One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts [Updated 4/20]

[The Woolly One]

As I said in the first proposal, I support this idea. Generally this forum gets nothing out of prioritizing the opinions of bigoted people over the safety and security of people of marginalized or disenfranchised groups. What happens is a member begins ranting about vulnerable groups of people (e.g. LGBTQA people), and it culminates with the member pushing away a large portion of the community before they end up being banned. Offering more protection to vulnerable members could effectively stop this.

Implementing this policy doesn't mean we're going to treat people as lesser for being cis, straight or white or whatever. It just means that the forum will make a greater effort to prevent bigoted people from getting a free-pass to attack minority groups for being the way they are. A lot of people use communities like these act as a safe haven to escape the bullying, discrimination and isolation that they might receive on a daily basis. That doesn't work when bullies and bigots come here and are allowed to continue posting abuse.

Doing this doesn't mean members belonging to minority groups won't be impervious to criticism for their actions and behaviour. It just means nobody can persistently misgender anybody, attack these groups, or subject anybody to discrimination -- even if it's religiously based. The actions of specific people that belong to these groups can be challenged, but you can't challenge minority groups as whole. Criticizing privileged groups for their unfair advantages or the mistreatment that society permits is not on an equal level to attacking entire groups of people at risk of abuse and mistreatment.

FT has always aimed to ensure that everyone is treat fairly. We've never allowed people here to attack individuals over things like their ethnic background, sexual and gender identity, religious views or hobbies and pastimes. We won't condone any legitimately hateful messages. But this policy aims to ensure that we acknowledge that criticizing the majority for the privileges that they hold isn't the same as attacking someone for being gay, for example.

[copb.phoenix]

As I said in the first proposal, I support this idea. Generally this forum gets nothing out of prioritizing the opinions of bigoted people over the safety and security of people of marginalized or disenfranchised groups.

Agreed. And without mincing semantics I could even say "agreed wholeheartedly!"

What happens is a member begins ranting about vulnerable groups of people (e.g. LGBTQA people), and it culminates with the member pushing away a large portion of the community before they end up being banned. Offering more protection to vulnerable members could effectively stop this.

I don't necessarily disagree; the problem is the flipside of the coin.

Do you believe that if the tables are turned then the other people won't become disenchanted and be pushed away from the community? It's easy to say "well, they're hateful, so-" but when you stop and look to see that this appears to tread a line that's hard to walk straight and narrow, I honestly see majority groups apt to take potential implementations as a sign that they're functionally unwelcome.

Implementing this policy doesn't mean we're going to treat people as lesser for being cis, straight or white or whatever. It just means that the forum will make a greater effort to prevent bigoted people from getting a free-pass to attack minority groups for being the way they are.

By giving a free pass to minorities to attack "bigoted" groups for the way they are? I don't trust that scoffing at Christ's mother would receive the same punishment as scoffing at the ongoing and rapidly evolving scientific understanding of LGBT people. (The parallel, in case you missed it, is the argument that both Christ and LGBT people are born some given way.)

A lot of people use communities like these act as a safe haven for people to escape the bullying, discrimination and isolation that they might receive on a daily basis. That doesn't work when bullies and bigots come here and are allowed to continue posting abuse.

Wholeheartedly agree!

Doing this doesn't mean members belonging to minority groups won't be impervious to criticism for their actions and behaviour.

Right, but that's not the part that worries anybody as I understand and as I express. A straight male who gets into trouble with the law and a homosexual male who get in trouble with the law for the exact same thing - yeah, it was a given it'd be okay to suggest legal counsel and point out maybe that wasn't a bright idea.

It just means nobody can misgender anybody, attack these groups, or subject anybody to discrimination -- even if it's religiously based. The actions of specific people that belong to these groups can be challenged, but you can't challenge minority groups as whole.

This is the part that is disconcerting. Actually this bit:

Criticizing privileged groups for their unfair advantages or the mistreatment that society permits is not on an equal level to attacking people at risk of abuse and mistreatment.

In comedy there's notion of "punching up" (have I gone over this in the forums before?) where you only attack someone bigger than you. That's why it's okay to joke about Bill Clinton but not okay to joke about terrorism victims. This is basically the notion trying to be put in place, only in terms of social policy.

The problem here is that this site generally claims to be a haven for all on one paw and then claim to choose one group over another in the other paw. It cannot be both ways. In other words, if it's okay to attack groups that are "in power", then this shouldn't be presented as a safe place for those groups. You cannot show special preference to one group in a way that amounts to enabling another to be attacked and still claim to be here for everyone.

