Controversial Statuses

[Dad]

Cheers to accommodating the lazy.

 

The rule shouldn't exist. It's a piss poor excuse to route a handful of people to debates so that controversial topics aren't thrown in people's faces. It's a civility clause that should either be removed or rewritten.

 

Moving those same discussions does not create more traffic in Debates. I would know. The discussion length is barely equivalent to the status bar.

 

Change it or remove it.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I'll go bring up the matter with the other mods shortly after this post, and see what would be the best way to address the issue. 

 

But yes, the thing needs changing in some form. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Maybe I should wait till I slept but just for some initial thoughts.

 

It has been clear during my entire time on YCM that statuses about controversial issues are more likely to devolve into name calling and flaming that can often go unnoticed.

Because it's easy to miss a status and to lose context due to the nature of statuses.

 

For instance it's unwieldy to quote people especially as several could post before you and then you spend time just clarifying what you were referring to.

 

Yes, it's possible, but many people have issues with handling that.

 

It's also a bit more difficult to report something in a status especially as, an hour later, that status could be gone and/or be mixed up with so many side-conversations that deciding what's too far gets blurry.

 

Controversial statuses are best left to threads because it's a lot easier to regulate them to make sure that people don't flame and so that an actual discussion can be had.

 

The Debate section is the best place to keep these things because people know what they're getting into.

 

What we potentially gain from lifting the rule: Occasionally people post something controversial and nothing bad comes from it.

Perhaps we get some positive discussion here or there despite the limitations of the status feed.

Some people feel better that things are closer to what they want

What we potentially lose from lifting the rule: More shitshows that devolve into flaming and name calling and the continued increase in aggression between members.

A potential positive discussion getting cut off by the limits of the status feed or by people just being jackwagons.

Some people feel worse that things are farther from what they want

 

I don't see us really gaining much from lifting it. It honestly just feels like "Here you go, take this bone and chew on it". If someone were to lift it and I weren't a mod I'd feel that someone must have just wanted to give in to a few complaints.

 

Now, if there are many people who honestly believe that we would gain from lifting it then I could hear them out. I legit have only seen a couple people saying it's stupid and the main reason I've been given was, well, "It's stupid."

---

To add to this a brief sequence of events for clarity.

 

>Several months ago I made a thread to discuss what rules we should have for the statuses because it's a place with fairly high traffic and the then current rules were super old.

>Rules were set up and agreed upon, including the controversial topic one.

>Rules were put in place

 

>Few months pass and I notice some statuses during my "somewhat obsessive look through all the statuses in a day after work" seem to be breaking the rule without anyone stepping in.

>I make a thread asking what we want to do about the rule and if we're still enforcing it

>Several people respond and say to keep enforcing them

 

Also, Sakura, you could just use the above mentioned thread that's already set up for this.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It's a piss poor excuse to route a handful of people to debates so that controversial topics aren't thrown in people's faces. It's a civility clause

how is this a bad thing, realistically speaking?

[Dad]

how is this a bad thing, realistically speaking?

There's no realistic reason to block it from statuses. You don't have to reply. Its like a tweet or something annoying on your Facebook feed. Scroll past it.

 

People have the right to express themselves without caring about how controversial their opinion is.

 

They current limits set in place say I can wish all Nazis to an eternal damnation of suffering and torment. That's political and non controversial because Nazis are accepted as scum of the earth. That's a norm.

 

But if Winter said X politician is a Nazi because "something something babymurder", he's gonna get warning points.

 

Shouldn't be, in my opinion.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

For the record I'm kinda uncomfortable with the Nazi stuff too. Those statuses were part of why I was unsure what we wanted to do with the rules and why I kept trying to figure out where the line should be. I admit I was standing down often because I was partially basing where the line was on your experience. I felt that if you of all people were making them that it must be what I should look to for an example. That was my mistake. I should trust my judgement more and not be so worried about my personal thoughts influencing me too much. Well, more I should trust my ability to distinguish what's just how I feel.

 

Also I try not to give warning points for statuses for that very reason. Just asking people not to do it and/or locking is best bet usually.

 

Though I do have to say "you can ignore it" doesn't work well. Since you can say the same about flaming and such but it doesn't make it okay.

 

Edit: To be clear not saying I don't follow my judgement just that it's something I should do more often. When appropriate.

