It's me, Nesh, and Delta Juliette.

Subject: It's me, Nesh, and Delta Juliette.
Author: Huinesoron
Posted on: 2017-02-04 08:23:00 UTC

My official joining date is Talk Like A Pirate Day '03. I'm sure they can provide theirs and settle this. ^^

Amomg recent absentees, Araeph and Kaitlyn both predate me. So do occasional visitors BeautyID and Hellga. But yeah. There's a reason the future Gathering reports use the term <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b2-IsVH5OtrMALHc_Bska0FCxqdCG5i55SeUl52J3Y/pub">Ancientestbies.

hS

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Bump thread for the Glarn vote and related matters by Tomash on 2017-02-02 02:56:00 UTC Reply

So, a rather important thread has fallen off of the front page without conclusive resolution being reached on several important matters. We have reached consensus on the idea of a world-readable mod channel, and #upstairs has been created.

However, the question of what, if anything, to do about GlarnBoudin has not yet been fully resolved. The vote was initially called for in this subthread. A current vote count (which hasn't changed much since the previous one) is below. We seem to be in general agreement on Option 1 (giving Glarn one last chance and automatically banning him for a year if he breaks the rules again), but the matter is not entirely resolved. In addition, the mod team has been able to locate evidence of misconduct due to the introduction of a search feature to Discord.

As a result of the evidence and discussion surrounding it, Huinersoron has called for Constitutional amendment proposals, if needed in response to an apparent lack of clarity in the Constitution on the subject of stalking and other similar forms of harassment.

Current vote counts (same trickle-down count as before):

Number of people who voted: 19 (Tomash, Tira, Good Mod Addict, Desdendelle, SkarmorySilver, Granz, Neshomeh, Akrinor, Delta Juliette, VixenMage, Mattman The Comet, eatplaylove, Hardic, Sergio Turbo, Storme Hawk, doctorlit, Matt Cipher, Aegis, Huinersoron (I think))

Option 1, as written: 84% (everyone except eatpraylove, Mattman, and Akrinor)

Option 1, but with a permaban: 16% (Tira and doctorlit)

Option 1, but with a 3 month ban: 95% (everyone but Mattman)

Option 1, but with a 1 month ban, and then a permaban if it happens again: 5% (Mattman). If the "and then" is removed, I could interpret this passing unanimously.

Short, symbolic ban: 10% (Tomash and Akrinor)

Chat probation on return: 5% (Tira)

Ban: 0-5% (I'm not sure if Huinersoron was voting in favor of it or not)

Please don't reply to the thread that's not on the front page. If you want to continue a discussion from there, please quote and/or link to the post you're replying to from the other thread.

- Tomash, this week's designated paper pusher

Closing the Glarn vote by Tomash on 2017-02-09 21:53:00 UTC Reply

Ok, so since it looks like we've had plenty of replies and we've been voting for about two and a half weeks now, it's time to actually announce a result.

Given my counts of the votes, the result is that GlarnBoudin will get one last chance if he returns. Should he continue to violate the Constitution, a ban of no less than three months will be imposed. (the exact length of the ban will be determined at the time it is imposed).

And so, final vote counts:
Number of people who voted: 24 (Tomash, Tira, Good Mod Addict, Desdendelle, SkarmorySilver, Granz, Neshomeh, Akrinor, Delta Juliette, VixenMage, Mattman The Comet, eatplaylove, Hardic, Sergio Turbo, Storme Hawk, doctorlit, Matt Cipher, Aegis, Huinesoron, 1visible, Alleb, Cat-on-the-Keyboard, SeaTurtle, [EvilAI]UBEROverlord)

Option 1, but with a 3 month ban (this one passed): 96% (everyone but [EA]UO)

Option 1, as written initially: 75% (everyone except eatpraylove, Mattman, Akrinor, Alleb, SeaTurtle, and [EvilAI]UBEROverlord)

Option 1, but with a permaban: 8% (Tira and doctorlit)

Short, symbolic ban: 8% (Tomash and Akrinor)

Chat probation on return: 4% (Tira)

Ban: 4% (Huinesoron)

Just a warning: 4% ([EvilAI]UBEROverlord)

I'm changing my vote to 'Ban.' by Aegis on 2017-02-09 23:37:00 UTC Reply

I know, it's a moot point with even less significance now I know it won't actually do anything considering how everyone else has voted.

That said, as I stated previously I was only holding out on a ban because we had no record of Glarn's actions. Now that we do, I think it's clear that he's in violation of at least the spirit of the PPC, and has been harassing one of us after Iximaz made it clear she wanted no part in it.

Since we now have that evidence, I support the motion to ban him now, even if I know it won't actually happen.

Two things before I vote by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2017-02-04 19:30:00 UTC Reply
1. Would someone be kind enough to repost a list of all of the accusations currently levied against Glarn?
  
  2. This is a big one. Are we seriously trying someone in absentia? Is that really the kind of thing we want to do? All I see are some logs from the chat. And frankly in my opinion only a handful really seem to be discipline worthy, and none in my opinion at this point are ban worthy. I do not think it is fair for us to decide this without input from the accused. Every other vote that I am aware of since I have been here he have allowed the accused to speak for themselves. Why is this different?
  
  So I will go ahead and levy my vote. I say nothing more severe than a warning. We should not be making any kind of decision that could lead to a ban, whether immediate or in the future, without giving the accused to a chance to defend themselves.

A summary, then by Tomash on 2017-02-04 20:07:00 UTC Reply

Initial accusations, posted here were:

1) Persistently holding NSFW/otherwise inappropriate conversations in chat even after being asked to stop

2) Persistently posting NSFW and creepy things in chat, again, after being repeatedly warned not to do this

3) Harassing (or, as later described, stalking) Iximaz and her characters

Chat moderators issued repeated warnings about these matters and eventually temporarily removed Glarn from the chat, as seen in the post containing the initial accusations.

Evidence for the above is linked mainly in this subthread.

To your second point, the trial is not in absentia. Glarn has been informed and has responded. I can forward you the email chain if you want more proof (I'll just need your email).

Additionally, the current consensus is that a final warning should be issued, and that if Glarn should return and violate the Constitution, he should be banned temporarily.

- Tomash
Well.. by Desdendelle on 2017-02-04 19:54:00 UTC Reply

Dunno about 1); that's Tomash's business.
As things stand w.r.t. 2), we're not "trying" anybody — this is not a court — nor are we meting out punishment, or anything like that. We're simply debating the community's reaction to someone being rather unpleasant. About that, it seems that most people seem content to warn Glarn — if he returns — that he will be watched closely, and banned if he'd misbehave again.

Option 1, 3 month ban. (nm) by SeaTurtle on 2017-02-02 20:48:00 UTC Reply
Relayed messages from GlarnBoudin by Tomash on 2017-02-02 19:44:00 UTC Reply

About two days ago, I emailed GlarnBoudin, letting him know about the discussion and vote, so that he'd have a chance to participate in the conversation and give his side of the story.

He replied as follows:

I've been fairly busy working on my own projects, and I haven't really been visiting the PPC discussion board very often.

I also earnestly apologize for the thing with the RP; I legitimately wanted to apologize both in and out of character, and I really should have stopped a while ago.

I have a really dark sense of humor, and I apologize for not realizing that the PPC Discord wasn't the place for it sooner.

Honestly, I think that I'm probably gonna leave the PPC for a while, take a hiatus to cool off. Carnage has his own home now - a kaiju universe where he can have his own adventures - and, well, not to be rude, but-ah, screw it, I'm gonna be rude. You guys aren't nearly as interesting as I thought you'd be. I respect what you do, but seriously, you folks are kinda sticks in the mud, adopting a distinct 'git gud' mindset concerning fanfics. I still haven't forgotten your reactions to my work - that is, grabbing your metaphorical torches and pitchforks because Ix skimmed it and didn't like it. Yeah, yeah, you lot are probably gonna pick apart my argument, but eh, heck with it.

TL;DR Screw you guys, I'm going home.

I wasn't sure if this was meant to be addressed to me or the community, so I asked him if I could post his words on the Board, and if he had anything else to add. He responded with:

It was addressed to everybody. Sorry, I should have clarified that.

And no, there isn't really anything else I want to say other than, well, to lighten up, maybe ease up on calling what is and isn't a Sue when you've got bloody Time Lords all over the place. I might pop in from time to time to deliver some badfic, but I'm probably going to be gone from the community for a while.

And so, I return to the Pit of Voles from whence I came.

The end....

OR IS IT?

For context:
1) Carnage was one of Glarn's agent concepts

2) The conversation about Glarn's badfic alluded to in the emails did occur. However, I believe his summary of events is rather inaccurate. If anyone wants to see the logs, let me know, and I'll go find them.

- Tomash

Re: Relayed messages from GlarnBoudin by SkarmorySilver on 2017-02-03 13:49:00 UTC Reply

As an outsider and an acquaintance of his elsewhere, and having now read these messages, I wish to change my vote to "Option 1 but with a 3-month ban if he causes trouble again", as with everyone else. I say this partly because I actually didn't want to be a part of all this initially. Looking back, it was probably my instinct to try and help people I regard as friends in times of adversity that led to me getting dragged in, and knowing that I could easily got caught in the crossfire, and that my efforts didn't make that much of a difference in the thick of things, I may have been better off remaining silent. Maybe.

