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 >

Let's hash out some guidelines...

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:52 / 16.09.07
So we're at the point where there's going to be some banning functionality and we're probably going to open up registration again. There's a possibility that this could lead to some problems, moderators throwing out ban requests because they don't think someone's behaved that badly. That might be a good thing in some cases but let's face it, there has to be a bottom line if this is how things are going to be done, otherwise we lose some of the basic functionality of the tool.

We've had a couple of years now of defining what is okay and what's really not on so really we're in a good position to define some of that stuff in words, not make final rules but rather a loose guide that people can look at when they feel uncomfortable about making a decision. What isn't okay on barbelith?
 
 
Princess
12:38 / 16.09.07
Well, we're all about discussion. Things which limit discussion include (but are not limited to):

*not listening/engaging with other posters
*being needlesly aggresive
*writing styles which render your posts meaningless
*writing as if you are a messiah/ascended grand master/trickstah
*ignoring other's ownership of their experience
*spam and exceeding offtopica

Attacking other posters, directly or indirectly, is a no-no. Personal attacks are fairly obvious. More subtle attacks include (but are not limited too):

*racism
*sexism/misogyny
*homophobia
*transphobia
*judging people by their genetics (ie: jokes relating to hair colour, height or size)
*hatred of religious groups
*xenophobia
*any discourse that homogenises a varied group of people.

We also want to create a safe space for certain types of discourse, so in addition to all the above we alse do not tolerate things along the lines of:

*holocaust denial
*unexamined prescriptive faith beliefs
*posts which revel in abuse of animals, children or minority groups

I'm sure there's more stuff, but how's that for a start?
 
 
Tom Coates
13:32 / 16.09.07
Barbelith aims to be an environment that supports the very best level of discussion on the Internet on a whole range of areas, from religion through to comic books. As much as possible, the environment is here to support free and open debate on pretty much any subject. There are however three restrictions that Barbelith asks of its members:

* No spamming
* No harrassment
* No trolling

No spamming - Barbelith is not here as an advertising platform and anyone using the board to post messages advertising their products or services will be asked to leave and their messages deleted.

No harrassment - In order for people on Barbelith to feel able to express their views, they should not be subject to sustained attack or harrassment. Members should question and interrogate arguments and not attack individuals. Unreasonable treatment of another user (as understood by moderators and members of the board) can result in expulsion. In addition, sustained attacks on types of people that are represented on the board are viewed as attacks on those individuals. This does not apply to ideologies, therefore it is legitimate to attack the arguments of environmentalists or conservatives, but not acceptable to decry black people or gay people en masse. Controversial opinions in these territories are acceptable to debate on Barbelith as long as the person who argues them is prepared to listen to and accept counter evidence, or engages with logical challenges to their position. Not doing so breaks the 'no trolling' rule below.

No trolling - activities on Barbelith that seem simply engineered to stir up argument and upset people without any intent to engage in a debate are considered trolling, and can result in expulsion. Unpopular positions are welcome on Barbelith if the person who expresses them is prepared to explain the position clearly, listen to logical challenges and address them honourably. Being prepared to change one's position in response to new evidence is generally a good sign that an individual is not a troll. Refusing to address massively inconsistent positions, or changing one's position on the fly, or engaging in ad hominem attacks is consistent with being a troll. "Playing devil's advocate" is acceptable only when you state that is what you are doing and allow the argument to be put under scrutiny and interrogated.

Other rules and guidelines for the board:
* Be honourable
* Treat other people with respect
* Do not have multiple user names
* Listen and breathe before replying when you're angry.
 
 
Princess
13:48 / 16.09.07
What is honourable?
(Genuine question, not a joke)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:49 / 16.09.07
I'd actually suggest making that more of a T&C than an FAQ, if you see what I mean. Makes it more of an obligation than a set of guidelines, and would also make it a lot easier for those with banhammers to decide on what's bannable in the more divisive cases. IF someone's a likely candidate for the airlock, then it's good to be able to point to whatever it was that they've done which they'd agreed not to by virtue of being a member.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:54 / 16.09.07
I'm sure there's more stuff, but how's that for a start?


