Recently someone took offense to the comments I made on a thread regarding writing styles. Unfortunately, this person became rather angry and made a comment regarding me that violates TOS. The comment itself was withdrawn after she was informed by other Gather members it did violate TOS. The article was flagged and it has since been removed. Here is my question for the folks of Gather. When someone makes a libelous comment, do you feel it is sufficient to have the article removed and the member chastized by Gather or do you think there should be a greater consequence? If you think there should be greater consequences what do you think they should be?
There are some rules to commenting on this as I do not want to violate TOS and I do not want to have censor this article by removing comments.
- Any reference to another person will not be tolerated.
- Any storytelling about who did what to who will not be tolerated.
- Keep it pg rated as I do not want to have to flag this for language.
My hope (and yes I know I can be so friggin optomistic that someone will listen)is Gather PTB will begin to see what the members of Gather believe should happen to those who violate TOS especially when it is done repeatedly by the same people.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 119
I think they should have to post a full apology to all of Gather and it cannot be removed. I think Gather needs to state in the apology by the person the behavior will not be tolerated on Gather and in the event this happens again the person will be removed from Gather.
I don't have hight hopes that the gather PTB will be swayed in that direction though. Not that they're evil, just that they're capitalists. (That's not necessarily the same thing.)
(I do try not to do it at all, but when hungry, angry, lonely or tired, I tend to leap into the fray with a song on my lips.)
kids are made by parents and teachers to apologize for offenses made against another as a way of teaching them respect and manners and to hopefully get them to move past the situation, however adults rarely do the same.
i've had a few instances on here where people have contacted me later, or made a post to apologize for their possible insult. those people have my respect. i may not always agree or even like them, but i'm willing to move past it.
you were viciously attacked and insulted in ways that go far beyond normal, and you have every right to demand and expect a retraction publicly her on gather.
I been called a Satan worshipper, a lesbian troll and that my son should have been killed off from coming from the devil spawn.....most I laughed at, except the last one.
Those idiots need a wake up of reality.....
CC: oh yes, that person was very anti-abortion...and anti-homosexual, and if you weren't white you were not a real american.
Threatening ought to be a one-strike-you're-out offense.
Unfortunately Joy it would mean depending on the quality of the material on this site. I am rather tired of antics.
If someone says, "I hope you drop dead/go to hell (which implies the same), or trip over your own feet and swallow your tongue," those things sound like threats but are not. We can hope and wish but that's not going to make anything happen. To me, those should be blown off.
If someone says, "I am going to track you down and slit your throat and believe me I know how to do that," it's a much different story. That is a real threat and should be treated as such.
I've seen both of these happen. Because the slit your throat comment was removed, nothing happened. The person who wished someone would kill herself was reprimanded.
(This also illustrates the danger of removing content although the removed content could have been reproduced for court if necessary.)
When a person sets out to totally defame a person or makes threats or insinuations about causing bodily harm because she doesn't agree with a point of view, that person needs to go.
We can create our own private Idahos here by restricting our materials to friends only. We can delete comments we find not to our liking. I don't believe many of us are here for that.
If there are rules (TOS) and they aren't enforced fairly, then why bother having them? By allowing people to cyberbully, the integrity of the site is questionable. If members who are threaten, plagiarized, or defamed can't turn to the operators of the site for protection under the TOS without engaging an attorney, what's that say about the management? If they are trying to create a positive internet environment for people, ignoring or randomly enforcing the TOS is not the way to do it.
An apology costs nothing and shows strength.
When someone threatens my life or that of my family, I think that person should be removed from the site, reported to the appropriate authorities, and I should be give all personal information so that I can identify that person.
Short of that, I think I should be able to deal with anything else. I think all insulting comments should remain as written for the world to see and that we should be able to rebut those comments without having them removed.
In my real life, I want to know who my enemies are. I don't expect that everyone will like me or be nice to me. The same is true on the internet. If someone wants to call me racial slurs or dirty names and talk about what an evil, stupid person I am, I should either deal with it or walk away.
