Subject: Yeah
Author:
Posted on: 2012-07-18 09:45:00 UTC
Most places these days do have a 'no discrimination' pointer, of some wording or other, in their document of social rules for their community.
It's rare not to... and could stand to be rarer.
People have been seriously hurt these past few days. In fact, we're seeing some brilliant people leave because of recent events. After Tray-Gnome, I've seen Herr Wozzeck also declare his intention to quit and people like JulyFlame, Artell, Cassie, and Maslab are thinking of leaving. I haven't been around long enough to properly know them, but when oldbies are thinking of leaving, we seriously need to stop and take a good long look at ourselves and what we're doing.
We've made a mistake. Mistakes happen. We absolutely need to learn from this, or else we forfeit any chance of improving this community.
In the light of recent events, I believe we need to amend our Constitution so that we can maintain a safe, fun, and respectful environment.
Looking down at the mess that has become Jacer's Permission thread, it is clear that there is confusion when it comes to the "Don't say the other person's opinion is wrong" rule. Having free speech is nice and all, but I firmly believe there is a line that we must not cross when saying/posting things. Some might argue that this is not true free speech, but I think this is a manifestation of common sense.
The opinion rule works when it's something small such as "Person A doesn't like Person B's taste in fandoms" but breaks down completely when it's "Person A has a major problem with a facet of Person B's identity".
We need something bigger to deal with these types of situations. Remember the DoctorHello incident? He was rejected so hard his intro thread was purged from existence. Why?
It's because we practiced Zero Tolerance. DoctorHello shocked the rest of the community with his sick joke and we came down hard on him.
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. A single offense is completely unacceptable and will be punished. If Zero Tolerance works with bullying in schools, why can't it work here?
As for second chances... I don't know. I haven't worked out that part yet. Zero Tolerance might seem harsh and extreme, but from my point of view it's the most effective way of staving off crises like this one.
I don't want the PPC to break down and end. Not like this.
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.
Changes must be made to create a better environment for others to thrive and grow.
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.
Back in the early days of the PPC, we had enough collective common sense and inherent respect for each other that such a rule was completely unnecessary. It was not a hope for goodwill; it was an expectation of goodwill, and that expectation was met for almost ten years. That is why it is only being said now...because only now has it become necessary.
I don't think Jay would be offended, though I can't say as much for "Arcadia"...
What do you mean, by putting, "Arcadia" in speech marks? I thought she retired.
http://ppc.wikia.com/wiki/Acacia_Byrd
This is a sad day for the Department of Technical Errors...
Since the last thing I saw was them not doing Fifty Shades of bullshit.
...includes being able to take criticism--especially of a spelling error--gracefully. Otherwise, the PPC runs the risk of being hypocritical for dishing out literary criticism but not being able to take it.
On that note, let me say that this does not seem to be the right place for you. You are trying very hard to get Permission, but are not able to find your way around the most basic thought processes of the PPC:
- You make an unnecessary post that bumps a topic off the first page, instead of scrolling down to read a topic yourself. You outright state that you know someone's discussion will get bumped off, but you post anyway.
- When asked to read the aforementioned topic, you ask for a link, instead of taking the initiative to find the link on your own (still on the main page, if I'm not mistaken).
- When you find your way to the discussion of the "PPC tension," the first thing you do is assume that for years, your fellow Boarders had been thoughtless and ignorant, instead of assuming that we are intelligent and respectful of our peers.
- You compound this by misspelling the names of one of the original PPC agents.
- When someone gives you a subtle hint about this misspelling, you don't catch the error, and you don’t try to figure out what was wrong by yourself.
- When that person abandons subtlety and shows the error to you bluntly, you resort to being snide.
- You give constructive criticism to a fanfic author in which you misspell the word "grammar." You proceed to tell the author how much you respect him or her at the same time that you cry "Spork the B****!" on the Board.
- Instead of being fully prepared in your first post for Permission, you are ignorant of basic PPC procedure, such as getting a beta.
- Instead of accepting feedback with gratitude, you mask your defensiveness behind questions every time someone points out a mistake.
- This is all beside your apparent ignorance of what, exactly, constitutes other people's intellectual property.
To sum up: you cannot navigate your way around the PPC without your hand being held at every turn. And if someone does take your hand with the slightest bit of reluctance or exasperation, you retaliate by being rude and/or swearing.
