Helz

I am open to the idea but I think we should talk more in back channels. If I unpack half of what I have delt with your probably going to laugh your ass off and agree I am not worth the trouble on the mafia side.

Although I am very much down with calling individuals out publicly for a debate on the subject and I do have records.

I get what you mean. But I do still disagree.

The middle ground position could have been had. Some slap on the wrist for Remy, some acknowledgement that bad faith actions intended to cause harm are bad things. Some acknowledgement that people can not just play victim and blame others when they are offended and the site will deal with ugly topics.

That is not what happened. We went to the absolute extreme on one side excusing any level of ugly speech that does not violate a law and placing 100% of the blame on one side.

So the outcome will be as expected alienating a side of the the community. But there is the larger piece you mention. This is an old community and this is not the first version of it. Now there are 2 things you could take away from your own point there-

1- Either nothing works and communities just exist and happen at the will of mysterious things and gods and freaks of quantum physics we can not possibly understand

-or-

2- Just maybe there is a way of doing things that works and the community is not going about it the right way.

Thats my take. We shoulda given basic consideration to each side instead of dying on a hill that will alienate people imo. Although its a topic to revisit down the road if things go as expected. Hopefully people will remember these conversation and learn

Without even explaining what my DM's have looked like the funny thing is some people in this chat will think nobody was lost from this community by the result.

The consequences may be zero for Rmey. But they are not zero for the site.

Its on a path that will not end well imo. I had high hopes for this place. Is what it is. Just wait until the logical conclusion sets in where someone goes all out bad faith action and can't be held accountable because of how this situation was handled.

The very very simple conversation of good faith vs bad faith actions coulda been had. I suppose its too late now which is unfortunate.

Something I will say- I feel like I saw 500 conversations about free speech. Near the end we even got some in about threats and liability. But every time we get closer to speaking about bad faith action people change up the subject. Its really strange how quickly people hammer on others responsibility for reacting while excusing any responsibility for a person initiating the situation.

I guess its just not as great of a position to say "We want a community where trying to cause harm is excused by a button and toxic behavior is enabled, lets throw out that CoC and forget trying to make a positive debate focused environment"

I do hope this unspoken statement is not going to be the direction the community goes. Thats my 2 cents.

I still really disagree with this approach. I hope you can read my words and understand why.

For an extreme hypothetical lets say I am P Diddy hosting pedo partys. But hey- I only have the bad stuff going on upstairs so you have the option to partake or not. Is that dealing with the problem to make it 'opt in' or is it just ignoring the issue and not moderating?

Then lets take the other approach I outlined where there is designated areas where behaviors are acceptable. You now have 2 houses you can show up to. One which has the behavior you disagree with and one that does not. You are now given options to partake in an environment thats fits your views as opposed to being forced into an environment you disagree with, but you are given some small measure of protection.

Giving someone earplugs to prevent them from hearing someone asking to bang their wife is not the same as establishing a basic social standard to not say those words to begin with. And no matter where you draw the line you have to set it somewhere. There will always be someone that will disagree or want a harsher standard but I do not feel even acting like a free speech absolutist site can function in this day and age personally. All its gona take it some prick from Europe to grab one comment out of context and file some takedown request with a country for your hosting services and even if your justified this community stops existing. There just has to be a basic line that is policed for a community to exist.

(Well technically) the other way I know hyper racist groups exist is they constantly float and just accept getting shut down is ok. They just re-open as it happens and expect it. So there is a way this site could try to do this imo? Not gona say its ever gona get past 100 some active people but it could technically work.

"This site should be based on maximum possible free speech, both legally and functionally."

I would disagree. Simply put to my last example- someone comes to my house and calls me racial slurs or bangs my wife they will not be allowed in my house again. Very simple concept that is very reasonable. I think that 'just because its legal it should be allowed' is a very ugly argument thats toxic to creating a community. Behavior should be moderated.

And lets unpack the real example that happened in this very chat. "And as I said before, I don't even consider Remy's posts that offensive."

So how do you think it made me feel as they claimed I was telling them to kill themselves? Or even if you want to take the opposing argument that they were not acting in bad faith rage baiting and they genuinely thought I was saying that- How do you think that would have made them feel?

Do either of these voiced positions being allowed create a more healthy community? Or are they flatly damaging enabling more bad faith action?

Although I am new to this community the truth is Remy got told by people to drop the conversation through backchannels because it made them look awful. Hell, I think you even personally advised them as much in this chat. If you truly believed that absolute free speech is the way why not lean into having them behaving such a way? Obviously because its damaging and inappropriate.

