We are still open while undergoing some modifications

For those who arrived here looking for Fred Clark's posts we can do no better than to quote his earlier announcement:

Slacktivist is moving, heading over to join the growing community at Patheos.com.

The new URL will be: www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/.

 

This site remains as a place for those who have long been reading and commenting on Fred's posts to continue to meet and talk.
             

Those of us who are working on adapting this site for those who don't feel comfortable at Patheos wish to express our continued support and respect for Fred. We're in communication with him, we're asking questions about what works for him, and he's being very gracious and helpful. Likewise, the people who don't feel comfortable at Patheos are, for the most part, uncomfortable with Patheos but still hold Fred in high regard, and his e-mails have expressed concern and sympathy for them.

We are trying to work out the best way of dealing with changed circumstances with mutual respect and good will. Once we get things up and running, our aim is for the two sites to be places where friends can visit friends easily. 
  

We are (very) open to constructive suggestions.

Comments

[Dash]

Just a quick note to express appreciation to mmy, hapax, and Kit for doing the work on this.

[Casus Belli]

Delurking to say: seconded!

Thanks for doing this. And thanks to Fred for allowing this.

[Albanaeon]

Yeah!

[Ruby]

Once again, a big thanks to everyone. I won't be going to Patheos, but our new friendly neighborhood mods are right that this does not constitute a boycott or dismissal of Fred. I don't agree with the new site, but it is a big thing for Fred to work so hard to accomodate all of his readers. Kudos to all.

[Spalanzani]

So is this the first Slactivist post in history not written by Fred? That's pretty neat.

Big thanks to the interim moderators, and here's hoping that everything gets sorted out for the best.

[sharky]

this does not constitute a boycott or dismissal of Fred.

Seconded. He seemed to have been trying to drive this the best he could throughout.

(I'm still flipping back and forth on emailing him myself. I'm leaning towards not, just because I never have.)

[Madhabmatics]

I have just one (inconsequential) request, but I don't know if it's possible on Typepad. Could there be a "last page" button in addition to the "next" and "previous"?

[Sixwing]

Madhabmatics, I know it's a bit of a kludge, but you can manually alter the page number in the URL as a workaround. :D

I am so so so glad to hear that this place is staying around.

[Michael Chui]

@Madhabmatics,

I thought about building a workaround to make that possible, but I ended up deciding it wasn't a good idea. Being forced to slog through the first hundred or four comments is a good thing, and you can access the most recent comments in the sidebar to the right. (Which has the nice effect of pointing out the Tip Jar at the same time.)

If you need something to refresh, clicking through to a recent comment, hitting previous, and the next will give you fairly quick access with the side effect of glancing at the current mood of the discussion.

[Rupaul]

Great work!! All Hail the Interim Moderators!

Here's my constructive suggestion:

Fred has already posted one Left Behind post here after the move; is this a sign of things to come, or is Fred not going to post here at all? Perhaps (if Fred's contract allows) Fred could post just LB items here, along with a link to his Patheos blog? Then we at least get a
springboard for some discussion once a week or so. I admit I can't think of a reason on Fred's side to do this, except just to be nice to us over here :)

Or even (way more work for Fred, or the moderators, but here goes) a short gloss or summary of Fred's posts over there?

[L. David Wheeler]

Thank you so much for doing this. While I'll probably take part in the discussions Over There from time to time -- though I'll probably remain mostly an Occasionally Decloaking Lurker -- I think it's important to have a place for those who can't or won't take part, and equally important that it not be perceived as a slight to Fred. So again: Many, many thanks.

[Madhabmatics]

@Michael Chui

My problem isn't with reading the whole thread (I always do that) but rather getting to page 18 of a discussion, having to close the browser, and then when I go to pick up where I left off having to hit "next page" 18 times. I'm on a slow connection and so it would take a looooong time to get to the most recent page, which is why I originally just lurked instead of commenting.

That said, I didn't know there was a "recent comments" thing on the sidebar, and that's effectively the same thing, thanks for pointing it out.

[hapax, still borrowing computers]

Crossposting on all the active threads:

I think you folks know that Mmy and Kit Whitfield and I have, with Fred Clark's gracious permission (and indeed, at his suggestion) have been looking at ways to keep this site running.

There has been a lot of discussion about the importance of "safe spaces" on both sites, but Slacktivist has never been a "safe site" in the sense that is usually meant. It has been rather, in Lonespark's excellent phrase, a "supportive space."

This community has always been self-policing, and moderated (if at all) with the lightest of touches. However, if it is to be advertised as a certain kind of space, some sort of clearly defined moderating would seem necessary, in order to live up to that promise.

But what kind of moderating do folks want? We need your feedback!

I think that the recent honestwoman /detroitmechworks situation on the "Proof and Madness" thread provides an excellent test case of what people would like to see. And since detroitmechworks has given permission, I'd like to submit it for discussion.

Speaking for myself, I confess that I laughed my head off at some of "honestwoman"'s posts (the horse didn't say NO?) and thought that the commentators were doing a fine job of wittily eviscerating zir, and taking the ball and running off in hilarious directions.

Until zie confessed to trolling, at which point ... it suddenly wasn't very funny.

I personally believe that detroitmechwork truly is regretful, and the entire episode is illuminating for both zie, and for any of us who sometimes are tempted by our darker demons. But that isn't the point. Real people were really hurt -- less, perhaps, at the things that were said, because they were truly over the top, but at the idea that someone might say such hurtful things for a lark.

If this site were a genuine "safe space" -- as I understand the term -- things would never have reached that point. "honestwoman" would surely have been banned, or disemvowelled, or rot13'd, or whatever the community decides as an appropriate response.

And I DON'T think that's what people are looking for with Slacktivist.

So, what would people like to see in this situation?

Some things to be considered:

1. Should mods only take action if solicited, either on site or through email -- even if this means a considerable delay?

2. What actions should be taken? Warnings? Obscuring text through various means (e.g. disemvowelling, striking through, ROT13, etc)? Removing comments? Banning? Or some sort of gradual progression through these steps? Should "strikes" accumulate across threads and over time?

3. What about comments that quote objectionable material?

4. What about comments that appear more hurtful in retrospect (e.g., after their poster is revealed as a poe) than at the time?

