Mod Post: Clarifications about Rule Changes, Moderation, and NoScans

[aeka]

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 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.

Comments

[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?

[aeka]

We cannot assume what people's walks of life are online, let alone know whether or not there are two marginalised individuals fighting each other. What we can do is call awareness to any oppressive, discriminatory, or disruptive behaviours we see and take action accordingly.

Also having privilege and reinforcing privilege are too separate things. Being privileged doesn't mean you'll get less consideration, but we won't allow the reinforcing of privilege as a silencing tactic on an important issue that gets brought up that negatively affects members of a more marginalised group.

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).

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

[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.

[aeka]

Gotcha. I can safely say I was definitely out of that loop since I wasn't an active member of the S_D comm on IJ, and I only became a member of the current modteam this year. So I have no idea what went down with that particular thread or what the discussion was even about.

But based on what you've described here, it sounds to me that shortly after the first person got mod-noted, people were derailing the issue, in which case I can understand the former mod's stance on the more marginalised person not needing to defend themselves in that situation, and the "we don't have to waste energy and patience educating people" comment.

The issue with derailing tactics is that aside from the fact that they're used as a way of silencing more marginalised groups from speaking out on issues that negatively affect them, they also inevitably reinforce oppressive behaviours, and particularly, reinforce privilege in the process. The fact is, in a society where privilege exists, issues that affect more privileged members of society will always be heard and into consideration. Issues that affect privileged persons are also issues that marginalised people don't get a voice in. When marginalised groups do address issues that affect them, they're either not taken seriously or they are easily dismissed and treated as secondary.

The key thing to remember here is that there is an unequal sharing of power between privileged and marginalised members in society as a whole. So when the mod in question said that they will take the side of the more marginalised individual, I'm pretty sure they meant "we will make sure their voice gets heard and you will not silence them." When they said "they don't have to be nice when they defend themselves" I'm sure they really meant "they don't need to oppress themselves to make you feel more comfortable."

What is often misconstrued as disproportionate response is actually an attempt to equalise power. And unfortunately "but how will I learn if you don't educate me," and "but they're not being civil about it" are two examples of derailing tactics that get used a lot in conversations about social issues and ones that reinforce privilege. If people are going to learn about how privilege hurts others in society, they need to feel uncomfortable because that's the only way they'll fully understand the extent of the problem. In my experience, being polite about social issues unfortunately encourages oppression. Not being polite forces a person out of their comfort zone and into a position of either needing to reexamine their own privilege if they have it, or examine in which ways they are reinforcing it even if they don't have it.

[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.

[salinea]

I'd also like to add that the mod team has changed a lot over the years, and while we keep the same ethos we did then - without ourselves remembering exactly how it went, we can't actually say we would have acted in the same fashion as the one you remember. Issues of privilege and tone argument are something we still very much take into account, but neither are we into letting people bully other members by using rhetorics as is not entirely unheard of.

[whitesycamore]

Not entirely unheard of? People co-opt, distort, and outright abuse social justice arguments in order to bulldoze others all the time. Sometimes from what were originally pure motives, sometimes because they enjoy being assholes.

But yeah, it's a form of bullying that's widespread in feminist spaces, and I do think it's something important to take into account.

[salinea]

... sometimes I overuse understatements. It's a character flaw.

[whitesycamore]

I very occasionally do that too.

[jeyl]

Isn't the R word illegal here?

[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,