Babble Policy - What statements are off limits please.

And why they close Reaction threads at a whim if they don't like the Reaction...

I personally think oldgoat is the best at articulating this. But I'll take a stab for 2 reasons.

One is that there isn't a definitive answer, and at bottom we're all equally 'qualified' to speak to it. Another is that the mods have more questions to deal with than they can answer. So as well as the fact I have something of a mandate to answer, even if I think oldgoat or someone else would be better, its easier for them to let me do some of the work and then take it further where they want.

But I think there isn't really more of an answer than what you got from oldgoat. You do realize that there is an inherent tension between referring to something more specified, and knowing that its an evolving work in progress.

What has to be added is that most of the borders of what is allowed, and the borders of the 'why's to that, are quite contentious.

Funny that you would mention femminism as an example. There's an oft contentious one. Though in answer to your question, that much is agreed- its much more than 'simple gender equality'.

As to the one you mentioned- 'class bashing'... thats been less talked about viz the 'protected territory' than with feminism. And the term 'class bashing' is not to a lot of people obviously related to the explcit policy of limitation/protection around labour rights.

But it is understood by anyone who has been around here any length of time a all. You don't have to agree with it to stick around- but if you have a lot of questions about the use of unions ['don't get me wrong, unions have their place and we need them, but....] or have common stereotypical ideas that poor people are a lot to blame for the problems they have [of course there is 'a grain of truth to that', so what, take your thoughts elsewhere], then you stay away from the discussions that touch on that.

I kind of scolded Kropotkin1951 for going hammer and tongs after the guy expressing what is agreed here to be class bashing. If I want to engage buddy, I'm free to do so, but I realized after that I was actually at least somewhat out of bounds asking Krop to 'play nice' with him.

If we didn't effectively keep people from engaging in expressions of classist stereotypes, then the way internet discussions go all we would ever be doing is engaging with them. Its unfortunate that some sincerely questioning and thinking people get pushed away. But its also an unfortunate reality that they are just the tip of the iceberg... and once you engage them, you are swamped by all the ideolgues and assholes in the bulk of the iceberg. Good intentions to have civil discussions with people you are in principle willing to talk to because they seem open, lead to fruitless flamewars with idealogues no one should waster their time with.

Some considerable effort is put into having this discussion be a place where you don't have to deal with that. And keeping it that way isn't all sweetness and light and idealist notions of letting everyone have their say.

That said.... there is a tension in having a lot of the boundaries of what is accepted being unwritten. It does make it hard for people that have not been deeply involved in the 'community process' not only to know where the boundaries are, but also to be able to question them. Thats not ideal.

But it would be very hard to write it up. There are some real general things that could be said. Like no 'class bashing' for example. But what is that. The discussion of the boundaries would never end. And even if you could after a lot of grief agree- it wouldn't stay that way.

The practical arrangement we end up with I think could be briefly exemplified like this:

"You are engagaing in class bashing. Stop it, or get out of this discussion."

"No I'm not." OR "There is no such thing. so I will continue along the same lines in the discussion."

[moderators called in, or find the discussion]

Mod: "OK. Person was/wasnt engaging in class bashing." Depending on which it is, mod gives instructions that one of two parties back off from what they had been saying.

Giving the mods the last word on determining where the boundaries are is the realistic solution to an endless problem. Of course, the specific determination is often contested. And even if it isn't, the exact same issue will come up and be contested later. But that is FAR more conatined than would be the truly endless process of trying to even somewhat more codify the boundaries.

End result: everyone has a say. But if you are told by a moderator to drop it, you are by and large expected to do it. And there is very limited tolerance for others taking up your cause. Because if it wan't that way, the administering fairness discussions would take up the whole space.

Hi

First, Maysie lives here too.

Second, I think this is a good thread, but I'm going to ask peoples indulgence in not giving answers which require a lot of thought today and possibly tomorrow due to time constraints. I'll probably just have time to swing through to do quick routine things like spam deletion, closing Caissa's threads, and ummm... maybe I'll ban snert today for the hell of it.

