Talk:Community Moderation

From Voice of the Proletariat

IF YOU WISH TO ADD YOUR VOICE, PLEASE [EDIT THIS PAGE] AND ADD YOUR OPINIONS.

• Some of this stuff is pure nancy and not a part of the spirit of bannination. This page was made by users, not the creators of bannination.
  • (cur) (last) 19:20, September 10, 2007 Space (Talk | contribs) (1,880 bytes) (→Guidelines for Community Moderation)
  • (cur) (last) 09:35, September 10, 2007 MuninsFire (Talk | contribs) (438 bytes)
  • (cur) (last) 08:40, September 10, 2007 Ratfucker (Talk | contribs) (61 bytes) (New page: Guidelines for Community Moderation Stuff to be added.)

brazil 13:27, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

Is it a good idea to call editors out in the main page? Surely the note of dissent is enough.

Sorry, forgot to sign my previous comment re. calling out. Strayling 13:43, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

• • I would say that if you are putting forward what can and cannot be posted on the site, and you are not the site creators/owners, yes. It's information anyone can get, and it's information one should have to understand the context. Where is the value in anonymity if not deception? brazil 14:34, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

• • brazil, you have a point. However the site owners/creators/admins have been aware of this page for quite some time. Their inaction seems to be indication that the terms laid out here are acceptable. Kesshi 13:47, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
    • I've put the question to grahams for a definitive answer. In the mean time, I've added a note to the bottom of the page advising people to view the Discussion page, as I'm sure that IS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. brazil 14:32, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
      • I removed that message. I already inserted and bolded a section in the middle of the article linking to this discussion. If you think your footnote is better than my insert, please remove my insert and re-add your footnote. Either way we don't need to be redundant.Kesshi 14:45, 20 March 2008 (PDT)
        • Works for me until we have a ruling. brazil 14:53, 20 March 2008 (PDT)

[edit] Discussion with Grahams in the Beer Garden

3/21/2008 between brazil and grahams brazil 15:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT) grahams: It's not undisputed and not set in stone, but that page does a reasonable job of reflecting my views.

I'm pretty much opposed to having rules set in stone, and here's why:

• We say no sexual penetration, but I don't think anyone would have voted down the pictures that heresey and catholicsin have posted. Generally speaking that content is out, but any reasonable person would have said that was a worthwhile exception.

• Technically tubgirl complies with the rules as posted there, but no reasonable person would want a site filled with that.

• Obviously naked children aren't always illegal, there are any number of films, award winning journalistic photos, and pieces of artwork that include naked under-18s.

If we explicitly draw a line over what's acceptable then people will constantly be trying to find exceptions.

I expect we'll hear things like:

"Someone posted the Manneken Pis and so clearly i can post my entire cp collection"

"X wasn't downvoted for posting a picture that clearly showed a dead body in the streets of iraq, why am i down voted for posting a decapitated guy captioned "lieburul thought process" in every political thread"

Logically that will then lead to us having to add rules to cover all the special cases or lead us to create broad rules to keep everyone out of trouble. But broad rules will be inconsistently enforced and I think we know where that will lead us.

I don't know the answer. I'm happy that we have some guidelines and generally act like adults, although I welcome discussion.

With your permission, I will clip the above and include it in the discussion section of the "Community Moderation" page of the wiki.

Clearly, what's listed in the TOS is clear and minimalist. I think this page goes too far. Not post something that is racist or homophobic? Sounds too much like a nancy agenda. At some point, I think that page needs to be modified, and not just discussed. There is nothing wrong with posting pictures of cow feces. The page is fundamentally flawed in conception and execution.

My two cents.

[edit] grahams explains with a couple graphics

brazil: Did your read that whole wiki page? I think not. *bzzzt* try again.

Here's the way i see it

Some people would prefer there be no grey area, but then i'm afraid it'd look like:

[edit] grahams talks about the bright line

random reality check: Grahams, where does the line get drawn?

Personally, I have no problem with most of what has been posted in this thread but to me dead bodies hanging from a tree, and I do understand the historical perspective, seems to have crossed the line.

I could honestly care if someone that is desperately trying to convince me he is a mature adult is doing so by posting pictures of feces - I think that makes his point quite clearly for him.

Is this how you see your site being shaped?

Mostly i'm concerned that we stand up for free speech. IANAL but I don't believe that image could be construed as illegal. It probably could be used as part of hate speech, but I don't believe that was the case here either.

I'm not a fan of the fark model where just about everything is against the rules, but they let 90% of it slide. It's inconsistent and pisses of users.

If it's not illegal and the majority of the community are not offended by it, then i'm ok with that.