Subject: Yeah, elaboration would be nice
Author:
Posted on: 2018-01-24 05:35:00 UTC
I am mostly a lurker, I know, but I would also like more info. Especially since this isn't the first time I have seen that name mentioned in relation to a supposed pattern of drama.
Dear Discord,
It has been brought to my attention that following recent events, a particular member of the PPC doesn't like, and is angry at, Iximaz. And that's fine - I mean, it's always sad when people don't get on, but we're not the Emotion Police here.
What's not fine is when they repeatedly use the Discord channel to attempt to influence other people against Iximaz, who was not present (and had made it clear they would not be present). That crosses a line, is beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, and goes against the spirit of Article 9 of the Constitution. I accept that they did this for emotional, not malevolent reasons, but that doesn't make it okay.
It is to the Discord's credit that, as a whole, you did not engage with the attempt, and that at least one person made the effort to shut it down. Thank you.
Unfortunately, a third member of the PPC took the opportunity to make a direct attack on Iximaz, again in their absence. They said something that they absolutely would not have said to Iximaz's face, and which attacks them for a repeatedly-stated mental health issue. That is not acceptable, and it is dismaying to me that nobody on the Discord spoke up to point this out.
I think that apologies are appropriate from the two PPC members referenced here: the one for attempting to sway the Discord channel against Iximaz, and the other for the direct attack. I was always taught that part of apologising is admitting what you've done wrong, so I will give them the opportunity to do the right thing without being named; but I do have the chat transcript if it is needed.
I also think that the Discord regulars need to think very hard about how they react to this sort of activity. Letting attacks and bad behaviour slide should never be acceptable, regardless of who is on either side, and it's dismaying that this was pretty much brushed under the rug.
The official Constitution has been updated with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments - AKA the Harassment and Discussion Amendments. It also now lists the Chitchat Amendment as rejected, and I've updated the list of signatures too.
Somehow, we managed to keep the whole thing in exactly the same number of Articles (29), though the Sections have increased by two. Given how broad the changes are, it's probably wise to go and give it another read.
hS
Some incorrect article numbers are referred to:
- 23 should refer to itself, not 19; there is a 19, and it's important!
- 25 should refer to 15 and... 24, maybe?
Also, I noticed Article 17 says "Before you actually post anything anywhere, however, you should post on the Board at least once," which is a little confusing. I'm guessing this means "please say hi on the Board before getting heavily involved in the Wiki or Discord"?
I'm hoping this can be a quick fix and not require another vote.
~Neshomeh
Full text for reference:
The PPC is a vast sprawling mess, so it’s perfectly fine to lurk around on the Board and the Wiki for a while before committing yourself. Before you actually post anything anywhere, however, you should post on the Board at least once to introduce yourself and receive whatever gifts people have for you.
For the second sentence, what about:
Before you jump into any community activities, however, please post on the Board at least once to introduce yourself and receive whatever gifts people have for you.
I think that covers what we actually want: lurking is fine, but make sure we know who you are if you're gonna do stuff.
~Neshomeh
I'll fix this and the numbers on Monday.
hS
I also checked over the other Article Number references, and patched a few of them up, too.
hS
But then again, I'm not too good at judging this type of thing. I especially can't predict if I'll end up bringing any of this on my head, so apologies in advance.
Yep. It's decided. I'm not going to partake in the Discord. Hearing about Discord drama on the Board throws me for enough of a loop already.
-Twistey
In terms of the harassment and trolling stuff, what would go too far in a Badfic Games fic and in the interactions between our badficcer alter egos? I'd like to know so I can avoid it next time.
-Twistey
Common sense has sufficed so far, but then it always does until it doesn't.
So, for starters, remember it's supposed to be silly fun, not a competition to see who can say the most hurtful things. Don't take it seriously, and don't mean it seriously. If you're not sure something is okay, don't do it. If you find yourself veering from comedy insults against fictional personas into actual insults against real people, then you need to stop.
And, of course, if someone tells you you've gone too far—maybe you came up against a personal issue, maybe you actually crossed a line—then stop, apologize, and don't do it again. Making a mistake doesn't have to be the end of the world.
~Neshomeh
I'll restate my approval for the Harassment Amendment and the Discussion Amendment, even if they get shuffled around a bit.
