The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

There are boat trips to watch the seals in Ramsgate, which is near as makes no difference where I live. Ix has Feelings concerning seals. I thought we could combine the two.

On Coordinating in Private

I agree with Phobos on this: it depends on the intent. Wanting to have the support of your friends in a difficult moment is one thing. Ganging up on someone to shut them up is another.

It also personally gets my back up when people who hardly ever post on the Board pop up out of nowhere to join in criticizing someone. That, to me, is a serious red flag signalling collusion with malign intent.

On Assuming Authority

I've seen people acting entitled—to feedback, mostly—but I'm not sure I've seen anyone issue demands on the basis of imaginary authority. Can we have an example?

I do think people are entitled to a say when it comes to bits of the PPC into which they've put lots of time and effort. That's just polite.

However, I also think you have to actively maintain your stake or give it up. I think you can expect people to respect your claims as long as you're active in the community, but you can't expect people to wait for you forever if you've drifted away. When it comes to fic claims, developments on a storyline, or other things of that nature, at some point you have to nut up or shut up.

On Argument from Oldbie

a) I agree with Phobos on this one. I've definitely seen people say things to the effect of "I've been down this road before and had X experience, so trust me when I say Y," which I think is perfectly valid even if it doesn't necessarily make them right about the present case. I can't say I've ever seen a completely unqualified "I've been here longer than you, therefore I am right and you should do what I say without question."

b) I've got a couple of quotes that sum up how I feel about this. "Younger warriors are wise to listen to older ones. They've lived." "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

In other words, it's probably smart to give some weight to the opinions of people who have a lot of experience with the thing under discussion, but it's never a good idea to turn off your critical thinking engine. If you do, it's not the oldbies' fault.

c) This is actually a serious concern, but I'm not too worried about it. First of all, the long-time members mostly get along with each other, and that's because of mutual respect and trust built up over years of association. We've written together, debated together, created together, played together, and worked hard together for years, and we've managed not to screw it up. So, like, if someone has been around a long time, it's pretty much because they care about this place and are a good person? People who don't care and aren't nice tend not to last.

I get that these close bonds between oldbies can make us appear as an impenetrable clique to newbies, but frankly, that's just too bad. I'm not going to stop liking and associating with my friends of the past five years or more. You can become one yourself, though, if you care and are nice to be around. "Oldbie" is not actually an impenetrable clique, it's something you achieve by being around and participating positively without ticking people off all the time.

Cases in point: People assumed I was a PG long before I actually became one, simply because I was active on the Board and I made an effort to know what I was talking about and then to help out when newer people had questions. People also lumped Phobos in with the oldbies almost immediately after he joined, because he knew me and because he made an effort to know what he was doing and then acted like it. Iximaz was voted a PG after, what, a year? because she showed enthusiasm and made an effort to be knowledgeable and do well.

You can, too. And then, if one or another of us gets into trouble, you can help put us back in our place.

d) This also is a serious concern, and the one I think we can actually do the most about. See Battlefield Mentality and Jumping to Conclusions. And then don't do those things. {= )

Splitting the Community

Ehhhh, there are decisions and then there are decisions. Not everything needs the full participation of the whole community. I'm thinking mostly of the wiki here, because that's where I have the most experience, but it applies to other spaces, too. Stuff like "hey, can I add a link I think is relevant to this page?" is probably okay to discuss on the article's talk page. The people most likely to respond there are also the people most likely to respond on the Board, because they're the only ones who actually care about the minutiae that much. {= P

Even a lot of the stuff I've gotten up to over there, when it changes the format but not the content, I haven't always brought up on the Board, because honestly, nobody cares as long as they can get the information they want. (This, from what I can tell, is mostly information about badfics, particularly the Legendary ones. {= P ) And then when it comes to content, as long as I'm adding and not removing it, that is something anyone can do as long as the content they're adding isn't spam or other garbage.

Things that may affect the perception of the PPC as a whole, though, or broadly change what content is available in what way, or broadly affect content that does not belong to me, I have brought up on the Board. (And mostly found that most people don't care, but I still do it.)

So I really think it's a matter of intent and degree.

