Poll: Open discussion on "rude" and other rules

[runic knight]

Recently I got a strike for a post described as "rude" and "aggressive". While I will accept the action still applies, I find the explanation for and the justification of it to be very poor, and I think it raises the need for a bit of actual, open discussion on the topic.

The problem I am see, and the one I raised in my reply, is that the definition of what is or is not "rude" is a nebulous, personal judgment thing at best. As such, because the rules are not clear in the least what actually defines being rude, I have to resort to using what resources they have to determine what actually falls into that ruling. Now I tried doing that in the moderation group before, to... well, lets just say mixed response. Since that was a bit of a bust, I have tried using the other posters in the threads as a barometer to what is or isn't deemed "rude". Sadly I was just recently told does not matter as a means to determine things, so a bust there as well.

So where exactly do I find the definitive way to know what is or is not "rude" or so on in these forums. Because I'll be honest, I am seeing the judgement calls on that one feeling less then consistent at times and as far as rules goes, vague and inconsistent is rarely a good way to do things.

Yes yes, this is probably not the best place to discuss this and yes yes I should go through the proper channels, I know. The problem is that there ISN'T an sort of proper place for this sort of discussion, and that even going through the proper channels still leaves me confused and baffled.

As such, I offer it as a topic for everyone to touch on. Concerning not just these forum CoC, but any sort of similar rule situation you can think of regarding vague or personal definition interpretation of rules. Also I am curious if anyone has suggestions to clarify, or examples where vague rules were successfully changed or clarified to positive effect.

Finally note, this is not meant to be a place to attack or blame mods personally. Aside from it changing the tone to being specially against individual mods, chances are it would get the thread closed and do nothing good, so lets avoid going down that path, shall we? Instead lets try to avoid that sort of stuff as much as possible and instead discuss more the rules, language and possible alternatives.

Captcha:wake up call

 

[Jux]

I went ahead and voted 'support'. A moderators job is largely going to fall on the side of 'interpretation' unless the sites rules expliticly state what words can and cannot be said. And while that works for some specific things, like not calling people the T word, if you're trying to run a forum where the desired tone is just this side of civil discussion, enumerating every single phrase or word that cannot be said is more cumbersome than helpful. For both the poster and the moderator.

I think there are a couple of important things in determining whether something is rude or not. First, looking back at your post, think how you would feel if it was directed at you. Would you take offense to it? Next, consider that not everyone is you, and that perhaps your own standards of rudeness might be considered on the lax side compared to the overall community. Determining this might be difficult, but an indicator might be if say, ones infractions consistently came from being rude. Also, consider the context of the discussion, and the forum it's being posted in. I know that the Advice Forum has a much stricter standard for rudeness than say, R&P, because R&P is primarily a debate board where emotions are expected more to run high.

There are also degrees of rudeness. It may be considered rude if I add a rolling eyes emoji gif to the end of a post, but that's still a few degrees from condescendingly calling someone 'champ' or 'kiddo' (not sure if those specific words would warrant an infraction, but you get the idea). And while it may be hard to find exactly where the line is, ask yourself why you would want to be as rude as possible without getting infractions?

You and your is applied in the general sense in this post, not specifically to the OP.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In terms of the forums the final say falls to the moderators, so if they judge something you do, or say to be out of line, it's their call. They're after all the ones who volunteered to do the job, to which they sacrifice a lot, and do it to the best of their ability. Weather, or not you agree is entirely moot because this isn't "your house," it's "their house," so you have to follow their rules. The same applies everywhere else where there are rules, or laws.

 

[DementedSheep]

Unfortunately I don't think there is an effective way to enforce rules about not not being a dick in a way that isn't subject to interpretation.

 

[IceForce]

Unfortunately I don't think there is an effective way to enforce rules about not not being a dick in a way that isn't subject to interpretation.

Pretty much.

I'm sure if you got each moderator here to look at certain posts, many of them would quite likely reach entirely different conclusions/interpretations.
So in other words, quite often, the likelihood of a post being moderated or not will depend entirely on which mod is on duty at the time.

Also, OP, can we get a link to the post in question?

