please make it stop Add "Politics" to the Content Rules

[Amata 400]

On 10/27/2020 at 9:20 AM, Badvoc said:

A bigger problem is the lack of a set standard.

 

What one Chat Mod thinks is fine another thinks is against the rules, this leads to confusing people all the time and can at times come across that some people are allowed to get away with subjects others aren't.

 

Yes, this is exactly a thing that happens. 

I really don't like the idea of blanket bans on topics. I really want moderators to have discretionary powers to view things in context, and on a case-by-case basis. I generally feel that is honestly better for the community as a whole, than layering rules on rules. 

 

However, Badvoc is 100% correct that having this sort of system will lead to similar situations handled in entirely different ways depending on what moderator is on the job that particular day. Repeat that occurrence enough times and eventually it starts looking like some people have friends in high places while others simply don't. 

 

It also has a secondary effect: if a thing is not "against the Rules" and instead depends on discretion - the very first step goes like this... Person A doing something in chat that is potentially provacative. Person B *is provoked* asks Person A to please stop. Person A *does not see a problem* says they will not stop. 

 

We have a situation in public chat that tacitly empowers those causing problems by allowing them to respond to requests to stop or go private, by simply saying, "no." 

 

Without a written rule to point to... and without any assurance that requesting a moderator will do any help at all.... where does it go from there? 

[Amata 400]

On 10/27/2020 at 11:30 AM, Kelebeth said:

There's a phrase going around that everything has become politics. If that is true, and I'm not too deep into philosophy to argue for or against, than avoiding politics is impossible without banning any speech.

 

In a philosophic / theoretical environment, yeah Kelebeth - this is true. There's an area of academic interest called "the body politic" that delves into things like this - and the quandaries it can cause. 

 

In a practical environment, it's a little easier to sort out... in American law there is a concept called "any reasonable person" - it is the idea that on any given subject, in any given context, it is possible to roughly determine how a person with an average lifestyle, and a normative sense of self, safety, and  law, with an average level of reasoning capability, would act or conclude. Lawyers use this to decide liability, for example, and when giving instructions to a jury - "would any reasonable person have a shred of doubt about this?"

 

Would "any reasonable person" conclude that discussing the current Wurm price for 1k stone brick is a political topic? 

 

That's how we can stop ourselves from sliding down a hypothetical slippery slope. 

[Amata 400]

21 hours ago, Jollibee said:

Hmm, this could lead to a more gray area you start banning one topic then it will most likely daisy chain to other subjects because others will try to add more topics and if one gets denied then they can just openly compare to why was politics banned and not my suggestion

 

Censorship is never fun even if its for the greater good.

 

Hmm... there exists a nonzero possibility that this could  lead to more topics being suggested for banning. The question is not if such a think is possible, but is such a thing probable. 

 

In other words: yes, that could happen - but will it? Will it, really? 

 

I don't know, but neither does anyone... but we can make a reasonable guess. (see my above reply to Kelebeth)

[KharnovKrow 105]

Just to step back in for a second, respond to all those people commenting on how the problem is people who can't control their "feelings," not the speech in question.

 

Now to piss off a bunch of people by accusing them of showing their privilege

 

A lot of people following politics these days get to do so from the comfort of "I don't like this, but it will not likely have any seriously dangerous repercussions for me in the immediate future." This may shock you, but much of the current global political climate is not just an armchair-philosophy-problem for people whose actual rights, access to healthcare, etc., are on the line. Some of the political debates of the current era are literally about the validity of some people's identity and existence. To argue that people whose actual lives may be tangibly impacted, possibly even endangered, by the politics of today should be able to discuss those matters dispassionately, without "feelings," is an intensely ignorant, privileged, and selfish position in my personal opinion. Good for you if your future isn't up on the chopping block to the same extent, but don't tell people who might be that they don't have a right to have feelings on the matter.

 

As @Amatahas correctly noted, almost no one is actually a die-hard absolutist about anti-censorship; people just have different standards for what is "appropriate" in the "public sphere." And again, no one is arguing for an absolute censorship of the topic, where getting caught discussing it in /tells will get you banned. But people have a right to have strong feelings about the *bleep*ing mess that the world is turning into, and wanting some limits on how much it invades their game-space is not an unreasonable request, especially when similar topics have been placed off-limits. And religion might be the best example, since I didn't even know it was banned before now, and I kinda suspect that it's enforced like jay-walking laws; only when stuff actually gets out of hand.