At the end of the day objective reality exists. You can argue about what you feel is right but if people are not comfortable in a social environment you will not have people around.

That said- If this place is going to grow it needs to grow the fuck up and recognize you can hold people accountable for being a dick while also allowing controversial conversations. If the regulars can't recognize such a basic principle its just not gona ever become something real as old toxic behavior drives off the people you would really want to make this place succeed.

I will try to be as clear as possible here but this is what people keep conflating in a really silly way.

For an example- Is it legal for me to join a book club you host at your house, get drunk, bang your wife, call you racial slurs, and pee in your sink? Sure..

Is it also appropriate for you to get together with your book club and say "This dudes behavior is not cool and he should not be allowed in the house-" Absolutely.

Just because its legal to do something does not make you any less of a dick for doing it and it does not obligate social environments to allow that behavior because its technically not illegal. Make sense?

Now in contrast- Places like this are in fact beholden to laws around the world. Free speech is not all the same in every place and there are laws on things you can and can not say. Demanding someone take their own life for example is a perfect one that could get someone in very hot water in a substantial number of countries. Is it any less of an offence because the person does not have to do it? No. Its still just as much of a legal liability for the community and the individual because it does violate established standards and you are speaking on a global platform.

Hopefully this makes more sense to you but my TLDR is still that its a braindead argument to conflate bad faith speech with free speech and act like the two things can not be separately policed within a social community.

I think the most important take away this community could have is to separate the concepts of free speech and bad faith action.

The more its members excuse bad faith actions as free speech the worse it will do in the long run. Pretty much that simple. They are not mutually exclusive concepts to address.

Im legit not threatening anything or pushing an agenda. I am raising a concern I see that could expose this community to being harmed by a bad faith actor. I apologize if it came off the wrong way.

I do want this community to succeed and keep existing.

"Helz is just female version of Grateful."

We can quietly snicker about this one

You have a good head on your shoulders. I will give you this as far as what I do.

Do I care that discord TOS declares that if I say someone working at McDonalds or stripping is a profession that should be protected? Absolutely not. But when I work with discord communities explaining what the legal requirements are for that community it is a legal obligation I voice should be considered.

If you have a serious group you have a incorporated function that has a board with members and you hold membership meetings on these issues.

If your not you just have someone who has a sole proprietorship that this site is based off. Either is ok but I will say it just takes 1 single person to make a problem thats going to make this site not exist if you screw around and ignore these concerns.

So I have to run but just real quick, The fact the site is based in the US does not invalidate things like Europes potential to sue.

Its also flirting with a grey line when you allow overt advocation for something like rape that you may want to dig into. But those points should probably be addressed and considered when you come to a decision about whats excused as 'free speech.'

Its another level of a problem if you get just 1 bad actor in this community thats all butthurt about things being said and decides to bring in big power structures. Reguardless of what the community wants this is something to consider I would bring to your table.

So I have an interesting question to ask before this issue concludes. How does this sites leadership look at the issue raised by the most recent votes of Wylted and Sidewalker?

Calls for violence and overt hate speech are indeed policed in places around the world and there is concerns being raised about legitimate legal liability on the community. While this 'trial' is a bit of a joke and just gauging the temperature of the community on the subject how does the leadership team intend to continue without having this place at risk of getting ripped apart in a lawsuit if just 1 human being files a report?

"That still doesn't answer my question: Why didn't you show this much engagement at any other debate comments on this site?"

I feel I have very clearly answered that. Its because I do not care about blaming Isral or Iran or if women serving in the military is sexist or progress.

I do care quite a bit about this community making a bullshit standard built on an argument of 'free speech' that totally misses the issue of good faith and bad faith actors.

You can say that me calling Remy a bad faith actor is rhetoric but you are forgetting that they admitted it themselves. By their own words they go out of their way to rage bait and cause harm. Even in this exact comments thread they could not help themselves but to attempt to rage bait.

I will again say I could care less if they are banned or not. I voiced my opinion but I do not think it matters one way or the other in any lasting sort of way.

But the precedence set within this community that will be used for future issues matters a ton to me. If this community cuts to the extreme of excusing any behavior under free speech and blaming everyone else for being offended its just not going to make it imo.

That is exactly why I am engaging in this conversation heavier than any other. If you want to give Remy credit for causing that to happen the words I would use is that "Their behavior has been so awful and damaging to the community that it has created engagement."

I would not call that a positive contribution but you are free to do so as you keep trying to invalidate my points instead of addressing them.

"I see that this is the only debate you are even active on, and you made more comments on this debate than on any other."

So I will say 2 things to you now.

