Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Discussion on sexism

18910111214»

Comments



  • anewme wrote: »
    Now again here, I will ask that you address further feedback to the Mods, if that's ok with you.

    The post above, indicates that the use of 'them' was not generalised whatsoever and was directed at two posters only.

    Despite numerous times saying that this thread is also about previous thread in the Ladies Lounge and the Ladies Fashion thread, you claim that there is no sexism, but later claim not to have read the threads referred to. So you are disputing something that you havent actually read. Thsts not in the spirit of feedback and I'd ask Mods/Admin to consider this as well.
    Ok find a post where I have said there is no sexism.
    anewme wrote: »
    The thread in the Ladies Lounge said the exact opposite.

    The posters there also said they avoid other areas of the site and people have left because of it, so their views are not taken into account. Their views are on the Ladies Lounge thread. The fact they did not post here as they would be rounded on is part of the feedback. That thread needs to be factored in here as part of the feedback.

    It should be noted that some of the posters giving feedback here have themselves been carded for sexist and misogynistic posts - therefore they will not want any changes.

    Calling for a greater transparency in the interests of all has to be a positive step.


    It should also be noted that you've flung accusations around here like confetti at a wedding and have yet to backup or provide proof of those claims.



    Transparency on Mod actions is an oft demanded never granted thing on this site. The people who volunteer here to keep the place running shouldn't have to defend their actions to us, the general users. Oversight is provided by Cmods and ultimately Admins. A few people on this thread want to lock the mods down into a strict set of rules, when "Don't be a dick" allows much more leeway in the interpretation of someone's posts, and whether or not they are just expressing their point badly, or they are indeed being a dick and as such worthy of sanction. They also want to use these new rules to demand that mods defend their actions. This is not the way forward for the site.

    ON that note, I'm bowing out of this conversation. I've provided my feedback, I'd like to think that the people with responsibility for running the site will take heed of what I, and others have said.




  • I, personally, think the “issue” really comes down to CA vs the rest of boards. I know, I know, the CA users will say, ad nauseam, ‘there’s no sexism on boards!’ or ‘there’s no racism on boards! Show me! Show me where there’s racism! I’ve yet to see this!!’ but that’s just nonsense, utter nonsense.

    They’ll claim the mods deal with anything “untoward” but they’re well aware that the mods are stretched and things will go unnoticed. Talking out both sides of their mouths.

    I really do think that a warning, or outline, of what to expect from the “Current Affairs” forum wouldn’t go astray. Just stating what members can expect to encounter in there and to report if they feel anything has “crossed the line” but, also, to remember that the forum is a dung heap, or fly paper, that serves in keeping the, more normal, areas of the site clear from that sort of content so this may the reporter post may go “unchecked”.

    With this “relaxing” of policing in CA I would expect the moderation to tighten over the rest of the site, particularly in AH. The fact you had CA users squealing, and whining, that the users in the “Ladies Lounge” forum were complaining there was sexism on the site was, quite frankly, bizarre.

    It’s time that the CA users accept that their forum is “overrun” with racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia and I could go on. If we can keep all “that” in there and away from the, normal, parts of the site I think we’d be doing well.

    Any “crack down” on the CA forum would be a disaster. You’d have these users flocking to any, normal, forum so that they can throw out casual digs at trans people, travellers, and, of course, women. It’s really not needed, nor wanted, anywhere else.

    He/him/his

    “When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

    #bekind





  • It should also be noted that you've flung accusations around here like confetti at a wedding and have yet to backup or provide proof of those claims.



    Transparency on Mod actions is an oft demanded never granted thing on this site. The people who volunteer here to keep the place running shouldn't have to defend their actions to us, the general users. Oversight is provided by Cmods and ultimately Admins. A few people on this thread want to lock the mods down into a strict set of rules, when "Don't be a dick" allows much more leeway in the interpretation of someone's posts, and whether or not they are just expressing their point badly, or they are indeed being a dick and as such worthy of sanction. They also want to use these new rules to demand that mods defend their actions. This is not the way forward for the site.

    ON that note, I'm bowing out of this conversation. I've provided my feedback, I'd like to think that the people with responsibility for running the site will take heed of what I, and others have said.

    I've not "flung" any accusations around.

    I've given numerous threads and examples and quotes, both here and in the Ladies Lounge. I've also referenced the Ladies Fashions thread so it is unfair to claim otherwise.

    As respect of being a dick - that is way too open to intrepretation. The below is not in respect of this thread, but in the overall interest of transparency.

