Apologies. I haven't been on the discord (I hate discord, I hate their privacy policy, I hate the format, etc) so maybe I'm lacking some important context. I also understand rules may not be finalized at this point, in which case please accept this as humble feedback.

I also apologize for the length of the post but I feel it is necessary to fully unpack things here.

I just read the code of conduct and am wondering what is going on with that as it seems very, very strict, more so than even subs like /r/communism on reddit were with regards to rudeness which is kind of strange for a place that took its namesake from and often had culture of the so-called "dirtbag left".

Not that I condone ableism or any other form of bigotry (those who use the r-word are not allies, should be called out at minimum IMO, and I am not a friend of stupidpol) but this policy would seem to prevent so much as yelling at another user as was EXTREMELY common on CTH on reddit.

I would say responses of "shut the fuck up liberal" have been a part of CTH culture yet according to code of conduct:

We will exclude you from interaction if you >>insult, demean<< or harass anyone.

This is very broad. Particularly the words insult and demean. Is calling someone an ableist term "st*pid" for example an example of an insult that warrants a ban by the mods? This would make the moderation practices again more extreme than almost any left sub, most of them had bots that just removed but didn't ban users for such words, which is understandable given the culture we live in is steeped in them and many people struggle to fully free themselves of using them and it is in my opinion counter-productive to growth to punish people for this. I would also worry such a broad rule could lead to selective enforcement which would allow mods to ban people for other petty reasons and use this broad rule as an excuse.

Is liberal an insult? Are people no longer allowed the liberal running joke or more serious accusation/insult towards other users (again another very long-time CTH tradition). What determines what the difference between an insult and a genuine appraisal/critique of a user's ideology or the ideology of their statement?

What about imperialist? I would certainly consider that an insult as it is a very bad thing to be, yet it also accurately describes the opinions of some people but some would consider that appraisal to be subjective in certain cases.

Of more interest to me though is this:

Remarks that violate the Chapo standards of conduct, including hateful, hurtful, oppressive, or exclusionary remarks, are not allowed. >>Cursing is allowed, but never targeting another user<< and never in a hateful manner.)

The bolded part. Would this mean if someone replied to someone else with "shut the fuck up liberal" a curse, directed at another user (and including an insult as per above rule) they would be subject to sanction? For that matter would a reply of "fuck you" also merit action? I ask because I've encountered enough bad faith people that it is very tempting to include such things in my replies at times (bad faith based upon very obvious cherry picking, misreading, distortion of statements, etc) and I have seen many people including mods of CTH on reddit say as much in the past.

One last thing, is factional conflict between users still allowed (I of course expect the mods to remain above it in official actions/bans/sanctions)? That is would it be against the rules to say make a post or comment that mocks Trots? Or soc-dems? Or any other tendency? Again this was not uncommon on the sub and it remained healthy despite this (and despite my often ire at the shit-posts directed at MLs).

I'm not trying to rules lawyer here or cause some sort of ordeal, maybe they were just written overly broad to cover edge cases but I just wanted some clarity so I and others don't go about acting as we did on CTH for its entire existence and get surprise actioned for it.

I also understand it is early on yet and maybe the rules are a rough draft so this is my feedback.

I will say rules that are overly strict to the point of policing tone can drive people away from anti-capitalist leftism and similar strict rules have caused splits in left groups so it worries me. I know one thing that bugged a lot of people on CTH and was a source of constant complaint were bans from mainstream reddit subs for the nebulous "incivility" of calling people out too strongly over something they rightly feel passionate about. Anyone who spent any time there can attest to the amount of people griping about bans over that particular rule, prioritizing civility fetishism over moral outrage over heinous actions/opinions/etc.

I feel instead of making rules against that, rules against reactionary politics and behavior as well as bigotry (misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc) are more useful while allowing passionate discussion that can get heated. I don't think the point should be to create this grey-colored safe space without the slightest chance of getting your feelings hurt, rather I think the point should be exclusion of bigotry against marginalized groups and the defense of those groups. And the exclusion of reactionary politics and the defense of anti-capitalist, "leftist" if you will politics. But maybe the people running this place feel otherwise in which case let me and anyone else reading this thread know as I'm sure there are others here who have not been on discord and are out of the loop.

Obviously I'm against reactionaries and bigotry (I really liked MTC's sidebar rules actually and thought they were quite inclusive of naming bad behaviors disallowed without being overly broad) but I'm also worried about overly censorious impulses in what are inherently political spaces that include political discussion of a heated nature.

I will admit to the fact I was not an infrequent user of strong language such as the above on reddit. However I avoided oppressive language and I invite anyone to go over my reddit history for the past two years (preferably using a deletion site because most of it was lost with CTH) and see how many even minor ableist terms there are (almost none). I would never consider my behavior as to have been overly abusive or oppressive, not to anyone who wasn't expressing reactionary tendencies, imperialist tendencies, etc that either need to be kept in check by banning such people (not the most ideal, they don't get a chance to learn) or by calling them out with strong language that conveys the moral outrage I and I think everyone should feel towards certain positively cruel positions or spouting of very harmful capitalist/imperialist propaganda.

  • darkcalling [comrade/them, she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Want my opinion on rules lawyers? No? Well I'll give it anyways.

    Include more generic clauses against being a jerk or overdoing things. Kind of state what isn't allowed explicitly (homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, blatant imperialism, pro-cop apologia, troop worship, etc). Then include a clause about being too much of a jerk, being too disruptive, being too offensive repeatedly to the community.