5. What sort of appeal process should be in place?

6. What questions did I forget to ask?

I think it's safe to say that none of us (Kit Whitfield, Mmy, and I) have suddenly gone drunk with power. We are acutely conscious of the kind of community that Fred Clark has given us the space and inspiration to build. We want this place to be what the community wants.

So any and all feedback graciously accepted.

[Kristin]

I have just one (inconsequential) request, but I don't know if it's possible on Typepad. Could there be a "last page" button in addition to the "next" and "previous"?

That would be very nice.

@ Kit: I'm about to run out the door, and I hate to start something and then jet out, but I'll be back later... And I don't intend this as a particularly mean comment. I don't hold Fred in poor esteem, but neither am I comfortable referring to him as a "political ally" or "supporter" anymore. I detailed my own reservations about this in Big News thread. That is, mostly, drawing profit for groups when one has not done sufficient research to know that they don't fund oppressive causes. I see this as *particularly* important for conservative Christian businesses, which so often donate funds to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, anti-gay marriage campaigns, the Creation Museum (I don't know if "intellectually dishonest" and "education that lies" counts as oppression, but...), and many others.

So, while I do not hold Fred in poor esteem as a writer, I no longer consider him an ally. A decent enough person, I'm sure, and a liberal. But nevertheless somehow who fails the ally test. Which, you know... Is not the end of the world. There are many, many people who do not, and I coexist with them every day. They're my friends and family members and, actually, most people I know. My issue here is that Fred did a lovely job of behaving as an ally for such a long time, and this is disappointing.

I hold Fred in less esteem. I won't make any bones about that. I understand his financial motivations, but I think there are more lucrative ways of making a dent in online journalism that don't require anyone to support a Dominionist-leaning outfit. Harper's, The Guardian, The Huffington Post (which vastly increases one's "online profile"). Fred could get these because Fred is an astounding talent. I offered to hook him up with some big names in that world (no reply). I get jobs because of my connections, and Fred is a far better writer than me.

It's not a demand for anyone to feel the same way, but I'm not going to act as if I'm no longer bothered by it either. Which, you know, it's nothing to Fred, really. He doesn't know me, and who cares what some person on the internets thinks? I just know that his writing was deeply influential in my life for a very, very long time. And although I still think he's a formidable talent (who would go far in the progressive media world if he made inroads in them), I take his writing with a large dose of cynicism from now on. Meaning, as long as he keeps drawing profit for Patheos without showing that he's done the research and knows he's not supporting Dominionist political causes.

I would vote for a new forum away from this one that isn't called "Slacktivist," but that's just my vote. There could still be overflow back and forth between people commenting at Patheos and other people who did not want to remain at Patheos. I am personally a little uncomfortable with continuing to associate with "Slacktivst" since it now exists in its main form on a forum I find repulsive. That said, I suspect it's what most people want, and I'd continue to follow the threads here (and participate in them) if I had to.

I would stay for the discussions in comments. Not for Fred's writing, which I'll read from now on, I think, as nice writing that doesn't actually mean what I thought it did. I'm not angry, and I hope this doesn't come across as preachy or scolding. But as feedback is being elicited, here's mine.

[Ben]

If you're uncomfortable with slacktivist going to Patheos, you should give serious thought to the concepts of "entryism" and "the Overton window".

At the very least, by commenting over there, you will expose regular Patheos readers to reasoned arguments for 'liberal' Christianity (or atheism) which they might not have heard before. By reasoned and scholarly conduct, you have the opportunity to convey the idea that people who disagree with homophobia aren't necessarily rabid freaks.

Best case scenario: enough people sign up that it skews the demography of the Patheos community against fundamentalism.

I think it's rather pathetic and cowardly to refuse to participate in an online community because there are people there with opinions you don't like. Confront them and try to change their minds?

Did John Woolman stop talking to people because he was 'uncomfortable'?

[sharky]

That said, I didn't know there was a "recent comments" thing on the sidebar, and that's effectively the same thing, thanks for pointing it out.

It's a pain in the neck once a lot of people are posting on a lot of posts. Unless they hop back and forth, some discussion I was trying to take part in usually drops off the radar and I either forget or have to go hunt it up manually.

I think no action was the best action to take in the honestwoman thing; the situation played out and reconciled itself. I don't like the idea of obscuring text, personally, because if something is bullshit I want to be trusted to see that for myself, and if I can't put my finger on what's bothering me I want to be able to read the whole thing without needing an interpreter.

If posts can be moved, we might consider a "bathroom wall" sort of thread, where stuff is moved to so it isn't cluttering up other dialogue. That's not going to be possible if many people reply, though.

[Spherical Time]

I'm never around here enough. Hrrrumph.

/goes back to lurking.

[sharky]

Ben: if you're that passionate about it, stop lecturing me and go do it.

[Ruby]

Ben: I think it's rather pathetic and cowardly to refuse to participate in an online community because there are people there with opinions you don't like. Confront them and try to change their minds?

Did John Woolman stop talking to people because he was 'uncomfortable'?

And I think it's rather pathetic and cowardly to jump into a situation about which you clearly know little (and have even less empathy), and tell people what they should be doing and thinking.

It's not my responsibility to go running around confronting people and trying to change them. I've done my time confronting people. I am not in the mood right now, and it is not for you to judge when I should be.

I already have to live in an entire world that has people that think I'm immoral and Hell-bound. I don't want to support a place that sanctions those views. As well, this is a site that touts itself as educational, but sees nothing wrong with keeping up incorrect information in the educational and "library" areas.

None of us are attack dogs to be unleashed upon the ignorant because you think we should, or because they just so happen to be there.

Screw your little battle cry.

[sharky]

sucktivism: scolding people for not doing your work for you?

[Deird, who gets to use extra siglines again!]

Hapax, I would tentatively support disemvoweling. Not entirely sure about the whole thing, though.

(Could I suggest changing the site's name to "Slacktivites"? Given that that's who we are?

[Deird, who hates that]

Ack! Open brackets!

)

[Fraser]

I'd like to keep the name. But slacktivites would work well too.
On pages, sometimes if I'm really trying to keep up I just bookmark the last page if I have to go. And then come back and bookmark again and clean them out later. Same way I handle working through back online comic strips.
Must go do wedding planning now.

[mercredigirl]

I love everyone who's working to preserve this place. I've read it for coming on six years now, which means I started when I was barely out of primary school, and it's been such a think-opener and comforting and stuff, I almost feel like I know people here even though we're continents apart.