Too expansive and closely delineated, but I think not without utility.

Going back a little, I think we can identify the value proposition of Barbelith as:

1) Attempting to operate a level of discourse of a higher quality than one might expect on a bulletion board.

2) Creating a space where instances of prejudice, bigotry or hatred often taken for granted on the broader Internet are not encouraged.

3) Creating a space where people can largely expected not to be harrassed or persecuted, except insofar as they have violated (1) or (2).

These goals all reinforce each other - racist, sexist or misogynist jokes reduce the quality of discourse, display prejudice and act to harrass members.

As to how that translates into what isn't OK - well, the terms and conditions of another bulletin board read:

1. Writing messages that are significantly off-topic from the purpose of this BBS.
2. Writing comments rude or distasteful to other users.
3. Writing statements that are considered false, defamatory, or slanderous, credibility assassinations, statements obstructing business, insulting comments, infringements of rights, and private or personal information.
4. Writing messages determined to be a violation of statute, offensive to public order and morals, or conducive to criminal acts.
5. Writing messages that violate trademark rights, copyright, trade secrets, or legal rights of others.
6. Attaching any harmful computer programs or writing any messages that link to such programs.
7. Posting a large number of messages or committing acts of sabotage against the administration of this BBS or users accessing this BBS.
8. Writing messages that include introductions to any merchandise or services, inducements, advertisements, or commercial intents.

This actually serves pretty well, excepting (1) and taking into account the variance between this board and a technical support BBS. We focus on (2), and (3), and to a lesser extent (4) but there are a number of things we do need to take a view on - for example, the recent Fovea Hex thread involved a link to an unlicensed download of Fovea Hex's songs, which link apparently also involved some dodgy spyware which caused some problems. Then there are people who either spam the board with their own service, ebay auctions etc - not many of these, lately, but then we haven't had any new members who have not negotiated the entry process. So, I imagine this will be more of an issue in the nearish future.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:02 / 16.09.07
ignoring other's ownership of their experience

Alarm bells in excelsius. Out of all the problematic moveable feasts that one might invoke as guidelines for what's acceptable behaviour on the board, this one strikes me as the least workable. It lends itself far too easily to "well, I have been mugged by teh chavs, so when you tell me that teh chavs aren't a violent criminal underclass, you're denying my experience!" - which is indeed an argument long-term members of the board have encountered before.

In general I'm very wary of terminology and concepts that have their roots in fields like therapy getting invoked when talking about how to communicate on the internet, especially when it's done by people who don't really know what the terminology means. Not saying that's happening here, but again, some people may remember that brief period of time when a few posters started beginning everything with "I feel...", even when they actually meant "I think...", because somehow the idea had taken hold that saying "I feel" made everything okay.
 
 
Princess
14:16 / 16.09.07
Point taken. You are right.
 
 
HCE
15:28 / 16.09.07
To relate the principles we hold in common to the way the board actually works, can we please start treating misogyny as seriously as antisemitism.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
16:08 / 16.09.07
Along those lines, I actually think singling out holocaust denial as a specific no-no in addition to having a policy on racism is a mistake. Don't misunderstand me: yes, I think people who deny the occurence of the holocaust should be basically banned without much hesitation (maybe a request for clarification - "are you SURE that's what you meant to say?", or something - but only one, please God). But that's because it's a very easily identifiable symptom of either fervent anti-semitism or wilful ignorance beyond that which I think there's any point Barbelith tolerating. However, I also think that the equivalent symptoms which betray either that kind of wilful ignorance or bigotry that is homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, otherwise racist or even classist should be treated in much the same way. I guess you could set up equivalents to holocause denial - saying that AIDS is kinda the fault of all that gay sex, or that a significant proportion of women lie about domestic abuse in order to keep fathers from their children (which is what ShadowSax said, of course - but it seems simpler to me to do it the other way round.
 
 
Tsuga
16:14 / 16.09.07
No prejudicial bullshit.
 
 
Princess
16:34 / 16.09.07
Troll say: what about your prejudice against neo-nazis?

