39 minutes ago, Sergi91 said:

Wonderful! What about users that make ageist comments ? 

gal, ageism sucks but its not in the same vein as racism, homophobia, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry, its just not. 

9 minutes ago, Cherry123 said:

I imagine this will be only for offensive warning points related to this policy, right? For example, if I attack a member for a completely different subject and I get an offensive wp, will I be banned?

Offensive WPs will largely be reserved for situations related to the ZTP. If you harshly attack a member, we have the "abrasive" and "personal attack" WPs for those cases.

Does that include calling undocumented people “illegals” cause I’ve seen that a couple times 

Good 

10 minutes ago, Relampago. said:

Does that include calling undocumented people “illegals” cause I’ve seen that a couple times 

Yes.

Good and necessary in theory. I am worried it might be abused though :( 

 

18 minutes ago, Relampago. said:

Does that include calling undocumented people “illegals” cause I’ve seen that a couple times 

 

7 minutes ago, Oxygen said:

Yes.

But why? I'm confused 

1 minute ago, Coklek92 said:

 

But why? I'm confused 

The moderation team isn't here to explain the history and the reason why certain slurs are offensive.

 

Happy to assist with any questions regarding the policy however! 

18 minutes ago, ibreathepop said:

Good and necessary in theory. I am worried it might be abused though :( 

 

It’s been in place since last April. All we did was refine the policy to take into account differences in environment and lack of knowledge and give people an opportunity to course correct. 

2 hours ago, ATRL Feedback said:

This post is off-topic and not the place for nonsense. 

The OP talks about excusing permanent bans from people who have realized the errors of their ways. Not exactly off topic. 

38 minutes ago, Oxygen said:

Yes.

Glad the moderation team is taking steps to make ATRL a safer place for everyone. There’s always room for political debate, but there’s no room for dehumanizing people.  

Does this policy include racism towards white people? And discriminatory behavior towards “twinks”?

 

I’m in no way pulling an “all lives matter,” but discrimination is discrimination. Genuinely asking since I’ve seen a mod deliberately mocking or treating as inferior the two I mentioned.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Coklek92 said:

 

But why? I'm confused 

12 minutes ago, DevonRoars said:

The OP talks about excusing permanent bans from people who have realized the errors of their ways. Not exactly off topic. 

It specifically says in the OP: 

3 hours ago, ATRL Administration said:

Please note that this policy will not be applied retroactively to previous permanent bans under the original ZTP.

 

3 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

Does this policy include racism towards white people? And discriminatory behavior towards “twinks”?

 

I’m in no way pulling an “all lives matter,” but discrimination is discrimination. Genuinely asking since I’ve seen a mod deliberately mocking or treating as inferior the two I mentioned.

 

 

I mean you kind of are. Like last year we’re not going to descend into whataboutism or reverse racism. Offensive comments (whether racist or bigoted) will fall under the ZTP, and, like last year, will be warned or banned as such regardless. 

Goodbye racist supporters

I agree that discrimination should not be tolerated but is having a different opinion warnable/offensive? For example, disagreeing with non-binary genders or agreeing with JK Rowling's statement about sex vs gender.

5 minutes ago, Jealous said:

I agree that discrimination should not be tolerated but is having a different opinion warnable/offensive? For example, disagreeing with non-binary genders or agreeing with JK Rowling's statement about sex vs gender.

ATRL supports discussion and diverse ideas but an opinion that someone's sexuality, gender or identity is not valid is considered to be an offensive comment by most, if not all, of the ATRL moderation team. 

 

This is captured in the first paragraph of the policy:

 

Quote

"...as well as discrimination or offensive comments based on sexuality, gender or an individual's choice to be defined as something else altogether."

 

12 minutes ago, Jealous said:

I agree that discrimination should not be tolerated but is having a different opinion warnable/offensive? For example, disagreeing with non-binary genders or agreeing with JK Rowling's statement about sex vs gender.

The JK thread is a good case study for why this revision exists. We understand the sensitivity around some of these topics because there is a lot of discussion around constructs of race, gender, etc. So, it's fair for people to have constructive conversations regarding these identities. However, if a person is dismissing the identities and lived experiences of trans people to argue their perspective on gender, that is an apt opportunity for the ZTP to be applied. We are greatly committed to ensuring that our trans members feel safe and welcome and defending conversations that outright reject their existence is not excusable.

 

Essentially, if a thread is asking for clarification on how gender and sex compare, why the distinction exists, etc., then there can be validity in such a conversation. However, those threads can provide a great opportunity for someone to say something along the lines of, "Trans women are still men," which is in direct violation of the ZTP and will not be tolerated. More simply, if you are respectful towards the trans community, you will be okay (e.g., "I'm not understanding why some trans women refer to themselves as their child's father if they identity as women," would be a valid question and a solid start to a conversation as long as it is affirming of trans people). 

12 minutes ago, Ryan said:

I mean you kind of are. Like last year we’re not going to descend into whataboutism or reverse racism. Offensive comments (whether racist or bigoted) will fall under the ZTP, and, like last year, will be warned or banned as such regardless. 

Attacking, insulting and/or offending someone just based on their skin color is racism. It’d negatively shock me if there was any type of exception for one race.

 

From your reply, I’m taking that it’s inadmissible to treat “twinks” derogatorily or inferiorly. I’ll be actively reporting.

 

I’d also like to know the stance ATRL Staff has on mental health.

1 minute ago, Jeremiah said:

I’d also like to know the stance ATRL Staff has on mental health.

This is taken seriously and is usually captured by the Insensitive warning. 

4 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

I’d also like to know the stance ATRL Staff has on mental health.

If you could clarify what you're wanting to know, that would help us better answer your question. Generally speaking, attacks to one's mental health is something we take very seriously.

The racists already testing the waters in here  good luck mods. 
 

anyways, this is great.

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

If you could clarify what you're wanting to know, that would help us better answer your question.

Basically the sensitivity and detection by the staff on offensive posts. Typical case is Britney. Will it be allowed posts that make fun of her conservatorship situation?

 

Btw, is it possible to let know if a report was applied? Or that’s asking for too much?

8 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

Btw, is it possible to let know if a report was applied? Or that’s asking for too much?

I only message a member in exceptional circumstances, usually when the post has directly upset them personally and I want to comfort and reassure them, and have only done so a handful of times. It would be way to hard to provide an outcome for every report when you often process 20-30 at a time and have to deal with forum issues like duplicate warnings and 503 errors. 

 

If you really want a response regarding a report then send a HR, but keep in mind not all are responded to.