Thanks, folks.

[Launcifer, who is currently gripped by whimsy (no, not Lord Peter)]

I, too, would like to offer up a big thank you to everyone working on maintaining this particular corner of the internet. For reasons that frankly escape me at the current time, I've been rather uncomfortable with the whole changeover and, well, it's nice that some thoughtful people are trying to do a good thing here. Alas, my linguistic brilliance only functions when I'm drunk, so the above is going to have to suffice for the moment.

TTFN and all that.

[Hummingwolf]

Note to the Three Mods, Fred, and all Slacktivist regulars and irregulars I've been reading with such pleasure all these years:

I may not be much of a commenter here, but I love you guys.

That is all.

[Rupaul]

The easiest way to see the last page is to enter "99" as the page number in the URL. It jumps to the last page. At least, I've never seen a Slacktithread that got past 99, in which case, use 666 I guess.

The only drawback is that the URL only has the right pattern to do this on the 2nd page of comments, so you have to click through past the first page of comments to pull this trick.

[Deird, who doesn't like microsoft]

The easiest way to see the last page is to enter "99" as the page number in the URL. It jumps to the last page.

Are you on Firefox? Because I've had this work on Firefox but not on IE.

[Hummingwolf]

I should perhaps point out that in my dialect, "guys" is genderless, though "guy" is male. Never have quite figured that one out.

Also, on the paging thing: I have a text file full of random links to various things I wish to look at later, and I include links to Slacktivist comment pages I've read recently, such as
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/03/tf-proof-and-madness/comments/page/3/#comments

If you know the number of the comment page you were reading last time, and if you have the memory space to do it, remember that adding "/comments/page/[number]/#comments" to the post's URL will get you where you want to go. Or you could be like me and have a text file full of random links--whichever works for you.

[Rupaul]

Deird, I've done it on Chrome and Firefox. I've never tried it on IE (and can't check it at the moment as the Windows computer is being used for homework). That's unfortunate. Is it the URL editing that doesn't work, or the jumping from 99 to the last actual page thing, that doesn't work?

[Amaryllis]

The easiest way to see the last page is to enter "99" as the page number in the URL. It jumps to the last page.

Are you on Firefox? Because I've had this work on Firefox but not on IE.

I don't like Microsoft either, but it works for me on IE.
(We used to use "42" - but then there were actually threads that went to 43 and beyond...any suitably large number will do.)

I personally don't like disemvowelling or rot-13ing, but I'm not the one who was hurt, I didn't even see the whole episode until it was already over.

So, you know, I don't envy you your new job, but thanks for doing it.

* goes off to consider the idea of a hapax "drunk with power." Hee.*

[Andy]

I've delurked once in a blue moon to post something on Slacktivist, but I'm going to try posting regularly at both sites now. I'm really glad people managed to (more or less) fix this problem and prevent a total community splits.

Likewise, I would encourage you to comment on both sites as well, but would understand perfectly if any of you had reasons not to. I love you guys :)

[Deird, who is at lunch]

It tends to give you one of those "this webpage doesn't exist" messages.

[Dash]

none of us (Kit Whitfield, Mmy, and I) have suddenly gone drunk with power.

A triumfeminate!

[Launcifer]

Amaryllis: That last sentence just made my night. Thank you!

[Rupaul]

@Ben, speaking just for myself, making money for Patheos is a big deal. I don't want to support homophobia etc just by clicking.

I can see that it's hard to draw lines around this, at one end typepad or blogspot certainly must have some pretty appalling blogs, but their business model doesn't depend on that. On the other end, the WSJ gets eyeballs for its evil editorial page (and bucks for Rupert Murdoch's causes) by having good journalism and news coverage. Where is Patheos along this continuum?

John Woolman (by the way, everybody, Fred's latest post over there is on John Woolman) didn't make money for the slaveowners by visiting them (they were feeding *him* after all).

Also, he didn't call folks who weren't visiting slaveowners, cowards. I think you are way out of line on that.

[apis_mellifera]

One thing which I've noticed about this community in the 6+ years I've been lurking (I think I've commented no more than 10 times over that time) is that this community is not particularly good at noticing people who don't distinguish themselves for good or for ill. I've learned a tremendous amount from both Fred's posts and from the commentariat and it's frustrating as hell to want to comment but to know that chances are very good that your voice is simply not going to be heard. I am one of those people who happens to be shy on the internet as well as in "real life"; I erase way more comments than I ever post so I am probably projecting a bit here but I thought I'd throw that out there as something that, well, leads to this place feeling very much like a cool kids club where newcomers aren't welcome.

[Lila]

hapax, Kit, mmy:

Thanks to all of you from the bottom of my heart.

[Lila]

Ben: I think it's rather pathetic and cowardly to refuse to participate in an online community because there are people there with opinions you don't like. Confront them and try to change their minds?

My feeling about this is that nobody--NOBODY--gets to decide for someone else how often, or how hard, that person has to bang his/her head against a brick wall.

So knock yourself out confronting whomever you wish. But you don't get to make that decision for the rest of us.

apis_mellifera: what do you suggest a community this large and active do to make sure nobody feels left out? I mean, when a post gets several hundred comments over a matter of a few days, it's kind of hard to point out everyone's special unique qualities. If you only comment 6 times in 10 years, it seems inevitable that your comments would tend to get lost in the shuffle. Incidentally, I like your screen name. Honeybee, yes?

[Caravelle]

@hapax : It's cool, from your post it sounds as if your conception of slacktivist is actually pretty much like mine and I'm immensely relieved to see that lack of moderation/business as usual seems to even be on the table. That said if we're talking an alternate site with the Patheos one still unmoderated (yeah, I haven't been following...) then my objections to moderation become a lot less relevant.

So to give my opinions for the questions as someone to whom this isn't a vital issue but I'm still part of the community so why not :

1. Should mods only take action if solicited, either on site or through email -- even if this means a considerable delay?

No opinion. I guess the email restriction does reduce the potential for moderator capriciousness but moderation is a lot less useful if it isn't timely.

2. What actions should be taken? Warnings? Obscuring text through various means (e.g. disemvowelling, striking through, ROT13, etc)? Removing comments? Banning? Or some sort of gradual progression through these steps? Should "strikes" accumulate across threads and over time?