1- I keep again and again and again drawing back to your vague invalidation of my positions and requesting engagement as you ignore my point that I have said now 5 times or so.

Thats fine. But lets be very real calling that out that you are not staying on track.

2- You are bringing up an issue I addressed a few posts ago where you argued Remy's behavior is justified because it creates engagement. I strongly disagreed and explained why there. Feel free to revisit my words you never responded to.

But opening up my engagement right now I will say this. I am active in this thread because this is a community I was looking at investing myself personally in and helping grow. I am passionate about Mafia and debate and very involved in communities dealing in these subjects. I can snap my fingers and help this community grow. But why will I if this is going to devolve into some reddit shitposting site?

The unspoken question of why I am so involved in this specific comments section is that I am pushing my personal views on what I thought this community was trying to become and I am very concerned.

Its not a big deal. I have no problem walking away and showing up to have some flame war debate here and there in the future. But yeah. I am speaking in this thread and specifically making arguments I hope leadership in this site recognizes as a healthy path forward as I debate my future involvement.

"This is also a very weird strawman of my position, but whatever makes you happy I guess."

I am not trying to invalidate your opinion at all. Its my understanding of your view. That you believe its the duty of every person on the site to not be offended instead of it being the duty of the poster to not offend.

I have hammered on the point that its not about offending but instead about acting in bad faith with intent to offend that matters for moderation.

Please let me know what part of this I am getting wrong. I feel this is a very fair summary of what you have conveyed so far.

Invalidating my words is not great when you are staying vague and avoiding getting into specifics.

I have made very clear specific points and exactly addressed the points you have made as I understood them. You keep pushing off topic.

Feel free to correct anything I have said that is wrong or clarify your own stance but I do feel-
"You want people to be allowed to say anything they want with the burden of behavior placed on everyone else.
I want healthy moderation with bad faith actors held accountable."

Largely sums up our difference in our positions. The major factor being I can speak in depth about mine and defend that stance while you are just shutting down conversation and mocking opposing views instead of engaging in a debate.

"Opinion read and discarded."

No offense but at this point I figure you are just doing anything you can to avoid a subject on this issue you can not even articulate a defense for.

You want people to be allowed to say anything they want with the burden of behavior placed on everyone else.
I want healthy moderation with bad faith actors held accountable.

There is no common ground to be had between our positions but I do feel its of note that I can defend mine with well reasoned positions you can not do the same.

I very truly hope that until this community recognizes the very basic difference between good faith and bad faith actions it does not "Bring more free speech" to this site.

The absolutely ugly toxic behavior that is excused as 'free speech' is the issue that should be nailed to the wall and avoids the simple issue I went back and forth with you for days about.

Yeah, I think it would be healthy if clear established policy existed and they just acted on it.

The way I am looking at this specific situation is that such a situation does not exist. That vague guidelines exist to the point the leadership does not know what the members want and they are looking at using a real time issue to get feedback on that problem.

While I truly think the conversation is missing the core issue of intention to cause harm and the majority of the opposing position is circling around this erroneous point of free speech I do feel letting the conversation happen is a healthy measure for the community.

Thats fine. I would have liked to continue but I will respect your wishes and only convey that I hope staff reading this understands and recognizes the unrefuted point I made as they structure policy.

Its a bit extra to even address why having someone acting with intent to cause harm is bad for a community but here we are.

"Given that you are not responding to any of my arguments made, I really don't see point in your response."

I felt that I had very directly addressed the very specific arguments you made. If I have not I am more than happy to revisit any point you feel I have not addressed.

I also feel that our communication issue stems from me making a very core argument I keep hammering on that you keep avoiding. I keep trying to draw the conversation back to my point as you go into tangential points.

We can just walk away from the conversation but I would prefer if you actually addressed my points and let me know specifically what points you feel I am not addressing that you have made as a healthy form of debate.

I am truly not interested in 'winning' here arguing to get Remy banned. I am very interested in creating conversation on how things should be treated moving forward given this entire thread will be treated as a basis to structure community guidelines. (literally the only reason I am giving this dumb shit space in my head to be honest)

Im curious why you hold your view. I personally have a lot of respect for this community allowing conversation to determine where the lines are and how rules should be enforced.

Why do you feel its such a bad thing for staff to allow members to give feedback on the issue?

I would have personally done it quite a bit differently but it feels like a good concept that promotes more community control as opposed to the cowardly behavior you seem to see in staff imo.

While you responded to my post I do not feel you even slightly addressed what I was pointing out. So I will respond to you and I truly hope you will read what I say and respond to me.

