I see that the main argument for the rule against explicit displays of slaves in the Summit is that "the particular resonance of slaves" is generally something the moderators don't want to have in their channels. With deciding to ban the behaviour that obviously offends a majority of the Summit and apparently not considering there whether the reactions of those offended are really adequate to the 'offense' it seems to me that the moderators decided to keep it civil by following the wishes of the majority.
It's not as much about 'offending' people as some seem to think. It's about getting rid of deliberately disruptive behavior. If we didn't want people to be offended we'd have separate Summits for each faction so that everyone could coexist in their happy little Hello Kitty Online shards. People are going to get offended in the Summit. We're not going to step in in those cases unless it's particularly egregious - we are, however, going to step in when people are trying to be disruptive and/or trolls on purpose. That this particular kind of thing merited a "specific" policy serves only to show exactly how bad it was before the policy was put in place - but it's only as a specific example of the larger "don't be a fucking derp" policy.
My point is that it's usually not merely an action that is disruptive, but that it is a disruptive action given a certain context. Say, you're with 50 people discussing what you like to eat. "Apples" says one, the other prefers Oranges. Now you say "I like steak!" and there the shitstorm breaks loose: You've been to the 20 year anniversary meeting of the FU (Frutarians United) and well, just saying that you like steak disrupted the entire meeting! Well, would one say that stating that one likes steak is in general a 'disruptive action'? No of course not. Is displaying slaves in itself disrupting? No, it as well depends on context. The context being the people in the Summit. And of them, the majority. Becuse the channel is disrupted when someone displays a behaviour that is in fact, I think, so offensive for the majority of the people that they react with being 'disrupted'.
So, the option the moderators go for in this case are pandering to the majority of people in the Summit that are against slavery. I don't think that it is a good choice for the Summit, as the Summit should be about neutrality and being a open venue for all kinds of pilots from New Eden rather than about having a content and big population. Pandering to the majority is good for the latter and bad for the former, it will usually decrease diversity. Similarly, kicking all the people that 'rageface' when they see a slave in Summit would be a solution to enforce civility on the Summit while generally being open to everyone (and would probably solve any trolling issues as well: Not feeding trolls works wonders, usually), but would work against a big and happy community. robably also not the best choice for a channel depending on an active and big community. Maybe there is a middle way somewhere. But how to react here, it's true, that's the decision of the owner/the moderators.
We are not pandering to anyone. Unless "people who aren't trying to troll or be disruptive" counts, in which case, okay, we're pandering to them. Unfortunately, most people aren't brilliant enough to "not feed the trolls", so while that might be ideal, it isn't sufficient - and kicking the people who complain about people being disruptive doesn't exactly seem appropriate to me unless they go way out of bounds with it.
As I tried to point out above, being disruptive isn't a simple quality someone has, it's rather an assymetric relation someone is disruptive to someone else. And so, as far as my understanding goes, if you're pandering to the "people who aren't trying to troll or be disruptive", which usually is the majority which group dynamics determine by what kind of behaviour they are disrupted, then yes, it's the majority.
If moderation follows
in general this group dynamic, the channel will homogenize and loose diversity.
I think that asking the question why people get so riled up by an emoted slave in that channel is a legitimate question and one that should be raised before banning stuff like 'display of slaves', imho. The same goes for nudity and all other things in general. If the Summit is meant to stay a neutral ground, is it desirable that the people in the channel react with being 'disrupted' to every little emoted 'slave'? I mean, sure, the majority does and a moderator has to deal with that somehow, sure. Still, simply banning the 'disruptive' behaviour will certainly lead to fewer disruptions, but there are sideeffects to it that might not be desirable.
It largely depends on what the Summit is supposed to be about: Neutral ground for all of New Eden? For the pirates as well as the Empire loyalists?
Author
Topic: First: Simmer down Second: slavery Discussion (Read 27664 times)