main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Freedom of speech and the JC

Discussion in 'Communications' started by farraday, Feb 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thraxwhirl

    Thraxwhirl Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 14, 2002
    You can say "I support the Nazi party" because - shock, horror - you just well might; and it IS your right.
    Yet, you can obviously not say "You are a Nazi", as such a comment is directed AT someone with NEGATIVE intent.


    A valid point. I think, even if it is unwritten, that we users should attach more importance to the intent of posts(our own and each others) rather than the opinions expressed.

    I personally feel that sometimes posts are - to my mind at least - written with an intent to belittle or offend other users, or sometimes a paricular user, and I see that as a bad thing. Stating a personal belief, on the other hand, which may cause offence is quite different.

    I used the hypothetical example of supporting Al Qaeda(do I spell that correctly by the way?), while P-O-T- here used an example of support for the nazis. In either case, there would be users taking offence at the expression of such sentiment. However, I feel that this is quite distinct from posting with a view to offend, and claiming that it's just an excercise of freedom of speech.

    I fully expect that on occasion, one or two of my own posts may have been offensive to other JCers(and if so I am willing to apologise if notified), yet I cannot recall at least ever having set out with that as my intention.

    Furthermore, I have in the past attempted to take constructive action in instances when I feel that a user has unwittingly done something which may be hurtful, but - I hope - I've done so in a helpful way, or tried at the very least.

    Last summer, for example, I read a thread which was intended to be humorous, and was largely accepted as such. I however took a step back from it, and came to a conclusion that it could potentially be very upsetting to some users. Now, because I was attempting at least to take into account the intention behind it, I did not chastise the author in question, but rather appealed in private to her reason, and explained, as best I could why I felt it might be upsetting to some, and asked her if she would consider locking it for that reason. Regrettably she was offline until the following day. The next day she replied to say that she had not considered the possibility that I had highlighted, but that she took onboard my point. By then the thread was more or less redundant, and had sunk back several pages where it was less likely to be resurected(and I think it's best that I don't link to it now). Suffice it to say, in response to an apology she made to me, I assured her that I understood plainly that it was not her intention to cause any hurt, and for this reason I was not in any way trying to belittle her, nor was I angry. We reached an understanding. And we are subsequently on each other's WULs.

    I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet on that one - another reason for keeping the details private - and you can make up your own minds about whether or not you think what I did was right or wrond. Or indeed if you even believe this actually happened, and I haven't simply made it up in an attempt to sound like a better and more helpful person than I am. That's for you to decide for yourselves.

    Anyway, I would offer that I think it behoves us both to consider carefully whether or not posts we make are likely to cause upset and also to make an attempt to ascertain whether or not posts we've read which could potentially be offensive actually meant to be so, before calling for mods to undertake a banning or considering how best to address a situation.

    Does that not come closer at least to the spirit of Community?
     
  2. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    Considering that the administration doesn't (openly) support mind-reading as a mode of enforcement, intent is pretty much irrelevent.

    We have our three theoretically flawless psychics locked up in the basement to tell us exactly what is trolling and spamming, but I'm not supposed to tell you about them.
     
  3. Thraxwhirl

    Thraxwhirl Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Am I to take it that you're toying with me, Genghis12?

    I'll give you benefit of the doubt, which is essentially the whole point of what I'm talking about.

    I will however confess to being uncertain as to whether you are condoning my opinion or disapprovving of it.
     
  4. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    I think what Genghis is saying, Thrax, is that when a Mod sees something written on a screen without any emotion (since it's written) it's very hard to intuit "intent" from the writings. So if something's meant as a joke, without a smiley-face or a winkey-face -- it's very hard to tell (see: PiaS's earlier posts in this thread).

    So relying on Moderator intuition is not the best plan and people shouldn't expect Mods to not ban them because they should know you were joking.

    Intent is very subjective and very hard to tell over a non-expressive medium.
     