 

[Rylot]

Unfortunately I don't think there is an effective way to enforce rules about not not being a dick in a way that isn't subject to interpretation.

Yep, Arbitration is arbitrary. On the one hand I can sympathize with how vague the rules can be to the interpretation part of mods to how poorly tone can come across on the internet. On the other you get eight strikes in a six month period before banning.

And yes I'm aware that I'm using a very loose definition of arbitration.

 

[runic knight]

I went ahead and voted 'support'. A moderators job is largely going to fall on the side of 'interpretation' unless the sites rules expliticly state what words can and cannot be said. And while that works for some specific things, like not calling people the T word, if you're trying to run a forum where the desired tone is just this side of civil discussion, enumerating every single phrase or word that cannot be said is more cumbersome than helpful. For both the poster and the moderator.

I think there are a couple of important things in determining whether something is rude or not. First, looking back at your post, think how you would feel if it was directed at you. Would you take offense to it? Next, consider that not everyone is you, and that perhaps your own standards of rudeness might be considered on the lax side compared to the overall community. Determining this might be difficult, but an indicator might be if say, ones infractions consistently came from being rude. Also, consider the context of the discussion, and the forum it's being posted in. I know that the Advice Forum has a much stricter standard for rudeness than say, R&P, because R&P is primarily a debate board where emotions are expected more to run high.

There are also degrees of rudeness. It may be considered rude if I add a rolling eyes emoji gif to the end of a post, but that's still a few degrees from condescendingly calling someone 'champ' or 'kiddo' (not sure if those specific words would warrant an infraction, but you get the idea). And while it may be hard to find exactly where the line is, ask yourself why you would want to be as rude as possible without getting infractions?

You and your is applied in the general sense in this post, not specifically to the OP.

So I take it you would agree that the point of the rules is to help foster the sort community in the forums the site would like to see? That tends to be my own stance, and I tend to see the moderation of the rules then as the true sort of "natural selection" of community behavior, where whatever behavior is allowed thrives and what is struck, tends to die off. With regard here, I know that all rules are technically interpreted, but it seems a far cry of difference between something like intentionally egging and baiting someone solely to be a jackass and having the very tone of your posts be up to judgement. The former is often very clear behavior, while the later is so hard to nail down and is the worse for it in many ways.

For the rude though, I have issues with your point there. For one, the current judgement is made by a third party, so there is always bias in interpretation, and for another it projects intent that may not be there. In going with the purpose of rules as described above, it creates a result where your intent doesn't matter, merely how well you can polish it. Thus it is in my eyes a large factor into behavior that is harmful to discussion such as sniping, derailing and passive-aggressive group accusations. While I would grant that some boards would naturally have more or less tolerances with the current set up, I find that rules themselves that rely on such vaguely defined statements, especially in places where moderation is without transparency, to be a detriment to the overall point of the rules rather then a help. In the end, trying to stop "rudeness" doesn't seem to actually stop people being assholes, it just rewards those that be assholes the right way. In its place it breeds an atmosphere of resentment and distrust as well, which does not help discussion at all.

As for the degrees bit, you are right, it is a very hard thing to define the line on and that is sort of the point I am making, even as a user of several years, I still don't know that line. As for why I would want to be rude, well, I don't necessarily want to, rather I want consistency and fairness. Since rudeness is so hard to pin down, it makes rulings on it easily seem arbitrary, if not outright selectively hostile. Even beyond that though, it is an attempt to judge the tone of someone else by your own standard and seems a "solution" to a non-problem rife with possibilities to fail. Plus, as said above, it doesn't actually help towards the goal of the rules, it is more a superficial patch that pretends to. The hostility and anger is still there, the discussions are still hurt for it, only now it breeds distrust in the moderation itself and actually offers a sort of "metagame" in the forums where rather then have discussions on topics, people try to flag people's posts or bait them into being "rude" and getting strikes or bans.

Really, I think the "rude" rule itself is flawed from concept. People should be able to be rude in tone. Not flame-baiting, not swearing up a storm, not telling everyone to screw themselves, but rather expressing exasperation or frustration or even dislike and resentment of the other poster. Because even if that may make some posters more jerkish sometimes, at least it would be honest, and at least it wouldn't be weaponized baiting, which I think it far more hazardous to the point of the rules then a bit of snark.

