Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision

[Dereck03]

Well, again, I think Grath's proposal covers this, and it pretty much covers the way you see this being viable. Below is her clarification near the end of her OP about what these rules are and aren't intended to cover:

The main problem I see with this is the insistent people who simply use the report against someone they dislike and this in itself can damage the image of the person reported, imagine that I get reported 5 times for using the N-word and the reports are dismissed even though those reports already have a precendent marked on the user and can make people who do not agree with the report being dismissed start talking shit about the user behind his back and screwing up his reputation and gradually build up a bad image.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I mean, if I'm being honest, I don't think there's any ironclad way to deal with that for good. Though I don't think that's much different than our already existing cases of bad faith reports, where the course of action is often to take no action against the one being accused and probably even punish the bad faith reporter

 

[Dereck03]

There is no way to deal with that, but now with this addition users will feel that they can report more often for anything and many may excuse themselves in different ways to justify that report just because they think the rule is on their side (and we know that in many occasions we tend to be too lenient with the users) and as I said many members already feel afraid that anyone will report them or take anything out of context reaching points of strenuous discussion and internal fights that for users of little mental strength may become overwhelming that anything they say has to be regulated for fear that someone will report them.

 

[Agnaa]

I also definitely do not want to punish our members for supplying reliable evidence of extremely bad conduct off-site. I am just concerned about how we can evaluate this in practice. It seems insane that it may be illegal to just supply evidence of outright criminal behaviour, for example.

Where I live, New South Wales, Australia, it's illegal to make recordings without the consent of other participants, unless you only intend to play it to participants of the conversation or law enforcement officials. So we don't get caught in that contradiction of "illegal to supply evidence of criminal behaviour to police". I don't think it applies to text conversations, but it gets at the same ideal, and other countries may have something similar."

Of course, this leaves no room for sharing such information with communities that may be concerned about criminal behaviour.

 

[Deagonx]

Of course, this leaves no room for sharing such information with communities that may be concerned about criminal behaviour.

You use the word "recording." Does this apply to text messages or emails? I would suspect it does not, which would be 100% of the evidence we interact with.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If a straight man says the F word offsite and that is screenshotted, they're gone
If a white man says the N word offsite and that is screenshotted, then excuses

To weigh in, I would simply not tolerate a regime which insists upon such a level of authoritarianism that we ban people for being unpleasant. My concern is in the overreach of moral arbitration that certain staff members seem to believe they are equipped to perform- I obviously disagree, and it is not our place to dictate the morals of others. So, in short: couldn't disagree more.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I think that Dereck03 and Bambu make good sense above, and obviously do not want any out of context witch hunts due to cultural differences, especially not against well-behaved and productive members.

Would it be a good approach to use some version of DarkGrath's suggested wording above, combined with that any evidence of very seriously unacceptably bad off-forum conduct needs to be provided to one or a few of our active our administrators in private, who should then in turn show it to all of our administrators and bureaucrats in private via the official chat thread that I created for all of us some time ago?

 

[Propellus]

The proposals here do appear to make sense, but wouldn't this be a bit too risky for severely punishing those who are ironically just saying slurs rather than intentionally offending whatever people are off-site? It makes sense here that this wiki is Fandom-adjacent for that matter

 

[KLOL506]

I think people here are missing the bigger picture.

The idea is "Don't be a horrible person".

IDK why we're equating holding people to scrutiny for their offsite behavior to being the same as digging up everything a person might've ever said in their life to then use against them.

And even then, that is remotely not the same as saying "I want to do a middle-schooler".

Basic common sense people.

 

[Propellus]

I think people here are missing the bigger picture.

The idea is "Don't be a horrible person".

IDK why we're equating holding people to scrutiny for their offsite behavior to being the same as digging up everything a person might've ever said in their life to then use against them.

That's what I'm worried about, we could be used as prime accessories for witchhunting by people who just clearly doesn't like us and rather wants us gone. And what we make say could be taken out of context than a literal sense.

 

[KLOL506]

Not my point. The point is, we're overcomplicating this way too much.

Also seriously, KT has a good point. You could just... not say the words, you know. At the same time tho, we're not gonna hunt you down to the ends of the Earth just to see what you might've or might not have said in your life. Let's be reasonable here.

