Subject: Re: Shall we vote in an official capacity now?
Author:
Posted on: 2017-03-20 00:35:00 UTC
As everyone's votes are scattered about in the big post, I thought we should conglomerate them all in one place. If I've missed something or you just want to shout at me, email is clickable.
Firstly, on the subject of mods.
Should we have them?
If we do, who will they be?
Secondly, bans. Are we banning anyone? For how long?
And thirdly, the Discord. Any proposed changes, please say so.
Ok, I think that's everything, so, vote, i guess :/
Bans for Tomash
-Permaban: 2 (*Desdendelle, *PoorCynic)
-1 year ban: 1 ([EvilAI]UBEROverlord)
-3-6 month ban: 3 (*Iximaz, Sergio Turbo, Seafarer)
-1-3 month ban: 11 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Phobos, doctorlit, OrangeYoshi99, Neshomeh, Novastorme, Tomash, Mattman the Comet, The Good Mod Addict, Akrinor, Zingenmir)
-TOTAL BANS: 17 [49% of total]
-NO BAN: 13 (*Aegis, *SkarmorySilver, *Granz, Huinesoron, DrGonzo, World-Jumper, Delta Juliette, Badger421, The Triumvirate, VixenMage, Matt Cipher, Alleb, Hieronymus Graubart)
-Explicit abstain: 5 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, Ekyl, ninny4370)
-TOTAL VOTES: 35 (*6 + 29)
Drawing purely from this thread:
Board Mods
-Mods: 6 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Novastorme, The Good Mod Addict, Ekyl, ninny4370, [EvilAI]UBEROverlord)
-No Mods: 15 60% of total
-Explicit abstain: 4 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, The Triumvirate)
-TOTAL VOTES: 25
Discord Muting
-Involved users muted: 6 (*Scapegrace, Neshomeh, Sergio Turbo, Zingenmir, Alleb, Hieronymus Graubart)
-Discord closed: 1 (OrangeYoshi99)
I personally feel like they should be treated like the US Congress treats them. They do not factor into an actual vote. That's how you can have the Senate unanimously confirm a nomination with 92 votes instead of the actual unanimous 100. So for our purposes it is 17-13 in favor of a ban.
As for board moderators it would be 15-6 against moderators.
Not that it changes the tally, but I definitely did not vote for a ban.
I think there's a difference between doxxing classically (spreading someone's identifying details publicly, with an intent to harass/get them attacked) and not editing someone's real name out of a screenshot in a place you thought was private, only to realize it wasn't private.
For that reason, I don't consider what Tomash did consistent with punishing someone for "doxxing".
Hey, at least you get two votes, right? :-,
Yeah, I'm gonna go edit that for recordkeeping purposes.
I am very unclear how anyone can view the Discord - which you can access just by clicking a link, and which is infinitely searchable apparently - as any more private than the Board. But for some reason, people did think that.
hS
I honestly think it's just part of the feeling of the chat. I certainly don't think of it as being "as public" as the Board, even though it clearly is. I don't know that I can really explain it, either, so I'm aware this sounds absurd (and is a moot point, since Tomash is leaving for 2-3 months anyway), but a chat really does feel more private.
1/ Around 50% of commentors feel Tomash should be banned for at least 1-3 months. This drops slightly if Desdendelle's vote is discounted following his departure.
Either: the 'abstain' votes should be discounted, and there is a firm majority (58%) in favour of banning Tomash, who should therefore be banned.
Or: the 'abstain' votes should count for the status quo, which means there is either an even split or a slight bias to letting Tomash stay; Tomash should therefore not be banned.
Or: the 'abstain' votes count with the majority, which means Tomash is banned by 63%.
I will not make this decision. I've been attacked too many times for 'being listened to' in this incident and others.
2/ 60% of the total voters (I'm not counting people who didn't comment on this at all) feel we should not have mods. If the abstainers are counted for the status quo or the majority, that jumps above 75%. The consensus is that we should not institute moderators.
3/ There is a strong undercurrent for muting certain people on the Discord for 1-3 months. I don't see any votes specifically dissenting from this.
Now someone needs to put themselves forward and decide when, and how, to call this.
hS
It's been a week, and we've seen 31 people vote, which is a large enough sample of the community to be representative (last few times I tried to count, the PPC had about 40 to 50 members). We also haven't seen "too many" abstains or calls to wait a bit, so that's not a validity issue either.
I personally feel that permabans need at least 2/3rds vote to stick. However, this was a vote on a temporary ban, so it's a lot less clear what the vote threshold should be. Then again, PPC votes are to a consensus, not a majority, and it's best to err on the side of caution with the sanctioning. So, I'm going to decide that there was no clear consensus on my ban, but that there was a very clear trend in favor of it that can't be ignored.
Despite this uncertainty, I think I need to be banned for a bit, and there's no reason I can't be harsher on myself than the community is. I made a terrible mistake that caused serious harm to July. There need to be consequences for that, and I personally don't feel punished enough by the apologies and the resignation.