I'm all the way for obscuring the text and I'd go with disemvowelling. As I said it strikes a good balance between lisibility for someone who's trying to read it and gibberish for someone who doesn't want to. I think RO13 is too annoying to decipher but that might be an artifact of my lack of firefox plugin. Besides one might confuse it with interesting spoilery TMI stories ! And I think strikethrough would remain too easy to read (you know, you don't want to read it but your brain is trained to read whatever your eye sees). I might be wrong, I don't have much experience with all-strikethrough posts.

For the warning, if we're doing an email system then a simple "I've emailed the moderators over your behavior" should suffice. If there's direct moderation, again if a comment is hurtful then I think it makes more sense to disemvowel directly because that's the point isn't it ? If we're talking about removing comments, then yes a warning or three. If we disemvowel I don't think it's necessary.

I'd actually see banning before removing comments in the progression, with the latter only happening if banning is logistically infeasible. It's the transparency issue for me.

3. What about comments that quote objectionable material?

Dunno. Disemvowel the quote ? Or not ? I should probably shut up and leave this one to those who are actually hurt by the material.

4. What about comments that appear more hurtful in retrospect (e.g., after their poster is revealed as a poe) than at the time?

Ah, the detroitmechworks story ? Offhand I'd say leave them but I didn't follow that affair, there might be issues there I'm not thinking of.

5. What sort of appeal process should be in place?

Well, if the progression is disemvowelment -> banning (like Scott basically) then I think the appeal process for disemvowelment could be a simple appeal to the community. People interested in justice can work out the offending comment for themselves and if some regulars believe the disemvowelment wasn't justified there can be a conversation on that. That leaves a huge potential for derails but that's why I specified "regulars" : if someone people don't already respect disapproves we can just shrug it off and not let it derail the conversation. Right ? Wow, what am I smoking ?

And I'd expect the community to be consulted on a banning in the first place and for it to be a very late resort so an appeal process wouldn't be necessary (if the community agreed on the ban who is there left to appeal to ?)

If we're doing comment removal, well that's where the transparency issue comes in right ? Although I suppose there again if we make it a consensus decision then an appeal process is less necessary. But that means giving up on timeliness...

[Caravelle]

Huh, I miss the edit function already.

For question 1, I forgot to add : if the go-to method is disemvoweling or some other form of text-obscuring then I think the capriciousness issue isn't one. Actually everything I said for the appeals question would make capriciousness a non-issue.

[Launcifer]

I erase way more comments than I ever post so I am probably projecting a bit here but I thought I'd throw that out there as something that, well, leads to this place feeling very much like a cool kids club where newcomers aren't welcome.

I do the same thing for precisely the same reason, as it happens, so you're not alone on that one. It can feel very exclusive here for a whole host of reasons. It has done so especially during the last few months - for me at least. Hell, there have been times where I've deliberately said something that I know will lead to people jumping on me as a means of crowbarring my way into what looks from the outside to be a closed discussion. That said, I think that part of the problem is that people tend to track comments to which they'll respond or else people with whom they're having a conversation. Plus, I've vanished for ten minutes before now and refreshed to discover that two pages have whizzed past and I've got no hope of catching up again. In short: I don't really think that it's intentional.

[apis_mellifera]

Honeybee, yes (I like bees). And I don't know. It's a frustration and I'm not saying there needs to be a welcome wagon and I just thought I would mention it as a possible data point.
Also, I am getting over a cold and I have to go to the dentist tomorrow so I am vaguely grumpy and out of sorts.

My solution is that I am going to try to comment more. Even if I'm just agreeing with what someone else says. And that's 10 times in 6 years, hmph.

[Deird, who hopes disemvoweling wouldn't get confused for rot13]

Can I also suggest a permalink to Fred's new site, so that all the people who've been linked to LB posts from other parts of the internet* can find it?

*I've seen a lot of links back here. Most of them old enough that the linker won't realise it's out of date.

[Socks of Sullenness]

I just post a 'Good luck, Fred, on the Patheos site, and .... I am signing up here too. I have, if not friends here, at least people who know me better than most others on the net ... I am so sorry that I haven't read the thread yet, but it's nearly two in the morning, and I must go to bed

Thank you, mmy, Kit, and hapax, and all the others who are going to make this is not safe, at least a well-defended space. Safety, I fear is not going to be easy.

By the by, and possibly on another thread, I saw the Poe-troll and wondered if I hadn't read somewhere about Elagabalus marrying his horse (possibly in Duggan). But according to Wikipedia:

according to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband

And if you have one stable mate, you don't want another ...

[Caravelle]

@apis_mellifera : it occurs to me this is actually one thing the whole sheep tradition might be good for. Welcoming a newcomer ? Bah, if I happen to feel like it. Referencing a community in-joke, maybe even making up a fun twist on it thus showing off my wit and coolkidiness ? I can't wait for some newcomer to show up so I can welcome them !

So, welcome to commenting apis ^^ and I'm sorry you feel unwelcome here.

For the inclusiveness thing I agree with Lila. I don't like making comments that get ignored, and it's especially unpleasant when you're new and you don't have that many comments in the first place, but it's unavoidable. It doesn't even mean your comment was bad, or boring, or unread; sometimes you'll read something you like, but not so extravagantly so that you have to post "I agree !", and that's complete enough in itself that you don't need to add anything. Or it might be something you disagree with, but not enough to make an issue of it and with no ready response.

Basically, you can't conclude much from one unanswered post. Or 6 in 10 years... I post tons of stuff that doesn't get answered. I don't worry about it because I post tons of stuff, so enough of it does get answered that I get my interaction fix.

Of course a good way to get responses is to address people directly. Like you just did :)

[Caravelle]

Oops, sorry I also did the times/years inversion ^^

[Thalia]

@apis_mellifera: Hi. I think I've been here about as long as you have. How did I get here? I can't remember, something to do with LB, because I had to go back and read the whole thing. Took most of a weekend.

I find that people often wax so speechy when they're mad. And that people writing mad feel justified. I can get thrown off by the wall o' text. I can imagine, with you, that the people that I found intimidating could rule the roost. I hope that if we're declaring this "safe space" that everyone will respect that. I don't know how to do it. I have managed to tease the phrase, "Don't abuse your privilege," out of my brain, but I'm not sure how to get that to happen.

Ben, I was with you until the last two paragraphs. The enthusiasm and encouragement I thought was there suddenly turned into a good scolding. That stung, and I'm going to be at patheo, trying, when I have the courage, to do just what you're suggesting. You could have done so much better.

Ruby, I know I'm not going to change your mind, but for someone sounding off about how much they didn't need people to demand they confront things, you sounded quite confrontational and ready to do battle.

Kristin's response makes me really sad. All the evidence of all the years, but this gives it all the lie for you? I hope you're wrong, but if you could be proven wrong, I get the feeling you wouldn't find your faith restored. That sorrows me.

Kit, hapax, mmy, I'm looking for a "strike" rule, I think. If I put my foot wrong, got lit into, and flamed back, I might be banned before I knew what had happened, or maybe I share apis_mellifera's fear that the strong, loud, frequently-heard voices will get more play than the new, minority, or small voices.

Heck, I rarely disagree with you (our moderators), but when I have, I've been sure I couldn't make it all the way through an argument because you're well-known and well-spoken and usually RIGHT. I know I've left several discussions behind on here because I didn't have the head or heart to go back to them. Sometimes I've been convinced I was wrong; sometimes I've been convinced we were at cross purposes; sometimes I just was wandering through my head and being surprised at how other people could pull my meanderings to pieces and make me feel called to defend something I wasn't sure I knew.

So, yeah, I don't know what else I'll think, but I do think about this, a lot, so I'll probably have more to say as things shake out.

[Pecunium]

I've been away, and so am hopelessly behind on most of the specific issues. I might have missed them altogether had someone I trust a lot not told me things were imploding.

I'm of a mixed mind on the forum aspect of things, in part because what we had done was build a community of scholars, who were arguing over things we were presented. It was, in it's way, a talmudic sort of discussion. I worry that will be lost, without the outside spark Fred provided. It's not that I don't think it can be done, but it will be very different from what it was.

As to moderation, I am for it. I favor a distributed model, with the behavior to be censured that of being rude. On Lj I can't disemvowell, all I can do is remove an offensive comment. What I do there is screen it. That gives me a "paper trail" if I feel the need to ban someone, and I can display,if I feel the need, the offending comment.

When I was a guest poster at Majikthise, I had the ability to edit comments. There was an occasion I disemvowelled someone. That was an interesting experience. It was painful to me, in part because I agreed with the sentiment, but couldn't allow the content. In part because it was a public sanction.

I do think that when there is an understood set of principles (and I am against rules, that leads to "barracks-lawyers" who make more mess than not having bright-line rules does), the general nature of the commentariat tends to self-police. That leads to fewer instances of public sanction. At Making Light, where disemvowelling is the response to crossing that line, there is no real shame to it happening. Regulars who break the social contract are stripped of vowels, and life goes on. It's rare for a regular to more than one disemvowelling in the same topic.

I remember conversations here (torture comes immediately to my mind) which were heated, and pointed and even mean; but they managed to avoid rude/offensive. That's the kind of place I like to hang out in.

[apis_mellifera]

Also, I would never try to kill someone with a sheep because that's awfully mean to the poor sheep. Who make wonderful wool. For me to make into yarn and then knit with.

[Adrian]

Deird, who gets to use extra siglines again!, do you think "Slacktivites" is better than "Left Behind Slacktivites?"

[Mmy]

@everybody: I'd really like to underline how incredibly little we three (Kit Whitfield, hapax and me) know and how much we have yet to learn. We post to tell people that things are going on because we don't want people to think that their concerns are being ignored -- but a process like this will always move very slowly. Hapax summed up the situation well another thread-- we often just don't know the answer to many really good questions.

[Launcifer]

apis_mellifera: Can I just say that you've caused a certain, sheep-based spoof of Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap to go fizzing through my brain with your last comment. I don't know whether to thank you or sit in the corner and scream at the earworm.

[Lonespark]

Slacktivites gets my vote.

I can't believe hapax quoted me. I was only replying to Emcee's great post.

This is wonderful stuff, thank you mods, thank you Fred, thank you everyone who's making suggestions and just being around in whatever way.

I want to talk about ashes, and walking in the wilderness, and seeking out pagan perspectives on same. But I really need to put my wee monsters to bed and go there myself.

[Caravelle]

@apis : well, why would you need sheep when you wield the power of KILLER BEES ? :p

@everyone : Hey this Patheos troll inspired in me the awesomest idea of all time !

New!Typepad!Slacktivist : each post is a link to Fred's post, introduced by a Mikalogue. Possibly on a related subject.

Or, you know, something that retains the awesomeness of the idea without deluging Kit with extra work.

[jemand]

Thalia,

"Ruby, I know I'm not going to change your mind, but for someone sounding off about how much they didn't need people to demand they confront things, you sounded quite confrontational and ready to do battle."

She was! She, however, was picking her battles and her lessons to teach the person demanding something of her, the person who thought he was "doing a good deed" by trying to treat some of us as attack dogs or whatever to go off and spread the light!

I've done that on facebook too... and in real life... sometimes people try to guilt you with phrases like, well, if you REALLY took the truth seriously, if you cared about your opinions, you'd keep debating the way I tell you to! You might convince someone!

But then, I may just turn it around, and deny the battle. Or, if they want me to go off and debate someone else, or do all their homework for them or whatever, or if the subject is *my personhood* and they're treating me like a windup argument machine....

I can sometimes protect myself and further *MY* cause more by ripping THEM a new one, for their own, unseen arrogance, rather than going off on the, admittedly usually worse, target they think I should be talking to.

Because my time isn't up for others to dictate like that. Sometimes, even, the most effective lessons are given to people who think they're trying to give me a debating tip.

Anyway.... I think that's what Ruby probably was doing, if not, it's at least quite a valid option, anyway.

[storiteller]

I think the best thing to come out of this entire mess is the fact that I've now seen a number of commenters say, "I'm a lurker, but this comment section has meant so much to me." And then, in a number of cases, they've said, "Because I value it so much, I'm going to try to start commenting more." Some of them over at Patheos to fight the good fight, some over here to continue to cultivate a safer space then there. And more allied voices, especially with the split audience like this, cannot be a bad thing.

So even though I'm one of those lurker/very occasional commenters, welcome apis. Have some pie?

