GBCN MMM Code of Conduct

[pizzapizza]

Based on past racist behavior of posters that was largely ignored by the community (myself included - sorry POC), I think it would be worthwhile to write up a code of conduct.  

You could probably make a case that this is unnecessary because duh we should know better but honestly we haven't done anything about those posters that have made racist comments but as others have suggested, we immediately went to ban Celiacmom when her web of lies were untangled.

TamiTaylor , @gravytrain, @mrsbecky -you all were bringing up the fact we haven't done anything about the racist posters that were terrible to @smo and @kirkette

Once enacted, can we then retroactively ban folks?  Do we ban at the board level or site level?

Here is something I grabbed from CNN's comment policy, I am sure someone else can wordsmith it to something more appropriate.


We at GBCN MMM do not tolerate threats, hate speech, material that’s ethnically or racially offensive, bullying, abusive comments and spam, to name a few.  Someone else writeup the rest please.

[Deleted]

That is in the pro boards terms of services.

[cjeanette]

From the TOS-

18. OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT

You represent and warrant that you shall not use the Website or Services to upload, post, transmit, display, perform or distribute any content, information or materials that: (a) are libelous, defamatory, abusive, or threatening, excessively violent, harassing, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or pornographic; (b) constitute child pornography; (c) solicit personal information from or exploit in a sexual or violent manner anyone under the age of 18; (d) incite, encourage or threaten physical harm against another; (e) promote or glorify racial intolerance, use hate and/or racist terms, or signify hate towards any person or group of people; (f) glamorize the use of hard core illegal substances and drugs; (g) violate any provision of this Agreement or any other ProBoards agreement or policy, including without limitation ProBoards' Community Guidelines; or (h) is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by ProBoards (collectively, "Objectionable Content"). PROBOARDS DISCLAIMS ANY PERCEIVED, IMPLIED OR ACTUAL DUTY TO MONITOR THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBSITE AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREON. Without limiting any of its other remedies, ProBoards reserves the right to terminate Your use of the Website and Services or Your uploading, posting, transmission, display, performance or distribution of Objectionable Content. ProBoards, in its sole discretion, may delete any Objectionable Content from its servers. ProBoards intends to cooperate fully with any law enforcement officials or agencies in the investigation of any violation of this Agreement or of any applicable laws.

[pizzapizza]

Aug 16, 2016 15:59:31 GMT -5 cjeanette said:

From the TOS-

18. OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT

You represent and warrant that you shall not use the Website or Services to upload, post, transmit, display, perform or distribute any content, information or materials that: (a) are libelous, defamatory, abusive, or threatening, excessively violent, harassing, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or pornographic; (b) constitute child pornography; (c) solicit personal information from or exploit in a sexual or violent manner anyone under the age of 18; (d) incite, encourage or threaten physical harm against another; (e) promote or glorify racial intolerance, use hate and/or racist terms, or signify hate towards any person or group of people; (f) glamorize the use of hard core illegal substances and drugs; (g) violate any provision of this Agreement or any other ProBoards agreement or policy, including without limitation ProBoards' Community Guidelines; or (h) is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by ProBoards (collectively, "Objectionable Content"). PROBOARDS DISCLAIMS ANY PERCEIVED, IMPLIED OR ACTUAL DUTY TO MONITOR THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBSITE AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREON. Without limiting any of its other remedies, ProBoards reserves the right to terminate Your use of the Website and Services or Your uploading, posting, transmission, display, performance or distribution of Objectionable Content. ProBoards, in its sole discretion, may delete any Objectionable Content from its servers. ProBoards intends to cooperate fully with any law enforcement officials or agencies in the investigation of any violation of this Agreement or of any applicable laws.

so why didn't we ban those folks?

[cjeanette]

Aug 16, 2016 16:05:18 GMT -5 pizzapizza said:

Aug 16, 2016 15:59:31 GMT -5 cjeanette said:

From the TOS-

18. OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT

You represent and warrant that you shall not use the Website or Services to upload, post, transmit, display, perform or distribute any content, information or materials that: (a) are libelous, defamatory, abusive, or threatening, excessively violent, harassing, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or pornographic; (b) constitute child pornography; (c) solicit personal information from or exploit in a sexual or violent manner anyone under the age of 18; (d) incite, encourage or threaten physical harm against another; (e) promote or glorify racial intolerance, use hate and/or racist terms, or signify hate towards any person or group of people; (f) glamorize the use of hard core illegal substances and drugs; (g) violate any provision of this Agreement or any other ProBoards agreement or policy, including without limitation ProBoards' Community Guidelines; or (h) is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by ProBoards (collectively, "Objectionable Content"). PROBOARDS DISCLAIMS ANY PERCEIVED, IMPLIED OR ACTUAL DUTY TO MONITOR THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBSITE AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREON. Without limiting any of its other remedies, ProBoards reserves the right to terminate Your use of the Website and Services or Your uploading, posting, transmission, display, performance or distribution of Objectionable Content. ProBoards, in its sole discretion, may delete any Objectionable Content from its servers. ProBoards intends to cooperate fully with any law enforcement officials or agencies in the investigation of any violation of this Agreement or of any applicable laws.

so why didn't we ban those folks?

That would be a question for EllieArroway or y4m

IRRC most of that happened behind the scenes so I don't know what discussion were or weren't had.

[TamiTaylor]

I think to have a set a of rules is a no go for me. It should just be don't be a piece of shit. I admittedly don't like rules or limitations so yeah. Also, as a teacher I hate we have to make policies/rules based around the bad behavior of the 2% problem when the rest of us can be freaking adults.

Just deal with the 2% that are being jack wagons.

[pizzapizza]

Aug 16, 2016 16:14:47 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

I think have a set a of rules is a no go for me. It ahold just be don't be a piece of shit. I admittedly don't like rules or limitations so yeah. Also, as a teacher I hate we have to make policies/rules based around the bad behavior of the 2% problem when the rest of us can be freaking adults.

Just deal with the 2% that are being jack wagons.

I totally agree with you. And duh on the TOS already stating the obvious.   I feel like we can ask what is done about something but then nobody actually does anything.  Is it too little too late?

[cjeanette]

Aug 16, 2016 16:14:47 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

I think have a set a of rules is a no go for me. It ahold just be don't be a piece of shit. I admittedly don't like rules or limitations so yeah. Also, as a teacher I hate we have to make policies/rules based around the bad behavior of the 2% problem when the rest of us can be freaking adults.

Just deal with the 2% that are being jack wagons.

You can't have it both ways.  You don't want rules but want moderators to determine when someone should be banned.  Which would be a banning for rules that weren't there.  

You can't just say ban jack wagons.  That would be more than 2% of GBCN.

[pixy0stix]

Aug 16, 2016 16:18:25 GMT -5 cjeanette said:

Aug 16, 2016 16:14:47 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

I think have a set a of rules is a no go for me. It ahold just be don't be a piece of shit. I admittedly don't like rules or limitations so yeah. Also, as a teacher I hate we have to make policies/rules based around the bad behavior of the 2% problem when the rest of us can be freaking adults.

Just deal with the 2% that are being jack wagons.

You can't have it both ways.  You don't want rules but want moderators to determine when someone should be banned.  Which would be a banning for rules that weren't there.  

You can't just say ban jack wagons.  That would be more than 2% of GBCN.

Right, because now I'm confused. You wanted them banned (and I'm not disagreeing with you especially with booby), but then you say you don't want rules that the mods can point to and say, "Look, you absolutely broke the rules, you need to go." ::throws up hands::

[y4m]

Let me start by saying I'm on a business trip and my ability to keep up with the rathole this topic opens is going to be extremely limited. That said...

If you think you can make a set of rules so clearcut that a volunteer moderator can understand a situation with a few minutes of research and act in a way that will be widely recognized as the correct action, be my guest. I personally don't believe that is possible. Things like a pattern of gaslighting are not easily understood or interpreted, or seen consistently. Stuff like that is way better dealt with my a community shunning as occurred in this case. If a mod had stepped in early in those threads and like banned Booby, I fully believe that mod would have been (wrongly) castigated. Look at the tone of those threads early versus late.

