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]

Thank you for being respectful and not relying on talking points. That said, we still disagree on some things. For one, I don't think I'm really exaggerating here at all. This is not the first Rules Suggestions post followed by a The Rules Are Still Awesome, STFU conclusion. It's just the latest. This keeps coming back because the larger problem of fair moderation is not dealt with.

Also, it's not incredible paranoia, assumptions or baseless accusations when the "Rules Are Still Awesome" posts regularly suggest that anyone who has a problem with the way the mods operate (or don't operate) has a larger problem with feminism, slash, queer issues and anti-oppression practices, and should probably leave. That is not a possibility. That is a blanket statement the mods are regularly making. And just a couple mins ago, one of them (I think it's a mod, anyway) just essentially suggested that if I disagreed with them, I have internalized oppression. Come on. WTF is that? Who's myopic here?

I think we were all here for comics. The problem is that the mods are at this point kind of flailing about to merge what s_d is about - comics in a liberal and open community - with some larger, extremely vague social purpose, and it is just not working because they, quite frankly, are not qualified to bridge the gap and are not thinking in terms of real life practice vs. theory.

People try to divert these things with humor and more comics. But it's always coming back. And despite what the mods say, it is not all the complainers' problem.

[julian]

Well, I don't think we're gonna agree about much of anything, no. Doesn't mean I can't talk to you anyway. (Though I'm going to bed after this, not that that's relevant to anything.)

. This is not the first Rules Suggestions post followed by a The Rules Are Still Awesome, STFU conclusion. It's just the latest. This keeps coming back because the larger problem of fair moderation is not dealt with.

Or, that could be interpreted as, "They repost the rules when something has changed and they want people to be aware of it." Myself, I find it a little clunky but certainly better than /not/ telling people when things change.

...one of them (I think it's a mod, anyway)...

OK, look. I'm taking you at face value and giving you the credit of taking you seriously, but if you want to profess your intense investment in the community, I think it's sort of incumbent on you to know a) who you're arguing with, and b) who the moderators are. It's kind of one of those things one knows when one actually /is/ invested in the present community.

Also, I don't know which comment you're talking about (there's a lot of them by now); gimme a pointer?

...posts regularly suggest that anyone who has a problem with the way the mods operate (or don't operate) has a larger problem with feminism, slash, queer issues and anti-oppression practices, and should probably leave.

What they specifically say is that if you're not comfortable with the ethos, then this may not be/probably won't be a place you'll be comfortable hanging out. I don't see that this is a problem. No community /is/ perfect for everyone. If I were a mod I'd word it differently, but I'm a nitpicky mofo.

And... this approach isn't exactly new, for SD. SD on LJ explicitly said if you weren't comfortable with slash, that this probably wasn't the place for you. (Or... something like unto that.) That was a political statement, too. It's just a broader application, nowadays.

(You read the "if you have a problem with the way the mods operate, go away" into the post. I don't agree that that's what they're saying, and I think it's pretty insulting to imply that of them. But lots of people often have issues with more active mod-teams, so I'm not particularly surprised you're among them.)

...and it is just not working...

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. I've said previously there's growing pains going on. I don't think it's just that the mods are struggling to find their feet on the anti-oppression stuff, although I do think that plays into it. But really, the move to DW (from IJ, I mean, but also from LJ), combined with the changes in allowed posting length/amounts one person can post, combined with the 'don't directly insult creators' thing, combined with the anti-oppression stuff, have been a lot of changes in a (relatively) short time, and that takes time to assimilate.

Plus which, a commitment to an anti-oppressive ethos (which I don't agree is "vague") is legitimately difficult, particularly when you're starting form a standing start. (So to speak.) I've been very interested to see how the moderation team handles it. I don't think they've been right 100% of the time, but it's surprisingly effective for a bunch of people feeling out how to go about it from other contexts and other mediums.

And I'm perfectly aware there's less crack, celebratory posts, and random shit going on, and that lots of people are feeling tentative. I may only comment sporadically, but I'm not blind. I just also acknowledge the people for whom this /is/ good moderation, and ultimately, it seems I'm more confident this kind of stuff can be worked through than you are.

[moneyless_jew]

Real quick, since you asked and deserve an nswer: The mod in question was kingrockwell, and I believe that the discussion which led to it being suggested that I had merely internalized oppression and that was why I (gasp) disagreed with moderation policy is directly above yours and my discussion tree here. Look for the one with kingrockwell and me.

As for the question of why am I not more seriously invested in this iteration of the comm so as to immediately have remembered who it was, well, I think I've made it clear why I am not. It is not the comm I participated in - IMO it is a half-assed version of a safe space where nobody really figured out the nuts and bolts and the day to day practicality of balancing 'liberal-minded comic fan forum' with 'cutting-edge GLBT haven, or something, whatever, we'll work on it.' I think the heart was in the right place. Nobody can argue with the concept and theory. I just think what's been done in practice is driven by supreme naivete and now, ego. We all want to treat everyone as fairly as possible, but in permitting every manner of behavior under a loose and inconsistent rules structure I think it's created a serious imbalance where people feel unsafe in the "safe space."

As for how to take the multiple posts re: "if you can't take the ethos, you should probably go elsewhere," that would be one thing if it were simply applied to people who show up and have trouble with the larger minority issues being discussed. But that's not all it's applied to. That warning is liberally applied to anyone, longtime poster or new, who has trouble with the current rules and the moderation policy. It was before, and it has been again in the latest exciting and unexpected Rules Update, in which it was once again determined that we shall do nothing about the rules or the modding because they are awesome and if you don't like them, you must really have a problem with social justice and tolerance for X, Y, and Z, and should not be here anyway. That's how any complaint is ultimately marginalized. And that, to my mind, is myopic.

It again begs the question I asked kingrockwell, namely that I'd been here for a while back at LJ and did king really believe I or others had suddenly developed an allergy to feminism, queer issues, and anti-oppression outreach, or was it possible we were genuinely reacting to a problem with the moderation. kingrockwell responded by suggesting that minorities could always internalize oppression and become part of the problem. So I can only conclude that that is the viewpoint of the mod team - that there is apparently no other nuance to be found in the discussion, and if you don't agree with them on this stuff, you HAVE to be approaching it from the standpoint of the oppressor, because their work is too important and well-thought-out and could never put a foot that wrong. Which begs the final question of why they want to bother with Suggestions posts over and over and over when they've clearly decided their answer each time.

[stubbleupdate]

As for how to take the multiple posts re: "if you can't take the ethos, you should probably go elsewhere," that would be one thing if it were simply applied to people who show up and have trouble with the larger minority issues being discussed. But that's not all it's applied to. That warning is liberally applied to anyone, longtime poster or new, who has trouble with the current rules and the moderation policy.

So, because you've been here for a while, rules should apply to you differently than they would to a new poster?

[moneyless_jew]

I just realized I missed this one because I was only ordered to shut the fuck up in the other thread, and not this one.

To answer your quick question which had nothing to do with what I wrote - no, I do not want rules applied differently to anyone, that is my entire point in here.

[stubbleupdate]

Perhaps I'm being dense, but when you say That warning is liberally applied to anyone, longtime poster or new, who has trouble with the current rules and the moderation policy. and give the impression that you think it is a bad thing, surely you are complaining about the rules being applied the same way for everybody.

[moneyless_jew]

Surely not. That's not what I meant at all. When I refer to old posters and new, what I'm talking about is the blanket assumption on the part of the mods that anyone who might take issue with their recent moderation policy must actually have issues with feminism, queer issues and anti-oppression. This despite longtime posters expressing misgivings about the comm's current system. Everyone is pigeonholed.

[julian]

Downthread, you referred to being ordered to "shut the fuck up." Did you mean Lisaquestions? Who did not, in fact, say that?

Kingrockwell, you note, clarified.

I wasn't asking /why/ you weren't invested. I was saying it was obvious you weren't, and therefore your storming in and demanding changes was ... somewhat confrontational.

I don't think it's half assed. I do, however, think there's flaws to it.

The problem with the tone argument issue in general is that I don't think people have really yet created a reasonable facilitation model in open public communities to deal with the ongoing fact of welcoming and communicating with those who aren't already fully invested in the anti-oppression model.

However, given as I have seen the results of people giving /into/ the tone argument and slapping down PoC and others who spoke out in less moderated ways, and how that, long term, stifles engagement and progress, there's a problem.

I think it's basically a question of, do you want to try and work on an anti-oppressive model? If you do, then you're going to have some shakedown issues.

(If I were a moderator, I might well do more in the way of intervening in particular situations -- Not to tell the person confronting oppression to dial it down, but perhaps to do some aftercare, to cut down on the kind of thing Foxhack talks about. But I mean, it's a big community, and it's hard to be everywhere.)

...liberally applied to anyone, longtime poster or new, who has trouble with the current rules...

Well, yes...

That said, while I take your actual point in that paragraph, I will say that I understand the position the mods are in. It's difficult to be committed to a position that's in some ways unpopular; and even if they're looking at ways to make their approach better, nuanced statements to that effect will tend to make both "sides" unhappy with what they're saying.

In regards your last paragraph -- Would you like a not-canned speech on that? Oh, heck, I'll talk anyway. Because I think it could be both. I think there's /always/ more societal crap to uncover, that may be blocking some of how one thinks about this sort of thing. But I also think it's in part a moderating team working out how best to deal with this stuff.

...why they want to bother with Suggestions posts over and over and over when they've clearly decided their answer...

Well, I would tend to think they put up Suggestions posts because there's more to the moderation and more to the community than /just/ the Ethos Stuff, and people /can/ make useful suggestions, practical and otherwise, that /don't/ have to do with a specific anti-oppression path they've determined on.

[moneyless_jew]

I'm sorry if I misled you. No, they didn't tell me to shut the fuck up, not in so many words. In the most recent mod post after this one, where they announced the latest "findings" of this Suggestions thread (i.e., no changes, hooray!), I discussed the issue further and was politely asked to vacate the thread and stop discussing it as others did. Which to me, coming from the mods who refuse to acknowledge a problem (after all, the problem is me, apparently), sounds a lot like STFU. But that's me.

Of course any new model system will have shakedown issues. You are absolutely right. The problem is the mods do not seem to acknowledge any shakedown issues as being real or legitimate. If there are any issues, their attitude is it is our problem for being "oppressive" and not sympathetic to queer issues, feminism or anti-oppression policies. This is absolute bullshit, and I can point directly to, among other cases, the flap with buttler re: Birds Of Prey (where a poster asked him if he was really queer or a sycophant for being sympathetic to Gail Simone, and a mod told him it was his problem and 'sycophant' was not a personal insult) as an example of the mods' unprofessionalism and myopia. But in their apparently collective opinion, they can't possibly have made errors in judgment, because their ideology is so sound and true. Ideology is only the beginning of any kind of wisdom. Yes, I admire wanting to create a safe space for everyone, but they are simply not being practical or realistic in execution. And they stick their fingers in their ears and ignore complaints, every. time. Everything can be excused by quoting jargon at people, apparently.

And no, I don't believe they are more committed to the larger comm than to the new ethos. I believe they're caught up in those heady ideals and believe they Really Can Do It All! The comm tone itself is what's gotten lost in the shuffle. It's amateurish work, IMHO.