Important Civility Rules Enforcement

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

It's not about political correctness. If you want to be taken seriously, then please take me seriously: I sincerely believe that the culture of 8Chan, KF, etc, is completely self-defeating. I sincerely believe that politeness, order, harmony, and niceness are the weapons of conservatism and civilisation... I sincerely believe that the only way to be "based" is to be polite, to not swear, to dress nicely, to act nicely in public. In the case of this webforum, I sincerely believe the only way that conservatives will ever make headway is by demonstrating that we can be polite in promoting our ideals.

I don't even disagree with you here...Hell Channers themselves would probably concede this point. The fact that they routinely obtain data and intelligence the global IC can't until months after they do and yet have failed to influence anything on any level beyond juvenile pop cultural nonsense can leave no doubt about this.

I'm not defending chan culture either. Merely pointing out, those of us over 30, who were shall we say politically aware two decades ago, should know what happens when you try to force civility..As opposed to simply showing the edge lord, you can still have an honest to god debate as men or women by being respectful without it being inherently false.

Or "We should be leading by example, not be enforcement"

If that makes sense?

The conservatives making headway by being polite...Reagan understood conservatives needed to be polite but provocative and to not be afraid to play dirty when its needed..I agree that you're correct in one point..but without the other two...you're missing a sizable portion of the cultural shift formula..

 

[Culsu]

I go to work on my property for eight hours and this is what I come back to? Yikes, people...

With that having been said, I am of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I do understand the desire of the staff and the owner to maintain a certain standard of civility and an adherence to the stated rules, as broad and generally laissez-faire as they have been established. I'm also not putting Zoe`s example of a Viennese coffee house on trial here. It is, indeed, an ideal setting: one where you could meet, even vehemently disagree, but at the end of the day it was still a laid-back atmosphere and you could go back home as civilized people. It`s also not an unexpected desire, given some of the more complex and philosophical issues that are broached in the sub-forums. I do seem to remember another forum back in the day where topics of society and politics were also tackled when Zoe still primarily went by Countess (and I do apologize if I am mixing you up with someone else here, @Zoe.)

Unfortunately, this was a different time, and a different internet from the one we inhabit today. Which brings me to the "on the other hand"-part of this post. Admittedly, even the staff is only human in their conduct, but many of us both as users and those of the staff share the experiences of the PM scandal on SB. In light of that origin story I would have hoped that a slightly different approach to this here had been taken. Though I freely admit I'm not sure how. Most of us come from a board where speech rules very slowly and very organically, often under the guise of civility and respect, ended up choking the life out of discussions - and out of the fun we had. Therefore, it should not come us a surprise to staff that people react rather strongly and emotionally to this official statement. For it is seen as the first step down that road by many. While not always civil or productive, after years of living with SB.com`s ever shrinking Overton window the ability to do both, discuss politics etc. and shit-post seems to have been a welcome change of pace for many.

It will remain to be seen how this announcement and the enforcement of rules will generally affect the atmosphere around here. I just hope you made the right call here. It`d be a shame if this was the start of the same downward slide that ended up initially bringing us here.

Edit:

It's not about political correctness. If you want to be taken seriously, then please take me seriously: I sincerely believe that the culture of 8Chan, KF, etc, is completely self-defeating. I sincerely believe that politeness, order, harmony, and niceness are the weapons of conservatism and civilisation... I sincerely believe that the only way to be "based" is to be polite, to not swear, to dress nicely, to act nicely in public. In the case of this webforum, I sincerely believe the only way that conservatives will ever make headway is by demonstrating that we can be polite in promoting our ideals.

I agree with the principle of the matter, but I would strongly object to the idea that this is how we win. If the past three decades have shown me one thing it`s that the polite conservative has been, in 99 out of 100 cases, outmanoevred and undone by the uncouth leftist. It took a boorish bull in the china shop like Trump to get rightwing/conservative policies enforced our at least sincerely considered. I don`t like that style. Going by style, I would have preferred Pat Buchanan or even Newt Gingrich (and that`s as far as my knowledge of the field of US conservative voices takes me). But I would very much prefer the boorish bull if he gets us from A to B rather than the delicate philosopher if all he does is hone his speechcraft.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I don't even disagree with you here...Hell Channers themselves would probably concede this point. The fact that they routinely obtain data and intelligence the global IC can't until months after they do and yet have failed to influence anything on any level beyond juvenile pop cultural nonsense can leave no doubt about this.

I'm not defending chan culture either. Merely pointing out, those of us over 30, who were shall we say politically aware two decades ago, should know what happens when you try to force civility..As opposed to simply showing the edge lord, you can still have an honest to god debate as men or women by being respectful without it being inherently false.

Or "We should be leading by example, not be enforcement"

If that makes sense?

In broad social terms, yes. But the critical thing to understand is that I am not trying to stand against those who don't want to be polite. The rules are to offer them a steadily escalating choice -- to "step up their game" to participate here, or to leave and go to another place which is suited to them. In the end, we make that choice for them with a permanent ban, if we absolutely have to, but in general, I am not trying to forcibly change culture or society. I am simply trying to maintain a space that is nearly unique on the internet--a space where you can advocate for anything, as long as you do so politely.

If that isn't of interest to you, there are dozens of alternatives.

 

[LordSunhawk]

See above. While I have never gone out of the way to insult someone, I also have a track record of not being able to tell when something might be seen as insulting by other people. How do you differentiate the two?

That is a hard question, especially on a forum where you are missing many of the social cues that in person discussion can have.

I cannot really give you concrete guidelines, beyond avoid the bright lines of the posted rules.

If somebody is insulted by what you posted, but it is within the posted rules? You'll be fine and that person needs a thicker skin and to stop trying to game the refs. If it's outside the posted rules? Well, we have posted rules... follow them.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

In broad social terms, yes. But the critical thing to understand is that I am not trying to stand against those who don't want to be polite. The rules are to offer them a steadily escalating choice -- to "step up their game" to participate here, or to leave and go to another place which is suited to them. In the end, we make that choice for them with a permanent ban, if we absolutely have to, but in general, I am not trying to forcibly change culture or society. I am simply trying to maintain a space that is nearly unique on the internet--a space where you can advocate for anything, as long as you do so politely.

If that isn't of interest to you, there are dozens of alternatives.

And again, I don't disagree with this dream...But I think you've gone beyond "steadily escalating" into "proactively making examples of" And that tends to invite a response. A response that'll probably alienate everyone, including the ones who genuinely care about the Sietch and want it to flourish.

Which has been my whole concern here. This tonal shift in policy and the implications therein...are concerning.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I go to work on my property for eight hours and this is what I come back to? Yikes, people...

With that having been said, I am of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I do understand the desire of the staff and the owner to maintain a certain standard of civility and an adherence to the stated rules, as broad and generally laissez-faire as they have been established. I'm also not putting Zoe`s example of a Viennese coffee house on trial here. It is, indeed, an ideal setting: one where you could meet, even vehemently disagree, but at the end of the day it was still a laid-back atmosphere and you could go back home as civilized people. It`s also not an unexpected desire, given some of the more complex and philosophical issues that are broached in the sub-forums. I do seem to remember another forum back in the day where topics of society and politics were also tackled when Zoe still primarily went by Countess (and I do apologize if I am mixing you up with someone else here, @Zoe.)

Unfortunately, this was a different time, and a different internet from the one we inhabit today. Which brings me to the "on the other hand"-part of this post. Admittedly, even the staff is only human in their conduct, but many of us both as users and those of the staff share the experiences of the PM scandal on SB. In light of that origin story I would have hoped that a slightly different approach to this here had been taken. Though I freely admit I'm not sure how. Most of us come from a board where speech rules very slowly and very organically, often under the guise of civility and respect, ended up choking the life out of discussions - and out of the fun we had. Therefore, it should not come us a surprise to staff that people react rather strongly and emotionally to this official statement. For it is seen as the first step down that road by many. While not always civil or productive, after years of living with SB.com`s ever shrinking Overton window the ability to do both, discuss politics etc. and shit-post seems to have been a welcome change of pace for many.

It will remain to be seen how this announcement and the enforcement of rules will generally affect the atmosphere around here. I just hope you made the right call here. It`d be a shame if this was the start of the same downward slide that ended up initially bringing us here.

That was me, and Divine Salamis was my forum. Probably the greatest coup was that we got S.M. Stirling to post there for a while. I like to think that my enormous consistency of belief is one of the greatest promises I can make, especially to the old timers here. As all of my friends have attested, I have been someone firmly planted in high culture, and yet also right-wing, the entire time I've been posting on the internet--since 1998, give or take. If you're worried about where this forum will go, remember that it's being run by a thirty-seven year old who has held roughly the same political beliefs on the internet for twenty-two years. I may have changed my religious convictions over that time, but I've never wavered in the core of my philosophical outlook--I am always at heart at Optimate, in the Roman sense.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

That is a hard question, especially on a forum where you are missing many of the social cues that in person discussion can have.

I cannot really give you concrete guidelines, beyond avoid the bright lines of the posted rules.

