MOD POST! Important Changes to the Comm Rules PLEASE READ!

[aeka]

Greetings scans_daily members!

We just want to inform everyone of the changes that have been made to scans_daily's rules, so please be sure to check those out when you have the time.

There weren't too many significant changes to the user info page for the most part, but I do want to point out that we did mostly modified the posting rules so that they're hopefully more clear. Rules of conduct are still the same as before.

Notable changes:

1. Every post must have as its primary subject at least one image from a comic book, manga, newspaper comic strips, or webcomic. Any comic-related news, interviews, videos, movie/tv trailers, essays or articles containing no scans, etc, do not count as primary posts and a "legality scan" does not make your post legal. Please head over to noscans_daily for such discussions. The only time we'll make exceptions is if the aforementioned supports any ideas, topics, or issues shown in any of the scans you post, but other than that, "scans for legality" is no more.

2. LJ-cuts are required for any post which contains more than one image. In addition, any spoilers or nsfw content must be behind your lj-cut. For non-recent comics, you may have one preview image no larger than 400 x 300 pixels outside the cut provided that it has no spoilers or nsfw content. Absolutely NO panel from a comic released that is the most current issue of its series may be featured outside of a cut, however unspoilery it is.

3. Any post that contains potentially triggery scans and discussion -- such as extreme violence/gore, sexual violence, abuse, self-harm, and offensive and oppressive content -- must be posted under an adequate Warning before the cut, tagged as such, and framed with sensitivity in the post. In addition, NSFW posts need to posted with an 18+ age restriction filter and clearly labeled and tagged as such.

Another notable change we made is that in addition to reporting any members who demonstrate any oppressive behaviour or make any discriminatory remarks to the mod team, we now allow you to report any mods who are seen demonstrating these things as well:

Note: Please contact a moderator immediately if you see another member making discriminatory remarks. Similarly, if you ever feel or encounter a mod demonstrating discriminatory behaviour on scans_daily, PLEASE NOTIFY ONE OF THE OTHER MODS DIRECTLY and we will take it from there.

I will be posting an updated version of the posting checklist shortly after this post to further clarify posting expectations, but do check out salinea's updated tagging tutorial if you haven't already!

One thing that we haven't been able to decide on over at the mod comm is whether or not to keep "Fanart Thursdays" here on scans_daily or move it over to our sister comm on LJ, noscans_daily, so we've decided to let you guys vote on that! :)

**I want to especially note that if we do decide to keep it here on S_D, this will be the ONLY time you won't need a scan for your primary post!**

Poll #9934 Fanart Thursdays

Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 84

View Respondents

Where shall we feature 'Fanart Thursdays?'

View Answers

Keep on Scans Daily. We feel it's appropriate material for the comm.
66 (78.6%)

Move it to NoScans Daily. The comm could use more traffic!
18 (21.4%)

↓ If you have any questions regarding any of the changes, feel free to ask in the comments section! ↓

Comments

[shanejayell]

But isn't the 'purpose' of scans daily defined by the people posting to it? I mean, yes I get that modding is tough and you have to make hard decisions. But the membership, not the mods, should be the ones defining what can and can not be posted.

I'd think anyway. *shrug*

[salinea]

But isn't the 'purpose' of scans daily defined by the people posting to it?
You've been on s_d longer than I have, so correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought scans_daily had to enforce strongly rules about anti-slash & homophobic and sexist discourses on the comm because even though the community's original purpose was for mainly female geeks and slash fen; it had gotten popular to the point that those purpose were getting overshadowed by aflux of new posters? Obviously that's a different situation, but an example of how sometimes the main purpose of scans_daily shouldn't only be dependant on the louder voices or the most popular choices.

[aeka]

Have I told you how much I love the way you explain things? :3

[salinea]

*BLUSHES*

[shanejayell]

That's the wrong argument to make, sadly. I think SD has gone FAR too Politically Correct since the early days and isn't anywhere near as fun anymore.

