Site Rules Query

[Chinajan]

Earlier today a moderator posted:

'...I can ban him, but not just for saying what he chooses to believe...'

'...he can't be banned just for saying what he chooses to believe. If you don't like it don't read it.'

Are we to understand that if we state that what we post is what we believe, no matter whether those beliefs are homophobic, sexist, racist or anyother-ist that is against the Site Rules, that such posts should be allowed to stand/that the contributor should face no sanction?

TIA

[jno]

I haven't looked at the rules for a while but I think posts could certainly be deleted for racism etc. If the poster then repeats the offence he/she might face more sanction, though suspending before banning I would have thought.

[Mamyalynne]

I agree with Jno, repeated breaking of a rule would result in something more than a simple post removal.

[andy-hughes]

It's tricky Chinajan.

The Mods regularly get stick for supposedly ignoring transgressions from friends and jumping over selected targets - neither of which I believe to be true, and the detractors cannot provide evidence because on the Ed and Team - apart from the Mod concerned - know who has deleted what, and why - they have to provide a reason.

I think Moderators have to view each post on a case-by-case basis, and use their judgement, which is necessarily personal, and if the ED and team do not agree with a deletion or ban they can reverse either or both if they choose.

Personally, I view the way a view is expressed, rather than the view itself, so I would not let a poster be called a racist, for example, although if someone implies that they are, that usually stands.

It is tricky as I say - and there are always ample bar room lawyers on here who will spout guff about how wrong the Mods are - but that's part of undertaking the task.

[anneasquith]

That statement confused me. I’m not really sure what is acceptable or not on AB now.

[Chinajan]

Thanks jno. If that's the case then it would be interesting to know the reason for the qualification of someone "saying what they choose to believe" when it comes to a decision regarding suspension/ban.

That's what I was getting at really.

[andy-hughes]

Mamya - I would regard persistent rule-breaking even when posts are deleted as showing a willful disrespect for the site and the people on it - and most Mods would look at suspending a poster for that.

[Chinajan]

Thank you andy and anne as well.

[jno]

just stick your head above the parapet and see if anyone throws cabbages at it, anne. It doesn't seem to me that an awful lot of posts actually do get removed.

[Sqad]

anne, it mostly boils down to interpretation of the rules e.g what one considers to be abusive for example and in which case, the final call is made by the Mod.

[anneasquith]

AH, we don’t require to be ‘ bar room lawyers’ to observe inconsistencies re the Site Rules.. don’t feel obliged to reply, because I have no intentions of reading 6 paragraphs of script from you . Ta .

[Chinajan]

...and Mamya!

[andy-hughes]

Chinajan - // Thanks jno. If that's the case then it would be interesting to know the reason for the qualification of someone "saying what they choose to believe" when it comes to a decision regarding suspension/ban. //

Simply put a post that says - "I think all back people are criminals ... " is likely to stay, even though it is a racist viewpoint, but a post that says "I think all *** deserve to be hung ..." is likely to be deleted on site.

The deleted word rhymes with diggers - I hope that explanation is allowed, in order to make a point.

[jno]

Sqad, as far as I know the final call is made by the Ed, or one of them. They can reinstate posts, de-suspend posters, and raise lepers from the dead.

[Chinajan]

Seems it would be helpful to moderators to have a definitive list of automatic suspension/banning offences.

[andy-hughes]

anne - // AH, we don’t require to be ‘ bar room lawyers’ to observe inconsistencies re the Site Rules.. don’t feel obliged to reply, because I have no intentions of reading 6 paragraphs of script from you . Ta .//

OK, just the one then - I would be happy if anyone with issues about moderation addressed them directly to the Editor instead of blowing windy and wild on the site like they do.

[andy-hughes]

Chinajan - // Seems it would be helpful to moderators to have a definitive list of automatic suspension/banning offences. //

By definition, Moderators have on the site long enough to know how the overall ethos works, and they use their own common sense and judgement.

[jim360]

I think that's a nonsensical distinction. Both are racist. I don't see that adding capital punishment makes a difference (and, for that matter, I don't see a distinction between "all [insert PC term here] should be killed" and "all [non-PC term] should be killed". The issue is the sentiment.

[Chinajan]

// Simply put a post that says - "I think all back people are criminals ... " is likely to stay, even though it is a racist viewpoint, but a post that says "I think all *** deserve to be hung ..." is likely to be deleted on site. //

That answers my question thank you andy.

I don't like the answer, and [in my belief!] it is wrong to judge posts in that manner, but so be it.

[Sqad]

Jno...that mabe so in theory but due to a possible time lag it may well be 24 hours before a post and or poster is rescinded.......if ever.

[andy-hughes]

jim - // The issue is the sentiment. //

I disagree - I think the expression is the issue, there are ways of saying contentious things without outraging any sensible person reading it.