[query] The Nationstates Mens rights thread (?)

[Hirota]

This cropped up in the Feminist thread:

That we should have a thread about them, and not hijack this feminism thread too much.

Thank you for saying that.

While I don't mind discussing MRAs here, I don't think they'll get a fare shake considering this thread is meant to specifically support feminism. I'd love to see an MRA thread, though. I'm hoping someone will create one.

It feels rather unfair to hijack the Feminism thread with Mens rights discussions (both critical and supportive) - it's happened a couple of times in that thread, but the thread owner and myself clearly agree that it would be better to take that elsewhere, hence the request for a thread of it's own.

There is scope for legitimate criticism of the MR collective that would be better off being discussed in a dedicated Men's rights thread, and I'm hoping it might help reduce the creation of Mens rights threads (something which I feel the Feminism thread has accomplished).

I assume, based on the discussions that kicked off the Feminism thread, you'd want to see an opening post? If so, I have one partially drafted that I can finish for your consideration.

[The Archregimancy]

You don't really need our permission to start a men's rights thread. We have any number of potentially controversial thread topics where the moderation team aren't asked for permission to post - though I do appreciate you're trying to be polite here, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with basic courtesy.

So long as the OP follows site rules, the thread can be allowed to live or die on its own merits.

[Hirota]

You don't really need our permission to start a men's rights thread. We have any number of potentially controversial thread topics where the moderation team aren't asked for permission to post - though I do appreciate you're trying to be polite here, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with basic courtesy.

So long as the OP follows site rules, the thread can be allowed to live or die on its own merits.

Appreciate the clarification, many thanks, and I'll be putting something up soon.

However, there is a follow-up question that is slightly tangent to this.

Inevitably when discussing Men Rights Issues, Mens rights resources are going to be cited. How harshly is this rule enforced?

Forbidden Links/Warez Requests: Referral links (where you derive some sort of financial or other benefit) such as Cyber-war, Outwar, plus all other variants. In addition, certain sites are expressly prohibited, specifically kevan.org, ebaumsworld, albinoblacksheep, plasticnipple, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, A Voice For Men, and Fred Phelps' godhates<group> hate-mongering sites are not allowed. Use discretion when linking to another site.

The reason I ask is because I've seen plenty of linking of specific sites in this list, yet do not see any enforcement action on them.
Example
Example
Example
Example

I appreciate that the onus is on players to report violations of the rules, and in the vast majority of these cases there is nothing particularly offensive about any of those links.

However, when legitimate criticism of some of the elements of the Men Rights movement is made, if someone was to link to avfm as an example of Men's rights failing to do their job, or focusing on areas that do not actually benefit men, would a reasonable and constructive post which includes a link to avfm as supporting evidence be likely to be dinged by the mods for violating this rule?

[The Archregimancy]

Banned links are banned links - and actionable.

If we don't catch every example of their use, it's because we don't necessarily come across every independent incident of their use, and - as with many incidents of actionable behaviour - often rely on player reports to bring them to our attention.

If you're concerned that they might be used in a men's rights thread, and that this could have a negative impact on discussion, I would suggest that you clarify that their use is actionable in your OP.

[The Blaatschapen]

Just an addition, since some sites that claim to be MRA do it: We do not condone doxing here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing ), any site that participates in it, is basically forbidden.

As per: viewtopic.php?p=16525081#p16525081 for example.

[Hirota]

Just an addition, since some sites that claim to be MRA do it: We do not condone doxing here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing ), any site that participates in it, is basically forbidden.

As per: viewtopic.php?p=16525081#p16525081 for example.

I appreciate the reasoning and the explanation behind why avfm is a banned link. I agree with condemnation of doxxing.

As an observation this should be included in the one-stop rules shop thread. I've seen it mentioned before by moderators (although I was not aware that was the particular reason avfm was a banned link), but there does not appear to be any mention in the rules thread.

As a second observation, there is a can of worms here waiting to be opened if someone was to point out the myriad of mainstream websites that have participated in doxxing in the past.