    For example, on the Who lives here thread - people are posting people's exact addresses and then saying stuff like their furnishings fell off the back of a truck and all types of other allegations about pie balds etc. Also posts there with people laughing at people's homes after seeing their RIP notices.

    That to me is pure dickish behaviour
    I questioned the back of a truck comment and you said it was ok because it was followed by a smiley face. So clearly my idea of dickish behaviour and yours is very different. Everyone else would also have differing opinions on that.

    So there is a need for a clearer definition.

    It should actually make Mods jobs easier - either there is a problem with a post or there is not.

    Anway, will leave it with the Mods/Admin's/Site Managers as a collective - there is enough for them to review as a group.




  • But please note, you have asked the question, and it will be answered.

    Thanks for that. If there is some background process behind feedback, I am unaware of it, which is probably why you see me popping my head in every few days to check progress and ask what's going on.

    Tokyo wrote: »
    Being brutally honest here for a second....


    Let ME continue to be honest then too. I have no idea who is responsible here in Feedback. Maybe it's transparent to you, but I can't see that from the outside. That's why I am asking. I have zero expectation from you personally. My expectation is that *someone* responds, eventually.

    You are inferring a tone, but I assure you none is intended. I can add smiley faces to soften my comments up, but honestly that's not my style. I speak plainly, always have. There are heaps of other condescending posts too btw, many directed at me, but only mine is picked out as being too cheeky. Do you see any bias?


    I don't speak for the site as a whole
    That's fine, and other moderators have said similar. When I see someone who is tagged as a mod, as an admin etc, I don't know in what capacity they are posting. How am I to actually tell?


    However should you try to browbeat the point again before that time.
    There are close to 400 comments in this thread. It's obviously a topic of interest to a lot of posters, and I appreciate that. However, what is the feedback forum for? I check in , similar frequency as you probably, every couple of days. If I see another 50+ posts, I take a look to see if there's an update. If there isn't, I pipe up with a reminder of why I opened this in the first place. Or, if there is a mod/admin commenting, I'll ask directly if this is the "position" the site is taking on sexism. I think that's fair enough tbh, and what else would you expect of me? I clearly have enough of an interest to raise it in the first place and create the thread.


    I've said I'm here and I will continue to wait. I mean that sincerely. I don't care if it takes another month, 2 months, whatever. I'll be here. Don't take that as pressure, or even a personal expectation from you. It's is what it is. Just as I've written... I will wait. That was afterall, the purpose this feedback thread. I'm sorry you feel that this is browbeating. It's not intended to be.




  • In fairness, I did actually answer this in my earlier reply to you, but for the sake of clarity to you and other confused users, I'm happy to answer it again:

    You can see a list of the forums that a Boards moderator is responsible for under his/her name, where it says "Mod:".

    We have an extensive post in our Newbies & FAQ forum explaining this here at point number 5.

    I hope this answers your question.
    pwurple wrote: »
    That's fine, and other moderators have said similar. When I see someone who is tagged as a mod, as an admin etc, I don't know in what capacity they are posting. How am I to actually tell?


  • Advertisement


  • Shield wrote: »
    In fairness, I did actually answer this in my earlier reply to you, but for the sake of clarity to you and other confused users, I'm happy to answer it again:

    You can see a list of the forums that a Boards moderator is responsible for under his/her name, where it says "Mod:".

    We have an extensive post in our Newbies & FAQ forum explaining this here at point number 5.

    I hope this answers your question.

    Not if they're posting by phone/touch site. It's actually quite difficult for users to determine who is a poster/ mod (and what forums they mod)/ admin etc on touch as neither their posts or profiles give any indication.

    If you can read this, you're too close!





  • Shield wrote: »
    In fairness, I did actually answer this in my earlier reply to you, but for the sake of clarity to you and other confused users, I'm happy to answer it again:

    You can see a list of the forums that a Boards moderator is responsible for under his/her name, where it says "Mod:".

    We have an extensive post in our Newbies & FAQ forum explaining this here at point number 5.

    I hope this answers your question.

    Not exactly.

    Who is responsible for responding to this feedback?

    Being a mod of the helpdesk forum doesn't make you responsible for the standards on the whole site, does it?

    So, Who would that be?




  • pwurple wrote: »
    Who is responsible for responding to this feedback?

    The answer is in Tokyo’ post which you replied to.




  • Deub wrote: »
    The answer is in Tokyo’ post which you replied to.

    I believe the question to be more in respect of the wider site.
    How is the feedback actioned - is there an official process of dealing with it, 4 eyes principal etc.




  • Deub wrote: »
    The answer is in Tokyo’ post which you replied to.

    As I see no further response from Shield or anyone else to contradict this for a few days, I will comment again.

