Trolling or freedom of expression?

[Jon12345]

I am conflict with a number moderators and VIPs on my board. It involves the issue of permanent bans, which I do not believe in. We all have different viewpoints on what is deemed offensive. For example, if someone trashes religion when in Pakistan, that is blasphemy and carries the death sentence. So does that mean if an atheist trashes religion on my board, should they get a lifetime ban because it is highly offensive to some? The same goes to humour. What is borderline or over the line? Should you no-platform or give freedom of expression?

Xenforo has a block button and anyone can use it. If they don't like the comments of what they consider a troll, just block.

What are your views on what I have said above? Perhaps the issue is a political one.

 

[l3ta]

I think their freedom of expression ends where your liability begins. Don't allow content that could get your site in trouble with local laws and stuff. And don't allow VIPs and mods to dictate terms of use either.

 

[Jon12345]

The whole conflict started when one of the mods banned a trolling member for 3 weeks without any consultation. It is the second time he has done this. I suggested we establish some guidelines for banning. This was my post:

Thanks for all the feedback. It is a mixed bag, with conflicting viewpoints. However, it has given me enough to work with! So, I've come up with an idea which I think is quite workable.

Firstly, some of my perspectives:

• The only people I want to ban permanently are spammers.
• I believe in freedom of expression, without no-platforming.
• Interpretations of what is deemed over-the-line are subjective and differ from one person to the next.
• Personal dislike can bias perspective.
• Everybody comes to the forum for different reasons, and they are personal to themselves.

Secondly, a proposed solution:

• Any moderator can ban someone for up to 1 week without consultation.
• If that moderator thinks the ban should be longer, then they should discuss with others, perhaps in the VIP lounge where everybody can get their opinion heard.
• Lastly, maximum ban is for 3 weeks.

I feel the above might cater as reasonable guidelines. It helps avoid over-banning due to personal animosity, it allows Mods to do what they do unencumbered and it enables all VIPs and Mods to have their say.

Let me know if you think this is a satisfactory solution.

I felt that was entirely reasonable, but I was met with a bit of an onslaught where people were saying consultation before a ban is not required, we should have permanent banning, etc. A massively long thread ensued with me defending my points against a number of mods and VIPs, while they were arguing against me. I addressed nearly every individual point they raised while very few answered any of my simple questions I asked. The whole thing was a thoroughly depressing affair.

 

[sbj]

Freedom of expression doesn't mean you can insult people. If something is offensive, insulting, then that is not covered by the freedom of speech (in most countries).

Just because you think it is okay to trash anything, it doesn't mean it is actually okay. It depends on how you do it. If you dislike a religion or whatever, you are free to say that in a million of ways. BUT if you do it in a disrespectful way, than the line is already crossed. If you disagree with this, what stops me to be disrespectful towards you right now? I mean 2 can play the game. If you use the boundaries as you like it, the same thing can be done by all of us. Let's say if you are trashing a religion in a disrespectful way, I can trash your person the same way. Where does it go from this? Is this the way civilized people should communicate? Just be respectful to the person/entity and express your opinion however you like it. You don't have to respect the opinion of a person, but you have to respect the person. Same goes with ideas/entites such as religion.

 

[Kirby]

Religious and political discussions often tend to become a moderation nightmare, we therefore usually do not allow such discussions on our forums.

We also permanently ban users who continually misbehave and create a disturbing atmosphere, it simply doesn't make sense to temp-ban over and over and over again - some please simply don't listen or just want to troll.

 

[Jon12345]

If something is offensive, insulting, then that is not covered by the freedom of speech

Atheist says, "Allah does not exist". That is covered by freedom of speech, in the USA, UK etc. In Pakistan, you get the death penalty.

So who defines the line of what is deemed offensive?

 

[Jon12345]

We also permanently ban users who continually misbehave and create a disturbing atmosphere

I understand that is a common approach. My view is that not everybody agrees on what misbehaviour is. For example, if someone teases someone else, is that misbehaviour? Or is it just a bit of fun?

