Do Rules About Not Advocating Violence Not Apply Anymore?

[Ryika]

What part of "I'm not comfortable with any of these "punching" threads, whether real or hypothetical." is unclear?

I can't do anything about how OT is moderated, other than add my input to others' in the hope that the bad threads will be dealt with in a rational, unbiased way.

Hmm... ...yes indeed. Not sure how I misread your post that much. I'm sorry. ^^

And again, I find it ridiculous that the only person the moderators felt the need to call out, was the one poster who was trying to show everyone how ridiculous and nasty they were all acting.

Well, to be fair, there is still a difference between political positions and skin color.

The discussion about political violence may make sense in a vacuum, because maybe it is a valid idea to punch some individuals and get a positive effect on the whole population. I do of course disagree and would argue that we see the exact opposite happening - Spencer has gained followers, and the left has alienated even more people by looking like violent idiots - but people seem to disagree, and that's where you can have a discussion. Well, could have a discussion, but after having looked at that thread now, it's of course exactly what I would have expected from the Civfanatics-OT-forums.

But anyway. Punching people for their skin color on the other hand most certainly does not create any sort of discussion. So independent from the discussion about whether such threads should be allowed, I do think the example was chosen badly, and I do think that it's reasonable to issue a warning against that post while not doing anything against the other posts if we assume that topics about political violence are okay. After all, a warning is not an infraction, it's not "This was unacceptable.", it's "This is not the right direction for this thread." - he should have made a better example about political violence to affect societal changes, and if the moderators had reacted the same way, then that would have been a good reason to be upset.

 

[Traitorfish]

With regards to punching people, should the discussion include punching obviously fictional, but readily identifiable, people, such as those born with green skins?

Discussion of Warhammer 40,000 is not prohibited.

 

[sophie]

In any case, I know I've made it known that I don't have a lot of confidence in the moderators in the past, which is why my chosen method of protest is to use an ad blocker on this site. Until I have confidence in the staff again, this site isn't going to make any money off of my traffic.

What are you, 12?

 

[gay_Aleks]

When you're discussing the ethics of discussing punching Nazis.

#JustOTThings

 

[Ryika]

#Meta

 

[Commodore]

What are you, 12?

So you think it's childish for someone to try to effect change through an economic boycott? Interesting.

As a side note, I think that's probably the most positive aspect of ad blockers. They allow users to actually have leverage over site owners and staff by being able to disrupt their revenue if the site takes action the users don't like without having to give up going to the site.

Multiple posters, including yourself, have repeatedly called for the use of force, up to and including lethal force, against protesters you regard as beaching the civil peace.

First off, I never advocated for lethal force to be used against protestors. Second, advocating for police to use force doesn't violate site rules because it doesn't target a specific group nor does it advocate for anything illegal since it is pretty well established that police are legally allowed by the state to use force to enforce laws and keep the peace. So that's a bit of a false equivalence there.

I was going to post this in the Punching Nazis thread but this is a more appropriate place for it:

Look at those in this thread who are constantly whining about how talking about punching Nazis shouldn't be allowed.

Not saying that it shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying it isn't allowed as per the current forum rules. The main complaint is that the moderators just straight up aren't doing their jobs either out of laziness, apathy, or ideological bias (possibly even all three). I've asked this before and didn't get a satisfactory answer from the moderators (of course), but what's the point of having forum rules if they aren't going to be enforced?

Moderator Action: This has been clarified in Site Feedback, but to restate the rule here:



Moderator Action: Emphasis mine.

No, it wasn't clarified. That was the typical cop out answer. This thread isn't discussing whether or not violent protest is acceptable and you know it. It's posters talking about going out in the street and assaulting their political opponents while also celebrating someone that actually did it. That is advocating illegal activities which is against the forum rules. Do your job, moderator.

 

[gay_Aleks]

OT is the vanguard of the Revolution?

So...Guess we'll be stuck with Trump for 8 more years, ey?

