The First Scans_Daily Planet Bugle!

[sd_admin]

(Crossposted to NoScans_Daily)

After discussion, the mod team have decided to try a new approach to mod communications! Rather than spam the community with every announcement, we're going to be trying a new newsletter format to update our members with any developments with the communities, posted (semi)regularly and drawing attention to the great, the good and any changes in mod policy.

So, here goes with our very first Scans_Daily Planet Bugle!

---

SD_Admin:

First up, you may notice we're still using the SD_Admin account for this post. We understand the concerns about the facelessness of the SD_Admin account and, as we've stated, the Modbot will be retired on matters of discipline to preserve transparency. All matters of discipline continue to be group decisions, but individual mods will be more visible handing out mod notes and warnings. We will, however, still be using the account for mod posts, FAQs etc, for the simple logistical reason that it means all members of the moderation team can edit posts at a later date, if required.

Moderator Stepping Down:

It is with some regret that we have to announce that neo_prodigy has stepped down from the scans_daily and noscans_daily moderation team.

We'd like to publicly thank Neo for all his hard work and contributions over the past few months, especially for sharing his experience in the areas of anti-oppression moderation and his aid towards our commitment to making scans_daily and noscans_daily safer spaces for all marginalized groups. His help has been invaluable in clarifying the rules and policies of the community, which the mod team continues to be 100% committed to.

We hope our members will join in us wishing him good luck in his future endeavors.

Suggestions Box and Anti-Oppression:

On the subject of our continuing commitment to anti-oppression moderation, like many of you, many of the mod team are still relatively new to anti-oppression work and we haven't always done the best we could. Part of our reason for reviving the Suggestion Box (SD’s is here, NSD’s is here) was to get feedback from our members on scans_daily and noscans_daily's anti-oppression stance and how we might better work on making the communities friendlier and safer spaces for all marginalized groups to discuss comics.

After taking into account recent internal debates, and the comments in the Suggestions Box, we'd like to publicly reaffirm our commitment to Scans/NoScans as anti-oppression communities and to our doing 101 level work within it. We will be examining the suggestions regarding mod practices over the next few weeks. However, we'd like to clarify that we will not be compromising either community’s strong commitment to supporting marginalized members, nor are there any planned changes to comm policy in this regard. The calling out policy will remain in place and we’d like to remind members and lurkers alike of the warning clearly displayed on the main page:

Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.

If you are one of those who have expressed concerns about our stance on anti-oppression and calling out being used in the community at all, we’d like to reiterate: the community is most likely not a good fit for you. These are policies that are ingrained into the community’s ethos and will not be compromised at the expense of marginalized groups.

Scans_Daily of LiveJournal: RISE!

The other big news of the week is that scans_daily has returned to Livejournal! Although this won't affect our, now permanent, home on Dreamwidth, thanks to Livejournal's policy of purging defunct journals the era of the strikethrough has ended and Black Lantern Scans_Daily has risen! As the community shuffles back into unlife, hungering for BRAAAAIIIINS, why not check in on the ongoing party post and sate its appetite?

Theme Weeks:

And more big news! One of the things the Mod team are looking to encourage is the return of regular theme weeks on scans_daily. Traditionally, these have been invented on-the-fly by members and we're not looking to change the spontaneity of this. However, to encourage our members to share the love, we're going to be announcing occasional theme weeks ourselves. After the success of last June's "One Perfect Moment Week" (thanks to icon_uk!), we'll be kicking off with a repeat of that theme:



So, if you didn't get the chance to post your perfect moment last year or another's appeared since, this is your opportunity. "One Perfect Moment Week 2.0" will be kicking off this Sunday with an announcement post, so get your scans ready!

---

Thanks, S_Ders and NS_Ders and keep on being awesome!

schmevil, mad, sandoz_iscarot, angelophile and kingrockwell
The Scans_Daily and NoScans_Daily Mod Team

Comments

[angelophile]

This specific question was already asked and answered in the appropriate post. And on a number of other occasions in discussion with others.