That being said, it's good to see that Glarn has apologized for his behavior, or at least I hope that's the case - and in fairness to him, I took a second look at that story, and I feel that once you get past the... questionable elements, it actually makes for quite am interesting read, and I at least believe his efforts to justify the events. This of course does not mean I approve of how he behaved on the chat - he has creative potential, I can say that much, but he has yet to understand how to be respectful to others or to handle concrit, which is similar to how I was back when I caused no shortage of infuriating mayhem back in the day. Well, I was even dumber and didn't see sense until far too late, but still.

That being said, I also appreciate that Glarn is willing to take the time off to do his own thing and at least in his view, not have to conform to standards for a place he barely visits anyway. We aren't an obligation, and I know a few Boarders have just dropped off due to Real Life or their own projects, including some I know via PM. (And come to think of it, I haven't posted any new PPC writing pieces myself since last November, and that may or may not have anything to do with the fact that I start up my part-time job next week, and I swear Dad's keeping me away from the Internet on purpose for the sake of preparations!) I still think being blunt and flippant about such a critical situation isn't exactly wise or tasteful, but since it does seem like Glarn is leaving on his own volition, as I suspected, I don't think that really matters.

Glarn, if you ever read this, I hope you know that I harbor no hard feelings towards you for this or all the previous difficulties we had on the PPC chatroom. Opting to leave a tense situation before things escalated is a choice I should've made a long time ago during that disastrous group project, and it's a relief that you're willing to back down, hopefully to take the time to understand yourself a little better. I hope you're learning from this experience as much as we are, and I'm still holding out on the possibility that you may be able to come back to see us when you're older and wiser. For now, though, best of luck with your fiture endeavors, and I hope we can still keep in touch on DeviantArt and Tumblr, at least.
I think I would like to see those logs by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2017-02-03 13:39:00 UTC Reply

He is not the first person to bring up many of these issues. I would like to investigate it a bit further before making a decision one way or the other.

Here you are by Tomash on 2017-02-03 22:28:00 UTC Reply

The logs. If you're creeped out by Zerg or similar things, you might not want to click, since they show up at one point. I've included plenty of context (possibly a bit too much).

Sorry about not posting screenshots, but my machine wasn't cooperating. You can search the chat for phrases from this to check me if you want. Also, the formatting's a bit wonky because I'm preserving the text as it appeared in the chat.

(And if you don't want to read all that, the fic in question. Rated T, but warns for gore. RWBY/Starcraft)

Sheesh. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-04 20:00:00 UTC Reply

I can understand anyone being reactive and defensive in a real-time situation with lots of people questioning your work. That's one thing.

Coming back the next day and throwing a fit, though? Not so much. Especially when everyone has repented and apologized, AND the questions and critiques were perfectly valid, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, I don't know RWBY or StarCraft, so reading the fic myself wouldn't do me any good, but if both the characterization of the main protagonist and the mechanics of the main antagonists are in question by people who DO know the continua, I call that a pretty shaky premise for a crossover. And I LIKE crossovers. {= /

~Neshomeh

Tell me... by GlarnBoudin on 2017-02-23 00:10:00 UTC Reply

How does dogpiling and being told that I wrote badfic [i]when nobody even read the Glaurunging story[/i] equate with contstructive criticism?!

I vote option one, with any of the non-permanent bans by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-02 15:13:00 UTC Reply

Because like hS said, there's a chance he's just being an inept teenager, and might be tolerable to be around five or ten years down the line.

--Key is assuming a very long lifespan for the PPC, but hey, it's lasted this long
I vote option 1 with 3-month ban. (nm) by Alleb on 2017-02-02 14:02:00 UTC Reply
I'm fine with Option 1 + 3 month ban (nm) by Mattman The Comet on 2017-02-02 14:00:00 UTC Reply
voting on option 1 by 1visible on 2017-02-02 10:21:00 UTC Reply

A bit late, I know, but oh well.
On amending the Constitution. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-02 05:59:00 UTC Reply

What about just inserting the word "harasses" in Article 1? Like so:

The PPC community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally harasses, discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. Et cetera.

"For any reason" seems to cover attention-seeking that crosses the line into stalking, I think, without outlawing repeatedly reminding someone to follow the rules and behave as fits an aspiring writer?

I feel like we might want to say something along the lines of "stop means stop," too—especially if multiple people are saying it—but I'm not sure if there's an elegant place to put it, or how careful we'd have to be to avoid a situation where someone can use Power Word NO to shut up anyone who has an opinion they simply don't agree with, or wants to talk about something they simply don't like. I seem to recall some concerns with that sort of thing being raised in a previous Constitution-amendment discussion. I don't think we want to silence our occasional serious discussions about religion, politics, etc. We just want them to not devolve into flaming.

~Neshomeh

P.S. C'mere, Huinersoron! Neshomesh and Huniesoron have Canon Cookies, and I'm sure they'll share. ^_^

Proposed amendment. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-03 12:06:00 UTC Reply

Which I'm going to name as 'the Harassment Amendment', though it's expanded waaaaay beyond that scope.

My aim here is threefold: firstly, to work harassment into the opening articles; second, to improve the structure of the opening articles; third, to get 'stop when you're told to' into the Constitution.

In doing this, I ended up adding 5 Articles, 2 Sections, and completely reworking the first half of the Constitution.

Please pick this apart and change it, all at once or piecemeal (including changing things back) - none of it is set in stone. Please note that I've added a couple of questions after proposed Article 11, which I think the community really needs to offer an opinion on.

Section One: On Toleration And Its Limits

1. The PPC community is a tolerant and welcoming place. It is a home to people from all walks of life, with wildly different opinions on all manner of topics. Its members are proud to be able to discuss even difficult and controversial topics without falling into fighting. It is a place where everyone is respected as a person, regardless of who they are. All respectful opinions are treated with respect, whether they come from a newbie or someone who's been here fifteen years.

However:

2. The community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.

3. The community will not tolerate the use of language which evokes any form of discrimination or persecution. The subjects mentioned above, and others which cause genuine suffering (such as rape, murder, abuse, and mental health issues) should be discussed with sensitivity. Even 'joking' about these subjects is Not Funny; ‘it was just a joke’ is not an excuse - it’s self-incrimination.

4. The community will not tolerate any form of harassment between members of the PPC, whether it manifests as attacking, bullying, or pestering. Respect people's personal boundaries.

5. Those who engage in intolerable behaviour forfeit their right to respect; however, not warranting respect does not mean they do not warrant politeness. This means you are not allowed to descend into flaming and insulting them, but instead should follow Article 10 and the other provisions of the Constitution.

Section Two: On The Capacity To Engage In Mature Conversation

6. Do Not Flame. You are allowed to disagree with people, but Do Not Flame. There is a distinct difference between 'I don't agree with your opinion and I think that your theory is factually wrong' and 'You're an idiot and your opinion is built on lies and stupidity'. If you find that you're hurling insults around, just stop. This even (or perhaps especially) applies if you consider yourself to have been wronged by another community member. If it’s a misunderstanding, a flame is an unwarranted attack. And if they’re deliberately trying to provoke you, attacking them is exactly what they want - and damages the community as a whole. ((Current Article 2, as written.))

7. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Someone disagreeing your opinion is generally not an attack on you, and should not be taken personally. Should a debate escalate into personal attacks, flaming, or any form of disrespectful conduct for any reason, everyone involved should step back and calm down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely. ((Current Article 4, as written.))

8. If someone says something that seems offensive, but you’re not sure exactly what they meant, ASK them first, before jumping down their throats. Astonishingly enough, most people aren’t out to offend anyone. (If they are being deliberately insulting, believe me, you’ll have a lot of backup.) Don't be afraid to ask what someone meant - it isn't silly to want the full facts. Then, if there has been an honest misunderstanding, accept your mistake and move on. Apologies for making a mistake, and for being unclear, are recommended, but should not be demanded. ((Slight tweaks to second-to-last sentence.))

((The mimes have been thrown permanently into the pit to create a joke later.))

Section Three: On Making Reparations

9. If you believe someone is doing something wrong, it is important to tell them clearly and calmly what the unwanted behavior is, why it is unwanted (i.e. how it violates the Constitution and/or is offensive), and that they are being asked to stop. Shouting or snapping at people does not usually help, so it is generally best to address the issue sooner, with a clear head, rather than later, with lots of built-up frustration and anger. ((Per Nesh, with slight tweaks.))

10. Everyone deserves an honest second chance – which means, initially, a chance to stop, explain, and/or apologise. This means that, if you believe that someone is engaged in any violation of the Constitution, but particularly Articles 1-4, it is critical to make sure they understand what they are doing wrong, so that they can make amends. Explain it to them yourself, or ask a third party to do so – but the key word is explain. Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance. ((Current Article 7, as written.))

11. If someone or multiple someones have asked you to stop what you're doing, especially on the basis of the Constitution, take a step back. Stop and look at what you are doing or saying. Take the time to think about it - the PPC isn't going anywhere. Remember the foundation of respect that the PPC community is built on (see Article 1). If there is good reason for their requests that you stop, then apologise - it doesn't even hurt a little! It is always acceptable to explain yourself if you've made an honest mistake – we all do sometimes! – but please make sure that explaining why it happened once or twice doesn't turn into making excuses for why it keeps happening. In cases of persistent rule-breaking, may be invoked.

