Important Going Forward

[Free-Stater 101]

As I promised in my introduction, I would like to throw out a few topics on which I am hoping to get feedback from the community.

First. I am considering implementing an ombudsman position from amongst the userbase, a small rotating group of 3 or 4 members who would have direct input to staff and leadership in regards to forum affairs. This would not be a staff position, nor any sort of political LARP sort of deal, but rather members in good standing who would have more visibility into staff discussions and be in a position to give feedback and be the 5 year old in the room. I would appreciate feedback on this concept, if you think it is workable or not.

Second. I intend to expand the Creative section of the website, with subforums devoted to the arts as well as writing. In addition I intend to promote the Alternate History section in the hopes of attracting more content creators to the Sietch. I would appreciate feedback and ideas on this.

Third. This is food for thought. In the near future I will be opening up applications for staff positions. If you are willing to commit to enforcing the rules of the forum fairly and evenly, are in good standing in the forum, and have a history of civil engagement even with those you disagree with, please consider applying when applications are opened.

I think all are good ideas if implemented properly. Going forward I think we should implement them all and perhaps more.

A few idea's I would also suggest would be.

1. Making the Politics/NSFW Politics sections private and requiring a preset post count to be reached to enter, I am thinking one hundred for regular politics and three hundred for NSFW politics. (This seems contreversial but it has dual purposes of dissuading trolls, furthermore it would force new members to post outside politics and help jumpstart the other sub-forums)
2. I think we need to issue some checks and balances to staff protocols beyond the council for input. Nothing to impede staff mind you, rather a final warning system for offenders at the very least to ensure bans don't seem to come out of nowhere and a ban thread (similar to AH.com) to ensure future staff transparency on infractions.

I have a few other small Ideas, but these are the main ones I wanted to float.

 

[Terthna]

Something that needs to be understood here is that much of the site's current membership, for good or ill, is very politically opinionated. Politics dominate the discourse even on subforums that has nothing to do with it. In the "Media and Fandom Discussion" subforum the second largest thread on the first page at the moment is '"Woke" Franchises'.

I agree that it's best for the forum's overall health if we transition to a less political and more "nerdy" forum. Hell, it might be best for the mental health of some people in this forum... But this is not something that can be done overnight, not without losing most of the active userbase. You can't outright nuke the political forum and expect everything to work out just dandy. By all means, keep a tight lid on election topics specifically, but what's needed here, IMO, is a gentle touch, not a hacksaw. Just my 5 cents.

Have you ever tried to tell a depressed person to stop being depressed? All "keeping a tight lid on election topics" would do is anger people; myself included. I want to be able to share my grievances about what's happening with like-minded (and not so like-minded) people; if I cannot have that here, then this forum is of no use to me.

 

[Buba]

My ideal for a political section is the Hyde Park at Warships1 - it was very lightly moderated.
IIRC anything short of death threats was allowed. I'm fairly sure I've seen posts starting with "only a brain dead puppy kicking leftard/fascist moron like you ... " - which I absolutely do not mind. I have no problems with being called an idiot
IMO if one cannot handle (some degree) of abuse then one should not discuss politics.
EDIT:
I'm not saying that a political section need be a place where "cram as many insults into a post as you can" is the standard - and Warships1 certainly wasn't - but that if members go at one another with insults it should not be cause for excitement.

BTW - the political section is not why I am here - I'm here for the AU and fanfiction.

Nevertheless my overall expectations/hopes are low (?) - all I want is a place where the mods are not frothing at the mouth SJW's imposing mainstream/leftist dogma.

Maybe AU/fanfic posters booted for political incorrectness from AH, SB and SV - of which there are many, quite a few of which were IMO of high calibre - will gradually coalesce at The Sietch if it becomes known as a censorship light/free site?
How to do it - I'm not web savvy enough to suggest anything, sadly.

 

[Thors_Alumni]

I am against keeping the Pollical section locked until February. That's too long. it might be better to keep it locked for another week so that people can finish cooling down. If it gets locked again than extended the cooling off period for 2 weeks and increase by 1 week every time the section get's locked.

 

[GoldRanger]

Frankly, I don't really understand why it had to be locked at all. What's wrong with week long threadbans for anyone who misbehaves, with the stipulation that the reason for banning should be explained clearly? The staff can even create emergency rules specifically for the 2020 election period, so that users have a clear idea what to avoid. Anyone who violates the TOS could be tempbanned and their post redacted to protect the site. I don't understand what the subforum lock achieves that a more surgical effort wouldn't.

 

[Rocinante]

Frankly, I don't really understand why it had to be locked at all. What's wrong with week long threadbans for anyone who misbehaves, with the stipulation that the reason for banning should be explained clearly? The staff can even create emergency rules specifically for the 2020 election period, so that users have a clear idea what to avoid. Anyone who violates the TOS could be tempbanned and their post redacted to protect the site. I don't understand what the subforum lock achieves that a more surgical effort wouldn't.