Also, as someone else pointed out, a space can be available to everyone, but people will still self-select themselves out of it. Not everybody cares about the wiki; not everyone likes a live chat; not everyone enjoys RP or Cards Against HQ or Minecraft or whatever else you care to name that takes PPCers to other platforms. As long as what you're doing only has repercussions in that space, you're probably fine. If the repercussions grow broader, you should probably take it to a broader platform. The Board is the broadest platform. This is simple logic.

I'll reiterate, though, that if you don't regularly participate on the Board, but then pop up just to harangue someone, that's really not cool. {= /

~Neshomeh doesn't understand why the Citrus Scale page is so popular, with the second-highest number of views—highest after the main page—in the last four weeks. O.o

Private coordination: This is tricky for me. The behavior called out in this section is clearly in reference to last month's "witch hunt" that scared one of my closest PPC friends away from the community. It was a terrible thing that shouldn't have happened. But there's a matter of degrees that make it hard to pinpoint where this becomes a toxic behavior, and where it's mere discussion. Speaking as someone who has difficulty trusting his own judgment, if I were ever feeling harassed by another in this community, I would second-guess that that was the intent behind their behavior. I would never even consider making a formal complaint on the Board without talking privately to folks I trust beforehand to see if they had noticed anything off as well. Last month's situation was confronted and met with chastisement, as it should have; but do we really want to condemn people discussing problems in private, or in the Lounge, just in the form of people talking to each other? (Should I be punished for talking about events at work with my coworkers?)

Community splitting: I think this is the complaint in this thread that I take the most issue with. I'm personally just unable to see where the line is drawn. The example Huinesoron gives in his post above is that this ". . . doesn't include having a private chat with someone, or even several someones, but is about making a new PPC forum, chatroom, or other such location . . ." What's the difference? How is a "private chat with several someones" different than a new chatroom? What about missions on LiveJournal behind friend-locks, that those of us without LJ accounts can't read? What about the old PPC Minecraft server, which those of us without the game couldn't play? The fact is, people just interact with each other, through whatever means they have available. And they're entitled to talk about community decisions in those spaces. (Not make them, but certainly talk about them!)

— doctorlit needs to go to work, and will address the rest of this section's points when he gets a chance

On Battlefield Mentality/Lashing Out

I also think this is pretty clearly addressed by the Constitution. Personal attacks are not acceptable under any circumstances; just because someone else has lowered themself to ad hominem doesn't mean we have to follow suit.

Unless a particular person does this all the time without remorse, though, I don't think it's necessarily punishable. We all get carried away and screw up sometimes. We just need to keep reminding ourselves and each other to take a deep breath and think before speaking. If you can't be civil, walk away until you can. If an issue is really very important to you, don't you owe it to yourself and the issue to make your case in a rational way? Foaming at the mouth will usually make people take you and your cause less seriously, not more. If you practice self-awareness and restraint, you will get better at it every time.

We're not Vulcans, so there's nothing inherently wrong with having strong feelings about something, but remember that feelings are not facts. Just because you have strong feelings doesn't mean you're automatically in the right; just because your friend has strong feelings doesn't mean they're automatically in the right, either.

On Personal Issues Elsewhere

I think this sort of thing has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, nothing says that everyone in the PPC is required to be best friends with everyone else in order to participate. On the other hand, being hateful is bad no matter where it happens, so if we find out about it, depending on how bad it is, we may indeed wish to prevent it from happening here by removing the offending party. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to make a good call on a case where we might not have all the facts because they exist someplace the rest of us don't or can't go.

I guess all I can say is, if you do have a serious problem with someone else, like they're making abusive or threatening remarks to you elsewhere, or you think they've followed you here for the sole purpose of making you uncomfortable, you'll have to say so and tell/show us why very clearly, so that we can understand. All other concerns aside, we can't help with a situation we don't know about.

On Jumping to Conclusions

This is bad, don't do it. Let's all remember that it is never wrong to want more information, and see above note on thinking before speaking.

I think it's too ephemeral to be punishable, though, unless it inevitably turns into lashing out and attacking others.