Edited October 28, 2020 by KharnovKrow

[Amata 400]

19 hours ago, Nekojin said:

...Would you really appreciate someone coming to a motorcycle forum and talking about their knitting or Pokemon battle accomplishments?

 

Every platform has the right to decide what they do or don't allow on their platforms. ... It's not the right time or place to discuss it, even if it's completely legal. Extend that to other things that have a high level of conflict - politics, especially. Is it a net positive or net negative to the platform? If it's a net negative, ask people to take it elsewhere.

 

 

This is very similar to a conversation I had elsewhere with a forum moderator recently. In my life I have, I honestly assure you entirely by accident, focused my academic life on topics that, upon actually paying attention to the real word, I realized that most people really, really do not want to talk or think about. At all. Ever. 

 

You wanna know about primal religions? About the actual elements that make something a sect or a denomination or a cult? I'm your gal. You need to know something about human sexuality? Or about the traditional medical system of a nearly-extinct tribe living deep in the Amazon? Step right this way. Curious about the body politic? What exactly is advanced feminist theory? How do I apply moral relativism to the topic of cultural appropriation? Oh yeah, baby, let's do this! 

 

I am absolute shite at cocktail parties. 

 

I've had to learn fast and furious that not all topics are appropriate at every time and every place, no matter how much they light your fire. No matter how enjoyable it might be to watch other people get uncomfortable or shocked. Forums are generally defined and topically focused. Even a subforum like "Woodscraps" has a general scope understood by the users. Is that censorship? ... I honestly can't tell anyone other than myself where to draw that line. 

 

I have been told, once upon a time, "... is that topic technically banned? No. Would I strongly dislike it if this topic were posted? Yes. Do I highly encourage you to not go there? Yes. Please. On behalf of all the moderators, please Amata, just don't go there." 

 

19 hours ago, Nekojin said:

And with all that said, I'm not actually in favor of banning political chat. I'd rather take the softer approach, and ask people to refrain personally and voluntarily. Have consideration for the fellow players who don't want to have to deal with it, and don't bring it up. Vent your political frustrations in a more appropriate discussion format. I've already got a Wurmian who I liked who soured my opinion of him with some rather... misogynist usage of words. I'd rather stay ignorant of others' political views, and keep them as friends. Or at least good acquaintances. 

 

I am fully in favor of "the softer approach" 

 

I have posted this suggestion in the suggestions forum not because I want more rules & censorship - but because I have recently been seeing "the softer approach" utterly failing to prevent fights, injured feelings, mass /ignore actions, players spontaneously combusting, and a whole lotta bad juju taking over some public chat channels. To the point that, recently, I had multiple in-game friends tell me, "oh, kingdom chat? yeah, I just never turn that on at all. I hardly even look at local if possible. I let my active tab sit on a PM so I don't have to see that [bleep]"

 

because of this, people have no idea that there are impalongs happening. people are missing out giving and receiving congratulations for their efforts and achievements. nobody is listening when someone tells an absolutely hilarious joke. Or just tamed an epic mob successfully. Are lingonberries in season up north yet? Nobody in Local knows - and it's not really the sort of question that's appropriate for CA Help - but everyone has evacuated kingdom chat except Ms Edgelord and her posse. And she will gladly let you know that lingonberries are ripe - up your butt. 

 

That's kinda what I meant when I mentioned "fracturing community"  That is what results when the "softer approach" fails consistently for a server. 

[Amata 400]

Real Quick Note - 
 

Just wanted all y'all to know that after the first couple responses, I have stopped giving "hearts" to responses. I didn't think it was the right thing for me to be doing on this particular post. Posters who agree or modify/expand on my OP - I see you and I appreciate your input / support / whatever you specifically said. Thanks and here's your heart: 💜

 

Posters who disagree with my OP - I honestly need your posts as much, if not more, than the posters who agree for whatever reason. I don't want to come across as "not listening" when I make responses that poke at your perspective or make objections to what you say... I very much want you all to come back at my pokes and objections with facts, figures, logic, rationality, and some very brilliant ideas that I have not been able to think of myself. 

I am depending on y'all to help me see things from different angles & put my questions about those angles to rest. Thank you for jumping in here with me, and here's your heart: 🤎

[Amata 400]

18 hours ago, Amadee said:

...  if politics is ok, then why not religion or any other subject that could potentially cause dissension and intense feelings in some people? And especially at a time when passions are running high, like in today's political climate, I feel it has no place in a "game" that I'd wager most play to escape from the intensity for a while and try to relax.  Methinks that's why politics and religion are usually lumped together when certain topics are excluded from "approved" topics on forums, because they both evoke intense feelings in some people and can lead to some pretty brutal verbal confrontations. 

