aeka: (Power Girl [modcon]:)
[personal profile] aeka posting in [community profile] scans_daily
Greetings Scans Daily,

We would like to first thank all of you for being patient with us while we took the time to look over all the feedback we received on our last post regarding rule modifications. I would also like to personally apologise to everyone for taking this long to make this post since life took a serious hard hit on my end as of late and hadn't really had the energy to make a post of this size. So again, thank you all for your patience.

Since we finally got around to discussing most of the issues at hand, the overall major areas of concern seem to be in the following areas:

1. Change to the first rule about posting
2. Moderation is too strict
3. SD and NSD are on two separate platforms

Since the contents of this post are quite lengthy, we've divided these posts into sections addressing each point individually.


1. Change to the first rule about posting

First and foremost, we want everyone to remember that Scans Daily's primary function has always been to post and discuss comic scans, while NoScans Daily was specifically created for comic related discussions without the scans. This was true back when Scans Daily was still an LJ community, this is true even now. In fact, one of the former mods from the LJ days even confirmed this. As such, one of the reasons for the change was to clarify how posts to the comm were to be done. Another reason was to make the rules on the info page consistent with those on the posting checklist. One of the issues that arose with the way the original first rule was worded was that it was too broad and open to interpretation. As a result we started seeing an increase of posts on topics that were either loosely related to comics, or were more appropriate material for NoScans Daily with a legality scan thrown in there as a concession to first rule. Not only does this shift the purpose of Scans Daily from its primary function by treating scans as secondary to the main topic, but it is also not within the raison d'etre of the community, thus effectively defeating the purpose of both comms.

Another reason for the change is the fact that we are bound by the limitations of DW's blogging software. Since tagging is one way we make it easier for users to find what they need at a more efficient manner, keeping the two comms separate with more focused functions makes it easier to keep tags under the set limit (particularly in SD's case). It also means less rules for users of both comms to follow, and it even makes moderation of both comms easier on the mod team.

Some of you expressed that you felt this was an issue the entire comm should've been consulted about first before implementing any changes. We would like to assert this was not a question of redefining the comm's purpose, but an issue of moderation that needed to be addressed. The mod team spent over a month discussing the rules and suggesting changes that would clarify posting rules and guidelines for users, stay true to the comm's purpose, as well as make the posting checklist consistent with the rules on the info page, and so that it is easier for users to follow. These were not changes that were done over night and were heavily discussed, agreed upon, and supported by the mod team before releasing the finalised versions.

2. Moderation is too strict

With regards to our moderation style, some of you expressed the concern that we are "too strict." We would like to remind everyone that both SD and NSD are feminist communities. This is explicitly stated on both comms' user infos, and it is even reiterated on the SD comm's sidebar. Given the nature and ethos of both comms, anti-oppression and anti-discriminatory behaviour is our policy. As such we tailor our rules of conduct and disciplinary action to protect the interests of more marginalised groups, and to effectively reduce the chances of an all out flamewar from taking place.

It has been suggested that we are too PC in our moderation that we thus "suck the fun out of free discussion." The reality is there are plenty of spaces on the web where people can have fun with their casual racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, while discussing their favourite comics. There are, however, very few spaces on the web where more marginalised individuals can openly discuss issues that affect them personally as comic readers without being personally attacked and ridiculed by other (typically less aware) users. Neither SD nor NSD are spaces where things like casual racism are tolerated and we will always take the side of the person feeling threatened by another user's oppressive and/or discriminatory behaviour.

It is often erroneously believed by many that things like racism and misogyny have to be deliberate and/or intentional for them to count as such, but I can safely say (as psych major) that this is not true. Intent is only one aspect that maintains and influences the prevalence of systems like racism and misogyny. Socialisation, internalisation, and subsequently behaviour are three others. As a result, most people aren't even aware of when they behave in ways that are racist or misogynist, even if they themselves don't actively discriminate against people of other ethnicities or women. Therefore if you are ever issued a mod note telling you to cease a certain behaviour, it is because you are either being deliberately offensive, behaving in ways that are offensive, or are just being generally disruptive in the community. Depending on the severity of the infraction and/or repetition of infractions can lead to a warning, a suspension, or a banning all in that order. That is to say you will never get to one without going through all the previous ones first. While we're on the subject, we would like to further clarify that mod notes are NOT warnings, but are in fact just notes. Notes letting you know to either tone it down or modify your behaviour.

All that being said, we would like to similarly remind everyone that the mod team is always approachable at any time via PM or our email: scansdailymod[at]gmail[dot]com. If you have any problems, concerns, or questions about anything you wish to address, you are free to contact us directly. If you are ever offended by a particular post, another user's behaviour, or are feeling personally attacked, contact us. If you are unsure of how to make a post to the community or if your post counts as legal, contact us. If you ever feel that another member of the mod team is behaving in ways that offends you, contact one of us. We do not bite and we will be more than happy to discuss the things that bother you.

3. SD and NSD are on two separate platforms

With regards to SD and NSD being on two separate platforms, since this is an issue that directly affects the [livejournal.com profile] noscans_daily community, we are actually holding this discussion and poll over there.

The mod team has actually been thinking about moving that comm over to this platform for some time now and the reasons for the consideration are addressed in the modpost linked.

You are all welcome to join in the conversation there, and if you are able to, vote on the poll as well.

Date: 2012-05-07 11:05 pm (UTC)
seralphia: (Default)
From: [personal profile] seralphia
"It has been suggested that we are too PC in our moderation that we thus "suck the fun out of free discussion." The reality is there are plenty of spaces on the web where people can have fun with their casual racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, while discussing their favourite comics. There are, however, very few spaces on the web where more marginalised individuals can openly discuss issues that affect them personally as comic readers without being personally attacked and ridiculed by other (typically less aware) users. Neither SD nor NSD are spaces where things like casual racism are tolerated and we will always take the side of the person feeling threatened by another user's oppressive and/or discriminatory behaviour."

I LIKE that this community makes an effort to make you THINK about how your language affects others. It's the first step to self-awareness and changing your stick to become a better person.

Plus, the opinion of people who use the phrase "too PC" is a rather worthless currency, since it usually means, "what do you mean, I should pay attention to what I'm doing onto others? But that's HAAAAAARD!"

Good on you for not backing out of that one.


(BTW, I'm delurking. I'm booksforlunch from the old livejournal-comm, long, long ago.)

Date: 2012-05-08 12:01 am (UTC)
cleome45: (violet2)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
[nod]

I've lost track of how many online "homes" I've bailed on over the years because of bullshit perpetrated by people who insisted on the central importance of being "un-P.C." all the time and everywhere. (And of course, it's not just a fandom thing.)

Which makes no sense anyway, since every group in the universe has their own orthodoxy, and their own "P.C." There were dudes on more than one board who sniggered at me because I asked them to quit using gendered slurs against women politicians they hated. (To cite just one example of their constant, willful cluelessness.) I'd like a dollar for each time I tried to explain why they were hurting me in their efforts to run down a political foe. But if I called them sexist assholes for continuing to do it, of course that was Not Something A Good Girl Would Call Her Brother/Comrade, and I'd get dogpiled, (or I was banned or run off, in some cases).

The people who rail the loudest against "P.C." (and who insist that the rest of us "toughen up" if we want to play) are often the ones with skin so brittle that you could make strudel out of it.

Date: 2012-05-08 12:43 am (UTC)
werehawk: (Default)
From: [personal profile] werehawk
I like the way things have been handled by mods the few threads (actually just a section of comments) that they have frozen and dealt with. I would have likely asked them to come in a couple of times, but they dealt with it swiftly and politely every time so I didn't even have to bring it to the mods attention. I never said it, but good work y'all!

Date: 2012-05-09 10:13 am (UTC)
greenmask: (Default)
From: [personal profile] greenmask
Thank you!

Date: 2012-05-08 01:23 am (UTC)
quatoria: An extreme close-up of my eye, with the blade of a knife just barely touching the bottom edge of my pupil. (Default)
From: [personal profile] quatoria
It seems like quite a strawman to suggest that the only people who have been concerned about the moderation are those who feel that it is 'too PC', and want to 'have fun with their casual racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.' In fact, I'd say that's nearly slander.

I've seen several complaints aired that have nothing to do with wanting the community ethos to change. Personally, I love the community ethos, and wouldn't see it changed for the world, but have previously voiced concerns over the changing tone of the moderation, and how quick off the trigger we are now with warnings and notes and frozen threads.

I shouldn't have to out myself like this, but for the record, I am a disabled person, and am quite frankly seriously pissed off at the suggestion that all complaints with moderation boil down to people wanting to express casual bigotry. How dare you?

Quite frankly, beyond simply being hurt and offended, it deeply concerns me that legitimate concerns from long-time members have been brushed away so insultingly, and with apparently so little critical examination.

Date: 2012-05-08 02:21 am (UTC)
glprime: (Default)
From: [personal profile] glprime
To follow along with the above (but go on my own tangent), my concern isn't about being "too PC" but the gauge to moderating conflict.

I've clashed with mods in the past because I get offended when we talk about favoring the "marginalized" groups against those more privileged as a quick response method. I belong to privileged groups and non-privileged groups. Am I less entitled to consideration because of this? Does someone have to call me a retard and trip over my background as a socially-disadvantaged autistic before my well-being is given consideration above my attacker (who may or may not be a different ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation but all other things being equal?) In the past, I'd heard it said that even if the person who was offended said something equally abusive back, they'd be dealt with less harshly than the original offender (or not at all if their's was a natural anger reaction, but not with a slur of some kind).

Foul language should never be tolerated, and civil discourse is what's needed. But current standards of judgment seem way out of whack to ensure a safe place against all -ism attacks. What if attacks are between people of two different marginalized groups? Do the mods have a pyramid of whose been hurt the most throughout history?

Date: 2012-05-08 02:57 am (UTC)
glprime: (Default)
From: [personal profile] glprime
Fair enough. I want a civil, well-spoken comics board same as everyone else, and won't tolerate verbal BS from insensitive jerks. As has been said, plenty of room elsewhere for that.

"Where have you heard that if you don't mind my asking? "

Possibly back on S_D 2.0, or right after the move to DW; where did that transgender discrimination post occur? I believe that's where the inciting incident was. After the first ignorant comment, there was a lot of incensed backlash (to one of the textbook "he didn't realize, but he's still in the wrong" users) that went above and beyond rebuffing a rude and out-of-place person. A censure might have been in order, but allowing other users to dogpile AND THEN mods coming in to punish the first commenter was a bit much.

When other users asked about whether or not this was a disproportionate response, and civility had broken down on all sides, it was an official mod who said that consideration was given to the slighted parties utterly, and they didn't have to be nice if they were defending themselves. Specifically, "we don't have to waste energy and patience educating people."

Well, no, but that's not carte blanche to throw mud back. I don't want to think this comm's defense of empowerment and positive models comes at the cost of warding off all of the uninitiated. There IS a great deal of educational potential in seeing the examples here, in the scans and the users.

Date: 2012-05-08 04:03 am (UTC)
glprime: (Default)
From: [personal profile] glprime
Well, you've certainly clarified the mod's position, for which i thank you.

I wouldn't say I see eye-to-eye with you on the sociology/discourse issues, but I can only act in the reactive for now with forethought to how *I* want to behave, and not how I want others to behave.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] salinea - Date: 2012-05-08 06:09 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] whitesycamore - Date: 2012-05-08 03:50 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] salinea - Date: 2012-05-08 03:57 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] whitesycamore - Date: 2012-05-08 07:00 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2012-05-09 12:19 am (UTC)
jeyl: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jeyl
Isn't the R word illegal here?

Date: 2012-05-09 10:23 am (UTC)
greenmask: (grr)
From: [personal profile] greenmask
Possibly back on S_D 2.0, or right after the move to DW; where did that transgender discrimination post occur? I believe that's where the inciting incident was.

Please remember that not a single current moderator was on-team at that point!

It sounds like a shrugging excuse, but: it is a fact. It's understandable - I only remember that this is so due to the fact that I am currently co-longest standing moderator and at that point was not any kind of moderator - but it gets forgotten that we genuinely can't change or modify the rep of a mod team that's no longer in play. We can be responsible for our own mistakes (and we will try) but beyond that it's hard to answer.

I'm with you on the educational potential; it's a balancing act,

Date: 2012-05-08 02:32 am (UTC)
nyadnar17: (Default)
From: [personal profile] nyadnar17
I agree whole heartily with you. Its not just a manner of "being careful with words" or "thinking about what you say". There are literally certain topics or viewpoints that can not even be voiced on these boards.

Its one thing to tell me that such discussion or viewpoints are unwanted here, its quite another to call me lazy or a bigot for wanting to be able to voice such views. Its your house so your rules, but please don't be so dismissive.

Date: 2012-05-08 02:43 am (UTC)
cleome45: (fire1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Do you have an example of a "forbidden" topic or viewpoint as it played out here? With a link, I mean? (No, I'm not a mod. But when people cite examples of a time they thought the mods were being overly dismissive or where they thought an innocent statement got them dogpiled, I wish I could see the actual dialogue as it happened.)

Date: 2012-05-08 09:02 am (UTC)
seralphia: (Default)
From: [personal profile] seralphia
Do you have any links so I can see examples of these "taboos"? Because I don't remember having seen something like you describe.

Date: 2012-05-09 10:52 am (UTC)
salinea: Deadpool has a fucking horned hat on and is ready to kick gum and chew ass. Errr, moderate s_d. (mod hat)
From: [personal profile] salinea
You're right, we should not have framed the discussion about criticisms against moderation in such a dismissive way, when there is a lot of different sort of criticisms about it and they come from a variety of source. Apologies.

Date: 2012-05-08 12:34 pm (UTC)
rainspirit: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rainspirit
Thank you.

Date: 2012-05-08 03:32 pm (UTC)
whitesycamore: (Default)
From: [personal profile] whitesycamore
Yes. I enjoy the fact that SD has an anti-oppression ethos, but I do think this post was unnecessarily dismissive.

I'd like to believe that it's not the principles that most members are likely to complain about, but the practice. To put it frankly, I think the mods, being human, are sometimes hasty or off-base in their decisions. And I don't begrudge them that, but I would appreciate greater reflectiveness on their part.

For example, during conflicts (where admittedly quick decisions are needed), the mods can sometimes be biased towards whichever members are the quickest and most adept at framing their perspective as a social justice issue. This naturally means that the more 'savvy' members who know how to speak the lingo can essentially game the system on occasion. To be quite honest, I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself when things get heated, which is why I think it's something that needs to be taken into consideration.

Date: 2012-05-08 04:30 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
If people are really convinced that this is a thing, I wish we could see a link to a case where it happened.

For example, I just reread the entire "our last post" link above, and I didn't see anything I'd call "dismissive". If I don't get my way on a group space each and every time I complain about something, does that automatically mean the person who said "Sorry, no" was being dismissive?

[personal profile] quatoria complains above that the mods are too "quick on the trigger" lately with freezing threads. You say they're sometimes too hasty. Again, where specifically was this a problem? Personally, I get tired of the amount of flaming chaff and endless comments that are basically "You suck!" "No, you suck!" on some other boards. And I kind of wish the mods in those space were a little more hasty in sending everyone back to their corners before a promising subject got drowned under 3,000 redundant threads that are just people grandstanding or jumping on bandwagons.

Date: 2012-05-08 06:53 pm (UTC)
whitesycamore: (Default)
From: [personal profile] whitesycamore
I'm not going to link to concrete examples because I don't keep track of exactly when and where this happens, and also because I'd rather not get accusatory towards specific people.

I don't think the mods are too quick too freeze threads--quick freezing is something I approve of.

For example, I just reread the entire "our last post" link above, and I didn't see anything I'd call "dismissive". If I don't get my way on a group space each and every time I complain about something, does that automatically mean the person who said "Sorry, no" was being dismissive?

This in itself sounds dismissive (and combative) to me, and I'm not interested.

Date: 2012-05-08 07:00 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Honestly, I didn't know how else to ask about it. Several times in that thread, as in others, the mods explained to particular posters why their answer was "no."

How is it "dismissive" if an explanation for "no" is given but the other person still wants to hear "yes" and isn't ever going to be satisfied with anything else?

There's no physical way that everyone is going to be pleased with every mod decision all the time. I don't see that as "dismissive." I see it as common sense.

Date: 2012-05-08 07:21 pm (UTC)
whitesycamore: (Default)
From: [personal profile] whitesycamore
Honestly, I didn't know how else to ask about it. Several times in that thread, as in others, the mods explained to particular posters why their answer was "no."

Wait, what thread? I think we might be talking at cross purposes here, dude.

Anyway, I'm basically happy with the moderation here; it's just that this particular post rubbed me the wrong way, as it seemed to tar all complaints as griping from people who can't accept the community policy, which I don't think is strictly true.

:o

From: [personal profile] cleome45 - Date: 2012-05-08 07:31 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: :o

From: [personal profile] whitesycamore - Date: 2012-05-08 07:54 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] salinea - Date: 2012-05-09 10:52 am (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2012-05-10 12:56 pm (UTC)
greenmask: (Default)
From: [personal profile] greenmask
To clarify but not excuse, I believe that "have fun with" was meant less yeah, racism etc are awesome, wooo, more it's more fun to not worry about what I'm saying. We should have caught how that would read, and aeka isn't alone in her apology above.

We don't think that people actively want to use ingrained slurs; we know that it's an effort to not.

This post was designed to address the issues mentioned within it. I'm not sure that I understand why you see this as our brushing off all complaints. My other comment to you on this post was originally much longer and addressed the matter of speed re: notes, warnings, freezings, etc. Your PM function is not active and I am unable to get the rest to you.

Date: 2012-05-10 09:37 pm (UTC)
quatoria: An extreme close-up of my eye, with the blade of a knife just barely touching the bottom edge of my pupil. (Default)
From: [personal profile] quatoria
If that was addressed to me (apologies if it was not) - my PM function certainly SHOULD be working - I just got a PM no more than a day or so ago. If not, apologies - it gets hard to keep track of who's talking to who once the reply chains get so long.

Profile

scans_daily: (Default)
Scans Daily
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, [community profile] scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.

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

Please read the community ethos and rules before posting or commenting.

July 2014

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags