Subject: Thoughts
Author:
Posted on: 2012-07-26 23:33:00 UTC
Seems good, but (takes deep breath)
I am not sure if the sections of part one clear with Article 12. The problem I see is that anyone who doesn’t support gay rights, and all their opinion on said topic, are labeled as homophobic. The problem I see with this is that this effect, combined with the proposed amendment, would stop serious, two sided, discussion on that matter.
The original thread is beginning to sink with all these new ones popping up, and that's caused a lack of commenting on it and new additions and/or changes, so please forgive me, SeaTurtle, for snagging your thread and popping it up top here.
I made a few minor changes to the last version that was made by AstralVoid:
1. Discrimination and persecution of any kind will not be tolerated, especially on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion. We will not tolerate individual people or groups who intentionally oppress, persecute, other, use or otherwise attack others in any way, shape or form, for any reason.
2. Do not flame. There is a distinct difference between 'I don't agree with your opinion and I think that your theory is factually wrong' and 'You're an idiot and your opinion is built on lies and stupidity'. If you find that you're hurling insults around, just stop. In addition, we don't tolerate anyone making jokes about topics like rape, murder, abuse, bigotry and mental health issues.
3: People engaged in any of the above will be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise. Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance. Giving someone a chance means informing them their behavior is wrong or unwanted as according to our Constitution and why, as per Rule 7.
4: All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult, or persecute others (see 1) are welcome. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Should a debate escalate into an argument for any reason, everyone involved should step back and calm down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely.
5: If someone says something that seems offensive, but you’re not sure exactly what they meant, ASK them first, before jumping down their throats. Astonishingly enough, most people aren’t out to offend anyone. (If they are being deliberately insulting, believe me, you’ll have a lot of backup.) Don't be afraid to ask what someone meant- it isn't silly to want the full facts.
6: If you find it impossible to get along with another member of the PPC, please take it up in private e-mail. However, the rules of civility and respect do not end off the Board; harassing others by private means is just as serious as harassing them in public- if not more so, and will be treated as such. Don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and don’t say anything about another PPCer you wouldn’t say to their face. Remember, if you have to ask yourself if you’ve gone too far, you probably have. Everyone should do their best to be as civil as possible while on the Board.
7: The PPC as a community is responsible for upholding the Constitution. If you see someone breaking any of the rules and guidelines herein, please ask them to stop (politely, though) and explain why. If this doesn't resolve the situation, you will be backed up - and if it continues, a persistent rule-breaker should be shunned or asked to leave the Board. (If you're being accused of breaking a rule, take a step back and, if you are in the wrong, stop, apologise, and move on. Grudges are no fun!)
8: Everyone on the Board should be respected as people, regardless of who they are. The opinions of a newbie are just as valid and wanted as those of someone here for four years. Everyone deserves respect until they show themselves to be unashamedly disrespectful themselves, which means people who show disrespect and discrimination as per Rule 1 do not warrant respect based on those views. This does not mean you are allowed to descend into flaming and insulting them, but instead should follow Rule 7.
9: All discovered mimes will be thrown into a pit, which may or may not be filled with various objects such as scorpions upon their availability.
9.5: There will be no clemency for these mimes until they learn the words.
Thoughts, changes, or agreement that we've reached something suitable would be a great idea so we can get this all sorted out, sooner than later, yeah?
Did someone say that the rule "Don't tell other people their opinions are wrong" is a shield for bullies?
I don't think it is. Can't you tell a bully to not bully without addressing the rightness of either his/her or the victim's opinion? Can't you just say, "Nobody's going to win; let's just stop now; this subject is off the Board; please keep it there"?
Just because someone's opinion makes someone else feel bad doesn't mean we can't have them, for fear that we make others unhappy.
Yes. Bigot is an insult. Even if it's true. I don't know if it is. I'm just pointing out the connotation.
Have you read through the multiple discussion threads we've had on this? You are essentially advocating a hands-off approach where we let bigots off the hook for being bigots. Intolerance needs to be called out or it will breed and fester. We need to say, without equivocation or hesitation, that they are wrong. It's not because we're trying to beat them in an argument, it's to establish an environment where bigotry is unacceptable and frowned upon. Bigotry is not a victimless crime.
I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. I suppose it's an insult. But it's a well deserved one, e.g. in Jacer's case. I will call a spade a spade.
Yes, I read through the discussion threads, and I disagree with some of it. I was just checking to see if the new Constitution was going to go through.
No, I thought we would just tell everyone the discussion was unproductive and move on. I can easily see this turning into something where the majority can take the majority opinion and whack the minority over the head with it until it flees or falls unconscious or begs for mercy, whichever comes first.
It's not that we're nasty people. The PPC just feels very strongly about these things. And letting people go on the loose about things they feel so strongly about doesn't tend to end well.
I don't agree with everything Artell's said on this thread, or even everything that's been said on this thread (and others) in general, so I'm only speaking for myself, here.
Neshomeh and Phobos, I believe, are correct in thinking that there's a tendency at the moment to assume the worst in comments that you disagree with. I think the only way to combat this is to communicate as clearly as we possibly can, especially on issues of sensitivity, such as this one. So I'm going to try and be as clear as I know how.
Did someone say that the rule "Don't tell other people their opinions are wrong" is a shield for bullies?
I don't think it is. Can't you tell a bully to not bully without addressing the rightness of either his/her or the victim's opinion? Can't you just say, "Nobody's going to win; let's just stop now; this subject is off the Board; please keep it there"?
See, this creates a few issues. The first issue is that sometimes, expressing an opinion is a way of bullying. I think I addressed this somewhere down the line, and I'm sure others have as well. For example, someone may have a personal opinion, held with great conviction, that Latter Day Saints are a terrible, evil cult, and their religion should be illegal. This is an opinion that is incredibly bullying to the LDS PPCers. However, you are right in that nobody can, with any effectiveness, really go "That opinion is wrong!" We all know how that one ends; when you tell someone their opinion is wrong, in almost all cases, they double down and things get ugly.
But what is a valid response is "That opinion is bigoted, by way of marginalizing a group of people based on their religion, and you shouldn't be expressing it here."
I will try to be as clear as I can here, one of the very few places where I can speak with certainty. When someone is being a bully and a bigot, when their behavior is harming others, it is not wrong to tell them. There are a series of videos that went around the web some time ago about telling people their behavior was a problem without insulting them. As in, there's a difference between "That joke you just made was racist," and "You're a racist."
And this is where the "Chance to apologize/back off" part comes in. The difference between someone being a bully and engaging in bullying optionis is what happens next. For example:
Person A: Catholics and Canadians are terrible people!
Person B: Wow, that's really a pretty offensive thing to say. [Links to Constitution] Can you please not say stuff like this here?
Person A has some options, here, and they can be broken down into three basic scenarios. One, there is no response, and the thread drops off the Board. That's not ideal, but it's not a bad way to let things go. The other two are basically as follows:
Scenario 1:
Person A: But it's just my opinion! My religion is opposed to Catholicism, and you can't tell me what to believe! And being Canadian is objectively sinful and wrong!
Person B: ...Yeah, see, we have Catholics and Canadians on this Board, and you're being really rude and cruel to them. If you don't stop, you will be asked to leave.
This is an example of What Not To Do.
Scenario 2:
Person A: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone, it's just a private belief. I'll keep that rule in mind in the future.
This is the way to respond. If Person A wants to continue discussing, after they have apologized, they should be very careful. But it's not a silencing tactic, it's a means to keep people from attacking and hurting others.
Do you understand what I mean, here?
That way it's the declaration of opinion that's being targeted and stopped, because its potential negative effect on others--not the person.
This is good.
I apologize for not realizing this. I posted without the usual amount of proofreading, due to various amounts of stress and time-lacking. I should add - two things, actually.
First: We're all intelligent people here, and people who, I gather, somewhat value intelligence. If someone's opinion is clearly, subjectively wrong, they might double down and gnash their teeth, but that shouldn't... factual inaccuracies are not things to argue about. The Church of Latter Day Saints is not an evil cult, and Catholicism is not an evil cult, and being LGBT is not a choice. Things like sin, ethics, morals, squick-threshholds, etc... those are subjective, and rather more applicable to the post above this one. Person B would've been well within their rights to go "That's really offensive, [Link], please don't say that, also it's completely incorrect, and here is factual evidence to that effect."
Second: This bothered me the first time I read your post, but being short on time, I left it out. I would like to say it here, though.
Calling someone a bigot may be insulting. It may be insulting even if it's true. But quite frankly, if someone says something bigoted, insists they've done nothing wrong, and actively bullies people based on their sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, etc, they are being a bigot. I think if this is the case, if someone refuses to acknowledge that their behavior is harming others and bigoted, it's rather more important that we be accurate than that we be sensitive.
"I can easily see this turning into something where the majority can take the majority opinion and whack the minority over the head with it until it flees or falls unconscious or begs for mercy, whichever comes first."
Since the minority in question would be bigots, then yes, good! That's exactly what I want! I am not afraid of this somehow becoming a tool for oppressing people who like the colour blue instead of green, because this is the PPC and I have some faith in the community here. You yourself said we're not nasty people.
"The PPC just feels very strongly about these things. And letting people go on the loose about things they feel so strongly about doesn't tend to end well.
My point exactly, which is why we must tackle bigotry at every turn. What, you don't think bigots feel strongly about their terrible opinions? (If they didn't they'd be smart and keep them to themselves.)
Yeah, it seems good.
I realize the wording is still being tweaked a bit but the gist of it is still there. The PPC should be a fun place, not a place of arguments and discrimination.
Also, I like the Discworld reference.
First off, we would like to say that we approve of the proposed amendments. We think that the changes are needed.
However, that is not what we want to talk about right now. We are concerned about some of the discourse taking place around the amendments. We have seen a pattern of behavior that disturbs us, in this thread and its predecessor. People's concerns about the amendment have been met with hostility, excuses, avoidance, and minimization. Let us give some examples.
1) Tungsten Monk raised legitimate concerns about the very open-ended language being used in the original post of the first thread. Her point was met with several responses which ranged from "We aren't mature adults" (excuses) and "You would rather see people leave than change the rules a little?" (avoidance) to "We've already set a terrible precedent" (excuses). None of these actually addressed her concerns about the language.
2) Kaitlyn voiced a concern about potential vigilante-ism and was told "That won't be a problem, because we already have the opposite problem" (minimization).
3) VM says she assumed that StarShadow was worried that homophobia wouldn't be tolerated, despite him clearly saying, in his original post to this thread, that he thinks the amendment "Seems good". This is not the only time, in the recent past, that people have been accused of supporting/opposing something, when they had already stated that they hold the opposite view (hostility).
