At Patheos: NRA: Marchons, marchons!

Fred Clark has posted a new post, NRA: Marchons, marchons!, at Patheos.com.

This week Fred writes about pp.24-33 of Nicolae: The Rise of Antichrist

Excerpt:

Yet New Hope Village Church hasn’t been closed down and they haven’t had to take their operations underground. They’ve been allowed to flout the EBOWF^[1] and to continue holding their Sunday morning meetings — probably because Nicolae realizes these do-nothings don’t pose any threat to his reign or to his legitimacy. There’s no reason for him to crack down on this church as though it was a stealthy gathering of dangerous insurgents, because it’s nothing like that. Nicolae doesn’t even mind the sermons they hear at their Sunday meetings — recitations of the End Times check lists that, at this point in the game, amount to little more than a weather report.

It would be a different story if this church were actually doing something — if it were the kind of church where Buck’s answering machine message announced an emergency meeting, a midnight vigil, and a call for volunteers to assemble at the church immediately before heading out to respond to the bomb-blasted and war-ravaged parts of the community. That kind of church would be a threat to Nicolae’s EBOWF and to his empire. That kind of church wouldn’t be able to operate freely and openly the way NHVC^[2] does.

[Fred Clark, NRA: Marchons, marchons!, July 20, 2012, posted at Patheos.com]


Commentators who would like to share their responses to the new post with all of Fred's fans (old and new) can cross-post to both boards.

 

---

^[1] Enigma Babylon One World Faith↩

^[2] New Hope Village Church↩

Comments

[chris the cynic]

Fiction:

-

The church was bustling with activity, already injuries were being treated and supplies being gathered for trips out into the city, but the necessary information was lacking and Loretta was finding it impossible to keep her calm, finally she shouted, "Where the fuck is my weather report?"

No one had an answer.

Two minutes and thirty five seconds later Jane burst through the door and ran straight to Loretta as quickly as she could without knocking anyone over.

Loretta asked, "Where have you-"

"Sorry it took so long," Jane started rummaging in her bag, "but I got better than just a weather report." She handed several papers to Loretta.

"Are these..."

"When the people at the station found out what we wanted the weather report for, they offered to help.  I figured they'd be better at making fallout maps than we would, so I took them up on it."

Loretta touched Jane on the shoulder and said, "Good work," then she turned toward the center of the church and shouted, "Team leaders, meet me at the altar!"

Maps of the area were laid out on the altar, hastily drawn additions and notations abounded on them.  When the leaders had gathered round Loretta began her briefing, "The Xes are missile strikes, circled if confirmed, we can expect more people in need of help around those, but the big problem is here."  She pointed to a large mark at the airport surrounded by concentric circles clearly drawn by a hand shaking with too much adrenaline, "We don't know if it was nuclear or not.  Until we know we're going to assume it was, and that's why these are so important." She laid out the fallout maps.

Everyone took a moment to familiarize themselves with them.

"We have Jane to thank for these," everyone was ready to praise Jane, and Loretta knew she deserved it, running through a war zone and back to get the information, and then returning with better than she'd been sent for, she definitely deserved it.  But there simply wasn't time.  Loretta explained the maps, "This is safe, this is least concern, from here to here we have to get people out injured or not, from here to here we have to do it fast, make note, alter your plans accordingly, and then pass it down the line.

"We've been waiting too long, it's time to get out there and help people."

Some of the leaders headed off to pass the information down the network, affectionately known as the phone tree, others stayed to study the maps more closely.  Jane asked Loretta a question, "What about the people here?" she pointed to the area directly downwind of the blast, an area Loretta never mentioned.

"I'm not ordering anyone into that area."  There was a pause.  "Now, if there aren't any more questions, I have to go.  Team leaders know what to do, they're in charge till I get back."

"Where are you going?" Andrew, one of the leaders, asked.

"There," she pointed to the part of the map directly downwind of the blast.

No one said anything in response.  Loretta quickly gathered gear for herself, Jane followed, at the exit she was met by Maria and Daniel, two of the team leaders and a handful of their subordinates.  "You're not going alone," Maria said.

"You have work to do," was Loretta's response, but she didn't stop moving.

"And we've done it," Daniel said.  "Directives have been passed down the tree, everyone under us knows what to do.  Why do you think we left the meeting so fast?"

"And what about them?" Loretta pointed to the others.

"Volunteer only, you wouldn't order anyone in there, neither would we," Daniel said.

"I meant, don't they have work to do?" Loretta said.

"I designed my teams with redundancy in mind," Maria said.  "They can be spared."

"Ditto," Daniel added.

"Fine," Loretta conceded.  They were reaching their transportation.  If she went alone she'd take one vehicle, if the whole group went she'd make a completely different choice, and they'd take multiple.  They couldn't spare vehicles over her not wanting to pool with people going to the same place.  They couldn't spare time arguing over whether or not the others were going to the same place.

Before they loaded up, Maria said, "Everyone meet Jane," assuming they already knew Loretta.

Jane said, "Hi."

And Daniel said, "Now let's go on a possible suicide mission."

No one needed to say, 'Let's go help people,' they all knew, or else they wouldn't be there.

And so, they went.

---

I'm assuming that the New Hope resistance is designed specifically so that it can function without leaders, in fact it's intended to operate that way.  Loretta's job as person in charge is, basically, to tell the team leaders what to do and then let them do it.  A team leader's job is the same thing, but to the next echelon down the line.

It's only when it gets to the individual cells that leaders are necessary for anything other than assigning a mission.

Loretta, if she hadn't left, probably wouldn't be doing much else as leader until something major changed, she'd just be another pair of hands.  The same goes for Maria and Daniel.

And if any of them didn't trust the people below them to function in their absence, they wouldn't have made them the people below them.

The basic structure of the New Hope resistance is the cell at the the bottom of the chain, it's intended to be able to function just fine on its own.  Everything above it exists just to pass down information and stop cells from stepping on each others toes.

Also, not that it's important, neither Daniel nor Maria heard Loretta say she wouldn't order anyone into the area of the worst fallout, they left before that point, they just figured it out on their own when Loretta didn't mention the area at all.

[St. Jebus]

Nice. I enjoyed that. Thanks. :)

[chris the cynic]

Thank you, it means a lot.

A lot of times when I post I wonder if anyone even cares, so having someone say they did makes a big difference.

[Mmy]

chris -- people do care. I always read your pieces and appreciate that you post them here.

[hapax]

@chris -- I always enjoy them too. I'm sorry. I sometimes forget that you can't hear me laughing or sniffling over the internet.

[chris the cynic]

You definitely don't have to be sorry, I can assure you that whatever reason you have for not responding to my stuff I've probably done the same or similar to others much more often. (How often do I remember to make a post saying, "I enjoyed that"?)

For example, at patheos I really like the like feature. One of the few changes in the transition that I do like. I didn't think I would because it seemed like it would end up being a popularity contest feature, but when I came to see it as a low energy way for someone to say, "I read this, I liked it, but I don't really have much to add," I sort of fell in love with it because it lets me know that, first, people are actually reading my posts and, second, that they think they're worthwhile.

Yet do I use the feature to tell others I liked their posts? Almost never. When I'm reading through the posts, often liking quite a few of them, it almost never occurs to me to hit the like button.

So the things that are helpful to me turn out to be things that I'm very bad at remembering to do for others.

-

Anyway, don't be sorry. I totally understand. I do it myself, quite possibly more often than you do.

I hope to change that, but I haven't managed yet.

[chris the cynic]

And thank you both.

[St. Jebus]

You're welcome. I've had the experience of getting only the negative feedback(it comes with being a newspaper columnist. Only angry people write letters) so I try to give positive feedback when I can. Do you have any other bits like that on other LB posts? Or possibly on your own blog? I'd love to read them if you do.

[cjmr, who is HOME!, on her son's netbook]

Yes, Chris has tons of bits like that on the other LB posts, and on his own blog, and on Ana Mardoll's Twilight decons.

Anywhere I'm forgetting?

[chris the cynic]

Oh, do I ever. The blog was basically created to store such things so they'd all be in a single place, but it isn't exactly complete (generally any such thing posted in a given week can be expected to make it to the blog by the following Sunday, but things before the Slacktivist-Slacktiverse split are not there at the moment.)

The most similar would probably be Skewed Slightly to the Left For which I am going to need to make an index at some point.

There's an index of the Left Behind stuff here, but it hasn't been updated since January third so it leaves on the other hand I haven't written that much since then, the index is only leaving a handful of things out. (You should be able to locate those, if you're interested, by clicking on the left behind tag of any left behind post.)

In addition there's an index of non-Left Behind Rapture Stuff.

