The Sweeping Ban on "Slurs"

[PastryOfApathy]

Told ya I was gonna make it.

So as some people have begun to notice, Phoenix has instituted a sweeping ban on words that are to some considered "slurs". Now I'm not gonna beat around the bush here and avoid the mini-incident that caused this whole thing, the main word here is "tranny", and that's fucking stupid.

All I ask is why? Why can I call someone a fag or sarcastically say "mah nigga" but the moment I jokingly say the word tranny all hell is thrown at me and I get a bunch of angry mods down my throat? I mean we got black people, and gay dudes on here so why are those acceptable?

And for the record I know some of this was discussed elsewhere so some of my questions are somewhat rhetorical. That and as some people know I'm transgender irl, but I simply ask everyone forget about that since I don't want to make this into some bullshit case of "THAT'S OUR WORD, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT WORD CIS SCUM" or something else retarded like that.

MODERATOR EDIT

Things have been resolved.

[Guest]

I will say the word ''faggot'' all I want

Fag 

Faggot

Faggotry

Faggie

 

What the fuck do you want to turn this into, dear mods? Tumblr?

[#00Buck]

Thanks for posting this Pastry. Someone had to bring it up. 

It totally agree with you. 

If we are going to be "slur free" we need to be 100% "slur free."

The problem is that the rule is being selectively applied and that is unfair. 

I think people should be able to say whatever they want on the forum.

We don't need the thought or language police here. 

Cheers to you Amiir. 

I get where you are coming from. 

 

[Cingal]

I think blanket bans are ridiculous and context has to considered.

 

Added to that, the process of mods just inventing rules on the fly is all kinds of messed up. I think any rule changes should be announced in SoTU, discussed and then implemented.

 

 

[ArielMT]

We're going to clarify this very precisely soon, but basically it boils down to words that are used to discriminate and words that aren't.

Here's what's final: You can refer to yourself using what would be considered a slur, but you can't refer to others that way.

Also, I hadn't thought about Tumblr: That, like FA, is an example of what we shouldn't become.

[Newt]

1 hour ago, ArielMT said:

Here's what's final: You can refer to yourself using what would be considered a slur, but you can't refer to others that way.

Gay.

[ArielMT]

4 minutes ago, Cingal said:

I think blanket bans are ridiculous and context has to considered.

 

Added to that, the process of mods just inventing rules on the fly is all kinds of messed up. I think any rule changes should be announced in SoTU, discussed and then implemented.

 

 

We're not going to do blanket-bans.

The rule is already there, but this particular line wasn't approached until very recently.

[root]

If there's going to be a ban on slur words, can we at least have one of those filters that changes them to random words?

e.g.
nigger = roody-poo
faggot = candy-ass
 

[ArielMT]

We should become 4chan?

[Guest]

Let's not create a fucking bubble here. If I do not mean it in an offensive way, I can say whatever the fuck I want. If someone has a problem with this they can go back straight to tumblr. I will continue using these slurs whether you like it or not. 

[Terminal7]

Guess this goes along the lines of:

"Ban the words,  not the people."

[root]

Just now, ArielMT said:

We should become 4chan?

In this instance, yes.

[PastryOfApathy]

4 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

We should become 4chan?

We should become a site where people aren't afraid to speak their minds.

I respect people who may not like certain words or subjects, I mean there are certain subjects that have been brought up on this very forum that make me very, very uncomfortable and have caused me some shit. But I'm an adult, and my discomfort should not dictate what others are allowed to say and talk about since it's my responsibility to deal with it. After all it's silly to expect the world to pander to how I feel about everything.

Also before shit gets out of hand, please avoid any mod-hate circlejerking. This isn't about that and I'll be very pissed if you make it so.

[Guest]

Next time if you really have to put up some absurd, ridiculous rules have the fucking decency to tell me beforehand. And even then I still wouldn't agree to follow this horseshit

[willow]

14 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

We should become 4chan?

