Active Now

Danilo_G
CosmicWunderkind
Malizz
Discussion » Questions » answerMug » Why isn't this a violation of TOS?

Why isn't this a violation of TOS?

All trump supporters are ignorant rednecks.

Posted - July 25, 2019

Responses


  • 7280
    Believe means that you are taking another's word that we all can read an insult and know exactly if the person intent (was to insult.")    

    So who is the source of your belief---or would you put it more accurately that that is simply what you "think?."

    No one, not even a moderator, can insult me without my consent.
      July 29, 2019 1:44 PM MDT
    0

  • 32529
    I will refer you to JA's posts and links on this question. 
      July 29, 2019 1:50 PM MDT
    0

  • 7919
    I'm going to leave a couple links here for people to read if they feel like learning more about moderation and context. They relate to hate speech and "dangerous speech," but the concept translates well into respectful discussions of all types. The first link goes to an open letter from Facebook outlining some of their moderation challenges, which are the same challenges all sites face. The second one gets more into the nuances of language and how intent can be determined as well as what types of language can result in issues. 


    https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/hard-questions-hate-speech/
    https://dangerousspeech.org/
      July 27, 2019 5:28 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    If moderation was not still ultimately a judgment call, then it would be done by Artificial Intelligence.  A bad call by artificial intelligence would not at least...insult my human intelligence.

    And it's always a problem when the quality of moderator can be reasonably be inferred by the logic they used in answering questions as if they were simply members.

    The moderator of ask.com wisely chose to avoid posting as a regular member
      July 29, 2019 1:54 PM MDT
    1

  • 7919
    Hmm... yes, do tell me more about this for-profit community that no longer exists which should serve as our example. Or, are you perhaps referencing the similarly-named social Q&A site they purchased that pays its moderation team and is linked with countless deaths, particularly suicides due to the level of online bullying? 

    If your primary concern is ego rather than the people impacted by the words on the page, then we obviously have very different values and goals. 

    Our moderators have historically been members; people who genuinely care about the community and have generously agreed to volunteer their time to help maintain it. I'm proud of that fact. 
      July 29, 2019 3:45 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Oh indeed---my primary, overriding concern is truly the people impacted by the words on the page---especially by the "answers" that are posted as truth and are no more than propaganda supporting what are occasionally some really harmful and inaccurate opinions.

    Ego has nothing to do with it.  Truth is the conformity of the mind with that what exists.  Sorry, but the earth is NOT flat.  (The guy who took a level on the plane does not understand that gravity operates as if all of the mass of the earth were concentrated at the center of the spherical earth and therefore his assumption that if the earth were a spear, the bubble in the level would move is patently false---which any first year physics student can attest to.)

    We may in fact have different values and goals, but ego is not a motivating factor in my world, only what is is important to me.

    And when the only difference in opinions is based on the lack of acquaintance with the available tools used to properly evaluate that opinion by the people expressing it, then I see that as a problem.

    Some things are basically opinions in that there is either no proof or no agreed upon requirements for acceptable proof---the existence or non-existence of God; the best team in the NFL, etc., but those opinions impact only the person with the opinion and are hardly dispositive of the issue in any given question.

    You ask me to tell you about that "for-profit community that no longer exists which should serve as our example."  I'm not sure which site you are referring to.

    Nor do I know what is "the similarly-named social Q&A site they purchased that pays its moderation team and is linked with countless deaths, particularly suicides due to the level of online bullying?

    All I know for sure is that that the moderation protocols that ask.com they operated by were much less philosophically offensive to me.

    You, as a moderator, tend to avoid---either accidentally or on purpose---questions about Trump and his presidency.

    The moderators for the presidential debates tonight will specifically not be chose from among the candidates.

    .


      July 30, 2019 2:20 PM MDT
    0

  • 7919

    You said, "A bad call by artificial intelligence would not at least...insult my human intelligence." That's ego.