There's also multiple resources relating to the tone argument in our resources. I'd particularly point you to The Privilege of Politeness, which you may well find enlightening.

[benicio127]

Yes, I've actually been going over that particular article. And yes, the question had been asked and answered between myself and a mod, but at the time, I had not gotten further clarification on that, but rather brought it up as an example.

While I should say upfront that I think the ability to call out others is a good thing, I just want to further clarify the mods' point on this: so it is OK to call members who are being ignorant asshats, douchebags, idiots, etc.? I haven't been involved in too many of these discussions in the first place, but it would seem to me that we should treat everyone with respect and not be able to call them names in the first place. (Also, keep in mind, I'm not advocating safety for the offenders, but rather respect amongst one another).

It just seems like the ability for one to call the other names could create more problems and do little to resolve the issue. I'm just asking for clarification on this as part of S_D's Rule #2 is to not issue insults to other members.

[angelophile]

Again, these are things that have been discussed and clarified in the appropriate post.

I'll point you specifically to Kingrockwell's clarification of calling out on the community and related comments here and here which cover the questions you're asking.

However, if you do require any further clarification, please request it in the suggestions post where the discussion is already taking place.

Thank you.

[benicio127]

Thanks, much appreciated. I will ask this over there. I had seen some of KR's comments, but not all of them.

[icon_uk]

Like others I approve of the calling out policy, but I am still somewhat leery of the absence of a better definition of what is viewed as being acceptable in the comm ethos.

Calling out should, within certain variable limits of context and spur-of-the-moment passion, be seen as something useful and ultimately constructive.

The proportionality of the calling-out is important in these matters IMHO, I can easily accept that a hot button topic can, will and should trigger invective, but that doesn't give the person a completely free hand.

kingrockwell's comments are well phrased and seem to cover the area I think is currently lacking, and I would respectfully suggest that these, or a similar set of clear guidelines be prominently included in the main comm ethos page.

[christianconnor]

There have been some really well-phrased responses from mods and other members but they do get buried in amongst the other comments.

I'd like to see some of them - like Kingrockwell's - be promoted to a clearly signposted place. Not in the ethos, mind, but somewhere.

...If only to stop the same conversations going round and round, which must be incredibly frustrating to everyone.

[icon_uk]

Agreed, the kingrockwell post is one amongst well over 400 in that thread, and is certainly not easy to locate without a link.

[freddylloyd]

I agree that the "Suggestions" thread has produced some useful statements that could be incorporated into the community rules/ethos as clarifications without changing the essence of those guidelines.

[angelophile]

I'm wary about further additions to the already extensive community rules themselves, simply because it further adding to the TL:DR view, but do members think a Calling Out 101, which could be linked to, would be helpful?

[freddylloyd]

I think the number of 101s, links, and resources already looks overwhelming to anyone wishing to find specific, useful definitions and guidelines, much less newcomers primarily interested in discussing something silly in the latest Daredevil. Other people have said similar things. I believe I saw one person term the community's guidelines as an "insane amount" of material to expect people to read.

Rather, I think the most helpful approach lies in using the rules to express (a) what's completely prohibited (basically, as I understand it, oppressive remarks and rhetoric, threats or violent remarks, and demands for personal information members haven't chosen to share) and (b) what is prohibited except in the context of responding to ("calling out") oppressive remarks and rhetoric, namely criticism directed at a person who has made a particular remark.

Right now the rules state blanket prohibitions on Bad Things, and then the asterisk pulls back one of those prohibitions, which creates an area of confusion.

I think three or four short, clear paragraphs of rules are more likely to be read and understood than another linked essay.

[valtyr]

I think a quick explanation of what constitutes 'calling out' would be a handy thing to have there, as it's so central to the ethos and likely to be an unfamiliar term to a lot of people.