[Wysteria]

While comments from the peanut gallery are open, and on the subject raised just now, I would like to solemnly request a continuation of pie threads.

[Lonespark]

I was having some, not necessarily mutually exclusive, ideas about input to the community of scholars, etc.

- See if we can get syndication of some of Fred's posts from Over There. Maybe a certain percentage of LB posts or something?

- If we can't, or when we can't, have folks from here critique or riff on the posts or the passages or some aspect of the posts to kick off our threads?

- Guest posts by folks tearing apart other fine works? Jason Reads Michael Savage, Ruby does awesome stuff I always forget to read, etc., etc., etc...

- Other guest posts not unlike Fred's non-LB posts, or not necessarily so involved, but bringing stuff to our attention that's wonderful or horrible or just interesting. I'm kind of thinking like what was done earlier today with the horrible rape culture NYT article, but hopefully generally on balance less grim.

- I would love to see explorations of personal faith and/or values, relationships to traditions/organizations/texts, evolutions of beliefs/principles, etc., etc., like Fred has done, but from muliple religious and nonreligious perspectives.

- Open threads and pie threads like we had in Ye Goode Olde Dayz.

That mostly sounds a little bit more like the group blog idea, but hey, I liked that idea.

[Lonespark]

Wysteria! Pie-thread-supporting solidarity!!!

[Wysteria]

Solidarity! Much like that one union in Poland! (I have unions on the brain.)

[jemand]

oh, someone over at shakeville was deconstructing one of glen beck's books, so the idea of further deconstructions of awful books sounds like a good plan.

[Launcifer]

Wysteria: Does that mean we're Slactivising for the right to Slacktivise? And do I have to grow a moustache?

[depizan]

This is good news! :D

I welcome our new sheep-launching overlords. Thank you for your efforts. Real life's kind of jumping up and down on me at present, so I'm afraid I don't have anything to contribute, except my thanks.

[storiteller]

I really like Lonespark's idea. I have a pretty focused blog topic-wise, but occasionally (okay, all the time because I Have Opinions) have ideas for blog posts I'd like to make that are off-topic. Having somewhere where I know a good community of people who are also interested in those topics will read it - as opposed to my Livejournal - would be very cool. For example, I saw The Adjustment Bureau over the weekend and thought the plot had some really interesting things to say about theology and the idea of "God's plan."

And Kristin, there is nowhere we can go that will have a good number of people involved and the ability to attract other cool new people that won't also attract jerkasses, sadly. I think it's just the nature of the thing. I'm sure you knew that already though and were just being optimistic.

[Ruby]

Thalia: Ruby, I know I'm not going to change your mind, but for someone sounding off about how much they didn't need people to demand they confront things, you sounded quite confrontational and ready to do battle.

Why can't those two ideas go together? Why can't I (sometimes) be "ready to do battle" and yet still not want to be someone's atheist mercenary? "You there! Go rip that bigot a new one for my amusement! Or don't you care about fighting the good fight (for the 4,235th time)?"

[trotterjelly]

Deird,

That open bracket comment just made my week, for some reason. Thanks, needed that.

[Yoder]

Awfully glad to see things sorted, or getting there, anyway. Given the folks involved, it's not surprising that there's been a friendly resolution, but it's a relief all the same.

[Laima]

Ruby, I'm glad you're staying here.

I share your exasperation at the idea of having to educate every ignorant person on Internet, as if being aware of bigotry obligates one to fix all of it single-handedly.

Thank you for fighting the good fight as often as you do.

[ArianaDream]

@apis_mellifera - Ooh, do you knit? I'm not a huge knitter myself but I do enjoy it from time to time. (I <3 wool.)

As far as the moderation issue goes, I've never seen disemvoweling, but it sounds like an excellent solution. I think a three strikes plan is better than instant banning for offenses (and it would be a good idea to have a list of bannable offenses). I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have moderation only by request, or moderation at the mods' discretion. I think I'd leave that one up to more long-time members of the community than me.

I personally LOVE the idea of the group blog. I think if we can get Fred's posts syndicated here, that would be great - but it would also be really cool if members of the community could write and submit articles. And if the articles are topical and of interest, maybe the mods could post them? I'm not sure exactly how it might work. But I know I have a lot I would love to write about if I had the chance.

[Ben Hosen]

I have to admit I got hooked on the "Left Behind" tag, but I have grown very fond of Mr. Clark, even though I don't want to gay-marry him or anything. Seriously, though: a lot of food for thought here.
As an atheist/Lee Harvey Oswald agnostic--- really, if there is a just and loving god, I have some issues with her sense of humor, to put it mildly--- we obviously have vastly different belief systems. Remarkable stuff, and it reminds me yet again that people who believe in different things aren't my enemy for that.

Never met you Fred, but you seem like a stand up guy, and you write well. Look forward to more at the new place.

[Froborr]

"Bees. My God."

Seriously, though, I love this idea so much! I plan to comment at both sites, and will happily contribute content if that's what we end up doing. (It's occurred to me that, given my infrequency of posting, I'd be better at a shared blog than trying to maintain my own.)

I love the idea of calling the blog Left Behind Slacktivites.

[P J Evans]

If I'm trying to pick up reading comments from where I left off, I go to the oldest of the recent comments on that thread, then page back (without reading) until I get to where I'm sure I was reading. (It works fine until I get a thread where there were three or four hundred comments while i was gone....)

[Laima]

I love the idea of calling the blog Left Behind Slacktivites.

I missed this the first time (unless it was Froborr's idea), but I also love the idea.

As far as moderation goes, I think disemvoweling works well, or strike-throughs. I wouldn't be thrilled about deleting comments, as I've been on other sites that do that, and if you come to the thread late, you have no idea what anybody's talking about.

I'm also glad more lurkers are jumping in and commenting.

[Lila]

Pie is good. Also, Left Behind Slacktivites is an excellent name.

apis_mellifera, sorry for the number fail. Incidentally, if you like knitting and blogs, Making Light is awesome and knitting is one of the topics that perennially comes up over there (along with pretty much everything else on earth). There's significant overlap between our commentariat and theirs.

I myself am more of a crochet person. I like the hyperbolic crochet coral reef, and recently adapted one of their kelp designs to make scarves.

