PDA

View Full Version : Zone 3: The Rat Cage


Pendaric
08-30-2008, 09:13 AM
ZONE 3: The Zone 3 forum is a special case at TR! It is visible only on application to an admin, who will then put you in the user group that can see the forum. Similarly, application to an admin can remove you from that user group at any time. The only moderation that will take place in Zone 3 concerns posts that put TR! at legal risk, and those that contain malware (viruses, Trojans, etc.) and links to malware. Otherwise, don't bother complaining to staff, we won't care. No posts will be moved into or out of Zone 3. No arguments from Zone 3 will be permitted to spill over into other fora - if you get into an argument with Bob in Zone 3 and insult him because of it in Sciences, staff will not care that you were provoked. If you can't handle it, don't remain the user group.

I want to flag this again because I remain deeply unimpressed by this idea.

My specific objection, which I raised previously but which went pretty much ignored, is this:

What happens when someone who has signed up for the area uses it to spew diatribe about people who haven't signed up?

If poster X doesn't want to get involved in flame wars, but poster Y doesn't like poster X, should we be providing a venue for poster Y to rail at poster X when poster X does not want to be involved in that venue?

You are saying no moderation and no consequences - to me that should only be when the people being attacked have also signed up for that zone. If people are abused who haven't signed up for that zone then that post should be subject to all the normal sanctions.

I'm not happy with, but can just about live with, 2 people who are both going at each other hammer and tongs being allowed to do so without moderation if they both consent to it. I'm utterly opposed to someone being given a free pass to say all the shit they want about someone who hasn't agreed to being in this zone, just because they've moved to a protected area.

Plenty of people on here will not want to be part of this area, nor will they start dishing abuse out. They shouldn't have to think that there is any part of TR which is sanctioned as an area where they can be abused without recourse.

I reproduce our vision statement below. Frankly, I don't really see how this forum fits in to the vision at all, and I would vote against it generally, but I am specifically appalled at the prospect of us officially sanctioning an area where our vision is entirely disregarded and people are free to flame members who do not wish to be involved in this.

This entire concept is forgetting what we are about and opposite to what was envisaged when we first started. This is supposed to be a place which encourages rational, considered discourse, not a place which provides a venue for bullies and abusers to operate unchecked.

If we get an influx of KKK apologists or paedophile apologists are we going to provide them with a separate playpen as well? We do not have to accommodate anyone who does not wish to participate in TR as it was envisaged and as the large majority of members wish it to remain, as any poll taken on the issue shows. This smacks of giving in to a few with loud voices just because they can shout hard.

Tell me how any of this proposal fits in with the concept outlined below, because I am not seeing it at all.

Who are the TalkRats?

This forum was created to serve a community, so it is important to share the defining vision of that community. The community that the founders of this forum envisioned is inclusive of all respectful and thoughtful voices, thriving on a culture that is secular, freethinking, tolerant, outreaching, self-organizing, harmless, inviting, charming, intelligent, progressive, caring, interesting, and fun.

Rational discussion is valued. Respect and dignity are valued, as is the discipline of keeping conversations on track, addressing the subject at hand.

However, it is to be recognized that sometimes discussions can become somewhat robust, and that sometimes a witty or informative aside may be interjected into a discussion, without detracting from a discussion as a whole.

The role of the staff in keeping discussions within reasonable bounds and on-track is discussed below.

People from the non secular community should be made welcome to participate, but they should expect religious and other supernatural views to be subject to close scrutiny.

Statement of Purpose

TR is founded with the mission of service to a growing community of TalkRats. The purpose of TR is to provide a forum where members of the community may have rational discussions on a wide range of topics, without the over interference of abuse and insults, proselytizing, trolling, goading, and other self-serving tactics that do not serve the community as a whole.

Octavia
08-31-2008, 04:22 AM
How do other people feel about this? Is Z3 something you want to see here?

TransverseWave
08-31-2008, 04:26 AM
As long as I don't have to see it, I'm not sure it matters to me. I don't know enough to say that it would have any particular effect on the rest of the board.

umop apisdn w,I
09-02-2008, 07:35 AM
ZONE 3: The Zone 3 forum is a special case at TR! It is visible only on application to an admin, who will then put you in the user group that can see the forum. Similarly, application to an admin can remove you from that user group at any time. The only moderation that will take place in Zone 3 concerns posts that put TR! at legal risk, and those that contain malware (viruses, Trojans, etc.) and links to malware. Otherwise, don't bother complaining to staff, we won't care. No posts will be moved into or out of Zone 3. No arguments from Zone 3 will be permitted to spill over into other fora - if you get into an argument with Bob in Zone 3 and insult him because of it in Sciences, staff will not care that you were provoked. If you can't handle it, don't remain the user group.

