Suggestions

[sd_admin]

First 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.

Comments

[angelophile]

I'm not sure that's a logical argument. Because it's not policy to do one thing it doesn't follow it is policy to do the opposite. I would hope that it's unlikely that you will find examples of us maginalizing oppressed members further by telling them to mind their tone.

[freddylloyd]

I took the statement "the fact that you and others perceive it as such is something we obviously need to work on addressing" to mean that you as a moderator were interested in addressing that perception.

In the spirit of the community's "scans or it didn't happen!" motto, I suggested that pointing to evidence that perception was mistaken would go some way to dispelling it. If there's no evidence, then of course the perception would be harder to dispel. Perhaps impossible.

Another rule that folks have been quoting a lot lately is, "intentions don't matter; results do." One result of this community's recent discussions, you've acknowledged, is that some members have the perception Cmdr_zoom described. I accept your statement that that's never been the moderators' intention.

[kingrockwell]

But most times that perception is based on a hypothetical, not something that has actually occurred. We cannot provide evidence of what will happen on a thing that hasn't occurred because the evidence does not exist.

Rest assured, if the calling-out policy is abused, we will handle it. But the mere possibility of it being abused does not negate the policy's importance.

[freddylloyd]

When you say, "most times that perception is based on a hypothetical, not something that has actually occurred," that appears to tacitly acknowledge that members have gained that perception from some exchanges that have actually occurred. I appreciate that acknowledgment.

One powerful way to dispel the perception that in certain circumstances members "can say absolutely anything they want" is to point to non-hypothetical moments when the moderators have cautioned members in that situation. If in fact there have been any, of course.

[kingrockwell]

Well, a lot of, if not all, of the rest of the time that perception is based on the tone argument.

The fact is, yes, we do give a poster leeway toward anger when zie is calling out an oppressive comment, oppression is an angering thing to encounter and we're not interested in policing the tone of a poster reacting to it.

We do not, however, allow them to contribute to further oppression when they do so. Racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic and other such comments are never acceptable.

[freddylloyd]

The distinction between leeway on tone and no leeway on otherwise-discouraged content might be valuable, and worth putting explicitly in the rules. Right now "calling out" is in the ethos and then in a footnote to rule 2, but would it be clearer as a rule, parallel to other rules? Sumpin' like—

2. Calling out an example of oppression as defined by rule 1, either in comics, comics publishing, or this community, is encouraged. While calling out should not contribute to further oppression under rule 1, nor include threats or wishes of bodily harm under rule 3, expressions of anger in objecting to oppression, including anger directed toward individuals, are not considered personal attacks. Anger is understandable and justified when responding to oppression.