We could do that. But then no one is allowed to complain when the user activity comes to a standstill either 

seriously though. enough people reported it and complained about the word. We weren't just gonna ignore it because the majority of people are okay with it. That makes it seem like we're only willing to listen to the majority and I'd rather not support the Spiral of Silence on issues like this. No one should be afraid to speak their mind, but equally no one should be afraid to report or tell people when they are uncomfortable with something. That's kind of how we end up with situations like the Fuck Thread and Dev's Comment Simulator to a lesser extent 

 

as as a side note, nigga isn't actually a slur. It's a derivative of a slur but it has a completely different connotation. I'm not even making that up either 

[Guest]

Now to those of you wondering why I'm so pissed, it all started from this thread

At the end of it, before the most goddamn fucking retarded mod edit ever, what I said was: ''Now for the not so serious law: if it's warm outside, clothes are prohibited for good looking men, women and trannies older than 18. Do it. Make this a thing.''. Now you decide if that's so terrible that slurs need to be banned. I was told some people were ''uncomfortable'' with them. If that's so then I fucking pity them, they must have a real hard time in the real world. Grow a thicker skin for God's sake

[ArielMT]

13 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

We should become a site where people aren't afraid to speak their minds.

I agree completely.  The problem is that the use of certain kinds of language creates an environment in which people become very afraid to speak their minds, and it is for this reason that we need to curb slurs and hate speech.

13 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

I respect people who may not like certain words or subjects, I mean there are certain subjects that have been brought up on this very forum that make me very, very uncomfortable and have caused me some shit. But I'm an adult, and my discomfort should not dictate what others are allowed to say and talk about since it's my responsibility to deal with it. After all it's silly to expect the world to pander to how I feel about everything.

True, but if we allow that discomfort to magnify into fear, then we create an environment which is more toxic than that which would destroy an Arab on Stormfront or a Republican on a Communist Party forum.  There's a balance we have to strike in order to have that free and happy environment.

What we've been struggling with internally for the last two days is how to define and clarify that happy medium between the two silencing, fun-killing extremes so that there's no more ambiguity.

14 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Also before shit gets out of hand, please avoid any mod-hate circlejerking. This isn't about that and I'll be very pissed if you make it so.

Thank you.  It doesn't always show, but we value every critique and criticism even when it's made as complaints like this.

[Cingal]

26 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

The rule is already there, but this particular line wasn't approached until very recently.

 

Which rule?

 

Hate speech is the meaning behind words. Not the word itself. IE, it's not offensive to anyone to use the word "Ape" to refer to... An ape. but, it is offensive if you call black people "Apes".

[Guest]

See the problem with, "I will continue to do whatever I want" is that, well,  you could do that. The Moderators can also y'know, not allow people to be here if they're not going to listen to reasonable requests and any rules that may be implemented. I can understand the fear of moderation due to the almost PTSD like fear from FAF/FA, but the mod team today is not, nor will they ever be the level of ridiculous shown in the FA forums. Its been eight months now. This is a new community in its own right. And the Moderators need a modicum of respect from their users. 

This needs to be a comfortable place for everyone to hang out at. We're not gonna alienate users just cuz some of you have thicker skin. I don't even really care about the word or words used. I care about those who do care, since that's what I volunteered to do. Help y'all. I want to listen to you guys and work with you guys and I sure as shit dont wanna be your asshole boss. However, you can't possibly believe that we're not EVER gonna stand in your way. If the moderators don't get at least that, you're gonna get some hostility.

As far as this whole mess goes.. I don't want to blanket ban. That's just me, personally. I think the lot of you are adults and I don't wanna sanitize this place to some tumblrite wasteland, nor do I want it to be be some anarchistic 4chan.

Someone came up with a fantastic compromise, which was that if you yourself are part of that group, then use it all day long. However if you're not? Don't. Its simple and in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal AND this would be unheard of on a lot of other forums. The bonus is that it doesn't infringe on the general freedom that folks have on phoenix. 

[PastryOfApathy]

Just now, willow said:

We could do that. But then no one is allowed to complain when the user activity comes to a standstill either 

seriously though. enough people reported it and complained about the word. We weren't just gonna ignore it because the majority of people are okay with it. That makes it seem like we're only willing to listen to the majority and I'd rather not support the Spiral of Silence on issues like this. No one should be afraid to speak their mind, but equally no one should be afraid to report or tell people when they are uncomfortable with something. That's kind of how we end up with situations like the Fuck Thread and Dev's Comment Simulator to a lesser extent 

No one is saying people should be afraid to say they're uncomfortable with something, or report something. I mean no one here is going after the people reporting these things (at least I hope so). All I'm trying to say that is punishing the vast majority over the feelings of one or two people who could very well just ignore it is stupid.