I've left some comments on the Harassment Amendment.
For the Discussion Amendment, perhaps 20 might go better as 17.5? I think it's related closely enough to the "please talk about things and don't just post bare links" point. (20 is such a nice number, though, if that's what it ends up being.)
I agree that the Chitchat Amendment is unnecessary and thus disapprove.
~Neshomeh
Harassment Amendment
See the document. The following points are currently being discussed:
-Does Article 4 need a rider about harassment in someone's absence?
-What should we add to Article 8 to highlight that flaming/trolling in the PPC's name is Bad? The current suggestion reads: The PPC does not condone any form of trolling or flaming, of anyone.
-In Article 10, can we strike the last sentence?
-Should the following sentence be struck from Article 11: Remember the foundation of respect that the PPC community is built on (see Article 1).
-Should Article 13 be cut, and its first sentence appended to Article 10?
Current Ratifications: Huinesoron, Tomash, doctorlit, Neshomeh, Thoth, Matt Cipher, twistedwindowpane, The Good Mod Addict.
Ratifications from previously: Hieronymus Graubart, Scapegrace, Aegis(?)
Current status: 11(10?)/12 ratifications; probably can be considered ratified unless major changes occur/someone disapproves.
Discussion Amendment:
Section Four: On Thy Topics Of Discussion
16. If you feel something (e.g. a story, some news, a website, a salmon cannon) might be of interest to the PPC, please go ahead and bring it up. Don't worry about your interests being too eclectic, either — someone's likely to be interested.
17. The PPC community thrives on discussion, and wastes away in its absence. When you post a thread on the Board, try to do so in a way that encourages discussion and interaction. If you're posting links, you're encouraged to expand on them somewhat.
17.5 The PPC has always been about having a good laugh at badfic, so feel free to talk about it, and post links if you find something you think is worth sharing. If there's a thread about badfic on the top half of the front page already, go ahead and add to that - otherwise, feel free to create your own! (And when replying to a thread about badfic, or reviewing a badfic, please remember Article 2!)
18. That doesn't mean the PPC is Serious Business! Silliness and insanity are welcome here — even encouraged. Feel free to leave your sanity at the door. Most PPCers do.
19. There is no Article 19.
I feel 17.5 might need a bit of tweaking to account for its position as a rider, but it can also stand as it is. (Nesh - the Harassment Amendment changes these numbers anyway).
Current ratifications: Huinesoron, Thoth, Tomash, doctorlit, The Good Mod Addict, Neshomeh, twistedwindowpane.
Ratifications from previously: Iximaz.
Current status: 8/8. Will be ratified unless disapproved of.
Chitchat Amendment:
(As Article 17.5 in the Discussion Amendment, or 23 in the current Constitution)
17.5. Sometimes, a discussion between just a few people takes on epic proportions. If this happens, it might be best to take it to the Lounge, or to private emails, rather than consume the Board with your enthusiasm.
Current disapprovals: Huinesoron, Thoth, Tomash, doctorlit, Neshomeh, The Good Mod Addict.
Current status: Yeah, I think we can class this as officially rejected.
More comments are always most welcome. The best Constitution is one that as many people as possible have contributed to.
hS
Okay, first thing's first. I admit I was involved in this to some extent, and I apologize for anything I did that may have caused harm. I especially want to apologize for this specific comment I made:
GoodModAddict - Last Monday at 12:09 AM
TL;DR a newbie came, Drama happened twice, and he left and Iximaz decided to leave the Discord but stay in the PPC. Iximaz will probably be taking a break.
As Quincy pointed out, that wasn't the full story, and I knew that at the time. I was trying to respond quickly to Mattman, who was confused by the conversation, without giving out information that (while possibly relevant) would violate trust some people have placed in me. In doing so, I only caused more drama, and I'm sorry about that. For what it's worth, I also think it's a good thing that Quincy called me out immediately.
Instead of posting what I did, I should not have posted anything at all. I should have waited for somebody else to summarize what happened and continued the conversation from there.
With that out of the way, I ratify the Harassment and Discussion Amendments. However, I agree with everyone else who's commented so far about the third amendment. The Board has too little going on as it is, and limiting what people can post when there isn't even a problem (as far as I can see) would be counter-productive. I reject the Chitchat Amendment until there actually becomes a problem with people misusing the Board.
...And I'm glad I did, I'd rather stay out of this argument (though on the off chance I accidentally insult someone while in the chat, I want to apologize beforehand, I have a bad habit of saying/doing things without thinking.)
And while we're on it, I've noticed that the atmosphere here has gotten rather toxic and I'm sick of it. That and the prevalence towards angst in the current PPC missions. Character development is fine, but what's wrong with a little levity?
Sorry, I just wanted to get this all out...
-OpinionedAngel, fed up.
Uh.. yeah. That's part of why I loved July's mission so much. It was just... FUN. I'd forgotten what that was like. And it's something that has definitely influenced my own writing, although it certainly won't be properly joyous.
It's important to remember how to be silly, even if you're not actually writing something goofy.
I am very tired of drama. I have offhandedly whinged about it quite a few times, before, and I find it disappointing that it's just so consistent.
So, I was miffed. I was miffed that another drama - which I thought was over with - was brought back into conversation. I was miffed that I attempted (weakly, I admit, and an attempt that I immediately went back on, myself) to drive conversation away from it and it was immediately brought back.
But miffedness is really all I have going for me. I was annoyed and my blathering gob said something completely unnecessary, which added nothing to the conversation, help cool it down, or anything. I didn't think big of it at the time, but, well, somebody was hurt and them being hurt can be tied directly to something I said.
So, I apologise for that. I didn't need to say what I said - could've just, I don't know, gotten off the computer, squeezed a stressball or whatnot - but I said it. Don't have anything nice to say, don't say it, and so on. I never want to be the person who's hurting someone or getting involved in dramas (the irony being that I have now enrolled myself in one) but there it is. Good effort on my part.
Sorry. I expressed myself immaturely and I won't do it again.
The Harassment Amendment
I've left a few comments in the GDoc (which is open for anyone to comment in, hint hint), but my vote is to ratify it, overall. I don't think anyone could argue we don't need it, in light of these situations sometimes occurring.
The Discussion Amendment
I also ratify this. More discussion leads to more thinking, which leads to smarter, more well-rounded PPCers. And I need all your brains as developed as possible before I can connect the entire community into a story-developing think tank.
The Chitchat Amendment
I can remember massive text chains between only two people happening, uh, once, or maybe even twice? And since the Board displays each page based on number of root posts only, and not response posts, it should hardly matter. I don't feel this amendment is necessary or productive, so I disapprove.
Dear Discord
I don't want to talk too long about this, partly because I wasn't present (or was busy on another screen at the time, if I was in fact in the Discord at the time these events took place), and partly because I feel it's being resolved as this thread goes on. I will briefly say that I don't see the comments posted as being serious or incendiary enough for me to view this situation as anything more than hurt feelings being expressed. I do, however, agree with Neshomeh that the individual who reported the conversation to Iximaz, seemingly with the intent to create conflict, does owe an apology to at least Iximaz and the other two parties, if not all of us.
—doctorlit, hopefully staying as diplomatic as he feels
The harassment amendment as written seem good enough. It's not perfect, and I might have some comments on how to tweak it later, but I think I'd be happy with it going in.
The discussion amendment is good to go (I helped write it, after all).
The chatter amendment seems unnecessary and a bad idea, and I think it'd stifle discussion by making people worried about having their conversations be "too long" or drive good discussions off the Board that other people want to see. If that situation comes up, we can poke people on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't need to be in the rules.
- Tomash
First of all, thank you to the people who supported me. I believe it was Maxewell who provided and alternative explanation on my comments and I have to say that he was right on the money. I hate myself for how I acted during the whole shebang and I cannot apologize for my insensitivity enough.
Also, I want to make it very clear that I DO NOT HATE IXIMAZ. I am upset, yes, and angry, but I make NO accusation and I expect NO ONE to share my views. And I am so hurt that someone could think that of me. Why didn't you just come to ME? I wouldn't... I didn't even know this was an issue. I would have apologized and explained in a heartbeat. This isn't... This was never what I wanted and it kills me that this made it to the Board as a real issue before I even knew somebody thought I was out of line.
