BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderating for taste

  
  

Page: (1)23456

 
 
Ganesh
21:51 / 12.05.06
I'm starting this thread in response to recent events in the Moderation Requests Thread, but it's a reasonably common theme which surfaces regularly.

In this particular example, Alex started a thread with a rather graphic title which made some posters feel a bit sick. He subsequently decided to alter the title himself, but not before title change had been put forward (by Flowers) as a moderator action and Lula had explicitly asked for a change and suggested

I do think there is an issue around the titles of threads. It is surely reasonable to feel uncomfortable with a title which makes a person picture the fellatio of a dead dog when actually the thread is about dislike of football?

and, later,

I agree that moderating for personal taste is not a road we wish to go down, but actually I think we should have a discussion about whether fellating dead dogs is something we want to read about and if we come to the conclusion that it is not perhaps it should not be acceptable even in a jokey title?

I'm not saying I think this, I'm just asking a question.

I think I might be sounding all censorious here and I don't intend to come across that way. Really it made me feel a bit sick is all. I don't very often picture oral dog sex, dead or otherwise.

So... this thread is essentially for the purpose of asking Lula's question. Obviously, the specific "fellating dead dogs" is something of a silly question in and of itself, but I think it's germane to the larger question of whether or not Barbelith, as an Internet community, ought to attempt to determine 'acceptability' in terms of thread content. This is something that's been touched on before: in the Weeding the Garden thread, Tom Coates said of Conversation

... unless the bad posting is abusive, harrassing, libellous, spam or a well-established troll there's no place for moderatorial intervention. Bad posting is allowed on Barbelith, just discouraged.

and this is pretty close to my own opinion. Personally, I feel very strongly indeed that, when we start suggesting that certain topics (which aren't abusive, harrassing, libellous, spam or the work of well-established trolls) ought to be examined for 'acceptability', it's the thin end of an insidiously nasty wedge. In the "dead dog sex" example, I'm particularly concerned that discussions of 'acceptability' (and even moderator actions) should not arise solely from subjective distaste.

Here we are, then. What do you think? Should certain topics be considered 'unacceptable' and moderated accordingly? If so, how should these topics be identified, and by whom?
 
 
sleazenation
22:12 / 12.05.06
Yeah, while fellating dead dogs cocks is really something I'd avoid in a topic title, I really do think it was both germane and appropriate for the thread in question. I guess part of this comes down to offence, and sometimes i think offense is entirely appropriate.
 
 
Ganesh
22:22 / 12.05.06
I guess part of this comes down to offence, and sometimes i think offense is entirely appropriate.

Perhaps the concepts of offence (appropriate or otherwise), offensiveness and offendedness are relevant to this discussion, then? In this particular example, I don't think anyone even claimed to be offended; they merely said the thread title was something they'd rather not think about, or made them feel slightly squeamish.

How might offence be authenticated and/or considered for 'appropriateness'? And how does it relate to 'acceptability' of topic?
 
 
Olulabelle
22:27 / 12.05.06
Deva on the dead dog I am so stupidly concerned about:

Thanks - I don't like looking at that title, but I was loath to say so because I know I am squeamish. (Ooh, actually, that made me wonder whether I was silencing my reaction because I felt it was 'too girly for Barbelith'* - maybe there's a legitimate complaint about 'locker-room' language in titles?)

*Not to suggest that girls can't, don't, and/or shouldn't wield squick-making sexual language with the best of them, of course. Just that I perceived this reaction in myself and wondered about it.

and

I read it as like bobbing for apples, too... I might be a bit literal-minded, but having it on the front page of the Conversation means I get images of someone sucking the cock of a dead dog in my head every time I check that forum, which is quite often, and I'm not enjoying that. It's not a huge deal or anything, it's not like I think I can or should control every piece of text/image/reference that floats past me on the 'lith... just that it would have been a nice side-effect of an edit to the title.

The girliness of the squick is just the idea that it's girly to be squicked at all. I was thinking vaguely about a connection between masculinity and locker-room 'filthy talk' - that sort of tradition of competitively gross imagery/language.