We all know what you mean, but I think the enemies of supercool would point it back at us. Arguing about what is or is not "prejudicial bullshit" would happen every time a bigot arrived and semantics would slow the banning process.

Petey/Fly, you are right. Some of the behaviours are definite symptoms of prejudice. But having specific behaviours noted means that we don't have to explain, over and over again, why such and such a behaviour is a symptom of some deeper awfullness.

I think there's part of me almost viewing this as a contract. I want moderators to be able to say "poster x has violated rule x of the TOS. Therefore we ban/move to ban." I think it just saves time if we don't have to pause to explain thinking everytime.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:50 / 16.09.07
The thing is, I don't think it works like that, because people will disagree with whether they have exhibited transphobia/racism/sexism - however, these could certainly be identified as things manifestations or perceptions of which will be taken as harrassing or as detrimental to the good function of the board sort of thing.

I agree entirely that you should have to agree to a set of Ts and Cs before joining the board - some basic behavioural limits, for -isms and for stuff like trolling, spamming or marketplacing. Also an acceptance that the decision of the moderators and owner of Barbelith is final in matters of banning, that once banned a member will not seek to return to the board, that Barbelith and the owner of Barbelith is not responsible for content placed on the board, the usual. Lack of something like that to point to is a reason we have had some, although by no means all, of our problems. Idiots won't _read_ it, of course, but we will have recourse to it.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:20 / 16.09.07
Idiots won't _read_ it, of course, but we will have recourse to it.

That's what many of us (yourself included, of course) have been saying for a long time whenever the subject's come up- T&Cs would be there for us to use in the trickier cases.
 
 
Tsuga
17:36 / 16.09.07
Arguing about what is or is not "prejudicial bullshit" would happen every time a bigot arrived and semantics would slow the banning process.
Yeah, princess, I was being a bit simplistic. I have a problem with that sometimes. "It all comes down to" can be true sometimes, but it doesn't matter when individuals with so many complicated personal motives and histories interact. Though as cHaus says, the arguing about whether or not someone is being prejudicial will happen anyway, especially denial by the perpetrator.
About the terms, much of the things that would be included in a "terms and conditions" agreement is already incorporated in the faq, it could be modified and updated.
As far as the board joining aspect, is there going to be a change on the "register" page, and the email verification (and possibly agreeing to terms stuff) will be routed through there?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:05 / 16.09.07
The harassment thing needs to be more carefully described, else it could be said everyone that takes part in a 'should we ban ____' type discussion is harassing the ____ in question. There are those who like to regularly restart the 'Burning Down the Haus' because they want to share their feelings of persecution at the hands of the Nasty Man. How do we avoid long discussions of "when you said that I felt you were harassing me"? Or should we accept that if they were to happen, we should just accept them as a necessary evil?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
19:13 / 16.09.07
I think we need to consider the use of "abusive behaviour towards an individual or a group", it's not abusive to draw attention to or question what someone has said/done but it can be considered abusive to make generalising or insulting statements about or towards a person or large group of people.
 
 
HCE
21:05 / 16.09.07
Is the way we're doing it now so very bad? It seems we keep a sort of running list of offenses, and each time somebody comes up with a new variation on an old theme, it gets added to the list. Thus, banning for holocaust denial is a refinement on banning for antisemitism, which is a refinement on banning for harassment.

I agree with flyboy - spelling out specific offenses right in the T&C is suggestive of limitations on what is bannable ("you didn't say I couldn't say variant X"). Much as US constitutional law is open to ongoing interpretation (what constitutes speech, and how far can freedom for one group extend before it impinges on freedoms for another group), I imagine we could have general principles and work out as a group how to apply them in each case - and that process of interpretation can be interesting, as when we come to agree that while it is ok to say "X is my experience of abuse" it is not ok to say that "and furthermore I am thus qualified to generalize about everyone thus abused."

There seems to already be a culture here of referring back to previous bannings and the reasons articulated for them. I guess I don't really understand what part of that is working poorly - it has seemed to me that the broken bit was the slowness and uncertainty around getting results, not so much the bit where we hash out how to apply general principles. If somebody could clarify what seems broken about this part of the process I'd appreciate it - I think I've missed something.
 
