Subject: I apologize for assuming bad intentions
Author:
Posted on: 2016-09-20 02:21:00 UTC
And for lashing out as a result. (This would have been an (nm) post, but that was too long for the subject line.)
-
The Discord Channel by
on 2016-09-16 01:16:00 UTC
Reply
Hello everybody!
I want to address two things which involve the Discord channel.
1) The channel's been around for roughly two and a half months and doesn't show any sign of disappearing. I think it should be mentioned in the Board header (just linking to it isn't possible since Instant Invites expire after 24 hours).
2) What exactly is acceptable in it, language-wise? There have been some disagreements lately, and I want to hear the community's opinion on this. -
My thoughts on acceptable language. by
on 2016-09-16 22:45:00 UTC
Reply
Foul language is not something that bothers me personally, but I understand why other people would be upset. I'm okay with the idea of using mild oaths and adult language on the Discord. Stuff like h*ll or d*mn.
I couldn't find the exact specifics for what was acceptable profanity-wise in PG movies, so I can't comment as to how effective that would be. The most common thing I saw was that "sexually-derived expletives" were considered to be more offensive, so I would suggest total restrictions on those (unless we're playing Cardgames Against Headquarters/Humanity, in which case all bets are off). -
I agree with PC by
on 2016-09-18 16:52:00 UTC
Reply
We have a clear example below of a PPCer stating that he is offended by sexually derived insults.
And, the Constitution covers this but it's worth mentioning, insults derived from intent to belittle groups of people (racial slurs, etc.) should not be allowed. We probably shouldn't say stuff that's disrespectful to people's religions, either.
--Key -
Now that you've been using it more than 5 minutes, sure. by
on 2016-09-16 08:50:00 UTC
Reply
What's the best way to 'link' to it? Is there a helpful page on the Wiki explaining how to get access?
I'm thinking, for the text, of something like "For real-time chat, you can pay a visit to our [Discord channel]."
hS -
Behold my leet copypasta skills! by
on 2016-09-16 12:20:00 UTC
Reply
Or, rather: there isn't one right now, but I think we can use the following as a draft for a section in the PPC Lounge page (which, IMO, could really do with a more descriptive name):
"The Discord Server
The PPC also has a Discord server; it supplanted the IRC channel for the most part. Joining is easy - just ask the mods or the owner for an invite. Registration is easy and recommended, both to ensure that it stays unique to you and to reduce clutter in the user list of the channel; however, it is not strictly required as long as you have an invite.
The rules are simple: abide by the Constitution and don't be a dick. There are mods that will enforce those rules; they can manage the channel and kick misbehaving members. Bans, however, are only enacted as a community-wide ban and are only implemented by the owner of the server.
There are three main channels in the server:
-#genericchannel: general conversation and daily talk about pretty much anything.
-#rudis: RP channel, set in Rudi's pub. No Permission is necessary to join, because the RP isn't canon unless it is integrated into a canon piece.
-#recsn_plugs: exactly what it says on the tin. Mostly music plugs, but there have been book recommendations, funny clips and other such things."
We can also list the mods or something, and I'm not sure if there's anything else to be said? -
I have no input on the content. ;) by
on 2016-09-16 13:37:00 UTC
Reply
But. Can I make the suggestion that we formalise what the wiki page already does, and designate the Discord channel and any potential future replacements as the 'PPC Lounge'? As in, 'If you're interested in real-time chat, visit the [PPC Lounge]', with that link directing to the Wiki page.
If you place a 'the PPC Lounge is currently hosted on Discord' statement in the lead, and make the current lounge the first section, we've essentially future-proofed the Board header.
Just a suggestion, don't really care, let me know what you want the Board header to say.
hS -
Good thought, methinks. by
on 2016-09-16 15:56:00 UTC
Reply
Unless anybody objects, I'll change the page tomorrow; worse comes to worse we'll have another talk with everybody.
-
Since nobody objected... by
on 2016-09-17 14:30:00 UTC
Reply
I went ahead and changed the page. hS, can you please add a blurb to the header?
-
Blurb added. by
on 2016-09-20 14:53:00 UTC
Reply
I also removed the 'monthly' challenge, because haha.
