And the suggestion below looks really good.

It's great that the PPC has managed to get along for so long with people just generally being good people, but I guess we're large enough now that we need guidance on how to be decent to each other.

~Puck, formerly Mystia

Considering recent events on the board, and the fact that even before this, we've lost people to bullying, we could stand to have a rule like this. Astral Void's proposal looks pretty good to me, honestly.

The PPC's been, what, hoping for goodwill? That should've been added the SECOND the PPC became public, not as an afterthought after so many people decide to quit.

...

Sorry... It's just... how could this only be thought of now? I don't mean any offense to Jay or Arcadia, but surely someone must have thought to add a "No discrimination or racism on the Board or in the IRC" rule.

What exactly happened with Doctor Hello?

Also, the issue with Jacer... I agree with Tungsten_Monk on "diffusion of harmful opinions". Jacer was just mainly hurting others' feelings, not abusing others. Of course, I only lurked and saw the feelings being hurt. I think we can't just kick out Jacer because of what (s)he thinks , unless (s)he personally took it to hirself to privately message others with hurtful stuff.

For reference, I have been a boarder before, I have read the Constitution, and I just kind of left, though not because of something like this.

"Diffusion of harmful opinions" is a dangerously open-ended idea. Putting language like that in the Constitution is pretty much giving Person X carte blanche to shut Person Y down by claiming Y's opinions are causing X pain. Who's to say what's a harmful opinion?

Yes, we should not tolerate immaturity and abuse. But there's a line between "abuse" and "my feelings are hurt."

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.

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.

On the grounds of The Right to Swing a Fist, and how it ends exactly at someone else's skin.

And I apologize for my role in escalating things. I don't want this to ever happen again.

In addition, possibly more controversially. Is there any way to set up a support system, like the Sibling thing, or something, where people should be able to say that someone is harassing and bullying them - and a way to give that person a clear "Stop this and apologize, or leave" choice? It worries me a lot that Jacer had been harassing people, members of the PPC especially, by e-mail or what have you, and that this was not out in the open until she asked for permission.

We've always considered people PPCers as soon as they start to hang around the community, and I know that general policy is that there's no Official Distinction with permission, making some people More PPCery than others. So... that kind of behavior should be nipped in the bud for all PPCers, not just permissioned ones.

And I don't know if my past arguments and actions concerning authority, or whatever issues came up, have influenced that situation, but if that is the case, I do apologize. It just... shouldn't be happening. I know there's a "Take personal issues to private forums" amendment, but much like the amendment we're all looking at now, that shouldn't extend to harassment and bullying; this was a really bad case, but the problem should not get as bad as suicide before we're ready to do something about it.

In fact, I agree with everything you have written, especially the comparison to DoctorHello. If he deserved to be run of the board for making one thoroughly disturbing joke, then I don't see how people can defend Jacer's right to stay. At least DH wasn't actively attacking a group of people.

This seems like a reasonable Idea, and should help prevent this sort of thing from happening again. And I believe I speak for all of us when I say, this sucked.

However, one thought I had when was reading this was that if we extended the scope of this amendment to also cover starting threads on potentially controversial topics. If we banned threads like the one that started the first Jacer issue, this never would have started, and we would all be a lot happier.

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. In any case, we should remember what we are really about: finding humor in badfic. I believe that the amendment, with this change, will allow this board to remain the sanctuary that has been spoken of so highly.

Since I don't want to start with 'I, the h of S, have crafted this perfected Amendment; concord with it or suggest your pitiful alterations at your peril'...

We're talking about altering the text of Article One, as I understand this thread, to state that:

a) Discrimination and persecution - against specific individuals or classes of people, even if they aren't people on the Board - are not going to be tolerated.

b) In accordance with, er, common courtesy (and the general spirit of the Constitution), people should be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise - even DoctorGoodbye had that; he rejected it in favour of defending himself in outrage.

Oh, and c) That all non-offensive opinions presented in a respectful fashion are (still!) welcome.

hS, trying

Safe-spacing is now pretty mainstream in cohesive communities. It's perfectly reasonable to ask people to leave homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism and ablism at the door. We should always strive to be slightly better than the youtube comments section . . .

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. The PPC helped me work through my own internalised homophobia when I was only just starting to come out to myself, and I happen to know I'm not the only one.

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. And some people who desperately need safe spaces are thrown out into the cold.

However: the PPC isn't the place for people who legitimately can't be bothered with basic human decency. If someone says, "Ow, you're stepping on my face," the correct response is, "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I didn't realise and will remove my foot forthwith." Not, "Good. Let me step a little bit harder."

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. So be nice! Treat everyone else in the PPC with respect!"

. . . or leave. I'm happy with making an amendment to further clarify that when we say "be nice" we do actually, you know, mean it. We shouldn't feel obligated to tolerate brutality.

On all possible counts, I agree with this amendment, and am in favor of writing it into the Constitution of the PPC. That is all.

