New rule against offsite harassment

@ everyone saying "omg its not that hard literally just don't be a dick." There's so many ways this can be abused. For example, this part:  "spreading hurtful/baseless rumors"

@matador had a post yesterday about the DBP situation and dew just claimed that it was full of lies, even though that's not at all the case (sorry dew).  And because you can just dismiss DB members by saying "fake news" like this,  matador could have been banned for it.

3 minutes ago, Lunch Lunch said:

@ everyone saying "omg its not that hard just don't be a dick." There's so many ways this can be abused. For example, this part:  "spreading hurtful/baseless rumors" 

If you think that the moderators are going to abuse rules or enforce them in bad faith, then there is no set of rules that would ever protect you.

1 minute ago, AlexMax said:

 

If you think that the moderators are going to abuse rules or enforce them in bad faith, then there is no set of rules that would ever protect you.

problem is not if one think if a moderator wil do that.
problem is that it actually happened.
and so, thats why there is fear and people afraid to talk.

7 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

and so, thats why there is fear and people afraid to talk.

Huh?  If anything it's the opposite.

1 minute ago, AlexMax said:

 

Huh?  If anything it's the opposite.

 

people here is actually talking about the rules proposed here on a polite and good manner, so far.
it has nothing to do with what i replied before.

@Lunch Lunch I said mostly lies, because matador's post would have to be dissected and explained point by point. Different interpretations, lack of context, sometimes widely avoiding the real issue (40oz ban part), etc. I grant him some fair points too. I definitely wouldn't want his post to qualify for this defamation rule - don't know the guy, don't want to judge him too harshly. "All lies" was aimed at Devalous, who keeps inserting himself into these feuds with his grievances stemming from nearly 10 year old drama. And I'm sorry, I'm just too dispirited right now to make another explanatory mega-post again, the last one took me almost an entire day and the mood is low rn.

I'd say there's a wide difference between posts that you can debate and explain, and posts where you need to debunk a serious accusation, like the DW staff subvertively posting hate speech on DB to fabricate backlash. That's basically libel even under the strongest free speech laws.

24 minutes ago, dew said:

"All lies" was aimed at Devalous, who keeps inserting himself into these feuds with his grievances stemming from nearly 10 year old drama.

problem is that you are a moderator acting aggresively toward an user, and even calling him an sniveling shit.

also, how do you know that Devalaous insert his grievance from 10 years old drama.

He didn't say anything about what happened 10 years ago, so why you conclude that he was inserting that on his post?

EDIT:
Since the thread went into total silence UNEXPECTEDLY, this is what i'm talking about @AlexMax and other members around.
This is the fear and people afraid of talking that happened here, not now, but a good amount of times.

There was three moderators commenting on that status update, and nobody did anything about a moderator insulting another member because why not.

https://www.doomworld.com/profile/34746-matador/

The whole status update is irrelevant, as the members just exposed his view without offending anyone.
But if one read the comments, things derails unexpectedly quick.

Now, if this went happening since long ago, why there wasn't any report of this?
people is afraid.
or maybe reports were made, and ignored completely?

what we do with this kind of things?

21 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Since the thread went into total silence UNEXPECTEDLY, this is what i'm talking about @AlexMax and other members around.
This is the fear and people afraid of talking that happened here, not now, but a good amount of times.
 

Why do you trink it's fear, and just not that people are not online 24/7, and a sizeable quantity of users already expressed they opinion?

I just talked like 2 times, because many post from others users share my viewpoint.

I find it impossible to believe we're revisiting the 40-year-old concept of message board moderation, or indeed the 4000-year-old concept of adjudication by a third party. Clearly the real fear being expressed here is encroaching on one's ability to say shitty things without repercussions by not shitting where you eat.

2 minutes ago, D4NUK1 said:

Why do you trink it's fear, and just not that people are not online 24/7, and a sizeable quantity of users already expressed they opinion?

I just talked like 2 times, because many post from others users share my viewpoint.

i recommend you to re read my answer, what was pointed and look at the link.
That kind of things are not insolated to that only example.

Just now, P41R47 said:

i recommend you to re read my answer, what was pointed and look at the link.

But what does this have to do with the new rules?

2 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

 

But what does this have to do with the new rules?

are you kidding me?

49 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

 

If you think that the moderators are going to abuse rules or enforce them in bad faith, then there is no set of rules that would ever protect you.

i answered to you this.

the problem is not the new set of rules.

the problem is the moderator job itself.

As i said before, this is not the only one time that it happened.

So, if you take that into consideration, it enter on the harassement part of the new rules.

5 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

i recommend you to re read my answer, what was pointed and look at the link.
That kind of things are not insolated to that only example.

I also ask you, to comment where do you trink the comment goes wrong? And how affect this on the new rules, that are, mostly to evade that kinda of trouble with all others forums or website that talk about doom.

Quote

i answered to you this.

the problem is not the new set of rules.

the problem is the moderator job itself.

Again, maybe really specify what kinda of comment made you trink about mod power and fear.

1 minute ago, D4NUK1 said:

I also ask you, to comment where do you trink the comment goes wrong? And how affect this on the new rules, that are, mostly to evade that kinda of trouble with all others forums or website that talk about doom.

read above, one of the running themes of this thread was not only the new rules, but also the limits of what is banneable and the fear to moderator.

I answered to last part.

Just now, P41R47 said:

read above, one of the running themes of this thread was not only the new rules, but also the limits of what is banneable and the fear to moderator.

I answered to last part.

Really don't see the conection here, to be honest- I'm reading the status and it's just one of the reasons why are we doing changes of the rules.

People on this topic talked in pro and cons of the same rules, and the ones that i see they have "fear" it's the one that maybe feel they opinion could let them get trouble, so, maybe they are talking for hobby in this forum, or to trow shades and insults behind the PC?-  

36 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Since the thread went into total silence UNEXPECTEDLY

i am sure a bunch of folks are winding down for bed or just have said their piece, i know that's the case for me

5 minutes ago, D4NUK1 said:

Really don't see the conection here, to be honest- I'm reading the status and it's just one of the reasons why are we doing changes of the rules.

People on this topic talked in pro and cons of the same rules, and the ones that i see they have "fear" it's the one that maybe feel they opinion could let them get trouble, so, maybe they are talking for hobby in this forum, or to trow shades and insults behind the PC?- 

seems that you didn't completely read  one of my replies.

the status update is not the problem, is the comments on them.
there you can clearly see a comment by a moderator insulting a member out of nowhere just because he didn't liked what he posted before.

then on the same status update, three other moderators commented.
In their defense i can say that they may have not seen it.

Because, as other of the themes of this thread talked about, was what is the moderators job?

isn't a moderator job to be respectful to other members?

isn't a moderator job to act when they see a member attacking another?

well, thats the point.

4 hours ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

Personally, I believe that a vague* backdrop of rules has to go along with two other things, though: well meaning moderators, and a granular approach to moderation.  With my first point, know that I'm not pointing it at anyone here or elsewhere, I'm just stating "well meaning moderators" in a very generic and hypothetical sense.  Moderators for any community that adopt this style of rules should be held as accountable as anyone else, and there should be a clear and non-threatening-as-possible way for the community to bring up moderators who need looked at.  In other words, moderators should not be feared and should be held to the same standards.

To add to and expand on this particular thought, I've seen a lot of communities basically just having the guideline of something along the lines of "This is a community where we want everyone to feel welcome. Things like homophobia, transphobia, and racism are not welcome here and if you're the kind of person that disagrees with this, you can fuck right off." Considering a significant chunk of this community has come out as gay, trans, or Swedish in recent years, I think this would be right in line with the desires of this community. I know most of this site's admins and mods agree with this ideal so it would be nice of them to at least put that into stone. Aside from that, it seems best practices to allow moderators to use their discretion if someone is breaking the mores of the forums instead of having to adhere to some kind of strict guideline.
 

That being said, I think this new rule is great as I've seen a lot of that going on over the years. If you think this will be abused, calm down, this isn't fucking NewDoom.

3 hours ago, Killer5 said:

This right here 'misgender them'. This I think is complete nonsense. So would I be banned? I will call you by your name or your actual sex.

No matter how many times it's been explained in layman's terms, it amazes me how many people still can't differentiate between gender and sex.

1 hour ago, WashingMachineEnthusiasts said:

It's an extremely broad clause, and wasn't the whole uproar against the DBP ban because people shouldn't be guilty by association? Without a very tight definition of facilitation, that's exactly what it becomes - guilt by association.

