Guys, I've made some changes to the RateItAll Site Rules.
For the most part, we are loosening the rules a bit. We have gotten rid of things like "no personal attacks" (replaced with "no threats, menacing behavior, or harassment") - "no personal attacks" was often very difficult to moderate and there was rarely a clear bright line between a disagreement and a personal attack. For example, did it really make sense to consider "you're acting like an idiot" to be allowed and "you are an idiot" to be a personal attack?
We've also changed our wording on what sort of profanity is off limits from "excessive" to "extreme." Basically, any mainstream curse word should be ok as long as its not hate speech or really, really gnarly (our call). There's still an annoying filter on the comments section which disables all comments with certain curse words. This is going away soon.
We've clarified my feelings about hate speech in terms of who is protected by site rules - my view is that if you choose to be something (a San Franciscan, a liberal, an agnostic, etc.) you are not protected from getting hated on (e.g. "San Franciscans are liberal wusses!!" is fine). But if you don't choose to be something (a race, a heterosexual, an old person), we should do our best to keep people from hating on you (e.g. "Whites are a dirty stinking race who enjoy keeping everybody down" is off limits, as is "young people should be drowned in a well!"). And if you want to use our publishing tools to say, talk about racial stereotypes, there are probably better places to do that than RateItAll (read: I don't want that crap on my site).
Which brings me to my final point. I've been doing a lousy job at site moderation recently. I've grown way to comfortable with the site regulars, and have been lazy in differentiating between who I am as a reviewer, and who I am as an enforcer of site rules.
As such, we have some new policies in place. Unless someone is speaking to you from this account - RIAAdministrator - you should consider them a fellow reviewer, and not an admin.
Nobody will be moderating the site from a personal account any more - not me, not Automatt, and not Jose. It's too confusing, and sends mixed messages about what is a disagreement between reviewers, and what is a violation of site policy.
To hammer this point home, I will no longer answer messages from my Magellan account regarding site policy. If you want an answer from me in an official capacity, you will need to email me (lawrence at rateitall.com) or message us through the RIAAdministrator account.
Note that I say "us." There will be multiple people operating behind this account. We will do our best to be consistent, and I will decide all internal RateItAll disagreements.
Sorry for my recent moderation sloppiness of late - it's been busy.
Posts
"So when you say,"talk about racial stereotypes, there are probably better places to do that than RateItAll (read: I don't want that crap on my site)" Basically what you're saying is... do what I say...and not what I do?
ReplyDeleteIsn't the whole point of the list "Stuff White People Like" to discuss racial stereotypes? That isn't even a member's weblist, it's an official RIA list. Or does the rule revision mean that you'll be removing that list soon?
ReplyDeleteTwansalem, I appreciate you posting your real name in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI understand the confusion about the "what white people like" list. The content is borrowed from a popular blog (and I believe, best selling book) that, believe it or not, is not about racial stereotypes (check out the list and tell me how many of those things strike you as racial stereotypes, or strike you as hateful). It's about making fun of liberal urban hipsters.
The rule revision is about what I call "race hate" speech. When I see a list called "what black people like" that includes thinks like "crack" and "killing each other" I see intent that is very much different than the white people list which includes things like "michel gondry" and "the north face."
And I don't really care that the list maker has now toned down his list - its original intent can not be toned down.
The titles are similar, the lists are not. And more importantly, in my judgment, the intents of the authors are very different.
I understand that if you look only at the titles, it looks like a double standard. But if you look at the actual content (and in my opinion, the intent), there's no comparison.
Got a little chuckle from the last part of this post. If I got this right, reviewer magellan will no longer be jumping on as Lawrence, RIAAdministrator, but will remain backstage, moderating the moderators, AutoMatt and JosĪ, if necessary. I'm not familiar with JosĪ as a reviewer, so I will have to use AutoMatt as an example: If AutoMatt is on-line as a reviewer and he sees a need to intervene, he will log off and log back on as RIAAdministrator. Here's the image that this conjured: Barney Fife hears a commotion and steps outside to find two kids fighting over a bicycle. As he approaches the scene, he realizes that he isn't wearing his Deputy hat, puts his hands to his head, just to confirm, turns and runs back into Andy's office and comes back out...with his hat on. Now, with his officialness complete, he can make his point....the same point he could have made without the hat. I just thought this image was funny. But, it is also unimportant to me, except for a couple of things. The lesser of the two is that the blurry line between reviewer/admin still seems blurry, especially because an employee/reviewer still has the ability to see, for instance, how other reviewers are voting. It will be the same person channeling his voice from a different account with, perhaps, a little extra bass in his voice. This seems schizophrenic. I'm scratching my head, here. Like I said, this seems less important, than silly. Here's what is important: the drama that seems to have spawned this "change" was based on what I felt (and still feel) was extreme prejudice on the part of the moderator and RIA. This goes to the core issue of how shifting hats and modifying definitions will balance a moderator's position on extremely subjective topics and somehow block out personal feelings towards any particular reviewer. That ain't gonna happen unless Matt, for instance, says, "Magellan (or Lawrence)...I need to log on as RIAAdministrator. Could you please hit me up with some of that brain gravy?" Like I said, it all comes off as Keystone Cop-ish.
ReplyDeleteBTW...I agree with Twansalem...especially in light of the fact that WiseGuy has removed the two items of controversy, which is what Matt should have asked him to consider, in the first place and which would have avoided some of the nastieness that all of this led to. (BTW, did anyone bother to ask WiseGuy where he got that material from?" Would it matter if it was from Black people trying to make fun of Black people?). Richard Pryor kills me...
Of coarse the rule revision is about what 1 person thinks. Not one reviewer who posted mentioned anything about my list being bigoted, and all the entries were light hearted and (non offending), including mine. I’m comfortable knowing that I had most of the support here, and that they too saw through your one sided lame ass crapola.
ReplyDeleteRidge, that's not entirely inaccurate. It IS a little keystone coppish. To some extent, in some cases it will be a matter of logging in and logging out, but with one primary change. Neither Automatt nor I will be first line moderators any more. It will be Jose and one other person. They are detached, apolitical, and refreshingly clueless about all of the RIA gossip and conspiracy theories. In a sense, both Automatt and I have been demoted. Should Jose and company run into trouble, I will be the dispute resolver.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably know, over the years I've tried some different things. For a long time I was in the closet, so to speak. Nobody knew that Magellan was an admin. Then I was outed (by one PBeavr, at the time a moderator). Overall, I think being outed was a good thing, because things became more transparent.
Then, I tried to keep strict separation between me the reviewer, and me the admin. Then, i got comfortable with some of the regulars, and started getting sloppy about differentiating. This resulted in the perception (fair or not) that I was moderating based on my preferences as a reviewer. So I am now removing myself from the front line.
Unfortunately, there is no way to completely avoid bias here. If you and Wiseguy continue to see yourselves as victims of some massive liberal conspiracy by some wacky San Francisco based website, there isn't anything I can do about it.
All I can do is to try and remove myself from the front line, and provide some separation between reviewers and moderators, and do my best to make the moderation process more impersonal and consistent.
As always, I am open to suggestions. What am I missing?
The only option not on the table is to have me not participate as a reviewer any more. I love the site too much, and I love the community too much. I also wouldn't want employees from RIA to be forbidden from posting. To build good social software, you need to participate.
Wiseguy, your list sucked and you admitted you staged it just to drive a reaction. Stop being so dramatic.
ReplyDeleteI could point out a thousand more that are worse. Motives shouldn't matter, had Matt and me been buddies, we wouldn't be getting all dramatic now would we?
ReplyDeleteGhee..."...massive liberal conspiracy by some wacky San Francisco based website"...talk dramatics. I never made any such implication. Nor did I see myself, or Guy as victims. I, once again, tried to address an issue (censorship) and you, once again, try to make me the issue. Keep the tennis balls. I'll donate all of the fruit and vegetables to the food bank. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what makes you so dramatic or why you feel so victimized all the time. Here's what I think what happened - you saw an offensive sounding list (what white people like), got pissed off at the stinking liberal double standard, and set out to make your own offensive list about black people. You had great success. What you didn't notice was that the White People list didn't have a single offensive, racial type item in it - other than the title. My guess is that this is why Automatt gave you a pass and didn't delete your list (just relegated it to your profile page). The fact that you have cleaned up your list now and took off the really spiteful stuff doesn't matter so much to me. I feel like this ship has sailed. I don't want my site to be about rating racial stereotypes - it brings out the wingnuts and scary people out of the corners of the web - we've all seen them. And again, if anybody can point me to a single racial stereotype on the "white people" list I'd love to see it.
ReplyDeleteRidge, this isn't about you thinking that conservatives are treated unfairly on this site?
ReplyDeleteLawrence, what I think you fail to acknowledge...and many reviewers have made this point...is that although the first list has no offensive items on it (I agree with this)...by its mere nature, it is divisive. It singles-out a single race. It is about one race and eliminates other races, reinforcing, by its mere existence, the differences...real or implied..humorous or otherwise, that I would hope we would be moving away from in the 21st Century. This is and has always been my point.
ReplyDeleteThat long rant to Ridge was pretty dramatic, I almost teared up, but I digress. You just don't get it, thanks to you, and others like you, the only victims once again are the Black people. I'm fine letting the list set on my page.
ReplyDeleteRidge, I'll give you that. I've heard it described as a "soft racism" or something from some folks who I don't think have a horse in this race. That list doesn't make me feel that way - maybe because I've never really felt (or at least, acknowledged) racism as a white guy, or maybe because in my industry, that's a super mainstream blog. But I do accept that the title is uncomfortable for some folks. Let me think a little bit about that one, OK?
ReplyDeleteI did know about the "Stuff White People Like" blog, and have read it before the corresponding list existed on RIA. It is funny, and I would agree that it is not offensive (although that might be because I'm not a liberal urban hipster). I also wasn't trying to defend the "Stuff Black People Like" list either, as I hadn't even seen that list when I posted (although I had heard of it).
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the liberal urban hipster is a stereotype of white people, and that while I find this list harmless, and rather entertaining, I do think it is discussing racial stereotypes.