And more (Twilight gets similar treatment at times.)

Also, off my blog, some of my older not yet moved to the blog stuff can be found on Right Behind which collects those kinds of things from various authors. My stuff can be found here.

So, yeah, lots of other bits. At least it seems like lots to me.

[St. Jebus]

Sweet. I'll have to look through those - your writing blows Ellenjay out of the water. I'm a little jealous - when I was little I wanted to write fiction, but I've never gotten the knack for it.

[chris the cynic]

Fiction seems to take more than one knack.

I can write scenes, but growing scenes into stories is something I've yet to accomplish. It doesn't show so much when I'm rewriting someone else's work because the story, however bad, is there, it's just up to me to write scenes for it. But for my own stuff, I can't seem to do plot, I have serious doubts about character development, and generally speaking anything outside of a single quickly written scene seems to be beyond my ability to do well, and often beyond my ability to do at all.

I'm not trying to be discouraging, the opposite I suppose. Maybe you can't write, and that's fine, but maybe you can and you've just been coming at it from the wrong angle. If I came to writing from a direction of trying to plot I'd come to the conclusion that I couldn't write at all.

[St. Jebus]

Hm. I never thought of it that way. I know I can write - I've been writing for the school paper for the past year. I think it maybe is the 'coming from the plot direction' that I'm getting wrong - that's the primary difference between fiction and non-fiction, after all.

[cjmr, who is HOME!, on her son's netbook]

Chris, I've always thought of your vignettes as bits of screenplay or stage scripts. And you do do character development--you develop other people's cardboard cutouts into much more interesting protagonists.

[Amaryllis]

I see that the link to Slacktivist on Patheos is gone?

I can't particularly blame you for not wanting to highlight this thread over there, or link to Fred's blog in general. It's probably just as well to make the separation absolutely clear.

But can there be a link to Fred's site in the regular sidebar? With an announcement in the FAQs that it's there, and maybe a brief explanation in the next "Board business" post.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Amaryllis, and to everyone in general:

We're pretty much in distress right now and trying to work out what's best to do. We're also somewhat hampered by the fact that various life reasons are making it harder to keep in regular touch with each other, which slows down discussions. We do recognise that this is an issue that needs to be sorted out, but between these various pressures, things may look a little confused in the short term.

We do intend to sort this out. If everyone could just bear with us a bit, we'd very much appreciate it.

[Mmy]

@Amaryllis: But can there be a link to Fred's site in the regular sidebar?

Fair enough -- I just put a link to Patheos/Slacktivist on the sidebar.

Kit had nothing to do with the "top of the sidebar" link being taken off. I was sitting last night watching cruel, rude, dismissive, misleading, factually incorrect and intentionally triggering comments go up one after another "over there" and basically hapax and I said "be damned with it, we are not giving pride of place to a website that is hosting a group punch up of this website."

Since I had already had one (gluten free) beer I was up to deleting something from the sidebar but not coding an addition to the blogroll.

[Amaryllis]

Thanks, Kit, I didn't mean to nag. I just tend to react when I notice something's different with "OH NO, CHANGE, EEK."

Sympathies as you deal with the latest shitstorm.

[Amaryllis]

Thanks, also, Mmy; didn't see your comment before I posted mine. And as I said, I don't blame you. I guess I just hate to give up on history entirely (see above, emotional conservative). The link in the sidebar works for me, but in the end it's your decision.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Amaryllis - oh, I didn't think you were nagging; it was a perfectly fair question. I'm just glad the first person who brought the subject up was someone like you, polite enough to bring it up with questions rather than accusations.

I realise, looking at my comment, that it could have been read as impatient, which is not at all what I was trying to get across. The reason I asked people to bear with us is simply that the situation's confused right now and it's only right to acknowledge that we're calling on you all to be patient - and just after you've all been gracious about some proposed changes as well. It's really too bad, and I'm particularly sorry for noncombatants whose sense of security is getting jerked around.

Once again, we're going to have to ask for your trust, and then try to deserve it.

[chris the cynic]

I always thought it belonged in the Blogs of the Slacktiverse section anyway. I don't think I ever said anything because I didn't want to make waves over the formatting, but it just seemed more natural there than on its own. Especially after enough time had passed for people to know that Fred was elsewhere without a big standalone notice.

[Mmy]

@chris the cynic: I always thought it belonged in the Blogs of the Slacktiverse section anyway

It was more or less a hold over from the first weeks when people would arrive here looking for Fred and getting rather annoyed at us that he wasn't here. This was made more irritating for them because a number of technical issues.

It was also an attempt to help Fred get his hit rate up by encouraging those who landing here looking for him to simply CLICK and find him there.

But it has been well over a year....so :)

[chris the cynic]

Kit said that negative discussion over there tended to lead to an uptick in attacks over here. Given that, as of one minute ago, it's still going on over there...

Not sure exactly what I want to say except I hope things behind the scenes aren't too bad.

It was incredibly draining and frustrating for me, while I was following it (it's gotten around 4 pages longer since then) and I'm not one of the people who was being attacked.

[chris the cynic]

Fred's most recent post, How to be an ungrateful jerk may be of interest to those who were following the thread linked to in the main post. Or it might not, I guess you'd have to judge for yourself.

[cjmr, who is HOME!, on her son's netbook]

Having not had the spoons to finish the last comment thread, I am wondering if I do have enough spoons to start this one...

[chris the cynic]

@cjmr

Yeah, I was just talking about the post itself, not the comments.

Should have been more specific, I guess.

I definitely understand lacking the spoons though, and would not recommend anyone do something they're not up for. I don't think the post itself should be at all costly in terms of spoons, but if you think you might not be up for it I'd rather you use your judgement (and err on the side of caution if erring is done) than mine.

[cjmr, who is HOME!, on her son's netbook]

I rarely venture into Fred's comments threads any more. At least, not past the first two pages. But I do still read most of the articles. Well, except the triggery ones...

I did venture in and left a comment, which I'm sure I'll be pilloried for. Does anyone know if there is a way to turn off 'email me when this comment gets a response' for some disqus blogs but not others? I want Fred's off, but Ana's on...

[Izzy]

Thought about posting on other thread, decided not to bother. Seems to be mostly Jason whining about how we weren't willing to take his hand and guide him gently through the basics of human interaction. And Cary on about something or other.

[chris the cynic]

The whole thing for me was just one of those, "Why the fuck can't we all get along?" things. And I know that there are reasons. Some of them good, others not so much, but reasons all. It's just that the vitriol and the damned lies... They're still using Ana's content note as an example of a Slacktiverse enforced trigger warning. It would be one thing if it were just names I didn't recognize, but when people I care about are lying in order to be mean to other people I care about... it just hurts.

Which, for the record, is why I stopped participating in the original thread over there, and limited my participation in the new one to one unrelated comment. I can only take so much "it just hurts" before I have to stop.

[hapax]

<--- note lack of Mod Hat; this is just hapax's opinion

I understand and empathize -- oh, BOY do I empathize -- with hurt and anger right now, but I would respectfully hope that folks here would avoid demonizing individual posters or the community as a whole that comments at Patheos.

It's really painful to stumble upon what you think are people slagging on you on the Internet (even if it's some place you don't regularly visit); and it's even worse if you visit both places and have friends in both places, and they are each hating on the other, and you feel forced to choose sides...

... that's just nasty.

I am not saying that anybody's doing that now, by the way. But I just want to get that out there, before anybody (like, say, ME at certain points over the past couple of days) is tempted to head down that path.

[Mmy]

<--- note lack of Mod Hat; this is just mmy's opinion

At the moment I would describe the way I feel as heartsick.

When Fred passed this space over to us there was no blueprint, no set of guidelines. We, as a community, muddled through. I know that there are things I would have done/said differently had I known then what I know now. I know that there have been times (especially when the board was being pounded by angry reactions to some of the articles we posted) when I reacted differently that I would have under better circumstances.

What I really didn't expect was how much I would come to care deeply about the idea of creating a safer space for members of our community. So now when something like this happens my impulse is to flame those who I see as threatening members of this community.

But whatever I write in anger will remain here to hurt the people I flamed for months (maybe years) to come--and will only feed bad feelings between the two boards.

So, if I am going to say anything I'll say it on Patheos where people won't feel I am talking behind their backs.

And I doubt I will post anything more at Patheos since my presence seems to add fuel to the fire.

[Izzy]

Yeah, the commentariat at Patheos has seemed basically nice and reasonable--with a few exceptions, like the inevitable libertarians--until basically now. So I'm guessing that people have come out in response to whatshisass's post about trigger warnings, which...whatever, for the most part. (Though there are a few people who I miss.)