I would like to request a second time that the sexist, sexually-derived language of the Lounge 'rule' be changed.
hS -
As far as I'm aware... by
on 2016-09-20 20:27:00 UTC
Reply
the Lounge in its current iteration has no concrete rules for language — It just has the Constitution; that's one of the reasons I started this thread. I changed the bit in the wiki article, though. And I really hope the community can reach some sort of accord on this — "every mod has their own view of what is and isn't Constitutional" is bound to cause problems down the line.
-
I know I don't have too much of an issue with language. by
on 2016-09-16 06:05:00 UTC
Reply
I imagine anything limited to 'piss' or 'arse' ought to be fine, right?
-
Tentative language thoughts by
on 2016-09-16 02:57:00 UTC
Reply
I think it's reasonable to use the same rules that apply here on the Discord channel, which means keeping everything safe for work and kid-friendly (no cursing). That's my instinct on a community-wide level.
For me, personally? I'm a college student. I'm not personally going to be offended by foul language (most likely), but other people likely have different standards. -
A consideration by
on 2016-09-16 03:35:00 UTC
Reply
Not everyone agrees on proper language for the board, either, as shown by the "pissed off" incident a few weeks (or possibly months, my sense of time is off) ago. Personally I think the MPAA guideline for what qualifies for PG should be fine. After all, you have to be at least 13 to even join the PPC (though we have had some members lie about their age) so I don't see why we should enforce stricter content guidelines than what is already considered appropriate for that age group.
-
Re: this entire thread. by
on 2016-09-18 22:12:00 UTC
Reply
First off, what Des said. Please cut it out, Data.
Second off, can maybe both of you A) refrain from replying to each other for a while, or B) seek some kind of conflict resolution? Every single time I see that Data has replied to hS, or vice versa, I have this brief moment of hope, where I think that maybe it'll be something of a peace offering, and everyone will calm down. Instead (and I just glanced back through the past couple pages), nearly every time, it turns into snarking irritably at each other.
I'm not blaming either of you for this overall pattern, for the record, though I suspect that will offend both of you.
I will admit this is guesswork, based on what I know of your respective personalities. If I offend you in this, I apologize - I'm only trying to point out something I think might help. That said, this is what I think is going on:
Data has a posting style that tends to be brief and irreverent, and hS has a posting style that tends to be detailed and narrative. When hS feels his posts aren't getting adequate responses, but drive-by put-downs, he naturally feels disrespected. When Data's posts get lengthy, word-by-word responses, they feel attacked and undeservedly dressed-down. This is, I suspect, due to the fandoms and fandom experiences both of you have been through. Regardless of its origin, it remains that regardless of original intent, both of you have the tendency to quickly feel disrespected and upset after conversing, and start firing back. I see Data get into insults more quickly, but again, I suspect that's because they are -reading- hS's posts as insults.
Again, I've been hoping for a long time that a peace would naturally occur between you. But it doesn't appear to be forthcoming at this point, so I'm going to ask, in light of the fact that almost every time you interact it turns into a personal argument of some sort, that we start talking about a solution. Of some sort.
If I've overstepped my bounds or am being condescending or have upset either of you, I really do apologize. I don't mean to. I'm just very tired of seeing two people I tend to like as individuals ripping on each other.
-VM -
My 'solution'... by
on 2016-09-18 22:22:00 UTC
Reply
... is to utterly ignore Data Junkie whenever possible. But sometimes it isn't possible, like when they want to create rules based on nonexistent age rules.
I agree that being responded to with a put-down, drive-by or not, doesn't feel very nice. Are... are we saying it should? I tgought putting people down was a bad thing?
hS -
Okay then. by
on 2016-09-18 23:03:00 UTC
Reply
Of course it doesn't, and of course it shouldn't. That's why I started the post by asking Data to cut it out. But again, your posts feel just as disrespectful to them as theirs do to you.
Your actions seem reasonable and merited to you. Data's actions seem reasonable and merited to them. I assume. On this thread, I would say Data certainly crossed the line first. They saw an attack where none was intended. ...I assume.
