slug.com slug.com

53 19

Acceptable posts and comments on this site.

Let’s talk through an issue that needs a clear policy decision - how we should handle "over-the-line" posts/comments/groups. As you may know, we just launched in mid-February and have been busy adding features and better organizing the content. We have grown to over 20k members 100s of member-generated groups. The goal of building the community is the hope, that collectively, we can work out challenging issues for the benefit of all people.

From the beginning, we want to create a place where people can talk opening about things concern them and not be censored. The thesis is that it's better to let all people feel that they have a voice in a conversation rather than to have it suppressed. In practice, it is a challenge to know how to handle statements that more venting than constructive. One way is to look at how IDW public figures communicate their thoughts. It is an IDW virtue to be able to discuss tough topics with logic, insight, truth, and compassion.

Our policy has been to allow posts so long as they're civil - and especially if supported by facts. Civility here is defined as "having formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech. The enforcement of this policy has been mostly been responsive (i.e., we respond to complaints/flags vs proactively screening). In the first few months, there were very few uncivil posts and comments (less than 1/300). However, in the recent weeks, there have been enough that I want your help in coming up with a more clear and strict policy for members.

The most controversial topics here so far are related to immigration. This has historically been a topic where there is a tendency for anger and strong emotion. We have had conversations with many members and now think that the best policy is to be very strict as to civility. It is also been the unwavering policy of public figures of the IDW movement. We want to reflect that policy here. We recognize that people who do not want to abide by the IDW discussion philosophy still have other websites where they can use. Conservatives have a meme of "Orange Man Bad" which is often used to belittle simplistic attacks on Trump that are not based on reason. Similarly, posts of "Out-Group Bad", do not help us discuss the issues as well as thoughtful positions based on facts.

A proposed policy would be for us to move posts and comments that advocate violence (easy) or state opinions in a way that doesn't foster a conversation (hard) from view. We may show them to level 7+ members in a special "removed" category for 24 hours so they can be aware of the action. Post in any group marked "IDW" must be related to the public figure or simply a repost of their posts/tweet. Members will be barred from "IDW" groups if they post unrelated topics. Members who create controversial groups will also be responsible for the posts in their groups to ensure they abide by the policy of the website. To help, we could update the originator/moderator role to include reviewing posts that show up in their group. No longer will a member be able to simply click “join” and make a post in any group they wish without the involvement of the group’s moderator(s).

Would like get your feedback on this.

Admin 8 Apr 22
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

53 comments (51 - 53)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

First I think we need to better understand what is the meaning for the site creators in civility, then maybe we could get a better understanding of the reason for the thought of the need to police more the speech that people should be responsible of doing themselves. I do not read majority of post thst start with thing's like, libtard, trumpets. You get the point. So to me I am selve policing and censoring what I wish to engage in. This should go for everyone, but since a few never left highschool? The creators feel a need to be more involved to redirect towards civility. I can understand this to some degree, I am not one for partisapation trophies. The only other suggestion I have to give is. A guide for word's to be considered to use instead of. this will not only better comments/debates and post. But will still allow for freedom of speech and expression I think. If this does not work reconcidor from there. Baby steps are better then huge ones in the long run. I still strongly hold to my Idea we discussed, and I shared with the community as we'll.

0

Rapoports Rule is a good rule of thumb on reliable civil discourse. Steering clear of strawman and the backfire effect are key.

0

Hurt feelings are not Ill intent what should and should not be restricted is the real Question. We must agree on that first

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:33224
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.