I'm thrown that things have been allowed to end up like this in the first place. As other people have said, the PPC has always been a safe space for me - a spot in the world where, no matter what kind of bad stuff's been happening to me, I'm going to feel protected. And that was because one of the major defining rules of this place as I perceived them was "Thou shalt not make anyone else feel hurt or upset, and if someone tells thee thou hast done so, even unintentionally, thou shalt take responsibility, apologise, and quit it." And it's suddenly not like that any more.

I don't want to leave - in fact, I will be extremely miserable if it comes to that - and putting up some extra safeguards seems like a good way to start resolving the issues that have blown up. I don't wanna leave my Internet home.

This entire situation has really hit home for me. I've tried to avoid it, but I can't anymore. It's a problem that, I think, is silently plaguing the entire Internet - especially communities like the PPC.

I do not like getting into fights on the Internet. In fact, I do not like getting into fights period, but on the Internet it's different, because we're all semi-anonymous. Even if someone uses their real name, we don't really know each other. I'm going to be brutally honest here: when I have a conversation with a close friend in the real world, I know a lot about them and I recognize them a real person. When I have a conversation with a stranger on the Internet, they're just... someone. A screenname. A robot, for all I care.

The problem, I suppose, is that there is a significant difference between "a screenname" and "a robot". And these two personalities simply do not mesh.

On the pure level of polite conversation, this view of the world actually works. I believe this is because at that level, we are calm, able to process information well. Therefore, the other party can be viewed as a screenname - a person. A faraway person, perhaps, and most likely a complete stranger, but still, at the very least, a person. For a person, we have sympathy, and sympathy begets ceasefire and peace.

But once something changes in that mix - say, a rude or hate-filled or unbridled remark - it boils over. The other person stops being a person and becomes a robot. A robot has no emotion. It is cold and mechanical, and it means nothing. If we view a person as a robot, then we feel free to sling as much mud at them as possible, and it becomes war.

The obvious solution to the problem is not to throw the first punch at all, but to just behave like little angels. But the odds of that happening are so low that it's pretty much a joke. I must say I like the zero-tolerance proposal, even if it is harsh, because it's a step towards that idyllic, if implausible, utopia.

But I also have this to say: when the first punch is thrown, it is best to remember the primary difference between a robot and a person.

If you tear a robot into a million pieces, nothing of much significance happens, and you are allowed to continue living life as usual.

If you tear a person into a million pieces, you are a murderer.

In my opinion, the bottom line is that if people are hurt, whoever's been saying the hurtful things should shut up, and fast. If they don't shut up of their volition, they should be silenced. Because a person's right to safety is much, much, much more important than free speech.
So, yes, let's change the constitution; I also agree with what Doctorlit said.
(It goes without saying that I don't want to offend anybody.)

The PPC has been for a long time (a very long time for some members) a place that maintained safety simply because we could trust our fellow members to not fail to grow and learn. It is a very sad time when we have to admit that the PPC has grown large enough that we cannot always trust every person that knocks on our doors.

We need a plan in place to deal with emergencies. I feel like if we have a short clear list, then we will be able to deal with these potentially very harmful topics before they get this out of hand.

It won't stop every argument that crops up, but I still have trust that the PPC can arbitrate the lesser issues without abusing any emergency plan that is worked out.

We can, and should, respect each other's cultures and opinions as equally valid, but we cannot allow that to extend to a position of absolute relativism where any variation is equally valid. Some people and cultures find it perfectly valid to violate things that are identified as basic human rights. Some things (basic human rights violations) have to be considered clearly wrong. When I say I agree with a list of things that are zero tolerance items, these are the kinds of things I am agreeing to being on it.

And I apologize for my part in the situation. It won't happen again.

Yes, we should practice zero tolerance against hate and bullying. Yes, this should be reflected in the Constitution. But! Zero tolerance should have been an automatic response to this situation.

Because we shouldn't need a Constitution--any Constitution--to give us basic moral guidelines. The mental and physical well-being of Tray-Gnome (and of Bronwyn, and of anyone else who has been hurt or scared by Jacer's homophobic comments anywhere) is more important than the PPC's Constitution. They are more important than the PPC.

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.

(SeaTurtle--I realize this post is rather aggressive, but please don't think the aggression is directed at either you or your topic. It was a good idea to make this thread.)

I propose that we include a subsection to the first rule in our Constitution: that we will not tolerate any sort of discrimination, persecution, or diffusion of harmful opinions.

I'm kind of incredulous that this isn't already in there. Isn't this a basic Thing? Isn't this a clause everyone puts into their Document of Thou Shalt (Not)s nowadays?

Mind, "No discrimination or persecution" can, unfortunately, be turned around into "You're [discriminating against/persecuting] me because I'm diffusing harmful opinions", which... actually on second thought there is no acceptable defence in that sentence scrap that thought, whoever has the rights to edit the Constitution add a clause in like SeaTurtle suggests.

Sometimes, only the harsh policy works. I agree with this.

I support this proposition.