On the other hand, if someone replied to you with this:
Wonderful. I'm glad you were able to correct my lack of trivia knowledge without addressing the fact that your argument, point, and premise were entirely wrong.
...would you -not- see it as an attack, or at least, unmerited snark? I'd be a bit defensive.
Again. Please don't think I'm trying to attack you. I promise that's not my intent. But lately, your replies to Data feel a lot like my earlier replies to July. I saw them as necessary - contradicting stands I saw as wrong and needing correction. It culminated with this, if you don't remember. She, correctly, saw them as a knee-jerk response to someone I had a beef with. I was being immature and holding a many-years-long grudge over past drama. This, between you and Data, is obviously very different, in large part because it's very recently that Data has said some really nasty things about you, and very recently that you proposed a ban for them. So the wound is pretty recent. And I'm not saying you don't have legitimate cause.
What it comes down to is that I don't see Data or you responding to urgent issues that need responses, I see both of you taking opportunities where you have a legitimate reason to argue with someone you have a beef with. I'm honestly convinced that it's a matter of time before there's another drama blowup (and I'm not convinced I haven't just started one, which would suck a lot). Ideally, I'd ask you both again to try and work this out. But at this point, you've made it clear you see no point in trying to mend fences with someone who deliberately antagonizes you. (Given Data's behavior, I assume they feel the same way.)
I understand that you'd like to utterly ignore Data Junkie whenever possible. I get it. Essentially, what I'm asking is that, either you not make exceptions for things like this, or that you bear in mind when you do, that you're reading their posts through a very specific lens.
And I would very much give Data the same advice, if they would listen. That they are reading all of your posts through a lens of "We Speak Different Internet Dialects" and also through "We Don't Like Each Other." If they can't put this lens down, and even if they can, it would ultimately be very helpful if this would stop happening. -
Okay, I accept your point. by
on 2016-09-19 08:58:00 UTC
Reply
I still maintain that there is a massive difference between sarcasm and direct personal attacks using sexist language of the kind the other person was arguing shouldn't be used. If Data Junkie disagrees, then I think that's a serious problem for someone who wants to be a member of a community centered on the principle of 'snark, don't flame'.
But I accept your point. I can't promise never to interact with Data Junkie; if I see them (to restate the current thread) trying to change the language acceptable in the PPC community to something I think would be both personally and communally off-putting, based on a completely wrong starting premise, then I will say something - and I'm not going to do some silly 'reply to someone else's post with what I would have said to them' thing, either. I never did it at school, I'm not going to start now. ^_~
But I can and will do my level best not to use the least trace of sarcasm or snark when talking to them.
hS
PS: This post went through multiple edits, mostly to add and then remove again comments about things Data Junkie has done in the past. I am and always have been making an effort not to bring that stuff up, despite a burning desire to do so. ~hS -
Honestly I am all for mutual ignoring by
on 2016-09-19 07:11:00 UTC
Reply
You are right, I was doing what I always do when I feel like I've been attacked, I start trying to fight fire with fire. I fell like this has become a trend lately, especially combined with the shut-down I got in the Hunger Games thread when I was just making a joke.
But yeah, if hS is willing to get off my back, or at the very least resort to a neutral third party if he has a problem with something I've said and needs to convey this to me, then I can do the same. -
On what "PG" means by
on 2016-09-16 23:22:00 UTC
Reply
Confession: I had to look this up on the CARA (the group that designed the MPAA's rating system) website, so I thought others may be confused as well. To clarify, some profanity may be used in a PG movie, short of the F-bomb, which would immediately make a movie PG-13 at least. Common use of profanity would also make the rating PG-13 if Discord were a film.
Side note: Making a chatroom into a film is probably a terrible idea. -
No, we haven't. by
on 2016-09-16 07:04:00 UTC
Reply
We haven't had members lie about their age, because the only time 'you have to be 13' has been a rule of the PPC is when July is doing a survey and wants to avoid legal issues. Saying it's an actual rule is just plain wrong.
hS -
I was unaware that wasn't an actual rule. by
on 2016-09-16 23:19:00 UTC
Reply
However we definitely had someone lie about their age, in the old IRC at least. Piph was supposedly 13 when she joined, but after having a birthday she admitted she had lied and had just recently turned 13 on that birthday.
-
Wonderful. by
on 2016-09-17 16:33:00 UTC
Reply
I'm glad you were able to correct my lack of trivia knowledge without addressing the fact that your argument, point, and premise were entirely wrong.
hS -
I apologise for the snarky tone of this comment. (nm) by
on 2016-09-19 07:25:00 UTC
Reply
-
I apologize for assuming bad intentions by
on 2016-09-20 02:21:00 UTC
Reply
And for lashing out as a result. (This would have been an (nm) post, but that was too long for the subject line.)
-
There's no need to be a dick by
on 2016-09-17 18:41:00 UTC
Reply
I'm pretty sure I did address the only two points you brought up. In case you missed it somehow though, here it is again: I was unaware that the "you must be 13 or older" thing wasn't an official rule, and yes we have had people lie about their age.
Honestly I don't see how either of your points invalidated the actual point of my post, even if I had ignored them, which it is now clear to me that I should have done, since you were clearly just trying to bait me into an argument. -
Oh, and also: by
on 2016-09-17 20:47:00 UTC
Reply
I don't appreciate the use of sexually-derived insults. I don't think they should be in the PPC wiki as a rule of the IRC, and I definitely don't appreciate them being targetted at me.
hS -
I mean I guess I could have been more creative... by
on 2016-09-18 06:52:00 UTC
Reply
On the other hand I tend to reserve the best insults for the worst behavior. You were, on a scale from bad customer to 4channer, mediocre at best. I guess I could have refused to be insulting I suppose, but tend to treat people the same way they treat me.
As for invalidating my point, maybe I should phrase it this way: "PG movies are constantly market towards 7-10 year olds, so standards that are appropriate for theme should be fine for us." -
I'd like to remind you, Data... by
on 2016-09-18 18:44:00 UTC
Reply
That you were this close to being banned five months ago because, to put it in your own words, you were a dick to a lot of people. I suggest that you tread lightly indeed.
-
So you were deliberately being insulting, then. (nm) by
on 2016-09-18 08:12:00 UTC
Reply
-
Ironic indeed, by
on 2016-09-18 11:26:00 UTC
Reply
That this argument arose out of a discussion on people acting their age.
-
In which Larfen grasps the hypocrisy. by
on 2016-09-18 12:02:00 UTC
Reply
Pardon me, for that. What a useless message, eh?
But, really. There was a proper, constructive discussion here, and now you two're just... slagging each other.
I can't hold it against people for having a go at (not sure if argue is entirely accurate, as of now) each other, especially considering my lack of knowledge on the circumstances, but is it really needed on the Board?
Surely there are private channels in which you two could sort this stuff out? Gmail? Facebook? Carrier pigeon? Messages in bottles? -
I have absolutely no desire to talk to them anywhere. by
on 2016-09-18 12:58:00 UTC
Reply
I just wanted to make it clear for the record that they were, in fact, deliberately throwing insults at another PPC member.
hS -
Let me clarify, then: by
on 2016-09-17 20:43:00 UTC
Reply
Your point was:
Personally I think the MPAA guideline for what qualifies for PG should be fine[, since] you have to be at least 13 to even join the PPC
This point was based on a false assumption (the second part), and is therefore invalidated.
See?
hS -
Yeah, we've had eleven year olds. by
on 2016-09-16 14:33:00 UTC
Reply
Within a year or so ago, too, not just at the start of the PPC (I'm pretty sure there was at least one person then? I certainly remember there being an eleven year old *agent*). I don't know if she stayed, but there was someone from... China, I think, quite possibly with a cat in her name somewhere? I remember her showing up a year or two ago and saying she was eleven or so. And that was fine. Fanfiction.net is the place you have to be thirteen to join, unless that's changed.
~DF -
Think that would have been me? by
on 2016-09-22 04:19:00 UTC
Reply
I was certainly about 11-12 when I first showed up on the board. Gosh, it's been a while, hasn't it?
-
If not on the board header, perhaps on the wiki main page? (nm) by
on 2016-09-16 02:04:00 UTC
Reply