What all of this boils down to, in our opinion, is an automatic assumption of bad faith. It looks like an assumption that any concerns that are brought up are supporting the bad guys, so the concerns are being shouted down or not treated seriously. We are worried that this will continue into the future.
We believe that this is important. We would like to have a discussion about why this is happening and how we can fix it.
-Phobos and Neshomeh
Please allow me to explain, from my point of view, why I see the criticisms of the criticisms as valid.
1) Refers to this post, I believe. While open-ended language can indeed be an issue, that's not the point at the moment. From what I get, most of the arguments and issues with Tungsten's post come from this paragraph here:
"Putting this kind of thing in the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent. I move that rather than amending our rules, we deal with these things on a case-by-case basis. We're mature adults, for God's sake, and if people have a problem with each other then they can settle it like adults."
Well, this is where the "we aren't mature adults" argument comes in. Go down and look at Tray's post. Look at the drama that unfolded with Jacer and Tray leaving. Then come back and tell me that that was handled in a mature manner. I am getting tired of reiterating this, but it seems I have to one more time: A bigot was defended by people in this community after she caused another good, hardworking member of our community to have such mental anguish that he tried to kill himself. Apparently without something reminding us to not be dicks, we can't "settle it like adults." We are not mature people when that happens. This is a terrible precedent to set and we as a community should be ashamed to have let it happen.
As for the argument you labeled as avoidance... well yes, in this case, I would rather change the rules than have someone like Tray leave. And pretty much everyone else who spoke up and stated they would too if Jacer's presence was given further tolerance.
"Yes, we may lose some members. But that's always going to happen: people disagree. I'd much prefer that to a board where a ban on "diffusion of harmful opinions" is in force."
There is people disagreeing about plots and character arcs, and whether one should use an Oxford comma or not, and then there is someone who believe that it is her purpose, nay, her God-given duty to go around telling people that they're sinners because of the way they were born. That they're disgusting. That they are sub-human monstrosities. That the way she believes is the way things should be for all.
To paraphrase an actual decent person: "To tolerate intolerance is to breed intolerance."
2) Going off this post. Here are my issues with it.
"At the same time, it would be great if we didn't develop a vigilante culture where people are not permitted to move on from past mistakes after acknowledging and correcting them."
Well, aside from the fact that the PPC has the tendency to not actually have mods and has survived by everyone sort of glaring at the wrongdoer? Except in larger, drama-filled cases, apparently?
Please, show me anywhere that Jacer ever showed any sign of remorse for what she was saying and doing. She didn't. Never did she apologize or show any sign of sorrow for the pain and hatred she spread.
"If they'd instead gone all SOCIAL-JUSTICE-WARRIOR-HULK-SMASH, it would have been a much more lonely and painful process, and I wouldn't have had anywhere safe to land after completing it. It feels good to dispense the fire of righteous justice from above, but when it's dispensed indiscriminately, people who are genuinely trying to do better have nowhere to do it."
Well yes, this. Jacer showed us the effects of raining her own version of righteous justice down on a pretty large portion of our community.
Yeah, if someone shows signs of bigotry, do try and convince them otherwise. But when hatred leads to a massive amount of mental anguish about oneself, then they need to be removed. Trying to help someone is all well and nice when you can handle it and you aren't constantly in their line of fire.
3) Going off this, this, and this.
I honestly don't see any bit where VM says she actually thought that this is what StarShadow thought.
"The problem I see is that anyone who doesn’t support gay rights, and all their opinion on said topic, are labeled as homophobic."
I defy anyone on this planet to come up with a reason as to why not supporting gay rights is not homophobic.
There are only really two possibilities, with the strict focus on same-sex marriage:
1: You're against all marriage.
Doesn't make you homophobic because you just don't believe anyone should be getting married. You're as against heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage.
2: You've never even heard of the concept of gay marriage.
But once you have, where do you go from there? If you aren't okay with it, any excuse you can come up with makes it homophobic.
VM responded to that with this:
"Yes. It is true that this amendment would result in basically prohibiting people from talking about how they do not believe in the civil rights of LGBTQ people."
While I have a feeling that few would necessarily disagree, this is a point that did need clarification and was horrendously over-simplified, as VM later admitted and further expanded upon to essentially say "yeah, you can state your opinion, just don't be a dick about it."
Therefore I'd have to say that what you stated about VM was grossly taken out of context and pretty much completely disregarded her entire argument. VM did not state that StarShadow assumed anything. She simply pointed out that there is a difference between having an opinion and bashing people over the head with it.
Now, I am well aware that I am mighty incensed right now, and here's why: None of these arguments are illegitimate. The problem is the context in which they were brought up. They essentially ignore the entire issue with Jacer and what she did, and that I find utterly disgraceful. We were not mature, we were not reasonable. We were not vigilantes, we were bystanders. We didn't just let someone have an opinion, we let someone smear it in our faces and beat us around the head with it.
Here, let me try again.
First, my objection was to a specific wording in the amendment--which is no longer present, which I'm glad to see. I certainly wasn't trying to say "yay, Jacer is okay and should stay!" What worried me was the blanket ban on 'diffusion of harmful opinions,' which I thought was a clause prone to possible abuse.
Second, I honestly do believe that a case-by-case basis is still the best way to deal with this. It worries me that we anticipate more of this, to be honest, and I really, really hope this amendment never does have to be cited. But even if I disagree, this is a democracy, and I respect the right of the Board to make it.
I've only made about three posts on this topic, and I'm already exhausted. It worries me that the Board wasn't mature enough to handle this, at least this time.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone, but I couldn't lie when the original amendment was being discussed: I was concerned. I hope I've made myself clear, and if you guys think that I should leave, I will. I hate seeing the PPC squabbling.
...looking back at it, the initial statement could have been a lot better formulated. It was a crude idea, but I felt that it was important to get something in the air as fast as possible so that we can at least generate a discussion about patching a gaping loophole in our Constitution.
I wanted to make some sort of blanket statement to cover all the things that I felt could potentially be used to spread hate around the Board. "Diffusion of harmful opinions" was meant to prevent somebody saying something along the lines of:
"Well, in my opinion, all of the people who like X are [insert really mean things here] because nobody in their right mind would like X. But it's just my opinion, and the Constitution says I'm entitled to one, so ha-ha."
I can now see the problem with the wording that I used: by trying to close a loophole, I've opened another one.
Is this what it feels like to be a lawyer? Good grief.
Anyhoo, I really should have stepped in and clarified when this was first brought up. Your opinion is indeed pertinent and contributes to a better, more refined final draft of the amendment. I agree with you when you say we need to look at this case-by-case. We need to be able to use common sense to deal with problems like these.
I am so sorry for all of the trouble that my poor wording and my inaction caused.
With statements like this (A bigot was defended by people in this community) you and other have engaged in repeated, unjustified and untrue personal attacks on myself and other members of this Board. I am asking you to please either provide evidence regarding each person you believe to have defended Jacer's actions - in which case I personally guarentee you will receive either a full and frank apology, or an explanation of what they actually intended with a full and frank apology for not writing clearly - or immediately cease to make such attacks.
I am not concerned as to who posts the evidence requested, provided it is specifically and accurately reported with sufficient context, but if you do not have any, please stop making these statements.
Thank you.
hS
...I don't really know what to say and I'm terrified I'm going to smeg up, but here goes nothing.
I'm sorry. I really, really am. I was ridiculous and horrible and I defended a bigot. More or less just because I thought the bigot deserved to have a say, too.
I used extreme examples and said some things I really regret now. I escalated the situation and made some really good people leave, or want to leave.
...I didn't want to come back, because I smegged up once, who's to say I won't again. But hS and Nesh convinced me to, so I'll stick around.
Thanks for being so awesome.
People did defend Jacer. I rather doubt they all-if any- actually agree with Jacer's opinions, but nevertheless, they did defend her to some extent or another.
Neshomeh defended Jacer against Tray when Tray said Jacer's opinions were wrong, in the the same post where he made it clear he didn't feel safe with Jacer around. She followed the rules to a tee, and directly cited them, and said that we cannot say that someone's opinion is wrong- even when the person she was saying this to was made to feel unsafe and unwanted by this opinion. We are changing the constitution because this course of action isn't right.
I have a problem with this because she had said this with regards to the behavior other people were showing: "While we should perhaps be talking to those people at some point, too, they aren't the ones asking for Permission in this thread, so their behavior doesn't bear on the discussion at all. Bringing them up is, consciously or not, just an attempt to distract us from the actual topic of discussion, which is Jacer's behavior."
Condemning people's behavior when they are the victim- especially in public- only encourages bullies. Bullies don't care about the rules, and when they see that the rules prevent their victims from fighting back, it's that much better for them.
I spoke to Neshomeh in private after she posted that. Her opinion and her reasoning of her actions remained the same. I do not know if they've changed since then, but she has not publicly apologized for her part in Tray's decision to leave, or has acknowledged her part in this.
AnnaBee attempted to defend Jacer with apologism, excuses, and the truth of FREE SPEECH to say anything and everything.
He may also be alluding to Tungsten_Monk, whose post in the initial amendment thread can be taken as also defending the right of people to post whatever they like, even if it results in people leaving due to abuse.
You also had initially defended Jacer early on when you didn't have the full story, but when you realized it was a recurring and severe problem and that you didn't have the full facts before, you promptly withdrew that support and apologized.
(As a note to other PPCers reading this, as you can see here by the use of bold and the misspelling of 'guarantee', this means that hS is rather irked. Please treat your Huinesoron with care, dignity, and respect, and those that it has deemed fellow community members and living beings with similar respect to prevent such a malfunction or worse from occurring in the future.)
Let me start off by saying that I did, in fact, express my regrets about what happened in that thread, in this post. I'm not at all happy about any of it, particularly not that I inadvertently sparked it. If the issue here is that I failed to use the exact words "I'm sorry," then, well, I'm sorry.
Also, I'll put this up front: I do not support Jacer's behavior and I do not think she should have been allowed to stay. I never have. The reason I didn't make this post before now is because, when I asked whether or not defending myself would be construed as defending Jacer, I got a roundly discouraging single response. I do appreciate that Maslab bothered to say something, but I would have appreciated it even more if you (July), or Artell, or anybody else in that first round of finger-wagging in my direction had shown me the courtesy of a response to that question. As it was, I've felt for the past couple of weeks that anything I said would only further damn me. And so I was silent.
Thanks to hS, I have a little hope that I haven't been completely written off yet, so here goes.
Going forward, if I'm understanding you right, your three main accusations are these:
1. That I advocated for the letter of the rules at the expense of the spirit of the rules.
2. That I committed the logical fallacy I described in this post.
3. That I publicly corrected a victim of abuse.
To begin with the first, I think I need to explain exactly what I thought the rule meant. The portion of the rule I cited is a very small part of the first rule in the Constitution, which reads:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. So be nice! Treat everyone else in the PPC with respect! Respect them personally, and respect their opinions, especially when it comes to controversial issues. You don’t have to agree with anyone, of course, and stating your own opinion is encouraged, but no telling other people that their opinion is WRONG. It’s kind of hard for an opinion to be wrong, considering that it’s how that certain individual sees a certain issue. Their opinions are just as valid as yours — and yes, your opinions are wanted, too, however new you are."I took the portion I cited more or less literally: where an opinion is a subjective thought or belief, based on life experience, that cannot be proven or disproven; and where wrongness is the state of being factually and/or morally incorrect; that telling someone their opinion is wrong is not allowed.
People seem to be hitting their breaking points, and this is probably in large part because of the fact that we have all, for a very long time now, cared about and trusted each other. It's always harder to deal with arguments like this, and the way they feel like attacks, when it's people you're close to. I haven't been saying much because I am entirely out of energy to handle this, and that is not something I say lightly.
I'm hitting my own breaking point. I don't have a solid place to stand and make a point here, and every time I have tried, the ground has shifted beneath my feet. All I, or just about anyone, accomplished in that damned Permission thread was hurting people we cared about. I don't know how to move on from that. I still believe the things I said in the post farther down, and I still believe the things I said in the IRC when that entire bomb went off, too. But I don't know where to draw the lines; it was pointed out privately, after things spiraled out of control, that the best approach would be to discuss the academics of Constitution vs. defending against bullies vs. Civility vs. Sensitivity, and so on, after the problem at hand, the part that was hurting people, the thing we all agreed on, (Jacer) had been taken care of. This thread, I thought, would be that debate, talking about the points we do disagree about.
But things are still murky; we're all still hurting, and still lashing out. I'm finding it hard to speak up at all, after what happened in the IRC during that thread. I don't have the answers, I have reached the end of my understanding. There's no righteous anger or academic fine points or high-handed morals to be had here. All I have left on this subject is sorrow. I keep trying to reach for Serious Important Points, and my brain just goes "This is stupid, and it hurts." And I wish we could all just close it and lock the door and walk away, but that's not really an option.
For what it's worth, I understand what Neshomeh is saying, here. I don't know if I agree or not; the same thing happened in the IRC. I spoke up for what I saw as civil behavior, against a perceived double standard, and people took it as me defending Jacer, and responded as such. Neshomeh stepped up, trying to calm things down, and got piled on - in summary, as if she was telling everyone to leave Jacer alone, because there Ain't No Rule against bigots and bullies in the PPC. Which, to be as clear as I can, she was not.
I don't know if I would still say the same things, if I could go back. I still think it is important, and will always be important, that when we tell someone they don't belong here, that our arguments for doing so be solid, valid, and worded with what civility we can muster. I don't know if what I said, or what Neshomeh said, was in the wrong. I can't help feeling like the entire thread got twisted and manipulated, somehow, since absolutely nobody, when all the facts had surfaced, believed that Jacer should be allowed to remain in the PPC. It should have been so simple. "She has done this, that, this, and done this to someone, and had this effect, and we don't want her here."
But maybe part of the reason that didn't happen was the nature of the thread. When DoctorHello did his thing, it was an introduction thread. Clear, obvious signals, flashing red, going "This person should not be allowed here." Again, with Jacer, we all pretty much agreed that she should not be around anymore. But at what point was that the case? Why didn't this surface until her permission thread? I guess that's what this is here to fix, and why it's so important that we iron these out. It just seems like things keep getting complicated. Everyone agrees we need this to happen, but every argument that comes up for or against every single specific point triggers another series of things regarding the incident that brought it on. Every time a disagreement, no matter what nature, is brought up, a wound is opened.
I don't know how to fix this thing, and I don't know how to breach the gap that seems to have sprung up between us all. And that seems like a terrible way to end a post, which is hard to do, since Huinesoron and JulyFlame seem to be trying so hard to end their posts by making sure everything is still not entirely dark and terrible.
But I don't know. Maybe the only way forward is to try to forgive each other, to realize that we're all on the same side, here. To work through this with the clear and definite knowledge that no one involved wants to lose another friend over this.
Friends disagree, sometimes vehemently, often through misunderstanding. As Tolkien would put it - we can't help it; this is Arda Marred, and the Dischords are built into us.
But (to continue my allegory) we are the Third Theme. We are the ones put in to fix the blessed thing - even though we're often the ones who break it. And yes, it's hard, and yes, hearts break sometimes - but we're here to help piece them back together, wrap them in string and a bit of cloth we have to hand, and - as Cassie has demonstrated - give them a hug.
Because we are all on the same side (so you managed an upbeat end after all). And that means we need to be able to say 'You hurt me' - and to say 'I'm sorry'. (In fact, once we're through this particular heartbreak, I'm going to ask that anyone with a grievance against anyone else Speak Now Or Forever Hold Your Piece - another 'hey, I've just remembered you're a terrible person and have to leave now even though you haven't posted anything offensive on this particular thread', however bad the person in question was, isn't a good idea) And that's what I'm trying to help people do - to find the infected wounds in their hearts, clean them out - and then tie them back together.
So let's do this. Shards and glaurunging shells, guys, we're the PPC. Are we really going to let a little thing like the Marring of Arda get in our way? Trust me - we can do this.
Together.
hS
You asked if you could defend yourself. Artell said you didn't need his permission. Artell even said that he knew that your post wasn't intended to incite the response it did. When you asked if you would be seen as defending Jacer if you said anything for yourself, Maslab said that defending yourself wouldn't be seen as defending Jacer. The only 'discouraging' part in either reply was Maslab saying he was disappointed in you, which considering the circumstances is wholly understandable, and something I also thought as well. So no, it wasn't a single discouraging reply. I felt no need to reply, since it would only be repeating Artell and Maslab.
With regards to publically correcting Tray, I said it twice to you, in my post in response and also in private:
"If at any point he should be talked to about his behavior, it is not anytime right now with relation to this thread in public."
"Tell Tray off in private. Tell him you'll be wanting to talk to him later, when he's calmed down. Not after he's said he's tried to commit suicide because of someone and has admitted to a having had a dark terrible thing happen to him and has made it clear he doesn't feel safe."
Nowhere did I say we should let him off the hook without any problem, nor did imply we should let people break the rules without consideration so long as they were victims or claim to be victims. Please do not suggest I was advocating such in the future.
Focusing on the behavior of others was not appropriate at that time. Again, to quote my post in response to you: 'Talking to someone about their behavior at some point does not mean chastising about it in public, and certainly not after they've exposed themselves and have made it clear they do not feel safe.' Lielac and Tray's behavior was not important. I was not speaking in terms that solely applied to Tray there. The issue at hand was Jacer's behavior.
The reason I'm not counting Artell's response to my first question is that my first question didn't correctly convey my meaning. I know, and knew then, that I don't need anyone's permission to speak. What I actually wanted to know, as I explained in my second question, was whether it would be worth the effort. With all due respect to Maslab, he's just one person, and he wasn't one of the people who led the charge, so to speak. I wasn't willing to open myself to further accusations and censure from you, Artell, Cassie, Rilwen, HerrWozzeck, etc., on the assumption that Maslab was speaking for anyone but Maslab. The fact that you didn't feel the need to assure me I wasn't beyond redemption in your eyes is pretty discouraging, and that goes for everyone who spoke up after you, too.
I don't understand your insistence that communicating to Tray privately would have been better for Tray. (At least, I think that's what you mean.) It might have prevented the subsequent drama, at least the parts that happened on the Board, but in hindsight I don't think he would have taken it any better at the time.
As for waiting to say something until later, public or private, I would like to know when you think would have been an appropriate time. How long is long enough to wait without letting the incident in question fade too much from relevance? How can I know when the time is right, and that I won't just be rebuked for not letting old threads lie?
Also, I've stated that part of my reason for posting was that I didn't want to see non-Jacer people reduced to insults, condemnation, and other behaviors we claim not to want on the Board. Can you please tell me how you think I could have gotten across the message of "hey guys, let's not turn this thread into a flamefest" by waiting until later to say something, or by speaking to one or two people in private?
Finally, has anything I've said made any kind of positive impact at all? I can't read your mind, so please tell me. If the answer is "no," I can go find something else to do that won't make me frustrated, sad, and angry for no purpose.
~Neshomeh
(Please note: this was written immediately before I saw your post, but I don't think you have invalidated anything I said. Urrr, actually I may need an endnote...)
This is how I see the above few posts:
Neshomeh has stated that she never supported or condoned Jacer's views, and has apologised for anything she said which might have given the impression that she did ("I am sorry my posts weren't clear enough"). She has also said she is sorry for her part in exploding the thread and causing people to leave.
She has not apologised for (and, in fact, her entire post is an explanation of) her rebuking of people, including Tray, who were acting contrary to how she believed a PPCer should act. I don't get the impression this comes down to blind adherence to the Rules, but rather to (as she terms it) the Golden Rule: politeness and civility. To put it another way, I feel that even without a Constitution she would have made that decision.
I also feel that the way Neshomeh was replied to while asking if she was allowed to defend herself gave the distinct impression that she would, indeed, be seen as defending Jacer by speaking up for herself. I know I felt that way, and the comments in question weren't even aimed at me. I am not saying or implying that anyone actually meant she couldn't defend herself without being condemned - I am just pointing out that, given the state of our emotions at that time, the reading is not implausible.
July has indicated that her objection was less about whether Tray-and-others should be rebuked at all, and more about whether they should be rebuked in that particular thread. She states that 'The issue at hand was Jacer's behavior', indicating that other people's behaviour in response to the discussion of Jacer's behaviour should not have been commented on at that time, and also indicates (correct me, please, if I'm wrong) that publically rebuking someone who is in a fragile emotional state is Not A Good Idea. She does not deny that the behaviour of certain people required a response at some point - just that the response needed to be in that setting.
(A Huinesoron aside: I don't believe in general terms that people should go unrebuked in a public setting where they have broken the Golden Rule. If Jacer had been called out instead for egregious swearing, I think that someone who set to insulting Jacer would have been quite appropriately rebuked. However, in specific cases of emotional vulnerability... see next paragraph. July, this aside is mostly for you, since it's the one point where I'm unclear on your views: in a less volatile situation, such as the swearing one, would Neshomeh's actions have been appropriate in your view?)
The Key Section
With all these words flying around, it seems to me that these two respected Boarders - yes, I'm talking to you two, and even I respect you both - actually disagree on very little. Essentially it comes down to: should a person who has noted that they are in a fragile emotional state be publically and immediately rebuked for using emotional language, in a setting where this may cause them to break?
I think that July would say that they should not be. I would like to know what Neshomeh thinks - what she thinks is the answer to my question, and what, in hindsight (which is 20/20) she feels she could have done to stop 'this thread [turning] into a flamefest' that wasn't what she did.
Neshomeh - I want you to know that the PPC Board is still a safe place. I don't think anyone will start attacking you if you post what you think about this specific question. I am positive that no one will see an admission of making a mistake - if you feel you made any mistakes, I am not making that judgement call - as a sign of weakness.
I can say this, because I have now apologised three times, and have not been mocked for it in any of them. I made a major mistake in assuming all the information had been made available to me, and a second (judging from the response, far larger) by posting without due thought for how it would be perceived in response to I think your post. I apologise (yet again) for both of those mistakes. I don't think anyone sees this as a confession that I was supporting Jacer's actions - just that I am human Eldarin, and mistakes happen.
hS
(PS: This was supposed to be a short post...)
(PPS: Neshomeh: please don't leave)
Mainly, the answer to your question:
In the most general of terms, I do not believe being in an emotional state while posting is a free pass to not being immediately accountable for what you say. In particular, we routinely dismiss emotional states like anger and excitement as excuses for acting out without thinking, and we routinely tell people to take a deep breath and wait to post until they're in control of themselves when emotion-inducing topics come up. If they don't, they are still responsible for making the choice to post in that state. I don't think I would generally make an exception for fear, panic, or ... is there a word for triggered-ness? The reason is that this is the Internet, and unlike "real life," there is always the option not to hit Enter until you've taken a moment to breathe and check that your emotions aren't getting in the way of making your point.
However, having slept on it and thinking over it all again, it looks like that is exactly what turned around to bite me. I didn't take Tray's specific emotional state as seriously as it looks like everyone else did, and that was clearly in error, and I am sorry for it. When I posted, I hoped that he would be able to take a step back and cool down, and then still participate in the discussion. In hindsight, I guess that was stupid of me.
I think I can explain a little bit why I made that mistake, though, and how I can watch that it doesn't happen again.
The thing is, I'm really, really skeptical about triggers. I understand what they are: an uncontrolled, irrational, emotional and/or physiological response to some stimulus, associated with past emotional trauma. Phobos pointed out to me that I even used to have a mild one regarding alcohol: my dad's a recovered alcoholic, so I used to get extremely upset just seeing someone I care about, such as my boyfriend, drinking. The first time I saw my boyfriend before Phobos having a drink and a cigar at a family gathering, I broke down crying without even realizing I was doing it until I felt something crawling on my cheek, thought it was a bug, and discovered tears instead. Surprise crying, not making this up. I took off by myself for awhile to let it out, and once I'd calmed down a bit and decided that my boyfriend is not my dad, there's no reason to assume the same bad things will happen, and I don't get to tell other grown-up people what legal substances they can and can't have when it's in an entirely appropriate setting, then I came back, and we talked about it, and we got on with having a good time. (I still don't drink, but I now vicariously participate in alcohol-culture through Phobos, who is a very responsible drinker, and we cook with wine sometimes.)
Anyway, the point of the story is that I get what a trigger is, and I get that they're real. I am skeptical of them when they start getting waved around like magic amulets that give the wielder the right to do whatever they want and to tell other people what they can and can't do or say in the wielder's presence. I'm not saying Tray did this, but it does happen. This is problematic to me both because it's manipulative, and because it's bad for the triggered person: using a trigger as an excuse suggests to me that they're not working on dealing with it so they can get on with a more-normal, less-subject-to-uncontrolled-bad-feelings kind of life.
So, when the word "trigger" started popping up in that thread, my skepticism kicked in, and that was a factor in my decision whether to post, and how. Listening to it as much as I did was a mistake, and again, I'm sorry. I should have realized Tray was in no position to react differently than he did, trigger or no trigger. In the future, I can be more aware of my feelings about triggers and make sure they don't unduly influence my judgement about how seriously to take someone's emotional state.
I think I had trouble realizing and addressing that mistake because I was so preoccupied with accusations of things I don't think I did—"defending Jacer," committing fallacies, posting in the wrong time and place, ignoring the spirit of the rules—and also because I very definitely didn't feel like many people were going to be sympathetic to anything I had to say anyway. It's only thanks to hS being so understanding and encouraging that I've been able to reach this point, so thank you, hS.
Er, there was another part to your question, too, wasn't there? In hindsight, what could I have done differently to stop the thread descending into bonfire territory without making the same mistake?
One thing I could've done is make a general reply to the original post, rather than any individuals in the thread—a general "hey everyone, let's watch out that we don't start flaming, because we're better than that." This might have gotten the message across without making anyone feel like I was cornering them. The risk with this is that the people already flaming might not look at it, or might not think they are flaming and so might decide it doesn't apply to them. Also, I'm not confident about this because it still violates the thing about not posting in that thread right then at all, and I'm positive it still would have been seen as "defending Jacer."
I also could have used milder, less direct language, but it still would've been a post in that thread right then, to stop a trend I saw starting at the time.
I could have started an all-new thread, but that would be pretty unusual, to start a new thread to talk about something currently happening in another one. Under most circumstances, I don't think that would be acceptable, and it still would have been posting right then, if not right there.
I would still like to hear if July, and/or anyone else, has other specific ideas with regards to deterring flames, if she/they agree that doing so is a good thing to do. If not here, then where? If not now, then when?
To add: I don't want to leave. However, the feeling that maybe I should do so for my own well-being doesn't just come from this one incident; it's the last couple of years of feeling like I'm sitting on a powder keg, never knowing when it's going to blow up again or why. The fact that I got caught in the blast this time certainly doesn't help, but really, like VM says, I'm tired of it in general. I mention it only because I don't want anyone to be surprised if it does come to the point of me leaving. I don't want to—the Board has been a huge part of my life, and setting it aside would leave a hole I couldn't easily fill again—but I'm damn near the limit of how much stress I'm willing to take for my pastime. I haven't made this clear enough: my main reason for sticking around and dealing with all the explosions has been the sense that I'm trusted, useful, and valuable to this community. This incident made me feel like that was no longer the case, and that I had no certain way back into the good graces of the people who are upset with me. My confidence is shattered, and with it my will to put up with much more negativity and stress.
And I'm still waiting for some word that any of this is doing any good toward fixing things in their eyes—and I do mean with words explicitly to that effect, because I don't feel I can trust in anything less right now. I've explained myself, I've said what I think I did wrong, and I've said I'm sorry. If I'm forgiven, or if I'm not yet but still can be in the future, then I need to be told so if I'm going to build up my confidence again. I just want everyone to understand that I won't wait much longer. Especially since I'm also going on vacation soon, starting August 12, and it's going to be a busy month.
~Neshomeh
"Anyway, the point of the story is that I get what a trigger is, and I get that they're real. I am skeptical of them when they start getting waved around like magic amulets that give the wielder the right to do whatever they want and to tell other people what they can and can't do or say in the wielder's presence. I'm not saying Tray did this, but it does happen. This is problematic to me both because it's manipulative, and because it's bad for the triggered person: using a trigger as an excuse suggests to me that they're not working on dealing with it so they can get on with a more-normal, less-subject-to-uncontrolled-bad-feelings kind of life."
You're not saying Tray did this, but I'm uncomfortable that you're still bringing it up in such a context. It implies something, even if you didn't mean to.
Triggers are a real thing, and they can be utterly debilitating and devastating. I can't speak for Tray, but knowing people who suffer from triggers, I have all the empathy I can possibly give for people who have their trauma coming back and back and back to them. The PPC should not be a hugbox but it should be a safe place. I mean sure, everyone has triggers in that we have something embarrassing or nasty that happened to us that sometimes comes back to us from a certain sensation, word or whatever, but that's completely different from what happens with people with deep-seated, nigh existential trauma.
As far as "dealing with it", I think people should be allowed to work with their issues at their own pace, and we don't have a leg to stand on telling them when is the right time to "get over it".
Again, the PPC doesn't have to be an accommodating place, but that is always what I thought the PPC should be. We can always turn the dial back on that if as a community we wish to, but it will drive people - lovely, wonderful people - away.
"So, when the word "trigger" started popping up in that thread, my skepticism kicked in, and that was a factor in my decision whether to post, and how. Listening to it as much as I did was a mistake, and again, I'm sorry. I should have realized Tray was in no position to react differently than he did, trigger or no trigger. In the future, I can be more aware of my feelings about triggers and make sure they don't unduly influence my judgement about how seriously to take someone's emotional state."
I appreciate this, even if I'm not in a position to provide forgiveness. I'm just concerned that with the rest of your post, I get the impression that you are still not entirely convinced that triggers are a Thing, and I am hoping I am misreading this when it looks like "I'm sorry you got offended" to me.
Far be it from me to stir this you-know-what-storm any further, and that is not my intent here; I've tried to stay away from the Board because I find dealing with this kind of thing emotionally draining. But I am worried that the basic issue here remains unresolved, and some of the responses to your post almost feel like a relieved overreaction that you are not gone forever. (I, by the way, am happy you are not gone forever, too.)
"I think I had trouble realizing and addressing that mistake because I was so preoccupied with accusations of things I don't think I did—"defending Jacer," committing fallacies, posting in the wrong time and place, ignoring the spirit of the rules—and also because I very definitely didn't feel like many people were going to be sympathetic to anything I had to say anyway. It's only thanks to hS being so understanding and encouraging that I've been able to reach this point, so thank you, hS."
Again, here I am going to have disagree with the utmost respect. I've already made my point. Maybe it's not a good idea to start that argument anew, but I am not going to have it be thought that the argument is over and conceded. I would like to say that I don't think the people who kept muddling the issue and standing up for Jacer were necessarily agreeing with her positions; like I said before, it just felt like people wanting to defend the "bad guy" just for the sake of devil's advocating, which absolutely has no place in the LGBT discussion.
I am proudly, gleefully, eagerly a total absolutist in favour of human rights when it comes to the LGBT discussion, and I will not stand by when such odious positions are thrown about like it's no big thing.
