Suggestions

[sd_admin]

First an announcement: While modbot seemed like a good idea at the time, it's proved to be unpopular with members. From now on we'll be using it only for admin posts, so that they can be edited by all members of the mod team.


We know that some members have had issues with the community and the mod team, and felt like they couldn't bring them to our attention. Here is your chance. If you've got a question, concern or suggestion about Scans Daily, here's where you can post it.

This post will be linked to in our profile, and checked regularly by the mods. Comments won't be screened, so you can suggest amongst yourselves.

Comments

[dr_von_fangirl]

You're absolutely correct that it's wrong to put all the burden on the offended party--and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the mods need to more clearly define what's allowed and what isn't, which I don't think is unreasonable given that it's part of their job description to answer such questions--as they arise--to the best of their ability.

The extent of the calling out policy on the Rules & Ethos page is "Calling out is not a personal attack. Calling out is encouraged."

That's pretty much it. The following line in the rules, after the asterisk that clarifies that calling out is not a personal attack, is "do not issue insults."

So if someone says something offensive and an injured party responds with "You sexist asshole!", the offender has no idea that this is allowed as part of calling out and doesn't count as an insult. I can certainly see how they might make that mistake, given that 'asshole' is usually pretty insulting and the rules say that insults aren't allowed. They respond poorly, the thread devolves into a shouting match and everyone walks away the worse for wear on all sides.

Perhaps we can avoid this--or at least greatly reduce the frequency of such incidents--if the rules about what is allowed in calling out are more clearly defined. We can't ever hope to define them perfectly to include every 'what if' that could possibly come along, but we can certainly nip a lot of things in the bud if we lay out some less vague guidelines. And, bonus, if the offender cries "Foul!", the rules concerning what's acceptable in calling out can be cited. This further protects the injured party from the threat of even more injury.

It also makes it easier for people who are scared of a violent insult backlash in the cases of making unintentionally offensive comments understand what kind of things they shouldn't consider insulting in the eyes of the mods and the community--without compromising the ability of the offended to call them out.

Then again, perhaps it won't help at all and people who are called out for oppressive statements will always respond like privileged assholes, but I don't see how a simple further clarification in the rules of what's acceptable/expected when calling out (anything ranging from politeness to anger, sarcasm, defensiveness, words like 'privilege' or those with 'ist' and 'phobic' attached, etc.) and what isn't (insulting the offender based on their physical/emotional/sexual/etc. characteristics) could do any harm.

As for addressing NSFW...well, when people start fighting each other over what is and what isn't NSFW to the point of spewing hurtful words back and forth, then I'll probably ask for more clearly defined guidelines.

[valtyr]

I agree a quick explanation of what constitutes calling-out would probably be an advantageous thing to have in the rules. I don't agree it should set 'acceptable' calling-out language. You may only be this angry when someone uses a racial slur? Here is the list of acceptable swear-words for when you're dehumanized and dismissed? You're not allowed to use oppressive language when calling out oppression, and that's about it. Everything else is - yes - subjective. It's for the mods to decide if someone's stepped over the line in calling out.

What do you want? A table? "Hm, they said all black people are athletic. That's a generalization based on race - I can call them an asshole! - oh wait, it's a positive stereotype, that's a -1 modifier to my rage. I'm downgraded to calling them a poopyhead. Shit. Wait! It could also be construed as ableist, dismissing all black people who are physically disabled! I'll just roll a d20 on the intersectionality chart - YES! Natural 20! I can call them a fuckheaded fucker! Woo!"

nobody can ever hope to play by the rules if the rules are only enforced sometimes or if they appear fluid/subjective

But you do acknowledge that people can and do play by the NSFW rules despite them being fluid/subjective? They rely on parties making a good-faith effort to comply, and that generally works?