  5. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    Well, I've been exploring for quite some time good ways to determine intent.

    I have found that placing all of my fingertips on the screen and tracing over the words allows me to better divine intent.

    And if it was still unclear, sometimes I will close my eyes and begin chanting a mantra. The ones from Ultima work as well as any. If I'm feeling compassionate, for example, then I'll go with "mu." If I'm feeling spiritual, I go with "om." If I'm feeling a bit of sacrifice, I go with "cah."

    And I've found that with some users in particular, repeating my sacrificial mantra twice works extremely well in figuring out what their post is all about.
     
  6. Thraxwhirl

    Thraxwhirl Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Edit 2: Genghis, I offer an apology. I do not know if you've seen what I originally put IN THIS POST, but if you want it PM'ed to you I offer it. If not suffice it to say that it was written on the strength - perhaps weakness - of me taking objection to what you previously put but having reread it, and your post, and dp4m's, I feel my words were ill-advised, and furthermore, I believe I misinterpreted your intention.

    For this I apologise.

    I am endebted to you, dp4m however, for giving a serious and reasoned reply. I agree with your point; intention can be clouded and uncertain. You are right. All I would add is that, where doubt remains, and if the issue is serious, it's not impossible to obtain an explanation of intent, but I think you'll have gathered that already. My thanks to you nevertheless. :)

    Edit 2: Indeed, as you may infer from my editing, sometimes one's own perception of another's intent, can, and does change upon re-reading.

    Edit 3(I think, or is it 4?): Ghengis, I can and will go further on that apology, and state here and now that, subject to you asking for a PM of what I wrote(I've put it in notepad), you feel that it was cowardly of me to remove it from public view, but rather that I should repost it so as to allow everyone else to judge for themselves, I shall comply.
     
  7. Admiral_Thrawn60

    Admiral_Thrawn60 Jedi Youngling star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 2000
    Hmmm... I knew that Cadet Harassment and Abuse Prevention program would come in handy someday.

    The one thing I remember from that program is that in instances of harassment or abuse, it is impact, not intent, that is important. However, it is within reason. If you tell someone they look nice, and they get offended, then even though the impact was negative, it is not harassment, because a normal person would not take offense to it.

    I think that would be a good policy to have here. Impact, not intent, and if someone takes offense to something but a normal person would not, then it is not harassment/flaming.
     
  8. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    Thrax...
    That's alright. The psychics already told me yesterday what you were going to post, anyway.
     
  9. Thraxwhirl

    Thraxwhirl Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Fair enough. That's kind of you. The offer still stands however, I was about to PM you with a link to this page, and make the offer of PMing you what I originally posted.

    I am still willing to let you see it if you missed it. I owe you that at least.

    I feel ashamed for what I put, but not ashamed to apologise.

    'Tis true. I do genuinely feel bad for what I put. I was wrong. Bottom line.

    Sorry.
     
  10. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Genghis could you return to posting long overblown statements from the mod bible instead of attempting sarcasm without a license? kthxbye.

    Impact not intent does seem to make sense AT, however it also leaves it open to interpretation by the mods, which can either be good or bad.

    Remember again that the mods are not modbots, and as such are subject to the same humanity that flows through your veins, the same weakness.

    I want to be sure we do not carry ignoring intent too far, as sometimes it is clear that while something may be in technical violation of the rules, it does not require the same reaction as something that was intended to violate the rules.
     
  11. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    I want to be sure we do not carry ignoring intent too far, as sometimes it is clear that while something may be in technical violation of the rules, it does not require the same reaction as something that was intended to violate the rules.

    Right -- many of the posts at the beginning of this thread are a good example of that (even if some did cut a touch too close to the "line," IMO). But when there's no CLEAR sense that something was a technical violation and not really something ban-worthy, you start getting into that middle-area. And it's that middle-area that is likely to be come down upon hard because of lack of divining skill.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.