 

Okay, so, I read Amadee's response a couple times in a row. And I dunno why, but this particular way of wording things gave me a thought that I didn't have before. 

 

What if "politics" is added again to the enumerated list of topics ... but only for Chat. That is, only for in-game channels. The enumerated list for Forum topics would stay the same.

(1) politics frequently = complex & contextual topics ... not the sort of sentences that work well in a live chat box format
(2) forums, unlike chat channels, are slightly more "optional" 
(3) chat channels are in-game; forum posts are on-demand, when you are ready to interact with them and can literally shut it down and walk away with little drama

(4) forum posts can be edited, formatted for clarity and emphasis, and deleted ... in-game chat cannot

(5) the forums have a structure for filtering content - including an entire subforum (Woodscraps) for topics that are known to be unrelated to Wurm. In-game chat is random and has no way of filtering for content, only for demographic (local, kingdom, global, players seeking help, etc).... 

 

Those are 5 points of interest off the top of my head. What do all y'all think about this idea? 

[Amata 400]

12 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

If you can't control your feelings then you shouldn't talk about serious topics. I don't understand why people who do not control their behavior should set the standard for what to talk about and what not to talk about?
If you feel bad about someone else's arguments, it's time to change your views, not to silence your interlocutor.

 

Extra Note:  when I am trying to be precise and specific, my language tends to get very formal. It isn't an attempt to be condescending, or to overpower a different point of view with My Astounding Intellect... I'm trying to correct a miscommunication by adjusting the original, casual, way I initially said a thing; I'm not intending to be rude to you - I am intending to fix whatever was broken in what I said before. 

 

 

I must not be clearly articulating the scenario properly, because this response rests on some assumptions that are somewhat incorrect or do not apply. My mistake; I will try to avoid any further miscommunications. Please let me try to clarify.

 

I hear you saying something along the lines of Person A articulates a perspective on a serious topic. Person B does not agree with that perspective, and has negative feelings as a result. Person B cannot figure out how to engage with the topic, or challenge the perspective respectfully, and instead acts irrationally in response - up to, and including, attempting to shut the entire topic down. 

 

And I have read your conclusion along the lines of - if a person continually feels such overwhelmingly, uncontrollably negative reactions to another perspective on a topic, perhaps that person is sublimating and/or covering for the problems or weaknesses in their own view point by lashing out. 

 

Please let me know if that is a correct assessment of what you meant. 

The catalyst for this suggestion would be more accurately described as, maybe, this - 

 

Person A delivers a one-sentence shock-value remark on serious topic, for the lulz. 

Nobody responds.
Person A delivers another purposefully shocking remark; same topic, different angle. 

Person B responds with a request to please stop using a public chat channel in this manner. 

Person A rejects the request and continues to make extremist remarks related to serious topic addressed to nobody in particular. 

Person B requests a chat mod to respond to the behavior. 
Mod sometimes agrees that Person A is being a ######. Mod sometimes disagrees because Person A is "basically harmless" and "just /ignore Person A"

Regardless of specific outcome, Person A plans - and will - repeat this type of trolling behavior again in the future. 

 

The sense I am trying to convey is less about a person unable to control their feelings, and unable to engage in discussion with a variety of views. I mean to be discussing what should or could be an appropriate response to a person who is using a serious topic to troll a public chat channel in-game; however, because there is no specific rule against the particular topic, the person is making a calculated gamble that the particular mod that responds on any given day will not view the activity as meeting the definition of "trolling" (as stated in the rules), and therefore side with the person over the complainant.

 

Attempts to rely on decency and good-will (ask player to switch topics or go to a private chat) have failed
Attempts to /ignore temporarily have failed
Attempts to /ignore permanently have led to an entire public chat channel ceded to the offending chatter by the majority of other players

Attempts to address the offending chatter for trolling behavior solve the individual moments, but have no effect on the pattern of behavior

Attempts to ask if offending player can be banned for repeat trolling behavior have failed, bc some of the mods conclude the player isn't exactly bad enough to be trolling

 

I might be forgetting steps in between, but you can easily put me in place of "the complainant" - and I have arrived at an attempt to suggest a rule change that will lead to less variance in the response of the moderators when confronted with this situation. 

 

The difference I am trying to articulate is that the premise rests on curtailing behavior known to cause problems in the community, not on giving censorship powers to players who feel bad when people disagree. 

[Amata 400]

6 hours ago, Amadee said:

It makes others very uncomfortable and if the game ceases to be an escape for them, they'll likely find another game that is. 

 

This is a good articulation why this is a problem for the community, not just a situation where "your problem is not my problem." 

[Amata 400]

6 hours ago, Amadee said:

Pick and choose what's allowed to be argued about but still allow dissension and hard feelings? 

 

This is one of the reasons I put this up as a suggestion.... if there is something that we know will have a cumulative negative effect on the community... why exactly are we not taking a closer look at that situation? 

 

If not adding "politics" to the enumerated list... then, some other type of "allowed, but regulated" rule of some sort? 

 

I am in the suggestions forum, not just because I want to suggest a solution - but also because I am open to other suggestions, too. Here's something that we know is problematic - not just "could be" problematic, but actually is already causing problems - let's take a look and brainstorm how to sure up the pillars of goodwill and play nice, etc

[Antony 280]

Perhaps instead of having there be a rule against it, chat channels can be created for various topics.

 

/join politics

 

Opened chat window for politics

 

/join GL-Freedom

 

Opened chat window for GL-Freedom

 

I remember this was an old chat channel system on battle net from the days of diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. Players could create their own chat channels, and there were a few preset that anyone could see.

 

Perhaps by categorizing chat channels we could avoid this?

 

Just a thought, don't want to derail the topic. I don't mind political chat personally but I know full well how off putting it can be for some. And I fall into the category of people who don't talk in freedom or global so maybe my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

[Amata 400]

1 hour ago, Etherdrifter said:

It stops being reasonable the moment those people do more than talk; which in the scenario of wurm's global chat isn't happening.  The moment you hit /ignore you no longer hear them, and they are no longer a problem for you.

 

I am honestly very happy with your willingness to engage with this post, btw. Before I start picking at your response - I just wanted to say thank you for this reply. And for your other replies. You are giving me good things to consider and to force myself to answer for. 

 

Okay, so, I want to have a better understanding of your meaning here. What do you mean by "more than talk" in the context of a public chat channel? In my mind, so far, I am imagining things like,

repetition (not just talking, but repeating the same literally or figuratively over a single or multiple chat sessions)

harassment (has an actual definition in the Rules; in my mind I'm thinking about knowing that a particular sensitive topic does particularly bother a specific neighbor, but doing it anyway, over multiple chat sessions)

making it personal (I am guilty of this.*)

 

Is this the sort of "more than talk" that you were considering when making your comment? 

 

Secondly, I'm reading the second sentence above, and want to make sure I understand your meaning there, too. 

IF sensitive topic in public chat is just talk, THEN /ignore individuals and move on
IF sensitive topic in public chat is "more than talk", THEN there are reasonable grounds for further action. /ignore can help - but players could/should escalate as appropriate

 

Is that roughly in line with what you are saying? 

 

 

 

* There was a political chat on my server the other night, and I ended up venting to an extreme. Fingers were pointed, bridges were burned, and it was not right of me; for the record, I was behaving poorly and was rightly chastised for it.

[Amata 400]

2 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

It's like me and a few forum members on here; once I realise that all they spout is drivel then I just put them under "ignore" and carry on my way.  Engaging with trolls is the only way you really lose out, and forcing censorship due to the actions of a few is rather like giving the trolls a gold medal for their work.

 

hmmm. I'm going to spend this evening thinking this over. 

 

My "street corner" scenario was intended to say that (in game context) if the actions of a few causes some players to /ignore... that's not really too bad, not worth changing rules over. But what if the actions of a few cause more than some players to /ignore. What if it is an entire neighborhood /ignoring one of the Local chat? Is that reasonable? Should something else be considered? 

What if the actions of a few cause a certain percentage of the entire server population to /ignore those few. Is that reasonable? 

Is it reasonable for 24% of the population to /ignore a troll? 

Is it reasonable for 49% to /ignore the troll?
Is it reasonable for 51% to /ignore the troll? 
Does /ignore cease being the reasonable response if 66% or 75% of an entire server is resorting to that solution? 

 

At what point does the many's right to access a public chat channel without drama outweigh the right of a few to talk how they want about whatever topic they way? 

 

As I said, I'm honestly going to take some time with the "many vs few" concept. I'm working off a general sense based on community chat and general vibe and that sort of stuff - I don't have any actual numbers to know how wide-spread a problem might be. My sense is wider-spread than one or two people who ought to /ignore and move on... but if feedback so far is any indication - I am also getting a sense that there are other servers in Freedom where this is entirely unheard of in the public chat channels. And someone mentioned that GL-Freedom is likewise not really prone to a problem like this. 

