Red Diamond Threads

[.Shane.]

I'm curious as to the stance of threads created as non-RD, only to be changed to RD by a mod. Is this practice going to continue? I've seen two threads like this in two days, and am curious if it is going to be common practice.

Not sure if you mean Cutlass' thread and the Jobs thread? Cutlass thread I asked him and he agreed. If he hadn't of agreed, I'd of left it as is. So far, its gone reasonably well.

The Jobs thread was different and my call and as there are a couple other posts about it, I'll address them next.

 

[.Shane.]

The Steve Jobs thread certainly hasn't, as an example. And that was even after you posted two warnings.

I think its gone better than you might think, but we'll probably disagree. See below.

stuff

In spite of the tone of metatron's comment, I'll reply anyway.

<What follows isn't an excuse, I'm just explaining my thought process. Assuming you care to reply in kind, we can continue to have a discussion>

For a variety of reasons I haven't been around much for about ~4 months. Now, the lazy susan has come 'round and I'm trying to assist. I had to play a bunch of catch-up on things like "Red Diamond", "Permanent Points", etc...

My interpretation of RD is that a large part of it is to discuss serious topics w/out all the borderline inappropriate behavior that accompanies so much of what gets posted.

My quick reaction to seeing the Jobs post was that it would quickly become a cesspool of back and forth baiting about Jobs, Apple, plus a bunch of sick jokes, etc... I also, shock o' shock, believe in a modicum of respect for the dead and the whole idea of "if you can't say anything nice", especially after it had just happened.

So, in the spirit of the law, I think such a thread, in spite of a very thin OP (not the fault of the OP, nor really necessary for something so obvious) should be RD.

There were a bunch of trolling that got split off an locked and then there emerged a decent discussion on Apple and charity, apple vs. PC, which I split off (non-RD) because it was a good discussion, but could stand the separation. Also, someone else, out of respect for the RD (kudos) started a separate thread on the affluent and charity. I think these are good developments that show this can work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think its gone better than you might think, but we'll probably disagree. See below.

In spite of the tone of metatron's comment, I'll reply anyway.

<What follows isn't an excuse, I'm just explaining my thought process. Assuming you care to reply in kind, we can continue to have a discussion>

For a variety of reasons I haven't been around much for about ~4 months. Now, the lazy susan has come 'round and I'm trying to assist. I had to play a bunch of catch-up on things like "Red Diamond", "Permanent Points", etc...

My interpretation of RD is that a large part of it is to discuss serious topics w/out all the borderline inappropriate behavior that accompanies so much of what gets posted.

My quick reaction to seeing the Jobs post was that it would quickly become a cesspool of back and forth baiting about Jobs, Apple, plus a bunch of sick jokes, etc... I also, shock o' shock, believe in a modicum of respect for the dead and the whole idea of "if you can't say anything nice", especially after it had just happened.

So, in the spirit of the law, I think such a thread, in spite of a very thin OP (not the fault of the OP, nor really necessary for something so obvious) should be RD.

There were a bunch of trolling that got split off an locked and then there emerged a decent discussion on Apple and charity, apple vs. PC, which I split off (non-RD) because it was a good discussion, but could stand the separation. Also, someone else, out of respect for the RD (kudos) started a separate thread on the affluent and charity. I think these are good developments that show this can work.

Spot on .Shane. Thanks.

 

[nonconformist]

I'm glad, I have to say, that the moderators took the less serious posts in their stride, and didn't identify them as anything nefarious.

But, Shane said "if you don't have anything nice, don't say anything" etc.

When will this kind of consistency be applied to people such as Bin Laden etc?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Didn't bin Laden give out money to the neighborhood kids? How dare anyone defile that man's memory!

 

[nonconformist]

Don't be a jerk, I'm serious.

Why is it okay to post inflammatory stuff to the death of one person, and not for another?

Western-centric perspectives?

 

[metatron]

I will try not to repeat myself, even though i'm tempted (to justify myself) since you seem to consider my criticism to be unwarranted and somewhat trollish.

<What follows isn't an excuse, I'm just explaining my thought process. Assuming you care to reply in kind, we can continue to have a discussion>

For a variety of reasons I haven't been around much for about ~4 months. Now, the lazy susan has come 'round and I'm trying to assist. I had to play a bunch of catch-up on things like "Red Diamond", "Permanent Points", etc...

I wasn't singleing you out specifically. Other mods have posted in the thread rather fast, so i asumed this was a consensus among the mods, not your judgement in particular.
If would have thought the latter i probably would not have reacted at all. It's the suspicion that this use of RD will become general policy that upset me.

