Atheist & Agnostics Group (Suggested) Guidelines/Procedures For Alerting…

[NeoGreen]

Should we do a little self-moderation, a little self-educating, for the benefit of our group members?

I PM’ed with the person who altered on my Jury-Hidden Fecal Cranium poll/post and he/she feels bad that she didn’t contact me first before activating the alert. We exchanged PMs/POVs and are both ok with what transpired.

However, others have mentioned potential better procedures for questioning/highlighting and asking for review for posts within our group (e.g. contacting the poster or one of our hosts before activating a full alert) and I thought it might be beneficial if we made it explicit (but not necessarily mandatory) within our little safe haven corner of DU on what someone should do if they thought a post was “over the line”.

Plus, I thought it might be a good idea to provide definitions and examples of what constitutes:
1) Disruptive:
a. Does the post stifle anyone's ability to discuss or debate?

2) Hurtful:
a. Does the post single out any one person?

3) Rude:
a. Is there language that is inherently offensive or vulgar

4) Insensitive:
a. Is the post specifically unfeeling or thoughtless?

5) Generally over-the-top or otherwise inappropriate
a. Acknowledged as being vague, and thus rarely a good reason to alert

Can you guys come up with examples (both good {i.e. clearly should have been altered on} and bad {i.e. should not have been alerted on}) for people to use in evaluating a particular post as to whether it is D, H, R, I or GotT?

Plus, we should be explicit in letting people know that a well-worded PM to the person might be a good first step and that if you are not sure, not alerting is always a good default?


PS
Feel free to whack me upside the head with a Halibut if I am out of line here...



...but please don't alert on me

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Are we to not hurt the feelings of theists?

Since they are so touchy.

Just asking. I ask for proof of God, or point out the many contradictions in their holy book, and they got nothing and get offended.


I'm stating facts, and they get offended. Quote their bible back to them verbatim and they get offended.

[NeoGreen]

3. Good question...

...I guess I'd start with:
If the offending post is a discussion/evaluation/exposition of a point of view/question/hypothesis in of itself then I would say that here in A&A it is fine, no matter how "hurt" some individual or class of individuals feels about said post, however...

if the offending post has a personal attack or "calls out" another by name, in a derogatory manner, well then I think the big red button might be in order.

I'm sure there are grey areas, and I'm hoping to whittle away at those, in an attempt to reduce the reluctance of some (I dislike the term newbee) to post here (e.g. atheists who might wish to express an opinion but are reluctant because an alert has such a high penalty, the debating skills are high and what is acceptable/unacceptable is not explicitly stated). I'm not trying to make it easier for theists to post (and disrupt and/or bait/bate) here but to expand the pool of atheists who do post here.

My attempt is derived from my PMs/POVs mentioned above.

And to be clear, these suggested guidelines are just for A&A, whatever rules/guidelines we develop as to what constitutes good/bad behavior, do not apply elsewhere.

What is clearly not questionable in A&A might be worthy of a ban in another group.

[Warpy]

4. In addition, I'd add one particular to this group

No proselytizing. Anyone who does that here deserves to have his toes not trod upon but stomped flat.

[AlbertCat]

12. Are we to not hurt the feelings of theists?

Is that even possible?..... by anyone (not just atheists)

(I'll bet this post hurt some feelings....whoa whoa whoa feeeeelings.....)

[LostOne4Ever]

2. I hate to use the term common sense

as it is used to support common nonsense most of the time....but I think this is one of those situation where it is called for.

We are pretty much the last minority that its okay, if not even encouraged, to discriminate against. Many of us face constant discrimination on a daily basis. From small slights against us like being told "thank god for you" to some of us being disowned by our family while being actively harrassed at work if not outright fired for us not accepting the invisible sky fairy hypothesis (sorry believer guests, but this is the AA forum and that is honestly the way we feel about gods).

This causes anger and resentment, and that is to a degree what this forum is for is it not? To vent with other non-believers and discuss issues affecting us with other non-believers. To have a sympathetic ear who understands where we are coming from. Thus, I think we all give wider berth to other posters here that we would not give elsewhere on DU.

If you are really concerned with something someone says here (cause there still are lines) I think you should try to see where they are coming from and then try and engage them to tone down their posts themselves before hitting alert. And even then, consider an SoP alert before you commit to a CS alert because those can close someone down for up to 90 days. Conversely, we have three pretty awesome hosts here, and I have confidence that they can deal with it.

Another thing to consider, is whether to engage them publically, or through a PM. Sometimes mentioning things in the open will only make things worse. It can embarrass someone or worse, give those who hate us ammunition to use against us elsewhere on DU. That above all is the biggest issue with Falcon's alert. What could have been handled privately and through PMs became a public spectacle that will arm the alert trolls with ammunition that WILL be used against us. Worst of all, it was over such a minor thing.

I respect that he/she admitted to making the alert knowing full well the amount of mud he/she would have to endure, but again, this could have and probably should have been handled privately. But I hope that this incident does not drive them or anyone out of here, but rather is a lesson in understanding the dynamics we are forced to play by just to communicate on this forum by the trolls.

Sorry for the wall of text.

[defacto7]

5. Then I think we had better define the term "Safe Haven" again.

It seems to me you are asking for the entire dynamics of this forum to conform to some philosophy of cleanliness. This forum has been running pretty well as it is with open comments and free expression. There are certain caveats that are mentioned in the SOP that keep a certain civility. But is this a safe haven for intellectual stimulation, common discussion, as well as some frivolity? Absolutely. There are posts that are very serious and are respected, posts that are very personal that are also respected and posts that are like scribbling on the bathroom wall all of which are just fine.

The problems arise when we have offended individuals from other forums with a chip to knock off that try to sucker us into hides, divide the participants and set up false alerts. These trolls come here sometimes in the form of fake atheists as well as defenders of gods but few if any are honest. There are some who may be new to the forum, but in that case there is always a learning curve. That's the way of the Internet world and has been a hallmark of DU in general. Those persons may want to get on board because they want to be a part of this community or they may find it's not their cup of tea (no pun intended). They are perfectly welcome to stay or to leave but we do not need to sanitize the forum for the sake of making this a safe haven for the sanitized.

I think the comments made would have been made anyway whether the person outed them self or not, and I think the open discussion including chastising a bad move on their part was perfectly fine and served it's purpose. There are those who have made mistakes in the past on DU who have pulled it together (like myself) and others who are offended that this is not grandmas kitchen who leave. I have no intention of proselytizing for non-belief by kowtowing to a whim, but I am happy to have newcomers decide to join in this varied and awesome place to exchange differences in experience and culture in an open environment and who are willing to learn from the experience.

[kdmorris]

6. I'm with defacto and LostOne4Ever here

What should be alerted on by us? Nothing. Other people are going to come here and alert on us plenty and I think it fucking sucks to do it to each other.

If you really have a problem with a post for some reason, talk to the person or notify the hosts. Those are my two options, unless it is obviously someone here trying to tell us why we should all believe (even that would probably not get me to alert). Alerting on posts should be saved for the most egregious posts... like calling someone an asshole or telling someone to fuck off.

[mr blur]

7. As am I.

I have never alerted on any post in this group. When there have been unacceptable posts in here the hosts have dealt with it; when they have persisted, the trolls have been banned.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Nope. We're fine. Our friends should leave us the fuck alone.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. I think the Fish Slapping Dance...

is the best way to handle it.

on edit: Oh, and intercourse the penguin.

[NeoGreen]

10. Great, it is the Halibut for me then...

...I guess I was out of line again.

But Mrs Conclusion and Mrs Premise asked me to please not molest their penguin.

[Curmudgeoness]

11. The problem that I have with any of this

is that the people in A&A are not the ones who are doing all the alerting here. I don't believe for one minute that the people doing the alerts here will adhere to any of the rules that we set up regarding proper procedures in this group. In fact, I think that the only reason for most alerts in this group is to get atheists in trouble, so why would they PM the poster or hosts?

[Iggo]

13. Do you mean to say we should alert on ourselves so they don't have to?

LOL.

Um...no.

[NeoGreen]

16. Uhmmm...

...I was working towards the opposite effect.

Let members of A&A know that there are other means to address "issues" with the content of posts.

No harm, no foul...

[Stryst]

14. For years now I've avoided certain discussion topics

Entirely because I feel that the majority population on DU disagrees with me. Since all seven of the juries I've been on have been posters flagged for reasons I not only felt were silly, but borderline abuse of the reporting system, I don't tend to post on any topic involving race or religion (basically anything that people get emotional over and start spam flagging). I have never really felt safe posting in A&A simply because I don't want to deal with the stress of being banned.

