After checking with Tomash, it was the same topic. (nm)

Subject: After checking with Tomash, it was the same topic. (nm)
Author: Mikelus
Posted on: 2018-03-24 23:23:00 UTC

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Concerns, Complaints, and Constitution by Grimalkinii on 2018-03-24 18:46:00 UTC Reply

Hello everyone!
Some of you might remember me from the Discord server from a few weeks ago. I know I was not around for a very long time and didn't get to talk with too many of you on a personal level, and for that I would like to apologize. However, I am not here to give a long-winded apology about whatever Discord crimes I may have committed, but rather to raise a few concerns about the state of the Discord chat after poking around on the board a bit. This is probably a few weeks late, but I have been busy with my personal life quite a bit lately. For those of you who don't know me, I will introduce myself as a man who has been writing for fun and self-improvement for about 14 years now, and came to the PPC's Discord chat hoping I could connect with other people who also enjoy writing and maybe even help some of those who might be stuck or need a little boost.
To be transparent, yes, I was banned from the Discord chat permanently, but we will be getting to that later on.

For starters, some of you may be thinking "but I've never seen you on the board!" And you would be correct. To be a little bit blunt, I find the board is pretty archaic in its styling, and while you are all free to use it if it works for you I just didn't really want to go through the trouble, which I think is a perfectly fine way to go about things.

Anyway, my original intent here was to bring up a few concerns. I would like to say before I really begin that my intent here is not to get back into the chat, as my experience was pretty poor overall and even if my ban were lifted I honestly don't think it's the sort of place I want to be.

First and foremost, I joined the chat and almost immediately hopped into a debate on the topic of gun control in America because it is an issue I care a lot about. This would be fine, had it been a civilized conversation which I was lead to believe would be the case as according to the wiki the PPC "prides itself on the ability to have mature discussions". My politics aside, I expect to go places and have people disagree with me. That's how people operate -- some think one thing, and others think another, and that is perfectly fine. It is also perfectly fine to have a mature discussion about these things, even when people are disagreeing. The problem is that I was consistently being dogpiled by at least 6 different people, bombarded with differing viewpoints and attacked numerous times with passive-aggressive comments during the whole hours-long discussion. Another new member (who was also banned, but he was being rather rude, so I can understand his ban) started to agree with me after the whole bit. The next day a comment was made calling him and people like him mentally unsound simply for believing a particular thing. You'll have to forgive me for not remembering names or quotes of each particular member as this was approximately four or five weeks ago now, I think, but one particular thing I remember being said during the conversation was "Can we classify being a gun nut as a mental disorder?" or something along those lines. This is certainly not 'mature discussion' and it's definitely against the constitution that the admins of the chat said I was totally violating. It's very odd, considering I pointed out that there was a lot of passive-aggression going on in the channel, to which I was told by another member (I forget who, really, but I believe it was Maslab? That could definitely be wrong though) that it was 'better than open aggression'. I said that it seemed like it still violated the constitution, and that statement was promptly ignored.

The next day, I believe, me and the other new guy were having a bit of a talk about various things, and one of the admins came into the #heavy_stuff channel, which was essentially the de facto politics room. They disagreed with us, we provided evidence back, and the other new member made a comment towards Maslab. One that was essentially saying 'the thing you just said is not very smart', and the admin instantly responded with the threat of possible suicide and police investigation to a small, insignificant snide comment. This is behavior I would not expect from a ten-year-old child, let alone the adult administrator of a chat room that describes itself as 'capable of mature discussion'. Maslab then outright accused us both of being 'trolls' only there to cause problems, which was very much not the case with myself (though for the other newbie I cannot say). We then switched the topic and asked another member about something they had said; we were outright told to change the subject by the same admin or be banned right then and there. So we changed the topic yet again.

The next day the channel was gone. Why? I assume because they did not want me to continue talking about politics. Call it paranoia, but there are only three persons with the ability to get rid of channels, and plenty of other people posted about politics elsewhere after that -- I just didn't want to start a discussion in another channel and risk being kicked or banned because it wasn't the place for it.

There was an incident in which another admin, Delta Juliette, said something I misinterpreted and so I said a slightly sarcastic retort back. This was instantly taken as an "attack on her person" (despite the fact that I did not attack them, personally, but instead the argument they were making), and was blown out of proportion. I apologized because I had misinterpreted, which I felt was the correct thing to do in the situation. They then continued to demand an apology from me for attacking them. I apologized if they mistook my words but it was not what I intended to say. They continued to demand I apologize for attacking them for another twenty or thirty minutes before they finally said that perhaps they had overreacted, with the caveat of "but still". But still what?

The third incident I can think of is when a different user was thinking of writing their own badfic in order to write a mission about it. Myself and another user expressed that we didn't feel that's what writing missions was really about and gave our reasons why. I forget exactly who chimed in on this discussion, but the long and short of it is that at least three or four people that were not the person it concerned chimed in just to say "she can do what she wants" and other non-arguments in favor of the idea. When that person responded, they essentially said "you are right but I will probably end up doing it anyway". I apologized to this person in DM after the fact if I had upset them, and we resolved the situation like adults.

I posted a silly picture that I thought was pretty funny a day before I was banned, and woke up to find my image missing. Discord doesn't really randomly delete images, so my only idea is that one of the moderators deleted it with no warning and no mention of it to me -- likely because it did not align with their political views.

The reason I was banned came after a discussion about whether or not 'multiplicity' was valid or not, I believe, and I asked Delta Juliette what they, particularly, defined -phobia and prejudice. I was told by Maslab to "go do some googling and educate yourself". Myself and several other people pointed out that I would not find their particular opinion on google. I waited for an answer, and Delta's answer was similarly unhelpful: "Go read a book". I said that this was not helpful, and asked them to please explain their point of view. I was told it would be unfathomable to me if I had not read that particular book (a statement I still find rather dubious) and said "please just explain your point of view, telling me to go read a book is not helpful". It is at this point I was banned, the only explanation given being "I'm doing this for my blood pressure" by Maslab. I was never given an explanation, or a chance to appeal, as the admins either blocked me or don't accept messages from non-friends on discord.

This is all compounded by the fact that every time I tried to start a conversation or get somebody to talk to me about something that was not politics, I was ignored. I wanted to talk about writing, and so I asked -- I was ignored. I asked for recommendations for TV shows to watch -- I was ignored. I tried to talk about tabletop RPGs -- ignored. This only makes the chat seem more like a little clique than anything, unwilling to accept anyone who does not fit into a particular sociopolitical ideology.

