I was more trying to address the issues raised by folks who tend to think that other folks shouldn't be treated with basic human decency. As in "it's just fine to treat women like property in my country, you're forcing your cultural beliefs on others when you tell people that that's not ok..."

Again, I feel like this is already covered - it's never been OK to treat women like property on Stack Exchange, and I've personally banned multiple people who've tried. I suspect there's some missing context here.

An example: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/75643/2018/4/7 (may want to delete this comment to avoid naming and shaming)

Ok, I scanned the thread there @apaul - I'm not sure what sparked it, but am I correct in summarizing it as "you and another user disagreed over the probable meaning of women's attire in public situations in Thailand"? I'm really not wild about some of the language in that thread, though I can't tell at a glance if it's the other user being crude or if that somehow ties back to a question on IPS.

Here's the thread that started it: interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/12760/…

And the subsequent meta post that made it a little more glaring: interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/…

Ok. So, there's nothing in there about Thailand, Germany, or any other local culture that I can find - which makes most of that chat conversation a non sequitur at best; I've deleted it. The main-site question was about communication, which does not in any way warrant a debate over womens' dressing proclivities outside of the specific context defined there; the meta question was about someone feeling they have a right to kibitz on the main-site topic, which they do not. Thankfully, none of it was about how women should be treated on Stack Exchange, which is what I had feared.

However... Much as we might wish otherwise, nothing we decide here is going to have much of an effect on the cultural norms in Thailand apart from perhaps influencing one particular German guy's interpretation of them. So I'm still unclear where you were going with this request.

Ah... That's where we're drawing the line... It's ok to promote a pretty awful line of thought about how people should be treated, provided that they're not exactly demonstrating that behavior on the network. Hmm.

I don't see how anything I said would give that impression. This is not a soapbox for folks to promote such things, which is why all of that user's comments to that effect (at least, the ones outside of your chat room) were deleted... two weeks ago.

That's one of many users, who've used a pretty lame "this is how it works where I come from" excuse. Or my personal favorite "this is how it works in the real world". Figured it was worth driving the point that it isn't how it works on SE, because it comes up often enough.

Actually... I'm becoming increasingly curious about the chronology here. Presumably you saw this guy spewing this crap on the post, and saw the mods clean it up. Then you saw the meta post and more cleanup. And... Three days later, you invite him to a chat room to spew more of it, and don't clean it up? What the hell, man?

So yeah, here's how SE's culture applies to this situation: don't do that. Don't give people a damn soapbox for that crap. And if they try to do it anyway, flag it instead of encouraging it.

Nah, the chat was an honest attempt to get through to him. Perhaps misguided, but that was the intent. Hoped that trying to talk it out, one on one, would get him to reevaluate what he'd been thinking and saying. I find that some people don't say the crappy thing when they have the time to really think about it.

Well, I can't deny that's a noble effort. But probably could've cut that short at the first "asking for it" response.

Probably right about that. Part of why I've stepped away from IPS till these things find better solutions.

Out of curiosity... And my general angsty pot stirring nature... Why isn't it an option to make a more direct statement that bigots aren't welcome? I know that's harsh, but it seems like we're approaching a point where it may he needed. Assuming good intentions is good, as far as it goes, but why not simply say "if you honestly believe that some folks don't deserve basic human rights, this isn't the network for you"?

A very old cultural tradition on Stack Exchange is to focus on behaviors vs. labeling, @apaul. We don't vote on who has to wear the label "bigot" (or "troll", or "vampire", or...) - we dictate acceptable behavior: no bigotry. Also, that's sort of a definition that mostly just makes the definer feel good.

Ya... But the behavior has been going on for a good little while now... So... Why not be more direct?

What would it accomplish, beyond fodder for more arguments? If you say, "don't do that" and they do it anyway, standing around discussing which label to apply is a waste of time; shut it down. This is what kills so much time on IPS: folks will point out a problem and then stand around for the next 6 hours saying "nuh-uh! uh-huh!" at each other as though that resolves anything. Either the problem exists or it doesn't; calling the author names isn't fixing the problem.

Perhaps better put "If you don't believe that some folks deserve basic human rights, this isn't the network for you." The blog post seemed to be inching toward that, but didn't seem to want to say it.

We can skip the label. Just come out and say it, and say it directly. Some folks seem to believe that those perspectives are ok on the network, making a direct statement that they're not could make a difference.

We have a direct statement. I linked to it above. The blog post references it.

How well has that been working? Has it led to users thinking that they shouldn't post the awful? Has it been as effective as anyone had hoped? Or has it led people to think that if they stay on "just this side of polite discourse" they can say whatever they want? Take a hard look. You know it's happening. You know you can do something about it.

If I've completely lost my mind here, what was the point of the blog post? I thought you all had a moment of clarity on this stuff?

I honestly don't know what you're looking for here, @apaul.

A public service announcement, much like the blog post, but well... More direct, and more honest. "If you're the sort of person who believes that some folks don't deserve basic human rights, then this isn't the network for you"

You seem to be saying that that's how "be nice" should be interpreted. So say that, publicly, and often.

How is that in any way more direct than what we have now?

It leaves a little less room for interpretation...

Also helps when it isn't just a link to a page that most folks don't really read. Say it when you delete comments. Say it when you delete answers, and questions.

It leaves TONS of room for interpretation. Any time you stop looking at what folks are writing and try to put them into boxes based on what you think they believe, you're in the weeds as far as getting any kind of consensus. You're defining a problem based on who you think you've been arguing with rather than what they said... But I gotta tell you: even the blatant, over the top literally cartoon Nazis we've been blocking for months across the network don't sign up with "Occupation: antisemite" filled in on their profiles.

Obviously you can snark with the best of them. You've been doing this for a long time, and as much as it doesn't look that way at the moment, I respect that. A personal message from someone like you can have more impact than the typical "be nice" link. You lot, the SE rockstars carry a certain amount of weight. When you take a stand against the sort of nonsense I've been seeing, people will probably listen.

I appreciate the flattery, but... Most folks using these sites don't know me from Adam. And giving someone who is spewing hate a soapbox for the sake of being able to publicly condemn them, while certainly cathartic... Still gives a soapbox to someone spewing hatred. It isn't worth the price.

And that's why I stepped down... I'm too close to the issue, and I'm too hot tempered. You on the other hand seem to be very good at this. And like it, or not, you're a role model on the network. People follow your lead. You have the ability to do something meaningful here in a way that most folks don't.

How far I can reach with my words is debatable. But there is one scenario where I've learned that a public condemnation is valuable, albeit one that is extremely hard to pull off: when a certain behavior is so pervasive, so controversial that it cannot readily be shut down... When an author has managed to craft for themselves a nearly bulletproof figleaf for their words... Then addressing it head on for the sake of those who suffer is worthwhile. But, in my experience, it does nothing to stall the author themselves, and there is nearly always collateral damage.

Hmm... Seems like a comp out. But then again, you're the expert...

Heh... If you haven't noticed, I love to argue. If I could justify it from the results, that'd be all I'd do here. But I can't. The more pitched battles you fight, the fewer people remain save those who just want to fight.

Also wasn't really talking about a public condemnation. More of a "If you don't believe that some folks deserve basic human rights, this isn't the network for you." users can then decide if that's what they really believe. It's a choice, not a condemnation.

Really beginning to look an awful lot like the blog post was just more piss in the wind. I guess we're going to continue doing what we've been doing while pretending that that works...

Meanwhile: interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2877/59

@Oleg The problem with the answer is that it isn't an answer to the question, and the Forrest Gump thing is somewhat offensive. And last time I checked being denied a platform on a website doesn't qualify as a human rights violation. That's what I've been suggesting, once again from the top "if you believe that some folks don't deserve basic human rights, this isn't the network for you."

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/309513/…

meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/366665/…

Just wanted to give you an opportunity to make a couple of more effective public statements. Or ya'know not.

@RobertHarvey Slippery slope is an easy argument to make about anything... What I was trying to get at here was the tendency for people to want to say "all beliefs are equally valid, so we can't take sides" even in cases where people have already crossed the line from beliefs to behavior. There's a big difference between saying that a comment or answer was removed because it's not constructive, or doesn't answer the question, and removing it because it violates the be nice policy. I've been seeing an awful lot of biggotry sliding through because it's on just this side of civil discourse...

Nobody said that, @apaul. I said, and Robert said again, that we can't police beliefs, and even trying is hugely problematic. We can and do police behaviors: words posted and actions taken on these sites. The day we stop censoring abusive actions and start censoring any words from people we label as "abusive" is the day this all falls apart.

Seems like we've been talking past each other... I'm not so much asking that beliefs be policed, but rather expressed beliefs that violate site policy. Once biggotry is expressed on a Stack, it kinda has crossed the line. We don't typically have a problem scolding users for any other negative behavior, but there seems to be some hesitation in scolding them for making bigoted statements.

I kinda suspect you're suffering from a lack of visibility into that, @apaul. You see what we don't delete. And, maybe we should be deleting more - but that's gotta start with someone calling out a problem and others agreeing, we don't do roving gangs of moderators doing what is right in their own eyes and accountable to no one.

Sure have a thing for hyperbole... I'm basically asking for you all to do the things that you claim to already be doing. Perhaps they tend to get done behind the scenes and it's just not as visible as it could be, or perhaps there's some room for improvement. If I recall, several users who had been consistently problematic caught long term suspensions once they started poking you directly, but even then it took quite a bit of poking before action was taken. These same users had been causing problems and drawing an awful lot of flags for a long time before that.