This does not demonstrate goodwill or good faith in your fellow Boarders. It does not show that you possess the fandom etiquette and literary skill necessary to participate in a group geared toward fanfiction critique. Please be on your way; you are not a positive addition to our community.
OK, yeah, I made a load of mistakes.
I just... wanted to help a little by solving the DeviantARt problem.
I am sorry for being a plagarizing, snide, jackass, douchebag, hack, fool, idiot without a decent spellcheck, thief.
I'm sorry that all of this was blown out of proportion, and... I wish the PPC the best of luck in the future.
I'm just sorry it ended like this.
You've completely missed what's happening, you've not read the Board, and that's twice in one evening that you've used language well outside the norm for the Board. Please, stop posting for the rest of the evening.
If you want to talk about it, I'm on gtalk - Techno.Dann@gmail.com. I'm also on IRC - Dann on Sorcery
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.
This is a serious issue, and you've chosen to hide your identity and not reveal who you are.
We've have repeatedly had anonymous people come to Jacer's assistance and defense every time she has been part of serious issues, and every time they claim to be or have been boarders. This is, I hope you can understand, a problem.
She has already publicly admitted that she sockpuppets, so for what reason should we trust you, who hides their identity to not be trying to be Jacer defending herself?
"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.
If a person who's failed twice's say matters, I support any changes you make.
Sorry for the outburst.
Most of us are not adults, or just barely adults, and quite a few of us, myself included, almost certainly don't qualify as "mature".
I'm not going to start challenging your move regarding the rules, because there are people who can and likely will put it way more eloquently than I can. But... you'd rather have a sizeable chunk of the PPC community quit over this rather than alter the rules a little?
Seriously?
We told Tray- through our actions and decisions- that we care less about his life and wellbeing and more about about Jacer's 'right' to say hateful things.
I don't want the PPC's actions to end up being the reason someone kills themselves.
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.
"Serious discussion is ALSO welcome, nay, encouraged, here. Odd, ne?"
I for one would not be happier if this turned into a hugbox with all serious discussion shut away and banned. That is against the PPC's nature.
The problem with the LGBT thread wasn't that she had a different opinion, it was that her opinion was that LGBT people are sinful and disgusting, she backed herself up with things that were outright incorrect, she took it out on people, and she was not apologetic for hurting the feelings of others. Nay, she reacted with triumph.
Also? That's not what we're really about. We're not just about 'finding humor in badfic'. We are about improving our own writing as well.
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
Neo-nazis, racists, pick up artists/seduction artists, men's rights activists, and mimes?
Because we should at least be allowed to discriminate against terrible people.
Especially the mimes.
In all seriousness, though, if it's a group with the focus of racism, sexism, or some form of oppressive -ism, we should not tolerate them. And probably should be wary of such groups.
I am in favor of giving people the option to apologize for their actions or beliefs, but if they're not sincere or ignore it in favor of defending themselves, their butts should be out the door.
So it's up to someone else to decide whether to list everyone who can't be discriminated against, list everyone who can be discriminated against, or say something really clever that covers both.
I am in support of anti-mime action in this location.
hS
A) Discrimination and persecution on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, and transphobia are not going to be tolerated- this means we will not tolerate individual people or groups with the distinct goal of opppressing, persecuting, othering or otherwise using others.
B) In accordance with common courtesy, people will be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise.
C) All non-offensive opinions presented in a respectful fashion are always welcome.
D) 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.
Thoughts? Is A clear enough and open enough?
Though as has been shown, I tend to not spot errors correctly. One problem I did find was with the wording of A, or, specifically, what ISN'T the wording of A. I think there should be a little add-on to it that states something along the lines of "... and no other intolerance of any group, race, ect. will be tolerated either. Except Mimes."<br>
Would that work?
A) Discrimination and persecution on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion are not going to be tolerated- this means we will not tolerate individual people or groups with the distinct goal of oppressing, persecuting, othering or otherwise using others.
B) In accordance with common courtesy, people will be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise.
C) All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult, or persecute others (see A) are welcome.
D) 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.
Let's not leave any loopholes for the rules-lawyers. I think we can be fairly confident that people trying to hide behind loopholes will be firmly dealt with, but those fights tend to be long, bloody, and frustrating.
