FSD terms of service

Thank you!!

Excellent.

Much appreciated!

Heartily endorsed! My thanks.

A shame that this has become necessary, but that's what you get when there are trolls around. Thanks for taking measures.

Very much needed. Thanks Warwick and Glenn.

Yes, thank you very much for all that you do to keep this board a nice place!

>9 johnny1991:
Glenn and I monitor FSD several times a day.

While it is distressing that the troll universe has extended as far as this fairly esoteric site, it is also a blessing that we have such vigilant and level-headed administrators. Thank you for keeping this group properly focused.

Thank you both very much!

This forum is very lucky to have two such good administrators - thank you!

>1 wcarter:

Much appreciated.

>1 wcarter: Thank you and much appreciated.

>1 wcarter: Thanks for keeping us safe from trolls. Unfortunately, they are everywhere...

>16 LegioKraken: We know. They keep popping up.

Given the previous thread was shut down (Joanna Reynolds tells it like it is (The Guardian)) because, in my opinion, a member decided to wield Neo-Nazi slurs against another member, it's worth that the powers that be, really think hard about how this whole episode was handled.

For what I can tell we had differences of opinion, and a member who has been subject to frequent attacks and improper flagging, tries to defend his opinions, but in the crossfire he is called a Neo-Nazi, the infractor gets a pitiful amount of infraction flags (compare this to the flagging abuse by the pile-on crowd) and then the thread gets shut down.

I'd call that double standards: one member gets dogs abuse for weeks on end, and seemingly that's okay and threads are allowed to go on unmolested, but as soon as someone contravenes against that member, the discussion is terminated.

If we are going to have a TOS that allows for open and diverse points of view, then we need to allow discussion. Yes, slurs like the above, should be dealt with, but opinions about advertisements being attacked as dog whistles is just pathetic.

>19 LesMiserables: I'm not really interested in reading that thread, but there is a very clear political leaning across the majority of members, and anyone on the other side does receive more abuse. How should this be handled? I don't know.

I don't think that stating "trolls should be ignored" is enough, and it is frustrating when some users aren't treated in the same way as other members. However, if tempers are rising (across both sides), I think that a temporary cessation in posting on that topic should be considered. Hopefully all members are reasonable, but if two posters have views that are fundamentally opposed, and aren't in a position to influence each other to be closer to their own viewpoint, then after a certain period closing the thread isn't the worst idea. Repetition from both sides won't help either, and moving on to other topics might be the best course of action for all involved.

They weren't discussing FS books, it was a tangential discussion originating from an on-line FS ad a poster didn't like. That poster went on to use a racial slur to bemoan the ad. Then the discussion you are describing took place.

Pretty easy call to shutdown the thread IMO

>21 kcshankd:

And before the ad, an interview. The thread got lost for sure.

An ad where the poster indirectly called a racial slur and also said the mulatto looked 'queer' in a derogatory way.
We shouldn't rewrite narratives, and I think >19 LesMiserables: is being disingenuous in their writeup.

>19 LesMiserables: Trolls will never be welcome here no matter how pedantic you want to be on how the troll was treated.
Insulting our beloved archivist is treason and was flagged accordingly. Hope this helps.

Rascism is a pretty low bar, so I definitely applaud the mods for their actions.

>25 HonorWulf: Same, I can’t believe anyone would complain about it!

>21 kcshankd: >23 DramPan: >24 HamburgerHelper: >25 HonorWulf: >26 RRCBS: hear, hear. It's shocking and depressing to see apologism for blatant racism on these threads, and to see our fine moderators being abused for dealing with it appropriately.

The comment was clearly racist and designed to annoy, and I really don't think the poster was treated badly. Les Mis’s narrative of how the poster behaved and was treated is very, very wide of the mark, IMHO.

At the end of the day, if a word considered to be a racial slur is used without significant qualification to justify it, it is racism. No amount if ‘Oh, but freedom, censorship, whataboutism’ will change that. Don’t write obvious racist things designed purely to be an ass, and no one will complain. Of course, attention-seekers will attention-seek. It is a pretty low bar in terms if avoiding being censored.

If this happened on the book fora I generally frequent, it would have resulted in a ban. They don’t have a troll problem and do have a wide range of politely expressed views most of which are about books.

Edit: Nothing wrong with expressing dissatisfaction with Folio's books, Folios advertising, CEO statements, etc. But it can be easily be done without slurs. A good rule of thumb is, "would I say this direct to the person?" If you wouldn't (because you think there is a high probability of them punching you in the face), maybe re-word or re-think.

>27 johnny1991: 'easy to combat: just dehumanize your victim with insults such as "racist", "nazi", "troll", "bigot" ...'

The irony! Given that some of (if not all of) the ways to be racist involve dehumanization, and one of the primary strategies of the Nazis historically was to dehumanize a single large ethnic minority of Weimar Germany.

(I know, I know; don't feed the trolls. With apologies to Tolstoy: "Happy families are all alike; every troll is unhappy in its own way.")

Everyone is entitled to their take on the even-handedness of how certain posters are treated. I most definitely don't have an issue with FSD admin, but that didn't mean I'm not entitled to expressing frustration when certain posters can be horse-whipped seemingly at leisure by the mob. The same abuse of flagging by the same is a TOS violation but is regularly ignored.

>32 LesMiserables: I agree with you.

And if the thread is locked where a dispute occurs, it is impossible to properly refute and/or mock the offending troll.

>34 johnny1991:

Give it a rest, eh. You can disagree with Folio as much as you like, just don’t go using racial slurs and then complain that people use slurs against you in direct response. I personally don’t think you are a Nazi (very few right-wing people are), but I do think you are behaving like a prat and like to stir and then claim victim. If you think you are preventing civilisational suicide by being rude about black people, you are deluded beyond belief.

We've already had one thread run off the rails and get shut down. Let's not do another.

>34 johnny1991:

Agree.

Not sure why you are getting flagged for your post. If anyone can point out why they flagged >34 johnny1991: I'd surely love to be educated.

Or is it a case of another pile on.

I'll just remind everyone: LibraryThing prohibits personal attacks, name-calling, commercial solicitation and spam, but not much else. Disagreeing with the content of a message is not grounds for flagging. See our Terms of Use.

If you are flagging >34 johnny1991: you must think that there was in there somewhere a personal attack, name-calling, commercial solicitation or spam.

Yep, I thought so: not there.

This forum is getting beyond a joke with flag abuse.

>37 LesMiserables: Go read post 1 again. So violating forum rules, if not LibraryThing's.

>38 Chemren: You cannot have forum rules that deviate from LT.

>39 LesMiserables: You cannot have forum rules that deviate from LT.

I think you can have Forum rules which extend beyond LTs, and my interpretation is people don't necessarily want the post removed so they choose to flag it as an issue, instead. I don't see this as flag abuse. I'd be happy to remove the post if I thought it was necessary. What say you Warwick?

Interesting. I guess per FSD terms of service then, i can write 'I support exterminating millions of people to keep my race and civilization pure, and modern people are idiots to think otherwise.'

And if this message gets flagged its piling on as there's no personal attack, name-calling, commercial solicitation or spam.

Very interesting.

>34 johnny1991:

Tolerance is a nice thing, and I didn't flag that post (no clue how), but calling the mass murder of millions of people (more or less directly) "quite healthy and natural" should be considered an issue and not be tolerated in my opinion. If Librarything rules don't cover that at present, maybe they should.

>41 DramPan:

Exactly. Makes one think, doesn't it.

>41 DramPan:

But you only wrote that in the context of this thread's topic, as a supposition - in quotes, even. No one's going to think you're actually trying to promote or push the idea on anyone here. Flagging you for pretty much staying on topic wouldn't make any sense. It's less gaslighting and more of an implicit request to pin down the finer details of the FSD terms of service.

LibraryThing terms of service are one thing, and rules for a particular group (in this case, Folio Society Devotees) are another. Whether something should or should not be flagged by users is determined by the LibraryThing terms of service (and as observed above and clarified by Tim many times, this includes "personal attacks, name-calling, commercial solicitation and spam, but not much else"). So I wish users would stop flagging things that don't fall within that scope.

But whether a post should be deleted, a thread shut down, or a user banned from posting is up to the group's moderators. I don't think there are any limitations on that authority, and our benevolent dictators Warwick and Glenn can (and should) apply those sanctions as they see fit. My one suggestion to them would be to consider banning users from posting who repeatedly violate the group rules.

The FSD administrators cannot ban a member from FSD or LT, that can only be done by LT administrators. Glenn and I can remove a post, but try to avoid that except when particularly egregious. Flagging shows the mood of the forum members with regard to the tone of a particular post, and it is possible to counter-flag as well.
As FSD administrators, Glenn and I try to let things flow without interference unless the thread becomes quite out of control. This thread is heading that way.
Lets move on to other topics.

>45 wcarter: I'm afraid we'll have to disagree then Warwick on flagging.

LT is quite clear on flagging and it's abuse. Counter flagging similarly. It's certainly not designed as a mood bracelet.

Now you seem to be saying that this thread which has differences of opinion on the very discussion of TOS will be shut down as it might possibly get out of control?

The only thing that is out of control on the FSD forum are the flag abuses for certain members. Very disappointing to see FSD go this way.

I haven’t personally used the flag option, but if a member writes something that is deliberately obnoxious, I have no issue with it being flagged, and I don’t care at all whether that isn’t technically in line with LT rules. I think anyone with half a brain cell knows that calling genocide healthy is not in line with normal acceptable values, and should expect push back. Flagging is simply mild pushback. On most forums it would get the person banned.

>47 stubedoo: Well, if you can show me where a poster has called genocide healthy, then I'll stand corrected.

To say on the one hand that one group of people favours their own over others, is quite different from saying that when that group commits genocide, then that's ok.

I pretty certain >34 johnny1991: didn't say that. But if you can point to it, again I'll stand corrected.

All I'm reading is faulty reasoning as follows:

P1. Groups favour their own over others
P2. Someone within that group commits genocide
C. Therefore if you posit P1 you support genocide.

Really?

For your (general) information: within the last week or so johnny1991 has posted in Pro & Con espousing white supremacy, defending Hitler, and denying the Holocaust.

It's true that LT doesn't have a clear prohibitory policy on such opinions, while "name-calling" is flaggable. However, like JacobHolt writes, individual groups can choose to moderate themselves as they see fit.

Finally, let me comment on the infinite hypocrisy of certain people in this group who have in the past flagged my posts merely for repeating what the subjects themself have stated publicly and gleefully (e.g. that they were Trump supporters), whereas they'd allow pro-Nazi opinions free range.

We are book readers; we have both robust attention spans and long memories.

>47 stubedoo: Sorry, I meant to add, I genuinely appreciate that you are not one of those who abuse the flagging feature.

I for one, use the blocking feature as it restricts visibility for posters who I know are hard-wired troublemakers.

I must add they are generally not within our FSD regular community, but seem to lurk on the peripherals waiting to agitate about their usual clown world ideologies.

I highly recommend this feature.

>48 LesMiserables: You want to see where he called genocide healthy???

Literally in his own words "Let's think about this a tad bit further... *who* do you dehumanize? In the case of the Nazis, it was quite routine: they favored their own civilization and dehumanized and discriminated against anyone else. (This in fact seems quite healthy and natural to me, and can be observed throughout history and in the present in most of the world.)"

Or maybe you wanted him to spell out Genocide.

More proof needed? As said we're all readers. This is so funny to me to see this defense.

>50 LesMiserables:

Ah, right, how amiss of me...

Congratulations on Australia's sane and vigorous rejection of "Temu Trump", LesMiserables! Long live Labor!

>51 DramPan: It's not a defence. You are conflating two things.

Or maybe you wanted him to spell out Genocide.

Well yes or no, that depends on his thoughts on it.

Again, for clarity, because a group favours its own interests, which is a perfectly acceptable position to take, that doesn't mean that everything that group does is acceptable.

I mean that's not particularly difficult to accept.

Are there holocaust deniers? Yes. Are there chromosome deniers? Yes.
To be frank, it is a constant of humanity of denial and affirmation of just about everything.

On the former, I'm not invested in that history but on the evidence, I accept Nazis (not the same as Germans, just a subset) committed genocidal acts, against Jews and Catholics.

On the latter, I am invested, and I accept that normally some kimd of radically deluded feminist-marxist types (not the same as Women or Feminine Women, just a subset) commit acts agains thought, reason, and biology, against society.

>49 LolaWalser: Thank you

>46 LesMiserables: you really got bothered when your post was deleted after an admin says that any further comments will be deleted.

In an effort to also get this thread shut down (lol) who and what you choose to defend and align yourself with does state something about your morals. It's concerning to think that someone is legitimately confused about why people might have a problem with a derogatory term. Your tacit approval and defense of someone that used that term does say something about your own values. You also gave a holocaust denier the benefit of the doubt (as if he ever was arguing in good faith) so I'm not even remotely surprised. But suuureeee. This is definitely about "flag abuse".

>54 HamburgerHelper: This is definitely about "flag abuse". Agreed.

I'd be interested in you spelling out my morals and values, given your seeming insights on them.

I for one, don't know you from Adam, bar your claimed omniscience, which you no doubt are going to share with us all.

>56 johnny1991: We've already eliminated countless species of organisms from the planet.

Not sure about this one. I think the latest evidence from most serious research anthropologists on archaeological evidence, points to not different species of hominid, but just variants of one species.

Of course the macro-evolutionary Neo-Darwinian cornerstone proponents will deny this as long as they can ie Dawkins, but most in that field have moved beyond that claim.

I'm fairly certain there have been several mainstream conferences of late, with the leading evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, reaching broad consensus that the previously held ape to man evidence is discredited.

>58 johnny1991: I am, although my religion is always in harmony with science. They are impossible to be at variance.

I know the term 'Christian Science' has been used as synonymous with Theology, although this is more metaphysical than physical.