New Moderation Policy in Off-Topic

The Off-Topic section of the forums has for some time now received an especially light level of moderation. This happened in part because of a low number of moderators, and also because of concerns about consistent enforcement with inexact policy. After a rising level of concern by Senshu and the other volunteer moderators, we are presenting here a clearer set of rules that, although they will apply generally to the rest of the forums, have been spurred on by behavior in the Off-Topic section and are especially pertinent to conversations therein. We do not want these forums to be an exclusive club built around one's tolerance for toxicity. In light of that, here is our specific application of the Code of Conduct as it will be applied to Off-Topic, starting now:

1. Any personal attack will be immediately removed. While this is already an explicit CoC rule, it will be more strictly enforced in OT.
2. Expressing bigotry towards or otherwise denigrating a class of persons will result in removal of the offending posts or thread. Special attention will be given to the formally protected categories under United States law (race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability status, veteran status, and genetic information). This does mean that certain ideologies will not be allowed to be expressed on the forums: one could not, for instance, provide either explicit or implicit support for white supremacist groups.
3. No incitement, flaming, or raw trolling. Jokes are fine; "It's a joke" is not.
4. Posts are not subject to extenuating circumstances of quality. This means that, if a post contains a substantive response to another poster, or attempts to engage in a decent way with a conversation, but also includes a rules violation of one form or another, the post will be removed. Any infraction, therefore, makes the entire post against the rules. If a poster wishes to continue to engage, they may make a new post that does not violate the rules.
5. Re-starting threads or complete discussions that have been terminated by moderators is not allowed, and will be subject to immediate removal of all associated posts.
6. Acknowledging that you are breaking a rule is no excuse for breaking a rule -- on the contrary, it is a sure way to get your posts removed more swiftly and for future posts to be placed under increased scrutiny. If you know, or even suspect, that your behavior violates the forum rules or explicit norms, do not do it. Likewise, passive-aggressive acknowledgement of previous violations will also make a post subject to immediate removal.
7. Attempts to circumvent or manipulate any of these rules through the use of coded language or other means will result in posts getting removed. We are human beings too -- we can tell.

These rules are stated with the understanding that members of these forums will be treated as adults: moderators will assume that you can understand your actions, recognize if you have broken a rule, and demonstrate maturity when confronted about it. Likewise, these rules are to be followed on a personal basis; it is not up to you to call out other people for breaking them, or turn them into a weapon in conversation. In the event that another poster breaks a rule, contact a moderator via the forum's Private Message function. If the poster in violation is a moderator, contact a different moderator or, preferably, refer the issue to Senshu. Public posts about moderator disputes will, as per the Code of Conduct, be removed immediately, and will not be left to linger as examples; consider this official notice to such effect. Ignorance of the rules is never an excuse.

We do not think that these rules are onerous or demanding -- in an ideal world, they wouldn't have to be said at all. Basically, we don't want hatred for other people to be a reason for posting. If something like disgust or scorn is your motivating emotion when you are about to write something, we ask -- for your own sake and everyone else's, regardless of the rules -- that you reconsider. The forums should be a better place than that.

This post made on behalf of
@Senshu
@darklord48
@Markoth
@Dagda
and myself.

 

The below text is an excerpt in response to a question from a forum member about the word "bigotry" as it appears in the above rules. Senshu has suggested that I place it here to make clearer how the above rules will be interpreted and applied.

"By bigotry (as alluded to by mention of the US legal categories) I generally mean negative discrimination that's based in something other than the material of a person's thoughts.

Here is a precise example that might give you a better sense of how this will appear:

1. Saying "The Labour Party is destroying freedom in our nation and all who don't outright oppose the Labour Party by joining the Tories are complicit in this anti-freedom" is generally not bigotry. The poster's case that this is discriminating though not bigoted speech would be further helped if they elaborated by saying things like "The Grenfell Fire survivors shouldn't be placed in requisitioned housing because it impinges upon the freedom to own property" -- that is, if they provided additional explanation of the terms or ideas they used.
2. The above statement could be made bigoted speech in two ways, the first of them by changing the character of its subjects. Were the poster to say "Labour Party people are anti-freedom trash" and continued to speak about members of that political party as a collective worthy of denigration based upon their membership per se, then that would be considered bigotry. To some extent, that determination on the part of moderators would depend upon other statements by the poster on the same subject. While I recognize that "Labour Party people are anti-freedom trash" is a common sort of short-hand for an idea more similar to (1) that may not have bigoted intent behind it, the comment could still be subject to removal anyway; if the poster feels that they have been misinterpreted, then they are absolutely free to clarify their thought with different wording that is not ostensibly based on broad distaste for other people.
3. The second way (1) could be bigoted would be by changing the character of its reasons. For instance, were one to use the phrase from (1) about the destruction of property freedoms caused by the Labour Party and explain their reasoning about the Grenfell fire, but were to elaborate by saying "and the freedom to own property is good because it's what keeps black people from taking over our government," then that would be bigotry. In this case, the entire post about the Labour Party would be removed, because it is predicated on an evidently bigoted assertion. So, if A -> B, and A is evidently bigoted, then B is going to be removed as well. This does not preclude B ever being expressed, but until C -> B (and C is not bigoted in some other way) then B will be removed.

Now, bear in mind that the above example involves a political party, a category that is usually subject to less scrutiny than statements involving, for instance, race or gender. Neither should the above examples be taken as instances of a hard and fast rule: speech is a fluid and messy process, and I and the other moderators will depend on our own intuitions and ability to interpret other people in addition to our rationales."

As always, we are happy to answer any questions you might have about the new moderation policy, or clarify or respond to concerns about what I've just said. In the event that you do have a question or concern, please PM me or one of the other moderators, and we will do our best to respond quickly.