    You said that you preferred the moderation offered by Ask. Quick history lesson, Ask was a search engine first. They created their social Q&A (SQA) site to save the dying company because it couldn’t compete with Google. It flopped. They purchased ASKfm. Being designed as a business first, these sites leverage(d) moderators who were hired from the outside and were paid to be there. ASKfm has a bad reputation for member suicides due to the amount of online bullying. You can pay moderators, but you can’t pay them to care and people from the outside have trouble understanding what’s happening on the inside.

    Online bullying and harassment are real problems that should concern everyone. Almost half of all adults experience it. Three quarters see it. The most common place for it to happen is social sites and the most common perpetrator is a stranger to the victim. These issues are associated with mental health issues, medical issues, and suicides. The initial group of people who helped grow this site knew that and had experienced it as members on another. That’s precisely why the policies were set up the way they were.

    The thing is, some people don’t realize they’re being bullies. There’s actually a phrase for it: “unintentional bullying.” But, regardless of whether someone realizes they’re doing it or not, they have a simple way of preventing it. They can avoid talking about the people involved in the discussion and stick to the facts related to the topic.

    Frankly, bringing up characteristics and traits of the people involved in the discussion is weak anyway. It has no part in intelligent debate. And yet, people do it.

    Truth and respect can and should coexist. Anyone who doesn’t think so or is willing to toss respect out the window when it suits their situation doesn’t share the values in which this site was founded on and continues to operate on. That’s ok. There are other sites for them.

    As far as how we handle moderation goes, our moderators have always been members. They’re real people who care about the community. Because they invest their time in it, they care about the outcome of the calls they make too. They care in a way you can’t pay someone to care. But, on top of this, I also make a point of selecting people from different backgrounds- people with different values and opinions. Each person is personally trained by me and no moderator ever acts alone. Every single time a removal is made, it gets posted for the other moderators to review. It actually gets quite interesting at times- all those opinions and values picking apart a moderation call. That serves two purposes. First, each person (myself included) has oversight. Secondly, it allows us to moderate in a more uniform way. So, that said, even if an individual feels their content was removed in error, multiple moderators eventually saw that content and agreed with the decision.  

    If there was a way to notify members in a “friendlier” way that their content was removed, I would be all for it. People naturally get prickly when their stuff gets touched, especially when they feel like judgment is being passed upon them. We try to tread lightly, but we want people informed so they know what we’re looking for and can avoid having issues in the future.

    So, let’s say for argument’s sake that we pull something you posted under our respect guidelines because, to us, it sounded like you were slamming the other person. You’re right. We can’t read minds. We can look at the context and form a reasonable conclusion. But, let’s say you didn’t intend for it to be a slam. What has that changed? Nothing. You’ve said something that multiple people took as a slam. If we thought it was a slam, chances are the reader will too. So, even if that was not your intent, we still don’t want things that sound like personal attacks on the site. And, you can easily avoid having your content removed in the future by not talking about the person. Sure, it stinks to have your content removed. I get that. But, if you genuinely care about the people you’re speaking with and you agree that truth and respect can coexist, then you’re hopefully going to be open to the fact that maybe, just maybe, you could have chosen your words differently. Maybe you’ll choose your words more carefully in the future. I can tell you from my personal experience that the times people have told me I crossed a line, even when I knew I didn’t violate the TOS, I took it to heart and reread my own words to gain a better understanding of why someone might take what I’ve said in a way other than what I meant. I take the time to apologize and I keep it in mind when I post later.

    As far as me avoiding Trump questions goes, it’s happenstance. I have a lot going on outside the Mug right now and I don’t engage in many threads at all anymore. If I saw something that piqued my interest, I’d respond.

    And, to the comment about debate moderators not being candidates… Sure, but we also don’t typically moderate discussions we’re involved in either. We rarely do if it’s something obvious, like outright name-calling or cursing, but the rest of the time, another mod manages the threads we’re involved in. As you may recall, I made a note in a prior thread that a comment made to me was something I would ordinarily moderate. I didn’t because I was in the discussion. But, if we’re using your example, maybe it’s prudent to point out that the candidates are all residents of the jurisdictions they serve. The day America elects a non-American president to serve them, then we can make the case for having non-Muggers serving the site.