For what it's worth:

1. Yeah, there are things I avoid talking about here. There are things I avoid talking about in any given place, because I don't need the aggro; that's how human interaction works. I don't talk about politics with my extended family, I don't talk about religion with some of my friends, I don't talk about RPG rules with others of those friends. So what?

2. If, at any point, people would like me to put a TW for swearing and ranting on my posts, that's fine. I put one up regularly for Jason until he flounced. My *personal* view on cursing is that if you're likely to hear as bad or worse when someone drops a hammer on their toe, it doesn't merit a general warning, but I'm fine with community standards being otherwise.

I am personally unsure how anyone who's lived in modern human society for any length of time could read "go fuck yourself" or even "fuck off and die, dickwad" as anywhere comparable to the sorts of comment that TBAT and others have gotten here--to me, it's the difference between a really vicious personal letter and something you say when that guy in an SUV cuts you off in traffic--but hey.

[lonespark]

Ugh. What everybody said. I like you, and I like them (some of whom are you), and I believe in this place, and I know what "side" I've chosen, but it seems so sad and ridiculous that there's anything like sides.

Here is what I will say for "safer space," as I have been experiencing it here and at Ana's place and a few others: It has made me a stronger, better ally in the real world. Because I can save spoons here, and because I am really getting a model of what it means to have persons and their lived experience respected, I am becoming much more likely to speak the hell up against bigotry and abuse in four dimensions.

So thank you. Thank you for talking about what ifs and what worked for you, and what could I do, and what I could have done better... It is really making a difference in my life.

[Kit Whitfield]

We really don't want people to feel they have to choose sides. Certain people have decided that TBAT are a side and they're agin it - that this or that individual member of TBAT are a side and they're agin her, which is particularly wearing - so not being on a side isn't possible for us because we're defined and treated as such whatever we do.

(And yes, we've probably made mistakes. It happens. It'd be nice if this didn't mean permanent furious enemies who will never accept anything we say ever again and who really love hating on us, but that can't be helped. Certainly, facing that attitude, there's nothing we can say over there that won't make things worse.)

You guys, on the other hand, have freedom of movement. While we appreciate the people who've done their best to counter the vitriol over there very much, we know that a lot of you have vulnerabilities and that the Net can be a help. So if you want to hang in both places, go to it.

As I say, we've been branded a side and hated for it. I'd rather prove them wrong through my actions than sink to that level.

[Mike Timonin]

Frankly, I'm not sure what the anti-TBATs are railing against. It's like they've constructed this - I want an antonym for idealized, and the internet says there isn't one - this false image of Slacktiverse in which no conversation takes place and it's all pile on the poor poor troll all the time, and bury him in trigger warnings until he cannot speak. And I really don't see it. Even in the threads which caused self-imposed exiles, I don't see the behavior that people are complaining about. It's possible that this is an odd privilege/blind spot on my part.

[Ross]

@Mike: I suspect, because it's something I have to work on myself, that there is a distinction problem going on.

If you make an argument based around protecting your own privilege at the expense of others, you will get told to "check your privilege".

If you neglect a trigger warning, you will get told "Hey, put a trigger warning on that."

If you come in and spew vile, abusive misogyny, you will get flamed and may get banned.

It is not *always* easy to determine which thing is happening (There's been lots of times when I've thought "Now wait, nothing that person said is actually abusive, aren't they jumping the gun?" But then the person I was giving the benefit of the doubt to pretty much always turns around and starts shouting abuse. Which makes TBAT look like an enclave of wizards maybe, but not power-mad dictators). And it seems some people have more trouble with it than others. If all three things look the same to you, then you'll think of the Slacktiverse as a place where people get flamed and banned for making simple human mistakes.

And there *are* people here who have a rhetorical style where every claim seems to carry an implicit "And you are a bad person if you disagree," which can feel demeaning and threatening, sure, but *that bit that is objectionable isn't actually in the text. Your brain invented that part*.

[Kit Whitfield]

And there *are* people here who have a rhetorical style where every claim seems to carry an implicit "And you are a bad person if you disagree,

Guilty, I suspect.

I yam what I yam. ;-)

Personally - with the mod hat off - I also think that some of them are just pissed off that moderating powers wound up in the hands of people they didn't like, and who feel the need to come up with a higher-sounding reason. And some people just enjoy hating people, and thought that when Fred talked about hatefulness and offense addiction he was obligingly identifying new people to have fun hating on, and now they have a shiny new toy in hating us. Some people are just like that, and when they're like that, they have to rationalise it somehow.

[Mmy]

@Ross: And there *are* people here who have a rhetorical style where every claim seems to carry an implicit "And you are a bad person if you disagree,

@Kit Whitfield: Guilty, I suspect.

I yam what I yam. ;-)

Hey -- I thought it was probably me that Ross was thinking of.

Mike and Ross -- I found your comments really useful in terms of helping me to understand some of the dynamics of the past week.

Some of the differences/problems/perceived insults have been, I think, due to coming from different cultural and academic communities. The three members of TBAT come from different countries and more importantly they come from a range of fairly rigorous academic backgrounds in which the range of discourse and interpersonal interactions differ quite sharply from those that many of the commenters who dislike us so much.

Sometimes I notice myself falling into 'academic' mode which I know can feel/sound extremely dismissive. For example, a colleague of mine told me of a time in grad school when he received a paper back from his dissertation advisor advising him to "sign up for an remedial course in English" -- ironically on a paper that was then accepted at a prestigious academic journal (albeit, with the grammatical errors fixed.) In my neck of the woods in academia one can sit around at conferences ripping people up one side and down the other and then go off to a sports bar to watch the game and drink beer.

The thing is that these arguments are based on the understanding that we are debating the STRUCTURE of the argument not the right of the person to make the argument, nor the any personal qualities of the commenter.

I know that if a commenter makes a statement that if broken down into
I think we should have policy XX because A, B, and C are true and therefore XX does good -- and I can present proof that "A" is not always true -- then I am not willing (personally) to even discuss XX before the veracity of A is hashed out.

Which can, I realize, feel like I am ignoring XX or hounding the commenter. I am not -- it is just physically painful for me to even engage in the discussion of a policy when the warrants for that policy are not robust.

Which makes TBAT look like an enclave of wizards Again, I think much of that (at least in my case) comes from my background of working in politics (try handling slightly drunk angry union workers at a meeting), teaching undergraduates and growing up on an Army base. One is taught in all three cases to have one's antennae out and try to identify and head off problems.

[Ross]

@Kit: There was this one sentence in the narnia article that really made me uncomfortable at first. On subsequent readings, it bothered me progressively less and less, but that did require I be willing to go back and read it again rather than stewing in offense.

[Kit Whitfield]

Out of interest, what was it?

[Julie]

Lurker here, extremely tentative about saying anything because I fear it will end badly while feeling convicted that someone needs to say this...

There is no excuse whatsoever for the personal attacks, deliberately provocative language and abuse that some people have been throwing at individuals or groups here. None.

But you guys who honestly have no idea what any reasonable person might be talking about--I don't know if its privilege or Stockholm syndrome or what, but yes, you are missing something.

I have seen what people are talking about and they are not way off base. I went back and checked over some old threads just this morning to make sure I hadn't misremembered. They show a pattern of arguments, over a long period of time, between community regulars in which several posters repeatedly express great personal distress at the behaviour, language and argumentation style of another regular poster. They go so far as to say they have been crying for hours over the argument, are experiencing symptoms of an anxiety attack as they write, or may have to leave the community because of how upset they are. They (and in the thread I just read, it was 3 or 4 different people) pepper their comments with "I'm sorry" and "please forgive me" for phrasing something in a way that displeases the person they're arguing with, but there's no "my god, I'm so sorry that what I've said has affected you this way, I'll stop immediately" in return. Instead, the poster is angry and correct and also angry, so the others beg forgiveness and hope it blows over in the next thread. But it starts again the next time one of a group of set topics comes around.

I am honestly not speaking up to troll or to point and say "you suck". But reading a couple of threads just now made me sincerely concerned for some of you guys. At the moment I'm sad and a little afraid, as when observing someone in a destructive relationship. There is stuff going on here that doesn't appear to be resolved, and appears to be doing real emotional damage to some people, and reading this today I think...my god, I can't possibly be the only one who sees it.

I'm going to go back to lurking and reading interesting articles. I really hope that someone who is trusted by the community (i.e. not a lurker) recognises what I'm talking about and does something about it.

[Kit Whitfield]

@ Julie - well, I'm not going to flame you. It's difficult to address what you say because the examples aren't specific; all I can say is

A) no doubt there are problems we can learn from addressing

B) it is my mod-hat-off view that, while worth taking seriously, the issues you raise are very possibly not the reasons for the level of vitriol that we're getting, because the really extreme haters are angry at how we supposedly expect people to betoo ridiculously careful of people's sensitivities. I think there may be ore than one thing going on.

[Kit Whitfield]

For instance - I've remembered an example of an occasion where Ana wrote to me in the kind of distress you describe. As I recall it, I wrote back and we discussed it, and while I didn't withdraw my basic opinion on the subject under discussion, I made amends with Ana, and the two of us are still on good terms, and in fact Ana has made efforts to defend the community over on Patheos. So in that situation, well, I remember it differently. You may be thinking of other occasions, of course.

[Ross]

@Kit: When I read "Why didn't the sexism bother you?", it felt like the general sense of it was something like "What's wrong with you that you aren't bothered by this?"

[Kirala]

FWIW, I think the cause is safe spaces. The safer the space, the fewer people it's safe for.

There are times when I need to get away from my sister, because it wears me terribly to restrict myself to safe subjects when she's in a downward spiral with her mental and emotional problems. (One of those problems is that she completely loses self-awareness and perspective in the depths and starts to believe that if only we would bow to her every whim, her life would be Fixed. We have learned through trial and error that in fact utter separation is the only solution, and she enthusiastically recommends this approach when feeling herself.) Her triggers become a minefield which is painful to navigate - and I'm intimately familiar with them. The environment which is safe for her in that condition is utterly useless for pursuing almost any of our many mutual interests. (New Doctor Who episodes, however, are so far a surefire way to pull her out of even the very worst cycles. Yay, Gallifrey!)

This space isn't that restrictively safe. It is, however, more safe than simply being anti-troll. As long as it's safer than it was four years ago, by necessity it's more restrictive than it was four years ago - and as there are always commentators on the margins of community acceptability, as the margins contract, commentators will be excluded.

This space has actively chosen to be safer. I think this is a natural consequence. I leave it to those who have more invested in this space to decide whether it's a worthy trade-off.

[Mmy]

@julie: I really hope that someone who is trusted by the community (i.e. not a lurker) recognises what I'm talking about and does something about it.

Not wanting to be confrontational here -- just pointing out that when someone points at me, criticizes my behaviour and then asks that someone "does something about it" it causes an angsty worried wrench in my gut.

Exactly what do you want people to do?

Criticize me? Well I have been criticized up hill and down dale here and at Patheos. They have two threads there largely devoted to examining everything we may ever have done wrong.

Send angry messages to me at my private email address? Well, that has already been done and apparently didn't make me change my behaviour enough.

Host open fora which encouraged those here to discuss the rules and suggest changes? We have done that. Many of the rules and policies here were developed at the particular request of members of our community.

Seriously -- I would like to know what the "something" is that should be done.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Kit: When I read "Why didn't the sexism bother you?", it felt like the general sense of it was something like "What's wrong with you that you aren't bothered by this?"

Yep, that was careless writing on my part. I should have said something like, 'you mentioned the sexism didn't bother you; could you talk about why not?'

[Mmy]

@kirala: It is, however, more safe than simply being anti-troll. As long as it's safer than it was four years ago, by necessity it's more restrictive than it was four years ago - and as there are always commentators on the margins of community acceptability, as the margins contract, commentators will be excluded.

This space has actively chosen to be safer. I think this is a natural consequence. I leave it to those who have more invested in this space to decide whether it's a worthy trade-off.

That's interesting because when Fred first left there was a discussion here (if memory serves quite a heated discussion) as to whether we were to be a safe space or a safe(r) space. The former would require heavier moderation than the latter and would, as you point out, make the board less friendly to some even as it became friendlier to others.

The board has changed in response to those whose ratio of time "here" to "other places" is quite high. That is okay with me because those who have lots of other places they like to hang out, well--they have lots of other places they like to hang out. I wish them well. Hell, I hang out a lot on other boards.

I found your reference to your sister interesting because I do realize that although my home is a very, very safe space for me given my dietary restrictions (and those of mmySpouse) it would be a hellish place for many (?most?) other people. Most people who wander into our place would find nothing that they wanted/liked to eat. We have no meat but we have lots of rice cakes. We have no milk, no butter, no cheese, no fish. I can imagine someone spending a week with us and then when the visit was over heading straight to nearest "normal" restaurant. That is cool. I don't expect the entire world to live by my food restrictions (though I really appreciate labels so I can avoid things) -- my house is a safe zone for someone with my dietary restrictions. I wouldn't expect someone who loves chocolate (yup, I also don't like sugar or chocolate) and hamburgers to enjoy hanging out here. And I don't mind that they have lots of places where they can enjoy hanging out.

[chris the cynic]

There have been problems since the beginning, since before the beginning.

I remember, from long ago, a discussion of nuking, and I don't want to get more specific about which one I'm talking about because then I feel like I'm pointing fingers at people which is not the point, where people on both sides had largely the same concerns.

Those in favor felt that without someone there willing to pull out all the stops to make those being hurtful stop, they couldn't feel safe to participate because the result was that the hurtful people stayed around longer, kept up what they were doing longer, and influenced the space. To a significant degree.

Which is to say, in the absence of nuking they felt unsafe to the point of being silenced by that fear.

Those not in favor, who (for whatever its worth) actually had fair overlap with the groups the nuking was intended to protect, were left in fear by the nuking even if they had never done anything to set it off, never been a target, and never seemed likely to be a target. The possibility still left them feeling it was unsafe.

Which is to say, in the presence of nuking they felt unsafe to the point of being silenced by that fear.

There was more to it than that, but that alone is a serious problem. And I don't know of any solution. After all this time I still don't.

There have always been problems and if I've ever come across as saying this place is all sunshine and lollipops and perfection I certainly didn't mean to.

-

In the Left Behind thread over there, there were a lot of individuals saying a lot of things and any attempt to break that down into classes or groups or trends or whatnot is clearly oversimplification of something more complicated than that.

So with that in mind, there's an oversimplification that stood out to me as important and useful.

The most notable people were doubtless those who took the opportunity to have post after negative post about this place, and the ones who did it by twisting or outright ignoring the truth were the ones who pushed all my buttons and thus became the ones I noticed most, but they were hardly the only ones saying non-positive things about this place.

Several other people, usually in shorter less antagonistic posts, said that they left here because they didn't feel safe for reasons that weren't the big flashy ones the previously mentioned group was using.

I'm a lot more interested in their reasons for leaving, and thus their reasons for not feeling safe, because what they said didn't seem like, "Hey, this should be entertaining," what they said seemed more like the genuine concerns of people who would have liked to have been here and couldn't make it work.

Unfortunately I also got the impression most of them weren't really interested in talking about it.

Those people alone would be enough to convince me that this place has problems, but it's not just them alone. There's been other evidence all along. The question of nuking dates back to before the beginning.

This place has problems. It will never be perfect because perfection is impossible, but hopefully as time goes on, with work and input, it will have fewer problems and those problems that persist will be lessened as much as they can be.

[chris the cynic]

Uh... that was mostly an indirect response to Julie, there have been other posts since I started writing it, I haven't read them all yet.

[Kirala]

And I don't mind that they have lots of places where they can enjoy hanging out.

Yeah, and that's why I have no particular opinion on whether the Slacktiverse chooses to be safer-but-more-exclusive versus less-safe-but-more-inclusive. I think it's rather on the cusp and able to be extremely valuable as either type of space. I do think, however, if it's a conscious choice, the foreseeable tradeoffs might be easier to bear.

As it is, this place is unquestionably a different atmosphere than it was half a decade ago, and a lot of the pain I see comes from differing expectations. Even if this place doesn't want to be as safe/exclusive as Shakesville, I think it might be wise to formally acknowledge that it's seeking to be safer than Slacktivist and, as such, might not be the preferred milieu for all former regulars.

[Caravelle]

Re specific examples of what Julie is talking about : I don't come here as often as I used to and when I do I'm often reading threads that are too old for me to participate in so I can't speak to the repeated pattern Julie is talking about, but there is one specific instance that really stuck in my mind. It was when a commenter who had been involved in such a dispute wrote a comment saying they were leaving the discussion because they were too upset to continue, and asked the moderators please not to share any of their personal email exchanges. And I think it was Mmy whose first reaction was to be vocally angry and offended that they'd suggest the moderators would ever do such a thing.
That shocked me to my core, and it is not the kind of behavior I would have expected of anyone here. This community taught me to have compassion for those who are hurting, to listen to people's concerns and respect their feelings instead of dismissing them because they aren't completely obvious to me.