"To add: I don't want to leave. However, the feeling that maybe I should do so for my own well-being doesn't just come from this one incident; it's the last couple of years of feeling like I'm sitting on a powder keg, never knowing when it's going to blow up again or why. The fact that I got caught in the blast this time certainly doesn't help, but really, like VM says, I'm tired of it in general."
I certainly know what you mean, and I'm experiencing the same, and my exposure to the Board is relatively minimal.
However, you shouldn't decide whether you want to leave or not based solely, or even majorly, on what I think.
Are you, or are you not, willing to ever forgive me for anything you think I've done wrong?
If I try to answer you, is there any possibility it's going to do me any good, or is it just going to lead to more rounds of "you're not saying X, but you could still mean X anyway"?
Is there any hope that you will take anything I say in good faith?
I'm not going to keep trying to build a bridge in your direction if I can never reach the other side. If you want me to spend the energy engaging with you any further about your concerns, I need you to throw me a rope first.
~Neshomeh
I personally do not hate you nor likely ever will. I disagree with you on the matter of how you handled it and your rationale for it, but that does not mean I will not forgive you ever or that I have not forgiven you yet. No one here is hard hearted or that daft.
You don't need to flagellate yourself over this situation in public to be forgiven, or make such demands.
-July, onna phone
All that I can forgive, on my part, I forgive. I apologize since I probably didn't make that clear enough.
I'm not sure what you mean by good faith. But I know and happily say that you are not a bad or an evil person, that you are in fact a good and nice person. I entirely believe that you've been arguing your side in good faith, with no malicious intent to injure or hurt anyone. I would like to believe that of myself as well.
That's partly why this whole business has been so tiring and uncomfortable to me, because I wasn't expecting lines to be drawn where they were drawn.
I want to put his behind me; we'll get the change to the constitution that was necessary, and that's far more than I was hoping to achieve. And the precedent has been set that we will not tolerate intolerance.
I think the biggest difference between us at the time was how we understood (the former) Rule 1 in the Constitution. I think I explained my end, but if I didn't say this, I'll say now that I never understood it to mean that we shouldn't stand up for ourselves or that we should tolerate people being bigots. I do think that we should avoid treating even bigots in the same way they treat their targets, though. I think we can tell people we don't agree with them or want them around without treating them like they're less than human. Does that make sense?
When I say I would like to be taken in good faith, I mean that I would like to be able to post what I think without having implications and impressions read in where I have taken pains not to put anything but straightforward explanations. For instance:
- "It implies something, even if you didn't mean to."
I didn't mean to. I meant no more or less than to say that people sometimes use triggers as excuses, and for that reason I am skeptical when they're brought up. To ensure that no one got the wrong idea, because I knew I was in delicate territory, I put a double emphasis on the fact that I am not accusing Tray of this, just explaining why my skepticism exists. I even went on to say that my skepticism was misplaced in this instance, and that it led me astray, and that I'm sorry for it.
But you're still concerned that I was accusing Tray of using triggers as an excuse. I don't understand why, unless you think I'm not telling the truth.
Also from that section of your post, I'm not sure where you're coming from with the bit about telling people when to get over it. I don't think I said anything to that effect. I did say that I think triggers should be worked on so they don't run anyone's life forever, because having your life run by emotional trauma is sucky, but did you think I was implying a time limit somewhere?
- "I get the impression that you are still not entirely convinced that triggers are a Thing."
I said twice that I am, and told a personal story as evidence. I don't understand why that's not enough.
- "it just felt like people wanting to defend the "bad guy" just for the sake of devil's advocating"
A major part of my first post was explaining how I was not playing devil's advocate, or citing the rules just because I could, or whatever, but rather speaking from my personal beliefs about how all human beings should be treated, which I thought were reflected in the rules. If you disagree with me about how all human beings should be treated, I can understand that, but do you disagree that I mean what I said?
~Neshomeh
"When I say I would like to be taken in good faith, I mean that I would like to be able to post what I think without having implications and impressions read in where I have taken pains not to put anything but straightforward explanations."
Unfortunately, it still came across, to me, as dissembling. Maybe you were trying instead to lay out your thought process in more detail? My problem was like I said that you for whatever reason brought it up in this instant, in comparison to Tray, and I am not sure why you'd feel compelled to bring that up.
I also tried to think from Tray's POV - what would this look like? It might be construed as making excuses. But I'm glad that you've made your position clear, so there's no ambiguity or question there.
Or maybe I just haven't read anything correctly - like I said before, this stuff has started to wear on me significantly. I haven't read the Board in days. I don't keep up with the relevant threads, or any threads, at all. Reading them is a colossal chore, with the branching and the uncertain chronology and the not always being sure who is writing what. I just want it to stop, because I don't think it's right that the thought of even opening this board fills me with increasing dread.
For whatever it's worth, I still have tremendous amounts of respect for you. I always read your posts not as a dismissal of Tray and Lielac or as a defense of Jacer, but as you asking people to step back for a second, and take advantage of the medium to not be so hot-headed.
Admittedly, I had the advantage of hindsight, because I was gone for a week, and by the time I had a stable internet, that thread had mostly died down and SeaTurtle had already made the precursor to this thread. Still, I'd like to think that I am (as of late, at least) a reasonable enough fellow that I would have at least tried to help things simmer down a little.
I will miss you, should you choose to go, but I can't say I'll blame you. Even before the most recent mess with Jacer, the PPC was, at times, stressful enough that we lost people, even regulars who had been here for several years.
If I may ask you something, though, I'm (still) wondering what you meant by telling Tungsten Monk that you don't qualify as mature. To me, it doesn't immediately align with you telling me that you do count yourself reasonable—I consider reasonableness an aspect of maturity—so could you please explain? I would like to understand, and I think Tungsten would appreciate it, too.
~Neshomeh
I do usually try to help diffuse arguments and generally be a reasonable person, as of late at least, but it is not a consistent thing. There are times when I feel that's it's not worth it, or that a person is getting what they had coming, or so on. I am prone to being a snarky jerk just because I feel like it, which I recognize means that I am not exactly mature. Or at the very least, not very.
On the other hand, when something requires me to be serious about it, I can usually pull together and act like a reasonable being. (Which, in retrospect, may be why people put enough trust into me to make me a Designated Arbitrator while I was still hanging out in the IRC.) I will always, or at least most of the time, listen to reason when the person is making sense. I typically respond to people being reasonable by putting forth an effort to be reasonable myself, despite what my current mood may be.
I guess the tl;dr version would be "I do consider myself to usually be a reasonable person, but while that may be an aspect of maturity, I don't feel like that alone makes a person mature."
Neshomeh, you've poured your heart and soul into this community for as long as I can remember. You smooth things over, level things out, keep people and matters reasonable, and you're always sensible, even when the rest of us are this far from snapping. But that's not a good reason to ask you to stay - you're right, and no pastime should be causing you this much stress, while leaving you so little in return. I really hope that you don't leave, but not for the above reasons; I hope you stay, because you are an awesome person, and someone who it's been a privilege to have around here. Because we care about you, because you would leave this a darker, dimmer place.
That's not really enough, though; it isn't fair to ask you to stay for the sake of the rest of us. I hope you stay, because we can work this out, because we can be a community of friends again, because we can not only defuse this bomb, but cart the explosives off in loads and set things back to rights, and maybe take the load off of your shoulders, and maybe make this fun again, a joy instead of a burden.
-VM
Thank you, and I'm sorry I haven't been able to reach out to you before. I know you've been in the rough, too, and I suspect I've even made it rough for you at times. I know that recently my keel hasn't always been quite as even as I expect of myself. I agree that things have been very unstable and shifty and confusing, so I'm sorry if I contributed to that.
I don't know what went on with you in the chat, but if you want to talk about it, please feel free to e-mail me, or I can e-mail you. I know this is coming a bit late, but hS really helped me by reaching out and letting me know we didn't each have to fight our battles alone, so I want to try to do the same for others starting right now.
I hope I can work out my differences with everyone, too.
~Neshomeh
It's alright. You've nothing to apologize to me for, at the least. Nobody can be one-hundred percent even-keeled at all times.
I think everything that happened in the chat has cooled down, probably. It was... a-heh. As so often occurs, all the arguments and positions and raging emotions of the initial thread, but compressed into a severe concentration and in a shorter span of time. It's incredibly wearing, and draining, but I think, for now at least, it's over.
I hope so too; I think it is likely. As hS points out, we're PPCers. We're not going to let a little thing like Marred Arda get between us.
-VM
You've redeemed yourself - beyond redeemed yourself - in my eyes.
Beyond just that, you've gone through emotional hell these last few weeks. You've been attacked by the community, you've done some hugely deep introspection, you've bared your heart to the community... and gotten nothing back. That's a hell of a lot of pain for having a different opinion than some people.
Part of that is my fault. I'm sorry I said nothing, and I'm doubly sorry I didn't recognize what you were saying for what it was.
To quote VM, who put it far better than I: I don't think you crossed any serious lines. In any other context, what you said would have been entirely appropriate. And I feel like something of a coward for not saying it a week ago.
I'll understand completely if you decide it's not worth it any more. Please don't think you'll go unnoticed, though - you've been a huge influence on this community, and you continue to be one of its strongest voices of reason.
-Dann
Part of what's been so difficult is the feeling that I've been unable to communicate—an ability I am usually respected for and take pride in—so it's a big relief just to see that I'm connecting with some folks.
I don't think you're a coward or at fault for not saying anything to me before. If I may venture a guess, I'd say you've been going through this with VM much as Phobos has been going through this with me, and if that's the case I know you've had your hands full. If you need my forgiveness, though, you have it. I want to stay friends.
At the very least, it's no longer true that I've gotten nothing back for all this. {= )
~Neshomeh
"Beyond just that, you've gone through emotional hell these last few weeks. You've been attacked by the community, you've done some hugely deep introspection, you've bared your heart to the community... and gotten nothing back. That's a hell of a lot of pain for having a different opinion than some people."
Attacked by the community? Does this include my original response to her, pointing out how wrong I felt the constitution was on the matter, etc.? Do you feel that what I did was an attack on Neshomeh? In that case, I should probably leave the PPC, because attacks and attackers don't belong here - I've said as much myself, and I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
I do not have any remorse or regret for my criticism of what was going on in that thread, but the implication seems to be that I should.
As far as I'm concerned, the only person that is in my bad graves in all of this is Jacer. The only thing I really see bad going on with anyone is simply a mistake in downplaying what happened. Not flaming is important, and no, trauma and triggers are not free passes to say what you want. That said, the initial responses didn't help Tray, I would think. A cornered and desperate human is as reasonable and vicious as any cornered and desperate animal.