You can even make a sticky in certain areas, "advocating for secession is not allowed" or whatever.

Then threadban or temp ban the people who do it.

Leaving the whole damn forum locked because one or two users talked about some stuff in one or two threads just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Terthna]

You can even make a sticky in certain areas, "advocating for secession is not allowed" or whatever.

Then threadban or temp ban the people who do it.

Leaving the whole damn forum locked because one or two users talked about some stuff in one or two threads just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The problem I have with that is that advocating for secession isn't actually illegal, as Zoe claimed; she and her friends just didn't want to allow people to do so. Like she didn't want to allow people to talk about the Corona Virus, before people (including myself) pointed out how hypocritical that was of her to even consider doing, seeing as it was a complete betrayal of her commitment to the principles of free speech when creating this forum.

 

[GoldRanger]

The problem I have with that is that advocating for secession isn't actually illegal, as Zoe claimed; she and her friends just didn't want to allow people to do so. Like she didn't want to allow people to talk about the Corona Virus, before people (including myself) pointed out how hypocritical that was of her to even consider doing, seeing as it was a complete betrayal of her commitment to the principles of free speech when creating this forum.

The wider issue was that the election thread itself was becoming a cesspool of trolling, counter-trolling, users calling to ignore other users based on their political affiliation (even when they gave reasoned arguments), other users gloating and baiting. The quality of the discussion went to shit, almost meme-level posts.

The solution is not to lock it, but a tighter moderation. In practice the elections thread had been locked, reopened, relocked, again reopened ad nauseum, with nothing but a warning each time, barely even threadbans. Then, suddenly, the hammer came down and the entire subforum was locked, including threads that have nothing to do with the 2020 election (why can I no longer discuss Iran?) which is insane.

Why weren't the offending users threadbanned for a week, even 2 or 3 weeks? Why not clean up the tainted threads? It can't be a manpower issue, this forum is small and there are plenty of moderators.

I genuinely want to hear your reasoning behind a subforum lock @The Original Sixth

 

[Arch Dornan]

The wider issue was that the election thread itself was becoming a cesspool of trolling, counter-trolling, users calling to ignore other users based on their political affiliation (even when they gave reasoned arguments), other users gloating and baiting. The quality of the discussion went to shit, almost meme-level posts.

The solution is not to lock it, but a tighter moderation. In practice the elections thread had been locked, reopened, relocked, again reopened ad nauseum, with nothing but a warning each time, barely even threadbans. Then, suddenly, the hammer came down and the entire subforum was locked, including threads that have nothing to do with the 2020 election (why can I no longer discuss Iran?) which is insane.

Why weren't the offending users threadbanned for a week, even 2 or 3 weeks? Why not clean up the tainted threads? It can't be a manpower issue, this forum is small and there are plenty of moderators.

I genuinely want to hear your reasoning behind a subforum lock @The Original Sixth

Giving out threadbans can work. I thought Sixth's idea is better but your common sense goes straight to the point. I only thought of this way when I thought of what happened in the election thread to cause the thread to get a lockdown but I'm not sure now.

The problem I have with that is that advocating for secession isn't actually illegal, as Zoe claimed; she and her friends just didn't want to allow people to do so. Like she didn't want to allow people to talk about the Corona Virus, before people (including myself) pointed out how hypocritical that was of her to even consider doing, seeing as it was a complete betrayal of her commitment to the principles of free speech when creating this forum.

It wasn't?

 

[MrBirthday]

I have to echo those saying that the thing to do would have been to hand out threadbans/tempbans to misbehaving posters, and if they have to lock something, just lock the offending thread rather than the whole politics forum.

 

[Terthna]

It wasn't?

Not according to my research; though whether it is or not is a contentious topic of debate.

 

[GoldRanger]

The TOS does ban "incitement of communal tension", whatever that means. This rule is probably vague enough to apply to the ones calling for cessesion/revolution.

 

[Terthna]

The TOS does ban "incitement of communal tension", whatever that means. This rule is probably vague enough to apply to the ones calling for cessesion/revolution.

Technically it could apply to making any accusation of voting fraud, regardless of their veracity. The problem with the rules in general is that they were deliberately written to be vague so as to give Zoe and her staff the justification to do whatever they wanted, with the only thing preventing them from abusing those rules being their moral character; which is something Zoe outright admitted.

 

[Abhorsen]

As far as advocating cessession is legally okay, it definitely is. Incitement to lawlessness has to be a direct and immediate.

 

[Battlegrinder]

My ideal for a political section is the Hyde Park at Warships1 - it was very lightly moderated.
IIRC anything short of death threats was allowed. I'm fairly sure I've seen posts starting with "only a brain dead puppy kicking leftard/fascist moron like you ... " - which I absolutely do not mind. I have no problems with being called an idiot
IMO if one cannot handle (some degree) of abuse then one should not discuss politics.
EDIT:
I'm not saying that a political section need be a "cram as many insults into a post as you can" - and Warships1 certainly wasn't - but that if members go at one another with insults it should not be cause for excitement.

That is absolutely not a good idea. Allowing that sort of behavior will poison a forum, because hostile, abusive language invites a response in kind. It can and likely will set a tone for the entire forum, and eventually once it sets in enough it'll stop being about politics and start being about smashing the other guy and proving him wrong because that guy sucks.

Frankly, I don't really understand why it had to be locked at all. What's wrong with week long threadbans for anyone who misbehaves, with the stipulation that the reason for banning should be explained clearly? The staff can even create emergency rules specifically for the 2020 election period, so that users have a clear idea what to avoid. Anyone who violates the TOS could be tempbanned and their post redacted to protect the site. I don't understand what the subforum lock achieves that a more surgical effort wouldn't.

From what I gather, the issue was that there were so many issues coming up so frequently and tensions rising so often that the staff felt a cooling down period was required.

 

[GoldRanger]

That is absolutely not a good idea. Allowing that sort of behavior will poison a forum, because hostile, abusive language invites a response in kind. It can and likely will set a tone for the entire forum, and eventually once it sets in enough it'll stop being about politics and start being about smashing the other guy and proving him wrong because that guy sucks.



From what I gather, the issue was that there were so many issues coming up so frequently and tensions rising so often that the staff felt a cooling down period was required.

Those issues were centered on a handful of users, who you didn't even try to threadban. From where I stand you kind of saw the problems brewing, but then went from 0 to 100 in one second flat. There are many steps that can be attempted before you go to locking the largest subforum on the site.

EDIT: I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and it is not my intention to take an accusatory tone. This thread, as far as I gather, is meant for discussing the way forward with LordSunhawk, which is the sole thing I'm trying to do - sharing my perspective on how best do just that.

 

[ShieldWife]

Should any of that stuff even be banned?

The goal of this site was to be able to debate contentious political issues and discussing secession isn't trolling, it's not illegal, it's not uncivil - it's just controversial. Kind of like, well, admitting that you're a fascist. In some forums admitting to being a fascist could get you banned, just like discussing secession might, but isn't it better to allow people to discuss such things?

We don't want to be like "Oh no, a fascist, ban them. Oh no, a COVID/election fraud conspiracy theorist, ban them. Oh no, a secessionist, ban them."

 

[Terthna]

From what I gather, the issue was that there were so many issues coming up so frequently and tensions rising so often that the staff felt a cooling down period was required.

Did you even read the announcement post from The_Comet_King?

To all members of the Sietch.

After much internal discussion both within the staff, and specifically within the ownership of Belter Alliance Media LLC, a decision has been made that the continued operation of the politics section of the community as it stands contributes to subversion of the stability of the Constitution of the United States, and the Republic it so enshrines. On these grounds, we can not currently reconcile the operation of this section of the site with our ethics and morals.

This decision was made unanimously.

As a result, The Politics & Current Affairs section is closed effective immediately.

Sincerely,

Zoe
&
The Comet King

This wasn't a temporary shut down for the cooling of heads; this was a permanent shut down, because they felt that "the stability of the Constitution of the United States, and the Republic it so enshrines" was being threatened by what was being said.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Did you even read the announcement post from The_Comet_King?

This wasn't a temporary shut down for the cooling of heads; this was a permanent shut down, because they felt that "the stability of the Constitution of the United States, and the Republic it so enshrines" was being threatened by what was being said.

I believe Zoe also mentioned that this was meant to kill the forum by driving away the posters. How much it was about that, and how much it was really about the Stability of the Constitution isn't clear.

 

[ShieldWife]

Really, I would like to see the Sietch error heavily on the side of free speech. Would that allow more incivility than we might like or let a few people say weird stuff that others might not want to be associated with? Sure, that is the price of free speech. It means people get to say things that you don't like. I get the feeling like some here almost have a "freeze peach!" sort of mocking attitude towards allowing people to post potentially controversial or rude things, but is that a road that we really want to go down? Aren't there plenty of other sci-fi/fantasy forums out there to cater to those who want that sort of moderation policy?

It is my contention that over-moderation probability doesn't help that much with civility, we never saw it help in White Hall did we? Being strict about what people say and post probably doesn't help with civility nor does it elevate the level of the debate, it just has a chilling effect on people who really do have important things to say. Limiting the conversion in such a way is almost always going to be done hypocritically. Which controversial ideas that get censored and which don't are going to follow the biases of those doing the enforcement - that isn't an accusation I am making against the Sietch (though it applies) but rather a phenomenon which necessarily follows from censoring speech, which is why it should be done as little as possible.

I can see some argument for being very strict about sources and proper argumentation within a limited context, but if we really want to enforce anything like that, I would be inclined to say we should have a single sub-forum dedicated to more formal debating where claims need to be sourced, the opponents' arguments need to be addressed, and so on.

I believe Zoe also mentioned that this was meant to kill the forum by driving away the posters. How much it was about that, and how much it was really about the Stability of the Constitution isn't clear.

Yikes, I missed that, that's pretty bad