I have been thinking that the policy statement could use amplification and clarification in some areas though.

[ETA so there's no misunderstanding... I was just kidding about Caissa and possibly snert.]

And does the policy statement extend to limiting discussions on certain policy positions beyond group politics? Would I get into trouble starting a thread say, questioning the efficacy of Canada's Medi-care system or a discussion questioning Canada's current Hate Speech law. (Not that I am planning to do so). Again I think it is important to know what discussions are permitted and which are not, even in general. I appreciate KenS's thoughtful response and understand his point, but it is also helpful to know ahead of time whether time and effort should be put into introducing and supporting a thread discussion (and it is work) on Babble as opposed to some other forum and then find that the topic or the discussion is forbidden.

Policy statements are usually crafted to express an over-arching vision, and are generally not meant to provide line by line specifics, or delve into the ways and means of implementation.

For most that participate here, much of what passes before us through the mainstream social and political debates at the leadership level, along with the largely uninformed and ignorant public commentary, rightfully offends at most every turn.

From my perspective, the living/breathing aspect that was mentioned in reference to the policy statement has to do with the fact that none of us here know what it means to realize the depth another's oppression, unless one personally shares in it.

Over the years, voluntary and participatory feedback of varying intensity, eloquence and patience across countless threads has provided a fairly solid base for those who wish to gain some awareness, especially those of us who enjoy an oppression free existence on many or all accounts that others face daily.

The mere effort of cataloguing the entire wretched litany of abuse that emanates from the core of conservatism, capitalism and patriarchal dominance in all its forms as it exists for large segments of the population, into a single capstone policy document would require the use of a thickly paginated statement to account for it all.

What you have then in terms of this space is not so much an established orthodoxy, but a visceral intolerance for the intolerable, that which occurs and is accepted as a matter of routine practically everywhere else. These defensive reactions are encountered whenever newcomers, as a result of a pre-existing internalized system of beliefs, entertain the notion that any shred of validity exists in a system that raises one group above another as the natural order of things. This would include topics concerning the political, economical and social. Some use the experience to learn, while others leave voluntarily or otherwise.

Edited to add:  Any time spent reviewing the various threads would point to several areas where awareness among established participants would seem to be a distant concept. We don't get everything.

theatlanticparty: My perspective is that if one makes a "stumbling" error in terminology, phraseology, and from a lack of understanding of an oppression one hasn't really thought about, if one is in a good faith place, and hears the following in the good faith way, then all is not lost. "Educate yourself"

This is a progressive board. For example, not talking about anyone in particular, but spewing crap out of the top of one's head, crap that is unfiltered bull that we all have access to out there online and in the world (Examples: Poor people are lazy! Immigrants take away jobs from Canadians!), is not welcome here, will be called out, and if repeated, the spewer may be banned for good.

Aw KenS, you've hurt my feewwings.

Critiques from the left are always welcome, but it may be a rough ride. For newer posters, just like entering a party where you don't know anyone, stomping around saying how bad unions are, for example, won't get you far. But we've had some great discussions here on those kinds of critiques and analyses, from the left.

I'm so glad you can find humour in our current and ongoing practice Caissa. Now, to the proper use of the quote function.

Thanks for that, Slumberjack. My final point is, that if someone really understands that they don't get something, they will be fine to take at least a few hours of their time to read the words of others on the issue(s). We've made a few stickies in the anti-racism and feminism forums, but maybe some stickies in some of the others would not be a bad idea. For references, not required reading. I can begin some of them, but if others want to take some of that on, it would be much appreciated.

Maysie wrote:
I'm so glad you can find humour in our current and ongoing practice Caissa. Now, to the proper use of the quote function.
To which Caissa replied: Your current and ongoing practice is repressive censorship and unproressive, but I;'m sure you know that already.
The quote function is highly over-rated.

Caissa I disagree.

Look at the aesthetic beauty of, for example, my post at #11. Multiple quotes from multiple posters. All formatted in a gorgeous manner. Lovely. 