Cyber "nice guys" annoy me just as much, if not more than, cyber bullies with their veiled nasties. I see so many comments where someone either makes a 'general' statement or a 'veiled' statement that everyone reading knows is a dig at someone(s). But since the person writing it thinks s/he used "nice" words they expect to be excused and feign shock that anyone would dare accuse them of being like the outspoken bad guys. Meanwhile, instead of being honest and calling out the one person they have a beef with, they've insulted or made paranoid large groups of people who wonder if they are the one being talked about. Sometimes, it's obvious that a large group of people are "in on" whatever the veiled insult is, making it all the more hurtful.
I believe in honesty and direct communication. Most of what others want to see eradicated is perfectly fine with me because it is both.
Amen. I also don't have an all-pervasive sense of entitlement in the real world, either.
And I don't expect that I'm going to like or want to be friends with everyone I meet, either.
I admit it -- I have weird expectations.
I think anyone who shares personal, identifying information about another should be booted.
But I may be a little late in keeping up.
I agree Aniko, I think applying the rules to everyone is fundamental. Rules do have a reason for existing.
Why would you swallow your snarky comment and then write on here that you swallowed your snarky comment? Here's the difference as I see it. I would have typed my snarky comment, let everyone know who or what it was about and taken the lumps that come. With your swallowed remark, everyone gets to guess what your comment might have been and choose whether or not to be offended. You might be offending people without meaning to or, at the very least, raising doubt or questions somewhere.
As for applying the rules to everyone, I think we are asking Gather to do an impossible job. Some people are offended if the wrong person says something nice to them. Some are not offended by much of anything. I think they need fewer rules instead of more, and those should be very specific. Still, people will find ways to manipulate and they'd need a full time monitoring staff (money much better spent than on teaching people to write crap for SEO, I admit). I complain more than anyone and believe they could do a better job. But only with fewer rules and much more telling people to grow up and get tougher skin.
I actually disagree with much of what is being said here. I don't think Gather should ban or remove content, idiotic as such content may be--if "incorrect" content is removed on the decision of someone in power, that procedure will at some point be used against the truth that someone objects to. And I don't think it's possible to say much without someone being potentially offended and trying to shut you up by calling you a racist, or anti-Christian, or anything they can possibly spin into the situation (while real racist insinuation cloaked in "nice" language will fly under the radar).
So, apart from libel and threats, which are illegal, I think the best situation would be for management to let everyone's words stand. But if they're going to sanction people for insults, I think they should try for some level of fairness instead of thinking that the volume and pitch of the complaints have much to do with actual hurt in a conflict.
In my experience, people are people, and they will not be perfect arbiters of what is misinformation and what is truth. If information is censored, we'll all lose out in the end. It's easy for us to agree here that what a certain person posts is BS--but think about all the possible things people can post and all the possible ways it can be challenged by someone who disagrees. There would never be an end to the challenges, and guess who would win again? The LCD, the loudmouth, the liar, the manipulator.
But I stongly agree with Aniko's positions (as I understand them) related to the negative consequences of enforcing a prohibition of dishonest, unsupported, and fraudulent information.
I don't see any alternative, in the world or in Gather, to opposing falsehood but by speaking truth - loudly, continuously, forcefully.
More common are charges or characterizations of a member's opinions or personal qualities that seem unfair or untruthful.
I like the distinctions made by Sandy above - and don't believe that it is possible to "enforce" general standards of good behavior that go beyond basic protecion of the members from physical harm or theft of their intellectual property.
Defamation has a specific legal meaning, and cannot be applied to every charge about one that is untrue. It is not a general defense against people mischaracterizing your words or opinions.
Nor, and this is where I part company with some of my friends, do I believe that Gather ought to do develop many "rules" about posting.
Often, I refer to opinions as ludicrous, ill-informed, fraudulent, stupid, delusional, or wicked - and this, to me, is the perogative of every free person.
Again, I concur with Sandy -who is not a social worker.
I also agree.
I'm a bit conflicted over the disposition of vicious personal attacks (as opposed to viscous attacks, which should simply be allowed to drip slowly away). I wonder that if they are identified as TOS violations, perhaps they ought to be given a colored background, much as the "deleted comments" have in one's personal comment feed. (If those comments turn out to have been made by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, then we end up with more information content than we had to begin with--the word and the administrative response to the word.)
Let's take the case of vaccination. We agree that much of the "information" being spread about it is in fact, disinformation. But if we empower someone else to determine that, can we trust them to do the research we have time for? To have a scientific background that allows them to evaluate the evidence correctly and the time to do it?
On the other hand, there are some cases where the scientific consensus, based on the known evidence is wrong. The theory of continental drift which led to plate tectonics, was ridiculed by the establishment from 1912 until the sixties when it became accepted science.
And this isn't that unusual. Science proceeds from one consensus to another as we amass knowledge.
I agree that making someone an arbiter of information quality would never work. I envision more of a consensus built over time by a number of members - and I realize that even for that to work the members would have to act in good faith - not something that we see a lot of on Gather.
But I still feel that there are times when facts are clear and misinformation is dangerous. I guess I would hope that if the people interested in a vital topic rose up and protested someone's repeated misbehavior, that there could be a resolution.
I'm worn out from the personal attacks I faced yesterday trying to correct misconceptions about H1N1. I was called uneducated, my eating habits were discussed at length, and I was openly cited for narcotics use (!). If I go under, get fed up, give up, then again, bad information has driven out good.
While I understand that it would be best to censor nothing, the result here has been a mass exodus of the serious, thinking people who produce real content. Does it have to be this way?
This issue is not just relevant to Gather. It's endemic in modern life, and we have to find some workable solutions. I believe it was wise of the writers of the constitution to find some forms of free speech unacceptable. I certainly do.
And once problem members are removed, this business of letting them come back to engage in the same behavior again -- which has occurred in two cases I can think of -- is absurd. Have some principles, for God's sake.
In the 3+ years I've been active on this site, I have pretty much seen it all, from threats of violence to slander. People feel quite free to engage in their worst behavior because they are not face-to-face with the people they write about, either in comments or articles.
I suspect that their behavior in real life is not the same: if nothing else, we run the risk of physical retaliation (a glare, a slap, a punch in the nose) from the person we have threatened or insulted, if we are physically near the person we are maligning. So, in a way, we are seeing a little bit of uninhibited fantasy played out in every article and comment. It's the ability to play "what if" as we do in daydreams, where we can speak our minds with immunity.
The sad result of that is the flip-side: when we write that way, especially on a public site, we have forgotten that even though we wrote in the privacy of our computer desk, we published those thoughts out where our words can do real damage. We *do* have an impact on others with everything we say here, but it's easy to forget that when there are no consequences aside from those annoying, contrary (but removable!) comments. This is why I agree that there need to be real consequences, dealt fairly.
It's also very important to keep in mind that what we see here is nearly always filtered. I bring up that "filtering" point because it complicates the process of establishing disciplinary actions, and site admin will say so. In a way, they will have to determine what is a badly presented "joke" as opposed to a real instance of malice.
All of this leads up to my position:
1) as Sue states, above, each instance must necessarily be considered on an instance-by-instance basis, as well as by trend (are a lot of people doing this same thing?) and by perpetrator.
2) Site admin has to look at how often a member is accused, by whom, and for what reason. There will be a trend in terms of who is involved in the clash, the nature of the offense, and the effectiveness of any actions already taken.
In the end, there ought to be a scale that applies to *all* members evenly (which I have not seen happen yet.)
For the first offense, arbitration/mediation ought to happen: contact the offender and state the charges, see what defense they present. Explain the TOS application, and keep a note of this disciplinary action.
For the second offense, subtract points, and perhaps disable their ability to 'share' for a length of time -- that makes the offender consider what membership to the site is worth, to them.
For the third offense: cancel the account, delete all content, eliminate their points, block their IP address.
And, for libel, slander, stated threats of real violence? Skip to step three immediately. It benefits the site to keep the environment safe and friendly, as they claim it to be.
Second, I feel that there should be a clear and open set of consequences. It should be published as to what will happen. Most other sites I am on have this. They often say things like "First offense gets a warning. Second offense gets you restricted. Third offense gets you banned" or something like that. And they do it. Really!
Third, I feel that the PTB should abide by their own rules, not change them for people who are particularly good at playing on sympathies, or any of the other apparent reasons things have NOT been enforced in the past.
It's Gather's site and Gather's rules. If only they had them.
To more directly answer your question, Grems, if a person has a documented and public history of constant violations, they should obviously be banned. If they have a documented private history of violations (like in email for example) they should be banned. I also happen to feel that if a person sneaks back in under a different name and starts the whole thing all over again that legal action should be taken.
This is how it is on every other site I belong to. This is how it is out there in the real world. Why on earth should Gather be any different? Why would anyone want to stay here if they knew they could be persecuted mercilessly and have no recourse? Why would anyone want to stay here if they are attacked with management's tacit approval?
Why would anyone want to stay here if they knew they could be persecuted mercilessly and have no recourse? Why would anyone want to stay here if they are attacked with management's tacit approval? I can explain why I stayed after being persecuted mercilessly with no recourse and attacked with management's tacit approval. Most of the time, I enjoy it more than I don't.
(Yes, I am a card-carrying pessimist.)
I've been disgusted with Gather "management" lately in their handling of situations on the site. Not with threats - threateners seem to disappear pretty quickly once they make their threats, although I'm not so sure (because nobody's ever said so) that they do the follow-up of reporting threatening behavior to the proper authorities. But the cyber-bullying, harassment, and libelous remarks seem to be treated with the attitude of "oh well, this is the Internet and that kind of stuff goes on all the time."
Listen up, Gather management - if someone on Gather makes a comment or remark that is actionable in a court of law and you don't take the proper steps to deal with it, your own lack of response becomes as actionable in that suit as the remarks themselves. In effect, you become legally responsible for that person's remarks, and you get added to the list of defendants in the court action. You might want to think long and hard about that piece of information.
I was thinking of the idea that people who come to write here enjoy the idea of writing and being read. Everyone can come here and write something, regardless of the level of expertise they have in writing or the weight of the issues they address or even the interest level anyone has in it. If a person has come here because they want to write and be read, then it's a punishment if that is undone. It's taking away the reason for being here.
I'll admit, too, that I'm not pondering the whole issue as deeply as I could. I should go to sleep.
(Of course, Gather is a privately owned website and can legally restrict speech in whatever way they like. I'm talking about ideals here.)
I understand, and I can see where it's more important to leave evidence in place than anything else.
Sarah has a valid point with her concern for false information being left unchallenged or at least not identified as proven false. Her articles on the swine flu epidemic are good examples of the battle to get the facts straight on an important issue. I think that might be a separate topic, though. Grems is looking for a discussion on appropriate measures to be taken against folks who violate a website's TOS -- Sarah's issue is actually bigger than that.
So, I'll agree with the idea of leaving what's posted here intact. It maintains the integrity of any discussion.
It would, of course, be a huge plus if Gather didn't choose anti-vaccination articles for their "staff picks" list.
I agree that personal attacks are a different matter.
(The more I talk this through, the more I realize what a difficult position Gather has put themselves in by entertaining crybaby behavior.)
I agree with Aniko's concerns and will add that because I am direct and opinionated myself, I always think about the consequences. If I complain about someone else and they change a rule, it's probably going to stifle me in the end.
Does that sound like a good description of what you're suggesting?
The tough part is that this leaves us right back where we started, in that members here (on all sides) do tend to interact and react, but cannot get PTB to do that "rules, strictly and consistently and uniformly enforced" part.
I still want a public apology and a retraction. I know it will not happen because Gather does not have the power to make it happen. (and I am not sure if they did they would do it anyway.)
Sandy: I always appreciate your candor. I cannot remember what my snarky comment would have been, but I think now it is; Yeah that will happen when hell freezes over.
Aniko brings up an important point: Do we want a site where opinions are heard and discussed or do we want a site where we all think alike?
One of the points above was the integrity of the discussion. This is a major issue that came about with the ability to delete comments. This has been used by some to disrupt the whole thread and create havoc. The result was to have those who made comments look like idjits and to question what the concerns were.
I hope Gather PTB consider this. Again after my recent experience I doubt this will have impact. It did anger someone as I left the ratings intact and they are below 7 at this point.
Making yourself do what you don't want to do is the essence of being a grownup.
It's either that, or the new changes to Gather has snapped the few loose strands of sanity that some were clinging to.
(And you're right.)
(now for me to be sugar sweet hurt my brains...but heck, with you I will let it go...big huge huggles...and if anyone says anything about me being nice I am going to kick arse)
Thanks for pointing me to this post. I appreciate the thoughtful comments, the tone of the discussion, and the ideas shared. I'll be incorporating some of these ideas into a post for further discussion. Thank you again for kicking this topic off so well.