Therefore, I'm announcing my ban from the PPC for 2-3 months. That is, until some point between May 23 and June 23 (I expect it'll be in early June) I won't be:
- Posting on the Board
- Present in the Discord
- Editing the wiki
I considered just muting myself on the Discord, but that felt like it would soften one of the parts of getting banned that feels bad, so I won't be doing that.
One exception: if I come up in the grievances thread next month, or if there is any voting, I'll be participating in those discussions. (well, also, I'll finish the discussion(s) I'm currently involved in if they get continued, but not drag them out)
I'll stay available by email (clickable above) and by Discord PM (I'm Tomash#8833) if anyone wants to keep in touch.
If the T-Board or archives have problems, please do contact me. I'll still be available to fix them.
As to the moderator vote, I'm going to propose a result, which everyone should feel free to ignore. Of the 21 people who voted, 70% of them (15 / 21 is about 0.7) are opposed to mods, which is a strong indicator that the community as a whole isn't particularly keen on the idea. That means that the result is no mods.
In a thread below, Maslab and Delta Juliette appear to have been elected Discord mods by 11 votes and no objections. Since that's not a sanction, and it looks like everyone either supports this or doesn't care enough to object, I think we can declare that election concluded.
On the mutes, I don't think we have enough participation to impose that sanction. However, I think that the people whose mutes are being called for should consider voluntarily muting themselves for a while.
So, yeah, bye guys. Sorry for my part in all this mess.
Use the time to think about what you did, and why it was wrong. Think also about what you, personally, can do to ensure nothing of the sort ever happens again, and what you will do if it starts to.
Everyone who was involved in the Discord discussion, whether you choose to self-mute or not, should also have a long hard think along those lines. Remember that, under the Constitution, you have had the problem explained to you (at length), and in enough different ways that it's implausible for you to claim you didn't understand; if this sort of behaviour happens again, the community may decide that you have used up your second chance and are eligible for a ban.
(That's not intended as a threat or anything - just me making sure it's down in writing.)
hS
I vote no ban for Tomash.
I vote for my own 1-3 month muting on the Discord.
I vote for Maslab and Delta as Discord mods.
-Alleb
I was a bit vague when proposing the "best of", so I might as well say that I like the idea of it being a collaborative Board thread (that someone summarizes for the Wiki after it's done, probably).
On asking permission to quote, I agree it's best to do that just to be on the safe side. In theory, no one should be saying anything in Discord they'd object to getting plastered onto the front page of the Board, but in practice, the chat is a bit more private (you can't read it without some indication you might be doing so) and a bit more spontaneous, so you want to make sure everyone's OK with being quoted.
Agreed on the modifications to the bit about positive discussion, especially where missions and such are concerned. I definitely remember when Nesh posted her latest mission two months back (wow, I could have sworn it was longer ago) I said a few words about it in chat (rot13'd) that eventually ended up in my Board review. I'll also admit to giving people their reviews (especially if they're vague and underdeveloped thoughts) over chat instead of on the Board if we're both around.
Additionally, it's practice on the Discord that if you expect someone will be on soon (say, within a day) and you think they should see some bit of discussion (for example, you think they'd be interested in the fic you linked), you @mention them so they can jump to it and read it. This is a good system, but we should keep in mind that tagging someone in on a conversation about them doesn't automatically make it not be behind their back.
I don't think I've seen community decision-making over chat. However, the discussion has very occasionally veered into topics that would probably be more appropriate for a Board post, and we should be less hesitant to take matters here.
Public chat isn't the place for grievances and drama, I agree. It's sort of the worst of both worlds compared to taking it to a private discussion or posting on the Board, .
It discussed what language was acceptable. Its mods agreed they wanted a channel. It extensively discussed its reaction to GlarnBoudin. It decided that palindromordnilap was behind this incident, and that it was appropriate to post her real name to the Board.
It decided there were deep problems in the community. It decided that Ekyl was not a problem. It decided JulyFlame was a problem. It tried to decide what action to take against JulyFlame. It decided that Granz's 'new server' should be taken down.
No, in most cases, the Discord hasn't come to a decision before bringing it to the Board (though how many times have you had a conversation that went 'is this person's behaviour a problem? No, I don't think it is'? A negative decision is still a decision). But that doesn't matter.
As soon as the issue of appropriate language came up, it should have gone to the Board. As soon as Granz's behaviour became a topic of discussion, it should have gone to the Board. As soon as issues with moderator coordination came up, it should have gone to the Board. As soon as the not-palin screenshot was brought up, it should have gone to the Board.
Etcetera. Etcetera. Et-flipping-cetera.
The Discord is not the place to make PPC-related decisions. Ever. As soon as it becomes apparent that a decision needs to be made - as soon as you're asking yourselves 'what can we do about this?' - the discussion needs to be shut down and taken directly to the Board. To do otherwise is to treat non-Discorders as second-class citizens - people who don't deserve a say in the early stages of a discussion, but only get brought in once the Discord has decided on the shape of the conversation.
It's abundantly clear that live chat leads to conversations sliding out of control. Unless you can think of a way to permanently stop that happening, I maintain that having an unshakable rule is the best option:
You don't talk about anyone who isn't there. And you don't even try to make PPC decisions.
Ever.
hS
I think you're being a tiny bit too absolutist here. For example, those "negative decisions" often serve as a useful reality check to keep knee-jerk reactions off the Board.
However, I certainly support Rule N: "Substantive discussion about the PPC community or canon should be kept on the Board."
"We're still just discussing what should be done to about July. Once we've come to some conclusions - gotten past the knee-jerk stage of things, reached a starting point for the proper debate - then we'll take it to the Board."
Remind me again how good the Discord's judgement is of what's appropriate?
hS
Sure, some very serious mistakes were made with the July situation, but I'm not as convinced as you are that this is a pervasive issue.
However, you have a valid point there. That is, I agree we need to be a lot more careful about not using the Discord to pre-frame a discussion before it comes up on the Board. There's probably a better wording for the rule that will catch that sort of thing while permitting the significantly more frequent conversation that goes
A: [does something that's a bit uncool, like swearing or starting to veer into getting snipy at someone]
B: You shouldn't do the thing/edit your post/...
A: Sorry. [if possible, fixes the thing]
which I'm firmly convinced is not a Board-level issue
It's partially also a question of "I think this RP was awesome, do you mind if I put this chunk of it up on the Board?" "...eh, sure, I like how that one came out." or "If you *really* want to, but I don't like that piece of it, and that bit looks really OOC to me...I'd rather you didn't." or even "Sure, but I really don't like that one line I wrote at the end there, would you mind cutting it earlier?" Stuff like that. In some cases, it's less a question of 'is this public or private' and more 'do you, the author, think this is as good as I do and are okay with my bringing attention to it.'
So that's another side of getting permission to quote things from the Discord on the Board; I know I've participated in some RPs there that I really liked and in another couple where I felt uninspired at the time and think it was reflected in my writing. I'd personally probably be okay with both types being quoted here, but I would want to add a note to the post explaining why I think one of them is a better example of my writing or something like that.
(I used RPs as an example here, but it'd work pretty similarly with jokes and so on).
Another thing that could be brought to the Board is the recs and plugs channel. We do occasionally end up with an OT thread where people recommend music and stories and whatever else; maybe there could be one a little more frequently? Could be something to consider (though I'd say definitely have only one on the front page at a time if it catches on).
Of course, another piece of the Discord that frequently gets moved to recs and plugs is talk about badfic. Some readings have been recorded and made their way to the Board before, but you've also got a bunch of written snarking going on. I'm not sure whether this would really work as a thing to bring to the Board, especially since presumably some of it gets transferred into either a mission or a note on the Unclaimed Badfic page (at least...I think some of these are being claimed or put on the unclaimed list? I could be wrong). It is a thing that happens, though. Maybe it'd be best suited to a note or two in the potential collaborative Board thread or blog post (it could be summarized with some included quotes of badfic and snark? Highlights style!)
Anyway. This isn't really an attempt to add to my votes--it's just more suggestions for the development of a 'Best of Discord' thing combined with an...additional clarification? I'm going to go with that and call it a day.
Good night,
~Zing
Votes carried over from the previous thread are *asterisked.
-Permaban: 2 (*Desdendelle, *PoorCynic)
-1 year ban: 1 ([EvilAI]UBEROverlord)
-3-6 month ban: 3 (*Iximaz, Sergio Turbo, Seafarer)
-1-3 month ban: 11 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Phobos, doctorlit, OrangeYoshi99, Neshomeh, VixenMage, Novastorme, Tomash, Mattman the Comet, The Good Mod Addict, Akrinor)
-TOTAL BANS: 17 [50% of total]
-NO BAN: 12 (*Aegis, *SkarmorySilver, *Granz, *Hieronymus Graubart, Huinesoron, DrGonzo, World-Jumper, Delta Juliette, Badger421, The Triumvirate, VixenMage, Matt Cipher)
-Explicit abstain: 5 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, Ekyl, ninny4370)
-TOTAL VOTES: 34 (*7 + 27)
Drawing purely from this thread:
-Mods: 6 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Novastorme, The Good Mod Addict, Ekyl, ninny4370, [EvilAI]UBEROverlord)
-No Mods: 13 52% of total
-Explicit abstain: 4 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, The Triumvirate)
-Implicit abstain: 2 (Phobos, doctorlit)
-TOTAL VOTES: 25
hS
1) I vote no mods.
2) I vote for a ban of 1 month at most for Tomash
3)I support the notion of keeping the Discord.
I'm going with no mods on Discord (that was the very original idea that was circulating while setting up the server) and no bans.
It's a community vote and you're a member of the community.
This vote is about board mods.
Votes carried over from the previous thread are *asterisked.
-Permaban: 2 (*Desdendelle, *PoorCynic)
-3-6 month ban: 3 (*Iximaz, Sergio Turbo, Seafarer)
-Long-term ban (unspecified): 1 (*[EvilAI]UBEROverlord)
-1-3 month ban: 10 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Phobos, doctorlit, OrangeYoshi99, Neshomeh, VixenMage, Novastorme, Tomash, Mattman the Comet, The Good Mod Addict)
-TOTAL BANS: 16 [48% of total]
-NO BAN: 12 (*Akrinor, *Alleb, *Aegis, *SkarmorySilver, *Granz, *Hieronymus Graubart, Huinesoron, DrGonzo, World-Jumper, Delta Juliette, Badger421, The Triumvirate)
-Explicit abstain: 5 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, Ekyl, ninny4370)
-TOTAL VOTES: 33 (*10 + 23)
And drawing purely from this thread:
-Mods: 5 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Novastorme, The Good Mod Addict, Ekyl, ninny4370)
-No Mods: 12 52% of total
-Explicit abstain: 4 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, The Triumvirate)
-Implicit abstain: 2 (Phobos, doctorlit)
-TOTAL VOTES: 23
There is currently an absolute majority against mods, though this can easily change. There is not an absolute majority in favour of banning Tomash, though again, if one of the previous thread's no ban votes flips, there would be.
There has been some discussion previously on whether explicitly abstaining votes count in favour of the status quo (which would be 'no ban, no mods'), or should just be discounted altogether (and therefore exist basically to say 'yup, I read this thread'). Whenever you announce the decision, you should probably decide which interpretation you favour - it's the difference between Tomash having 48% or 57% in favour of banning him right now.
hS
I'll specify that the term for Tomash should be 1 year. I think that sufficiently demonstrates the severity of the situation.
As for Board Moderation, I am in favor of either a moderator or moderators.
Having only one mod would be a recipe for disaster. Sure, Nameless Admin could step in if need be, but it's still huge potential for abuse.
1) I am for mod, we need some form of power here, to maintain order 2) I'm gonna abstain, I want to keep my head attached.
The vote is really evenly split, so if someone goes all Psycho on the opposition they'll have a lot of people to work through.
hS
I will let my ban vote stand.
On moderators, I have to say no. The source of the current issue was that many of us (including me) acted on incomplete information. That's not something that having mods would have prevented, and I agree with many people here that we've done a good job of keeping this place civil without any.
As I don't visit the Discord, I have no opinion on its functioning.
I only have a vote for bans, which is that no bans be made.
Mods: I don't think we need mods on the Board.The Nameless Admin, so far, has been more than enough in my humble opinion.
Bans:
- A medium term "global" ban for Tomash (3-6 months). One year bans are usually reserved for those who don't come to their senses and apologize, while Tomash did - but, at the same time, apologizing should not be a "get-out-of-jail" card when very serious offenses are made. It is not a matter of revenge, or punishment for punishment's sake, but a matter of consequences, as I mentioned in my other post.
- A short-medium Discord ban for the ones involved in the witch-hunting (1-3 months), coupled with a shorter Board ban as well (2 weeks - 1 month), with the same reasoning as above.
About the Discord, I'm afraid I have no ideas. I've never been a big user of large chatrooms, after all.
I vote for a 1-3 month ban for Tomash, as priorly mentioned in my ban revision thread.
I also vote no mods, for obvious reasons.
I would like to second Tomash's idea for a "Best of" page on the wiki. In the meantime, my CAHQ deck "Cards Against Boarders" should suffice.
No mods. I happen to think that our anarchic culture mostly works. In general, we do a good job of being friendly, calling each other on our bad behavior, and being remorseful and honestly trying to improve when we screw up. If you look around all the threads that spawned from this whole mess, you'll find piles of our community working as it should.
That doesn't mean we're perfect. The entire witch-hunt in the Discord is a prime example of that. While that was going on, many of us stopped acting the way we should and either turned into an angry mob or stood there and didn't call anyone out on what they were doing. We need to examine how and why that happened, and make serious efforts to not do things like that again. Hopefully we can learn appropriate lessons from what went down that will make the PPC an even better place to hang out on the Internet.
Now, on my ban. I'm going to do something that I don't remember happening before, and vote for my own ban. I'm in favor of my being banned for 1-3 months, either from the Discord or from participation in the PPC generally. There have to be consequences for what I did. It doesn't feel right for me to get away with just a resignation after what I did, even if it was a mistake. The vote seems to be (at the time of writing) split exactly evenly between banning me or not, so it looks like i might be going harder on myself than the community is.
Now, on the Discord, this isn't a proposal for massive changes. However, I'm now (especially since July's post got me reading some of the old discussions about the IRC and drama there) slightly concerned about the possibility of a cultural split between PPCers who visit the chat often and PPCers who don't. I figure one small thing that can be done to try and make sure we don't get this is for, every once in a while, people to "best of" the chat and summarize the longer-lasting jokes/trends onto the Board and/or Wiki. (We already have a wiki page for chat quotes from back in the IRC days, might be worth revitalizing).