"There are three problems with this argument. One is that it's a slippery slope. Another is that, yes this site already has a button to hide offensive posts, so whoever sees Remy's posts is literally choosing to see them. Third problem is that Remy produces a lot more engagement on this site than most other people, so banning him is actually harmful to site's activity a lot more than banning someone who rarely posts."

Breaking down your points as you have made them-

1- Slippery slope. You later clarify about entering a debate. That is not the problem on the table. Its Remys social interaction. Not just their debate topics but what they say and when they rage bait.
Discounting the entire issue by zeroing in on that specific aspect is not great. And a slippery slope argument in general is considered a fallacy to begin with so I feel this is not a good argument to start with. It just gets worse when you look at the details.

2- There is a button to hide offensive posts.
Yuup. Did you not read my entire last post and why I feel its a silly standard? I could copy and paste it but again- I truly hope you actually respond to the very clear point I made on how placing the burden on one side is unreasonable and actually address my point. Please do so or concede your argument.

3- Remy makes engagement so they should be tolerated. This is erroneous and should have no bearing on the conversation of if their behavior is within community standards but I will address it.

You are basically arguing that because they post a lot we need to drop standards. This is borderline admitting that their behavior is wrong and excusing it because of engagement. My entire position is that engagement can be done in a healthy way. That unhealthy engagement is counter productive to the goals of this site and should be removed unless this site wants to become a low tier reddit shitposting site.

I would again ask that you address my analogy of if its a better decision for a place to demand every single person change their behavior ignoring toxic comments or if its simply a more appropriate moderation decision to shift an individuals behavior as opposed to demanding every single other person on the site change their reaction to allow intentional actions to cause harm.

And even if you want to stay focused on point 1 of the slippery slope do you not recognize the other side? Lets say I decide I want to cause harm to this site. What is to stop me from making a toxic environment with an intention to cause harm and if called out saying "Well Remy was not punished when they did it"

Why can I not literally after this ends work to cause as much harm as possible to this site and argue the same free speech position? I will for a 2nd time ask that you considerer the other side of the issue spelling things out more clearly.

You are again placing 100% of the burden of behavior on one side which I feel is unfair.

Consider if this site was a restaurant. Lets say Applebee's. If I choose to show up at the bar and have long loud conversations of extremely racist positions specifically to piss people off is it the other peoples fault for hearing me because they did not use ear plugs or go somewhere else? They chose to be in an environment where I am exercising free speech after all.

And to the point- Should the action taken by this Applebee's staff be to hand out ear plugs and tell everyone else not to be offended or to address my inappropriate behavior?

I personally do not believe the blame should be 100% on either side but I do not understand absolutely excusing bad faith behavior and demanding everyone else just tolerate it.

And you are right that this will have implications on future issues. I think you should consider both sides of those implications though and not just looking at one.

"Given that being offended is a choice, I don't see why intent matters here.

Also, if RemyBrown wants to offend people by challenging their views, sure that's how debating works."

Well consider the difference between murder and manslaughter. They are treated differently even if the outcome in both situations is someone being killed by a persons actions. The intention behind the action defines the morality of the action.

If we look at moderation in a community such as this as trying to create a healthy and positive environment identifying clear bad faith action matters quite a bit. Yes people have some degree of control over their reaction to toxic behavior but its absurd to demand that everyone should endure that and get thick skin instead of just having mods that keep a clean environment.

And your statement of "Remy is challenging views" is again overlooking their personally voiced intention to cause harm and rage bait. Wanting a community where debates are had in good faith is not an unreasonable position. Wanting a community where trolling is enabled and people being offended by bad faith actors are told to suck it up is not a great position.

For a more direct question- If this community chooses to flatly enable trolling and rage baiting why should people join? Who wants to put time and energy into having a bad time so someone else can have some laughs at your expense?

And to the heart of the question why do you place the burden of behavior on the good faith actors responding to being trolled instead of being critical of the people trolling?

(Keep in mind that we are not talking about Remy voicing controversial opinions that ruffle the feathers of thin skinned people. We are talking about them openly declaring that they are speaking with intent to rage bait and cause harm)

Fair, @SatanLucy any response?

I agree.

But at the end of the day the fact your words are very different from how this conversation is going within your community says quite a bit.

Its pretty weird how 'a side' refuses to acknowledge any responsibility by the posting individual and only wants to talk about how people reading posts need to have thick skin.

I think its a pretty reasonable take to say that is a red flag in terms of conflict resolution.

I think the fact that a healthy conversation about the intentions of the posting individual is so problematic represents an issue.

Right now the entire conversation just focuses on how the reader 'chooses to be offended' and such which is a very unhealthy way of even having this conversation imo.