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

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

are people with wedgies a protected class?

[SuperDuper! 230]

are people with wedgies a protected class?

Itz about time someone got Amby to love this thread!

[TBoneTX 45,288]

are people with wedgies a protected class?

This is a complex, sobering, even grave issue for many, si man. The heart of the matter is the nebulous legal language "people with wedgies" -- an unfortunate, uncharacteristic shortsightedness on the part of the Founding Fathers... and even the Federalist Papers are of no help. Heretofore, lower courts have issued conflicting directives, randomly conferring protected-class status upon or rescinding said protection from people who have:

-- administered wedgies to others (i.e., those "with wedgies to give");

-- received administered wedgies (i.e., those "now or recently with wedgie");

-- not yet administered wedgies, but could realistically do so (i.e., those "actually with wedgies to give");

-- the capability to administer wedgies (i.e., those with unactualized administrative talent);

-- been suppressed by negative societal attitudes toward wedgies; and

-- not yet undergone DNA analysis to determine their unrealized potential to administer or receive wedgies.

The country -- indeed, the world -- teeters on the precipice of chaos until all "people with wedgies" are united under a welcoming umbrella of acceptance and tolerance. Toward this end, we anxiously await the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark review of the lower-court decision in "Calzoncillo-Chino v. Cojulonalga." Let us pray, si man.

Edited December 27, 2010 by TBoneTX

[The_Dude 1,142]

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.

It appears that the goal and the resulting application have diverged.

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

Failed troll.

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 mind-reading. You are playing all parts of the show in trying to prove mens rea. How many years of bigoted rantings from some will it take before you come to the decision that something is racist? Does it really take 5 years of consistent racist postings for you to determine that someone is an unrepentant bigot? The way that moderators handle bigotry on this board is laughable.

This is a complex, sobering, even grave issue for many, si man. The heart of the matter is the nebulous legal language "people with wedgies" -- an unfortunate, uncharacteristic shortsightedness on the part of the Founding Fathers... and even the Federalist Papers are of no help. Heretofore, lower courts have issued conflicting directives, randomly conferring protected-class status upon or rescinding said protection from people who have:

-- administered wedgies to others (i.e., those "with wedgies to give");

-- received administered wedgies (i.e., those "now or recently with wedgie");

-- not yet administered wedgies, but could realistically do so (i.e., those "actually with wedgies to give");

-- the capability to administer wedgies (i.e., those with unactualized administrative talent);

-- been suppressed by negative societal attitudes toward wedgies; and

-- not yet undergone DNA analysis to determine their unrealized potential to administer or receive wedgies.

The country -- indeed, the world -- teeters on the precipice of chaos until all "people with wedgies" are united under a welcoming umbrella of acceptance and tolerance. Toward this end, we anxiously await the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark review of the lower-court decision in "Calzoncillo-Chino v. Cojulonalga." Let us pray, si man.

This post is the exact reason that we need the capacity to give users a -1

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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

Its a conclusion from hearing back from multiple moderators and Ewok. I've brought up multiple demographic issues with multiple moderators over the past, including the same topic. IE this violates this group, this group, and this group. I've always had responses to the issues of race/ethnicity and religion but the other demographics get skipped over. When Ewok skipped over one demographic category and replied to another it made me realize that everyone must be running off one collective "handbook" as someone previously mentioned.

Mind you its much easier to identify race/ethnicity/religion issues then issues from the other categories.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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.

I have to agree with this. At the end of the day, why even bother to determine whether a prejudice statement is inciting anyone? This is a private community, why not just stamp it out? Say, "Hey the VJ community doesn't condone this, its prejudice, so stop" You might actually do some people a favor with that information. Its also very hard for me to think of a prejudicial statement that is NOT meant to incite hatred. In your example for instance it shows that one is demonizing a group to further a personal agenda.