I can already sense this thread will get polarised. Which once again, makes me believe it is a political issue where the Left wants to no-platform due to it being hate speech while the Right want to give freedom of speech.

 

[sbj]

Atheist says, "Allah does not exist". That is covered by freedom of speech, in the USA, UK etc. In Pakistan, you get the death penalty.

So who defines the line of what is deemed offensive?

As a Muslim myself, that is not offensive. Offensive means if you are attacking in a way. What you say is just an opinion and that is totally okay to say that. And of course countries can form their laws however they like it. The legality question is different.

Offensive would have been if you said "All people who believe in religion x are sheep."
You cannot call me a sheep, you can't call anybody a sheep. If you dislike a religion, that is fine. You can dislike it, but when you attack people of a certain group, that becomes offensive.

BTW. I also don't allow political, religious and soccer discussions on my forum. Those just bring the worst possible discussions.

 

[Kirby]

So who defines the line of what is deemed offensive?

Majority. If the majority of a moderator team deems smth. offensive, it is offensive.
If they are unsure they ask me and if I am unsure as well I discuss the matter with my collegues.

 

[Jon12345]

soccer discussions

Someone could say religion XYZ is a load of rubbish. That will offend many people. It doesn't just have to be about groups of people. I believe infidels refers to groups of people. But to be honest, I don't really want to go down the religious route because it is a minefield.

Instead, I prefer to talk about the general point that perceptions of what is deemed offensive can differ wildly from one person to the next. Given that objective fact, how do you draw the line?

 

[Jon12345]

Majority. If the majority of a moderator team deems smth. offensive, it is offensive.
If they are unsure they ask me and if I am unsure as well I discuss the matter with my collegues.

Yes, I believe this is the common method. What if the majority of the moderator team thinks it is offensive, but you don't think it is offensive? Do you ban that member? If you disagree, is it offensive or not offensive?

 

[Kirby]

Hell yeah, you really would not want to moderate discussions between die-hard fans of FC Bayern Munich and Eintracht Frankfurt stepping on each others toes

 

[sbj]

Someone could say religion XYZ is a load of rubbish.

That is still just an opinion. You are not being disrespectful here. You have used the mild word "rubbish" for example. You could have used other words instead of. And those could have been on the extreme side, which could have changed it into being offensive. Again, you are forming an opinion. If one said what you said, then I would ask why he thinks like that and he would present his arguments. And then one agrees or not. That is a civilized way. It is free to think that something is rubbish. You are not targeting here anyone.

Given that objective fact, how do you draw the line?

Well, this is why we have judges. It is always decided on case by case basis. There is no general rule which covers everything perfectly. I just try to see if the person has an agenda or not. Is he being manipulative and disrespectful or does he have the best intentions but just has a different opinion. You can see from the used words and mimics if one is genuine or not. At least we have to make a decision.

But this opens a can of worms. I rather ban those 3 topics all together than deal with it. People get emotional in those 3 topics and they say things they normally wouldn't say and mostly disrespectful things. So, instead of deciding on case by case, where you maybe judge someone rightfully or not, just disallow it for everyone. Then nobody can be judged unrightfully.

 

[Jon12345]

That is still just an opinion. You are not being disrespectful here.

If someone disagrees with you and thinks it is being disrespectful, then what? Is it or isn't it disrespectful?

Well, this is why we have judges

Judges apply to criminal and civil cases. They do not cover teasing. Teasing is not a crime. Saying things that get under other peoples skin is not a crime.

On my forum, we have a guy that gets under peoples skin. Some people have a jab at him first because they dislike him. Here are some examples from Mods and VIPs:

YKH: Please enlighten us with your nonsensical jibber jabber.

YKH: Well, I have a lot of trouble saying your name. It comes out as:- smmm ---- Smmmeeee ----- Smeeeeggggg ----- ssmmm... "Smeg Head"

YKH: Sometimes I wonder how old you are as you seem to respond like my daughter would have 11 years ago she's 26 now.

Do I ban these mods and VIPs, for poking the bear?

 

[leebo]

I’ll be honest, I only read a small amount of this thread but here’s my answer.

Don’t let the moderators run the show. You made a call with your post to them saying “here’s what I want.” It’s your forum and you make the call what you want. You are the one who’s task it is to step back and make a call that’s best for the forum as a whole.

That said, it’s also your task to listen to their ideas/thoughts and make sure you too aren’t acting solely on emotion. Make sure you can clearly express why you do/don’t want bans in certain situations and that it’s clear to all that your call is based on a larger, long term plan.

 

[sbj]

f someone disagrees with you and thinks it is being disrespectful, then what? Is it or isn't it disrespectful?

Just disagreeing is not enough. One can present arguments and see. There is no general rule. One must treat every case in its own merit.

Judges apply to criminal and civil cases. They do not cover teasing. Teasing is not a crime. Saying things that get under other peoples skin is not a crime.

Maybe not in your country, but in many other countries it can be. It all depends on what was said and done and where.

On my forum, we have a guy that gets under peoples skin. Some people have a jab at him first because they dislike him. Do I ban them? Here are some examples from Mods and VIPs:

I would classify all 3 cases as offensive.
1) He uses an aggressive tone. He can have the opinion to ask someone his opinion, but the way he asks is the problem. He is clearly belittling like he is on the high horse.
2) Making fun of someone in a hurtful way. It is a swear word if I am not mistaken.
3) Attacking the person directly by making fun of him by comparing him to his daughter when she was a teenager. He calls him a child basically by also saying he is a girl (that would be important if the attacked person was male).

 

[Jon12345]

The problem is, if I banned each of these individuals, I start running out of mods and VIPs! They claim they are not really to blame because the troll has got under their skin and so they are not culpable. "The troll gets reasonably minded and level-headed people to lose it." i.e. they are not accountable for their actions.

But I say(!), "There is no rule for one, and another for you. Equal justice under the law!"

Just disagreeing is not enough. One can present arguments and see. There is no general rule. One must treat every case in its own merit.

Who decides if you continue to disagree?

 

[jmurrayhead]

I would start by clearly defining the rules for your forum - mods, VIPs, and regular members must adhere to these rules. Then ask the question, what rule(s) are being broken here? If none, should action be taken? Is the individual riding a thin line? Your moderators are supposed to represent your forum and your ideals. If they don't, they probably don't respect you and should not be moderators. Your VIPs are not staff and should not even be involved in this discussion. If they get out of line, remove their should be consequences of their actions. I understand it's a tough spot to be in, but you're already dealing with the aftermath of someone else running your forum instead of you.

 

[jmurrayhead]

Just to add on, it may be worth having an appeals process in place, too. This way you can deal with the moderator who possibly stepped over the line and restore the member who was incorrectly banned.

 

[sbj]

The problem is, if I banned each of these individuals, I start running out of mods and VIPs! They claim they are not really to blame because the troll has got under their skin and so they are not culpable.

First of all, why is everything a ban for you? You can also warn people. Like have peope have a warning limit of 3 times, and after that they get banned for a week, a month and maybe afterwards forever. Everyone can make mistakes, one mustn't straight out ban people. Warn them, give them the chance to recover and hopefully they learn from their behaviour. And if one keeps getting warned, well, it is a good sign someone just wasn't behaving constantly. 1 single case shouldn't be enough to ban people (unless it is blatantly offensive like "burn the Jews" or something which should be very rare).

Who decides if you continue to disagree?

At the end of the day it is the site owner. The site owner must display authority. Because at the end of the day you are more or less liable to all things what happens on your site. When illegal stuff happens, you will get contacted, not John Doe. So at the end of the day you decide if there is no clear answer to a problem. But of course, before you do that, have you used all your options like discussing and talking with your staff and members? If yes, at the end you decide and people abide.