New rule against offsite harassment

14 minutes ago, ViolentBeetle said:

The rule doesn't seem like it would be any use. If one is disrupting the peace on Doomworld, no extra rules seem to be required. If one is doing something off-site, banning them on Doomworld doesn't seem to have a purpose. The rule seems to be designed to penalize someone from saying mean things off-site, in a way that can be traced to Doomworld account, yet somehow not breaking rules on Doomworld directing, which is useless except when using as pretex for some kind of purges, and in either case protects no-one.

I think that first and foremost, when there is a problem off-site, that problem would be handled first withe the moderating team off-site.
If the problem translated to here, thats is when it would be taken in account that the same problem arised outside of this site.

For example, someone reports that members of X-site are attacking them. But the member who reports is not a member of ''x'' site.
What to do?
The proper answer should be something along the lines, Only IF the reported problem is a direct attack to the member that isn't registered on ''x'' site AND when the one producing that situation is indeed a member on ''y'' site, being this the site where the two involved have accounts in, the banning or warning actions will be taken.
As a matter of fact, Doomworld staff can't ban people that doesn't have an account here :P
So its common sense that first things will be handled offsite.

@rehelekretep

I have no problem if Doomworld wants to make their own rules. I care when they are looking at anything you say anywhere and make a determination if that is something they dislike. Doomworld should stop trying to push their own values on people when it is not concerned with their own site at all.

14 minutes ago, Snaxalotl said:

just be nice to each other, its not that hard.

Actually, I'm struggling with it due to my neurodiversity messing with my sense of empathy. I feel that's probably an important factor to consider. Obviously not an excuse, though.

7 minutes ago, JezChrist said:

 So we should try and detail the rule if possible, while not being overly specific in the exemples. To protect those who doubt about what they can or cannot do.

As someone who constantly doubts what he can or can't do, I agree. I've struggled with vague rules in the past, as often as I've struggled with adapting to several different communities' rules and expectations.

11 minutes ago, JezChrist said:

"If you have doubt, it's probably not a good idea to continue".

"If you have doubt, you should stop".

That is in general a good practise, though I can see it easily being taken to an extreme by someone who's more often worried.

It'd probably have me stop posting full-stop, honestly, because I always have to doubt myself for everything I post, no matter what, because I feel like I can't trust my own feelings and that my own observations are never a reliable source.

10 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

a neutral person that tries to be partial on different situations and tries not to act on personals opinions, just someone that tries to keep the peacefulness of the whole site by not taking sides.

That is a good idea, though of course since moderators are human too, I'm not sure if you can expect them to actually not take sides.

12 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

a person that informs a member before applying the penalty, no matter if it is new or old member. Past member behaviour shouldn't be taken in account or as a mark on their registry if the warnings are separate long enough between them.

This is also a good idea, but at what point should the time between warnings be long enough for the former to not leave a mark on their registry? Would it depend on the person, offence, or both?

14 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

The user in question may answers why they think the comment is important and decide to change it or not. User is able to defense his stance.

This seems important to me. I've dealt with an issue before on another community where defending yourself when a moderator contacts you is considered 'insubordinate' and worsens things.

16 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Refuse with a ''why'' leads to a minor warning that goes to that persont to please moderate his comments for the peace of the site. Accepting, no problem.

Yes. It is very important for the person committing the offence to know what they did wrong so that they can actually get the chance to act in good faith.

I've never understood when I see people use 'You know what you did.' logic. It's just weird, especially when your actions afterwards clearly shows that you do not, in fact, know what you did.

19 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

No, man you have it wrong.
 only the cases of harrasement, stalking, and the others that are reported will be taked in account.
If you want to talk of something in private with someone or publicly, and nobody reports you, you are good to go.

As long as you don't attack other member for not thinking like you, or because they have a different opinion than yours, hence ''hate speech'', you should be fine expressing your own opinion, political or not.

This. That's how I understood it, too.

2 minutes ago, ViolentBeetle said:

In a shocking turn of event it's possible to be critical of something without trying to involve government.

its what AlexMax is saying: you cant argue that you should be able to do what you want without repercussion (argue with people on DW, outside of DW) and then complain when DW says "we will ban you if youre harassing people".

not agreeing with something doesnt make it wrong.

Make rules for this site only. Own up to your own mistakes. Problem solved. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Just now, Killer5 said:

@rehelekretep

I have no problem if Doomworld wants to make their own rules. I care when they are looking at anything you say anywhere and make a determination if that is something they dislike. Doomworld should stop trying to push their own values on people when it is not concerned with their own site at all.

no i understand what you mean, but i think we fundamentally disagree on what the reach of DW should be. if im doing something DW disagrees with not on DW itself and they ban me for it because they dont like it, yeah id be annoyed but i cant think of a moral or legalistic argument as to why they are not within the rights to restrict the membership of their own website/forum to people they want.

3 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

Make rules for this site only. Own up to your own mistakes. Problem solved. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Why are you so defensive? Give us an example what you would say in other places and it would be considered as harassment here. Just a few words.

1 minute ago, Nikku4211 said:

Actually, I'm struggling with it due to my neurodiversity messing with my sense of empathy. I feel that's probably an important factor to consider. Obviously not an excuse, though.

There is a big difference between being rude and harassment. As someone with bipolar 1 I have had plenty of issues with communication and coming across as very rude, but that is very different than harassing someone. Especially someone trying to avoid a ban by hiding it somewhere else.

6 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

Doomworld should stop trying to push their own values on people

Huh?  The only leverage Doomworld has over someone is banning them from the forums.