And if people are seriously expecting to do a witch-hunt based on this, good luck to them, that'd effectively mean EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US here would be banned here for expressing even the slightest of views people might consider "deplorable" which in turn would lead to the wiki being effectively shut down.

That being said, I believe DarkGrath's draft to provide adequate-enough safeguards for it. That is all.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think people here are missing the bigger picture.

The idea is "Don't be a horrible person".

IDK why we're equating holding people to scrutiny for their offsite behavior to being the same as digging up everything a person might've ever said in their life to then use against them.

And even then, that is remotely not the same as saying "I want to do a middle-schooler".

Basic common sense people.

These things do actually need to be ironed out, and acting reductive about that isn't particularly helpful. I believe every single person on this thread, so far, has essentially agreed to the idea of what you're saying (albeit when Grath said it). The problem is in the finer details, which you don't seem to be offering an opinion on. It isn't "overcomplicating"- it's covering our bases.

Common sense, KLOL.

 

[Agnaa]

The proposals here do appear to make sense, but wouldn't this be a bit too risky for severely punishing those who are ironically just saying slurs rather than intentionally offending whatever people are off-site? It makes sense here that this wiki is Fandom-adjacent for that matter

I don't think so, since DarkGrath gave a statement of intent for the rules, which could be used whenever the situation comes up.

I can only really see that changing if another staff thread is made to declare a new statement of intent for them.

 

[KLOL506]

These things do actually need to be ironed out, and acting reductive about that isn't particularly helpful. I believe every single person on this thread, so far, has essentially agreed to the idea of what you're saying (albeit when Grath said it). The problem is in the finer details, which you don't seem to be offering an opinion on. It isn't "overcomplicating"- it's covering our bases.

Common sense, KLOL.

There's no "finer details" to be had or "bases" to cover. Just don't say the words. It's that simple.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I intend no disrespect from my immediate tone, and if it comes off like that, then I sincerely apologize, but this has got to be the worst point I have ever read in my entire life.

If somebody pops out and calls somebody a f****t on any website connected or disconnected from this website, they will be banned in microseconds. On-site, off-site, in their minds, they're gone. Brandished as a homophobe throughout the internet forever.
If somebody comes and calls somebody a r****d or say that they're r******d, another ban.

But now a word that people have been banned for being used on site and even just quoting is now going to get leniency because it's now a "gamer word"? And since because it's an innocent and common thing on the internet, it gets a pass?
You know what else is common on the internet? Homophobia. I see it everywhere. We would excommunicate somebody in a heartbeat for something of that nature.
But we can't uphold the standards for headassery in that department. This is crazy

I get what you're trying to say, but if two friends whom both are African Americans themselves call each other than in a casual context, it's not really something we can ban both of each other for. Now if someone asked not to be called that and someone pestered them with that word multiple times, it would fall into harassing people in DMs and would be ban worthy for that reason. Also, the reason why we're so strict with slur words is because Fandom's TOS is strongly against it even if used for non-offensive reasons. But Discord's TOS doesn't care about specific words.

Context is key and matters a lot more than the specific words.

 

[Deagonx]

There's no "finer details" to be had or "bases" to cover. Just don't say the words. It's that simple.

So, to be clear, you're saying that we should consider using slurs of any kind off-site a bannable offense?

 

[KLOL506]

I don't think that's the right question.

The right question would be: Is the line between crass language and PDF-ilia that blurry? Are we seriously that incapable of noticing when a slur is said in bad faith? I find it baffling to see we're bobbing and weaving around this question so much.

 

[Deagonx]

Are we seriously that incapable of noticing when a slur is said in bad faith? I find it baffling to see we're bobbing and weaving around this question so much.

...we aren't bobbing and weaving. We're trying to have a discussion on the specifics, and you aren't really contributing to that aside from grandstanding with empty platitudes, which isn't helping us make any progress.

 

[Crabwhale]

I'll preface this by saying I'm not a model user off site. I'm abrasive, aggressive, and I hold my tongue for basically no one. I have cultivated this persona for the sake of brevity, justified in my eyes under the umbrella of confidentiality and mutual trust. I say this not to detract from my stance but because I lay myself and my argument to be judged bare, wrinkles and all, by everyone.

Under no circumstances, aside from the most extreme, are off-site actions that do not fall under the purview of the current rules to be judged by us. We are not overseers of people's private lives. Dark and offensive humor said between close-knit friends has its place and I will display the utmost reluctance to punish that sort of thing moving forward.

Off-site wording should only be used to punish an individual if it can be proven that they systematically display these problematic views with the excuse of irony becoming moot. I think there's been a miscommunication between two sides in this thread that may lead one into considering specific words matter. They don't. Everything is acceptable until it isn't.

I originated this debate with my recent prosecution. I do not like the cascade it began, but I would not take back my verdict even if it cost me my title and reputation. We did good work, got rid of a disgusting factor in our userbase I would not let back in a thousand years. We have to be careful how we proceed with work like it in the future, in every regard, however.

We've seen what happens elsewhere online with the prevalency of he-said she-said out of context message scouring BS. The age of freedom and archival of information has given the accusers in such matters great power, for better and worse. We will have to manage that power now that the cat is out of the bag.

Those are my final thoughts on this.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, my two main concerns here are that for safety reasons we should only punish very or likely extremely repulsive and toxic off-site behaviour; as well as that reports of such behaviour should be submitted via private messages to our administrators, who then show it to all of our other administrators and bureaucrats via the private message discussion thread that I created for us previously, both in order to avoid toxic public drama and uninformed lynch mob emotional reactions, and to cover ourselves legally.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I think that Dereck03 and Bambu make good sense above, and obviously do not want any out of context witch hunts due to cultural differences, especially not against well-behaved and productive members.

Would it be a good approach to use some version of DarkGrath's suggested wording above, combined with that any evidence of very seriously unacceptably bad off-forum conduct needs to be provided to one or a few of our active our administrators in private, who should then in turn show it to all of our administrators and bureaucrats in private via the official chat thread that I created for all of us some time ago?

Well, my two main concerns here are that for safety reasons we should only punish very or likely extremely repulsive and toxic off-site behaviour; as well as that reports of such behaviour should be submitted via private messages to our administrators, who then show it to all of our other administrators and bureaucrats via the private message discussion thread that I created for us previously, both in order to avoid toxic public drama/uninformed lynch mob reactions, and to cover ourselves legally.

@DarkGrath

 

[DarkGrath]

Owing to the past few replies in this discussion, I feel I had ought to clarify the intent of the phrasing further. To reiterate what I stated in the OP:

• These rules are intended to encapsulate instances in which actions by a user off-site could cause undue harm/distress to another user in on-site interactions, such as targeted bullying of a user or non-consensual, sexually-connotated interactions. These rules aren’t intended to encapsulate instances of off-site bantering/teasing of a trivial or friendly nature, respectful criticisms, or feuds between friends.
• These rules are intended to encapsulate instances in which actions by a user off-site could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety/wellbeing of another user, such as threatening violence against someone on the basis of their race, stating intention to mistreat a particular religious group, or partaking in a known LGBT hate group. These rules aren’t intended to encapsulate instances of saying the n-word in a casual server on Discord, partaking in taboo fetishes in a wholly private and consensual environment, or being a critic of a particular group of people with no harmful intentions towards them.

Importantly, I specified in the OP that I believe the rules speak for themselves. These examples are wholly for illustrating how these rules would be applied in practical, potentially contentious circumstances - if you examine the phrasing of the rules themselves, I believe you'll find that every example of a punishable/non-punishable offense here can be readily deduced from the rules themselves, without these illustrations added. Hence why I do not believe the examples need to be added to the rules themselves.

(As a side note: If others believe the intent of the rules could be confusing, I would be willing to adjust the proposal by adding the examples in some form, or by simply rephrasing them. I prefer to avoid needlessly verbose rule lists - they had ought to be concise enough for a regular user to read them and grasp the content, after all - but I'm willing to interject as many additions as needed for clarity's sake.)

I say all this, because some posts have implied certain actions - such as darkly humoured jokes or decontexualised offensive terms - would be enough to have someone punished under these proposals. To make this as clear and unambiguous as possible: no, neither of those would be. To restate the additions to the rules I am proposing:

• Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions taken against another user off-site of such a nature that could reasonably cause undue harm and/or distress for the other user in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: harassment, threats of violence or similar harmful actions, unsolicited sexual misconduct, impersonation, hacking, and doxing.
  • Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: hate speech, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.

I don't believe there is any reasonable angle in which you can suggest that a group of friends making dark jokes with one another (and by this, I mean actual dark jokes, not "legitimate threats or implicative comments that are being framed as jokes as a poor attempt to void responsibility") is either a direct action taken against a user that could realistically cause undue harm to the person, or a general action that could be realistically construed as inconducive to the safety of our users. Similarly, a potentially offensive term could not realistically qualify for either without the addition of context.

And if you want to examine it on an even more fundamental level, consider the principle of preferability again. Under the principle of preferability, to argue that dark humour off-site would be bannable would be to argue that no one can use dark humour off-site. And... to what end? What does it mean for us if someone makes a taboo joke about 9/11 in their friend's group chat? To punish such a person is an infringement of their liberties that has zero tangible influence on the wiki. It's flagrantly unreasonable, and so would be an unjustifiable rule under the principle. A similar aspect applies to the use of potentially offensive language. Would we be banning our users from entering acting careers in which they might have to say the n-word as part of a script in one of their roles? No, that's obviously absurd; we care about offensive language to the extent that it makes our community 'unpreferable', not with the very concept of the words themselves. I believe the instances in which offensive language - among other things - could legitimately impact us on-site are already encompassed in the proposals.

So no - this will not be banning people from making dark jokes, nor will it be banning the use of an entire section of language. These proposals all tie back into what the realistic on-site impacts for actions could be, and the fact that we ought not to ignore legitimate threats to our user's safety and wellbeing on-site when it is a product of off-site misconduct.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, as long as we only punish very or extremely bad offsite conduct of the natures that you outlined, I think that it should be fine.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Just a little tidbit to get the discussion going again, since it seems to have slowed.

If a straight man says the F word offsite and that is screenshotted, they're gone
If a white man says the N word offsite and that is screenshotted, then excuses

May I ask why you say this? As far as I’ve understood, the proposed rules will apply indiscriminately to all forms of off-site behavior. I don’t believe we are being lenient towards one form of “out-of-pocket” behavior, and being more accepting of another.

In any case, regarding the other stuff, I think there’s a very good comparison that can be made here.

If I rob a store at gunpoint in the USA….then run off to another country, do you know what would happen? I would get extradited back to the US, to be punished, under the laws of the country in which I committed the crime. If the US doesn’t have an extradition treaty with that country, then I’ll get away scotch-free.

What you and KLOL seem to be saying is different from the discussion at hand, I believe. To put it in terms of the analogy above:
You two are debating whether or not the very act of robbing a store is immoral, while the discussion is on whether or not Country A has the power to punish a person for robbing a store in Country B.

Regarding the extreme cases, the very way that Grath has it formatted makes it clear that we are making an exception for drastic behavior, because, at that level, it “could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user” like with Chase and the fact that this site has lots of minors.

 

[KingTempest]

Why are you still tackling that, that was settled already

 

[DarkGrath]

I can't force discussion on this topic, but I would appreciate if any lingering concerns, input, or suggestions are expressed sooner rather than later. It would be better to move towards a resolution than to let this topic stagnate.

If there are any questions about the revision, I am open to receiving them. If not, I would see to rallying up our current perspectives and verdicts to come to a conclusion and agree on what to implement, reject, or adjust.

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkGrath

Well, I personally think that your suggestions are good, but that we also need to make clear that offsite behaviour needs to be considerably worse than onsite behaviour for us to be able to act, and that evidence of it needs to be submitted in private, not in public.

@Deagonx mentioned a seemingly good idea to me that might be able to solve the second problem for us, and he will likely talk with you about it soon.

 

[Deagonx]

I think it'd be helpful to circle back to the meat and potatoes of the proposal, which is to say the actual proposed rule text:

• Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
  • Actions taken against another user off-site of such a nature that could reasonably cause undue harm and/or distress for the other user in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: harassment, threats of violence or similar harmful actions, unsolicited sexual misconduct, impersonation, hacking, and doxing.
  • Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: hate speech, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).

Having combed over it, with regard to all of the discussion that occurred prior, I think probably the only line that I'd like to review is this one:

- obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: hate speech, sexual comments towards minors)

If we are more or less in agreement that the simple fact-of using slurs off-site is not something we want to be responsible for policing, I feel that this line likely needs a substantive change, because I am not sure how we can define "hate speech" that does not put us in that position, or in the position of saying it isn't hate speech, so I believe we should be more specific than this.

