Now that MB's diary, Rules, Moderation, Civility, has slipped off the rec list (would you have liked to be the person who bounced him off?), I toss this out.
I need to read things more than once to have them sink in. Even then it is easy for me take away a meaning or intent different than intended based on my own...let's say...partisanship.
Some Kossacks perhaps don't share my proclivity to color my interpretation of others' words according to a pre-disposed viewpoint, but many others do. You know, focusing in on what you disagree with & ignore the nuances or even the main point.
For those few who like me who are at times prone to lose sight of the forest for the trees, I present what may become a series of "MB for dummies." I'm not the first dummy to try this, nor is this the first time I have tried it.
MB's words are all in blockquote. Words not in blockquote are my interpretation.
This diary is not a reply to all the complaints and comments that have been made. Other diaries will follow in the weeks ahead.
This one focuses on three matters: six rules which will be added to the FAQ this week;
the imposition of a "clean slate" on three specific areas of contention among two opposing groups of users;
and a comment about community moderation.
This is just the first in a series of diaries that will address complaints & comments directed towards site moderation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When encountering someone who is breaking the rules as stated in the FAQ or behaving in a "trollish" manner, a user should first ask that person not to engage in rule-breaking. Even if the user has a long-standing disagreement with that person. If the response is to continue on the same route, then and only then should the user proceed to throwing HRs.
= Give a warning. Only HR after asking the kossack to stop breaking the rule. Don't just HR and then explain why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Users should not try to go around this by hauling out months- or years-old battles. If a person is violating generally understood rules right now, then call them on it. Ask them to stop. If they have been engaging in a pattern of doing so for the past couple of days or weeks, then point that out. But nobody should be HRed for something now because they also did something in 2008 that the HRer finds objectionable. Is there anybody who has been here for a couple of years who hasn't messed up a few times? If we go the route of busting people for eons-ago misbehavior – in Internet time – we might as well turn the entire blog over to a permanent grudge match.
Don't HR for a pattern of behavior from more than weeks ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people would like that. Some people thrive on that. If you were to put them on a deserted island, half of them would be dead within a month. During the second month, they would be cooking the thigh bones of half the remaining castaways.
= The hate is strong in some.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing. I am not going to catch even 10% of the instances when somebody violates the rules here. Even me and 10 clones couldn't do it. Community moderation requires community. All those seeking civility and fairness and an end to double-standards should focus at least 50% of their attention on what they themselves and their friends are doing to foster that kind of atmosphere instead of focusing 90% on what others are doing to foster toxicity.
Spend half your HR-hunting time on friends & yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Six New Rules:
• Do not make threats or calls for violence. Threatening to beat up or kill someone, or suggesting that people should kill themselves, or saying that poison should be put in somebody's crème brûlée, or making similar remarks, even as a joke, is prohibited and can lead to banning. This does not mean that all forms of cartoon violence, literary references, metaphors and the like are barred. Admin Moderation: A single warning. Second offense: Banning.
- No threats of violence-even in jest. One-time, one-warning before banning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
• Revealing the real identity or other personal information of a registered user who has not him- or herself made that identity known at Daily Kos or otherwise given permission for such information to be publicly revealed will result in summary banning. Among other things, such revelations include, but are not limited to, phone numbers, addresses, including email addresses not publicly available at Daily Kos, places of employment or clients, gender, sexual orientation, and the identities of other family members. Asking hostile outing questions such as: Do you work at such and such a place? when research has shown this to be true or likely to be true is a form of outing and will be dealt with as such. Admin Moderation: Summary banning.
- Outing others, even via questions, for the 1st time without permission = banning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
• Registered users working in paid or unpaid positions for political campaigns must disclose their affiliation when it is relevant to the conversation. Admin Moderation: Warning, suspension, banning.
- In any discussion where your paid or volunteer work is relevant, you must disclose that or face (a) warning, (b) suspension, (c) banning. "Relevant" to be defined in future MB diaries. Partial illustration below:
* [new] We're not going to go searching through ... (1+ / 0-)
...people's bank records, obviously. But if someone working for a campaign has posted here on a subject relevant to that campaign without disclosing the fact and we find out - as we have found out a number of times in the past - the person will be banned.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 12:45:46 PM PDT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
• Registered users who write GBCW diaries – saying they are leaving and never coming back – will be banned after their diary's 24-hour recommendation period has expired. A user who changes their mind may return to Daily Kos under their pre-ban moniker and user identification number only after appealing for reinstatement to the Director of Community or Markos. Users who write diaries saying they are taking a temporary hiatus from posting at Daily Kos are not banned.
- GBCW diarists will be banned. Saying you're leaving for a while won't get you banned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
• This is a site for adults and language is not generally policed here, in terms of "shit," "fuck," "asshole," or any of those other family-unfriendly words. Avoid "fuck" in headlines to avoid triggering browser filters of users who log on at their workplace. Anti-semitic, anti-Arab, racist, sexist, ableist and heterosexist language, however, is unwelcome. Admin Moderation: Warning, suspension, banning.
- Curse words aren't okay in diary titles, but allowed in diary content, posts, & titles of posts. Epithets aren't allowed. (a) warning, (b) suspension, (c) banning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
• Thread stalking is defined as having three requirements:
(1) On multiple occasions, one or more commenters follow a community member into diary threads; and,
(2) The commenter(s) posts comments that include false information, personal attacks, lies, or implied/express disclosure of private information; and
(3) The commenter(s) engages in this conduct with the intent to harass, harm, humiliate, frighten or intimidate another poster. This intent may be inferred from the number of times that the commenter follows a community member into threads and/or the nature of the comments posted.
Stalking does not include the mere expression of disagreement, seeking out diaries or comments of favorite diarists or simply frequent interaction on the boards.
- To qualify as a stalker you must meet all 3 conditions:
A. Pursue a Kossack multiple times into threads.
B. Post lies, personal attacks, or out a Kossack.
C. Intend to do bad. Intend = How many times you've done A & B, &/or the type of comments you make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before calling someone a stalker or tossing HRs at a person thought to be a stalker, community members should post a comment explaining what conduct and/or statements constitute the stalking with a link to relevant evidence so that adminstrators and the community have a record to review. Admin Moderation:: Warning, suspension, banning
If you HR/accuse a Kossack of stalking before posting a link & explaining the evidence you will be warned, suspended & then banned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Slate:
Many allegations and counter-allegations have been made regarding the on-line (and sometimes off-line) behavior of various users here. Those who make these allegations and counter-allegations repeatedly say that the evidence is clear that their point of view is the absolute truth and that anybody who doesn't see things their way is obviously biased.
MB has been accused of bias towards the other side by BOTH sides of disputes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During thread discussions that began last week, I offered two means around this situation: a clean slate putting three of the most contentious allegations off-limits in future discussions; or handing the decision over to an arbitration panel chosen by people on both sides of the disputes from among Kossacks not party to the disputes. Some people – both those involved in the disputes and some not – liked one idea or the other, or both. Some hated both ideas. The third idea suggested was that I alone make the ruling.
3 Suggested options for conflict resolution:
A. Make some allegations off-limits.
B. Use an arbitration panel.
C. Rely on MB's ukase
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And so I have. I am not ruling on who is right or who is wrong in the allegations made. I am ruling that further discussion of them, pro or con, is prohibited. Henceforth, there is a "clean slate" on discussion about whether those who made and recommended a specific comment in December at the blog Docudharma was racist. There should be no further discussion or posting of screenshots related to the formation of a private Facebook group to recommend diaries at Daily Kos as a means of keeping a user's diaries off the Rec'd List. Do not continue to call someone a stalker whose case has been decided. All past cases have been decided.
Chosen option: C. Rely on MB's diktat.
That diktat is a prohibition ("clean slate") on 3 memes/allegations:
A. A December DD comment being racist.
B. A private FB group some allege and others dispute was formed to prevent a Kossack's diary from getting on the rec list.
C. Calling a Kossack a stalker based on past (already decided) allegations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No instances of stalking have been confirmed. Those who violate these rules – even as a reaction to others' violations – will be warned, suspended and banned, in that order, if they do not comply. This "clean slate" ruling does not mean in any way whatsoever that users are prohibited from discussing racism or new instances of alleged stalking.
No one is a stalker yet. If you say they are you will be warned, suspended & banned. You're allowed to make new charges of stalking going forward & discuss racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM
Just caught these updates in a diary & it may save some friends a lot of grief:
* [new] If people continue... (7+ / 0-)
...to say that blackwaterdog is violating copyright, you can inform them that they are mistaken. She will no longer be posting Getty Images. She has the OK on the AP photos. Also, she has, at my request, begun posting width adjustments so the photos do not break browser margins. I also know where she works and who pays her. It's not anybody who has anything to do with President Obama.
If people continue to make that charge after being informed, they are eminently HRable.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 01:43:52 PM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
Charging that BWD is paid for/works for Obama is HRable.
-------------------------------------------------
* [new] Disrupting is already something people ... (10+ / 0-)
...can challenge and, in the worst cases, HR. But I think that often the complaint of "disruption" is a canard. We allow the cat-and-dog diaries and the IGTNT diaries some latitude in shutting down certain comments because those diary series have established themselves as "not political." In the case of blackwaterdog's diaries, these often include fairly extensive links and excerpts to stories that ARE obviously political, and sometimes comments from the diarist herself in this regard.
Interaction with the diarist ought to be respectful, but taking exception to what the diarist has said about a topic - say, offshore oil drilling or whatnot - is perfectly within the realm of acceptable discourse.
by Meteor Blades on Thu Apr 08, 2010 at 01:13:18 PM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
Disagreeing with BWD's comments in a BWD diary is not HRable.
----------------------------------------------------------
In case anyone be so inclined, I would strongly suggest avoiding discussing below of specific cases/allegations MB said were now subject to the "clean slate" rule.