I could have found a way to contact you to discuss your part in this; that would have been better, but it didn't occur to me. I'm sorry.
hS
And I've seen the log, which I very, very much appreciate.
What I see there is a hurt, upset kid (Quincy and Sprinkles are both about 14, I think?) being hurt and upset and maybe looking for support and reassurance.
I also see their accurate perception that people tend to unconditionally favor Iximaz over all comers--note Mattman's comment "Just how bad was the newbie?" indicating that anyone who doesn't get on with Ix MUST be bad. (And preemptive apologies if I'm reading it wrong, but it does seem telling.)
I also see Larfen's accurate perception that Ix leaving has happened before, and may logically be predicted to happen again. Could he have expressed it more kindly? Sure. But I'm here to tell you he's not the only one getting frustrated with cyclical drama.
I also see Iximaz in the Discord, making passive-aggressive, emotionally manipulative remarks, when they'd said they were going to stay out of the Discord. I thought that was a good, responsible decision. I want to know why they weren't called on not sticking to it. I also want to know why someone thought it would be a good idea to run and tattle to them in the first place. Did you really think that would result in anything good, for Ix or for anyone else? Why?
Because as Ix is a member of this community, so Ix is responsible for their behavior, just like the rest of us, and so we are responsible for holding them accountable. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enabling someone with a problem is not helpful to them. All of you, stop it.
~Neshomeh
And I also have to note that this was exactly the same pattern that led to JulyFlame leaving. We as a community have to learn from that, and it doesn’t feel like we have.
I'm getting the message that this isn't the first time that this sort of drama pattern has happened. If someone can explain, it would be greatly appreciated. I want to make as informed a judgement as I can regarding this.
I am mostly a lurker, I know, but I would also like more info. Especially since this isn't the first time I have seen that name mentioned in relation to a supposed pattern of drama.
No summary would be adequate, and I don't believe rehashing everything would be constructive at this time. I'm not having this turn around into a big blow-out in the other direction. It's not warranted.
If you all really want all the information, we do have an archive. You are free to look through it and see everything in context there.
~Neshomeh
Can I maybe get a link? To the general archives I mean. I would be interested in reading as much of ppc history is available, not just about this.
Wanting more information is always good; it's just that there's so much of it, and impossibly nuanced.
Rendered archive is here. It only goes back to mid-2008, alas, because that's as far back as Tomash could get when YourWebApps decided to remember they don't save everything forever. There's also here, which has everything in Google spreadsheets and stretches back further, but only includes subject headlines before mid-2008, and even then those years are incomplete.
Have fun, we'll see you in about five years. ^_~
~Neshomeh
Uh...
Wow. This. Absolutely this. Thank you, Nesh. I entirely support everything you just said.
Assuming that part of the 'all of you, stop it' was directed at me, I will now stop commenting on that part of the thread. People are perfectly able to look at the situation without my input.
hS
And I am sorry, because I know you're doing the best you can in a crappy position and it's not your fault someone decided you were the one to rope in.
I'm just about fed up, is all, and I have to do the best I can.
~Neshomeh
the general commentary about Iximaz, I did not, and still do not believe that it was meant as an attack on their person. Given what happened which made them leave in the first place, which, I'm just going to paraphrase here, "amounted to a painful and horrible situation", I don't think that anyone in the PPC is angry towards Ix for what happens.
I tried to distract from the commentary, because frankly, I thought it could lead into a bigger discussion, which should be on the Board or someplace where everyone could see it.
tl;dr: I think it might've been blown out of proportions, but I can see why the comments could be seen as an attack.
I support the first two amendments, but not the third, for basically the same reasons hS did.
As for the Discord thing... as someone who went and read the logs, that is a massively warped view of what happened, and I don't find it accurate at all. Nobody in any way had any intention of turning Discord against Ix. In fact, here's the tail of a response to Ix from the person who doesn't like Ix (sadly, Ix was already gone and didn't see it):stop with the "I'm not welcome". That's my line. You are more welcome here than I ever was, and the only thing about that I begrudge you of is that you can't see it.
In fact, the individual said repeatedly that they would be glad to see Ix return, even if that meant they would no longer feel comfortable staying.
As for the "direct attack on Iximaz," I once again find this to be blown far out of proportion of what was actually said, unless I miss my mark on what you're referring to.