That's a big old nothingburger - you just can't post on an internet forum anymore.  Nobody is being oppressed here.

12 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

I'm a little confused by the fears of moderator abuse.

If you think a community has abusive moderators that are acting in bad faith, there's literally no framework of rules and regulations that can protect you.  Internet forum rules aren't laws and only people higher on the informal ladder of power have any say, with the top dog generally being the person paying the bills for the servers.

This. Moderators who operate outside of the remit set by the admins do not remain moderators for long. People seem to be concerned that there will be some wild swing in what's acceptable on Doomworld when the same admins have been running this place for decades.

Sure. I don't subscribe to the ideology that gender is a social construct. This caused one person in this community to simply take a break from a discord I was in. Is this considered a bannable offense?

7 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

I'm a little confused by the fears of moderator abuse.

If you think a community has abusive moderators that are acting in bad faith, there's literally no framework of rules and regulations that can protect you.  Internet forum rules aren't laws and only people higher on the informal ladder of power have any say, with the top dog generally being the person paying the bills for the servers.

In principle yes, and it's not like I can't jump ship to elsewhere if it comes to that, but I'd hate to see this forum to implode in some kind of vendetta about some kind of off-site conduct, and the recent doomer board ban post didn't give me an impression of a moderation team that is unlikely to form an implosive vendetta. But I'm not going to worry too much about it.

i'm worried about the rise of nannies more than anything anyone might say to anyone else, or consequences thereof, in an internet forum.

Just my opinion.  Not my forum, not my beef, don't care.

2 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

Sure. I don't subscribe to the ideology that gender is a social construct. This caused one person in this community to simply take a break from a discord I was in. Is this considered a bannable offense?

I don't think so. Did you misgender, deadname them? If you not, you should be fine.

9 minutes ago, Nikku4211 said:

 

That is in general a good practise, though I can see it easily being taken to an extreme by someone who's more often worried.

It'd probably have me stop posting full-stop, honestly, because I always have to doubt myself for everything I post, no matter what, because I feel like I can't trust my own feelings and that my own observations are never a reliable source.

I understand.

You're right, it shouldn't be taken into an extreme. The best solution is to ask a thrid oparty before, like a friend (preferably one on the forum too).

This right here 'misgender them'. This I think is complete nonsense. So would I be banned? I will call you by your name or your actual sex.

4 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

I said Sunlust is not difficult and get warned.

You deserved it.

3 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

Sure. I don't subscribe to the ideology that gender is a social construct. This caused one person in this community to simply take a break from a discord I was in. Is this considered a bannable offense?

Oh boy here we go....

Right. We are getting to the political part. Which is what I think is an overreach for a DOOM community.

1 minute ago, Killer5 said:

This right here 'misgender them'. This I think is complete nonsense. So would I be banned? I will call you by your name or your actual sex.

you can't tell someones "actual sex" by looking at them, much less online, I am starting to see why you are bothered by this rule

2 minutes ago, dmslr said:

You deserved it.

  Reveal hidden contents

Jk. Who gave a warning to you?

 

That's a complicated joke, and I accidentally pressed send because I didn't intend to send it, so maybe shouldn't get into it. Sorry.

Ah great, Doomworld is now the Stasi 2.0. Time to snitch on people for the lulz.

2 minutes ago, Nikku4211 said:

That is a good idea, though of course since moderators are human too, I'm not sure if you can expect them to actually not take sides.

its a thin line, of course. Human beings always are biased, but if the moderator actions are transparent and clear, its should be visible to anyone if it taking sides or not.
User that feels that there was a problem with moderation should be able to express themselves and ask for more transparency.
problem here is again, who watch the watchmen? hahaha

5 minutes ago, Nikku4211 said:

This is also a good idea, but at what point should the time between warnings be long enough for the former to not leave a mark on their registry? Would it depend on the person, offence, or both?

i think that reiterate offenses are those on the same day, week or month.
Over that period of time, the user should be informed of their previous warnings before receiving another one.
All this, on the thread things are happening, to mazimize transparency.
To not derail the thread with this problem, the comments of the members involved should be temporary suspended until the thing resolves. Probably?

4 minutes ago, Bridgeburner56 said:

This. Moderators who operate outside of the remit set by the admins do not remain moderators for long. People seem to be concerned that there will be some wild swing in policy on Doomworld when the same admins have been running this place for decades.

I don't know since when you are a moderator, so maybe you don't know that things may not be noticed by the administrators when they are not around and then come back?

For example of this, some time ago there was a thread that become a fight between users, and nobody come to close it or send warnings for almost like 4 hours.
It was a sunday, a crystal clear sunday before covid. And andministrators and moderators are humans. So this slipped under the radar of all the moderators, too.

Casually, one of the admins come back to check their inbox, and saw what happened.
Thread closed, obviously.
But this kind of things could happend, thats my point.

So abusive behaviour could be happend, too, and nobody noticing, especially if the person in question feels abused and is afrad of what happened.

7 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

This right here 'misgender them'. This I think is complete nonsense. So would I be banned? I will call you by your name or your actual sex.

This is the internet, you don't know people's "actual sex". You just use whatever information you have.

If you are unsure, use they.

This is standard practice, beyond politics.

Don't frame this as a political thing please. This thread is already fubar.

This is completely on topic because people consider this hate speech or bigotry. Both have come up in this thread.

3 minutes ago, JezChrist said:

If you are unsure, use they.

English is not my first language. I always think "they" is a plural form.

.