Civility on the forum

This is an issue I see come up from time to time that always bothers me. It's when people start using insults in their posts.

The Danbooru forum is not a general forum. You don't talk about movies you seen or current events or funny things that happened to you. This forum is specifically about the site and how to best organize and improve it.

Given such a restricted topic, I see no reason why anyone should call another person an idiot, a faggot, a retard, or whatever. If you start resorting to insults, then I believe it's a sign that you need to step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath.

I've previously taken a lazy stance on this, but given that I've never seen an insult-laden post that I consider to be good, I've decided to change my mind. Therefore, I want to propose a new rule for the forum:

If you insult another person on the forum, you are subject to a ban. This rule applies to everyone, including janitors, mods, and admins. Even unintentional insults will not be tolerated. I don't care if the other person really is an idiot and is acting incredibly obtuse. Don't say he's stupid. Please use arguments and counterarguments. There is no need for any sort of personal attack.

I will be the sole judge of whether an insulting post is ban-worthy. Bans will probably last 3-7 days. If you believe someone is breaking this rule, send me a message.

This is what I'm proposing.

Will repeat offenders of abusing the forum, abusing other users and so on be banned much longer than 3 to 7 days?

Understood and much appreciated.

Personal attacks have no purpose in discussion, and I definitely can get behind a movement to stop it, but I'd like to clarify a couple things first.

While I really don't foresee it being much of an issue, will being firm and to the point when dealing with obviously bad ideas be an issue? (ex. A simple response of "No" to an idea that is counter-policy/ToS, things that shouldn't have to be explained.) Having your DMail flooded with people that mistake idea rejection as a personal attack doesn't sound exceptionally fun.

The point on unintentional insults is a tricky issue as well, as being offended is subjective. We very recently had an issue where someone believed they were being discriminated against because of their gender and that the method of handling it was offensive. I know you'll be making the final call on things but an unintentional insult can come from the smallest of things.

Bans, especially in the case of unintentional insults, will definitely have to have very clear reasons or people will be left wondering what exactly was the offense. I'd also like to see some discussion on perhaps starting with a negative record for these instances.

Again, some civility in forums is always a plus, I'm just hoping to get a better understanding of what exactly will be ok and what's crossing the line.

Suiseiseki said: I'm just hoping to get a better understanding of what exactly will be ok and what's crossing the line.

I think this can be covered by:

• You don't have to be "nice", but you're not allowed to be a down-right jerk.
• Being civil doesn't mean you have the right to never be offended.
• Use common sense and be reasonable.

Suiseiseki said:
will being firm and to the point when dealing with obviously bad ideas be an issue? (ex. A simple response of "No" to an idea that is counter-policy/ToS, things that shouldn't have to be explained.) Having your DMail flooded with people that mistake idea rejection as a personal attack doesn't sound exceptionally fun.

Extending "No" to "No, that violates the ToS" or "No, that contradicts policy set in forum #12345" is still civil, and would eliminate that problem. Being clear is also important.

As far as unintentional insults go, I'm assuming common sense applies, since Albert will be taking moderation on himself as a 3rd party.

In any case +1 to this idea, I usually try to be civil myself, and think our policy discussions are smoother and more well-reasoned when people don't resort to ad hominem attacks.

Probably a very good idea.

For unintentional, I don't think it should be a ban. Maybe a warning, at most, so that the user knows to watch what they say in the future and if they continue to act in a manner, while not directly insulting, will cause issues, then take more serious issue.

I support the idea of making civility the policy, but I think a few things need to be clarified first:

• What constitutes an insult? Is strong language not directed at anyone personally also considered an insult? I'd suggest "no" here, unless the use was clearly over the top and uncalled for. As you yourself point out, this is basically a technical forum, and such venues tend to be a bit more blunt than usual due to the sheer routine of most tasks.
• I don't like the idea of outright ban. A warning should suffice, and in fact we have applied warnings in the past to keep heated discussions in check, which seemed to work fine. It's also more in line with the idea of being civil, and people have an easier time following policies if they see them being applied by their keepers too.
• I'm extremely sceptical about punishing even for unintentional insults. That's being excessively and unnecessarily harsh, which is what the whole policy purports to fight. It's dangerously close from there to becoming another SomethingAwful.
• And lastly, before we go banning people for anything new, I want http://trac.donmai.us/ticket/1257 fixed. I'm very serious here, it's a critical flaw in the system. It's completely unacceptable that it's gone on for so long without being addressed.

How does strong language make a point any more constructive? Bluntness does not need coarseness to be effective.