An example of why both she and I would have liked the title changed but didn't wet our pants about it.
 
 
Ganesh
22:34 / 12.05.06
Okay, specifically on the "dead dog sex" example:

Nobody's suggesting pants-wetting. I'm aware of Deva's posts on the subject, including her agreement that personal distaste is not sufficient reason for moderator intervention. You and Deva's discomfort with the subject is not in question. What I'm interested in here, Lula, again, is your suggestion that

I do think there is an issue around the titles of threads.

In other words, there's an issue more general than this specific case. What issue do you think there is around the titles of threads?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:44 / 12.05.06
They really should link in some way to the thread. We have so many problems with the internal search engine it would be nice to keep titles vaguely on topic.

I think that summaries are more important though, they're really a guide to the thread and moderators should probably adapt them to reflect the content of the thread and allow them to be searchable.
 
 
Ganesh
22:46 / 12.05.06
I think the 'not relating to the topic' thing is something of a red herring in this case. The abstract was descriptive and searchable, much more so than many Conversation threads which pass under the moderator radar.
 
 
Olulabelle
22:57 / 12.05.06
I have also stated previously on several occasions that I do not think personal taste is sufficient reason to moderate threads.

What I did was ask a question and what I was asking was if there were any subjects which could perhaps be considered unacceptable for slipping into thread titles to make a point.

There are many things people get offended about. No-one has the right to tell them they should not be offended. Often here on Barbelith, the feelings of the person or group who feels offended are rightly respected and acknowledged and threads are amended. Sometimes they are not. I don't 'expect' Barbelith to behave one way or the other and I don't wish it to either.

So, for me, I'd very much like not to have to read a thread title about the following:

fucking people or animals with stumps
having oral sex with dead dogs or any other animal or dead person for that matter.

But I don't for a minute think Barbelith should ban them just because I that's how I feel, I mean hello, perspective is that you I see over there?

This is after all just a messageboard, and I just happen to post on it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:57 / 12.05.06
Ganesh, I know, I wouldn't have agreed it if Alex hadn't said it was fine. I also copied the title into the thread in case we decided to change it back.
 
 
Olulabelle
23:13 / 12.05.06
So let me see, what happened here is that a few people didn't much like the title, brought it up in a policy thread, the thread starter read these comments, agreed and then changed the title, at which point people got cross that the title had been changed due to a few complaints.

You know, if I started a thread and then some people questioned the title I would want to change it simply because some people were concerned with it. I think that if a title is fine no-one will bring it up.

So what are you saying Ganesh? Is it not acceptable for the people who felt odd about it to say so? Should Alex have ignored us?

I don't think so and I feel very glad that hir respected the complainants enough to engage with our issues. I personally feel that if more than one poster expresses a problem with a thread title, then we as a board should consider changing it, preferably with the thread starter's consent or activation and always on a case by case basis.

Is that too much to ask do you think?
 
 
Ganesh
23:15 / 12.05.06
What I did was ask a question and what I was asking was if there were any subjects which could perhaps be considered unacceptable for slipping into thread titles to make a point.

You did indeed - and I'm interested in what prompted that question and what you think about the wider implications.

I'm not entirely sure what "slipping into thread titles to make a point" means. Is this a variant of Flowers' assertion that certain phrases are an attempt "to try and appear cool", or are you saying something else?

So, for me, I'd very much like not to have to read a thread title about the following:

fucking people or animals with stumps
having oral sex with dead dogs or any other animal or dead person for that matter.

But I don't for a minute think Barbelith should ban them just because I that's how I feel, I mean hello, perspective is that you I see over there?

This is after all just a messageboard, and I just happen to post on it.

Absolutely - and you brought up the wider question of 'acceptability' of topics, more generally than just your own opinion. Your quotes are linked above. I accept that there are certain things you'd prefer not to read on Barbelith. There are certain things I'd prefer not to read, too. You took things a step further, however, when you suggested that

I do think there is an issue around the titles of threads.

and

... I think we should have a discussion about whether fellating dead dogs is something we want to read about and if we come to the conclusion that it is not perhaps it should not be acceptable even in a jokey title?

I'm sure you appreciate that I'm not getting exercised over the dead dog fucking per se but the wider point it illustrates. You've suggested that we should have a discussion about whether something that 'squicks' you is something we, an Internet community, want to read about, and that if it is not, it should not be acceptable, even jokily. This is a bigger discussion: it touches on issues of what "we want to read about", the implication being that what "we" don't want to read about "should not be acceptable even in a jokey title".

Your words go beyond merely expressing an opinion; they suggest a wider policy/approach. I'd like you to unpick that further, particularly in the context of Tom's quote, in my initial post.
 
 
Ganesh
23:25 / 12.05.06
Ganesh, I know, I wouldn't have agreed it if Alex hadn't said it was fine. I also copied the title into the thread in case we decided to change it back.

I'm aware of all that, and I'm grateful to you for posting the title within the thread. Once Alex voluntarily decided to self-edit, it all became a bit academic. I'm interested in a) what happened before that in terms of (Flowers') proposed moderator action, and b) Lula's suggestions that we have a discussion about which topics might be 'acceptable' to talk about on Barbelith (because of what we, the community, might or might not want to read). I'm wary of even starting to discuss 'acceptability' of topics for the reasons described above, but I'm prepared to have that discussion if Lula and others want it.
 
 
Smoothly
23:28 / 12.05.06
Often here on Barbelith, the feelings of the person or group who feels offended are rightly respected and acknowledged and threads are amended. Sometimes they are not.

With all due respect to Lula (and possibly I'm misreading between the lines), I sense a sleight of hand here which is in danger of muddying the waters. Finding something offensive in the sense of harrassing is very different from finding it offensive in the sense of squick-making. I'm very happy to see the former respected and legislated against, not so the latter.
 
 
Olulabelle
23:33 / 12.05.06
I wonder how many 'squicks' it takes for something to become unacceptable to the community? At what point does the crossover come?

'stupidsillyrapartist' made a big hit on the community just by way of naming hirself, and the community expressed itself about that. Obviously the topic was an easily accessible one. You either think it's OK or you don't. Sometimes there are things that are less obvious and I would like to know at what point something stops being a personal problem and becomes a community issue.

To put it another way, if the binmen split my binbag open everyweek and spilled the rubbish on my steps, well, that's my problem. If they do it to more that one person then there are a few of us. If the street gets filled with rubbish from split bags we all join together and form an action group and the council starts to take notice.

I would simple like to know if this community has any kind of awareness of it's 'problem numbers'? When do 'enough' people think something is a problem to warrant it a problem?
 
 
Ganesh
23:36 / 12.05.06
So let me see, what happened here is that a few people didn't much like the title, brought it up in a policy thread, the thread starter read these comments, agreed and then changed the title, at which point people got cross that the title had been changed due to a few complaints.

All right, we're staying on the narrower issue. That's fine. Let me explain again.

The issue, for me, isn't the fact that "a few people didn't much like the title" or that they expressed that dislike. I'm also unconcerned that the thread-starter eventually changed the title. What does concern me is

a) the fact that a moderator (Flowers) proposed a change of title before the thread-starter

and

b) the suggestion (from yourself) that "there is an issue around the title of thread" and that the initial title might be something we, as an Internet community, did not want to read about - and, that if this were so, then "perhaps it should not be acceptable even in a jokey title".

Put simply, I'm concerned about a) the possibility that moderators might be proposing intervention based on subjective distaste, and b) the suggestion that we have a discussion about topic which ought to be considered 'unacceptable' on the basis that "we" don't want to read about them.

You know, if I started a thread and then some people questioned the title I would want to change it simply because some people were concerned with it. I think that if a title is fine no-one will bring it up.

See above.

So what are you saying Ganesh? Is it not acceptable for the people who felt odd about it to say so? Should Alex have ignored us?

See above.

I don't think so and I feel very glad that hir respected the complainants enough to engage with our issues. I personally feel that if more than one poster expresses a problem with a thread title, then we as a board should consider changing it, preferably with the thread starter's consent or activation and always on a case by case basis.

Is that too much to ask do you think?

Well, Alex's actions are not really the nub of my concern - which I've outlined above, again. I'd be grateful if you'd try to engage with the wider issues.
 
 
Ganesh
23:38 / 12.05.06
Finding something offensive in the sense of harrassing is very different from finding it offensive in the sense of squick-making. I'm very happy to see the former respected and legislated against, not so the latter.

Indeed - and this is consonant with Tom's statement, above.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:41 / 12.05.06
I'm wary of even starting to discuss 'acceptability' of topics for the reasons described above

Well I think what happened in terms of the actual title change was probably right in that people discussed it, the thread-starter agreed to a change and the title was changed because some people were a little disturbed by it. That's probably what should happen, it's difficult to generalise for reasons outlined by Weaving. It's a very subjective response. There is no policy to be made on black humour that falls short for some and not for others. People need to consolidate that with their own feelings though, which is why this thread is a positive thing.

a) what happened before that in terms of (Flowers') proposed moderator action

This can only be discussed by Flowers and people involved in the moderation action, which means it might be hold for a while but it's a fair question that has to be regarded in line with the change of fora.
 
 
Olulabelle
23:46 / 12.05.06
THE WIDER ISSUE

1/ If more than one person has a problem with a thread title for whatever reason the community should address a prospective change with some attempt at grace.

2/ The community should address the issue on a case by case basis.

3/ The community should not mock the offended party for feeling offended, the poster has the right to feel offended, the community does not have the right to dictate what posters should or should not feel offended about.

4/ The word 'offence' should be acceptable when used singularly or combined with the words 'mild' 'moderate' or 'sodding great massive'.

5/Registration of offence numbers should be decided ASAP.

6/A location for registration of offence should also be decided.

7/If not enough posters wish to register offence, the post title is left.

8/If the required quota of posters registers offence, the title is changed.

How about that?
 
 
Ganesh
23:54 / 12.05.06
I wonder how many 'squicks' it takes for something to become unacceptable to the community? At what point does the crossover come?

I suppose it depends whether people are saying "ooh, that makes me feel a bit queasy" or "that offends me" and going on to provide a bit of backstory/reasoning to support their offendedness. Subjective dislike is arguably different from offendedness, although I'd welcome a discussion on where that borderline lies.

'stupidsillyrapartist' made a big hit on the community just by way of naming hirself, and the community expressed itself about that. Obviously the topic was an easily accessible one. You either think it's OK or you don't. Sometimes there are things that are less obvious and I would like to know at what point something stops being a personal problem and becomes a community issue.

I guess at the line between subjective dislike/queasiness and serious offendedness - wherever that lies. In the case of RapistBloke, one could conceivably identify a group for whom his user name might be acutely distressing (people who'd been raped). In the case of Alex's thread, it's difficult to identify the wounded subgroup. Dead dogs? It's more a case of second-hand 'ewww', and I don't think that's sufficient reason to posit censorship (which is what I believe you were doing, albeit in a very minor way, when you suggested having a discussion about 'acceptability' of what "we" might not like to read).

To put it another way, if the binmen split my binbag open everyweek and spilled the rubbish on my steps, well, that's my problem. If they do it to more that one person then there are a few of us. If the street gets filled with rubbish from split bags we all join together and form an action group and the council starts to take notice.

Your analogy suggests streetfuls of rubbish, which surely no-one could ignore. I see it as more analogous to overhead aircraft noise. Several people might find it intolerable, but many might feel neutrally about it, and some ('planespotters) might positively welcome it.

I would simple like to know if this community has any kind of awareness of it's 'problem numbers'? When do 'enough' people think something is a problem to warrant it a problem?

And I'm interested in whether it should simply be a case of numbers. When does simple distaste/disgust become a "problem" that one thinks should be eradicated? As I've said, there are many threads in Conversation that trigger my gag reflex, but I've rarely considered them a community problem - just something I don't particularly like but must deal with. I don't see my personal distaste as being the same thing as me actually being offended.

Do you think there are some topics which should be 'unacceptable' for mention on Barbelith?
 
 
Ganesh
23:58 / 12.05.06
There is no policy to be made on black humour that falls short for some and not for others. People need to consolidate that with their own feelings though, which is why this thread is a positive thing.

I'd tend to agree. Thing is, it's been suggested that some black humour ought to be considered so beyond the pale (or, at least, not what "we" want to read) that the board as a whole should think about instituting a policy of 'acceptability' of topics. That's what worries me.
 
 
Ganesh
00:11 / 13.05.06
THE WIDER ISSUE

1/ If more than one person has a problem with a thread title for whatever reason the community should address a prospective change with some attempt at grace.

2/ The community should address the issue on a case by case basis.

All well and good - but who is "the community" here? The moderators? Tom? The entirety of Barbelith? Should we be having community-wide ShadowSax-style threads for each instance of potential mass offendedness? Whose responsibility is it to "address" someone's subjective dislike of something? When does dislike or queasiness become offence?

3/ The community should not mock the offended party for feeling offended, the poster has the right to feel offended, the community does not have the right to dictate what posters should or should not feel offended about.

4/ The word 'offence' should be acceptable when used singularly or combined with the words 'mild' 'moderate' or 'sodding great massive'.

What about when it's not used at all? What about when people say "squick" instead? Or express dislike as opposed to offence?

5/Registration of offence numbers should be decided ASAP.

6/A location for registration of offence should also be decided.

7/If not enough posters wish to register offence, the post title is left.

8/If the required quota of posters registers offence, the title is changed.

Just thread titles? How about abstracts? Or posts within threads? What numbers of offendeds are you proposing? Should they register offendedness (as opposed to dislike or "squick") in a separate thread? Whose responsibility is it to start that thread?

How about that?

I think it's fine in terms of consensus, so long as we're happy to go with consensus rule. I foresee 'counteroffendedness', in which case there might well be competing claims. Of course, this is all supposing the thread-starter doesn't accede to polite requests.

It's all a little beside the point, though, as far as I'm concerned. You seemed, in your previous posts, to be suggesting that certain topics ought to be considered off-limits, even in terms of flippant mentions, because they weren't what we, the community, wanted to encounter on Barbelith. You've now moved to a case-by-case model, which makes me wonder whether you had anything in mind when you implied that some topics shouldn't be brought up in the first place (because none of us wanted to read about them).
 
 
Ganesh
00:25 / 13.05.06
Central to your proposal, Lula, is the idea of 'offence'. Someone saying they're offended certainly shouldn't be mocked, but they should, IMHO, be asked to unpack that offendedness a little. If someone's actually offended (and I'd see this as different from merely feeling irritated or a bit queasy or preferring not to read something) to the extent that they want another poster's contribution alterered - against their will, if necessary - then they need to be direct about that, and give their reasons. I don't think "squick" cuts it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
00:30 / 13.05.06
You seemed, in your previous posts, to be suggesting that certain topics ought to be considered off-limits, even in terms of flippant mentions, because they weren't what we, the community, wanted to encounter on Barbelith

This has already been addressed as a consensus issue by Lula I agree that moderating for personal taste is not a road we wish to go down, but actually I think we should have a discussion about whether fellating dead dogs is something we want to read about and if we come to the conclusion that it is not perhaps it should not be acceptable even in a jokey title?

That means that it requires other contributions, not her consistent explanation so let's open this up to discussion by other people instead of asking the same person to address it again. Would anyone else like to address this point?
 
 
Ganesh
00:38 / 13.05.06
Sure. I remain interested in Lula's motivations for suggesting a discussion of 'acceptability' of topics, but the purpose of this thread was (and is) to open up that discussion to a wider cross-section of the board. See my initial post, really.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:12 / 13.05.06
In the specific case mentioned, I was happy enough to have the thread title altered because even though the imagery seemed to pretty much capture my views about the World Cup in general (that what the forthcoming all-embracing mania-fest says about British society is essentially something a bit creepy and disturbing,) it was nevertheless really needlessly offensive, in particular to Barb posters (Lula, Deva, Flowers, etc,) who, I'd imagine, possibly wrongly, aren't especialy innarested in the thing in the first place.

The point of the thread is/was the free and frank open expression of anti-World Cup sentiments, and I didn't want the mooted dead dog's old man to get in the way of that, really.
 
