Ship of Fools: Alleging racism on these boards

Thread: Alleging racism on these boards Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028473

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

I don't understand something and would appreciate learning.

The hosts here relentlessly remove anything more than brief quotes to avoid repercussions from copyright law violations. It is summarily dealt with promptly and without exception.

Does the Ship's administration risk anything significant legally when they allow libelous unproven allegations of racism (of which there are several recently) stand uncommented on?

TIA

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Please provide links to the relevant posts.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I don't have the time to read everything posted on the Ship, so I could have easily missed something. But, the only recent example I can think of was an OP asking if a well known American politician is racist. Which was immediately closed by a host. Though as it's still there with the name in the title it should be deleted.

As Ruth said, examples would enable us to discuss your question in an intelligent manner.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

As a recently retired Host I might be able to help regarding the swift action taken regarding potential breaches of copyright.

Unlike just about everything else, we have a hard and fast rule for this, which is the "No more than four lines" principle. It is thus easy to administer and enforce.

On the subject of other legal issues, they aren't subject to hard and fast rules, so the Hosts usually have to refer them to the Administrators.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Please provide links to the relevant posts.

Not enough time at the moment but will do later.

They occurred in the Evaluating Barack and Cheechus threads.

Although all this might be moot as mousethief later admitted lying.

Thanks again.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Here's a link from the Evaluating Barack Obama thread.

Since there are a couple of Host posts by me there, I hope you can see two things.

1. Pigwidgeon was called out for calling moron a racist. Against a Shipmate that is a Commandment 3 offence. And Pigwidgeon apologised.

2. romanlion was referred to Admin for a racist remark. It's up to Admin to rule on whether there is a pattern of racist remarks which offend against Commandment 1 - don't be a jerk. It doesn't matter what the origin of the remark was (actually Barack Obama), romanlion made it as though it came from him.

I think both of these are just normal Host practice in Purgatory.

romanlion might have got a different reaction if he'd posted the remark as a direct quote. Then it would have come under the third Hosting oversight consideration - Commandment 7. As moron observes, we have to act promptly if there is any suggestion that we may be uttering or repeating a libel against identified living persons. Relating back to Alan Cresswell's post, that is why that other thread got locked.

Shipmates are anonymous unless they choose not to be. As a general rule, therefore, we don't consider insults against Shipmates to be libellous unless there is real life identification as well. You can criticise posts as vigorously as you like in Purgatory, and certainly identify particular quotes as racist if that is what you see, but you can't attach a derogatory label to the Shipmate. It's simply a variation on "that post (remark) is stupid" (allowable), "you are stupid" (not allowed).

So far as the regime in Hell is concerned, I'm sure a Hellhost or Admin will be along. My perspective is that the only difference is that you can insult Shipmates as much as you like, but you have to remember that Commandments 1 and 7 still apply.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Although all this might be moot as mousethief later admitted lying.

Speaking of libel.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Seriously, I don't appreciate being called a liar and would like an apology.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'll leave that exchange to the Styx Hosts; meanwhile a correction to my post above. Pigwidgeon called romanlion a racist (not moron). Apologies for that error. The rest of the argument stands.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm sure an Admin will be along in a minute to formally tell you both that Styx is not the place to discuss which shipmate said what about whom. Hell will be happy to host a thread where you can knock seven bells out of each other to your hearts' content.

As far as the regime in Hell goes: AFAIUI (given I'm the n00b Hell Host), you can call each other whatever the hell you like, as long as you're not making accusations of actual criminal wrongdoing. So calling someone a racist fuck is fine, calling someone a paedophile isn't. (Unless and only unless you know for absolute certain that the person concerned has been convicted of a paedophilia-linked crime - and even then if that involves 'outing' the RL identity of a poster, you don't do it. So basically no, you can't.)

Doing this to those who are not shipmates and are not involved in the immediate argument you are having at that moment is also not on, unless that person has been convicted of racist-linked crime, is widely known to be racist and accepts being a racist, or is dead. Calling Himmler a racist is fine. Calling the leader of a far right political party a racist is probably going to be fine too, but H&As reserve the right to be twitchy regarding potential libel actions.

Calling other shipmates racist outside of Hell is not on. Arguments can be racist. Arguments can sound racist. If you want to call a shipmate racist, you do that in Hell, or not at all.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sure an Admin will be along in a minute to formally tell you both that Styx is not the place to discuss which shipmate said what about whom.

I am doing no such thing, other than to point out a comment made, right here in Styx, in this thread, that I quoted, which is calling me a liar.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Back on the main purpose of the thread, I thought it would be worth clarifying a non-call which gave rise to moron's "Cheechus" Hell call. These posts come from the Evaluating Barack Obama thread

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.

The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.

(Of course, if you can do it perhaps you should. )

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Just a quick comment to keep this lame thread going.

The guy personifies 'the insolence of office'.
I think the word you're looking for is "uppity".

Crœsos' post is a comment on moron's post and in particular the phrase in quotes 'the insolence of office'.