    In your condescending post (see, another invisible one for ya), do you mean this sentence? “ I don't speak for the site as a whole, but as the admin who has engaged with this thread from the get-go, I will be responding to your question as it certainly deserves a response”

    If you did, “I don’t speak for the site as a whole” pretty clearly means they are not responsible for any policy.


    Therefore the question remains unanswered.


  • Advertisement


  • pwurple wrote: »
    As I see no further response from Shield or anyone else to contradict this for a few days, I will comment again.

    In your condescending post (see, another invisible one for ya), do you mean this sentence? “ I don't speak for the site as a whole, but as the admin who has engaged with this thread from the get-go, I will be responding to your question as it certainly deserves a response”

    If you did, “I don’t speak for the site as a whole” pretty clearly means they are not responsible for any policy.


    Therefore the question remains unanswered.

    No it’s been answered




  • Thanks for that.

    For the record only, I updated the relevant Newbies & FAQ thread and asked that this be addressed in Site Development here.

    Shield.
    Delirium wrote: »
    Not if they're posting by phone/touch site. It's actually quite difficult for users to determine who is a poster/ mod (and what forums they mod)/ admin etc on touch as neither their posts or profiles give any indication.




  • Apologies – I did promise a response, and it took me longer to get back to this thread in any meaningful form than I expected. A couple of things I'd like to address first:
    pwurple wrote: »
    I think i've been told to "stop it" here a couple of times now, including by an admin, and even as OP I've contributed fewer words than most.

    No. I asked you to stop with the exaggerated hyperbole, which was quantifiable, and had arisen on more than one occasion in the thread. At no point were you asked to curb your opinion, but excellent case in point where meaning can often be inferred by the reader rather than stated by the poster.

    Secondly, and maybe it’s a poor choice of wording on the posters’ part, but a line of questioning has developed here of posters effectively demanding a detailed report of site operations from date XX to date YY. I am happy to provide insights into how the site works to the best of my ability, but this is not an oversight committee and I will not be interacting with the thread as if it were.






    With respect to the OP’s question:

    First off, I do feel that the thread was predicated somewhat on a loaded question, of “what is the justification for tolerance of this standard of posting towards women?” and presenting people with an 'another fine example...' – an example that turned out, somewhat unfortunately for the OP, to be one of the more well managed mod responses to a thread that had gone off the rails somewhat. The example if anything proved that moderators do take such posts seriously, and action them in accordance with Boards’ ethos towards such bigotry.

    That’s not feedback – it’s a line of questioning that only limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda, and presenting people with the binary choice between "you tolerate sexist comments or you don’t” is disingenuous in that it doesn’t allow for true discussion of the topic without implicitly falling into the camp of “so you tolerate <insert -ism here>” unless you agree wholeheartedly with the OP, and such discussion never ends well for anybody. It also to a degree embodies some of the root causes of the issues the thread wishes to explore, which may become clear later.

    To the broader topic at hand, as to whether Boards is blindly tolerant of sexism, misogyny, racism, etc. I am going to plagiarize myself to a large degree here, as I have posted elsewhere on the site regarding this topic, and much what I said there applies here too. I am also going to preface by post by stating that what I am about to say is not going to make everybody happy, particularly those who are demanding protocols and bright line rules that every moderator should know and apply without question, and that every poster should follow.

    You are more than aware that Boards endeavours to be an inclusive space, and the core rule of “don’t be a dick” very much applies here. And for what it's worth, I don't think anybody here (or in previous threads for that matter) ever claimed that 'everything's fine'. To a large degree, Boards reflects our society. Today we are in an increasingly tribal, unceasingly warring culture. People don’t discuss or debate in good faith, they decry, they demand, they assault. Marginalised groups often get caught in the crossfire. Much of this is played out on the forums, and it makes for hard going.

    And this is where the issue lies – if Boards is a reflection of our society, then the assumption of Boards (or *any* discussion forum) being a “safe space” as a whole is a fallacy – society as it stands is not a safe space where no matter what is said, nobody will be offended, and as such, any discussion forum will mirror that to some degree. There certainly are safe spaces within the site itself where rules are extremely specific, but much of the site is a place where many points of view get discussed, and as such, comes with the same inherent difficulties when it comes to walking the lines between the spectrum of opinions that exist between “acceptable to all”, up to “stupid and/or ignorant” and onwards towards “offensive, regardless of how politely/civilly it’s couched.” The issue then becomes one of where mods draw the line, how bright that line is, and how broad that line is with respect to mod discretion in its interpretation and application.