      July 30, 2019 11:43 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280

    Sorry, but that is absolutely not ego.  It's a philosophical statement of a value that I ascribe to---that the inherent value of a human being is always greater than that of a machine.

    You say:  “Frankly, bringing up characteristics and traits of the people involved in the discussion is weak anyway. It has no part in intelligent debate.”  This is a thread, not a debate.  Participants in a debate must meet higher qualifications---not the least of which is adequate knowledge of the subject to be debated.  Each side of a debate must advance cogent arguments for their positions---not just their opinions.

    As to censorship in general, you know where I stand from previous comments I have made to you in various answers and comments.  And it’s been quite a while since a post of mine was removed, so this topic is for me a theoretical discussion. You present an explanation of the philosophy and procedures this site uses to enforce the TOS with regard to “respect,” and you suggest that using the moderation protocols of a site linked to suicides, etc. would be a bad choice.

    But that would be true only if the greater evil is lack of respect as opposed to promulgation of error---after all, just because there is error in one direction doesn’t mean there is no error in the opposite direction.

    You say: “Truth and respect can and should coexist.” 

    Here’s another quote---There are some things about which if one chooses to keep an open mind, one should keep their mouth shut.

    I have no objection to moderators being members---but there are questions that I think a certain soupcon of wisdom would suggest they avoid answering.
      August 3, 2019 11:32 AM MDT
    1

  • Oh do explain.
      July 27, 2019 2:47 PM MDT
    2

  • 6098
    I am sure JA could cite many interesting observations about this. But basically that is what we do on here.  That is what this site has become about.  Hating Trump.   I don't hate Trump so perhaps I don't belong on here. Nor am I obsessed with him or really very interested in him.  So many more interesting things in life I think.  But guess others don't agree with me.  I once wrote a blog about hate on here and I stand by what I wrote as far as I can remember what I wrote.  I have become pretty accustomed to being called all these names but that does not make it any more pleasant for me. One develops understandings and beliefs and standards in life and I guess it hurts to be eventually told that everything I have believed in proudly and lived my life by is suddenly regarded as all wrong and despicable.

    I turn away and live my life for a while and when I get back on here I see they are still going on and on. I guess it becomes a way of life.  Not mine.   This post was edited by officegirl at July 29, 2019 9:03 PM MDT
      July 29, 2019 7:53 AM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    Interesting.  I responded to JA's post before I read yours.

    You say, "I guess it hurts to be eventually told that everything I have believed in proudly and lived my life by is suddenly regarded as all wrong and despicable."

    To me, that would be infinitely better than for me to continue continuing to live in my error defending the indefensible and then to die unrespected.
      July 29, 2019 2:00 PM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    The very day that the PRESIDENT himself violated EVERY LAW in the COUNTRY?

    The day Hitler reigned the USA?  

    That is why.  No one can dispute a truth.  No matter how vile.  No matter what the treason. He has done it and he is a pig felon.  Just like John Gotti and the rest of the mob.

    When is calling Jeff Sessions a Nazi against the TOS when it is the truth? With FACTS TO PROVE?  Same for TRUMP there is no name that is vile enough for him that is not totally accurate.

    When you grab women's vagina's and brag, when you tiptoe your mistress by your wife's doorstep in the White House and fornicate and tell the mistress not to worry Melannia doesn't care.... When you lie to the American Public about Russia and try to obstruct an FBI investigation against Russian collusion, what can a TOS protect?


    I AWARD MYSELF ASKER'S PICK


    Would you like to hear about the RAPE?  He did that too.   This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at July 29, 2019 2:05 PM MDT
      July 29, 2019 2:02 PM MDT
    0

  • 7919
    Until the day Sessions or Trump becomes a member here, you're free to badmouth them all you wish. Again, we're talking about our on-site respect guidelines, which applies to current and past members. Celebrities, political figures, etc. are fair game. 
      July 29, 2019 4:07 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Given Trump's lack of respect for pretty much anything he doesn't like, I suspect he be kicked off quickly.
      July 30, 2019 2:22 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    of course, JA. I totally do NOT get involved in such discussions past the point where I am involved and I always acquiesce because it is NOT my fight at ALL.