Also I propose an offer to anyone who did report any of the kinds posts we're talking about. If you want to express your opinions but are for whatever reason afraid of backlash you can PM me and I can either post it in the thread anonymously on your behalf or talk to you directly. Either way I won't disclose who you are, since I'm not a dick.

2 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

I agree completely.  The problem is that the use of certain kinds of language creates an environment in which people become very afraid to speak their minds, and it is for this reason that we need to curb slurs and hate speech.

That's not so much an issue with the words, more than it is an issue with the kind of person who is afraid to speak their mind because someone jokingly said the word "tranny".

4 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

True, but if we allow that discomfort to magnify into fear, then we create an environment which is more toxic than that which would destroy an Arab on Stormfront or a Republican on a Communist Party forum.  There's a balance we have to strike in order to have that free and happy environment.

That's why is should be emphasized that people need to learn to ignore these things. Make a sticky if you must, but if someone is so fragile that they're being triggered by a random word occasionally being used in jest they probably wouldn't last long here anyways.

[Lucyfish]

I just think it's the context that needs to be considered, as well as whether or not anybody is ACTUALLY being offended. Like, I got warned for jokingly using "tranny" in the way that is used to describe a car transmission, not as a slur. Yeah, I get a little offended when "tranny" is used to describe transgender people, since in that context there has been a lot of hate behind it in history. However in the context of a joke based on wording, I see nothing to truly be offended at, personally. As far as I know, nobody else got offended by it either.

I really think context needs to be key when referring to these ordeals. A ban on casual or malevolent slurs makes sense I suppose, but when I call someone "my nigga" then I definitely mean it in a positive way. However, if someone was offended by it and expressed it to me, I'd just apologize and not use the word around them and move on. Calling someone "my nigga" and calling someone "a dirty nigger" are two vastly different interactions, and I think they should be treated as such.

[Guest]

If you don't give me the names of these supposed people who'd have a problem with these slurs, thus enabling me to ask these people personally whether that's true or not, I'm going to have to assume you're lying to push forth the agenda of whoever came up with this bullshit. I want to see for how many (or should I say little?) overly sensitive tumblrinas that are OFFUNDUD we should ban these slurs. Come on let's do this, let's see how many out of 780 members

8 minutes ago, willow said:

That makes it seem like we're only willing to listen to the majority

That's exactly what you're supposed to do. The majority wins, the desires of the many come before those of the few. That's how it works in a democracy, unless you want to prove that this isn't one and that the decision making is reserved only and exclusively to the moderators

[PastryOfApathy]

3 minutes ago, Lemon said:

Someone came up with a fantastic compromise, which was that if you yourself are part of that group, then use it all day long. However if you're not? Don't.

NO

That's the exact thing I'm fighting against. The freedom to speak your mind should not be limited to a privileged few.  Either everyone gets the right to say something, or no one does, plain and simple.

[Feelwell]

30 minutes ago, Amiir said:

Faggie

 

Faggie?

Sounds like a pet name.

 

Honestly I'm with Pastry on this one, mostly at least. It really does depend on context though, but that would require people to report it and mods to view it every time someone feels it's being used in a negative connotation. I do support the whole "it's alright if you refer to yourself."

Also, gotta take into account the future of phoenixed. Assuming the community will grow and the site will succeed, you'll be dealing with more people, and more diversity. 

2 minutes ago, Lemon said:

Someone came up with a fantastic compromise, which was that if you yourself are part of that group, then use it all day long. However if you're not? Don't. Its simple and in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal AND this would be unheard of on a lot of other forums. The bonus is that it doesn't infringe on the general freedom that folks have on phoenix. 

Ehhh then it does become the whole "You aren't trans, don't you use our word" thing. Furthermore what of those who are trans or whatever but do not want people to know?

[ArielMT]

4 minutes ago, Cingal said:

Which rule?

Phoenix Forum Rules ver. 1.0, "don't" bullet point 3 and details paragraph 12.

4 minutes ago, Cingal said:

Hate speech is the meaning behind words. Not the word itself. IE, it's not offensive to anyone to use the word "Ape" to refer to... An ape. but, it is offensive if you call black people "Apes".

Yes, and context infers the meaning.  That is what we're enforcing.

What we mods are seeing is that the manner in which we are enforcing that is being interpreted as a blanket ban on words sans meaning and context.  That is not our intent.

[Cingal]

Just now, ArielMT said:

Phoenix Forum Rules ver. 1.0, "don't" bullet point 3 and details paragraph 12.

Yes, and context infers the meaning.  That is what we're enforcing.

What we mods are seeing is that the manner in which we are enforcing that is being interpreted as a blanket ban on words sans meaning and context.  That is not our intent.

That might actually be the case if you were warning and infracting people using it who were actually using it as hate speech.

 

Instead, you're giving warnings for people making puns, people who are actually trans, identify as a "Tranny" and other such stuff. That's ridiculous. And is not even remotely hate speech.

 

 

Also, it seems overly convenient that given the majority of active mods are trans, this is the first word that gets banned. It seems a lot more like self interest than listening to the community.

[Lucyfish]

I mean, personally, I'll say I didn't like Amiir's use of the word in his thread. I don't think "tranny" is an appropriate word to use as a casual reference to transgender people. I thought that a minor pull-aside was fine, nobody needs to be punished.

@Amiir If you would mind, please don't use "tranny" to casually refer the trans people? I mean, you wouldn't casually call black people "niggers" in conversation, so "tranny" wouldn't be appropriate in that situation. Not mad, just making a request.

It can be dealt with civilly, but recently it seems like some mods were indeed trying to blanket-ban a little bit. I honestly attribute that to lack of communication, myself.

[Guest]

Welp. We've got a portion of the users who really are offended/hurt by certain words. We've got another portion that doesn't care (myself included. I wish this wasn't even a fucking thing today)

However, as moderators, we're in a tough position. Do we listen to the majority and let the place go crazy, or do we listen to the minority and sanitize to the point of stupidity?

The problem is that phoenix has stagnated and we want to attract more people. That's like.. an overarching thing. 

Had we the chance to have an 18 plus section of the forums my suggestion would be to say anything goes there and to have a sanitized view here to cater to both teams but hey! We gotta deal with this old fashioned like. 

Do we drive off users, or do we keep users? Thats the choice the mods gotta make. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ArielMT said:

Phoenix Forum Rules ver. 1.0, "don't" bullet point 3 and details paragraph 12.

So my thread was hate speech :3

I'm eagerly awaiting you to say ''No it wasn't'' so I can respond ''Then why the fuck did you (no not you specifically) edit my harmless sentence?''. Context. Fucking context.

[Feelwell]

1 minute ago, Amiir said:

So my thread was hate speech :3

I'm eagerly awaiting you to say ''No it wasn't'' so I can respond ''Then why the fuck did you (no not you specifically) edit my harmless sentence?''. Context. Fucking context.

I think they were playing it cautious. Better safe than sorry, as is. I think they know it wasn't hate speech but they gotta look out for those who might take it as so.

[major lee snake]

I got four points for using offensive words, two of which I assume full responsibility for as the comment I made was a bit insensitive.  Two other points, on the other hand, were me describing a pornographic animation... in a thread about what Pokemon people want to fuck.

Just wanted to say.

[PastryOfApathy]

7 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

Phoenix Forum Rules ver. 1.0, "don't" bullet point 3 and details paragraph 12.

Yes, and context infers the meaning.  That is what we're enforcing.

What we mods are seeing is that the manner in which we are enforcing that is being interpreted as a blanket ban on words sans meaning and context.  That is not our intent.

Yes, I am fully in support of banning usage of "slurs" if used in a blatantly offensive context (ie. "I fucking hate that tranny," "Zeke is a stupid nigger," etc.) because that shit is unacceptable and legitimately does create the toxic environment you were talking about.

However that's not what's been happening, and instead you get warnings such as this.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

I mean, personally, I'll say I didn't like Amiir's use of the word in his thread. I don't think "tranny" is an appropriate word to use as a casual reference to transgender people. I thought that a minor pull-aside was fine, nobody needs to be punished.

@Amiir If you would mind, please don't use "tranny" to casually refer the trans people? I mean, you wouldn't casually call black people "niggers" in conversation, so "tranny" wouldn't be appropriate in that situation. Not mad, just making a request.

Lucy, I love you, but you're the only one who has a problem with the word. Pastry doesn't, for instance. Also calling someone a ''nigger'' is vastly different from calling somene a ''nigga''. Also, why is it that if it's another transexual saying the word it's fine but if it's me saying it, someone extraneous to that group, suddenly it's wrong? Double measures

[ArielMT]

9 minutes ago, Amiir said:

If you don't give me the names of these supposed people who'd have a problem with these slurs, thus enabling me to ask these people personally whether that's true or not, I'm going to have to assume you're lying to push forth the agenda of whoever came up with this bullshit. I want to see for how many (or should I say little?) overly sensitive tumblrinas that are OFFUNDUD we should ban these slurs. Come on let's do this, let's see how many out of 780 members

That's exactly what you're supposed to do. The majority wins, the desires of the many come before those of the few. That's how it works in a democracy, unless you want to prove that this isn't one and that the decision making is reserved only and exclusively to the moderators

We are not going to violate the confidentiality of the report system, especially since it isn't used nearly enough as it is.

Also, we're not a democracy as in rule directly by the people.  We're an open forum, pardon the pun, structuring the rules of the site and adapting them as needed for confrontational situations like this, with final decisions by a team of moderators.

[Lucyfish]

Just now, Amiir said:

Lucy, I love you, but you're the only one who has a problem with the word. Pastry doesn't, for instance. Also calling someone a ''nigger'' is vastly different from calling somene a ''nigga''. Also, why is it that if it's another transexual saying the word it's fine but if it's me saying it, someone extraneous to that group, suddenly it's wrong? Double measures

I just meant in the context you were using it in. A lot of transgender people don't like to be called "tranny" so casually. Like, I have no problem if it's in a joking manner. However as a casual word in a non-joking manner, it's typically a negative slur and it's not really okay to just call trans people "trannies," even if you don't mean it in a spiteful way.

[ArielMT]

4 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Yes, I am fully in support of banning usage of "slurs" if used in a blatantly offensive context (ie. "I fucking hate that tranny," "Zeke is a stupid nigger," etc.) because that shit is unacceptable and legitimately does create the toxic environment you were talking about.

However that's not what's been happening, and instead you get warnings such as this.

I didn't give any warning points for that, and I don't think a formal warning is deserved.  That was a PM letting you know it was me who edited your setting.

[Guest]

I do have an honest question. Mod hat off. If we went the original route was just not allowing things unless its obviously malicious, like your examples @PastryOfApathy, how do we enforce something that is totally subjective on tonality?

Furthermore, Lucy piped up and explained her discomfort with the word. She's an adult and made of thicker skin, sure, but some quieter trans people on the forums aren't. As the moderators, if we allowed the usual, we're basically telling them, "fuck off and stop being a baby." That's something moderators try to not do. Sure we've got to make a choice, but one choice's outcome is in favor of the current community, small and fiercly individual, or in favor of a possible future community? 

The recent debacle spurred a resurgence in the moderators as, "What the hell do we as both mods and community want phoenix to be?" to avoid this ridiculous  vauge crap. I assure you its just as frustrating- even more frustrating, even, to try and enforce things that are sometimes not actually there. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Yes, I am fully in support of banning usage of "slurs" if used in a blatantly offensive context (ie. "I fucking hate that tranny," "Zeke is a stupid nigger," etc.) because that shit is unacceptable and legitimately does create the toxic environment you were talking about.

However that's not what's been happening, and instead you get warnings such as this.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Watch and learn mods

4 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

We are not going to violate the confidentiality of the report system, especially since it isn't used nearly enough as it is.

...Which is a fancy excuse to say that there isn't nearly enough people to warrant this ban on slurs LOL : )

[willow]

 

1 minute ago, PastryOfApathy said:

No one is saying people should be afraid to say they're uncomfortable with something, or report something. I mean no one here is going after the people reporting these things (at least I hope so). All I'm trying to say that is punishing the vast majority over the feelings of one or two people who could very well just ignore it is stupid.

Also I propose an offer to anyone who did report any of the kinds posts we're talking about. If you want to express your opinions but are for whatever reason afraid of backlash you can PM me and I can either post it in the thread anonymously on your behalf or talk to you directly. Either way I won't disclose who you are, since I'm not a dick.

Part of the problem was also people continuing to use it after being told not to.