    The ‘policy’ is, and always has been, “don’t be a dick”, and we do assume (in some cases, perhaps erroneously so) that most of you are reasonable human beings who have something meaningful to bring to a conversation and that you will do so within the rules of each forum area, which are not the same from forum to forum. We still hold out hope that we can discuss damn near anything and everything, that has been our intent from day one here.

    However, for those of you asking for more granular rules and a bulletpoint list of what is forbidden and what is not, it doesn’t exist, and that is intentional.

    Fuzzy rules (embodied by “don’t be a dick”) are a feature, not a bug, and my experience on the site is that bright, well-demarcated lines (and by extension, bright, well-demarcated cards) are most often used by posters to find how close one can come to that line without crossing and will open up a whole new world of rules lawyering. Too many people make a game out of walking the edge of civility or of crossing that line entirely and then arguing technicalities in an effort to justify themselves. I prefer fuzzy lines to encourage posters to not test limits.

    That does not mean that there isn’t much that needs adjusting here, or that forum caretakers – Mods, CMods, Admins, Community Managers – have a laissez faire attitude towards prejudices in all its forms, but it’s not a binary problem with a singular solution where, any more than in society itself, all forms of offense have been stamped out with the passing of a new law and a wave of the hand.

    There are clearly posters here who delight in misogyny/sexism/racism and who will enjoy finding ways around the rules or dancing right up to any lines that are drawn. Then though, there is a whole other layer of posters who are just oblivious to the bigotry that exists here at times, and I’m sure I can include myself in that group on occasion. There is also a layer of posters who through their lack of personal experience with a particular form of bigotry see humour or display insensitivity where others don’t, another layer of posters who through their own personal experience are acutely attuned to the dogwhistles that others don’t hear. And yet another layer of posters who are seemingly triggered by any allusion to any potentially sensitive topic. This thread in itself proves that point, with posters from all genders, walks of life and points of view interpreting the intent behind certain statements in very different ways.

    FWIW, I’m saddened by the existence of true bigots on the site as well, and I have no desire to encounter more of them here than I already do in my daily life. However, if I accept that bigots exist here, I also must accept that posters from all other tiers described above also exist, and acceptance of that leaves us with very little choice but to apply benefit of the doubt and taking the time to sort one from the other unless we really do want to create a virtual gated community.

    If a virtual gated community is not what we want, then it begs the question, what is discussion about? Is its purpose to have our individual injuries validated or measured up against each other? Or to better understand each other bidirectionally and have our own understandings challenged and tested? To reduce our own ignorance?

    If the former then sure, there is no need for civility, and we will end up only in echo chamber rooms of self-affirmation. If the latter then IMHO civility, and benefit of the doubt, matters. Posters with a poor ability to discuss racist and sexist topics does not make us “the place for sexists and racists.” Neither does it make us “racists and sexists.” And simply responding to the shrillest voice in the room and actioning posts on their say so isn’t conducive with that. Fuzzy rules, and mod discretion, and allowing mods to sometimes let a thread play out a little to see the intent behind it, or even make the wrong call sometimes, are the only ways to ensure that.

    Does all of the above mean that everything is fine? Of course not. Society as a whole is not fine and it stands to reason that this is carried into the forums. That’s messed up and we’re all to blame. A set of directives from the office or admin, more bright line rules isn't going to change that. The core rule of 'don't be a dick' still applies, and it's up to us to apply it. We can make things better. It might not be exactly the place you personally envision 100% because we cannot be all things to all people. But we can and should make room for everybody. I'm just not convinced that this thread is an example of how to do it.

    Everyone needs to be less judgmental, less aggressive, less inclined to condemn – in this thread and on the site as a whole. There needs to be genuine social discourse. The entire idea about this place to begin with was that this would be a place where we could talk about damn near everything. More and more it’s a place where we can’t talk about anything.

    As I mentioned in the beginning, many will likely not be content with that answer. Some will see my post as a passive-aggressive attempt to pass the buck instead of taking a long hard look at what isn’t working and why. I don’t see it as such. But I do think (and this is my personal viewpoint, not site policy) that we can be an echo chamber, or we can be a place for sexists and racists to either become less ignorant or slowly fade away. I feel the latter is what we are doing now. It’s certainly a lengthy process with a lot of pushback and shouting down from posters entrenched on either side of the divide, and both 'sides' can have their fair share of angry, intolerant, entitled people. Is the solution immediate? No. Do we always get it right? Most certainly not. Change comes slowly when it comes to entrenched points of view, but that's an issue as old as society itself, not a construct specific to Boards. I do feel that the site is changing and growing in this direction. I'm not saying for a moment that it's okay for anyone to be harassed or abused, or to feel like they have to hide themselves away - it's not. But I do think there's a failure to recognise that progress is always slow, and trying to rush or force that isn't the right way to go about it either.