 
Char Aina
22:11 / 16.09.07
Well, the oft mentioned split over issues of misogyny would seem to be a symptom of a system with uncertain principles. Alternatively, it could be seen as a symptom of a system with a thriving back and forth.

I'm not convinced by the latter so much as the former.
 
 
grant
23:50 / 16.09.07
spelling out specific offenses right in the T&C is suggestive of limitations on what is bannable ("you didn't say I couldn't say variant X")

How about a format where you have a handful of general things (much like what Tom wrote up there), with explanation under, plus a few examples of what is and isn't meant?

So, like:

1. Harrassment based on race, creed, class, gender or sexual identity will not be tolerated.
+ Frequent reference to derogatory names of any group of people - "chavs," "fundies," etc. - constitutes harrassment.
- Asking a genuine question (politely) about a given group - "Don't gay men like lifting weights?" - is not.


This example is just an idea off the top of my head - I'm not really suggesting those as terms, necessarily (although they might work). But this format might give enough specificity without allowing that "I didn't do X!" wiggle room.

Although I'd also like to say that one of the principles around here that I think is most valuable is the idea of group consensus, which is always a movable feast, and really the point of those exhausting banning threads. So some kind of language about consensus standards in the T&C would be nice.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
00:00 / 17.09.07
See, that's the problem. I'm not sure people asking "genuine questions" like that should be encouraged beyond a certain point. The whole idea of, to stick with that example, queer sexuality being something that's always up for discussion (by straight people) rather than taken as the norm, is something that people have to deal with on 90% of the internet and which we have the opportunity to provide an alternative to here. I'm not saying come down like a ton of bricks on someone the first time they ask something without malice but ill-advisedly. But I am saying if someone continually asks "but why DO gay people need their own parade?", or something like that, it's not harmless, however "polite".

I still have real problems with this idea that it's the delivery that matters...
 
 
HCE
00:35 / 17.09.07
I think the idea of examples is a good one, actually - perhaps with links to actual questions that have been asked where possible. How about if we included an explanation about genuine/innocent questions, making a distinction between those that are ok in 101 threads and those that are not ok, and provided a link to a FAQ elsewhere that handles stuff like what flyboy mentions? Or some enterprising and articulate person could compile one from in-house examples. The 'arguments I'm sick of hearing' thread I love to repeatedly mention might be of use.
 
 
grant
02:24 / 17.09.07
I'm not sure people asking "genuine questions" like that should be encouraged beyond a certain point.

Well, that's why I said those were off the top of my head - what I'm suggesting is a structure for hammering out T&C everyone can live with.

If we want to take that example, though, as a starting point, then maybe:
++ Asking the same innocent question over and over can be read as badgering, which is a kind of harrassment.

Or maybe just use a different specific example.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
07:36 / 17.09.07
I guess I don't really understand what part of that is working poorly - it has seemed to me that the broken bit was the slowness and uncertainty around getting results

We need to get to a point where we don't have one or two moderators repeatedly throwing out banning requests because they don't think the statement someone made is that bad. I didn't start this thread because I think people need terms and conditions when they enter the board, or an FAQ, though it's convenient and polite to think of guidelines in that way. This thread exists because none of our mods should have an excuse to repeatedly deny that some instances of behaviour are unacceptable. Last time we had systematic trolling of the most malicious type it didn't help that a moderator systematically refused to delete that troll's posts.

We need to sort out what gets the hammer before we get into a bind, not afterwards when people are angry and saying "racism, sexism, anti-semitism" isn't going to crack it because those are very easily defined instances of bad behaviour. We don't want a list with 800 things on it, we want a guideline for people who have to make a nasty decision that deprives someone of a space that we enjoy.
 
 
HCE
14:22 / 17.09.07
Ah, ok. Thank you, I see now.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:10 / 17.09.07
Yup, Tryphena.

We need T&Cs rather than an FAQ for precisely that reason. People have broken the agreement they made by being a member- they're no longer fulfilling the (pretty basic) requirements to be a member.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:35 / 17.09.07
... and if we write about what we expect from each other, we only have to reword it to produce terms and conditions.
 