    Include a harassment clause. Note that people are allowed to reply to and disagree with other users, note that if someone is continually repeating the same opinion you can share the same response to that opinion and that you can criticize past opinions of a person (so long as you're not digging back 6 months and repeatedly quoting at someone an opinion they've moved past to shame them). Note that following a user around to every comment and trying to bait them into "discussions" or arguments is not as acceptable and that following someone around and replying to them with memes or other off-topic/non-discussion material that is not constructive and/or causes them distress is not allowed. (I could probably word this better but I'd need time to work it out but I'd really need to know what form this harassment is taking before being able to truly craft something against it)

    Also include a trolling clause although that's a bit harder.

    I understand the good desire not to just have a broad "we'll ban you if we feel like it and feel its necessary" rules statement because that seems potentially abusive and ideally you want clearly delineated rules that you can punish people for so they can know what they did wrong and so they know what is expected of them before they even post. But inevitably you need a few catch-all, "don't be a jerk" rules. Ideally if you can you try and enforce those more lightly, that is no bans on first offense, a warning to stop it, then a ban if it continues.

    I do think a good harassment policy can be created that allows discussion, allows people to point out hypocrisy or a recent viewpoint of a user that may have some relevance or bearing but doesn't allow personal inquisitions or group coordinated harassment.

    As an example relating to this post. Someone who occasionally says "shut the fuck up liberal" to liberalism is in my opinion not the problem as much as someone whose history is 80% that reply and nothing else. It's about overall conduct and not crossing certain bright lines.

    Above all do not try and police language (outside slurs, and so on) because rules lawyers are clever and will get around it. Police repeated behavior, police conduct that rises to the level of harassment or trolling.

      • darkcalling [comrade/them, she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Looking over it now. (Also really I do feel bad if I'm dragging you away from more important stuff to do this) My initial thoughts:

        Under MODERATION, point 1:

        (Cursing is allowed, but never in a hateful manner.)

        This seems unnecessary IMO. Obviously your platform your rules but since you asked, if cursing isn't disallowed and the target is the behavior not the wording then mentioning cursing seems like it introduces some confusion. The thrust of the rule is don't be hateful, hurtful, oppressive, exclusionary then you include as an addendum something on cursing. Most people would I think assume cursing is allowed so it seems extraneous.

        Short digression:

        Shorter rules are better rules and rules more likely to be understood and followed. IMO, the best way to format rules is the rule number/name if any, followed by a brief, succinct explanation (bolded or otherwise made to stand out) that stays on that theme (for example for a no bigotry rule you'd say "absolutely no homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, fascism, etc" then below it is the space I would use to expand upon it that isn't made to stand out with an explanation if needed. For example under a "please try and avoid ableism" rule you might put under it in the subtext "You won't normally be banned for it, but if you are excessively toxic about it or it forms a pattern of toxic behavior your post my be removed and/or you may be banned". Obviously the expanded explanation part is more a long-term goal, more a goal for creating very nice looking rules like you saw on reddit with sidebar CSS in some subs. I get you can't do that with the code page you have on gitlab but something to consider if/once you move rules to a space on the actual website.

        Back to business.

        1. Remarks that moderators find inappropriate, whether listed in the code of conduct or not, are also not allowed.

        Real trust your moderators stuff. My preference in the long-run would be something more clear. You have a rule against bigotry, one against reactionaries/fascism. I guess I struggle to find instances where it couldn't be covered by other rules later on.

        The problem with this one is the subjectivity of individual mods. Humans are fallible, we get grossed out at different things and consider different things inappropriate. Ideally you want one unified mod stance on rules as that also prevents mod fights and splintering and drama.

        Inappropriate behavior IMO falls in several places, one example might be being too horny or objectifying towards a woman, that's misogyny if you ask me or could be covered by a rule against creating an oppressive or hostile environment because that is hostile to women when you take that stuff too far.

        I guess I'm just a "say its name" person where possible. People often don't even realize they're being misogynistic for example with certain remarks and where possible it's better to let them know that is the problem and not just mods being prudes. And you set an example by naming it if you ban someone for something, others see, it changes behavior.

        Removals for the reason of "inappropriate" outside of someone just spamming bizarre (and not funny) porn always irked me because of the tendency to be abused to silence stuff in the same way "off-topic" removals have often been used.

        Other things I can think of would include personal information (rule against personal info would apply better).

        If we're talking being creepy about minors stuff (I've heard some whispers about something on the discord but don't know) I'd just say a warning about not being a creep/pedo then a ban or a ban if it's really egregious and you don't need a rule against that because that should be obvious. And of course in that instance absolutely call them on out on that in the mod reply because the community should know if there was a pedo outed from among them and who it was in case others are still in contact with them through other channels.

        Other things I could see would mostly fall under harassment.

        I know you're thinking potentially about sub-communities and their mods and rules but I think a simple statement that sub-communities may have their own rules and may implement further restrictions but may not refuse to enforce the site rules or make rules contradicting them.

        3-6

        Appear to just be a formatting issue and extension of 2.

        The rest appear to be mostly discord related so I have no strong opinion on them. They don't seem unreasonable.

        As to the TOS, no one reads the tos. I do but I'm weird. IMO rules need to be put in the rules / code of conduct document. The tos is for legal purposes to protect the ass of whoever is running this.

        I skimmed the tos and it seems fairly standard to me (although it looks like you might have copied it from reddit). Nothing I haven't seen a hundred times for the most part.

        I will note under section 12 you have:

        If you are a U.S. city, county, or state government entity, then this Section 13 does not apply to you.

        That should be changed to section 12. Just a typo.