To give an example of what I'm on about, Maslab has a reputation in chat for puns. That reputation was long-standing and widespread enough that we ended up adding Maslab's avatar (a picture of a fox) as a custom emoticon on the Discord. So, if you're in chat and you make a pretty good (or pretty bad, but what's the difference?) pun, you're likely to get your message reacted to with a :Maslab: . Now some of y'all who don't really visit chat know a bit more about what we've been up to in there other than starting mobs and drama.
1) No mods. In addition to the issues others have raised, I feel mods are ill-suited to our community. They depend, I think, on a certain level of detachment from all parties involved in a dispute. That lack of bias seems rather more difficult to attain in a close knit community like ours. Perhaps they could be made to work, but would they work so much better than what we have now as to justify the change? I don't think so. Then again, I've never really been part of a community that uses them, so perhaps this is simply my inexperience talking.
2) No bans. As I mentioned in my previous post, if disciplinary action must be taken, I don't think bans are the right tool.
3) I can't think of anything we can do to improve the Discord, so I'll abstain from that vote.
Because I'm antsy and maths calms me down.
-Permaban: 2
-6 month ban: 4
-Long-term ban (unspecified): 1
-1-3 month ban: 6
-TOTAL BANS: 13
-NO BAN: 13
-Explicit abstain: 3
-TOTAL VOTES: 29
And drawing purely from this thread:
-Mods: 1
-No Mods: 7
hS
1) No mods. What we need is a culture change, and those don't happen top-down. Additionally, there's no way to ensure that mods don't engage in this behavior also.
2) No bans. If Tomash wants to take a leave of absence, I support his decision, but if the person harmed by this doesn't think he should be banned, I think it's a bad idea - partly because of the "symbolic" nature of it. We'd be doing this to make it feel like someone had been punished, which is not a substitute for fixing the problem. Tomash made a mistake- the first time he's done something like this - and moved quickly to repair the damage once he realized it was a mistake.
3) The Discord. Keep it. Have an honest, serious conversation with the people involved in this about what went wrong, why, and how they can move as individuals to stop it happening again. Again, what we need is a culture change. And, preferably, also, not one mod to step in, but for everyone involved to say "Wait, we're rushing this out of emotion. Let's take a step back and let people's heads cool."
When you called for a "culture change", I interpreted that as saying there's some way we typically act here that's a bad thing and needs to change. That is, I think you said that some aspect of what the PPC is and how it conducts its affairs is part of the reason for all the stuff that happened these last few days. If that's what you meant, could you please spell out in more detail what needs to be different?
To restate my position and to mention the other thing I think you might have wanted to say, I think that the general problem recently was caused by a significant failure on our parts (well, certainly on those of us who were participating in chat Thursday) to live up to our ideals. We need to examine how that happened (mostly on a personal level, I figure, since, after all, the community is made up of each of us), and make efforts to not slip up so drastically again, but the way our community functions is generally fine.
This might sound weird and backwards, but my instinct is actually that we have an obsession with rooting out bullies that seems to often turn into bullying. Rather than focusing on behavior, we focus on people. I was one person who thought July's behavior was bullying, several years ago, but since her behavior of late has been eminently reasonable - when she's even been around, which is rarely - it made absolutely no sense to target her as The Bully. To bring up an historical moment, back when the big IRC drama broke, there was also that question of Who Is/Are The Real Bullies Here? It was a moot point; both parties engaged in bad behavior. Likewise, as soon as the "witch hunt" scandal broke, and it became obvious that July was the victim here, not the perpetrator, the tide turned and folk went looking for a new bully figure - which turned out to be you (or, depending on who you ask, Desdendelle). This has been a pattern in the past. Data and Toroll's behavior was a serious problem; rather than along with addressing trolling, we fixated on Is Data Enough of a Jerk to Ban* and Who Is Toroll, which I still think was/is an almost entirely useless question. Frequently hS comes up as target for Tyrannical Dictator of PPC Discussion because people listen to his opinion. Less frequently, Neshomeh gets tarred with a less-opaque version of that brush.
Only rarely have we had open-and-shut cases of bullies as the horns-and-pitchfork version we like them to be. Usually it's more like this. July has a problem with Matt Cipher. She disengages with him. He pokes her on a public space and she calls him out, then, because Matt Is Not A Bully (you can tell, we're friends with him and he doesn't have horns or a pitchfork), people tell July off for causing a ruckus. If Matt had enough people mad at him, I'm guessing it would have gone the other way. I have a problem with Scapegrace's recent behavior, because they flew off the handle and sent cruel messages to July, openly proclaimed their hypocrisy in a Board thread without really apologizing for it, denied involvement in the witch hunt, but Scapegrace isn't "A Bully," they're a person who performed behaviors that were hurtful and problematic. I honestly think that if we addressed behaviors rather than people, we'd be dealing with the problem far more effectively, but banhammers, to quote a wise and sensible person, are a blunt force tool, not a precision instrument, and rather than address issues by enforcing mediation (which enables a "You as a person do this behavior, and it needs to stop" approach), we usually address them by calling for, then voting on, a ban (which encourages a "You as a person did this, and you need to be punished" approach).
