Moderation policy revisited

When we began as the Slacktiverse, we continued the moderation policy run by Fred Clark, which is to say that The Board Administration Team (TBAT) only removed from the board comments that were obvious spam. This was the policy decided upon based on community discussion.

After a year and some months, however, this policy has become unsustainable. Controversial articles attracted a more vicious species of troll; TBAT members have come in for unexpectedly high levels of personal harassment. The community hasn't seen the worst of this, because in line with agreements reached in later discussions it was also agreed that we'd remove obvious trolls and bullies. To give you some idea of what we're dealing with, we've gathered a sample, which can be read here. (Trigger Warning: Almost everything that can trigger including profanity, rape, misogyny, violence, homophobia, racism and more)

We have to read and decide what to do about all of this. We have to read all posts, no matter how vile. Even more wearing, from our point of view, are the less obviously disgusting posts that simply aggress on us to a relentless degree, secure in the knowledge that we can neither identify the harasser nor walk away from the board. There is, for instance, a recurring pattern that is getting us all down:

1. TBAT member makes a comment during a discussion thread that reader X takes exception to. (Very often on some feminist issue.) X goes after the TBAT, not with civil disagreement but with a personal attack, very often focused not on the subject under discussion but on attacking the TBAT for considering herself entitled to make observations or have confidence in her opinion


2. TBAT responds, often with exasperation, having seen this too many times before.


3. X escalates attack to the point where it violates community standards.


4. X finds himself (and it is almost always a 'he') in the spam trap, as he would no matter who his post was directed against. TBAT reads his abusive comment, discusses policy and decides that we're not called upon to publish standard-breaking posts of any kind, and the fact that this one is directed against us doesn't make it an abuse of authority to stick to that.


5. X decides this is a personal vendetta between himself and TBAT, considers any attacks on the TBAT a blow for justice against illegitimate authority, and delivers a series of impassioned, personal and vindictive tirades, usually for several days.


6. These comments wind up in the spam trap, generally because they've gone well past the level of abuse we'd expect anyone to take. We have to take it, though, because we have to read the spam trap, and then we have to discuss what to do about it. Stuck with a policy of 'avoid censorship as much as possible', we have to waste our lives reading all these insults and debating what to do this time. Freed from community scrutiny and well aware that we have to take time combing and pondering over the spam trap, X lets rip.

These are not the most extreme attacks, but they are the most common, and we have simply had enough. The old hands-off moderation policy is being used against us by posters who wish to punish us for having opinions they don't like, or for having opinions at all.

We never wished to abuse authority, and we constructed policy entirely in line with that wish. The upshot is that our lack of authority is being used to abuse us.

We cannot carry on like this.

When we started out, we preferred the hands-off policy and hoped the community would police itself. However, what has since emerged is that there is a reason why most moderated sites have rules about attacking the mods. It's not because the mods want to be dictators of their little kingdom; it's simply because being a moderator attracts a lot more personal abuse than being a community members, and it attracts a heaped measure of it if you happen to be female.

We can't do this any more. A moderation policy that suited a male, non-commenting blogger is simply unworkable for female community leaders. We have had enough, and we gather from comments that quite a few community members have had enough too.

We are proposing some rule changes.

The fine-tuning of the changes is up for discussion, but the need for new rules is not. We have to be clear about this: if we cannot get some new policies to protect ourselves, we are quitting. All of us. We do not say this to threaten or manipulate; we say it because we cannot live like this. We will cease to run the site, return the address to Fred Clark, and call it a day.

We tried the hands-off policy. It has failed. This site either continues with a different policy, or it cannot continue at all.

So what we suggest is this: a 'yellow card/red card' policy. For those unfamiliar with soccer: getting 'carded' is a referee's penalty for fouling. Two yellow cards equal one red card; one red card equals a ban. We suggest the following applications, but this can be discussed:

1. Not using appropriate and specific trigger warnings after being asked to by any member of the community = yellow card.
   
   Exception: if a trigger warning is requested that other community members consider frivolous or manipulative, they should raise it for discussion. TBAT will make a final ruling.


2. Hate speech, including victim blaming and offensive slurs = yellow card.


3. Excessive discourtesy to someone based on disagreeing with their opinion = a warning. Continuing in the excessive discourtesy after being warned once = a yellow card.


4. Sockpuppeting = yellow card


5. Giving TBAT grief about their rulings = yellow card. If people feel they have been unfairly carded, they should send a private e-mail to TBAT explaining why. If this e-mail is courteous, it will be considered; if it is discourteous, it will get another yellow card and the sender will, consequently, be on at least two yellow cards and find themselves banned. If people feel a third party has been unfairly carded, they should likewise send TBAT a private e-mail; again, it will get a yellow card if it is rude but be considered seriously if it contains good points.


6. Threats or violently abusive language = red card.


7. Deliberately attempting to trigger people, including deliberately graphic or mocking trigger warnings = red card.


8. Using anonymizing and redirect services without explanation and a consistent name/email address = red card. After this has happened, a notification will be posted on the relevant thread explaining the banning and linking to this policy page. If the person who has received the red card was using the redirect ISP company because they weren't aware of the policy, they can contact TBAT to explain their situation and set up a system for using one.

Proposal H needs some further explanation; it is one of the ones we are most insistent upon, as we shall explain.

It has been a problem for some time that certain posters have been using anonymizing and redirect services to conceal their identities. For those not familiar with the term, these are companies/services that bounce a post or comment around different countries before letting it appear, with the result that it is almost impossible to identify where it originally came from. This is a useful and necessary service for political dissidents and whistleblowers trying to preserve free speech in the face of violent threats; unfortunately, it is also a tactic beloved of cyber-bullies.

For some months now, for instance, the atheist roundtable has been delayed, largely because of the regular threats and harassment that began on an earlier post and have never stopped. Likewise, harassers of TBAT almost universally favour using such companies. Because such people are using redirect services, we have no way of:

1. Knowing how many people are threatening and harassing us


2. Reliably preventing them from appearing and continuing to bully the community or individual members thereof at any time

This both hampers us from publishing certain posts liable to bring out the harassers, and obliges us to read extremely abusive posts directed either at ourselves or our friends.

Basically, we have some cyber-bullies who have fixed either on the whole community or on particular members of it, and because they are using redirect ISP companies, they can cause us a lot of stress and trouble at no risk to themselves. And we are fed up with it.

What we suggest is this: nobody is to use an anonymizing or redirect service unless they have genuine reason to fear that there would be serious consequences to being identified. We have posters, for instance, who are being stalked in real life or who have reason to fear physical violence if their religious views, sexual orientation or other personal qualities were known to their neighbours, and it's natural and fair that they should have the right to protect their identities. People who simply want to insult other people in complete comfort are another matter, and we see no reason why we should indulge their cowardice and spite.

Someone who has a good reason to anonymize/redirect their posts should contact TBAT to explain their need for anonymity, and should thenceforth use a consistent pseudonym so we know who they are. If it looked as if they were at risk of being identified, they would be free to change their pseudonym; they just need to notify us. We would guarantee complete confidentiality in such cases; should the membership of TBAT change, we would not disclose the details to any new members without the express permission of the poster concerned.

We believe it will make it easier, not harder, to have free speech on the board when the cyber-bullies are not silencing people.

So that's one policy change: no using anonymizing or redirect services without a good reason, and 'I want to harass people in a consequence-free environment' is not considered a good reason. Others can be discussed in the thread.

Please do NOT use this thread as yet another excuse to harass members of TBAT. As per our new resolution to live a more bearable life: policy suggestions are welcome, personal attacks will be deleted. And if you really cannot distinguish between the two or discuss issues here without insulting people, then you are one of the people who is ruining it for everyone else and this discussion is about how to reduce your impact, not how to benefit you. Enough is enough.

--hapax

--Kit Whitfield

--mmy

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[J. Random Scribbler]

First of all, thank you, Hapax, Kit and Mmy for putting so much work into this community, and putting up with the crap as long as you have.

