board77

Voronwe--

Good lord, how did we miss that one...

I said that one quite a while ago....

I noticed that you had, Nin. (You always raise excellent points.)

Yes, it's in the Rights but not the penalties. I'll add it now.

Hard to keep all these different texts consistent!

Jn

It is.....

Found another slight glitch:

Under: Use of PM or Email to:
make defamatory remarks targetting nationality, ethnicity, native language, religion, gender or age, sexual orientation needs including too

With all that multiple ID discussion going on, don't we also need to include as available penalty to juries:

- deactivation of an RP ID

In case of misuse of an RP ID outright banning of the poster might be a bit much. Simply deactivating someone's RP ID will get 'rid' of this ID without impairing the posters ISP access.
This might also come in IF we allow multiple IDs outside of the RP forum.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Jnyusa wrote:

Should we say "abusive language or personal attacks directed toward another poster,"

Hobby has pointed to this clause and suggested that because of it we should move the courtesy clause in member rights to 'enforcable' ... (or maybe she's saying IF that THEN this - I'm not quite sure if she supports it herself or is just saying that it's a logical interpretation) ... anyway, I am afraid that there is so much opposition to enforcing courtesy (from what's been said up until now) that it would be better to remove this point from penalties altogether.

In that case only defamatory remarks and gratuitous advertising would be able to be penalized.

We do seem to keep drifing toward the broadest possible interpretation of what a member can be punished for, which may be the best evidence of all that we should use really specific language. If we keep feeling that certain words could mean just about anything, for sure a jury will too.

My dictionary (Webster's ... a very old one)

defame ... (1) disgrace; (2) to harm the reputation of by libel or slander

Would the insults then have to pass muster under U.S. defamation laws? Voronwe? (I would hope not, btw)

And if that definition is still problematic, then we should revisit the clause and make it say what we want, imo.

Posted on this again in the other thread - sorry, it's really difficult to follow simultaneous discussion in two different threads.

From what I see now, Cerin also thinks there should be something about personal attack in enforceable rights (if we stick to the original draft).
And I'm not so sure that those who objected to enforcing courtesy really meant allowing abuse of that kind or whether they weren't rather just thinking of rudeness in heated discussion, which I, too, find forgiveable (although posters could of course ask for a bike racks discussion if such rudeness within disputes occurs).

Under the definition you give, I think personal insults of the kind I mentioned in the other thread ("asshole") are clearly defamatory.

Alandriel -

I'll fix the omission above. Thanks.

- deactivation of an RP ID

I thought that permanent suspension of posting rights referred only to the RP character that was behaving problematically - so that suspension = deactivation. Explain to me what you had in mind for getting rid of a 'bad' character. Should there be a separate penalty where the poster (and all their characters) could be removed?

Hobby -

Um ... two responses. 'Asshole' is a curse, and we do have a clause in member rights that asks you not to curse, but (depending on how we structure the vote) right now it's in the unenforcable section. This is not technically defamation ... someone used the example of 'gypped' - even though it's a more acceptable expression than 'asshole' it is technically defamatory because it slurs an ethnic group.

So if you want repeated language of this kind - abusive but not technically defamatory - enforcably prohibited, then we do need the "abusive language" clause in penalties.

I am going to leave it there for now - haven't removed it yet - and I guess we may have to vote on its inclusion ... but I'll also say that the people who originally did not want to prohibit insults per se have not spoken up about it in this thread. So I'm sort of defending a viewpoint here that I only partially share.

Jn

Hobby and Cerin -

I've added 'attacks or a personal nature' to the persistent offensive language clause above, and also inserted it into clause #5 under the enforcable rights section in the other thread.

Please check that it appears everywhere it should!

Jn

Jnyusa,

Quote:

• Disenabling PM privileges

Can this please be "Disabling".



I've read through this and the rights thread multiple times hoping to understand the sensitivity about abuse and personal attacks.

There was an incident yesterday that I think went beyond the limits discussed here. I think it would have been a mistake for anything official to have been done. Now, my perception of the rules is wrong, or my perception of what happened is wrong, or we are more tolerant of those who we know and respect than we are inclined to be in general. We can't avoid some of the latter, but once the board is open, that won't be fair.

Will someone make an attempt at explaining what I am misperceiving? I don't think we need to mention the details of yesterday.

IdylleSeethes wrote:

Will someone make an attempt at explaining what I am misperceiving? I don't think we need to mention the details of yesterday.

No one called anyone else an asshole yesterday, I don't think. Some cursing was done, but not out and out calling people crude or insulting names. I wouldn't want that allowed on b77.