Although I agree it's worded a bit vaguely, my guess would be that 'facilitating' goes further than just association, into active encouragement. Like, going off your last example, someone saying 'I enjoyed this wad' would not be facilitating. Someone saying 'I enjoyed this wad and we should keep making wads with targeted harrassment in them' might be closer to facilitating, even though that person did not directly perform any harrassment themselves. Even then, it seemed pretty clear from the post that this rule isn't intended to be used against every person who makes a one-off joke about someone else; rather, it'll be used when a pattern of behaviour emerges where it's clear that a person is actively, repeatedly, maliciously trying to get the people around them riled up, knowing that it will result in harrassment of a particular user.

3 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

isn't a moderator job to be respectful to other members?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "No".

I'm actually glad that some of the moderators here aren't afraid to play the "Bad Cop" without going completely off the rails.  It's only a problem if everyone behaves that way.

1 hour ago, AlexMax said:

 

If you think that the moderators are going to abuse rules or enforce them in bad faith, then there is no set of rules that would ever protect you.

its a dangerous world; people shouldn’t delude themselves. there is no amount of rules that can make one safe. i’m not excusing shit behavior, but you live at your own peril. act accordingly. 

expecting dw rules to protect you is utterly childish. a thousand times more so if the offending behavior doesnt occur here. 

I'm gonna indulge in some paranoid ramblings for a bit. Members of moderation team had recently made a modestly unpopular decision involving certain modestly popular community project, had to backtrack on it due to modest backlash it caused, and immediately this rule change pops up. The cause is good, and it's fine if administration does not wants known harassers in their community, but one interesting part is "other users who facilitate such conduct going unaddressed". This recent controversy involves a certain community that declares free (or at least free-er) speech as its founding principle. This of course involves certain amount of fecal matter being thrown at each other and people outside, and while I haven't seen examples of them bringing said matter here (albeit some Doomworld members thankfully provided us with free samples for research), this still falls under "facilitation of such conduct". Now, you see, there is a little trick that governments and similar ruling bodies like to use where they shield underhanded or repressive policies from criticism by slapping a noble cause on top. Not gonna give any examples as we do not need to get political, but suffice to say pretty much every government is guilty of doing that at one point or another. Point is, this rule change is fine on its own, and as I said, it has a noble cause, but the context and timing makes it all sound extremely fishy, and with a bit of tin foil and a handy corkboard you can deduce who it may actually be targeted against, so this might be one of the reasons why many feel uneasy about it.

2 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "No".

 

I'm actually glad that some of the moderators here aren't afraid to play the "Bad Cop" without going completely off the rails.  It's only a problem if everyone behaves that way.

well, if that happened to you you wouldn't be saying that.
Granted.

I don't like it, and probably lots of other members didn't like that kind of attitude either.
Coming from a normal user, one expect that you can just report it.
But coming from a moderator, what do you do?

There was other three moderators there?
If you don't notice that people felt afraid of talking well, it happened.

Just now, AlexMax said:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "No".

 

I'm actually glad that some of the moderators here aren't afraid to play the "Bad Cop" without going completely off the rails.  It's only a problem if everyone behaves that way.

I, for one, am nostalgic for the years when Lüt spent his precious time dunking on the n00bs.

4 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

well, if that happened to you you wouldn't be saying that.

If I thought the moderation team were a bunch of antisocial assholes, I wouldn't be here.

In fact, I would leave.  I would find another community with a vibe and a moderation style more to my liking.

As it stands, I prefer it here.

Just now, AlexMax said:

 

If I thought the moderation team were a bunch of antisocial assholes, I wouldn't be here.

thats why we are having this conversation :)
Because i resist to believe that things like that are OK if done by a moderator, but bad if they are made by a normal member.

18 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

the status update is not the problem, is the comments on them.
there you can clearly see a comment by a moderator insulting a member out of nowhere just because he didn't liked what he posted before.

Are you referring to dew's first comment on matador's status update? Because when I or anyone else who isn't familiar with the whole story reads something like "It really is nothing more than certain people on DW attacking DB repeatedly, then going over to DB and stirring shit up there, then using the angry hornets nest as an 'excuse' to continue harassing them, all with a holier than thou attitude." we think 'Oh shit, that's a pretty serious matter'. And then... what? Crickets? No followup post explaining what they meant? No specific example? Like, that's a pretty big accusation to just drop on the table and walk away. You can criticise his tone if you like, but I don't think you can say that dew's comments came 'out of nowhere' because he just 'didn't like' what someone else posted.