Boards
SSP = safe space policy
from now on, if anyone wants to do a thread where we're not allowed to be horrible to each other then they can prefix it with "SSP". or if you feel unsafe in other threads then you can start a general "safe space thread". anyone who violates the safe space will be banned for up to 3 years.
what if someone uses SSP ironically as a means of lampooning the practice
and that thread is therefore anything but a safe space
I only ask because we have some real smartarses on DiS who'll do this
counts as a violation, surely
if?
sounds a bit scottish/ political
we tried some alternatives but the focus groups hated them
three years? seems fair.
up to 3 years
that's how long you can get sanctioned for at the job centre now
^this for a sticky request
*where you're not allowed to disagree with me
that's disingenuous
you are allowed to disagree; the issue is one of engagement and phrasing
Looks buddy, this is the internet.
Cuddle party's that way.
you're allowed to disagree insensitively and oppressively too
much as we're allowed to ban request you ;)
Stop oppressing me
ah, the tone arguement
oh okay so you can disagree
as long as you disagree properly
yeah that makes sense
^in_limbo in being a dickhead shocker
this is bedwetting stuff
even by DiS standards. Hang on.....is this an SSP?
edgy
Shouldn't it all be like this
And people should just be banned for being dicks, whether in an SSP or not?
think the wording is all a bit vague
or that the OP could elaborate on how safe space is meant when it's used on other forums
"people should just be banned for being dicks"
there goes 95% of DiS :D
have you seen our mods?
(note: not implying you're dicks but that you couldn't enforce this xxx)
They haven't in the past
someone on here once threatened to rape me, then defended himself by saying it was a joke, then I got attacked for being offended by it.
I welcome DD's idea of a safe place.
That's fucking savage
I'm sorry to hear that. It's shit that this kind of thing is felt needed, but if it is, then of course I welcome it. Hopefully it would just lead to all threads and posters being more respectful in general.
in the past theres been too many vested interests/'he's not a dick, honestly's.
now, out-of-order behaviour/statements are ignored. or accepted it's a joke/part of their persona like that perv, y'know the one.
Kind of rich coming from someone who always seemed to do their best to undermine my attempts to can people for being dicks.
i'm not talking about 'being a dick'
i'm talking about saying something offensive, illegal or threatening
This isn't particularly fair
Silky was banned only recently for making a terrible and ill judged comment about sexual assault which was the right thing to do, even though he's relatively well liked etc.
Even though essentially I do agree
That people shouldn't feel maligned, marginalised or unsafe posting in an internet music forum.
silky was banned? just thought he left
also 'relatively well liked' doesn't justify anything
people like people that like them.
I wasn't using it to justify anything
I was saying despite that, he was still banned for out of line behaviour. Which I only said because you mentioned above that it was being ignored/accepted due to jokes/persona, I was merely offering a very recent example of that not being the case.
oh okay
sorry for misunderstanding x
Censorship?
No thanks.
not really
you can still be an arsehole in every other thread
Hopefully
I'm not an arsehole and don't post here enough to even register in the collective consciousness, but not a massive fan of censorship...
Chill out Sid Vicious!
You can always go to 4chan if you want to be an edgy bastard
bit nasty
Which is kind of ironic really
jeez Louise
The OP reads like an order, not a suggestion.
quite domineering and patriarchal to oppose this
like, "no, I will say whatever pissy thing I want to anyone whenever I want", that kind of thing.
bit like insisting someone lets you into their house so they can swear at you and be generally needlessly agressive and stuff.
lol
more like there is just so little overt nastiness/people being treated badly on DiS that it is just unnecessary. When it does happen, people get called up on it, or it is generally down to the cliquey, overly judgemental elements of the boards. Like enforcing a code of conduct at a Vicar's tea party
tbf, this isn't being suggested for the whole board
there are, in effect, an infinite number of possible threads, and this only applies to a finite subset, so really your fun won't be ruined at all, unless the football threads become SSP, in which case lol here we go
if it seems so insignificant, why oppose it?
if some people want to be able to feel a bit more protected from general bellendry, why not?
this fucking website
are you annoyed?
Firstly, someone is blatantly going to use this to post something offensive or just dodgy/critically useless .
Secondly if we really need to be using this, I think I genuinely need to leave the boards.
it seems we might not be ready for this and need to consult more with you first
It just seems a bit sad if we've come to this
more than anything else
look tbh
i don't personally feel i need to put something on the start of a thread to show that i want people to be nicer than usual. i didn't really expect this to be an actual policy that we adopted either.
but like, it's really not thaaat far out at idea. its something that loads of other places have because they acknowledge that some users might benefit from it or might feel more confident taking part in certain discussions if they know that all the other participants are at least tacitly agreeing to certain ground-rules like 'not being a dick'. people in this thread have pointed out that often those who are being dicks get called out for it and that we don't just let that stuff fly! sometimes this is true, yeah. but even having to have that argument or having to tell someone to stfu can be a bit too much for people and put them off altogether. like the thread i posted about conor oberst i wanted to post but part of me was also like "ok here go go. close over laptop time". i mean people were nice but the fact that sometimes people have to worry about stuff like that kinda shows it's not all that unreasonable to suggest ways of making them feel more supported. i don't think if we adopted this it would be like an indictment on dis as such.
Wrote a long post and DiS ate it
really which this site would tell me when it's randomly logged me out.
I think even if we can agree on basic things that are not allowed, how do we police "not being a dick"? that becomes an argument in itself.
I think a better idea is for a more public list of rules of conduct and things which go against the grain. That way people know what the rules are and when the breach them and what the penalty is.
*wish
no because what's acceptable is as malleable as context
fuck having a set rules list, the way to do it is to establish a positive and tolerant posting culture, which this change may assist
This is the problem though
One person's being a dick is another person's being irreverent and just joshing.
Pretty sure you and I both know that having experienced both sides of it for various reasons.
actually impossible to stop people from being dicks if they are one
but by making threads 'positive' and 'safe' may encourage them to develop some sort of self-awareness or filter and realise that what they're saying could be bothering people. basically, thinking twice before you're a dick is better than being awful all of the time.
also
theres a lot of posters on here who are consistently dicks to posters that aren't male, i don't think it's much of a coincidence.
i've left loads in the past because loads of you made me actually lose faith in humantiy
If you feel unsafe because of a thread,
which I fully acknowledge may bee something which can occur, is that not a case of basic moderation being required? Why should you feel forced to retreat? If this site can't enforce consistent moderation to the satisfaction of its participants then it's surely a simple thread title suffix falls short of being a solution.
too many mods abusing their privileges by not actually fucking using them
or abusing them by deleting their own posts etc.
What exactly is this a reference to?
Good luck with that line of enquiry...
Rubbish.
If you have a problem with something that has been said on the boards, then we're just a pm away. Until then, honestly, get a grip. We can't be everywhere all of the time, we're (relatively) normal people with normal jobs. In the past few weeks we have managed to stamp some undesirables out before it escalated too quickly, and this was thankfully due to some members being proactive and letting us know. We usually get in there before it gets to this stage however. Sometimes it takes some help from you guys, and really, isn't that what having an online community is all about? It isn't "us against them". Grow up.
"it isn't us against them, grow up"
100000% this
Well said.
Is this like one of those tents at festivals
where you go to for a comedown and they put a blanket round you and give you a cup of tea or something? I've always wanted to get mashed enough to use one of them.
it might backfire like quiet carriages on trains, people ignore it and it makes people feel like they can be as offensive as they like in the other carriages.
i have read the OP a lot
and i still don't understand what you mean by "safe". are you saying people have been made to feel /unsafe/?
if so, that's the fault of inconsitent modding, which actually is about right. still no idea how catstro became a mod, but hey whatever. some mods are good, some are bad, some don't even mod.
the board has always been a bit of a strange friend.
catstro became a mod because
He is mid thirties,into comic books and posts hundreds of times a day on here. He was born to moderate an internet forum
http://tinyurl.com/ltxhwu9
:/
catstro is the best mod out of the new ones
by a fucking mile
depends what you like in your mods I guess
If you like them to be the most deeply unpleasant people on the boards who make jokes about the deaths of people in the MH17 crash or mocks someone for recently being divorced along with numerous other incidents of indefensible line crossing then I guess he's your guy.
i'm not talking about him as a poster
i'm talking about him as a mod - no favouritism, actually reprimands people for posting information that shouldn't be posted for legal reasons, causing serious harm or offence
his posts are irrelevant, and didn't even know that because i don't open 80% of threads.
basically i don't want a mod to be my friend i want a mod i can trust to do their job
yeah, but what someone posts/tends to post
Is/should definitely be relevant to that decision. Maybe the racist,sexist Russian troll would make a good mod. Lets give him a whirl, his posts are irrelevant
^ those are pretty good lyrics
Ha ha
Good one
fucksake
He's a mod because he cares passionately about feminism and challenging crappy views in general.
something about tommy sheridan
ROSCOE: Lemonade?
MARLON: Please
MODS (everyone bar catstro, i guess):
please do not ignore vitriolic or derogatory posts.
you should be doing your bit, and it would make this site more inclusive, not drive people away.
I always think you are just doing some high end trolling DD
This forum has some of the most intelligent, thoughtful people on the internet on it IMO.
Nah
Nowhere near.
Fucking hell
Not that this would be in any way enforceable, but the spectacular overreaction of the suddenly-terrified privileged above is hilarious. Toughen the fuck up a bit eh, I'm embarrassed for you.
'suddenly-terrified privileged' :'D
surely this isn't something you can be Upworthy about. the majority of the populace on both sides of the argument are mostly white, mostly well-off, mostly well-educated, mostly the same age and a mix of male and female (with a weighting to the former). if you really wanted to just use the word 'privileged' then surely it would be more accurate to use it to describe people who think a product/service should bend to their views of what are acceptable rather than those who think it shouldn't bend?
probably a neo-liberal POV.
no
SSP
make it 5 years
SSP
SSP threads could be a different colour on the boards. lilac maybe
Why 5? (or even 3 as in the OP)
May as well make it permanent.
really don't understand why anyone would object to this
some people want/need a thing
some other people don't want them to want it? tell them they don't need it?
strange behaviour
^this
It's sad that people feel we need it, but the blame doesn't lie with them for feeling that way at all.
it's not about blame
it's about getting a grip
there are historical cases on this site of posters being absolutely horrific
to others and the mods doing nothing about it for a while or ignoring it.
someone actually being properly mean: yes, ban them
someone just disagreeing: get a grip
that is what this is about
not disagreement
okay and there won't be any grey area between DD and the mods
as to what constitutes being horrible? oh well then i'm convinced!
Heaven forfend anything gets in the way of all the MEGALOLZ you provide eh
All those
lols
you might come up with
one day
what are you even talking about
A safe space would improve the quality of conversation
i still dont really understand what it is though
in the last seven years, several posters here have made me feel genuinely uncomfortable.
in the past, some here have threatened me with various things. myself and another user made an effort to avoid certain spaces and events because of fear of encountering specific user/s from this site. in the past, he threatened us both (the other user repeatedly), and it was largely ignored/just taken to be part of his 'persona'. later on i had to share (small) spaces with him, coincidentally, on more than one occasion.
it's fucking scary and i don't wish it upon anyone.
that's completely understandable
and fair enough and I'd hope that in the current situation if that ever happens again it'd most probably be an insta-ban.
This "policy" DD is suggesting is the least enforceable thing ever which is the problem. I've repeatedly told offending users to buck the fuck up before after being a complete dick to no success which has then resulted in bannings and private shit-sliging which is rubbish.