    It is YOUR job and you do it pretty well.  I have no interest in dissecting these rules and picking them apart.  I do NOT care.  What I do care about is allowed.  So, because of this reason, I will always support whatever rules are on here.  They cannot be THAT bad if I am allowed to exist.  And I totally am behind your constant vigilance of attacking members.

    I know I have been guilty of it, but when I am guilty of it I AM WRONG. PERIOD.

    This place would be a free-for-all if we were allowed to attack.  Any other rules can be dealt with since we have OTHER AREAS on here where you can be graphic and FREE TO SAY whatever.

    That is already on here, so to me picking apart any rule and why and why not is just mental masturbation.

    The only person who is not mentally masturbating is you and the staff, because the mental activities are your job.  You need to follow the rules and make sure we all do or you may have no site for anyone to mentally masturbate about.
      August 3, 2019 11:39 AM MDT
    0


  • All I know about this type of subject is that I asked JA one time, shortly after we came over to this new site, if I can call myself a "Fag" (more specifically "Fagalicious" because I just am) and she said "Yes I may refer to myself as such so long as I do not call any one else a fag."  Kinda funny because amongst all my friends we feel more than comfortable using the term with one another.   However, that word being spoken by someone outside our circle is usually frowned upon.  With that said, even if I knew someone else here at answerMug was gay, I can not assume that they wish for me to address them with a loud and proud "Hey Faggot".  They might not be as comfortable with the word as I am.  Seems to me calling someone a redneck personally might also be a risk, but smack talkin' whole groups of people at a time, that might just be doable.  Makes me wonder though, since we are allowed to use the term Redneck somewhat broadly and consider it benign, then could the term "fags" be used as well to identify a group of people?  Hmmm!
      July 29, 2019 2:13 PM MDT
    2

  • 7919
    I don't recall that discussion. I searched through the site and couldn't find it and then searched my inbox. The only thing I found there was a letter to a "Benedict Arnold" from 2016 in which we were discussing language guidelines. In that letter, I said, "There are some things, like the use of "fag" and such that has been clarified- those we aren't considering cursing, but they can't be used in a derogatory way." 

    I don't know who that was directed at- could have been you if you had an account in 2016. But, yeah, no. You can use the term "fag" when you're using it as a term of endearment. It can't be used as a slam or it's hate speech. If we can't tell whether you're using it as a term of endearment or not, it will be removed out of an abundance of caution. 

    If you can find the actual discussion where I said that, I'd like to see it. It really doesn't sound like something I said to me since I don't believe I've ever moderated that way- like I said, going back to 2016, I've said as long as it isn't being used in a derogatory way, it's fine. I'm not saying I didn't say it, but I would be really surprised if I did and I think it's far more likely that I said something similar perhaps you internalized to mean the word was off-limits. 
      July 29, 2019 4:01 PM MDT
    2

  • It happened in the main forum, shortly after arriving at this new site, back when we could place captions under our name at the bottom of the screen.  The box that showed everyone online allowed each member to tell how they were feeling at the moment.  I was feeling rather "Fagaliscious" that day and placed that in my description.  It appears this feature has since been removed from the site.  Nevertheless, after I typed that in, another member called it into question so I humorously shouted out in a thread to you..."Hey JA, can I call myself a fag if I want to?"  You responded lightheartedly by saying that I could...blah blah blah blah blah.  I actually don't recall if we had further discussions about it behind the scenes or not.  My memory is failing me.  I only recall that particular instance because it was so funny to Sapphie and I and you were such a good sport about it.  Either way, I like to have a good time with the word and occasionally call myself that, but in a public forum such as this I would likely refrain from addressing others as such. 

    It occurred to me after writing this that I may have asked that question in a WingedWonder post.
    If so there probably is no record of it because I had requested all of WW's digital footprint be permanently removed.
    You had the devs come in and do just that.  BTW, I still thank you for doing so.
    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at July 29, 2019 9:06 PM MDT
      July 29, 2019 4:53 PM MDT
    2