[Phantom Roxas]

For the record I'm kinda uncomfortable with the Nazi stuff too. Those statuses were part of why I was unsure what we wanted to do with the rules and why I kept trying to figure out where the line should be. I admit I was standing down often because I was partially basing where the line was on your experience. I felt that if you of all people were making them that it must be what I should look to for an example. That was my mistake. I should trust my judgement more and not be so worried about my personal thoughts influencing me too much. Well, more I should trust my ability to distinguish what's just how I feel.

 

Also I try not to give warning points for statuses for that very reason. Just asking people not to do it and/or locking is best bet usually.

 

Though I do have to say "you can ignore it" doesn't work well. Since you can say the same about flaming and such but it doesn't make it okay.

 

Edit: To be clear not saying I don't follow my judgement just that it's something I should do more often. When appropriate.

 

Adding to your point, "You can ignore it" has typically been an excuse so that mods don't have to do a damn thing about a situation. It's easier to just demand that people ignore someone flaming them than for the mods to step in and do something about it. How often has "Grow thicker skin" been used as an excuse for why someone who is unequivocally guilty of flaming should not be punished, and it's actually the offended party's fault for being targeted for flaming?

 

The issue with controversial statuses is that we already have policies in place to punish users who harass each other. For as much as I agree with the rule about controversial statuses, the most it accomplishes it preemptively preventing arguments, except the status rules are predominantly violated by users who also violate the other rules to begin with. Civility clauses mean nothing if the team refuses to uphold them.

[VCR_CAT]

The issue with controversial statuses is that we already have policies in place to punish users who harass each other. For as much as I agree with the rule about controversial statuses, the most it accomplishes it preemptively preventing arguments, except the status rules are predominantly violated by users who also violate the other rules to begin with. Civility clauses mean nothing if the team refuses to uphold them.

 

What I see you getting across is that controversial statuses are fine as long as the discourse is kept civil, correct?

 

What if I told you that there is never any intent or room for civility in a controversial status?

 

I mean really think about it, the "medium" it's posted in doesn't allow any room for explanation or debate of any sort, and even if someone wants to post something for the sake of discussion and looking over, that's what General is for, where you actually have room and place to actually make those discussions.

 

The Status Bar isn't a place for "debate" or "discussion". None of these statuses are ever actually posted with the intent of discussion, it's all for the sake of garnering attention and riling people up. It causes nothing but problems and does nothing to actually make the place better for anyone.

 

And another thing.

 

 

 

There's no realistic reason to block it from statuses. You don't have to reply. Its like a tweet or something annoying on your Facebook feed. Scroll past it.

 

People have the right to express themselves without caring about how controversial their opinion is.

 

This is bullshit, frankly. YCM isn't like mainstream social media, and even with a status bar the format and everything is still vastly different.

 

And how isn't it like mainstream social media? Because here there's at least an attempt to not have people being flaming bastards to eachother; social media's rules are really only for extreme situations because their platforms are so big that moderating everything for every little thing would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention the fact that these platforms are not one singular community where everyone is interacting with more or less everyone (such as here).

 

Where does the buck stop on "controversial opinions" that "people need to air"? Are you calling for people to be able to just spew sheet and start problems, but nobody can really do anything about it? Or are you saying that people should be openly able to flame each other?

 

If that expression isn't for the express purpose of starting sheet and being an attention whore, there's a place called "General", and if said expression isn't even civil to be expressed there without moderation, then maybe it isn't worth expressing here. And finally:

 

 

 

The current limits set in place say I can wish all Nazis to an eternal damnation of suffering and torment. That's political and non controversial because Nazis are accepted as scum of the earth. That's a norm.

 

But if Winter said X politician is a Nazi because "something something babymurder", he's gonna get warning points.

 

While I think the example given isn't quite the best, regardless I get that what you're saying is that there shouldn't be discrimination against subject matter.

 

But instead of just saying "SO ALLOW ALL OF IT", I'm saying "Okay, so get it all off."

[Blake]

My biggest issue is how uncomfortable these statuses can make people feel, while being difficult to avoid seeing them without shutting off the status bar entirely.