If somebody is insulted by what you posted, but it is within the posted rules? You'll be fine and that person needs a thicker skin and to stop trying to game the refs. If it's outside the posted rules? Well, we have posted rules... follow them.

For the sake of others, I tend to make liberal use of those over the top Emoji's I would use when I was able to do so, specifically to make sure people who had tonal issues, would know that I'm absolutely not serious.

Which has probably and admittedly saved my ass from account erasure here in the past..Because they function as an enormous neon sign.

That would be the advice I'd give posters who are prone to theatricality in posts..to make sure there's no ambiguity.

 

[Culsu]

That was me, and Divine Salamis was my forum. Probably the greatest coup was that we got S.M. Stirling to post there for a while. I like to think that my enormous consistency of belief is one of the greatest promises I can make, especially to the old timers here. As all of my friends have attested, I have been someone firmly planted in high culture, and yet also right-wing, the entire time I've been posting on the internet--since 1998, give or take. If you're worried about where this forum will go, remember that it's being run by a thirty-seven year old who has held roughly the same political beliefs on the internet for twenty-two years. I may have changed my religious convictions over that time, but I've never wavered in the core of my philosophical outlook--I am always at heart at Optimate, in the Roman sense.

Thank you, that was what I had been thinking of.
As I have hopefully made clear, I am not condemning the move by staff and you; I'm merely being cautious of what it`s repercussions might be down the line.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

.....Which considering you guys operate dupe accounts so you can walk among the plebes (Something I think is genuinely disturbing speaks to some serious authoritarianism. No one can be honest about anything if they don't know if the person they're talking to is a mod dupe or not). shouldn't be an issue here..nor an excuse raised.

Jesus Christ, they do that?

I'm sure there's good intentions involved with all this, but, as a former user of Kotaku In Action, I can't help but have some unpleasant flashbacks to certain mods who had good intentions as well.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Jesus Christ, they do that?

I'm sure there's good intentions involved with all this, but, as a former user of Kotaku In Action, I can't help but have some unpleasant flashbacks to certain mods who had good intentions as well.

Yea im pretty sure @Zoe. Is an alt of @Tyanna of Pentos .

 

[Deleted member 1]

Yes, Admins are allowed to have a second account, but it's a practice I copied from SDN, for security purposes, so that people are not always logged into their admin accounts and making posts in them.

 

[Aldarion]

That is a hard question, especially on a forum where you are missing many of the social cues that in person discussion can have.

I cannot really give you concrete guidelines, beyond avoid the bright lines of the posted rules.

If somebody is insulted by what you posted, but it is within the posted rules? You'll be fine and that person needs a thicker skin and to stop trying to game the refs. If it's outside the posted rules? Well, we have posted rules... follow them.

What I wrote was more narrowly referring to this portion of the rules:

c) Posting inflammatory content in an attempt to bait other users to violate the civility rules.

A lot of stuff can inflame people without intending to be inflammatory. So basically, if something inflammatory is posted, how do you tell the intent? Or it comes down to following other points of the rule in question?

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Jesus Christ, they do that?

I'm sure there's good intentions involved with all this, but, as a former user of Kotaku In Action, I can't help but have some unpleasant flashbacks to certain mods who had good intentions as well.

I'm pretty sure it's for mundane reasons...And not the Kotaku lunacy.

The problem is...precedent set by well everyone not the Sietch staff makes one go right to "They're using this to create a state of fear and stress among the user base".

 

[LordSunhawk]

What I wrote was specifically referring to this portion of the rules:

A lot of stuff can inflame people without intending to be inflammatory. So basically, if something inflammatory is posted, how do you tell the intent? Or it comes down to following other points of the rule in question?

It comes down to context.

Say you are posting in a controversial thread. Say something that on its face is completely within the rules. But then somebody takes what you said as inflammatory and erupts. I get the report, and I look at the post.

If your post is otherwise 100% within the rules then at most there might be a mod post to remind people of being civil, and even then it would be directed at the person who erupted.

In general we try our very hardest to give posters the benefit of the doubt. There are a handful of posters who have deliberately squandered that privilege. And trust me, they had to work *hard* to squander it.

 

[JagerIV]

Well, it seems all the interesting people have been banned already. It will be a shame if this hopeful little thing dies such an early death.

A thread survives mostly based on being entertaining or making controversial takes. The entertaining people and the controversial people seem to be rapidly being banned.

I hope this shooting in the foot is based upon some external pressure being brought on the staff, rather than staff being stupid.

Its only a day old, and I don't have anywhere else to go at this point. But, if all fun must be banned, so be it.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Look, we don't conceal moderator actions, make the entire appeals process public, and allow a full and frank discussion of the rules, how they are enforced, and how the staff behave.

