Subject: Any objections?
Author:
Posted on: 2017-01-21 22:20:00 UTC
Unless there are objections, I shall set up a channel wherein only the mods can post, but everyone can see what's going on, three days from now (ie Tuesday), when I return from uni.
I and the other moderators for the Discord live chat would like the community's permission to use a channel exclusive to the moderators to discuss various issues which come up in the business of moderation. The benefits of this: no more having to constantly PM each other, which besides being convenient for us means that more mods will get a say on each issue, and that the records of complex mod decisions will all be in one place, which could make reviewing accusations of misconduct easier. The downsides of this: it sort of. . . might. . . look like we're setting up an exclusive secret clubhouse. That's not our intention, which is one reason we wanted to take this to the Board: to clear the air.
This downside may not look like much of a big deal, but it gets a bit knottier. Many of us mods haven't been in the PPC very long, so some of us would like to include some non-mod oldbies in the discussion to provide advice, historical knowledge, and "oversight." Some people who can look at our conversations and go, "whoa, whoa, we tried that back on IRC and it was a disaster, slow down." Doctorlit and Maslab have been popular requests. What do you guys think of that? Is it fine for us to just invite people as we see fit? Or should we create a special "advisor" role without mod powers but with access to our channel, and assign the role based on vote? Or are you against the whole idea?
--Key & mods
For lack of ways to go back through the Discord chat to find evidence of past misdemeanors, I took a screenshot of our most recent one and put it in the mod channel to better keep track of the "three strikes rule" we're (ostensibly) trying to implement.
However, this has brought a few things to light, namely, do we want to put a permanent record that will let people scroll through and use to shame people, even after they've long since apologized/grown out of the habit of posting chat-inappropriate stuff?
Should there be a period of time where, if no strikes happen, the person gets their slate wiped clean? People change, after all, and it seems unfair to me to hold two strikes from two years ago against them* when taking into account future misdemeanors.
*In this case, I'm imagining said misdemeanors are unrelated to their past ones; if they start up behavior identical or nearly so to what almost got them kicked in the first place, I think in that situation bringing up their past record would be applicable.
Thoughts?
We already have a permanent record for the Board, and a fail to see how having a permanent record for the Discord is any different — save for, perhaps, ease of access?
Anyway, if someone wants to behave badly or bully someone, they'll find a way, misdemeanour record or no misdemeanour record, and the accountability this record affords us is important.
"The discord around La Wunj is increasing."
Baron Huinesoron didn't look up from his desk. "I don't care."
Duchess Kaitlyn leant against the doorframe, hiding her smile. "A traitor has been exiled from the city for 'crimes against the Lady and common decency'."
Baron Huinesoron sighed softly, and turned over a page of the tome in front of him. "I don't care."
His wife studied the back of his head, timing her next words. "The Mords are trying to set up a new faction to cement their authority over the city."
"I don't-" Huinesoron twitched as the words sunk in. Then, slowly, he straightened up and turned to meet her gaze.
Kaitlyn did her best to keep her smile from turning into a smirk. "Yes?"
"Aren't there already a half dozen factions at play out there?" the Baron asked.
Kaitlyn nodded cheerfully. "That's right."
"And aren't..." Huinesoron frowned, his fingers drumming on the massive book in front of him. "Aren't the Mords already in a position of near-absolute authority?"
"That's what I hear," Kaitlyn agreed. She pushed off the wall and walked over to perch on the end of the desk. "And?"
Huinesoron opened his mouth, shut it again, and shrugged. "I suppose if that's what they want to do-"
Kaitlyn snorted. "You want to sneak over there and see what they're up to."
Huinesoron rolled his eyes. "I do not."
His wife leant across and prodded his shoulder. "You do. I can see it on your face."
The Baron ducked away from her hand. "I have a lot to do here," he said.
"Yah-huh."
"And Kar'eer has grown vast and tangled these last few years."
"Yah-huh."
"And the affairs of Borrd are of far more interest than those of the far east."
"Yah-huh."
Huinesoron looked up, meeting Kaitlyn's gaze. "And... I can't be bothered."
The Duchess of El-Jheycom (In Exile) grinned. "Now that, I can believe."
To the Eagleshadow,
Word has reached us in La Wunj that you are uncomfortable with the other Mords' attempts to create yet another faction. While I am grateful for their rallying to defend my honor, I am not entirely comfortable with the politicking that has been going on (really, I would just like to get back to my crusades once I am well again). I don't think either of us would like to see another civil war tear Borrd apart.
However, I can at least extend an invitation to La Wunj, should you desire to visit and see the state of things for yourself. It is, for the most part, a very lovely place, and we would be honored should you decide to grace us with your presence.
Wishing you are well,
Sir Iximaz
P.S. I apologize if my messenger bat is rude to you. She's got a bit of an attitude problem.
(( https://discord.gg/0zL6OvKrsM4gca0Z Link to the Discord should you want to pop your head in and say hi. I do think you're being unfair in jumping to conclusions about how awful the chatroom is; I'd love it if you'd swing by to see what's what, but if you don't want to, that's cool too. :)
I also don't remember if Baron hS is still in hiding or not, so if he is... handwave it and say a magic bat found him?))
Baron hS didn't actually offer a single opinion about what was happening in La Wunj; he's just receiving the news (and refusing to go poke around).
Nor have I at any point made a single comment about the current chat. I guess you getting that impression goes back to VixenMage's point about memory being malleable?
Finally, to get this down in public: I don't want to go into the Discord. That has nothing to do with anything that's happened on any version of the Lounge. It's because I am extremely uncomfortable in group chats of any description. It's very nice that people keep inviting me (so thank you), but I'm not going to say yes.
hS
I could have sworn in one of your posts that you'd said something about your having to be careful with what you type about chatrooms because "this is me being nice" but I guess you're right. Went looking for the quote and it wasn't there, so... product of my imagination?
And sorry for bothering you, it won't happen again. :(
Witchcraft made that go away about half an hour after I said it. I have fairly strong complaints about the previous chats, yes. But I haven't said, and never intended to say, anything about the current one.
Also: for a wonder, given how I've been the past day or so, you actually didn't bother me. So, uh, well done?
hS
And sorry for jumping to conclusions. And, uh, bothering you now. I'll show myself out.
Baron Thanasius Ampelius, the metaphorical power behind the throne in La Wunj, cackled evilly as he evilly went about his evil ways and thought up new evil things to do to evilly oppress the population.
Then the veteran smith continued his work, shaking his head at his Baron's ways.
After all, there was actually more evil in a twelve-year-old practitioner of the Majokko art of white magic than in his current landlord.
[I just had to.]
which was, in fact, very useful, considering that most of them were sound asleep and totally unconscious whenever he was awake and liable to approach them.
But the one or two people he did run into quavered and quivered like never before. You wouldn't believe it.
Off the charts, it was.
Des's Evil Plans:
1) Make tea.
2) Drink tea.
3) Why's the tea gone?
4) Repeat 1 & 2
So evil.
-Phobos
Where do I sign on?