All in all my experience with the PPC Discord chat has been extremely negative. Where I thought I would be able to communicate and connect with other writers, I found only a place where I was ridiculed, attacked, and in the end I believe outright banned for my own beliefs and what amounts, ultimately, to 'wrongthink'. You cannot call yourself "open and diverse", or "able to have mature discussions" if the mature discussions are just everybody agreeing with each other, and then say anybody who doesn't agree with you is just a 'troll'. I also expected to see a lot of discussion about writing or fanfiction in general. Instead writing came up maybe two or three times in two weeks, which is very odd for a community centered on the idea of writing things. And I totally understand -- talking about writing all the time would be boring. But most of the discussion in the server is actually a big echo chamber for sociopolitics, and very little talk about writing actually goes on. Most of the 'discussion' about writing was just blithe roleplaying the #rudis channel, which wasn't even really that active.
I really cannot emphasize enough how disappointed I am. Where I thought I would find a fun community of writers who I could talk with, help, get help from, share cool things and make fun of badfic, I instead found an echo chamber run primarily by three people who accuse anyone who does not agree with their views as a 'troll', and where other members blatantly ignore the rules set in place and attack persons passive-aggressively, and sometimes even blatantly. The overall nature of the chat feels very oppressive as opposed to the 'free, open, and diverse' atmosphere I was lead to believe it would have. In the end I feel I was banned for no good reason at all, and was never given an explanation. My images were deleted by moderators without warning or mention. I was accused of being a terrible person for misinterpreting a comment and apologizing immediately after realizing I had misinterpreted. After looking around some I can see the board has a very different atmosphere, which is good, but I don't think I'll be posting here anyway. I will probably also be telling other friends of mine who also write that the Discord chat, at least, is a poor place to find a fun writing community focused on self-improvement. I feel that the bottom line here is that the discord chat is barely even a writing community anymore and more of a political one focused on socialist ideology. This is not derisive towards these people in the slightest, but that is ultimately what I found myself reading and seeing almost every day.
The intent here is not to start a political discussion, but to tell some of the members on the board who perhaps do not visit the discord chat what it is like, and to warn against ever visiting it. My opinion of it is about as low as it can go at this point. Perhaps this will spur on a change in the community, and cause a review of what is and isn't acceptable. Perhaps the people who banned me will say "no no, he was definitely a troll," which I suspect will happen, but I assure you this cannot be further from the truth. Perhaps nothing will happen I dunno All I can say is you can be certain that I will make sure friends know that the PPC Discord chat is not a very good one for people interested in writing as a hobby or a profession.

Thanks, Grimalkinii

Re: Concerns, Complaints, and Constitution by Grimalkinii on 2018-03-26 12:29:00 UTC Reply

I think this is the post I will try to answer the majority of questions on since I am still having a lot of trouble navigating the board itself, being unfamiliar with yourwebapps myself.

1. To address the cries of "it sends up red flags that he didn't post on the board": I did mention this in my original post that my main reason for not wanting to was that I find the structure of it archaic and hard to navigate and use. It's also relatively difficult to have a conversation over it in my opinion, and I would rather have live dialogue with people. I don't think that's a crime. I am still honestly having trouble navigating. Should I perhaps hav made a post on the board before getting too into the discord? Maybe, but honestly it just seemed like an unnecessary pleasantry that probably would not have changed people's opinions of me too much anyway. Maybe that's wrong, but even so.

2. To address Delta's issue of my pronoun usage in my original post: It's just how I speak and there is no offense meant towards you. I advise against looking for hidden slights in everything a person might say.

3. To address the "He was actually told to stop the discussion: The problem I have is that the discussion I intended to have on "What does Delta define prejudice as" was taken to a different channel and was intended to be a separate discussion than the one I was instructed to stop having, which if I recall correctly was the one on multiplicity (again, it's been a few weeks, so forgive me if I'm misremembering) which I did stop having once i was instructed to stop having it.
Its intent was to sort of understand Delta's frame of mind a little better, since I was having trouble doing so in the first place, I think. Now, had Delta said "I don't want to talk about this", that would have been the end of it for me. The issue is that this was never said. What was said were essentially "Go read this book before I talk to you," which is not saying "I don't want to talk about this". It is something I took both as a personal slight -- it is insulting, to me, to insinuate that I could not understand where a person is coming from simply because I have not read a single piece of literature. Regardless, had the words spoken been "I don't want to talk about this", it would have been over right then and there.
For the record, the gun control meme being deleted discussion was actually not something I was a huge part of, if I recall correctly, and while I was fairly confused as to why it was deleted without warning or mention I decided it would probably be best to drop the whole thing.

4. My big issue with the reasoning for the kick that I am only finding out about now is that it makes no sense to me. Not from an "I didn't do this" standpoint, but from a logical and moral one. If asking somebody to explain their viewpoint and getting frustrated when they give non-answers that come off as offensive to me is an act of 'violence' simply because it might possibly maybe cause someone at some point to poke fun at that person, then why should anybody ever open up to another person? If asking somebody who is a minority to explain their reasoning or their thought process is an act of 'violence', this sets a VERY scary precedent. Am I supposed to take everything everyone says only at face value and never try to figure anything out simply because they are not part of the majority? If this is true, then I suppose I am an abusive boyfriend because I ask my girlfriend -- who happens to be a transgender person -- to open up to me so that I may help her when she feels upset and is not always so forthcoming with these things due to past trauma. I cannot express how frightening the concept of 'asking somebody to explain their point of view is an act of violence' is to me. Badgering is annoying, certainly, but as in my point above I would have dropped it immediately had I actually been asked to quit asking Delta these things -- which did not happen.
In short, 'you committed violence against another member by asking them a question and getting frustrated that you weren't getting an answer' is NOT a reason for a kick and very much less so for a ban. That makes absolutely no sense to me from any frame of reference. Had I flipped out and started slinging insults at Delta? Sure. Had I started swearing up a storm and throwing a big hissy-fit? Sure. But geting a little bit frustrated and saying "Hey, telling me to go read a book is not helpful, can you please answer my question" is neither of these things -- and as I said, a simple "I don't want to talk about it" would have very easily been the end of it.

5. For accusations of "they were working together to troll": I honestly don't think the fact that we agreed on some things is reason enough to believe we were in cahoots, and my joining came after finding out about the place from some trawling of fanfiction sites. Admittedly I will say it definitely looks suspicious -- we joined on the same day hours apart, and had a few similar opinions on political issues -- and ultimately I do see why it would be suspicious to the admins. However, I do not believe this is clear and decisive evidence that we were working in tandem in any way. Using the same logic, I could say that the admins were conspiring against me to ban me simply because the two who were largely active during my time in the Discord chat agreed on many topics and were both admins. Of course, I don't believe that, but it seems just as ridiculous to me.

6. Lastly, on the topic of sealioning: Admittedly, I do ask a lot of questions. However, this is generally to gain a better understanding of a person and their position on something, or to clarify something that may have been unclear.

Also, I would like to apologize: I do remember now that the 'demanding an apology for twenty minutes' thing was not Delta but somebody else. My mistake and apologies to Delta for the mistake.

One point. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-26 15:21:00 UTC Reply

First, I appreciate you calmly and rationally explaining your side of the story. I choose to believe you're telling the truth, and I sympathize.

But I'd sympathize more if you hadn't said this:

"simply because it might possibly maybe cause someone at some point to poke fun at that person"

I happen to agree with a lot of what you said in point 4, but that right there is far too flippant. To understand the reasoning, try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who's been shamed and possibly abused for their feelings and/or identity their whole life, and imagine what they must expect to happen any time they dare to be open about them. Then imagine how it would seem for someone they don't know and don't trust to demand that they be open at a time they're not prepared for it.

There's a big difference between encouraging your girlfriend, who presumably has rational reasons to trust you that she can use to counter her fears, and badgering someone you barely know online. The stakes, even if you don't believe they're the same as violence, are still loads higher than just "poking fun." That's a completely unfair minimization of other people's experience. Please apologize.

~Neshomeh
A response, sort of statement of opinion by Thoth on 2018-03-26 14:56:00 UTC Reply

Honestly, I will admit that you tend to badger people. OTOH, that's not a crime. And the issue of whether or not it was made clear to you that you should stop was one I raised with the mods. At the time, I eventually sided with them, but... I'm having second thoughts. I dunno. I will continue to reserve judgement on whether you should be unbanned or anything, because I genuinely am not sure, but there are some things I wanted to say.

Namely this:

Grimal, do I think that some of your actions were inappropriate or wrong? Yes. Absolutely. I'm not sure they warranted a ban (as I said, I'm abstaining from that), but I don't believe you were perfect.

Do I feel that the mods would have been more forgiving of your, deliberately or no (I genuinely think the mods are trying to do their best, and I do applaud them, despite what I'm about to say), if you were more politically aligned with them? Yes. Absolutely.