 

People don’t want to be reminded of politics and controversial happenings constantly. It’s like the news, where it’s just bad, destruction, hate, sadness. No one wants to log onto a site made for creating cards or used for relaxation/hanging out to see that stuff, which was an angle I hadn’t considered when I was opposed to blocking this sort of status. There are plenty of people who complain about having to see them, and I feel to very fair for that to be the case when we do have a section(s) for that content.

 

The world is bad enough without letting the status bar tell us how bad it is on top of that, I feel.

 

I don’t feel that “it can cause trouble” is any real means to block it, just like I feel YCM doesnt need stricter nsfw rules. Case by case is a thing when it comes to how volatile a situation is.

 

I suppose if the controversial topics were kept inside of the comments, functioning similarly to a spoiler tag, I wouldn’t be the least bit opposed... but that feels so counterintuitive?

 

Btb, I don’t care for Nazi stuff either. Half because buzzword, half because of the intent behind it.

[Dad]

Flaming is against YCM rules and shouldn't be tolerated. A controversial status does not and should not equate to flaming. If it is a direct attack on a member, or presents any type of discrimination against people for their race, or religion, there's a problem.

 

But I'm gonna apologize for calling out our tangerine president for doing something stupid or controversial.

 

The new problem is that you believe every controversial status is flaming. This is a false equivalency.

[Phantom Roxas]

What I see you getting across is that controversial statuses are fine as long as the discourse is kept civil, correct?

 

What if I told you that there is never any intent or room for civility in a controversial status?

 

I mean really think about it, the "medium" it's posted in doesn't allow any room for explanation or debate of any sort, and even if someone wants to post something for the sake of discussion and looking over, that's what General is for, where you actually have room and place to actually make those discussions.

 

The Status Bar isn't a place for "debate" or "discussion". None of these statuses are ever actually posted with the intent of discussion, it's all for the sake of garnering attention and riling people up. It causes nothing but problems and does nothing to actually make the place better for anyone.

 

That isn't what I meant to get across at all, and in fact I completely agree with you. The rules against controversial statuses are fine, but the people who post those statuses anyway are purposefully violating the rules because they have little to no intentions beyond provoking someone. The instant we get rules to restrict poor behavior, there are people who will immediately seek to violate those newfound rules because they're in the minority who believe that such rules are inherently bad. However, it's not that the rules themselves are flawed. It's that those people just want to get away with their own poor behavior and hate to be called on it.

 

Just as an example, Anime News Network's forums are apparently having its own mess where new rules were added, and old ones were clarified. People are now complaining that "hate speech" is restricted, as if that was a new rule, when it fact it was already restricted, it's just that those rules were among the ones that were clarified.

 

What ANN is actually doing is what the mods on this site refuse to do, and that is punishing harassment. People can complain about how their right to free speech is being stripped from them or whatever, but it's nothing more than an empty talking point to justify that they want to harass people and get away with it.

 

My biggest issue is how uncomfortable these statuses can make people feel, while being difficult to avoid seeing them without shutting off the status bar entirely.

 

It doesn't help when these statuses are supposed to make people feel uncomfortable, such as making an inflammatory status for the explicit purpose that the person they're blatantly insulting sees it, and then claim after the fact that they were only "reaching out" as if that suddenly makes the initial status okay.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

What ANN is actually doing is what the mods on this site refuse to do, and that is punishing harassment.

this site does punish harassment, and this sentiment you are pushing is just as untrue and destructive as the other side. You need to understand that. Yes. People do antagonize you more often than they should. But guess what, man. You antagonize them just as much, and recently I'd say it's more. Your talk of leaving actually has me hopeful, not because I want you gone (I personally have no real stake in that race, though people I care about will definitely have less daily stress afterward so I can't say od miss you too much at this point) but because the point to which your relationship with so many members has been strained, literally every point of contact seems to be an attack, may it be from one side, or the other.

 

Honestly, I'm a little bit baffled as to what happened. It wasn't long ago that you were actually making attempts to fix things. When was it, December? January? You made attempts at making ammends, you became more pleasant publicly, all that jazz, and then it seemed to all disappear, with you fighting with the same old people day in and day out. Being at least generally pleasant to each other is not that hard.

 

There is a fine line between the rules punishing people for being abusing, and the rules punishing people for being oppositional. Opposition is a good thing. People being willing to call out the team when they believe things just aren't right is what allowed the significant changes with the beginning of the year to happen, and white frankly I believe even you for all your disaggreements and misgivings can agree there has been progress made.

 

So how about we stop accusing everyone of attacking at every hint of it we see, and try to understand the fact that everyone on this forum (bar IRS) just wants it to be a better place. They want it to be a place they feel welcome, they want it to be a place that can grow. We all want the same thing, so let's stop fighting wars over it, stop calling each other nazis and communists, and actually try to have a discussion like adults. This doesn't just go to Roxas, this request applies to the entire forum, myself included. We can do all of this a whole lot better, if we just check our pride at the door and try to employ a simple modicum of common respect.

[Dad]

You could try that. I welcome it. I only tried to step in I debates when flaming occured. But it seems that even asking the members to stop the name calling like kids was too much.

 

Then again, this IS a children's forum.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

You could try that. I welcome it. I only tried to step in I debates when flaming occured. But it seems that even asking the members to stop the name calling like kids was too much.

Then again, this IS a children's forum.

I firmly believe that the name calling has no place in debates, as the section should be held to a higher standard of discussion, but at the same time doubt that wp is the solution unless it has clearly extended into flaming or hostility. As CowCow had previously mentioned, reminders without tangible punishment are still a viable action.

 

To be perfectly honest, you expressing (or at least implying) that actual flaming should still be stopped in the subforum is a surprise, but more importantly a relief.

 

I think your remark about calling members kids is regressive at best. Insults, even light ones, aren't going to convince people of your position, it's just going to widen the schism.

[Dad]

I disagree. I think the equating childish actions to children is fine. I will admit that it's tactless, however.

 

I will continue to advocate against flaming. There's zero reason for it. Arguments should be attacked, not people. With that in mind, I also think a more concise but less restrictive rule should be drawn.

[Blake]

It doesn't help when these statuses are supposed to make people feel uncomfortable, such as making an inflammatory status for the explicit purpose that the person they're blatantly insulting sees it, and then claim after the fact that they were only "reaching out" as if that suddenly makes the initial status okay.

I'm going to cover this one last time.

 

I did something wrong. Very wrong. I've admitted that. I tried reaching out to you in order to reconcile. It doesn't make it okay, but it was an attempt to mend things and build bridges. It went well.

 

Yes, I stood opposed to you when I felt you were being unfair to Birdie. But being against you on a stance is not opposing you on a personal level. You made it personal again. I have done all I can to avoid interacting with you. I don't go on your status antagonizing you, I don't complain about how you're abusing me, I just suck it up when you get snarky or hateful. Which is what I was trying to tell you to do with Winter, but you refused to stop engaging him.

 

You're holding a grudge against me, but it's not my problem any more. I'm not beholden to making you forgive me. I can accept that you dislike me. I know there are plenty of people who do like me, and I am at peace with the fact that I can't magically fix every situation or expect everyone to like me. I choose to learn from my experiences and change my perception and thoughts on thigns moving forward. I understand that other people have problems that make their life suck, and that I'm not the only person who has issues going on.

 

Can you?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So, first I'd like to say that I don't believe a controversial status is flaming on its own. It does, however, lead to flaming more often than I'm comfortable with allowing.

 

The main thing for me in this thread is seeing what reasons there are to allowing them. What positives does it bring and do they overtake the negatives?

 

As it stands I'm still in the camp of keeping the rule as is. But I am open to ways we could edit the rule still.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So, first I'd like to say that I don't believe a controversial status is flaming on its own. It does, however, lead to flaming more often than I'm comfortable with allowing.

 

The main thing for me in this thread is seeing what reasons there are to allowing them. What positives does it bring and do they overtake the negatives?

 

As it stands I'm still in the camp of keeping the rule as is. But I am open to ways we could edit the rule still.

It sterilizes YCM and policies like this are kinda making YCM boring. The passion you saw during the election isn't around anymore, and I'm of the opinion that's not a good thing.

[Dad]

It sterilizes YCM and policies like this are kinda making YCM boring. The passion you saw during the election isn't around anymore, and I'm of the opinion that's not a good thing.

 

I have to disagree here.  I don't think it effects YCM's "excitement" at all.  If that were the goal, I'd think the lack of excitement would lie in the boards activities and events (which are already constantly creating a buzz around the forum).