That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned on the Patheos site that I agree with you guys 9 times out of 10 but the 10th time really, really gives me pause. Because that kind of behavior... it's not a small thing. It's not a little mistake you can forgive and forget as a matter of course. Maybe there was a major outcry after that thread with all the apologies and re-assessments required to move past it, but I didn't see anything like that. And regardless of that specific example, I don't seem to be the only person who thinks there's a problem and all of the people who think there's a problem aren't trolls, or haters determined to twist everything in the worst light.

That's another thing I learned in this community (and others). That when people say there's a problem one should listen, even if we don't understand that problem or don't agree with some specifics of what the people reporting the problem say. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them at the end of the day.

[kisekileia]

I know what Julie means. It's been bothering me for a while, but I haven't said anything because I've had a hard time putting my finger on exactly what is going on. Kit, I do think there's...something...about how you argue that is bothering people legitimately. It's like on certain subjects, it's not okay for people to disagree with you, and when they do, they get portrayed as bad people, even on subjects where there's legitimate disagreement in progressive circles. I wouldn't have said anything if someone else hadn't brought it up, because I know it can be very unhelpful to point out something like this without being able to quantify what's going on better than I can--but I do see the pattern Julie's talking about.

Kit doesn't deserve the abuse she's received from trolls, or anything close to it. I really want to emphasize that. However, I can think of three regulars off the top of my head who have left due in large part to conflicts with Kit in the year and a half that The Slacktiverse has been around. I've definitely felt like I couldn't say certain things (the issue I'm particularly thinking of is whether most or all parents are basically doing the best they can, because that's probably the biggest issue where Kit and I disagree somewhat) that are within what's normally accepted in progressive discourse. I do think this is something different from the hate that all of TBAT have gotten for being smart, assertive women, and from the conflicts with trolls who don't want to respect the community norms. I also know that Kit has seriously dialled back on her participation in debates here in the last six months, and I'm not sure how I feel about that--on the one hand, I don't want her to feel muzzled, but on the other hand, there's this issue.

I feel bad that I can't put my finger on what exactly the problem is, because that puts Kit in a seriously awkward position. Because of that, I wasn't going to say anything at all until Julie brought it up. I don't know if this dynamic is even fully Kit's fault. I don't think it's just people reacting against assertive women--I don't feel the same way about Mmy, or about non-TBAT assertive women on here at all. Can anyone help me figure out what's going on here?

[hapax]

@Julie -- I really do want to thank you for speaking up. I know that can be scary.

I'm not going to press you for specifics, because I don't want to put you on the spot. But, if I may, I'd really appreciate it if you see something like you are talking about happening in the future, would you be so kind as to send an e-mail to TBAT and say, "Hey, I think something Not Cool is going on here, maybe people (you included) should back off?"

I *have* received e-mails like that. And sometimes I have been able to resolve things publicly, sometimes privately, sometimes (far too many times) not at all.

But you are quite right that there are occasions when bystanders see things more clearly than participants. It's just hard for anyone to modify their behavior without specifics, way after the fact.

@chris the cynic:

I'm a lot more interested in their reasons for leaving, and thus their reasons for not feeling safe, because what they said didn't seem like, "Hey, this should be entertaining," what they said seemed more like the genuine concerns of people who would have liked to have been here and couldn't make it work.

Unfortunately I also got the impression most of them weren't really interested in talking about it.

I pulled this out because I got the same impression (before I stopped reading the thread) and it puts my finger on something that really bothered me.

A huge part of me was going "AAACK! Somebody doesn't feel safe here! ALARM!ALARM!ALARM!" and my settings went immediately to Fix Mode and I wanted to go and grab them and say "I am so sorry you were unhappy how can we change things to make it more comfortable for you?"

And of course the person I was talking to would say, "Bwuh? It isn't really that big a deal. I've moved on, dude."

Because I really do care a lot about this tiny cranny of the 'verse. I want everyone to come here and meet all the clever, funny, thoughtful, warm, good people. Sometimes I feel like Judy in DADDY-LONG-LEGS, wistfully daydreaming of parties where everybody she liked could come and be friends with each other.

But, then I shake myself and remember that it isn't All About Me. For example, hapaxdaughter keeps sending me links to The MarySue and telling me how awesome it is and I should read it every day. And I keep thinking that yeah, it is a wonderful site (heckopete, I'm the one who first recommended it to her) and I probably would love it, I just don't have *time*.

And I go over to Making Light about once a month, and go through a huge glom of the threads, and think "Oh, such amazing people, I'd never have the nerve to comment here, but I learn so much just by reading" and then I forget about it for another month.

So, it's okay if we can make everybody happy. And, I guess it's okay if we occasionally make some people unhappy.

[plaintive] Can't we all just get along? [/plaintive]

[ZMiles]

Caravelle: It's MaryKaye's last post, and then Mmy's second-to-last post on this page, right? http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/12/how-i-turned-into-that-person/comments/page/4/#comments

[kisekileia]

I think, also, that the level of abuse TBAT has taken from trolls has created a really awkward situation where TBAT are so wounded by the troll attacks that when non-trolls question TBAT in any way, there's an instinct for TBAT and others to be very defensive. It's a completely normal human reaction on their part, but I think that's what was probably going on in the specific situation Caravelle mentioned. Basically, I think TBAT has had to fight so hard against abusive, bad-faith attacks that when they get good-faith, legitimate criticism and concern, they end up lashing out against that as well.

I hope the new rules will help change that by reducing the number of abusive, bad-faith attacks.

[Mmy]

@Caravelle: asked the moderators please not to share any of their personal email exchanges. And I think it was Mmy whose first reaction was to be vocally angry and offended that they'd suggest the moderators would ever do such a thing.

First, that wasn't exactly what they asked. What they said was I know that TBAT has my email address. I DO NOT WANT to be contacted to discuss this.

Second, one of the reasons I was angry (and I will admit I was very, very angry) was that it implied that TBAT were known for doing what I know we don't. We have access to a lot of email addresses and we cannot function as a community if people doubt that we will respect their confidentiality.

Third, and this was the major big one. At the very moment that that demand was flung at me I was busy scrubbing every evidence of a particular commenter from every board I have administrative power over because that commenter was actually in fear of their life. In order for me to effectively do that the commenter had to let me to know absolutely everything about them. Every single search term that could be used to track them down. That person had to trust me enough to put every single thing that could be used against them into my hands.

So, yeah, touchy about that. Very touchy. In fact I basically have an auto-destruct on this board that means that if I had any reason to believe that something had happened that would endanger some of the people who comment here -- I would take down the entire board and it would go to black.

[Kirala]

One wonders whether a context-bot might be helpful.

(As a lawyer's daughter, I'm horrified at the potential abuses of such an invasion of privacy, but it doesn't stop me from fantasizing about a magically unabusable tool of the sort.)

[Mmy]

@ZMiles: my response to being told not to email someone using a confidential email address was:
I found that totally uncalled for.

TBAT is not in the habit of using people's email addresses to track them down and implore them to keep posting.

Confidentiality and respect for privacy is a very important to me and I dislike the implication that I have to be preemptively "warned off."

Which I read as "seriously ticked off" not vocally angry.

Would I have made that same response two weeks later? Probably not. I probably would have said something rude loud enough my SO could hear it and filed the comment in the mental folder "seriously over reacting." But then I would have probably filed someone thinking that my response was "vocally angry" and shocking as seriously over reacting given the fact that that entire thread had been full of angry voices for quite some time.

Would I make that response today? Don't know.

Thing is, I don't get to "step back" from conversations on the board. Back in the Fred days I remember that I would get seriously ticked off at things and I would just go away for several days until I (and the conversation) cooled off. I don't get to do that here. I have to swing by constantly if only to check that someone hasn't gotten accidentally caught in the spam trap....speaking of which I just realized, to my horror, that I can now recognize "Louis Vuitton Bags" in Japanese!!!!

[Caravelle]

@Mmy : thank you, I was indeed not remembering precisely. And your reasons don't make that behavior acceptable. People can't read your mind and random people on the internet don't know you so well that they know exactly what to expect from you at any time. Mary Kaye's (thanks, Zmiles) request didn't suggest she thought you or any other moderator was in the habit of showering people with email, it was a perfectly reasonable request from somebody who really, really doesn't want something to happen and thus prefers to explicitly ask instead of risking the one chance in a million someone makes a mistake. Coming from someone who was explicitly feeling upset and vulnerable it's a completely understandable reaction, and if you get a pass because of how very, very angry you were then she gets a pass too. Not that she needs one. Just because YOU know YOU would never do something doesn't mean that certainty is magically transferred to everyone you interact with.

The fact you did something monumentally insensitive while blindingly angry isn't the issue. That you think the response isn't to apologize, but to explain how blindingly angry you really were as if that excuses anything, is.