My interpretation of RD is that a large part of it is to discuss serious topics w/out all the borderline inappropriate behavior that accompanies so much of what gets posted.

My interpretation of a "serious topic" is that it doesn't preclude rationally founded opinions.
That someone is hurt or dead doesn't render rational debate "cynical".

My quick reaction to seeing the Jobs post was that it would quickly become a cesspool of back and forth baiting about Jobs, Apple, plus a bunch of sick jokes, etc... I also, shock o' shock, believe in a modicum of respect for the dead and the whole idea of "if you can't say anything nice", especially after it had just happened.

Sure. If someone had posted "haha, he's the antichrist, thank god he's dead." i would have found that extremely inappropriote.
And sure frequently, when people die positive stuff is said about them that is untrue or blown out of proportion. But with a figure of public interest (a CEO or an artist or a politician) i find it odd to allow excessive praise but no criticism of that praise.

So, in the spirit of the law, I think such a thread, in spite of a very thin OP (not the fault of the OP, nor really necessary for something so obvious) should be RD.

So in the future every thread that involves dead people is RD and half the spectrum of possible opinions are not welcome as per decree of the moderation?
And more generally RD will be used to ensure decency of opinion for all kinds of topics in the future, effectively banning whole lines of arguments or possible opinions from those topics entirely?

There were a bunch of trolling that got split off an locked and then there emerged a decent discussion on Apple and charity, apple vs. PC, which I split off (non-RD) because it was a good discussion, but could stand the separation. Also, someone else, out of respect for the RD (kudos) started a separate thread on the affluent and charity. I think these are good developments that show this can work.

Sure, it did turn out not so bad on the bottom line, and there was valueable mod work in the process. But i don't see how RDing what is essentially an opinion thread a) and decreeing that only one opinion was welcome b) is directly responsible for the results.

In spite of the tone of metatron's comment, I'll reply anyway.

Well, since i cannot comment on the tone of the mod actions (not yours specifically but all of them regarding that thread), let me put it this way:

As i said, i was very diappointed.
I wholeheartedly support the RD concept in general, and if i wasn't so damn lazy i would argue against some of the more general criticism of the concept that has been posted.

However i didn't expect it to turn out like this. I expected it to be about debating in an adult fashion not about not debating for coutesy's sake.
I voiced my disappointment as exactly what it was.
My disappointment regarding this particular decision is not testimony of any general distrust in you or the moderation in general or anything like that. If it was, i would have said so.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Western-centric perspectives?

Maybe. Does hypocrisy ever need a reason?

 

[.Shane.]

@Non-com & metatron. I see you comments and will try to reply later tonight.

 

[nonconformist]

@Non-com & metatron. I see you comments and will try to reply later tonight.

Thanks Shane. This isn't directed at you, but rather to the powers that be in their collectivity.

I've tried to bring this up before, but I've been infracted for PDMA etc. which I always thought was unfair, as this is not something that needs to be talked about secretly, one on one, but a topic which all members and mods should be able to chime in.

I understand, subjectively, that Steve Jobs (for example) is a "good" guy and Bin Laden is a "bad" guy, but this promotes a very western centric, and very Americanised view.

Likewise, more than once I have seen people who gloated at the death of US servicemen be infracted, whereas it's fine to do so for members of the Iraqi Insurgency, or civvies in other countries.

One particular example I can give in John Tyndall, a founding member of the British nazi National Front died a few years back, and I started a thread.
It, obviously, rapidly turned into a "good riddance" thread, and was closed, under the pretext that it was unacceptable to say such things.
One Brit observed, at the time, that he doubted the moderator reaction to OBL's death would be the same.

Cue this year, and OBL is killed, cue rejoicing, tacitly supported by the moderation team, via their inaction.

I think it's a bad idea to draw lines such as this; what makes a person objectively "good" and "bad"?
Who can we praise the death of, and who is off limits?

Is it nationality? Cultural impact?

You see what I'm getting at?

Please split this off into an SF thread if you feel it more appropriate,. but I beg of thee, do not close this debate down; I feel it's an important and germane debate we *need8 to have as a community, and I'd love to hear opinions from all sides.

 

[metatron]

I understand, subjectively, that Steve Jobs (for example) is a "good" guy and Bin Laden is a "bad" guy, but this promotes a very western centric, and very Americanised view.

Likewise, more than once I have seen people who gloated at the death of US servicemen be infracted, whereas it's fine to do so for members of the Iraqi Insurgency, or civvies in other countries.

