Suggestions
Jul. 18th, 2010 09:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sd_admin posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyFirst an announcement: While modbot seemed like a good idea at the time, it's proved to be unpopular with members. From now on we'll be using it only for admin posts, so that they can be edited by all members of the mod team.
We know that some members have had issues with the community and the mod team, and felt like they couldn't bring them to our attention. Here is your chance. If you've got a question, concern or suggestion about Scans Daily, here's where you can post it.
This post will be linked to in our profile, and checked regularly by the mods. Comments won't be screened, so you can suggest amongst yourselves.
We know that some members have had issues with the community and the mod team, and felt like they couldn't bring them to our attention. Here is your chance. If you've got a question, concern or suggestion about Scans Daily, here's where you can post it.
This post will be linked to in our profile, and checked regularly by the mods. Comments won't be screened, so you can suggest amongst yourselves.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 09:44 pm (UTC)"Like hell! You're saying that wasn't on purpose? Or were you not even looking, cause I don't exist to you? I'm gonna call a damn cop on you!"
"Excuse me, what seems to be the problem?"
"This insensitive [expletive] is stompin' around in big [expletive] boots and stepping on anyone who won't get out of their way!"
"Is this true?"
"......."
no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 10:17 pm (UTC)Calling out other members or creators for discriminatory or oppressive behavior is encouraged for the good of the community.
*Please note that calling out other members for discriminatory behavior is NOT considered a personal attack here at Scans Daily. For our specific policy on discriminatory behavior, please refer to rule #1.
I've been informed up-thread that the second provision is not actually intended to mean "so go ahead and lay into them however you want", but I'm still waiting on the clarification of what it does.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 10:50 pm (UTC)Because seriously, people keep saying that innocent people are being called out for no reason by rampaging packs looking for a fight, but I haven't seen any instances of it. How big a problem is this compared to people saying genuinely not on shit and getting called out for it? Tell you what, for every link you provide to the former, I'll provide two to the latter.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 11:00 pm (UTC)But I think at this point, it's probably best for me to join everyone else who has decided to disengage from this discussion. I don't see any progress to be made, and perhaps I'm merely being oversensitive, defensive, and/or looking to take offense
I believe, unless someone else decides to speak up, this leaves the field to you; and so I also offer my congratulations.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 11:38 pm (UTC)Well all right then.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 05:19 am (UTC)I based my statement on the observation that humans, in general, are bastards; and that when given the opportunity to act out against their fellow humans without reprocussions, they will tend to do so (see Gabe's GIFT).
It seems (from some comments now being added to this post) that we may get some actual examples. Please feel free to contribute your own. My understanding is that you may do so without consequences so long as you are engaged in "calling out".
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 09:17 am (UTC)Oh, wait, we need to have enough actual apologies to build a decent sample size, right?
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 09:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 04:04 pm (UTC)But you were told differently earlier in the post. I'll state again for the record, though, since there seems to be some confusion:
It is not the policy of the mods to encourage or excuse extended personal attacks on any member, nor to encourage or allow members to "go ahead and lay into them however you want" when responding to oppressive comments.
In addition, since this is apparently a theoretical situation and you're not able to cite examples of it actually happening, it could be construed as concern trolling and doesn't promote good faith discussion.
I'm not saying that is your intent, but it's certainly more helpful to discuss actual situations where you think the mod team could have handled things better or improvements to mod policy, rather than theoretical examples of where we could potentially mess up.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 05:48 pm (UTC)The first is the transgendered hate crime post in reference to a poster, who made a very stereotypical, and a foolish comment, which set out the floodgates. There was dogpiling there and it was an ugly situation, but not uncommon. What bothered me in the hate crime post was that when posters pointed out that simpli connecting something so drastic to a single stupid comment, several of those posters came under attack from the posters and even some of the mods, who then went in to other discussions patting themselves in the back and shaking their heads how foolish some people are. The second incident is the Gail Simone BoP #2 incident, which was actually even mentioned in the NS_D thread. There someone was actually banned for expressing that they understood Simone's point and mods gave non-official warnings of derailing to others who tried to join the conversation by expressing that they undertood Simone's point. Those individuals, at least in my opinion, didn't dismiss the attackers as oversensitive or anything like that, just tried to join the conversation in understanding of Simone's point. In addition to those, I've seen several discussions where a commenter basically says that they stopped to listen to another member because a member of this or that majority.
Even in this thread, for which the whole point was to express concerns over the community in an open discussion and in which majority of those with concerns have tried to express them in civilized manner, there is someone directly saying that this is just tears of the privileged people, someone making sweeping generalizations of those who are making the complaints, with mods not even seemingly acknowling them. No I'm not necessarily should, as this is intended as a free discussion, but if the situation was reversed, my perception is that there would interference from the mods, and that is, at least in my opinion one of the core issues represented here.
As for the lack of specific incidents, I think it's been mentioned already a few times why people aren't willing to give them. Either they haven't been saving the links because they didn't think a situation like this would arise or then they don't want to mention specific people or incidents, because this is felt to be an overall problem of the community instead of having it go to a blame game level.
So far it has been mentioned several times that the intent is not crucial, but the perception of the words. If someone is offended, even though it was not the intent or if the people don't truly understand why what was said was offensive, still a reaction is expected and understood. In this thread several people have already commented that their perception of the community is what it is and they have concerns over them. It is constantly mentioned that the overt hostility is not within the rules of the community, yet there have been several mentions in this thread and others before this over that this is how some people perceive the situation.
To put it in a more understandable way do the mods feel that the concerns raised here are valid?
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 06:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 07:29 pm (UTC)How is the reply above not hostile, offensive or derailing? How exactly should I react to it according to the community rules? Should I just be silent as someone feels it its their right to attack my concerns in a thread basically for airing for concerns and how do replies like this really create an oppression-free atmosphere where people can discuss matters? Should the mods interfere with posts like this and if not, why not then?
And for the replier him/herself, so that you do not feel left out. It's been a long day, so do you mind if we do this quick way. You think I'm an overprivileged crybaby without the apparant capability for empathy and have nothing to add to any discussion. So I say something, you dismiss it, I say something else, you dismiss, I go cry in my oatmeals and you enjoy your moment of victory. Will that suffice?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 09:35 pm (UTC)It's linked so you can see what actually happened.
1. Psychopathicus Rex says trans women aren't convincing as women.
2. Snugglebitch asks him what the fuck is wrong with him?
3. P_R expresses confusion over what he did that was insulting
This is actually a fine response.
4. Snugglebitch quotes what bothered her and asks him if he thinks for two seconds if there's anyone but him reading this stuff.
This is fine too. At this point Snugglebitch has expressed anger but has not insulted Psychopathicus_Rex at all. I want that to be crystal fucking
clear right now.
5. P_R asks how that could possibly be offensive and tells a transsexual woman that what he said is not offensive to transsexuals.
Wait, what? What the fuck is this shit? Why is P_R allowed to tell a trans woman that she can't be offended by his statement that trans women aren't convincing as women? Why does the popular narrative of this event constantly paint P_R as the victim when he is clearly perpetrating right there, plain as day?
6. Snugglebitch asks him to clarify that he doesn't think it's offensive to say dehumanizing shit about people who are actually in this community, and then she says "fuck you." This is, btw, the third exchange between them. And is "fuck you" really so awful compared to talking about how trans women are too ugly to really be convincing as women? Seriously?
7. Bruno digs a deep hole of rationalization, saying that he didn't think the character was transsexual because she didn't look like one (whatever "look like one" is supposed to fucking mean - in P_R's case, "mannish," apparently, and asks if he should censor himself rather than saying offensive shit.
8. Snugglebitch says "Yes, that would be awesome."
9. Snugglebitch responds to the "I wasn't insulting transsexuals" thing again to point out the "convincingly womanly" phrase implies that trans women are deceivers trying to trick cis men into sleeping with them.
10. P_R Bruno goes at great lengths to talk about what transsexual women (although he continues to use the dehumanizing and degendering "transsexuals" as a noun rather than an adjective to describe women with a particular experience) supposedly look like and accuses Snugglebitch of putting words in his mouth.
11. Snugglebitch points out he was talking about trans women being unconvincing as women, that there are trans women in the community, and tells him his opinion is stupid and asks him to kindly shut the fuck up. So far? One insult from Snugglebitch, and this is in response to a guy who keeps reiterating how ugly and mannish and unconvincing trans women are in just about every. single. fucking. comment.
Okay, going back up,
12. Shemale responds to 5 (I wasn't offensive to transsexuals!) with "To my eyes, you look like a giant fucking tool. No offense, though."
Okay, this is the second (actually first, because of timing) insult in the thread directed at P_R, but Shemale's responding to P_R's constant insistence that to his eyes, trans women aren't convincing. She's not just attacking him out of the blue, but trying to make a point about the busted things he won't stop saying. Shemale is also a trans woman, and so far the second person total to respond to P_R.
13. P_R comes back with "I'm sorry, but I wasn't intending any offense and that he wishes people would stop painting him as some kind of ultra-bigot. So far? No one's done anything but refer to what he's said, called him a tool, told him to fuck off, and that his opinion was stupid. They also described how what he said was busted. Where's the ultra-bigot accusation? Please fucking enlighten me, will you?
14. I reply and ask if, since he didn't intend any offense, if that means he's off the hook. Because this is a rhetorical question, I say that it doesn't mean that at all. I also explain that it's possible to accidentally cause offense and that the best thing to do is apologize and back off, and not keep repeating the offensive shit that caused the problem in the first place. I also point out that Snugglebitch did not call him an ultrabigot, but was reacting to the offensive things he said. I am also a trans woman. So far, three entire trans women have responded to P_R. Snugglebitch responded most frequently, Shemale responded once. And I respond a few more times. I'm trying to figure out how this is a dogpile.
15. P_R says he apologized, and that he apologized several times. He apologized once for giving offense, and he said he was sorry, he wasn't intending offense, and apologized once to Neo_prodigy for giving offense. That's three times - once directed at a cis person and posted after this exchange, and none are real apologies. He's apologizing for Snugglebitch's reaction, and not what he said. Also, he continually repeats and rephrases the original offending comment while protesting his innocence.
16. Kingrockwell comments to clarify on what apologies actually are, and suggests stepping back rather than continuing to make things worse.
17. I respond, clarifying that he did not offer an actual apology, and that I did not call him a bad person.
18. P_R complains about being called out by one or more mods at this point, implies that Snugglebitch was the only person who was offended, and has left the thread so can we all shut up about it now?
... at this point, I should have replied to point out that I am also a trans woman and that I was offended when I came upon the thread myself, but by the time I got back to the thread, it had been frozen.
19. Snugglebitch clarified that leaving a failed conversation is not the same as moving on.
20. P_R continues to say that the conversation should stop because he doesn't like it.
21. Kingrockwell tells him to stop trying to get the last word.
22. Neo_prodigy makes a mod note, explaining that intent doesn't mean you can't possibly really give offense, and clarifies that what P_R said was offensive and bigoted.
23. P_R tries to play the victim because it's such a horrible experience to be called out on his shit after he initially refused to let it go and repeatedly insisted that he wasn't offensive and wouldn't stop repeating his line about how trans women are too ugly.
24. Neo_prodigy tells him he doesn't get to play the victim and informs him that his next warning means a 14-day suspension.
25. P_R complains that there's no way for him to get out of this gracefully. Except there was. He could have backed off early on, apologized for saying offensive shit, and stopped saying offensive shit. Who dragged this out as long as it was? P_R did. Snugglebitch didn't. Shemale didn't. I didn't. The mods didn't. P_R did, because he had to have the last word, he had to be right, and he couldn't stop repeating the initial offensive statement.
26. Homo_impetus thanks Neo_prodigy for the handling of this situation.
27. Schmevil steps in to offer a more complete breakdown, explains to P_R where he fucked up (although this has already been pointed out), and apparently freezes the entire thread.
It's easy to exaggerate what really happened when you draw upon the narrative that developed over the days after this exchange, but what really happened?
Three trans women called him out over a period of a few hours. Three mods tried to hold his hand so he could understand what went wrong because he wasn't listening to the trans women. Dogpile? Personal attacks? Not hardly.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-22 09:25 pm (UTC)I haven't really been involved in these discussions much at all, but I do recall the thread you're pointing out as it started off as a comment to mine. And I remember having that comment in my inbox and not knowing what to say in response as I was a bit in shock. I'm not trying to vilify that member, but just saying that I can recall this.
Recently, on another forum, I was called out for making an unintentional, but offensive comment in regards to prostitution. Intent wasn't there, but hurt happened nonetheless. This comment here? Has made me say: you know what? My words genuinely hurt someone else -- who is hurt on a regular basis -- and that's why I'm so bothered and upset. That's why my stomach is in knots. And that person (a sex worker) gets hurt on a regular basis and comes to his/her hobby and sees more hurt?
Well, I know what that's like (to a much lesser extent): I'm a woman, a feminist. I hate seeing this stuff on other forums and I hate it when it happens to me. I hate it when it happens in real life, because it does happen. It happens a lot.
And I hate seeing it happen to marginalized people, and it genuinely upsets me in that sick to my stomach way.
And then I went through S_D's resources. And I thought to myself: OK, you know what? If I'm going to work with marginalized members of Toronto's community via Legal Aid, I'd better check myself because I'm going to be fighting and advocating for them and their rights as human beings and Canadian citizens in court. And it's not going to be easy, and I am going to make mistakes and keep checking myself, and I do need to continually educate myself, but there's going to be way more consequences in the real world vs. the Internet where I'm nameless and faceless.
Because I hate going to 4chan and the DC message boards because of this. So I can either get with the program and grow and hope to better benefit my comics and IRL community or not.
So I genuinely, sincerely thank you for this comment.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 09:51 pm (UTC)But calling it dogpiling? That's a huge exaggeration. There were several people on both sides, and I would argue there were more arguing that P_R was treated so horribly that the comm needs to change its rules so more cis het white guys don't get savaged so badly after offending the hell out of marginalized people.
This was followed by a post on NS_D with even more concern trolling and "the lurkers support me in PMs" talking about how unsafe the comm was because they were afraid of saying something offensive and having hordes of slavering marginalized people baying for their heads.
TBH, I felt pretty outnumbered by the sheer number of people who couldn't cope with the possibility that they might offend someone and be held accountable for it. I also felt that Snugglebitch's, Shemale's, and my own words were warped well beyond anything we had actually said or even tried to say to pain P_R as an ever more pathetic victim who was just plain afraid to even open his mouth in here for fear of savage reprisal.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 10:12 pm (UTC)Check out just how many people tried to excuse P_R's behavior and blame those of us who reacted to it for causing a problem. Just check out how much energy some of us spent dealing with that shit.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-21 06:15 am (UTC)As for the examples I gave, I see that I did not manage to explain my concern over them properly. I'll try once more, but try to do it a shorter form. What was said in the initial discussion was stupid as hell and there is no defending it. When the transpost was made, several people did express that they felt it was out of place post to make for several reasons. Some of those reasons a bit more reasonable than others. There was disagreement, which is expected as we are all humans after all. Now when the mods reacted, in my opinion their reactions could be divided in to two categories. Those who explained rationally and even respectfully why they felt this kind of a post was necessary. I thought those replies were actually pretty good and helped me to understand why it was made, even if I would have personally still preferred that the original context given in another form.
Then, and again this is about my perception, some mods reacted in a very hostile and condesending manner to those expressing their concerns over such a post and even implied that all doubters were just being transphobic. This did not really smooth things over and with those confronted in this manner didn't calm down, the hostility increased and others joined in.
There are rarely winners in arguments over the internets, to be truthful, and all sides can say pretty stupid things, especially people who find themselves on the defense. In turn if someone feels that they are being ignored or offended, it is a natural reaction to become agitated or angry over that. My main concern has been over mod behaviour, as I would expect them to try to diffuse things if they see such instances or modarate it, as the name implies. They don't have to be neutral, but to not to use insulting language or act with hostility, as they are supposed to be the people trusted in these situations.
Again, TL:DR version. If I have the perception, justified in my opinion of course as are all perceptions, that some of the mods have acted in a insulting manner or even begun confrontations in a hostile manner and name calling, then if I get in to an argument, can I trust the mods to intervene in a fair manner. And by the way, just wanted to stress that with fair manner I don't mean telling me that I'm right, but just not insulting me or explaining in a condesending manner.
Even though you may not agree over the necessity of such a concern, which is understandable, I hope that my concern here is at least expressed in a reasonable and understandable manner.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-07-21 03:37 am (UTC)As for zemo, his ban had nothing to do with the fact that he was agreeing with Gail so much as that he did so by disparaging the concept of anti-oppression, something he had a pattern of going back many months. The mods had spoken with him on numerous occasions about it and he had been warned previously. That was simply the final expression of that pattern.
And yes, intent is not the be-all and end-all. If someone says something offensive and is called on it, trying to fall back on the idea that you didn't mean it doesn't help. It implies that the fault lies on the offended for finding offense, and not with the offender. Yes, they did not mean any harm, but harm was caused. The best thing to do is take a step back and acknowledge that they caused harm. It will not be easy and sometimes the offended will be angry, but being called on perpetuating oppression is not worse than experiencing oppression. We also don't believe it's fair to expect the offended to necessarily explain why they were offended, but it will sometimes happen that they will, especially if the offender has shown to be sincerely apologetic and receptive. In cases where that doesn't happen, the mod team will try to fill in the blanks ourselves.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-20 10:35 pm (UTC)