I believe it was Nova who said that if Grimal should be banned, he isn't the only one. I concur. There are others who have committed acts I feel are similar. (with the caveat that I never read #heavy_stuff. So I cannot speak for what went on there, only the act that, allegedly, actually got Grimal banned).

It was some time ago, long enough that I'm not willing to submit it as any more then an anecdote, as I fear my emotions may have amplified it, but on the first night in the Discord, another member gave me what felt very much like a third degree over a philosophical disagreement. Had it not been for some private discussions with several other members, there is a possibility that I would have left, for fear that I would be unwelcome for my opinions. Thankfully, this turned out not to be the case. Again, it felt like a third degree, but it may not have been that extreme, I was a skittish newbie at the time and this was more than half a year ago at this point. Don't take this as evidence of wrongdoing, more as an indication that some of the more strongly political characters on the discord are more than capable of scaring people off.

In any case, from my perspective, the mods have been less willing to go after both longstanding community members and those who agree with them for violation of community standards. I don't think this is deliberate: I think it's just simple bias of the sort that is present in every human being on earth. But it is not helped by the fact that moderator power is centralized in very few hands: PoorCynic is rarely online, so most of the time, our moderators consist of two occupants of a single house in a single city, who tend to agree with one another a lot.

In effect, we do not have a council, as the board does. We have a pair of benevolent dictators. Dictators who are trying very hard to get it right, but dictators all the same. And not necessarily ones who always represent the will of the community as a whole (although it is hard to say for sure): I know for a fact that I was not the only one who questioned Grimal's ban.

Before we go any further, I would once again like to emphasize that I don't hate the mods. I don't think they're evil. In fact, again, I feel they are doing a largely admirable job. But they're just two people often of one mind. That's not their fault, but I feel it can create problems, contrasting with the larger pool of administrators we have on the board—especially in light of the fact that any regular member will be afraid to challenge someone who can get them banned, even if they think that person is wrong about something.

Finally, I do want to address one thing here that I definitely think was wrong. Perhaps the only thing that I can entirely say was so. That thing is that Grimal was not really given a reason for his ban. That is absolutely a problem. Everyone at least deserves to at least know why they were banned, and I suggest we adopt a policy about this in the future. Regardless of whether or not it was just, his ban felt abrupt, unfair, and arbitrary, even from the perspective of other members. Had I not had an extensive conversation with a mod afterwards, I would still summarize their reasoning—even AFTER the explanation Grimal didn't get—as "they were tired and he was annoying."

So better explanation of mod actions, both to the people they are acting on and to the rest of the members, need to be a thing, so that we can understand an action is just, and also because (and this part may not be necessary at present—I still believe that are mods are generally pretty good mods) it leads to better moderation: having to write a statement of reasoning forces you to think harder about a ban, and if you can't write one, the ban may not, in fact, be just.

I want to apologize. by doctorlit on 2018-03-26 04:20:00 UTC Reply

I was in the #heavy_stuff room during this debate. I think I convinced myself in that moment that I was being far more even-handed and civil than I actually was. I was angry about all the lives that were lost at Stoneman Douglas, and I directed that anger at you, inappropriately.

I also realize that I failed to tell my fellow PPCers to tone down their words. I knew the discussion was getting out of hand, but again, my anger led me to overlook it and make excuses for it—I'm fairly certain that "better than open aggression" line came from me.

So, Grimalkinii: I'm sorry I contributed to your negative experience in a community I love. And I'm sorry I didn't treat you with the respect you deserve.

I'm so used now to being critical of literature and other media I consume, but it's not as easy to turn a critical eye on live dialogue. I intend, though, to make the effort in the future.

—doctorlit

Re: I want to apologize. by Grimalkinii on 2018-03-26 11:54:00 UTC Reply

Hey, no worries -- apology accepted, and I hope you continue on with the hobby you enjoy.

Comments from the Discord Admin. by PoorCynic on 2018-03-25 22:03:00 UTC Reply

Hello. I'm not really around the Board anymore for various reasons that I won't get into here, but I am still on the Discord. I have to be, because I'm the channel administration, And as the channel administrator, I'm the one who makes the final decision on bans and the like (upon taking proper consultation from my moderators, of course). So if anyone should be taken to task for bans, let it be me.

Now, regarding the incident being discussed here. First off, I removed the Heavy Stuff channel because of both user complaints and concerns from the mods. After looking at the channel itself, I agreed that it should be removed and did so. As for the trolling, Delta and Maslab showed me logs pertaining to the behavior of the two individuals in question. I found the details presented to me sufficient enough evidence to warrant bans. In regards to Grimalkinii himself, I (and the mods) came to the conclusion that he was not presenting himself in good faith, and was instead acting as a sort of supporter for Pentagon.

I trust the judgments of the mods. They have demonstrated to me on multiple occasions that they are more than capable of doing their jobs without great bias. Yes, they're not perfect, but no one is.

And their jobs? Personally, I'm in agreement with Nesh's description. A good mod should make the Discord a safe and engaging place. They must fairly enforce the rules. They also have to address issues like trolls or overt hostility in a timely and effective manner. These are not easy tasks. We are but mortals. And the Constitution only works when people are going to act in good faith.

I am more than willing to take suggestions regarding the Discord into account. I liked the idea of creating a specific chat channel dedicated entirely to writing, so that's been done. I am also open to the idea of additional mods. It's tough for three people to monitor a 24-hour chatroom. I'm not sold on the idea of splitting the channel, but I'm open to receiving arguments on the subject.

PC

With regards to the mods by Novastorme on 2018-03-25 23:32:00 UTC Reply

My main problem in this matter was when Maslab kicked Grimalkinii because it was 'bad for his blood pressure'. Obviously I don't know the entire decision making process, but was that kick discussed, and was going to happen anyway, just with a really bad reasoning behind it when it was done, or was it an act done just by Maslab? Because if it's the former I'd understand, but if it was the latter than I would say that that does not constitute (in my books) 'fairly enforcing the rules'. I haven't had a problem with Maslab at any other point, but that one is just making me question whether I personally would be happy to be in a server with him as a mod without constraint. I'm sorry if that sounds a little harsh, but it's true.

Novastorme

On kicks. by PoorCynic on 2018-03-26 00:46:00 UTC Reply

I have given the mods leeway when it come to issuing kicks. They may do so on their own prerogative. Otherwise, they would have to summon me for every incident. That would not be efficient, especially when dealing with a spam troll or similar.

Regarding Maslab's kick of Grimalkinii: while it is true that the initial response was a flippant one, the ultimate reasoning was sound. If I might quote from the logs:

Demanding that a minority explain why a particular thing is transphobic "from their point of view" and not accepting otherwise is an act of violence as it essentially is demanding they open themselves up unnecessarily and can provide an even larger target for abuse.

It is absolutely unreasonable for them to demand that and not accept a "I do not want to do so".

I would hope everyone here can realize that "no" is an appropriate response to any question.

Grimalkinii was badgering the mods in such a way that was aggressive and insensitive. His line of questions were interpreted as being in bad faith, with no intent other than to cause annoyance. I saw no issue with the kick when I was informed of it later. In any event, I have informed the mods to immediately post their reasoning for any kick in the future.

I'm not quite satsified with that. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-26 02:10:00 UTC Reply

The reasoning may have been sound, but the question I have, because the answer is not apparent from the logs that remain, is whether or not Grimalkinii was given a fair chance to understand what he was doing wrong and stop it before he was kicked. I think the only clear signal to stop was Delta's "Nah. I'm done, mx. sealion," which appears to have come after Maslab kicked him. Yes, Maslab gave an explanation, but did anyone besides Maslab understand it beforehand? It's clear from the logs that several people did not. It's not clear how much Grimalkinii did or did not understand.

I do see how his questions can be read as willfully ignorant badgering, but I can equally see a reading of plain frustration. In the absence of a transcript, I'd like some more explanation for what makes you certain it was the former and not the latter.