~Neshomeh

The reports just say they'll be putting the blue whale skeleton in for 'summer 2017', which might be in time... dunno.

Either way, we still have the full-sized blue whale model in its own hall, with skeletons of smaller whales hanging out with it. So there shall be whales, regardless of the rest.

hS

I agree completely that we shouldn't demand that people share their work so we can scrutinize it. As you say, that would be rather unwelcoming.

However, it sounds like you're saying the quality of all writing is subjective, so I'd like to point out that the rules of writing are not arbitrary. The PPC has not just hung its hat, but nailed it up, on the idea that there are some objective standards by which writing can be judged. Content can be a matter of taste, but we're not judging content (or we shouldn't be), we're judging execution.

Regarding character-bashing, if you read our article on it, I think you'll find we're not taking exception to stories that insightfully mock a character's flaws for laughs, as in a good parody; we're taking exception to stories that arbitrarily mangle a character, regardless of their actual positive or negative traits, for plot convenience. Character-bashing can be done poorly in parodies, too, if the bashing isn't based on anything actually true about that character. As successful comedians will tell you, humor has to be solidly based in the truth, or it falls flat.

You are, of course, entitled to disagree that there are objective standards in writing, but just know that you probably won't get a lot of support for that perspective around here. {= )

~Neshomeh

Apparently four out of six responders think that collusion behind the scenes is absolutely fine, so can I email you with an outline of my idea? ^_^

hS

I've compiled everything everyone's said (we have 12 people who've contributed to the discussion, plus one who's specifically recused herself), and feel it might be useful to share the consensus so far, where it exists, and how many people have commented. (Yes, this means I have a 16-page document of all this...)

I use 'punishable' below as shorthand for 'something that should be discussed as potential cause for a ban'.

General Comments

Statute of limitations: No consensus (3); half time at PPC, 1 year, or case-by-case.

Recording of Precedents: No consensus (2); record or don't record.

Category 1: Writing-Related

Disrespecting your Betas: Bad behaviour, but not punishable. (4/4)

Bad Conduct as a Beta: Not punishable (5/6); slight consensus that the issue is slack betas rather than bulldozing ones (2/6).

Not Taking Concrit: Bad behaviour but not punishable (5/5).

Falling Short of PPC Standards Elsewhere: Not punishable (5/5)

Category 2: Argumentative Behaviour

Battlefield Mentality/Lashing Out: No consensus (2).

Personal Issues Elsewhere: Case-by-case discussion (2/2), with stalking noted as specifically needing attention.

Jumping to Conclusions: No consensus (2).

Category 3: Heirarchical Behaviour

Coordinating in Private: Not a problem unless it's an obvious attack (4/6).

Assuming Authority: Not a problem (3/5).

Argument from Oldbie: Not actively done by oldbies, but may be done by newbies looking up to them (4/5). Also bias towards your friends (3/5).

Splitting the PPC Community: Slight consensus for punishment (3/5).

Category 4: Failure to Improve

Keeping Issues Private: Create culture of trust (2/2). No suggestions on how.

Ignoring Complaints: Do something (3/3).

Abandoning Discussion: Do something (2).

Bearing Grudges: only (1) comment.

Lack of reform: only (1) comment.

This is just the status right now; I'm fully expecting it to change.

hS

... that the PPC Board has neither an administrator nor mods? You've addressed both, and it kind of sounds like you think I'm 'in charge of the circus'? Which I'm not.

The people who need to not ignore complaints are the PPC community at large, not specific mods somewhere.

hS

I attempted to model how to do this here. If Storme or EvilAI were mad at me for turning them down, they kept it to themselves, but I think I made it clear it was nothing personal. I laid out what I wanted ahead of time and attempted to be polite and express gratitude for their offers when I'd gotten it.

Alternatively, it's possible to avoid the issue entirely by simply asking people to beta privately. This is often how I go about it. That way I get who I most respect on the job, and if my top choice can't do it, no one has to know they were my second choice. {; P

I like the idea of a FAQ for writers, but I wonder what would set it apart from the Mission-Writing Guide, and what would go on it besides a Q&A about the beta process.