I started to compose a post about particular changes to the proposed rules, but the more I think about it, the more I agree that specifically-defined rules are vulnerable to rules-lawyering. Online moderation is one of those tasks that's just inherently difficult to reduce to objective principles. It takes a person; preferably several people, because everybody has blind spots and off days.

We're already trusting TBAT with the keys to the site. Personally, I'm comfortable with extending that trust to cover a tougher moderation policy, even if parts of it are subjective. If we were talking about the whole Internet, I wouldn't support "we know it when we see it", but this isn't the whole Internet. It's a community, managed by some of its own members, who have a strong stake in its health.

Besides, I think the rest of us have a pretty strong stake in TBAT's health. While I'm not a particularly active member of the community, I'm very glad it's here. Even aside from other concerns, I'd rather see it change than vanish completely.

[Dan Audy]

Yes, I was dismissive of Kit's rant because it deserved dismissal. Maybe if I was Izzy I could have taken down her attacks and false claims in a humourous hulk smash, but I'm not. I'm not an eloquent writer nor do I have a keen sense of humour. Instead I tried to offer a way she could have passed her message that didn't offer a strawman of accepting her opinion meekly or being a horrible person that says she was asking for it without any other possible options. When someone starts falsely accusing me of something I don't think it is wrong to be dismissive of it. She could have answered that way or she could have answered that part of the clarification of moderation standard had changed and that sort of attack on anyone on the board was no longer acceptable. Instead she choose to act martyred, rant, and accuse me of saying she deserved it.

I'm pretty unhappy with how this episode has made me the whipping boy of disrespect for TBAT and how tribal the community is with focusing on my inept question and wording and ignoring the Kit's attack. I didn't have any doubts about TBATs moderation before this, I just wanted a clarification on how the rules applied since it was inconsistent with behaviour I had seen in the past that was accepted. Kit's completely disproportionate response (and other TBAT members subsequently endorsing it) on the other hand has given me doubts.

I'm sorry that people have attacked you and mistreated you three but I am not those people. I'm sorry that people have made you feel unsafe and attacked your identity but I am not those people. I'm sorry that people have abused and insulted you but I am not those people. I am not THEM. Please stop taking your anger, frustration, and fear at them and piling it on me simply because I am convenient. I'm not part of a subtle conspiracy to 'maneuver' you into admitting anything, I just wanted to know what the damn rules were here. I've never harassed you, I've never threatened you, I don't even know if I've ever even disagreed with you before now. I am not THEM.

[Dan Audy]

@cyllan

Thank you for your kind offer. I would appreciate that greatly.

[Mmy]

@Dan Audy: I find your long screed almost breathtaking. Especially given the fact that the only reason that you were able to post it was that I made the effort to fix a problem that you were having with the board.

You defend treating Kit's comments dismissively by saying she deserved to be treated dismissively (an assertion not an argued defense).

You plead that we excuse your "inept wording" of a comment in which you criticized Kit's wording. You treat her with contempt but we are supposed to feel for you.

Finally, if you have doubts about my moderation then there is a simple fix.

[St. Jebus]

Long-time lurker here. I do have to say that the new rules look rather fine and spiffy. I think that giving the mods broad powers is not a problem when said mods have proven their trustworthiness over a period of time.

Also, regarding the BTC stuff : Horrendous. I don't think I would have been able to handle much of that at all. Props to the TBAT team, and thank you for keeping the site up and running. You (insert gender neutral equivalent to 'guys' here) are awesome.

[Literata]

Dan, you're not them, but you're sure working hard to make sure that they can do what they've been doing that's problematic. Quit it or go away.

[Literata]

TW: flame

Actually, when the problem is that Kit has been dismissed too many times - and then attacked by people when she wouldn't let herself be dismissed - and you treat her dismissively, then you ARE part of the problem. No subtle conspiracy required. And pestering the mods to help you out so you can post something that bitchy and whiny is simply being a bastard. I take it back: don't just quit it. Go away.

[hapax]

Dan, I will try very hard to assume good faith on your part.