... On second thought, that might just lead to civil war. I am fairly certain the good Thanasius Ampelius does regard my more egalitarian tea-drinking ways as evil. We should probably never meet except in public, surrounded by witnesses to ensure our good conduct.
~Neshomeh, Baron of Wechii, etc.
(in that order)
The idea of a mod channel didn't come out of nowhere.It arose during discussions following a series of incidents involving GlarnBoudin and our (the mods, excluding Cat-on-the-Keyboard, who wasn't around for significant parts of this) handling of them.
Because those of you who aren't in chat much probably don't know what I'm referring to (and in the interests of transparency), I'm going to try and summarize the situation as I saw it.
GlarnBoudin joisted the chat a few months ago. While he was there, he repeatedly did unacceptable things, mostly in these categories:
1) Starting highly inappropriate/NSFW conversations in chat, and attempting to continue them even after being told that they were inappropriate and unwelcome (usually by multiple people)
2) Posting (often NSFW) nightmare fuel directly into chat (as in, the picture showed up directly in chat). The usual practice, if someone feels the need to link to that sort of thing, is to both warn people about what it is and (especially for images) to rot13 the link so it takes a bit more effort to open it.
3) Harassing Iximaz.
4) Harassing Iximaz's characters in the RP channel.
He was warned repeatedly about how these actions were unacceptable and that they should stop. Eventually, Desdenelle, Iximaz, and I came to the conclusion that enough was enough when Glarm posted a really creepy GIF in chat again. (Des had even warned Glarn after an earlier occurrence that if he did something like that again where he could see it, he would be kicked, as it was his "third strike"). We PMed each other a bunch and realized we were all on the same page about this. The morning after that final infraction, Iximaz kicked GlarnBoudin from the chat, sending him the following message (screenshot here)
Glarn,
Due to your repeated violations of the chat's rules, the other mods and I have decided to temporarily remove you from the PPC Discord. This is not a permanent ban, but we'd like you to take some time off and think about why this happened, and when you feel you are ready to follow the rules, PM one of us for an invite back.
If you decide you would like to return, and continue your previous behavior, it will be brought to the Board's attention.
Like Tomash said, I wasn't around for most of this (life's a turd and I'm an idiot; I really should take a break from the PPC but I love you all too much), so when I first heard about the need/desire for a mod channel, I kind of leaped on it, because. . . heh, I didn't know what had happened, so I immediately assumed that all the other mods were constantly having Important Discussions all the time which I was being left out of because no one bothered to PM me, and if the channel was set to "all mods can participate," I'd finally get a chance to prove that the community elected me for a reason. So for me, it was ALL about "how do I get the scary oldbie mods to coordinate better with ME?" *nervous self-deprecating giggle* (Looking back on it, it made perfect sense for people not to be asking for my input; I really wasn't there.)
But yeah, I didn't really know what I was talking about when I made the post. And as a newbie-turned-mod, I definitely think we need better protocol for kicks, because I am not confident enough to be sort of making things up as I go along.
Here's my thoughts: What happened with GlarnBoudin seems like it was handled well, just that the well-handling of it came later than it should have. Perhaps it would be better to do it with fewer warnings: if someone's violating the Constitution (by flaming, not warning for non-family-friendly content, etc.), and isn't being misunderstood (as per articles 5 and 8) and refuses to apologize (as per article 7), they should be kicked then and there, with a message to them explaining why. When they're ready to make reparations, they can PM a mod and ask to be invited back, with an apology and acknowledgement of their wrongdoing (to do this, all the mods need to be on the same page about why the person was kicked and what would constitute amends from this person). If they keep up their bad behavior, it's ban time and goes to the Board for discussion.
--the Littlest Mod
So this is stream of consciousness and my interpretation of the situation at hand. I haven't really read all the other replies and thoughts, but here are mine.
To be quite honest, I feel this is a case where Glarn should be banned now. Not because he's been terrible, but because he should have been kicked multiple times before this.
Quite frankly, the mods and community in general should feel ashamed. I know I do. I joined the Discord a few months ago, and in that time I rarely recall Glarn not being aggressive with his discussion topics or feeling a need to dominate the discussion, and I repeatedly talked to a mod on there regarding his behavior in RP and other places, though I only really witnessed his behavior in an RP channel once. One of the times I had to get on him in voice chat was when he was insisting on discussing Jack Chick's views on sexual assault (thankfully he was angry at Jack Chick, but it was not a topic that anyone wanted to touch at the time).
For weeks and months the community allowed someone who we all knew was harassing a member to remain relatively consequence free. Sure we'd get after him and he'd be quiet for a bit when he got aggressive, but he would always quickly go right back to it.
And the problem is the person he was harassing was a mod. Someone who should have the power to distribute punishments as necessary, but felt they couldn't because this community thinks they're ban-happy and just trying to get back at the harasser who, I repeat, repeatedly harassed them.
I'm ashamed for this leniency, and I want our mods in the channel to actually be able to exercise their power without the fear of an angry horde descending on them. Yes, mods should clearly not abuse their power and should themselves face consequences when they do abuse it, but it does the community on Discord no good when mods feel they can't do anything.
I second Storme's post, and I'm particularly concerned with your implication that Iximaz should feel ashamed over this when they were the one being harassed and definitely already feel crappy about it. Don't forget that they're included in "mods" when you say "Quite frankly, the mods ... should feel ashamed." I'm sure we'd all be very pleased to see them stand up for themself more, and to never have cause to doubt that they have the support of the community if someone is being a jerk to them, but I certainly don't think they should be shamed over not wanting to abuse their mod powers to address what may have seemed like a personal issue.
Also, let's please bear in mind that this group of mods are all new to the role, and still learning how best to balance authority with forbearance (and vice versa). It's not something most people automatically know how to do, and if we punish them for having growing pains, I doubt they'll want to keep doing it for very long. I agree that they shouldn't have to feel afraid of reprisal for using their authority, but they shouldn't have to be afraid of reprisal for following their very respectable inclination toward patience and tolerance, either. We should be building their confidence, not tearing it down.
I really think you owe the community, the mod team, and especially Iximaz an apology.
~Neshomeh
I very much do not include Ixi in the shame circle.
That you've ignored roughly 90% of Nesh's post. There was more to it than "you shouldn't have said Iximaz should be ashamed".
Well to add on to my original post to try and clear things up: My problem isn't even specifically with individuals involved. It's to do with the PPC's culture and ideas of how a live chat should be run, in that it should be run essentially like the Board is. I feel that this is a poor way of doing things, since a live chat is fundamentally a different beast than forum postings.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened, and I'm saying this as someone who feels he should have been banned years ago, too. That this has happened again and keeps happening is a sign that the community is past the point of needing to rethink how we manage live chats. It's not just this incident we should feel bad about (and I'm restraining myself with how bad I feel, personally), it's that we seem to set this up to happen over and over again. And I dunno about you, but allowing such a culture that allows such things to take place multiple times and not feeling bad about it is, frankly, insensitive.
But that's me.
(Also I am not ignoring anyone. I'm just posting once a day because this is something I'm passionate about and I don't want to let my emotions run me over too much.)
It's a pretty heavy thing to say, but it's got as much reaction as a boring speaker in Speakers' Corner.