The word "uppity" originally was just another was of saying "arrogant" or "insolent", normally associated with acting with an authority or a status one did not have. In the UK it also has classist overtones and in the US it has racist tones.

Note moron's use of the disappointed smiley. He is clearly implying that Obama is arrogant in the way he acts as President. Even if the word can hardly be applied in the same way to folks who have presidential power.

Crœsos, quite cleverly, gets a sarcastic dig in by playing on the spread of meanings around 'uppity'. It was undoubtedly a snark (sarcasm is allowed) and indeed it was racially pointed, but I took it to be a comment on the condescension of the post (allowable comment), rather than a direct accusation that moron was or is a racist.

It was, for example, pretty far removed from Pigwidgeon's post to romanlion.

Finally, here is Croesos' comment in Hell

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wow. Go away for a few days and come back to this tempest in a teapot. Frankly I'm a bit surprised it took nearly three weeks to respond to a one line post, but here we are.

So yes, I was calling out a moron on his less-than-courageous race-baiting.

That is still commentary on the post as I see it. He gets decidedly Hellish later in that post, but his Purgatory post still gets a pass from me.

YMMV. That's how I saw it.

[ 20. December 2014, 14:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I'd agree if the commentary in question was limited to "uppity."

For me, it's the phrase "I think the word you're looking for" [italics mine], directed at moron specifically (as I read it) which crosses the line from commentary to accusation. But from my PoV, still close to the line.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'll come clean here, as regards Hell, as nobody else has picked up on this and this is undoubtedly one of the posts moron is objecting to. I don't recall being called out by a Host on this, but if this is beyond the pale then I will refrain from making this kind of comment in future. Here's the whole relevant part (as near as I can tell) of my post (potentially most offensive part in italics) :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I struggle a bit to understand how anyone could fail to see that post in its context as anything other than a snide insinuation of racism against moron.
Was the post in Hell? Because, I mean, moron *IS* a racist, or at least says myriad racist things and defends them to the hilt (but see my next comment), and I've never heard him condemn racism or admit that he may have said something racist and apologize. So snide insinuations aren't even needed. If this was outside Hell, then it might have been more appropriately dealt with by a PM to a host.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
It may be different outside the US, but within these borders, claiming “I’m not a racist” (no “but” intended or implied here) is pretty much a knee-jerk response to any intimation by anyone that one is in fact a racist.
I'd say that part of the problem is that people hear "that's a racist thing to say" and think they have heard "you are a racist thug who probably wears a white sheet and burns crosses in your spare evenings." Since they know they don't belong to the KKK, and they know racism is wrong, they reject the idea "that was a racist thing to say." As a result, NOTHING is a racist thing to say, and SHAZAAM! we're a post-racist society.

(eta link)

[ 20. December 2014, 15:08: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Italics above meant to include "looking for." Sorry; not enough tea.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

OK, I got it Porridge. A fair point BTW; probably swings the snark closer to the line but not over.

Comments on a pattern perceived in posts (rather than a specific post) move into the grey area between "you said" and "you are". And as mousethief observed in a completely different thread, human beings are pattern seekers. All of our posts build up the perceptions of others, often without us realising it.

Such notions make Hosting a challenging exercise in marginal cases. I'm happy to concede this is one of those.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Mousethief,

As far as I'm concerned (and I'll take further advice from the more seasoned Hosts and Admins), you are perfectly within your rights, in a Hell thread, to accuse another shipmate of being racist on the basis of a post elsewhere on the Ship.

This in the context of the Hell guidelines and the 10Cs, and the caveat that bearing false witness makes the Baby Jesus cry.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Doc Tor,

I'm slightly surprised to see Qlib admonished for mocking moron's call to the Styx on the Hell thread. I thought there was a lot to take aim at there. It might be correct procedure, but isn't it still legitimate to mock the context and way the correct procedure is applied in Hell?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Enough.

moron, the comments you refer to are not a legal concern due to the aforementioned assumption of quasi-anonymity. Plus there's the handy defense of things not being libel when they're true.

Personal attacks in the Styx, on the other hand, are definitely a concern. I suggest you shut the fuck up, moron. Your dossier of bullshit has you almost close enough to qualifying for a Commandment 1 ban.

I'll leave this thread open if anyone feels a need to discuss Ship's policy regarding libel. Those who wish to practice it's nuanced application against the posts of anonymous subjects need to do so in Hell.

RooK
Styx Host

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Doc Tor,

I'm slightly surprised to see Qlib admonished for mocking moron's call to the Styx on the Hell thread. I thought there was a lot to take aim at there. It might be correct procedure, but isn't it still legitimate to mock the context and way the correct procedure is applied in Hell?

moron's OP is entirely in context and appropriate for Styx. Mocking a shipmate for following the rules has the potential to dissuade others from asking legitimate questions of the H&As in the correct place (which is here), and threatens the smooth running of the Ship.

If the shipmate then goes on to make a complete arse of themselves, we may roll our eyes accordingly, but the assumption that the OP was in good faith stands.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It's a rule that we can't call someone to hell for starting a pathetic Styx thread and we have to assume good faith?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

I'll leave this thread open if anyone feels a need to discuss Ship's policy regarding libel. Those who wish to practice it's nuanced application against the posts of anonymous subjects need to do so in Hell.

RooK
Styx Host

Personal tangent. IANAL but I do know that the law in territory A will differ from that in territory B. Copyright law is closer (because there are international treaties), but libel laws differ quite substantially and in the UK they act in the plaintiff/claimants interest more than in say, the USA.

Therefore, when lashing out at RL targets, remember that fair comment at home may not be regarded as such elsewhere.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

It has nothing to do with assuming good faith, it's about keeping the Ship readable. If we have the same discussion happening three different places, people get confused. Policy discussions are redirected to the Styx so people can find them.

Heck, even when we have topically similar threads running in ( say) Purg and Hell, we have sober discussions backstage about whether or not such a close duplicate is necessary. But Styx business is Styx business.

(Crosspost- to mdijon))

[ 20. December 2014, 17:49: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Styx business is Styx business, but personal attacks belong only in Hell. moron called mt a liar on this thread, mt objected, and is apparently expected to follow it up in Hell.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'd read RooK's post. He's one of the Styx Hosts. moron has just been disciplined in no uncertain terms for getting personal in the Styx.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

While an apology from moron here would be gentlemanly and a show of good faith, I am satisfied at this point.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Styx business is Styx business, but personal attacks belong only in Hell. moron called mt a liar on this thread, mt objected, and is apparently expected to follow it up in Hell.

RooK's post [the official host post on this thread]directed moron to stop the personal shit in The Styx.

[ 20. December 2014, 20:02: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

OK - I accept that this particular incident has been resolved.

I thought it was fairly normal for a Hell thread to run in parallel with a Styx thread - or, indeed with a Purg thread - but I accept that things do get a bit out of hand under those circumstances.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
RooK's post [the official host post on this thread] directed moron to stop the personal shit in The Styx.

That's how I read it. I didn't see it as a rebuke to me for being offended for being called a liar in Styx (or for saying so). I thank you for defending me, QLib, it was generous to stick your neck out on my behalf. But at this point I'm truly cool with the way everything has played out. And that's no lie.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

(x-post with QLib)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

This:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Crœsos, quite cleverly, gets a sarcastic dig in by playing on the spread of meanings around 'uppity'. It was undoubtedly a snark (sarcasm is allowed) and indeed it was racially pointed, but I took it to be a comment on the condescension of the post (allowable comment), rather than a direct accusation that moron was or is a racist.

was also why I didn't see Crœsos's comment as a personal attack.

On another thread with racial overtones I called this:

quote:
This part of your post IS racist. And therefore you should be embarrassed.

as being close to the line. I wouldn't have called the first sentence alone - it's about the post. The second sentence makes it about the poster. Crœsos's post, on the other hand, was snark about what moron had written - allowed in Purg. I can see that it could be taken personally - and it clearly was and thus responded to (quite properly) in Hell - but that doesn't make it an inherently personal attack.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

Hey [removed real identity]

always keep in mind post/response ratio.

You're welcome.

And to all the entities here - thanks for the smiles.

More later.

[ 21. December 2014, 07:12: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

More later.

Nope. Have a nice vacation.

Kelly Alves
Admin.

Posted by Canucklehead (# 1595) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Hey [removed real identity]

I need a bit of help understanding this. Sure it's been over a decade since I had any interaction on these boards, but I clearly remember mousethief himself signing his posts with this same, now removed, name. So moron wasn't really outing anyone, he was simply using a name that mt himself had already put up and made public. Also, the 10 commandments don't seem to directly address the question, so I'm wondering what made this especially ban worthy.

It's pretty unlikely, but already being aware of that name from past experience, I might well have posted it myself at some point without really being aware that I was violating a rule.

On the other hand, maybe the ban was only based on moron's general jerkishness rather than the use of a rl name, but even that doesn't fully explain why the name was later redacted.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Here are the events as I recall them:

1. MT had his name in his sig

2. Several new people joined the Ship

2. MT removed his name from his sig.

4. Much time passed.

5. People started addressing MT by name in front of all those new people, and he asked them to stop.

6. We discussed it a bit, and the conclusion was, people's personal info is their personal info, and it was entirely up to them to offer it up or not. We have applied that policy many times since.

Regardless of that, moron was warned right here of the policy about personal info. Instead of asking any questions he might have had, he simply used MT's name again. On the very thread in which an Admin had given him a final warning.

So yeah, general jerkishness, but mostly a light hearted attitude toward RooK's very clear warning that he was on thin ice.

Kelly Alves
Admin

[ 21. December 2014, 16:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
I need a bit of help understanding this.

TL;DR - Commandment 6 violation, since we Officially™ asked him not to do it.

quote:
it's been over a decade since I had any interaction on these boards

Unless I'm mistaken, it's been over a decade since we had a philosophical mountain bike ride. Which is also a pity.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Canucklehead:
it's been over a decade since I had any interaction on these boards

You made post #3 on Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation?

Can I have your autograph??

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0