Thread Bans

[Meredith]

To clarify, we'll never enforce 'rules' outside of the site's - we only intervene in discussions if insults are being thrown (and then, usually, threads are locked.). Making an argument will never be against the rules. Calling somebody nasty names already is.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

The argument is for silencing people who are being ABUSIVE and DISRESPECTFUL.


It's not supposed to be for silencing opinions.  


This is a temporary ban from a SINGLE thread.  1 thread.  24 hours.  That's what this suggestion calls for, not to SILENCE opinions.


Insulting never will, and never HAS, gotten anywhere in an argument.  


I heard a rule once: the person that throws the first insult loses the argument.


Why is this something to fear, unless you're breaking the rules?

 

[Grey]

Anyone who claims that others should have the right over who can and cannot participate in a discussion is not worried about other people's feelings or civility, they are concerned with power. 

I strongly resent this accusation. An insult is not dissent, Shireling, and my rebuke of you was unacceptable both intellectually and according to site policy - it is not uncommon for a thread to be closed after such an exchange in order to prevent further hostility, by consequence silencing any further discourse in that forum. My suggestion is intended to be a targeted reprimand for violating site rules which permits the conversation to continue and, crucially, allows the user in question both to continue their use of RPN and the opportunity to return to the conversation after a cooling off period. 


This is not intended to dictate the right to participate but more effectively moderate that participation under the site's rules as written. If you would dispute the staff's ability to make an impartial and informed decision in this regard, you cast aspersions on their ability to make that decision in the event of any other report.


I remind you, also, that RPN is a private website, and that ultimately our right to participate here is at the discretion of the owner. It's a fine ideal to suggest that no one should have the right to keep the gate on discussions, but the fact is thus; if other participants in a discussion do not want you to participate, they will excise you from the discussion and I'm not aware of any legal recouse to dispute this. If the owner of a platform for discussion does not want you to participate, they can remove you, and again I'm unaware of any legal recourse unless there's a viable argument for discrimination. No one has a right to silence you, but neither is anyone obligated to listen to you nor facilitate you outside of professional or governmental framework, and even then I'm not aware of any guarantees.


Essentially, Shireling, by agreeing to RPN's terms we have curtailed the freedom of our speech as a necessary compromise for use of the site and assented to censorship at the discretion of the owner and staff. I'm merely seeking an alternative to a site-wide ban/no ban and thread derailed/thread closed dichotomy. 


I think that we might be well advised to take this dicussion elsewhere if it is to continue; I'm not certain this fits the intended purpose of this sub-forum and would prefer to avoid clutter or confusion.

Then, of course, there are concerns about being banned for seeming "irrationally angry." Regardless of whether or not mods are intended to remain impartial, the fact remains that they are just people, and they are all people with their own life experiences who will have their own biases when faced with others whose experiences differ.  I can for certain say that a few weeks ago, I was quite angry, and although I still remained as calm as I can manage, my guess is that I would have been banned from that thread if this system was in place, because my life experiences mean that many people would have seen my reaction as an irrational one, and in that case, that would have been censorship.

I fully respect and appreciate that you make this consideration, but as I said above - RPN is a private website. We are subject to censorship anyway by agreeing to rules such as the positive environment rule. Remember the election day announcement discouraging poltical discussion? 


I feel that a temporary ban from a specific thread is a superior option to site-wide ban. Your arguments are equally applicable right now, are they not? People can still be reported, punished, and potentially banned from the site entire for the reasons you outline, if we assume them to be of even a twenty percent likelihood. 

 

[Enuky]

We are subject to censorship anyway

So you admit your plan. 

 

[The Mechanist]

You mean like telling people they're wrong and giving them reasons why? 

You can't exactly call a person wrong if it's an opinion cuz everyone entitled to it especially when it comes to theologies or ideologies. You can disagree with someone but you can't say they are wrong. That is why it is an opinion, saying someone is wrong is like saying your opinion is a fact. Which in certain circumstances that could be the case but you can't just outright call someone wrong if you wanna be Civil about it

 

[Enuky]

I can't believe RPN wouldn't see this for what it is. very disheartening. 


Understand, staff, that once there's a "suggest ban" button or something people are going to use it, and it's not only going to be during aggressive confrontations lol 


And you're going to have to give every report your undivided attention? and do so fairly and effectively? 


Save us all the trouble. we don't need an rpn panic button. It will be used Incessantly and probably more often than not as an attempt to censor. 

 

[Inner Power]

I'm going to just add one comment. I do think this is a good idea so you have my support @Grey


They've calmed down to a degree, but these threads could have used something of this nature.







What happened to just agree to disagree? Or leave well enough alone?

 

[Meredith]

I can't believe RPN wouldn't see this for what it is. very disheartening. 


Understand, staff, that once there's a "suggest ban" button or something people are going to use it, and it's not only going to be during aggressive confrontations lol 


And you're going to have to give every report your undivided attention? and do so fairly and effectively? 