 

[leif erikson]

Not saying that it shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying it isn't allowed as per the current forum rules. The main complaint is that the moderators just straight up aren't doing their jobs either out of laziness, apathy, or ideological bias (possibly even all three). I've asked this before and didn't get a satisfactory answer from the moderators (of course), but what's the point of having forum rules if they aren't going to be enforced?

Moderators, especially in OT, have a difficult job. The point of OT is to allow people to discuss, sometimes, difficult topics. They have to apply rules written more for the gaming threads that are our core. To allow discussion, they try to determine what the gray areas are to allow as much discussion as possible. If they shut down too much they have to deal with the anger of closing threads and if they allow too much they have to deal with that criticism. Your expectation of what their "jobs" are may be different from how they perceive their "job".

No, it wasn't clarified. That was the typical cop out answer. This thread isn't discussing whether or not violent protest is acceptable and you know it. It's posters talking about going out in the street and assaulting their political opponents while also celebrating someone that actually did it. That is advocating illegal activities which is against the forum rules. Do your job, moderator.

If it was not clarified, perhaps you should ask questions that help to clarify things for you instead of attacking the moderators? You have a "job" as a poster to help moderators apply rules fairly and make CFC a better place to discuss issues. Telling moderators they are not doing their job isn't very helpful and implying rules are clear cut with no room for moderators to use their judgement doesn't ring true. Is that what you really want?

Reporting posts and/or threads is a way for you to communicate with staff. I went through the reported post thread and do not see many about "Punching Nazis" from you. I need to ask staff, did you raise this issue via PM with any of the OT staff? That is a much better way to get clarification than this.

If you want to use this thread to discuss issues and clarify policy to help improve CFC, it may remain active. If you continue to attack staff and get into PDMA, then it will be closed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Moderators, especially in OT, have a difficult job. The point of OT is to allow people to discuss, sometimes, difficult topics. They have to apply rules written more for the gaming threads that are our core. To allow discussion, they try to determine what the gray areas are to allow as much discussion as possible. If they shut down too much they have to deal with the anger of closing threads and if they allow too much they have to deal with that criticism. Your expectation of what their "jobs" are may be different from how they perceive their "job".

I've been on both sides of the line between moderators and posters, and I know that moderators don't always agree on how to deal with a situation, or if there's even a situation to deal with in the first place. This is something that happens on many forums, not just CFC.

What one will let slide may be something another would stomp on. Being inconsistent is what is creating frustrations. You say the rules were created more for the Civ forums and not for OT. Well, we've already had numerous discussions, surveys, polls, and PMs over the years about how OT should be "governed." There seems to be a pendulum that swings back and forth, at times ranging from too strict to too lax. Sure, there are times when it reaches the "just right" point in its swing, but if I understand Commodore's complaint correctly, the pendulum - in that particular thread - is in the "too lax" stage. Please note that I haven't read most of the thread myself; after the first few posts I didn't think the thread would last, for the very reason Commodore stated: violating the forum rule against advocating violence/illegal acts.

 

[leif erikson]

There seems to be a pendulum that swings back and forth, at times ranging from too strict to too lax. Sure, there are times when it reaches the "just right" point in its swing, but if I understand Commodore's complaint correctly, the pendulum - in that particular thread - is in the "too lax" stage.

This appears to be the issue and it should have been discussed via PM conversation before bringing it here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This appears to be the issue and it should have been discussed via PM conversation before bringing it here.

Discussed with whom? Are you saying Commodore should have PM'd someone, or are you saying I should have?

What is Site Feedback for, if not to give feedback on this site? There are MANY threads in Site Feedback regarding moderation, emphasis on how OT is moderated. Granted, they occurred before you were promoted to admin, so you might not have had a reason to read them. If that's the case, I recommend that you do read them, to understand the context of the complaints people make. While some of the issues raised have been settled (ie. the Tavern/Chamber nonsense), some others are just as contentious now as they were six years ago.