I don't think this is a KKK/NAMBLA opening, since the KKK is generally covered under the rule itself, and NAMBLA is pretty firmly against the law - after all, DoctorHello tried something along the lines of abuse-humor, and got slammed with reality hard.
Can someone also please find a way to integrate it with the current text of Article One? And I would like to suggest some expansion of what 'actual chance' means - since "I already told you 'Shut up you stupid person', and you didn't, so leave the Board!" is something some people might consider an 'actual chance' - and if they're upset enough, other people might let them do so.
hS
I took a shot at revising and integrating article one. This isn't intended to be the final product, and all suggestions are more than welcome, but see what you think of it to start:
A: 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.
B: 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.
C: 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. A chance is, for example, the following:
John: Mass Effect 3's ending was terrible and the Extended Cut just made it worse!
Jane: I don't know, I thought it was all right.
John: Only an idiot would think that! You're an imbecile!
James: John, we don't tolerate people who insult others here. Calm down, step away from the keyboard, go read the Constitution and then please apologise to Jane.
John: All right. I'm sorry for insulting you, Jane. I don't agree with you, but I'll leave it at that.*
D: All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult, or persecute others (see A) 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.
E: 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.
F: If you find it impossible to get along with another member of the PPC, please take it up in private e-mail. Don’t turn our spaces into free-for-all flamefests, don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and while you’re in our spaces, 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.
G: 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 persistant rule-breaker is likely to 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!)
H: Everyone on the Board is to be respected, be they newbie, oldbie, Permission Giver, IRC mod, author of dozens of missions or writer of two missions. The opinions of a newbie are just as valid and wanted as those of someone here for four years.
I: The moderators and Permission Givers are here for a reason. Should one tell you to do something, do it. For reference, our current moderators are: [list goes here]**
J: 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.
J.5: There will be no clemency for these mimes until they learn the words.
* My example isn't very good, I know. If anyone's got a better one, feel free to put it there.
** I'm actually not sure who all the current mods are, which is why I'm suggesting a list.
Your suggestion looks really good. Though, I don't think the board actually has moderators? I know the IRC has a few, and has guys called Designated Arbitrators, whose jobs are to help diffuse arguments and stuff, but I think the board just has Permission Givers and the Nameless Admin.
I wish that these things could go without saying, but people have to know exactly what's expected of them. I hope this amendment is effective, because I would hate to see anything like what just happened happen again.
I think we might need a revision along the lines of:
F: 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, 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.
Your suggestion looks pretty good to me, and looks like it includes everything mentioned so far, but there is one point that I'm not sure about, and that's J.
I'm not aware of any official anti-mime policy within the PPC, so I'm assuming that's just a joke (and possibly a reference to Lord Vetinari from Discworld), and while it does seem to fit with the slightly absurd nature of the PPC, it could also be seen to somewhat devalue the rest of the points.
Earlier in this thread, people have been talking about closing off any loopholes to prevent exploitation by rules-lawyers, and I would consider this to be akin to a loophole in that someone could say 'Well, that point wasn't meant to be taken seriously, so why should I listen to the others?'. I don't think that's a particularly good reason, but it's the kind of excuse that I could see someone trying if they were intentionally stirring things up, and those kind of arguments can drag on and just spoil things for other people. It's probably best to avoid them from the start.
it is meant to be a joke, and one based on Discworld at that, but it is very clearly a joke entry meant to let people know we're not trying to be NO FUN ALLOWED. If someone really did try to use "but that's a joke, so therefore all the rules are jokes" as an excuse, we'd just have to tell them otherwise.
In any case, joke entries in the Constitution have never been used as an excuse before to my knowledge, and it's been in existence for years*. I figure people who are able to comprehend the rules and follow them are also able to tell jokes from the serious entries.
*Older-bies, feel free to correct me if I'm uninformed. :P
All right, we may have to put the anti-mime policy on hold. Or put it somewhere else.
I would suggest going with Astral Void's wording of point A, because some people can be creative with loopholes and "of any kind" closes one before it's found.
However, I did have an idea or two regarding some slight revisions.
A: Discrimination and persecution of any kind, especially on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion, are not going to be tolerated- this means we will not tolerate individual people or groups with the distinct goal of oppressing, persecuting, attacking, othering or otherwise using others in any way, shape or form.
C: All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult or persecute others (see A) are welcome- we encourage and like respectful, open-minded debates.
D: All discovered mimes will be thrown into a very deep pit, which may or may not be filled with various objects such as scorpions depending upon their availability.
D.5: There will be no clemency for these mimes. Ever.
Feel free to ignore or adapt these as you will...
with just one change.
D.75: "Learn the words".
Seriously, though, I think A and C are now worded very tightly and should cover most if not all eventualities.
C is an important clause - we need to preserve the Board's ability to have a mature discussion about "meaningful" topics. It's just sad that we can no longer self-regulate...
Elcalion, shocked at all the horribleness on the Board these days and taking refuge in Pratchett.
A is definitely clear, at least to me.
C seems slightly ambiguous - 'offensive' tends to be a word that is a bit open-ended in definition, allowing for a lot of different people to have different definitions - and possibly opening the door to this thing happening all over again in a few years, when somebody steps up to go "Okay, that was really offensive," and somebody else goes "No, it wasn't, also I was totally respectful while saying otherkin are abominations to the FSM," and people take sides and things go nuclear.
How about:
C) All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult, or persecute others (see A) are welcome.
Especially D.
Also backing Lilac Lielac's suggestion of adding a "no discrimination/persecution on the basis of someone's religion or lack thereof" clause. We want all of our angles covered to prevent loophole abuse.
A might also use a mention of no discrimination/persecution on the basis of someone's religion or lack thereof; that one's also a button I've seen pressed, not here but elsewhere on the 'net.
Otherwise it looks about right, though I think the mime pit needs a camera so we can watch them try to climb up invisible ladders.
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.
I suppose it is also reasonable to ask people to leave slut-shaming at the door, yes?
This is me, seconding the inclusion of slut-shaming in the "These are the things you just can't do here" pile.
But it's a damn shame not everyone is the sort to agree with that, and follow it. That sort of stuff should not just be swept under the rug, and forgotten. 'Noble Cause' or not.
Nobody else mentioned this "slut-shaming" thing. I'm not going to pretend I know what this is all about, but it has the ring of making digs at someone that they're going to pick up on and feel bad about. And that is the sort of thing we are trying to avoid here. Either act like someone mature enough to be talking about this and deal with the problem privately, or drop it. Don't spread attempts at subtle nastiness, because that's exactly what this seems like.
- Cassie, who is sick to death of the unpleasantness wafting around the Board right now.
I don't think we have to worry about a vigilante culture developing here- after all, a sound chunk announced that they would rather leave than not be in accordance with the rules. Instead, we have the opposite problem, where people are defended of past and current mistakes they aren't apologetic for in the least because the rules say we're supposed to do so.
I am very glad that you were able to work through it yourself with help here, and that there were others who did as well. The PPC's helped me through a lot of things as well.
SJWs are a terrible thing; I'd want no part in a group of them, and it's not something that should ever become part of the PPC. We are, I hope, much better than that. There's no justice or teaching with them, only hatred and scorn.
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.
And it should be somewhere that you know you have a voice too. :P Just because you're quiet, doesn't mean it doesn't carry weight to it. You've been a big part of the community for a long time, Cassie. You are more than entitled to say things when you feel things need to be said.
Everyone's supposed to feel at home here enough to say things and not feel like they'll be ignored.
And hopefully, with so many people stepping up to support this amendment to the Constitution, it'll become a safe place again.
Also, I've never felt like a big part of the community - just a teeny little part that occasionally happens to talk to big parts who like me. :P Guess it's my own fault for not participating much, but I never feel like I have anything to say - at least nothing that's not already been said by other people, or that won't get me told off for not thinking things through. Which is, I think, why I tend to enter debates and arguments as they're beginning to wind down and just add my voice to support one side or the other.
You're not the only one who's fairly quiet, Cassie. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it does mean that people like us tend to avoid the main firing line in situations akin to that which recently happened.
I daresay that, having lurked and watched said events from a distance, the whole affair is an almighty shame, especially for those who are leaving as a result.
Having watched the film 'Batman Begins' a few days ago, I think there is a quote that would be quite applicable here:
"Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up again."
That's what the PPC needs to do now, and I really hope it manages to, because even from the little I have seen up until now, it seems the people here do want to try and do good by the world. Safeguards are increasingly necessary nowadays, though, especially regarding topics which tend to have strong opinions on all sides.
As such, I agree the Constitution should include this update, and the update should be enforced.
Also, another suggestion: most boards and forums have a group of admins whose job it is to handle such things and remove posts not conforming to the appropriate site rules. Is this part of the PGs jobs, should it be or should there be other boarders voted in to carry out this function?
I was wondering what could be done about if, say, somebody was banned from the Board but just came back under a different name?
Also, if somebody was asked to leave/banned, how would they actually be prevented from posting again anyway, same name or otherwise?
I mention these because they are something else often covered by most forums' rules, usually backed up by site mechanics.
I also found a mention of moderators since my last post. My previous post's last point is therefore already covered. My bad.
Well, there are some problems there, under our current board system. Banning from the board is done by banning an IP address, not a name, but I believe we can only have a certain number of IPs banned at a time. Also, since it does done by IP and not name, that means that someone who has their private IP banned can still log in from pretty much any other internet connection, like a library or a cafe with wi-fi.
Really, the only effective method of enforcing a ban, or making sure someone who has been asked to leave doesn't come back would be to have the Nameless Admin delete any new posts they make, as soon as they were spotted. Unfortunately, the Admin is the only one who can delete posts and/or register bans, which could potentially lead to an unfortunate amount of work on their end.
...just because I agree with updating the Constitution, but the PPC Posting Board also needs a way to enforce it. Unfortunately not all people, when politely asked to leave, will necessarily leave, especially if they have decided they want to start flaming. Hopefully this will not happen, but it cannot be guaranteed.
In light of recent events, we must not forget to cover this base too. It might be an idea to have a plan B if the Nameless Admin gets overloaded, or if somebody finds a way around the IP block/the site runs out of IP blocks available. I hate to say it, but necessity might be driving us towards a new site.
I for one would be a lot happier if the login button worked. As it currently stands, somebody could come in, flame under an existing member's name and get an innocent Boarder banned. If we're looking to fill in loopholes, that is a BIG one.
...somebody could come in, flame under an existing member's name and get an innocent Boarder banned.
First off, the IP addresses are visible. It would be very, very easy** to check the IP on the flame post against a Boarder's usual IP address, and note that the post was not made by them. (Likewise, if a Boarder starts flaming anonymously, unless they're careful, it's very easy to figure out who it is.*) Also, we do have people who are very good at techno-y things, who can figure out things like where a post came from, and other mysterious... um... things. Anyway.
The login button has never worked, as long as I can remember. If we are going to try and make this a Really Secure Place with a Really Secure Login, we're back to talking about another forum altogether. Which is a solution that, IIRC, is being brainstormed by some of the afore-mentioned smart and techno-y people.
So in the meantime, enforcement as done by the 'Board - namely, "No, you've broken the rules and harassed/bullied people, you've been given chances to apologize but instead continued to bully/harass, you're no longer welcome here," is about enough. If people try to start a flame-war, the Nameless Admin has proven quite capable of shutting that down - if they can stop the ypur invasion two (three?) years in a row, I have full confidence they can stop a disgruntled former Boarder in their tracks.
*Note: this also applies to 'Anonymous' replies on debate and argument threads! Don't bother, dudes. Nobody is going to see a salient point and go "Ah, that's wise, but-- Oh My God, it's that horrible ZombieVectorDude saying it! How DARE they weigh in on a serious issue after failing at permission/only being here a few days/not being super best friends with everyone!" Nobody is going to run you off the 'Board for disagreeing with them on a point of IP security, or what have you. Nobody is going to rise up and tell you you're not allowed to talk here, because you don't have permission yet. Just sign your name.
**Probably. Most of the time. Barring tactical camouflage measures.
Ah, then I guess I'm just being paranoid. Good to know it's covered. Thanks for putting my worries to rest.
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.
Just so you know, I wrote that well after midnight when I should have been fast asleep, but I was just so mad at... well, everything, and I couldn't help write it down. The truly sad thing is I don't believe ours is a problem that can be solved completely - but at least we're moving in the right direction, and that's what I want to see.
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.)
It just seemed that everyone was falling back onto the Constitution to defend themselves. I am in complete agreement with you.
I'm just so sad that it needed people to quit so that we realize that we need to take action...
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.
Most places these days do have a 'no discrimination' pointer, of some wording or other, in their document of social rules for their community.
It's rare not to... and could stand to be rarer.
Sometimes, only the harsh policy works. I agree with this.
I support this proposition.