As far as a response to that goes, I tend to turn to my three basic rules in life:
1) Do what you want.
2) Don't be a dick to anyone.
3) Disregard rule 2 if the other person does first.
Jacer disregarded rule 2. As far as I'm concerned Tray just responded to that. It could be argued he did late, but then it takes a lot of guts for someone to stand up to a bully.
And just to make sure that we are all absolutely on the same page: I only blame Jacer for this, and I do not think that any person here actually meant to defend her or however you want me to say it. I am disappointed in us as a community for how this was handled, but the only person that actually hurt another person in this entire thing is Jacer. My respect for you may have taken a hit, sure, but I still value you as a prominent member of this community. If you do want to leave, I won't stop you as I won't stop anyone, but know that I don't want you to because of this, and I feel you should stick around.
Our basic philosophies are different in that mine doesn't include your third rule, but I understand it.
And yeah, I didn't fully appreciate that Tray was feeling cornered right then. I didn't mean to give him the idea that he shouldn't stand up for himself. I let my skepticism get the better of me and didn't make that clear, and I will strive not to let anything like that happen again.
I think making Jacer responsible for every last bit of this ascribes her more power than I'd personally like to give her credit for, but I appreciate that you're willing to move on for any reason, so thank you.
~Neshomeh
It's all been one massive, awful mix-up. But just because things have exploded and you happened to wind up in the centre of it doesn't mean you're not forgiven. I'd hate to think that we can't forgive an honest mistake, which it seems pretty darn clear is what you made.
I, for one, forgive you, and in turn apologise for any unpleasantness I caused in your direction. In my opinion, this explanation and apology is enough, and I hope it'll be enough for everyone else too. I'd hate to see you leave.
- Cassie, pouring oil on troubled waters as much as she can
I think you're putting my side more clearly than I did. At least, it all rings true for me.
And, I will be back with a proper response tomorrow, because my brain is about out of juice for right now and it's bedtime.
~Neshomeh
I will mention now that I don't know when and how often I'll be around after tonight; this is the last night before my holiday, which means it's the last night I've been on American time. So I apologise (there's another one - I think I need to start a tally) if I've seemed to try and rush everyone through this - it's purely for expediency, I'm afraid.
That said, I will still be in town for the next week. I hope we can get everything resolved by then.
hS, quietly - ever so quietly - hopeful
With two days spent in a car for a whole day each. ._.
So I should not be expected to be about as well.
Huinesoron: In a less volatile situation, yes, an immediate rebuke would be appropriate.
Neshomeh: Echoing hS, please do not leave due to this. This situation should not be the cause of you departing.
It's good to know that I haven't misjudged you - I had assumed that you would answer that way, but all the words flying around about 'not the issue at hand' - from many people, not just you - led me to wonder if I might be wrong... but I wasn't, so that's good. Thank you for answering; and I do understand that this whole thing is hard on you, too, not just on the rest of us.
hS
(And everything I said about safe places, mistakes, apologies and mocking? That goes for you, too. In fact it goes for everyone. As I think the Amendment shows, someone who is genuinely trying to understand and build bridges should never feel unable to do so. So thank you for your work so far - I want you to know it's appreciated. -hS, doesn't have a tilde key)
Obviously I'm in no position to say whether your explanology clears things up - I'll leave that to Maslab, July, or anyone else who wishes to comment - but thank you very much for being willing to try and tidy up this fiasco.
hS
A clarification of opinion:
I do not consider 'defending Jacer' to be synonymous with 'stating that a one-time offender should be given another chance', nor with 'stating that people's reactions can be more severe when provoked', which is what I attempted to do.
Some apologies:
Once again I apologise for speaking without having full information (or rather without knowing there was any more information to have). I also apologise for my unwise use of the word 'defence' (yes, I did say it, and I'm sorry). My original subtitles were 'Pros' and 'Cons', but I substituted them at the last moment. I believe my three points (this is the post I'm referring to, if you can stand to visit that thread again) cannot be interpreted as defence save by reference to the title, but nevertheless, I apologise unreservedly for my misuse of the word.
A promise:
I do not have email access tonight (I'm at work, and the internet is gradually being blocked), but, unless Neshomeh, AnnaBee and TungstenMonk post in response to you, I will contact them in the morning. I hope that they will respond without my needing to do so. (Note that I'm not positive I have WM's email address, so there may be a delay on that front).
An expression of gratitude:
Thank you for posting this. There is no way for us to know what has been percieved as wrong unless we are told - and that thread was a masterpiece of no-one explaining anything. So thank you.
hS
(Re: your postscript: Not irked. Upset and near to tears because I feel hounded in the only social space I've had for the past nine years. But I actually just can't spell - how is it? - guarantee.)
bansheebride@yahoo.com. Knock yourself out, big guy.
I haven't had all too much interaction with you, but from what I've seen you seem to be a pretty cool guy. It seems to me that any defense of Jacer in this whole thing was made from a position of ignorance, and you have my respect for realizing it and having the courage to apologize. Thank you for that.
If my clarification above has not yet cleared up your concerns that I ever defended Jacer - as opposed to stating that a single year-old offense should not be grounds for banishment (which I still believe, mind you - a year is a long time, but Jacer did not have just that one offense), or pointing out that arguments escalate - please indicate how, and I will try to clarify. If you are no longer concerned about such, please, for the sake of my sanity, stop using that word. It's starting to lose all meaning and just look like a collection of hooks and spikes out to rend my flesh.
hS
I didn't intend it that way. I really am no longer concerned about anyone doing so, or at least I hope no one still does.
And sorry if I was a bit short just then. The whole thing's been weighing on my mind since it happened, and I'm rather tense.
(There have been more apologies and thankses in this thread than in I think any other thread ever made... is that good?)
hS
It seems like this whole issue has a lot of people on an understandably short fuse, and that's why I'm not actually keen on going after specific people.
(I suppose that depends on your view of things!)
To make this clear:
I have never had any intention of hounding you at all, so if I've been part of the source of that, I apologize immensely and would like to know how I was part of it.
Believe me, hS, when I say that for a lot of us- or at least me- the PPC wouldn't even be a fraction of what it is in worth in terms of community and friends if you weren't here. A lot of us care about you very much. You're our friend. A very, very good one, in all meanings of it.
Even when I disagree with you on some points with regards to maintaining the community, or what to do about things when there is a perceived problem, never have I felt that you've ever said or done anything out of malice or dislike, or for an attempt at a power grab or to prevent things from improving. Frustrated with you at times with regards to some things, yes, but never like you're on the side of evil or bad, or that I can't trust you.
I wouldn't be here- on the board, in the chat, maybe not even alive- right now if I thought I couldn't trust you.
And if the PPC really is your only social place, maybe you should consider looking around for other people to meet up with. There's probably other new parents nearby where you're living. That wouldn't be a bad idea, to see about arranging social time for both you and the Small Child.
One can't live off a single thing alone- weirdly enough, this also includes the PPC.
I'm naturally reluctant to go over the records to check, but I do not feel that you in particular have been hounding me. You have engaged in debate with me over this amendment, but that's fine - that's what debate is for. And I don't believe you were one of those who engaged in repeated attacks during the original thread - again, I honestly don't feel up to checking. So no apology to me is necessary.
And social life... ahaha. I currently work 50 to 64 (!) hours a week on a rotating shift pattern which means I am pretty much always out of action - at work or asleep - in the middle of the day. The only thing I have a chance to do is stare at the Internet for a few hours in the evening/morning (or, when I'm on night shifts like now, all night). I'm on holiday next week, so we're going to try out the library's Toddler Reading Group, but after that... grindstone, nose, etc.
hS
(I would apologise for being frustrating, but I wouldn't mean it and you wouldn't believe it)
I'm not going to go into why all this current arguing and debate and other words used to describe exchanges of non-identical opinion is a bad thing, because I'm pretty upset over it all too. I'm merely less inclined to join in.
So instead of more talk, I'm just going to hug you and anyone else who wants hugs a lot and spread warm fuzzy feelings all over the place, because people should not be getting as upset as they have been over this.
Now, for an unlimited period only, claim your guaranteed free* hugs at this hug booth!
- Cassie
*Upon providing an official PPCing licence (not necessarily tangible), available upon having read the PPC Constitution at some point in your lifetime. Permission not required. Guarantee invalid if you live directly on the International Date Line. Insert other ridiculous and hopefully humorous small print.
If it matter to you, I've got lots.
It feels good to know there are people like you in the PPC - people who are able to do this.
... no, but seriously, how? I mean, is there like an operation they do that makes you able to not start arguing with people? Or a tablet you can take? Because I think I need one of those...
hS
(On the other hand, my life is always so boring when I'm not bickering... [/intentionally silly language, I'm trying guys])
It's nice to know that somehow my ability to just want to make everything better is appreciated. :P
I'm not entirely sure how I wound up like this, to be perfectly honest - I have a right temper when my blood's up or I'm frustrated, as my closest relatives (and possibly some of the people I talk to very regularly) would probably confirm if they were here.
I think it's mainly because I don't have many friends anywhere. The PPC's the first place where I've made proper, lasting friendships that don't fade away every time something in my life changes, and I will do pretty much anything I can to keep my friends from getting upset over stuff like this. People I care about get showered with all the enjoyable things I can think of that they'd like, generally starting with hugs.
And until the arguing gets to a point where I think I can step in without getting savaged by either side, I generally just sort of sit to one side watching and saying in a very tiny voice that nobody hears, "Please don't fight, guys, it makes me sad" with a puppy face like this =(
Seriously, though, feel better. *checks your licence, is satisfied, gives free hugs* :)
- Cassie
I think what Neshomeh and Phobos are talking about this bit:
4) Because of the way you phrased the above concern, I did assume that your issue with the new rule was that homophobia was not going to be tolerated.
Anti equal-marriage legislation have only one purpose: To ruin the lives of living, breathing human beings as punishment for how they were born.
If anyone don't know the story, they can go google Janice Langbehn and Louise Pond, who died without her children and her partner through 18 years at her side, because her partner happened to be a woman.
We are talking about real human beings and anyone who thinks that what happened to them was good and just and supports legislation like that, is a homophobe. Same goes for everyone who thinks that it is fine that gays and lesbians are being kicked out of their homes when their partner dies or that they can't benefit from their partners' health care.
Please do so. Please reply to this post to indicate you have understood this instruction and then do not post again.
Everyone else, please do not reply to either Jacer or myself. This is not the time or place.
hS
It was, however, made very clear that no one was willing to listen to me.