But that's just my opinion. (I also resent the description of the comm 'just' being female geeks amd slash fans. It was much broader than that, speaking as a non-slash heterosexual male. *lol*)

And why limit SD? IF we're getting content that doesn't fit why not EXPAND SD? Bring in the TV show fans, the anime geeks and so on. Make the place more lively, rather than limiting it to JUST scans. :D

[glprime]

I'd have to pipe in with similar agreement that recent times have seen a little too much reactionary hyper-PC decisions, and it does get less "fun" when we're focusing on "not offending" versus letting members go kinda wild and free with their fandoms. It's educational when we all share, and have a guiding hand on our shoulders to let us know when we might be stepping on toes and saying more than we mean.

Having said that, I'll admit I came late to the S_D party, and not being the original target demo of the comm, I need to understand the desires of those who built this place as a corner of the net they could share and converse without harassment.

But as others have said, even without letting any majority have ultimate say, there needs to be room for everybody, even those that aren't fans of all the content featured here. I like the respectful tone of the comm, and I want it extended to EVERYBODY.

[aeka]

It is stated on the user info that Scans Daily is a feminist community, and as such it is not our policy to allow oppressive or discriminatory behaviour. I also want to point out that there are plenty of places on the net where comic fans can run "wild and free" with their comic fandoms in the form of CBR, ComicVine, etc, and you will notice that in a lot of those places women and other marginalised groups are very seldomly able to voice their concerns regarding questionable content without the "majority" users getting on the defensive by either dismissing their points of concern, derailing the argument, attempting to silence them, or in worse cases, even personally attack them.

One of the comm's goals is to offer a place where marginalised groups can openly discuss these issues of concern and not experience the backlashes they experience at these other places. This also means not allowing more privileged individuals decide how we are to address and discuss matters of concern. On that note, having a "guiding head on our shoulders" to serve as a stop sign that keeps us from saying or doing something offensive is not the same as internalising institutionalised oppression and behaving in ways that are oppressive, all of which fall within the realm of social learning. More often than not, people who unwittingly behave in oppressive ways are not even aware that they are doing so, and so we work to bring awareness to the fact.

That being said, there is a reason we don't leave all of the comm's decisions to the users themselves, and it is our job as mods to not only serve the needs of the comm's users, but ALSO to enforce the comm's rules and stay true to the focus of the comm.

[glprime]

"This also means not allowing more privileged individuals decide how we are to address and discuss matters of concern."

Right here is where we're seeing something work its way into the comm ethos that isn't actually in the ethos.

The first thing I'm seeing on the ethos paragraph is: "The moderation team is always striving to make it a safer space for all fans, but this is not a safe space. Members come from all walks of life to talk about and share extracts from comics, and not all of them are on the same page regarding anti-oppression theory. Calling out other members or creators for discriminatory or oppressive behavior is encouraged for the good of the community."

I don't like being called privileged for one thing when I'm a disadvantaged minority for another. Unless we're going to put in the ethos "your worth and standing as a member is determined by how privileged you are." I want the same opportunity to speak respectfully and be respectfully spoken to. I'm an equal rights advocate who sees people as intellects first, if informed by their sex, gender, and ethnicity.

This all gets away from sharing comic scans (which is what this whole post is about), but it's a recurrent issue I see whenever there's discussion about the comm's origins and aims vs its recent history and current makeup.

[aeka]

No where in my original comment did I specify that *you* were personally privileged. I specifically said that in our objective to give marginalised groups the voice they otherwise don't get in other comic discussion forums, we don't allow "more privileged individuals" to decide how issues get brought up as part of that objective, and this has happened before. My use of "privileged individuals" is more broad and does not single you out.

On that note, no one here is saying that you cannot express your concerns (which we are taking into consideration) and my comment was not intended to shut you up. Instead I was attempting to explain why we operate the way that we do as a comm and the reason we don't allow all comm decisions to be made by comm members. Also as sistermagpie pointed out, the changes that were made to the rules was a modding issue than anything else.

[glprime]

Alright, I accept the tone of your earlier response, but as evidenced by others' responses, where the mods feel their jurisdiction lies in guiding the comm and where comm members feel they should be consulted differs.

No, the maintenance of the site can't be a democracy, but given our interactive role in making the content placed here, both sides need to have a say in the way things operate.