The other thing, and this relates to something Rob & Mel mentioned before in another thread is the relation to prejudicial statements and personal attacks. This is retrospective, but if you see someone saying something that is prejudice, and things get nasty, and THEN the user takes those prejudice comments into ANOTHER thread wouldn't that by logic mean they have an intent to incite knowing it happened before, or at the very least are doing so with the knowledge that it will incite?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I have to agree with this. At the end of the day, why even bother to determine whether a prejudice statement is inciting anyone? This is a private community, why not just stamp it out? Say, "Hey the VJ community doesn't condone this, its prejudice, so stop" You might actually do some people a favor with that information. Its also very hard for me to think of a prejudicial statement that is NOT meant to incite hatred. In your example for instance it shows that one is demonizing a group to further a personal agenda.

Thank you for that.

My entire problem with homophobia, racism, masochism, zealotry, etc. etc. in this community is it seems completely dichotomous to the very heart of the forum. By the very nature of the subject (immigration), the community consists of persons from every country and culture on earth. Why is any sort of hate speech tolerated?

I've never understood it.

The other thing, and this relates to something Rob & Mel mentioned before in another thread is the relation to prejudicial statements and personal attacks. This is retrospective, but if you see someone saying something that is prejudice, and things get nasty, and THEN the user takes those prejudice comments into ANOTHER thread wouldn't that by logic mean they have an intent to incite knowing it happened before, or at the very least are doing so with the knowledge that it will incite?

Well, sometimes when I've followed people around, that was my goal!

Edited December 28, 2010 by Rebecca Jo

[^_^ 5,021]

IMO the test shouldn't be incitement - the test should be whether the racist/bigoted text in question, once it gets google spidered, gives unregistered target users on the larger internet an incentive to join or an incentive to stay away.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

IMO the test shouldn't be incitement - the test should be whether the racist/bigoted text in question, once it gets google spidered, gives unregistered target users on the larger internet an incentive to join or an incentive to stay away.

Capitalist!

[The_Dude 1,142]

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

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.

Actually Kathryn, the bolded section is false. It is black and white. Simply being in this country illegaly is not a crime, it is a violation of federal civil laws. Entering the country is a federal misdemeanor with penalty comensurate with a dog pooping on the sidewalk. The fact of the matter is, you cannot prove that someone came here illegaly, or they simply overstayed on a tourist visa. The laws have not changed, despite what courts have said, the laws remain.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually Kathryn, the bolded section is false. It is black and white. Simply being in this country illegaly is not a crime, it is a violation of federal civil laws. Entering the country is a federal misdemeanor with penalty comensurate with a dog pooping on the sidewalk. The fact of the matter is, you cannot prove that someone came here illegaly, or they simply overstayed on a tourist visa. The laws have not changed, despite what courts have said, the laws remain.

The forgoing is opinion only, and does not constitute legal advice.

[^_^ 5,021]

Illegal presence is not a crime - that's not opinion, it's fact.

Of course, it is usually true that those present here illegally often commit other crimes (such as id theft or forgery).

[The_Dude 1,142]

IMO the test shouldn't be incitement - the test should be whether the racist/bigoted text in question, once it gets google spidered, gives unregistered target users on the larger internet an incentive to join or an incentive to stay away.

If incitement is the actual litmus test being applied here then that opens a whole other realm of complaints. You could make a case that a certain irritating member does his whole speedy gonzalez cariacature act is doing it to incite a reaction from people. Either that, or I could make the case that it is racist. Either way, Ewok needs to clearly define the TOS, and stop letting the moderators define it as they see fit.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Illegal presence is not a crime - that's not opinion, it's fact.

Of course, it is usually true that those present here illegally often commit other crimes (such as id theft or forgery).

I still wouldn't hang my hat on that hook, especially in parts of Arizona and New York.

Certain immigration violations carry civil and criminal consequences. An alien who

enters or attempts to enter the United States without authorization is not only subject to

removal or exclusion but is also subject to criminal prosecution, with a first offense

subject to six months’ imprisonment (a misdemeanor) and any subsequent offense

punishable by up to two years’ incarceration (a felony).

Although an alien who unlawfully enters the United States is potentially subject to

removal and criminal prosecution, an alien found unlawfully present in the U.S. is

typically subject only to removal. Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an

alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing

the U.S. while a removal order was outstanding.

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P585.pdf

[^_^ 5,021]

... stop letting the moderators define it as they see fit.

Agreed.