I just want to point out that a perfectly good list RIA list (not even a user weblist) could be construed as violating site rules. Maybe I'm just overanalyzing things, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Wiseguy, you're not going to believe me, but I actually hear you on that point. I see special treatment as a form of disrespect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I guess I'm just not quite to the point where I'm going to completely open things up. If we are going to go into the really edgy areas, there are a few things I'd like to see first - 1) more diversity of reviewers so different viewpoints are represented; 2) real names associated with accounts. It's pretty easy to be hateful and ignorant behind a pseudonym, but if your real name is out there, folks tend to be a bit more measured.
The site has loosened up quite a bit over the years, and I'm hopeful we can get to the point that there are no taboo subjects.
To address your last question...no. I did say that I felt that WiseGuy was singled-out (by Matt) by differences and frictions that may have arisen between Matt and Guy...particularly during the campaign. These frictions were based on Matt's left-leaning POV versus Guys right-leaning POV. This is not about "conspiracies". It was about Matt having a extra button to push and this is where the blur gets blurry. It could have been about any extreme differences. Dismissing that personal feelings were not involved here would be cavalier.
ReplyDeleteYes...I saw an offensive list, and I explained the motives behind my list. Guess were even...
ReplyDeleteI dunno Ridge... I guess it's possible, but I promise you if that list had come in from a random, it would have been purged, no questions asked. The user probably would have been banned as well. I try and keep the total wingnuts off the site on the front end (I'm not saying Wiseguy is a wingut, it's been established (and I believe) that he was trying to make an extreme point.)
ReplyDeleteGuy...and Lawrence...this is a really important thing to consider. My judgement of what Guy did is not clouded by friction. I completely believe his motives. I can't say the same about you, Lawrence, or of Matt. This is not a bitch-slap. It's human nature. People on the Right couldn't conjure one good thing to say about Hillary, for instance, although there is probably SOMETHING we could find. Ditto about the Left and Bush. There is no way in the world that I can be led to believe that the differences that arose during the campaign here on RIA had nothing to do with Matt's action, or Lawrence's firm and immediate support of it. It's not conspiratorial...it's partiality based on friction that clouded the site's judgement. I wonder if Matt considered this when he pushed the button.
ReplyDelete"...(and I believe) that he (Guy)was trying to make an extreme point.) Yes he was, but did you ever consider (A.) that he was rebelling against the "opposing" list, or (B.) that as Guy stated, he had taken his material from sources written by Black people that were making fun of Black people? Offering his sources might have leant some weight...but probably not (see my previous entry).
ReplyDeleteThats the point I've been trying to make, all this talk about drama and victim's is a distraction. Can Matt come on here and say his action had nothing to do with his dis-like of me. I think that is a fair question.
ReplyDeleteI did mention where I got the material, and yes Ridge, it was from black sources, not that it matters.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fair question. I would not have let content like that stay up on the public areas of the site from any author.
ReplyDeleteSince the list was from Wiseguy, a long time contributor, I chose to hide the list instead of just deleting it forever. So there's your bias.
Believe it or not, I actually like seeing people with different views and perspectives use the site.
Ridge, it was an emotional and divisive campaign season. I think it's a fair point that those divisions are not going to go away over night.
ReplyDeleteAnd just to second Matt's point - I think it's cool that RIA counts among its members a pretty broad political spectrum. Frustrating sometimes, but cool. And increasingly unusual on the Web - a community's usually one side or the other.
BTW, I just trained the "first line of defense" on each of the site rules and general moderation procedure. Please be gentle.
Who did they vote for?
ReplyDelete:o
ha. I don't know (though one is from Spain and not allowed to vote).
ReplyDeleteOkay Matt, I take you at your word.
ReplyDeleteI have to run, but I just wanted to make a couple of points. First, when Guy was satisfied that some items on his list had offended some people, he deleted them. I think that was a sign of repect for others and should be acknowledged, which I am doing right now. Guy is a class act, even if he can't spell "course" correctly. :o (I'm dead)
ReplyDeleteSecondly, is the site's decision to remove, or distance emotionally involved parties from moderating. In spite of the probability that they will be answering to the site's owner for a final say on issues, it should be noted that these kind of dramas are kinda rare here, and distancing emotional parties may (I'll go as far as "may") help to avoid this kind of thing. No one is without prejudice or bias to something. We all know what The Great Zen Master always says...
I swear I meant to hit u. I make more mistakes when I'm at work, as my left hand always has my thumb on Alt, and my index finger on tab.
ReplyDeleteNo threats please.
ReplyDelete(just kidding, I know you weren't trying to hit Ridge, and I'm no longer a mod anyway)
Keep up the good work Magellan!
ReplyDeleteAnd as Forrest once said..."Thats all I have to say about that."
How about NO RULES (except for serious threats)?
ReplyDeleteMy idea of a free country is a place where nobody feels they have to stifle themselves in order to protect the itty bitty feelings of others, and nobody has to worry about being physically attacked for his or her beliefs.
Stereotypical (insert racial or ethnic group name here) people ARE funny. - Fitman
that sounds pretty good Fit. i don't think we're quite there yet though.
ReplyDelete