Subject: Re: Those are two interesting questions.
Author:
Posted on: 2011-06-19 10:16:00 UTC
I'm happy to forgive, if/since it was an honest mistake.
As for the DA thing, I had a long chat with Dann over this and am satisfied with what he has in mind for it, a sort of veto right that people have to prevent discussions from getting into a negative spiral. I'm sure he'll elaborate on that himself.
I know I don’t post to the board nearly often enough, but I feel this is something important enough to get up off my ass and make known.
I give up. I can't deal with this shit any more. Among other things: The passive aggressive sniping, the angry overreactions, have gone too ...ing far, and too ...ing long. Yes, I am aware we are all stressed. Yes, I know we’re all angry and so on. But that is no reason to act like utter jerks to each other, and have the bystanders take the fallout. I can't take this shit anymore. I'm not participating until we as a whole put on our big girl panties and chill the ... out and deal with this like we’re the ...ing adults we are. We're all stressed and we're all annoyed, but big ...ing deal. This is a community about glorified goddamn fanfiction, not Jerry Springer. I refuse to take any more of this shit. ... that noise.
When we’re so focused on fighting, that we’re willing to go into the same tired old argument because ‘whoopsie! someone let out their religious or political beliefs!’ and that we get so cross that when people try to tone it down, or take it elsewhere or side track, that bystanders get hit in the crossfire and dragged in? That’s not cool. Not in the least. I am tired of having to pussyfoot around folks because I don’t know if there has been the daily fight yet today, or who was involved and now in a pissy mood. I’m tired of having to play devil’s advocate for both sides. I miss the quote unquote ‘Good Ol’ Days’ (tm) because then it was still silly and goofy and fun. We could go into a detailed look into badfic and not get yelled at. We could have a silly RP with horrible massive crossovers and mischaracterization and it didn’t matter because it was fun and people enjoyed it.
We all need to take a giant goddamn chill pill, and relax. Stop taking ourselves so seriously, and realize that not every comment that doesn't perfectly agree with your personal views is a personal attack.
Now onto the latest fight: #PPC2, and the implications.
#PPC2 was spawned as a one time room where people could go in the midst of a fight, and still hold a conversation without being hit with the crossfire. That was it’s original and innocent intent as far as I know. It was meant to be a room where people could retreat to, and leave when the fight was over. A pop-up room, essentially. Now, I do realize that while it was well intentioned, it was executed poorly. Only a handful of folks knew, because those were the ones around during the fight, they only invited folks in via PM, or folks (like myself) found it by chance when I saw it on a few people’s /whois. I understand that it was handled poorly when some of the people in the main room found it, and the wrong people went and tried to explain.
#PPC2 is in no way a personal attack on anyone. It is not an attempt to break the PPC into factions. The irony of the non-fight room being the cause of a fight, is, while amusing, not lost. As said previously, I understand we’re all stressed and annoyed because life sucks and ‘zomg it’s sooo totes unfiar’. However, this should not, and should never be an excuse for vicious and drawn out fights where both parties walk away mad. There are debates, and then there are goddamn catfights from hell.
I know for a fact, that I’m not the only one who is tired of this constant tension and stress, and I’m sorry it came to this.
Thanks for reading. *steps down from her soapbox and takes cover*
I HATE arguments and fights with a burning passion, which is why I am almost always neutral. From what I can tell, the chat has been one huge fight-fest over the past few weeks.
One of the things I always liked about the PPC was that people got along so well in spite of our varying sarcastic personalities . . . I don't know a thing about or use the IRC, though, so I probably got a skewed view.
Since I don't have a stake in this, all I can do is pull the old cliche and ask if we all can't just get along. I hope we can: I love this community to pieces and hate to see any of us fighting.
I don't like to see my friends fight. And I do like to think of everyone here as being friends. Maybe that's naive of me, but I don't care. Guys, let's please all be friends again?
I would suggest that we have Designated Arbitrators, who have the authority to say "drop it". I'd also like to nominate Miah for the post.
(And I totally agree with you, Bryn. This is freaking stupid, and if it continues being stupid, I don't think I'll be going back.)
I know from experience moderating over on LJ's trans_9 game, having someone (or a group of someones) able to keep a level head and just tell people to knock it off is absolutely crucial when you get groups of people with large personalities together.
And what is the PPC if not a group of large personalities, always?
I came back to the PPC largely because I remembered the camaraderie that I used to experience in the old chat. Drama in there is something that drove me away the first time; I was very concerned that things seemed so bad when I came back. I too agree with Bryn, this is ridiculous and could have been avoided; if it continues, I won't likely stick around.
Seconding the nominations of Miah, yourself, and VM as arbitrators. And, not to put myself forward, but I have said before that I'm available to listen to any sort of complaints or concerns about anything PPC-related, confidentiality guaranteed if desired, active mediation also an option. I don't really think I'm in the chat enough for any sort of official responsibility there, but I'd love it if people vented to me rather than letting their frustrations build up into a big explosions like this.
