Consistancy

Personally, I think anyone willing to keep up 6 months of fakery *just* so they can come back in order to start the cycle all over again deserves a commitment medal!

Twigga wrote: Personally, I think anyone willing to keep up 6 months of fakery *just* so they can come back in order to start the cycle all over again deserves a commitment medal!

Then there a few people here already deserving of such a medal..

How about this, as a suggestion (went on a walk to think it over). After the six month ban, any infraction within a year goes perma? I highly doubt someone can keep up an act that long, a year and a half. And if they do... Who knows, it may become habit.

Arisaig wrote:

thomaswfaulkner wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Nakis wrote: I personally would imagine anything beyond that is up for a serious sit down to figure out what to do about the situation.

Yet it states that it resets.

The time it takes to work up to the 6-month ban comes with a lot of space for intervention and reflection. That includes the time to have those challenging conversations, the time you spend developing the action plans, the actual time the person is has been banned, and the times of peace after the ban has been lifted.

Maybe the reset is to provide warning and guidance while they acclimate to the transient Temple culture? I think a few slap on the hands are appropriate as the person readjusts, but if the problems continue to persist after all that provided space, then we seriously need to look at the individual's intent and weigh that against our duty to protect and serve our members and guests.

Perhaps that's the point, but it seems ripe for abusing. Faking until they make it reset, then reverting to the original problem.

I can see that potential for abuse. They would have to be the most dedicated troll in the world to keep that rouge up for all that time...

"Alright six months are up...time to get back to work...[cracks knuckles].":laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I wonder what would motivate a person to want to fake it till they make it just to be hostile again. Maybe look at having an accelerated ladder of disciplinary action for this wolf in sheep clothes? I still think intent is harder to see online, but it does bleed out and manifest in some ways.

I'd always tried to take this following non-emotional approach, but it never really got above point 5 before others also stepped in (as by then it tended to be a bit overt), so anything above that is half imagination and half observation of past trends;

1. contact, ask for clarification (we all make mistakes in wording, and we all make mistakes in reading, sometimes) of content in question
2. ask for clarification of intent to clarified content
3. point out rule violation (quote//link rule) and ask for amendment to offending content and hope they get the message
4. happens again, repeat.
5. happens again, repeat with indication that this is a trend and it could incur more attention from the powers that be.
6. happens again, get a Security Officer or Clergy to have a chat to clarify the rules or the particular nature of interaction which is 'happening', and why it might be happening and how it might best stop (or be allowed).
7. happens again, Clergy hands off to SecOff step 6, and Security Officer assess in greater detail over broader scope of member activity at Temple, and takes it to Council.
8. Council decides on particular action, depends on circumstance... a short term ban, perhaps 1 month, then upon returned if same or similar thing happens again, 3 month, then if again, 6 month, then if again 12 month.

And as mentioned, if the early offense is is bad enough it will skip go and land on step 7 or 8. So that was just my approach as a Mod to give people room to turn the ship, as the bigger ships need a lot of room to slow down and change direction, so I'd make like a tug boat, rub up against it, and nudge nudge nudge
:S :whistle:

thomaswfaulkner wrote: I can see that potential for abuse. They would have to be the most dedicated troll in the world to keep that rouge up for all that time...

Oh....I could think of one or two

Yea, speaking of the guidelines and their consequences...
I, too, would like to know what kind of punishment is deemed just for the crime of not, say, "being sensitive to differences in communication styles" quite enough, or for failing to "listen empathetically" enough, or for "antagonizing other users with sensitive subjects".
While we're at it, what is not a sensitive subject here? What exactly is not against rules like that? Who came up with this authoritarian, nay, borderline totalitarian thought regulation garbage? Aside from the requirement to agree with this in order to continue using the website (how cocky; someone sure assumes users can't move anywhere else), why did anyone approve of this? Was anyone even asked about this until now?

Gisteron wrote: Yea, speaking of the guidelines and their consequences...
I, too, would like to know what kind of punishment is deemed just for the crime of not, say, "being sensitive to differences in communication styles" quite enough, or for failing to "listen empathetically" enough, or for "antagonizing other users with sensitive subjects".
While we're at it, what is not a sensitive subject here? What exactly is not against rules like that? Who came up with this authoritarian, nay, borderline totalitarian thought regulation garbage? Aside from the requirement to agree with this in order to continue using the website (how cocky; someone sure assumes users can't move anywhere else), why did anyone approve of this? Was anyone even asked about this until now?

Gisteron wrote: Yea, speaking of the guidelines and their consequences...
I, too, would like to know what kind of punishment is deemed just for the crime of not, say, "being sensitive to differences in communication styles" quite enough, or for failing to "listen empathetically" enough, or for "antagonizing other users with sensitive subjects".
While we're at it, what is not a sensitive subject here? What exactly is not against rules like that? Who came up with this authoritarian, nay, borderline totalitarian thought regulation garbage? Aside from the requirement to agree with this in order to continue using the website (how cocky; someone sure assumes users can't move anywhere else), why did anyone approve of this? Was anyone even asked about this until now?

Well I didn't write em, but I'd venture a 'sensitive subject' is one which has been stated as such here or elsewhere. Obviously for example if someone has a tragedy then it would be insensitive to make fun of it to them either directly or indirectly. The others are techniques to avoid misunderstandings in communication. If someone claims to be sensitive about everything then its going to be hard to do anything, but there is plenty of sensitive subjects out there in the world which need to be navigated and this particular Temple being a church might get its fair share more then other websites.

Everything you believe can be part of your religion, or perceived to be part of your identity. Anything you say, anything you put up for discussion can be sensitive, and every difference, no matter how subtle, can be perceived as an antagonism. That's why I'm implying that nothing is protected anymore. Noone's feelings are being served by this, because the instant you touch your keyboard, someone's are sure to be hurt. And noone's growth is served either, because the sole way to avoid breaking the rules is non-participation... until a rule mandating activity is put in place, that is, which, at this point, I'm not sure I'd put past whoever came up with this hitherto tame orwellianism and is now asking for us to give it teeth.

I do worry that preventing us from talking about 'sensitive subjects' will seriously stagnate conversations here. Religion, abortion, Black Lives Matter, gender are the most obvious example of subject which people are extremely sensitive about. In the past we've had many, many threads on all these topics. Are we now banned from discussing them, lest another user feel 'antagonised'?

I suspect, or I'd like to think at least, the answer to that would be no. But it's not really very clear, is it?

Brick wrote: I do worry that preventing us from talking about 'sensitive subjects' will seriously stagnate conversations here. Religion, abortion, Black Lives Matter, gender are the most obvious example of subject which people are extremely sensitive about. In the past we've had many, many threads on all these topics. Are we now banned from discussing them, lest another user feel 'antagonised'?

I suspect, or I'd like to think at least, the answer to that would be no. But it's not really very clear, is it?

The sentence in the Terms of Use reads "Do not antagonize another member based on history or another sensitive subject.", which is pretty clear to me, and does not limit the discussion of sensitive subjects, just making it a point not to antagonize sensitive subjects. Though perhaps it should say 'personal history' instead of history, as it reads like history as a subject is a sensitive one