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 think, given the policy posted above, that it is fairly obvious that class bashing, regardless of what thread it is in, is off limits.

Some subjects are not up for debate. Just as pointed out in the policy.

I suggest you read through the threads and become accustomed to what is and is not up for debate. That's a good start.

No one is going to come along and provide you with a list. It should be common sense. This is a left board. Just use your head.

If you think you may be saying something that may become an issue ask a mod, or post and then see what happens.

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.

I just gave the practical reasons it isn't feasible.

I noted that this 'arrangement' does make it more difficult to contest where the boundaries are if you haven't been around as long as others.

But as far as figuring out the boundaries- you are a demonstration of someone doing that.

Stargazer gave one way of figuring out. But its understandable if people don't want to read through heaps of old discussions to figure it out. Its also allowed to dive in and find out what the boundaries are.... as long as you are willing within a reasonable period of time to just take No for an answer, whether or not you think the reasons given are sufficient.

[If it really bugs you, you might be able to give it a break for the time being, and make another attempt to open it up later. Or bring it to this forum, Rabble Reactions. Though if you haven't given it a break for a while, you have to be prepared for the possibility that there is no tolerance for re-opening. The forum only gives you an opportunity to re-open the discussion. You are entitled to nothing.]

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.]

The commendation of oldgoat in particular was simply because you have articulated the logic of past practice. Not meant to be an exclusive resommendation.

Don't understand the request to refrain from long anwers that require a lot of thought. Your own? Why? ..you don't have to answer just because a lot of thought has been put out.

If the policy statement was to be amplified and clarified, I'd recommend doing it trial and error in very small chunks. Before getting in too deep, testing the possibility that the clarification will mostly raise more questions and make more problems.

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.

Oldgoat wrote: I'll probably just have time to swing through to do quick routine things like spam deletion, closing Caissa's threads,

Caissa responded: That's okay. Maysie and Lou seem to have the latter down to an art form.

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.

I can appreciate that babble cannot deliver a line by line code of conduct that accounts for all possible actions and reactions on the part of babblers.

At the same time, the policy functions, in a very scaled down sense, like the Criminal Code or a code of conduct.  Heaven knows it's frequently invoked as such!  In that regard, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for specifics.

Who would be content to have our Criminal Code written in vague, high-level language, with the specifics to be "interpreted" on the fly by judges and police officers?  Or, to give a smaller example, who would be content to have their office or workplace Code of Conduct written in vague terms and interpreted on the fly by management?

There's just something about "unwritten" rules that smells wrong.  It's true that once you've been here a while it doesn't seem so much so, but to a new arrival, I can imagine that not knowing where you stand in terms of behaviour is worrisome.

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.

Cross posted with Snert.

Um this is an open, public, free discussion board, not the Supreme Court of Canada.

General progressive, left-wing and anti-oppressive principles are pretty much covered in the policy statement quoted in the OP.

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.

Instead of chapters of verse, annexes and appendixes as you'd find in law, doesn't the content of the site, the pods, the articles, threads, blogs, collectively form the minute detail that anyone could refer to for interpretation? There's no realistic comparison that can be made with the CCC or work rules. This is not a court of law, nor is it our workplace. If you contravene an element of the CCC, the result can mean arrest, trial, a criminal record and potentially jail, whereas here, besides banning for the worst of it, mostly it involves someone coming along to say you..that...stop it.

The inevitable question of why mostly has to do with challenging the view that an offence has been rendered. Merely relaying the information that it has offended simply isn't enough when one feels that their position is such that they would only agree if and when they themselves can be convinced of it.  That sense of smell is also a matter of perspective.

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?

I'm really looking forward to hearing from you and Oldgoat re. my concerns. Of course, it goes without saying that #15 is a model of moderating decorum.

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.

BTW, Maysie, Caissa may have the same problem as me. Caissa, do you see a formatting bar along the top of your reply window, similar to what you might see in a word processor?

This is what happens when I try to quote now, using the quote tags:

Quote:
This is between quote tags.

This is after the end quote tag.

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

Well less-free than most other boards. But the participants know that and accept that which is fine. Freedom of speech has been curtailed to a degree in order to create a 'progressive' area of rest so that accepted wisdom does not have to be defended. It does create a chill though (I have been careful to self-censor myself when posting). I suspect some/many people leave when their opinions are unwelcome. I have been told I don't 'belong' here. Also babble may have (or get) a reputation as not a place of free debate when compared with other boards. It may even lower ad revenues, I don't know. And the other cost is that it creates a lot of work (I am guessing) for the moderators. But as long as everyone accepts the costs then there is no problem.

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.

hey theatlantic, I meant free to users.

Welcome to my world.

I have a long history of taking breaks from babble for that very reason. I no longer have that privilege. Damn it!

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.

Well in that case you are all welcome to partake in our forum then

www.realdebateforum.com

Just like babble we too do not use the standard boiler plate policy except we go in the opposite direction, less rules

We have only three rules

1. Not to violate any international, Canadian or Canadian provincial laws.
2. Be polite at all times.
3. Help maintain realDebate as a constructive political free debate environment in order to foster free speech and free thinking on political ideas and issues.

We welcome any and all points of view and we promise not to be offended.

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.

Ya, that one looks a little bit open ended to me.

Except by transgressions of item 2. :)

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. 

It is the same old pedestrian politeness polite. No hidden meaning. Civil discourse. Show each other respect as a fellow person. No implied content censorship.

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

And don't forget that nobody pays any taxes in Nordic social democracies and therefore the reason why Canada's social democrats must be hypocrites when it comes to corporate taxation.

Fidel, did you post that in the wrong forum?

Fidel, did you post that in the wrong forum? Or thread

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. 

Of course.

There is censorship (overt and self imposed) but not dictatorship.

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?

Your "politeness" model for a chat forum is just like the "Free Market" great concept as long as you don't have to show it to anyone.  So apparently your site will be based on an arbitrary definition of politeness with no way of knowing how to enforce it or who defines it. How does that answer your question below?

"The issue is there needs to be a bit more detail surrounding what is acceptable and what is not. "

Tell me what you think of this statement?

"I commend the ones who are undergoing treatment (both in and outpatient), but I think that most people would agree that those who refuse treatment should be cut off from any and all assistance."

Is that polite to anyone who is being thrown into the gutter?  Here we consider that an insult to real human beings who are poor and we consider it inappropriate but it is also very impolite.

You sir are full of simplistic solutions to everything as your half baked ideas on how to run a chat forum clearly shows.