As for the repeated "the new mods are shit" comments: what is it exactly that is the problem here? I can't speak for us all but it's very difficult to keep tabs on every single post in every thread before someone else could be offended by anyone. I've always deleted comments / banned users who've been dicks when asked or if I've got to the post first. I'm sorry if I've pissed off anyone with my shite moderating.
No response. Telling.
pn deleted it
I still don't get what this is a reference to
I think it's just a joke about you being a mod, isn't it?
I don't see what a marshmallow has to do with it
wtf
the comment this was in reply to has been deleted!
Now my reply makes no sense!
Oh if only linear mode didn't exist, eh? ;-)
didn't see this until now
i appreciate what you're doing, i really do. i am riffing on DD's 'policy'. mainly because it raises points that i agree with. also we need more open communication between mods and users, especially with regards to what is 'acceptable' behaviour. too many things have slipped through the net in the past.
i am using you lot as a scapegoat and i'm sorry if you're genuinely angered by this. i keep comparing things to theo's 'regime'. it's more a problem i have with the overall attitude of all users than it is anything else, in particular the social board.
this new-ish filter that stops people from posting one-thread-after-the-other clearly isn't perfect (see mpbh and the errors and suggestions boards RIGHT NOW). i agree that we're all too apathetic and need to do our bit.
i have, as have many others in the past, had genuine enquires completely ignored or belittled by mods, where as if one-of-the-lads (i don't mean just lads, i mean users popular in certain circles) was being attacked, it was solved immediately - PM or not. also a lot of us are still holding grudges that we shouldn't be holding in the first place. people not PMing is most likely to be a reflection of the apathy thing, although maybe it's a trust thing. maybe we need more mods?
there should be some sort of thing that sends a PM to people saying 'cool it' if they're making an arse of themselves, or a video of bamnan telling them everything is going to be okay if they just chill out.
probably doesn't make sense
sean stole my original post and won't give it back
Parsefone was moderating throughout my tenure. As were others (wishpig, bamos and joeymahone). It was rare any conferring happened because there is no moderator's forum or the like.
When we picked the more recent moderators I made a shared doc to point out how the site works with a few general points and I made the sticky thread.
It's worth remembering that this is a forum on a music site, and that site aims to cover its costs via Google click-through advertising. Our old threads provide a lot of revenue, which is why they are here and not all deleted (I did ask this of Sean). As a moderator my job definitely wasn't to alienate all those Saviles and Harris's, and their fans, you take issue with. If this board were a government-run place for discussion only there would have been a lot more bannings.
i think you're mistaking people saying that the modding needs to better
for people saying the current mods are shit. that's not what i am saying.
"youse" more consistent, less nonsensical, and certainly making users feel that they have been "heard". and if DD thinks we need this SSP thing, then you haven't been doing enough, in some users opinions, so the conversation needs to be about HOW to make peolpe feel safer. I think that there can be some seriously bad posts on the boards that slip through as banter (though i am terrible with usernames and they're probably banned already or it was protected with In Joke Status).
This thread is SO Student Politics
Cringing a little.
take it to a none-ssp thread, sister
rip the lipster
Is it really that bad here?
I might have missed some stuff (it's me age, y'know) but my general impression is that those posters who have genuinely made other DiSers uncomfortable have been drummed out and don't spend time here anymore. Occasionally, someone like silky (who I actually like to see here, albeit he needs to use his 'off' switch at certain times to avoid being a nob) will post something OTT and get sent to the naughty step for a while, which seems to do its job.
But, if you think this is needed fair enough. Whether it would be viable long term, I don't know
if it will make people's experiences of DiS more positive, than fine
personally i think DiS seems a lot...'nicer' than it did a few years ago, theres no vikrams or joes, or people like yer man martbowski or that irish lad who seem to constantly try to put people down in a level that goes past joshing about political opinions, but i'm not trying to speak for anyone else's experiences.
this is a good idea
Obviously if someone wants to discussva sensitive or personal subject and dont want to feel unsafe doing so then something like this is cool. Happy to enforce a drive against people being horrible when others have specifically asked them not to. COOL.
are you still a mod?
I'm sure you were a mod for a bit.
completely forgot you were a mod for a moment
SO DOWN TO EARTH
forgive me and please reign supreme.
EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS SMELLY
^ban request
ARE YOU STARTING ON ME
^6 year ban request
hey man hey
I wanna have a fight with you
I'll tell you what I'd much rather have than this SSP thing:
DarwinDude and georgiabeth instated as mods.
For serious.
fidel_CATSTRO: out
DD & gb: in
good grief
believe in a better future, zx
The boards would probably improve tbh
I'm in
while you're about it make me a mod as well
I wouldn't do anything irresponsible, ever
a (very) late, (very) drunk weigh-in
that probably echoes the sentiments of a few others ITT. no one should ever feel unsafe in any way in any thread. this is the sort of forum where one would hope this would be a non-negotiable. Don't have safe spaces, make the boards a place where everyone feels safe. i know that given the resources this isn't an easy thing to do, but the way to do it isn't by telling the mods to 'do their job properly', it's to make sure that posting that is genuinely out of line is reported, castigated, and dealt with and that the person who's posted that comment is dealt with in an appropriate way no matter who they know and how long they've been posting. idk i guess it's a shock to me that people do find this forum an unsafe place and that's troubling. i need to do more about it, as does everyone.
Why the fuck wasn't that DaddyorChips cunt banned sooner?
Don't think I really get what a SSP is but guess I don't have to
fidel_catstro reign of terror
took longer than it should have to come to pass
everything much better now, polls report
I remember sean telling me he didn't have time to ban people for sexual harrassment
Think it was only the four 'is some bullshit my mate wrote about killing music?' threads he started that day
Hang on, can I suggest an amendment to the SSP
We're allowed to be horrible to sean at all points, in all threads. Perhaps even obliged to be. Agreed?
he's still not banned, isn't he?
idk. I think by far the more baffling thing about it is that you'll STILL find people on this site who'll defend him and who like him, despite the fact that he's clearly not changed in either attitude or behaviour despite several years of people telling him why what the stuff he says and does is disgusting.
i guess theyre part of the same thing
I got a lot of requests to in ban DoC. He's not an entirely well guy. In any case I did and he didn't return.