I want to flag this again because I remain deeply unimpressed by this idea.

My specific objection, which I raised previously but which went pretty much ignored, is this:

What happens when someone who has signed up for the area uses it to spew diatribe about people who haven't signed up?

If poster X doesn't want to get involved in flame wars, but poster Y doesn't like poster X, should we be providing a venue for poster Y to rail at poster X when poster X does not want to be involved in that venue?

You are saying no moderation and no consequences - to me that should only be when the people being attacked have also signed up for that zone. If people are abused who haven't signed up for that zone then that post should be subject to all the normal sanctions.

I'm not happy with, but can just about live with, 2 people who are both going at each other hammer and tongs being allowed to do so without moderation if they both consent to it. I'm utterly opposed to someone being given a free pass to say all the shit they want about someone who hasn't agreed to being in this zone, just because they've moved to a protected area.

The way I see it is like the way I see a private staff forum.

If people want to call me a tosser, they'll do it anyway. They'll do it in chat, or do it on RnR, or do it via email, or do it when getting together in secret cabals.

So I'm not worried about the fact that they can also do it somewhere on this board that I won't even see unless I actively make the effort to ask to be allowed in.

They won't be doing it in the middle of discussions that I'm having - thereby derailing and disrupting those discussions - so why should I care where they are doing it?

Pendaric
09-02-2008, 08:36 AM
You may not care, but some people will.

That's not the main point, anyway. The main point is that we are giving official sanction to something which runs entirely contrary to the spirit of the board. TR was set up to give a reprieve from no holds barred, not to provide a venue for it.

Bright Life
09-07-2008, 07:00 PM
Wouldn't the pedos fall under a legal problem? Wouldn't the KKK (hate speech)?

leccy
09-07-2008, 07:13 PM
How do other people feel about this? Is Z3 something you want to see here?

Not at all.

The points Pendaric makes are spot on.

The AntiChris
09-07-2008, 07:27 PM
How do other people feel about this? Is Z3 something you want to see here?

Not at all.

The points Pendaric makes are spot on.Agreed.

Chris

Goldie
09-07-2008, 07:33 PM
I wondered about this, as well, Pendaric.

I suppose if someone is in there talking trash about you, you can always go in and tell them, and anyone else reading it, that they ARE talking trash, but you are not going to engage in a childish flame war with them.

I would HOPE that if someone IS talking trash about someone that the person being attacked would have to at least be alerted to the fact.
I'm certainly not going to hang out at a place like that just to be sure that no one is disrespecting me.
It would seem to me that the two would have to AGREE to "fight."

I feel childish just writing this. Now I feel dirty.

ravenscape
09-07-2008, 07:39 PM
I noticed this post (http://rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?p=423463#post423463) in a report thread at RnR last night. Retardo Dungeon and a Zone 3 forum at TR are not exactly analogous, but it's quite possible a Zone 3 forum would eventually have a similar effect on the TR forum overall. Social mores don't respect forum boundaries very well.

JamesBannon
09-07-2008, 08:41 PM
I've changed my mind several times on this question. I don't see a necessity for a Rat Cage at this particular moment in time.

ninewands
09-08-2008, 06:09 PM
I am somewhat of three minds on this question. I agree with Pendaric that I really don't like the idea of having a free-fire zone at TR. I think it goes in exactly the direction the forum name says we do not favor.

However, I also agree with Dean that if someone wants to call me all kinds of ridiculous things and make totally unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable allegations against me it really doesn't matter to me if they do it in an area that I have to make a conscious effort even to get into that area. They could go post the same things on a discussion board to which I don't belong and achieve exactly the same results. Furthermore, if they did such a ting in another discussion board I might not be "protected" by having the other forum unsearchable.

I also want to add that providing such a zone sort of stomps all over the claim that we want to "limit: (or "censor" if you prefer) anyone's "right" to engage in legal, non-spamming free speech (which "right" doesn't really exist under the US constitution anyway, since TR is a private, rather than public, forum)

My third thought on the matter is that anyone who would use the Rat's Cage for such a purpose is going to be making MUCH stronger statements about him/herself, to the other Rat's Cage users at least, than about me. I fail to see the motivation for adopting such a childish tactic as a member of a community that claims to favor rational discourse.

To make a long-ish story short, I really don't know HOW I feel about this issue.

