Post edit question

JustV

This discussion was created from comments split from: Men and masculinity.

Former Member

What's the point in editing a post and leaving it up with little to no context for others to comment on? 

I don't know if others will agree but if someone comes in late to this post, they'll have no idea what was said, no idea why our views are so strong because it's basically just made an offensive post into one we're supposed to tolerate. 

If we're to help the op change their views, shouldn't their views be there for everyone to see and comment on? 

I didn't want to pm this as I only wanted this to be an issue if the other board community agrees but it's just not sitting right with me personally 

JustV

Anch0r33 said:

What's the point in editing a post and leaving it up with little to no context for others to comment on? 

I don't know if others will agree but if someone comes in late to this post, they'll have no idea what was said, no idea why our views are so strong because it's basically just made an offensive post into one we're supposed to tolerate. 

If we're to help the op change their views, shouldn't their views be there for everyone to see and comment on? 

I didn't want to pm this as I only wanted this to be an issue if the other board community agrees but it's just not sitting right with me personally 

This is a good point @Anch0r33. In theory, people see the post has been heavily edited and will infer that the post was originally written more strongly. We've also added the mod message into the main post for maximum context. A lot of people weren't okay with the post staying there in its current form, so a change needed to be made but we didn't want to lose the valuable parts of this discussion.

It's not perfect, but it's the best we could do to strike that balance.

Past User

Don't want to stir because i do (sort of) understand where the mods are coming from @Mike ... but i'm just curious and i guess its for my own peace of mind but if this was a post, like Aidan said about muslims for example... would the same actions have been made? Would you have edited it rather than remove it completely?

JustV

@Liam - we talked about this in-depth, and we think yes.

We tried to come up with a logical solution that would work regardless of who the post referred to. In the end, that meant removing the more inflammatory comments and stronger generalisations, but keeping hold of the not-so-heavy stuff for people to debate and debunk.

There are other factors that could affect our decision. But if that post was written word-for-word but about another societal group, we all agreed we would take the same approach.

JustV

PS, I've split these comments away from the main convo so we don't derail.   @Anch0r33

Past User

I think that is fair then @Mike Thanks for clearing that up.

JustV

Just quoting your post here to save it, Anchor.

Agree with Liam.

 It does make sense where you guys are coming from, I just know I've come into posts late and although it's easy to see that it's been heavily edited, it's made me unable to comment as I have no idea what was originally said. On the other hand it's easy to see roughly what's been said so you can take a guess at what to comment. 

I am also curious if it was to do with a certain race, religion or maybe even sexual identity if it would have been different, not because of how things are modded but just with the how the world is currently. 

Not looking to be difficult as Liam said, simply gaining a better understanding of the thinking behind this

I'm heading off for today, but will catch up on this tomorrow. Really appreciate all your input and it's always okay to question or criticise mod decisions - it's healthy for us to talk about these things.

Former Member

Hi Mike, first of all, I want to say thank you for reviewing my report again when I said I was unhappy with no action being taken. I also want to thank you for the update by e-mail and for posting this thread to be open and honest about your decisions and for people to feedback. I am glad you don't mind people, constructively, challenging the decisions.

I think the fact that you left up some of the OP's comments was the right thing to do. A lot their concerns were horrid to read, but not actually attacking people. Where I draw the line is when they said 'men shouldn't exist'. If that was said in a workplace then the person would rightfully be given a warning.

That comment left me wanting to self-harm and I was upset when the comment was left up.

I am glad Mike and the team had a chat and I feel you have taken a good decision, a fair decision which lets the OP to have said some of their concerns about men, but also making it clear that phrases like that are totally unacceptable.

I was surprised that no action was taken in the first place, but credit where credit is due and I am so glad we're all able to talk about this without feeling guilty for reporting or challenging moderator decisions, so thank you. As someone who has just signed up to the boards, I am so pleased to see action taken.

Cheers! 

independent_

To be fair, I do feel that if I’d seen the post once it had been edited, I’d have probably been a little confused and found it more difficult to contribute not knowing what was said. 

But I think for the wider good it’s better that people don’t see those comments which could potentially have been really really upsetting for some people to read. Especially, in this case, for those men who may be reading and in a vulnerable mental place already. 

Former Member

@Mike just saw all these on here and want to thank you for clearing everything up. I think we were all a bit shocked to read what we read (and rightly so imo). @independent_ makes a very valid point in saying that it's better some people don't see the comments even if cutting it down leaves new readers confused. I'd rather people weren't hurt by any comments and glad you made it as user friendly as possible. 

It was definitely a tough one to deal with, as you said you want the OP to be able to grow and learn but you also don't want anyone to be offended. 

Taking some time to reflect it is easier to step back and view things as you had done. I guess that means I've been able to grow and learn, so thank you for that. 

It is still a tough read none the less but everyone being able to have a civilised conversation about it all has really helped expand my personal opinions on the choice you made to edit heavily in order to give OP a chance to learn. 

lot of waffling there but hopefully you know what I'm trying to say!

Skive

I didn’t see the original commentsbut I think it was probably my a mistake to remove them.
To talk freely and openly you have to risk offending people. And I don’t know anybody who’s had their mind changed by simply silencing them.

Former Member

@Skive the problem with the comments is they were widely offensive, not just to the group targeted, but also to the mix community as a whole, shown by the support on the original thread. 

I'm not sure if the op has been active again tbh, maybe just coming to share how they feel about something that's upsetting them or has hurt them. Looking at the lack of engagement in the post since the comments were changed etc I do think the right decision was made in attempt to change their mind, even if unsuccessful. It is unfair to leave offensive comments up and visible to the wide community in what is supposed to be a safe space for everyone

JustV

Skive said:

I didn’t see the original commentsbut I think it was probably my a mistake to remove them.
To talk freely and openly you have to risk offending people. And I don’t know anybody who’s had their mind changed by simply silencing them.

Wholely agree with you in principle, @Skive. If this were Reddit (for example), this logic could be applied with no drawback and open discussion could be the top priority.

With a community like this, we also need to seriously consider our audience. In a space where people are vulnerable (sometimes in a life-threatening way), we need to balance freedom of discussion with the safety and comfortability of the space. Even in a Politics & Debate forum, we're still a support service and that comes with expectations of comfort, safety and inclusivity.

@Anch0r33 summed it up nicely here:

Anch0r33 said:

It is unfair to leave offensive comments up and visible to the wide community in what is supposed to be a safe space for everyone

We firmly decided we didn't want to delete the discussion entirely for the reason you mentioned - that silencing someone doesn't change their mind. We've also been in touch with the OP privately to explain all this, so hopefully they won't feel 'silenced' because of our actions.

A side note on the word 'offensive'...

This is a word that seems to change meaning depending on who you talk to. To be clear, we're not worried about people feeling outraged or frustrated by someone's opinion. That's a natural part of honest dialogue as you said @Skive, and that's okay - this shouldn't be an echo chamber.

But I think what these guys mean by 'offensive' is the risk of actively damaging someone's wellbeing. More than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think the people involved in that discussion had an issue with disagreeing or even being disturbed by the OP's viewpoint. It's more of a wellbeing concern, which again is something we have to prioritise in this space.

independent_

It really does come down to wellbeing. Someone who is vulnerable could read generalisations like that, apply it to themselves, and then their thoughts could become harmful and they may act on them. 

Skive

I do understand the purpose of this site, and community, and as I said, I didn’t actually see the original content so it’s hard for me to argue against this specific action. 

I just happen to think heavy moderation and censorship in order to control ‘offence’, should be avoided if possible. It stifles meaningful and productive debate.

The culture of safety may be well intentioned, but it when it goes to far (and it can) it risks hampering the development of young people and leaving them unprepared for adult life, with serious consequences for them, for the companies that will hire them, and for society at large.

JustV

That's fair, @Skive, and I don't disagree. I do hear what you're saying.

I guess our stance on this is that different spaces serve different purposes, and there are places young people can go for more unfiltered debate. If we're prioritising creating a space that feels inclusive to vulnerable people from all backgrounds, that means sticking to some guidelines.

I just happen to think heavy moderation and censorship in order to control ‘offence’, should be avoided if possible. It stifles meaningful and productive debate.

The culture of safety may be well intentioned, but it when it goes to far (and it can) it risks hampering the development of young people and leaving them unprepared for adult life, with serious consequences for them, for the companies that will hire them, and for society at large.

Would you say that principle, for you, stands for all spaces?

Skive

Mike said:

That's fair, @Skive, and I don't disagree. I do hear what you're saying.

I guess our stance on this is that different spaces serve different purposes, and there are places young people can go for more unfiltered debate. If we're prioritising creating a space that feels inclusive to vulnerable people from all backgrounds, that means sticking to some guidelines.

Would you say that principle, for you, stands for all spaces?

I think we can both agree that personal attacks and abuse, harassment and such behaviours have no place on the boards. The same is true for hate speech, agression and calls for violent behavior. None of that is conducive to intelligent debate that people can learn from.

But that is quite different from 'offence' - which is predominately subjective. If posters aren't exposed to challenging views which they may find offensive, they cannot learn how to exercise their powers of argument and their own judgement.

I've certainly learned a lot from the differnet opinions and discussion on these boards over the years - and this place has helped me shape my views in in some cases completely changed them, removing prejudices I used to have. Granted I'm probably not somebody that has required the help and support that the boards are now more geared towards, but back then there were still some vulnerable poeple that used the boards.

JustV

Skive said:

Mike said:

That's fair, @Skive, and I don't disagree. I do hear what you're saying.

I guess our stance on this is that different spaces serve different purposes, and there are places young people can go for more unfiltered debate. If we're prioritising creating a space that feels inclusive to vulnerable people from all backgrounds, that means sticking to some guidelines.

Would you say that principle, for you, stands for all spaces?

I think we can both agree that personal attacks and abuse, harassment and such behaviours have no place on the boards. The same is true for hate speech, agression and calls for violent behavior. None of that is conducive to intelligent debate that people can learn from.

But that is quite different from 'offence' - which is predominately subjective. If posters aren't exposed to challenging views which they may find offensive, they cannot learn how to exercise their powers of argument and their own judgement.

I've certainly learned a lot from the differnet opinions and discussion on these boards over the years - and this place has helped me shape my views in in some cases completely changed them, removing prejudices I used to have. Granted I'm probably not somebody that has required the help and support that the boards are now more geared towards, but back then there were still some vulnerable poeple that used the boards.

For sure @Skive. 100% agreed on your first point.

Offence is an interesting one, and this is a good debate to have as a community. Again this is a word that seems to change meaning depending on who you talk to - some folks use it to describe things that are legitimately damaging to individuals or wider society, while others use it to describe anything that makes them uncomfortable. So it depends where we're landing on that.

As moderators, our goal isn't to shield people from challenging viewpoints; it's good for those to be visible so they can be debated and discussed openly, for all the reasons you mentioned. Our goal is to foster a space where emotionally vulnerable people can safely get stuck into debate, which sometimes means sanding down the edges of posts that are particularly strongly worded.

Nothing to say we have the right approach or balance there, and it might be that there are other approaches we can take to achieve that goal. For example, in situations a bit like this we could instead wrap some of the post in a spoiler so people don't get caught off-guard by it.

It sounds like we want the same thing - a space for debate to happen openly, respectfully, and that's inclusive of controversial ideas. How we practically achieve that is very much open to discussion, and we're always happy to be challenged on these things. This is something we'll consider.