No, but what I'm saying is that it's hard to stay perfectly courteous every time when something has been hashed out a hundred times and then somebody discovers it hudred and first time and demands you type out a personalised reply again. It might not be ideal, but the reality is that people tire of doing the same thing all the time, and the routine has various effects on their behaviour. So as long as people aren't clearly unnecessarily and personally rude, I'd advise caution in lumping insults together with occasional use of stronger language, or you will end up effectively punishing the people who spend the most time on the site for that fact. Civility is good, but like most good ideas, you can't enforce it mechanically. See various "zero tolerance" disasters in US schools for examples of what happens if you do.

When you can't keep your cool anymore, simply don't say anything and let other people handle the answer.

葉月 said:
No, but what I'm saying is that it's hard to stay perfectly courteous every time when something has been hashed out a hundred times and then somebody discovers it hudred and first time and demands you type out a personalised reply again. It might not be ideal, but the reality is that people tire of doing the same thing all the time, and the routine has various effects on their behaviour. So as long as people aren't clearly unnecessarily and personally rude, I'd advise caution in lumping insults together with occasional use of stronger language, or you will end up effectively punishing the people who spend the most time on the site for that fact. Civility is good, but like most good ideas, you can't enforce it mechanically. See various "zero tolerance" disasters in US schools for examples of what happens if you do.

So? It is part of the job description to deal with the same issues and people not being in their best moments. I don't see it being professional or productive to use stronger language, especially since the rules include "unintentionally insulting" You calling someone full of shit, or something similar, may not be insulting to you so you don't use it as such, but that may not be the universal standard.

Zero Tolerance is a separate issue and doesn't work, even in cases where it doesn't work, its not the norm. Zero Tolerance for guns is a good policy, for example, and a lot of criminal justice system is enforced mechanically. Regardless of if that is right, and there are many exceptions, that is the standard in play right now.

Anelaid said:
So? It is part of the job description to deal with the same issues and people not being in their best moments. I don't see it being professional or productive to use stronger language, especially since the rules include "unintentionally insulting" You calling someone full of shit

That's not what strong language is. That's a plain insult. But people are proposing treating just unadorned "no" the same way, which is ridiculous. You can't magically cause civility by beating the shit out of people (this is an example of slightly stronger language), and you're deluded if you think otherwise. It's like bombing for peace, that's simply not how it works.

If you want civility and politeness, then the best way to go about it is to remind people *politely* about it when you see them blowing their top. We've used it before and it works. Banning people immediately (as opposed to banning for repeated offences) is basically "do what I say, not what I do". Besides, a ban is the harshest punishment we have; if we start giving a week's ban for trivial offences, even unintended ones, then what's left for actual misbehaviour? Hard labour and beatings?

葉月 said:
That's not what strong language is. That's a plain insult. But people are proposing treating just unadorned "no" the same way, which is ridiculous. You can't magically cause civility by beating the shit out of people (this is an example of slightly stronger language), and you're deluded if you think otherwise. It's like bombing for peace, that's simply not how it works.

If you want civility and politeness, then the best way to go about it is to remind people *politely* about it when you see them blowing their top. We've used it before and it works. Banning people immediately (as opposed to banning for repeated offences) is basically "do what I say, not what I do". Besides, a ban is the harshest punishment we have; if we start giving a week's ban for trivial offences, even unintended ones, then what's left for actual misbehaviour? Hard labour and beatings?

I disagree with a ban, and I've stated as much. I'm disagreeing, as well, with strong language being necessary for the forum to operate.

I'm sufficiently below the moderation staff for my view on what the proper punishment to be relevant but I don't think a ban is in order, but I don't think this is being mechanically done since Albert retains the sole right to determine the proper response.

I'm not defending the notion of banning but the actions of certain members of the staff definitely make me wary of bringing up issues because I've had civility, on their part, break down and ultimately the answer was that since I was outranked and if I didn't like it, I could leave. I don't like that response but doing a 180 and banning for it? I don't know if that is the correct response either. Disproportionate punishment sometimes work but its difficult to pull off effectively and I don't imagine it being tolerated here.

In actual use, strong language tends to veer towards condescension and insulting, while not as direct as the example I gave, it still creates the same level of tension. But I think there needs to be a distinction between the use of swearing and its use within strong language, and further its use in being directly insulting.

But this is being sold as a proposition so I don't think its likely to remain at the level it is now.

Anelaid said:
I disagree with a ban, and I've stated as much. I'm disagreeing, as well, with strong language being necessary for the forum to operate.

I don't know if it's necessary, but I know it happens. And I object to treating it the same way as a directed insult, which is why I've said so and asked for a clarification.

hidetheunforgiven said:
Will repeat offenders of abusing the forum, abusing other users and so on be banned much longer than 3 to 7 days?

This rule won't be retroactive. If you say something dumb, you get banned 7 days. If you do it again, you get banned another 7 days.

So no, I see no need to ramp up the ban length.

Suiseiseki said:
Personal attacks have no purpose in discussion, and I definitely can get behind a movement to stop it, but I'd like to clarify a couple things first.