I have nothing further to say in this conversation, and no further remarks to make. My blood pressure does not need more of this drama.
Thoth out.
But as the Constitution makes very clear, the health of the PPC Community depends on people speaking up when they see a problem. I was shown a potential problem; I sought out the rest of the information; I agreed that there was a problem; and I spoke up.
The 'massively warped view' you speak of is my own, so thanks for that.
hS
I don't bedgrudge you for speaking up, hS. However, I do find your read of the situation inaccurate, speaking as someone who was at there for part of it.
I sincerely apologize for offending you if I did so. I know I can speak rashly sometimes, and genuinely didn't mean to insult or hurt you.
As the entirety of the log has been posted already- I can confirm, at least from memory that's how it went down- can someone please point out the Horrible No-Good Drama?
Here's Quincy Jones' five problematic comments from the 21st:
--Agreeing with the concern expressed by two other users, but making sure people know that they're angry.--
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:02 PM
I'm also worried (I know, I know, why the heck is Quincy of all people worried, it's her darn fault in the first place). I'm still angry, but... I'm worried.
--Sympathising with another user, but making sure people know why they're angry.--
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:06 PM
hugs a GMA
Sprinkles is gone forever, by the way. Not from life... but he's never coming back to the PPC.
--On the back of a summary of the relevant events, making sure people know that there are other wounded parties.--
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:11 PM
That is not the full story, but it's not my place to tell it.
--Following a request to drop the subject, making sure people know that they don't want to drop the subject, and setting up a 'me or Ix' conflict - not again that Iximaz was not present.--
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:13 PM
sighs Honestly I feel like we're just whitewashing over the issue, but since the relevant people have left, I'll let it lie.
But... I'll be really happy if Iximaz comes back to y'all. I will be, honest. Y'all deserve to have them back. It's just... if they do return, it's probably going to be "you guys" instead of "us".
--With no real additional context, making sure people know they're still angry, and still don't want to drop the subject.--
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:16 PM
sighs again
gets angry
This may be over for y'all, but it'll haunt me for the rest of my life.
In isolation, some of these posts are understandable (making people aware that Mr. Sprinkles won't be returning, or highlighting that the description offered isn't entirely complete). But with the five of them coming in a 15 minute period, despite repeated requests from other people to drop the subject (and these are Quincy's only comments in that time period, followed by one that said 'Agreed [to topic change]. Apologies for inciting.'), there is a very clear picture being built up of someone who wants to be sure nobody forgets that they Have A Problem with Iximaz.
I will hold off on commenting on the other person I mentioned until they have a chance to reply for themselves.
~
Is this Horrible No-Good Drama? No - that's hyperbole on your part. But this is a problem, and one that has the potential to escalate. Rather than waiting for it to come to that, I felt it was far more sensible to nip a relatively small issue in the bud.
hS
To the first comment: Considering that Quincey was on the other side of the drama the last time, that comment wasn't ridiculous to make.
To the second comment: Nothing about this comment is an issue as far as I can see. It was related to the discussion, and was not written in a way to stir up drama. If anything, it was letting everyone know that that side of the previous drama is closed.
To the third comment: that was before the request to drop the subject, and in response to a very simplified summary of what had happened in the previous drama. The request to drop came two messages later.
To the fourth comment: This was the actual response to the request to drop it. At worst, this reads as a bit of ranting, and it is mostly due to the simplified summary not including anything of Sprinkles' side of the story.
And to the fifth comment: This could be an issue, maybe, if the conversation was talking about Ix at this point. Quincey, at the least, and most of the chat in general, had moved the discussion to Sprinkles. Not Ix, but Sprinkles.
The fact that Quincey apologized afterwards, and that the chat in general shut down the conversation when it began to be an issue, shows that there isn't really a problem there. The community did what we should have done, and trying to follow up events which should just be allowed to die with this is not going to help.
You say: Quincey, at the least, and most of the chat in general, had moved the discussion to Sprinkles.