It's been more than a year since we started this place, what have we (the staff) done to give anyone the impression that we are going to go tin pot dictator or abuse staff authority to win/advance/influence discussion?

I mean this sincerely and seriously, if you think the staff are being mean to you then feel free to make a thread articulating your position.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The problem is...precedent set by well everyone not the Sietch staff makes one go right to "They're using this to create a state of fear and stress among the user base".

Couldn't have put it better myself. All this talk about "optics" (which come on, chaps, that's playing the left's game), when this change is essentially optics suicide for the core user base. It's certainly got my hackles up, and I vigorously refute the idea of an overall Coronavirus conspiracy theory. It takes a fair amount to worry me.

In case we do get a snowballing out of control situation, how does one go about making a site like this?

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Well, it seems all the interesting people have been banned already. It will be a shame if this hopeful little thing dies such an early death.

A thread survives mostly based on being entertaining or making controversial takes. The entertaining people and the controversial people seem to be rapidly being banned.

I hope this shooting in the foot is based upon some external pressure being brought on the staff, rather than staff being stupid.

Its only a day old, and I don't have anywhere else to go at this point. But, if all fun must be banned, so be it.

...
The only person who even got temp banned (not the extent of the punishment) over this was @Urabrask Revealed and that was for his moderately detailed plan for killing British cops.

A few others have gotten whacked with varying lengths of politics subforum bans. But seriously, it's not like we decided to go "Cleanse. Purge. Kill" or anything.

 

[Deleted member 1]

...
The only person who even got temp banned (not the extent of the punishment) over this was @Urabrask Revealed and that was for his moderately detailed plan for killing British cops.

A few others have gotten whacked with varying lengths of politics subforum bans. But seriously, it's not like we decided to go "Cleanse. Purge. Kill" or anything.

I would add that we do have standards. If that plan had included advocacy to carry it out, he would have been permbanned. But I think that's obvious.

As it was, he's enjoying a week-long forum temp ban.

All other punishments levied in this exercise were subforum temp bans and thread bans.

If this is a purge to bring us in line with SJW dictates, we are a pretty sad lot of PC enforcers.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Well, it seems all the interesting people have been banned already. It will be a shame if this hopeful little thing dies such an early death.

A thread survives mostly based on being entertaining or making controversial takes. The entertaining people and the controversial people seem to be rapidly being banned.

I hope this shooting in the foot is based upon some external pressure being brought on the staff, rather than staff being stupid.

Its only a day old, and I don't have anywhere else to go at this point. But, if all fun must be banned, so be it.

I do think this is also a concern the staff should consider. Flair, draws and allowing an open debate between two charismatic and sometimes provocative (Within reason), motherfuckers is how you grow a site. My debates with Phenom (A notorious DBZ fanboy from 17 years ago) apparently drew dozens of users to CBR at the time that they happened. And I had such a substance problem at the time my posts were 90 percent illegible...

There are way more qualified people here, way more entertaining as well. The precedent set by all of this is...is concerning on multiple levels, killing activity is one of them.

Couldn't have put it better myself. All this talk about "optics" (which come on, chaps, that's playing the left's game), when this change is essentially optics suicide for the core user base. It's certainly got my hackles up, and I vigorously refute the idea of an overall Coronavirus conspiracy theory. It takes a fair amount to worry me.

In case we do get a snowballing out of control situation, how does one go about making a site like this?

To be fair we do have a conspiracy theory thread...I don't think they're nuking people for posting conspiracies, so much as running around doing it wantonly off topic?

The term "optics cucking" comes to mind...though I don't think that's being done here, so much as an emotional reaction by the staff to another party's emotional reaction to a societal, tonal shift in discourse.

This happened in the early 90's as well, it's happening now and it will happen again. When the mainstream is hyper sensitive and overly tolerant than the counter culture is basically..well

This.

It comes down to context.

Say you are posting in a controversial thread. Say something that on its face is completely within the rules. But then somebody takes what you said as inflammatory and erupts. I get the report, and I look at the post.

If your post is otherwise 100% within the rules then at most there might be a mod post to remind people of being civil, and even then it would be directed at the person who erupted.

In general we try our very hardest to give posters the benefit of the doubt. There are a handful of posters who have deliberately squandered that privilege. And trust me, they had to work *hard* to squander it.

So passive aggressive baiting by rule lawyering posters who abuse civility rules as shields would be actionable?

If I'm correct in my reading, this is honestly the only forum out there at all, that adopts that position and that's really awesome.