While I really don't foresee it being much of an issue, will being firm and to the point when dealing with obviously bad ideas be an issue? (ex. A simple response of "No" to an idea that is counter-policy/ToS, things that shouldn't have to be explained.) Having your DMail flooded with people that mistake idea rejection as a personal attack doesn't sound exceptionally fun.

The point on unintentional insults is a tricky issue as well, as being offended is subjective. We very recently had an issue where someone believed they were being discriminated against because of their gender and that the method of handling it was offensive. I know you'll be making the final call on things but an unintentional insult can come from the smallest of things.

Bans, especially in the case of unintentional insults, will definitely have to have very clear reasons or people will be left wondering what exactly was the offense. I'd also like to see some discussion on perhaps starting with a negative record for these instances.

Again, some civility in forums is always a plus, I'm just hoping to get a better understanding of what exactly will be ok and what's crossing the line.

There's no easy answer to your questions, which are all legitimate. Basically I'm leaning towards borderline cases getting a warning, which should incite you to be unreasonably polite in your responses.

And even if you do get banned, I don't consider it a crippling disability. Your old level is restored when a ban expires, and seven days isn't long.

Basically, what I want to stop is person A calling person B an idiot. If you're getting into an argument and you believe the other person is being unreasonably obstinate, then stop responding and let me know. I confess I don't read the forum as often as I should, but I read every private message I get within 24 hours (because I get them as emails anyway).

葉月 said:
I support the idea of making civility the policy, but I think a few things need to be clarified first:

• What constitutes an insult? Is strong language not directed at anyone personally also considered an insult? I'd suggest "no" here, unless the use was clearly over the top and uncalled for. As you yourself point out, this is basically a technical forum, and such venues tend to be a bit more blunt than usual due to the sheer routine of most tasks.

I think a good way to clear this up is examples.

1) Goofus posts a long diatribe about the underrepresented feces_on_face tag. Gallant responds: "Sorry, but almost any post that features feces is against the rules." This is perfectly fine.

2) Goofus posts a thread saying Gallant is an idiot. Gallant responds: "This forum is about Danbooru. Please do not use it to post personal attacks." He then notifies a mod, who then locks the thread.

3) Goofus posts a thread complaining about Bob who has been posting a lot of feces_on_face posts. Gallant responds: "I agree that a lot of these posts break the rules."

4) Goofus posts a thread complaining about the ambiguous definition of the Questionable rating. Gallant responds politely, Goofus responds, Gallant responds again, Goofus responds again, and at this point Gallant is starting to get frustrated that Goofus is not getting the picture. My experience with prolonged internet discussions that go back and forth like this is that Gallant is not going to convince Goofus. When you find yourself repeating arguments, it's time to stop and ask for mod or admin intervention.

I am not asking for hypersensitivity. I think the fact that I've been so lenient for so long about complaints of verbal abuse is proof that in the majority of cases, I will tell people to grow a thicker skin. But I draw the line at ad hominem attacks. When you start questioning the other person's intelligence, you're really not saying anything of substance at all. That sort of dialogue doesn't belong on this site.

• I don't like the idea of outright ban. A warning should suffice, and in fact we have applied warnings in the past to keep heated discussions in check, which seemed to work fine. It's also more in line with the idea of being civil, and people have an easier time following policies if they see them being applied by their keepers too.

Bans on Danbooru are lightweight. You can still use the site, but you can no longer contribute. It forces the person to think about what they've done.

• I'm extremely sceptical about punishing even for unintentional insults. That's being excessively and unnecessarily harsh, which is what the whole policy purports to fight. It's dangerously close from there to becoming another SomethingAwful.

I look at sites that have strict policies about insults, and I almost universally prefer them for discussion. Even with sites like 4chan, the good discussions have no insults. When people start saying K-On is for man children, or that Madoka is pretentious shit, that's when the conversation degrades.

Maybe you want a community where bros can be bros and people can say whatever the hell they want. I will tell you that Danbooru is not that sort of community. What binds us is love of art, not any sort of shared social mores.

• And lastly, before we go banning people for anything new, I want http://trac.donmai.us/ticket/1257 fixed. I'm very serious here, it's a critical flaw in the system. It's completely unacceptable that it's gone on for so long without being addressed.

I've deployed a fix that limits banned users to 3 message a day, which I think is an acceptable compromise.

Look, we have a strict policy about spoilers. At first I thought banning 3 weeks for a spoiler was outrageous.

But it really isn't. A ban doesn't prevent you from leeching. It doesn't even stop you (IIRC) from adding new favorites. Your old level is restored when a ban expires. So really all it does is stop you from uploading/posting comments/posting on the forum.

I care just as much about civility as I do about spoilers. So I think a ban of seven days is a modest and acceptable punishment.

I think it's a go. Looks good.