Future tone of chat poll

[metroid composite]

Normally a poll like this would go into the "RPGDL Policy Discussion" forum, but all the talk has been going on in General Chat anyway, so I'm just going to stick this here for now; might move it to policy discussion later for archival purposes.

There's just been a vague observation that, actually, there might be some interest in a safe-for-work DL chat, and we're not sure how much interest.  So...this poll is just to get a rough headcount (which we somehow actually haven't done yet).

I'm not necessarily looking for discussion here (there's already been plenty of discussion) just looking to get a sense of demographics (because I like statistics ).

[superaielman]

I definitely favor some restrictions on the boards in terms of content; if for no other reason than it's the public face of the site. But that's also not controversial at all, so yeah.


Chat- Donno. I'm going to throw up a topic about changes to it (Hopefully minor) but yeah, feedback on what people what there is good.

[Cotigo]

You know damn well my stance on it by now.

[SageAcrin]

There's always been censorship in DL chat.

There's always been moderators saying "This is over the line" to things like, well, mermaid chats, since RC left. No censorship would be less than we currently have.

I think the question's not properly defined.

[Xeroma]

Sage beat me to it. Chat's completely fine 99% of the time and particularly over the line things get addressed usually, so I don't have a problem with things as they are now.

[metroid composite]

There's always been censorship in DL chat.

There's always been moderators saying "This is over the line" to things like, well, mermaid chats, since RC left. No censorship would be less than we currently have.

I think the question's not properly defined.

Ok, edited the poll to reflect your point.

[Tide]

First option.

While it really doesn't matter to me since I rarely post anything obscene (plus I'm not there 90% of the time now), I don't really see a reason for the change.

EDIT: Guess I should explain myself a bit more -

While I do understand that people have desk jobs, I highly doubt roaming around on IRC is part of the job description (for most of us) >_>. As much as I hate to say it, if you're going on IRC at work, you're taking a risk already and most of us are fully knowledgeable about how crazy chat goes sometimes. So in the end...it's your choice to go on. Plus has there been cases where people have refused to tone down directly when they've been asked to? I'm asking this seriously since I'm hardly ever on chat anymore, and it seems like this issue blew itself up during the two months I wasn't around.

Sure, maybe as time goes on (and assuming the DL retains it's congregation) when people start getting kids and getting older, toning it down might start becoming more of the standard. For now, I see no problem with option 1.

[Yoshiken]

Went with the third one. Honestly, not there enough for it to make a difference to me, and I've not seen chat get out of hand often enough to know if the mods let it cross the line before stepping in or not, so really not in a position to comment on it or care too much about it.

[Scar]

I DO censor myself when I frequent the IRC channel. It never seemed to get out of hand, and honestly who else (other then us) has the time to read this at work? I doubt any of us would be careless enough to have this up on a computer if it was not allowed.

[Hunter Sopko]

There's always been censorship in DL chat.

There's always been moderators saying "This is over the line" to things like, well, mermaid chats, since RC left. No censorship would be less than we currently have.

I think the question's not properly defined.

To be fair, no one put the kibosh on the Mermaid chat when it happened. It was just generally regarded negatively as the breaking point after-the-fact.

And actually, half the reason why some people, myself included, were surprised by the drasticness of it is because we actually can never recall ever being told to knock it off while stuff was happening, or even after. These are some people who were identified as participaters and occasional trouble-makers with regards to obscenity too. I think the only person who was personally told about it with specifics of his behavior before the new rule was posted aside from Zenny was Grefter, but I may be wrong. So while I can see where it was coming from slightly, to say obscenity in chat was all that strictly enforced before is not wholly true either, or at the very least overstating the amount of objectionable content that was actually in chat if you did clamp down on every occurence.

That was another part of it really, while it may seem okay to just say "Graphic Sexual Content" and think we understand what you mean, the actual vagueness of the term combined with the confusion outlined above didn't really add up to favorable conditions for a reaction to the rule.

[NotMiki]

I'd like to know what the touchstone of chat censorship will be.  There's always been censorship in chat, but just making that assertion doesn't define what has in the past or should in the future be censored, and that's where I think our problem lies.

So here's my proposal:

I think anyone would accept that abuse of chat in the sense of spamming and the like, or harassment in chat in the sense of ad hominem attacks could warrant censorship.  People have been kicked/banned for that kind of behavior and I think there's a consensus that ops should police it.

Obscenity, on the other hand, we have a range of opinions on.  I don't think ops have been policing obscenity alone in the past, but rather policing obscenity that rose to the level of abuse or harassment, and I think the structure of the poll (sorry mc) kinda implies that obscenity in and of itself has been a target of censorship in the past.  I don't think that's been the case that I've ever seen, even in the last week.

Anyway, if I had my druthers I'd say ops should police abuse and harassment all of the time, and obscenity only in limited circumstances.  I think the best rule for obscenity would be that ops should step in two scenarios.  First: someone in chat has asked other people in chat to tone it down and those other people have not done so.  Second, if a person in chat who wishes to remain anonymous pms an op and asks them to intercede, ops should request that chat be toned down.

I'm proposing this kinda complicated standard because I think it's the fairest way to balance the legitimate concerns of people who would like to see a less bawdy chat with the equally legitimate concerns of those who don't want to be censored on the basis of obscenity at all.

[Hunter Sopko]

Yeah. Jim said it better than I could. His post is sort of what I was driving for. I forgot to make the distinction between moderating Abuse/Harassment and just Obscenity. Assume I mean the latter when reading my post.

[Monkeyfinger]

I always thought Hal was just setting straight a policy that was already there for years rather than changing things, since I've been banned from the chat a few times over the years for overdoing the vulgar talk.

[NotMiki]

There's no functional difference between a rule that's never (or rarely I guess?) enforced and one that doesn't exist.

[Cotigo]

I agree with Jim wholeheartedly that abuse and harassment needs to be policed.  As someone who frequently gets too angry on the internet for his own good sometimes just separating me from the other party cuts that shit, and if I'm really going at it well it's entirely reasonable for me to be kickbanned for longer.

I completely disagree with the idea that if someone's asked for the chat to be toned down privately in PM then the mods should ask them to tone it down.  Like I said, Ignore exists for a reason, assholes.  I'd get laughed at if I PM'd someone to ask Meeple to tone down his asinine blithering and rightly so, so I have him on ignore.  And if you ask me Meeple's rambling is way more disruptive and offensive than a little talk about Jim's buldging fist rending my asshole asunder.

Take Trance's dick, for instance (please!) The only person who has a valid reason to tell me to cut that shit out as far as I'm concerned is Trance, because it's harassment if he asks me to stop and I don't.  I've talked to him and he at least says he doesn't have a problem with it, but the day that changes I'll probably cut it out.  Until then, I say:

Keep calm, and press Ignore.

[NotMiki]

Short answer: There are apparently a bunch of folks who are uncomfortable with the level of obscenity chat occasionally reaches.  I'd like them to still come to chat because some of them are cool dudes.  I don't want this whole mess to give those people the impression that they're not welcome in chat.  At the same time I don't want to concede much in terms of free speech.  So I'm trying to craft a rule that I think will assure those folks that they're welcome while curtailing speech by the least amount necessary to accomplish that goal.  And if the rule proves to be too oppressive then we'll try something else.

[Cotigo]

 For things to work this is going to take compromise on my part.  The intent of that previous post was to lay out what I think would be ideal.  I know I'm not going to get what I outlined above. What you've outlined works out as a pretty good compromise when all is said and done, but I still disagree with parts of it.  That's why it's a compromise.

Or something. 

[Ranmilia]

While I by and large agree with Jim's statements and goals, I disagree with the proposed structure.  Allowing anonymous, op-enforced complaints eliminates the possibility of discussion with the person complaining about why they are complaining and how the situation could be resolved, and I think that the lack of this discussion is one of the root problems on both sides. 

Or rather, only the ops would be able to discuss it with the complainer, and the ops are shouldering the entire burden of announcement and enforcement.  This is something that I personally find particularly undesirable, as I'd like to see less op powers/authority/responsibility in general for the future of chat (although that's somewhat of a different debate). 

Agh, this is difficult to phrase.  There's obscenity, and then there's obscenity... I have no problem with allowing a single anonymous complaint to result in an op asking Zenny to knock off talking about Trance's dick.  I do have a problem with a single anonymous complaint resulting in an op telling (for example) Idun and Soppy to stop having an intelligent but frank conversation about sex. 

Conversations like that have happened in chat that I've found very enlightening and worthwhile, even though I know for a fact that some other folks in chat objected to them and didn't want to see them.  I really don't want to see these conversations be lost, either to direct enforcement of undiscussible, unrefutable, anonymous complaints, or to a chilling effect from the possibility of such unanswerable complaints.

[metroid composite]

and I think the structure of the poll (sorry mc)

Too late for me to change it a second time, honestly.


That said, I don't think rephrasing the poll is going to make that much of a difference.  I'm betting most people know more or less what they're voting for, and would vote for the same option regardless of wording.  Maybe it would make one or two votes difference, but it's not like the poll is especially close.

[Talaysen]

Agh, this is difficult to phrase.  There's obscenity, and then there's obscenity... I have no problem with allowing a single anonymous complaint to result in an op asking Zenny to knock off talking about Trance's dick.  I do have a problem with a single anonymous complaint resulting in an op telling (for example) Idun and Soppy to stop having an intelligent but frank conversation about sex. 

This.  Having a conversation is one thing (even if I personally don't actually want to see those).  Being obscene for the sake of being obscene is another.

[Lord Ephraim]

If you have a job where you can look at an IRC server discussing role playing games and TranceHime fanfiction, then holy shit you should stop bitching because you have a job where you can sit down and look on the internet.  Your job could be ten times worse and deserve to get in trouble if you're viewing unapproved material.

Or you could, you know, not look into IRC chat or join the superior #dlgaming channel where you get to make fun of Zenny getting pylon blocked.

[Nephrite]

While I would certainly hope if someone had a problem with something I said or did they would come and speak to me so we could work it out, it should not be their responsibility to do so if they don't feel they can do so.

Moderators and Ops are in the channel for a reason and it's foolish to believe that every person who has a problem has to speak one-on-one with the person who was being out of line. The likelihood of things being worked out that way is pretty low considering how little anyone who is being "obscene" will care.

I think it would be great if people could work things out on their own but the moderators should at least make an effort to intervene if someone is having a problem.

[NotMiki]

While I would certainly hope if someone had a problem with something I said or did they would come and speak to me so we could work it out, it should not be their responsibility to do so if they don't feel they can do so.

Moderators and Ops are in the channel for a reason and it's foolish to believe that every person who has a problem has to speak one-on-one with the person who was being out of line. The likelihood of things being worked out that way is pretty low considering how little anyone who is being "obscene" will care.

I think it would be great if people could work things out on their own but the moderators should at least make an effort to intervene if someone is having a problem.

I agree by far the best situation is one where people are capable of resolving their differences without needing to ask an op to intervene, but there are two points I'd like to nitpick.

First, you assume that someone who has used obscene language is "out of line."  That implies that there's something inherently wrong about obscene language and that people who use it are doing something they shouldn't.  If that were the case then the best rule would be one that bans obscene language in all circumstances.  Obscenity only becomes "wrong" when it's harmful in some respect.

Second, I think in the vast majority of circumstances people who are being obscene would be willing to tone down the language if they were asked directly.  We're friends, after all.

Agh, this is difficult to phrase.  There's obscenity, and then there's obscenity... I have no problem with allowing a single anonymous complaint to result in an op asking Zenny to knock off talking about Trance's dick.  I do have a problem with a single anonymous complaint resulting in an op telling (for example) Idun and Soppy to stop having an intelligent but frank conversation about sex. 

This.  Having a conversation is one thing (even if I personally don't actually want to see those).  Being obscene for the sake of being obscene is another.

You make a good point, though I'd hasten to say that people other than Zenny, and I include myself in this category, have been known to make immature jokes about sex that are not part of an intelligent but frank discussion.  I guess all I have to say about this is if we try my proposal and people think it's too onerous then we'll just have to revisit it later.

I have my reservations about my proposal, though.  One thing I want to avoid is arbitrary enforcement (read: Zenny gets blasted for his potty mouth and the rest of us get a pass even if the stuff we say is just as bad) that becomes possible with a blanket rule prohibiting, say, extreme obscenity.  I think a rule that demands that someone complain before any action is taken will put less arbitrary authority in the hands of ops, but it may turn out to have the effect of putting arbitrary authority in the hands of people in chat.  In essence, that depends on people being equally offended by:

<Zenny>: I took your mother's ____ and ____ it with my ____, ____ing deep into ____ with ____ and a tire iron!

<Miki>: I took your mother's ____ and ____ it with my ____, ____ing deep into ____ with ____ and a tire iron!

I'm not so sure that folks are.

[VySaika]

I certainly hope that the ops, under this proposal, will have the option of looking at the cause of the complaint in question and going "...uh, yeah, that's not worth getting worked up over" and tell the person complaining to just chill for a bit, rather then being forced to layeth the smacketh down upon a conversation just because one person finds it distasteful.

Also, I personally find the assumption that everyone would use the annon complaint option if it were available a bit dissapointing. As Jim keeps stressing, *we are a group of freinds*, now with bold and italics for emphasis, and I'd think most of us are willing to go "yo, dude, tone it down will ya?" either in PM or frankly open chat(my own prefered option when irritated~) if we're feeling like something needs to be said. But there are some times when Mod Sign: Anonymous Complaint is the superior option, due either to the complainer being too shy to say anything negative directly, or the complainee having a history of ignoring anything they don't want to hear.

To sum it all up, I think that if someone goes to a mod with an anon complaint, they are doing just that. Letting the mod know they have a complaint, nothing more. It will then be up to the mod's discretion how, or indeed even IF, they should act on that.

Hope that made sense, I'm in that stage where I really need to be sleeping right now but am still awake because it's not sleeptime and such. >_>

[Nephrite]

While I would certainly hope if someone had a problem with something I said or did they would come and speak to me so we could work it out, it should not be their responsibility to do so if they don't feel they can do so.

Moderators and Ops are in the channel for a reason and it's foolish to believe that every person who has a problem has to speak one-on-one with the person who was being out of line. The likelihood of things being worked out that way is pretty low considering how little anyone who is being "obscene" will care.

I think it would be great if people could work things out on their own but the moderators should at least make an effort to intervene if someone is having a problem.

I agree by far the best situation is one where people are capable of resolving their differences without needing to ask an op to intervene, but there are two points I'd like to nitpick.

First, you assume that someone who has used obscene language is "out of line."  That implies that there's something inherently wrong about obscene language and that people who use it are doing something they shouldn't.  If that were the case then the best rule would be one that bans obscene language in all circumstances.  Obscenity only becomes "wrong" when it's harmful in some respect.

Second, I think in the vast majority of circumstances people who are being obscene would be willing to tone down the language if they were asked directly.  We're friends, after all.

I suppose I should clarify what I would term "obscene." I think it can very from person to person but, here's perhaps a good example: I'm gay, and I don't appreciate people using the word "gay" to mean "Stupid" and I also don't like hearing people use the word "faggot." I would consider the latter an obscene word although not everyone would. I agree there's a lot of self-evaluation that goes into determining what is and isn't obscene, but if it's enough to offend or bother someone, shouldn't that be enough for them to feel like they can say something to someone about it?

I agree that most people would back down if they were asked or if they knew they would offend someone, but what about the cases where that isn't the case? Obviously we can't make up a rule to enforce on people that don't even think they need it, but I think it's important to discuss potential outcomes too.