![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
auntysarah.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transA recent post has ignited some debate over the following community rule:
Posts which are likely to be contentious or controversial should be posted with [controversial] prepended to the subject line. If it becomes obvious from subsequent commenting that a post is indeed controversial, or if asked by a moderator, please add it. The moderators reserve the right to remove posts which do not conform to this rule. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.
I'd like to take a moment to clarify this rule. The use of the "controversial" marker is to flag posts which are likely to be contentious or where the comment thread is/may become heated. The implication behind the use of "controversial" is simply that "Dissent may exist, and may cause an argument". The marker is present to allow those who are perhaps new to the community and/or exploring their gender identity to be able to use the community as a resource without being intimidated by having to wade through potential verbal minefields or flame wars (which the moderators would obviously strongly discourage).
It is emphatically not an indication that the subject of the post has debatable validity, or that any dissent is valid, or a suggestion that there are two legitimate sides to an argument. The use of this marker should be considered entirely neutral on such matters.
It seems clear that not all members of this community agree with the paragraph above, and I am inviting responses from those who feel strongly about this issue, or have suggestions to make. Is there a problem with the word itself? Is flagging posts like this even a useful thing to do, or does it create more problems than it solves?
Opinions, please?
Posts which are likely to be contentious or controversial should be posted with [controversial] prepended to the subject line. If it becomes obvious from subsequent commenting that a post is indeed controversial, or if asked by a moderator, please add it. The moderators reserve the right to remove posts which do not conform to this rule. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.
I'd like to take a moment to clarify this rule. The use of the "controversial" marker is to flag posts which are likely to be contentious or where the comment thread is/may become heated. The implication behind the use of "controversial" is simply that "Dissent may exist, and may cause an argument". The marker is present to allow those who are perhaps new to the community and/or exploring their gender identity to be able to use the community as a resource without being intimidated by having to wade through potential verbal minefields or flame wars (which the moderators would obviously strongly discourage).
It is emphatically not an indication that the subject of the post has debatable validity, or that any dissent is valid, or a suggestion that there are two legitimate sides to an argument. The use of this marker should be considered entirely neutral on such matters.
It seems clear that not all members of this community agree with the paragraph above, and I am inviting responses from those who feel strongly about this issue, or have suggestions to make. Is there a problem with the word itself? Is flagging posts like this even a useful thing to do, or does it create more problems than it solves?
Opinions, please?