Asking clarification regarding moderation

[Mythos Enthusiast]

We reject the premise that we are dishonest.

So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I don't think this a very charitable interpretation of the post. Read it as "be open and up-front", since that seems to be the intent.

This response is, IMO, the exact sort of thing that is so eye-roll enducing. A complete lack of engagement with criticism. I'm not even saying that Enworld CAN'T or SHOULDN'T have really hard line, ideological rules regarding what opinions can be expressed - I'm just saying I want it to be very clear that it is in fact the case.

So, is Morrus saying that it is NOT the case? Because we can test that pretty easily.

 

[Irlo]

This response is, IMO, the exact sort of thing that is so eye-roll enducing. A complete lack of engagement with criticism. I'm not even saying that Enworld CAN'T or SHOULDN'T have really hard line, ideological rules regarding what opinions can be expressed - I'm just saying I want it to be very clear that it is in fact the case.

So, is Morrus saying that it is NOT the case? Because we can test that pretty easily.

I’ve read the rules. I understand them. They are clear. It’s not difficult to understand them and apply them broadly. If a poster crosses a line they didn’t know was there, or one that they interpreted differently, they get a message letting them know. That’s a problem?

 

[billd91]

If I created a thread titled "Inclusivity is not a virtue in TTRPGs" would it not instantly locked/deleted? This would seem like a prime example of a position that is axiomatically disallowed from discussion.

Considering one of the rules is "Keep it Inclusive", do you really need to explicitly be told exactly how a thread like that will be handled? You can't make the assumption that it would be problematic?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Considering one of the rules is "Keep it Inclusive", do you really need to explicitly be told exactly how a thread like that will be handled? You can't make the assumption that it would be problematic?

I could definitely create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

For example, I would not exclude anyone or dismiss anyone from replying or participating based on any of the below criteria. Nor would I even advocate for a specific policy in any shape or form - just engage in a meta-ethically discussion about whether inclusivity/diversity as such/in a vacuum is valuable.

Keep it inclusive: EN World is an inclusive community, and we encourage and welcome all people here. To that end, we strive to make it a welcoming place where nobody feels alienated because of who they are. You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, use pejorative terms and buzzwords or dogwhistles including but not limited to "social justice warrior", "political correctness", "wokeism", "virtue signalling", and "cancel culture" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with, or post any message which is discriminatory towards those who differ to you in terms of skin colour, gender, gender identification, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or any other personal attribute. We do not subscribe to the argument that tolerance means that we need to tolerate intolerance or that inclusivity means that we need to include non-inclusiveness.

 

[Morrus]

So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?

This does not feel like a good-faith conversation. It feels like an attempt to trap me.

 

[billd91]

I could definitely create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

For example, I would not exclude anyone or dismiss anyone from replying or participating based on any of the below criteria.

I think you are deluding yourself on that count. But what exactly would be the point of doing so even if you could considering the board's Keep it Inclusive rule? Lobbying to change the rule? Pissing people off? Trolling the mods?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

This does not feel like a good-faith conversation. It feels like an attempt to trap me.

I don't think that 'good faith' and 'bad faith' are useful terms because neither of them actually bare on whether or not a position is valid or sound.

If you CAN be trapped, wouldn't that just mean you have a poor/weak position? if what you said is true, then does what I said follow from that? Or does it not? If it doesn't, why doesn't it?

There is nothing "trapping" about taking a statement/premise/fact and then deriving what facts can or must follow from that fact.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I think you are deluding yourself on that count. But what exactly would be the point of doing so even if you could considering the board's Keep it Inclusive rule? Lobbying to change the rule? Pissing people off? Trolling the mods?

What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?

 

[J.Quondam]

I could definitely create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

But why would you do that? There's only really one reason to willfully abuse the "letter of the law" like that in social media: to troll members of that community. Intention matters.

The rules are fine as is, and have been for a very long time.


** Also, the word is "jibe", not "jive".