Moderation

[Red Rick]

I'm not quite sure what part of this wasn't already part of the rules anyway, even if stated more implicitly.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Personally, I find it rather problematic that when a new rule is added, it is a) something that (as has been pointed out) is largely covered by existing rules, and b) is phrased entirely to target one side of one debate. I find the sentence below especially troubling, because it neither accurately represents one side of the debate as it was on this forum (because hardly anyone made such accusations), nor does it accurately represent the worst breaches of the rules within said debate (as those were committed by people on either side of it). In addition, in the hypothetical scenario where someone were to come onto the forum and explicitly come out in favour of human rights abuses, this rule bans any other poster from calling a spade a spade. To me, it suggests either conscious or subconscious bias in writing the rule.

People should be able to login and post without facing accusations of supporting human rights abuses.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I also think that a change in the forum rules should always be accompanied by an announcement in a more visible location, because the majority of posters neither regularly checks the forum rules for changes nor reads this thread.

 

[AmRacer]

I also think that a change in the forum rules should always be accompanied by an announcement in a more visible location, because the majority of posters neither regularly checks the forum rules for changes nor reads this thread.

Think there were two separate threads regarding rule changes.

 

[Red Rick]

Personally, I find it rather problematic that when a new rule is added, it is a) something that (as has been pointed out) is largely covered by existing rules, and b) is phrased entirely to target one side of one debate. I find the sentence below especially troubling, because it neither accurately represents one side of the debate as it was on this forum (because hardly anyone made such accusations), nor does it accurately represent the worst breaches of the rules within said debate (as those were committed by people on either side of it). In addition, in the hypothetical scenario where someone were to come onto the forum and explicitly come out in favour of human rights abuses, this rule bans any other poster from calling a spade a spade. To me, it suggests either conscious or subconscious bias in writing the rule.

Cases of "calling a spade a spade" don't really appear the intended target for this added rule. If a post is particularly bad, you always had means to report it and/or mock it without having to use the big words. Not to mention that 'calling a spade a spade' can get pretty subjective in the first place.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Cases of "calling a spade a spade" don't really appear the intended target for this added rule. If a post is particularly bad, you always had means to report it and/or mock it without having to use the big words. Not to mention that 'calling a spade a spade' can get pretty subjective in the first place.

It is quite obviously not my main issue here.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Note that article 19 applies to online expression too:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

A milestone document in the history of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. It has been translated into over 500 languages.

www.un.org

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Any limitations must pursue a legitimate aim, and be both necessary and proportionate. On top of that:

Most people who come here do so because they want something they won't find elsewhere. Social media is a great place to shout into the void, but a forum allows for long form discussion/debate that spans years. People should be able to login and post without facing accusations of supporting human rights abuses.

Are you sure that most people agree with that? There was a whole lot of friction in the past, on where a whole lot of people argued something entirely different. The last part is IMHO a bit problematic as it implies you can support human right abuses and basically nobody can say anything against that.

But OK i still read this as:

Please keep political references minimal, relevant, and non-personal. Posts that cross into political debate will be moderated under the “no politics” rule.

You can for example link to CN articles or an UN statements and similar and then you don't really need to discuss that here. For example both CN journalists and UN members where vocal and objective enough in the recent events and did the talking for us. Basically for the ones that don't have that privilege as it seems.