I’m honestly not going to get into the argument of subjective moderation of what constitutes being abusive. You can’t possibly itemize everything under the sun, and the more comprehensive you try to be, the more the assumptions exist that the absence of an example makes it acceptable. I’ve been personally called homophobic and anti-religion on the same day and related to the same moderation situation and topic. That isn’t completely uncommon because it is natural to assume those in power are acting against you when a topic is shuttered, even if that isn’t the case. But that shows you how you can’t make things bias proof and objective. Honestly we need some passion in these topics.
Maybe a longer discussion of my general musings about debate and moderation in there will at least allow some clarity of a very very hard to clarify subject.
I want civil discussion, but I personally have nothing against cleverly applied snarky comments about a political idea or view point. Saying a view point is absurd may get some of the staff bristling, but I’m likely to undo anything that comes from that if there isn’t a direct insult to the person. While I have stated publicly that I hate how the term SJW an fascist are too casually used, I’m not going to shut down a discussion surrounding these two words. There are generally words that shouldn’t be used, obviously. I’d honestly stay clear of charged words like fag, retard, and the like.
That said, two things I want to make clear because these issues have been reported and staff won’t act on them. Calling a public official a derogatory word isn’t going to be acted on. While I would prefer that points be made without that, that tends fall into the pick and choose your battles type of situation. I’d rather hide a user calling another user an insult than a user venting about an elected official. People don’t like the President and people do not like Ocasio-Cortez. I get it. They aren’t users here so I don’t feel any Administrative duty to protect their honor and reputation.
As far as passive aggressive, man that is hard to effectively moderate. Like I said, I tend to allow some leeway. I don’t want to send a chilling effect on people who put some of their personality into their posts. Are there moments that people can cross the line? Of course, but it’s like that SCOTUS Justice that said “I know it when I see it” when he was referring to porn. You can usually tell when a debate is becoming toxic.
Similar that is the obsession with some users on one subject. Careful observation over the years will tell you that staff will grow weary of one user making topics that amount to a singular idea if that idea is predicated on a group. We have had to remove users who constantly made topics focused on “I hate men!” And “I hate Muslims”. Eventually we will say it needs to slow or stop.
While we will allow some contentious topics some breathing room, some topics will not be allowed. One example of that is the occasional defense of pedophilia or beastiality. Not here.
And yes I know I can come across as a smartass in DM’s when people use regurgitated phases about abuse of power, bias, and censorship, but if anyone disagrees with a discussion being locked I will hear them out, especially of there is some form of compromise solution. I mean, it’s a shame we can’t have more delicate conversations here about sex and other hot topics without someone going out of their way to make it weird for others due to some self-indulgence pushing their to talk about their fetish experiences and desires.
Anyway, just a few random thoughts to keep discussion going