 
Ganesh
01:19 / 13.05.06
Alex, I had no problem with your original title, and I have no problem with your reasons for changing it. I think it's laudable that you were sensitive to other posters' squickiness. Your actions here don't worry me, really. However, when you say

it was nevertheless really needlessly offensive, in particular to Barb posters (Lula, Deva, Flowers, etc

I feel it's worth pointing out that none of these posters has actually claimed offence as such; some have gone out of their way to emphasise non-offendedness. At most, we've had squeamishness and the suggestion that Barbelith, as a community, might feel similarly ick.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
02:02 / 13.05.06
Well no, but claiming offence as the target of such, and feeling as if you might have been offensive are different things, aren't they?
 
 
Ganesh
07:23 / 13.05.06
Yes - and, as I say, it's great that you're sensitive to the possibility. 'Offence' is one of the intangibles I'm hoping we can perhaps thrash out in the course of this thread, though, and I think it's important to note that, so far, nobody has claimed to be offended by your first thread title, beyond a sort of "eww, I'd rather not be reading that".
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:03 / 13.05.06
So, what's the best way of dealing with these sorts of thing?

1) I see something offensive which I think should be changed/deleted/locked.

2) I post a comment to this effect in the moderation requests thread.

3) I PM the person who posted the thing I consider offensive and link him to my post in the MR thread.

4) Other people, of those few that apparently bother to look at the Policy at all, weigh in with their opinions.

5) The original poster comes round at some point and joins in the discussion.

I should point out that when the issues of Sauron and the 'Stump Fucking' thread, or SR, in both cases the person posted what they posted, then disappeared for a week, presumably due to work or not having 24-7 net access. Where does time come into it. Do we wait one day, one week, one month? And what if more people had objected to the thread title and AG had actually said ze liked the thread title just fine and wasn't inclined to change it?

I wouldn't have a problem with threads titled about the fellating of dog corpses if the content of the thread were, you know, about having sex with dead canines. I don't see this as trying to take away AG's freedom of speech.

I appreciate and understand Ganesh's concerns, but I see a risk of having to go through a 'Shadowsax: His Crimes' thread for each small issue.
 
 
Ganesh
08:24 / 13.05.06
I wouldn't have a problem with threads titled about the fellating of dog corpses if the content of the thread were, you know, about having sex with dead canines.

You've maintained throughout that this is indeed simply a case of thread title not being directly relevant to topic (I actually think it is in the sense of being hyperbolic dislike relating to the topic, but I take the general point) but, as I've said, I don't buy this as the sole explanation for taking the initiative to change the thread title. The thread's abstract was both descriptive of content and searchable - more so than many other threads which have passed under your radar. This, and the fact that you yourself have compared the situation to the 'Stumpfucking' thing a couple of times, makes me think that, as with that situation, it's the 'gross-out' ("non-vanilla sexual act") aspect that's attracted your attention rather than simply a disconnect between title and content.

If we think it's reasonable to alter thread titles for relevance even when the abstract is descriptive and searchable then maybe it's worth talking about that too? I've pointed out that the Conversation is full of such threads which haven't attracted moderator intervention. I'd also repeat, at this point, Tom's statement from my first post:

... unless the bad posting is abusive, harrassing, libellous, spam or a well-established troll there's no place for moderatorial intervention. Bad posting is allowed on Barbelith, just discouraged.

Tom's statement doesn't actually mention 'offence'; in order to merit moderator action, presumably something would have to be not only perceived as 'offensive' but abusive, harrassing, libellous, etc., etc. I think this is relevant to your other questions, Flower: if you see something that you consider offensive then yes, discussing it in the Moderator Actions thread, ideally with the original poster's input, would seem reasonable. Lula's sketched a rather more arcane system, which I have more questions about.

One of my concerns here is that there be some sort of public discussion of perceived offence before proceeding to moderator action - and, if that offence doesn't translate into abuse, harrassment, libel, etc., then I think we ought to have a high threshold for moderator intervention, certainly higher than seems to be the case at the moment. If abuse, harrassment, libel, etc. aren't taking place, then yes, I think we should wait for input from the poster in question before moving to change/lock/delete, even if this takes a week. But then, I'm a proponent of hands-off moderation, by and large; others will think differently, hence this discussion.