Maybe I have just see that type of rule used too often to see the value in it as a practical solution when far too often it is tied to being the cause of larger problems.

 

[runic knight]

I'm sure if you got each moderator here to look at certain posts, many of them would quite likely reach different conclusions/interpretations.
So in other words, quite often, the likelihood of a post being moderated or not will depend entirely on which mod is on duty at the time.

Also, OP, can we get a link to the post in question?

The inconsistency of rulings is sort of why I see fault with it. Someone posting spam or trolling tends to be a lot more universally identifiable regardless of mod acting on it. Rulings should never depend on who's having a bad day or not.

As for the post that spurred this discussion, no, I'd rather try to keep the thread more centered on the discussion itself rather then try to look like I am trying to rabble-rouse out of the strike I got. If you are interested, and aren't looking for an excuse to try to argue the post in this thread, look up the thread in the GID forum.

Unfortunately I don't think there is an effective way to enforce rules about not not being a dick in a way that isn't subject to interpretation.

Yep, Arbitration is arbitrary. On the one hand I can sympathize with how vague the rules can be to the interpretation part of mods to how poorly tone can come across on the internet. On the other you get eight strikes in a six month period before banning.

Doesn't that by design actually punish people who are frequent posters? I mean yeah, it is only 8 posts, but compare 8 posts out of a couple dozen vs 8 out of a couple hundred. It seems to actively punish people who post more often compared to more stop and go posters. Tying back into the point I raised in m previous post, if the point of the rules is to foster community, and the enforcement the natural selection, then the trait being selected for by the current rude rule seems to be "don't post often" as a result. Though that might be more an issue with the strike system and not so much the rude rules.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Doesn't that by design actually punish people who are frequent posters?

I wouldn't think so, considering that I've managed to avoid moderation all this time (and even got these nifty badges for the effort). My advice is to avoid the non-royal 'You' as much as possible if you disagree with the person you are responding to, and if you don't think that you can respond civilly in a thread, then just leave it.

As far as OP goes though, I'm not a fan of personal interpretation. I understand that there does have to be some level of discretion, but the more clear cut the rules are the better it is for the community.

 

[Rylot]

Doesn't that by design actually punish people who are frequent posters?

Granted the more you post the more chances you've got to get wrathed but if I'm remembering right (I'm pretty sure about this but I might be wrong) you get a 1 day suspension, 1 week suspension and a two week suspension thrown in there. Unless you post something way out of bounds it takes almost a month to get banned from here. If after eight chances and three mandatory breaks from the site to cool down and reflect and you still get wrathed, this just isn't the site for you (general you, not OP; Man English is fucking awful about conveying tone through written language, it relies on tone of voice a lot. We all need to start typing like ME's Elcores and stating our tone)

To a certain degree it does stifle discussion, but the staff of this site have decided that stifling some debate is worth keeping a more civil tone. Granted some people enjoy trying to work around the rules but that is going to happen no matter what rules you set in place.

This is a discussion site run by humans, for humans to have discussions which are subject to human rules judged by humans, it can't be perfect. I haven't seen any other rule changes suggested that didn't just create other problems. As the saying goes it's the worst system in human history, except for all the ones that've come before.

Captcha: Sugar Mama.... That's just creepy.

 

[skywolfblue]

Really, I think the "rude" rule itself is flawed from concept. People should be able to be rude in tone. Not flame-baiting, not swearing up a storm, not telling everyone to screw themselves, but rather expressing exasperation or frustration or even dislike and resentment of the other poster. Because even if that may make some posters more jerkish sometimes, at least it would be honest, and at least it wouldn't be weaponized baiting, which I think it far more hazardous to the point of the rules then a bit of snark.

"Don't be rude" is a pretty common to real life conversations. I haven't heard many people call that "flawed".

You can be honest and completely disagree with a person without being a jerk.

Tone is harder to read and decipher in text, as opposed to verbal speech, but I don't see why the same concept can't apply online as well.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

In the 6 years here I've never had a problem with any of the moderators. I consider myself an honest person, and I'll even lose my cool (if I had a 'cool', I tend to be passionate about a lot of stuff... So less a 'cool and warm', and more a 'cold and hot') but that doesn't mean people aren't expected to self-edit themselves.

The thing is, that if what you're saying is likely to earn you scorn in the real world, then you can pretty much expect that times a million on the internet. Moderators are basically there to stop the inevitable derailing that would not happen logically in the real world given I'm rarely on a podium expressing my ideas to potentially thousands of people at once.

You can disagree with someone and not be a dick. I think the moderators have it tough because they have to decide whether something s just inflammatory and asking for derailment of a thread, or whether it's just honest critique. But in a logical frameworks, these same rules apply as much off the web as on.

If you go to the workplace, there's conversation that you naturally avoid. Workplace is for work and it helps no one to be a dick to your work colleagues. Simiarly, too ... if I'm at a dinner table in a restaurant, I edit my language. If I'm at a club, dancing ... then I edit my language. If I'm discussing philosophy or politics with other students, or with my tutor/lecturer ... then I edit my language.

This is less 'censorship' as it is editing. There is a difference. Whilst I'm loathe to suggest people should be bridled with unnecessary customs, there are customs that do actually help liberate thought. If you go into a thread, being purposefully rude and derailing against the OP in a manner that can only be called offensive/bigoted/etc, then it does not help liberate thought or people. There is a net loss of understanding or information transfer if a thread just devolves into meaningless or offensive banter.

If you're at a political discussion, and you just start spouting slurs or prejudicial comments at the participants of that discussion, they are not 'censoring' you if they ask you to leave or decide to ignore you. You are purposefully acting in a manner counterintuitive to liberating thought or information transfer.

 

[Zhukov]

When you're applying rules to something as complex as human language it's always going to come down to personal interpretation eventually. Any kind of airtight cut-and-dried rule set would be thicker than an encyclopedia.

The CoC recognises this. It's why they have the catch-all "Don't be a dick" rule.

With regard here, I know that all rules are technically interpreted, but it seems a far cry of difference between something like intentionally egging and baiting someone solely to be a jackass and having the very tone of your posts be up to judgement. The former is often very clear behavior, while the later is so hard to nail down and is the worse for it in many ways.

Subjective interpretation.

Baiting is a matter of motive and intent and you can never truly know someone else's motive, especially not in a relatively impersonal medium such as this.

Thus it is in my eyes a large factor into behavior that is harmful to discussion such as sniping, derailing and passive-aggressive group accusations.

Subjective interpretation.

Once again, labeling those behaviours depends on your interpretation of the poster's intent.

For example, if someone "derails" a thread you have no way of knowing if that was their intent or if they merely brought something up that they thought relevant and it resulted in a derail.

Not flame-baiting, not swearing up a storm, not telling everyone to screw themselves, but rather expressing exasperation or frustration or even dislike and resentment of the other poster. Because even if that may make some posters more jerkish sometimes, at least it would be honest, and at least it wouldn't be weaponized baiting, which I think it far more hazardous to the point of the rules then a bit of snark.

Subjective interpretation.

Where exactly is the line between "expressing dislike or resentment of the other poster" and "flame baiting"? Because I'm 100% certain that in your theoretical snarky utopia I could insult the shit out of people under the guise of a good ol' honest expression of resentment.

Honestly, all I'm seeing here is, "Your subjective interpretations of other people's behaviour sucks! You should replace them with my subjective interpretations of other people's behaviour!"

I get the impression that you'd be happier on 8Chan or Reddit.

 

[IceForce]

The thing is, having a rules page that meticulously details each and every possible indiscretion will only lead to an even lengthier and more wordy Code of Conduct than we already have, (and people would be even less likely to read it).

So we have a pick-your-poison situation. Shortening the Code of Conduct would mean more people would be likely to actually read the thing, but that would also automatically lead to rules that are more 'generic' and 'open to interpretation'.

Pick your poison.

 

[JoJo]

I'm perfectly happy with the rules as they are enforced, they can be harsh but they keep the forums at some sort of standard. It's very easy to avoid warnings if you avoid toeing the line, if you think that something you've written could credibly be considered rude and you don't want to take the hit on your forum health-bar, don't say it. Forum debates aren't worth getting angry over anyway.

 

[runic knight]

Doesn't that by design actually punish people who are frequent posters?

Granted the more you post the more chances you've got to get wrathed but if I'm remembering right (I'm pretty sure about this but I might be wrong) you get a 1 day suspension, 1 week suspension and a two week suspension thrown in there. Unless you post something way out of bounds it takes almost a month to get banned from here. If after eight chances and three mandatory breaks from the site to cool down and reflect and you still get wrathed, this just isn't the site for you (general you, not OP; Man English is fucking awful about conveying tone through written language, it relies on tone of voice a lot. We all need to start typing like ME's Elcores and stating our tone)

To a certain degree it does stifle discussion, but the staff of this site have decided that stifling some debate is worth keeping a more civil tone. Granted some people enjoy trying to work around the rules but that is going to happen no matter what rules you set in place.

This is a discussion site run by humans, for humans to have discussions which are subject to human rules judged by humans, it can't be perfect. I haven't seen any other rule changes suggested that didn't just create other problems. As the saying goes it's the worst system in human history, except for all the ones that've come before.

Captcha: Sugar Mama.... That's just creepy.

Your examination presumes you can't get strikes while already suffering a suspension, which is untrue if you posted enough beforehand. Though I wholy agree tone is a pain in the ass to decipher in text with english.

As for a solution, I am not looking for a perfect one, merely a better then current one. As it is, I keep coming back to the idea that not trying to punish people for tone is the better alternative, when the other rules take care of the worst aspects of internet "debate" as it is. Yes, humans judging humans is flawed, so the clearer the rules, the better. With regard to civil discussions though, I doubt the rule of "rudeness" really does much to help that given the issue that makes such debates uncivil is attitude, and the rule merely forces creativity in displaying it rather then any actual prevention of it.

"Don't be rude" is a pretty common to real life conversations. I haven't heard many people call that "flawed".

You can be honest and completely disagree with a person without being a jerk.

Tone is harder to read and decipher in text, as opposed to verbal speech, but I don't see why the same concept can't apply online as well.

There are many ways to be a jerk, it is weird that someone else monitoring the conversation decides if your tone itself, which even you agree is harder to read and decipher in text, is being such a jerk enough as to warrant removal from the community, while not actually stopping other behaviors that would be very jerkish in real life as well.
Personally, I'd think the way of handling people thought of as having the tones of being jerks in real life would apply here in just ignoring and not talking to them lest you wanted to put up with that. Just the mix of poorly defined "rude", easily abuseable personal interpretations, and general ineffectiveness makes it seem like a bad idea to me.

 

[FalloutJack]

The rules were never the problem. The problem of interpretation IS, in that the mods are human and therefore not perfect. They can and have interpretted wrongly, several of such issues I've had to argue my way out of through the proper channels and, frankly, some of them still stuck because they just didn't see it that way. Some have also abused the power in the past. As with most things, it's not so much the system as how it is put into practice. There wouldn't even BE a question of gun control if everyone in the world behaved in a civil manner, but that just doesn't happen.

 

[runic knight]

When you're applying rules to something as complex as human language it's always going to come down to personal interpretation eventually. Any kind of airtight cut-and-dried rule set would be thicker than an encyclopedia.

The CoC recognises this. It's why they have the catch-all "Don't be a dick" rule.

With regard here, I know that all rules are technically interpreted, but it seems a far cry of difference between something like intentionally egging and baiting someone solely to be a jackass and having the very tone of your posts be up to judgement. The former is often very clear behavior, while the later is so hard to nail down and is the worse for it in many ways.

Subjective interpretation.

Baiting is a matter of motive and intent and you can never truly know someone else's motive, especially not in a relatively impersonal medium such as this.

Thus it is in my eyes a large factor into behavior that is harmful to discussion such as sniping, derailing and passive-aggressive group accusations.

Subjective interpretation.

Once again, labeling those behaviours depends on your interpretation of the poster's intent.

For example, if someone "derails" a thread you have no way of knowing if that was their intent or if they merely brought something up that they thought relevant and it resulted in a derail.

Not flame-baiting, not swearing up a storm, not telling everyone to screw themselves, but rather expressing exasperation or frustration or even dislike and resentment of the other poster. Because even if that may make some posters more jerkish sometimes, at least it would be honest, and at least it wouldn't be weaponized baiting, which I think it far more hazardous to the point of the rules then a bit of snark.

Subjective interpretation.

Where exactly is the line between "expressing dislike or resentment of the other poster" and "flame baiting"? Because I'm 100% certain that in your theoretical snarky utopia I could insult the shit out of people under the guise of a good ol' honest expression of resentment.

Honestly, all I'm seeing here is, "Your subjective interpretations of other people's behaviour sucks! You should replace them with my subjective interpretations of other people's behaviour!"

I get the impression that you'd be happier on 8Chan or Reddit.

Actually, you would probably be right that the result would be acceptance of open insults, except for conflicts with all the other existing rules. But then again I don't think the sort of insults that would remain would be any less then the usual snark and snipes the forums already foster, certainly do nothing more to make discussion less civil then the current norm.

As for my subjectiveness being better, well yeah, that is sort of the point of this discussion, to hash that out and argue the ideas and the supports for them.

As for your specific points, I'll try to hash out why I think my subjective opinion is better here.

Baiting and derailing are rhetorical tricks that affect the behavior of the discussion by shaping the direction of it. Unlike a nebulous concept of "rudeness", especially the vague usage it gets with rulings around here, baiting and derailing can have observable effects on the discussions themselves, up to and including threads being closed. Baiting by getting others to drive it away from the main topic, derailing by leading that charge yourself. While conversations can grow and vary in detail based on the people in it, there is still identifiers for the sort of behavior that would disrupt discussion to that degree, possibly because they tend to be exaggerations of actual logical fallacies (for instance, a thread derail is an extended red herring). Given the general point of the rules is to foster discussion, the rules and the moderation by them should work towards that goal. Between snarky posters making barbed jab while on topic or a thread being driven off the rails to the point it is locked, I'd see the second as far more damaging to that goal.

And while I suppose you could offer a rebuttal that someone being a jerk in the thread may affect discussions in the same manner, I have never seen a discussion cease because someone made a barbed comment while still actually debating the topic.

Yes that would still be open to subjective interpretation, but I think it would be easier to demonstrate claims of it, better for maintaining the point of the rules, and less likely to hit people unfairly as it would probably be easier to demonstrate what you see someone doing then to argue how it feels in the tone they use.

 

[Passive Aggression]

Spoiler: Probably the most relevant words I've seen about this issue.

I've been lurking for a long time, and it seems that moderator is just a huge issue for The Escapist the complete lack of transparity and clarity makes it impossible for any good attitude to be kept about the sites staff.

The vast majority of users seem completely afraid to even talk about moderation given the countless examples of users who have been banned or warned for doing so in the past.

I rather imagine this topic will be much the same.

The "Don't be rude" rule is almost never explained, and a user insulting another, or comparing them to an "80 year old racist" goes completely unchecked, whilst saying "That's ignorant" will get you a warning.

It's a complete lack of consistency. And the only way I can see to fix it, is either make rules that aren't up to personal interpretation or, actually start warning people for being rude.

 

[Akjosch]

You can be honest and completely disagree with a person without being a jerk.

On the other hand, you can be a total and unredeemable jerk, and still have a nice, pleasant, polite and constructive discussion.

As an example, I'm an arsehole. I've always been an arsehole, and I'll always be one. You can call me an arsehole any time of the day, and I'll just nod and agree. I'm just very much polite about it - not because of feeling any less arseholery to anyone, but simply because most people and most conversations just aren't worth the effort to bring out the full level of vile I'm capable of.

"Don't Be a Jerk", as a rule, seems pointless and inherently unenforceable to me; worse still, if it were enforceable, it would be discriminatory. Most people can't even tell that others are jerks, it only becomes apparent when they act it out. Some people (notably, many people suffering from ASPD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder]) aren't even capable of not being jerks, even though they can learn which actions are generally not seen favourably in whatever society they live in.