Or perhaps a better nautical metaphor: we're on a sinking ship and the captains appear to be in the stateroom fighting over the jewels in the safe. Are you expecting positive reviews from passengers and crew?
See, that's the thing, though, Dave. One might say, "Get out of the way! I need to rescue the jewels before we ram the iceberg!" Another might reply, "You do realize, I'm trying to fix the steering?" And Dave will complain that they're "fighting over the jewels in the safe".
I suppose the thing to do is abandon the steering, leave the captain to flee with the jewels, and ram the iceberg. At least then we won't be "fighting over the jewels in the safe". As to positive reviews from the passengers, I don't know, maybe they can complain to me in the afterlife, or perhaps it will be the last thing they say as they drown in the frigid sea while refusing to save themselves.
†
Let's try a different metaphor. For instance, consider a basic pub rule:
Don't be the one who gets the pub cited, fined, or closed. As a basic courtesy to the people who serve the beer, this ought not be nearly as controversial as it often turns out to be. Translated through the metaphor:
Don't be the one who makes Sciforums a liability to its owners.
And maybe you would think this pretty straightforward. Okay, nevermind, that's the wrong way to say it, because nothing is ever straightforward, around here.
†
Think of ways in which one might behave that might draw what we might describe as certain manners of unwanted attention. And, sure, conspiracists and petty bastards are a penny a dozen, online, and there is very little to be done to avoid that kind of unwanted attention. So, think of waving a flag that draws only two kinds of attention, those of dangerous elements, and the law enforcers whose job is to disrupt them. I mean, sure, it's probably easy enough to land on some state intel service's radar, but there is almost nothing to be done about that. However, if certain rhetoric that corresponds with particular behavioral danger were to start congregating in open sight, at some point we must consider the liability risk to ownership if law enforcement goes knocking on their door to see what's going on.
And I should never,
ever have to explain that. But this is Sciforums, and here we are.
Look, just about everybody I know has gotten away with drinking without their ID card, which, just,
no, don't do that, except the reality is, it's a widespread gamble people are willing to take. They even get upset when they get carded. And it's even more hilarious when it's just out in the car. And around here, the pub gets penalized if the state catches you drinking without your ID.
Easy enough? It's one thing if people go and get themselves in all sorts of stupid trouble, but do not fuck up the pub.
It really is a simple point:
Don't do the certain things that get the pub in particular trouble.
Still, though, this is Sciforums, so ask yourself how we can complicate such a simple point.
†
Rule of thumb:
Don't do certain obvious things that get the joint raided.
Complication:
But this doesn't count!
Wait, what?
†
This is important:
It is not that a given subject is itself verboten.
And there are reasons we don't like to detail this point: Some people might take it as a challenge; most of those would fail—it's the nature of the beast—but sometimes simply trying bears certain risks.
In fact, that's part of the story. Someone known for pushing boundaries pushed a certain one, having to do with sexual violence and sex crime, and in and of itself that particular approach was difficult, and almost implicitly irresponsible. And then someone else went and pushed even further, into explicitly problematic territory, and very irresponsibly.
Thus:
Do we forbid advocacy of behavior considered illegal? No, not implicitly. Show of hands, is it really so hard to figure out?
The rule of thumb seems pretty straightforward:
If you advocate for something controversial, do so responsibly.
And, yes, our policy outlook actually presupposes that people around here are smart enough to figure certain things out without needing it explained like this. And, sure, there's irony laced in the detail.
And we already know the workaround; it doesn't matter if even the dictionary disagrees.
So, maybe I don't get why the basic principle is so dangerous that we need such a delicately calculated exemption, but it is an actual standard we have on record. And while it can be applied diversely, this is the occasion and application we have.
That is, if you advocate for the advancement of behavior classified as sex offense, do so responsibly. The counterpoint, of course, is that the behavior is not advocacy because it's not particular enough in a certain way. And maybe the dictionary disagrees, but this is Sciforums, so the dictionary is wrong.
There's your heads and tails:
Don't do stupid shit that gets the joint raided, or,
People need to grow up and stop being so oversentsitive.
Sometimes it's not a question of whether the next person at Sciforums is oversensitive, or the safety of their feelings; sometimes, we owe consideration to the safety of the site itself.
†
That's an example of what you call fighting over the jewels, Dave. And it's also an occasion to suggest that, perhaps, the wisdom of
"objective, disinterested-party insight"↗ isn't so wise as some pretend. More directly, it's not at all surprising how much objectivity from ostensibly disinterested parties relies on a pretense of what it doesn't know. Ignorance is not always an asset to the wise. It's one thing to be "disinterested", but such advice is rarely objective.
Still, here's the thing about fighting over the jewels, as such, Dave: In your sinking-ship metaphor, you're standing around, waiting to be rescued, complaining about circumstances that might not actually be true, because you think it is the objective thing to do.
Our sordid recollection about advocacy isn't for the sake of scandal, Dave; take a look at the thread we're in: The tale is the underlying meaning of one of James' complaints. And if you take a moment to check, you'll find that his angry
attempt to shame↑ omits the
reference↑ in order to pretend indignance.
But why is any of this relevant to what?
Well, think of your advice to Baldeee. The reason it doesn't work is because the situation was well past that point. Baldeee's discussion of thread closure occurs in the context of a larger discussion about whether James R was moderating in self-interest. That larger discussion has been going on for months¹, and in the part Baldeee referred to, circumstances had already escalated past that point. Indeed, it's a downstream iteration of the question underpinning
this thread, which had to do with James R's standard of vested interest
vis à vis Sarkus' posts.
One of the things about not being involved in a discussion is that your advice to Baldeee would seem to be okay with the prospect that James was actually moderating for personal reasons. Similarly, your concern about fighting over the jewels.
Presented with a relevant standard for comparison, we got splinters and indignance; that's what this thread is, Dave. Your concern regarding poor form is an interesting question, as the entire thread hinges on misrepresenting a policy reference point,
i.e., the time he redefined a word in order to assert the distinction between just saying something and advocating that someone in particular do something, because comparatively, it is unclear what part of Sarkus' posts would be so particular as that standard demands for advocacy of sex crime.
Do you get it, yet, Dave? I mean, sure, it seems overly complicated compared to its straightforward moment, but that's how things go around here when the peanut gallery is mostly shelled chaff, and the "disinterested-party" advice is of such uncertain relationship with fact and circumstance.
The underlying question was whether certain moderation was appropriate or not; the point at hand described a known standard suggesting the member conduct in question does not meet an actionable threshold; the response was a screeching demand for apology according to false pretense; and Dave is offering objective advice from a disinterested perspective that may or may not be uninformed.
I mean, you are aware, right, this discussion was splintered off a situation that had been going on for months, already?
And inasmuch as
I asked↑ you what
you want, complete with emphasis on the word
you, and
you refused↑ to answer, sure, that goes along well enough with your posture of changing the subject and complaining.
But it's true, I didn't want you to think I'd just dropped your inquiry; it's just hard to answer when circumstances are so unstable, even more so if the inquiry doesn't really want the answer.
____________________
Notes:
¹
i.e., Part of why the question of
splintering↑ is important;
see also, #
21↑ and
45↑ above.
[2/2]