"It is a violation of site policy to uprate a comment with an insult in it."
every person who uprates a comment with an insult in it is violating site policy. This is where I wonder how effective the system can be.
What does this mean, in terms of real ramifications? I've seen comments with some pretty harsh insults and plenty of uprates. How in the world would admin even track this without a few full-time staff members doing nothing but scanning comments for this?
I gather that the Hide Rate system is supposed to address this. People Rec'g insults, though, aren't going to get noticed unless enough other people HR the insults. But that only works if a raw number of HR's is all it take to get admin/moderator eyes on the comment. Because if it takes a ratio, as the commenter above described to me then, indeed, enough friends can come along and neutralize the HR's so that the insult is never seen.
Additionally, they can rove the site tossing insults everywhere and protect each other from admin notice. I would hope that no one's doing this willy nilly just be to be obnoxious to the entire site, but I can see with some of the hot-button issues around here how groups could form to do this on a subject-by-subject basis.
In fact, I have witnessed a group which used an off-site service to connect up and call each other into a thread when they wanted back up, thereby creating a fray. I disagreed with this tactic and left that group, even though I may be very politically aligned with them. I don't think that they were abusing the HR system or even insulting people. (Since I opted not to participate, I didn't go into the diaries.) It just felt too much like a gang to me. I can easily see how a group could start as a perfectly reasonable, "hey, we're all interested in the same things, so let's support each other" kind of thing and morph into a bullying gang in a turf war. (Would love to see KosSide Story. Or not. Might be too painfully foolish looking.)
I have seen something recently which felt very much like a bullying gang. A group of people going into every diary someone writes and engaging in not just insults but character assassination. It felt coordinated and persistent (based on all the references to older diaries and comments, which newer readers have no way of judging without extensive effort.) And there was definitely a group which were uprating comments with insults in them in order to neutralize the HRs.
If the system works the way it has been explained to me, this will go on ad infinitum. The only way to have a chance at stopping it is for a substantial group of people to take on the role of not participating in those diaries at all, but HR'g the comments in high enough numbers to ensure that the comments get hidden.
How likely is that to happen? Not likely.
Do I have a grasp on how the system actually functions, right now?
To The Community
The majority of people here seem to be wary of HR'ing. I get that. I don't like to do it. I don't like to do it because I don't like policing. I don't like to do it because I prefer to err on the side of free speech. I don't like to do it because I prefer to be nice. I don't like to do it because I don't like getting into it with people who are angry and lashing out. I don't like to do it because I only have 5 and what if something even more egregious comes up?! I don't like to do it, because I've heard you can yourself into trouble if admin doesn't deem your HRs worthy and sorting out what qualifies feels like a trap, sometimes.
Are these the things we all tell ourselves? And what of community responsibility? This is the argument I have with myself. I stay out of things and stay out of things and stay out of things. Then I feel guilty that I'm disgusted with the nature of some of the dialogue here but I don't do anything about it, so I can't complain. Yet, it bothers me. It bothers me because what basically happens here is that the bullies rule. Same as in the rest of life. Silence is actually complicity. Not exercising our community responsibility is, de facto, condoning the behavior. So, when anybody comes to this site and reads these ugly comment threads and sees that none, or very few, are HR'ing the ugliness, the message received is, "That's acceptable here."
Is this who we want to be? Is that the message we want to send? Is that the ethos we want to project? Is that the mud we want to wallow in? Is this what a world based of progressive ideals would look like?
This is for the community to determine. Each and every one us must ask ourselves these questions. Each and every one of us must acknowledge that every time we don't HR, we are giving tacit approval to the behavior. When we uprate insulting comments we are more than giving approval, we are flinging the insult ourselves. Is this okay with you? Would you find it acceptable if it were directed at you? Would you find it acceptable if it were directed at one of your loved ones? Would you find it acceptable if we were all sitting in a room together? Is this really what you would say to someone's face?
Would you want to live in a neighborhood where your neighbors just watched while you were being bullied? Why should they step up for you, if you don't step up for others?
Emotions are no excuse for bullying. People are perfectly capable of being profoundly angry, frustrated, despairing or passionate while maintaining boundaries of behavior. I'm always shaking my head when people try to tell me that they "couldn't help themselves" because they were "so worked up". Emotions are not an excuse for bullying and destructive behavior. We're all human and are not going to be perfect. The rare screw up, followed by a sincere apology and a demonstrated change in behavior from there forward is understandable. However, a persistent practice of personal insults is not. It's willful destructiveness.
So, what's the deal folks? Have you uprated insults? If so, why? What do you think it serves? If not, have you HR'd them? If no, why not? If yes, was the insult lobbed at someone you don't know or do you only do it when the insult is aimed at your friends?
Who do we want to be? What do we want the content of this site to be? What kind of model are we setting for the world? Given that we're here advocating for our political agenda, would you be compelled to see our agenda in a positive light if you read the way people talk to each other here?
Visitors here are predominantly exposed to the front page. It's the public entrance, as it were. Why in the world would you want a diary that basically says, "I hate half the people here" on the front page? Are these diaries full of venom for each other really what you want as our public face? Why do you rec those diaries? (I kind of wish there were two rec lists: one for the front page and one for a community page.) Do you unRec them if the comment threads become mudslinging fests?
I'm all for heated debate. Disagree vociferously. Go back and forth as long as it takes to gain clarity, feel that you've said all you want say, or just because you love the banter. I love reading those threads, where I might see more nuances of a position, or where people actually diverge, or the background which feeds into someone's views. Those are enriching. But, I find it destructive for people to launch into personal attacks because they have different ideas. No matter how important the subject matter. I get the impulse. It's human. I don't appreciate the lack of impulse control. A sustainable society relies on people working together and one key to that is control over our destructive impulses so that we can make the space to find creative resolutions.
Who and what do we want to be? And what can we do to have a better chance of being that?