And, just to clarify, when you say the mods have been informed to immediately post their reasoning for any kick, does that mean before, or after the kick?

~Neshomeh

Some answers. by PoorCynic on 2018-03-26 02:43:00 UTC Reply

He (and others involved) were asked to stop. As can be seen in the log, both Maxewell and Tomash asked that the conversation be halted. It was Grimalkinii who reignited the debate with his question about being prejudiced. All that takes place on the same day. Within the same hour, even. Yes, it could have been made more clear why the kick ensued, but the reasoning was understood upon clarification.

As for whether or not it was intentional, that admittedly comes down to interpretation. Maslab and Delta (and I, because I agree with their summation) believed that Grimalkinii's position could not be taken in good faith, due to the proximity of his joining the PPC with Pentagon and his leaping in/agreeing with the later's opinions and arguments. That's what the 'sealion' is referring to. It's in reference to a tactic known as 'sealioning', wherein a person asks constant questions in an attempt to wear down their opponent rather than to get information.

Regarding your final question, I did not specify either before or after at the time. I have since clarified my directions as to post their reasoning prior to the kick.

Thanks. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-26 04:10:00 UTC Reply

I hadn't realized the gun control meme discussion (very clearly instructed to drop) and the "what is prejudice" discussion were that closely linked. I'm sorry for not paying more attention to the timestamps. I still think a similarly clear instruction to drop the new question was in order before a kick, and I appreciate that the directions have been clarified.

You've correctly guessed that I wasn't familiar with the term "sealioning" prior to this incident, although I did look it up yesterday. I hesitated to mention it, but I do want to point out that I'm probably not the only one who isn't familiar with all the current terminology and standards in X social justice movement, and frankly, I'm not sure how acceptable it is to ask. That is, I'm pretty sure I could get away with it because you've all known me for ages and have every reason to trust that I really want to know, but what about newbies? The explanation you just gave me is the sort of information I want to be sure people are getting before they're accused of inflicting violence on others.

~Neshomeh

This. by Novastorme on 2018-03-26 08:28:00 UTC Reply

But I hadn't looked up sealioning last night. I also still think some reference should have been made to the Constitution before Grimalkinii was kicked.

The main issue, as I see it. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-25 15:45:00 UTC Reply

Having thought about this overnight, here's what I see as the main concern that needs to be addressed:

Are the mods doing their job to make the Discord a good, comfortable place for all* members?

This is not the first time I've heard concerns that, in the Discord, saying the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time can get you ostracized, shamed, ridiculed, insulted, or otherwise punished, with no way of knowing what to avoid ahead of time. I can think of several members in good standing off the top of my head with such concerns, actually, some of them for quite a long time. This is especially bad if "the wrong person" is a mod with the power to kick or ban anyone they don't feel like dealing with that day.

So, what I propose is to take this opportunity for a sort of performance review of the current mods and state of the Discord. I could set up a brief Google survey with a few fairly standard questions: do you enjoy being in the Discord, are the mods doing their jobs, if not why not, what would you improve, etc. I think I would require a username to help filter out any opportunistic trolls, but I'm pretty sure the results could be kept private, and I'd present the data free from any identifiers.

First, though, an important question: What is the job of the mods? We'll have to agree on that before we can usefully discuss whether they're doing it or not.

I believe the job of a mod is to ensure that the Discord is a safe, fun environment for all* members. They have a duty to first ensure that everyone knows the rules, then to ensure that the rules are fairly and consistently enforced, always assuming good faith when possible. I believe this requires a certain level of detachment, so that one's personal biases and moods are managed such that people you disagree with* are not treated differently from people you do agree with.

What do the rest of you think? Is a review a good idea? Is a survey a good idea? Is that definition useful? Let me know.

~Neshomeh

* Those in neither flagrant nor repetitious violation of the Constitution.

Re. survey and more mods. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-26 20:16:00 UTC Reply

I'm not feeling huge support for a review survey, but since no one's objected, either, I'll put something together as soon as I can—next weekend if I can't manage it sooner. I reckon it's just as good a thing (if not better) to do later as it would be right stat now.

And I agree that more mods sounds like a necessary and good thing. I'd invite someone else to spearhead a nomination and election process for that, possibly in its own thread.

~Neshomeh

Re. survey: Am working on it, just not done yet. (nm) by Neshomeh on 2018-04-02 04:25:00 UTC Reply

What should various people be doing? (etc.) by Tomash on 2018-03-25 22:38:00 UTC Reply

First of all, I support this survey, especially since complaints like the ones you mentioned came up. That's not good, and we really should address that type of behavior.

Now, here's some things I think that anyone on the Discord should be (and generally is) doing:
- If people are breaking the Constitution (or, in the more common case, the Discord-specific adenda like rot13-ing NSFW stuff), others should ask them to please stop, edit their massage, or whatever else is needed to fix this.
- If people are leaning on you as described above, you should generally do what's being asked (assuming that the people doing the leaning have a point, since this isn't always the case).
- As a specialization, if discussion is getting to the point where people want it dropped, taken to PMs, or moved to the Board, the participants should go along with that.

The community in general should recognize that moderating a real-time chat will involve making judgment calls. This doesn't mean there can't be appeals or discussions (see, for example, this thread), just that we shouldn't go after moderators for moderating unless it's clearly becoming abuse of power.

The moderators' jobs, from my perspective, include the following:
- The moderators should keep the chat safe (and having handled that, fun) for all* (using Nesh's footnote) participants.
- As a subpoint, if someone's having a safety or harassment concern, I'd say it's fine for the moderators to bring it up/tell someone to knock their behavior off instead of the victim.
- The moderators should take action to enforce the rules if the usual community-based mechanisms aren't working (and it's preferred if the moderators just lean on people like everyone else instead of putting their mod hats if possible).
- It's unclear what form this enforcement should take. Kicks are an option (with the expectation that you can come right back, because it's just a very stern "knock it off".)
- If there seem to be trolls or people acting in bad faith on the Discord, moderators should remove them.
- Moderators should be transparent about what they're doing and remain consistent and fair (up to the fact that they're human and all).

I'd also put in a vote for adding another mod, especially someone who isn't on Pacific time.

- Tomash
This sounds like a good idea. (nm) by Novastorme on 2018-03-25 18:49:00 UTC Reply
This looks like a necessary thing, aye by Delta Juliette on 2018-03-25 18:19:00 UTC Reply

And a suggestion- there are currently three mods total, only two of whom are regular visibly active. We could use more- at the moment, it feels like I'm always on call and only rarely have backup. This is not a good way to mod- as we're discussing the role of mods, we should also talk about how many there should be.
You have my vote. (nm) by Quincy Jones on 2018-03-25 17:52:00 UTC Reply
Yeah, that works for me (nm) by Thoth on 2018-03-25 17:33:00 UTC Reply

A suggestion by Quincy Jones on 2018-03-25 09:21:00 UTC Reply

I wasn't really there for much of the politics discussion but I WAS there for the write-your-own badfic. I've looked over the logs and I'm not sure what to think. I don't know how much of what Grimalkinii is saying is true, but I did think at the time that the banning of them was a little sketchy. Since I personally implicitly trust Maslab, though, I decided to leave well enough alone. Anyways, I think that maybe it might have been a bit hasty to just ban Grim like that, and I think, if they wanted one, they should totally have a second chance, if only to see how they behave without Pentagon around. *shrug* It's up to y'all, though. That's just my two cents.

I abstain from this question at the moment (nm) by Tomash on 2018-03-25 16:29:00 UTC Reply

A minor point: by Scapegrace on 2018-03-25 02:45:00 UTC Reply

Neither you nor Pentagon attempted to engage with the PPC outside of the Discord. I just did a search for your username and you didn't post a newbie thread here, which seems really odd considering you want to have such a massive effect on PPC culture.

