Can the TOS be updated to include all of the protected classes?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hi all,

After a chat with Ewok and a few moderators, I've come to realize that Terms of Service only protects the following groups from disparaging comments: race, color, religion.

Can the following classes be included?

National Origin

Age

Sex

Family Status

Sexual Orientation

Gender Identity

Disability

Veterans

Over the past several years I've seen disparaging comments over nation origin, age, sex and sexual orientation on a semi-regular basis.

I realize that the topic of sexual orientation sometimes clashes with people's religious beliefs but could we all agree that a comment such as "homosexuals are pedophiles" definitely crosses that line? Basically any disparaging comment that cannot be backed with a verifiable fact would be a TOS violation if it attacks a group as defined by the above list?

Apparently DNA is a protected class as well? Not sure how that could come up in this forum....no I can lol.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Sousuke

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why not just respect all human beings? By the time you account for all the possible "protected groups", you are not left with too many people. Perhaps it is time for some desensitizing training.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Actually, the TOS was updated earlier this year for that exact reason. It now reads:

Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination). For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech.

racist and sexist content are given as examples but they are not the sum of what is considered a TOS violation - any group that is identified by a unifying trait or characteristic, and that is supposed to include National Origin, Age ,Sex (gender), Family Status, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Disability and Veterans is included. The list is not inclusively identified - for instance, we are including illegal immigrants in that list because they too are identified by a unifying characteristic and judged based upon that unifying trait.

The problem of determining what crosses the line and is intended to degrade, intimidate or incite violence or prejudicial action is where it becomes problematic. All homosexuals are pedophiles would be a TOS violation because there is well substantiated evidence that such a statement/belief is false. A person making such a comment may be knowingly citing with the intent of inciting prejudicial action against homosexuals or may be expressing their prejudicial ignorance. Their 'intent' would determine how the TOS violation is treated. Stating all illegal immigrants are criminals is not as black and white a call because there is still a discrepancy between what is considered a criminal as it relates to the Immigration laws - are those who enter the country without inspection considered criminals under the law or just illegally present? Not all violations of laws and regulations are considered criminal actions. Some courts have stated they view such violations as criminal and others say that they are violations but not criminal so there is still no clear cut ruling to provide a definitive direction. Again, someone can post this comment with the intention of inciting animosity or prejudicial action against illegal immigrants or they can be speaking from their own prejudicial ignorance. Prejudicial ignorance in this situation is not necessarily a TOS violation, although such an individual encouraging others to take some sort of negative action against such individuals would be a TOS violation. That is the difference between holding a belief in ignorance and promoting action against others based upon that belief.

Welcome to the world of the moderators' dilemna.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Kathryn -

If that's what you mods talk about in your forum, then - well IMO you are over-thinking the entire thing.

The analogy I would draw is that using these forums is like being at a party at Ewok's house. In other words, you are here at his pleasure. If a guest at a party gets drunk, or obnoxious, or otherwise unpleasant they get asked to leave. I know I've not moderated but IMO it really is that simple.

If moderation is going to sit and go over the TOS (or the spirit of the TOS) in the manner you outlined above, you probably spend so much time before any action is taken that any thread in question has spiraled out of control, AND you (moderation) have lost a lot of credibility.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

In many cases, you're right, it is that simple. Those are the majority of cases as well. There is little need to discuss the course of actions when things are so nicely clear cut as that and we respond to the report when we receive the report.

The above situation is something that we would discuss at a Moderator's meeting and not necessarily debated in the Mod forum. We reach a decision on how to make a judgment call on a 'general' situation, then if a situation is reported that is not as clear cut, then we may ask for additional feedback from the other moderators either in the Report center or in the Mod forums. These are not, as I mentioned, the majority of the circumstances - just the ones that require extra consideration.

To do this job honestly and with integrity, however, we do have to take the time and not act rashly or without full information in those circumstances that require extra consideration. That is when we go back and read over the contents of the whole thread to make sure we see what the problem is and determine why it is a problem and if it is indeed a TOS violation and what degree of action is appropriate. No matter what decision we make there is always someone who is not happy with it, so the better aware we are of the circumstances involved, the likelier it is that we can provide the rationale for a decision that shows it was based upon a fair and equitable judgment and not a subjective response.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I think the goal in having a good tos is to improve uniformity in enforcement and determination of what is allowed. Ultimately it is true that the final word falls on my desk, however I am not able to address the volume of moderation issues alone. Our team take on that job (and at great personal sacrifice of time) with as much guidance as I can give. Whether there is a private "mod handbook" or a robust tos, there needs to be sufficient documentation. I think that as said, a common sense approach is the baseline mixed with experience we gather over time.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I also wanted to note that as was stated, it is impossible to always make everyone happy, but we try. At some point there is simply only so much that can be done. We try to strike a good balance on how things are done, but there is constant refinement under way each day.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Thank you, Ewok, for being so practical and smart on the matter. We only hope the Souske can accept and understand your wisdom, practicality and final word here. It's been said that the only plan for failure in life is to try to make EVERYONE happy. Your thinking, however, is a plan for success!

[^_^ 5,021]

After a chat with Ewok and a few moderators, I've come to realize that Terms of Service only protects the following groups from disparaging comments: race, color, religion.

Actually, the TOS was updated earlier this year for that exact reason..

Which moderators told you that, S? Did Ewok really tell you that?

[^_^ 5,021]

..., someone can post this comment with the intention of inciting animosity or prejudicial action against illegal immigrants or they can be speaking from their own prejudicial ignorance. Prejudicial ignorance in this situation is not necessarily a TOS violation ...

Sounds to me like an attempt at mind reading which can easily be misused by some of the moderators who lack your integrity.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Sounds to me like an attempt at mind reading which can easily be misused by some of the moderators who lack your integrity.

It sounds like Legacy Member has the final word on the issue here, Who will dare to challenge him??

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Sounds to me like an attempt at mind reading which can easily be misused by some of the moderators who lack your integrity.

Sometimes it sure feels like trying to mind-read, but a lot of it does involve looking at posting habits and patterns to see if an individual poster has a history of certain comments, or certain positions, to see if there is an identifiable trend or posting behaviour. It is trying to look at things in context - which, I admit, can be very challenging at times, especially in a thread that is racing along at cheetah speeds, and it is hard to keep on top of the posts, let alone read back over the previous posts, to determine if the report is or is not valid. For posters whose habits and patterns are known, it becomes easier with experience to recognize biases and determine whether something is done deliberately or not. For new posters or unknowns it is more difficult and we generally try to give the benefit of the doubt it there is some ambiguity.

As in any situation, yes, there is always the potential for abuse - either intentional or unintentional - when there has to be an objective evaluation made, because it is hard to divorce one's own subjective involvement from the greater issues. Mistakes can happen with the best of intentions and to some the situations may seem like deliberate abuse. The right decision can also happen and there will still be some who disagree and claim it is an abuse of privilege.

I wish it were as easy as Rebecca Jo's suggestion that anyone who misbehaves by getting drunk, or obnoxious or unpleasant at Ewok's party is ousted. The trouble is, are they really obnoxious or unpleasant, or is it one individual who finds them so and the rest don't? Is it a clear cut case of being too obnoxious or too unpleasant that we kick them out the door - or do we warn them when they start getting boisterous to take care or the party will be over for them? What if the complaints are from two people who dislike each other and go out of their way to cause trouble for the other? Where do you draw the line? There is always going to be a subjective part of any decision about where that line lies and there will always be people who think that the line is drawn too tight and others who think that the same line is drawn too loose.

For the moderators I work with every day and for myself, if a situation occurs where it looks like we have abused our positions, I feel very comfortable stating that it is something none of us would do with intent. We don't make a decision 'because we can' without giving consideration to the various issues and circumstances involved. We do the best we can to view a situation honestly and fairly, trying to be aware of the proclivities of the posters involved, and the location of the post, and trying to filter out our own biases to find the best solution to the problem. Do we always succeed? Unfortunately not, but it isn't because we haven't tried to do it right; sometimes we do get it wrong, too.

edited to correct a spelling mistake

Edited December 27, 2010 by Kathryn41

[luckytxn 2,264]

Tough calls and tough jobs.

[Sonea 138]

..

Edited December 27, 2010 by Sonea

[TBoneTX 45,309]

By the time you account for all the possible "protected groups", you are not left with too many people.

This is true. Therefore: Everybody get ready with the Hittite jokes!