Contact us
Sitewide Discussion on Rules, please read.
|
417
 Posted by: Orisla Admin
UPDATED: 9/8/2023 Hello everyone, and thank you again for being a part of the early stages of this project. I can happily say that we are succeeding in our goal of having a positive initial culture. With that in mind, we have been in discussion to try to figure out how we want to handle times in which the rules are violated. Because this platform is attempting to operate differently than other platforms, we want the community to have a say in how these violations are handled. Below is a list of the tools moderators have at their disposal once a topic is reported. Note - These are utilized by site moderators but also by the individuals who have created a topic or a sub-category. Don't forget you are responsible for moderating your topics and sub-categories. In exchange you receive a cut of every Recognition exchanged in your topic/sub-category. If you do not want that responsibility you are welcome to put someone else's username in the Recognition Split and they can moderate it for you. If the user who owns the topic or sub-category bans or blocks the user in question, they will not have access to that topic or sub-category. If a site moderator bans or blocks someone, the user will not have access to the site. Warning - the user will receive a pop-up text box with a message from the moderator Ban - a temporary block from the Topic or sub-category. Block - a permanent ban How do you want to use these tools? What kinds of content requires intervention? What kind of intervention should it receive? I'll update this Topic to include the discussion points. Updates: We have received some feedback and are in the process of incorporating it into the current structure. The discussion now continues to allocate which offenses are considered Minor, Medium, or Major. Minor - Warning 1. Failing to utilize site designations correctly (we should anticipate most new users will need some direction here. The site designations can be confusing at first). 2. Posting someone else's content without citing a source / indicating it is Not OC (Not original content) 3. Spamming Comments 4. Inappropriate username / avatar 5. Medium - Bans: 1 day to 1 week 1. Speech that is attacking individuals or groups 2. Failing to adjust accordingly following repeated warnings 3. Attempting to steal the content from other users for financial gain 4. Posting NSFW content outside of a NSFW designated sub-category 5. Major - Block, Site-wide Block 1. Failing to adjust accordingly following repeated bans 2. Scamming others / Posting links to Phishing or harmful sites 3. Impersonating another individual, or pretending to represent an organization 4. Thoughts? Anything we need to add or change?
Edited:  Reply
x
Reply to: Orisla AdminUPDATED: 9/8/2023 Hello everyone, and thank you again for being a part of the early stages of this project. I can happily say that we are succeeding in our goal of having a positive initial culture. With that in mind, we have been in discussion to try to figure out how we want to handle times in which the rules are violated. Because this platform is attempting to operate differently than other platforms, we want the community to have a say in how these violations are handled. Below is a list of the tools moderators have at their disposal once a topic is reported. Note - These are utilized by site moderators but also by the individuals who have created a topic or a sub-category. Don't forget you are responsible for moderating your topics and sub-categories. In exchange you receive a cut of every Recognition exchanged in your topic/sub-category. If you do not want that responsibility you are welcome to put someone else's username in the Recognition Split and they can moderate it for you. If the user who owns the topic or sub-category bans or blocks the user in question, they will not have access to that topic or sub-category. If a site moderator bans or blocks someone, the user will not have access to the site. Warning - the user will receive a pop-up text box with a message from the moderator Ban - a temporary block from the Topic or sub-category. Block - a permanent ban How do you want to use these tools? What kinds of content requires intervention? What kind of intervention should it receive? I'll update this Topic to include the discussion points. Updates: We have received some feedback and are in the process of incorporating it into the current structure. The discussion now continues to allocate which offenses are considered Minor, Medium, or Major. Minor - Warning 1. Failing to utilize site designations correctly (we should anticipate most new users will need some direction here. The site designations can be confusing at first). 2. Posting someone else's content without citing a source / indicating it is Not OC (Not original content) 3. Spamming Comments 4. Inappropriate username / avatar 5. Medium - Bans: 1 day to 1 week 1. Speech that is attacking individuals or groups 2. Failing to adjust accordingly following repeated warnings 3. Attempting to steal the content from other users for financial gain 4. Posting NSFW content outside of a NSFW designated sub-category 5. Major - Block, Site-wide Block 1. Failing to adjust accordingly following repeated bans 2. Scamming others / Posting links to Phishing or harmful sites 3. Impersonating another individual, or pretending to represent an organization 4. Thoughts? Anything we need to add or change?
|
|||
|
10
Posted by: ScubaDawg
We need to be really careful in considering banning "hate speech," misleading information," etc. What is key is the DEFINING of these words. I hope no one here wants to promote the censorship of legitimate opinion. For example, a legitimate respectful opinion might be, "I don't agree that a homosexual lifestyle is normal or healthy, & here are my reasons." (Yes, I'm jumping right in here with a controversial topic.) Hate speech would be, "Homosexuals give me the creeps. What is wrong with these people? Perverts." These statements are disrespectful to the persons & derogatory. In our highly charged political culture it is a common tactic to shut down debate by labeling respectful legitimate opinion as "hate speech." We need to be aware of & above that sort of manipulation. "Misleading information" is another problematic term that needs specific definition. Think about how the legacy media & many political figures label challenges to their preferred "narratives" as "misinformation," or "disinformation." True "misleading information" should be proven misleading with facts & logic. This is one area where commenters can step forward to challenge this type of speech. Info does not always need to be taken down. Let people debate it. That is how we learn to practice critical thinking. But if the debate gets ugly, there's no point in putting up with that. A moderator can ask the person to edit their post to be respectful so it won't need to be deleted. It's about the tone of the post & presenting evidence that the "facts" presented are credible. All this to say, freedom of speech is how we find truth together. That is the purpose of the First Amendment. It was penned to protect religious & political speech, as these were areas oppressive governments liked to restrict because it challenged their control. The First Amendment was not designed to protect obscenity, lies, threats & the like. I believe we can be discerning about this.
x
Reply to: Orisla AdminWe need to be really careful in considering banning "hate speech," misleading information," etc. What is key is the DEFINING of these words. I hope no one here wants to promote the censorship of legitimate opinion. For example, a legitimate respectful opinion might be, "I don't agree that a homosexual lifestyle is normal or healthy, & here are my reasons." (Yes, I'm jumping right in here with a controversial topic.) Hate speech would be, "Homosexuals give me the creeps. What is wrong with these people? Perverts." These statements are disrespectful to the persons & derogatory. In our highly charged political culture it is a common tactic to shut down debate by labeling respectful legitimate opinion as "hate speech." We need to be aware of & above that sort of manipulation. "Misleading information" is another problematic term that needs specific definition. Think about how the legacy media & many political figures label challenges to their preferred "narratives" as "misinformation," or "disinformation." True "misleading information" should be proven misleading with facts & logic. This is one area where commenters can step forward to challenge this type of speech. Info does not always need to be taken down. Let people debate it. That is how we learn to practice critical thinking. But if the debate gets ugly, there's no point in putting up with that. A moderator can ask the person to edit their post to be respectful so it won't need to be deleted. It's about the tone of the post & presenting evidence that the "facts" presented are credible. All this to say, freedom of speech is how we find truth together. That is the purpose of the First Amendment. It was penned to protect religious & political speech, as these were areas oppressive governments liked to restrict because it challenged their control. The First Amendment was not designed to protect obscenity, lies, threats & the like. I believe we can be discerning about this.
Reply
|
|||
|
|
|||
Reply to: BigOleBobcat