And you have a gift for ignoring things you wish weren't true, @apaul. I gave y'all a roadmap to follow when one of the users you're referring to first took an interest in IPS. Remember that? You got all defensive because you'd fallen for his cellophane bag of tricks, and spent the next few months actively working against the folks trying to put a stop to the nonsense. So instead of complaining that we're not doing enough, maybe work with us instead of compounding the problem.

Ya, I wasn't a big fan of the excessively pedantic route. In some ways I still struggle with that. But... If you all knew that there was a problem. You knew that a specific user was trolling. You knew that other users were showing up purely to play politics with the alt-right silliness... Why not just suspend them? Was this some sort of long game lesson for the community?

Not really a game, @apaul; this is pretty much my job description. I can't moderate every action of every user on every site every day... That's not how this is set up to work; everyone has a role to play. So it doesn't help if I tell you "userNNNN is a troll" - then your only heuristic is "users named 'userNNNN'". If they're being legit on one post, that's a false-positive; if they create a new account and use it to troll, that's a false negative. HORRIBLE heuristic! So how do we deal with trolls? We teach people to recognize trolling, and shut it down.You'd be surprised how often that works.

Ya... There's some truth in that, but there's also the other part. CMs are often the only ones with the cross site data and ability to impose IP bans. Sure teach us how to spot them, but after they've been spotted don't leave us to deal with them for months there after.

@apaul What makes you think we didn't? We did, well over a year ago. Y'all got the reformed troll, @apaul - the version 2.0, 99% fewer dick-pics, 99% more subtle naivete. Those tools

...those tools aren't as powerful as they sound.

You suspend an account, ban the IP, and you're good until they find a VPN.

Which isn't hard.

And now you've given them another game to play.

The last thing we need to be is a fun house for trolls.

There's always the Jay and Silent Bob approach

heh...

Thought you'd appreciate that...

You've no idea how often I've fantasized...

Trolls, spammers, the folks who do their entire jobs by pasting together the answers to the terrible questions they ask... They thrive in a very specific environment.

They're like... HIV. Super easy to kill outside of that environment, super hard to eradicate if they get into their element.

Your best option is to create a place where they cannot gain a foothold.

Where they don't get to have fun, or get paid, or get pastable answers.

Sorry to kick you about this stuff. It has just gotten real hard not to get disillusioned. Seemed like Catija was running a one woman show, and things were just getting progressively worse. Seemed like no one was responding to the smoke signals so...

Catija is really dedicated, but this stuff doesn't work top-down.

I'd wanted to appoint Tinkeringbell for ages, but I didn't want to take away one of the strongest voices outside of the mod team

But, can't be helped.

Ya, but there's only so much a new disorganized community can do.

Eventually, IPS will develop their immune system. It just takes time... And a lot of practice.

There's also the fun of assuming good intentions, but not too much.

This is precisely why we focus on behaviors and not people.

As cruel as it seems sometimes

Like literally every time I go "this smells funny" someone gets on my case about assuming good intentions.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the new asker posting horribly naive questions that everyone spends all day arguing over is a dedicated troll or as sincere it can be. The problem still exists.

Even when it was from a "reformed troll"

so funny thing... There are a LOT of reformed trolls on this network.

Ya, I've noticed. Some of them are really proud of it.

Turns out if you give folks an opportunity to be constructive and limit their opportunity for mischief... They'll participate constructively most of the time.

Ehh... My disillusionment is kicking in

The problem is... That mentality never goes away. The old punk working at H&R Block still pines for the days when he'd spend his nights screaming with blood running down his face. Given the chance...

So, you don't give the chance.

But, if you have to assume good intentions, how do you sort that out? How do you see it coming before the blood?

that requires a bit of background

brb

Ok

ok - I have about 10 minutes, so lemme try & give the cliff notes version of this

Alrighty

back when we started this show, the whole "user-driven-gamified-community" thing was hot stuff

Wikipedia was magic

etc. etc.

And there was all this breathless talk about a new age of equality and brotherhood on the 'Net

But the problem folks weren't really thinking about was... What happens if someone tries to use these systems for something that's... Not all shiny and happy?

Well... Of course, some people were thinking about that, because this wasn't their first rodeo

Message boards, USENET, BBSs and various primordial "online communities" that predate even the personal computer had existed and had faced precisely those problems

And what they found was the same thing that countless meatspace commune organizers, union organizers, politicians, kings and chieftains had know since humanity first started organizing into groups: when you throw a bunch of people into one space, pretty soon they try to eviscerate each other.

So you gotta plan for that up front. You can't look at a group of people as though they were mostly angels with a few devils thrown in... They're all evil disgusting creatures, including the one doing the looking.