You characterized certain attacks on Kit as, well, basically "disagreements" rather than "attacks", and asked if there was "context" for them being interpreted that way, or if "disagreements" with TBAT were being held to a higher standard.

Kit obliged with said context: to wit, these comments were posted not directed at her comments on the board, but at her person, her character, ethics, and profession, and as such were not the sort of thing we thought was appropriate for attacking *anybody*. She then followed this with some speculation about about why she seemed to draw a higher amount of such personal abuse than many other posters (and I assure you, she does.)

Your answer to this response to your specific request was to characterize it (repeatedly) as a "rant" aimed unfairly against YOU (in other words, it became all about whether "Kit is a Big Meanie" rather than what Kit actually SAID) and condescendingly to "re-phrase" her in a way completely opposite to Kit's original post -- to wit, that we *were* claiming that responses to TBAT would be held to a "higher standard."

Oddly enough, at this point, things became a bit testy.

And now we find ourselves again having to argue "tone" and "rules" and "Who's the Bad Guy Here?", all of which is very tiresome and boring and irritating to everyone, including no doubt yourself.

And this is the very thing we're trying to AVOID.

Do you have a better suggestion as to how we could do this?

[Dan Audy]

Mmy, I appreciate your fixing the boards so that I can post but that doesn't mean I give up the right to defend myself against Kit's unwarranted attack. I clearly explained previously why Kit's comments were worthy of dismissal previously (false claims, accept her opinion or say she deserves abuse, disproportionate) rather than asserting. I don't and never have held Kit in contempt (though at the moment I'm pretty pissed with her) but her argument is contemptuous and if as flawed and strawman filled an argument had been written by someone that you didn't know and care for this community would be all over ripping it apart. I don't expect or need you to feel for me but I do expect you not to take out your frustrations with other people on me - kicking a dog because someone flipped you off isn't acceptable behaviour.

It is pretty clear that I've committed the offence of offending the popular kid and I'm going to continue getting dog-piled more and more if I try to defend myself. So I'm done here, you can have your little tribal club but this schoolyard bully behaviour is getting triggery for me and it just isn't worth the spoons necessary to cope.

[Mmy]

@Dan Audy: Mmy, I appreciate your fixing the boards so that I can post but that doesn't mean I give up the right to defend myself against Kit's unwarranted attack.

Since you have been implying that the moderators gang up on people and the we were particularly ganging up on you I think it is very, very relevant that we made an extra effort to get you back on the board -- in fact one might argue it undermines your argument about us bullying you.

So I'm done here, you can have your little tribal club but this schoolyard bully behaviour is getting triggery for me and it just isn't worth the spoons necessary to cope.

Well, don't you want to see yourself as the poor put upon victim here!

Goodbye.

[chris the cynic]

So I'm tired and I've got one of those headaches that makes it so I can't seem to think straight, or can think straight but at such a low level I'll be mistaken for ground traffic on the freeway when looked at on radar. And it's taken me forever to get this far into the thread even though it's not that long.

I'm probably not going to be very insightful here, is what I'm getting at.

I don't see anything wrong with the new rules. I hope that they bring some relief.

No one should have to put up with even a fraction of what the board administration team is faced with.

-

When it comes to listing trigger warnings, I see the problem (it's essentially giving any nasty person a list of ways to hurt people) but I also see the downside of not doing so.

As an example, the only thing I remember about the genesis of the transhumanism trigger warning is that it was specifically about something that I personally usually don't think of when I think of the term transhumanism, so assuming that for once I remembered to use appropriate trigger warnings, I'd probably warn for things that wouldn't trigger the person with that trigger, and not warn for things that would.

That seems a problem, but I don't see a way around it without providing a list of ways to hurt people. (Which would be worse than the problem.)

-

Mostly I just wanted to post to show some support, especially after reading the under the cut stuff. I've said before that I don't think TBAT gets enough appreciation, I think that even more whenever I get a glimpse into the parts of the job we normally don't see.

So, you know, hugs, or fluffy iguana cookies, or whatever will make you feel better.