 

In some ways, the suggestion of a rule change is also a many / few situation. Should a problem that is actually contained to one specific island be the catalyst for a change in the rules for all the islands? I think on that, I would agree that the correct answer ought to be "no." 

 

So all of this feedback and information has be very helpful so far. Much to consider!

[Amata 400]

1 hour ago, KharnovKrow said:

But people have a right to have strong feelings about the *bleep*ing mess that the world is turning into, and wanting some limits on how much it invades their game-space is not an unreasonable request, especially when similar topics have been placed off-limits. And religion might be the best example, since I didn't even know it was banned before now, and I kinda suspect that it's enforced like jay-walking laws; only when stuff actually gets out of hand.

 

KharnovKrow, I hope you understand that I did enjoy and adore the reply this section came from. Because I'm about to ask a critical question about it, and I feel that you and I would probably arrive at the same answer to this question... but I still think it's worth consideration. 

 

Without an agreed upon, written ruleset... who decides what counts as "out of hand"? 
Where do you think "out of hand" begins - and what do you propose we do when one person has reached "out of hand" much sooner than another person? 

Is the line "as soon as one person is a sobbing mess" .... or "only when everyone on chat is screaming and yelling" ... or some indefinite spot somewhere in between? How, exactly, are moderators supposed to be instructed by way of how to make this decision & enforce this kind of rule?

 

[Amata 400]

35 minutes ago, Antony said:

I remember this was an old chat channel system on battle net from the days of diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. Players could create their own chat channels, and there were a few preset that anyone could see.

 

Perhaps by categorizing chat channels we could avoid this?

 

I appreciate the input. Personally, I have no problem with a system like this... I do wonder what kind of workload this would entail for our - largely volunteer - chat moderators. 

 

I've got errands that need doing, so I'm running out of time. But I wanted to make sure I read & responded to all the unique replies I could before leaving. I think, as a member of the community, you have as much a valid opinion as anyone else. 

 

I appreciate the suggestion of a way to make in-game chat channels more voluntary (like forums are). Game related topics in the default / public channels... Topical discussions in the subchannels & user-generated channels. perhaps without moderation & player accepts the risk? 

 

That way a player can avoid a topic, without having to also avoid the game's default communication system. 

[Darnok 208]

14 hours ago, Amata said:

 

As a point of fact - we are not actually "free to talk and read about" whatever things we like. 

 

 

 

In my country, I can read and talk on any topic. I can even criticize the authorities in public in front of the cameras.

 

12 hours ago, Amata said:

 

Extra Note:  when I am trying to be precise and specific...

 

The difference I am trying to articulate is that the premise rests on curtailing behavior known to cause problems in the community, not on giving censorship powers to players who feel bad when people disagree. 

 

You're making it too complicated. The problem is simple if we are discussing a topic and you approach it emotionally only because I have a different opinion on it. It is not the topic that is to blame only you and your belief that your view is only one allowed and everyone must agree with you.

 

People who do not recognize the freedom to have other views should be educated, and initially the Internet was to serve this purpose. One of the reasons is that it keeps distance and we can't hurt ourselves when the discussion becomes too emotional. Unfortunately, something has gone wrong and serious topics are banned, but this will not make these problems disappear in the real world, because when you meet a person who has no experience in conducting a civilized discussion on worldview topics, it can be hard situation.

 

Earlier, I read that someone complained about the discretionary nature of punishments, it results from the fact that the rules do not contain a definition of religion or politics, and each of us perceives these issues differently.

 

And I also like to talk about religion and politics, but on a different level than most.

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by Darnok

[Amata 400]

10 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

In my country, I can read and talk on any topic. I can even criticize the authorities in public in front of the cameras.

 

 

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that many - if not most of us - can also say the same. 

 

This is not, however, about what a citizen is free to do in a country. This is about what patrons are permitted to do while "in" a privately owned business. In my country, businesses are not public / state own property. As such, the business owner and managers are empowered to set rules about clientele as well as behavior on premises. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, for example. No proselytizing or soliciting while in the office, for example. Or something like Management reserves the right to toss out unruly customers - or have you never heard of a nightclub bouncer? 

 

With the Rules, Wurm staff request that we (clients) follow a certain code of behavior, adhere to a certain set of ethics, and respectfully decline to discuss certain topics. The managers (moderators) reserve the right to toss out unruly customers. 

 

Your invocation of ensured civil rights and freedoms at the state-level as relevant to this discussion is disingenuous at best. You know better. Provide reasonable comments and constructive critique, or your further replies will be ignored. 