That... isn't true. Absolutely, at 11:06 (by the transcript), the conversation moved to Mr. Sprinkles, but at 11:13 Quincy Jones moved it back to Iximaz (in the fourth comment). Larfen then continued to discuss Iximaz, and Good Mod Addict's 'they' cannot refer exclusively to Mr. Sprinkles without some seriously contorted reading. At best it could refer to both (as 'the relevant people have left'), but the most natural read is that 'it's not a question of deserving' - as a reply to 'y'all deserve to have [Iximaz] back' - confirms the whole comment as a reference to Iximaz.
Quincy Jones' comment #5 directly follows that point. The conversation was very clearly about Iximaz at that moment.
~
I do not feel that using a PPC public space to say 'I'm angry at [person who isn't here]' is ever acceptable. I would be and have been deeply upset when people have done that to me, and I'm sure most people would be.
hS
Alright. I'm not gonna say anything on the amendments, or even the event on Discord. I do not have enough caffeine in my system for that. However, I would propose that the relevant text from the 21st of January, or any other day being referenced, be screenshotted and copied so everyone knows exactly what's going on.
Here is what I was given. The editorial comments are not mine.
hS
Thoth's last message was in response to an image (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/177121066823450624/405060401294868483/image.jpg) that was apparently cut out by the copy&paste.
If so, it was never my intent to turn anybody against Iximaz. I know you guys love them; I'd never want to do that. Never. I personally do not like them very much, but... they're your friend, and you're their friends. I would never intentionally try to defame anybody within this community. If you'll see my messages on the chat, I never said anything bad about them- and I never wanted to.
During the conversation on (I believe) the 21st, you made five separate comments to remind everyone present that you were angry at Iximaz. The way you present them makes it clear that you want people to come around to your viewpoint:
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:11 PM
That is not the full story, but it's not my place to tell it.
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:13 PM
sighs Honestly I feel like we're just whitewashing over the issue, but since the relevant people have left, I'll let it lie.
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:16 PM
sighs again
gets angry
This may be over for y'all, but it'll haunt me for the rest of my life.
You repeatedly raised and re-raised the point that you are angry at Iximaz. You didn't do this to try and resolve things with Iximaz, because Iximaz wasn't there. You didn't do it in a way that suggested you were looking for people to help you work through that anger. You did it in a way that suggested you were trying to make sure everyone remembered that (in your view) Iximaz Done Wrong.
As I said, I have no problem with you not liking Iximaz. What I have a problem with is you repeatedly bringing up the fact that you don't like Iximaz, in a way which can only result in either you getting told to stop - or people coming round to your point of view.
hS
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:11 PM
That is not the full story, but it's not my place to tell it.
I saw that comment as being irked at the fact that however the drama was being referred to in chat wasn't accurate.
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:13 PM
sighs Honestly I feel like we're just whitewashing over the issue, but since the relevant people have left, I'll let it lie.
To me, this comment makes me think the same thing - just going over a couple points of the incident does not cover it in its entirety, and that can be, frustrating.
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:16 PM
sighs again
gets angry
This may be over for y'all, but it'll haunt me for the rest of my life.
I see this at anger aimed at Quincy, herself. I thought it was anger at herself, because saying that it would haunt her means that she feels regret about the situation. I'll check in a bit, but I am overwhelmingly certain that there are logs to confirm that this anger is directed at herself.
- Maxewell's take on things
Please do provide those logs, because as matters stand, that is not a natural read of the situation. Quincy Jones mentions being angry twice, and the first one is very clearly anger directed at Iximaz.
Quincy Jones-Yesterday at 11:02 PM
I'm also worried (I know, I know, why the heck is Quincy of all people worried, it's her darn fault in the first place). I'm still angry, but... I'm worried.
hS
Harassment Amendment: I think this is generally good. It may be a bit long, and I feel that the language used in article 4 (on Harassment itself) is probably too specific, accidentally excluding types of harassment that aren't listed.
I would also like to find somewhere to include language along the lines of: You do not have the right to someone's time or attention. Everyone has the right to prioritise their own mental wellbeing, including cutting off communication with others if that communication is damaging to them. Not sure where it would go, though.
Discussion Amendment: We hashed this out fairly recently. I would ratify this.
Chitchat Amendment: This was pulled out from the Harassment Amendment (since it addresses something entirely separate). I don't think this is a problem we actually face, and I think I have to disapprove of its inclusion; the Board is quiet enough that a 'private' chat can actually be invigorating, and can draw in other people.
hS
