@arkandel
There's so much I want to say in response. I'll try to be brief.
Telling people to stay out of the Hog Pit to avoid dogpiling is akin to telling black people to obey the law when they have been killed by law enforcement time and time again for doing nothing illegal. The problem is the dogpiling, which can understandably have a chilling effect on any kind of speech here. And let's not pretend that the dogpiling occurs only within the Hog Pit; it clearly and demonstrably has happened elsewhere, which is why we have to haul threads out of other areas into the Hog Pit.
But let's also not pretend that there are easy fixes, because, if there were, we probably would have already implemented them.
That said, any maybe to surreality's consternation, but I stand by every word I said before. The number of regular, frequent posters in the Hog Pit pales to the actual number of people that read or post here. I'm well-aware that I have a great deal of privilege because, for whatever reason, I'm not usually a target when I make comments, no matter how wrong or controversial my opinion might be. And I'm not going to pretend that I can walk in anyone's shoes and process experiences as they might, because I think that belittles their experience.
@derp said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:
Simple: You set clear boundaries, and you enforce them. If the purpose of the Hog Pit is to be an unmoderated free for all, then everywhere else needs to be moderated. The administration cannot be afraid of 'oh god what about censorship and free speech' in the rest of the board.
There's a difference between fear and balancing interests.
We live in a society of laws away from this place. These laws are boundaries. They are the boundaries of conduct, and we charge law enforcement officers to enforce these laws to the best of their ability. Our expectations are reasonable because, in society, the people have given law enforcement officers this duty and authority because we the people are neither empowered nor permitted to do the same by the law. We observe and experience, and, at a trial, we judge and determine.
In this scenario, the admins are law enforcement, and the members are the people.
There are problems when law enforcement is asked to create the law. It's easy to see why. Yet when we are asked to do so, we contend with the multiple forces that exists within the membership here, which is to be expected. And we listen as best we can, but, at the end of the day, can find very few clear lines of conduct to censor unanimously. Every other boundary is discretionary, in some way -- and therefore unclear.
The solution isn't so simple. It's not supposed to be simple, and, if it were, the admin would be heavier-handed. There has been push-back about that, which we've tried to respect. Naturally, we expect that our current more laissez-faire approach has also created push-back.
What's important is the discussion, and here it is. And I can tell you that we're talking about changes, but haven't made up our collective minds.