YJCC policy question

It comes back to what Katya said. You'd have a valid argument on some mellow messageboard somewhere, but not here. Here, I believe the administration strives to allow as much opinion and discussion as possible without crossing a line. It just so happens that line falls somewhere between your statement 1 and statement 3.

 

I think that it might be a case of separating "pot-shots" from actual "flaming". Is it a fine line and very fine distinction? You bet. But that's the way it is with a large number of rules. I'll try to use a different analogy to religion since it's a topic that causes too many people to deal with issues irrationally.

The distinction allows me to say "Teenagers are stupid", but I can't say "Teenagers, like Arlon, are stupid". It is the qualifier that is being added into the sentance, no matter the syntax of it that changes the nature of what is being said in the case at hand.

That line is needed because otherwise you'd stiffle all manner of things. The phrase "Kiwis are all sheep shaggers" (or its counterpart "Aussies are all a bunch of convicts") while not the nicest thing in the world isn't an outright attack at New Zealanders since it's part of the friendly banter between Aussies and Kiwis. If a strict line was taken, any friendly banter that isn't too far over the line would be prohibited, and that would lead to an atmosphere that would stiffle the JC, let alone the JCC.

Edit: Clarity.

 

Is outright flaming (as in "You are a [bad word]") is bannable, or merely editable, or what?

 

To be fair, since I was told that "I hate the French" is unacceptable the above would probably also fail that "smell test," at least as a bait.

Oh, and Dingo, you are a Kiwi if I've ever seen one.

 

While I agree with Kate and Josh on this issue, I think it might be good idea to get current mods in to see their opinions. Earlier today someone was edited for saying that JCers are attention whores because it was name-calling, which I would think fits in the same as saying that Christians are stupid, but wasn't treated as such.

 

well there's got to be a first time for everything interesting to see two former admins running the show.............. (edit and a former head admin too, sorry oops)

I completely agree with Kate and Josh - it is very clear cut and has always been that way.
If you want to avoid having your individual beliefs questioned then find another website which has tougher rules. Part of the quality in this site is that any religion or belief set is open to questioning and disagreement - it actually results in people asking questioned and gaining insight and education on other peoples belief (when they are forced to defend them).

In my opinion it increases tolerance via education, whereas if we're banned from ever questioning something we can never move forward and respect each other. Being allowed to say "I think belief X is stupid" is merely an opinion, and you don't need to care what someone else thinks. However, you can offer your opinion into why that belief is valid, which is where the education and enlightenment occurs.

 

It's a pretty simple concept in my opinion and we've been over it a million and one times. Religious-based posts and topics will always be the forefront of much activity and sensitive perceptions. Everyone believes they are right, which is why things can get ugly pretty fast. Flames are flames. Any insult to a person is a flame. Any direct comment made to instigate another user to post more aggressively is a bait. This is all the framework of the ToS here. We say it all the time, but always use respect when talking about religion. When you do that, you avoid running into most problems that arise in religious discussions. If a conversation or a post gets to be too much, that's where we step in.

 

Ah, but that's the issue. The third statement isn't in print..it's your interpretation of what's being said in the general statement.

Obviously, my original example is of the extreme variety. There are instances where a statement like that could be considered a bait. But it depends on the context. In general, blanket statements are not flames - putting that personal qualifier in there "doesn't count". You can't accuse someone of flaming you personally because they say something in a generality (i.e. "Glasses make people look ugly", "Republicans are narrow minded boneheads.").

 

Honestly, what is the actual difference between saying the following two statements:

1) Belief in a god that created the universe and guides you in your decisions today is foolhardy, and I would call anyone with such a belief an idiot, because this flies in the face of science and my life experiences.

2) Christians are idiots.

If you use logic, as you are suggesting, Skye, to determine if this is a bait/flame, we can follow the exact path you just posted and reach the same conclusion you posted about both statements. However, statement one leads itself, I believe, into a good, honest, and open discussion. So, to call statement one a bait/flame would take away that ability. And I personally, unless it's very obvious, would rather see us err on the side of having open discussion in a somewhat civilized manner, than editing every post that might be harmful to one person if they look at it in the right way.

 

Skye, the key to your argument is the generality of it. (Or what the last two pages of posts say). Yes, the remark about a specific religion/political stance/belief, etc. can be considered disrespectful based on your interpretation, but many things can in a diverse world. We can't moderate opinions, just the way people express them. What we can moderate is the pointed attacks at people, and we try to get people to stay away from the pot shot mentality, especially in a heated debate. But even then, the moderation may not be a black and white ban depending on a user's history, the severity of the remark, etc.

Carmen, your example sounds like one of the cases where a moderator made a judgment call that we reference in the rules (that not every case will be covered) based on the context of the situation and circumstances at the time. In cases like that, a PM to the mod should help clear up any questions or misunderstandings, or at least an understanding between the two of you that there's a disagreement and you'll agree to disagree.

 

So long story short, so long as I don't mention a specific username, I can say whatever I want?

edit: to clarify, I cannot say "[username] is stupid" but I have every right to say "People grouped together by quality X are stupid" ?

 

If you're grouping together users on this forum pointedly (i.e. the Awesome Council, those NBA posters, etc.), I'd be very careful.

 

Versus grouping Christian users on this forum pointedly which is A-OK...

So we are establishing that there is bias and bashing Christians as a group is okay but bashing other groups is not...

 

No, were establishing that Christianity is a broader, more general group than say a few users on a message board. It's like generalizations about women, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, etc. Those are labels that go outside the boundaries of TFN, that if we banned any honest discussion of, then we'd not have anything to talk about outside of acronyms we like.

 

Some of our decisions are build upon our own judgment. The JCC isnt just a black and white environment where everything is either perfectly acceptable or an outright TOS-violation. This means many of our actions are based on our interpretation of a post. We have to use total objectivity when we make that interpretation and judgment. This is also why we sometimes ask for another mods second-opinion. We therefore also discuss many issues among ourselves in our private forum to ensure we are all on the same page with everything.

However, this also means you and I will probably disagree about certain judgment calls I or any other JCC mod will make as our interpretation of certain posts will differ from yours. You can always PM us to ask us why we handled the situation the way we did. However, like Rhonda said, this wont always take away the disagreement. But then again, the world wont come to an end if we would disagree about a certain action we took, will it?

 

Skye, do you understand how most people (at least those posting in this thread) perceive your talk of bias/persecution of Christians? It looks ridiculous, and you lose what little credibility you have. There is no bias against Christianity or Christians. Posting otherwise just loses you support and gains you eyerolls from others.

 

So what is the smallest collection of people that we are allowed to bash indiscriminately?

And this is why I claim bias, because if the rules aren't objectively followed, then how can any of us be objective? One's interpretation of the rules brings one's own feelings and biases into the decision.

You assume I care more about my reputation that doing what is right.

Unless the rule is comprehensive in the form of "People who have quality X" as being either acceptable or unacceptable to degrade, then any acceptance of bashing "People who have this quality" while moderating against bashing of "People who have this other quality" is biased and unfair, regardless of what qualities are being used.

 

There is no bias and no one person or group receiving more - or less - moderator involvement. Everything is treated with a blindfold over our eyes. (Not literally, so stop snickering). It's a blanket policy. It's very simple and it's followed very simply. There is no need to over-complicate it with examples and hypothetical instances. All people and groups are looked at the same and they will all be treated the same. No one is degrading specific Christians on this board. If they are, then you have a ToS violation.

 

I can see where you're coming from on this, but there is a difference between calling Person A a dumbass, and making a sweeping generalization about a group. That being said, the world is full of generalizations and stereotypes about specific groups, be they the Christians, the geeks, the nerds or anything else. It may suck, but its the way the world works. Censoring sweeping these thoughts on stereotypes is something that just can't be done. Mods can punish/edit/censor flames against a specific person and should but to start doing that with the other instances is not possible.

Honestly I don't see much of a problem, but thats just my opinion. The cardinal rule still applies though, if you talk religion in the JCC nothing good will come of it.

 

SkyeLightrider I'll be blunt. Current and former admins say you are wrong, hence you are wrong. You are free to disagree, but ultimately you are still wrong. If this makes it impossible for you to continue to be a member of these forums then so be it.

 

I have no qualms with this, so long as it's universal.

If it is established that "People with a certain quality" can be negatively bashed and no moderative action is taken, then that should be protected no matter what quality is being brought out in a negative light. Christianity is just an example; I didn't even bring it up - Katya_jade did (See her post in this thread 11/7 at 6:22 PM).

However, it seems that there is a schism in which people can say "People with quality X are stupid" and have no moderative action taken, but when someone (possibly who has quality X) says "People with quality Y are stupid", moderative action is taken. Since bashing X is fine but bashing Y is not, what is the distinction between the two qualities unless there is bias for Y / against X?

I am simply trying to clarify what makes bashing "People of X" okay but bashing "People of Y" unacceptable.

It doesn't make it impossible for me to be here, and since you say I am free to disagree, that's what I'm doing. I'm not breaking any board rules. As for right or wrong, I believe those were established to be relative qualities already in the YJCC, so factually stating I am wrong is proof of bias against my beliefs.

 

You are absolutely free to disagree, but at a certain point we will have to agree to disagree. Disagreeing with your viewpoint means just that, we disagree. These rules on flaming in the JCC aren't changing, so to keep going would just be to go around in circles at this point. I believe we've clarified enough the distinction between more generalized groups and users that post here on this board, and what is not allowed. We will not be able to spoonfeed the population of these forums rules based on every possible scenario, and I don't think you'd want us to. We're all thinking, reasoning human beings. If something offends you personally, but isn't an attack against you, you have the choice between sharing your opposing viewpoint, or ignoring and moving on. There will always be cases where the argument should be intervened, or the offense even general warrants a moderator stepping in, in those cases, we need to get involved, but it doesn't mean we'll always agree that it warrants action.

 

Regarding the highlighted part, actually, I do.

I want a rule set that is clean and objective, with clear and known punishments for each violation. I want it so that every user knows exactly what is and is not allowed, and where the moderative staff doesn't need to decide on a case by case basis what to mod (and thus inject their own personal feelings into the decision) and can just look up the rule and act according to the established punishment.

In that system, not only would everyone know what is expected of them, but we could also track publically how well the moderative staff is operating, rather than the "Problem users were... dealt with in ways that only MS knows." (G-FETT, "Mod Squad Update (November 7th)', 11/7/2007 11:06 AM, Comms) method we have now, which breeds the idea of mod favoritism; I mean, if no one knows who was banned for what, then we don't know if certain "favored" users were even banned for their offenses, or if equal punishment is dealt to equal offenses between users.

I want a system where every user is guaranteed equal treatment and that guarantee is publicly known, rather than "well the Mods say we do".

I'll admit, completely changing the status quo is probably impossible. Then again, Rosa Parks could have caved in and let the system against her continue. The continental congress could have just accepted British rule in the colonies.

If I can do my small part to make the JC a better place, I will do it.

 

COurse you do realize what you think makes it a "better place" makes it a worse place according to a vast number of users.

 

The British said the same thing when America declared independence.

The former slave owners said the same thing during the emancipation.