How "upcoming meep" should have been worded

Author: Melcharaz

Posts

Total: 21
Topic's author
#1
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
You can report for cross thread or call out if you want. I just want to show ragnar how he Should have done the listings


1. Conducts in regards to trolling
 
Voting "yes" to this question will add the following rule to coc
 
  • Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
2. conduct in regards to mod harrassment.
Voting yes will effect the following rule.

  • Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
3. rules to protect children

       •   Added clauses to protect children.

 
4. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
 
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
 
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
 
 
5. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
 
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
 
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
  
---


Topic's author
#2
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@Discipulus_Didicit
@K_Michael
@Jeff_Goldblum
Would yalls votes be the same?
Topic's author
#3
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@Imabench
@Dr.Franklin
@sigmaphil
@PressF4Respect
Yall as well. Would you vote the same?
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Melcharaz
To what you posted

Yes
No
Yes 
Yes
Abstain
#5
David
David's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 1,218
4
7
10
David's avatar
David
4
7
10
-->
@Melcharaz
I see absolutely nothing wrong with Ragnar's post or their format. 
#6
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
"Advocacy in favor of any hate group or their mission is likewise prohibited."

No. Take this one out. "Don't advocate genocide" is fair, but for one thing nobody can really agree on what a hate group is and also it unreasonably limits the parameters of open debate.

#7
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Swagnarok
No. Take this one out. "Don't advocate genocide" is fair, but for one thing nobody can really agree on what a hate group is
The SPLC defines a hate group as "an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." [1] 
I think this is a fair definition to use, and if there are any objections to it, then please, by all means, present an alternative. But the one thing that shouldn't be happening is saying, "oh well, too vague" and leaving it at that.

Also, according to the FBI [2], a hate crime is "a committed criminal offense which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias(es) against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity." With this definition in mind, genocide is only a specific type of hate crime, and there are many other hate crimes that don't involve advocating genocide (eg. using racial/ethnic/sexual slurs and obscenities in a deliberately insulting fashion).

and also it unreasonably limits the parameters of open debate.
How so?

#8
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
The SPLC is a terrible, hyperpartisan source. They would classify the American Family Association (AFA), a run-of-the-mill conservative Christian advocacy organization, as a hate group. They might similarly classify organizations like Samaritan's Purse, a Christian charity that has done a lot of good in the world, or Franklin Graham, one of the most well known and respected pastors/evangelists in America today.
#9
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Swagnarok
We are talking about the definition the SPLC provided, not the SPLC itself. I said that the definition was fair, and that if you disagree with it, then by all means, provide an alternative one.
#10
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yes, I know the definition. But who do you classify as a hate group based on that definition? It's broad enough that a number of non-hate groups could be defined as hate groups. Who decides which entities fit the mold?
#11
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Melcharaz
I support the three different questions instead of the overarching number 1
Topic's author
#12
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Im glad you do as well. I dont like package deals
#13
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Swagnarok
But who do you classify as a hate group based on that definition
That definition isn't meant to be a grocery list of hate groups. It's supposed to act as a benchmark for the mods on a case-by-case basis.

It's broad enough that a number of non-hate groups could be defined as hate groups.
It's intentionally broad to prevent offenders from slipping through the cracks. As I have stated previously, there are many types of hate crimes, and hate groups that perpetrate them. That definition is meant to be a guideline, not a rule in itself.

Who decides which entities fit the mold?
My guess would be either the mods or the community.

#14
truthbomb
truthbomb's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 6
0
0
2
truthbomb's avatar
truthbomb
0
0
2
-->
@PressF4Respect
It's intentionally broad to prevent offenders from slipping through the cracks. As I have stated previously, there are many types of hate crimes, and hate groups that perpetrate them. That definition is meant to be a guideline, not a rule in itself.
I have not been a part of the community long enough to vote on this, but I think the problem would be for potential to abuse the definition, and not neccessarily intentionally. Particularly in a debate site, you atleast want some members who are willing to advocate for not just mildly offensive things, but for extremely offensive things. If a member of greenpeace wants to come here and debate that commercial fishermen should be physically attacked it should be welcomed. You want a chance to attack certain radical ideologies anyway, before they become strengthened by having the premises go unchallenged, because once somebody has enough confidence in their beliefs, that is when they will act on them. (right or wrong).

I also wonder if the rule would apply to me. For example if that rule is implemented, should I leave the site? While I am not a part of any hate groups, I do believe that Germany is and should remain a white country. I also wonder if the rule would be appliedd evenly. For example if a zionist Jew were to advocate for a racially homogenous Israel, would he be subjected to being forced off the site, like a white person advocating for the same thing (I don't advocate for that BTW, despite that seeming contrary to my prior statement)?

Centrists whether right wing or left wing, honestly don't have much variation of beliefs. Hillary Cllinton and Jeb Bush would basically have the same policies as president, but some cosmetic differences, for example. It just won't be a succesful site or even interesting if outliers who take extremist positions are excluded because that is considered "advocating for a hate group".

I will not be voting in the MEEP out of respect for site veterans like I said, but I would encourage anybody who is, to give some push back against any policy that allows wiggle room for interpretation or that may lead to censoring people with fringe beliefs.
#15
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@truthbomb
I have not been a part of the community long enough to vote on this
Anyone can vote on this (on the official thread).

but I think the problem would be for potential to abuse the definition, and not neccessarily intentionally.
I actually agree. It's not that I think the mods are going to abuse the definition (they certainly seem well-intentioned), but that we're human, and that sometimes we allow our subconscious biases to get the better of us (and this goes for everyone).

Particularly in a debate site, you atleast want some members who are willing to advocate for not just mildly offensive things, but for extremely offensive things.
What do you mean by "offensive"?

If a member of greenpeace wants to come here and debate that commercial fishermen should be physically attacked it should be welcomed. 
It depends on the context. You certainly don't want a Greenpeace member to be verbally attacking a commercial fisherman on this site. 

You want a chance to attack certain radical ideologies anyway, before they become strengthened by having the premises go unchallenged, because once somebody has enough confidence in their beliefs, that is when they will act on them. (right or wrong).
I didn't think I would find myself saying this, but I actually agree with what you said here 100%.

I also wonder if the rule would apply to me.
It depends on what you do, and whether or not your actions would constitute deliberate hate.

 For example if that rule is implemented, should I leave the site?
That's your decision to make. No one is going to pre-emptively force you off this site just for who you are.

 I also wonder if the rule would be appliedd evenly.
It should. 

It just won't be a succesful site or even interesting if outliers who take extremist positions are excluded because that is considered "advocating for a hate group".
Taking extremist positions doesn't necessarily mean advocating for a hate group. 

#16
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
The one thing to take away from the "hate group" rule is that context is the most important factor. Different situations call for different responses. This issue isn't black and white, and there will more often than not be some ambiguity involved, which could and should be dealt with by the community as a whole. 
#17
truthbomb
truthbomb's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 6
0
0
2
truthbomb's avatar
truthbomb
0
0
2
-->
@PressF4Respect
What do you mean by "offensive"?
Basically anything you can thing of whether it be sexual like beastiality or incest, political like advocating for women not to have the ability to voter or social such as making claims of IQs being influenced by genetics at least partially. Honestly pretty much anything you can think of.
#18
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@truthbomb
It would depend on the magnitude and context of the offence, and of the situation as a whole.
#19
truthbomb
truthbomb's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 6
0
0
2
truthbomb's avatar
truthbomb
0
0
2
-->
@PressF4Respect
That sounds like you would base it on somebody's subjective feelings of how disgusting something is, correct me if I am wrong. Honestly, I think there is a lot of value in being exposed to radical belief systems (If they are well supported anyway), it allows you to either strengthen parts of your own ideology you have not fully fleshed out, or change your mind on something you happen to be incorrect about.

For example I find female genital mutilation to be disgusting, but I recently talked to a woman who had it and referred to it as a "female circumcision", and learned a lot from the conversation. I still feel it is unethical, but I learned that several different forms of FGM exist, some are extremely brutal and other forms leave some permanent scarring but are relatively safe and don't impact sexual pleasure much if at all.

I wonder if that same woman would be banned here for advocating for the legalization of FGM, and if the entire community would have missed out on that learning opportunity.
#20
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@truthbomb
That sounds like you would base it on somebody's subjective feelings of how disgusting something is, correct me if I am wrong.
It's not just basing it on someone's subjective feelings. It is based on the opinions of multiple mods, each with their own backgrounds and opinions to contribute. While it is true that there will be a subjective element to this, it won't at all be based on the whims of just one person/group of people. 

Honestly, I think there is a lot of value in being exposed to radical belief systems (If they are well supported anyway), it allows you to either strengthen parts of your own ideology you have not fully fleshed out, or change your mind on something you happen to be incorrect about.
 I agree, but there is a difference between having an opinion and attacking and maligning others for who they are.
#21
sigmaphil
sigmaphil's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 12
0
1
6
sigmaphil's avatar
sigmaphil
0
1
6
-->
@Melcharaz
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes, as long as it doesn't make voting more difficult.