Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[Mr.Samsa]

How would a suspended user see anything in the feedback area?

Magic!

[Beatsong]

What makes you think he didn't have any prior warnings?

Apart from which that's not even the point. Samsa said the guy was suspended for "disagreeing with the mods". But there weren't even any mods in that thread to disagree with. Maybe he just meant the way he'd raised issues about moderation in general - but they were pretty mild and nothing more than everybody does all the time in the feedback forum. It would take a pretty determined imagination to decide that must be why he was suspended, when there are at least two very direct examples of personal insults just in that thread to provide a more obvious explanation.

[Strontium Dog]

Can you find any active warnings for that user?

He's been suspended for 24 hours, as per the "temporary suspension" clause.

[Scott1328]

In fact it's a temporary suspension for a cool off. Ugaboo was in full blown melt down mode

[LucidFlight]

Hey everybody!

Wow. Cool thread. Nice to see some discussions from RatSkep have spilled over into here.

[LucidFlight]

The inane and insane they contain

...stays mainly in the plain?

Argh! Feeling need to engage, but... must... refrain.

Damn.

[pErvinalia]

Get thee back to ratskep, evil interloper!!1!

[Audley Strange]

Audley thinks limiting certain types of hate speech equates to "safe space". His view is just as extreme as the other end of the spectrum at A+. A middle ground seems like a decent compromise to me.

Ah right. The initial idea for banning 'hate speech' was simply pragmatic in that it wasn't conducive to any kind of intelligent discussion so it was easiest just to cut it out, rather than there being a political motivation behind it, which still seems reasonable to me (especially when the distinction is made that this doesn't cover things like scientific discussion of racial differences or whatever).

That's not entirely accurate. I think "safe space" equates to certain types of hate speech being acceptable at the expense of others, its a circle-jerk and the kind of mentality terrorist cells have. He is correct though, I am a believer in free speech, which is apparently an extreme position these days. However what I was looking for consistency in application of the rules, which did appear to be biased in favour of those of a specific political bent no matter how obnoxious they were being.

@ Samsa

My main point was that the rules were unclear and should either have been definitive and adhered to or more lax, one or the other.

I was definitely leaning towards the former.

And I the latter but it was the lack of consistent application of them that annoyed me.

The behavior of the members was pretty disturbing there to me as well but I thought that was a pretty decent example of how the rules were strictly enforced by the mods as they didn't cave and allow personal attacks against Josh, even if the members wanted to bend them for ridiculous reasons.

No. That ugly hypocritical display lead to the inclusion of a new rule in the FUA which was that members "who were public figures" which included blogs were fair game. I don't know if it is still in the FUA, but I had some discussion about it with Starr and others at the time as being ridiculous. That and the ugly hypocritical display was why I left.

[Mr.Samsa]

Ah right. The initial idea for banning 'hate speech' was simply pragmatic in that it wasn't conducive to any kind of intelligent discussion so it was easiest just to cut it out, rather than there being a political motivation behind it, which still seems reasonable to me (especially when the distinction is made that this doesn't cover things like scientific discussion of racial differences or whatever).

That's not entirely accurate. I think "safe space" equates to certain types of hate speech being acceptable at the expense of others, its a circle-jerk and the kind of mentality terrorist cells have.

I'm not sure how some groups do it, but safe spaces generally exclude all hate speech. That obviously doesn't mean everyone is nice all the time and there is never any expressions of anger or hatred, just no tolerance of hate speech (i.e. discrimination of minority groups).

He is correct though, I am a believer in free speech, which is apparently an extreme position these days.

I don't think it's extreme to believe in free speech, I'm sure most people do. The "extremeness" probably comes from trying to apply that principle to a private space, like a forum. Every private space, club, group, community, etc, has it's own set of rules for conduct and what is and is not acceptable and I don't think this violates the notion of free speech in any way.

However what I was looking for consistency in application of the rules, which did appear to be biased in favour of those of a specific political bent no matter how obnoxious they were being.

Fair enough, I know that there was probably a tendency towards that (which I and a few other mods were continually trying to balance out).

The behavior of the members was pretty disturbing there to me as well but I thought that was a pretty decent example of how the rules were strictly enforced by the mods as they didn't cave and allow personal attacks against Josh, even if the members wanted to bend them for ridiculous reasons.

No. That ugly hypocritical display lead to the inclusion of a new rule in the FUA which was that members "who were public figures" which included blogs were fair game. I don't know if it is still in the FUA, but I had some discussion about it with Starr and others at the time as being ridiculous. That and the ugly hypocritical display was why I left.

That had been part of the rules for a long time before Josh (and I think it was even transferred over from the RDF days). It was there for a guy who used to be called "Paul" or something who'd create a bunch of sockpuppets and had a blog about some wacky pseudoscientific idea, and then later it was needed for Steve[someone] the creationist.

Importantly, the rule never stated that public figures were fair game, only that their ideas were fair game - you still aren't allowed to personally attack them.

[pErvinalia]

I also seem to remember that rule coming in during the Timonen debacle. I'm pretty sure something was changed due to that.

[Mr.Samsa]

I also seem to remember that rule coming in during the Timonen debacle. I'm pretty sure something was changed due to that.

I can't remember when the "public sphere" bit came in but it was always how the rule had been enforced so if it was reworded at that time then it was simply a reflection of current practices. There was really no other choice as obviously you can't ban all discussion on essays, videos, or news, viewed online just because a person becomes a member.

Regardless, I think the important point is that the rule has never been changed to make someone "fair game", it simply allowed for the discussion of the trial and explicitly forbade personal attacks.

[DaveDodo007]

I also seem to remember that rule coming in during the Timonen debacle. I'm pretty sure something was changed due to that.

I can't remember when the "public sphere" bit came in but it was always how the rule had been enforced so if it was reworded at that time then it was simply a reflection of current practices. There was really no other choice as obviously you can't ban all discussion on essays, videos, or news, viewed online just because a person becomes a member.

Regardless, I think the important point is that the rule has never been changed to make someone "fair game", it simply allowed for the discussion of the trial and explicitly forbade personal attacks.

This is similar to how I remember it, most of ratskep including the mods held Timonen mostly responsible for the clusterfuck that ended the RD forums so something had to give.

[Audley Strange]

Ah right. The initial idea for banning 'hate speech' was simply pragmatic in that it wasn't conducive to any kind of intelligent discussion so it was easiest just to cut it out, rather than there being a political motivation behind it, which still seems reasonable to me (especially when the distinction is made that this doesn't cover things like scientific discussion of racial differences or whatever).

That's not entirely accurate. I think "safe space" equates to certain types of hate speech being acceptable at the expense of others, its a circle-jerk and the kind of mentality terrorist cells have.

I'm not sure how some groups do it, but safe spaces generally exclude all hate speech. That obviously doesn't mean everyone is nice all the time and there is never any expressions of anger or hatred, just no tolerance of hate speech (i.e. discrimination of minority groups).

Well there you go, if you limit the definition of hate speech to minority groups then obviously minority groups who create safe spaces are likely not to be guilty of it. I consider hate speech speech which is vehement aggressive insulting and discriminatory against any group. Thus there is no real difference in the attitudes of those who rant about "infidel scum" "nigger scum" "faggot scum" or "cis-het scum". In fact to me such safe spaces use the tactics of cults since they all adopt the same in group out group dynamics, make the individual feel as if they ae part of something special and then bolster each others delusions by attacking the outgroup.

I accept this is very different from the original intent which was to provide a place for people to talk about things openly that they could not in a public space. A.A. meetings, their doctors offices and psychologists group therapy sessions were "safe spaces". However it was co-opted pretty quickly and is not how the phrase is seen or used by those who demand them these days. More often than not it is meant as an exclusive club, an echo chamber, a circle-jerk to lash out at the world. Which given your experiences over at Ape-Lust I am sure you are aware of. Not that it is unique amongst those benighted fools. As we can see from many fora.

I don't think it's extreme to believe in free speech, I'm sure most people do. The "extremeness" probably comes from trying to apply that principle to a private space, like a forum. Every private space, club, group, community, etc, has it's own set of rules for conduct and what is and is not acceptable and I don't think this violates the notion of free speech in any way.

Well I used to think most people were but over the last decade I've come to realise that it doesn't seem to be the case. I think most people only wish free speech for themselves. W/R your second part, sure. See directly below.

However what I was looking for consistency in application of the rules, which did appear to be biased in favour of those of a specific political bent no matter how obnoxious they were being.

Fair enough, I know that there was probably a tendency towards that (which I and a few other mods were continually trying to balance out).

That had been part of the rules for a long time before Josh (and I think it was even transferred over from the RDF days). It was there for a guy who used to be called "Paul" or something who'd create a bunch of sockpuppets and had a blog about some wacky pseudoscientific idea, and then later it was needed for Steve[someone] the creationist.
Importantly, the rule never stated that public figures were fair game, only that their ideas were fair game - you still aren't allowed to personally attack them.

I recall clearly that the discussion was to allow personal attacks against Timenon, since you could personally attack public figures and the absurd claim was he joined the forum granted him protections he should not have had and thus the addition to the rule was added. I have no intention of going back on to find out. I'm not obsessed with the place however, I'm sure, unless they've taken to memory holing, that is is all still there and available.

No blame. As you say fora are entitled to make the rules they see fit to make.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm not sure how some groups do it, but safe spaces generally exclude all hate speech. That obviously doesn't mean everyone is nice all the time and there is never any expressions of anger or hatred, just no tolerance of hate speech (i.e. discrimination of minority groups).

Well there you go, if you limit the definition of hate speech to minority groups then obviously minority groups who create safe spaces are likely not to be guilty of it. I consider hate speech speech which is vehement aggressive insulting and discriminatory against any group. Thus there is no real difference in the attitudes of those who rant about "infidel scum" "nigger scum" "faggot scum" or "cis-het scum". In fact to me such safe spaces use the tactics of cults since they all adopt the same in group out group dynamics, make the individual feel as if they ae part of something special and then bolster each others delusions by attacking the outgroup.

Well no, there is a huge difference between someone saying "Nigger scum" and "Cracker scum". Yes, they are both insults and individual people might have their feelings hurt by both but obviously there is a larger context behind the terms. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "cracker scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then that's practically every single community in the entire world. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "nigger scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then there are very, very few places for them to go to.

The point of safe spaces is to give those people somewhere to go.

And, importantly, just because a safe space is (by definition) only about protecting minorities doesn't necessarily mean that they allow the kind of "hate speech" that you're discussing. Most safe spaces that I've been a part of don't allow either.

I accept this is very different from the original intent which was to provide a place for people to talk about things openly that they could not in a public space. A.A. meetings, their doctors offices and psychologists group therapy sessions were "safe spaces". However it was co-opted pretty quickly and is not how the phrase is seen or used by those who demand them these days. More often than not it is meant as an exclusive club, an echo chamber, a circle-jerk to lash out at the world. Which given your experiences over at Ape-Lust I am sure you are aware of. Not that it is unique amongst those benighted fools. As we can see from many fora.

What you've described is the exact opposite of what I experienced at the A+ forum...

I don't think it's extreme to believe in free speech, I'm sure most people do. The "extremeness" probably comes from trying to apply that principle to a private space, like a forum. Every private space, club, group, community, etc, has it's own set of rules for conduct and what is and is not acceptable and I don't think this violates the notion of free speech in any way.

Well I used to think most people were but over the last decade I've come to realise that it doesn't seem to be the case. I think most people only wish free speech for themselves. W/R your second part, sure. See directly below.

I can't argue with your experiences directly but my experiences differ. Most people defend free speech and find it distasteful to suggest that any topic should be illegal to discuss, and instead they take the approach consistent with free speech - to fight back, attempt to censor, boycott, etc.

That had been part of the rules for a long time before Josh (and I think it was even transferred over from the RDF days). It was there for a guy who used to be called "Paul" or something who'd create a bunch of sockpuppets and had a blog about some wacky pseudoscientific idea, and then later it was needed for Steve[someone] the creationist.
Importantly, the rule never stated that public figures were fair game, only that their ideas were fair game - you still aren't allowed to personally attack them.

I recall clearly that the discussion was to allow personal attacks against Timenon, since you could personally attack public figures and the absurd claim was he joined the forum granted him protections he should not have had and thus the addition to the rule was added. I have no intention of going back on to find out. I'm not obsessed with the place however, I'm sure, unless they've taken to memory holing, that is is all still there and available.

No blame. As you say fora are entitled to make the rules they see fit to make.

I don't know what to say if you don't want to debate it but you're simply objectively wrong here. No rule was ever changed to allow personal attacks against Josh and the rule (before the Timonen thread and the edit afterwards) explicitly disallows personal attacks against all users, whether they are in the public sphere or not.

The only reason I know this is that I think the initial wording was mine and I was staunchly opposed to the idea that the rules should be changed to allow personal attacks. So I don't know if the rule was changed after I was a mod and changed back to what it is now without any mention of the changes on the forum, but at the time what you're describing certainly did not happen. Members have always been warned for personally attacking Josh and the thread was put under "strict moderation" just so people could be sanctioned harshly for doing so.

If I recall correctly, Rationalia initially relaxed its personal attack rule when members insulted Josh (and then banned him?) so maybe you're mixing the two forums up.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not sure how some groups do it, but safe spaces generally exclude all hate speech. That obviously doesn't mean everyone is nice all the time and there is never any expressions of anger or hatred, just no tolerance of hate speech (i.e. discrimination of minority groups).

Well there you go, if you limit the definition of hate speech to minority groups then obviously minority groups who create safe spaces are likely not to be guilty of it. I consider hate speech speech which is vehement aggressive insulting and discriminatory against any group. Thus there is no real difference in the attitudes of those who rant about "infidel scum" "nigger scum" "faggot scum" or "cis-het scum". In fact to me such safe spaces use the tactics of cults since they all adopt the same in group out group dynamics, make the individual feel as if they ae part of something special and then bolster each others delusions by attacking the outgroup.

Well no, there is a huge difference between someone saying "Nigger scum" and "Cracker scum". Yes, they are both insults and individual people might have their feelings hurt by both but obviously there is a larger context behind the terms. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "cracker scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then that's practically every single community in the entire world. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "nigger scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then there are very, very few places for them to go to.

Honestly, I've given up trying to explain this. I really despair that people can't see the difference.