    What needs to change aren’t the rules, but the culture, and we can’t get there overnight. And we can’t get there unless everyone does their part. Be an active force for better; model the attitudes and behavior you want to see here. I believe good content has the potential to drive out the bad. This change comes from all of us.




  • Tokyo.
    I can only thank you for the careful consideration you have afforded this particularly loaded topic.
    Your response above is I believe a thoughtful, adroit and balanced one that recognises the nuance and uniqueness that needs to be afforded by the context of commentary and discussion.

    A difficult position to be placed in and a response that honestly does a far better job of addressing the issues raised by both sides of this debate than I could ever manage.

    Thanks for the effort.




  • Thanks Tokyo, very fair and balanced response that addresses all the issues raised in a non-emotive, non-judgemental manner.




  • In summary, nothing changes, no attempt to even define what sexism is for mods so they can recognise it when they see it.

    Colour me not surprised that the bigots are rejoicing.

    Good to know.




  • Probably the most comprehensive reply I have seen by a Mod/Admin, taking account of all sides of the debate and the inherent issues.

    Thanks Tokyo.




  • pwurple wrote: »
    In summary, nothing changes, no attempt to even define what sexism is for mods so they can recognise it when they see it.

    Colour me not surprised that the bigots are rejoicing.

    Good to know.
    Well it certainly won’t change when you ragequit your account like that.




  • Tremendous amount of thought and effort went into your post there Tokyo. :)




  • Shield wrote: »
    Well it certainly won’t change when you ragequit your account like that.

    The grown up and adult reaction to not getting one's own way ;)
    Diplomacy and negotiation 101!


  • Advertisement


  • banie01 wrote: »
    The grown up and adult reaction to not getting one's own way ;)
    Diplomacy and negotiation 101!
    It’s exactly everything Tokyo spoke about in his 1,700+ word essay of a reply. One of the most impressive and high-level measured posts I’ve seen on here in quite some time was met with...
    pwurple wrote:
    the bigots are rejoicing

    No wonder he didn’t want to bother his arse.




  • banie01 wrote: »
    The grown up and adult reaction to not getting one's own way ;)
    Diplomacy and negotiation 101!

    Please don't.

    While someone quitting the site due to the response they received is certainly not the desired or expected outcome, commentary on the poster's motivations once they have done so serves no positive purpose either. I don't take any pleasure from the fact that the poster quit rather than debate the content of my post.




  • Tokyo wrote: »
    Please don't.

    While someone quitting the site due to the response they received is certainly not the desired or expected outcome, commentary on the poster's motivations once they have done so serves no positive purpose either. I don't take any pleasure from the fact that the poster quit rather than debate the content of my post.

    That's a fairer comment than mine.
    But my point through this entire discussion has been to engage, to confront the misanthropes or "wrong" thinkers and to highlight why I believed they are wrong and to try and at least broaden perspective if not change minds.

    The poster that left was asked to provide examples of policies and strategies they would like to see put in place, and lied about providing them.
    I'm all for debate, it is the cornerstone of any good forum and should be robustly defended.

    The point I tried to make in my earlier post was that rather than debate, to raise questions, concerns or objections to your post.
    The poster quit and called those not agreeing with their position bigots.
    It really was a childish act and does their position zero benefit.




  • That's a brilliant and comprehensive response, and took some considerable time and deliberation.

    Thank you.




  • Tokyo wrote: »
    Please don't.

    While someone quitting the site due to the response they received is certainly not the desired or expected outcome, commentary on the poster's motivations once they have done so serves no positive purpose either. I don't take any pleasure from the fact that the poster quit rather than debate the content of my post.

    Appreciate this outlook

    But I do think that what was said all along has been neatly proven

    Some posters have been using feedback to demand outcomes, and not processes or debate- only outcomes

    Thats no basis for a shared community to decide its norms and guidelines, even where the blurry lines can (as you've set out with a lot more care and knowledge than anyone in this thread) allow for things you cant defend in themselves, its the price of not running a site by dictat

    There are obviously things that can and should be hard lines, thats easy stuff

    There are things that become harder or softer lines over time based on changing norms (the last ten years of online discourse is as rapid an example of such changes occurring on a widespread basis as you could wish for) but it has to be through a process of the lines being tested, debated, contested and argued for fairly and openly, even when this feels like an imposition on different community members on either side of any given issue




  • Closing this now as OP has closed their account and Tokyo has responded.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement