Posting on this board

[k5jm]

Yeah, you're right, it does!

Glad you agree!

 

[k5jm]

I agree with all of this. Especially the point that ignore is not a be-all end-all solution to everything. The reason being is that people are human. Saying "just ignore it!" and expecting people to do that in every instance is not possible. It also is not reasonable to ask. Yes, we are adults. Therefore we should be able to understand nuance, context, and history. We should be able to put others feelings over our right to be rude. We should be more interested in personal growth than winning. See, being offended, bothered, upset, and hurt means that you have a conscience. It means you can tell the difference between something that is actually wrong and something that is right or neutral. Its not weakness to acknowledge feelings and that those feelings are worth trying to understand and accommodate. That is called being mature.

Being mature also means understanding that your experience of the world is not everyone's experience. So, a statement that might seem harmless to you is extremely hurtful and, yes, triggering to another person. All you have to do in that instance is say "oh I'm sorry. I didn't think about that. Can you explain it to me or, if you don't want to want to get into such a personal subject, send me some resources please?". Then it gets resolved without shouting, drama, or hurting someone who is already hurt. This requires the empathy that allows a person to want to find out about other experiences. It means having humility and confidence in yourself to consider another point of view. You still may not agree, but hey, you didn't hurt someone and you learned something. That's far more important than winning. Adults value learning over scoring, after all.

It also requires the ability to tell a credible source from one that isn't, and have the ability to research within those sources. Sadly, I see many people either don't have that ability or don't care to use it. The just say that anyone who is upset is being over-sensitive and a special snowflake. The "just ignore" policy encourages this belief and behavior, and that's bad for everyone. A more nuanced policy would encourage someone to actually Google, for example, "What is a trigger warning and why is it important". They would find hundreds of articles that actually explain it. It would become clear very quickly that its a real thing, that it is not a choice to just not be sensitive, that ignoring triggering comments is sometimes not physically possible and it has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Yes, there are some people who might take advantage of this and be jerks by trying to police people. But honestly, that doesn't happen nearly as much as people think it does. In just about every case I've seen, the person has a legitimate point. The other person just doesn't want to admit they were wrong and so try to turn it on the victim. And "ignore it" policies reinforce this. The bully has won, and we've hurt an already hurt person more.

And, lastly, saying "ignore it" puts the onus on the hurt person, which is simply not fair, right or logical. It tacitly agrees with the idea that people just choose to be sensitive. The only way someone can choose to ignore someone is if they are choosing to be hurt by them in the first place, after all. If they aren't choosing to be hurt - which is the case - then they can't choose to ignore it all the time, either. Your policy states that personal attacks are not tolerated. I believe you. I also challenge you to research the issues of mental health, trauma, and healing from assaults. It will become extremely clear that articles aimed at tearing down people who need help and are brave enough to ask for it are in fact personal attacks and should not be tolerated.

I also encourage those in charge to look up some of the consequences for boards and even major companies that fail to rein in bullies. Especially Reddit, it's policies, and the real-world effect that ignoring bullies has had on them as a company and on real people. At best, what happens in every case is that the decent people leave the board after a little while. They get tired of being ignored in favor of the 'right to offend' (which is about as stupid as 'men's rights' and just as hurtful to all people). That leaves the board to the bullies and the trolls, and it goes under fairly soon. At worst, the board and its parent company are successfully sued for a lot of money in damages due to cyber-bullying, stalking, harassment or even physical injury or death.

And yes, it is completely possible to make a more nuanced policy based on understanding of the issues at play, critical thinking skills, and basic empathy. Many boards and forums do this. A lot of them have under the FAQ basic explanations of commonly misunderstood issues. They usually list some mental health information, what free speech actually is, links to resources about racism or sexism or whatever, etc. They then require everyone to read it before they can post. Then, when someone says something hurtful, that information is linked again, so the person can re-read. If they then apologize (or not say anything else about it), its dropped. If they keep arguing that's a pretty clear sign they aren't mature enough for the board and are removed. The places that do have "ignore it" policies put it on the mods to do that. If they see trouble brewing they privately email members. They then tell the bully to cut it out, and set up the ignore/blocking feature for their comments. This is sometimes used in place of a ban. The bully can't post at all or have their posts/seen read for a week or so. Then they encourage the victims to block and ignore while the bully is out of the way. They also go back through the bully's posts to see if there is a pattern of such behavior. If they is, they are, again, clearly not mature enough for the boards and are removed completely. If this was a first offense, they are reinstated. Context matters, here. Obviously.

And, no, it doesn't shut down conversation at all. Allowing rampant and unchecked bullying does, though. Also, unless someone came to arrest you, no one is violating your free speech rights by pointing out that you're being a jerk and why that is so. And, free speech has limits anyway. The point is, that despite what eight year old bullies say, words in fact do hurt and can cause real pain for people. People who point this out are not being over-sensitive nor are they asking for special rights. Policies that put the onus on the victim encourage bullying.

This is not really a debate. Alex has outlined a user "best practice." It is your choice to use it. Emotional reactions to posts that one does not agree with that result in violating the posting guidelines only emphasise the use of the ignore feature. Use the "Report" button if you feel that a post is violating the guidelines and let the Mods and Webmasters handle the situation.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

I got a rude comment earlier somebody said 'DUH' to something I was trying to understand. I am autistic and dyslexic. I was upset but I choose to let it 'hang in the air' as my Mum says. I have too many good things come from these boards. Being housebound and wheelchair bound they are a life line to me. I don't want to feel scared to post.

You shouldn't feel scared to post. Our guidelines and staff are to make sure of that.

I agree with all of this. Especially the point that ignore is not a be-all end-all solution to everything. The reason being is that people are human. Saying "just ignore it!" and expecting people to do that in every instance is not possible. It also is not reasonable to ask. Yes, we are adults. Therefore we should be able to understand nuance, context, and history. We should be able to put others feelings over our right to be rude. We should be more interested in personal growth than winning. See, being offended, bothered, upset, and hurt means that you have a conscience. It means you can tell the difference between something that is actually wrong and something that is right or neutral. Its not weakness to acknowledge feelings and that those feelings are worth trying to understand and accommodate. That is called being mature.

Being mature also means understanding that your experience of the world is not everyone's experience. So, a statement that might seem harmless to you is extremely hurtful and, yes, triggering to another person. All you have to do in that instance is say "oh I'm sorry. I didn't think about that. Can you explain it to me or, if you don't want to want to get into such a personal subject, send me some resources please?". Then it gets resolved without shouting, drama, or hurting someone who is already hurt. This requires the empathy that allows a person to want to find out about other experiences. It means having humility and confidence in yourself to consider another point of view. You still may not agree, but hey, you didn't hurt someone and you learned something. That's far more important than winning. Adults value learning over scoring, after all.

It also requires the ability to tell a credible source from one that isn't, and have the ability to research within those sources. Sadly, I see many people either don't have that ability or don't care to use it. The just say that anyone who is upset is being over-sensitive and a special snowflake. The "just ignore" policy encourages this belief and behavior, and that's bad for everyone. A more nuanced policy would encourage someone to actually Google, for example, "What is a trigger warning and why is it important". They would find hundreds of articles that actually explain it. It would become clear very quickly that its a real thing, that it is not a choice to just not be sensitive, that ignoring triggering comments is sometimes not physically possible and it has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Yes, there are some people who might take advantage of this and be jerks by trying to police people. But honestly, that doesn't happen nearly as much as people think it does. In just about every case I've seen, the person has a legitimate point. The other person just doesn't want to admit they were wrong and so try to turn it on the victim. And "ignore it" policies reinforce this. The bully has won, and we've hurt an already hurt person more.

And, lastly, saying "ignore it" puts the onus on the hurt person, which is simply not fair, right or logical. It tacitly agrees with the idea that people just choose to be sensitive. The only way someone can choose to ignore someone is if they are choosing to be hurt by them in the first place, after all. If they aren't choosing to be hurt - which is the case - then they can't choose to ignore it all the time, either. Your policy states that personal attacks are not tolerated. I believe you. I also challenge you to research the issues of mental health, trauma, and healing from assaults. It will become extremely clear that articles aimed at tearing down people who need help and are brave enough to ask for it are in fact personal attacks and should not be tolerated.

I also encourage those in charge to look up some of the consequences for boards and even major companies that fail to rein in bullies. Especially Reddit, it's policies, and the real-world effect that ignoring bullies has had on them as a company and on real people. At best, what happens in every case is that the decent people leave the board after a little while. They get tired of being ignored in favor of the 'right to offend' (which is about as stupid as 'men's rights' and just as hurtful to all people). That leaves the board to the bullies and the trolls, and it goes under fairly soon. At worst, the board and its parent company are successfully sued for a lot of money in damages due to cyber-bullying, stalking, harassment or even physical injury or death.

And yes, it is completely possible to make a more nuanced policy based on understanding of the issues at play, critical thinking skills, and basic empathy. Many boards and forums do this. A lot of them have under the FAQ basic explanations of commonly misunderstood issues. They usually list some mental health information, what free speech actually is, links to resources about racism or sexism or whatever, etc. They then require everyone to read it before they can post. Then, when someone says something hurtful, that information is linked again, so the person can re-read. If they then apologize (or not say anything else about it), its dropped. If they keep arguing that's a pretty clear sign they aren't mature enough for the board and are removed. The places that do have "ignore it" policies put it on the mods to do that. If they see trouble brewing they privately email members. They then tell the bully to cut it out, and set up the ignore/blocking feature for their comments. This is sometimes used in place of a ban. The bully can't post at all or have their posts/seen read for a week or so. Then they encourage the victims to block and ignore while the bully is out of the way. They also go back through the bully's posts to see if there is a pattern of such behavior. If they is, they are, again, clearly not mature enough for the boards and are removed completely. If this was a first offense, they are reinstated. Context matters, here. Obviously.

And, no, it doesn't shut down conversation at all. Allowing rampant and unchecked bullying does, though. Also, unless someone came to arrest you, no one is violating your free speech rights by pointing out that you're being a jerk and why that is so. And, free speech has limits anyway. The point is, that despite what eight year old bullies say, words in fact do hurt and can cause real pain for people. People who point this out are not being over-sensitive nor are they asking for special rights. Policies that put the onus on the victim encourage bullying.

I just want to be clear that there is a difference between saying "ignore" and the "ignore feature." I have not seen you on our forum before and am assuming you thought previous posters said they were told to ignore posts they don't like. In reality, they were being told to use the block feature which is called "ignore" on the message boards' system. It hides posts by a specified user.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I agree with all of this. Especially the point that ignore is not a be-all end-all solution to everything. The reason being is that people are human. Saying "just ignore it!" and expecting people to do that in every instance is not possible. It also is not reasonable to ask.

It's very reasonable. First off it's impossible to really bully someone without breaking the personal attack rules and we enforce those pretty well. Just ignore is really part of real life. If someone is standing on a street corner yelling insults at you, it's not illegal pretty much your only choice is to walk away. You may not approve of our policy but we have had the policy for 15 years and it's served us well. While we have certainly had issues the boards have grown and prospered. It is possible to make a more nuanced policy on a more manageable size board but we get 100o's of new posts per day. We would need a 100 moderators or more to even hope to start understanding all back story stuff. Really the only way we could do it is to start charging as some boards do and that certainly is not going to happen. In your more extreme cases we do contact the authorities on occasion related to posts that we believe are illegal or where someone's life is actually in danger either through harming themselves or threats. We certainly are aware of our legal obligations

 

[Angel Ariel]

Yes, we are adults.

Is everyone on the DIS an adult? It's been a long time since I registered, but I could swear I've seen teenagers on the boards over the years (with their own accounts). I could be remembering wrong, so I'm just asking Of course I'm sure the vast majority of posters here are adults, and I'm not saying it should change expectations at all.

 

[Jobie]

You guys and gals do a wonderful job at moderating these boards, and I imagine there is a lot more that ya'll do behind the scenes that we never see.

I got a post deleted yesterday because I edited a post stating that someone was a troll. I did not expect it to be deleted, but I was told it went against the guidelines of this community. Didn't bother me one bit! If they feel it makes this a better place, the so be it. What was wrong with the post, from what I understand, is that I called someone a name directly that could be taken offensive. Makes sense in hindsight.

I do like how they do allow criticism of the shows to remain in posts, as long as they are not attacking. I think this is good and allows fair conversation to take place.

Anyways, keep up the good work! These types of communities can get way out of hand sometimes, but you guys do a great job at keeping it a place where anyone can come in and join the conversation.

 

[disneyland_is_magic]

I posted some thoughts but then decided it was redundant to what had already been expressed .

 

[rteetz]

Is everyone on the DIS an adult? It's been a long time since I registered, but I could swear I've seen teenagers on the boards over the years (with their own accounts). I could be remembering wrong, so I'm just asking Of course I'm sure the vast majority of posters here are adults, and I'm not saying it should change expectations at all.

I was 15 when I started here. I am an adult now

 

[TiggerManiac]

I think the problem here is too many rules. I do t even have the energy to read all you wrote, it's like a page long. Why can't we just chat without all these rules?

Because, in general, forums without rules quickly devolve into such chaos and ugliness that they're no longer any fun for anyone. At least, that's been my experience in being a board and/or chat admin for the past 20+ years. (Admin on other sites, not here at the DIS.)

The rules aren't really there for the people who treat each other nicely. Rules exist to give the admins tools for handling problems when they occur.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Look at the diversity of opinions on this thread from complete control to complete anarchy! It's the Webmasters place to try to steer the boards down the correct path in that vast middle ground and trust me, it's not always easy.
Pretty obviously we aren't ever going to make everyone happy but we believe by sticking to our core principles we can keep these boards pretty successful

 

[disneysteve]

You may not approve of our policy but we have had the policy for 15 years and it's served us well.

I've intentionally been staying out of this conversation but just wanted to step in for a moment.

There is an excellent cover report in TIME magazine this week (8/29 issue). The cover headline is, "Why we're losing the internet to the culture of hate." The feature article is called, "Tyranny of the Mob: Trolls are turning the web into a cesspool of aggression and violence. What watching them is doing to the rest of us may be even more harmful." I would encourage everyone to read it.

I understand and agree completely that the policies that have been in place for 15 years have served this site well. But maybe even though the policies have remained the same, society has changed to a point where those policies are no longer sufficient to control a growing problem - trolls. It is most definitely possible to wreak havoc at a site like this without blatantly violating any of the existing rules, as we have recently seen over and over. That suggests to me that it is time to update those rules to address changes in people's online behavior.

Fifteen years ago, this site was mainly populated by folks like me who were not digital natives, meaning we didn't grow up with this technology. So when we started to find our way onto the internet, our behavior there mirrored our behavior in real life interactions. We wrote in full sentences. We used proper grammar. We treated others with the same respect that we would in person. We wouldn't type anything online that we wouldn't say to someone's face. Sadly, that's not the world we live in today. The internet has evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view). Today, people use the anonymity of the internet to spread hate that they'd never do in person. Insulting someone's life work is just a few clicks of the keyboard. Seeing a photo and saying the person is fat or ugly or a bad dresser is all too easy even though if you were standing in front of that person, you wouldn't think to say that out loud.

There is a problem here, and it is not unique to this site by any means, as the TIME article explains. I just hope that the powers that be do something to address this problem before it destroys what has always been a happy place for me and many others for a long time - almost 14 years in my case.

 

[rteetz]

I've intentionally been staying out of this conversation but just wanted to step in for a moment.

There is an excellent cover report in TIME magazine this week (8/29 issue). The cover headline is, "Why we're losing the internet to the culture of hate." The feature article is called, "Tyranny of the Mob: Trolls are turning the web into a cesspool of aggression and violence. What watching them is doing to the rest of us may be even more harmful." I would encourage everyone to read it.

I understand and agree completely that the policies that have been in place for 15 years have served this site well. But maybe even though the policies have remained the same, society has changed to a point where those policies are no longer sufficient to control a growing problem - trolls. It is most definitely possible to wreak havoc at a site like this without blatantly violating any of the existing rules, as we have recently seen over and over. That suggests to me that it is time to update those rules to address changes in people's online behavior.

Fifteen years ago, this site was mainly populated by folks like me who were not digital natives, meaning we didn't grow up with this technology. So when we started to find our way onto the internet, our behavior there mirrored our behavior in real life interactions. We wrote in full sentences. We used proper grammar. We treated others with the same respect that we would in person. We wouldn't type anything online that we wouldn't say to someone's face. Sadly, that's not the world we live in today. The internet has evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view). Today, people use the anonymity of the internet to spread hate that they'd never do in person. Insulting someone's life work is just a few clicks of the keyboard. Seeing a photo and saying the person is fat or ugly or a bad dresser is all too easy even though if you were standing in front of that person, you wouldn't think to say that out loud.

There is a problem here, and it is not unique to this site by any means, as the TIME article explains. I just hope that the powers that be do something to address this problem before it destroys what has always been a happy place for me and many others for a long time - almost 14 years in my case.

Interesting I'll have to look at that article.

 

[wilkeliza]

I think what is going on this board as a whole is a tiny bit different then what other boards had gone through or social media like Twitter. The mods do not allow personal attacks or threats of violence. However, someone having a different opinion is not a threat of violence or personal attack. They can say Pete spends too much and they hate someone's voice on the DL podcast and that is their right under the board posting guidelines. We can all respectfully disagree with them and say so with out attacking the poster and I think that is what the mods are trying to say. 15 posts about feeding trolls is just as negative to the community as the initial negative post so it is best of you really think someone is just trolling to ignore them and let the moderators handle it if that person ever steps over a line. If we all ignored it they would eventually go away.

Nothing on this board has ever made me feel like the moderators don't care or with in their power of only controlling this domain and not all others on the internet that tollerate bullying and abuse. I fully believe the moderators do the best the can to make sure the Dis is a relatively safe place to come and discuss things.

 

[disneysteve]

Just to be clear, my post wasn't meant to criticize the moderators or administrators, several of whom I know personally and consider friends. My point was to suggest that it might be time to see if those rules need to be modified to address issues that didn't really exist when they were written.

 

[SorcererHeidi]

Just to be clear, my post wasn't meant to criticize the moderators or administrators, several of whom I know personally and consider friends. My point was to suggest that it might be time to see if those rules need to be modified to address issues that didn't really exist when they were written.

TOTALLY agree with the last sentence, but didn't know how to phrase it. Thank you, Steve!

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I've intentionally been staying out of this conversation but just wanted to step in for a moment.

There is an excellent cover report in TIME magazine this week (8/29 issue). The cover headline is, "Why we're losing the internet to the culture of hate." The feature article is called, "Tyranny of the Mob: Trolls are turning the web into a cesspool of aggression and violence. What watching them is doing to the rest of us may be even more harmful." I would encourage everyone to read it.

I understand and agree completely that the policies that have been in place for 15 years have served this site well. But maybe even though the policies have remained the same, society has changed to a point where those policies are no longer sufficient to control a growing problem - trolls. It is most definitely possible to wreak havoc at a site like this without blatantly violating any of the existing rules, as we have recently seen over and over. That suggests to me that it is time to update those rules to address changes in people's online behavior.