Regardless of your views on the matter, the Board is the primary means of engagement with the PPC community as a whole. This isn't up for debate. Choosing not to be a part of it at all seems to me like a rejection of the PPC's community ethos, but that could just be me. I'll leave it to everyone else to decide that, because we're a community and that's what we do.

Agreed. by Maxewell on 2018-03-25 06:45:00 UTC Reply

IIRC, you and Pentagon appeared at the same time, both of you got into politics rather quickly, and neither of you made introductory posts of much note. This was an immediate red flag raise for me, because staying in the Discord is, like you said, not "the primary means of engagement with the PPC... as a whole."

Furthermore by Novastorme on 2018-03-26 00:26:00 UTC Reply

I know of at least one other user on the PPC Discord who is not on the Board, do you have a red flag going up for them? Do you see them as 'not part of the PPC community as a whole'? Do you treat them differently because of that?

No, I don't think you do. I don't think anyone does. So why hold this for some and not others?

That one user is a very exceptional case by Tomash on 2018-03-26 02:41:00 UTC Reply

(assuming we're thinking of the same person). There are good reasons they haven't posted on the Board, which I really shouldn't go into publicly. I'm happy to explain that situation to anyone who'd like to know over email (clickable above) or Discord PMs.

In general, though, I agree that newbies ought to post to the Board when joining, and that it's rather suspicious if they don't.

- Tomash
Thoughts by Maxewell on 2018-03-26 00:41:00 UTC Reply

From what I know, yes, a bit of a red flag. From what I have understood when I first joined, and how it has been explained to me, it is not only customary, but, as the wiki states, "Just make a post introducing yourself on the PPC Posting Board and receive the warm welcome of your fellows, and boom, you've officially joined the PPC." I certainly see people as part of the PPC if they're active on the Discord, and engaging with the community in a non-problematic way. With the most recent zdimensia and Bramadin issue, after the ban on Bramadin, I was wary of newbies, as a whole. Because, I was under the impression that they might be an alternate account. Lo and behold, recently, that was right. But this general red flag also appeared for both Pentagon and Grimal. To be entirely honest: I believed both of them got fair warnings about the politics in the chat, and to keep the debating and arguing to a minimum. I was a little concerned that these two members, who joined at relatively the same time, might be trolls trying to start up drama. Neither of them introduced themselves on the board, either, which I took to mean that they were not going to stick around for long, if at all, because neither of them put anything permanent down for all to see. Those were my fears and concerns, and that's why I got red flags.

Read their post, both of you. by Novastorme on 2018-03-25 11:07:00 UTC Reply

They didn't come to the PPC to become part of the PPC Universe, they came to the PPC to find a writing community they could engage in. They explicitly said they didn't post on the Board in their post, so half of your post Scape is almost pointless. They're not trying to change the whole of the PPC, they're trying to alert the PPC who don't use Discord as to the current state of the Discord, and are requesting that at least if it is not changed, that others who want what they wanted are aware that the PPC Discord is not the place to do that at the moment.

Novastorme.

Thoughts by Grundleplith on 2018-03-25 00:23:00 UTC Reply

I'll leave the bulk of this to those more coolheaded than myself, but I'd like it to be known that the creation of a dedicated writing channel in discord has my full support.

More thoughts by Anonymous on 2018-03-25 00:29:00 UTC Reply

And I personally wish we could avoid political discussions and talk of tragedies entirely on here. But I understand why that isn't necessarily feasible. It's just that I come here to escape such things rather than be surrounded by them.
But not everyone copes that way. I can understand why some may need a space to talk of these things safely. And therein lies the rub.
Namely that one person's coping mechanism or healing may be another's trigger.
And both have theoretically an equal right to speak and be heard.

Whoops, forgot to enter name. (nm) by Grundleplith on 2018-03-25 00:29:00 UTC Reply

Even more by Grundleplith on 2018-03-25 00:31:00 UTC Reply

The main issue really is that stifling discussion will make some people angry, whereas a lack of filtering will hurt others.
In essence, you can't please everyone. I'll leave the nature of any compromise to those more learned.

Politics and the Discord by Tomash on 2018-03-25 00:12:00 UTC Reply

It's looking to me like we need an on-Board discussion about this so we can get a sense of the consensus (or lack of consensus) about how the chat would like to handle the whole politics thing.

On the one hand, many folks want to talk about politics in the chat. It's an important topic that's often relevant to Boarders (and even more so in the case of some Boarders in marginalized groups - we've got at least a few trans folks around here). We're also a community that prides itself on the ability to have mature, civil discussions about this stuff, and we very often succeed in doing so.

On the other hand, as Delta put it a few days ago, "[T]his is not a space that focuses on politics." Furtheremore, there's other folks who've expressed their desire to not have certain heavy political topics (like mass shootings) pop up when they open up the chat, and there have been a few cases where some person has been asked to tone it down with the political posts because it was getting a bit much.

The "I don't want all this mass shooting stuff" is the main reason why #heavystuff (which just about immediately became #politics) was created. Unfortunately, "let's cordon off the politics into its own channel, so people can mute it if they don't want to see it" didn't seem to work. My theory is that an effect of making the channel was to encourage way more political discussion than previously, now that there was a place to put it, which wasn't something we wanted as a server. (This is, incidentally, why I'm supporting some form of #writing - we want to promote discussion of it.)

What seems to be the case is that there's such a thing as "too much politics [right now]" for most people in chat (which is person- and topic-dependent). It's rather unclear where the line is, other than "the point at which folks start asking you to tone it down".

I'm not sure how to articulate the standard here (or if there even is a way to do that), and so I'd like people to please chime in on this.

I do, however, want to repropose a suggestion that I remember someone making (even though I can't find it) from after the #heavystuff debacle: links that're very likely to tank someone's mood (the main example being heavy politics - shootings, police brutality, etc., but probably also suicides and similar) should be rot13'd. The reasoning here is similar to spoilers - let's not expose people who don't want to see this to such things by default.

- Tomash

There seem to be two issues sharing a word by Tomash on 2018-03-25 16:27:00 UTC Reply

To start off, I'd like to make some distinctions. I'll define "light politics" to be things like "[Country] is debating a net neutrality bill.", "[Country] just [legalized/banned] [gay marriage/weed/...]", "There's an election on/Here's some results." and so on. It probably also includes things like discussing political ideology and who you're thinking of voting for, so long as it's not straying too far into heavy stuff.

Another type of content under discussion is what I'll call "heavy stuff", which is usually also political in nature. Heavy stuff encompasses things like shootings, bombings, police brutality, and so on, and probably the follow-on discussion.

From what I can tell in both this thread and elsewhere, light politics isn't something we appear to be objecting to. It seems to fall into about the same category as "[Media company] just [announced/cancelled] [thing].". Therefore, I don't think we should really do anything about them, other than clarifying that if you have someone asking for a conversation/posting (especially about this sort of stuff) to stop or be moved elsewhere, that needs to happen.

In contrast, heavy stuff is a more divisive topic. Some people want to talk about it. Others plain don't want to see it. So, how do we resolve this? I'd like to point to an analogous situation - NSFW (or near-NSFW) badfic quotes. Some people want to see them, others (like Silenthunder) don't. The solution we hit on there is to rot13 that sort of thing so people trying to avoid it can do so.

I again propose the same solution. Heavy stuff (which someone needs to try and define more concretely, please) should be posted under rot13 with a warning, and, for lack of a better term, "heavy" discussion about it (discussion that's still referring a lot to the heavy thing in a concrete way) should also stay under rot13.

