NATION

PASSWORD

[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 30755
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby USS Monitor » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:29 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:
CoraSpia wrote:well if you want to do that, I don't consider any of those last things hate speech, because I consider hate speech to be a fictional concept.

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.


The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
19th century steamships may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 132718
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ethel mermania » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:34 pm

USS Monitor wrote:
Minoa wrote:[*]The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;


I don't support adding such a rule. Trolling covers the most vitriolic hate speech and takes the most extreme and unreasonable racists out of circulation when they earn themselves a DOS. If people have some racist views, but are willing to have a reasonable debate, it is worthwhile to engage in conversation and introduce them to other points of view. You'll never reach people and change their minds by refusing to even talk to them.

[*]Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.


There was recently a discussion backstage about removing troll posts from view. I think there's some value in leaving mild rule-breaking visible to help people understand where the line is, and so that the flow of conversation is not disrupted by missing posts.

But [v] asked us to be a bit more proactive about removing "GAS THE KIKES!!!" type of troll posts.

[*]What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)*
* phpBB 3 and later supports the report function out of the box.


The report button is used by mods as our "2nd opinion flare."

Creating a separate feature that players could use to report forum posts would require some tricky modification of the forum software. Also, it would be open to abuse by people that just go down a thread reporting every post as a form of spam, or people who get mad at another player and report all of their posts.


Otoh, speaking as a kike, leaving the gas the kikes post in the with the red text on does two things for me.

1. It tells me that moderation is doing something about it.
3. It let's me know who the people who wish to do me harm are.

So may I suggest leaving it there with it all its glory and red text.
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 37276
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:35 pm

USS Monitor wrote:
Swith Witherward wrote:Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.


The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.

Let them keep their second breakfasts in New Zealand as is only proper! ;)

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post-Apocalypse Survivor
 
Posts: 204883
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:52 pm

USS Monitor wrote:
Swith Witherward wrote:Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.


The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.


We small people deserve respect and rights, damn it. Stop hairy feet discrimination!! o/
Imtheochaidh soir is siar. A dtáinig ariamh an ghealach is an ghrian…
Video (working on re-uploading) made by Valentine Z, and used with permission. Spainball Flag made by Pinkienia.

Also: THERNSY!!
֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Swith Witherward
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30346
Founded: Feb 11, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Swith Witherward » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:42 pm

Katganistan wrote:There is a standardization in place. Posters are not allowed to call each other names or refer to whole groups as something vile, nor to suggest that systemic violence against a group is ok.

Posters are allowed to say they think your argument or political affiliation is wrong.

Report sigs you think are rulebreaking. Some mods have their preferences set not to see sigs. Others have their preferences set to see them. If it's not been caught, it likely hasn't been seen. There are many more accounts than there are mods, after all.

What I would hate to see is people demanding that more and more things be banned not because they are intrinsically and demonstrably bad, but because they just don't like them. That will stifle debate, and then what's the point of a debate forum?

The ability to attack the argument is one of the things I appreciate most about NS.

Sigs are a mixed bag. There have been a few antiziganist statements over the years, mainly belonging to edgelords.

I've reported things via GHR before. I've been chastised for being too "wordy" on occasion. If I don't explain, the complaint is met with "I see no problem with it" etc. It leaves me feeling deflated and hollow. I'm not complaining, mind. But there are times when people do feel marginalized because their concerns regarding hate speech seem to be overlooked due to misunderstanding or lack of familiarity.
★ Retired Senior P2TM RP Mentor ★
How may I help you today?
TG Swith Witherward
Why is everyone a social justice warrior?
Why didn't any of you choose a different class,
like social justice mage or social justice thief?
P2TM Mentor & Personal Bio: Gentlemen, Behold!
Raider Account Bio: The Eternal Bugblatter Fennec of Traal!
Madhouse
Role Play
& Writers Group
Anti-intellectual elitism: the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities
and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility. - sauce

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 28043
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Capitalizt

Postby Frisbeeteria » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:09 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:If I don't explain, the complaint is met with "I see no problem with it" etc.

Short answer on sigs, and in general: if it needs paragraphs of explanation to see why it's wrong, then it's not obvious enough to be a violation.

The mods are an educated bunch, and by now all of us have a pretty good feel for player behavior on this site. I don't think the problem is lack of understanding or lack of familiarity. It's just that some things don't rise to the level of warnable offense, even if they offend a few players. It's been made clear in the FAQ that some people might be offended by some of the content other players post. This is particularly true for interpersonal relationships, which often depend on extensive knowledge of how Player A interacts with Players B, C, and D. Most of those don't rise to the level of warning offenses.

We do have a lot of kids on site, and I imagine that the majority of the most offensive hate speech comes from 'edgelords' under 18. I could of course be wrong - we have no age verification process. We do make a concerted effort to drive out the worst of the edgy memes and meme posters. "Gas the kikes" is an obvious hate meme. "Pepe the frog" is less obvious. We have to make judgements on a regular basis. If there is any question, the post is usually brought to the attention of other mods. We do a LOT of back room collaboration. Stuff isn't just falling through the cracks because one of us isn't paying attention.

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61907
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:32 pm

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.


We small people deserve respect and rights, damn it. Stop hairy feet discrimination!! o/

WHAT SHE SAID.
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. :3
Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson
Help the Ukrainian people, here's some sources!
Help bring home First Nation girls! Now with more ways to help!
Jesus loves all of His children in Eastern Europe - pray for peace.
Pray for Ukraine, Wear Sunflowers In Your Hair

User avatar
Big Jim P
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55163
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Big Jim P » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:34 am

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.


We small people deserve respect and rights, damn it. Stop hairy feet discrimination!! o/


Shave them feet. Problem solved.
Hail Satan!
Happily married to Roan Cara, The first RL NS marriage, and Pope Joan is my Father-in-law.
I edit my posts to fix typos.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:37 am

Katganistan wrote:Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.


And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Luna Amore
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 15980
Founded: Antiquity
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Luna Amore » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:43 am

Salandriagado wrote:
Katganistan wrote:Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.


And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

#1 reason these discussions eventually get locked: people keep bringing up old axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said. Regardless, that ruling is not the topic of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.
Last edited by Luna Amore on Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:47 am

Luna Amore wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

#1 reason these discussions eventually get locked: people keep bringing up old axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said. Regardless, that ruling is not the topic of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.


I am, in fact, quoting a private communication from one of said moderators word for word. And it's entirely relevant: if you're using "All X are Y is trolling" as your basis for claiming to have already banned hate speech, you better actually consistently enforce that rule.
Last edited by Salandriagado on Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Luna Amore
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 15980
Founded: Antiquity
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Luna Amore » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:53 am

Salandriagado wrote:
Luna Amore wrote:#1 reason these discussions eventually get locked: people keep bringing up old axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said. Regardless, that ruling is not the topic of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.


I am, in fact, quoting a private communication from one of said moderators word for word.

Nope, never once did any mod say "All autistic people are retards" is A-OK. That's the part you are misrepresenting. The fact you hammered into the forum and GHR with appeals and final appeals over a non actionable ruling is unfortunately true. Five mods did eventually have to rule on that because you just wouldn't drop it. It was frivolous at that point.

Are you going to drop it now or do I actually have to warn you to get you to stop?
Last edited by Luna Amore on Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kostov
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 135
Founded: Jun 12, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Kostov » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:26 am

To be honest, i do agree with the mods

That's all i wanted to say
Conservatism, Russia, LGBT, democracy, Vladimir Putin, Trump, Geert Wilders

Liberalism, Fascism, Nazism, Feminism, Communism, Socialism, Ukraine, Portugal, Clinton,
Angela Merkel, Homophobia, Islam, Euro, European Union

User avatar
Gregoryisgodistan
Senator
 
Posts: 3907
Founded: Jun 22, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Gregoryisgodistan » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:19 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:
CoraSpia wrote:well if you want to do that, I don't consider any of those last things hate speech, because I consider hate speech to be a fictional concept.

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.


I'm not sure this is the appropriate metric we should be measuring things by. Russia bans "pro-homosexuality propaganda" in any situation where minors could view it, which would include this forum where the age limit is 13, and there's nothing stopping people younger than that from viewing the forum, just posting. Should we ban people from speaking out in support of gay rights or saying it's ok to be gay? That's ridiculous and is the exact opposite of what OP is proposing. Should we ban people from denying Mohammed is the prophet and Allah is God because blasphemy is illegal in some Islamic countries? Of course not. Just because something's illegal in some country somewhere doesn't mean we should ban it. My flag would probably get me arrested (or worse) in a good part of the Middle East, but nobody's ever complained about it.

That being said, we're not the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, we absolutely can ban hate speech, and certain things protected by the First Anendmebt already are banned.
Gregoryisgodistan, population 75,000,000. All citizens are required to worship Lord Almighty Gregory, our head of state, as a deity.
IBS II Champions
Beach Cup IX Round of 16
World Indoor Soccer Championship 6 - 2nd place
BoI XIV Champion
IBS III Champions
WCoH 22 Round of 16
WB XXII 10th Place in Casaran, advanced to Round of 32
IBS IV host, champion
4th in WCoH 23
WBC 29 QF
HWC 12 hosts
WJHC VI 2nd place,
CoH 60 4th place
WCoH XXIV Champs
CoH 61 Runner-Up
IBS VI Champs
BOI XVI Host
IBS VII Champs
WCoH XXV 2nd Place
WBC 32 2nd Place
IBS VIII host and champs
WBC 33 Host/QF
WCoH 27 co-host and champs
WC 72 Qualifier
WBC 34 champs
CoH 67 Third place

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61907
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:35 pm

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:
Swith Witherward wrote:Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.


I'm not sure this is the appropriate metric we should be measuring things by. Russia bans "pro-homosexuality propaganda" in any situation where minors could view it, which would include this forum where the age limit is 13, and there's nothing stopping people younger than that from viewing the forum, just posting. Should we ban people from speaking out in support of gay rights or saying it's ok to be gay? That's ridiculous and is the exact opposite of what OP is proposing. Should we ban people from denying Mohammed is the prophet and Allah is God because blasphemy is illegal in some Islamic countries? Of course not. Just because something's illegal in some country somewhere doesn't mean we should ban it. My flag would probably get me arrested (or worse) in a good part of the Middle East, but nobody's ever complained about it.

That being said, we're not the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, we absolutely can ban hate speech, and certain things protected by the First Anendmebt already are banned.

Your flag is silly, though, and hardly offensive to any religious group. Lol.
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. :3
Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson
Help the Ukrainian people, here's some sources!
Help bring home First Nation girls! Now with more ways to help!
Jesus loves all of His children in Eastern Europe - pray for peace.
Pray for Ukraine, Wear Sunflowers In Your Hair

User avatar
Litorea
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: Aug 02, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Litorea » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:39 pm

I'd be extremely wary of enforcing restrictions on hateful speech even if the public debate in the modern day is become less and less civil, purely because the specific line of hate speech is hard to find. Sure, you could obviously point at, say, "Muslims are all rapists" and say that's unacceptable, but then you get into arguments and topics that I think are much less so, like, say, "Western civilization has a lot of traits that make it superior in many respects to Muslim societies" or "xir/shi should not be recognized as valid gender pronouns". There's no real rule of thumb to determine exactly what's hateful and what's not and I fear the end result will either be overzealous enforcement or people completely steering clear of the entire area of race/religion/gender in full. It's playing with fire. I could abide by a method of identifying hate speech that's efficient, fair, just, and doesn't stop debates on race or religion or gender from happening, but that tends not to be the case.

The most blatant hate speech is, in any case, already covered under existing trolling/flaming rules, and if you go much further beyond that, you're starting to risk seeing patterns of hate that don't actually exist or reading into arguments too deeply in case it's really just hate in disguise. Not to mention that the foe list exists, which is probably much more efficient at weeding out such arguments for people offended by them than any moderator action.

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61907
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:46 pm

Salandriagado wrote:
Katganistan wrote:Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.


And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

Going to go off-topic for a moment, and respond, because I've looked at point a couple times and have tried to do so in context. First of all, he says nowhere in the post that all autistic people are "retarded". While I also dislike the term "retarded" very much, he was speaking about it more in the context of a.) a movie, and b.) the media's annoying tendency to throw people with specific labels into a movie (such as having autism, being a specific skin-color, etc.) without realistically considering their conditions or even trying to make good, 3-D, complex characters. Like a character who perhaps has a slight intellectual disability but who also loves to cook, or something else like that. We could go on forever into that topic.

Back to topic! Now it becomes more of hate-speech related to the website's rules if you were to go and say, "That East Marches, he's a retard, probably was dropped down the stairs as a baby." Or, "Big Jim P is a gun-loving fool and he needs to be eaten by a gator." Because those are directly attacking people on the website, and those are probably grounds for warnings and such. Other such quotes would be genuine "All X or Y," such as, "You know, those gays, they're all hypersexual nutjobs and they need to be ground in a blender." That would certainly be hate-speech, and probably flamebait.

I certainly hope, however, nobody shouts at me for giving suggestions on what might be a ruling and what might not be a ruling. I'm simply maybe trying to assuage a heated situation, if this is okay. :3
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. :3
Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson
Help the Ukrainian people, here's some sources!
Help bring home First Nation girls! Now with more ways to help!
Jesus loves all of His children in Eastern Europe - pray for peace.
Pray for Ukraine, Wear Sunflowers In Your Hair

User avatar
Tallapoosa
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Tallapoosa » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:58 pm

The last thing NS needs is more censorship. Posters should be free to use so called "hate speech," as long as it isn't something that a reasonable person from any political perspective would call trolling or flaming. I'm all for restrictions on saying things like "[insert group of people] should all be exterminated." But a ban on hate speech could easily lead to mods taking action against posters for saying something as tame as "According to DOJ crime statistics, black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people are." (Source)
IC
Official Name: The Republic of Tallapoosa
Capital: Huntsville
RP Population: 51,903,441
Government Leaders
IIwiki
OOC
Economic Left/Right: 6.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46
University of Alabama, class of 2020
Political science major
Proud Trump supporter and Tea Party Conservative
Roll Tide

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 37276
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:04 pm

We would prefer posters not to discuss individual rulings, especially ones that really don't have much to do with the matter at hand.

However, your conclusion about why that particular case doesn't really fit into the trolling/flaming category is pretty accurate.

User avatar
Sciftaen
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Jun 27, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciftaen » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:05 pm

I'm firmly against censorship on NS for the sole reason of subjectivity. What is extremely offensive to one person might be perfectly fine to another and differences in contexts, formatting and what forum it's posted in all can mean the difference between hate speech and intelligent, thoughtful discussion. For example suppose I were to post that I believe that Western culture is superior to Islamic culture. If this was posted on a thread comparing different cultures this would be perfectly fine. If however I was to address this to one person because they said they were a Muslim it would be clearly be unacceptable, despite the message staying the same.
Feel free to use NS stats - apart from population, death rate and government type.

Factbook can be found here

User avatar
The Empire of Pretantia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39273
Founded: Oct 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Empire of Pretantia » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:05 pm

Tallapoosa wrote:The last thing NS needs is more censorship. Posters should be free to use so called "hate speech," as long as it isn't something that a reasonable person from any political perspective would call trolling or flaming. I'm all for restrictions on saying things like "[insert group of people] should all be exterminated." But a ban on hate speech could easily lead to mods taking action against posters for saying something as tame as "According to DOJ crime statistics, black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people are." (Source)

I don't recall anybody being warned or banned for saying that.
ywn be as good as this video
Gacha
Trashing other people's waifus
Anti-NN
EA
Douche flutes
Zimbabwe
Putting the toilet paper roll the wrong way
Every single square inch of Asia
Lewding Earth-chan
Pollution
4Chan in all its glory and all its horror
Playing the little Switch controller handheld thing in public
Treading on me
Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and all their cousins and sisters and brothers and wife's sons
Alternate Universe 40K
Nightcore
Comcast
Zimbabwe
Believing the Ottomans were the third Roman Empire
Parodies of the Gadsden flag
The Fate Series
US politics

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 37276
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Katganistan » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:06 pm

Tallapoosa wrote:The last thing NS needs is more censorship. Posters should be free to use so called "hate speech," as long as it isn't something that a reasonable person from any political perspective would call trolling or flaming. I'm all for restrictions on saying things like "[insert group of people] should all be exterminated." But a ban on hate speech could easily lead to mods taking action against posters for saying something as tame as "According to DOJ crime statistics, black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people are." (Source)


That is not be problematic, if presented as you did.

"They're all violent criminals" would be a different story.

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13458
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby CoraSpia » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:21 pm

Luminesa wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

Going to go off-topic for a moment, and respond, because I've looked at point a couple times and have tried to do so in context. First of all, he says nowhere in the post that all autistic people are "retarded". While I also dislike the term "retarded" very much, he was speaking about it more in the context of a.) a movie, and b.) the media's annoying tendency to throw people with specific labels into a movie (such as having autism, being a specific skin-color, etc.) without realistically considering their conditions or even trying to make good, 3-D, complex characters. Like a character who perhaps has a slight intellectual disability but who also loves to cook, or something else like that. We could go on forever into that topic.

Back to topic! Now it becomes more of hate-speech related to the website's rules if you were to go and say, "That East Marches, he's a retard, probably was dropped down the stairs as a baby." Or, "Big Jim P is a gun-loving fool and he needs to be eaten by a gator." Because those are directly attacking people on the website, and those are probably grounds for warnings and such. Other such quotes would be genuine "All X or Y," such as, "You know, those gays, they're all hypersexual nutjobs and they need to be ground in a blender." That would certainly be hate-speech, and probably flamebait.

I certainly hope, however, nobody shouts at me for giving suggestions on what might be a ruling and what might not be a ruling. I'm simply maybe trying to assuage a heated situation, if this is okay. :3

The all x are y thing always seemed a bit unnecisary, if I'm honest. As a gay man I'm more likely to think 'that poster is a moron, best ignore him' if they posted something like that last example, rather than get offended at it.
GVH has a puppet. It supports #NSTransparency and hosts a weekly zoom call for nsers that you should totally check out

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Director of Moderation
 
Posts: 30992
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Reploid Productions » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:13 pm

Quick point of reference, "hate speech" (at least in general terms) is already covered by the existing rules. Heck, it's already covered by the highest level from which the OSRS is derived:
> What can't I post?

Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

We are not going to make particular ideologies illegal to discuss and debate here. (Well, at least outside of a couple of special case topics, IE: pedophilia.) In theory, one can argue any opinion here without breaking the site rules. In reality, and this is a big reason why far-right/nazi players (and their less common far-left counterparts) tend to have a short shelf life around here: some opinions are inherently very, very difficult to argue in a way that doesn't break the site rules. (For instance, there is no way to argue "All <group> should be killed off!" that isn't a flagrant rules violation.) Generally, the more extreme the viewpoint, be it extreme right, extreme left, extreme pro-religion, extreme atheism, and so on, the more difficult it will be to argue it in a way that stays within the bounds of (mostly) civil debate dictated by the rules. Plus, the more extreme the viewpoint, the less likely the person arguing for it is going to be able to back their view up with sources, and absent evidence, they often have a bad habit of resorting to flaming/trolling their detractors.

The boss wants absurd, ugly, and indefensible opinions to be voiced, to be dragged out into the light where they can be criticized, commented on, ripped to ribbons, and generally shown for the indefensible, ugly opinions they are rather than let them fester in the shadows unchallenged. And y'know, y'all do a pretty damn good job of it.
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 20 on March 23, 2023!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
The Lone Alliance
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10026
Founded: May 25, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Lone Alliance » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:55 pm

Minoa wrote:Hi all,

I feel that this is very important, especially in wake of a major debate over hate speech on social media, a major controversy where advertisers have been boycotting YouTube because their adverts were appearing with Neo-Nazi content (CBC, 31 March 2017), and the Finsbury Mosque attacks. I am aware of this post from 2012, but the controversy over hate speech has evolved dramatically since then, and NationStates has clearly become more globalised.
There is no real rising debate over hate speech, it's more like there was hate speech, then there was a strong push to silence hate speech on the internet in the belief that silencing hate speech would lead to the end of hate.... only to backfire and make it worse instead.

Minoa wrote:In March this year, I wrote this post, expressing my concern about hate speech on this forum and my belief that NationStates should review how tolerant it should be on extreme views on NationStates General, in order to ensure that we do not decline to the same level of hostile conduct that we have seen with 4chan. In response, The Blaatschapen recommended that I bring up the idea here.

This is my original post that expressed my hopefully understandable concern about extreme views in this forum:

Minoa wrote:The events of last year is something that led me to think again about the future of NationStates’ approach towards far-right and Neo-Nazi views, and whether NationStates should perhaps toughen its approach to racist content in order to ensure that we do not decline to the same level of hostile conduct that we have seen with 4chan.

The fact that the site banned the ‘echo’ is promising in my opinion but I feel I could do better to toughen its line against inciting racial hatred, as in condoning discrimination and all that hate stuff.

Of course, any action we take needs to balance freedom of expression, although here in Europe we do not see incitement to racial hatred as part of freedom of expression. Norway does have laws against hate speech (Section 135a of the Penal Code, PDF) but is #1 in the World Press Freedom Index this year with a score of 7.60 (range is 0-100, lower is better).

Maybe it is because I try to have really high standards in user conduct, even though I am openly honest about my mental health for the hopefully understandable sake of breaking the stigma (TES, 25 April 2017): while most students in my university were drinking and partying, I used the same time to study and come up with new ideas.

I should add to the first paragraph that another example of extremely hostile conduct is the YouTube comments section. I should add to the second paragraph that I am also concerned about some users making blanket assumptions, particularly the “all Muslims are terrorists” assumption.

Nationstates is nowhere near the level of 4chan and it's kind of depressing that you actually believe that nationstates is at risk of reaching the level of 4chan comments... or Youtube comments which from what I heard are even worse than 4chan's in some cases.

Minoa wrote:I gave myself a bit of time to think about how I could open such a discussion since some groups in the United States see freedom of expression as sacred, regardless of intent.
I'm partly one of those people, then again I also don't believe that banning hate speech is an effective means to ending hate speech and hate in general.


Minoa wrote:During this time, I have noticed that:

  1. The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;
  2. Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.
  3. While Facebook and YouTube has come under heavy fire for not enforcing the rules effectively, both have a policy against hate speech (linky, linky).

1. As Reploid Productions pointed out most forms of malicious intent would be gathered from all of the above.
2. So?
3.Unlike nationstates Facebook and Youtube are both giant websites where the war of public opinion is truly critical to their livelyhood.

Minoa wrote:Hence, I feel that the main points in this discussion are as follows:

[list=1][*]How should NationStates deal with extreme views, such as hate speech (including far-right and Neo-Nazi views) more effectively on NationStates General?
[*]What do you think about the idea of moving all rule-breaking posts (e.g. this post, which was already addressed with this post) to the evidence locker, instead of keeping it in public view?
[*]What do you think about the idea of having a specific rule about hate speech to make things more clearer?
[*]What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)* (EDIT: withdrawn due to transparency issues)

1. Debate them, it's the best most effective way of dealing with anything is confronting it directly...
2. Leave it up as proof of their screw up unless the person in question wants their post deleted as a sign of turning over a new leaf is my only suggestion. (But keep it in the evidence locker)
3. The existing rules cover most form of hate speech that is outright offensive... the remaining hate speech, statements that are seen as harsh and wrong, can be debated over.
4. Ignoring since you withdrew it.

Minoa wrote:To reiterate, any action we take needs to balance freedom of expression, although here in Europe we do not see incitement to racial hatred as part of freedom of expression. Norway does have laws against hate speech (Section 135a of the Penal Code, PDF) but is #1 in the World Press Freedom Index this year with a score of 7.60 (range is 0-100, lower is better).
And in my opinion that's one way that Nationstates is actually superior to Europe when it comes to how they handle hate speech. It's clear that Europe's attempt to end hate speech has done little to actually solve the issues of hate within the region.


Minoa wrote:I understand that is will be a very sensitive topic, but I feel that it is necessary to bring this up in light of the current events. I hope that this is all in good faith, after reading the guidelines – after all, I don't want NationStates to get negative press attention for appearing to promote hate speech.

-- Minoa
If someone in the press decided to write a smear article on Nationstates claiming that this site is an "Alt right safe haven" the only thing that would happen is that it would be seen as another example of fake news and in the end might just cause Max Berrry to have a few more books sold. Though I'll pity the mods who'll have to preform overtime in banning the influx of Alt Righters and SJWs who'll quickly try to turn the website into their newest battleground.

But really Nationstates has been accused of worse things in the past, I seem to remember an edit war on Wikipedia of people accusing Nationstates of supporting worse things.
Last edited by The Lone Alliance on Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -Herman Goering
--------------
War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; -William Tecumseh Sherman

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Elfilin, Fahran, Floofybit, Ickerija, Sarzonia

Advertisement

Remove ads