Moving back for a moment to the situation which prompted this discussion, I'm concerned that 'offence' doesn't become conflated with distaste/'squick'. I think it's important that we at least attempt to distinguish the two, lest we start to assume that distaste/squick = offence = reason for moderators to act.

I appreciate and understand Ganesh's concerns, but I see a risk of having to go through a 'Shadowsax: His Crimes' thread for each small issue.

Sure - and I'm honestly not pushing for that. I just want some examination of our motives as moderators, in the light of Tom's comments.
 
 
Ganesh
08:48 / 13.05.06
On the subject of offence, I'm trying to locate a Policy discussion in which I had a crack at differentiating offendedness from irritation. I think it was in the context of the discussion with Dead Megatron about gay men having a kiss-in in his local mall, but I can't find the relevant bit of thread. Can anyone help? DM?
 
 
Ganesh
10:42 / 13.05.06
Courtesy of DM (who's already better at Advanced Google than wot I am), here's the thread wherein I remember drawing a distinction between 'offended' and 'irritated', suggesting that the former usually (not always) implies a greater degree of personal involvement than the latter. One might similarly compare 'n' contrast 'offended' and 'squicked'.

I think there's a danger of our taking everything that we'd prefer not to encounter on Barbelith - everything that irritates or 'squicks' us - and rolling it up into a big homogenous mass labelled 'OFFENSIVE' which we then feel we have to deal with via moderation. I see it as important that that not happen.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:59 / 13.05.06
Sorry, can I just say, becuase this seems not tohave been picked up:

So let me see, what happened here is that a few people didn't much like the title, brought it up in a policy thread, the thread starter read these comments, agreed and then changed the title, at which point people got cross that the title had been changed due to a few complaints.


This interpretation is factually wrong, and also eccentric in terms of its ascription of emotion.

Most obviously, it fails to note that the inspiration of this thread was the move to change the title proposed by a moderator before the thread starter read these comments, agreed and then changed the title. Also, that the thread starter did not change the title - I proposed it and two other people agreed it. As far as I can tell, nobody has gotten cross because the title has been changed - an issue has been raised concerning whether it is correct to move to change content without the consent of the originator of that content because of personal distaste (or, alternatively, concerns about the utility of the title to searches, which I think has more weight as an argument outside the Conversation, but there you go).

More generally, I don't think crossness is in it. Ascribing emotion to people in order to make them appear to be acting from "irrrational" motives seems a bit boy. See here, here and here for examples. I'd suggest we will all get on better if we let people express how _they_ feel, rather than telling them how they feel, yes?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:23 / 13.05.06
Haus, I don't think that is why this thread was actually started, at least it bears no correlation to the summary.
 
 
Quantum
15:49 / 13.05.06
Finding something offensive in the sense of harrassing is very different from finding it offensive in the sense of squick-making. I'm very happy to see the former respected and legislated against, not so the latter. S. Weaving

I'm not sure about that distinction. Let's imagine a hypothetical body & relationships thread about necrophilia or coprophilia with an offensive/squicky title (imagine your own example), I'd rather not have to look at that. Possibly to the extent that I'd ask for it to be moderated to something less eye-bleedy, because otherwise I'd be avoiding whole areas of Barbelith just because of one thread's intrusion. I have no problem with people discussing pretty much anything they want to in a thread, but I'd rather the Title were more palatable to the general public.

I think what happened here in the football example was ideal- I'd hope in future anyone realising a thread title was offending or upsetting readers would also consider changing it, because we should be considerate to each other. Innit.
I think offensive titles should be moderated, preferably by the thread's author, because they can slap you in the face. Like reading hatespeech you find upsetting in a thread in that it's unexpected and you can't un-read it, you get no warning that your train of thought about kittens* was about to be derailed by dog cock.
My 2p.

*I've been encountering kittens a lot
 
  

Page: (1)23456

 
  
Add Your Reply