I know we're already calling for an expectation (even right) to be treated courteously, but beyond that, I would want the person who habitually called other people 'asshole' in the course of a discussion (or 'liar', or 'scumbag', etc.) to be subject to a hearing. I think that's what Hobby and I have been going back and forth about, perhaps she can confirm.

Yesterday didn't nearly approach the kind of thing I am referring to as 'personal attack' and for which I would want some kind of redress in the by-laws.

Idylle, what you refer to was a personal dispute that I believe was handled appropriately in that way. No one involved chose to make it a larger issue. I would certainly not like to see any rule that forced it to become one over the wishes of those directly involved.

I also can't see any unfairness in choosing to react differently to an insult or other offense depending on who delivered it and under what circumstances. Again, it seems to me that the "injured" party should be free to decide not to feel injured. Bystanders who are disturbed must make their own decisions.

If a member is insulted by a stranger and chooses to take action, that would be within the rules of the board and I don't see anything "unfair" by comparison. People don't have to forgive in strangers what they can forgive in friends, as long as their response is within the rules of common courtesy and the board.

All IMO.

Cross-posted with Cerin.

Idylle,

First of all, I agree with you that yesterday's discussion did not require interference.

One of the reasons people stayed calm is because we do know one another to be fair persons and not given to insults. I think that here, as in other provisions, the words "persistent" and "repeatedly" in the penalties article protect us from inappropriate action. Even if one or more of us had become *very* angry yesterday, and the language had been stronger, it would have been very much out of character for all of us, and would not have merited more than an edit, in my opinion.

I'm anxious to keep personal disputes out of the courtroom, but I do recall posters (in Manwe, but also in Talk) who could not get through a sentence without personally impugning someone else, and I understand why people want that to be actionable if it is a pattern of behavior. Ultimately I think that posters who are chronically abusive and show no willingness to change should be banned. Threads die when they enter.

But admins have to behave reasonably. If the Charter says persistent offensive language, the admins should not convene a hearing every time someone says 'dammit.'

I'm thinking -- one thing we've not done yet is to talk about how to handle frivolous complaints ... at what point do the admin have the right to say that the complainer is the problem and tell them to desist? Should we address this at all, or leave it to the admins?

Jn

Cerin, Prim, Jnyusa,

Thanks for your responses.

I guess I got spoiled lurking with those nice m00bies. I now have a better idea of what is intended and I hope it gets carried out in practice.

I would leave determination of when to admonish frivolous complainers to the admins.

First up Jny re de-activation. Forget it. T'was me and my muddled thinking. You're right: it is covered under permanent suspension in a specific forum. In case of a multiple ID running amok IF we get into allowing them outside of RP this would lead to permanent suspension in specific forums (plural). I guess if and when we get there, this wording needs a slight adjustement.

As to frivolous complaints I think it's a matter of repetition and if a poster behaves that way in the end they're only cutting into their own flesh. I know out of personal experience somewhere else of just such a case and if I immagine something like this happening here, that 'complainer' poster 'harrasing' people repeatedly across the board or opening thread after thread in the bikeracks then I can tell you that this person with each 'case' opened will loose respectability amongst the membership at large. At one point a respected member (who can or not be an Admin) will stand up and say enough is enough. Either that is solved then in bikeracks and the 'complainer poster' promises to start 'behaving'. If then that promise is violated it will go before a Jury and I trust in their ability to reach a solution.

I would entirely leave this up to the membership at large to deal with.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Alandriel - thanks for the clarification.

IS - disabling -- forgot to do it before but I've done it now. Thanks.

Jn

Cerin wrote:

IdylleSeethes wrote:

Will someone make an attempt at explaining what I am misperceiving? I don't think we need to mention the details of yesterday.

No one called anyone else an asshole yesterday, I don't think. Some cursing was done, but not out and out calling people crude or insulting names. I wouldn't want that allowed on b77.

I know we're already calling for an expectation (even right) to be treated courteously, but beyond that, I would want the person who habitually called other people 'asshole' in the course of a discussion (or 'liar', or 'scumbag', etc.) to be subject to a hearing. I think that's what Hobby and I have been going back and forth about, perhaps she can confirm.

Yesterday didn't nearly approach the kind of thing I am referring to as 'personal attack' and for which I would want some kind of redress in the by-laws.

Yes, I can confirm that's what I meant, too!

And to get back to Jny's worries about people who had spoken up to say they did not want too much limitation on personal expression, I think we should ask them to comment on this, too, because the way I understood them, they meant the same thing, namely that the incident IS refers to is something that needs to be tolerated - people do express themselves more strongly when they are stressed about something - but I can't imagine Alatar or Din objecting to outlawing habitual name-calling.

Once the vote on multiple screen names is completed and that issue is clarified, I think we can move forward with a vote on this. However, we will need to make sure that the wording here matches that of the enforceable rights in the member's rights and responsibilities articles (assuming that we specifically designate enforceable rights).

I know that I said before that I thought the rights and responsibilities article should be voted on first, but now I am thinking that this one should be voted on first so that we know exactly what the enforceable rights are.

Edit: Actually, Cerin convinced me that I was right in the first place, so never mind this last bit.

Quote:

And to get back to Jny's worries about people who had spoken up to say they did not want too much limitation on personal expression, I think we should ask them to comment on this, too, because the way I understood them, they meant the same thing, namely that the incident IS refers to is something that needs to be tolerated - people do express themselves more strongly when they are stressed about something - but I can't imagine Alatar or Din objecting to outlawing habitual name-calling.

Thank you Truehobbit, see I knew there was a mind under that crusty old exterior

I am getting more and more worried about the limitations being placed on posters. That is not what Board77 is about and one of the major reasons it was founded in the first place.

I think we need to get back to basics, move away from discussing what inflection or ratio of names calling is bannable, and get back to being a free speaking messageboard.

After all, who is to say what people find offensive, and we don't want to go back to a board where we watch everything we write because somebody will find offense. If not I would have to ask anybody who offered to pray for me or spoke out in favor of certain right wing fundementalist viewpoints to go to the bike racks to sort it out. At the end of the day it is pointless.

If we restrict this, we restrict communication and there is no point in being here in the first place.

I have not seen the incident IS mentioned, but I can guess. We have had several, we will have more. They should be noted, and calmed down. If it happens with the same couple of people again, it is an issue. If somebody wants to call somebody else a twat, so be it. we are all adults here (even in those coutries where adulthood is set for late developers, children do not fit in here and will not stay), we can all pretty much carry on an adult discussion.

As for namecalling being bad, errr what sort of a country do people live in? Seriously, it is they way people communicate the world over, has been for millenia. It is like dogs pissing on trees, it is part of the human condition. It sets your place in society, the issue of who you can joke with, who you can put down, who you can't.If you restrict that you restrict cultural identity and that is bad, and that is something I really would not want to see on B77.

And as Alandriel said, if somebody is constantly getting at you. Ignore them, step away and don't try to get the final word. Much beter than the passive aggressive posts that follow any point somebody disagrees with.

Old? Who is old? - Oh, you are talking about yourself!

But I think you got me wrong. I had indeed expected you to be for taking care we could do something against habitual name-calling, and it now shows you really are against it. I'm rather sorry to hear that, but I hope we'll put it up to a vote, as so far just as many people have spoken up for as against it.

But I'm not sure you are really aware of what kind of abuse I am thinking of. We haven't yet had any of the kind of abuse on this board which I think should be possible to result in a hearing!

I've given some examples involving myself, but maybe everybody should try to imagine the situation involving themselves.
Just try to picture it: if someone called you a dumb-ass (or anything you'd find hurtful or gross), would you insult them back? Ignore it? Or ask them to the bike racks?
In the first case, the other one would probably hit back and you'd engage in a name-calling competition.
In the second case, they'd probably just go on calling you a dumb-ass wherever they can - how would you feel trying to ignore that?
In the last case, either they'd refuse to go to the bike racks, and keep calling you dumb-ass in their posts, or they'd join you in the bike racks and say: I'm just expressing my opinion of you, so what's your problem? - and continue with the name-calling.

Is that really the kind of communicative culture you'd find acceptable?

I am not for regular 'your a dumb ass' posts anymore than the next man.

My problem is that I expect people to be able to express themselves and most importantly, I do not believe that anybody has the right to dictate to me what I should find offensive.

In your example TH, it would depend entirely on the person.

As an example, if Lidless called me a dumb ass, I would laugh and poke back.

If Alandriel called me a dumb ass I would take a step back, and see what I had done wrong.

If you, Truehobbit, called me a dum as I would know I had mortally offened you someplace, find out where and go and rectify it.

If Cerin ot Veronwe called me a dumb ass. Well I don't know either that well, certainly not to cat call so I would take offence and PM asking them why they had said that.

If a new poster who I did not know at all said I was a dumb ass, I would PM them, and report the instance to the Mayor/admin etc because I have no idea who they are or why they are saying that but a rap on the knuckles would do them good.

See, different responces. But in every instance, I stand by the rights of the poster to call me a dumb ass.