While I understand that a handful of people can't effectively run something like this if they're stopping to put up polls and have meetings all the time, having members have to become mods to see the change they want in the comm is a bad sign.

And I still don't take the use of "privilege" as measure of allowed community participation lightly.

[aeka]

The thing is community content is within our jurisdiction as mods. As I said in my earlier comment, part of the job of being a mod is to work within the interests of comm members but also to reinforce the comm's rules and purpose.

The fact that people were interpreting the original rule of "every post must have at least one image from a comic book, manga, or webcomic," to mean "I can post whatever I want as long as I have a scan for legality," led to people eventually abusing the broadness of the rule that it got to a point where the community content got messy and began to shift the focus of the comm all together. So this is in fact a moderation issue, and one of the reasons for the change. If we had left this up to community members to vote on, more than likely they would have chosen to keep it, and this would make moderation harder on the mod team because we would constantly have our hands full, and we simply don't have the time for that. We do have lives outside of the comm as well and we need to seek to make things easier on ourselves as well. Streamlining the comm's purpose is one way of doing that.

With regards about whether members should have a say in the changes, we are accepting feedback on the changes and we are taking every comment into consideration. Some members did in fact raise a legitimate concern over the fact that having the comms on two separate mediums does present a problem for some people, and it is one we are discussing over on the mod comm right now. We are also coming up with a follow up post to clarify the reasons for the change, as well as to address the concerns that were brought to our attention.

With regards to the use of the word 'privilege,' while I do understand your concerns and aversion to it, I do want to point out that it is not a derogatory term used against people with a certain immunity to social discrimination based on their characteristics, but rather it is a term that we use in both the feminist and sociologist communities to describe a person of such socioeconomic standing. It's no different than us using the term "people of colour" to describe individuals of a different skin colour other than white, or "sex worker" to describe someone who makes a living having sex with people.

[shanejayell]

Wait a minute.

So if I'm reading this right... the whole reason this change was made was to make life easier on the mods?

(I'd post a *lol* but I'd probably get in trouble for it. But this strikes me as hilarious.)

(Oops, I did. Please don't ban me!)

Mod Note

[salinea]

This thread is frozen, while being under discussion.

While we discuss you, shanejayell I would advice you not to keep making the same behaviour that ended you being Warned in the first place. Not if you don't truly don't want to be banned.

Mod Note: Second Warning

[aeka]

shanejayell, the fact that you've deliberately ignored, for a third time now, mod requests to cease your passive aggressive behaviour on BOTH noscans_daily and scans_daily following both a mod note AND an official warning, you have demonstrated that you have no intentions of abiding by either comm rules or respecting the mods. Since you also seem intent on dragging your passive aggressive behaviour on both noscans_daily and scans_daily, this suspension is effective in both communities.

This is your SECOND OFFICIAL WARNING. This is what they call a "second strike" and you are now suspended from both communities for the next fourteen days, after which you will be allowed to return. Please note that if you receive one further warning on either comm you will lose the ability to post on the affected community.

Re: Mod Note: Second Warning

[shanejayell]

When does it kick in, by the way? I still seem to be able to post.

Just a heads up.

Re: Mod Note: Second Warning

[salinea]

Apparent snafu. You're effectively banned right now.

[sistermagpie]

I think that's a very valid concern--but it seems like a case of everyone agreeing that there needs to be a respectful tone in the comm so everyone feels welcome and knowing exactly where to draw the line to get that tone. I know how frustrating it is to be on the side that disagrees with a ruling in that sort of case!

It's probably not the best analogy for this subject anyway, since we of course wouldn't be voting every time someone might have said something wrong. Not only would it be incredibly time-consuming, but it's exactly the sort of thing you can't get by majority vote!

This situation, to me, seems more like a purely technical thing where the mods have completely different issues than somebody reading the comm. So again, it's not always going to be a thing that can really be voted on since it's purely a modding issue at this point.

Obviously, the right way isn't always clear, but "open it up to everything!" would actually probably be an even bigger change that might annoy even more people (besides giving the mods more to do).