[Amata 400]

11 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

You're making it too complicated. The problem is simple if we are discussing a topic and you approach it emotionally only because I have a different opinion on it. It is not the topic that is to blame only you and your belief that your view is only one allowed and everyone must agree with you.

 

 

I might be allowing too much space for the complex nature of freedom, speech, community, politics, and personal opinions. But you are not listening. I am not discussing the situation you describe above. 

 

That situation is not the basis for "the problem" I have brought up for discussion & suggestions. 

 

If you are responding to, or providing a solution for, a discussion in which an objection is raised based only because there is a difference of opinion - then you are not responding to this topic or this discussion. That is a different topic - I'm not even sure there's any discussion for that topic because I'm fairly certain that we would collectively agree that no matter how emotionally provocative a conversation is, simply having different opinions is not an appropriate basis for escalating a complaint. 

 

You say: "the problem is simple if we are discussing a topic..." 

 

Well, I'm sorry, but your If...and... hypothetical is not the premise underlying this post. Do let me know if you are simply being stubborn about what you think is being discussed, or If I was unclear in the Original post and need to go edit for clarity. 
 

[KharnovKrow 105]

On 10/28/2020 at 12:39 PM, Antony said:

Perhaps instead of having there be a rule against it, chat channels can be created for various topics.

 

/join politics

 

Opened chat window for politics

 

/join GL-Freedom

 

Opened chat window for GL-Freedom

 

I remember this was an old chat channel system on battle net from the days of diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. Players could create their own chat channels, and there were a few preset that anyone could see.

 

Perhaps by categorizing chat channels we could avoid this?

 

Just a thought, don't want to derail the topic. I don't mind political chat personally but I know full well how off putting it can be for some. And I fall into the category of people who don't talk in freedom or global so maybe my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

 

I don't think that this is a derailing suggestion at all, I think it's a good one. Even if the /politics, /religion, etc., channels are open by default, they can be closed with a little click on a red X. Political discussion can be allowed to flourish within a designated space where people going in know what they might have to deal with. Whereas GL-Freedom can be a bit more moderated to make it comfortable for a wider audience by keeping emotional topics in a more optional part of the chat community.

 

On 10/28/2020 at 1:14 PM, Amata said:

 

KharnovKrow, I hope you understand that I did enjoy and adore the reply this section came from. Because I'm about to ask a critical question about it, and I feel that you and I would probably arrive at the same answer to this question... but I still think it's worth consideration. 

 

Without an agreed upon, written ruleset... who decides what counts as "out of hand"? 
Where do you think "out of hand" begins - and what do you propose we do when one person has reached "out of hand" much sooner than another person? 

Is the line "as soon as one person is a sobbing mess" .... or "only when everyone on chat is screaming and yelling" ... or some indefinite spot somewhere in between? How, exactly, are moderators supposed to be instructed by way of how to make this decision & enforce this kind of rule?

 

 

I have no problem with a perfectly reasonable question/criticism being raised regarding my position, @Amata 

 

I do think the question is a bit complicated. Ideally, I think Wurm/Code Club *should* take a stance and put it down in a "written ruleset," on some things at least. As noted above, Wurm did go out of its way to make a pro-BLM post some time back, setting their stance on that issue to some extent. I don't think that means that they should clamp down on every discussion of "Blue/All Lives Matter" and ban those involved, but I think it makes clear that they will draw the line against explicit anti-Black racism, for example.

 

Some of the respondents would argue "well duh, that's obvious." But what they're failing to understand is how much the current discussions of things that they see as "just politics" actually ARE discussions about things like racism, transphobia, etc., or are from the point of view of people on the "other side." Where it does get a bit messier is with things like discussing the current US presidential election, for example, where obviously a large portion of those supporting Trump do not consider him a racist and consider discussion or accusations of racism to be a political maneuver rather than a good-faith criticism. Discussions of Trump's or Republican policies will flag as "across the line" for some, but not others.

 

This is why my support for limiting political discussion is implicit on it still being able to continue somewhere, whether that be private channels or a new public one created for that purpose, as per @Antony's suggestion; these kinds of things DO need to be discussed to be resolved, but I am sympathetic to the position of those who come here for an escape from that stuff, and don't want the parts of the chat devoted to casual banter being inundated with subjects that are controversial and (RIGHTLY) due to provoke emotional responses.