[Laima]

@Lila, were you involved with the hyperbolic crochet coral reef project? I'm not much of a knitter and I don't crochet, but I was among the volunteer curators for it. Very cool project!

[Deird, who is indecisive]

Actually, I think I'd change my vote from disemvoweling to strike-throughs. That way you can still quote back what the person said accurately, if needed.

[Nenya]

Hello, apis_mellifera! Are your bees as dangerous as most people's sheep? :D

Kit, mmy, hapax: thank you for heading this up. It's very much appreciated.

I would be in favour of a sort of three-strikes rule, especially if as Ruby mentioned on another thread, strikes expired after a period of time (say, three or six months).

While I am very uncomfortable with Patheos (they sanction bigotry and leave up inaccurate library information that they know is wrong), I think that I would be all right with posting both here and there: at Patheos!Slacktivist for the Overton Window possibilities (on the days I felt up to it) and at Typepad!Slacktivist (or anywhere else we ended up moving) for the warmth and sense of familiarity and homelikeness. If we must have change, this seems like a fairly good result. For me, anyway.

[Michael Chui]

@Madhabmatics, I find myself somewhat convinced. Enough to actually write the little thingy. Here's what you do:

Create a new bookmark. In the location field, put this:

javascript:(function(){var footers = YAHOO.util.Dom.getElementsByClassName("entry-footer-info");for (var i = 0; i < footers.length; i++){var comments = YAHOO.util.Dom.getElementsByClassName("entry-comments", "a", footers[i])[0];var numComments = parseInt(comments.textContent.match(/\d+/)[0]);var lastPage = Math.ceil(numComments / 50);var sep = document.createElement("span");YAHOO.util.Dom.addClass(sep, "seperator");sep.innerHTML = " | ";var href = comments.href;var lastPageLink = document.createElement("a");lastPageLink.setAttribute("href", href.replace(/.html(?:#comments)/, "/comments/page/"+lastPage+"#comments"));lastPageLink.innerHTML = "Last Page";YAHOO.util.Dom.insertAfter(sep, comments);YAHOO.util.Dom.insertAfter(lastPageLink, sep);}})();

(Source: https://github.com/saraid/Slacktivist-Bookmarklets/blob/master/LastPageLink.js)

Then just "go" to that bookmark the usual way. You should see a link titled "Last Page" pop up next to the "Comments" link on each post. Let me know if it doesn't work.

[P J Evans]

My own feeling is that banning is the last resort, used for people who refuse to change their ways, after everything else (including, even, nuking) has been tried and failed.
Disemvowelling in itself is both a punishment for minor infractions (I've been disemvowelled at least once, at Making Light, and it's like detention when you did something wrong: you live) and a warning for people who want to cause trouble.

Watch out for the people who want to argue that disemvowelling is Censorship and Changing Their Sacred Works (that is, their comments).

[apis_mellifera]

I like pie.

@ArianaDream - I both knit and spin--not so much lately, but that's because I've had other stuff going on. I really love wool and I'm looking forward to someday having a space large enough so I can buy a fleece off a sheep and eventually turning into some sort of fabulous article of clothing (knowing me, it'll be lace)

[Albanaeon]

I was personally considering deconstructing Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" in the near future. It would undoubtedly be far more technical than moral, though, so thoughts?

[kaemmerite]

I'm only a sparse commenter, and I'm sure I'm not really recognized...and if I am I hope it's in a good way. @.@ I can't promise I'll comment more because I tend to get overwhelmed by the sheer number of comments, but I would also like to thank Kit, mmy, and hapax for doing this. :3 I wish I could offer good suggestions or some sort of help but sadly that's not my area of expertise.

And now back to semi-lurking.

[Caravelle]

That way you can still quote back what the person said accurately, if needed.

I was taking that as a point for disemvoweling, actually. That way people who were spared the hurtfulness of the original don't get blindsided by the quote. And a disemvoweled quote is still as readable as the disemvoweled comment.

Maybe we should ask the question of how easy it is to read disemvoweled text. I remember from Scott's case that it wasn't automatic (good) and it wasn't always easy (less good) but it was always possible, and context compensated for whatever niggly isolated words one couldn't read (good). Which is why I like it as a solution. But maybe others find it harder ?

@apis_mellifera on our lack of response : wanna see a case in point ? Nobody's commented on my awesome Mikalogue idea ! And now I'm all unvalidated and everything. :( them's the breaks.

[apis_mellifera]

@Lila - I actually lurk over at Making Light, too. I am a CHAMPION lurker. :) (The only places I tend to not-lurk, for whatever reason, are on LJ and DW.)

@Nenya - My bees are not in the least bit dangerous. They do, however, make delicious honey.

[Lila]

@ Laima, no, I wasn't involved, I just think it's cool!

[Laima]

@kaemmerite, I remember you, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you more often.

@Caravelle, I also loved your Mikalogue idea, but I did not say so mostly because I figured Kit has already taken on all these new responsibilities, and yet she still has a baby at home, and a book to write ... she probably doesn't have the time.

[Deird, who is incompetent]

Maybe we should ask the question of how easy it is to read disemvoweled text. I remember from Scott's case that it wasn't automatic (good) and it wasn't always easy (less good) but it was always possible, and context compensated for whatever niggly isolated words one couldn't read (good). Which is why I like it as a solution. But maybe others find it harder ?

I find it quite tricky, actually. You sort of have to spend ten minutes on the one comment, trying to parse every word for possible permutations.

[Kristin]

Kristin's response makes me really sad. All the evidence of all the years, but this gives it all the lie for you? I hope you're wrong, but if you could be proven wrong, I get the feeling you wouldn't find your faith restored. That sorrows me.

Okay, well, I am not sad. I am disappointed, and I have some very specific personal boundaries. So, I will tell you, very seriously, that I do not need for people to feel sorrowful on my account.

If Fred came through (And I have different thoughts on what it would mean to come through, I think, than most.), then of course I would be glad to see it.

That said, I'm increasingly uncomfortable with some of the comments that I keep seeing about everything we know about Fred after all of these years. We don't know Fred. Fred used to write here, and many of us were often very touched by his writing. But except for the few people who have off-line relationships with Fred, most of us do not know him.

The extent of my personal interaction with Fred is: When Jennifer Knapp came out as a lesbian, I sent him an email saying that it would be nice to see this acknowledged in a post. It was acknowledged in a brief post, so I saw that Fred probably read my email. I don't know Fred anymore than I know/knew Zadie Smith or David Foster Wallace or post-"Staggering Genius" Dave Eggers or any of the rest of my favorite contemporary writers.

I had an unusual spiritual connection with Fred's writing for a time, and my life was enriched in some ways, and that is that.

I'll say this too--about PERSONAL TRIGGERS (why I am acting the way I am). I didn't mention it because I'm only seeing myself being upset by/reacting to it very recently. I have mentioned here before that I very recently left a cult-like graduate school. And I'm not comparing here to there, but I am saying that comments such as "Has he ever let you down after all these years?" give me the same kind of queasy feeling that I would get from the hero worship that happened at my grad school.

It was continental philosophy--as a class we'd watch videos of Heidegger (though most of us were not fluent in German) so that we could see how "powerful" his affect was. We watched videos of Gadamer (though still rusty with our German) so that we could be inspired by the way in which Gadamer could boisterously manipulate "ideas in play with one another."

Critique of the literature was discouraged. After all, Gadamer had been the "Doktor Vater" (intellectual father) of some of our our esteemed professors. Critique was simply not allowed--"uncharitable readings" were banished from the discussion. In fact, one of my professors (one of the most famous continental philosophers in the US, no less) proclaimed that critique was "affirmation of the work that affirms its wisdom." So, critique was basically the antithesis of critique. And two plus two equaled five, and, well, you got sucked into lots of very uncomfortable semantics games because you had to play that game.

Fred is a writer. A writer whom I have admired. I do not personally know him. He doesn't even comment here. I have been inspired by his writing. He is very talented. If Fred wrote a book for a company other than Zondervan, I'd probably buy and enjoy the book. But Fred is not perfect. He is not a saint. He is a human. And I disagree with him profoundly about some very serious issues.

The more people encourage me to read more charitably, the less I am likely to do so. Just so you know. :)

And, damnit, I am not sad.

[Donald]

I'm a sporadic visitor here. And I've never heard of Patheos before. But I just visited the site and am baffled by the reactions here. If it's run by a bunch of far right Christians they have an awfully funny way of showing it. I saw one article bashing Wall Street and a list of people involved which included Catholics, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and a few others I've forgotten. It's not at all the sort of thing I would have expected from rightwingers.

From what kristin said I was expecting to see someplace overrun by whiny conservative Christians convinced the secular culture is out to get them. At first glance it appeared to be just the opposite, so what am I missing?

[Laima]

I'm another regular who plans to hang out here, but check in occasionally at Patheos.

Yes, Patheos has got egregiously wrong information in their library. Their main site seems infested with bigots of all sorts. And after 13 years of living in Indianapolis, I know better than to expect welcome from evangelical Christians. But I'm kind of intrigued at the idea of reaching a wider audience. It's not that I think I'm persuasive, but maybe I can sharpen my arguments and my critical thinking skills. And I will likely learn something, which is always good.

[Laima]

I like Lonespark's ideas.

[Kristin]

Some constructive (I hope) ideas about the site:

Yes, we all have a continued interest in Fred's work. I would like to see this site name changed to something like "Slacktivites," as someone mentioned, to make this site about a community and not a person.

And I would like to see it become more than a site for fans of Fred's writing. So many people expressed interest in contributing to a kind of group blog that I think there is enough energy to do something like that well. I vote for more content than just simply links to Fred's posts or even copies of Fred's posts. I vote for group contributions about similar topics to the ones that Fred has covered here.

And I am less concerned with moderation (I'll go with whatever everyone wants) than content and direction. I'd like to do something other than be the site for Fred Clark Exiles. I'd like to see us focusing on ideas of our own. Sure, engaging Fred's writing, though I personally would not choose to link to Patheos in my own writing, but that's me... But doing something beyond that too. I don't believe Fred Clark should continue to be the center of the blog. Because so many of the rest of us have important things to say, and Fred is doing his thing over there.

And that's all well and good, but this place will remain because of a community effort. And it should be about the community. Not out of animosity toward Fred, but as a reflection of our collective reasons for being here.

[Kristin]

In addition... Given the many people who offered assistance with tech stuff and design, some new bells and whistles and a swanky new design would be kinda cool.

[Kristin]

jemand! Hey! It's Kristin (KM) from No Longer Quivering. You're you, right?

[storiteller]

That said, I'm increasingly uncomfortable with some of the comments that I keep seeing about everything we know about Fred after all of these years. We don't know Fred. Fred used to write here, and many of us were often very touched by his writing. But except for the few people who have off-line relationships with Fred, most of us do not know him.

That's a fantastic point. John Scalzi, who talks a lot more about personal stuff than Fred does, has an excellent commentary on how we think we "know" much more about writers we read on the Internet than we may like to think: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/01/30/being-fictional/ He poses that everything he writes, while true, only becomes a "character" to us because he naturally leaves out a lot of parts of his life and philosophy. I think if we remember this is true of Fred as well, it's easier to understand what happened.

[Caravelle]

On Patheos : I haven't visited the site and I don't plan to just yet (seriously, I should so be in bed) but the talk of a humanism section and a bad definition of atheism in the library and the general lack of an atheist perspective kind of makes me want to participate there and introduce one. Or try. The other atheists (or others) here who have looked, do you think this idea has any legs ?

@Laima : yeah, at first I figured "well of course Kit, Mmy and hapax would share the writing of Mikalogues as appropriate" but then I realized Kit might have something to say about that idea, so then I thought "Ah but the others could do their own thing ! Like hapax tell interesting stories about hapax's daughter !" but of course hapax's daughter would have something to say about that idea so, well.

Group blog sounds nice :)

@kaemmerite : I remember you too, and
@storiteller : lurker my left kidney, don't you say that every one of the regular times you post ? ;-)

[Kristin]

Ah, reading comments, you all got to the group blog idea before me. :)

[Deird, who actually can spell "skills"]

Given the many people who offered assistance with tech stuff and design, some new bells and whistles and a swanky new design would be kinda cool.

*raises hand*

I have absolutely no tech/design abilities, but I'm a qualified editor. If my leet editing skillz would be helpful, I'm happy to use them.

[Ross]

Did John Woolman stop talking to people because he was 'uncomfortable'?

John Woolman wasn't a slave.