Now look at your clumsy rendering at post #13. Who said what? Where? How? Huh? Where's the new text? It's all a blur. Requoting that would be a nightmare.

I rest my case. As if I were at the Supreme Court of Canada. Which I am NOT. 

P.S. Repressive? Censorship? Unprogressive? Thanks for the giggle. By the way I could barely find this new text of yours at post #13. But then again, it isn't really that new is it?

Way back in the olden days when I was a mod, my response to requests for completely spelled out rules and penalties was: Think of me more like an editor than a judge or prosecutor or police officer.

Moderating "tone" and keeping discussions on a generally progressive track is not about making hard definitions of infractions and enforcing them, and doing letter-of-the-law stuff. It's more like an editing job. Some things are going to be ambiguous and a lot of the time, it's about judgment calls as opposed to creating babble legislation and criminal codes. You get a feel for where people are coming from. Yes, it leads to mistakes sometimes, but that's why editing and moderating is more of an art than anything.

Does it go from Bold on the left to some A(B( symbol on the other end, Michelle?

Like Michelle said, its more like editing.

And I would submitt that the ultimate reason, or the premptory reason, is economic.

Think of the monumental labour and expense that runs through the whole judical system. Leave aside the 'sunk costs' even- which would be the equivalent to an attempt to codify what we have so far- look at 'just' the ongoing maintenance work of the justice syste.

Sure the whole Canadian justice system is huge, while Babble is just a speck. But take a rough look at the average ratio between people or cases being 'processed', over the number of lawyers, judges and clerical types it takes to do that.

Questionable whether we would want such a proportion of bureacracy to discussion volume, but the question is prempted by the resources for it not existing.

1. If I write an email to the mods or publisher, I do not necessarily expect an answer, sometimes I get one, which is always pleasant, often I do not. Michelle stills owes me several from her days in moderatings, but alas, all hope of one coming now is lost, I suppose.

2. Perhaps an overblown sense of privilege and entitlement prompts one to believe they should hear immediately back, or at all.

3. This is not an abitrary or fair equity space, once one comes to realize that, it is much easier not to give a shit about it in the long run. However, one must still obey the rules as best one can, at any given point.

4. Slumberjack awesome post @ #9

5.  Do not believe most other boards are more tolerant....I have participated at one point or another on most of the Canadian larger political forums and my experience says otherwise.

Oh dear, that is troublesome, people can be so polite putting down other people, that I take no store in people stating politeness as a rule, it really means little, and when you call people on their polite putdowns, it is usually the one calling them on it who gets in trouble.

Some are just excellent here a babble at doing this, especially if they are word smiths, and then there are others who can just get away with bashing without even a word of censor....the trick is finding out who these are, and then taking whatever action you want, as it is a personal choice.

Thx for the invite. Do you have a definition for the term polite?  I am concerned about the parameters of what the term implies?  Can you point to some posts that you have read here that would run afoul of your "polite" rule.  I am always interested in new approaches to old debates thus my question of clarification.

I don't need to discuss the idea that lesser taxes build better communities.  Your worn and tired ideas have been in play in Canada for over 20 years and we have homelessness and food banks instead of social services.  The evidence is already in but it appears you are not willing to look at it.  Canadians have been trickled down on by the business community since the 1980's and our cities reek from the urine.  Without a tax base our society will sink further into the abyss of poverty. 

So is there anything on this board that would offend your politeness rule?

Fidel, did you post that in the wrong forum?

That still leaves lots of room for healthy discussion and debate including those who seem to think that there's censorship & dictatorship at play here. 

So do you intend to have moderators or will it be a free for all with everyone using their own personal definition of polite?  

If I make a politically provocative statements who will protect me from the impolite.

If the answer is no one then I guess it wouldn't be a very friendly place for anything except mainstream ideas.

So if the answer is yes are your moderators going to be paid or volunteers and will they have any special training or background to determine what is acceptably polite and what is not?