[truth is life]

I agree with Chris. Also, while I was proud that the Slacktiverse (and the Slacktivist) were able to function effectively with a relatively minimal amount of moderation, obviously that policy isn't working anymore, so changes are necessary.

An auto-ban for using Tor-type services, anonymous proxies, and the like seems reasonable, given that most of the other (larger, I guesstimate; several hundred to several thousand registered visitors at any given time, at the least) sites I frequent have the same policy in place. Presumably sockpuppeting or other similar attempts to bypass bans would be met with the same response?

The overall policy seems similar to the infraction/kick/ban system in place at said other sites, except without the kick (ie., a temporary ban). I don't know whether or not TBAT feels that might be worthwhile? Anyways, on that basis it seems like a solid moderating foundation for the future, quite typical in most respects.

[kittehonmylap]

Hugs, kittens and/or puppies, cupcakes/chips/chocolate (none of them with calories), long bubble baths with champagne and someone to rub feet. The UTC stuff was vile. There should be Internet versions of bouncers- obviously TBAT can throw folks out just fine, but we need someone to look menacing. And Izzy doesn't show up in people's inboxes.

And the new specs of the mod banhammer look quite spiffy. (I'd actually favor the red card looking like Mjölnir, but that's just me. Or maybe a .gif of the Hulk/Loki fight...(not really, but it seems amusing from this angle.))

I'd leave the decision about a specific list of trigger warnings up to TheBats. They can decide whether it would just mean playing more Whack-A-Troll or whether it would actually be more likely to help.

I wish there was more that the community could do without sacrificing the needed anonymity of TBAT and those who have been cyberstalked. If an update to the comments section is considered, I do hope that TBAT will think about any additional coding that would allow a level below Mod Authority Status. I would be glad to help if it didn't mean hurting others. (As much as that statement is worth anything, considering my longtime-lurker-occasional-poster status.)

[Caretaker of Cats]

Well, it's not exactly red, but...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/funny-pictures-cyoot-kitteh-of-teh-day-by-the-hammer-of-thor.jpg

[Timothy (TRiG)]

any additional coding that would allow a level below Mod Authority Status

My understanding is that this would require moving away from TypePad, which would in turn require moving away from this domain name, which would be a pretty big step. It's vaguely possible that it might happen, but not without a lot of discussion. (I think it was said that some regulars might not be able to access the site on a different domain, due to Internet filter software.)

TRiG.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

bixbee,

But I always connect to the internet via proxies and I don't feel the need to get anyone's permission to protect myself.

And the rules explicitly say that proxies are permissible. E-mail TBAT beforehand, and stick to one username*, and you should be fine.

TRiG.

* I'd recommend logging in if possible, but that's not actually required by the rules.

[Rowen]

Does someone have a link or something to explain the transhumanism trigger warning? That's something I having a hard time wrapping my brain around. Feel free to reach me at oceanfyre at hotmail dot com if that would be easier/less spoons/less triggering, etc.

[Literata]

TW: Transhumanism, animal abuse

I'm the one who asked for the transhumanism trigger warning. I understand that not all transhumanists write this way, but TRiG writes a lot of stuff about "uplifting" which is to me indistinguishable from torturing animals. I suggested other possibilities, including just that specific subtopic, but he agreed with TBAT that transhumanism was the best label.

End TW

And it's not you, Rowen, but I'm getting really tired of this being the one "why do we have that again?" TW that keeps getting asked over and over and over. If we do build a list of FNTWs, should we consider adding a short description/explanation? Or should I just stop answering that one?

[Mmy]

@Lit: I thought it was J. Enigma who you had an understanding with.

I have some theories about why the transhumanism TW keeps coming up in conversation -- but in all honesty to me the best answer is "someone requested the trigger and the person whose writing it was being applied to agreed" move along, nothing to see here.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Not I.

I'm pretty sure it's J. Enigma you're thinking of.

[Literata]

Argh. My apologies, TRiG. Yes, it's J Enigma. Sorry - obviously too tired to think straight or remember right. Night, y'all.

[kisekileia]

I don't really have much more to add except sympathy for TBAT, but I was wondering if TBAT in particular would appreciate adorable bunnies.

[Kit Whitfield]

Yep, I was right: Dan's disrespect is not visible to him and he genuinely thinks it's ok to behave the way he has. Because he genuinely thinks this is what I and we deserve.

As I said, this kind of person wears you down more than the sweary trolls.

I'll just address one point of his, because it's time this was acknowledged. We are not the 'popular kids.' We are the moderators. Our status here is dependent on the fact that we do a ton of work to keep this place alive, employing professional skills to do so (which, I might add, the community gets for free). The only thing 'popularity' has to do with it is that we were appointed by general consensus. That's not the head cheerleader laughing at your glasses, that's a community democratically selecting its leaders.

And now we're in charge. We're not 'popular'; we're in authority. We lead by consensus, and shall continue to do so as far as is possible without exposing ourselves to abuse from, primarily, people who resent any woman who has authority, even authority as minor as mod status in a small Internet community. But to assume we're merely 'the popular kids' is as sexist as disrespectful as describing my statement of position as a 'rant' or attempting to 'educate' me about how to express myself in your favour. We're not the popular kids. We're the community leaders, and we're making some rules.

Dan: you are offensive and disrespectful and you are in the wrong. If you cannot see it, it is because that disrespect and entitlement are coming between you and what is actually being said to you. But you are, and we are not called upon to coddle you. You are part of the problem, and as long as you stay such, you will get no indulgence here.

[Kit Whitfield]

On another note, I'd like to thank everyone for their support. You guys are the reason we want the job to be tolerable enough to keep doing, and we shall do our best to deserve your trust. :-)

[Amaryllis]

Our status here is dependent on the fact that we do a ton of work to keep this place alive, employing professional skills to do so (which, I might add, the community gets for free). The only thing 'popularity' has to do with it is that we were appointed by general consensus.

Yes, this. The community in its collective wisdom selected people with the complementary and overlapping skill sets needed for the job. So we should let them do it.

TW: transhumanism

the best answer is "someone requested the trigger and the person whose writing it was being applied to agreed" move along, nothing to see here.

That's why it keeps coming up, maybe, because that's the way it's supposed to be. Polite request for the warning, polite agreement scrupulously kept, no big deal. It's the poster child for arriving at an accommodation which both parties can live with and which is really nobody else's business.

[cjmr, who is HOME!, on her son's netbook]

I, for one, was very grateful when the TW for Transhumanism appeared and due to agreement it is very non-specific. (And I've defended the Transhumanism TW other places where people were questioning it. Odd how many places there are where I saw it being discussed.)

[chris the cynic]

@ Literata

but I'm getting really tired of this being the one "why do we have that again?" TW that keeps getting asked over and over and over.

I'm sorry I brought it up. I didn't realize people kept asking that.

For whatever it's worth, I did remember why we had had it: someone found it triggering and asked for a trigger warning. Which is all the explanation needed for why we have it.

What I didn't remember was what was meant by it. All I could remember was that it wasn't what I would think it meant if I hadn't been around for the creation of it. So it seemed like a natural, personal to me, example for the "this is where a record would be helpful" side of things.

Also, if it matters, I wasn't disagreeing with using that term instead of something else for the trigger warnings.

Anyway, sorry.

And thank you for the explanation, as well.

[Literata]

You don't need to apologize, chris, but thank you for understanding how it can be wearing. It would have helped me if you'd said more clearly that you were talking about _what_ needs the transhumanism TW instead of why it exists. On the other hand, though, it's such a specialized field of thought that if people don't know what it is, they probably don't need to worry about it because they probably aren't writing it. And there's always Google.

Thanks, cjmr.

[Nick Kiddle]

Put me down for another "I'm glad the transhumanism TW exists". I wouldn't say it triggers me, but it disturbs me on a visceral level that I can't exactly articulate, so I'm glad to be able to avoid it.

I have a lot of empathy for people who pull the move Dan just pulled, because I can imagine myself being genuinely puzzled, clumsily asking for clarification, and then perceiving myself as under attack. I've developed a trick for getting out of that situation that might be helpful to others. You say "I didn't mean to imply that. [Here you can attempt to clarify what you did mean.] Sorry for not being clearer." Given that the post was *all about* the stress trolls and their ilk have been putting on the TeaBats, it's obvious even to me that sounding as if you're part of the problem makes you part of the problem. The thing to do there is step back and apologise: that's easier on the TeaBats and easier on the misunderstood commenter too.

[Cowboy Diva]

So, I come and go in the comments (but really, completely unrelated to whether the topic of discussion is Michelangelo), but I want to add my pixels to supporting TBAT in the changes proposed. I want you to have fun doing this job, dammit.

[ZMiles]

The proposed policy changes a-h look fine to me; no objections.

I have a question about part h (and this may well be due to my ignorance of the actual process behind this): I don't currently have Internet in the dorm where I'm staying, so when I check the board, it's from one of several web cafes or hotspots in the area. Is this going to look under the new system like I'm changing my IP?

[The Board Administration Team]

@ZMiles: Not a problem. You use a stable email address and we know why your ip number changes.

[cjmr]

ZMiles, if I understand how it works correctly, it will look like you are changing your IP address, because those are assigned at the network level, not the machine level, but all the ones you use will look like they come from the same region.

For instance, I *think* it looks like I have the same IP address whether I'm using my desktop computer downstairs, the netbook upstairs, or cjmr's husband's tablet--because they are all using the same router to connect to the internet at home. But if I take the netbook to the library or the Starbucks in town, it will have a different IP address, but still one that looks like it is in MA.

[Akedhi]

Chiming in late as a lurker who thinks the new policy is completely fair.

And, um, Dan? - I fucked up and added to a pile-on-Kit-day at least once, and it seems to me that the correct response to "You are contributing to a long-term problem of disrespect, cruelty, and attack. Stop it." of someone you claim to respect is not "Well, I'm still obviously right and you're just oversensitive" doubling down but "I'm sorry I hurt you." and then stopping.

[ZMiles]

Awesome, thanks.

[Leum]

Seconding Akedhi: I once said something to Mmy that really, really hurt and upset her. She's still perfectly nice to me. Why? Because I didn't act like a douche and insist that I was right and she was wrong. However, I never did apologize to Mmy, and would like to do so now. I doubt you even remember what I said, but I'm sorry that I said that everything you ever said on Slacktivist was inherently a TBAT pronouncement and not your own opinion.

[Kit Whitfield]

Thanks, Akhedi. And it may be relevant that whatever you did, I've completely forgotten about it. I have other things to think about than staying mad at people who don't persist in giving me reasons.

[Mmy]

@Leum: Thanks. In all honesty I had completely forgotten about that since it was a "one off" that wasn't typical of your comments.

But given other stuff going on today getting a thank you was really pleasant :).

[Akedhi]

@Kit

I'm glad it didn't stick, if that makes any sense. I think you, Mmy, and hapax do a brilliant job as moderators.

[Kit Whitfield]

Thank you, I appreciate that. :-)

[Timothy (TRiG)]

the recent incident where somebody said something about 'Tranny the Transformer' and was utterly floored when it exploded on him

I missed that one, but it did remind me of a very funny scene in Khaos Komix. (Context: On the previous page, Tom has just outed himself as trans to Alex, the boy he is not exactly dating. This page is Alex's reaction.)

Khaos needs some trigger-warnings for in-plot transphobia, but not on that page.

TRiG.

[mee]

I spent a good chunk of the weekend trying to get over the intense fear I feel at the prospect of discussing board policy these days. Obviously, I didn't manage it, but I do want to thank TBAT for putting up the btc samples of the activity they've been dealing with, as the whole thing has seemed very disconnected without that context.

[Ross]

I have no idea what confluence of stellar matter caused my name to be replaced in that previous comment. Didn't do it on purpose.

[The Board Administration Team]

Ross, we know about that user name, it's happened to you before, so it didn't trip off any alarms, if that's worrying you.

[mathbard]

I'm super way late to this, but I still want to add my appreciation to TBAT for what you all do.