Save us all the trouble. we don't need an rpn panic button. It will be used Incessantly and probably more often than not as an attempt to censor. 

We get many reports already, and we deal with them. Already, if somebody is being disrespectful in a thread, they should be reported. We are a busy staff, but this wouldn't change much if it was implemented (which would only be after extensive staff discussion) as thread bans would only be handed out if we were going to lock the thread otherwise.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

I can't believe RPN wouldn't see this for what it is. very disheartening. 


Understand, staff, that once there's a "suggest ban" button or something people are going to use it, and it's not only going to be during aggressive confrontations lol 


And you're going to have to give every report your undivided attention? and do so fairly and effectively? 


Save us all the trouble. we don't need an rpn panic button. It will be used Incessantly and probably more often than not as an attempt to censor. 

I mean no disrespect, but have you even been reading the thread?


Rule number one on this site: RESPECT.  Secondly, throwing insults does NOT contribute to an argument.  It only makes both parties heated.  You're confusing this with something that it is not.  This is not censorship.


So again, this is for people who get into a heated argument, NOT censoring opposing viewpoints.  Honestly, a lot of the threads that do get heated get shut down because of 2 people when the rest were having a thoughtful discussion.  That is not fair.  The individual people need to be punished without the entire thread to get shut down.

 

[The Mechanist]

Honestly if people are gonna argue, why not just ban sensitive topics in general on the site? I loved that after the election RPN made it known that you weren't allowed to talk about the election or your political beliefs, and those that did were reprimanded. 

 

[Enuky]

So if a user is reportedly in violation of the number one rule.... they should be reported. If they have truly behaved as "aggressively" and disrespectfully as you claim, then why wouldn't reportings and warnings be the appropriate consequences? 

 

[Enuky]

If someone was abusing me as blatantly as you're saying this is for then I would expect them to get a warning. 


The issue that you're trying to address is already solved. 


Not only that, but there would even be a lag of time between reports and when "bans" are approved. It will work almost exactly like the current rules. 


It has no purpose other than to censor. The present system already adequately addresses "extreme abuse". 

 

[jinkx]

Honestly if people are gonna argue, why not just ban sensitive topics in general on the site? I loved that after the election RPN made it known that you weren't allowed to talk about the election or your political beliefs, and those that did were reprimanded. 

Hmmm, how would we decide which topics would be banned though? No matter which topics were banned, somebody would no doubt throw a fit about it. 

So if a user is reportedly in violation of the number one rule.... they should be reported. If they have truly behaved as "aggressively" and disrespectfully as you claim, then why wouldn't reportings and warnings be the appropriate consequences? 

Because we are talking about a situation where some people stir up drama in a thread. Normally, the thread is shut down and no further discussion is allowed in that thread. But @Grey is merely suggesting that instead of closing down the whole thread, only the people behaving inappropriately are banned. Therefore, everybody else on the thread who is behaving respectfully can continue their discussion. I think I got that right?


As far as inappropriate behaviour on the site in general, I report it every time I see it. This normally means posts being removed, which is good enough for me. People that frequently behave inappropriately do get warnings. But this thread is about what I specified above, not the site in general. 

 

[Meredith]

Honestly if people are gonna argue, why not just ban sensitive topics in general on the site? I loved that after the election RPN made it known that you weren't allowed to talk about the election or your political beliefs, and those that did were reprimanded. 

We do encourage civil discussion, but we let it be known that we're not a debate forum, and we do not in any way let insults fly. Discussion is a good thing, as is disagreeing, as it widens everyone's viewpoints.

So if a user is reportedly in violation of the number one rule.... they should be reported. If they have truly behaved as "aggressively" and disrespectfully as you claim, then why wouldn't reportings and warnings be the appropriate consequences? 

Well, users do get warnings for disrespect in threads! This seems to be more a suggestion for the possibility of a thread ban in cases of disrespect (in our eyes, when debate turns to insults and demeaning words), instead of just a warning. Another point is that entire discussions are shut down when people get out of hand - instead of the whole conversation going awry, it seems this might give people an opportunity to calm down, and later return to the discussion with their own views. We want people to share their opinion, no matter what it is in terms of the topic, but we do require respect from user to user.


The purpose of this would be to allow discussions to continue after a conflict - it seems like it would lessen censorship on the forums.

 

[Flooffy]

The purpose of this would be to allow discussions to continue after a conflict - it seems like it would lessen censorship on the forums.

 Exactly. No one is seeking to silence people here, after all.

 

[The Mechanist]

Hmmm, how would we decide which topics would be banned though? No matter which topics were banned, somebody would no doubt throw a fit about it. 