 

I will say I think it alleviates the "purposely pushing buttons" problem.  For one, amending the rule should prevent kneejerk warnings and "feelings" reports.  (I also strongly advocate for the block button.  It does wonders.)  And two, there should be zero reason politics (barring outright genocide and hatred) should always be pushed from the status bar or to debates.

 

You're going to deal with these politics every day.  We should encourage involvement and discussion about it.  We shouldn't be running from it.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It sterilizes YCM and policies like this are kinda making YCM boring. The passion you saw during the election isn't around anymore, and I'm of the opinion that's not a good thing.

Dad said it well tbh but...I feel maybe it's (not to sound harsh) just you who find it more boring maybe? As in that I don't think these statuses really made things more exciting in a positive way.

 

I have to disagree here.  I don't think it effects YCM's "excitement" at all.  If that were the goal, I'd think the lack of excitement would lie in the boards activities and events (which are already constantly creating a buzz around the forum).

 

I will say I think it alleviates the "purposely pushing buttons" problem.  For one, amending the rule should prevent kneejerk warnings and "feelings" reports.  (I also strongly advocate for the block button.  It does wonders.)  And two, there should be zero reason politics (barring outright genocide and hatred) should always be pushed from the status bar or to debates.

 

You're going to deal with these politics every day.  We should encourage involvement and discussion about it.  We shouldn't be running from it.

Hm. I do want discussion about these things. Honestly I do. But I just don't feel statuses really...work for discussions. I would love if the passion that Winter mentioned would be directed back to Debates.

 

Warnings for these need to be amended at least though. I honestly don't see a point in giving warning points unless someone is constantly doing it or doing it in a way that's clearly inflammatory.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Dad said it well tbh but...I feel maybe it's (not to sound harsh) just you who find it more boring maybe? As in that I don't think these statuses really made things more exciting in a positive way.

 

Hm. I do want discussion about these things. Honestly I do. But I just don't feel statuses really...work for discussions. I would love if the passion that Winter mentioned would be directed back to Debates.

 

Warnings for these need to be amended at least though. I honestly don't see a point in giving warning points unless someone is constantly doing it or doing it in a way that's clearly inflammatory.

No, I phrased it awfully, I meant what dad posted when I said boring. Sorry

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I had a thought.
Note it's late and I didn't fully think on this and it is not an official statement in the slightest.

 

I wonder what it'd be like if we allowed these but were much more harsh on name-calling, sheet-stirring, and foul language and the like on the statuses. One of my concerns is how often these devolve and how it's harder to punish them.

 

So like people could post controversial thoughts but if anyone steps out of line then bam, punishment. It'd likely be more strict than threads but it could be a way to allow these while making sure people know it's still not okay to get hostile.

 

Again, this is just a thought that came to mind and idek if it's what I'd prefer yet.

[Dad]

I had a thought.

Note it's late and I didn't fully think on this and it is not an official statement in the slightest.

 

I wonder what it'd be like if we allowed these but were much more harsh on name-calling, sheet-stirring, and foul language and the like on the statuses. One of my concerns is how often these devolve and how it's harder to punish them.

 

So like people could post controversial thoughts but if anyone steps out of line then bam, punishment. It'd likely be more strict than threads but it could be a way to allow these while making sure people know it's still not okay to get hostile.

 

Again, this is just a thought that came to mind and idek if it's what I'd prefer yet.

 

I would support this without a doubt.  If you can't debate without flaming, you shouldn't be debating.  It's really not that difficult.

[BANZAI!!!!]

Fairly certain I got called out for doing just that a couple of times when I was a mod. I’d suggest making it as clear as possible what is and is not punishable.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

I had a thought.

Note it's late and I didn't fully think on this and it is not an official statement in the slightest.

 

I wonder what it'd be like if we allowed these but were much more harsh on name-calling, sheet-stirring, and foul language and the like on the statuses. One of my concerns is how often these devolve and how it's harder to punish them.

 

So like people could post controversial thoughts but if anyone steps out of line then bam, punishment. It'd likely be more strict than threads but it could be a way to allow these while making sure people know it's still not okay to get hostile.

 

Again, this is just a thought that came to mind and idek if it's what I'd prefer yet.

I think we should be careful in defining foul language. You know as well as anyone that my normal speech is very course, but I firmly believe that me using the word "sheet" instead of "stuff" is in no way a problem.

 

Calling myself a dumbass ought to be fine, while calling someone else one is obviously an issue.