FT has always aimed to ensure that everyone is treat fairly. We've never allowed people here to attack individuals over things like their ethnic background, sexual and gender identity, religious views or hobbies and pastimes. But this policy aims to ensure that we acknowledge that criticizing the majority for the privileges that they hold isn't the same as attacking someone for being gay, for example.

I want to see this system across the board or not at all. Either everything's sacred or nothing is.

[California]

Situations on this site have always been dealt with on a case by case basis this rule won't be an exception, each post and user will still be dealt with individually. Hate and intolerance have never been allowed on the forum but users in the past have found ways to get around these rules in order to continue expressing their hateful opinions. Allowing users to express hateful opinions doesn't benifit anyone but the person sharing them, most of these opinions serve no purpose aside from making people feel uncomfortable with their identity so there is no reason why they should be allowed

Religious bashing or hateful comments towards people who are religious will not be tolerated, that's always been the rules and that's not changing. The only thing changing is that religion will no longer be a valid excuse to discriminate or hate. Same rules apply to majority groups, comments bashing these groups purely because of their identity are still breaking the rules and are subject to disciplinary action. This proposal might not highlight situations involving comments such as these but that doesn't mean they're allowed

This rule isn't going to put LGBTQ+ people on a pedestal. They are still expected to follow the same rules as everyone else, if they break the rules they will still be treated the same as any other user. What this rule will do is offer an extra layer of protection for LGBTQ+ members against hateful comments. We have had members that posted numerous vague anti-LGBTQ+ comments, making people feel legitimately unsafe on the forum yet nothing could be done since they "were expressing their personal and religious beliefs". We have and have had members here who have been bullied, picked on and discriminated against daily due to their identity, they don't need to see these opinions on a website that is supossed to be a safe place. This rule is not meant to pick on majority groups but rather keep this forum a safe space from discrimination and hate

I personally support this proposal. This site is still the most accepting group I've seen and I think this is a great start to keeping it a safe place

[copb.phoenix]

...
This rule isn't going to put LGBTQ+ people on a pedestal. They are still expected to follow the same rules as everyone else, if they break the rules they will still be treated the same as any other user. What this rule will do is offer an extra layer of protection for LGBTQ+ members against hateful comments.
...

*blinks*

Last one of the night. These three sentences contain a contradiction to me.

I believe you when you say it's intended as an extra layer of protection. But if you don't see how that extra layer of protection is special treatment in some form then I'm not quite sure what more I can say. That you even have to specify it as an extra layer just for LGBTQ?+ members means that you're aware - at some level - that the way they're being treated in this isn't going to be the same as some other category of people.

Bigots? When we say "bigots", in this conversation, there's an inclination to point out examples chiefly related to religious groups. Chiefly Christians. Because they're an easy target and one struggled with in the past? Would this protection extend to religious groups that aren't in the question? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Pagans?... and at the end, what about Christians?

How are LGBT people magically better if they start spouting off how the beliefs are stupid because a bush can't just burst into flames and the Red Sea can't be parted so easily*? The signal being sent from this viewpoint is that LGBT people deserve more ability to attack than people who don't like LGBT people.

It's quite plainly spelled out again and again that this is not about unification or actual tangible equality so much as protecting LGBT people and other marginalized groups - even if it means leaving too much slack on the attack dog's lead. My attempts to stand here are repeatedly painted as wanting LGBT people to be hurt; to the contrary I believe if they're to be protected from being hurt then all others should enjoy the same protections. I don't disagree with the vulnerable status; I simply think that this policy is not the correct route to solve or amend it as proposed.

[Kailyn]

This is the part that is disconcerting. Actually this bit:

Criticizing privileged groups for their unfair advantages or the mistreatment that society permits is not on an equal level to attacking people at risk of abuse and mistreatment.

In comedy there's notion of "punching up" (have I gone over this in the forums before?) where you only attack someone bigger than you. That's why it's okay to joke about Bill Clinton but not okay to joke about terrorism victims. This is basically the notion trying to be put in place, only in terms of social policy.

The problem here is that this site generally claims to be a haven for all on one paw and then claim to choose one group over another in the other paw. It cannot be both ways. In other words, if it's okay to attack groups that are "in power", then this shouldn't be presented as a safe place for those groups. You cannot show special preference to one group in a way that amounts to enabling another to be attacked and still claim to be here for everyone.

Criticizing people and attacking people are not the same thing, as Daimhín--and other people, too, I believe--has said. Unless I've misread something, I also believe that several people have said that no one is going to be getting away with attacking anyone, no matter what groups any of the people in those situations are associated with.

I believe you when you say it's intended as an extra layer of protection. But if you don't see how that extra layer of protection is special treatment in some form then I'm not quite sure what more I can say. That you even have to specify it as an extra layer just for LGBTQ?+ members means that you're aware - at some level - that the way they're being treated in this isn't going to be the same as some other category of people.

More often than not, LGBT+ people [and minorities] are the people who are being discriminated against. It may seem like special treatment to have this "extra" layer of protection for them, but I feel like it only seems that way because you'll see more instances of people getting in trouble for discriminating against minority groups than for discriminating against majority groups. Why will more people be getting in trouble for discriminating against minorities? Simply because there are more instances of minorities being discriminated against.

Bigots? When we say "bigots", in this conversation, there's an inclination to point out examples chiefly related to religious groups. Chiefly Christians. Because they're an easy target and one struggled with in the past? Would this protection extend to religious groups that aren't in the question? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Pagans?... and at the end, what about Christians?

Panda's initial post here says that, quote, "any [specific] anti-religious statements will incur a Warning as well." To me, that would include any and all religions, not just Christianity.

How are LGBT people magically better if they start spouting off how the beliefs are stupid because a bush can't just burst into flames and the Red Sea can't be parted so easily*? The signal being sent from this viewpoint is that LGBT people deserve more ability to attack than people who don't like LGBT people.

Who said that LGBT+ people were "magically better" than anyone? I don't remember reading that anywhere. And, once again, people have said repeatedly that no one is going to be able to attack anyone under this rule [as well as under rules already in place in the forums]. That means that LGBT+ people won't have any more right to attack someone than non-LGBT+ people.

It's quite plainly spelled out again and again that this is not about unification or actual tangible equality so much as protecting LGBT people and other marginalized groups - even if it means leaving too much slack on the attack dog's lead. My attempts to stand here are repeatedly painted as wanting LGBT people to be hurt; to the contrary I believe if they're to be protected from being hurt then all others should enjoy the same protections. I don't disagree with the vulnerable status; I simply think that this policy is not the correct route to solve or amend it as proposed.

And again, from what the staff members are saying here, no one is going to be allowed to attack anyone, therefore everyone will have protection against being attacked or bashed or however you'd like to word it.

[Koala123]

 I am happy to see an attempt at trying to cease flame wars within the community, and am glad to see action take part.  What concerns me, though, is that Natasha specified LGBTQ+ persons to gain these special perks.  I do not believe that offensive things can be said about religions that affect someone associated with that specific religion.  I feel that this policy would work if we included more than just LGBTQ+ people. That's just my condensed opinion; I have homework to do. :p

[The Woolly One]

I don't think it's as big a deal as some are making out to be; if anything, it's just to make vulnerable people safer on the site. All that's really changing at the end of the day is that people won't be allowed to attack marginalized people and then use things like their religious background or culture as an excuse for it. That's what we mean by not allowing the privileged people's comfort to override the safety of vulnerable individuals. It's always going to be against the rules to attack people for things like their beliefs and religion, but we're no longer allowing it to be used as an excuse to oppress people in the forum because we recognize it as a safe space. But we don't conflate that with pointing out privilege, mistreatment and society's bias and discrimination.

[California]

-snip-

Bigots? When we say "bigots", in this conversation, there's an inclination to point out examples chiefly related to religious groups. Chiefly Christians. Because they're an easy target and one struggled with in the past? Would this protection extend to religious groups that aren't in the question? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Pagans?... and at the end, what about Christians?

How are LGBT people magically better if they start spouting off how the beliefs are stupid because a bush can't just burst into flames and the Red Sea can't be parted so easily*? The signal being sent from this viewpoint is that LGBT people deserve more ability to attack than people who don't like LGBT people.

All religions and beliefs are protected here. Comments made falsifying or attacking another users religion or beliefs breaks the sites rules and are subject to disciplinary action.

All religions are protected, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, and every other faith. The examples you gave would not be allowed, as Panda explained within the policy in the first post, specific anti-religious starements are not allowed and are subject to warnings and bans (regardless of whether they come from a LGBTQ+ memer or not) and members are still free to discuss their faith on the forum. For example disscusions about the bible, churches, pentagrams, the solstices or anything else religious are allowed. However religious comments discriminating against LGBTQ+ identities and individuals are not allowed

I'm Pagan and feel that my religion has been respected and acknowledged by the forum and protected by the staff (and this was the case long before I even applied for staff). I get plenty of hate for being Pagan in real life but I feel completely safe to discuss my religion here 

[Assan]

Okay from what I am getting reading this is that, people of the majority are being hurt by the minority here on the site. We shouldn't need just an extra layer of protection for LGBTQ+ members, we need that same protection for the others to. Just because the majority cant be hurt by a comment from the minority doesn't mean the minority cant hurt the one person they are talking to in the majority.