Anyway, my take on this is that having mods for the channel is a step in the right direction; hopefully we'll be quicker on the ball next time.
I took Maslab to mean "PPC Culture, in general, has serious issues," and while I certainly agree that we have, in the past, tended towards at least the first two of the Geek Social Fallacies (namely, for those who don't want to click, "Ostracizers Are Evil" and "Friends Accept Me As I Am." Those have definitely had a negative impact on our community in some cases, like that time we had someone being very homophobic and transphobic, harassing people*, and the conversation on whether or not to ban her caused a HUGE argument that left permanent rifts in the community. There were several examples of this on the old IRC in which I repeatedly came down on the "endless chances! We can't ostracize them! What if they chaaaange?" and "you're being authoritarian!" sides, which I freely admit now was a mistake and a half.
But, to that point, I will say, the PPC as a whole has changed a LOT. We're much better about this stuff now. I think each successive ban for Constitution-breaking and member-harassing behavior has been less dramatic, and more coherent and cohesive. I would say in the past, maybe many of us should be ashamed. But we are growing from our mistakes. That's what conversations like this are for.
*On the side of being fair: the person being harassed had not told almost anyone, and so there was a lot of miscommunication.
I don't think it's very constructive to say "we suck and should feel bad" and leave it at that. In fact, I think it may be destructive, which is sort of ironic coming from someone advocating for a healthier PPC culture. Since I do believe Maslab is acting in good faith, though, and since the rest of the discussion has been constructive, there's no point for me to beat a war drum over it. Unless of course he'd like for me to come down with a righteous fury on behavior I perceive as having the potential to create an unsafe environment for our mods? *shrug*
Oh, also, Maslab may not be aware of how much the PPC in general has stepped up their game as far as dealing with disruptive individuals goes. My sense of time is awful, so someone else will have to come up with actual numbers, but if you compare, say, the first ten years of the Board with the latest five (are we turning fifteen this year? is that right?), I think you'll find a dramatic increase of authoritarian-ness, and in a relatively narrow span of time. It's not like we're just letting assholes run rampant here.
We do give them the opportunity to stop being assholes, though, and that's not something I think should ever change.
~Neshomeh
... my main reaction is confusion.
What kind of place is the current chat? Is it a friendly, non-awful place that I should pop into? Is it home to a culture that should make you feel bad? Or maybe that culture's just different in ways that aren't immediately apparent? Is it very different to the IRC, or is it heir to the same cultural problems? A place for fun RPs or a place where abusive behaviour is brushed under the rug?
I guess, ultimately, the answer to all those dichotomies seems to be 'it's both'. But that's not an answer that's terribly reassuring to hear.
hS
That it's mostly a good place. It's not without its problems, but that is no reason not to poke your head in there; the problems aren't so big that they overshadow the good side. True, we're still trying to figure out what, exactly, the mods should and shouldn't do (and when, and how), but what can I say? It's a new venture.
Not all of us knew the full extent of what he was doing? And I'm not just talking about those who don't go on Discord, but I know there are those who do use Discord who don't know the full extent of what he did, or didn't know prior to his kicking from the server. So whilst, yes the bulk of your post may be right, leveling an accusation at the community as a whole is not. Not all of us knew what was even going on, so how the hell were we meant to stop it?
I regret that the situation with Glarn happened.
I regret that I, through insufficient action, allowed it to happen.
I regret that I stood by and did almost nothing (except deliver a warning or two) while Iximaz, a valuable (and unfortunately somewhat mentally vulnerable) member of the PPC community was harassed for weeks, even after it was pointed out to me that it was happening.
I regret not bringing up the matter of how moderators should act, and how they should coordinate their actions, with the community until it was too late.
I also regret that I cannot support the call for a long-term ban I'm sure I just read. There was a very unfortunate lack of clarity regarding rules, process, and expectations, as well as a lack of communication within the mod team. These circumstances prevented the PPC from giving GlarnBoudin the series of consequences that would have made a long-term ban more than appropriate at this point.
Despite these reservations (and the fact that Grarn appears to have left of his own accord), I believe that something more must be done. What happened was unacceptable and wrong. We need to take a stand!
Therefore, I propose that some (at least one) of the following actions be taken with respect to GlarnBoudin.
1) When (if) he comes back, he gets One. Last. Chance. That is, if he goes onto the chat or the Board and starts harassing someone (especially Iximaz) again, being aggressively NSFW, or otherwise violating the Constitution, the incident shall be reported to the Board, and the banhammer falls then and there.
This automatic ban would be long (I'd propose a year, but I don't have any firm commitment to that timeframe) and we would have the option to make it permanent at that time for egregious behavior.
If Glarn comes back and behaves for, say, 3 months, the hairtrigger probation will end and the full ban procedure will be back in effect.
I believe we have used a consequence like this in the past with Data Junkie.
2) A short, symbolic ban, lasting, no more than a week. This would, I believe, not be a significant restriction on Glarn's participation in the PPC, since he appears to have left voluntarily. It would, however, send a message that the kind of behavior Glarn exhibited will not be tolerated here.
I support both of these things (in the case of the symbolic ban, I support three days).
These are obviously not our only options (at the very least, "long ban" and "don't do anything" are valid votes, as is "off with Tomash's head!"), so feel free to propose whatever you'd like in your replies.
- Tomash
Since the last time I counted, we got another large group of votes, which has resulted in a clearer picture of community consensus. In several days (probably around the middle of next week), I plan to make a hopefully final count that will summarize our decision and include a final call for votes and objections (if there are many of those, we'll have final count 2, and final count 3, and so on, but I would prefer we not go there).
This means that, if you would like your opinion to be fully heard, please speak up now.
Now, here's the next count of votes.
To make things clearer, I'm counting support for a long ban after the last chance as support for shorter lengths of ban as well. That is, if you voted for option 1 but with a permaban if Glarn violates the Constitution again, that also counts as voting for option 1 as proposed.
Number of people who get a little "I Voted" sticker: 18 (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)
Option 1, as written: 83% (everyone except eatpraylove, Mattman, and Akrinor)
Option 1, but with a permaban: 11% (Tira and doctorlit)
Option 1, but with a 3 month ban: 94% (everyone but Mattman)
Option 1, but with a 1 month ban, and then a permaban if it happens again: 6% (Mattman). If the "and then" is removed, I could interpret this passing unanimously.
Short, symbolic ban: 11% (Tomash and Akrinor)
Chat probation on return: 6% (Tira)
Abstained: A lot fewer people. By my count, there's around 50 people who posted on the Board or in the chat recently. If we take that to be the number of active PPCers (which is probably isn't because that's a slippery term), we have around 36% turnout. This seems pretty good, especially since that percentage counts newbies and people who basically lurk as abstaining, which makes it an underestimate of the actual turnout.
So, Discord just rolled out the search feature to the PPC Discord. Iximaz and I have collected a representative sample (please note this isn't everything) of Glarn's objectionable behavior in chat. You can find the screenshots here.
I would like to draw your attention to:
1. Glarn: "(Is now imagining 'nix' being a pun for a CSI Miami episode where Ix is killed)"
2. Basically the entire RP transcript, which occurred after Iximaz had told Glarn (several times) that they did not want to cowrite with him.
