Author Topic: Moderation standards question  (Read 1865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Skepdad

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Inagodadavida, baby.
Moderation standards question
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:08:20 AM »
So, a member can insinuate and infer another member is a bigot with zero basis and that member can't respond with a good ole "go fuck yourself"? Just curious but what is the appropriate non-warning reply to being called a bigot? Nu-uh?

Not that I think it will make a difference but, in my world, being told to "go fuck yourself" is fairly lower on the offensive scale than being called a bigot.

Offline Beleth

  • Administrator Emeritus
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8062
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2012, 12:23:18 AM »
You ask fair questions, and you deserve fair answers.

But it's 11:30 on a Saturday night here, and us moderators can't give you the answers you deserve right now.

You might want to read this while you are waiting, though: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,42842.0.html

I expect to pass through this world but once;
any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now;
let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
-- Stephan Grellet

Offline Skepdad

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Inagodadavida, baby.
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2012, 12:34:36 AM »
You ask fair questions, and you deserve fair answers.

But it's 11:30 on a Saturday night here, and us moderators can't give you the answers you deserve right now.

You might want to read this while you are waiting, though: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,42842.0.html

Thank you for your response and my only comment is that only my post was edited which I can only assume means that my response to a horribly offensive assertion was considered inappropriate and not the original assertion.

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 27022
  • My homunculus is a grammar troll!
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2012, 12:42:21 AM »
Interesting. I don't think being called out as a bigot is necessarily an insult.  I mean someone can honestly think you are a bigot based on your posts as opposed to calling you a bigot as an insult.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Skepdad

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Inagodadavida, baby.
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2012, 12:50:36 AM »
Interesting. I don't think being called out as a bigot is necessarily an insult.  I mean someone can honestly think you are a bigot based on your posts as opposed to calling you a bigot as an insult.

Normally fair enough but when there's absolutely no prior evidence of bigotry and then there's an assertion out of the blue then that's pretty offensive ... at least I think so.

Perhaps that's my upbringing but call a man a liar or a bigot and it would be wise to have something to back that up with ...

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 27022
  • My homunculus is a grammar troll!
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2012, 12:52:25 AM »
Interesting. I don't think being called out as a bigot is necessarily an insult.  I mean someone can honestly think you are a bigot based on your posts as opposed to calling you a bigot as an insult.

Normally fair enough but when there's absolutely no prior evidence of bigotry and then there's an assertion out of the blue then that's pretty offensive ... at least I think so.

Perhaps that's my upbringing but call a man a liar or a bigot and it would be wise to have something to back that up with ...

Point taken. I did say it would have to be based on your posts.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Skepdad

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
  • Inagodadavida, baby.
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2012, 12:59:14 AM »
Interesting. I don't think being called out as a bigot is necessarily an insult.  I mean someone can honestly think you are a bigot based on your posts as opposed to calling you a bigot as an insult.

Normally fair enough but when there's absolutely no prior evidence of bigotry and then there's an assertion out of the blue then that's pretty offensive ... at least I think so.

Perhaps that's my upbringing but call a man a liar or a bigot and it would be wise to have something to back that up with ...

Point taken. I did say it would have to be based on your posts.

and I agreed ...

Online uolj

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1950
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2012, 01:21:39 AM »
I think abusive language is more likely to get edited than language that merely implies something offensive. I don't think it's the severity of the offense that governs whether something gets edited, although that might come into play. In other words, I don't think you can assume the mods think your offense was worse just because only you got edited.

Just curious but what is the appropriate non-warning reply to being called a bigot? Nu-uh?

I think simply stating that the implication is offensive and unnecessary would be appropriate, although I concede that is probably hard to do in the heat of the moment.

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 27022
  • My homunculus is a grammar troll!
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2012, 01:24:46 AM »
Oh my god! It's Ng who had offended you?! Laughing at you.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline Louie

  • Actually three chimps tag-teaming a keyboard.
  • God Emeritus
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
  • Let the elephant make everything kushtee.
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2012, 05:52:58 AM »
So, a member can insinuate and infer another member is a bigot with zero basis and that member can't respond with a good ole "go fuck yourself"? Just curious but what is the appropriate non-warning reply to being called a bigot? Nu-uh?

Not that I think it will make a difference but, in my world, being told to "go fuck yourself" is fairly lower on the offensive scale than being called a bigot.

No, a member can't respond with that. Uolj has said it very well: you used straightforward abusive language towards another member and I edited that particular part of your post to indicate that this was not on. A debate about whether or not you were right to be offended by NG's post would be inconsequential: regardless of whether his post personally offended you, two wrongs don't make a right. I refer you to Q3 and Q5 of the FAQ to which Beleth has posted a link.
As for appropriate, non-warning replies... Uolj was right on the money there as well.

I hope your concerns have been adequately addressed.


"It can't end like this. Tell them I said something." - Pancho Villa's last words (1923).

Offline Trinoc

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3975
  • Dumb, in a pocket, and proud of it.
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2012, 06:58:27 AM »
Not wanting to get into the details of this particular case, but I have been told (by moderators on other forums) that it is very bad practice to edit a post. A post should either be left as it is or removed completely. By editing it the moderators assume editorial responsibility for the result, and could in principle be sued either by the target of the post for what remains, or by the poster for misrepresenting what was originally posted.
I'm a skeptic. Not a "skepdude". Not a "man skeptic". Just a skeptic.

Offline Louie

  • Actually three chimps tag-teaming a keyboard.
  • God Emeritus
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
  • Let the elephant make everything kushtee.
Re: Moderation standards question
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2012, 08:28:24 AM »
You're right, Trinoc. We will occasionally edit a post if it contains other members' private information or illegal contents (illegal in general, not just in the context of the forum rules). I have occasionally edited a profanity-laden post and replaced unacceptable language with alternatives, as a more gentle admonition than putting a mod box in the thread or dishing out a warning. That is a practice I will have to review, and it was definitely misplaced in this particular case. I'd like to apologise unreservedly to Skepdad for editing his post. 
"It can't end like this. Tell them I said something." - Pancho Villa's last words (1923).

 

personate-rain