The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

I'm going with no mods on Discord (that was the very original idea that was circulating while setting up the server) and no bans.

The vote is really evenly split, so if someone goes all Psycho on the opposition they'll have a lot of people to work through.

hS

Votes carried over from the previous thread are *asterisked.

-Permaban: 2 (*Desdendelle, *PoorCynic)
-3-6 month ban: 3 (*Iximaz, Sergio Turbo, Seafarer)
-Long-term ban (unspecified): 1 (*[EvilAI]UBEROverlord)
-1-3 month ban: 10 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Phobos, doctorlit, OrangeYoshi99, Neshomeh, VixenMage, Novastorme, Tomash, Mattman the Comet, The Good Mod Addict)
-TOTAL BANS: 16 [48% of total]

-NO BAN: 12 (*Akrinor, *Alleb, *Aegis, *SkarmorySilver, *Granz, *Hieronymus Graubart, Huinesoron, DrGonzo, World-Jumper, Delta Juliette, Badger421, The Triumvirate)

-Explicit abstain: 5 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, Ekyl, ninny4370)

-TOTAL VOTES: 33 (*10 + 23)

And drawing purely from this thread:

-Mods: 5 (Jay - Awesomeness Central, Novastorme, The Good Mod Addict, Ekyl, ninny4370)
-No Mods: 12 52% of total
-Explicit abstain: 4 (leafeyes, eatpraylove, Scapegrace, The Triumvirate)
-Implicit abstain: 2 (Phobos, doctorlit)
-TOTAL VOTES: 23

There is currently an absolute majority against mods, though this can easily change. There is not an absolute majority in favour of banning Tomash, though again, if one of the previous thread's no ban votes flips, there would be.

There has been some discussion previously on whether explicitly abstaining votes count in favour of the status quo (which would be 'no ban, no mods'), or should just be discounted altogether (and therefore exist basically to say 'yup, I read this thread'). Whenever you announce the decision, you should probably decide which interpretation you favour - it's the difference between Tomash having 48% or 57% in favour of banning him right now.

hS

1) I am for mod, we need some form of power here, to maintain order 2) I'm gonna abstain, I want to keep my head attached.

An IP links to a specific computer. It can change, that's certainly possible, but... 170-odd of Data Junkie's 217 posts came from that address. Only 4 of 17 of Orwell's did. But one Data Junkie post came after the Orwell posts. It seems unlikely that a) the IP would switch and then switch back, and b) it would do so right when Data Junkie left, then jump back just in time for them to make one more post.

It is conceivable that Data Junkie posted from a single non-home location 9/10ths of the time, and that Orwell-aka-Toroll - a troll who has talked an awful lot about Data Junkie, and made similar attacks on the community to them - happens to live nearby and use the same location, but being a very etiquette-conscious flamer troll, hasn't ever mentioned this.

But it seems unlikely. Occam's razor says that the troll who derailed Data Junkie's ban is probably Data Junkie, and that as Orwell they normally posted elsewhere or through Tor.

hS

..is that they live close enough together to have used the same IP address at some point. It's not a Tor node, but I believe Orwell let slip that they were using a coffee shop's internet in one of their recent posts.

So, yeah. Suspect, but not conclusive.

Just asking as someone who doesn't really understand the concept/function behind IP addresses. Do these matches guarantee that Orwell is Data, or is it potentially just coincidence based on their geographic locations?

—doctorlit prepares himself for disappointing answer

"Since it is essentially a requirement of the task ahead of us, would it not make sense to do what we can to shorten the time we must spend doing it?"

(warning, rambling post that covers several not-unrelated topics ahead)

This all makes sense.

As I alluded to in a post a while back, when the permaban calls started flying, it felt like I'd become the target of the angry mob that had been running around looking for a target. Good to know that wasn't just me who noticed that. (obligatory caveat, doesn't mean I didn't do anything wrong and that there shouldn't be consequences.)

On the general point, I have nothing to back this up right now, but I suspect that pinning a narrative on someone (X is a jerk, Y is power-hungry, Z exaggerates everything, etc.) is a really easy thought for humans to have. The easy thoughts require less energy than the complicated, nuanced ones about people's behavior, so we tend to fall into them. I can't possibly say if there's a good solution to this. (Well, there's "everyone try really hard to not think this way", which could merit a line in the Constitution at best but doesn't really solve anything)

Now, I'm going to possibly be a bit annoying and call for specifics again. I read a call near the end to "enforce mediation" and "address behaviors and not people". That sound great, but what do we do? Should we explicitly try to change our community patterns of conduct (I'm not saying rules because this isn't a rules question, unless we want something sitting in the Constitution about this)? To what? What should, I, or any other member of the PPC, start or stop doing to make your proposal happen?

What would have happened/would be about to happen to me in a more-behavior focused PPC after that screwup?

Finally, small question that I figured I'd slide in here, since you've been around for a while. Would you say that there's a completely unwritten expectation that people who do sufficiently bad (but not banworthy bad) things take a voluntary leave of absence? It feels like that's a pattern around here that I haven't seen anyone type out explicitly.

I'd say, go halfway. Ask The Nameless Admin to step in and respond to occasions of bullying when they're noticed - rather than just the current very minimalist approach.

Note that that might entail handing more people the keys to The Nameless Admin mask.