I again oppose labeling a chunk of the Discord "politics" or "politics OK" because we tried that and it blew up in our face. If anyone has reasons they think it'll be different this time, I'd be more than happy to hear them.

tl;dr: rot13 for tragedies and other heavy stuff, and back off on politics when people ask you to

- Tomash

Musings on why light politics may not be so light. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-25 19:16:00 UTC Reply

As GMA points out, many things are political in nature, including some things that are deeply, importantly personal for some people (e.g. gay marriage—I guarantee that's not "light" for everyone) and other things that seem to many of us like what should be clear questions of wrong and right. Political identities are nearly synonymous with moral values. That's due to the extremely polarized state of the world we live in today. It wasn't like this, at least not to such an intense degree, ten or fifteen years ago, when the Board was new.

That's why I wonder if leaving all that stuff to communities intended for it might be best at this time. We're not a political forum; we are a writing and community forum. It used to be possible to have rational discussions about different political viewpoints here, but that was before the issues were so radicalized.

But then again, we do have a very clear ideological statement in our Constitution that happens to align with a political identity. Maybe we are political whether we like it or not, and to pretend otherwise and make this a place where we stick our heads in the sand would be an insult to us all.

I think Grundleplith is dead-on with this post, where they say "The main issue really is that stifling discussion will make some people angry, whereas a lack of filtering will hurt others."

Because, yeah: we're all in different places in our personal growth and development, and we don't all share the same passions/fears/concerns to the same degree. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does make this stuff difficult to navigate. I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there can really be one.

One thing we can do is constantly remind ourselves to be compassionate and understanding with each other (and ourselves!), even—especially—when it's hard. We can try to live the values of the ideal world we want.

That's not an answer or a solution, but it might be a way toward one.

~Neshomeh

Varied points by Tomash on 2018-03-25 21:47:00 UTC Reply

On political discussion in the PPC:

Like you said, this is tricky to navigate. I'm also not sure there's a good answer to "what should the state of political discussion in the PPC be?". However, I believe that we can generally keep things from spiraling out of control and that we don't need (and, per Plith, shouldn't) ban political topics entirely.

In other words, I'm not seeing "politics" as a problem that needs immediate solving, since we're doing a fairly good job of keeping a handle on it. The one thing I'm concerned about is the conflicting access needs around tragedies etc. that prompted the creation of #heavystuff, which is why I'm proposing an expansion of what you're expected to rot13 in chat to include that sort of thing.

Again, I think we can do (and generally are doing) a good job of self-regulating on this.

On our political lean:

Let's admit it: there are views (which are, at this time, a matter of politics) that will get you banned if you insist on holding/acting on them openly. For example, if someone kept intentionally (after being told to knock it off) using he/him pronouns for Delta after finding out she happened to be trans, they'd be out the door real fast because that violates Article 2 and we just won't have it here. There's a noticable number of people out there who think that operating this way is wrong (and a somewhat small subset of them who would say it's causing the end of civilization as we know it).

In addition, if we look at the political compass thread from January, we aren't a political monolith or massively intolerant, but we do seem to have something of a lean, especially towards being progressive on social issues. This could be a case of self-selection, given things like Article 2 in the constitution.

That being said, we have managed (and I'm not so pessimistic as to think we won't be able to do it in the future) to support a community of people with noticeably different views on, say, gun control without turning into an uncontrolled flamefest (#heavystuff partially excepted, since there were people in there trying to calm things down although it didn't work).

So, we could say the PPC is a rather tolerant place, but there are limits to that, which I'd like to think we've done a good job of articulating.

- Tomash

Perhaps 2 separate channels then? by Novastorme on 2018-03-25 18:52:00 UTC Reply

One for the lighter political stuff in the main chatting category that people would be happy with, and another for the heavier stuff in either it's own category or in a category with other, generally heavier stuff that could be ignored/blocked out by those that don't want to see it.

Also I vote for a writing stuff channel, but this might as well be just a formality considering the fact that I did suggest it.

I think #writing is a great idea (nm) by Quincy Jones on 2018-03-25 09:24:00 UTC Reply
#Writing gets my vote, too. (nm) by AC on 2018-03-25 00:59:00 UTC Reply
Another vote in favor of writing channel (nm) by Grundleplith on 2018-03-25 00:33:00 UTC Reply
Another vote for a #writing. by Granz the Ice Cream Monarch on 2018-03-25 00:29:00 UTC Reply

As for politics... I think a solution might be similar to what we might do with the Categories. If we could, perhaps, separate some channels off as ones where discussions about politics could be tolerated, without making a #politics. The idea behind this being that it would allow people who didn't want to get into politics to mute certain areas and avoid that kind of thing, but it wouldn't be the kind of please-talk-about-politics-here thing that #heavy_stuff was. And, I think, some sort of stop button or threshold. Like, calling a vote or something and over a certain threshold stopping the discussion and moving on to something else.

I like this idea and the #writing channel (nm) by Ozzielot on 2018-03-25 02:28:00 UTC Reply
I like the idea. Give bystanders a chance to be heard. (nm) by Grundleplith on 2018-03-25 00:34:00 UTC Reply

Advocating for a #writing channel by Thoth on 2018-03-25 00:23:00 UTC Reply

Beyond that, I'm staying out of this. I'm exhausted, and I'm got way too many irons in the fire to worry about this at present.

Well by SillyPhilly on 2018-03-25 00:07:00 UTC Reply

Why not just keep all political discussion at the door? Seriously, we riff on bad fan fiction. Collectively intelligent political discourse is out of our league.

I don't think that's feasible. by The Good Mod Addict on 2018-03-25 17:06:00 UTC Reply

One thing I've been learning over the past couple of years is that everything can be political in nature. Politics affects all of us, and it affects some of us more directly than others. Trying to ban all politics risks ignoring a crucial part of (at least some) people's lives, and I don't want to be part of a community that refuses to care about its members in that way.

Besides, the PPC is supposed to be a bit broader than just laughing at bad fan fiction. Ideally, we'd help each other write good stories with complex characters and worlds. Nobody's tried to talk about politics as it relates to writing fiction to my knowledge, but we don't want to discourage people from asking questions about writing. We should be doing the opposite.

My Opinions by Novastorme on 2018-03-24 22:52:00 UTC Reply

With regards to the current purpose of the PPC Discord Chat, Grimalkinii is right, it is *not* a place for anyone to come in and talk about original fiction to say it is is a massive mistake. What it is is a place for real time conversations about various things, both serious and inane, although the serious ones tend to end... badly. For a newbie coming in who just wants to talk writing, especially writing that doesn't involve the PPC Universe it is simply not suitable and as Grimalkinii says and I (for the most part) agree " I feel that the bottom line here is that the discord chat is barely even a writing community anymore and more of a political one focused on socialist ideology." But then, should it be? While the PPC Community as a whole promotes good writing, nowhere that I can see does it say that the Discord is a place to go for talking about writing. Should it be? Would a Writing Stuff channel be a good idea for those who want that sort of thing? Maybe. I don't know, it's just a suggestion that I think should at least be discussed. And it would put the writing back in writing community for the chat.

As to the rest of the post and the rest on the conversation at the moment, from the logs that are currently available I can see where people are coming from with regards to saying that Grimalkinii broke the Constitution, specifically Section One, Rule 4. But you never see any warning about strikes, you never see anyone telling Grimalkinii to check the Constitution as to why what they were doing could be seen as wrong. At the same time, I think that you could just as easily get Maslab under Section One, Rule One for not respecting Grimalkinii and kicking him 'because of his (Maslab's) blood pressure' and not respecting Grimalkinii and their views. In my opinion I would then question what should be done with Maslab's status as a mod. I think it also highlights the fact that the Constitution is, to me, not followed anywhere near as much as it should be on the Discord chat.

When it comes down to 'write your own badfic' for all of those pointing at the Constitution in this conversation while saying it's OK to write your own badfics, I'd suggest you read Section 7, more specifically Rule 25. But then again, that's just me.

Overall this complaint has made me realise several things. 1) I know I lurk in the Discord a lot of the time, but I should speak up more, especially when things are not right. 2) The Discord is flawed. Simple. Should it be removed? No. Should it still be called the PPC Discord chat? eh, I'm out on that one. My current idea is that we should split it into two, one for writing things, including RP like Rudi's and one for the chatting/community, that'd solve a lot of the problems I think. Name one the PPC Discord and the other The Chat Lounge (or something like that). 3) If Grimalkinii deserved to be kicked and banned from the Discord there are others who should also be kicked for breaking the Constitution (and I'm not just talking about Maslab, there are others too) 4) We need more permanent logs for Discord, even if it's just screenshots of posts before they're deleted/asked to be edited, we need to see them. 5) Maybe Des was right after all.

Novastorme.

Channels/servers (and logs) by Tomash on 2018-03-24 23:13:00 UTC Reply

I'm opposed to having two servers. The writing and community aspects of the PPC are rather intertwined, and I'd prefer to keep them together.

However, adding a #writing or similar would be a good idea, just to make it clear there's a place to discuss that sort of thing. I don't think we're in danger of having too many channels at the moment (too many channels can lead to channel-selection paralysis).

In addition, Discord recently added a "categories" system that lets you group channels. If we wanted to implement something like your split, we could possibly use the much lighter weight solution of grouping our channels some.

If anyone has any other suggestions for how to reorganize the chat, I'd invite them to post them here.

As to logs, Discord generally keeps a permanent record of anything that isn't deleted. However, unfortunately, the #heavy_stuff channel got deleted, which got rid of all the messages there. If we wanted editing and deletion-proof logs, there are bots for that (but there's also reasons that people might want things to be deletable - accidental/temporary posts of photos of themselves, for example).

- Tomash

The categories may work. by Novastorme on 2018-03-24 23:21:00 UTC Reply

With a third "landing zone" category for newbies to the Discord which explains everything to them instead of dropping them straight into the generic channel. I can understand why you don't want two servers, but despite saying the writing and community aspects are rather intertwined, that only seems to me to be true on the Board.

With regards to logs, I say that those bots would be useful for things like this, where having the logs is actually really important and I'd say it's important enough to overrule privacy at this point. For the things that people want deletable like personal photo's I'd say the PM's would be a better place for them. The bots wouldn't have any say there.

Novastorme.

Is it possible to manually delete stuff from the logs? (nm) by Mythcreant on 2018-03-25 01:18:00 UTC Reply
Replies by Tomash on 2018-03-24 23:34:00 UTC Reply

It's not like we don't talk about writing on the Discord. We've definitely had "could I get some advice on X in the thing I'm writing" discussions at times (we don't have too much of on the Board either), along with stuff like RP and "hey here's a badfic".

I'll add a vote for a "here's some info about how our server works (and a link to the Board/Constitution)" channel for newbies to land in. That info's currently sitting on the wiki, which isn't too discoverable.

I'm still considering whether some Discord channels need splitting (other than the addition of #writing). (#recsandplugs does double duty as the actual "recs and plugs" channel and the overflow badfic talk channel, for example). There seems to be a general principle, that, up to a point, having a channel about X in a server encourages people to talk about X. (I suspect this was a good chunk of the problem with #heavy_stuff, which I'll try and elaborate on elsewhere.)

Now, do we want to keep uneditable logs just in case this sort of incident comes up (where an entire channel got deleted)... I'm not sure. I'm not quite convinced that "people editing their way out of trouble" or "evidence getting deleted" (and the like) are common enough occurrences to make that sort of thing worth it.

- Tomash

Logs by Hieronymus Graubart on 2018-03-25 00:04:00 UTC Reply

Is there a way to “freeze” a channel, so that nobody can post on it, but the history is still available? Or to copy the log to an archive before the channel is deleted?

HG

There are a few methods by Tomash on 2018-03-25 00:08:00 UTC Reply

Someone with appropriate permissions could take away the permissions to post in a channel from @everyone. This is how #upstairs works at the moment (only people with the role "Moderator" can post in it).

It's also possible to take away @everyone's read access, thus additionally hiding the channel from view.

The channel contents could have been copied before deletion. It appears this wasn't done.

I agree that, in the future, if something like the #heavy_stuff deletion needs to happen again, logs should be kept. I propose that we avoid actually deleting channels in the future.

- Tomash

Re: writing your own badfic... by Iximaz on 2018-03-24 23:06:00 UTC Reply

When you point at the constitution here, it's not written in the context of creating badfic for missions. That's been done in the past, several times. When it says to write goodfic, it means... you know, fanfic-fanfic.

I'm otherwise staying out of this conversation because I don't want to get embroiled in more drama.

I was never aware that such a thing was really allowed by Novastorme on 2018-03-24 23:11:00 UTC Reply

Like sure, going after old shames. But creating badfics specifically for your missions? That feels just so wrong to me.

Ok, a few things. by Mikelus on 2018-03-24 22:01:00 UTC Reply

One, the Heavy_Stuff channel was removed for a very simple reason: in the week or so it was up, it had caused at least three major arguments and large amounts of drama. It was removed because the place for people to vent about the bad things happening had become a bad place for anyone not looking for an argument.

Two, the topic change mentioned was a very serious affair regarding a member. For the sake of privacy, I won’t give details, but I will say that they were shut down again because they were demanding an explanation from someone who was very clearly uncomfortable and did not want to give it. It was not as if they were shut down because it was them.

As for the final banning, it was the same sort of situation, with Delta clearly unhappy with what was being asked, and the demands for answers not stopping. Given the actions in HS shortly before that, it was clear to me at least that they were banned because they were repeatedly violating Section 1, Part 4 of the constitution.

Re: Ok, a few things. by Mythcreant on 2018-03-25 01:08:00 UTC Reply

I'm not sure that the desire to not talk to someone should be absolute. Of course, that's probably why mediation is in the constitution.

There was this guy I knew who said he wanted to be just like Christopher Columbus. When the situation was finally resolved it turned out it meant that he wanted to do something worthy of being remembered as a hero. He was just going off of what he was taught in school.

One girl in the group knew the true history where Columbus was a sociopathic monster. She called him some pretty nasty names without explaining why she was mad. The guy kept his cool and asked her why she was going off on him, but she walked away and demanded that he not come near her.

He was bothered about it, but there was nothing he could do. The girl told others that the guy wanted to torture people that he didn't consider human. It wasn't resolved until after he was beaten up.

I disagree. by Mikelus on 2018-03-25 01:28:00 UTC Reply

If you don’t want to talk to another member, then that should be allowed. If a situation is specifically making you uncomfortable, we have no right to force you to remain in that situation.

On the converse... by Mythcreant on 2018-03-25 02:06:00 UTC Reply

If your desire to not be in an uncomfortable situation puts someone else in an uncomfortable situation, what is supposed to happen?

On the demands by Ozzielot on 2018-03-24 22:57:00 UTC Reply

Was it actually clear to him? Did he get an explicit "No, I will not explain. Stop asking." or a "I am very uncomfortable talking about this, please stop pestering me." or even a "I don't think they're comfortable talking about it, so drop it"? I don't know about what happened in the HS channel, but the clear, explicit request to stop didn't seem to be present in the final ban. Or maybe I missed it.

I do not intend to mean that a person deserves it for not being clear about their refusal nor to mean that they are obligated to do so, but it would give Grimalkinii a clear message and if he kept pestering them, then Grimalkinii's ban would be less questionable (saying this because some people have objected to the ban at first).