Because we are talking about a situation where some people stir up drama in a thread. Normally, the thread is shut down and no further discussion is allowed in that thread. But @Grey is merely suggesting that instead of closing down the whole thread, only the people behaving inappropriately are banned. Therefore, everybody else on the thread who is behaving respectfully can continue their discussion. I think I got that right?


As far as inappropriate behaviour on the site in general, I report it every time I see it. This normally means posts being removed, which is good enough for me. People that frequently behave inappropriately do get warnings. But this thread is about what I specified above, not the site in general. 

Let them throw a hissy fit, they won't get what they want and if they don't like it then they can leave, no one is forcing anyone to stay on the site 

 

[Grey]

Honestly if people are gonna argue, why not just ban sensitive topics in general on the site? I loved that after the election RPN made it known that you weren't allowed to talk about the election or your political beliefs, and those that did were reprimanded. 

If I remember rightly, a few years ago there was actually a rule against 'serious topics' like religion and politics, so you had to keep conversations like that to PM. I don't know why it was phased out, but I would imagine the administration preferred not to wholly censor such discussion if an effective means to moderate it could be found. There was certainly demand for an avenue of free discourse about the real world, which lead to the temporary presence of the Serious Discussion and World Events subfora until these too were phased out.


Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to argue with opposing perspectives (and I have to commend Shireling's magnanimity in response to my outburst) in what feels like my digital home away from home because I am invested in this community and I do not feel my presence here is threatened by mere dissent. But, on the other hand, I would prefer to avoid exclusion - there are other sites where I can have these discussions and would not object strongly to such a ban if the administration deemed it necessary. Some people feel victimized by the content of these arguments, regardless of intention, and I would prefer to avoid that.


This is, afterall, a roleplaying site, and one could always employ the stories they tell as a tool to express their views with the benefit of a little distance. 

 

[Enuky]

I believe you can already limit the posting capabilities of extremely abusive users for a limited amount of time. if someone is in violation of our number one rule and doing so in an extreme way this should be the consequence. People on here very often claim differing opinions are abusive. 

 

[The Mechanist]

If I remember rightly, a few years ago there was actually a rule against 'serious topics' like religion and politics, so you had to keep conversations like that to PM. I don't know why it was phased out, but I would imagine the administration preferred not to wholly censor such discussion if an effective means to moderate it could be found. There was certainly demand for an avenue of free discourse about the real world, which lead to the temporary presence of the Serious Discussion and World Events subfora until these too were phased out.


Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to argue with opposing perspectives (and I have to commend Shireling's magnanimity in response to my outburst) in what feels like my digital home away from home because I am invested in this community and I do not feel my presence here is threatened by mere dissent. But, on the other hand, I would prefer to avoid exclusion - there are other sites where I can have these discussions and would not object strongly to such a ban if the administration deemed it necessary. Some people feel victimized by the content of these arguments, regardless of intention, and I would prefer to avoid that.


This is, afterall, a roleplaying site, and one could always employ the stories they tell as a tool to express their views with the benefit of a little distance. 

Not gonna lie I loved reading your view on religion, but as for the discussions of such topics? I get on this site to get away from that crap. I hear enough of it at home, and at school, RPN is my escape from the real world, so it always bothers me when real world topics make their way on here.

 

[Meredith]

I believe you can already limit the posting capabilities of extremely abusive users for a limited amount of time. if someone is in violation of our number one rule and doing so in an extreme way this should be the consequence. People on here very often claim differing opinions are abusive. 

We can limit their posting entirely, but if they're only a problem in a few threads, that's not a sensible measure. The staff position on disrespectful behavior is that differing opinions are not disrespectful, unless there is content in the message (insults) which make them so.

 

[Flooffy]

I believe you can already limit the posting capabilities of extremely abusive users for a limited amount of time. if someone is in violation of our number one rule and doing so in an extreme way this should be the consequence. People on here very often claim differing opinions are abusive. 

Even if some claim that, the adding of this function wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, change the staff's opinion what is abusive or not.


Just because a temporary ban is available, it wouldn't make a simple disagreement abuse, would it?

 

[Grey]

I get on this site to get away from that crap. I hear enough of it at home, and at school, RPN is my escape from the real world, so it always bothers me when real world topics make their way on here.

I can respect that, and since there's no easy way for you to filter content like that out I can see the merit in a blanket ban.

 

[The Mechanist]

I can respect that, and since there's no easy way for you to filter content like that out I can see the merit in a blanket ban.

maybe I can get you to ban me from the threads so I don't see em  can that be a thing? Make the threads invisible to those that were banned?

 

[Grey]

maybe I can get you to ban me from the threads so I don't see em  can that be a thing? Make the threads invisible to those that were banned?

Actually, being able to ignore threads like you can other users would probably be useful. 

 

[Daisie]

Actually, being able to ignore threads like you can other users would probably be useful. 

Yea, actually, that'd be helpful in some situations. Sure, you could just unfollow the thread. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't stop people from tagging you when you don't want to be there.


Good idea!