This might sound weird and backwards, but my instinct is actually that we have an obsession with rooting out bullies that seems to often turn into bullying. Rather than focusing on behavior, we focus on people. I was one person who thought July's behavior was bullying, several years ago, but since her behavior of late has been eminently reasonable - when she's even been around, which is rarely - it made absolutely no sense to target her as The Bully. To bring up an historical moment, back when the big IRC drama broke, there was also that question of Who Is/Are The Real Bullies Here? It was a moot point; both parties engaged in bad behavior. Likewise, as soon as the "witch hunt" scandal broke, and it became obvious that July was the victim here, not the perpetrator, the tide turned and folk went looking for a new bully figure - which turned out to be you (or, depending on who you ask, Desdendelle). This has been a pattern in the past. Data and Toroll's behavior was a serious problem; rather than along with addressing trolling, we fixated on Is Data Enough of a Jerk to Ban* and Who Is Toroll, which I still think was/is an almost entirely useless question. Frequently hS comes up as target for Tyrannical Dictator of PPC Discussion because people listen to his opinion. Less frequently, Neshomeh gets tarred with a less-opaque version of that brush.

Only rarely have we had open-and-shut cases of bullies as the horns-and-pitchfork version we like them to be. Usually it's more like this. July has a problem with Matt Cipher. She disengages with him. He pokes her on a public space and she calls him out, then, because Matt Is Not A Bully (you can tell, we're friends with him and he doesn't have horns or a pitchfork), people tell July off for causing a ruckus. If Matt had enough people mad at him, I'm guessing it would have gone the other way. I have a problem with Scapegrace's recent behavior, because they flew off the handle and sent cruel messages to July, openly proclaimed their hypocrisy in a Board thread without really apologizing for it, denied involvement in the witch hunt, but Scapegrace isn't "A Bully," they're a person who performed behaviors that were hurtful and problematic. I honestly think that if we addressed behaviors rather than people, we'd be dealing with the problem far more effectively, but banhammers, to quote a wise and sensible person, are a blunt force tool, not a precision instrument, and rather than address issues by enforcing mediation (which enables a "You as a person do this behavior, and it needs to stop" approach), we usually address them by calling for, then voting on, a ban (which encourages a "You as a person did this, and you need to be punished" approach).

Good grief was that a lengthy and complicated answer to a simple question.

TL;DR We need to address behaviors and not people. Punishing people is an ineffective means to address change in a community.


*Graduated-length banning was one step away from this Punish People Who Are Bad mentality, and a step in the right direction, but I think it didn't go far enough.

I will let my ban vote stand.

On moderators, I have to say no. The source of the current issue was that many of us (including me) acted on incomplete information. That's not something that having mods would have prevented, and I agree with many people here that we've done a good job of keeping this place civil without any.

As I don't visit the Discord, I have no opinion on its functioning.

1. Yes to mods. We've tried anarchy, it hasn't worked.
   2. Abstain. Conflict of interest since I'm one of the ones whose heads have been called for.
   3. I think the Discord is fine, we just have to be far more diligent in there.

I only have a vote for bans, which is that no bans be made.

"We are adventurers. It's in our nature to try and extract every possible bonus from every room we visit."

Mods: I don't think we need mods on the Board.The Nameless Admin, so far, has been more than enough in my humble opinion.

Bans:
- A medium term "global" ban for Tomash (3-6 months). One year bans are usually reserved for those who don't come to their senses and apologize, while Tomash did - but, at the same time, apologizing should not be a "get-out-of-jail" card when very serious offenses are made. It is not a matter of revenge, or punishment for punishment's sake, but a matter of consequences, as I mentioned in my other post.

- A short-medium Discord ban for the ones involved in the witch-hunting (1-3 months), coupled with a shorter Board ban as well (2 weeks - 1 month), with the same reasoning as above.

About the Discord, I'm afraid I have no ideas. I've never been a big user of large chatrooms, after all.

1. Mods would be good, I think. I know I can't be trusted to do the right thing in telling people something isn't okay, let alone actually dangerous to someone's health in some way. I don't have any suggestions on who should be a mod, though.
   
   2. Bans. I feel a bit uncomfortable voting on this one, but I think a 3-month ban for Tomash might be needed. Considering the lack of consensus, though, I doubt that will happen.
   
   3. The Discord. I don't think anything needs to be changed, but I do like the idea of having all of us become more educated on the subject of cyberbullying. If we can find good online resources about how to recognize it and break the mob mentality, that would be great going forward. Assuming such resources are found, it may be a good idea to link them in the Wiki next to the space about the Discord, and post them in the notice channel for good measure.
   
   Unfortunately, I don't know good resources for information on that. I'm just throwing ideas around. I am not in favor of getting rid of the Discord, either temporarily or permanently, but I also think that changing nothing isn't going to be helpful to anyone.

And July stepped into her private boat and waved goodbye
and sailed back over a year
and in and out of weeks
and through a day
and into the night of her very own room
where she found her supper waiting for her.

And it was still hot.

hS

When you called for a "culture change", I interpreted that as saying there's some way we typically act here that's a bad thing and needs to change. That is, I think you said that some aspect of what the PPC is and how it conducts its affairs is part of the reason for all the stuff that happened these last few days. If that's what you meant, could you please spell out in more detail what needs to be different?

To restate my position and to mention the other thing I think you might have wanted to say, I think that the general problem recently was caused by a significant failure on our parts (well, certainly on those of us who were participating in chat Thursday) to live up to our ideals. We need to examine how that happened (mostly on a personal level, I figure, since, after all, the community is made up of each of us), and make efforts to not slip up so drastically again, but the way our community functions is generally fine.

I vote for a 1-3 month ban for Tomash, as priorly mentioned in my ban revision thread.

I also vote no mods, for obvious reasons.

I would like to second Tomash's idea for a "Best of" page on the wiki. In the meantime, my CAHQ deck "Cards Against Boarders" should suffice.

According to your wish, the story of how Hieronymus the hermit became a part-time knight will never be told.

Fare well.

HG