 
HCE
13:45 / 18.09.07
Can you give me an example of the kinds of guidelines you have in mind? I'm a little worried that you might be thinking you can teach people interpretation, and I don't think you can do that. It may be a question of identifying a group of people who all concur (to a degree that excludes those who didn't see Fletch as problematic, for instance) on what kinds of things are offensive, rather than trying to explain to the existing group of mods what's offensive and getting them all to agree on it.

Otherwise, if people aren't applying the guidelines stated by Tom the way you think they should be, I'm not sure why you think you'll have much greater success with a more specific or elaborate set of guidelines, unless it really does devolve into a checklist.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:12 / 18.09.07
Well, even then there is a fair bit of wiggle room. If misogyny is a checkbox, how does one decide when to check it? There were people insisting that Shadowsax had not crossed a particular line that would have made his contributions misogynistic pretty much to the death. If one (or, actually two) of these had been moderators, they could have prevented the banning, at least until some sort of popular appeal was made to Tom - that is, the same situation we have at present.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:37 / 18.09.07
Well I think the harrassment guideline above is really along the lines I was thinking of, perhaps a little more concisely worded. I think an instance where, if someone said "I don't think we should ban x because they said 'Liz is an ignorant bitch'" we can say but they're breaking this term/condition/guideline by using sexist language in addition to earlier saying ... and failing to take note of x as well.

Basically we've had a lot of instances where people have made remarks that weren't so bad on their own but were pretty awful in the context of what they had said before. If we have broad harrassment and prejudice terms and a moderator fails to take them into account then we should consider dumping the moderator. That's why we need a system and not a vague set of rules because it should work for and on everyone, not just new users.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:39 / 18.09.07
What I'm trying to say here is: isn't it about time we decided what barbelith is and wants from its users instead of flitting about complaining about what a drag rules are dudes.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
14:45 / 18.09.07
Just to be clear, is the plan here to as far as possible reduce, or even remove the need for banning threads? Because if so, I don't know if that's desirable. I can see why these things might usefully take less time to resolve, but I'm really not sure about a set of terms and conditions which, once breached, would allow however many moderators to dispense swift and terrible justice without consulting the board in general, even it's only for a couple of days. Obviously in extreme cases, where people were clearly intent on causing trouble and nothing else there'd be a case for Xtreme measures, but as far as they go, what's already in place in terms of how Barbelith deals with it's more fractious members seems more than adequate, in my humble.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:08 / 18.09.07
Well, as has already been discussed, there are people who do not find banning threads enjoyable or entertaining, but rather tiresome and draining.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
15:10 / 18.09.07
If one (or, actually two) of these had been moderators, they could have prevented the banning

But presumably in that instance there'd have been a discussion between the moderators in question, and also the rest of the board, which at least might have resolved the situation? I'm not saying it definitely would have done, but by the end of all that it was pretty clear which way the wind blew; I don't *think* anyone who's currently moderating would have continued to oppose a ban under those circumstances.

But I'd maintain the discussion was important.
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:19 / 18.09.07
For the aforementioned Xtreme cases I'd suggest a quick-ban collation/discussion thread might serve for proposal/notification and brief discussion of the problematic behaviour and what if any editing needs to be done to clean up.

But yes, I'd agree that it's the middle ground, where those that start off as counterbarbeculturealists (or even well-loved posters) do or do not emerge as racists, misogynists and the like, but still (repeatedly) say things which are problematic/painfully unexamined (but do not explicitly violate any T&Cs) where it would be good to continue having banning threads as previously.

Hopefully having a more ban-friendly board, as well as T&Cs (in those cases where they have been violated) will both allow these to finish up quicker, and reduce the proportion of problematic behaviour that we might expect otherwise. Ultimately though there's a hell of a lot of variables, so I don't think anything can replace the good old fashioned acid test.

If neccessary any change in the T&C can be made at later dates (just change the wording of the e-mail). Changes can be discussed and finalised in policy. Continued membership can be contingent on agreeing to the current T&C, not the one present at a members sign up: as long as members don't violate the new T&Cs it is assumed that they agree with them. Sort of like an inverse grandfathering.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply