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.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-08 07:20 pm (UTC)
icon_uk: (Default)
From: [personal profile] icon_uk
Don't feel qualified to speak for rallamajoop, but I suspect it was more symptomatic than definitive.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-08 07:28 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Maybe you're right. Still, given the amount of space they spent explaining it, I'd say that's one mighty big "symptom."

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-08 07:38 pm (UTC)
ext_3679: (Default)
From: [identity profile] fiddlingfrog.livejournal.com
I don't think the length of someone's examples should be used as a mark against their central argument.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-08 07:48 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (lightning1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Really?

Because I tend to think that if I have to spend a massive paragraph explaining very fandom-specific reasons why somebody (who may, BTW, know those specific circumstances but still not give a shit;I can't be sure) shouldn't take offense at a joke I told, it might be better all around if I just say, "Oops. Sorry," shelve the joke in question and move on. My own journal might be kind of like my own home, but a discussion board is more like the neighborhood bar, and I try (sometimes even successfully) to post with that in mind.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-08 08:20 pm (UTC)
ext_3679: (Default)
From: [identity profile] fiddlingfrog.livejournal.com
Yes really. Because this wasn't an explanation about why you shouldn't take offense at a specific joke, it's an explanation about how the standards of the community, and their application, have changed over time.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-08 08:28 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
I disagree. I think it's both. From the original post:

..."it's fictional, it's a common kink that does no harm, and I'm helping no-one by shaming people who enjoy it". Or, as the joke goes, "it's not rape, it's surprise sex!", because if you can't joke about something as socially convoluted yet ultimately harmless as young women enjoying weird porn, what else can you do? Yes, that sort of comment can sound problematic taken out of context, but really, what can't? Context matters...

They give two options here, but a third option would be to say, Well, there are a million other jokes I could tell, so maybe I could just let this one go in this particular place, at this particular time.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 03:44 am (UTC)
rallamajoop: By addygryff @ LJ (Cable)
From: [personal profile] rallamajoop
Okay, you're clearly missing my point, so I'm going to make another attempt to explain. To some of us, being able to make jokes about rape is one way we remind ourselves that the threat of rape does NOT, always and in every possible context, have to rule our lives. There are so many complex overlapping factors involved that going straight to a blanket ban on all jokes on a subject like that can end up silencing the very people those rules aim to protect.

Other people do find rape jokes trivialising, and I respect that. What I object to is the idea that there are plenty of other communities out there that are just like scans_daily save on issues like this, and that anyone who feels less welcome under the current rules is guilty of "casual racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia". I find this assertion insulting and categorically unfair.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 03:56 am (UTC)
cleome45: (violet2)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
"What I object to is the idea that there are plenty of other communities out there that are just like scans_daily save on issues like this..."

Then maybe you have to compromise, and accept the good with the bad. No space is going to have everything set up exactly the way one fan wants it. And no space is free from evolving as its mods and its members change.

I see jokes about rape all over the internet, and all over the culture at large. Personally, I'm just fine with there being one or two spaces where they're off limits.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 04:20 am (UTC)
rallamajoop: By addygryff @ LJ (Cable)
From: [personal profile] rallamajoop
You're really doing a very thorough job of avoiding my point here. The mods, in that statement, are declaring themselves as the ultimate arbitrators of everything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. The possibility that, as I have laid out, the rules may lead to some minorities feeling less welcome here is being dismissed under the assumption that anyone objecting is obviously a bigot who should GBT4chan or wherever else you had in mind, and who's opinion can therefore be ignored.

Of course you're entitled to "one or two spaces where they're off limits". I have never argued otherwise. And yes, there are lots of places on the internet with less language policing. However, those communities are not in any meaningful way anything like s_d, and as a general rule, they don't go to such elaborate lengths to tell me they're doing it for my own good. That is what I'm objecting to.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 04:40 am (UTC)
cleome45: (fire1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
I don't think I've missed your point at all.

And at least one mod has already clarified upthread that, no, their goal is not to run you off to 4chan. But if you (like the rest of us) go for certain types of humor, you have to take a chance that the mods won't take it well. Maybe you'll have to explain yourself in detail, much as you did above. And the detailed explanation might not be enough.

What would you like in lieu of "elaborate lengths"? For there to be no explanation at all for how rules play out? I'm bewildered here.

There are certain examples of extreme gallows humor involving rape that I might find funny, under some circumstances.* But honestly, I don't feel diminished if there's a few spaces where the mods have decided that style of humor doesn't fly.

*Usually the kind of humor that makes the rapist look like crap, not the person they attacked. Or it mocks the stupidity of rape culture itself.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 10:33 am (UTC)
rallamajoop: By addygryff @ LJ (Cable)
From: [personal profile] rallamajoop
Oh, for pete's sake.

For simplicity: elaborate lengths = clearly implying that anyone who feels uncomfortable with the rules is necessarily racist, sexist or homophobic. Even if that person is themselves a minority. That is what makes me uncomfortable.

No, I realise they have said they didn't mean me to take it that way, but coming from people who are quite happy to give commenters mod notes for accidents of bad wording, I feel within my rights to hold them to the same standards. This is not an isolated incident, the whole tone of the community for ages has sent me the same message.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 10:50 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

For simplicity: elaborate lengths = clearly implying that anyone who feels uncomfortable with the rules is necessarily racist, sexist or homophobic. Even if that person is themselves a minority. That is what makes me uncomfortable.

That's a very fair criticism. We shouldn't have framed the discussion in such a dismissive way to the great variety of criticisms of moderation. Apologies.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 04:56 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (luthor1*)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
You want people who make honest mistakes and slip up to be given the benefit of the doubt. Got it. (Now, I don't know who the hordes of posters who made honest mistakes, slipped up, and were run off by the mods are. As opposed to those who were warned or banned because they were belligerent creeps who sometimes even admitted to actively trolling. But maybe you can list them for me.)

But a mod in this thread made a mistake, apologized in short order to the member they offended, and that's not good enough. It's your way or the highway, I guess. (Though I still don't know what alternative rules you're proposing. You've gone into exhaustive detail about what's wrong with the mod policies. Maybe you'd like to propose some different ones? I don't know.)

A mod note is not a warning. Is there something inherently wrong with politely telling somebody they've made a mistake? (Again, what would you prefer?) Do you want rules at all, if there's any risk at all that they might not play out in all circumstances exactly as you personally want them to? Maybe what you're really looking for is an unmoderated space, or a collective.

I love collectives, and I respect the people who can make them work. If there's really so many long-time posters who don't like the board as it's run now, maybe you should get together and start your own collective scans community. Living well being the best revenge, and all that.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 06:08 pm (UTC)
salinea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] salinea
(Now, I don't know who the hordes of posters who made honest mistakes, slipped up, and were run off by the mods are. As opposed to those who were warned or banned because they were belligerent creeps who sometimes even admitted to actively trolling. But maybe you can list them for me.)
Well... those are two extremities of a spectrum though, and many people would fall somewhere in between "belligerent creep" and "well meaning posters who made honest mistakes"; and there's likely people we antagonised by our handling of the situation so that the responsibility of their belligerence somewhat feel upon both them and the mod team.

I mean, I'd certainly not claim that we've always been perfect in our handling of things all the time. We mods make honest mistakes as well.

And I also think we have a responsibility as mods to answer criticism from people without requiring them to propose alternatives, or that they should listen to criticisms before assuming all critics are a dead loss. We encouraged to leave if they like it so little. To a certain point, at least. We can't please everyone in our way of running the community, no, so we do prioritize according to what we believe is best for the comm and most faithful to its ethos, and that means leaving some people dissatisfied, but we should also earnestly

I'm sorry, Everyone. :o

Date: 2012-05-09 06:15 pm (UTC)
cleome45: (violet2)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
:(

To clarify: I don't want anyone in this thread to actually leave the space. I was just really hoping for some proposals as to what could be done differently. Other than completely transforming how it functions (ie- a collective space or a "free speech zone," and both of those have their own drawbacks-- if my own experiences with them is any indication)

The deletion of a controversial tag thing, for instance. Is it practical for the mods to ask members how they feel about that before it's done? Maybe with a vote? I was kind of thinking that we have an awful lot of tags for that to be practical. Then again, most tags aren't controversial for everyone, so perhaps it wouldn't come up very often... ?

Re: I'm sorry, Everyone. :o

Date: 2012-05-09 06:32 pm (UTC)
salinea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] salinea
Didn't mean to say you had to feel sorry, btw. I just wanted to address the points you were making from the Mods pov; that they aren't necessarily the answers that we would give.


(btw, on the topic of the tag itself - which I don't think was really rallamajoop's main point but - I have no idea if one of the Mod went and decided to delete it. It might be something that happened as a result of the community deletion from LJ. Most of the "in joke" tags aren't used all that much anymore, even on posts where they are relevant.)

Re: I'm sorry, Everyone. :o

Date: 2012-05-10 04:31 am (UTC)
cleome45: (brainy1)
From: [personal profile] cleome45
Thanks for clarifying. I guess my experiences with anti-P.C. crusaders have been overwhelmingly negative online, much more so than in spaces where there's strong support for avoiding "edgy" language if other posters find it disturbing. So I was probably sounding too brittle and hardnosed when that really isn't fair to the other posters here. But I wasn't trying to advocate anyone's viewpoint other than my own. :o

Of course, [personal profile] whitesycamore is right upthread: there are people who'll use the language to pull a snowjob on others. I've seen that, too and it's worth watching out for. I just haven't seen it anywhere near as often.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 09:38 am (UTC)
salinea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] salinea
we're not the ultimate arbitrators of everything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.; but we are de facto
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<:i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

we're not the ultimate arbitrators of everything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.; but we are <I>de facto<:i> the arbitrators of that on scans_daily. It's just... part of the what being a mod is.

We don't claim perfect knowledge or wisdom while doing so; we just try to enforce and interpret the rules as they pertain to it as best we can;

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 11:43 am (UTC)
rallamajoop: By addygryff @ LJ (Cable)
From: [personal profile] rallamajoop
See, you say that, and I do believe you have the best intentions. But I still came to this comm today to find a message from the mods that made it clear that the only reason they can imagine anyone might object to any part of their approach to moderating is that that person is themselves a bigot. I would like to be able to take this as an isolated incident of hyperbole or poorly considered wording, but the reality is that it only reinforces the same impression I've been getting consistently from this community for months now.

Messages like this tell everyone that the mods do not care that people like me might have been made to feel excluded from this comm, despite the fact that on face value I ought to be among the many kinds of people the rules are designed to protect. The mods do not seem to care that there are people in their membership who are invested in this community despite the rules, not because of them. They've obviously been hearing from them, or there'd have been no need to address the matter in this post in the first place. At the very least, it'd be worth putting some effort into understanding where all that frustration is coming from. Honestly, I feel you sell the whole comm awfully short by implying that there are "plenty of other spaces" people can go if they're not happy here.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-09 05:57 pm (UTC)
salinea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] salinea
Well, there's nothing i can say to that than apologise, re-assert that we do care, and strive to do better in the future.

At the very least, it'd be worth putting some effort into understanding where all that frustration is coming from.
I wouldn't apologise if I didn't understand where the frustration comes from.

Re: gosh this got tl;dr quickly

Date: 2012-05-10 12:42 pm (UTC)
greenmask: (Default)
From: [personal profile] greenmask
Beg pardon for approaching you on this again, but: we haven't been aware of hearing from people who have articulated the problem that you have. We've heard from people who are annoyed at our rules and our moderation, who find them constricting or overbearing, and people who have problems that we've been unable to find away around whilst keeping our ethos intact - but not from people who have made your point that they feel excluded from this comm, despite the fact that on face value [they] ought to be among the many kinds of people the rules are designed to protect. At least, we or I haven't heard it in such clear terms and have missed the point.

We've missed that, you're right, and I apologise to you and everyone else who has felt that way and who we have misunderstood.

I do disagree that the OP makes it clear we believe all dissenters to be bigots, but we will speak more clearly in future.

Looks like we have much more work to do.

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.

November 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 26272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags