Cracking down on racism?

What was the line from that Supreme Court justice? "I can't define being a dick, but I know it when I see it"?

I think that applies here. And if you have a problem with that... don't be a dick.

Seriously, this place doesn't need Wikipedia-style wikilawyers dancing on the head of a pin. I don't see a problem with Fast Eddie and his team, in the end, making the rules and banning problem users. If I ever disagree enough with the rules, it's really not hard to erase the site from my bookmarks. And if anyone else disagrees, there are approximately a gazillion websites to choose from.

So, to get back to the topic — if someone's racism, sexism, speciesism, classism, or whatever other "ism" they subscribe to leads them to lower the quality of the wiki with their scribblings, I guess the mods will take away their pens and send them on their way. Simple enough. Subjective? Sure. But show me where you have a right to post here. It's a privilege. Don't squander it with your particular "ism".

You just said it was subjective, that leads to incredibly inconsistent moderation.

Only if the moderators are capricious and don't talk to each other, neither of which is the case.

You know why laws are very, very specific? Because vagueness, for a true lawyer, is the way around something. shichibukai was around for how long? A certain poster with a passion for trenchcoats and misogyny is still around.

Vagueness about our rules has allowed people to have: A thread for cybering and not seeing a problem with it. 2: pedophiles thinking it was A-okay to talk about such things. 3: 'sts of every kind thinking it was okay to post their outdated and hateful views and all these infractions are specifically because don't be a dick is vague enough that until they're called on it they don't think it's wrong, evidenced by every single one of those above referenced incidents coming in here and saying "I didn't know it was against the rules!"

Clear cut rules eliminate this problem entirely. There will always be people who are clever and find ways around them, this is why we maintain the don't be a dick rule but modify it to Rule 0: Every moderator reserves the right to ban/thump you on any and all perceived infractions if the post(s) are found to disrupt the forums.

this allows the moderators the power to get rid of things the rules haven't thought of yet while having clear cut rules in place so that tropers can report someone and know that they will not be in the wrong and that something can be done about it.

edited 23rd Oct '11 5:21:43 PM by thatguythere47

Of course we do need to keep the right to dispute this thump/ban afterwards.

edited 23rd Oct '11 5:23:45 PM by Loid

Of course.

Eddie feels hard listed rules gives too much power to rules lawyers and too little flexibility to mods. I highly doubt you will get any further with getting rules written in that fashion.

I love writing. I could make pages of rules with elaborate details that a lawyer might have a hard time cracking. I'm not going to.

I say rule 0 makes that a non-problem.

@Tuefel: And eddie is wrong in that regard. History has proven time and time again that vague laws do not work. people do not know what is acceptable, enforcement is inconsistent and it causes frustration where no should exist.

Rule zero allows moderators to ignore other rules in the name of protecting the wiki. If someone finds a clever way to work around existing rules it allows the moderators to simply get rid of them and amend the rules to include whatever loophole was found. All I'm advocating is simply writing down simple rules so that tropers can be confident about reporting other tropers and problem posts.

To make a comparison: Natter and it's treatment. We don't simply say "natter is bad, don't do it." We specify what natter is, why it's bad and how it should be dealt with. I'm simply saying we should do the same with the forums.

I'd be glad to write up a proto-document and then we could hash out any thing I miss or other issues.

It sounds like what you're asking for is more like guidelines than actual rules.

No, I'm advocating rules. Simple, obvious ones that I'm ashamed to say need to be spelled out, like "No posting racist material/advocating racist beliefs."

The forum rules are here.

I find it amusing that your Rule Zero is, if anything, even more vague than any of the rules that we have now.

"These are the rules, unless we say they aren't." Yeah, nice.

^ "Rules can be amended". What's wrong with this?

@Meta Four

That's pretty clear. "If you try to Rules Lawyer, we will know and you will be banned."

If you have a rule against rules lawyering, people will try to lawyer it.

How would they do that?

People are clever. If you make a rule about specifically finding ways around rules people will find away around it.

"I find it amusing that your Rule Zero is, if anything, even more vague than any of the rules that we have now."

Rule zero is specifically there to prevent rules lawyering, loophole abuse and other nice things. It's not so mods can go "This sucks, your banned." It's so if someone says "But it wasn't racist because I was only saying X!" you can go say "No, it's racist, your still banned." and then amend the rules to include whatever tactic was employed.

""These are the rules, unless we say they aren't." Yeah, nice."

I can see your approaching this maturely and with reasoned arguments.

edited 23rd Oct '11 7:57:34 PM by thatguythere47

Have you thought of a way to have such detailed rules without making them too long and intimidating for newbies? I say this as someone who's tried to write airtight rules and ended up with a wall of text that was difficult to understand without half an hour of study.

Whether Eddie is right or wrong is moot. He is Eddie and what he says goes. You can't vote on it, you can discuss it til your blue, but at the end of the day it is what he says that gets put into place. The arguements you all are making here have been made time and time again and every time have gotten no where.

edited 23rd Oct '11 8:23:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I added a line to the rules that says that hate speech is not tolerated. I don't see what it adds, because I would have thought that was obvious. But hey, apparently some of us come from places where it's acceptable.

@Ironeye: You don't need to make the rules too detailed. The idea is to start with simple ones and then amend them as needed.

@Tuefel: Every argument I make is based on previous incidents that have occurred on this site and will continue to happen if we do not create a real set of forum rules. Eddie can choose to ignore these problems or insist that they are not problems all he wants but I don't think he really wants to do that. Everyone here wants to see the tvtropes grow and prosper. We want this site to be better and I am simply advocating that our current position is wrong and hinders that.

@Fighteer: You'd think, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

And as I pointed out it means nothing unless Eddie wants it changed. Your only shot is to get Eddie himself to agree to it and that is quite a sisyphean task.

edited 23rd Oct '11 8:39:19 PM by TuefelHundenIV

@Tuef

Eddie has listened to differing opinions if they have a convincing argument and a loud voice. For example, Troper Tales.