RF COVID-19 Policy Poll

[Debater Slayer]

Hi, everyone,

In light of the developments since the RF staff last revised our policy on COVID-related posts, we have decided to create another poll to help us decide how to proceed regarding said posts.

This was the last poll thread:

Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

Specifically, this is the current policy as voted for by the majority of members who weighed in on the poll:

Option #4: The policy should allow information outside of the CDC and the WHO, but only from reputable sources (as determined by staff) even if it actively contradicts mainstream medical consensus.

Furthermore, statements about COVID that contradict mainstream medical consensus and are accompanied by a link, even a non-reputable one (as deemed by the staff), are usually not moderated formally and are instead removed from public view and followed by an explanation of why. However, statements that don't cite a link at all and contradict mainstream medical consensus on COVID-19 are formally moderated per Rule 9.

Should we keep the current policy in place, should we modify it, or should we entirely remove it?

If you would like to suggest a policy modification, please do so either here or in Site Feedback, but keep Rule 2 in mind and refrain from discussing individual instances of moderation in any forums except Site Feedback.

Thank you.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I say keep things the same.

I just think it's too soon to consider easing restrictions. Though I'd maybe suggest reweighing the subject if it comes to the point where covid isn't any longer a serious issue.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I say keep things the same.

I just think it's too soon to consider easing restrictions. Though I'd maybe suggest reweighing the subject if it comes to the point where covid isn't any longer a serious issue.

Thanks for your feedback.

Please make sure to vote in the poll if you haven't already so that we can easily keep track of member opinion on this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Steady as she goes Cap'n!!

There is still a danger to others when it comes to bad sources. It is not as high as early on in the pandemic, but it still exists. No change.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I voted to keep the current policy intact.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Covid-19 is just another part of our world now. Why would we be able to talk freely about the flu and the cold and cancer and shingles, but have to stay away from Covid? We're in trouble when our illnesses become political.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Free speech….it’s helpful to know where everyone stands. Really, on any issue.

 

[Watchmen]

Remove the policy entirely. I don’t trust the admins to fairly decide what’s reputable and what’s not. Too much room for error or abuse.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi, everyone,

In light of the developments since the RF staff last revised our policy on COVID-related posts, we have decided to create another poll to help us decide how to proceed regarding said posts.

This was the last poll thread:

Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

Specifically, this is the current policy as voted for by the majority of members who weighed in on the poll:



Furthermore, statements about COVID that contradict mainstream medical consensus and are accompanied by a link, even a non-reputable one (as deemed by the staff), are usually not moderated formally and are instead removed from public view and followed by an explanation of why. However, statements that don't cite a link at all and contradict mainstream medical consensus on COVID-19 are formally moderated per Rule 9.

Should we keep the current policy in place, should we modify it, or should we entirely remove it?

If you would like to suggest a policy modification, please do so either here or in Site Feedback, but keep Rule 2 in mind and refrain from discussing individual instances of moderation in any forums except Site Feedback.

Thank you.

Remove it. It doesn't bode well when you have a 'misinformation' board that is beholden to a central source imo. That puts the forum well into bias territory, and consequently carry that reputation publicly.

But I do understand we live in a litigation crazy society now which is pretty sad in itself.

Bottom line is obviously up to the owner of the forum. It is what it is.

 

[sun rise]

I think COVID threads should be visible without visiting that area. I get busy and forget to take the extra effort to check those threads.

I'd keep the staff policy to make sure the threads remain factual.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Remove the policy entirely. I don’t trust the admins to fairly decide what’s reputable and what’s not. Too much room for error or abuse.

Currently, there are four active admins--three if we only count ones who log in more than a few times a week. They are a small fraction of the daily active staff: the mods are equally involved in all of the daily reports on the forum, and the current makeup of the staff runs the gamut from solidly right-wing to solidly left-wing, with multiple mods in between. There are also staff members from various religious backgrounds and lack thereof (e.g., Hindus, Jews, Catholics, atheists/agnostics, and pantheists).