I'm the kind of guy who knocks on his neighbors door and asks them to turn the music down, but would never call the police for a noise complaint. There are many members here on DU who would never PM someone over a post they found offensive, but would flag in a heartbeat and who cares if they misunderstood the post, or misread, or were just having a bad day and wanted to take it out on someone else.

[NeoGreen]

15. I was hoping to start a thread...

... that provided a mechanism for those who "self censure" to feel comfortable in adding their voice to the discussion without the fear/threat of being banned.

If we agree, collectively as members of A&A, not to knee-jerk alert on one another, and make it an explicit suggestion then I think more people will be willing to contribute.

Figuratively: to let people know that it is ok to politely ask for a reduction in volume, and not automatically call the police.

[Stryst]

19. Exactly

We just need to be reasonable.

[NeoGreen]

20. Unfortunately...

...there exists the problem of "disruptors/Trolls" (i.e. people who come in and intentionally post bait {or is it bate}).

Weeding out the Trolls from the honest newbie(s) with a slightly different point of view can be, problematic.

I tend to take people at their word when they self identify as Atheist.

But then, I've been known to buy bridges in Brooklyn, from time to time.

[Stryst]

22. We could insist that new members to the board

commit some blaphemy.

Here, I'll start.

I deny the spirit of christ. Now I'm good and damned.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. So is A&A a safe haven as long as we don't call each other names?

Just wondering. I'm not venturing in to Religion/Religion or Interfaith. I was once warned to "watch my language" in Interfaith, and I told them I WAS watching my language. I've never called anyone here a bad name. Nor have I told anyone they are mentally ill.

However, in the current hotbed of discussion about religious beliefs being delusional, I would say "What makes your belief in the Christian God any more logical than belief in other mythological or non-provable deities, albeit more socially acceptable?" which means my opinion would be unacceptable in Religion/Religion. And yes, "obtuse" is a polite word for the non-answers.

Hitchens talks about the social acceptability of doing cruel or bizarre things in the name of your religion. His main example is "mutilating the genitals of your children" which includes both genders. I read "God is Not Great" a couple of years ago and "The God Delusion" by Dawkins more recently. I think they are both good and well argued books.

I try to have compassion for people I don't agree with and realize that they are suffering, as we all do at times. I got this idea from reading Buddhism. It's difficult sometimes.

[intaglio]

18. Interesting

On the thread that started this and exposed so much venom I suppose the following
1) Certain classes of poster would view it as "disruptive" but far from all. It certainly did not stifle anyone's ability to discuss or debate

2) How was the OP "hurtful"? It it hurtful to point out that at least one other posters from A&A was being hurtful and disruptive?

3) Rude, if it is rude to point out the flaws, foibles and failings of others then I plead guilty, however I included no language that was offensive or vulgar.

4) Insensitive: difficult but it depends about what people are sensitive. Personally I think that pointing out the crassness of others is essential. Unfeeling or thoughtless - Strange I was complaining about unfeeling and thoughtless posts

5) Generally over the top or otherwise inappropriate - bit of a catch-all rather like "insensitive" certainly the posts to which I was objecting were definitely that. I'm afraid that "vague" does not fit the words.

I can see how the "meds" comment could be regarded as hurtful given the obsessive nature of the posts I was seeing in Religion Group. Unfortunately I was referring to my own experience with a 90 day lock-out where I did need to check my meds.

[Goblinmonger]

21. I don't think anyone here has a problem discussion those things.

Though I would suggest first taking it to PM. Calling a fellow atheist out in public isn't really cool when you haven't given them time to remedy the problem. I know that I would respond to a PM much differently than a public response. Again, it's about tone when you do that. Many of us feel like we get attacked in other groups here on DU and we don't want that to happen here. So addressed it in a friendly and constructive manner and try to have a dialogue with that person about the problems you see.

I can't speak for other hosts, but I, personally, would rather you PM me about it and see if I agree and want to continue the discussion with that poster. If I agree, I have no problem having that discussion in PM. Or find someone else that agrees with you that has a relationship with that person and have them give it a shot in PM. I would guess that 99% of the problems could be taken care of it those two steps were taken first.

If that doesn't do it and you haven't received any insight into what you initially found offensive, then address it publicly but, again, it needs to be constructive and conversational in here.

And I appreciate your tone in this post. I'm not trying to be dismissive or paternalistic about that. Just trying to highlight that the OP you started didn't have the same tone and was met with resistance. Which is, I believe, a real life lesson about what I am saying above.