Good grief was that a lengthy and complicated answer to a simple question.
TL;DR We need to address behaviors and not people. Punishing people is an ineffective means to address change in a community.
*Graduated-length banning was one step away from this Punish People Who Are Bad mentality, and a step in the right direction, but I think it didn't go far enough.
I deny being involved with the witch hunt on the Discord for the very simple reason that I wasn't bloody involved with it you have the chatlogs read them. Unless you wish to challenge that assertion, we have nothing further to discuss.
What I mean is that you were one of the people calling out July as A Bad Person, and saying something should be done before the matter was allowed to drop.
To wit:
scapegrace-Yesterday at 12:53 PM
Or we can watch hS tell us all that nothing's wrong and everything's fine and this was an isolated incident, and we'll all go "well, he'd know, he's hS", and nothing will happen, because nothing ever happens, because nothing happening is the easiest way to cope with things.
[snip]
SergioTurbo-Yesterday at 12:54 PM
If he goes "nothing happened", I'm the first who'll be very disappointed and the first to say that no, something HAS happened.
scapegrace-Yesterday at 12:55 PM
Not really what I meant, Sarge.
He won't say nothing happened, he'll say it's sad and he wishes them well and we'll go about our usual business and in a month it'll all be forgotten.
Because something else will have come along, and Nesh might have got another gobbet of Subjugation done, and something else might have happened, or hey, a cool Plort RP for us to sink our teeth into, or something, or something else.
And we will forget.
Ekyl-Yesterday at 12:58 PM
Unless we don't allow it to be forgotten.
scapegrace-Yesterday at 12:59 PM
Like we didn't allow the furore surrounding Brink to be forgotten.
Or some of the other stuff.
Or the ending to Rose Potter - that was fairly controversial among some pillars of the community, no names, just look for the burnt month.
Jay - Awesomeness Central-Yesterday at 1:00 PM
burnt month?
scapegrace-Yesterday at 1:00 PM
Work it out.
Look, Scape, I'm saying you got caught up in the heat of the moment and said stupid things in anger. Which happens to everyone at some point or other. And later on, I realized I did see you apologize for your part in this. It's just, I don't like the "Yeah, well, I'm a hypocrite instead of an apology, and I don't like acting like the exchange up there is somehow separate from everything surrounding it.
That said, as soon as I posted it I realized I should've said something to you directly, and, in fact, not doing so while calling for better ways to handle this was …hypocritical. I apologize for that.
And we couldn't have that, now could we? =]
Also, I don't think it's exactly unfair or calling out July as "A Bad Person" (she isn't, I'm just done with her) to mention that she really didn't like the ending to the Rose Potter mission. She, er, didn't. How is that anything other than a statement of fact?
And you didn't just say she didn't like the ending to Rose Potter, you linked "the PPC forgetting about stuff" with "the burnt month" and mentioned that you were quite angry about all of it. You also, during this same period of time, sent July a message in which you told her to leave the PPC and said other cruel things to her. Nova says that was about some unrelated thing, and you say this Rose Potter mention was about some unrelated thing.
So we've got: you're angry, you point out what you perceive July's role in the PPC's forget-about-scandals culture, and you send July an angry message.
Maybe they are all unrelated. I certainly would not know, I'm not in your head and I don't know your motivations. But they all strike me as behavior that contributed to the state of emotional affairs currently in place.
I'm sorry for bringing this up in a stupid, passive-aggressive way, and I'm sorry for bludgeoning you with it. And honestly, if I am waaay off base and taking you horrifically out of context, I'm sorry for that too. Look: everyone has been angry throughout this. It started as a misunderstanding of Iximaz's reading of a situation between her and July, was exacerbated by a frenzied conversation on the Discord which was, of course, fueled by very real concern for Iximaz, and then exploded onto the Board, first as a PPC Bullying/July (because of Iximaz's post) problem, then as a Wait, There Was Doxxing?! problem, now as a What Do We Do About It conversation. At no point, I'm sure, have we all been super calm and rational about this.
So in essence - I'm still confused about how you think you didn't contribute to the witch hunt, but I'm sorry for attacking you as a person on the Board, literally in a post saying we should stop doing that, wow I'm kind of an idiot.
I have been talking to them, and according to them the post sent to July is independent of the goings on Discord and the Board. It was also not the entire message, and there are reasons behind both the message itself and why Scape hasn't said anything on the Board about it, that I'm not going to reveal at this moment in time. And probably won't unless Scape gives me permission to.
(warning, rambling post that covers several not-unrelated topics ahead)
This all makes sense.
As I alluded to in a post a while back, when the permaban calls started flying, it felt like I'd become the target of the angry mob that had been running around looking for a target. Good to know that wasn't just me who noticed that. (obligatory caveat, doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong and that there shouldn't be consequences.)
On the general point, I have nothing to back this up right now, but I suspect that pinning a narrative on someone (X is a jerk, Y is power-hungry, Z exaggerates everything, etc.) is a really easy thought for humans to have. The easy thoughts require less energy than the complicated, nuanced ones about people's behavior, so we tend to fall into them. I can't possibly say if there's a good solution to this. (Well, there's "everyone try really hard to not think this way", which could merit a line in the Constitution at best but doesn't really solve anything)
Now, I'm going to possibly be a bit annoying and call for specifics again. I read a call near the end to "enforce mediation" and "address behaviors and not people". That sound great, but what do we do? Should we explicitly try to change our community patterns of conduct (I'm not saying rules because this isn't a rules question, unless we want something sitting in the Constitution about this)? To what? What should, I, or any other member of the PPC, start or stop doing to make your proposal happen?
What would have happened/would be about to happen to me in a more-behavior focused PPC after that screwup?
Finally, small question that I figured I'd slide in here, since you've been around for a while. Would you say that there's a completely unwritten expectation that people who do sufficiently bad (but not banworthy bad) things take a voluntary leave of absence? It feels like that's a pattern around here that I haven't seen anyone type out explicitly.
Sorry for the delay. Life is crazy right now in several ways.
Yeah, that's what it felt like to me too. Again, obviously I still agree what you did was wrong, but the response seemed weird. Especially now that July herself has asked that you not be banned.
Also, yeah. I do think it's an easy path for humans - that's probably why it comes so easily to us here, too. I almost noted that it was a firmware problem in the OP. And I don't know how to solve it. Besides what we already have, which is asking people to try solving their issues with each other person to person. I do actually really like the idea of third-person mediators, but I'm not certain how it could best be implemented.
As for the screwup? I have no idea. I guess, ideally, the person directly harmed (July) would have a mediated conversation with you. I think it's a bit tough to say on that one because it was kind of a big deal, and you did move quickly to fix it before July actually got involved directly.
Your last point - having never actually considered that pattern, I do actually think you're right. That seems to be something that happens in cases like this pretty regularly. (Not that they are regular.)
(No problem on the delay. We all know this is a semi-asynchronous forum.)
So, I might have more concrete thoughts, but I think they need a short digression to come out right. So, several people have called for "mods". I think an accurate restatement of that is "The community shall select people who are expected to resolve bad behavior, and who shall impose, or threaten to impose, sanctions in order to do so.". As I said elsewhere in this thread, I happen to think that isn't needed.
Now, the call for "mediators" has a bit less meaning hanging off it, but I'll try to expand it it the same way. That is, the proposal is "The community shall select people who are expected to attempt to resolve bad behavior by offering to mediate between the involved parties. Community members are expected to accept these offers.". Well, that seems like a reasonable proposal, and I happen to agree that it might actually work, and at worst can't hurt.
As to actually implementing this proposal, I propose the simplest way possible. Declare it to be true! I don't have the precise wording of any needed changes to Section 2, but I'm voting in favor of making mediation an Official PPC Thing. I invite anyone else who thinks this is a good move to vote for it real quick.
Now, since I did say "the community shall select", I might as well start that too, so we don't have to be vague about it. Going off of my hazy memory and their behavior in this whole mess, I nominate VixenMage, Huinesoron, and Neshomeh as the poor schmucks who get to offer to help folks resolve disputes they're having.
On July, we have had a conversation. On my end, it gave me a much better understanding of what it is I did and why it was bad (you can see the results off of July's goodbye post), among other things.
In the July-Iximaz incident, I emailled both parties to try and talk things through. I helped July in making her apology. I clarified the sincerity of that apology.
That did not work. The incident remained on Iximaz's mind for a year. What more do you feel a mediator should have done? And why do you feel that requiring someone to do it would be better than encouraging everyone to do so?
hS
The only real place my opinions differ is with regard to point 1). I think we need some kind of mod that is more than The Nameless Admin, but less than a full out mod, with the power both on the Board and in the Discord. I will admit I don't have any ideas for exactly how we achieve that at that moment though. But I do think if it can be achieved it would be a good thing.
I'd say, go halfway. Ask The Nameless Admin to step in and respond to occasions of bullying when they're noticed - rather than just the current very minimalist approach.
Note that that might entail handing more people the keys to The Nameless Admin mask.
No mods, no bans.
There is clearly no consensus on bans, I cannot support any such action.
I do, however, propose that we find resources on recognizing abusive behaviors (especially on the internet, but also abuse and bullying theory in general) and have some requirement that oldbies / pgs / discorders / etc study them. That's been a common thread in the last several messes, I think that increasing our literacy on the matter is a necessary thing.
By that I mean, who do you mean by 'everyone involved with going after July.' Do you mean everyone who actively took part in the chat at that time? Those who explicitly wanted something 'done' about July (I hate how that sounds but I can't work out a better way of putting it)? Or is there some in between/other way of grouping people I haven't taken into consideration? I am merely wondering how you define that as I can (as seen) think of at least two ways it could be meant.
Basically, what I meant was anyone who explicitly wanted to make July an example for posterity (I think those were more or less the words used?), and also anybody who was doomsaying and adding to the general swirl of panic, which may or may not encompass everyone who was there, I'm not sure right now. I've got the day off tomorrow, so I'll try to pull it together then, but I didn't want to leave you hanging for two days.
~Neshomeh
And take your time, I don't mind.
There's a large jackhammer beating up the pavement outside my apartment this morning, so the careful, in-depth review of the logs I wanted to do will have to wait. Sorry. {= (
~Neshomeh
1) No mods, don't think it will help.
2) I say we ban Tomash for maybe two, three months? Not a long time, but just for a while.
3) In some of the previous threads, someone suggested closing the discord for a while. (I think it was Neshomeh?) I think this might work.
Also, Maslab and Delta Juliette are my choice for new discord mods.
I've gone through and tried to find the most recent votes by everyone who hasn't (yet) posted in this thread. Here's what I've got:
17th
Desdendelle - bans for everyone involved in the Discord discussion.
ninny4370 - no bans.
Sergio Turbo - abstain at this time.
[EvilAI]UBEROverlord - long-term ban for Tomash, some form of 'discipline' for Alleb and Granz, no bans for others.
Akrinor - no bans.
Alleb - no bans.
Aegis - no bans.
18th
PoorCynic - permaban for Tomash, year ban for Alleb, Granz, and Khrssty, 4 month ban for Aegis and Ekyl, no other bans.
SkarmorySilver - no bans.
Granz - no bans.
The Triumvirate - 6 month ban for Tomash, 2-3 month ban for Alleb, Granz, and Khrssty, 4 month ban for Ekyl, no other bans.
Iximaz - 6 month ban for Tomash, no other bans.
Seafarer - 6 month ban for Tomash, no bans for anyone else.
Badger421 - no bans.
Mattman the Comet - 1-6 month ban for Tomash, no other bans.
Neshomeh - 3 month ban for Tomash, no other bans.
19th
Hieronymus Graubart - no bans.
There's pretty clearly no support at this point for banning anyone other than Tomash. That could obviously change (anything's possible), but only four people have even suggested it.
The tallies for Tomash, including in this thread, are:
-Permaban: 2
-6 month ban: 4
-Long-term ban (unspecified): 1
-1-3 month ban: 2
-TOTAL BANS: 9
-No ban: 11
-Explicit abstain: 3
-TOTAL VOTES: 23
There may be some errors; feel free to recalculate when it needs updating.
hS
I'm sorry, Tomash. I just feel this is right. I wish it weren't the case.
—doctorlit is torn between friends right now
I think 1-3 months is appropriate, now that I've thought it over and read what has been said.
-Phobos
1) As I think I've made clear, I am completely pro mods. I wish we could all be trusted to use our judgement and get things done, but we quite obviously can't do that. We need mods to officially propose votes, to officially announce verdicts, and to just be proactive about things that cause a lot of dithering otherwise.
2) I vote to ban no one but Tomash, and only to ban him for a month, or not even that.
3) I don't think we should change the Discord. The community feeling of the PPC is a lot stronger because of it. Yes, it causes problems, but no more than the Board does. Things get quite heated here too.
I've thought about this a lot, and I don't have an answer. It's clear that the witch-hunt was only made possible because of the real-time chat nature of the channel - look at how quickly it collapsed once it moved to the Board. Given that there's no support for just getting rid of the chat altogether, I think we need the following rules/mindsets to be taken seriously by the Discord:
1/ Don't talk about people behind their backs. Ever. For any reason. Iximaz has just announced she's leaving? Talk about it on the Board, if she's not in there with you. She's accused four people of bullying her? Sure, talk to the ones who are there with you - but if you want to talk about the others, do it on the Board. No exceptions, no excuses.
This includes positive discussion. If I've just posted a mission, and you're all raving about it in the Discord - so what? That doesn't do anything to make me feel good about it. Whether you want to congratulate someone, or express sympathy, or condemn them - if they're not in the Discord at the time, do it on the Board.
2/ The Discord is not a place to make decisions. Ever. Unless you're in a game of some sort, if you're asking 'what should we do?', you need to take that to the Board. Put it on the permanent record, get the input of the entire community - heck, even in the Discord, not everyone's there all the time!
These aren't rules designed to fix every problem. They wouldn't do a thing about the GlarnBoudin incident, for instance. But I think they can, will, and should deal with the major issue with the live-chat format: the tendency for everyone in a conversation to just flow along with it, however insane it ends up looking from the outside.
hS
I think it would be better to say not just bans in your second point but also any other reprimands that are being handed out as well.
Also in addition to the third point, Discord mods (although that seems to have been all but decided)