 

Back to the original question of 'who decides,' I agree that even if the senior management of Wurm/Code Club sit down and make a written list of "appropriate/inappropriate" topics that can be moderated in chat, there will almost inevitably end up being grey areas and disputes and differences of interpretation depending on the mod in question. The more they are willing to communicate and cooperate on the guidelines, the better, but I try not to place unreasonable expectations on the small staff Wurm has available. But I think the guideline that "any time people are starting to insult each other over their political positions in GL, staff should step in" is a good one, for example. Being more aware of "controversial" topics, and WHY they are, would help but, again, we're talking about volunteers, and there's a limit to the expectations that should be put on them.

 

Broadly, the point should be about empathy, and if people can make a reasonable argument for why their feelings deserve a reasonable amount of accommodation, I am in favour of it  I don't think confining political chat to a few less channels, or asking the moderators to manage it more seriously, is an unreasonable ask under the circumstances.

 

P.S. For a simple analogy, this is "censorship" as much as the "be quiet" signs in a library; it is not the declaration of a topic as taboo, but simply a structuring of the socially-acceptable format for those conversations for the purpose of considering the needs of everyone present.

Edited October 29, 2020 by KharnovKrow

[gnomegates 1,429]

On 10/28/2020 at 2:39 PM, Amata said:

Real Quick Note - 
 

Just wanted all y'all to know that after the first couple responses, I have stopped giving "hearts" to responses. I didn't think it was the right thing for me to be doing on this particular post. Posters who agree or modify/expand on my OP - I see you and I appreciate your input / support / whatever you specifically said. Thanks and here's your heart: 💜

 

Posters who disagree with my OP - I honestly need your posts as much, if not more, than the posters who agree for whatever reason. I don't want to come across as "not listening" when I make responses that poke at your perspective or make objections to what you say... I very much want you all to come back at my pokes and objections with facts, figures, logic, rationality, and some very brilliant ideas that I have not been able to think of myself. 

I am depending on y'all to help me see things from different angles & put my questions about those angles to rest. Thank you for jumping in here with me, and here's your heart: 🤎

 

 

I've been following this suggestion since you made it, and there are many many good points being made across the board. I think that many can learn how to have a civil discourse by reading through this thread. I especially can appreciate the time and honesty you put into your thoughts and responses, even though I may not always agree with what you have to say. I'm not going to weigh in on the actual topic, as I don't feel I have much to offer that others have not already said. I just wanted to ask a question of you.

 

You stated that you won't be giving "hearts" to responses anymore because you do not think it was the right thing for you to do. I was wondering why you came to that decision?

 

Thanks

[Amata 400]

On 10/29/2020 at 6:13 PM, KharnovKrow said:

This is why my support for limiting political discussion is implicit on it still being able to continue somewhere, whether that be private channels or a new public one created for that purpose, as per @Antony's suggestion; these kinds of things DO need to be discussed to be resolved, but I am sympathetic to the position of those who come here for an escape from that stuff, and don't want the parts of the chat devoted to casual banter being inundated with subjects that are controversial and (RIGHTLY) due to provoke emotional responses.

 

This, I think, is a fairly straight-forward summation of my general thoughts. 

Discourse in a chat channel is different than inundation by provocative statements. 

I have no intention of shutting down all political discourse in Wurm, everywhere - but venting, ranting, blowing off steam, and running commentary on a live streaming political event (speech or rally or debate or whatever) ... those already have an acceptable place in chat - private chat channels with your friends and/or players who attend voluntarily, knowing what they are getting into. 

 

 

On 10/29/2020 at 6:13 PM, KharnovKrow said:

Broadly, the point should be about empathy, and if people can make a reasonable argument for why their feelings deserve a reasonable amount of accommodation, I am in favour of it  I don't think confining political chat to a few less channels, or asking the moderators to manage it more seriously, is an unreasonable ask under the circumstances.

 

At the end of the day, for me, I guess my bare minimum here would be a request to forum & chat moderators to please err on the side of "okay, let's change the topic" when anyone requests support for a public chat channel with a political topic going on.

 

I think this is both reasonable and fair because it is not about supporting any particular "side" - I would get shut down (and have rightly been) when my political topic was not interested in discourse. Other players would get shut down in a similar manner. No matter who was espousing what. As much as I might believe that "my side" is "right" and about "basic human rights and civil freedoms" ... As an adult, I acknowledge that "the other side" is populated with individuals just like me, who genuinely believe that they are "right" and their politics is focused on "basic human rights and civil freedoms." There are very few people out there who are actually walking around saying, "I'm just in this to watch the world burn. I am going to back the worst, most destructive ideas and fight for personal privilege and systems of power, no matter who gets oppressed to make it happen." People generally are not villains with twirly mustaches. 