I'm not leaving. But I won't post anymore.
I guess I need to clarify that my comments there were not intended to defend Jacer, who clearly was a chronic offender, but were only a response to the proposal that we institute a zero-tolerance single-offence-excommunication policy. I was looking forward, not backwards.
Hopefully that helps clear things up.
-- Kaitlyn, hopeful
As I stated in my above post: I am aware that you're not trying to defend Jacer, and these would be legitimate concerns given proper context. However, within the context that this subject is being brought up, I see these criticisms being made as not really paying attention to why we're making amendments to the rules in the first place.
That said, we actually have had a zero-tolerance single-offense-excommunication response in a few cases. Remember DoctorHello, that one guy who thought mutilation and torture was funny? I recall pretty much everyone jumping to get him out of here. The only thing that surprises me in this entire situation is that we let Jacer hang around as long as she did, especially considering the damage she did was even more extreme, to my knowledge. I'm not necessarily against such a policy when it's meted out only when necessary, such as in a clear case like DoctorHello. Again, as VM said, there is a line between "I don't believe this so I can't condone it" and "you are a terrible, horrible sub-human thing."
I apologize if it seems like I'm attacking you. I'm simply trying to point out why I feel that these criticisms are unnecessary given the background.
. . . it does apply to everything going forward. If this were a totally isolated and unique situation, we wouldn't need to change the Constitution to deal with it -- or rather, we could just add in a "No Jacer" subclause somewhere. But since we don't expect it to be the only time we deal with something like this, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss potential future ramifications of proposed changes.
Personally, I didn't even know who Jacer was until the Permission thread blew up, so I can't comment on why there was no huge response until then. I agree that her comments were absolutely egregious and unacceptable in civilised company (and truly, if the PPC is not civilisation, what is?). But the single-offence thing was being proposed as a blanket policy to apply to everyone, not just to equally egregious cases.
And I've been a quiet observer of SJW vigilante culture for a few years now, so I know that it does happen, and I know it's not pretty when it does. I agree with July etc that it's very unlikely to come to the PPC, but I also feel that the original proposal would have given it an easy way in. So in the context of a discussion about whether we should make an amendment, I thought it was appropriate to make a comment about what the amendment might say. Perhaps that was a little bit radical, but I've always liked to live on the wild side.
I think the current amendment is absolutely fine, for the record.
-- Kaitlyn
Again, not an illegitimate point. I think that's why there tends to be a difference between stating one's opinion and hate speech. One is deserving of an immediate smackdown, and the other isn't. While what one may define as hate speech could potentially be up for some debate, I think that a vast majority of the time it's pretty obvious.
And hopefully this actually will be a totally isolated and unique incident, and we'll never have to think about invoking the amendment ever again. You never know your luck, right?
-- Kaitlyn, hopeful once again . . .
thank you, Phobos and Neshomeh.
No worries about putting this back up top, ma'am. This issue needs to be resolved ASAP.
I approve of the wording for the amendment but I'd just like to stress one point. One very, very important point. To do this, I'd like to quote what doctorlit said in the first thread:
"[W]e shouldn't need a Constitution--any Constitution--to give us basic moral guidelines. [...] So yes, let's edit the Constitution. But let's not forget that the Constitution is only a piece of "paper." We are living, breathing, thinking, feeling human beings. We have minds. We have consciences. Sometimes, we need to use those first and the Constitution second."
And I absolutely agree that both 'I can do it because the Constitution' and 'You can't do that because the Constitution' can be dangerous and stupid statements. The problem recently seems to have been that people's consciences seem to have been saying different things - and thus, we codify it a little while assuming that the glorious old PPC spirit of free-range anarchy with big brains will continue to apply its common sense both to what is and is not said.
hS
Not recently as in the last few days/weeks. Obviously even the recent incident has roots going back more than a year.
hS
I agreed with this, but what with mimes? I have never heard of that expression before now.
I'd love to have someone update those of us who don't visit on what changes (if any) are being suggested.
hS
Pretty much any topic of import-or-unimport that comes up on the 'Board eventually makes its way to the chat as well. Mainly the discussion was just back and forth on what's already been brought up, though.
Have you considered adding a 'muahaha' to the end?
hS
I could not agree more.
Seems good, but (takes deep breath)
I am not sure if the sections of part one clear with Article 12. The problem I see is that anyone who doesn’t support gay rights, and all their opinion on said topic, are labeled as homophobic. The problem I see with this is that this effect, combined with the proposed amendment, would stop serious, two sided, discussion on that matter.
I am somewhat unsure as to why you are now leaping to use Rule 12 as a defense and in opposition to these changes, when earlier you wanted us to outright ban starting threads on 'potentially controversial topics'.
People can do that. StarShadow, in fact, did exactly what this amendment asks - gave an opinion, was told why it was wrong, and changed it. Then she(?) found an issue relating to her new opinion, and raised it.
hS
I'm "He" BTW
Back when I joined, the PPC was made up of LotR fanwriters, who - unlike the rest of the Internet - were almost exclusively female. The exceptions could literally be counted on the fingers of one hand - Al's Waiter, Leto Haven, Huinesoron, Techno-Dann, Elcalion - and tended to attract fangirls (which in some cases is perfectly understandable - I mean, AW's a blue elf!). Nowadays that's shifted somewhat towards Internet Norm.
Of course, Internet Norm has shifted too...
hS
They went from wanting to ban 'potentially controversial topics' because 'I say this because many people feel strongly with regards to these issues, and starting massive one-sided discussions with regard to such while banning any other point of view might become just as wrong.'
Now they are saying that the important key part- the reason we changed the rules- is contradicting Rule 12 because it would stop serious discussion because we're not allowing hateful opinions.
As I understood it, the fear is that any opinion someone doesn't agree with which in any way touches on a sensitive topic will be immediately labelled as hateful, regardless of the actual opinion and reasons given.
And even if I'm wrong - even if, somehow, we have someone on the Board who is saying 'I want people to be able to express hateful opinions in an offensive manner' - I still think my interpretation is worth considering. Because there is a line between an opinion you disagree with and an opinion which is hateful, and we need to be sure where we're placing that line in Da Rulez.
hS
Thanks, that is exactly what I am saying. My concern being the potential subjective nature of what can be considered a "hateful" comment would prevent intelligent and serious discourse on a range of topics.
Also, I had posted my previous opinion before I fully understood Rule #13.
I actually think that the amendment - either as stands or with the minor tweaks suggested elsewhere - will cover this just fine. I believe that the PPC Boarders have enough common sense not to explode in someone's face just because they heard something they didn't agree with. But it's not just my Constitution, it's everyone's, and I think it important that you (plural) agree with what I've just said before you put it in the Constitution.
I also think it would be a good idea to know -external to the Constitution - exactly where that line lies. Hence my Four Views post, and the attached question.
hS
Specifically views on gay marriage, but they can be extrapolated to other debates.
1/ Huinesoron's actual belief: As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that people will be married for eternity for the purpose of having children (it's complicated). As it stands, Church doctrine is pretty clear that this will require a male and a female - although actually, given that this is God we're talking about, that may be simply an unwarranted assumption (never thought of that before right now). However, up until 30 seconds ago, I would have said, therefore an eternal gay marriage would be something of a contradiction in terms - it wouldn't serve its purpose. However, that's only eternal marriages - sealings, we'd say. What people do in their worldly time is none of my business.
2/ Hypothetical orthodox liberal Mormon's belief: She believes that eternal marriage exists for the having of children, and therefore is between a man and a woman. She also believes that every earthly marriage should be working towards becoming an eternal marriage - since she believes (actually so do I) that God's plan is for everyone to be married who desires to, this means gay marriage would get in the way of that. However, she understands that this is a belief, and shouldn't affect the laws of the country.
3/ Hypothetical orthodox conservative Mormon's belief: He believes much as 2, but also that it is his duty to try and democratically alter the law so that people are encouraged towards (what he believes is) the Right Way.
4/ Hypothetical orthodox Mormon idiot's belief: She believes the same as 3, and that it is also her duty to explain to any 'gaymosexuals' exactly why they are sinful for wanting to get married - but in the spirit of loving kindness, of course.
---
Now, I think it's pretty clear that 4 is not welcome here - she's basically going to harangue people and tell them they're bad people, which is not a good thing. It's also (I hope!) pretty clear that I'm still okay (since according to the above, I actually apparently believe 'Dunno').
My personal opinion is that 2 and 3 - provided of course they conduct themselves in a respectful fashion - should be welcome on the Board. They have beliefs, they act on them, but they don't use them as an excuse for disrespect of persons.
This is of course only one of their many interlocking beliefs relating to gay marriage, and how welcome they would be of course depends on whether they also believe gay people are whatever whatevers who should be taught the error of their ways for non-marriage-related-reasons (which I do not, in case you're worried yet), but assuming the opinions above are all they give, in much the same way I've presented it... which do people think should be allowed on the Board?
hS, desperately hoping he hasn't left out a 'not' somewhere that changes everything around...
To start with, not supporting gay rights does not make you instantly homophobic. When your reasons for not supporting gay rights or LGBT is because they are terrible, sinful and disgusting people, that is homophobic. That is bad. That is what Jacer had done, and she backed this up with blatantly incorrect 'facts', such as that the Church has a right and imperative to intervene in matters of the State.
On a second note, people deserve equal rights, regardless of what they are or where they come from. This, strangely enough, includes gay people. I'm not sure where the wrong in saying people don't have the right to say other people have no rights is.
Unless they're Feanorians.
hS
Yes. It is true that this amendment would result in basically prohibiting people from talking about how they do not believe in the civil rights of LGBTQ people.
I'm not sure how that's a problem.
I may have over-simplified things, and I'll try and clarify them here.
1) Yes, of course the opinions of individuals' are solely their own, to be held and established and changed or not-changed at their own will, and no one else's.
2) However, some of those opinions are really unacceptable to be expressed here. For example: "My personal opinion is that people who are attracted to left-handed red-heads is that they are all evil, horrible people who should be forcibly deported because their lusts are an abomination and a detriment to civilization." This is a bit of hyperbole, to make a specific point: the previous quote is a [hypothetical] opinion, and nobody can stop the [hypothetical] Boarder from having it. But in no wise should that hypothetical Boarder feel that it is okay for them to express it in a PPC space. This is regardless of the reason - if your religion considers all red-haired, left-handed people to be abominations who should be shunned, that's your business. But it is pretty clearly stated in The Constitution that this isn't an okay thing to say, here. There are, we should assume, left-handed, red-haired Boarders, and the hypothetical Boarder is telling them that they should be exiled or put to death. There is not, and will never, be a good reason for that. It goes rather directly against the first two rules - it is emphatically Not Nice to those Boarders, and it goes pretty hard into flaming territory, considering the message it is sending to any and all left-handed, red-haired Boarders.
