town' may result in a golden age of debate and reason, of course.

weisses

Nodin wrote: »

So racism, sectarianism and anti-Semitism are ok in the café? Is the office staff on board with this or do they have knowledge of it?

If posts labelling every migrant as being "mentally handicapped" are allowed Then the above should be no issue at all .... ( yes it was reported)

The Hill Billy

Please stick to providing feedback on the Dispute Resolution process. If this continues off-topic the thread will be closed.

tHB

weisses

DRP is flawed when terms like sexism, racism etc are open for (mis) interpretation

I provided an example from a recent DRP

The discussion that followed doesn't provide much clarity either

I can open a different feedback thread if you want but DRP is already part of the issue

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

"Nope, something that would be considered racist or xenophobic in international wouldn't get actioned in the cafe. That's is when we go back to different contexts and forum standards again. "

You are essentially saying that something considered anti-Semitic, racist etc, for example, in international politics would be ok in the café. If you aren't, then you might explain the above for me.

Ok, put it this way, any posts advocating violence are treated harshly in politics general, so somebody posting advocating a return to the Republican armed campaign or British shoot to kill wouldn't last long. The cafe wouldn't be as strict.

K-9

Sorry, didn't see the warning before I posted.

Canadel

Nodin wrote: »

They are entitled to allow what they want. I, for whatever reason, was under the impression that there was a sitewide ban on the things mentioned earlier and indeed there are actual on-thread mod warnings in the café that state that - much as in any forum that I frequent - they are not tolerated. However that has - in fact and practice - not been the case for some time. I'd just like a straight answer, as I think its rather unfair on all parties that there is doubt as to what is and is not permissible.

My point, Nodin, is that that doubt will always exist on a site where such opinions and views are suppressed, regardless of whether the restriction is forum specific or site wide.

Rather than allow users to reach a rational understanding of issues like racism, sexism and so on, boards rushes to restrict and ban any direct hint of them. There is a massive difference between a racist and a racist troll for example. Yet boards would ban both of them because crucially they see no difference between the two.

You only have to look at threads like the immigration thread in the politics cafe to see how things like racism are rife anyway on boards, beneath the surface. People are smarter and better able to disguise their views. You can't just ban everyone. It's not the answer, but on boards it all too often is.

Spear

This has run its course, so it'll be locked tomorrow evening.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I've been an avid reader of the Dispute Resolution forum for the last two years, and in all that time I only remember twice reading a post from a c-mod saying something along the lines of: 'looking at this from the posters point of view, as is my role...' (I can't find any examples now, trying different variations of that phrase).

And I remember it striking me at the time, that that is how Dispute Resolution should work. But it's obvious that it doesn't.

recently there have been a couple along the lines of

We've had a good review of this and taken our time examining the thread,

There's 3 factors we have considered:

1 Were rules broken?
2 Was it intentional?
3 Is the penalty appropriate?

but thats only maybe 4 threads, over the last 2, 2 and a half years (probably a few more, and a good few where it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but still)

In my opinion, thats how Dispute Resolution should be handled, but taking a quick browse of the 2 most recent pages of that forum, it's not always the case.


I think I'll leave it at that, for now. Any other concerns have either been touched on by other posters, or in the case of my main concern, been brought up in the first reply to this thread.

When an action against a poster begins with an admin though, I don't think there's recourse to DRP - which is an issue because admins judgement can be as flawed as mods/cmods.