((Article 11 is partially cribbed from Nesh's suggestion, with big changes. In writing it, I ran into multiple questions I needed to ask:

1/ In the past, 'I'm sorry the thing I said offended you even though I didn't mean it to' has been a highly unacceptable response. What sort of apology are we asking for here? A simple 'sorry I said that'? What if you think the thing you said isn't something you should apologise for saying - say, if it's your religious belief?

2/ Nesh's suggested version presupposes that you've actually done something which you should be told to stop. What if you haven't? Article 5 [current] / 8 [this proposal] says that the person doing the accusing should apologise for their mistake - but Nesh has proposed that the person being accused should also be apologising. I think this needs serious clarification. It also has relevance to:))

12. Wilful ignorance is not an excuse. If someone is ignoring the Constitution and claiming that they’re not really doing anything wrong - despite explanations to the contrary - that may constitute using up their chance. However, wilful ignorance on the part of the accuser is also not an excuse. If someone clarifies a genuine misunderstanding, continuing to push for an apology may count as persecution on your part. ((Article 8 as written.))

13. If you find it impossible to get along with another member of the PPC, you can take it up in private e-mail. However, the rules of civility and respect do not disappear outside PPC community spaces, or while talking about someone. Don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and don’t say anything about another PPCer you wouldn’t say to their face. Harassing others by private means is just as serious as harassing them in public, if not more so, and will be treated as such - which means that if you find yourself being harassed or bullied by another PPCer, please make the community aware! We cannot help with a situation if we don’t know it exists. ((Article 9 as written.))

14. The PPC as a community is responsible for upholding the Constitution. If following Article 10 doesn't resolve a situation, any and all uninvolved community members have a responsibility to back up the person who is in the right, or to defuse an unclear situation. It is never wrong to ask a third party to comment on a dispute, but try to find someone uninvolved; a mediator will be more useful for resolving a dispute than a supporter. ((Article 10 as written.))

14.5. If discussion is unable to resolve a situation, persistent rule-breakers can be shunned or told to leave the PPC community. We don’t want to do this - so if you're being accused of breaking a rule, take a step back and, if you are in the wrong, stop, apologise, and move on. Grudges are no fun! ((Article 10.5 as written.))

Section Four: On Sweet Mercy That Was Heavy

15. Wow. That was some seriously heavy reading, but it was important stuff. You still with us? Good! The rest isn't quite as intense, so it should be a breeze for you. As a reward for making it this far, here's a recording of a mime artist's interpretation of Hamlet.

... oh, wait. Never mind.

((Sections 5-8 are sections 3-6 as written.))

I warned you...

hS

Looks fine to me. by SeaTurtle on 2017-02-05 14:01:00 UTC Reply

[Stamps with the Virtual Stamp of Approval]
Seems alright to me. =] (nm) by Scapegrace on 2017-02-05 08:54:00 UTC Reply
This mostly looks great by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-05 08:07:00 UTC Reply

Article 11, question 2: That's a tough one, yeah. While lots of apologies builds goodwill, which is nice, if the person being accused really hasn't done anything wrong it seems rather twisted to expect them to apologize. Well, perhaps an "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding" would be courteous, but it seems like a bit more than basic politeness. Something like Level Two politeness, or maybe even Level Three. And advanced levels of politeness are hard, especially if you've just been arguing (and if you're a teenage nerd with still-developing social skills, as I believe many of us are), and seem like a lot to require within Da Rules. Maybe we should put together an article on Politeness (like the article I suggested on Apologies), or something.

Minor quibbles:

Article 9: Does "sooner" really mean "with a clear head"? Don't people often say things they regret in the heat of the moment? I think this section would be clearer without the references to "sooner" and "later," just referring to the person's level of upset-ness, or else clarify. . . or am I being silly?

Article 11: In case of rule breaking, what should be invoked? Did you leave out a word? Or did you mean that this article may be invoked in case of rule-breaking. . . Yeah, you did, didn't you. Maybe put this sentence first, or tweak the phrasing.

Article 15: I like the idea of introducing some levity, but this shows a serious lack of knowledge as regards the Hamlet fandom (maybe fandom isn't the right word. Body of tradition? Anyway). The idea of a recording of a mime performing Hamlet isn't that funny, because the play has an intrinsic association with mime. It started in Shakespeare's time, when plays sometimes began with a "dumb show" -- a shortened, mimed version of the whole play. Hamlet's play-within-a-play has one, so the play itself tends to get given one too, spawning many school projects. . . of varying quality (student productions are the Shakespeare fandom's version of fanfic; most of them are terrible)(Not that we don't have fanfic, also of varying quality). Basically, there's nothing unusual about a mime interpretation of Hamlet, and there are altogether too many recordings in this genre.

--Key protects her fandoms, even when the canon's probably taken near-irreparable damage

P.S. Speaking of Hamlet, this is a thing of joy.

Re. 9 and more on 11. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-05 14:35:00 UTC Reply
1. Hm, I had hoped that "with a clear head" would clarify that "sooner" doesn't mean immediately, in the heat of the moment. What I was going for is basically "don't just ignore it and hope it will go away and then get mad and eventually snap when it doesn't," cuz I've seen that happen plenty of times.
  
  Any thoughts on how to put that more clearly?
  
  11. Y'know, looking at it again, I think the current wording of this does preclude the idea of apologizing if you've done nothing wrong. It deliberately sets up a scenario where people are saying "Hey, person, what you're doing is offensive/against Da Rules, you should stop." Breaking the rules pretty well does mean you should apologize. And then hS put in the bit that says "If there is a good reason," which... actually, I find that's bugging me a little bit, since the purpose of this article is to outline how to gracefully recover if you've gotten into trouble. It's not about what to do if people are jumping on you for no reason. I think trying to discuss that scenario here, or building in a sort of escape route ("But I don't think I did anything wrong!") muddies the waters.
  
  Also, this isn't something I think we can put into the rules without some dangerous implications, but it is worth remembering that a community dictates what is and is not acceptable to it. As many people have commented over the years, we do things quite differently to most of the Internet, so what's acceptable most places may not be acceptable here. To some degree, it's really on the person joining this community to learn its mores and adapt, whether it's explicitly required of them or not. Nobody gets to waltz into a new place and expect it to conform to their desires. So, if members of the community are telling someone that their behavior doesn't work for us, that is our prerogative. If you find the climate doesn't suit you, there are plenty of other communities to join.
  
  There are, of course, crucial limits to this idea, which is why I don't suggest trying to encode it in the rules anywhere. It's just something to think about.
  
  ~Neshomeh

But just because they're saying it doesn't mean it's true. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-05 17:27:00 UTC Reply

I had a ridiculous example here, but let's be constructive instead. ^_^

Here's a proposed sketch for the first three sections of the Constitution:

Section 1: What's offensive and intolerable. Articles 1-5.

Section 2: What's just bad manners. Articles 6 (flaming) and 7 (disagreement), and possibly pulling up the trolling article.

Section 3: What to do about any problems. This breaks down as follows:

a) Check you're not misreading the situation. Article 8, possibly changed to be slightly less snarky.

b) Calmly explain what the problem is. Article 9, probably with some editing of the sooner/later section.

c) If you're being accused, stop, think, understand what's being said, and apologise if an understanding can't be reached. Article 11, possibly with some of the misunderstanding stuff from 8.

d) Wilful ignorance is not an excuse - ie, just because they say they don't understand a clear explanation, doesn't mean they get to keep doing it. Article 12.

e) Everyone gets Their One Chance, and every effort should be made to resolve disputes peacefully. Combination of Articles 10 and 14.

f) Banning. Article 14.5.

What this does is set up a clear progression across Section 3. In fact, I'd like to start each of its articles with a clear 'If... then...' statement. If you think someone is violating the Constitution/being offensive. If you are convinced the situation isn't a misunderstanding. If you are being accused of stuff. Etc.

The one orphan under this setup is Article 13, the email one. I think this might slot into Section 2, but... do we actually want to say 'if someone's harassing you, send them an email!'? I think the 'private email' part can probably be dropped, or maybe thrown into the try-to-resolve-things part. That means it's just the 'be civil by email' part that drops into Section 2.

Combined with an 'How To Apologise And Not Irritate People' article, I think this handles both my questions, and a lot of what's bothering people in the thread. If someone else agrees, I'll throw together a remade version for discussion.

((And to think, I was supposed to have stopped trying to Fix Things...))

hS

I like that, too. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-05 19:44:00 UTC Reply

My point with the last bit of my last post is that a large enough portion of the community saying something is bad and they don't want it kinda does make it true. That's what the Constitution really is: the community setting standards for what it will and will not allow.

It's also about making those standards standard, not arbitrary, though, so:

I support pulling the trolling bit up into Section 2.

I like the progression you've outlined here for Section 3.

I think we're looking to have in there somewhere that you are expected to apologize if a) you've unjustly accused someone OR if b) you've been justly accused of something; BUT NOT if c) you've justly accused someone or if d) you've been unjustly accused (though it might be helpful to apologize anyway). This can be discussed in more detail in the proposed wiki article, which I also support. It strikes me that it might be kin to how to give constrictive criticism, just of behavior, not writing.

What's just or unjust will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, or the document will smother itself in text.

Article 13 is a bit of an odd duck, yeah. I think it's supposed to deal with situations where a couple of Boarders get into an extended debate that isn't particularly on topic and doesn't necessarily involve anyone else? "Let's continue this over e-mail" is often a great choice there; but not if it's gotten nasty. Maybe that's something for "On Thy Topics of Discussion"?

I think "harassment outside the community (e.g. by e-mail) is just as serious as harassment inside the community" may fit best up in Proposed Section 1, Article 4.

So basically, we'd be breaking up Article 13 and possibly making a new article down in Current Section 4.

(Is that everything? I think that's everything...)

~Neshomeh

Second proposal. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-05 21:36:00 UTC Reply

Okay, here's the latest version for comments. References are to this version where appropriate.

Section One: On Toleration And Its Limits

Articles 1-3 as reference.

4. The community will not tolerate any form of harassment between members of the PPC, whether it manifests as attacking, bullying, or pestering. Respect people's personal boundaries just as much as you do everything else about them. This rule particularly includes interactions outside of PPC community spaces: harassing someone by email is just as serious as doing so in public, if not more so, and will be treated as such. If you find yourself being harassed or bullied by another PPCer, please make the community aware! We cannot help with a situation if we don’t know it exists. ((Merger of Articles 4 and 13.))

Article 5 as reference.

Section Two: On The Capacity To Engage In Mature Conversation

Article 6 as written.

6.5. The rules of civility and respect do not disappear outside PPC community spaces, or while talking about someone. Don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and don’t say anything about another PPCer you wouldn’t say to their face. ((The leftover piece of 13.))

Article 7 as written.

8. Trolls (those who create deliberately bad/annoying stories, reviews or comments for the express purpose of irritating or enraging others) will be ignored or mocked for entertainment. That includes PPCers who act as trolls — you have been warned. It is not clever to deliberately antagonise others in the community, and it is not clever to crow about antagonising people outside the community, either. ((Old Article 27, as written.))

Section Three: On Making Reparations

9. If someone says or does something that seems offensive/inappropriate, remember that they most likely didn't intend to. If their words are ambiguous, go ahead and ask for clarification - it's never silly to want the full facts. Nine times out of ten, it's an honest misunderstanding by one or both of you - accept your mistakes and move on. Apologies on both sides (for being unclear, and for assuming worse than was meant) are recommended, but should not be demanded. ((Tweaked Article 8 from reference, to remove combatative language.))

10. If you believe someone is genuinely doing something wrong, it is important to tell them clearly and calmly what the unwanted behavior is, why it is unwanted (i.e. how it violates the Constitution and/or is offensive), and that they are being asked to stop. Shouting or snapping at people does not usually help, so it is generally best to address the issue as soon as you are able to do so clearly and calmly, rather than later, with lots of built-up frustration and anger. If you feel honestly unable to explain the issue, it's always fine to ask a third party to step in. Ensure that the person you're concerned about gets a clear explanation of what they did wrong - not just denunciations. ((Article 9 from reference as written, with clarification on how soon 'soon' is, and incorporating parts of Article 10.))

11. If someone or multiple someones have asked you to stop what you're doing, especially on the basis of the Constitution, take a step back. Stop and look at what you are doing or saying. Take the time to think about it - the PPC isn't going anywhere. Remember the foundation of respect that the PPC community is built on (see Article 1). If they've misunderstood you, explain that - as per Article 9, nine out of ten disputes are honest misunderstandings. But if there is a foundation to their request, stop and apologise. If you made an honest mistake, or weren't aware that what you said was offensive - we all do it sometimes! - it's always acceptable to explain after your apology (not as part of it!). Just make sure that explaining why it happened once or twice doesn't turn into making excuses for why it keeps happening. ((Article 11 from reference, massively changed. I've referenced back to Article 9 to get the 'misunderstanding/mutual apologies' stuff back in. Whether you think they have a point or not, both articles you read (9 and 11) should link to the Wiki 'Apologies' article.))

12. Wilful ignorance is not an excuse. There comes a point when someone who is ignoring the Constitution and claiming that they’re not really doing anything wrong - despite explanations to the contrary - needs the book thrown at them. However, wilful ignorance on the part of the accuser is also not an excuse. If someone clarifies a genuine misunderstanding, continuing to push for an apology may count as persecution on your part. ((Article 12, tweaked to remove a reference to the One Chance, which hasn't yet shown up.))

13. Everyone deserves an honest second chance, starting with the chance to stop, explain, and apologise. If that's enough to resolve the dispute, excellent! If not, you could try asking a third party to comment on the dispute. Do your best to find someone uninvolved; a mediator will be more useful for resolving a dispute than a supporter. Some issues may be best sorted out by email, or by agreeing to drop the subject. Almost no-one in the PPC will be deliberately trying to antagonise, upset, or offend you. ((Merger of articles 10, 13, and 14.))

14. The PPC as a community is responsible for upholding the Constitution. If following the above rules doesn't result a situation, any and all uninvolved community members have a responsibility to back up the person who is in the right, or to defuse a difficult/unclear situation. Genuine rule-breakers should be made aware that their behaviour will not be tolerated, however justified they think it is. ((Article 14, tweaked a little.))

14.5. If discussion is unable to resolve a situation, persistent rule-breakers can be told to leave the PPC community. We don’t want to do this. If the community tells you that you're not living up to its standards, listen to them! Take a step back, take the time to think, take the trouble to sincerely apologise. If you learn from your mistakes, and don't hold a grudge over them, you can continue to be a productive member of the PPC community. ((Article 14.5, reworked for a bit of positivity.))

Later on, as the last Article in On Thy Topics Of Discussion

XX. Sometimes, a discussion between just a few people takes on epic proportions. If this happens, it might be best to take it to the Lounge, or to private emails, rather than consume the Board with your enthusiasm.

At the end, Article 27 has been stolen for use as Article 8, and the final Section is renamed On What Are You Waiting For?.

I think I'm pretty happy with this version; it covers everything I think needs covering, and does it clearly enough that most disagreements can be cleared up. And since I'm the only person in this community, I hereby amend the--

Wait, what? I'm not? Ohfine. ^_~ Edit away to your hearts' content.

hS

Having closely read this... by Desdendelle on 2017-02-10 15:56:00 UTC Reply

It looks fine to me, and I don't have any concrete comment to add.

Thank you. (nm) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-10 16:14:00 UTC Reply

Okay, having reread the whole thing... by Neshomeh on 2017-02-08 17:07:00 UTC Reply

First, a missing word in Article 7: "Someone disagreeing with your opinion"

One nitpick—I don't like this line:

"If you made an honest mistake, or weren't aware that what you said was offensive - we all do it sometimes! - it's always acceptable to explain after your apology (not as part of it!)."

1. The first parenthetical remark made grammatical sense after "if you made an honest mistake," but doesn't so much after "[if you] weren't aware that what you said was offensive."

2. The second parenthetical remark could be confusing. Does explaining not as part of your apology mean in a separate post, or what? I think "after your apology" is sufficient, perhaps even more than sufficient, mostly because I think "I'm sorry, I had no idea that was offensive!" and "Oh, I never knew that. I'm sorry!" can both be perfectly valid apologies even though they include out-of-order explanations.

Suggested rewrite:

If you've made an honest mistake, or weren't aware that what you said is offensive, it's always acceptable to explain after your apology. Nobody's perfect, and nobody's born knowing everything.

Aaand that's about all I have time for. In general I'd suggest looking for places where fewer words and/or shorter sentences would get the job done, so it's not kludgey, but nothing else is jumping out at me like that line was. {= )

Aside from that, I think that covers it! Not that I want to tempt the Ironic Overpower by saying it's foolproof, because of course nothing is.

~Neshomeh

Thank you! by Huinesoron on 2017-02-08 20:36:00 UTC Reply

What I was aiming at was "Sorry, but I actually meant X", which has been slapped down numerous times. I much prefer your version of the sentence. ^_^ I've updated the GDoc version.

I'm afraid being overly-wordy is one of my flaws. When I hit a problem, I try to keep writing until I solve it, rather than going back and reworking. I would dearly love the Constitution as a whole to be shorter, but I'm fundamentally incapable of making it so. :( Someday, someone will come along with the same amending bug as me, but with an eye to streamlining the whole thing.

But that is not this day!!!

hS

Anyone? by Huinesoron on 2017-02-07 12:36:00 UTC Reply

Signatures so far:

Version 1: Huinesoron, Neshomeh, Cat-on-the-Keyboard, Scapegrace, SeaTurtle, Hieronymus Graubart.

Version 2: Huinesoron, Hieronymus Graubart.

I'd really like to know what the people who aren't commenting are thinking. EAIUO asked a question, which was great, and I tried to work on it in Version 2. But most people aren't saying anything.

Why is that? If it's that you think there's a problem with the proposal, please say, and we can work on fixing it. If it's that you don't think an amendment is needed, please say that too! I know I get over-enthusiastic about procedural stuff; if you think the Constitution as written makes it clear that pestering someone = harassment = bad, then say that!

If you're just not interested, or worn out from the previous thread, or too busy... well... then... I guess that's that?

I'm still aiming at 8 signatures, preferably on the current version. Since it's gotten a bit spread out, I've put together a 'current version' document. Everyone should have commenting access, so if you find minor tweaks easier to make that way, go for it.

Current proposed amendment

hS

I approve of the second version. by Aegis on 2017-02-09 23:33:00 UTC Reply

It leaves less room for ambiguity, and I can't think of anything we might need to add at the moment.

However.

I also think that the constitution as written should have been more than enough for anyone paying attention. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that we have to say any of this at all. But it's obvious from recent events that we do.

In light of this, I like the second version. I'm glad we'll have something more concrete to point to in the future, should this ever rear its ugly head again.

Let me know if I'm being ambiguous, I just think being mute now serves no purpose even if I'm not clear-headed at the moment.

Thanks for your signature. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-10 08:54:00 UTC Reply

On your other point: I can't pretend to know why the chat community didn't raise this as a problem earlier. The only experience I can work from is my own, which you can read over in the previous thread if you choose. Essentially, the word 'harassment' has different meanings to different people. To me - and to the Constitution as presently written - it means 'repeatedly attacking, bullying, and demeaning someone'.

That wasn't the sense in which Iximaz and Tomash were using it; their version is also accurate. But bear in mind where you are - the PPC has never been noted for consisting of highly-stable, socially-adept types. A large proportion of us are frankly inept when it comes to interpersonal skills (such as, say, me).

So yeah, I think it's actually reasonable to assume that some of our people - which includes members down to and below age 13, many of whom are awestruck by the presence of Big Names like Iximaz - aren't going to get that 'try and be wherever Iximaz is and talk to them all the time' is a form of harassment. I don't know whether that's the situation with GlarnWhatsit, but it feels like it.

My view has always been that the best way to prevent bad behaviour is to make it clear that it is bad, in advance. Cut things off at the start, and you never have to resort to punishment.

hS

There might have been too many votes recently by Tomash on 2017-02-09 04:37:00 UTC Reply

(it also doesn't help that I've been a bit busy over the last few days, so I haven't been able to poke at this properly).

I still haven't given this a thorough read, honestly.

I'd like to propose that we come back to this topic in, let's say, a few weeks, or a month and then some, so that we can talk about the anti-harassment amendment without being worn out by the 2-3 votes that we've had to sit through recently.

- Tomash

Okay, sure. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-09 08:52:00 UTC Reply

I've put the whole thing up as a proposed amendment on the Constitution doc. When you feel like it's the right time, go ahead and propose something; you're free to use what has already been discussed or start over from scratch. When you've got a consensus worked out, I'll put it into the doc.

hS

Let me put it like this: by Scapegrace on 2017-02-08 02:17:00 UTC Reply

I'm not possessed of a legal mind (my illegal minds are, of course, stashed in a cavity wall in a bedsit in -- but that would be telling). I can't put rules together. I can't put systems in place. I can't focus enough to do that, because I'm not particularly bright, and therefore I can't focus enough to pick holes in someone else's attempts at system creation. I can't give you any input beyond "this seems fine".

I lack the mindset to give a nuanced critique of any Constitutional amendments. This... feels like dereliction of duty, but it is what it is.

"This seems fine" is fine. ;) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-08 08:43:00 UTC Reply

As long as it means "this makes sense and is fine", rather than "those are deffo some ruley rules you've got there".

hS

The former, definitely. by Scapegrace on 2017-02-09 15:19:00 UTC Reply

They make sense to me and look like they solve the problem, but I can't make sure all the Is are crossed and Ts are dotted. I leave that to other, smarter people. =]

Sorry I've been silent on the matter. by Iximaz on 2017-02-07 17:40:00 UTC Reply

I just feel like I ought to stay out of this since it was kind of my fault the whole discussion is happening in the first place.

For what it's worth, I think it looks good so far.

Surely that's a reason NOT to stay quiet? by Huinesoron on 2017-02-07 19:36:00 UTC Reply

You had a bad experience, which this amendment is trying to keep from happening again. Your thoughts on whether it will help are uniquely relevant.

hS

Getting fatigued with it, yeah. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-07 16:41:00 UTC Reply

I read it over, and I think I was fine with it (except for the mistake HG pointed out), but I wanted to read it again and actually think about it before saying anything. I meant to do that yesterday, but mostly did laundry and played Skyrim instead. >.>

If I have time to do it tonight, I will.

~Neshomeh
Sorry, procrastinating studying for tests, here. by Desdendelle on 2017-02-07 14:16:00 UTC Reply

I'll take a close look after I finish this test. It's this Thursday.
*ahhs quietly*

Editing to my hearts' content by Hieronymus Graubart on 2017-02-06 17:24:00 UTC Reply

If following the above rules doesn't result a situation
Shouldn't this be "resolve"?

HG

Yep! Is your heart content now? (nm) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-06 18:16:00 UTC Reply

Well, I would have signed the proposed amendment. by Hieronymus Graubart on 2017-02-05 17:41:00 UTC Reply

But since there are apparently some issues, I would have said:

Should Article 9 say "sooner, still with a (mostly) clear head" to clarify that it does not suggest to act rashly when already upset?

Article 11, Question 1: Since it's probably too complex to put into the constitution, I support the suggestion of a Wiki article on "Apologies".

Question 2: What? The last sentence of Article 5 (now 8) means only the accuser should apologize? I always felt that this goes both ways and apologizing for having caused trouble is also recommended to the accused person. Mutual apologies are the best way to resolve misunderstandings. Does this really need a repetition here? Or a clarification in new Article 8? Also, may we want to add "or unaware of cultural dissonances" to "being unclear"?

But now this clear progression thing looks even better, so go ahead and do it.

HG

Answers. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-05 08:42:00 UTC Reply

9 I'll let Nesh answer. I think, awkwardly, it works both. I also know we've had both 'why didn't you say anything at the time' and 'it's too soon to make a rational decision' crop up on ban discussions.

#11 is supposed to reference 14.5 (the banning article). Oops!

#15: ha! That's hilarious, and I can't believe I canon-failed in a joke. Or maybe it makes it better? '... here's an audiobook of a traditional mime interpretation of Hamlet.'

Yes? No?

hS

I have a request for clarification... by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2017-02-04 19:19:00 UTC Reply

Regarding 11/2. If I understand this properly it seems to suggest that a person who is accused of wrongdoing, but did not actually engage in wrongdoing they should apologize?

I'll go into this a bit later to offer my full opinion, I just don't have the time to fully dig into it yet.

That was basically my question, yeah. (nm) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-04 20:14:00 UTC Reply

*pokes Boarders* This IS for everyone... by Neshomeh on 2017-02-04 18:38:00 UTC Reply

And kind of important, since no changes can be made without people saying they want them.

It's also really great if people say they DON'T want changes, and if not, why.

BTW, have we said anywhere that you implicitly agree to abide by the Constitution by participating in PPC spaces? I may've brought this up before, but I forget what happened.

~Neshomeh

If not enough people have thoughts on it... by Huinesoron on 2017-02-04 21:01:00 UTC Reply

... (where 'enough' is flexible; given that we're not actually changing any rules, despite the large edit, I think ~8 would count, unless there are objections) I'll file the whole suggestion at the end of the Constitution doc to be potentially reconsidered another time.

Objections and changes are most welcome, obviously.

I think the Board header makes it clear that these are the rules. It doesn't explicitly say that you agree to follow them, but, y'know... that's what rules are.

I don't think there's anything in the Constitution itself, though, if that's what you're asking.

hS
Well... by Desdendelle on 2017-02-04 19:55:00 UTC Reply

I don't have a well-formed opinion about this, and it's test season for me right now.

I like it. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-03 16:07:00 UTC Reply

I think it's much more clear and progresses easily from one point to the next. The bases seem to be pretty well covered.

On your questions:

1. I think there's a difference between "I disagree with you and my opinion hasn't changed, but I'm sorry for offending you anyway [because I care about your feelings]" and "I'm sorry you were offended even though I'm totally still in the right [therefore you're stupid for feeling that way]." The former should be acceptable while the latter is not. But yeah, it is a fairly tricky matter of word order and tone, which has also given us no end of trouble. I think I said something at some point to the effect that a decent apology should be for the hurt/offense given, because the point is to show that you respect the other person and didn't actually want to hurt them. It also helps to say that you'll try to avoid doing/saying whatever it was in the future, 'cuz it shows you understand the problem and do want to get along. Maybe something like that could go in as a sub-clause of Proposed Article 11? Though I don't think it would be wise to dictate "All apologies must take this exact form or else," so... hrm. Maybe someone else can solve this one.

2. I don't think there's anything wrong with both parties apologizing for a misunderstanding. It takes two, after all, and if everybody cares enough about everybody else's feelings to say they're sorry for hurting them even if it was an accident, that's great. {= )

I think what we're looking for here is humility enough to accept that we can always be wrong and kindness enough to put the other person's feelings over our own. It's embarrassing to make a mistake, and being challenged or called on it can make us defensive and angry, but our feelings are not more important than everyone else's. We should help each other realize that making a mistake is not necessarily the end of the world, so we can let it go. This gets proportionally more difficult the more important the thing you're wrong about is to your identity, but there are only a few things that really ought to be that big a deal, I think, and they're pretty well covered in Proposed Articles 2 and 3.

I think I've strayed from the point of the question, though. My sense is that if someone has honestly done nothing wrong and someone else is jumping on them, that sort of thing usually gets nipped in the bud pretty quickly. It may not need clarification. But others may have other ideas.

~Neshomeh

Maybe we should write an article about how to apologize by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-05 06:55:00 UTC Reply

The way we have wiki articles on how to spork slash and suchlike. Just some recommendations, as per your first point. We would link to it in the Constitution or put it at the top of the Board with some language like, "If you're having trouble figuring out how to apologize, this might be useful."

(I agree with what you've said. Humility is important.)

--Key

Sounds like the sequel to... by Huinesoron on 2017-02-05 07:48:00 UTC Reply

...John Cleese's How To Irritate People.

It's a good idea though. Like the Flaming article, we can link it in-line in the Constitution. (I don't think the PPC's /quite/ far enough gone to need it in the header...)

hS

*notices mini-Boarder* Whoops, my bad by Tomash on 2017-02-02 17:31:00 UTC Reply

This is what I get for trying to spell people's names instead of copy-pasting them.

- Tomash, keeping mini-Boarders off of the endangered species list since 2011 :)
Um. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-02 10:20:00 UTC Reply

I think that runs afoul of the 'intentionally', plus it doesn't explain what we mean by 'harasses'. As shown in the previous thread, I interpreted it as 'engages in bullying-style behaviour towards', and that reading is implicitly supported by Article 9.

Putting it another way, this conversation:

OlderThanThou: Hey, Lacksi! Quit harassing Oaken (= replying to everything she says and name-dropping her in every post).

Lacksidacksical: That's unfair! I'm not harassing (= bullying, insulting, and attacking) Oaken, and saying I am is a personal attack!

Both OTT and Lacksi are 100% correct, and furthermore Lacksi isn't doing anything intentionally - she's just kinda obsessed with Oaken. ((Note: because this is Lacksi's character, not as a stand-in for GlarnBoudin, whose motivations I don't know.))

I do like the idea of slotting it in like that, but I think we need to be clear what the word means. How do you feel about 'pester'? It's a little lighthearted, but I think the connotations are closer to what we're talking about.

Re: 'stop means stop' - where it impinges on the Constitution, I think this is covered by parts of articles 5, 9, and 10.5 (the various 'if you're told you're doing something wrong, check whether you are and stop' clauses). Given that it is scattered around so much, I think it's somewhat diluted - might a restructuring of Section 2 to give 'what to do if you're being told off' an article of its own?

If you're worried about 'I don't like your opinion so shaddup'... urm, then I don't think there's much we can do. The old Constitution went with 'don't tell someone not to share their opinion', and that was thrown out (on the grounds that, eg, the opinion "homosexuality is sinful" is not allowed to be shared). I think we considered having a list of Protected Categories, but decided that would just lead to rule-lawyering - "oh, but income isn't protected, so I'm allowed to say that all poor people are scum!". At present, we have 'not limited to' and 'such as' in article 1, which avoids the previous two issues, but opens up room for "your opinion that spiders are cute is harmful (because I'm Australian and spiders are deadly) so you should be banned!".

((There was actually an episode of a children's TV show banned in Australia because it taught that spiders are super friendly and harmless...))

I think we have to have a certain level of trust in the PPC community. We have to trust that people won't try and abuse the rules - and that when they do, they'll be slapped down for it.

hS

PS: Does this mean that the Neshomesh/Huniesoron friend'ship is snuggly canon? ^_~

Hurm, true. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-02 16:23:00 UTC Reply

I don't think we can fit in pestering up there, either, then. It's quite a different concept, and might needs its own article if we feel it's not covered enough by the various iterations of "be respectful" and "if you're told you're doing something wrong, knock it off."

I do think we could do with "how to tell someone off politely and constructively" and "what to do if you're being told off." It is necessary to be clear when a behavior is unwanted. We don't always like to be direct about it, but it should always be okay to say "Look, I don't want this attention. It makes me uncomfortable. Please stop." So, let's see...

New Article 7. If someone is doing something wrong, it is important to tell them clearly and calmly what the unwanted behavior is, why it is unwanted (i.e. how it violates the Constitution and/or is offensive), and that they are being asked to stop. Shouting or snapping at people does not usually help, so it is generally best to address the issue sooner, with a clear head, rather than later, with lots of built-up frustration and anger.

New Article 8. Everyone deserves an honest second chance – which means, initially, a chance to stop, explain, and/or apologise. This means that, if you believe that someone is engaged in any violation of the Constitution, but particularly Articles 1-3, it is critical to make sure they understand what they are doing wrong, so that they can make amends. Explain it to them yourself, or ask a third party to do so – but the key word is explain. Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance.

New Article 9. If someone or multiple someones have asked you to stop what you're doing, especially on the basis of the Constitution, you are expected to stop and apologize for giving offense. This also applies if you are told that your behavior is making someone uncomfortable: as per Article 3, you are expected to exercise respect for others, and this includes personal boundaries. It is always acceptable to explain yourself if you've made an honest mistake – we all do sometimes! – but please make sure that explaining why it happened once or twice doesn't turn into making excuses for why it keeps happening. In cases of persistent rule-breaking, [Current Article 10.5] may be invoked.

New Article 10. =Current Article 8.

New Article 11. =Current Article 9.

Etc.

How do those sound?

Possibly some of the other articles in Section 2 may need tweaking to avoid redundancy, but then again, a little redundancy may not be a bad thing.

~Neshomeh

P.S. Yes, I think so. {= D
I like the word "pester" by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-02 15:22:00 UTC Reply

For me, it evokes phrases like, "Do not pester people. We know, it's exciting that your favorite author is right there in the chat with you, but if they say you're creeping them out, back off," which I believe is exactly what we're aiming for.

--Key

My favourite author is in the chat?!!?!! by Huinesoron on 2017-02-02 16:00:00 UTC Reply

But... but my favourite authors are all dead... :(

... wait.

Wait.

Are you telling me Discord is actually synonymous with Pandemonium? Because I think that's what you're telling me.

hS

Yes by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-03 03:26:00 UTC Reply

(Mild spoilers for Paradise Lost and flippant jokes about eternal damnation, highlight to reveal) Log on, and you see a pit of fire. You can claw your way from there to a shining city with ancient-Greek style architecture to find Des (who, in this scenario, is Satan), surrounded by the mods (his favored fallen angels -- Tomash is probably Belial, but other than that no headcanons strike me), justly presiding over this shining city on a hill -- unless we've been randomly transformed into snakes, of course. Then all Hell breaks loose.

Joking aside, you'd be surprised at how exciting it is for newbies to get a reply from someone such as. . . well, you. Especially if they're not used to the PPC's non-hierarchical structure (I think I may have literally squealed the first time you responded to something I posted. I'm completely over that sort of thing now, of course, with my lengthy PPC tenure of nearly a year).

--Key is very cool

I would really, really not be surprised. ;) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-03 10:47:00 UTC Reply

You forget - I joined in the days when Miss Cam(!!!!!) was still on the Board. I spoke to Jay(!!!!!) once or twice. Andy and Saphie (!!!!!) were still around, and Architeuthis (!!!!!) and... yeah, what I'm saying is, I spent a lot of time hyperventilating when interacting with the Originalbies.

So I totally get it. (But I am not one to let getting it stand in the way of introducing levity onto a Board which sometimes sorely needs it.)

hS

So you're not an old friend of Jay's by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-03 14:44:00 UTC Reply

Who joined the PPC back when it was just a bunch of fanfic authors the Originalbies liked/were friends with.

This is very good to know.

--Key is bad at timelines

Nope, not quite. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-03 15:51:00 UTC Reply

The PPC began sometime before March 2002. We know this, because they were on their fifth spinoff by then.

The very very early PPC community was actually populated by OFUM fans - I think Miss Cam must have been one of their first supporters. In fact, I think the community itself consisted of the FF.net reviews and the OFUM Yahoo group.

Then J&A got kicked from FF.net (in May 2002, and Philosopher@Large set up a homepage for them (it's archived here. At the time, they had 14 missions up - everything through to 'Sisterhood'.

The Board was up within the year. We have a single archived front page from December, which spans post numbers 321 to 404 (in six days). Assuming that rate is constant, you get a foundation date around November 10th. That's probably slightly later than actual (since the number of posts would've been growing), but the Internet Archive shows it didn't exist on October 8th (as in, it wasn't on the Oddlots homepage).

People started to flood in. It started with those who had seen the PPC on FF.net - my wife is one of those [/namedrop]. Then it was people who saw the spinoffs. By May 2003, the Board was huge - the archives show we were racing through the Front Page every single day.

Sometime at the beginning of '03, Acacia left. We have a fairly big archive of subject lines from '03, and she doesn't appear in them. Jay (as Otik) kept posting until at least August, and then left herself.

I joined the Board in September, ultimately by way of OFUM. So good timing on my part! I saw Jay come back a couple of times, which was exactly as overwhelming as you can imagine. And I've been here ever since.

I realise this is a longer reply than you were expecting, but it's good to drag out the ol' history books every so often. I usually find out something new - this time it was that October 8th date on which the Board didn't exist. Fun stuff.

hS

Ooh, I've got the timeline slightly wrong. :D by Huinesoron on 2017-02-04 20:19:00 UTC Reply

I love it when that happens.

OFUM started on March 8th 2002. Given that J&A had five spinoffs by March 15th, I'm pretty certain that they started before Miss Cam.