You gotta give 'em goals to work toward, and boundaries to respect, and stories to tell about why those goals and boundaries exist.

And when someone protests, you shun 'em. They don't get to be a part of the group anymore - not by edict, but by virtue of nobody interacting with them.

So how do you assume good intentions in light of this... admittedly cynical PoV?

Simple: you don't. You allow for good intentions. When those good intentions result in good actions - which are defined as actions that are in keeping with the norms of the group - then everything is copacetic.

When they don't... Back to shunning.

Which, recall, is enforced by every other member of the group

You can give folks as many chances to demonstrate good intentions as the community will tolerate, but you don't ever give anyone a pass: if they cross a line, they're out until y'all decide to give 'em another chance.

This is what lets stuff like suspensions work. It's trivial to create a new account and come back, but then you have to pretend to be a different person.

If you want to come back as who you were... You have to accept that you crossed a line and stop doing that. Else you're back out.

The actual suspension - the moderator sending a message, the 1-rep, etc. - that's just a ritual to communicate to the person and everyone else that they're shunned.

@Shog9 Hmm... I think that may be where we're conflicting. sometimes the protesters are really your best citizens. Sometimes your protestors are the ones who care enough about the community to try to make it better. (Different folks define "better" differently, so sometimes this leads to evicerating)

When you start to think that has real power - when the moderator gets too high & mighty and starts thinking they control the group - then it all falls apart.

@apaul sure. Which is why we have a ritual for that too. There's comments, there's meta, there's a shady court of appeal in the employee contact form... And there's a progression from one to the next.

You have a good point. I get that. Seems like a system that really heavily favors the status quo though. Doesn't leave a lot of room for improvement, ya'know?

Anyone in the group gets a chance to try & sway the opinion of the rest.

Is it heavily weighed toward the status quo? Of course! That's the entire point. That's civilization.

If you throw that away, what you end up with is a system that's really easy for just about anyone to change, very quickly, for just about any reason.

And you find out pretty fast that some folks have... Terrible, terrible reasons for wanting to change things.

Look at what's going on on SO right now.

Ya, not a big fan of civilization most of the time. Again, I get your points, just really difficult to be content with draining the sea with a teaspoon.

The same factors that make it really laborious to make the site more welcoming are the factors that keep it from being even less welcoming.

There's a crap-ton of inertia, and on top of that the software itself provides a set of rails to direct that inertia...

and that means SO can't become a tutoring service

...but, that also means that SO can't suddenly become a libertarian campaign forum

or a place for discussing quilting

which is good, 'cause some of those quilters... Man, they're hardcore. Like, you think we're unwelcoming now...

Seems to put the protesters in a position to not only have to fight the extremists on the other side, but also work against the weight of the status quo. So... How is change actually gonna come?

same way you reverse a train

Lots and lots and lots of brakes

you can't stand in front of it and push. It won't even slow down, and you'll be little pieces scattered across the landscape.

The front engine brakes, the front engine catches fire and the train probably derails.

Every car has to brake, or at least most of them.

This is no place to play Atlas

You have to convince a LOT of people to make a small change in what they're doing

But, I'm way over my 10 minutes and I gotta run.

Again, that's fair.

@Shog9 Would be a hell of a lot easier to play along if there were some clearer messaging from the conductors sometimes...

After giving it a little more thought... Let me try to explain the other side of it.

Most civilizations, not all, but most have traditionally shunned folks like me. Which kinda placed us in a protest position from the beginning.

People don't like being shunned simply for being who they are...

After thousands of years of being shunned, civilization finally decided to start acting a little more civilized, so we finally could protest out in the open.

Little, by slowly, progress started to happen over the last 50 years or so. But at every point, the better parts of the status quo crowd told us that we were "equal enough for now" and that "we should be patient, progress takes time"

That gets incredibly frustrating.

Sure it takes a lot of people applying the breaks at the same time. But it's a little too often that people decide to start applying the breaks because they look out the windows and see all the evicerated bodies on the tracks.

Without the people standing on the tracks most of the passengers on the train don't ever notice that maybe the train should stop.

Not sure if the analogy holds, but it's very often those poor bastards standing on the tracks trying to stop the train that wake people up.

I think the analogy breaks down.

That line of thinking ends in self immolation

Which... I don't really see as a very productive approach.

@Shog9 That's where that frustration leads... Eventually people get sick of being asked to drain the sea with a teaspoon, it's exausting. A lot of folks get tired of having to ask extra special nicely that everyone get together and pull the brakes, particularly when a fair number of the other passengers, and some of the conductors try to throw you off the moving train for not asking nicely enough. All the while, you're looking out the window and seeing the bodies and all the folks left behind.

interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2971/59 I'm guessing that you can use your CM powers to see the history on this. An example of what leads to the sort of frustration I'm talking about.