... your 'basically the entire RP transcript' consists of one character trying to talk to another and being grumped at. It includes an explicit statement by Iximaz that it's the Aviator who doesn't want to be there, not the author (at least, that's my interpretation of 'She's in a bad mood, can you tell?'). Is Sesrik bugging the Aviator? Clearly yes. Much like all HQ's Time Lord always niggle at the Notary, and like various Plort characters love getting a dig in at Baron hS.
Frankly, it looks like Glarn looks up to Iximaz and wants to interact with them, and is putting on the most cheerful face they can and trying to push past the Aviator's mood to do so. The same applies to the 'miscellaneous harassment' at the bottom of the page - how exactly is 'It would be fun for my character and yours to have drunken interactions' harassment? Are you defining the word to mean 'any attempt to interact'?
The non-RP sections, by contrast, are pretty awful. I'm going to assume there was more stuff between April last year and the present.
... does anyone know how old GlarnBoudin is? I ask because I'm seeing a lot of 'me as a teenager' in these transcripts. Fixating on people and trying to interact with them when they want nothing to do with you? Check. Being dark and 'edgy' to try and carve out a space as an Interesting Person to Keep Around? Check. Occasionally combining the two in such a way that you just plain freak out someone you want to befriend? Check, check, and double check.
All of which is terrible behaviour. All of which needs to be unlearned, and is absolutely potential grounds for banning. But none of which, in my case, was malicious or malevolent, and all of which (I hope!) I've managed to work past. If GlarnBoudin is in the same stage of life as I was, I hope he, too, can eventually get past it.
hS
1) It's not April 12th, it's December 4th. The date's American.
2) I don't assume that Glarn is malicious (Hanlon's razor is very much a thing) but he still did some pretty bad stuff.
That makes more sense. ^_^ In the way that makes less sense, obviously, because while there's an argument for Y-M-D, M-D-Y is just messy.
I agree with your second point too; in fact I think I said something to that effect? Lack of ill intent doesn't avert negative consequences, nor is it an excuse. But it might make a difference in how people feel about him and their encounters with him - there's a difference between 'so-and-so was out to get me' and 'so-and-so was really socially inept at me'.
hS
One of my RP-only characters, a Darkest Dungeon Plague Doctor named Paracelle, makes Iximaz uncomfortable to be around. Ix told me this. I no longer RP as that character when Ix is about.
Glarn was in a similar scenario. Rather than back off however, he totally ignored their requests and continued to try and engage them in an RP in which they did not want to take part. Over and over again. Regardless of intentions, this is harassment, and I am in support of chat mods having the power to kick and/or ban people for harassment, especially when, and this is important, they are the ones being harassed.
Let's go the other way. Let's say they don't kick/ban people for harassment of this nature, or for posting deeply unpleasant things in group fora despite being repeatedly told not to do so. What confidence can users who aren't mods have in the system then? When one of those selfsame mods is harassed by a user breaking the rules they are supposed to enforce, what confidence can they have that the mods will help them should they themselves ever be attacked, or harassed, or bullied?
We have these mods, and they have these powers. It is up to them to use them in a fit and proper manner, with the rest of the community acting as checks and balances against abuses of that power -- but "fit and proper" implies using those powers for their intended purpose.
Sorry for ranting. This is why I didn't vote; I'd just end up shouting at everyone.
I would also like to note that I can't find any indication in this thread that GlarnBoudin was asked to stop RPing with Iximaz. The closest is a mention that Iximaz said they won't co-write with him, which is a different thing. There was nothing in the chat transcripts to indicate that such a request had ever been made, and at least one implication that it hadn't.
I am perfectly willing to believe that Iximaz had told GlarnBoudin that they did not wish to RP with him. But I'm not willing to be told off for not being aware of that when no-one had bothered to mention it.
hS
Go ahead and knock the "harassing a PPC member" off the charge list for Glarn because the most I ever did was tell him in-character to get lost and then avoided taking the Aviator to Rudi's when he wouldn't stop pestering me. I didn't make it clear enough I didn't like his pestering and that's entirely my fault.
Most I ever directly said about it, I believe, was this
And Glarn was gone at that point so he never saw it.
So yeah, it's my fault for not saying something earlier. Can we just forget the "harassing Iximaz" bit and just focus on the inappropriate comments?
I think it's clear that GlarnBoudin's character was harassing Iximaz's. On thinking about this further (and looking up 'harassment' on Wikipedia, yes seriously), the following things pop out:
-While we are not our characters, we've known since Jay and Acacia that almost everybody closely identifies with their characters. I take attacks on Baron hS more personally than I should, for instance. So it's perfectly understandable for Iximaz to feel harassed because their character was. (My missing this goes to my strenuous efforts to not feel that way myself; I glossed over the whole idea.)
-That goes both ways. GlarnBoudin probably (subconsciously if not openly) identifies Iximaz with the Aviator, and himself with his characters. So there is an element of direct harassment in there, even though it's all ostensibly fictional. (This one goes to me not having much experience RPing or cowriting.)
-The sort of fixating-attention-getting behaviour GlarnBoudin directed at Iximaz goes by another, quite nasty name: stalking. It doesn't hit the common image of 'lurking outside the window', but it absolutely is. (I missed this one because... yeah, I'd rather not go into it, but it goes back to those comparisons with me as a teenager.)
Conclusions:
-GlarnBoudin engaged in harassing behaviour towards Iximaz, which is against the spirit of the PPC constitution, and is grounds for banning.
-The PPC constitution as presently written doesn't actually cover this sort of harassment: it assumes that 'harassment' will be straight-up attacks and bullying. If the Board comes up with a way to put it in (probably in Article 1), I'll do the paperwork side to get it on the doc.
hS
The following can be a sub-article of article 1:
"Harassment — that is, repeated bothering of a person after being told to stop, whether directly or indirectly — will not be tolerated."
I'm pretty sure that definition means you can't repeatedly tell someone they're not listening to concrit. You're verging back into the 'everything is equal' territory that caused so much fuss in the original Constitution.
I think you at least need a 'without good cause' in there somewhere, and 'bothering' still shades back towards it being bullying. What you really mean is 'forcing them to pay attention to you', but I don't think you can say that.
I also don't think the 'repeated' and 'being told to stop' are necessary. The idea that you should stop if told to (and that you will be given a chance to do so) is already in the Constitution, and keeping it out of this clause would mean that (say) someone going down the Front Page and replying to every post a person made would still be considered harassment, even if they only did it once and didn't give them time to say shut up.
hS
He did it, it was awful. Case closed, right?
hS
But since it seems like we're still in the middle of voting that's not the case.
I'll shut up now.
Re: 2 - I don't think a short, symbolic ban would have much effect, to be honest, since Glarn isn't really around to be affected by it. Any other disciplinary actions would send the same message.
Re: 1 - I think this is the very least that should be done; however, I think it's also somewhat risky, since from what little I saw of this, Glarn never showed any remorse for his actions. I'd at least recommend that he be banned from Discord for a while after he returns, and only allowed back in once he demonstrates good behavior (perhaps a certain period of activity on the Board without any issues?). I also think any instances of harassing a member, at any point, should be met with a permaban.