For the record, I did discuss the issue of the "punching Nazis" thread with a moderator several days ago. It was an amicable, courteous discussion, and I am generally satisfied with the moderator's response. Please note that this doesn't mean I'm generally satisfied with the thread itself.

 

[leif erikson]

Are you saying Commodore should have PM'd someone

This.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This.

Didn't he mention that he had? Or have I misunderstood something?

 

[Commodore]

This appears to be the issue and it should have been discussed via PM conversation before bringing it here.

No it shouldn't. I have discussed other issues via PM before and I got nothing but typical canned answers from whichever member of the staff I was PMing. The fact of the matter is PMing makes it way too easy for the member bringing up an issue to be ignored or brushed off. Making it public like this forces someone to at least acknowledge the issue and try to resolve it.

 

[Traitorfish]

They did that, and you still accused them of political bias and question-dodging when you didn't get an answer you liked.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They did that, and you still accused them of political bias and question-dodging when you didn't get an answer you liked.

Well, it is fair to say that when a question is asked and the answer is a wall of text that a lawyer could follow but the rest of us are at a disadvantage since we never studied law, the result is a frustrated, possibly angry member.

Plain-language answers that are pertinent to the question, and answered in a timely manner (not a week, multiple weeks, years later, or never) are critical to fostering trust between members and staff.

Some issues that are member-specific should remain in PM, for privacy reasons. But there is no reason that issues affecting everyone, or at least a larger group of members, shouldn't be discussed in public.

And I do think that more leeway should be given regarding PDMA in Site Feedback. It's downright nuts to have a forum for discussing issues, but forbid people to actually discuss the ones that relate to something a moderator said, did, said he would do, or the opposite. The rules are so vague that going by the letter of it, I could get slapped with a PDMA infraction for saying, "Plotinus did not eat pancakes in my kitchen this morning."

 

[Traitorfish]

What "wall of text", though? The official response to this thread, far as I can make out, was this post by Bootstoots,

We generally allow people to discuss when violence is appropriate - otherwise we'd never be able to have any non-pacifist discussion about military interventions, for instance. It's advocating specific, extralegal acts of violence that is not okay. For instance, in the thread about the Berkeley riots, I infracted someone for saying that Milo Yiannopoulos should be lynched, but talking about whether violent protest is acceptable or wise is allowed, in general.

Which seems about as clear and plainly-worded enough for any reasonable poster. Any ambiguity simply reflects the fact that the subject is itself ambiguous, and relies on the judgement of the moderators.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What "wall of text", though? The official response to this thread, far as I can make out, was this post by Bootstoots,

Which seems about as clear and plainly-worded enough for any reasonable poster. Any ambiguity simply reflects the fact that the subject is itself ambiguous, and relies on the judgement of the moderators.

I'm not talking about Bootstoots, who always makes an effort to post plainly-worded replies that answer the question(s) asked and/or are pertinent to the point raised.

I'm speaking in general terms about some chronic problems that have so far not been adequately addressed.

 

[Lexicus]

No, it wasn't clarified. That was the typical cop out answer. This thread isn't discussing whether or not violent protest is acceptable and you know it. It's posters talking about going out in the street and assaulting their political opponents while also celebrating someone that actually did it. That is advocating illegal activities which is against the forum rules. Do your job, moderator.

Just want to point out that the Iraq War, which you claim to have fought in, was also illegal.

Moderator Action: Please do not spam this thread with political positions, this post adds nothing to this discussion. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Jomackson]

So, I read through this and honestly feel as though the ploy that talk of militarily applied discussion does not apply when talking about violence that extremist groups such as Nazis speak and have a reputation of doing. War happens, and safe level discussion is important, but this is not war. This is ethnic violence, and the OP was just stating the lack of action on the thread. The most probable fashion to conclude this might be the reason the thread in question has not been closed, that there may be a higher reason that for example closing it could cause negative consequences.

I think the OP was looking for answers by putting this issue into the limelight, and I think we all should be given the clear answer as to why the problem despite infringing on clear rules, is still being allowed to violate.