 

For all that, I just see no reason to not take political topics seriously IF it has already reached a level of complaint/escalation. It shouldn't matter if only 1 player out of 10 players active on chat has hit a limit or if 9 players out of 10 have taken exception to the topic - and here's a couple thoughts about why...

1. I would hope that the other players involved would be empathetic enough to want to back off as soon as someone is hurt, without the need for a moderator telling them to do so
    
2. in a public space, all players have a right to share the room - there should not be a minority that gets "outvoted" - it is incumbent on all the players to cede the space to the maximized "good," which means accepting a solution where all players involved feel their wellbeing has been considered if such a solution is possible. 
    
3. the option to "go to private chat" is not equivalent to the option to "leave public chat."  That is, it is less obtrusive for players to add a private chat channel for a political topic, than it is for other players to close down public chat channels to avoid a political topic. The public chat channels are the primary, centralized, official form of player interaction in Wurm. Asking someone to change a topic, or take it to a private chat, is not the same as asking someone to stop participating in player interaction for an unspecified amount of time.  

[Amata 400]

On 10/30/2020 at 12:05 PM, gnomegates said:

You stated that you won't be giving "hearts" to responses anymore because you do not think it was the right thing for you to do. I was wondering why you came to that decision?

 

There were a couple elements that factored in... no, one particular element alone would be sufficient to decide the matter - but taken all together, I just ended up with the feeling of "do this out of a sense of fair play and respect" 

 

So one element was a keen personal sense that sometimes "majority rules" is unfortunately equivalent to "mob wins" ... obviously this is something informed by the pattern of experiences in my life, so I was aware this is a kinda "true for me" situation. But, basically, I didn't want this topic to end up being Amata & her echo chamber posse give each  other hearts and steamrolling over other points of view. 

 

The element that really gives that sentiment actual heft is that giving a post a heart is not a simple "hey I like or agree with this"... Giving a heart has an actual measurable impact in the form of community reputation. I dunno if anyone else even glances at the forum rep, or cares, or whatever - but I didn't want to have a discussion about some particularly divisive topics have any even remotely fallible aspect built into how I handled the posts, or my own actions, from the start. "Caesar's wife..." and all that. 

 

I arrived at a place where I recognized that (a) I want to give hearts to people articulating different aspects of my idea, (b) I want hearts for people who see things from my perspective, (c) I want hearts for people who don't agree with me but understand where I'm coming from, and (d) I want hearts for people who don't agree with me, and took the time to participate in this discussion. 

 

Aaaaand, the final element is that there is a limit to how many hearts a person can give in a day. I have/had no idea how hot this topic might get; and, facing the knowledge that hearts are finite plus the fact that I basically want to give everyone a heart, and the fact that hearts are a more meaningful metric than a simple "like" on the post, plus the desire to be both above reproof and also as impartial / open to a variety of ideas as possible..... 

 

that's when I arrived at the thought that the better part of valor might be to not be involved in using hearts in the first place for this particular topic.

 

Hope that you can find your way through the convoluted mixture of personal feels and actual thoughts that masquerades as my decision making process. 😅💜

[TheTrickster 2,284]

I have to give you a heart for that.     😇

 

 

[TheTrickster 2,284]

While I understand that fora (including in-game chat) are provided to allow users to not only communicate but to express themselves, I also get the need for organizations that are not political to buffer themselves somewhat from politics.  Managing political discussion rather than a blanket suppression is fraught with issues regarding subjectivity.

 

What makes a comment political?

When is a comment no longer simply a political opinion but a political advocacy?

Are discussants merely debating/exploring positions or is someone heavily invested and therefore likely to give/take offence?

Who arbitrates what is a valid political position and what is an unacceptable outburst?

 

It is much simpler and safer to have a low thresshold for suppression.  Not a fun fact, but still a fact.

 

 

[Amata 400]

On 11/1/2020 at 11:09 PM, TheTrickster said:

... Not a fun fact, but still a fact.

 

I have definitely discovered that it is very hard to advocate for something that I, myself, don't really want. 

 

Do I think that "just don't talk about this topic" is a good idea? No.

Do I think that forms of limitations or gatekeeping on the free flow of speech / ideas is a good idea?  No. 

Do I even want to limit political topics, in general discourse? No.

 

Do I still think that "add current political / sensitive social issues" to the enumerated list of touchy subjects might be the best idea I've seen so far....  *sigh* yeah. 

 

I'm open to other ideas... this is merely the best I've come up with so far. Wish it was better.