People on this site will defend anyone. Not sure what your point is, although DoC has many fans on here which is why he kept returning.
Under the terms of SSP most members, me included, should be banned. A key point, according to GB and DD is no favouritism based on long membership or acceptance that they will be stating irony due to personal off-board knowledge. This paragraph isn't a snark.
...my point is that he shouldn't have fans?
he's a fucking prick
"fans"
nah
I'm not a fan of DoC
and I'm not an apologist either. I missed a lot of his actual really high grade unpleasantness which I'm slowly becoming aware of.
But I have actually met him unlike most people here and I don't necessarily think he's a lost cause. I'm not saying he's misunderstood, I'm just saying he needs some help and support which I have suggested he gets many times. He seems to be sorting his life and his head out as well of late, not that that is important to any of you.
the problem with him was that saying he had great taste/encouraging him to stick around
made him say more abhorrent stuff
I'm sure the guy had problems
If he didn't, he might have responded to the initially less hostile feedback he got in a more constructive way.
But as others have said, it was pretty uncomfortable watching him make a comment that (regardless of intent) upset someone, that person say they were upset, perhaps some other people say 'erm ... hang on' AND then watch a load of other people go 'eh, it was a joke, stop being such a pussy, no one who likes non-linear b+w films about Afghan backstreet abortions could be bad!'. And that happened all the time.
i think some people didnt realise the extent of how bad he was (including me)
i had him on facebook at one point but deleted him for liking everything i did within 5 seconds of me posting it plus a couple of weird comments on photos. i think the few times when i asked him to tone it down he made out like i was overreacting or something.
tbh, when i remember what he was like when he started (when i was 17?) it probably wouldnt be tolerated today.
The correct way to do this
Requires coding updates to the site to allow banning at a board access level.
Then you create a second "be excellent to each other" social board and people are banned from it for being bad.
Extra points if it's only viewable by logged in members who have access.
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4450849#r8189223
This kind of approach occurred to me as well (without the Bill & Ted quote)
The solution would need to be made at a coding level. Fragmenting the social board into 'good' and 'anyone' groups creates two tiers of acceptable behaviour which still have to be moderated. Would one of these two groups eventually become rarely used in favour of the other one? Should the creator of a thread be given the power to remove posts and ban users from that thread, rather than relying on a moderator to take action?
Prob just have a report button on a post in that board. Auto ban after 5 then let mods overturn on reading
Can anyone click the 'report' button?
This would inevitably be abused with people being banned for no reason. Mods being able to overturn it would not prevent it from being a problem.
Anyone with forum access, yes. Why do you forsee a problem? The forum should be self-selecting so particular members being targeted should die out once we see them stopping being remotely bad or once they accept it's not the place for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAiyUduyrY
There's a lot of middle class man mods here isn't there
Is there?
:D
why would anyone object to this ahahahahahahaha
how would it be enforced?
Bannings, can't you read?
*Paddlin'
A two-tier system of moderation and banning.
A general one, and an SSP one.
What could possibly go wrong...
well
i'm talking more about exactly who would decide what constituted behaviour worth a banning, which behaviour would be, what rights a user that had been banned would have to appeal etc
Because it's a terrible idea.
How do you define people being "horrible" to each other? That's not allowed anyway, genuine vitriol, so you should be pm'ing a mod if this is the case anyway.
Has this come on because of your Conor Oberst post? About some of the replies? Because you basically refused to engage some of the replies there, which weren't exactly "horrible", just contrary. And you have every right not to reply, it's just not exactly what a community forum is all about is it?
nothing to do with that at all
and if you actually read the thread and my response to (idk if you did?) i said:
"the response to this thread has been kinda great
and thanks to people who suggested this be published elsewhere. i dont think its really suitable for that many music sites... so i just posted on here https://medium.com/@doris/524c134eb567 if anyone wants to retweet it or w/e. thanks x"
so really no idea why you've thought that.
sorry, only just saw that reply, my mistake
as i said below though, if we have the need to instate a rule like this, then maybe we need to reevaluate how we approach modding and the rules of the forum itself
If it has come to this point
where members no longer feel comfortable posting certain things, then maybe it's time we had a full and frank discussion about the rules and boundaries of posting on DiS. Because we can't effectively split DiS in two like this. We need consistency. So maybe the wild west approach to DiS we've had in the past just simply doesn't work anymore...
Which is what I proposed above
Simple, clear and very basic rules that are transparent and obvious to all who post on here would avoid a lot of this.
Same.
But gb took it as an excuse to slag off the existing mods.
I've no real grief with the raising of the underlying issue, but SSPs aren't the answer.
Theo posted the "GENERAL MODERATING GUIDELINES" in the current sticky thread.
I want to see a DD/gb draft proposal of what should replace those guidelines, or what's specifically wrong with them, or missing. And if accepted by the community at large, they ought to be added to the mod roster (along with others if we don't think we have enough).
I don't object
I just think it's a recipe for a lot of unpleasantness and unconstructive debate over whether someone really deserved to be banned.
And I also think it's a really sad indictment of this community.
:-D
for the reasons stated ahahahahahahaha
imagine everyone getting banned
and then it's just me posting Roscoe and Marlon to myself
it's a dream i'll dream until my dying day
Look
I think I can speak on behalf of most the moderators here when I say it's a struggle at times trying to strike a balance between being a decent moderator and not being too intrusive (much like I am now...). DiS is a great forum, and has been in the past because of its relatively lawless environment, which is why I think people feel so comfortable to share and joke around here. However, if this needs to change, then there needs to be a consensus throughout the users for this. At the end of the day though we're trying to serve your best interests, and the websites, so if there is an overriding opinion that the tone of the forums really need to change then we'll have to do something about that. Basically, we'll try and adjust, but we aren't psychic, so we really are just judging off of the reactions you guys post - and trying to figure out whether they're genuine or not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is - if you have a problem with what someone has posted, don't hesitate to reply or pm any of us. If we need to reevaluate what is acceptable posting and what is not, then we need to have a consensus on this, but it needs to be consistent throughout the whole website.
so people wont be allowed to argue?
Soz, but you're underestimating how much dis loves it's dramaz. As far as being made to feel unsafe by people, straight banning. There's rules there, just enforce them. Most people on the board would be banned for what they said to cat race In that thread about him being a dick. Really, about 100 bannings.
Sort of highlights issues here because that response was as a result of his behaviour in the past. Probably he'd never done anything worthy of banning but he did trol.
trolling to be irritating and stupid is different from
Being mean. There's actually a rich history of trolls on here, often they will take debates to interesting places. Ban people who break the rules, but for people being 'mean'.
rich history of trolls
:D
all a part of the beautiful tapestry
That we are all weaving.
But you understand that winding someone up can lead to a response that is 'mean', right?
sure?
This is where it gets silly, in terms of what is 'horrible'. There would have to be a trial of sorts.
This was the thread where he made a lame and completely insincere apology while stating the wronged party had requested he make a proper apology, right?
so its ok for people to be mean
As long as they feel they have the moral high ground?
You're the person trying to apply a ludicrous black/white attitude here. My point is that you can only view things as a whole. Yeah, it's a shame we were all so mean to cat_race, except that he'd being completely beyond the pale and he'd systematically set out to piss off a lot of those people for years prior to this so, you know, maybe if you act like a twat you get treated likewise?
which is fine.
Self policing at work.
Let's just ban all the manc / ex manc users
weird lot anyway tbh and there'd be a huge drop in drama I bet
ban request
He just made me feel unsafe :(
I don't follow or remember particular individual's twattery. It goes in one ear and out the other.
But the clear problem to me is that there are some people who can't distinguish between when it's ok to be irreverent, jokingly obnoxious or puerile and when they're crossing a line into something darker or doing that in a place where it's obviously not appropriate (i.e. when someone has started a thread that is about a serious emotional topic).
For me, if something doesn't get done about that, people who make valuable contributions to these forums, who I have far more interest in reading threads or posts from, will probably make the valid conclusion that they might as well bugger off and find a different corner of the internet to satisfy them. I'd rather that not happen. So if the monkeys have to pause for thought for a few seconds before throwing their bananas and poop around the place, then I'm not going to cry about it.
So, I'm with DarwinDude in principle. If someone can improve the idea then cowabunga. I think a person has a right when they start a thread to demand a certain level of respect if it's a subject they feel tender about. It needs to be exceptional, it needs to be through the consensus of more than one person. But I don't think her idea is the end of all fun. And there are still infinite ways to be a cock to your heart's content if you want to.
Anything about censorship is a wank argument- freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities. As extreme an example as it may be, joking (or not joking) about someone needing to be raped should equal a bye bye. There needs to be some fucking internal censorship going on there in that person's brain.
"I think a person has a right when they start a thread to demand a certain level of respect if it's a subject they feel tender about."
Which is why I suggested that the person who starts a thread could be given the power to remove posts and ban users from that thread.
Look forward to CG removing posters from one of his disingenuous threads... :-/
I think it's a good idea...
...but I also feel like there's too much of a grey area for it to be at all enforceable. A lot of the time on here people get ultra offended at people disagreeing with them, but that's not always reason for those people to be censored. Different things are important to different people. If people are personally abusing others then they don't deserve to be a part of a community, but if people are being unsympathetic to or even dismissive of others opinions then helpful or not that's not really the same thing.
I've used forums for over ten years and DiS is by far the most open, transparent, welcoming of the lot, and as much as people have petty rows and occasionally act the goat I could count the genuinely unpleasant people who've used it over that time on a couple of hands.
Perhaps a constructive suggestion might be to disable private messages? If people wish to be contactable then they can swap email addresses or social media details via the profiles, but for others it could cut down on ways for them to feel intimidated.
no PMs
just 'fao:' threads,
forever,
imagine.
There's nothing in the OP that requires any new rules, so far as I understand.
If people are being upsettingly aggressive then they should be reported. If they're regulars or regular arseholes it shouldn't matter to the punishment. BUT the reason people don't get banned is most people on this site don't want that.
Of course, I'm not really 100% sure what we're talking about. Like Ant, the Oberst thread was my first assumption, but DD's claimed this isn't a good example. Basically I think with the likes of in_limbo on here trying to argue a good case for being a fascist, it seems a bit dubious to start giving out rules that can be used to stifle our ability to lay into such utter fucktarderry.
---------------------------------------------
Up there I suggested we'd need a new forum to do this. I was sort of joking but we can do that any time: DD, GB and anyone else can use a free forum site to start a new board over which they have complete control and then invite everyone to go over there to discuss things. And treat it how they like.
A lot of people seem to be overcomplicating this
It seems quite straightforward to me that if you want a thread with
No BANTER
No bullying
No trolling
No personal attacks
No deliberate antagonism
(And staying on topic)
Just prefix the thread SSP and everyone who posts in it tacitly agrees that an intentional breech results in a lengthy ban
Rest of the board carries on regardless
Don't see what the problem is
sounds like an internet message board is the perfect place to be posting then
Inhibits discussion about Scottish (socialist) politics.
So, actually, on reflection, let's have it!
but
Who defines what all that stuff is?
The problem is this is a social discussion forum and, more simply, people aren't robots.
I'll leave it there because I'm simply phenomenally angry you feel okay to be so glib.
Good old fashioned human failure
Sort of makes discussing the sort of things that would benefit from being discussed in a safe space impotent in the first place doesn't it?
bd idk etc
What sort of things are in need of SSP, though?
Potentially anything contentious
Which is why they'd need to appear alongside rather than instead of normal discussions when someone did start one
But specifically anything that concerns issues people can't help - sexuality, race, gender alignment etc from which most of this board are speaking from a position of privellege (the Oberst threads are a recent example). Of course I have no idea how/if a safe space should be policed though.
I really wanted specific examples
Not Oberst as that's 'okay' apparently, but threads where lack of SSP is a problem.
But really, I don't understand what you'd want to start a discussion on here about 'sexuality' (say) if you then want to limit the debate via SSP to remove certain users/opinions/personalities. Of course the resultant discussion in the SSP thread would be a lot cleaner and nicer but then it may as well be a discussion on a private FB group you set up and invited all the 'good' DiS people to, or an email discussion, or whatever.
This is my issue with SSP: that you're not providing any method for those 'bad' posters to learn, you're just opting to evict them from the site for long enough that you hope they won't come back.
(On another level, I imagine an SSP thread with views that people get angry about would spark a non SSP thread full of bitching later.)
Yeah the policing aspect is a problem for me too
Only been in safe spaces irl and if someone is a dickhead it's just awkward and someone says that's not really cool etc.
As for more specific examples it's not really about 'lets discuss sexuality' sort of threading although it could be, but for instance the threads about Rolf Harris or anything that's in the public eye that minute which posters could be making crass posts about from a position of privellege. And I for one DO think the Oberst threads would've benefitted from a safe space.
I personally agree that removing comments or banning folks would be progressive. So yeah I think it'd be easily spoilt and that sort of depresses me.
But
I just can't fathom the negativity in this thread
Sure it /might/ not work
But then again ...
I really don't see why the attitude isn't more 'ok, let's try it and see how it goes'
It would clearly be of use to a number of users and at no loss to anyone else
Apart from the mods having to ban people all the time.
Why would that have to happen ?
Surely the only candidates for that would be people jumping in to deliberately provoke or vandalise in a space that is clearly defined as intolerant of such intrusions so it would be their own doing
Plus it would only take a banning or two for people to realise it's not much fun getting banned
All SSP would essentially be is a reminder to think twice and consider the feelings of others before you post
I think that the worry is
That it would make the boards stiff and sterile. Boring perhaps. The place is inhabited by people who are always sure that they've right, the most liberal and right on. They could just use ssp all the time?
Then no one would post in their threads
Besides safe=boring is somewhat prejudging things
But in any case, like any other thread, they can be ignored
how is 'banter' going to make someone feel unsafe?
Feeling uncomfortable because someone is winding you up isn't the same as being unsafe. It isn't a mods job to wrap everyone up in cotton wool.
I can't tell you how banter would make YOU
Feel unsafe
And it would be a waste of time explaining how BANTER might make me feel unsafe (though I could) because that isn't the point
The point is that some users are having consistently negative experiences here as things stand and rather than saying that they're overreacting or being too sensitive and the problem is with them
or reacting in a way that amounts to 'well that's life, fuck off somewhere else if you don't like it here' why not listen to what they say, give it some respect and try out what is really a quite unintrusive suggestion ??
Even if it's unintrusive, it seems completely unworkable
'No BANTER
No bullying
No trolling
No personal attacks
No deliberate antagonism
(And staying on topic)'
How are these defined? & by who?
Of course jokes can make people feel uncomfortable.
How can you not think that could happen? My issues, however, are with defining these things because it's very vague. On the one hand we have calls in this thread for everyone to be treated the same but on the other we know that someone in the SSP will be happy with some jokes from mates but not others. Will 3rd parties see those as jokes? Really we just end up with the same elitism, unless you ban all humour, which is pretty radical but the only way.
my issue is that 'uncomfortable'
Does not mean unsafe. They aren't threatening. If someone genuinely feels unsafe, then report it to a mod.
"...tard..."
If you could phase this one out at the same time as retiring "butthurt" from your regular vocabulary, we'd all be much obliged.
Slowfuck? Nothing wrong with that.
is that the title of your soul album?
wait is butthurt a Bad Word
on more than one level,
yes
there are many ways to cop a pain in the ass
but if it has, say, homophobic origins then I'll gladly cede
I think this post is quite telling
and what you really want is a space you can discuss your off-the-peg student union politics without people like me coming along and reminding you that a significant proportion of the population think differently. In which case I either recommend campaigning to ban me or anyone else like me, even though I haven't done anything particularly wrong, or start a new forum that's as much of an echo chamber as you'd like.
And I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to derail the thread
but it's a bit ironic to talk about safe spaces in the same breath as calling me a 'fucktard'.
An acquaintance of mine started to call his dog over and hit it on the nose
He repeated this multiple times, until after receiving yet another smack on the nose the dog bit him. His initial reaction was to want to smack the dog for biting him.
Then what happened?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFZKlfRrGbw
You're the guy running away crying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGdc-VY3OJw&feature=youtu.be&list=PLrEnWoR732-BHrPp_Pm8_VleD68f9s14-
you seem to view politics as something like "people hold different opinions, then you argue about them and one person wins". it seems really negative and aggressive, and not a good way to approach the world.
i think the policy discussed in this thread translates as something like "put extra effort into not being antagonistic in discussion" which i think is fair enough - most things it doesn't matter if there's a bit of banter in chat but some topics are sensitive to people for whatever reason e.g. certain people won't want 'jokes' about crossdressing because they might have lost their family over their own gender troubles, especially if a personal way of framing it is being discussed. sometimes, they won't mind jokes being made about it and won't use the tag.
Do you think I expect to 'win' arguments
Coming on a left-leaning site and defending UKIP and the like? I'd say folk pulling out the facist/racist/sexist slurs are being a lot more antagonistic/combatative than I am most of the time, I probably wouldn't post in an SSP thread anyway because I can see me going against the grain would be evidence of me 'being a dick' enough, regardless of how I expressed my opinion.