One particular example I can give in John Tyndall, a founding member of the British nazi National Front died a few years back, and I started a thread.
It, obviously, rapidly turned into a "good riddance" thread, and was closed, under the pretext that it was unacceptable to say such things.
One Brit observed, at the time, that he doubted the moderator reaction to OBL's death would be the same.

Cue this year, and OBL is killed, cue rejoicing, tacitly supported by the moderation team, via their inaction.

I think it's a bad idea to draw lines such as this; what makes a person objectively "good" and "bad"?
Who can we praise the death of, and who is off limits?

I fundamentally agree. Let me add other reasons to allow the debate of negative debate of dead celebrities:

I personally don't like Apple and really don't know anything about Steve Jobs. Even if there would have been no mod warning i probably would have posted nothing specifically about Jobs or nothing at all. Maybe i would have commented negatively on some especially exalting praise of his work, not because i disagree but more along the lines of "That can't be true. You sure he walked on water?" since, as i said i don't really know much about the inner workings of the IT business.

But...

I feel that a relatively normal desire is to talk about the future when someone dies, to talk about how things will change as a result of some person not being around anymore. That's especially true for public figures.
Usually that is done on some absurdly screwed level, where everybody is like a million better than they actually were.
It kind of works like a job evaluation: If a job evaluation says you're doing "ok", you are most likely the lazyest bastard in the company and as good as fired. If you are a dead politician and the media don't essentially claim the world will stop without you that's a pretty good indicator that upwards of 65% of the general population think you were a horrible person.

The point is: Debating the character, the skills, the convictions of a departed public figure is elemental to an assesment of the future, an analyses of how things will change as a result of their absence.
In a CEO's case that might be stuff along the lines of "He was such a choleric, he crushed all opposition and streamlined the company, hence the success. A more liberal and diplomatic CEO will most likely make the company fade..."
I have no idea what it could be in this case really, since, as i said, i don't know Jobs.

On the same note, it's worthwhile to appreciate human qualities "bad" people had/have, particularly if they are connected to what makes those people so bad.
For example it's possible to show McVeigh as an utter Patriot and a rather sensitive person (the way Rachel Maddow did) and demonstrate how that ironically helped putting him on his path, without claiming he was right / endorsing his actions / mocking the victims etc.
So it's not just about "the good" and "the bad", it's also about bad traits, habits, attitudes etc. in good people and vice versa.

 

[Camikaze]

With RIP threads in general, the default is for eulogising; don't speak too ill of the dead. That's just common decency. Separate threads are allowed for discussing whether someone was good or bad or whatever, but it's a bit beyond the pale as a default to turn an RIP thread into a political discussion. With the Steve Jobs thread, that's pretty much the case. Other threads are allowed on Apple and Jobs, but we just don't want the RIP thread to descend into arguments when that wasn't really the point of it. RD threads are generally for good discussion, but they also fill the "this thread is being watched, so don't be a jackass" role. As in this case.

I don't believe we actually had an RIP thread for OBL. Such a thread would probably be locked as trolling; it's not going to produce anything but negative reactions or inappropriate comments, and is going to insult a whole bunch of users. That's different to the Steve Jobs thread, where although some people might think he was a corporate menace or something, there's not going to be the same sort of negative reaction. The threads we did have on OBL are more the equivalent of the threads you're allowed to have about Jobs now besides the RIP thread.

There's a similar thing with some recent examples; Troy Davis and Anwar al-Awlaki. In those threads people have been applauding the deaths. 'Good riddance' type comments. And we're not going to infract them, same as the OBL ones. That's not because of our opinions on the matter, but because of the general opinions on the matter in a US audience. Such comments in those threads are within the realm of polite social acceptability. If we were to punish people for celebrating the death of OBL, then that would be an active rather than passive decision. That would involve drawing our opinions into it, because it is a deviation from the general tone of western society (so yeah, we're definitely western oriented here and that informs our decisions). Infracting people for celebrating Steve Jobs' death is much more a passive decision, as it fits in with 'common decency'. And 'common decency' and 'etiquette' are pretty weird concepts (swearing, for instance, seems to me a pretty silly concept, but most of us wouldn't start swearing in a job interview, because we are adhering to 'common decency', for better or worse). CFC moderation isn't the cutting edge of social change; we go much more with what is than what we may individually think should be.

It's reflected in reality, I think. If you were to take to the streets to celebrate the death of Steve Jobs, you'd be ostracised to an extent for it. If you took to the streets to celebrate the death of OBL, the same reaction does not exist. Maybe that's not right or consistent, but that's just how things are. We attempt to work with the norm.

Does that make sense?

 

[Dreadnought]

I think it does make sense, and I also agree that posts mocking or making fun of Steve Jobs wouldn't be appropriate especially after his recent death.

Specifically for me, I was curious about the precedent that sets. Can mods create a RD thread because they feel the thread needs to be RD?

I'm not expressing my opinion one way or the other, I'm merely curious.

 

[JollyRoger]

So how would a RIP Troy Davis thread go over? There is divided opinion and perhaps some would want a thread without all the "Good riddance" type posting? Would posting such a thread be considered trolling? Could be expect that good riddance posts would be infracted in such a thread?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I'm tempted to start an OBL memorial thread. Never forget his contributions to the righteous cause of global jihad.

 

[Grisu]

However i didn't expect it to turn out like this. I expected it to be about debating in an adult fashion not about not debating for coutesy's sake.

RIP threads are a special kind of thread that's different from your normal debating threads (just as Birthday threads are). RD wasn't created for these kinds but it was seen as a good tool to get the thread under control.

RIP threads are intended to pay some deceased person respect. This isn't the place to critizise, there's plenty of places where you can do just that. When you go to a funeral you don't go pull a Nelson or something similar, even if you consider the deceased to have been a jerk.

But, Shane said "if you don't have anything nice, don't say anything" etc.

When will this kind of consistency be applied to people such as Bin Laden etc?

As mentioned above, RIP threads are a special case. Said concept of shutting up if you don't have anything nice to say applies only to them (and Birthday threads, I guess)

I'm tempted to start an OBL memorial thread. Never forget his contributions to the righteous cause of global jihad.

I would advise against that.

 

[LucyDuke]

Moderator Action: Shane: Making this Red Diamond. DO NOT be a jackhole in this thread. If you're an apple hater, good for you, but this is not the thread for that.

You've been warned.

I think it could've helped to explicitly remind everyone that this doesn't completely ban discussion that wouldn't be appropriate at a funeral, it just bans that from the RIP thread (as y'all've called it). Maybe then folks would've thought to make a new thread for whatever.

 

[nonconformist]

There's a similar thing with some recent examples; Troy Davis and Anwar al-Awlaki. In those threads people have been applauding the deaths. 'Good riddance' type comments. And we're not going to infract them, same as the OBL ones. That's not because of our opinions on the matter, but because of the general opinions on the matter in a US audience. Such comments in those threads are within the realm of polite social acceptability. If we were to punish people for celebrating the death of OBL, then that would be an active rather than passive decision. That would involve drawing our opinions into it, because it is a deviation from the general tone of western society (so yeah, we're definitely western oriented here and that informs our decisions). Infracting people for celebrating Steve Jobs' death is much more a passive decision, as it fits in with 'common decency'. And 'common decency' and 'etiquette' are pretty weird concepts (swearing, for instance, seems to me a pretty silly concept, but most of us wouldn't start swearing in a job interview, because we are adhering to 'common decency', for better or worse). CFC moderation isn't the cutting edge of social change; we go much more with what is than what we may individually think should be.

So we're a community that panders to white, middle class westerners?

Good to finally know who is being catered for.

This is an extremely worrying policy, and is not in any way identified in the rules. Maybe the rules should be updated to reflect the superiority of Americanised opinions on this forum?

 

[Camikaze]

That's not what I was meaning. Moderation does reflect American standards (it's an American forum, I think that's reasonable) as interpreted by moderators from many countries (the 14 OT mods are from 8 different countries). It's simply a matter of not rocking the boat in terms of what are generally accepted social standards, whether we think them ridiculous constructions or not. Any 'pandering' to a particular demographic is inadvertent, and indicative of deeper societal divides we obviously have no control over (we disallow some things because they aren't 'socially acceptable'; that social acceptability may happen to be largely defined by white, middle class westerners is not particularly relevant to us. We're not on a crusade to make society more just. We're just here to moderate the forums). If we are pandering to anyone, it is the members. As said, we aren't at the cutting edge of social change, and I hope you don't expect us to be. That's not what moderation here aims to do.

 

[nonconformist]

You're *not* pandering to members, you're pandering to a certain segment of members, whose opinions are held as being more just than other members.

There is no reflection of arabic members' opinions, or more broadly, the opinions of members who are not American, whose opinions may not reflect the idealised "american" dream.

Anyone posting that the US military is a genocidal, criminal organisation would be infracted, but it's an opinion that several million people adhere to, including Americans and Europeans (never mind the middle east and south america), but we can applaud the death of arabs all we want.

Why don't we drop the pretence of neutrality, and just admit it? We are a site of white, middle class men, who don't like hearing other opinions.

And, under these standards, when Maggie Thatcher dies, I swear you're gonna have to infract 99% of the UK users on the forum