Also, I think Ariel just sent you the message so you weren't like "where'd my title go?". but you weren't actually warned for it. just the thread

Just now, Amiir said:

That's exactly what you're supposed to do. The majority wins, the desires of the many come before those of the few. That's how it works in a democracy, unless you want to prove that this isn't one and that the decision making is reserved only and exclusively to the moderators

You're partially correct. The majority is the winning side, but it shouldn't be the only side we listen to especially in matters like this.

also like I said, we can't tell you who had the issue because privacy. If they wanna make themselves known, they can but only if they're willing to. me personally, I don't like the word. but I'm not about to crack down on people using it here just because I don't like it. I'll leave that to other people because it's not totally fair that it's just a mod who doesn't like it. I don't get on other trans people about using it for themselves in real life, so why should I here?

[Onnes]

I think taking a 'pick-and-choose' approach to moderating slurs really is the worst of all options, since it leads to effective rules that are entirely unpredictable and subject to change without notice.

If some slurs are going to be banned regardless of context, then all such slurs should be banned regardless of context.

If some slurs are to be allowed as long as they are not used in a derogatory manner, then that allowance should be made all such slurs.

Otherwise someone is going to have to create and maintain an ever changing database of current Phoenix language rules.

[Clove Darkwave]

21 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

I just think it's the context that needs to be considered, as well as whether or not anybody is ACTUALLY being offended. Like, I got warned for jokingly using "tranny" in the way that is used to describe a car transmission, not as a slur.

This is incorrect. You were issued a warning for ignoring the current mod request. Something we'll be addressing in the next SOTU.

Like the others on staff have said, it's a difficult position. What you guys are asking of us, to inspect every usage of slurs, is by definition tone policing. In the same hand, users are frequently incensed by the notion of "tone policing moderators". We're trying to figure out the best way to go with this.

In the meantime, please stop ignoring moderator requests. I'm going to issue one right now for this thread to drop the usage of "Retarded".

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

I just meant in the context you were using it in. A lot of transgender people don't like to be called "tranny" so casually. Like, I have no problem if it's in a joking manner. However as a casual word in a non-joking manner, it's typically a negative slur and it's not really okay to just call trans people "trannies," even if you don't mean it in a spiteful way.

Then I say fuck 'em, don't waste your time standing up for such a bunch of crybabies. Your heart is in the right place but if they get offended even when the words that trigger them so much are meant in simple pure jest they're likely to be triggered by literally everything else. They need to learn that the world doesn't change just for them, not for something so ridiculously minor. They must adapt to this 1st world problem for their own good really

[ArielMT]

5 minutes ago, Amiir said:

...Which is a fancy excuse to say that there isn't nearly enough people to warrant this ban on slurs LOL : )

How many is enough people?  What qualifies as too many or too few?  How many people do we need to ignore in favor of "the majority" before we ignore too many people?  How many is just enough that we won't drive away would-be new members who contribute positively to this place and help all of you enjoy it as well?  The belief that we might not have anyone to justify our need to act is disconnected from reality.

[Cingal]

2 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

This is incorrect. You were issued a warning for ignoring the current mod request. Something we'll be addressing in the next SOTU.

Like the others on staff have said, it's a difficult position. What you guys are asking of us, to inspect every usage of slurs, is by definition tone policing. In the same hand, users are frequently incensed by the notion of "tone policing moderators". We're trying to figure out the best way to go with this.

In the meantime, please stop ignoring moderator requests. I'm going to issue one right now for this thread to drop the usage of "Retarded".

 

But, there's no rule dictating that mods can just randomly decide to decree a thing and everyone must follow it.

My misunderstanding came from thinking that the mod in question was reminding people not the break the hate speech rule, not that they were arbitrarily enforcing a rule that didn't exist.

 

How can you expect people to follow rules that aren't written anywhere, nor is any vague notion of which in any place.

 

Surely, if this is going to come up in the next SoTU, the best policy would be actually bring up the rule before enforcing it?

[PastryOfApathy]

11 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

I didn't give any warning points for that, and I don't think a formal warning is deserved.  That was a PM letting you know it was me who edited your setting.

Ah my mistake. Still it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place, although I'm sure I've made that point 100x over by now.

11 minutes ago, Lemon said:

I do have an honest question. Mod hat off. If we went the original route was just not allowing things unless its obviously malicious, like your examples @PastryOfApathy, how do we enforce something that is totally subjective on tonality?

Use your judgement. There are plenty of rules that are subjective by nature and are still enforced.

Not everyone will agree with your judgement, that's a given, but it's still something that's inherently unavoidable with this kind of thing.

11 minutes ago, Lemon said:

Furthermore, Lucy piped up and explained her discomfort with the word. She's an adult and made of thicker skin, sure, but some quieter trans people on the forums aren't. As the moderators, if we allowed the usual, we're basically telling them, "fuck off and stop being a baby." That's something moderators try to not do. Sure we've got to make a choice, but one choice's outcome is in favor of the current community, small and fiercly individual, or in favor of a possible future community? 

You're implying the future community would all be offended by this kind of thing which is no guarantee.

Also not to speak for her (so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but Lucy said she had issue when it was used in a non-joking malicious context. But even then sometimes you do have to have the authority to say "suck it up" to people.

5 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

I'm going to issue one right now for this thread to drop the usage of "Retarded".

Okay come the fuck on.

[Feelwell]

Big picture here, what if we made our own language, that doesn't include slurs.

 

But seriously, there are perfectly cool people who are just very uncomfortable with the word, either because of it's meaning or it has some sort of connection to something unpleasant. So if someone asks another to stop it makes no sense to just be a dick about it, and there are plenty of other words to use. Like for example I find it sorta irritating when someone calls me "Feelunwell" or "Feelbad". I know, it's petty as hell, much pettier than this, but it still gets to me no matter what. 

1 minute ago, Cingal said:

 

But, there's no rule dictating that mods can just randomly decide to decree a thing and everyone must follow it.

My misunderstanding came from thinking that the mod in question was reminding people not the break the hate speech rule, not that they were arbitrarily enforcing a rule that didn't exist.

 

How can you expect people to follow rules that aren't written anywhere, nor is any vague notion of which in any place.

 

Surely, if this is going to come up in the next SoTU, the best policy would be actually bring up the rule before enforcing it?

The community of Phoenixed is still pretty young, I have enough faith in it to say this is just it growing and dealing with new issues that weren't here before. Eventually the rules will reach a fairly solid state and things won't have to be created as often.

Maybe it's like forum puberty....

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, willow said:

also like I said, we can't tell you who had the issue because privacy

No. These are all excuses and that's that

 

Phoenix's been going great 'till now. Now the moderators have chosen they need to moderate speech

Sadly, this is not a joke. This is an actual thing

[Clove Darkwave]

Just now, Cingal said:

 

But, there's no rule dictating that mods can just randomly decide to decree a thing and everyone must follow it.

My misunderstanding came from thinking that the mod in question was reminding people not the break the hate speech rule, not that they were arbitrarily enforcing a rule that didn't exist.

 

How can you expect people to follow rules that aren't written anywhere, nor is any vague notion of which in any place.

 

Surely, if this is going to come up in the next SoTU, the best policy would be actually bring up the rule before enforcing it?

This is very simple, Cingal. Staff absolutely cannot, positively cannot, account for every last little situation or minute interpretation that could arise from any given post. You all as users agree to to give us some modicum of trust and respect in that we do our best to keep Phoenixed a healthy environment for everyone to post in and enjoy themselves. We have to retain some small ability to do whatever is needed to serve that interest.

We have a set of rules we're always working on that we all agree to follow, not just the users but the staff as well (we actually have even more rules to follow.)

[Lucyfish]

If I were part of the staff, here's how I would personally lay out this issue.

Quote

Rule #69: Do not use slurs that are considered xenophobic in an inappropriate or malicious fashion. If the use of a word is unclear on whether or not it is inappropriate, ie. outside of a joke or casually using it to describe a group, then parties involved can discuss it with staff so a compromise can be reached.

In my experience with forum modding, I've found it pays to not be some strict "by-the-books" type of a mod at all times, but rather openly deal with overly ambiguous situations as separate instances. You can set up a blanket rule that leaves certain interpretations or contexts alone, but allows enforcement and compromise where it is needed.

And just to clarify, not every situation is ambiguous. Sometimes it's blatantly obvious when a word is being used offensively.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ArielMT said:

How many is enough people?  What qualifies as too many or too few?  How many people do we need to ignore in favor of "the majority" before we ignore too many people?  How many is just enough that we won't drive away would-be new members who contribute positively to this place and help all of you enjoy it as well?  The belief that we might not have anyone to justify our need to act is disconnected from reality.

50% plus 1 of the entire userbase seems about right. You do that. Make a poll for the almighty ban on slurs, whooooooo!