This ask presumes an impossible standard for our moderators and it's way too much to ask of volunteers.

Just my two cents.

[cjeanette]

Aug 16, 2016 16:30:44 GMT -5 @kirkette said:

Aug 16, 2016 16:11:48 GMT -5 cjeanette said:

That would be a question for EllieArroway or y4m

IRRC most of that happened behind the scenes so I don't know what discussion were or weren't had.

I'll be damned if this eventually spins into another attempt at a blame the mods pile on, in the name of deflecting individual accountability in the face of group think.

So, I'll cut to the chase and say this much. Why weren't those posters banned, why were they allowed to continue? Because you (collective)/ we/ whatever lurking or active screen name fits here let them. It could've been because she was Midwestern/Canadian Nice, or because you were afraid, or because "you didn't know" due to wilful ignorance, or because you care for about cheap laughs, having more Facebook friends, and upping your post to like count than having a spine. Hell you could just be plain simple as fuck. However, that is the underlying why these things happen, and will keep happening.

No code of conduct, pinky swear to do better, or unwritten girl power oath, will change this because one can't change a person's character.

Legislating morality in a group setting is essentially futile. Those who know better, do better.
Those who don't , won't .

I think this is a nice sentence that sums up what I was trying to say.

[TamiTaylor]

I was more so commenting that it was a bit bizarre that celiac was banned immediately once her old transgressions were outed but there are people that have been horrible for years towards people on these boards that have not gotten an ip ban. That is bullshit.


Not trying to be antimod at all. I know it must be hard abd y'all act on the feedback we give.

I guess I'm saying we need to look at ourselves at a community for the fact we cried foul and pushed for CM's banning and should have done the same when it's someone spouting hate speech.

[pixy0stix]

Aug 16, 2016 16:35:37 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

I was more so commenting that it was a bit bizarre that celiac was banned immediately once her old transgressions were outed but there are people that have been horrible for years towards people on these boards that have not gotten an ip ban. That is bullshit.

I don't think it's bizarre at all. She is a legit troll, who it was easy to ascertain who she was and what she had done in the past because she used her real pictures. Troll in this case would include making up a horrible story and trying to receive money for it.

"Being horrible" is subjective.

[TamiTaylor]

Aug 16, 2016 16:40:04 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Aug 16, 2016 16:35:37 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

I was more so commenting that it was a bit bizarre that celiac was banned immediately once her old transgressions were outed but there are people that have been horrible for years towards people on these boards that have not gotten an ip ban. That is bullshit.

I don't think it's bizarre at all. She is a legit troll, who it was easy to ascertain who she was and what she had done in the past because she used her real pictures. Troll in this case would include making up a horrible story and trying to receive money for it.

"Being horrible" is subjective.

I don't think the banning itself is bizarre. It's the pitchforks for her and the sitting on hands for others.

[pizzapizza]

Aug 16, 2016 16:30:44 GMT -5 @kirkette said:

Aug 16, 2016 16:11:48 GMT -5 cjeanette said:

That would be a question for EllieArroway or y4m

IRRC most of that happened behind the scenes so I don't know what discussion were or weren't had.

I'll be damned if this eventually spins into another attempt at a blame the mods pile on, in the name of deflecting individual accountability in the face of group think.

So, I'll cut to the chase and say this much. Why weren't those posters banned, why were they allowed to continue? Because you (collective)/ we/ whatever lurking or active screen name fits here let them. It could've been because she was Midwestern/Canadian Nice, or because you were afraid, or because "you didn't know" due to wilful ignorance, or because you care for about cheap laughs, having more Facebook friends, and upping your post to like count than having a spine. Hell you could just be plain simple as fuck. However, that is the underlying why these things happen, and will keep happening.

No code of conduct, pinky swear to do better, or unwritten girl power oath, will change this because one can't change a person's character.

Legislating morality in a group setting is essentially futile. Those who know better, do better.
Those who don't , won't .

Thanks for writing this and no the mods are not at fault at all. I do know better and will do better.  

[TamiTaylor]

Aug 16, 2016 16:55:24 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Aug 16, 2016 16:43:13 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

I don't think the banning itself is bizarre. It's the pitchforks for her and the sitting on hands for others.

So who should be banned?

if we are going to ban her then I feel like booby should have definitely been IP banned. I just don't like the feeling that we ban someone who was horrible to women (majority white) and don't ban people who our horrible to POC.

I just don't know. I'm done with this thread.

[EllieArroway]

There has been a very clear message over the course of the four? years that we've been here that, as a whole, the community wants moderators to be as hands-off as possible.

We ban obvious trolls and that's about it. Everything else is so subjective and people on both sides of every issue flip their shit any time mods try to make a judgment call.

It doesn't matter what rules you come up with. In the end, no matter what happens, the mods will be wrong. It's best for us just to stay out of the way as much as possible.

[TamiTaylor]

Aug 16, 2016 17:33:06 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Aug 16, 2016 17:04:01 GMT -5 TamiTaylor said:

if we are going to ban her then I feel like booby should have definitely been IP banned. I just don't like the feeling that we ban someone who was horrible to women (majority white) and don't ban people who our horrible to POC.

I just don't know. I'm done with this thread.

I don't know if you'll read this, but I think it's a bit lame to take your ball and go home.

It's hard to call out a lot of people, isn't it?  Booby is easy. Do you want v banned?  LHC?  @gypsy?  Where do you draw the line?  Obviously the TOS don't do shit to stop this, so what will more rules on top of it do?  We need to self-police ourselves, not write up some guidelines and pat ourselves on the back.

Or as you'd prefer, have no guidelines, but just all agree to ban people when some people think others have gone too far.  Can people on MMM decide what ML should do?  What percentage of people need to agree someone has said something bad enough?  As you can see when considering the mechanics of how it would work, it's unworkable, and as @kirkette said, futile.  I don't understand why you seem to be so upset/hurt that others have pointed that out.  

Legislating morality is very problematic; this is not unique to GBCN.  It's a tale as old as time and we won't be the ones to magically solve it.  We just all need to do better.  I know that's not a satisfying "solution" but it's all we've got.

I'm not taking my ball. Honestly I'm just really fucking tired. I got no sleep last night and have had trainings all day. It's not that I want to end the convo it's that my brain doesn't not want to process coherent thought right now. I feel like my point is being lost in the fog.

Honestly I am just more so pointing out our collective hypocrisy in the banning. It doesn't really make a good god damn what I think anyways. I agree with both you and @kirkette about legislativing morality. I get it, trust me I do. It's like herding cats. I just think we need to look at ourselves because it was immediate and easy to call for a ban for CM but the cry for others has been very slow and very soft. That's just my 2 cents.

God I hope that came out coherent.

[EllieArroway]

I think you are making a great point here, even if maybe CM isn't the best case study since faking a child's death is just beyond the pale. But yeah, in general why do we (speaking as a community member, not as a mod) allow some things to go unchecked while denouncing others immediately?

[TamiTaylor]

Aug 16, 2016 17:36:56 GMT -5 @kirkette said:

TamiTaylor, for what it's worth, I do appreciate what you were attempting to do.
I'm just afraid it's going to fall on deaf ears, as people are who they are.
I care not that you decided to drop the issue. Take the space if you need it.

BTW, your niece is really lucky to have you in her life. I think you, Eric, and your son will do a good job being an ally for her, as she eventually has to navigate this shit in the future.

Thank you.

[cjeanette]

Aug 16, 2016 18:02:28 GMT -5 EllieArroway said:

I think you are making a great point here, even if maybe CM isn't the best case study since faking a child's death is just beyond the pale. But yeah, in general why do we (speaking as a community member, not as a mod) allow some things to go unchecked while denouncing others immediately?

There could be a better system for that. Utilizing the mod board to share any PMs or complaints so that all mods are aware of situations and compare notes might allow shitty posters to be brought to light faster.