And if you can't understand why some people would be uncomfortable on a forum where a moderator can be expected to become blindingly angry once in awhile, and unapologetically behaves this way when blindingly angry, well... some people are. If you don't care about those people's comfort then it's all good.

[Kirala]

@Mmy re: spam:

I've never understood why spammers don't read this insightful Dork Tower comic and be done with certain methods. Or are this board's problems of a different variety?

[The Board Administration Team]

TBAT has made the commitment to listen to community concerns about moderating behavior. One way or the other, this thread seems to have become that.

Since TBAT is made up of people who have the fairly normal desire to defend themselves when we feel we are under attack, we three are going to remove ourselves from temptation and bow out of this conversation -- except to remove material that would get an immediate red card.

We will be over on the other threads for the next few hours. If anyone has a concern that needs immediate attention, please flag us on an open thread or send an e-mail. We promise to read this thread carefully and consideration when the discussion dies down.

[Literata]

Caravelle, mmy isn't explaining how serious anger caused her to explode in a shit fit all over the boards. mmy is explaining why extreme anger caused her to specifically, rationally, and without flaming address the precise implication of the message that troubled her.

You want an apology? From whom? To whom? For what? From mmy for being angry? To you? Now??? She can't apologize to Mary Kaye. Who else does she - or any member of TBAT - owe an apology to?

[Caravelle]

@TBAT : Good luck. I'm not enough of a regular anymore that I feel I should contribute more than I already have (and that was mostly to provide a specific example to support Julie's comment). This is for members of the Slacktiverse to deal with, and if the only people who have a problem are outsiders or lurkers that the members do not wish to cater to then it's fine. But I like you and think you're good people, and like Julie seeing this kind of thing happen makes me worry for you as much as anything else. Especially when I consider the stress you're feeling and how it probably contributes a lot. So I hope things work out.

[Literata]

Whoa, Caravelle, you're going to drop that nuke and then walk away like it's all good? Not cool.

[Laiima]

Thank you Caravelle.

@Julie, Caravelle, kisikileia, et al.,

I've stayed out of these threads at both places because I don't think all the spoons in the world would help me if this follows the same pattern as before.
Look, as individuals, I really like all three moderators. Your comments and posts are insightful and thoughtful and I always learn something.

But occasionally, there are topics (TV tropes is one example), where well-meaning people disagree. But somehow the moderators, acting as individuals, come down *so hard* on people who disagree that they feel run out of town. That has happened to me, *four times*. And it's not just the moderators acting as individuals. It's *most* of my friends here. They are all on one side of the argument, and somehow I'm always on the other side, the side with the *bad people* on it. The kind of people Izzy drives off, and everyone else cheers. Which did happen with the Former Conservative, and I found it utterly chilling.

Basically when Mary Kaye left, I did too. I just didn't say anything. Because I couldn't bear to find out that perhaps *everybody* I liked here really wanted me gone after all. FC, over the years here, shared a lot of personal vulnerabilities with us, and I have done that, cubed. People who know my history could utterly eviscerate me if they wanted to. I hope they wouldn't. But I can't be *sure* they wouldn’t.

It has little to do with them, but everything to do with my family history. People in my family *gleefully* eviscerate me every chance they get. People who can't stand each other bond over mistreating me, as a form of entertainment. People I grew up loving do that. So how can I hold people I only know online to a higher standard, one that my own blood relatives can’t/won’t meet?

[Literata]

But here's the question: are people driven off by having those weaknesses that they've exposed used against them? I think that's an important question given the exchanges we're talking about.

[Laiima]

And while I was writing and revising all that, the people I was talking to seem to have left this conversation. Did I just immolate myself for nothing, again?

[Literata]

And, quite frankly, I suspect the community chose hapax, and Kit, and mmy because they had previously established themselves as very effective debaters. So are they now being called to task for the behavior that got them chosen originally?

The other question is is the problem that people get driven off - like when Izzy slam-dunks someone - or that people get driven off by TBAT? Because if there is a problem with people being driven off in general, then we need to look at a lot more than TBAT's behavior - including the community standards that have kept this place marginally safe at any point.

[chris the cynic]

it was a perfectly reasonable request from somebody who really, really doesn't want something to happen and thus prefers to explicitly ask instead of risking the one chance in a million someone makes a mistake.

It was public though. It wasn't, "Please don't X me," in private, it was in front of everyone in capital letters. In a way that implied it was a likely outcome in the absence of the shouted request.

Shouting at someone in public not to do something (after explicitly acknowledging that you have the capacity to send the same message in private just as quickly and effectively) carries with it a very different message than, "I know that this would be a one in a million mistake, but I just want to make sure it doesn't happen."

And apparently I've been working on this comment for 40 minutes now, so I guess I'm just going to leave it at that even though I never really got to a point, I just sort of stated a premise without backing it up.

[Literata]

No, chris, you stated a point perfectly.

[Brin]

Kirala: I've never understood why spammers don't read this insightful Dork Tower comic and be done with certain methods.

What insightful Dork Tower comic? The link is broken.

(I can't really think of anything to say regarding the main discussion, and in any case I can't remember the last time I got into an argument and didn't regret it.)

[Literata]

No, Laiima, I don't think you've immolated yourself. I'm trying to figure out how TBAT is supposed to address this without more conversation about it - stopping when they stop commenting on the thread but promise to listen doesn't seem to me to be a way to help whatever the issues are.

[chris the cynic]

@ Laiima

Because I couldn't bear to find out that perhaps *everybody* I liked here really wanted me gone after all.

I have never wanted you gone. I look forward to reading a post when I see your name attached. I keep meaning to read more of your blog but for the past... I don't know six months for sure, eight or nine more likely, maybe even full year, I've been struggling just to follow the few things I'm already following because if I don't push myself to do that much then I'd be doing nothing at all. And nothing is a bad thing to be doing.

I do manage to find the energy to go outside of the safe familiar spaces (of which, for whatever it may be worth, I count Slacktivist at Patheos as one, though less so this week) and when I do your blog is where I go most often.

I can't speak for others, and I wouldn't try, but I have certainly never wanted you gone.

[chris the cynic]

That should say, "Sometimes I do manage..." or "I do sometimes manage..." or something like that.

[Kirala]

@Brin: Okay, I'll include it uncoded this time in hopes of avoiding a broken link:

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1161

But hopefully this link will also work.

[Izzy]

'Hokay. Can only speak for myself here, but:

1. I have seen a lot of people leave that I do miss, and that I wish would come back, and where I think a lot of the problem is communication.

2. On the other hand, some of the people not so much. If hypothetical you are going to lecture us on how we need to hate the sinner not the sin/tolerate intolerance/just be nicer to trolls, I don't really miss your company. Nor do I miss the company of people who come on to make snide comments about religion/feminism/etc and then duck behind "but I was just saaaaying" when people call 'em on it. And yes, "Have you ever thought that you might be wrong about..." or "Why don't you avoid assuming that..." is snide. You don't have to curse to be hostile.

3. If there's a way to make people in Group 1 feel more comfortable while not having to put up with people in Group 2, I'm for it. Otherwise, my preference is to err on the side of "fuck off, troll," but I'm okay with community standards being different.

4. Re: FC specifically: what I remember is that he came on to lecture us for not being nice enough to one of those "I am just saying that you religious people are dumb and silly and responsible for all the atrocities in the world" types. I told him to fuck off. I probably also mentioned something along the lines of "Jesus, and you wonder why you can't get a date," after a few exchanges, because I *am* very much of the mindset that things said in a public forum, particularly things said often, are fair game once you reach that level. Not sure what he's talking about re: Kit, but I might have missed something.

There are areas where I have differences with the mods, but there are areas where I have differences with everyone, so.

[Izzy]

@Laiima: Likewise, I've never wanted you gone, and I really enjoy reading your posts.

[Kirala]

@Literata: I'm trying to figure out how TBAT is supposed to address this without more conversation about it - stopping when they stop commenting on the thread but promise to listen doesn't seem to me to be a way to help whatever the issues are.

You can't see how it could be helpful? I leave it to TBAT to evaluate their own emotional states and critique methods, but I know when I get emotional, my ability to see the other side of a debate diminishes. I often have to step back, and the wonderful thing about message boards is that I can continue to see the debate without participating, which helps me see it more clearly. If I were in TBAT's shoes, I'd probably stay uninvolved to help me take it less personally. Same reason I never, ever answer criticism of my work in my writing group until everyone's had a say and I have some time to process what they've said.

[Brin]

Laiima: Because I couldn't bear to find out that perhaps *everybody* I liked here really wanted me gone after all.

