[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

[The New California Republic]

Mods like Arch are fairly often in the thread, and several other people in the thread do report rule violations when they see them. And that's the point as well: nobody reported them because they have not deemed to be rulebreaking before. As others have pointed out in this thread, the precedent has been for insulting politicians to be deemed non-actionable, so why should anyone report it?

Like I understand the political nicknaming rule but why can’t I call Trump or Biden a cunt? Or BoJo a twat? Neither is a member of NS. Insulting politicians was never against the rules before. Until now. Which is why people are rather taken aback by this.

And that's why I'm rightly concerned. I don't want to see people in UKPol or anywhere else getting dinged by Moderation for calling a politician one of the colourful words I mentioned during my search above of the previous UKPol threads. If this new interpretation is now going to be the norm—and it must be if Moderation wants to be consistent—then I'm going to need to warn people of it in UKPol via my OP if no official announcement of the change is forthcoming.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Like I understand the political nicknaming rule but why can’t I call Trump or Biden a cunt? Or BoJo a twat? Neither is a member of NS. Insulting politicians was never against the rules before. Until now. Which is why people are rather taken aback by this.

And that's why I'm rightly concerned. I don't want to see people in UKPol or anywhere else getting dinged by Moderation for calling a politician one of the colourful words I mentioned during my search above of the previous UKPol threads. If this new interpretation is now going to be the norm—and it must be if Moderation wants to be consistent—then I'm going to need to warn people of it in UKPol via my OP if no official announcement of the change is forthcoming.

I’d appreciate it if they announced it before enacting it out of the blue. Yes.

[Twilight Imperium]

That sounds like "no". Dial back the salt and see if they have anything more to say, eh?

It's a no with very good reason. Why report something that has never been deemed to be rulebreaking before? It'd be like reporting someone for using the word "and" too many times in a post...

Yes. Those examples are the same thing.

[The New California Republic]

It's a no with very good reason. Why report something that has never been deemed to be rulebreaking before? It'd be like reporting someone for using the word "and" too many times in a post...

Yes. Those examples are the same thing.

I chose something that has never been deemed to be actionable before. I could have chosen something else that has not been deemed to be actionable before, it still points out exactly why it wasn't reported.

[Twilight Imperium]

Yes. Those examples are the same thing.

I chose something that has never been deemed to be actionable before. I could have chosen something else that has not been deemed to be actionable before, it still points out exactly why it wasn't reported.

Maybe they should've, then.

[The New California Republic]

I chose something that has never been deemed to be actionable before. I could have chosen something else that has not been deemed to be actionable before, it still points out exactly why it wasn't reported.

Maybe they should've, then.

...repeatedly report something that isn't rulebreaking? I'm sure that the Mods would just love all those timewasting reports cluttering up Moderation...

[Punished UMN]

I chose something that has never been deemed to be actionable before. I could have chosen something else that has not been deemed to be actionable before, it still points out exactly why it wasn't reported.

Maybe they should've, then.

Someone else already showed examples of the mods saying the opposite of what they're saying now.

[Impostor]

God bless the mods

[Twilight Imperium]

Maybe they should've, then.

...repeatedly report something that isn't rulebreaking? I'm sure that the Mods would just love all those timewasting reports cluttering up Moderation...

Better to report and get a no than to let these things fester. Also tell that to New haven america

[The New California Republic]

...repeatedly report something that isn't rulebreaking? I'm sure that the Mods would just love all those timewasting reports cluttering up Moderation...

Better to report and get a no than to let these things fester.

Let what fester? Not reporting something that has been deemed non-actionable in the past? Hardly festering...

[Greater Miami Shores]

Like I understand the political nicknaming rule but why can’t I call Trump or Biden a cunt? Or BoJo a twat? Neither is a member of NS. Insulting politicians was never against the rules before. Until now. Which is why people are rather taken aback by this.

And that's why I'm rightly concerned. I don't want to see people in UKPol or anywhere else getting dinged by Moderation for calling a politician one of the colourful words I mentioned during my search above of the previous UKPol threads. If this new interpretation is now going to be the norm—and it must be if Moderation wants to be consistent—then I'm going to need to warn people of it in UKPol via my OP if no official announcement of the change is forthcoming.

I made good suggestions to the Mods on my previous post, to let us all know of the new rules. The Mods can see my previous post if they wish.

Here is the Link to my previous post with my suggestions:

viewtopic.php?p=37743203#p37743203

I don't have any problems with the Mods new rules.

I commend the Mods for it.

I support the Mods.

Mod Lives Matter, lol.

GMS - I love to sign my TGs and Posts, no matter what anyone says. I am not Picky.

[Sedgistan]

I've changed the thread title to reflect that this has evolved into a discussion thread. I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

[The New California Republic]

I made good suggestions to the Mods on my previous post,

You didn't though, as you are still suggesting enforcement of a new rule that is absurd in the first place. If, for example, folk want to continue to call BoJo an [insert expletive here] for doing something stupid then they should be able to, without the threat that they will be warned for "trolling BoJo's supporters" or whatever. That kind of overbearing and quite frankly utterly pathetic nonsense didn't fly before, so God knows why it suddenly does now...

[Apiary One]

This is not something I personally have a stake in, because I never post in NSG or use profanity. But it is disconcerting that the site is now trying to enforce 'tone policing' in debate, when that seems to have not been the case in the past. So while I understand that mods cannot rule on hypotheticals, I would like to see where you generally draw the line between attacking a politician and attacking that politician's supporters. Therefore, I would like clarifications on the below queries.

1. Does this stricter interpretation of the political trolling rule apply only during election season, or is it now the new standard at all times?

2. What if you are not calling @@LEADER@@ something (e.g. 'Donald Trump is a c**t'), but saying he/she should do something (e.g. 'Donald Trump can f**k off back to Mar-a-Lago')? I would be shocked if the latter now constitutes trolling.

3. Does it apply only to U.S. political figures, or anywhere in the world? What about literal dictators (e.g. Kim Jong-un, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Nicolás Maduro); do we now have to watch what we say about them too? This comes uncomfortably close to enforcing lèse-majesté, and would have a chilling effect on political debate.

Furthermore, no matter which way this goes, something I would like to see is greater consistency from Moderation regarding this policy. Right now, it seems as though the sanction for this type of offense is highly unpredictable, depending greatly on which Mod handles it. It would be better if the staff can present a united front pertaining to this rule and its enforcement.

I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

This is appreciated. Thank you.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I've changed the thread title to reflect that this has evolved into a discussion thread. I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

Here is the Link to my previous post with my suggestions:

To let us all know of the new rules.

viewtopic.php?p=37743203#p37743203

I don't have any problems with the Mods new rules.

I commend the Mods for it.

GMS.

[The New California Republic]

I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

Cheers Sedge.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

Cheers Sedge.

I think the Mods will decide to not enforce their new rules.

But I have the right to suggest my suggestions to the Mods for letting us know of their new rules. For their consideration either way. As I just did with the link on my previous post above yours.

I don't have any problems with the Mods new rules if they decide too.

This respect is given, it is not earned.

GMS.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I've changed the thread title to reflect that this has evolved into a discussion thread. I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

Thanks.

[Juristonia]

Gotta be honest, I'm usually pretty team mod, but this particular ruling does seem a bit eeeeehhhhh..

[Valrifell]

Gotta be honest, I'm usually pretty team mod, but this particular ruling does seem a bit eeeeehhhhh..

It's not just "eeeehhhhh" it's unexpectedly dropping a new rule onto users without prior notice at most charitable.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Gotta be honest, I'm usually pretty team mod, but this particular ruling does seem a bit eeeeehhhhh..

It's not just "eeeehhhhh" it's unexpectedly dropping a new rule onto users without prior notice at most charitable.

Indeed. If that standard was applied when I still joined the site, I would at least have one DEAT on record.

[Vistulange]

...repeatedly report something that isn't rulebreaking? I'm sure that the Mods would just love all those timewasting reports cluttering up Moderation...

Better to report and get a no than to let these things fester. Also tell that to New haven america

Frivolous reports are a thing, you know, and those get you warned.

I think the issue here is more of communcation. Not only were users not told of this new rule, or the new implementation of a pre-existing rule, they were snarked at when they went "what's up". Not helpful.

[Fahran]

I do think this marks a modest change in how trolling is interpreted, but it's not really an illogical evolution from the ban on political nicknaming, especially given the context of a lot of the warnings and bans that were handed out. One question I asked myself following the slew of recent rulings on NSG was "Did the posts that required moderation raise the level of discourse? And were they likely to elicit negative responses from other people?"

I don't think calling Trump a "cunt" raises our level of discourse at all because it doesn't suggest any discreet vices he might possess and doesn't move us into a discussion of policy. Instead, such a post, with no other substance to it, functions to announce one's venomous dislike for a political figure in a public, incendiary, and acerbic way. As an example...

This abominable abysmal monster, just rubbing it in, stepping on the two hundred thousand who died under his watch, who couldn't get the help they could, all props to his abysmal need for power and attention. Fuck him, fuck him, fuck himfuckhimfuckhimfuckhimfuckhimfuckhimfuckhim

He will kill more people, he will not stop killing, he will kill everyone to sate the abyss that is himself.

While I'm quite fond of Diahon's posts in most instances, I would agree that this post warranted moderation. Not because Diahon employed naughty words, but because it was so excessive and venomous that it crossed the threshold into trolling. There's no ordinary response to this post that leads to a positive exchange between posters. If you disagree with the same intensity, you wind up with two posters calling politicians they dislike "cunts" and throwing the word "fuck" around all willy-nilly. If you try to play it off and remain cordial, you're bound to come across as condescending and tone-deaf. Functionally, I'd call it trolling, even if doesn't fit neatly into any of the nice, little subcategories we have.

In my estimation, humble as it is, Fartsniffage's first post is arguably more incendiary than a lot of the cases of "All X is/are Y" trolling. Assuming the tone in that post is sustained in subsequent responses, the conversation would not stay within the confines of the rules for very long and that post would have set the tone and direction of the subsequent responses. In short, calling it trolling isn't really that big of a stretch.

With regard to the second example, it struck me as more of a one-off. Calling Trump a "cunt" wasn't the sole purpose of the post. Instead, Fartsniffage expressed dismay at the fact that the president, an elderly, obese man, was leaving the hospital while still sick and that none of his advisors would or could convince him to put his health before his ego. Calling him a "cunt" remains really uncouth but the post has a point beyond that and can foster a actual discussion as a result.

I agree that the mod team does need to discuss the recent warnings and bans to arrive on a more clear consensus given the confusion in the community as a whole. Looking at either the function of posts or, in the event that this proves controversial and unclear, banning incendiary language aimed at people and countries in the same way that political nicknames are banned might make some semblance of sense. I wouldn't really have objections to either of these approaches so long as they are consistent with past standards to some extent, but I do think giving the community a clear heads-up can be useful every now and again. Even if the rules against trolling have arguably always allowed for this sort of moderation.

As a side note, I'm still sad I can't call Mitt Romney "Mittens." Because, as far as political nicknames go, it was super adorable and made me think of a chubby cat.

[Fartsniffage]

I do think this marks a modest change in how trolling is interpreted, but it's not really an illogical evolution from the ban on political nicknaming, especially given the context of a lot of the warnings and bans that were handed out. One question I asked myself following the slew of recent rulings on NSG was "Did the posts that required moderation raise the level of discourse? And were they likely to elicit negative responses from other people?"

I don't think calling Trump a "cunt" raises our level of discourse at all because it doesn't suggest any discreet vices he might possess and doesn't move us into a discussion of policy. Instead, such a post, with no other substance to it, functions to announce one's venomous dislike for a political figure in a public, incendiary, and acerbic way. As an example...

This abominable abysmal monster, just rubbing it in, stepping on the two hundred thousand who died under his watch, who couldn't get the help they could, all props to his abysmal need for power and attention. Fuck him, fuck him, fuck himfuckhimfuckhimfuckhimfuckhimfuckhimfuckhim

He will kill more people, he will not stop killing, he will kill everyone to sate the abyss that is himself.

While I'm quite fond of Diahon's posts in most instances, I would agree that this post warranted moderation. Not because Diahon employed naughty words, but because it was so excessive and venomous that it crossed the threshold into trolling. There's no ordinary response to this post that leads to a positive exchange between posters. If you disagree with the same intensity, you wind up with two posters calling politicians they dislike "cunts" and throwing the word "fuck" around all willy-nilly. If you try to play it off and remain cordial, you're bound to come across as condescending and tone-deaf. Functionally, I'd call it trolling, even if doesn't fit neatly into any of the nice, little subcategories we have.

In my estimation, humble as it is, Fartsniffage's first post is arguably more incendiary than a lot of the cases of "All X is/are Y" trolling. Assuming the tone in that post is sustained in subsequent responses, the conversation would not stay within the confines of the rules for very long and that post would have set the tone and direction of the subsequent responses. In short, calling it trolling isn't really that big of a stretch.

With regard to the second example, it struck me as more of a one-off. Calling Trump a "cunt" wasn't the sole purpose of the post. Instead, Fartsniffage expressed dismay at the fact that the president, an elderly, obese man, was leaving the hospital while still sick and that none of his advisors would or could convince him to put his health before his ego. Calling him a "cunt" remains really uncouth but the post has a point beyond that and can foster a actual discussion as a result.

I agree that the mod team does need to discuss the recent warnings and bans to arrive on a more clear consensus given the confusion in the community as a whole. Looking at either the function of posts or, in the event that this proves controversial and unclear, banning incendiary language aimed at people and countries in the same way that political nicknames are banned might make some semblance of sense. I wouldn't really have objections to either of these approaches so long as they are consistent with past standards to some extent, but I do think giving the community a clear heads-up can be useful every now and again. Even if the rules against trolling have arguably always allowed for this sort of moderation.

As a side note, I'm still sad I can't call Mitt Romney "Mittens." Because, as far as political nicknames go, it was super adorable and made me think of a chubby cat.

This is a discussion thread so individual cases can't be brought up. I've already indicated that I won't be appealing in this thread so don't talk about my warning again please.

[Fahran]

This is a discussion thread so individual cases can't be brought up. I've already indicated that I won't be appealing in this thread so don't talk about my warning again please.

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to pick on you or anyone else here. I was more so referencing those warnings/bans to provide insight and facilitate the conversation. I won't do it again.