None of the staff members (whether admins or mods) get to decide what is a reputable source or not unilaterally, and even in cases where a post includes a link that we find not reputable via staff consensus, the presence of the link often mitigates the moderation and results in informal rather than formal action, as I outlined in the OP. We often don't believe we should moderate someone formally merely for including a source we find unreliable; only if they don't include a source at all while contradicting mainstream medical consensus.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think COVID threads should be visible without visiting that area. I get busy and forget to take the extra effort to check those threads.

I'd keep the staff policy to make sure the threads remain factual.

That's unfortunately a bug where newly created sub-forums don't get added to the 'new threads' or recent widgets. It might be able to be manually updated, but it'd take the site owners to do it.

 

[Heyo]

Free speech….it’s helpful to know where everyone stands. Really, on any issue.

Free speech is when you are allowed to express your own opinion - not your own "facts".

But covid is no longer a hot topic, facts and opinions are widely known and the policy has done its duty, it can go now.

 

[Watchmen]

Currently, there are four active admins--three if we only count ones who log in more than a few times a week. They are a small fraction of the daily active staff: the mods are equally involved in all of the daily reports on the forum, and the current makeup of the staff runs the gamut from solidly right-wing to solidly left-wing, with multiple mods in between. There are also staff members from various religious backgrounds and lack thereof (e.g., Hindus, Jews, Catholics, atheists/agnostics, and pantheists).

None of the staff members (whether admins or mods) get to decide what is a reputable source or not unilaterally, and even in cases where a post includes a link that we find not reputable via staff consensus, the presence of the link often mitigates the moderation and results in informal rather than formal action, as I outlined in the OP. We often don't believe we should moderate someone formally merely for including a source we find unreliable; only if they don't include a source at all while contradicting mainstream medical consensus.

Uh huh.

 

[crossfire]

Create a folder or thread called "COVID propaganda" and move uncited claims about COVID-19 and stuff snopes would call 'false" there. Everyone can still see them, and it might help those who have difficulty discerning between actual data and propaganda.

 

[Quagmire]

Currently, there are four active admins--three if we only count ones who log in more than a few times a week. They are a small fraction of the daily active staff: the mods are equally involved in all of the daily reports on the forum, and the current makeup of the staff runs the gamut from solidly right-wing to solidly left-wing, with multiple mods in between. There are also staff members from various religious backgrounds and lack thereof (e.g., Hindus, Jews, Catholics, atheists/agnostics, and pantheists).

None of the staff members (whether admins or mods) get to decide what is a reputable source or not unilaterally, and even in cases where a post includes a link that we find not reputable via staff consensus, the presence of the link often mitigates the moderation and results in informal rather than formal action, as I outlined in the OP. We often don't believe we should moderate someone formally merely for including a source we find unreliable; only if they don't include a source at all while contradicting mainstream medical consensus.

Don't ruin it for 'em, DS.

 

[Quagmire]

Remove it. It doesn't bode well when you have a 'misinformation' board that is beholden to a central source imo.

And what "central source" is this alleged "misinformation board" "beholden to" pray tell?
(And how the hell did you find out that the Illuminati bought RF?)

That puts the forum well into bias territory, and consequently carry that reputation publicly.

But I do understand we live in a litigation crazy society now which is pretty sad in itself.

Bottom line is obviously up to the owner of the forum. It is what it is.

Yes, it's completely and utterly up to the owners who most likely don't even have any idea what our covid misinformation policy actually is.

Why else would we create a poll asking the members what they want?

 

[Quagmire]

For anyone who's interested, here's where our current policy actually came from:

Policy Poll: COVID-Related Posts

 

[Twilight Hue]

And what "central source" is this alleged "misinformation board" "beholden to" pray tell?
(And how the hell did you find out that the Illuminati bought RF?)



Yes, it's completely and utterly up to the owners who most likely don't even have any idea what our covid misinformation policy actually is.

Why else would we create a poll asking the members what they want?

Based on posts in the past, it seems the only 'authority' is the CDC and its beloved Dr Fauci with the mentality that its my way or the highway when it comes to facts and opinions on COVID-19.

Also you were secretly video taped by higher extraterrestrial beings in line with the zoo hypothesis, and confirmed everything you said about the Illuminati because they carelessly scribbled a crib note on their receipt at Starbucks and forgot to take it with them when they left.