3) As hS has pointed out above, there's a sort of wavery line there - but I think it's a bit clearer than it might seem. Contrast the above statement, "I believe red-haired, left-handed people are evil monsters who are detrimental to society and should all be done away with," with the following: "My religion considers attraction to red-haired, left-handed people sinful, and so I cannot personally condone it." Do you see the difference? One is respectful statement of religious belief, not targeted at anyone (I cannot speak in support =/= No One Should Ever Consider) and not stated in an "Agree with me or DIE" sort of way. It's really important to remember that we're all coming from different places, here. We believe in our own religions' specific sacraments, laws, moral codes, but - this cannot be overstated - we have no power to impose them on anyone else. This applies in law, national or international, and in debates on the interwebs.
What happened in the previous incident was that someone took their religious beliefs, and applied them rather forcibly (rhetorically speaking, since she had no actual power to do so) to everyone in the conversation, claiming that she was right Because She Just Was, leaving no room for discussion. This alone is employing bad debate tactics, irritating, and likely to get one's fellow Boarders up in arms. When you combine it with language directly targeted at minorities, including fellow Boarders, things go from Pretty Bad to Nuclear, rather quickly.
4) Because of the way you phrased the above concern, I did assume that your issue with the new rule was that homophobia was not going to be tolerated. I honestly hope this is not the case - marginalizing and persecuting of specific demographics is not something that is going to be tolerated. The PPC always has been a place where serious open-ended discussion is welcomed, and if people are phrasing their points respectfully and rationally, there should be no issue. As long as we are all keeping this in mind, and respecting each other, I don't believe this rule should stifle PPC discourse at all.
Your #3 (wow, it feels good to have a # key again - the computer at work has it assigned to / instead... and / is also assigned /. No #!) is why I've been so worried about what a chance consists of. Consider the following exchange:
---
AnyBoardy: My religion considers attraction to red-haired, left-handed people sinful, and so I cannot personally condone it.
Lacksidacksical: Hey, I'm attracted to a red-haired, left-handed person.
AnyBoardy: Then I personally cannot condone that, but I understand that not everyone feels the same.
StirrySpoon: Please stop hating on Lacksi. That sort of behaviour is not tolerated here.
AnyBoardy: Hating? What? I wasn't hating. I was just saying I personally can't condone that.
StirrySpoon: Look at this! I gave himer a chance to recant ant heshe didn't! I demand that AnyBoardy leave forthwith!
---
(No, this is /not/ a camoflaged version of a conversation that has actually happened) Now I can see that poor Lacksi might be upset by not being personally condoned by AnyBoardy (she does look up to her, you know), but I also think AnyBoardy isn't trying to be offensive and doesn't understand what she did wrong. I don't want the PPC to turn into StirrySpoons. Hence, chances - which I think is in there to a great enough degree that this won't be a problem.
I just wanted to write some dialogue, really.
hS
Since I'm currently unable to access the Constitution in either version (computer restrictions), can someone copy in Article 12 so I know what we're talking about?
hS
Here it is:
13. Serious discussion is ALSO welcome, nay, encouraged, here. Odd, ne?
People have suggested a few tweaks to the wording, which are good tweaks, but overall I think the amendment is a good one. Let us accept it as part of Da Rules.
I wholeheartedly agree with 1 through 4 - just having seen some of the flame threads - and the arguments about discrimination and second chances - makes me see this as closing many loopholes and preventing discrimination much more effectively.
I agree that the last part of 2 deserves at very least to have a 2.5 made for it, if not a whole new number. The amendments to 6 and 7 are also very welcome to me.
Also, nice Diskworld reference.
I like this version, but I have a slight change in mind:
2. Do not flame. There is a distinct difference between 'I don't agree with your opinion and I think that your theory is factually wrong' and 'You're an idiot and your opinion is built on lies and stupidity'. If you find that you're hurling insults around, just stop.
3: We don't tolerate anyone making jokes about topics like rape, murder, abuse, bigotry and mental health issues. Such jokes are not wanted here, so don't make them.
I feel like point 3 is important enough that it needs its own point and shouldn't be tacked on to the end of another point. Your thoughts?
Hopefully someone can get a finalised/integrated version up soon, everyone can agree, and I can put it into the Constitution.
hS
Based on either things that have vanished from the original (I'm assuming this is meant to replace articles 1-6 in their entirety, and leave everything else as it stands), or on inter-linking... or on errata:
1/ You say 'who intentionally oppress, persecute, other, use or otherwise...' Is that meant to be 'otherwise abuse'? Or simply 'abuse'?
2/ Obviously the wikilink to Flame will go back in... you've also lost the 'to PPCers or anyone else' part in there, which means we no longer explicitly forbid attacking badfic authors. Suggest: '...you're hurling insults around - at fellow PPCers or anyone else - just stop'.
3/ 'in any violation of the Constitution, particularly Articles 1 & 2', rather than 'any of the above'.
4/ No problems here.
5/ Agreed.
6/ You've accidentally made a Board-centred Article. Suggest: 'do not end outside PPC community spaces' and 'while in communication with other PPCers'.
7/ For '(politely, though)', suggest: '(politely - and remember Article 5!)', and for 'take a step back and' suggest: 'take a step back - Article 4! - and'. Oh, and for 'leave the Board' suggest: 'leave.'
8/ Suggest this be moved up to immediately after Article 4, to tie into 'all respectful opinions', and get the 'newbies are allowed to comment too' point across sooner. Additionally, a comment: is the difference between 'does not warrant respect' and 'be polite' clear enough here? I understand it to mean that even if someone is causing grief, that's no reason for /you/ to turn the Board into a flamefest - but is that clear enough?
9/ I have a serious problem with this rule. Don't you UNDERSTAND that this silliness is not welcome in our VERY SERIOUS Constitution? This is an outrage and--
-- what's that? This is the PPC? Oh, sorry, I thought I was somewhere else. Never mind, carry on.
hS
Between vacation, and then the Neshomeh stuff up there, and then just general life.
1. Discrimination and persecution of any kind will not be tolerated, especially on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion. We will not tolerate individual people or groups who intentionally oppress, persecute, abuse, other, use or otherwise attack others in any way, shape or form, for any reason.
2. Do not flame. There is a distinct difference between 'I don't agree with your opinion and I think that your theory is factually wrong' and 'You're an idiot and your opinion is built on lies and stupidity'. If you find that you're hurling insults around, just stop. In addition, we don't tolerate anyone making jokes about topics like rape, murder, abuse, bigotry and mental health issues.
3: People engaged in any violation of the Constitution, particularly Articles 1 &2 will be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise.any Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance. Giving someone a chance means informing them their behavior is wrong or unwanted as according to our Constitution and why, as per Rule 7.
4: All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult, or persecute others (see 1) are welcome. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Should a debate escalate into an argument for any reason, everyone involved should step back and calm down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely.
5: Everyone on the Board should be respected as people, regardless of who they are. The opinions of a newbie are just as valid and wanted as those of someone here for four years. Everyone deserves respect until they show themselves to be unashamedly disrespectful themselves, which means people who show disrespect and discrimination as per Article 1 do not warrant respect based on those views. However, not warranting respect does not mean they do not warrant politeness. This means you are not allowed to descend into flaming and insulting them, but instead should follow Article 8.
6: If someone says something that seems offensive, but you’re not sure exactly what they meant, ASK them first, before jumping down their throats. Astonishingly enough, most people aren’t out to offend anyone. (If they are being deliberately insulting, believe me, you’ll have a lot of backup.) Don't be afraid to ask what someone meant- it isn't silly to want the full facts.
7: If you find it impossible to get along with another member of the PPC, please take it up in private e-mail. However, the rules of civility and respect do not ouside PPC community spaces or while communicating with other PPCers; harassing others by private means is just as serious as harassing them in public- if not more so, and will be treated as such. Don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and don’t say anything about another PPCer you wouldn’t say to their face. Remember, if you have to ask yourself if you’ve gone too far, you probably have. Everyone should do their best to be as civil as possible while in our community.
8: The PPC as a community is responsible for upholding the Constitution. If you see someone breaking any of the rules and guidelines herein, please ask them to stop (politely- remember Article x!) and explain why. If this doesn't resolve the situation, you will be backed up - and if it continues, a persistent rule-breaker should be shunned or asked to leave. (If you're being accused of breaking a rule, take a step back and, if you are in the wrong, stop, apologise, and move on. Grudges are no fun!)
9: All discovered mimes will be thrown into a pit, which may or may not be filled with various objects such as scorpions upon their availability.
9.5: There will be no clemency for these mimes until they learn the words.
Think a fourth thread is needed, or is it sorted out enough at this point to just prod it in? Form up top received enough okays, I think, and this is just a refinement.
A new thread for this might be a good idea... this one's rather long, to say the least.
I like this one, but may I suggest a slight alteration?
2. Do not flame. There is a distinct difference between 'I don't agree with your opinion and I think that your theory is factually wrong' and 'You're an idiot and your opinion is built on lies and stupidity'. If you find that you're hurling insults around, just stop.
3. Jokes about subjects such as rape, murder, abuse, bigotry and mental health issues will not be tolerated. These topics are considered to be Unfunny and 'it was just a joke!' will not be an accepted argument or excuse under any circumstances.
I don't think we need a new thread, since I think this constitutes (hehe see what I did there?) a final form... but it's not my thread, so it's up to you's lot.
hS
I don't think that the 'no bigoted jokes' thing needs to be its own thing, since it is firmly within the realm of that other rule, but, eh.
... there's a lot of repetition in there, July. I assumed you felt it necessary.
Well, it's enacted now. Both copies updated; if you spot any errors or inconsistancies, please edit them (the Wiki)/let me know (the Official Version).
hS
Also, changing all mentions of 'rule' to 'article' would be an idea too.
... it saddens me that the PPC Board no longer believes the opening clause of (current) Article 3:
Part of the wonder of the PPC is the ability of its members to engage in mature debate without descending into flames and fights...
hS
It's difficult to believe something when there is undisputed proof from multiple occasions and a variety of people that it's not existed for quite some time outside of only a few people.
July, who has a stick
Is it a good stick? Is it a walking stick? Is it... a sticky stick?
(I do not comprehend the stick)
hS