I must remember to refresh more often, because I can say that I don't want you gone. I like having you around.

@Kirala
Thanks.

[Literata]

No, I can't see why it would be helpful for other people to stop commenting - which seemed to happen - after TBAT stopped commenting. I understand perfectly well why TBAT stopped commenting.

[kisekileia]

I thought of an analogy that I think might reflect what's going on.

Let's say you have a hockey league of twelve- and thirteen-year-old boys. Most of them are kind of gangly and haven't filled out yet, or are still short and skinny, or otherwise are typical awkward middle-schoolers. But one guy in the league was an early bloomer--let's call him Big Guy--and he's HUGE. 6'4", 270 pounds. (I actually knew a guy who was like this at 13. He got away with playing the flute in a class that was crawling with bullies, because nobody wanted to take him on.)

Now, let's say that when there are fights on the ice, all the guys put about equal amounts of effort into their punches. All of them try to hit hard enough to be effective, but not hard enough to really hurt anyone. Everybody uses about the same proportion of their strength when they hit.

Most of the guys' hits are going to turn out okay. They'll knock someone down, but the person will be able to get back up. Big Guy's hits aren't going to turn out okay. Big Guy will casually push someone into the boards and have them end up with a concussion. Big Guy's hits HURT.

Big Guy's not trying to hit any harder than anyone else does. He just doesn't know his own strength. Let's say he comes from a family of big people, and his dad's a pretty nasty guy. He gets hit hard at home, by a dad who's just as big as he is. He thinks his hits are fairly gentle, and they are much gentler than his dad's. Big Guy isn't trying to hurt the other guys in the hockey league, and he doesn't understand why some of them don't like playing with him. What he doesn't realize is that the guys in his league aren't like his dad, and compared to them, he's far stronger than he realizes. He's hurting them, even though he doesn't mean to. He's a good guy and means well. He just needs to adjust the strength of his hits to accommodate the guys he's playing with.

What I'm thinking is, the regulars of this community are the hockey league guys, TBAT (particularly Kit) are Big Guy, and the trolls who have been attacking this community are Big Guy's dad. TBAT are an incredibly intelligent group of women with excellent rhetorical ability, which, as Literata stated, is a lot of why we chose them. TBAT have also been wounded very badly from battling vicious trolls. I think the problem is that the defensiveness that TBAT have needed to combat trolls has spilled over into their dealings with regular posters. As Laiima said, TBAT have come down hard on regulars who've disagreed with them or with community consensus, and those people have ended up feeling like they had to leave. That's a big problem.

I'm not sure how to solve this problem. I absolutely believe that TBAT mean well. I don't think this is a matter of TBAT being malicious in the slightest. I think it's a matter of them not knowing their own strength as debaters and rhetoriticians, probably as a result of trolls bullying and abusing them no matter how well they argue, and therefore hitting too hard when arguing with regular community members. This is further complicated by the fact that when a new or semi-new person posts here, it's not always readily apparent whether they're going to function like a regular or like a troll, or somewhere in between.

TBAT, you are strong, intelligent, capable women. Your arguments are persuasive. I know the stuff the trolls say to you is horribly invalidating and probably makes you feel powerless, especially given the incredibly disempowering situation with your having to read everything in the spam trip. But with the regular community members here, you are not powerless. You are strong. Please be careful with your strength, and try to understand that those of us who have proven our worth here over months or years do not wish you harm, even when we disagree with you.

[groundedchuck]

I suspect that the new rules and the strict aknowledgement that TBAT are the moderators and weild power will actually help the situation. I think this board has seen a lot of confusion and conflict over "community standards" vs. "TBAT has power"--that is, there was no clarity over what any individual poster, as a member of the community, had the authority to say, do or disagree with.

That, and since the original split, there has been an emphasis on making the site "safe" for a certain inner circle, rather than attempting to be welcoming to new members. This has grown more and more fervent with time, and has slowly but surely driven out a lot of the previously-frequent commenters when they "stepped out of line". The dogpiling on Dan Auby in the recent discussion of the new rules was just latest example. I understand that tempers run high, but the swiftness which any new name was branded a troll sent the message that the board wanted no new members or dissenting viewpoints, ever.

Which, honestly, is fine, but makes me wonder: Why not just set up a system where only a select few pre-approved users are allowed to comment? New people need to submit an application to the TBAT to join the community; no anonymous commenting allowed. That would solve virtually all of the troll/spam problem and make moderation easier, along with making the character of the blog static.

This will be my only comment on this. This space stopped feeling safe for me months ago.

[Kirala]

@Literata: Gotcha.

[kisekileia]

And I want to echo everyone else who said that we like Laiima and do not want her gone!

[Literata]

I am confused about why some things are called dogpiling and others are not. Before the Great Divide, what I saw was that when "community consensus" was achieved and somebody was deemed a troll, the community would unite against that person until zie went away. But that was never called "dogpiling," although I bet some of the commenters on the sidelines might have seen it that way.

But when TBAT unite on anything, and/or anyone agrees with them, it's dogpiling. Why?

[Anonymous]

I felt bad when Mary Kaye left. I liked her, and I hope that wherever she is, she is doing well and life has improved for her. I did feel that she was generally leaving more for her own reasons, but it's been a long time and I don't really remember the specifics. I do remember her last comment and mmy's response, and I remember there was a disagreement before those last two comments, the details of which I'm not going to refresh myself on because a rehash of that discussion feels like talking about people behind their backs. At the time, I mostly felt it was unfortunate that Mary Kaye was no longer with us.

I would feel sad if you left Laiima. If you needed to, I would understand, because trust is hard, but I do hope you'll stay, or that if you leave, that you'll come back, but above all, I hope you do whatever is best for you.

Some of the people who have left -- I don't want to name names or get into specific cases, just talk about a general pattern that I noticed -- what seemed to happen was they brought up an issue of some sort or another, generally an issue with how the board was being run or how something was being dealt with or not being dealt with, but they did it an inopportune moment, for example coming into a flame war 3 weeks late and making a complaint about some thing or other, or making an argument that was at least superficially similar to the arguments used by people who had later turned abusive in the flame war without distancing themselves from said people. They then were told "this isn't the time for it" and in some cases they kept insisting that it really was the time for it and then they got piled on and they responded and then things got heated and they left.

If you blur the details a little, that accounts for quite a few of the people who flounced: through bad luck or through ignorance, wilful or otherwise, they blundered in at the wrong moment, stepped on someone's (or several someone's) foot probably without meaning to, and then doubled down instead of apologising, possibly because they were in a bad place at the time.

This is my impression as a person who reads almost every comment in almost every thread. I'm a little hesitant to post this because as Anonymous I try very hard not to use my anonymity to cause hurt or offence, but I don't have another name I can use, and I do feel that I have been charitable to those involved.

[chris the cynic]

@Kirala

That's not how I think. How I think goes more like this:

"I have no interest in X, I'll create a spam filter that spamtraps X."
"But wait, what if some legitimate email somehow contains X. What if someone I know sends me an email that starts with talking about how sick they are of getting spam for X and then moves on to talking about other things that do interest me" (Never happened, not even once. I have never received a non-spam email that would have been spam-filtered in such a situation. Knowing that doesn't change the thought process) "then I'd miss that email and that would be horrible so... I guess no spam filter for me."

Speaking of which I probably need to preform one of my irregular annoying spam removals that could have been avoided by using spam filters. Those always leave me feeling like no one loves me because I get almost no legitimate email. And once the spam is gone that point becomes unmissable.

[Literata]

kisekileia, that elaborate metaphor does not do anything to address the problem that Kit has expressed before. She has said that if being a TBAT means that she can't participate in the boards as a full and equal commenter - and as we agree, that means as a skilled rhetoritician - then she'll quit. Then the board goes dark.

[Literata]

But, Anonymous, isn't that how a lot of misunderstandings on the net happen? Isn't what you're describing the difference between legit commenters disagreeing and what makes someone a troll? (If it wasn't just the wrong time or a miscommunication, they'd be a troll.)

[kisekileia]

@Literata, I hope it is possible for Kit to participate as a full and equal commenter while also making sure she doesn't hit too hard. I don't think she has to tone down her intellect--maybe just watch her writing for implications that those who disagree are bad people? Everybody has to take care to make sure their particular combination of strengths and weaknesses doesn't cause inadvertent harm to someone--that's not something that's only necessary for TBAT members.

[cjmr, who is HOME!, on her son's netbook]

kisekileia--that analogy 'fits' with how it feels to me on threads that make me feel particularly uncomfortable with the conversation.

[Literata]

So why is that a solution to the problems that are being raised about TBAT?

