[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

[CoraSpia]

[*]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.

As this is a discussion thread, I can say that I believe that moderation is rather over-zealous when it comes to what can be considered 'trolling.' Though I don't believe I've fallen foul of that particular rule myself, I know others who have and it seems that moderation is extremely harsh on things that could be considered homophobic/racist/intollerent etc.

[CoraSpia]

Freedom of expression doesn't exist here

Nor, mfor that matter, does mfreedom of expression. If Max Barry wants to put out a mandate that all words beginning with "F" must be prefixe with an "M", then his word goes.

Surely you can give more to the discussion than correcting an (admittedly strange) typo?

[Khornatenreich]

This sounds like an excuse for some thought-policing by the genuinely rather "intolerant" left.

[Luminesa]

Finally, I have to give a warning as to the tone of your post.

This type of "warning" is a way of attempting to police who is allowed to participate in rules discussions and what they are allowed to say. It's not welcome. It interferes with our ability to have an open dialog between Moderation and the community.

This thread is a discussion of site policy, not a referendum on Minoa's posting history.

Ah. Ohhhhh, I see. I wasn't really attempting to police, merely saying that perhaps he doesn't have to feel he's...well...the only person who is struggling against hate speech, and also just what I inferred from his post. I didn't mean any malice.

[Katganistan]

The short end I got from this is that correlation based on partial inferences are sanctioned, but using said logic only in order to create a toxic environment can lead to some finger wagging. Meaning that there is an admittedly subjective standard of taste that can get enforced, to which the obvious objection can be that it is likely not to behave charitably, as which behaviour I can attest to myself on the site, to the opposition. Internal settling of issues in regards to mods where users will have been smacked around with warnings and bans, inconsistencies, and all manner of less than transparent actions.

Now my greatest concern is that this standard of taste will not merely stifle uncomfortable debates that need to be had in regards to groups, cultures, ideologies, ect to the point that even quoting statistics and what they infer becomes verboten. At that point it's pretty much over, NS will have become a safe space with a pronounced favouritism.

Yes, it is a judgment call -- we've made that plain forever. And yes, sometimes it's reexamined and a ruling may be changed if the judgment was faulty. We've also made that plain forever. That's not a flaw -- that's making sure that appeals are looked at seriously, by uninvolved parties, and granted if appropriate. If they are not granted, with all the differing political and social views the mod team has, then it was not appropriate to grant it.

You seem to be constructing a strawman in which it is moderation's goal to limit speech when in fact the opposite is true. The OP is seeking to add more limits on the speech allowed here, and we've explained why this is not desirable. I'll say it again: as long as it is argued civilly, there is little I can think of that is outright banned here.

Being able to discuss is what a discussion board requires, no?

[Luminesa]

The short end I got from this is that correlation based on partial inferences are sanctioned, but using said logic only in order to create a toxic environment can lead to some finger wagging. Meaning that there is an admittedly subjective standard of taste that can get enforced, to which the obvious objection can be that it is likely not to behave charitably, as which behaviour I can attest to myself on the site, to the opposition. Internal settling of issues in regards to mods where users will have been smacked around with warnings and bans, inconsistencies, and all manner of less than transparent actions.

Now my greatest concern is that this standard of taste will not merely stifle uncomfortable debates that need to be had in regards to groups, cultures, ideologies, ect to the point that even quoting statistics and what they infer becomes verboten. At that point it's pretty much over, NS will have become a safe space with a pronounced favouritism.

Yes, it is a judgment call -- we've made that plain forever. And yes, sometimes it's reexamined and a ruling may be changed if the judgment was faulty. We've also made that plain forever. That's not a flaw -- that's making sure that appeals are looked at seriously, by uninvolved parties, and granted if appropriate. If they are not granted, with all the differing political and social views the mod team has, then it was not appropriate to grant it.

You seem to be constructing a strawman in which it is moderation's goal to limit speech when in fact the opposite is true. The OP is seeking to add more limits on the speech allowed here, and we've explained why this is not desirable. I'll say it again: as long as it is argued civilly, there is little I can think of that is outright banned here.