I will use an example of my own life: I have friends(mainly one) that complains about how guys suck all the time, and even though it doesn't hurt the majority of people hearing it, it does hurt me, when just lumped in, even if I am not like the comment they made. I am personally hurt, while the rest remain fine.(After explaining and talking to her about this, we are at a pretty good understanding about it now)

So we all need to remember, that even if a person falls into a majority, that doesn't mean comments, made against them because of that majority doesn't hurt, it is the same as if they made one against you because of your minority.


Ps.The majority here on FT is of the LGBTQ+ community, or at least it feels that way, so remember if you stand against those of the "normal" majority, you can and probably will push them away, just as you would be if the positions were reversed

PPs. I am sorry if this doesn't make sense, and just tell me if it doesn't, I will try again to explain this, but better

[★ Panda ★]

Nobody is getting any special perks. Bottom line.
We are simply improving a system that has already been there. We have NEVER allowed someone to say something terrible just because they're a minority, and we're not about to start. We have ALWAYS banned people for being intolerant, regardless of status. The ONLY difference here is that, for these specific instances, we will have hard-set guidelines on what action to take. There are ZERO "perks" involved. This is not a free pass.

Trying to keep things fair is what got us into this mess. We're regarded on other sites as transphobic and homophobic because sometimes we cease to take action in the interest of being fair. This policy changes that.

Flame wars and everything else will still be dealt with on a contextual basis. If someone's a jerk, regardless of status, they're getting punished. LGBT people are not allowed to say that cis people should kill themselves in the same way that cis people can't say that about trans people. We are just hesitant to make blanket statements regarding this because you have to think about the context. Transgender people have a right to complain about cis people. Ranting about GENERAL EXPERIENCES is different than attacking. That goes for both sides.

I'd also like to note that this isn't the only thing we plan on doing to address the toxic community as of late. We're not ban-happy and we're not deletion-happy, we're just trying to find some middle ground.

ETA: Nobody is arguing that comments don't hurt the majority. Its just that THIS SPECIFIC policy ONLY addresses the minority (at least for now). If a comment upsets/offends you, regardless of context, we will still review it as normal. It is still possible for a minority to get banned for attacking someone of the majority, absolutely nothing is changing about that.

[Raccoaster]

A one strike system is very easy to abuse especially on subjects like this where the differentiation between right and wrong isn't exactly black and white. In the end whether or not you get banned because of a remark is really up to the mods and how they interpret both the rules and your comment. This is not the best way to approach problems like these. People have opinions. Sure opinions can be bad, opinions can be downright terrible, but when you are implementing a one strike system for rules that don't exactly have a set right and wrong you are setting yourself up for miscommunication and resentment between mods and users.

I am not endorsing hateful speech but honestly implementing a one strike rule for this would be bad for the workings of the forum and could even leave echo-chamber like discussion in the boards. As a wise man once said, "JUST [don't] DO IT"

[★ Panda ★]

A one strike system is very easy to abuse especially on subjects like this where the differentiation between right and wrong isn't exactly black and white. In the end whether or not you get banned because of a remark is really up to the mods and how they interpret both the rules and your comment. This is not the best way to approach problems like these. People have opinions. Sure opinions can be bad, opinions can be downright terrible, but when you are implementing a one strike system for rules that don't exactly have a set right and wrong you are setting yourself up for miscommunication and resentment between mods and users.

I am not endorsing hateful speech but honestly implementing a one strike rule for this would be bad for the workings of the forum and could even leave echo-chamber like discussion in the boards. As a wise man once said, "JUST [don't] DO IT"

This is literally exactly how we've always operated, on a case-by-case basis. But this hasn't worked for a while, which is why we're trying to bring about change.
We've always tried our best to be fair to everyone, but its often lead to more harm than good.

[★ Panda ★]

I will put this another way for those concerned:
If a straight person says "I hate gay people", they're getting a Warning.
If a gay person says "I hate straight people", they will be evaluated based on the context (whether it was part of a flame war, is an ongoing thing, was directed at someone specific, etc.).
This is because, in a minority posting about a majority, context is important. Often times, these phrases are followed by a reason, such as straight people kicking them out of their house or safe spaces. This is considered an acceptable rant, as we wouldn't be much of a safe space if we didn't allow people to vent about their life. On the other hand, if this statement is thrown in as part of a debate, is meant to be inflammatory, or is directed at a specific individual(s), it will be evaluated as such and appropriate action may be taken.

This also ONLY applies to related remarks. If a majority and a minority get in a flamewar about politics, for example, everyone is on even playing ground. This one-strike rule is only for intolerant remarks, not criticism regarding character or fights about other topics, as mentioned before.

EVERYONE will always be free to be themselves here, and we will never say otherwise. A trans person will never be allowed to rant about how all cis people should kill themselves in the same way that the opposite scenario will not be allowed to happen. That falls under the "toxic environment" area that we try to prevent, which is completely separate from this issue, and will ALWAYS be dealt with accordingly.

We always value your feedback (this thread wouldn't be up if we didn't); however, right now all I'm hearing is a bunch of fear-mongering "what if" scenarios. We are still, and always will be, 100% committed to making everyone feel welcome here. Nobody should be bashing anyone regardless. We are not changing our policies on how to handle personal attacks and flame wars. We are simply adding another layer of protection to people who the rest of the world are constantly working against. If that actually constitutes a "free pass" to you, and its not just a matter of misunderstanding this policy, then us explaining things won't be of help anyways.

Now, if anyone has any specific theoretical scenarios they are curious about, feel free to ask.

[End]

Just for the record: just because this system is only on this website doesn't mean you can go attacking other members on different websites such as Skype.  Harassment is harassment regardless of the context so don't go taking somewhere else just so you can get away with it.

[STERLING]

I believe this is a good policy.
The only problems I could see happening is sensitivity issues.
Like Panda used as an example with the gay person saying they hate straight people, I think a straight person on the forum could easily become too overly sensitive or take it personally, or simply over exaggerate just to get the other party in trouble.

I would hope people wouldn't be so sensitive and not take everything they see to heart. In the real world, there's going to be hate and you have to build a resilience and just learn to ignore stuff and pick your battles. Now I don't want anyone thinking I want everyone to suck it up and not be able to express their feelings. I'm just saying I hope no one will abuse this system or overexaggerate to get someone else in trouble.

[★ Panda ★]

Throwing a bit of personal stuff in, I'm sure some people here know that I'm extremely sensitive. Even if a negative comment isn't made about me directly, if its about an attribute I have or do, then I'm offended. Not usually offended in the angry sense, but it definitely upsets me and weighs me down.

So, I do empathize with the concerns brought up. Nobody is sitting here telling you you can't have feelings unless you're a minority, and nobody here on staff (and I would hope in the memberbase) believes that. I completely understand where you all are coming from, but I also ask you to look at things objectively:

How often do anti-white/anti-straight/anti-cis posts actually happen here? Very, very rarely, and when they do, they're usually swiftly cleaned up. Absolutely nothing about that is changing. Nobody is going to get in trouble for being "too sensitive", or reporting a post that upset them. We are still interested in keeping everyone happy and safe. This policy just addresses recent intolerant posts.

[End]

What if a person of a certain race makes a negative comment about their race? Ex: "I hate being x because the other x's do y making things harder for us"? Would that work or would that be a big no

[★ Panda ★]

What if a person of a certain race makes a negative comment about their race? Ex: "I hate being x because the other x's do y making things harder for us"? Would that work or would that be a big no

Hmm, that's a good question. I'm inclined to say we would go by the "if nobody reports it, then it stays" rule, but I'm not sure.
What do you guys suggest?

[End]

What if a person of a certain race makes a negative comment about their race? Ex: "I hate being x because the other x's do y making things harder for us"? Would that work or would that be a big no

Hmm, that's a good question. I'm inclined to say we would go by the "if nobody reports it, then it stays" rule, but I'm not sure.
What do you guys suggest?

I think it would depend on the circumstances and reasoning for the post?

[★ Panda ★]

What if a person of a certain race makes a negative comment about their race? Ex: "I hate being x because the other x's do y making things harder for us"? Would that work or would that be a big no

Hmm, that's a good question. I'm inclined to say we would go by the "if nobody reports it, then it stays" rule, but I'm not sure.
What do you guys suggest?

I think it would depend on the circumstances and reasoning for the post?

That also, I'm just not sure if people are tired of hearing the "depends on the context" line (even though that's how we usually operate anyways)