[Caravelle]

Well, I guess I'll respond insofar as I'm directly addressed though...
Literata :

Caravelle, mmy isn't explaining how serious anger caused her to explode in a shit fit all over the boards. mmy is explaining why extreme anger caused her to specifically, rationally, and without flaming address the precise implication of the message that troubled her.

Right. Instead of saying "I'm sorry things had to come to this, Mary Kaye". Or "I hate to hear you're this upset, I hope you feel better soon". Or "I'm sorry you feel this is an unsafe place for you Mary Kaye, I assure you that is not our intention and I hope we can see you again when tempers have cooled". Or "Mary Kaye, I am devastated that you seem to think we'd email you personally over this, we value your privacy very highly and I assure you that you will not be harrassed. Good luck."

Mary Kaye's comment was a good-bye and an account of how upset and unsafe she felt. It called for compassion. Or that "magnanimity in victory" thing. Or even a simple "good-bye to you too". Not a "specific, rational, precise" explanation on how that comment was really an attack on the moderators. (an explanation that was a strech in the first place)

You want an apology?

Nope. At the end of the day I'd be happy to know that this kind of thing can't be expected to happen again. But an acknowledgement that the whole thing was Not Cool in the first place would be a freaking start.

But if we're talking apologies :

From whom?

For this specific example, Mmy of course. But I only brought up this example because Kit wanted specifics in response to Julie's comment; if it were isolated we wouldn't be having this conversation.

To whom?

Well, in this instance, Mary Kaye for example.

For what? From mmy for being angry?

No, for being insensitive to the point of meanness.

To you? Now??? She can't apologize to Mary Kaye.

And why on Earth not ? I saw Mary Kaye just today commenting on the Patheos site. And we don't know that she doesn't still lurk here once in awhile.

But really this isn't so much an "apology" situation, it's possible Mary Kaye didn't even read the comments in question, in which case the only injured party is the community as a whole that lost members over that comment (or did interleaper come back ?), and the lurkers or members who felt more unsafe here as a result of it. It's more of a "I realize I messed up that time and I'll try to make sure it won't happen again" situation.

But as I said this incident isn't the problem. The problem is that there is a perception that this incident isn't isolated. And denying that this incident was in any way problematic only makes things worse, because this is the worst thing I could remember from the little time I spend here. If this is considered acceptable behavior, what kind of micro-aggressions can one expect to see here every day ?
I can't answer that, because again, no longer a regular. But it makes me very unsurprised indeed that comments like Julie's exist.

[Anonymous]

No, I agree Literata. That is how most online misunderstandings happen. My point was more that from the perspective of regulars that were current on what's going on enough to realise that it was an inopportune moment, our actions were justified because flouncer was kicking people while they were down or otherwise being a nuisance, so that's why we yelled at them. But the flouncer remembers being piled upon and being driven from the community and so the story they tell involves us being oversensitive meanies and the story we tell is about how someone used to be nice and then they attacked us for no reason. The people I'm thinking of weren't accused of being trolls, they were all in the category of "established non-troll commentor who is no longer with us."

In general, my opinion of all of the people who flounced that I can remember off the top of my head, is that they left either for personal reasons (including "offline life was really hectic" and "I have issues with authority and am not comfortable participating in a moderated discussion") or they left because they put their foot in it at the wrong time (due to a lack of social skills or a lack of paying attention, or poor writing skills or whatever.) But there may be people I'm forgetting.

I don't think we've really done anything wrong. I think that we've all put our foot in it at times and come off harsher than we would have if we had written comments at a different time or under different circumstances, but nobody is perfect. I've disagreed with things said before but I've never been dogpiled or attacked, not even as a newbie. Not even when I came in the middle of a flame war where there were lots of trolls and I posted as anonymous. If this were a community were unrecognised names were treated with the level of suspicion that is being claimed, I would not be treated as well as I have been. To me, this is the greatest proof that people here read the words a person writes and respond to what is being said, on the merit of the argument a person lays forth.

[Literata]

Mary Kaye specifically asked not to be contacted privately. Addressing her specifically over this on another board would be worse, in my mind, than contacting her privately. As for here, a public apology might make you feel good about how mmy has been sufficiently shamed, but I don't see that it would do anything else.

mmy can't swear that this won't happen again because she's human. This is why there has been an effort to keep TBAT and the mods as people separate. TBAT never said anything to Mary Kaye about it. mmy said something about how she as a person sees her role as part of TBAT and why she, as a person, felt the way she did. mmy's explanation helps me understand why that situation is unlikely to occur again unless TBAT's ethics are questioned.

As for "a perception that this incident isn't isolated," I don't know what to do about it. As far as I'm aware, when this has been raised before, the members of TBAT have asked for examples, and a few examples are given, and discussed, and no consensus or mutual understanding can be reached. How is this time going to be different?

[Caravelle]

Whoa, Caravelle, you're going to drop that nuke and then walk away like it's all good? Not cool.

Sorry Literata, it just took me a very long time to write my reply to you :p (and I have to run off now so any further reply will be delayed a few hours too)

But at the end of the day, yes. That "nuke" was one example of something that made people upset with the way things are run here, and I only gave it because a lot of you sincerely don't seem to understand why people are upset. But at the end of the day it's your show. I can give an example but I can't tell you what to do with it. (well, in previous comment I kind of did... let's say I replaced your "want" formulation with an "I'd be happy if" formulation for a reason)

[Kirala]

@Literata re: dogpiling: I think the difference is in who is the victim and how. It's dogpiling if one has sympathy with the target and feels they had insufficient opportunity to demonstrate good faith. It's community consensus if the target has totally earned it. As community boundaries of acceptability have shrunk, some people are getting caught in the crossfire who didn't - perhaps never would have - before. It can lead to a feeling of unsafety, especially if one is not sure how close to the edge one stands.

I feel relatively safe here in that I'm accustomed to the level of unsafety I feel - that is, I know I have to carefully and consciously think about every word I will say, because things I am accustomed to treating lightly with family and friends IRL are deadly serious to people here and hurting people - especially frequently-marginalized people - is the very last thing I want to do. I know that I can't speak in most heated discussions, period. But that was incredibly painful when I first started occasionally posting at Slacktivist, because I am a nice, reasonable person. I have built a reputation as being a Nice, Reasonable Person in most milieus. The community consensus chased me out twice for months at a time early on (I believe I was fairly forgettable then, so I don't know if anyone else would remember). It was heart-wrenchingly painful to see total strangers determining seeming to determine that I was a Mean, Unreasonable Person. And some of my behaviors were Mean and Unreasonable by this community's standards, and I can respect and abide by that. It didn't stop me from angsting in my room for hours questioning my worth as a human being.

This all happened long before the Patheos split; I don't even remember the handles of the people who hurt me the most, because eventually some sorted out into Not Worth Listening To, some to Nukers Who Wouldn't Mean It As I Took It, and some to People Who Had A Darn Good Point, and once they resorted, I pretty much forgot the former Nice and Mean categories. So I don't care about the issue from my own point of view, but I think I have some insight into why people might leave.

Being a privileged person who can escape this pain by going offsite or offline, I figure it's worth the cost of creating a safe space for those who don't have elsewhere to escape. But "community consensus" still causes pain, especially for self-defined Nice or Reasonable people who are actually reasonable enough to seriously consider the criticism offered. The cost needs to be counted: how safe is the space being made vs. how unsafe? And for the love of all that is holy, someone needs to come up with a word to describe "person who may very well not intend to troll, but has the same effect on this community". It would help if there were a clearer distinction between "You are not welcome here" and "Your contributions to the internet are a waste of bits which could be better spent finding a new take on barely-funny ephemera."

[Literata]

I agree with that assessment: dogpiling is a loaded term. I'm sure it does cause pain, even when it's being done to protect a safer space. And I know that the community here continues to count those costs.

But what I'm seeing here is that if more than one member of TBAT comments on something, it's dogpiling. If somebody else agrees with them, it's dogpiling. Was anybody really worried that Dan was a nice, kind, feminist who simply made a mistake? Maybe he is, maybe he did; but he doubled down on it and proved that at that point in time, no matter what his Magical Intent was, his actions were part of the problem. Why is being Not Okay with that "dogpiling?"

[chris the cynic]

@Caravelle

This is the only part of your post I have the time or energy to respond to right now, I'll see if I can address more of what you have to say later today or tomorrow.

[She can't apologize to Mary Kaye.]

And why on Earth not ?

Well, Mary Kaye did specifically ask not to be contacted to discuss the issue in question by the very group that mmy is a part of, so while it would be physically possible for mmy apologize it would also require violating Mary Kaye's expressed wishes, which is generally not a good way to start an apology.