I noticed you're formulating some actual written rules and a system of enforcing them, too, which I heartily approve since they're so clearly needed. I think a lot of the trouble has stemmed from feelings of uncertainty and inconsistency on this score. Of course, some of the things I've heard of, not necessarily related to the second room, also sound like blatant disregard for others. That is much harder to solve, but making it clear that there are expectations of how to behave in a public channel ought to help. I wish it wasn't needed, but unfortunately the honor system seems to have been ignored on multiple occasions.
~Neshomeh
Consider yourself very definitely nominated.
I meant the part about not being in there that much; I was going for "available in a similar but separate capacity."
Not that I won't help if I do see anything bad, but people who are in there more should be the first choices. Also, I think more non-PGs, or possibly equal numbers, might be a good idea. {= )
~Neshomeh
I hate to be the guy who makes things difficult and asks questions, but from what I heard of Miah's role in things, is this a sound idea?
And what exactly do you mean the Designed Arbitrator can do - terminate a discussion on the IRC channel at any time? So they have more power than an op does on our channel, since our ops don't seem to really have this authority? Or is this just pertinent to the discussion about factionalism?
Concerning the DAs, the point is that they're people we can rely on to be rational, and tell us when we're not being rational. So, yes. They have the authority to stop a conversation, but it's consensual - because we, as chatters, accept that they have the perspective to tell us that we've lost ours. I do not think that the DA who calls 'halt' should be the person who backs it up with op powers.
And for Miah, she has said that it was an honest mistake, and apologized. It's up to you if you can accept that or not. I can.
I'm happy to forgive, if/since it was an honest mistake.
As for the DA thing, I had a long chat with Dann over this and am satisfied with what he has in mind for it, a sort of veto right that people have to prevent discussions from getting into a negative spiral. I'm sure he'll elaborate on that himself.
I would also like to nominate two more, if I can.
Techno-Dann himself, because he's pretty much always the voice of reason anyway, and VM, who is a pretty cool chick and usually good about being all reasonable as well.
The IRC has been really tense lately. I always feel like I'm gonna accidentally piss someone off with almost anything I say, even if I'm just asking questions or discussing random stuff. It's like it's full of eggshells, but all the eggshells are attached to landmines that also let out attack dogs covered in napalm.
While the comparison is amusing, I don't think that napalm covered dogs would be a danger for long.
That said, I agree with the nomination, although I must ask why we can't just have anyone say "drop it, guys."
that just anybody saying drop it doesn't work is that when people are not being rational, it seems that the 'drop it' person always gets grouped by BOTH arguing parties as 'enemy.'
It's because it's situational. Most of the arguments START because somebody expresses their opinion, somebody says 'no,' and then the first person fights back. Somebody saying 'no, cut it out' to a single argument doesn't get us anywhere because it causes both parties to either ignore that person, or even fight back against that naysayer with things like 'you don't understand!' or 'but this is important/insulting/srs bns!' and the like.
Having an omnisituational arbiter that can say 'cut it out' removes the personal factor in stopping an argument. There's no more 'no, YOU need to stop I am telling YOU AND YOUR OPINIONS TO STOP,' but a 'this is an argument and drama needs to stop, no matter what it is.'
When an arbiter says 'no, stop' to people, it's not a personal attack or a negative response to the argument's subject matter and expressed opinions. It's simply what that person does for ALL arguments, and not a cause for drama against that person.
So yeah...
Is because speaking up has always been an option, and only very few people have ever seen fit to exercise it. Formalizing it - making it peoples' jobs (and I fully intend to extend the list as much as possible) - will, hopefully, give more people more motive to speak up.
It's not like I'm going to jump on anyone who isn't a DA for speaking up. I just want someone to speak up when things are getting out of hand, and if I have to give people a fancy title to make it happen, so be it.
Works for me.
Let me try to explain.
First, the IRC is muted for this week to give everybody a chance to be out of each other's hair for a while, so I hope that will do as the desired chill pill.
Second, yeah, a lot of dumb things went down, but we (meaning myself and the people I've been conversant with) are really trying to do our best not to make it a bigger deal than it needs to be. The current plan is for all parties to back off, chill out, and discuss what happened and why at a later time. It doesn't need to result in a big fight that drags in folks here who haven't got the slightest idea what's going on.
I'm trying to mediate as best I can, so if anybody has questions, please address me. You can e-mail me at exswyzie14 (at) yahoo (dot) com.
Thanks,
~Neshomeh
You probably weren't around but people called for a hiatus on this to avoid it spilling over to the Board and to let people calm down. I would hope you agree with this decision.
However, now your position has been posted here and I'm trying not to respond to its contents, but I'm loathe to leave it unresponded to either because I don't fully concur with it. So I guess my only recourse, while not also reneging on what I've committed to, is saying that "it isn't that simple".