~Neshomeh

But:



"It's your turn now."

hS

Since these have come up a few times in the thread and in emails I had setting it up, I think we need to discuss what these words actually mean. The following are what I think of when I hear them; I think it would be good to get a consensus on what everyone means.

Harassment: a course of action which deliberately forces the victim to pay attention to you (whether by repeatedly trying to interact with them or by attacking them).

Stalking: following the victim to new locations, for example, between chat channels.

Bullying: a course of action taken with the intent of, or such that any reasonable person would anticipate, upsetting the victim.

In the last case, I think bullying has to be repeated (otherwise it's 'an attack', which is also bad, but different), and that something like 'I lash out when I get stressed/tired/depressed' doesn't count unless you're deliberately putting yourself into situations where that lashing out will hit the same person again. Bullying, to me, is either deliberate, or willful ignorance of the consequences.

hS

dippy =[

... you run headlong into the question of who is allowed/invited onto your second space. Which I believe is what the original question was about - when people decide to make a new space which only the people they tell about can access, is that something that requires disciplinary action?

Your answer thus far, if I'm understanding you correctly, is 'no, we should solve the issue that led to them doing it instead'. Is that correct?

hS

Sorry to break it to you that way. :( Yeah, she's* been removed in favour of the blue whale skeleton. It's not all bad - they're sending her on a tour of the UK, and then constructing a bronze replica outside the front of the museum. Plus we have the Stegosaurus now at the other door, who I believe is named Sophie.

*All dinosaurs are female.** Jurassic Park has taught me this.

**And even where they aren't, all herbivores*** are. Because women are kind and gentle to the environment while men are ferocious tyrants, or something else based around outdated notions that gender-roles are an actual thing.

***Make up your own mind what this says about Littlefoot.****

****Which is a terrible name to give to a young sauropod, by the way. When she*^***** grows up, she'll have the biggest feet around!

*****Yes, this points back to the first footnote again, and yes, I'm nesting footnotes now. Welcome to the abyss, there is no bottom.

******All of this is said with tongue firmly in cheek*******, in case that wasn't clear.

*******Except for the bit outside the footnotes. That bit's true. And awful. :( Still, at least there's still a sauropod in the Dark Techno-Cavern of Dinosaur Exhibits.

hS

One possible solution to under par beta work is to start giving betas feedback on their feedback. That way, we would be informed if we were being useful as betas, and perhaps most critically, learn any areas where we had stepped over the line as a beta. I'll admit, I would be really fascinated to know what people thought of my beta work.

—doctorlit promises this isn't an absurd attempt to lock active writers in a long cycle of critiquing critiques of critiques before publishing, thus slowing down the rate of new missions and giving him a chance to catch up in his archive and finally reach modern-day spin-offs excellent plan I'm glad we're all agreed !

If it's something more akin to "the chat server is always super crowded and someone's usually ticked off, I think I'm going to make a second space where people can take a bit more time to discuss things deeply", that's a very different situation. Both of your examples are very definitely set up to make splitting problematic, but there are situations where it's really not the biggest concern on the table.

(And also, in both your examples, there's a bigger concern - the hypothetical you being a royal jerk towards newbies.)

Hey! I've been looking for someone to review fanfic written by a friend of mine, and I Googled for quite some time now and still haven't found anything that would present a possibility (some say they don't review unless they liked the fic, others have no way of being contacted.) I found out that OFUs require a request from the fanfic author, and there also aren't any currently running for the fandoms I'm looking for. So, as a result, I'd like to find a fanfic reviewer, and your help would be good here.

I'd like someone who's nice about the reviews, but doesn't give blind praise or sugarcoat beyond a few changes in wording (in the style of "the character here seems a bit off" rather than "Obi-Wan would never do that, what the spork are you thinking!"). If you personally (whoever's reading this) wish to do the review yourself, let me know and thank you, but you seriously don't have to. :) I'd just like to be pointed in the direction of a fanfic reviewer. My friend's been alerted to the fact that someone's going to review her fic sometime soon, so please answer as soon as is convenient for you.

Thanks!

-Twistey