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

[moneyless_jew]

Again, the difference is I don't recall bullying being encouraged as a learning tool at the old s_d.

I remember a few posters who I won't name, at least one of which who is not here anymore, who sometimes had valid points to make about stereotyping and GLBT, etc. representation in mainstream comics, or other issues. The problem with those posters was that their attitude, the way they carried themselves and addressed the rest of the community was often vituperative, vicious, and completely unwilling to listen to any nuance. As such, they were censured or even banned. Why? Because no matter what viable point they might have had, their behavior was purely and simply unacceptable. IMHO scans_daily no longer has those standards. No conduct is off-limits so long as it is couched under the terms of personal subjective experience. This does not work.

[lisaquestions]

Your assertion is a bit lacking in detail. How did they introduce these topics? How much pushback did they receive from people unwilling to deal with such criticism?

I know from experience that marginalized people are frequently characterized as far more combative than they actually are, and that in such exchanges, there's usually someone trying to shut down what they're saying in an equally combative tone, but whose arguments are seen as inherently more valid because oppression is often seen as neutrality.

[lisaquestions]

by "equally combative tone" I actually meant using the same combative tone that the marginalized person is accused of using, whether or not that's the actual tone they used.

[skalja]

I was a mod at scans_daily from late 2006 through April of this year. A bit over half that time I was the only mod, and very probably, some if not all of those posters you reference were banned by me.

Now, when you're the only mod of a community numbering thousands of members, you have to ban a lot of people. I'm not going to second-guess every decision I made, especially since frankly I don't remember a lot of the specific incidents from 3+ years ago. But I will say that on the occasions I banned people for being "vicious" or "mean" in speaking out against discrimination? I WAS WRONG. I was completely oblivious to the idea that in "keeping the peace" and "staying neutral" I could be punishing people for being upset about discrimination.

When I recruited the first wave of the new mod team, I was starting to think that the way that I had been doing things was the right way, and I specifically recruited people I thought had the skills and the insight to make the changes I was looking for, i.e. a comics community that is progressive in more than just name.

While scans_daily is far from perfect, I do think it's now a much better place to be than it was then. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[freddylloyd]

I will say that on the occasions I banned people for being "vicious" or "mean" in speaking out against discrimination? I WAS WRONG. I was completely oblivious to the idea that in "keeping the peace" and "staying neutral" I could be punishing people for being upset about discrimination.

When I recruited the first wave of the new mod team, I was starting to think that the way that I had been doing things was the right way, and I specifically recruited people I thought had the skills and the insight to make the changes I was looking for, i.e. a comics community that is progressive in more than just name.

This suggests that there might indeed have been a change in the community's moderation policy, as some long-time members have said they perceive.

Obviously, you and the current moderation team see any change as very much for the better. And the current team have surely spelled out their principles for anyone to see, even if some members find the practice confusing.

Thank you for sharing your perspective and experience.

[skalja]

I guess we'll just have to politely disagree on the policy. *shrugs*

[freddylloyd]

I'm not sure I disagree with the policy, and have been trying to keep my comments neutral as I consider people's points. I do think there have been problems with communicating or implementing the policy, as often happen. But most of all in this thread I appreciated your sharing your unique historical perspective. ("Historical" in internet terms, of course.)

[skalja]

Fair enough! And yeah, three years ago? That's like the Stone Age on teh intarwebs.

[schmevil]

No conduct is off-limits so long as it is couched under the terms of personal subjective experience. This does not work.

I think you're wrong. I think that our standards of behaviour are higher now because we expect members to consider each others' safety and happiness before commenting. We expect members to acknowledge and own up to their missteps.

At the end of the day, what happens after you've been called out is up to you. You can choose to believe that your fellow member's feelings are invalid and that zie is wrong, or you can acknowledge that you've done something to hurt them and then figure out what it was. You can dig your heels in and defend yourself, or you can apologize and take a step back from the conversation. That's all up to you. And saying racist, sexist, 'phobic things in the first place? That's up to you too.