Exciting! We get to claim seniority over the OFUs. ^_^

hS
Huh, I might've joined before you. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-04 18:34:00 UTC Reply

My earliest PPC activity (that I know about) is a comment on a story in June, 2003. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd joined the Board yet, but it's possible! I remember when Mum's the Word gave out brownies for newbies and birthdays. ^_^

~Neshomeh

Aww, I remember Mumsy. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-04 20:56:00 UTC Reply

I think my contact with the PPC multiverse dates to July 2nd '03 - that's when I spelt Thranduil's name wrong in Pancakes!, and was pointed (apparently not through a review) to Miss Cam and mini-Balrogs. (This is also why I adopted Thanduril.)

--no, I take it back. It was July 9th, when StarlightWarrior pointed me at Miss Cam to get a mini (in the reviews to the Boromir Saga). It's nice to have that localised.

And I'm 11 days older than I thought. I've found the review inviting me over: September 8th. And while Vemi started the thread on the Board about my fic (asking 'should we invite her to join?' ^_^), it was Hellga who actually extended the invitation.

Research is fuuuuuun.

(Both 'Techno-Dann' and 'Huinesoron' first appear in the Board archives on October 15th '03. 'Neshomeh' doesn't appear in the 2003 archives at all, sadly. There's also no data between August 11th and October 14th.

Nesh & Delta J: do you remember Otik being a regular? I know I was less than a month late grar, so if you do remember, then you definitely predate me. (I remember her visiting a couple of times, but that's different.)

hS

I remember her posting once. by Neshomeh on 2017-02-04 22:14:00 UTC Reply

As I recall, it was kind of a big deal, so it was probably after she stopped coming by regularly.

I seem to have known about the Board by the time I started reviewing PPC fics on FF.net, though. On June 3, I point Mulberry (Jaz and Tick's author) toward Jay and Acacia's Wunderlust account as a way to find the "two sites for the PPC." I was reading the likes of "Just Call Me Mary Sue" and "I, Grûsbálk" and had caught up to the latest chapter of HFA (chapter 21) in January, and apparently then went on to read OFUM, and I know I got to the PPC by way of the OFUM mailing list. I think I may have found "Triumvirate" via the mailing list, too, and I was reading THAT by the end of January... I'unno.

I do know I went on a bit of a hiatus after I first joined the Board, though, then came back and became active. I was really active as of 2004, when I started putting together the updated Substance Menu and the Tech Glossary. (Clearly I wanted a wiki before there was such a thing.)

Research is indeed fun. ^_^

Oh, if anybody wants links to the fics I mentioned, just say the word. I don't promise they'll hold up from when I was a wee young'un, but they probably don't suck, at least. {= )

~Neshomeh
I was seven in '03. I feel little. ;-; (nm) by Iximaz on 2017-02-04 20:57:00 UTC Reply

I was three! by Larfen J. Stocke, esq on 2017-02-05 07:05:00 UTC Reply

My parents still hadn't even the faintest clue as to what it was they had infected the world with, back then!
And I hadn't even written my first badfic by then! by Sergio Turbo on 2017-02-04 22:44:00 UTC Reply

Really, I only started writing for the Internet around 2005-2006ish - in fact, Mai Dire Fine (started April 13th, 2006), the story Agent!Sergio and Nikki are actually from, was also one of my earliest involvements in fanfiction.

... I am writing the same characters more than ten years later, which is a lot, and the current oldest oldbies PPC join still outdates them. I now feel old and young simultaneously. Tha's... weird.

(This also means that good old hS or Nesh or any of the company could have missioned my stuff back then, if there wasn't a fandom and language barrier in between. It's fine, though - ended up missioning one of these myself.)

I think that makes you the oldbie-est person around, though. by Desdendelle on 2017-02-03 23:51:00 UTC Reply

Not counting present absentees like Kaitlyn.
I'm not wrong, am I now?

It's me, Nesh, and Delta Juliette. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-04 08:23:00 UTC Reply

My official joining date is Talk Like A Pirate Day '03. I'm sure they can provide theirs and settle this. ^^

Amomg recent absentees, Araeph and Kaitlyn both predate me. So do occasional visitors BeautyID and Hellga. But yeah. There's a reason the future Gathering reports use the term <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b2-IsVH5OtrMALHc_Bska0FCxqdCG5i55SeUl52J3Y/pub">Ancientestbies.

hS

Ah, us oldbies... by Delta Juliette on 2017-02-05 23:09:00 UTC Reply

I don't recall exactly when I joined, I'm afraid - some time around when the recall election craziness was going on in California? That would have been fall '03.

(And I got permission from Otik Herself, IIRC. I.... prooobably shouldn't have gotten it. I certainly wouldn't have gotten it now.)

The crown is provisionally yours. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-06 08:56:00 UTC Reply

Kaitlyn has a feeling you were here before me, too. Did you get Permission from Otik on the Board, or by email?

It's possible Nesh was here actually-first, but just introduced herself and then went silent. You get the prize for first regular poster who's still regular. Nesh provisionally gets the one for first poster at all who's still regular. Kaitlyn gets the one for first regular poster who's still around at all (she posted in three of the last four months of '16!). And I get... uh, a pat on the back for taking part?

Gotta admit, that's not how I saw this working out. :)

hS

You get the "keeper of traditions" medal, I think. by Desdendelle on 2017-02-06 09:26:00 UTC Reply

After all, you've done much work on archiving and preserving the PPC's history, no?

So have other people. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-06 09:29:00 UTC Reply

If I get a prize, it's 'most prolific poster'. I've stopped keeping daily post-counts, but I had the most recorded posts from 2008, and that's with 2009-10 being one of my quietest periods.

But it's nice of you to say so. ^_^ I really wasn't fishing for compliments, though.

hS

I didn't think you were! by Desdendelle on 2017-02-06 13:33:00 UTC Reply

Fishing for compliments, that is.
I don't know if it's just me, but I think that you're the most visible ancientbie (I think we need this category by now, heh — after all, if I count as oldbie, you're a tier above, so to speak), so it might have to do with that fact.

I'm happy to be an ancientbie. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-06 14:51:00 UTC Reply

I'm not sure where it should cut off, though. I already coined 'Originalbie' earlier, which I think should cover anyone who became active when TOS was still being written. The hard cut-off date for that is August 12th 2003 - according to Oddlots, that's the publication date for "To Know Where You're Going". That means Kaitlyn (first attested date: May 18th) would definitely qualify, which might make me reconsider the definition. ;) Maybe try and peg it to the last J&A mission, "Elemental Crystals", though I'm having trouble dating that one.

I don't think the rest of us fall into that category, though. Both Nesh and Juliette have indicated they joined late in the year. So Ancientbies we be.

My preferred cutoff for Ancientbie status is the end of 2004. That's about when Bast left, and it's also the line I've had in my brain for a long time. People who joined in 2005 are still newbies, to my mind. :D

Taking those dates, then, here's how our oldest Boarders break down:

Originalbies: BeautyID, Hellga, Kaitlyn.
Ancientbies: Huinesoron, Delta Juliette, Neshomeh, Araeph, and Elcalion who just slips into the records in the same month Bast left.

And - other than the venerable Anonymous, who is always with us - that's it. That's everyone who was on the Board before 2005 and still sticks their head in occasionally.

hS

That must mean... by Desdendelle on 2017-02-06 16:11:00 UTC Reply

That there are generations, or degrees, of oldbies; it's clear that people from (for example) July's generation are not people from my generation.

Aha - classification! My favourite. ^_^ by Huinesoron on 2017-02-06 16:30:00 UTC Reply

We also have the term 'Middlebie', which was used at one point. If you accept that 'Newbie' stands for people who haven't really learned the ropes yet, 'Middlebie' is anyone who's settled in but isn't of the 'wow they've been here ages' set. Say, six months for newbies, then another 12 for middlebies.

I think I remember occasional use of 'Olderbie' to cover people who've been here longer than most Oldbies. But that still doesn't give us a great deal of granularity...

Working from the Feb '05 date, the next big change is in 2008, when the Board switched from Server.com to YourWebApps.com. 2008 was kind of a big year in general - we had so many Emergencies and the like that you can really call it a cut-off. Either you were there, or you weren't. Hmm... can we call the people Who Were There veterans? It breaks the chain of -bies, but lets us introduce that extra level. After all, the time since '08 is, uh, nearly a decade - we can't have that all under one name.

So Olderbie and Oldbie now cover 2008-2015: some 7 years. Hmm... by a helpful coincidence, the Constitution was rewritten in early 2012. The Wiki was updated in May, so let's call it that.

-Originalbie. 2002-August 2003.
-Ancientbie. Aug '03-February 2005.
-Veteran. Feb '05-June 2008.
-Olderbie. Jun '08-May 2012.
-Oldbie. May '12-September 2015.
-Middlebie. Sept '15-September 2016.
-Newbie. Sept '16-February 2017.

There! With that set of names, you can pin anyone down to within four years, and most people to much less than that. :D Other than the fact that there's no -bie in veteran (Veteranbie?), I think it's perfect.

hS

((This is all in fun. In practice, 'newbie' and 'oldbie' are all that's ever likely to be used. But I'm a very sad person who has very sad fun.))

If Plort was written today, with this fresh in mind. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-07 09:33:00 UTC Reply

Oy, newbie! Yeah, that’s right, come over here. You don’t need to be scared of a middlebie like me – it’s only a year ago I was standing right where you are, squeaky-clean boots and all.

Not that I’m saying you shouldn’t be scared at all, mind. You know those stories you heard about the Tsarina, how she secured her throne by cutting down every single other claimant, everyone else who knew the Great Ones before they ascended to glory?

Yeah, it’s true. Every word, and more that don’t even get said.

But most of us ain’t scary. Us middlebies, well, we’re just ordinary folks like you and the other newbies. Even the oldbies – yeah, they’re good at what they do, and you’ll learn a lot by watching them, but they’re basically just doing their jobs.

But the olderbies, they’re intimidating. People like Desdendelle and Sergio are so far beyond even the oldbies that they make… well, they make me feel like you. You listen to them, you do exactly what they tell you, and you thank your lucky stars they’re not telling you off.

And you are lucky, newbie – we all are. The really big names, the proper veterans, don’t show their faces too much around here these days. But if you see them – if you run into the likes of JulyFlame or VixenMage - you salute, and you mean it. They served the Tsarina when you were still playing catch with the kid next door, and they’re… I mean, they scare the pants off some of the oldbies. Just stay out of their line of fire, kid.

O’course, however hard you try, you won’t be able to keep away from the Council of Five – no, it’s Three now, ain’t it? The ancientbies - don’t let them hear you say that, word to the wise – are here all the freaking time, they’re impossible to get away from. Huinesoron, Neshomeh, Delta Juliette – remember their names, and remember that there used to be five of them until Araeph and Elcalion… disappeared.

You don’t wanna ellipsis disappear, do you? No. So watch your squeaky-clean tongue around ‘em, and keep your head so far down your nose scrapes the dirt.

Now look, I know I’ve made it sound pretty scary here, and honestly, it is. But it’s also the greatest job in the world. You’re in the service of Tsarina Kaitlyn the Magnificent, doing the work of the Great Ones, Jay and Acacia themselves. There’s no better place to be – and no better folks to be there with.

Welcome to the war, newbie. Welcome to the PPC.

:D Okay, obviously this is a spectacular misrepresentation of the PPC community and everyone in it. But it was so much fun to write. Quick, someone stop me before I start making campaign ribbons.

hS

All shall love me and despair! by Triumvir Neshomeh on 2017-02-07 16:32:00 UTC Reply

^_~
Every now and then by Kaitlyn on 2017-02-07 15:42:00 UTC Reply

hS asks a question like 'if you were a despot, what would your title be?' I don't even blink anymore, tbh.

-Tsarina Kaitlyn
Yesyesyes write more of this! by Desdendelle on 2017-02-07 10:10:00 UTC Reply

This was a fun thing to read first thing in the morning, and it reminds me of the What if the PPC was actually a military? July and I wrote a longish time ago.

I remember that! by Huinesoron on 2017-02-07 10:24:00 UTC Reply

It wasn't that long ago, though. Only... well, okay, a year and a half, but even so!

I think if there was more to write, it would be those campaigns I mentioned. Things like the Battle of Goldberg, and other big community events. Your Emergencies and big crossovers would count - because multiple people were involved in writing them.

The trouble is, my list would probably run out around 2008. What Big Stuff has happened since then? It helps if it's stuff where the community as a whole feels like it won - arguments between ourselves where people on both sides are still around are more like internecine feuds, not proper campaigns.

hS

We, um. Well. There was this... one time? by Scapegrace on 2017-02-08 02:08:00 UTC Reply

I-I'll get back to you. =]

Yeah. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-08 08:55:00 UTC Reply

I think ribbons for Plort and the Continuity Council would be appropriate. And the Blackout. And one for doing archival work? Other than that, I dunno. Annual ones for the Badfic and Shipfest games? One for being a signature on a constitutional amendment?

hS, ponderance

Pretty sure I said stop me. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-08 12:17:00 UTC Reply

Before we get onto the ribbons, there are two decorations which can be added to them:
-The Black Lace, indicating conspicuous service. I'll note what it specifically means for each ribbon where it's appropriate. (Filename: BlackLace.png)
-The Cactus, for multiple awards. These come in bronze (1 additional award), silver (5 additional awards), and gold (more than 8 additional awards, at which point we stop counting specifics). (Filenames: 1Bar.png to 8Bar.png, & MoreBar.png)

Campaign Ribbons

- participated in a Badfic Game. (Black lace: archived a badfic game.)
- present for the PPC Board blackout. (Black lace: wrote a story for it.)
- worked on archiving PPC material. (Black lace: hosted an archive.)
- signed the PPC Constitution or one of its amendments.
- wrote a Continuity Council story, or part of one.
- participated in the Plort RPs. (Black lace: contributed directly to the Cyclopaedia.)
- put yourself up to be shipped in the Shipfest. (Black lace: wrote a story for the Shipfest.)

There are also some 'training' ribbons, which can't take black lace (though they can receive the cactus if they apply more than once):

- be granted Permission.
- be made a Permission Giver.
- be a Discord (or previous chat) mod.
- be a Wiki admin.
- be a moderator/admin of a PPC LJ/DW community.
- be the owner of a piece of the community. Wiki creator, Discord channel owner, LJ-DW comm owner/creator, T-Board admin, Nameless Admin.

I'm sure there are more ribbons I could do; anyone got any requests?

(For the military types: I'm aware that this doesn't quite match up with how real militaries do things. But, y'know, this is the PPC; we're an odd lot.)

hS

Let's see if I'm getting this right. by Desdendelle on 2017-02-08 21:06:00 UTC Reply

So, I should have the Blackout ribbon, the Constitution Signatory ribbon, the Chili Con Council ribbon, the Plort Ribbon with black lace, and the Shipfest ribbon. Also the Permission ribbon, the PG ribbon, the Discord Mod ribbon (probably?) and the Discord Owner ribbon.
That's... nine ribbons.
Na, I only need this one. It's plenty.

Does yours have cacti on it? by Huinesoron on 2017-02-08 21:13:00 UTC Reply

No. So it's not as good. >:(

hS

Oooh, shinies! by Neshomeh on 2017-02-08 17:19:00 UTC Reply

I like shinies. There's no stopping now. ^_^

I'll try to come up with some ideas, but for right now, some of your images appear to be broken. I had to tab to the reply button instead of clicking on it. Perhaps the Nameless Admin might fix it, if they have a moment?

~Neshomeh

Oops. ^_^; Fixed that. (Saved as gif not png. Resaved.) (nm) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-08 20:27:00 UTC Reply

9/10. Needs more unicorns. ;) (nm) by Iximaz on 2017-02-07 09:52:00 UTC Reply

Oh, they're on their way... (nm) by Huinesoron on 2017-02-07 10:34:00 UTC Reply

This repesentation of me couldn't be more off than this. by Sergio Turbo on 2017-02-07 09:49:00 UTC Reply

But it was fun, so good on you!

So I'm an olderbie? by Sergio Turbo on 2017-02-06 22:08:00 UTC Reply

I joined around May or June 2010, right in the middle of the middle title. Do I get an hat for it?
Wait, so by this list... I'm an oldbie? by Iximaz on 2017-02-06 17:49:00 UTC Reply

I still feel like a newbie. I mean, I know I've been here a few years, but it still feels like I only just showed up.

By this list, I'm an oldbie. by Scapegrace on 2017-02-06 18:29:00 UTC Reply

This is the worst decision made in the history of mankind, including the one where I tried to put four pairs of tights on an octopus and subsequently got banned from SeaWorld after they were sure I hadn't drowned. =]

Oh dear! Law of unintended consequences? by Huinesoron on 2017-02-06 18:55:00 UTC Reply

Don't worry - you're still both shiny newbies to me. ;) Of course, to my mind, Luthien is still a newbie, and she joined in 2004...

I think we can take it as read that every generation thinks of the ones before it as ancient, itself as moderately recent, and the ones after it as so new they don't know which way up the Board goes.

hS

Shiny? Me? Verdigrised would probably be a better term. by Scapegrace on 2017-02-06 19:45:00 UTC Reply

Especially since it's a condition affecting fake gold, which, given that it's a thing ascribed value by a community which then proceeds to prove it has substantially less, seems apposite.

People who have arrived more recently look up to you by Cat-on-the-Keyboard on 2017-02-07 05:40:00 UTC Reply

Sometimes they squeal a little when you reply to them. Objectively, you're an important fixture in the community.

--Key is a mature midbie and certainly does not squeal

Well, now I feel flattered. =] (nm) by Scapegrace on 2017-02-08 02:09:00 UTC Reply
Someone call the Squeal Police! by Desdendelle on 2017-02-07 10:14:00 UTC Reply

~~There's a midbie here, and I think she squealed! :P~~

I forget where I heard it, but... by Scapegrace on 2017-02-02 14:07:00 UTC Reply

The term "ducklinging" works in this regard (in which Lacksidacksical is following Oaken around like a duckling), and I think it's sufficiently whimsical for use in the Constitution.

Snort. by Huinesoron on 2017-02-02 14:15:00 UTC Reply

That's a very evocative word. Unfortunately I have a feeling it's only evocative if you know what it means.

(Also, I don't think we want to go all-out whimsy. An Article 1 which talks about abuse, persecution, murder, and ducklings is going to give us all emotional whiplash. ;))

hS