Request for logs. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-24 19:14:00 UTC Reply

Could someone please find and make available any and all logs of the conversations Grimalkinii has referred to, up to when he was banned? These are some serious concerns, and ones that I'm sorry to say don't immediately ring false to me, so let's please take them seriously and get some more complete context for what happened. Then we'll see what, if anything, needs to be done next.

Thanks.

~Neshomeh

Here's the day-of... by Delta Juliette on 2018-03-24 20:04:00 UTC Reply

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KJdkOGfxDVEbtPBv0rLO-KXNCygyxzAT22Up47l4Vw/edit#heading=h.8nkdfsmmuocp

I don't have logs from the #heavystuff channel- I don't know if someone else grabbed them. Suffice to say, it was very fractious, although I strongly object to Grimalkinii's description of it as "dogpiling"- while everyone disagreed with them and Pentagon (who was a pretty obvious troll), there were multiple times where people said "hang on, let's let them reply".

It was rather disappointing, and having a channel for angry political arguing was wearing on everyone in the server, so we dropped it.

And as to the incident in which it is alleged that I took something as an "attack on my person"? I remember no such incident, and have searched through every message Grimalkinii made on the Discord in an attempt to either find it or jog my memory. The closest I could find was in the discussion of "prejudice and -phobia", which is in the link I posted earlier.

The discussion re. writing your own badfic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xfG-7GJNv9whz2052QgBjIOm36zznF58hkKvhc7xpII/edit#

As can be seen, there were a lot of reasonable points given too- I quote Calliope herself:

Calliope, Master Critfailer-02/21/2018
And Grim... yeah, I do see your point. I can so see how you get that, and I'm beginning to think you're kind of right. But the concept of "I need a thing to happen, how can I make it happen in a way that fits the overall arc" is something that all writers deal with - my method is "if I can't find what I need in a way that fits all the criteria needed" (which are that it has to be in a fandom both myself and the cowriter of this pair know, it has to be reasonably short, and it has to have a way to be non-combat-oriented in the takedown) "I will make the situation happen myself".

Which was, in my opinion, at least as nuanced as Grimakiini's position of:

Grimalkinii-02/21/2018
you're essentially engineering a situation so that what you want to happen can happen by writing your own fanfic and then writing a mission based on it. that's not really improving your writing in any regard.

The "she can do what she wants" started coming up not as an immediate response, but when Grimalkinii fell back to just repeating his same points without adding anything to the discussion.

(Also, Grimalkinii, if/when you read this- why did you use they/them pronouns for me consistently through your post, except in the "attack on her person" quote?)

All right, here's my first impressions. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-24 21:28:00 UTC Reply
1. It sucks that a ton of the record is missing. I support not allowing discussion of heavy Real-World topics in real time if it can't be done without descending into nastiness, which it seems was indeed the case, but the idea of there being a permanent record of what goes on in the Discord, and of the Board being informed of anything major like an allegedly offensive individual being banned, was a pretty big deal in previous discussions. I'm not terribly happy about that being forgotten.
  
  1.2 If heavy Real-World topics aren't up for discussion, that may impose some limits on how much you can educate people about sensitive issues that tend to get people riled up. Cute animal pictures only would mean cute animal pictures only. The Discord members should consider the implications of this before making any final decision on what they can and can't tolerate.
  
  2. In what there is left to go on, I don't see evidence of Grimalkinii acting in bad faith. Being in favor of gun ownership to some unknown extent does not automatically make someone a bad person. Asking questions and getting frustrated with the responses does not make someone a troll.
  
  3. I don't see evidence of Delta Juliette acting in bad faith, either. We have established previously that one is allowed to say no to a conversation, and no one is obligated to give their time or attention to anyone else.
  
  4. I have a problem with Maslab kicking Grimalkinii for the sake of "[Maslab's] blood pressure," without explaining to Grimalkinii why he was doing it or giving a warning first. I thought there was a three strikes policy of some sort; if there were previous warnings, there is no record of them. It looks to me like a serious abuse of power. That may be something we need to address further.
  
  5. I don't disagree with the banning of Pentagon, who doesn't appear to have even tried to be polite.
  
  6. I don't see anything objectionable in the conversation about writing your own badfic to spork. (I'm not a fan of the idea myself, but I think both viewpoints are valid and the choice may be left up to personal preference.)
  
  ... I think that's all I've got for now. If anyone else can shed more light on this, or wishes to give their impressions, they should do so—especially if you were not involved. Remember Article 13: the entire community is responsible for upholding the Constitution.
  
  ~Neshomeh

Thoughts and some info by Tomash on 2018-03-24 22:50:00 UTC Reply

On real-world heavy topics, I've like to point out we managed to have a rather civil conversation about gun control back in early March of 2017, so I'm certainly not calling for a "no politics"/"no heavy stuff" rule at this time. The discussion in #heavy_stuff was, from what I remember of it, rather inflamed by Pentagon's (and maybe some other people ... I won't try and name nams without the logs, since I eventually just left that whole debate) approach to it.

There not being a Board post about this ... yeah, come to think of it, why didn't that happen? I'd propose, as blanket policy, "chat kicks/bans are to be announced on the Board".

For extra context, the official announcements of the kicks (and then bans) in #upstairs were:

Maslab 🦊 - 03/05/2018
Pentagon has been kicked from the server: Multiple counts of purposefully stating incendiary statements designed to elicit an emotional response. A permanent ban is being discussed between the moderators.

Maslab 🦊 - 03/05/2018
Grimalkinii has been kicked for same.

PoorCynic - 03/05/2018 [later that day]
A permanent ban has been put into place for users Pentagon and Grimalkinii.

Now, to (mainly) my memory, there appeared to be an association between Pentagon and Grimalkinii. Among other things:
1) They showed up very close to each other (to the point that I wrote a "please introduce yourself on the Board" message aimed at both)
2) They both tended to use terminology like (rot13'd) "phpxrq", which is associated with the far-right, /pol/, and other groups of people that tend to violate Article 2
3) There was a general sense that Grimalkinii was backing up or joining on on Pentagon's almost-certainly-trolling, especially since they both had a few cases of "I insist you talk/keep talking to me" Article 4-violating behavior (and tended to agree with each other's points).
[there might be other factors applicable here, but that's what I can think of at the moment]

Now, it's possible that this was all a really unfortunate coincidence and we banned a newbie because they shared an arrival time and political views with someone who very clearly needed banning. However, I would say there was enough evidence of a Pentagon/Grimalkinii association that we can't claim the mods were acting unreasonably or terribly out of line based on the information they had.

- Tomash

P.S.: Assuming Mikel is right about what incident "We then switched the topic and asked another member about something they had said; we were outright told to change the subject by the same admin or be banned right then and there." refers to, I confirm that the moderators' response of "Drop the topic. Now." was entirely appropriate.

After checking with Tomash, it was the same topic. (nm) by Mikelus on 2018-03-24 23:23:00 UTC Reply

Thanks. by Neshomeh on 2018-03-24 20:28:00 UTC Reply

I've read through the first log. The second link seems to be permission-locked, though.

Also, what are the THIS graphics? Were those added in to highlight stuff for our benefit, or were they part of the original posts?

~Neshomeh

The "this"es are reactions to messages by Tomash on 2018-03-24 20:34:00 UTC Reply

They're usually small graphics that show up under messages when people decide to add them (next to each "this" there's a number saying how many were added, and you can hover over them/right click the message and check "Reactions" to see who reacted that way). From the looks of it, the process of copying the chat into a Google doc made them a lot larger than usual.

- Tomash, answering miscellaneous technical questions
"THIS" is a response... by Delta Juliette on 2018-03-24 20:31:00 UTC Reply

It's a concept that Discord has, you can attach little emoji to posts to add lightweight agreement/disagreement/whatever. They're huge in the copy-paste- in-channel, they looked like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tp8dps9jwk9ho8z/discord-reactions.png?dl=0