 

[DarkGrath]

If we are more or less in agreement that the simple fact-of using slurs off-site is not something we want to be responsible for policing, I feel that this line likely needs a substantive change, because I am not sure how we can define "hate speech" that does not put us in that position, or in the position of saying it isn't hate speech, so I believe we should be more specific than this.

This is a worthwhile point to discuss.

To elaborate on the intentions behind the rule - the proposed phrasing, that is, that an action should not be allowed if it entails but is not limited to 'obscenities of an implicative nature', the key word here is 'implicative'. The idea is that such a comment should imply something that could reasonably be construed as inconducive to safety and wellbeing. To give an overtly simplistic example: saying "(people of a particular demographic) deserve to be harmed" or "I want to harm (people of a particular demographic)" implies that the person would seek to harm people of that demographic if given the chance, which may have concerns for on-site matters involving people of that demographic. Exactly what concerns would, of course, be situational, and not always substantial - but the point is to codify it in such a way as to enable us to take action when such concerns are substantial.

Going by the United Nations description of 'hate speech':

In common language, “hate speech” refers to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.

To provide a unified framework for the United Nations to address the issue globally, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.

One could, reasonably, argue that this notion of 'hate speech' doesn't always entail an implicative element. I would think it most often will - as the term is usually utilised in regard to intentions of harm towards some group or another - but you could envision counterexamples wherein an action would fit the UN definition without being implicative. Even if there were no such counterexamples, you could readily point to the fact that there is no universal definition of the term, and that the concept is still under discussion even by international human rights bodies, as evidence that it's a shaky term to ground our rules on.

I do hope it goes without saying that, regardless, I do believe most instances of what a person would reasonably call 'hate speech' would still fall under this established purview. However, on the basis of the issues mentioned, I would be willing to remove 'hate speech' as a strict example from the phrasing of the rules, and to enable situations that could or could not reasonably be described as such to be judged on their individual alignments with the established proposals.

 

[Deagonx]

I think we could reasonably substitute the phrase "hate speech" with the phrase "rhetorical attacks on cultural groups" to effectively encompass the elements that we are comfortable with and excluding the ones we are not.

 

[DarkGrath]

I would be content with that suggestion. This is how you'd suggest the rephrasing of the rule, then?

Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: rhetorical attacks on cultural groups, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm satisfied with that.

 

[DarkGrath]

Very well.

I am willing to wait for any input anyone would like to provide on the addendum, though the reply I left before does stand. I would prefer to move towards a resolution if the topic would otherwise stagnate.

For full clarification, this is the current proposal for the new off-site rules:

• Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
  • Actions taken against another user off-site of such a nature that could reasonably cause undue harm and/or distress for the other user in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: harassment, threats of violence or similar harmful actions, unsolicited sexual misconduct, impersonation, hacking, and doxing.
  • Actions made off-site that could be reasonably construed as inconducive to the safety and/or wellbeing of a user, or a denomination of users, in on-site interactions. This includes, but is not limited to: threats directed towards particular demographics (i.e.: racial, gendered, sexual, and/or religiously motivated threats to commit violent acts), obscenities of an implicative nature (i.e.: rhetorical attacks on cultural groups, sexual comments towards minors), and involvement with known hate groups.
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).

 

[CloverDragon03]

I would be content with that suggestion. This is how you'd suggest the rephrasing of the rule, then?

Looks good to me. I like this draft

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that it looks good. Thank you very much for helping out.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It's been a bit, so I'd like to draw attention to this subject again - in the interest of not letting the topic stagnate and all.

Currently, this is the proposed draft for our Off-Site Rules. What do the other staff think about this?

 

[Agnaa]

I disagree as I did before, for the reasons I did before.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'll be keeping tally for this proposal in particular (and also bolding the ones with evaluating rights for this thread for clarity's sake), given that some noteworthy discussion has happened between the original post and the current proposal - and as such it would be best for staff to clarify their stances:

Agree: Antvasima, DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, Mr. Bambu, Deagonx, CloverDragon03
Disagree: Agnaa
Neutral:

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I hesitantly agree. I think there's still room for rule abuse here, but it is better than what we currently have, I believe.