I can see both sides of the debate about 2, and I'm all in favor of 1. I get that punishing Glarn in absentia not only seems kind of cruel, but also does nothing to discourage him.
However, I think something should still be done if he were to resurface tomorrow. Perhaps a few days' ban if Glarn comes back within a certain timeframe? I don't know, personally.
For what it's worth, I'm sorry I didn't speak up, either. Not beyond calling him out a couple of times.
So, this thread has been going for a while, and it probably falls on me to tally the results of the vote I called.
And so,
Number of people who get a little "I Voted" sticker: 9-10 (Tomash, Tira, Good Mod Addict, Desdenelle, SkarmorySilver, Granz, Neshomeh, Akrinor, Delta Juliette, and maybe VixenMage)
(for the rest of these, I won't count VM, since it's a bit unclear what she supports)
One last chance, as proposed initially: between 78% and 100% (everyone, possibly excluding Tira and/or Akrinor, who proposed amendments)
One last chance, permaban on harassing behavior, probation from chat: 11% (Tira)
One last chance, 3 month ban on misbehavior: 11% (Akrinor)
Short ban applied if Glarn returns soon, in addition to 1: 11% (Good Mod Addict)
Symbolic ban: 22% (Tomash and Akrinor)
Abstained: Most everyone. If I had to guess, I'd say there's about 30 people who haven't voted on this that've been on the Board on in the chat recently.
- Tomash
But I want to be clear, the only reason why he shouldn't be banned immediately is because we don't have documentation of his constitutional violations with which to support our argument.
I hold myself accountable for failing to screenshot them as they occurred.
It seems the most fair one to me.
In this instance, I vote for one last chance, and a Permaban if he violates the Constitution, to be posted to the 'Board. I don't like the symbolic ban for a number of reasons, mainly those already posted - it feels off to give someone a consequence in absentia.
In further such issues, I like the idea of warnings, with a statue of limitations between warnings (ie, if it's been several months since the last time, they at least don't stack the same way. If it's been two and a half weeks, on the other hand… maybe three strikes and a Permaban.)
I would like to propose a 1 month ban initially, as a sign of "We're serious and a little strict, but ultimately kind, people. Don't screw with us." and then go full on Permaban if it continues.I also specifically remember saying in the Discord chat at some point the following: "Glarn, if I was a Mod, I would kick you right now." To which I then followed up with "I shouldn't be a mod." But that's neither here nor their.
Glarn's already decided to leave (for who knows how long) of his own accord; he hasn't gone posting a tantrum on the Board or anything, so why punish his voluntary absence by slamming him with a ban as soon as he comes back?
And I also remember your comment on the chat being made in very bad taste that resulted in several of us calling you out on it, so I don't know why you felt it was relevant or necessary to bring up again.
As for why I added that aside... *Shrugs*
I think 2) is pointless. It's just "hurr durr let's punish him in absentia", and that is not productive.
1), however, seems like a sound idea; it's a chance, but with consequences for any misbehaviour.
I'm in favour of implementing 1), but against implementing 2).
1) sounds fair enough, and if he continues being stubborn it will give the clear message that it was his mistake. I also don't approve of 2) because it makes us look like we're turning rabid and jumping on him, which won't help the situation. And I do hope that all this will hopefully be a push in the right direction for all of us, including Glarn himself if he eventually sees sense.
I don't think "turning rabid and jumping on him" is a fair description of our behavior. Aside from the fact that "rabid" isn't a very good description for a bunch of people sitting around and calmly discussing a topic, it's sort of implying that we're unfairly persecuting him. I don't think a permaban for the ongoing harassment of a member would be unfair persecution.
Though what little involvement I had with the actual situation made me think of it that way. As noted on the chat I am not in the right position to make a sound judgement; I just felt like delivering my two cents. I guess people who know the fuller picture would be able to make a better decision.
My agreement with Des on pro 1) and anti 2) still stands, though.
1 sounds good; 2 feels like pointless overkill.
Let's make sure Glarn gets a very clear explanation of what's expected of him, too, should he return.
~Neshomeh
On 1) : I personally think a ban lasting one year (if I understood your post correctly, that is what you're proposing) would be too long. I'd propose something more like 3 months at most, since that is, for most cases, plenty of time to rethink oneself's behaviour very thoroughly. If that does not help, a longer ban would be appropriate.
On 2): I second the idea of a symbolic ban, although in this case I think that 3 days would not be enough.
Something important in both cases would be that Glarn is informed (per PM/e-mail) very clearly of the conditons and consequences.
I understand a year might seem like too long, but when someone harasses other PPCers, repeatedly, despite being warned multiple times and asked to stop, I think a Permaban shouldn't be out of the question; if we were to set a time, a year seems perfectly legitimate. This isn't a case of one or two isolated incidents in a heated moment - this sounds like someone who has consistently acted without any regard for feelings that aren't theirs.
I second your regrets - and add one of my own, namely that I regret not paying enough attention to have seen the situation happening before it was pointed out to me.
That said, I support action one but not two. Given that our problem was in acting on our principles, I don't think that more words (which is what 2 seems to be advocating for) is a useful thing to do - the message will be sent much more clearly when we act immediately next time.
Based on my interactions with GlarnBoudin and what I've heard besides, I'd have kicked that guy ages ago. He definitely earned it on the basis of violations of articles 1.5 and 12, at least.
My opinion is that I like a "three strikes and you're out" policy for real time situations. Here's how I think bad behavior in the chat ought to be handled, generally:
1. Someone (let's call them Sassafras) does something inappropriate.
2. People tell them "Hey, that's inappropriate/making us uncomfortable/clearly in violation of the Constitution. Please stop." Preferably as clearly as possible, so there can be no confusion; hinting may work for many people, but not for everyone. (I'm thinking of our Aspie population and others on the autism spectrum, many of whom I've known to request blunt feedback precisely to avoid giving offense by mistake.)
3. Sassafras does it again. Maybe right away, maybe after making excuses and grudgingly subsiding for awhile. Whichever.
4. People tell them "You're doing that thing again. It's still not cool. You'd better apologize and never do it again. This is your second warning. If it happens again, you may be kicked."
5. Sassafras has not been paying attention and does it again anyway.
6. A mod says "Sassafras, this is the third time you've done that thing you were told not to do. I'm kicking you from the chat. Go reread the Constitution."
7. Supposing Sassafras comes back after being kicked and STILL does the offending thing, then they clearly cannot be taught, and they get banned.
This presumes that the mod is aware of the previous infractions, of course. You guys should probably be in the habit of communicating with each other about rules violations and warnings when they happen, yes?
Note that the mod in this scenario shouldn't necessarily have to confer with other mods when it comes time for the kick, though. Although I completely understand that it's nice to have backup, it sort of defeats the purpose of having mods at all if they aren't prepared to take action when it's needed, y'know? Supposing it's a time when only Desdendelle is online, for instance, because of time zones, I would hope he wouldn't hesitate to kick someone who was clearly in violation of the Constitution and multiple warnings had already been issued. That's one major reason to have multiple mods, so that the channel can be covered by at least one at all times.
That said, I think a mods-only channel is fine, by the way. It would make the above-mentioned communication easier, real time or otherwise, and it is completely appropriate for moderators to discuss how best to moderate without interference from the peanut gallery, especially if they need to discuss someone who is actually in the chat causing trouble at the time. If it does lead to the mods behaving badly due to becoming a clique that badmouths people and kicks anyone they don't like regardless of Da Rules, it WILL come out, and there WILL be drama. So, y'know, don't. {= )
Frankly, I trust the current mods enough to let them do their job whether I can see them doing it or not. (Since I'm not in the chat much, I mostly don't anyway.) If the population of the chat has no faith in a mod or mods, then we're still discussing the wrong question.
~Neshomeh
P.S. BTW, would you guys like a set of RP principles and guidelines? I was kicking the idea around idly this morning just to amuse myself, but I'd be happy to write something up for discussion if you like. I don't RP as much as I used to, but I used to A LOT, and I know of what I speak. (Basically, RP is like sex: consent and communication are very important!)
Everything honestly looks really above-board right now. And, given how nasty the Glarn situation seemed to get, I'd be all for giving the mods power to be a little quicker and a little more coordinated in the future. And... that does seem like the form of a mod-chat to talk on the subject.
Honestly, it's probably better than emails, in the long run; more instantaneous, everything is in one place, etc.
And this really, really shouldn't happen again, though I completely understand why it did. I don't like throwing blame around when people are slow to hit the ban button, especially since I'm really, really sympathetic to the "Well, if it's just -me- they're bullying, that isn't the same as bullying, period, right?" mental gymnastics. We've all been there, and I'm so sorry that happened. Maybe one of these days, it'll be the last time it ever does.
I do think that someone could be aggressively in violation of the constitution to the point of warranting less warnings, but for general problems, that process sounds entirely reasonable.
And I agree, a mods-only channel really does seem like the right way to organize. I don't see other options that address transparency concerns well, and Discord is set up for special-purpose channels that only get used once in a while - and you're very right, if there's no faith in a mod or mods, we have much, much bigger problems than moderation process.
I was wondering why Glarn was no longer listed on the chat, and I wanted to ask him personally, but I was too afraid that something bad had happened and that he'd lash out at me if I asked him about it (as he's done at least once before).
Having been involved to some extent in the tense situations with Glarn on the chat, and having tried to field him before as a friend and confidant, I can say with confidence that he isn't a victim, and if you'll forgive my being the pot that calls the kettle black a little, I can't condone his behavior in general because for the love of Arceus, I've been there before. I've repeatedly stated that he has to stop and think about what he's done, since I'd rather not witness a repeat of what happened to me while I was in that one DeviantArt group project that kicked me out a few years ago. I wasn't around to see the aftermath, but from what I heard, the drama caused by this and several other bad situations pretty much forced the group to start over from scratch (since they'd been around for only one to two years and not the PPC's ten or more).
That being said, I have to second Des regarding the matter of holding back. I still stand by the notion that the entire fiasco regarding Glarn was handled poorly and with no consistent communication between ANYBODY, period. Nesh's rules on handling chat offenders are pretty solid IMO although I also agree that Board and chat posting are different enough to warrant their being handled separately - at least on the Board, mishaps like blowing up at someone can be seen publicly and can thus be more effectively handled by any and every mod available. Now, I realize that I am in absolutely no position to get into any arguments, since my jumping in has backfired on me too many times to count, but at the same time I want to make sure that difficult situations like this don't happen again.
So to this end, may I propose another addendum to Nesh's suggestion? I'm honestly not so sure if it would be a good idea for Discord chat invites to be handed out arbitrarily and to everyone who visits the Board without the assurance that they understand the Constitution. So next time you guys intend to invite someone to the chat, perhaps you could contact them privately beforehand and ask if they understand the Constitution well enough not to cause any trouble while they're there? I'm aware that this may sound a little harder on the Boarders, especially the newbies, but I think it'd be better for everyone in the long term. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say. (With this in mind, I also approve of RP channel rules as well, for the same reason as with the chat and its participants in general.)
I think that, in my particular case, I'd rather be gun-shy than trigger-happy, because unlike the other mods (who were elected by the Board), I'm a mod because I'm the owner of the channel — I'm the unelected dictator pulling strings in the background, as things are. While it seems that people trust me enough with those powers, I'd rather err on the side of caution than mess up and cause Drama.
'sides of which, I'd rather not kick someone out of anger. I know I have a tendency to jump the gun when I'm pissed off; that's why I try to wait, observe and reflect before doing such things.
Anyway, I like the procedure you've outlined, except for #7: I still think that a ban is something for the Board to discuss, not for the Discord mods to mete out for repeat offences; admittedly, I can see a case where a person keeps getting kicked out of the channel, but I think it is not the same thing as being banned.
(Also, obligatory YGOTAS quote: "Playing card games is just like making love. You usually do it on a table, and you always feel deep shame when it's finished. Also, the older you get, the less fun it is. So remember, always wear a condom when playing card games.")
So, I think the proposal Nesh outlined is a good one, and it actually feels like what we tried to do in the Glarn situation. I agree with Des that a chat ban shouldn't be separate from a general PPC ban, and so actual bans need to be discussed on the Board.
Also, the chat is one of the PPC's spaces, just like the Board and the Wiki, so separate bans and controlling invites (like Skarm proposed) don't seem right.
I've also got a few minor points I'd like to tack on to the 'Sassafras process' that seem like good ideas:
1) Kicks should be announced publicly in chat in a somewhat prominent way (@everyone-ing and/or posting the message in #notice_board seems appropriate here) and the announcement should include some explanation of why this was done (quotes and evidence might be wise here, if possible). If this doesn't happen, there should be Drama.
2) Warnings have a reasonable expiration date
3) If someone is kicked and then comes back, they're presumed reformed. If they keep doing the bad stuff, the remedy is a Board thread so that the community can decide what to do about this.
I think, Nesh, you've done a good job of summarizing the arguments for a mod channel, and I agree with them. As far as I'm concerned, the point of the mod channel is to keep a relatively clean log of bad stuff/warnings/etc. and to call for second opinions if someone thinks they're not uninvolved enough in something.
As a general reminder, you can summon the mod team to something with @Moderator.
And yeah, I'm all for tolerance as the mods' personal judgement of each situation allows. I don't want to see anyone getting kicked over really minor things, or highly subjective things like... I dunno, something like the debate we had over the word "spastic/spaz." While it's very offensive to some people, and their feelings should be respected, it's also totally acceptable to others, and they probably shouldn't get a black mark for not being raised in a particular culture, yeah?
Of course, insulting a person is not cool, whatever words you use.
~Neshomeh
Was the conclusion from that debate really 'it doesn't matter if someone asks you to stop using a word, as long as it's not offensive to you you can go right ahead'? Because that's the impression I get from your... use of the word in question.
hS
If someone tells you "hey, that word is offensive to a lot of people, please stop," you stop!
But you don't get branded an irredeemable bigot or whatever for not happening to be raised in the UK and not happening to be surrounded by people who already know that, that's all.
~Neshomeh
The reason I asked is that I personally wouldn't want to use something identified as a slur even for demonstrative purposes, so I was made concerned by your doing so. Glad to know my concern was unfounded.
hS
I'm sorry for making you uncomfortable. It was the best example I could think of of something that divides people more because they grew up in a different culture than because they grew up with different moral/ethical standards. Like... I know better than to make fun of people with disabilities. I know better than to call people names. But I grew up seeing that word treated as more similar to "ditz," which is more or less acceptable, than to "retard," which does make me cringe to type, because I was taught not to use that one ever.
I will vehemently defend anyone's right to use any word as a word, in demonstration, though. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a strong taboo in some cases, but if we can't ever name a thing to explain why it's bad, then how is anyone new to the discourse supposed to understand? It would have been pretty confusing if I'd said "something like the debate we had over that one bad word," right? Anybody who wasn't there wouldn't know what the heck I was talking about.
~Neshomeh
I won't use 'bad words' in acting either, or in reading aloud - and only in a couple of very specific circumstances in writing. In hindsight I shouldn't have let so much of that leak over into the way I wrote the '[Winces]' post, and I'm sorry for coming over aggressively; my aim was to clarify the situation, not to accuse.
Thank you for giving a clear answer without getting riled up by my tone.
hS
(PS: oddly, one of those specific circumstances is Morgan and her 'b-bombs'. I think it's because the first one came from Lily in the Blackout fic, but for some reason I've been able to adopt that without much trouble.)
I was hesitant to do anything about it, honestly, because I didn't see Glarn harassing anyone other than myself and didn't want to look like I was making a fuss over something trivial. :/
Re. RP Guidelines: I think that could be a good idea. Despite having played D&D for a few years before joining the PPC, I still made some goofs my first few times RPing with people.
Have you considered e-mail? It solves all those problems you mentioned: giving everyone a chance to have a say, having a complete record in one place (as long as everyone remembers to hit Reply All), including oldbies for perspective if you wish. I know it's not necessarily real time, but I tend to consider that a positive, too. Taking your time to think your responses through when discussing serious issues is a good thing. {= )
I suppose it doesn't quite answer the "secret clubhouse" issue, but it doesn't exactly have the same feeling as setting up a private chatroom, does it? I don't think anyone can seriously object to people exchanging e-mails when they don't want to drag everyone into a conversation. That's what e-mail is for, yes?
~Neshomeh
Discord has the facility for group PMs. Just throwing that out there.
...setting up a 'mods only' channel?
Honestly, I think just PMing individually has worked fine in the past.
but with less security guarantees
Unless there are objections, I shall set up a channel wherein only the mods can post, but everyone can see what's going on, three days from now (ie Tuesday), when I return from uni.
Hopefully we won't need to use it.
Specifically, this post and the preceding ones.
Do Discord channels maintain a permanent or at least medium-term record of what's said on them? I get the impression they do, but I don't think anyone's said directly.
hS
As long as you can remember a phrase connected to the post you want to search, you're pretty much golden. It jumps you up in the chat logs so you can go back and read to your heart's content.
Everything said on Discord can be checked again, but the thing is, if I wanted to, say, search for a message from October, I would have to scroll up through thousands upon thousands of messages before I found just the correct month.
Luckily, Discord is going to implement a search feature to look for old posts... one of these days... (It's basically still in development and only available on a few servers at the moment.)
Then:
1/ A mod-only channel would presumably have much less traffic.
And
2/ My remaining comment on the topic is: while I'm concerned that the current proposal seems to be being analysed for its positives rather than its negatives, I can't actually see any problems with it.
hS feels kinda self-aggrandising here, but figures this sub-thread existing means it's sort of requested that he post this bit again, despite how weird it feels, and without implying that it's a particularly useful or important comment
It would at least make it easier for the mods to communicate in real time, so they can kick people before things escalate again.
How does that work?
I'm pretty sure they did something similar on the IRC, and it was a disaster. ;) Basically because it was an exclusive secret clubhouse used for insulting people behind their backs.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to watch the idea of a PPC chatroom collapse for, what, the fourth time? But in the interests of fairness, I present two questions for your consideration:
1/ How are you going to keep your roomful of 'people with power + people they like' from turning into a place to insult people they don't like?
2/ How are you going to reassure the people who aren't allowed in, that it hasn't turned into the above?
hS
I'm not going to dive too deeply into rehashing the mess that was the irc, but that is not a terribly accurate depiction of what happened. The alt channel was created by people who were tired of all the yelling and drama in the main chat, and when the people more prone to yelling discovered its existence, the yelling intensified.
This is a different idea, being implemented on a platform that has a normal interface for multiple channels- in case you haven't poked your head in recently, we currently have six for various purposes.
(Also, could you maybe think twice about how much you know about a half of the community that you've never participated in? To extend Sapir-Whorf for a second, the platform in which a community exists shapes the community and norms in a way that is not immediately apparent from the outside.)
I feel like this was a fairly hard shutdown. It feels to me like you are telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the chat, and that any comment I might make on any version of it is invalid because I am not a part of the chat-using group. That isn't a nice feeling.
hS
First off, again, I'm sorry that I came across as shutting you down. I used some pretty snide turns of phrase and I really should have thought twice before opening my big mouth.
That said - I was reading some pretty dismissive things into your post, and reacting to that reading. I feel like your comparison to the mess around the IRC was dredging up past drama for drama's sake rather than being terribly relevant to the current situation, and then your questions posed "in the interest of fairness" felt to me like they were some sort of requirements that you were imposing on a Discord moderation process, rather than prompts for discussion.
So - to respond directly, I absolutely believe you are allowed to have your own opinions, although I do have to wonder what you mean when you say "the chat" - the active users on the Discord in the last week (that I've seen) have been a different group of people than were on the IRC in either its heyday or the days of drama, and also a different group of people than we had on the dear old Bravenet chat back in the dark ages. The chat is not a monolith, and I feel like you're assuming that it is.
My take on your second thought is a bit more nuanced - it seems to me that there are a great many comments that could be made about the chat, some of which are more valid and some of which are less so. People are people everywhere, and the constitution is the constitution everywhere, so discussing what is and isn't acceptable on those levels is very relevant and valid. But on the other end of the validity scale, were a discussion about, I don't know, the appropriate time to link something in #genericchannel rather than #recsand_plugs to spill over onto the Board, I'm not sure how useful the comments of someone who wasn't familiar with the norms of discord would be - while the end goal of having a nice smooth conversation is shared by everyone everywhere, what that looks like on the discord is rather different from what that looks like here. We only have experience with what we have experience with - I certainly don't think that I would be able to offer valid comments on Wiki governance issues beyond very high-level Constitutional stuff, because I haven't been significantly involved in the wiki in years.
And finally, to answer the questions you posed - the current suggestion on the table is to have the mods channel be readable by everyone, but only allow mods to post there. Between that and the mods' incentives for keeping chatter on that channel to a minimum (to make catching up on incidents quicker), there should be very little chatter that isn't discussion of moderation issues. And having it be globally readable should address your second question.
(For comparison's sake, how does the Board handle transparent discussion between moderators?)
I do actually think that 'is not used to attack' and 'is not percieved as such' should be requirements for any moderation process (as I'm sure everyone does?), but I'd not describe my post as trying to impose them.
As to the rest: Cat's post specifically discussed avoiding things that caused problems in the IRC. I used that as a hook to explain my concern. For what it's worth, while I'm concerned that the current proposal seems to be being analysed for its positives rather than its negatives, I can't actually see any problems with it. So, yay?
I don't see the chats across history as a monolith - the problems with the Bravenet chat are very different to the problems from the IRC - but I do see live chat as a fertile breeding ground for serious issues. Apparently you've already had at least one, per the discussion up-thread. But yes, I have an outsider's and a skeptic's (or cynic's) view, and those tend to highlight the negatives. So I'll believe you when you say it's generally a good place.
As to your comparison with the Board:
-The Board isn't moderated.
-Actual spam is deleted without discussion.
-Bans are publically discussed and voted on.
-Neither the Nameless Admin(s) nor the Permission Givers use a PPC space for private discussion, which was the proposal here.
-Ultimately, the answer is that we are all moderators on the Board, and that discussion happens publically or by email.
(Since you know all that, I'm just gonna assume you had a reason for asking that I can't spot.)
hS
Specifically, the only things that I would expect to have discussed on a mods-only channel is the sort of oldbies-only discussion that we've had via email. From where I'm sitting, an email exchange between the two of us and assorted other oldbies talking about Board drama is really not terribly transparent- it would fail both of your questions, if I'm understanding them correctly.
Why is the difference between a PPC space (separate Discord channel) and a non-PPC space (email) significant to you?
As a community, we provide various spaces - the Board, T-board, the chats, the LJ-DW comm - for people to interact in. We have expectations about how they will do that, embodied in the Constitution. And we have community oversight: if something happens contrary to the Constitution, everyone can know it happened, and have an informed opinion.
An official PPC space where some people can't go breaks that. It says: 'we are the ones allowed to judge our behaviour. Your opinion, as a member of the community, is no longer relevant'. Whether or not the people in question - and all potential future users - are trustworthy, that's a message I don't like the sound of.
(I'm aware that the old chats also lacked that kind of public record. Things on this thread have implied Discord retains logs, which is good.)
It's also simply exclusionary: in a supposedly equal community, there is suddenly a place that some people aren't allowed to go. Cat also suggested adding certain oldbies to the channel, which means it's not just elected moderators: it's 'this channel is for the worthy, and you are not worthy'. Again, not a message I feel we should send.
Contrast email. It's not a community space. It hasn't been set up by the community. It's not under the full Constitution. It's not... official. If I email one person and not another, that's not because I'm excluding the latter - it's because I didn't choose to email them.
Did that make any sense?
hS
But a bunch of the other mods were really keen on having their input, which is why I suggested the idea of an advice-giver role as a compromise: voted on by the community, they'd be trusted enough to participate in the decision-making process but not enough to make final decisions. But you're right about the worthy/unworthy dynamic. I think I've been pushed over into the camp of "everyone should be able to see mod discussions, or no one should," closer to the "everyone" camp.
Section 2, article 9 says, "However, the rules of civility and respect do not disappear outside PPC community spaces" which to me reads "when engaging with other PPCers in private conversation, you should still follow the Constitution".
Unless I'm reading too much into that?
And as for the community space vs private email thing, how is email any different from the mods PMing each other? A group email versus a group PM?
(I'm not trying to be antagonistic here and I'm sorry if I'm coming off that way, I'm genuinely curious.)
I'm going to assume you don't mean Section 3 should be followed in emails, and that you're mostly looking at Sections 1 & 2. By and large, they should indeed be followed - but check out the context: 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.
There are things you'll say to your friends that you wouldn't say in the same way to someone's face. If Sassafras is refusing to listen to concrit, you might email your friend to say "argh, why won't they listen?!" - whereas to them, you'd say "I really think you could benefit from taking this on board." In a community space, the former is borderline flaming, because you're broadcasting your frustration to everyone. In a private email, it's just an expression of frustration.
It goes the other way, too: I've been more forceful to people about their own behaviour by email than I would be on the Board, because I know that it won't be picked over by everyone else - it won't influence how other people view them.
Coming back to your question: I was the first commenter. No-one had suggested the PMs at that point. ;) As far as I'm aware, they're just emails under a different name, so I don't know that it would be different.
(Not coming off as antagonistic, don't worry. I deal quite well with direct 'what is your opinion about X', and even 'I think you're factually wrong about X'... most of the time, at least.)
hS
I'm about halfway through writing a reply, but it's now one in the morning and I'm not typing straight.
I am sorry that my post came across as it did. I know how much it stings to be on the wrong side of a shutdown and I'm sorry I did so at you. I was reading implications into your post that you probably didn't make, and I'm sorry for continuing the miscommunication.
I'll post more words tomorrow to try to debug the miscommunication?
I did in fact give (what I hoped was) helpful advice, forming the bulk of my post. My intent was to express the reason for my concern, and then offer suggestions for dealing with it. I think that's how things get improved?
I remain spectacularly unconvinced that "we made a room for people who don't like yelling" doesn't translate as "we made a room for complaining about the [people doing the] yelling", but I guess I wasn't actually there.
hS
What I remember is that it started as a room away from yelling, and morphed into a room for complaining about people who were perceived to yell a lot. (And that, yes, a lot of the yelling and complaining was related to what the rules were and should be.)
But . . . well, I wasn't there either. Technically.
Anyway, even with chat logs, which I suspect and hope have all long since vanished, we would all have radically different memories of What Became Of The Old IRC. I do think we all want to avoid it happening again, but honestly, it's hard to use precedent to argue that when none of us agree on what, exactly, the precedent was.
I think maybe we should stick to the Constitution, just in general principle, and avoid casting dark glances into the drama of the past. Though gods know I'm as guilty of it as anyone, it doesn't really seem to solve much.
As I recall, a part (definitely not all) of the yelling and drama was about whether or not everyone should follow all the rules all the time, and the alt chat was an escape for the rules-light set.
Of course, since the Constitution was amended to apply to all PPC spaces, that is less of a concern now. There's no reasonable argument that the basic PPC rules don't apply to any and all possible PPC chatrooms.
Long story short, it sucked, and we can all agree we'd like to avoid anything similar happening again, right?
~Neshomeh
From the outside, with the power dynamics suggested being reversed (the secret IRC channel last time was created by non-mods, if I recall, whereas this time it's being created by mods), it did a bit look like that.
However, I think you've more or less described the solution; as of now, all the PPC channels are public. I think a "mods discuss issues" channel is fine - but why not just make it public to the community? Those interested in the issues being discussed can chime in when they have an opinion, and otherwise it's quiet or just mods going "Hey, I did X at Y time, is everyone okay with it?"
I get the appeal of not opening it, but I think the key to good authority and good relationships with authority is not having people feel that their mods are some kind of class set apart.