Fifteen years ago, this site was mainly populated by folks like me who were not digital natives, meaning we didn't grow up with this technology. So when we started to find our way onto the internet, our behavior there mirrored our behavior in real life interactions. We wrote in full sentences. We used proper grammar. We treated others with the same respect that we would in person. We wouldn't type anything online that we wouldn't say to someone's face. Sadly, that's not the world we live in today. The internet has evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view). Today, people use the anonymity of the internet to spread hate that they'd never do in person. Insulting someone's life work is just a few clicks of the keyboard. Seeing a photo and saying the person is fat or ugly or a bad dresser is all too easy even though if you were standing in front of that person, you wouldn't think to say that out loud.

There is a problem here, and it is not unique to this site by any means, as the TIME article explains. I just hope that the powers that be do something to address this problem before it destroys what has always been a happy place for me and many others for a long time - almost 14 years in my case.

It's interesting that you posted this Steve, I had read an article earlier today that I also thought was germane to this discussion but I was debating whether or not to throw it up here. Your article made me decide that maybe I should
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/u...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
The University of Chicago sent this to all freshman students
“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” John Ellison, dean of students, wrote to members of the class of 2020, who will arrive next month.
As to the Time article I believe our present policies do a fairly good job of controlling overt trolls hate speech etc. If that no longer is the case we would certainly adjust our policies as needed, it's just nothing has happened that makes us believe we are there yet.

 

[Atilley]

I have an opinion on the "trolls" issue. Unfortunately that opinion is they really can't be controlled. Disneysteve is correct that they are capable of causing problems while still following the rules. Some say can't you just kick them out. Yes you can ban a person but if they are truly just there to stir the pot they will just create a new account and keep right at it. At least this was my experience on another board I used to frequent.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I have an opinion on the "trolls" issue. Unfortunately that opinion is they really can't be controlled. Disneysteve is correct that they are capable of causing problems while still following the rules. Some say can't you just kick them out. Yes you can ban a person but if they are truly just there to stir the pot they will just create a new account and keep right at it. At least this was my experience on another board I used to frequent.

It is difficult but I do believe it's possible. What it takes is all of us working together. I think people have a bad impression of the "ignore" feature because it feels like running away. When you stop and think about it though what it really does is make you your own moderator. You have empowered yourself to control what you choose to see and who you interact with. As Nicki pointed out earlier this is far different than just asking you to ignore someone. We will take care of the people that are obvious trolls etc. up to and including (and we have done this) shutting down the boards if we need to in order to clean them up. We will protect people including involving the authorities if needed. When it comes to posters that are just unwelcome or argumentative etc we need you to moderate for us. Don't feed the trolls

 

[Atilley]

It is difficult but I do believe it's possible. What it takes is all of us working together...Don't feed the trolls

I don't respond to those threads for this very reason. I don't use the ignore feature but I do try to ignore it myself. Although I will admit sometimes not responding to it is hard.

I think you all have done a great job. I just wanted to express that it's not as easy as one might think to get rid of the trouble makers.

 

[cobright]

If I might put this out, it's an old philosophy on the purpose and method of argument.

Socrates' entire practical philosophy arose in his attempts to demonstrate the evils of sophistry. Sophism was an approach to discussion favored by lawyers and politicians in which the goal was to "win" the argument.

Socrates decided that the goal of any argument was not to convince anyone that you are right or that someone else was wrong; the purpose of argument is to arrive at the truth. As the Greeks were inclined to do, Socrates spent a long time writing out a complicated code and method for rhetorical logic but the basics are this.

• One party puts forward an argument, and supports it with 2 or more premises
  • Chickens lay eggs. Because chickens are birds and all birds lay eggs, it is true that chickens lay eggs.
  • This can not be a snake, because it just delivered a live baby and snakes are reptiles and reptiles lay eggs.
• A responding party can support the argument with additional premises, or challenge the argument by demonstrating that the supporting premises are erroneous.
  • Ah. But some snakes, like vipers and garter snakes are known to deliver live babies. Therefore, being a snake does not prevent this thing from having a live births, therefore it could be a snake.

All parties contain their comments to that which directly pertains to the arguments being discussed and that which are provable.

Opinions do not get us towards the truth. That doesn't mean they are without value, but when they interfere with understanding then it all falls down to drama.