Being able to discuss is what a discussion board requires, no?

Considering how much detail he went into, I don't think he's trying to strawman.

[Minoa]

The short end I got from this is that correlation based on partial inferences are sanctioned, but using said logic only in order to create a toxic environment can lead to some finger wagging. Meaning that there is an admittedly subjective standard of taste that can get enforced, to which the obvious objection can be that it is likely not to behave charitably, as which behaviour I can attest to myself on the site, to the opposition. Internal settling of issues in regards to mods where users will have been smacked around with warnings and bans, inconsistencies, and all manner of less than transparent actions.

Now my greatest concern is that this standard of taste will not merely stifle uncomfortable debates that need to be had in regards to groups, cultures, ideologies, ect to the point that even quoting statistics and what they infer becomes verboten. At that point it's pretty much over, NS will have become a safe space with a pronounced favouritism.

Yes, it is a judgment call -- we've made that plain forever. And yes, sometimes it's reexamined and a ruling may be changed if the judgment was faulty. We've also made that plain forever. That's not a flaw -- that's making sure that appeals are looked at seriously, by uninvolved parties, and granted if appropriate. If they are not granted, with all the differing political and social views the mod team has, then it was not appropriate to grant it.

You seem to be constructing a strawman in which it is moderation's goal to limit speech when in fact the opposite is true. The OP is seeking to add more limits on the speech allowed here, and we've explained why this is not desirable. I'll say it again: as long as it is argued civilly, there is little I can think of that is outright banned here.

Being able to discuss is what a discussion board requires, no?

I am trying to remain as calm as possible here and keep on topic. I created this discussion in good faith in response to major controversies that could potentially impact NationStates.

While I do understand the values of freedom of speech, in my opinion I feel that discussion that calls for discrimination or hatred against people just because of their religion or ethnicity has a potential to get ugly quickly, which is the basis of my concerns.

I do not think it is wrong to have a health-check on the rules, but whatever the outcome I will do my best to respect it.

Of course, I do try to have high levels of civility, as well as breaking the stigma against mental health, but that is nothing to do with this.

[CoraSpia]

Yes, it is a judgment call -- we've made that plain forever. And yes, sometimes it's reexamined and a ruling may be changed if the judgment was faulty. We've also made that plain forever. That's not a flaw -- that's making sure that appeals are looked at seriously, by uninvolved parties, and granted if appropriate. If they are not granted, with all the differing political and social views the mod team has, then it was not appropriate to grant it.

You seem to be constructing a strawman in which it is moderation's goal to limit speech when in fact the opposite is true. The OP is seeking to add more limits on the speech allowed here, and we've explained why this is not desirable. I'll say it again: as long as it is argued civilly, there is little I can think of that is outright banned here.

Being able to discuss is what a discussion board requires, no?

I am trying to remain as calm as possible here and keep on topic. I created this discussion in good faith in response to major controversies that could potentially impact NationStates.

While I do understand the values of freedom of speech, in my opinion I feel that discussion that calls for discrimination or hatred against people just because of their religion or ethnicity has a potential to get ugly quickly, which is the basis of my concerns.

I do not think it is wrong to have a health-check on the rules, but whatever the outcome I will do my best to respect it.

Of course, I do try to have high levels of civility, as well as breaking the stigma against mental health, but that is nothing to do with this.

The fact will always remain that their are people who genuinely believe that certain groups of people are less worthy/inferior/whatever, just based on their sexuality, race etc; as a gay man I see this as unfortunate, but simply the way life is. We should not deny a platform for people who can eloquently present those views without getting into flaming/trolling (both unnecisary rules imho, but that's beyond the point), as not allowing that platform would seriously undermine our credibility as a debating forum. Teach these people why they are wrong and you have created a convert: continuously ignore them and you have created an extremest.

[Katganistan]

I am trying to remain as calm as possible here and keep on topic. I created this discussion in good faith in response to major controversies that could potentially impact NationStates.

While I do understand the values of freedom of speech, in my opinion I feel that discussion that calls for discrimination or hatred against people just because of their religion or ethnicity has a potential to get ugly quickly, which is the basis of my concerns.

I do not think it is wrong to have a health-check on the rules, but whatever the outcome I will do my best to respect it.

Of course, I do try to have high levels of civility, as well as breaking the stigma against mental health, but that is nothing to do with this.

No one is questioning that you made this thread because you honestly feel that this is an important topic, or saying that you're arguing it just to score points against moderation. What I and CoraSpia are simply saying, and coming from two different angles, is that despite it making you uncomfortable, and despite the reasonable concerns you have raised, we cannot have a discussion board if we silence opinions we don't like when the posters have broken no rules.

There are people whose opinions I do not agree with pretty much daily on this site, and yet I respect them for being able to argue them clearly and civilly. I probably will never agree with them on some points, but that discourse is important. If nothing else, it allows people to see where their own position is weak and to strengthen it, and also gives insight into where the opposing ideologies weak points are.

[Katganistan]

Yes, it is a judgment call -- we've made that plain forever. And yes, sometimes it's reexamined and a ruling may be changed if the judgment was faulty. We've also made that plain forever. That's not a flaw -- that's making sure that appeals are looked at seriously, by uninvolved parties, and granted if appropriate. If they are not granted, with all the differing political and social views the mod team has, then it was not appropriate to grant it.

You seem to be constructing a strawman in which it is moderation's goal to limit speech when in fact the opposite is true. The OP is seeking to add more limits on the speech allowed here, and we've explained why this is not desirable. I'll say it again: as long as it is argued civilly, there is little I can think of that is outright banned here.

Being able to discuss is what a discussion board requires, no?

Considering how much detail he went into, I don't think he's trying to strawman.

Considering that moderation limiting speech and stifling debate is where he says this is going, when moderation has for years argued that they have no interest in doing so and has said so to those people who think that X users should not be able to say Y ideology, I think he is.

[CoraSpia]

Considering how much detail he went into, I don't think he's trying to strawman.

Considering that moderation limiting speech and stifling debate is where he says this is going, when moderation has for years argued that they have no interest in doing so and has said so to those people who think that X users should not be able to say Y ideology, I think he is.

Moderation has it seems though taken a harder line on far-right ideologies on the site, however. From banning Nazi symbology to the 'all x are y' rule, it does have the affect of making the situation far harder for fascists/national socialists to operate on the site.

[Katganistan]

Considering that moderation limiting speech and stifling debate is where he says this is going, when moderation has for years argued that they have no interest in doing so and has said so to those people who think that X users should not be able to say Y ideology, I think he is.

Moderation has it seems though taken a harder line on far-right ideologies on the site, however. From banning Nazi symbology to the 'all x are y' rule, it does have the affect of making the situation far harder for fascists/national socialists to operate on the site.

Nazi symbology has been banned for over a decade. That's a simple fact, so I don't think that continuing to ban it can reasonably be defined as a 'crackdown'.

Neither is it "cracking down on $ideology". It's insisting everyone be civil and rational while expressing themselves. The rules apply to everyone equally.

There is a difference between, "I believe that illegal immigration is a problem, and that people caught here illegally should be sent home until they can complete the process legally" and "Send all the dirty drug dealer and rapists home!"

If a group finds it hard to express themselves because their message is ALL $GROUP ARE $SOMETHING VILE AND THEREFORE $WE SHOULD KILL THEM/TELL THEM TO KILL THEMSELVES/TREAT THEM LIKE DOGSHIT then perhaps they should reconsider the message and how they deliver it.

Because seriously, if the argument is "and everyone who disagrees with me is a $namecalling" then you can continue to sit in time-out until you learn to express it civilly.

[Herskerstad]

The short end I got from this is that correlation based on partial inferences are sanctioned, but using said logic only in order to create a toxic environment can lead to some finger wagging. Meaning that there is an admittedly subjective standard of taste that can get enforced, to which the obvious objection can be that it is likely not to behave charitably, as which behaviour I can attest to myself on the site, to the opposition. Internal settling of issues in regards to mods where users will have been smacked around with warnings and bans, inconsistencies, and all manner of less than transparent actions.

Now my greatest concern is that this standard of taste will not merely stifle uncomfortable debates that need to be had in regards to groups, cultures, ideologies, ect to the point that even quoting statistics and what they infer becomes verboten. At that point it's pretty much over, NS will have become a safe space with a pronounced favouritism.

Yes, it is a judgment call -- we've made that plain forever. And yes, sometimes it's reexamined and a ruling may be changed if the judgment was faulty. We've also made that plain forever. That's not a flaw -- that's making sure that appeals are looked at seriously, by uninvolved parties, and granted if appropriate. If they are not granted, with all the differing political and social views the mod team has, then it was not appropriate to grant it.

You seem to be constructing a strawman in which it is moderation's goal to limit speech when in fact the opposite is true. The OP is seeking to add more limits on the speech allowed here, and we've explained why this is not desirable. I'll say it again: as long as it is argued civilly, there is little I can think of that is outright banned here.

Being able to discuss is what a discussion board requires, no?

I was replying in that specific regard to said limitations that were being suggested, but may have failed to properly make that a bit more clear. The issues that face the moderation on the surface as of the present will always be something of a balancing act and I affirmed that portion, but I require no strawman to show areas in where the system has failed in the past and not from incidental factors either.

As far as mod handling in relation to strict policies rather than judgements are concerned I have only limited suggestions, as few are the ways in which the community can by force discuss threads when they have a tendency of being locked. Mods have the power to both police and effectively end discourse, taking things behind the scenes, so I would argue that discussion threads should be somewhat more rigorous in regards to that pattern of behaviour, however neutral the rationales may have been. Perhaps even starting a discussion forum would be pertinent so not to clog up the moderation forum. Nevertheless, that's neither here nor there in relation to the topic of this thread. And to clarify, I don't discourage the OP for making what they see fit, that's how it should be. The issues put forward in the post before however was more an attempt to show where some of the effects get substituted in regard for a collective sentiment. Where one can freely say something that is worse, even in an uncharitable way, than certain other things, but still see examples that are not as great in scope or malice, because of it's ethos or even our subjective judgements fail to be treated the same. This makes for an environment that can see figures upon one the less institutional side of the island face a lack of charity in the handling from those with institutional power on the more institutional political side. I would wish to see more recusals personally in those sorts of areas, but I understand that there is also a manpower element to that which could get out of hand.

To make it blunt. What the OP likely would consider hate speech and what I would consider hate speech is more likely similar to what Scotland and the US would consider hate speech, whereas in the former it allows essentially for a negative rights of freedom of speech vs positive rights of freedom of expression. I got no desire to police someone which I imagine to have an awful opinion and them expressing it, even if it is at the expense of my situation, is not something that tends to get to me. Of course trolling and controversies can arise from such, but that's neither here nor there in the principle. The degrees to which metaphorical tools also become relevant. We won't have to go far back in time to see figures on the left side of the isles straw-man the opposition by making a caricature of it, there was a lot more figures from the left side of NS in my experience which used words like niggers for precisely said metaphorical tool as to joke around with what presumably some portion of the opposition would want. To me that's bantz and barely on the right side of the acceptable fence. I guess what I would see as the greatest offence in posting is malicious intent. While not all malicious intent is banworthy and it can indeed be used to skip around moderation standards, it is easily the most toxic elements. Not that toxicity itself always is a universal negative, but humor without clearly malicious intent generally does not pass the par in my book, though the humor between few at the expense of the many can be just as difficult to deal with as the standards of few at the expense of the many.

[Luminesa]

Considering how much detail he went into, I don't think he's trying to strawman.

Considering that moderation limiting speech and stifling debate is where he says this is going, when moderation has for years argued that they have no interest in doing so and has said so to those people who think that X users should not be able to say Y ideology, I think he is.

A strawman would require someone saying something that can't be a logical conclusion. Such as "all X are Y". If it's merely in the spirit of discussion and mentioning posts that could possibly get one banned (that ABC thing he posted), without saying definitively which ones would absolutely get one banned, then at the very most it's not a direct strawman.

[CoraSpia]

Moderation has it seems though taken a harder line on far-right ideologies on the site, however. From banning Nazi symbology to the 'all x are y' rule, it does have the affect of making the situation far harder for fascists/national socialists to operate on the site.

Nazi symbology has been banned for over a decade. That's a simple fact, so I don't think that continuing to ban it can reasonably be defined as a 'crackdown'.

Neither is it "cracking down on $ideology". It's insisting everyone be civil and rational while expressing themselves. The rules apply to everyone equally.

There is a difference between, "I believe that illegal immigration is a problem, and that people caught here illegally should be sent home until they can complete the process legally" and "Send all the dirty drug dealer and rapists home!"

If a group finds it hard to express themselves because their message is ALL $GROUP ARE $SOMETHING VILE AND THEREFORE $WE SHOULD KILL THEM/TELL THEM TO KILL THEMSELVES/TREAT THEM LIKE DOGSHIT then perhaps they should reconsider the message and how they deliver it.

Because seriously, if the argument is "and everyone who disagrees with me is a $namecalling" then you can continue to sit in time-out until you learn to express it civilly.

Donald Trump's announcement speech would probably be caught by the all x are y rule though.

[USS Monitor]

Considering how much detail he went into, I don't think he's trying to strawman.

Considering that moderation limiting speech and stifling debate is where he says this is going, when moderation has for years argued that they have no interest in doing so and has said so to those people who think that X users should not be able to say Y ideology, I think he is.

I don't think he's purposely strawmanning. The position he's arguing now is opposite from what he was arguing in the thread he quoted from, so maybe he just is having a hard time making up his mind what he wants and articulating it.

In the other thread he was worried that allowing disparaging commentary on religious groups would create a toxic environment. Now he's worried that suppressing it will shut down debate. Maybe having some time to think it over and seeing the discussion framed differently in this thread was enough to change his point of view -- but it's still a sign of someone that's struggling with the balance between civility and free speech.

I think he's concerned about making sure moderation is fair, but confused about how to actually do that.

[USS Monitor]

Nazi symbology has been banned for over a decade. That's a simple fact, so I don't think that continuing to ban it can reasonably be defined as a 'crackdown'.

Neither is it "cracking down on $ideology". It's insisting everyone be civil and rational while expressing themselves. The rules apply to everyone equally.

There is a difference between, "I believe that illegal immigration is a problem, and that people caught here illegally should be sent home until they can complete the process legally" and "Send all the dirty drug dealer and rapists home!"

If a group finds it hard to express themselves because their message is ALL $GROUP ARE $SOMETHING VILE AND THEREFORE $WE SHOULD KILL THEM/TELL THEM TO KILL THEMSELVES/TREAT THEM LIKE DOGSHIT then perhaps they should reconsider the message and how they deliver it.

Because seriously, if the argument is "and everyone who disagrees with me is a $namecalling" then you can continue to sit in time-out until you learn to express it civilly.

Donald Trump's announcement speech would probably be caught by the all x are y rule though.

Donald Trump would most likely earn himself a DOS if he ever used NS. That's because he's an asshole. Someone like Ted Cruz that is annoying and conservative, but not as crude in the way he expresses his views, would have a much easier time sticking around.

[CoraSpia]

Donald Trump's announcement speech would probably be caught by the all x are y rule though.

Donald Trump would most likely earn himself a DOS if he ever used NS. That's because he's an asshole. Someone like Ted Cruz that is annoying and conservative, but not as crude in the way he expresses his views, would have a much easier time sticking around.

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

[Luna Amore]

Donald Trump would most likely earn himself a DOS if he ever used NS. That's because he's an asshole. Someone like Ted Cruz that is annoying and conservative, but not as crude in the way he expresses his views, would have a much easier time sticking around.

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

That says more about Donald Trump and his lack of civility than the rules. Every other living US President would have been fine.

[USS Monitor]

Donald Trump would most likely earn himself a DOS if he ever used NS. That's because he's an asshole. Someone like Ted Cruz that is annoying and conservative, but not as crude in the way he expresses his views, would have a much easier time sticking around.

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

No.

[Swith Witherward]

Donald Trump would most likely earn himself a DOS if he ever used NS. That's because he's an asshole. Someone like Ted Cruz that is annoying and conservative, but not as crude in the way he expresses his views, would have a much easier time sticking around.

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

I think it reflects choosing a bigot for a president. One's political affiliations, position, or status in society does not excuse their bad behavior. Like all "extremely opinionated" people, Trump is free to express his opinion however he chooses in social media or on camera. However, NS is a privately owned site. He agrees to the TOS when he joins, and failure to follow that and the OSRS means DEAT or DOS. He's held as accountable as anyone else using this site. Such is life.

I would like to see more of a crackdown on sigs. Many slip by because Moderation is unaware of the intent behind the content. It comes down to Mod roulette when it comes to neo-Nazi and NazBol trolling. We are left at the mercy of whatever Mod replies to the GHR. Some give it a free pass because they're possibly unaware of significance. Others crack down on it.

I think some sort of standardization needs to be placed. Perhaps Admin can ask us, the NS user, what we consider hate speech against us? Let us present our case. Let Mods review it. The burden of proof rests on us. If our argument is successful, then add the word or phrase to the same list which already contains "tranny", "nigger", "spic", "attack helicopter", and so on.

[CoraSpia]

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

I think it reflects choosing a bigot for a president. One's political affiliations, position, or status in society does not excuse their bad behavior. Like all "extremely opinionated" people, Trump is free to express his opinion however he chooses in social media or on camera. However, NS is a privately owned site. He agrees to the TOS when he joins, and failure to follow that and the OSRS means DEAT or DOS. He's held as accountable as anyone else using this site. Such is life.

I would like to see more of a crackdown on sigs. Many slip by because Moderation is unaware of the intent behind the content. It comes down to Mod roulette when it comes to neo-Nazi and NazBol trolling. We are left at the mercy of whatever Mod replies to the GHR. Some give it a free pass because they're possibly unaware of significance. Others crack down on it.

I think some sort of standardization needs to be placed. Perhaps Admin can ask us, the NS user, what we consider hate speech against us? Let us present our case. Let Mods review it. The burden of proof rests on us. If our argument is successful, then add the word or phrase to the same list which already contains "tranny", "nigger", "spic", "attack helicopter", and so on.

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.

[Katganistan]

Donald Trump would most likely earn himself a DOS if he ever used NS. That's because he's an asshole. Someone like Ted Cruz that is annoying and conservative, but not as crude in the way he expresses his views, would have a much easier time sticking around.

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

Nope.

[Swith Witherward]

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.

[Katganistan]

Don't you think their might be something wrong with the rules if the US president wouldn't manage to stay on the right side of them?

I think it reflects choosing a bigot for a president. One's political affiliations, position, or status in society does not excuse their bad behavior. Like all "extremely opinionated" people, Trump is free to express his opinion however he chooses in social media or on camera. However, NS is a privately owned site. He agrees to the TOS when he joins, and failure to follow that and the OSRS means DEAT or DOS. He's held as accountable as anyone else using this site. Such is life.

I would like to see more of a crackdown on sigs. Many slip by because Moderation is unaware of the intent behind the content. It comes down to Mod roulette when it comes to neo-Nazi and NazBol trolling. We are left at the mercy of whatever Mod replies to the GHR. Some give it a free pass because they're possibly unaware of significance. Others crack down on it.

I think some sort of standardization needs to be placed. Perhaps Admin can ask us, the NS user, what we consider hate speech against us? Let us present our case. Let Mods review it. The burden of proof rests on us. If our argument is successful, then add the word or phrase to the same list which already contains "tranny", "nigger", "spic", "attack helicopter", and so on.

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?