" what you really want is a space you can discuss your off-the-peg student union politics "
What YOU really want is to read the whole thread and understand that I am completely NOT requesting this. I'm pointing out that under these rules there wouldn't be a debate for us to have most likely except for something slightly ridiculous where we state a position but don't engage in the other's.
Maybe you thought you were replying to someone else in this thread.
300 replies
140 at least
Make it happen theo
Really don't know how anyone can possibly oppose this
After the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
:''''D''''':
This feels a bit like the end of days
Honestly thought this was a joke. And now that I havr styopped laughing (whihc i've bene doing for the last 20 minutes before it danerd on me that this is real) I feel a bit sad and bewildered. Sad that there's thought to be a neeed for this (becuase clearly some poeple are initimdated )but on the other hand I do worry aobut how some of you do actually function in the real world, but there we go.
At least I'll know which dullard threads to avoid opening in future.
Entertaining read for a Monday morning this thread
Separately
Mods, you may be aware the new Defamation Act has come into full force now in England & Wales.
To quote an article an old collegaue of mine has written on the subject, law there are now specific provisions relating to social media, meaning individual posters may no longer be able to hide.
social networking site owners/ publishers have more in the way of defences now (GOOD NEWS SEAN) bvuyt indivudal posters whould be cautoined that they might be on the hook.
THis is of course about as enforceable as the SSP thing, but if it allows somebody to wring a hanky here or there, then good stuff.
No idea how this new law will pan out, but hit me up mods if you need some guidance. Just don't PM me as my PMs don't work. Shitfuck, i really do need to get a new account sorted.
Make "SSPyoucunt" your new username.
helpfully half that post got eaten
One of the most significant changes brought about by the Defamation Act 2013 concerns websites and social networking:
“It will be a defence for the operator to show that it did not post the statement on the website.”
Therefore, if you tweeted a defamatory statement and can be identified as doing so, websites such as Facebook and Twitter should, on application of such a defence, be able to resist legal proceedings and you could be held legally responsible, but only if it “reasonably practicable” to pursue you.
Importantly, the defence will fail if: 1) it is not possible to identify the author of the statement; 2) the website, for example, has been given a notice of complaint in relation to the statement; and 3) the website failed to respond to the notice of complaint within the required time frame.
Moreover, if the author is anonymous, the website can only keep publishing the content complained of and still rely on the defence if the posting party identifies themselves. However, we must ask - why would an author suddenly identify themselves, leaving themselves open to legal action?
Therefore, where the author of a post can be identified and served with proceedings, the defence will be available to operators such as Twitter and Facebook, but in circumstances where the author is anonymous and remains so, the process of seeking identification may do very little other than to delay the removal of the statement.
This may have an impat on how stringently you verify the identity of peple who post, because sean's defence will fail if the individual posters can't be ID-ed and fingered (fnar.)
Obviously, tis only applies ot cases where there has been real detirental dmanage to reputatoin inc financial harm, but it's not beyond the realms of poossibility that some twerp on here slanders an artist who could make a case for having their reputation tainted on 'highly respected indie music website'. etc.
Ugh. Legal sentence structure.
(soz PO).
drafted a few replies to this
decided that this thread doesn't really merit a proper reply.
CABBAGE
Bit dismissive.
maybe
I'd just take certain things as a given on an internet forum - i.e. there will be a certain amount of piss-taking; there will be a degree to which discussions about sensitive issues get heated; but there's a line between piss-taking, heated discussion and abuse. And that abusive posters would get reported and, if necessary, banned.
So really, the whole of DiS should be a SSP but only insofar as people shouldn't cross the line into being abusive. That doesn't mean that people might not get their feelings hurt, though.
sorry if anyone feels sad because of this thread
It hadn't occurred to me that it was needed
and i feel sad that people may have been having their feelings hurt and others not realised it. i just assumed that everybody is as thick skinned as me.
I ifnd it funny taking the piss out of folk and getting ribbed in rtreturn and the slightly lawless edge to this website is why I like it. i don't want it to turn into a hippy huggy place, but I do agree that people sohuld be able to post a serious thread without fear of some idiot trying ot make a jok eout of it- but I thought we alrady did that anyway,
example-
Poster a
zxcvbnm comes along and takes the piss
Poster B
KiK comes along and takes the piss
Poster c 'my cat has just died'
Virtually all of DiS- that is such a shame, we are so sorry.
isn't that how it goes already?
If poster C doesn't preface with SSP
Everyone can laugh at their dead cat under these new rules i think
ha ha stupid dead cat
...and anything more serious *should* be covered by Moderation.
Which is an issue beyond the prefixing of threads.
I've never been personally upset by anything anyone's said about me on here. I've gotten riled on occasion but never upset. Am I just lucky?
*priveleged
*privileged
FUCK
Me? :D
you'd hope this is the case
but I can think of a very specific circumstance where the above cat instance happened and someone did instead make a joke.
and that person is a cunt
and their card will be marked.
if anythgin I thoink the site is overmoderated. Forums should self regulate as much as poissible and if that drives away people who are think skinned, then that's te risk you take.
Posters who say absolutely terrible things should of course be taken to task, but this isn't the school debating society and if the site panders to its most sensitive members, then it's going to get pretty fucking boring pretty quickly. It's already halfway there.
you're alright
the thread says you have a big heart, both generally and for this place.
Hope you had a nice weekend, virgins
Does this mean all the bedwetters can't take out their internal rage online anymore?
They'll have to man up and do it in real life now :)
can't get enough of this thread
i'm seeing if we can get a consensus
i don't think the policy will be as effective if there's not enough buy-in from everyone
i think a lot of the protesters just don't know they want it yet
So un-SSP
can we bring in some kind of limit of typos per post?
* as well
fuck off cunt
ghahah
funny how I never seem to type that phrase badly.
^ ban
i don't have an opinion on this
hmm
sorry
i'm in, by the way
If you forget to SSP your thread title
can you SSP during the thread?
If that happens are posts pre the SSP posts safe from bannings?
What if you see the original post the pre SSP replies and join in with the piss taking, is that a banning?
Do I need to Ctrl+f SSP on every thread?
Can mods update thread titles? They could change a thread title to SSP to ban someone who replies in a none SSP manner even if the thread was SSP
ITT
I expected to see more of:
tommy sheridan
sicky pay jokes
nerdy comments about SCSI protocol
OH WELL.
If I may address the elephant in the room here...
The only reason this has 250+ replies of (mostly) boys saying "hey what a great idea" is that DD is famously pretty.
If this was thewarn's idea...
It doesn't though.
flattery's gonna get you nowehere zxcvbnm
(very flattered that you would think that though)
That was such a shit effort sorry
This must be how CG feels all the time.
I need to get some food inside me.
*Hatfood
I think you need to make it clear that the troll
Was about the number of replies and not about Dd being pretty
she's pretty
had no idea. Withdraw my support to cover my ass. Besides I have good way of denying that as a motive based on the fact that I live on the other side of the planet.
Im not a boy
you cheeky young whippersnapper.
Also I only came here because of your recomendation in the thread that I started
people are overreacting
Don't think its a big deal. Would hardly ever be used probably (its only ever gonna be used ironically now anyway). You guys are treating it like its some properly earth-shattering event, its well weird
http://ammcjd.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/waynes_world-2.jpg
people are UNDERreacting
still got it
ok the ACTUAL elephant in the room - Balonz
Imagine :-
"How many garlic presses have you used ever? (SSP Thread)"
"Has anyone been to Dunstable? (SSP Thread)"
"Greaseproof paper vs Baking Parchment? (SSP Thread)"
Madness.
I'm looking for a safe environment
within which to discuss my THREE FUCKING TIERED MINKY.
SSP = Balonz Charter
actually not sure how this would work
:''''D
called it.
*taps shoulder*
Steady on, comrade.
We're ready for your next orders on the Secret Mod Board, btw.
Shoot them.
Shoot them both.
with pleasure.
I actually love you :D
This is better trolling
than anything I managed in my heyday. The nuance of it is majestic. It's like poetry.
bit mean tho
imo
she's made a request that's certainly not outright unreasonable, and waited for the predictable member of the board to go apeshit bonkers about it. which they duly have. I don't think that's particularly mean.
You've got it bad haven't you
:(
it's better trolling than I'll ever manage, that's for sure.
who's gone apeshit bonkers about it?
I think a few people said it was pathetic but nobodywas relaly losing their shit either way.
Having not really checked the boards over the weekend becuase i've been too busy drinking and shagging and leaving the house etc, it was interesting to the idea, only for it to be blasted into space by common sense as the real world looged back in at 9am today.
urgh learn to reply catstro
see below
You're wrong; she was only trolling and she got us all good n' proper!
Yeah.
who's the predictable member of the board?
Should we tell him, guys?
Unworkable
If posters are being cunts (anywhere), ban 'em.
Don't over complicate stuff.
bonkers audit from the first inch of my scrollbar:
limmers
labmonkey
engels
crispin
(thoroughly enjoyed yr second para btw. TO BUSY SHAGGIN PAL =D )
I was most especially proud of
'and leaving the house, etc', but thanks ;)
How seriously people take these boards
is something I am truly grateful full on a Monday morning.
grateful full fulll fullll fulllll
this thread is unbelievable
people seem to have mistaken the rules of a shit music website with like... the actual law or something?
BUT THE INTERNET IS REAL LIFe!
This is a music website?
fuck.
here the music forum is SHITE now
Can I moderate that and delete the unfunny joke threads? This if u agre
moousee's still at it FFS
like those legends of japanese soldiers in the jungle
who don't know the war is over
Pretty sure that this is an SSP thread.
It say it in the title, so you're all banned.
are you not my mp???
are you not my beautiful wife???
I've always thought people take this all too seriously.
It's fun to watch that unfold though. Drama on ITV4 with DiS.
tl;dr
anyone want to explain what we're wetting the bed over this time in less than ten words?
typos
ITT...
Honestly?
The fact that the users who need the board moderators on their side the most, feel like they can't just message the moderators about things that go wrong. So DD was suggesting new rules to avoid this issue by allowing people to prefix threads with SSP to state that anything beyond civility in the thread could be hit by a banning.
that's 62 words
You have a very elastic definition of 9 words, Theo.
You should see me in Tesco.
Buys one
gets nine free
CAN YOU TELL ME 10 WORDS THAT YOU'D USE
<3
"wah I can't say whatever I want wah wah"
LESS THAN TEN OH GOD I'VE DONE MYSELF
OR NOT
you have,
but a little later than you initially though.
than I initially though?
We've all done ourselves
by thissing it.
Alright Kim Jong Un
underwear intentionally soiled, mattress protectors needed
desperate boys (especially catstro) really want girl to like them
dead on!
I feel like I should defend myself
by pointing out you've got one too many words here
agreeing with someone from the opposite sex doesn't mean you want to shag them you numpty
You're absolutely right
^ this needs more appreciation
he's not going to sleep with you.
You're absolutely right
Imagine if a man had made this thread...
Im guessing they would have been told to "leave the boards" by a million users. Makes you think doesnt it...
http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9yibl3HmH1rfgnslo1_500.gif
Make u think...
Imagine!
Imagine if Bon Iver came onstage to a sold-out audience
that had a small safe space section
congratulations pet x
:D
Shall we just let the mods do their job instead?
tell more more of this joyous utopia
I prefer 'jaw jaw' to 'more more'
- Winston Churchill
as you wish
tell jaw jaw of this joyous utopia
zxcvbnm has directed me to come here
can anyone give me some love please?