Timeline for How should we respond to posts that might be written by trolls?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2017 at 7:35 | history | edited | apaul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 922 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2017 at 22:35 | comment | added | apaul | @Shog9 Hey, looky there we almost agree on something. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 22:30 | comment | added | Shog9 | I suspect that in their heart of hearts, most people believe that censoring things that are harmful is not just permissible but laudable, @apaul. The trick is always getting folks to agree on what falls into that category. The question "what problem does this cause?" is a good one to keep handy. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 22:25 | comment | added | apaul | Eh, I guess you have a point there... Just like to think of it as the difference between "Don't be rude/hateful" and "Don't talk about X" where X is generally on-topic. Sort of the difference between making a subject taboo vs agreeing to talk about it respectfully, if that makes sense? @Shog9 | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 22:01 | comment | added | Shog9 | Because we both know it isn't true; there are plenty of things that folks have said here that we're both very glad were censored and recognize that the site is better off having them gone. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:57 | comment | added | apaul | @Shog9 "but do this because the existing rules are sufficient not out of an aversion to censorship.” Why not both? ;) | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:56 | comment | added | Shog9 | Well, an awful lot of things are off-topic; presumably we don't want folks asking about football scores, programming problems or posting recipe requests here. More importantly, various forms of speech are disallowed even for topics that are; that Be Nice page (and a few other such pages) exists to be a conspicuous declaration that there are things we will censor here. Now... Y'all don't need any rules more constrained than those which already exist, and are wise to be cautious about adding any - but do this because the existing rules are sufficient not out of an aversion to censorship. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:50 | comment | added | apaul | @Shog9 it wasn't my intention to come across as dismissive... I'm just aware that some users would want to make an awful lot of things off-topic or unmentionable, so placing a warning sign seemed worthwhile. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:29 | comment | added | apaul | @1006a gray areas aren't usually all that gray. They just appear gray at a distance. When everyone draws their line a little different, the resulting crosshatch just appears gray... | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:18 | comment | added | 1006a | Yes, there are hard cases; it doesn't sound like this was one of them. Too often I hear folks say "it's a gray area" or "it's a slippery slope" or "these distinctions are hard to make" in lieu of dealing with the very black-and-white cases that are on firm ground where the distinctions aren't hard to make. One way to help find a line is to start with the cases that are clearly on one side or the other and narrow in from there. Deciding that this case was definitely on the wrong side is ultimately going to help distinguish the ones that are on the right side of, but much closer to, that line. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 21:16 | comment | added | Shog9 | You're quite correct in that "this makes me feel uncomfortable" cannot be a rule in and of itself... It's the smoke, not the fire. But it's a good indicator that something may be amiss, particularly if multiple people feel that way - so try not to be dismissive when someone is brave enough to speak up. Frank discussion of why someone finds a post off-putting is a good way to get past knee-jerk reactions and arrive at a shared understanding; as always, the goal here is to be welcoming, patient, and work together to learn from one another | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 19:36 | comment | added | apaul | @Shog9 I totally agree that addressing what is and isn't on topic is an important discussion to have, just wanted people to be cautious about how we do that. "This makes me feel uncomfortable" or "this is worded too explicitly" aren't great measuring sticks, because everyone draws those lines differently. If we aren't conscious of the pitfalls we may end up with policy that bites people we didn't intend to. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 19:31 | comment | added | apaul | @AnneDaunted "Yes in the specific instance, asking a more broad question about setting sexual boundaries would probably be a good work around." | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:31 | comment | added | Anne Daunted GoFundMonica | "Sanitizing language is a dangerous thing sometimes, because it's hard to draw those lines in a way that makes everyone comfortable." I agree that that's oftentimes the case, but not always. Or do we need separate questions for how to refuse participation in every conceivable sex act? That's why anongoodnurse's cleaned up phrasing is spot on. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:25 | comment | added | Shog9 | Censorship is a fundamental part of these sites; it's best to just be honest about that. Every site has a scope and an infinite number of things that aren't in that scope; as Jeff once said, don't get talked into building a truck unless you really want to build a truck. Once we're comfortable with the notion that censorship isn't just a necessary evil but a core part of what we do here, we can start having productive discussions as to what, specifically, needs to be censored… And what doesn't. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:23 | comment | added | user4548 | I think it's important to remember that we are not a therapy site nor are we an advocacy site. Off topic is just off topic. How people react is on them. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:04 | comment | added | apaul | @anongoodnurse Nah. Disagree. Just cautionary notes. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:03 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | Well, the op isn't Pandora. Can we deal with the issue presented instead of a horrific scenario where all the world's ills are released by an overly curious girl? Words like "slippery slope" and "Pandora's box" are red herrings when used the way they're being used here. If you "strongly suspect that trolls may be pushing those buttons to cause trouble", then lets deal with that. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:01 | comment | added | apaul | @anongoodnurse I wasn't intending to make an equivalency, I'm saying that we may inadvertently open a Pandora's box and we should be careful with that. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 18:01 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | Pulling down straw men (or burning them) strengthens no one. Let's discuss this issue and this issue alone for the time being. Would that be ok? | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 17:59 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | "For instance many people are uncomfortable about any mention of race, religion, politics, sex, sexuality, gender, and the list goes on and on... Allowing the majority to pick and choose what topics are ok to mention or what language must be used when those topics are talked about creates a situation where the majority is not only free to oppress the minority, but encouraged to do so." I'm not sure, but I think this is a red herring. I'm not advocating doing away with talking about sex or any other topic. This statement implies a false equivalency of appropriate language with racism, etc. | |
| Dec 14, 2017 at 17:55 | history | answered | apaul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |