Reply to thread

Message

This has been some good discussion. I've refrained from sharing any thoughts to ensure that we got a lot of perspectives accounted for in the thread; at this point I do want to address a few ideas that have come up (mostly just to clarify the SFF Forum team's thinking):
Our intent is to censor as little as possible. I think some folks have interpreted some moderator actions as us censoring folks criticizing clones, because they were criticizing clones. That's not our policy; we are only concerned with folks who are being disrespectful or antagonistic. We probably haven't been 100% at enforcing that and being as clear as possible about when and why we've enforced it, mostly because we're human, but know that that's the intent. I very much want there to be lots of discussion about clones, and anything that someone feels is a clone or copy, they should feel comfortable to say that. Just do so constructively and respectfully.
What is ethically ok/not ok with respect to clones – including what is and isn't a clone or copy – is highly subjective. I think this needs to be repeated: what defines a clone, and the line that separates a 'similar' design from an outright copy, is fuzzy as hell. In the past few pages in this thread you can see how differently people have interpreted where that line is, in certain circumstances, and with specific examples. I hope that illustrates how perilous it would be to base a censorship policy on such subjective criteria. Consider if your own idea was banned – or if you yourself were banned – for such reasons, and you disagreed with them. Consider the biases and ulterior motives that could be introduced through a select group of creators deciding which projects can be discussed, and which couldn't.
Heavier enforcement does not protect designers, it protects some designers at the expense of others. In any theoretical scenario in which SFF Forum is censoring certain designs or products, we are protecting established and entrenched brands at the expense of newer/younger or less well known designers. Given the subjective nature of this sort of enforcement, we would inevitably shut out folks who you personally think we shouldn't. That censorship would shut those designers out, causing significant harm to those individuals. It would also rob the community of their contributions, harming all of us collectively, and stifling creative innovation.
Hopefully this better clarifies our moderation policy and some of the specific ways in which we are concerned that more rigorous enforcement would be counterproductive.

<blockquote data-quote="PlayfulPhoenix" data-source="post: 116950" data-attributes="member: 7">This has been some good discussion. I've refrained from sharing any thoughts to ensure that we got a lot of perspectives accounted for in the thread; at this point I do want to address a few ideas that have come up (mostly just to clarify the SFF Forum team's thinking):<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Our intent is to censor as little as possible. I think some folks have interpreted some moderator actions as us censoring folks criticizing clones, because they were criticizing clones. That's not our policy; we are only concerned with folks who are being disrespectful or antagonistic. We probably haven't been 100% at enforcing that and being as clear as possible about when and why we've enforced it, mostly because we're human, but know that that's the intent. I very much want there to be lots of discussion about clones, and anything that someone feels is a clone or copy, they should feel comfortable to say that. Just do so constructively and respectfully.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">What is ethically ok/not ok with respect to clones – including what is and isn't a clone or copy – is highly subjective. I think this needs to be repeated: what defines a clone, and the line that separates a 'similar' design from an outright copy, is fuzzy as hell. In the past few pages in this thread you can see how differently people have interpreted where that line is, in certain circumstances, and with specific examples. I hope that illustrates how perilous it would be to base a censorship policy on such subjective criteria. Consider if your own idea was banned – or if you yourself were banned – for such reasons, and you disagreed with them. Consider the biases and ulterior motives that could be introduced through a select group of creators deciding which projects can be discussed, and which couldn't.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Heavier enforcement does not protect designers, it protects some designers at the expense of others. In any theoretical scenario in which SFF Forum is censoring certain designs or products, we are protecting established and entrenched brands at the expense of newer/younger or less well known designers. Given the subjective nature of this sort of enforcement, we would inevitably shut out folks who you personally think we shouldn't. That censorship would shut those designers out, causing significant harm to those individuals. It would also rob the community of their contributions, harming all of us collectively, and stifling creative innovation.</li>
</ul>Hopefully this better clarifies our moderation policy and some of the specific ways in which we are concerned that more rigorous enforcement would be counterproductive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PlayfulPhoenix, post: 116950, member: 7"] This has been some good discussion. I've refrained from sharing any thoughts to ensure that we got a lot of perspectives accounted for in the thread; at this point I do want to address a few ideas that have come up (mostly just to clarify the SFF Forum team's thinking): [LIST] [*][B]Our intent is to censor as little as possible.[/B] I think some folks have interpreted some moderator actions as us censoring folks criticizing clones, because they were criticizing clones. That's not our policy; we are only concerned with folks who are being disrespectful or antagonistic. We probably haven't been 100% at enforcing that and being as clear as possible about when and why we've enforced it, mostly because we're human, but know that that's the intent. I very much want there to be lots of discussion about clones, and anything that someone feels is a clone or copy, they should feel comfortable to say that. Just do so constructively and respectfully. [/LIST] [LIST] [*][B]What is ethically ok/not ok with respect to clones – including what is and isn't a clone or copy – is highly subjective.[/B] I think this needs to be repeated: what defines a clone, and the line that separates a 'similar' design from an outright copy, is fuzzy as hell. In the past few pages in this thread you can see how differently people have interpreted where that line is, in certain circumstances, and with specific examples. I hope that illustrates how perilous it would be to base a censorship policy on such subjective criteria. Consider if your own idea was banned – or if you yourself were banned – for such reasons, and you disagreed with them. Consider the biases and ulterior motives that could be introduced through a select group of creators deciding which projects can be discussed, and which couldn't. [/LIST] [LIST] [*][B]Heavier enforcement does not protect designers, it protects [I]some[/I] designers at the expense of others.[/B] In any theoretical scenario in which SFF Forum is censoring certain designs or products, we are protecting established and entrenched brands at the expense of newer/younger or less well known designers. Given the subjective nature of this sort of enforcement, we would inevitably shut out folks who you personally think we shouldn't. That censorship would shut those designers out, causing significant harm to those individuals. It would also rob the community of their contributions, harming all of us collectively, and stifling creative innovation. [/LIST] Hopefully this better clarifies our moderation policy and some of the specific ways in which we are concerned that more rigorous enforcement would be counterproductive. [/QUOTE]

Verification