Goldie
09-08-2008, 06:17 PM
I think it's a BAD idea.
I have belonged to other boards with such places and they were horrible...really. Why do we need a place like this? If a person has a gripe with someone, they can certainly keep it on a level 2... level. If not, they can take it "outside" via PM.

What real purpose would it serve?

TransverseWave
09-08-2008, 07:39 PM
Thinking about it ... I don't like the general tone on other forums that have such an arrangement. We might be better off without it.

umop apisdn w,I
09-08-2008, 08:54 PM
The main point is that we are giving official sanction to something which runs entirely contrary to the spirit of the board. TR was set up to give a reprieve from no holds barred, not to provide a venue for it.

The problem is that there are two conflicting principles within the "spirit of the board".

1) We do not have civility rules.

2) We aim to give people a reprieve from "no holds barred" posting.

So far we have tried to uphold both of those at the same time, but trying to protect people from flame wars and abuse so that they can carry on a discussion uninterrupted basically means we have de facto civility rules, since it is the "uncivil" comments that cause such disruption.

So the Zone 3 forum is basically a way to allow both.

By having the "anything (legal) goes" zone, we manage to fulfil the "no civility rules" principle - and because the area is designed as "anything goes" there is no need to ever consider things to be "disruptive" there because there is nothing to disrupt. People posting there are doing so in the full knowledge that anything goes.

And by having that as an opt-in area (people have to ask to be given permission to see it, but such permission will never be refused), people who would get upset by that sort of thing can easily ignore it and not get upset by it.

This means that we can be more strict about what is considered disruptive on the rest of the site without worrying that we are enforcing civility on people as a condition of membership - because if they want to abuse each other then they can do; just not where it will disrupt the conversation for those who don't want to have to read it...

leccy
09-08-2008, 11:45 PM
Yet, as Pendaric points out, you simultaneously create a forum where there is a very real chance that abuse will be heaped on the heads of posters who have chosen not to participate in that forum, because it would not be deemed acceptable elsewhere in the forums.

Been there, seen that, over a period of six months and it isn't pretty. The website concerned eventually imploded, IMO that was not least due to the associated fallout and is now closed.

stumpjumper
09-10-2008, 04:09 PM
I don't see why such a forum would be necessary or beneficial here.

If, indeed, the main purpose of TR is to provide a general forum where people can discuss rationally without the interference of abuse and insults, then how does creating a hidden forum where people can do so support that primary purpose?

There's plenty of unmoderated forums out there so why create a hidden one here that is not inline with the primary purpose of the forum?

Gagundathar Inexplicable
09-10-2008, 04:29 PM
I was going to come on here and post a long rambling screed against everyone who disagreed with me about anything, and call you all nasty names and make fun of your mothers. But, then I read everyone's civil and thoughtful posts and decided I was a poopyhead for thinking about being mean.

Seriously, I think the big old Interwebz is plenty large enough and filled with plenty of uncivil places that anyone who wants to go off on a character assassination spree can find a place to do so. I'd rather that place be elsewhere.

James T
10-04-2008, 08:52 PM
ravenscape's "Social mores don't respect forum boundaries very well." swung my opinion from if I can't see it what's the problem to thinking it could be a little poisonous as a whole.

From giving it a try I find the whole negativity thing on a board a bit toxic.

Jobar
10-05-2008, 03:21 AM
The right to free speech sometimes butts heads with the right to be free from personal abuse in your own home, and in public spaces. Zone 3 is our attempt to allow for both sorts of freedom. As Dean said in post #15.

If you're being abused and don't know it, the abuser is just raising his or her own blood pressure, not yours. I know for sure I've been abused unfairly in places I have no access; I suspect most of us have, at one time or another. I feel this sort of thing is incredibly childish, like writing insults on bathroom walls.

However, unlike a bathroom wall, the Rat Cage is not completely anonymous. If any member uses it to post childish insults about someone not even reading them, it most probably does the insulter more harm than it does to the one insulted, because uninvolved observers will be able to see how childishly they're behaving. Which, I think, is a good thing to know about people. Even if they aren't called on it within the Rat Cage (and they may be), that sort of jerkish behavior won't usually be forgotten.

I admit that down the road we may decide to change or close Zone 3; some think it will just gather dust and cobwebs, after perhaps an initial burst of flame wars just for the lulz. But that sort of thing tends to pall, for normally polite people anyway. However, I still think it's worth having, even if for nothing but an experiment in maximizing free speech.

Pavlov's Dog
10-05-2008, 08:37 AM
I don't think it would get much use. Most people here (that you guys consider the problem) just post what they feel, whenever they feel it. They don't give a fuck about zones.