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

[CaryB]

On the first, pile ons, they occur when the disagreement is unbalanced. More people on one side than the other. What's to be done that doesn't involve telling some of the people on the more numerous side to shut up? Unless you silence those people to make it even, it's still going to be many against one/few. I don't think we're really up for silencing people because they happen to agree with other people.

So I'm probably as persona non grata as one can get around here, but what the hey, I'll take a swing at this.

There is a fundamental difference in the piling on that occurs now vs. the disagreement that happened pre-split. Long time slacktivites- these names should ring a bell. Scott. J. Freedom Fighter.

And the response to them is telling. Scott, for instance, deteriorated over his run from "honest, if tone-deaf, disagreement" to "troll." J...well, until J really ran off the rails, people would try to engage before flaming. Sure, some people would flame them, some people would argue, some people would just ignore it. Sometimes in the 5th page or so of a thread, yeah, a J-everyone flame war would take over, but by that time there would be some other thread to go to.

My point is- it could be weeks, or months, or even years, in scott's case, before everyone went "feck 'em. They're a troll, they'll always be a troll, we're only gonna flame them." And very rarely was their a sudden, whole community case of oh HEEEEELL no, flame time." Some people would be flaming, some polite, some ignoring.

Now, there were people who revealed their true colors- generally in vicious personal attacks. "Under the cut" type stuff. They immediately got flamed by everyone because while me and lonespark might argue, ultimately we respected each other and were part of the same community and calling her horrible names is Not Cool.

Currently, what people object to is that the "new person" to "burn the troll!" time can be a matter of minutes. Can be a matter of them making one or two posts. And not one or two slur-filled posts either, but posts that on the old slacktivist wouldn't have turned a hair. Posts that compared to, oh, say MadG being NICE, were sweetness and light.

I think there may have been something of an Overton window effect over here.

Now, this place is going for something completely different from patheos. Patheos is Fred's blog, and ultimately that goal is to attract as many readers as possible to make mo' money (presumably to get mo' problems, but hey, that's Fred's business.) Here you are out to create some sort of safe-r space. Which is fine- not my thing but takes all types. That will require more moderation, and a more involved and unified community response.

And I'll admit, being able to boot J after six months of "durrr Jesus dumb." might've been nice. But there is a middle ground between: "lets ram our heads against stupidity for the tenth time this week because hey, its what we do" and "LEGOLAS!!! BRING HIM DOOOOOOWN!"

Anyway, yeah. Thats all I gots to say. Have fun, y'all.

[Mike Timonin]

Geez. Go out to dinner, and miss the board completely changing. I hate that the solution is for the mods to take a vow of silence. Mmy, hapax, and Kit are among the reasons that I continue to read and comment here. While I accept their position, I hope that, perhaps, it can be temporary? Or, like monks taking a vow of silence, lifted on special occasions?

[GDwarf]

For whatever it's worth, I don't think the mods not talking is what anyone was asking for.

Well, just be careful, I've found moderators are happier and work better the more involved in the community they are as individuals. Still, best of luck.

[The Board Administration Team]

Due to the subject under discussion here this is a thread that needs continuous moderation. Since the mods all have lives and therefore cannot watch the thread continuously we are keeping the comments closed for now. The thread will be reopened tomorrow.

[kisekileia]

First, I don’t remember whether I put that trigger warning on one of my comments on the first page or whether TBAT did, but if I forgot to do it myself, I sincerely apologize.

Back to the more recent stuff:
I will really miss the mods as individual commenters and article writers.

I don't think this change is the ultimate solution. I think the best solution would be something that would make TBAT stop having to read horrible abusive comments in the spam trap. I think what has happened is that TBAT have been so wounded by the horrible abusive comments--which the rest of us generally don't see--that they have become emotionally unable to cope with legitimate criticism. That's not their fault--it's the fault of the horrible abusive commenters. But it's a situation that has to change, because a community has to be able to tolerate legitimate dissent from the leaders' actions--including the leaders' actions that are outside their capacity as leaders, I believe--in order to be healthy. What we need is to stop TBAT from being abused by trolls.

Stopping TBAT from being abused by trolls is an extremely valuable end in and of itself, but I hope it will also lead to them getting emotionally healthy enough to be able to tolerate civil dissent. I would classify the vast majority of this thread as civil dissent. I wouldn't consider any of it trolling. Most of it has been decent people just happening to disagree. I think that for the community to thrive again, we will have to get to the point where civil dissent is okay. However, in order for TBAT to become able to handle civil dissent again, they're probably going to need both a complete stop to the abuse, and several months of recovery time.

Are these new policies—the card system, not TBAT ceasing to post as individuals—going to put a complete stop to the abuse? Because I don’t think any solution where the mods will keep having to deal with abusive comments in the spam trap is viable. It’s wounding TBAT too badly, and that hurts both them and the community as a whole. If we have to move off TypePad to a blogging system that allows us to ban all proxy/redirect services except for certain usernames, we should do that. I’d rather have the site change location than have TBAT remain too wounded to participate in the community or tolerate dissent.

Thoughts?

[Kirala]

@kisekileia: I think your diagnosis is spot-on, but I'm not sure whether the prescription is workable. My solution - also likely unworkable - is a beta team of moderators to give TBAT a period of total R&R for a while. The immediate difficulties I can see are finding appropriate candidates and the tension between trust of candidates and TBAT's commitment to confidentiality and safety.

I do know that without Kit, hapax, or mmy's participation in the comments, much of my reason for viewing this site will be gone. And that would make me sad.

[Mike Timonin]

kirala - I think your suggestion of a beta team of mods - or, indeed, creating a rotating series of mods, even - is the one most likely to result in the needed R&R for the mods. I've even discussed it with Literata (off line) However, Literata pointed out that there is a great deal of personal and confidential material which TBAT is privy to, which makes such a plan complicated in the extreme, if not utterly unworkable.

[chris the cynic]

My thought is that, while I think most of us would certainly like to see hapax, Kit and mmy in the comments, and see more posts like the recent Kit-hapax collaboration, they wouldn't have made the decision to withdraw unless they saw it necessarily for their own wellbeing or that of the board, if I understood the post in question correctly it was for their own wellbeing.

If that's the case, if it is something they did because they thought it necessary for themselves, I think that they are better equipped to judge that than we are. I think that we shouldn't be debating that part of things because it requires us to know their personal lives which we don't.

Of course I want them active in the comments, but whether they are or not isn't up to me and should not be up to me. It's up to them. They made that decision for themselves and I think we should respect it.

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

Hypothetical situation/question for TBAT:

Different participants here clearly have different comfort levels WRT what constitutes civil discourse.

In a situation where CommentorA and CommentorB were going at it hammer and tongs and CommentorA crossed the line into "policy c" behavior in the minds of TBAT, but CommentorB had no problem with what CommentorA had said about zir...would an email from CommentorB stating such and asking the warning/card be withdrawn be considered a "policy e" violation?

(If that makes no sense, please let me know and I'll try to rephrase it, thought it has already taken me about 8 attempts. I kept putting in parentheticals for clarification and taking them out again.)

If the answer is "let's cross that bridge when we come to it", that is totally fine with me.

[Caravelle]

Chris the Cynic :

Consider pile ons and the fear that TBAT will abuse power. How do you put those fears to rest?

In reverse order. On the fear of abuse of power, what statement could possibly be made that wouldn't sound just like what someone intending to abuse power would say?

"I'm not evil," never really sounds all that convincing because that's what an evil person would say.

Nobody is saying the TBAT are evil or that they intend to abuse their power, so worrying that they might lie to cover up their evil intentions isn't an issue. And when one is worried about people unintentionally abusing their power, all you need is a statement that demonstrates those people understand the risk exists, know what "unintentionally abusing their power" looks like, know what steps can be taken to minimise such abuses or their effects, and show that they have taken or will take those steps.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

If I understand correctly, any moderators have full and complete admin rights. Typepad does not distinguish between different levels of administrator: an admin is an admin, and that is that. Therefore any "beta" moderators would have the full powers of TBAT. And I don't think we want that.

In other words, the "beta mods" idea would require moving away from here. It might possibly be worth it. I dunno.

Moving away from Typepad would probably also require more money than staying here, I'm guessing. So that discussion can probably be deferred till after the tip jar goes up and they see how much comes in.

TRiG.

[Anonymus]

I agree with Chris. I love reading the thoughtful and insightful posts by the individual members of the TBAT, and I'm sorry that they have to silence themselves like this, but if that's what they need to do and that's what they feel will work best for them, then we need to accept that. Their individual presences will be sorely missed but their wellbeing is more important than our individual desires for the entertainment that reading their posts provides.

That said, if people want to set up a private forum where people who can hang out away from trolls and perhaps even away from the eyes of google, a place where we could all let our hair down a bit, that would be cool. Maybe it could even be in a password protected under_the_cut like area. Maybe for people who have posted in good faith for x amount of time without getting carded, they could e-mail asking politely for the password and TBAT would give it to them?

Although, I'm trying hard to see how we could do this without it turning into a clique. I guess "low enough bar of entry that anyone who is here to participate in discussions and not harass can get in after a certain amount of time, but enough of a hurdle to keep out people who just want to harass. And a rule that stuff from the other place stays in the other place and no being jerks to people about how they aren't "cool" enough to have been invited. (penalty: yellow card and thrown out of privater_place.)

[The Board Administration Team]

I think what has happened is that TBAT have been so wounded by the horrible abusive comments--which the rest of us generally don't see--that they have become emotionally unable to cope with legitimate criticism.

We welcome policy suggestions, but please don't make statements about what we're thinking and feeling. We aren't a hive mind; each of us has had different responses to recent events, and different opinions about the best way to move forward. The recent policy changes are the result of much consultation and compromise after lengthy discussion. One agreed-upon result is that we can no longer respond as individuals. Making statements about what another person really thinks or feels has long been regarded as unfair behaviour on this board; when the persons in question cannot reply it is doubly so. We truly appreciate that you mean well, but please don't 'speak for us' in this way.

[chris the cynic]

Much as I might want to be able to interact with them commenter to commenter here like before, I don't see any way that making a separate space wouldn't be more problem than solution.

Then there really is an inner circle. However innocent the idea may be, I don't see it working out well.

[Anonymus]

I agree, Chris. It would be nice, but...I pretty much talked myself out of it in my last paragraph. Well, maybe sometimes one or the other of them will swing by Ana's or your place, now and then, when they're in the mood. And if not, well, they're doing what's best for them.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

All of TBAT have their own blogs (see sidebar), which I read sporadically. I really must prune my feed reader to include only the stuff I actually want. I'd be more likely to keep up with it then.

Another problem with the "inner circle" area is that it would bleed content out of the main site. I don't think that's a good idea.

TRiG.

[Ross]

I think that the class of problems we had are in large part unavoidable in a community where the mods "walk among us" -- make posts as "unpriviliged" commentors. The thread on Slacktivist seems to be *very* lacking in any attempt to make a distinction between TBAT and the individual moderators acting as individuals without a position of authority. Thus a sharp word from one of them is treated as being *the same thing* as an official warning.

I don't *like* the solution TBAT found, but I can't fault it from a "solves the actual problem" perspective.

My ideal solution would be for us to just hire a licensed moderator from the Guild of Ronin Moderators who would be duty-bound to abide by the strict standards for protection of personal information and policies set out by TBAT so that we could get on with having useful conversations and whatnot, but the problem with this is that the Guild of Ronin Moderators is a fictional organization which I just made up on the spot at the other end of this paragraph.

[Mike Timonin]

the Guild of Ronin Moderators is a fictional organization which I just made up on the spot at the other end of this paragraph.

Damn. Foiled by reality again.

[sarah]

May I ask if this--by which I mean hapax, Kit, and mmy not participating individually anymore--is a permanent decision? Or is a "we're taking a step back and maybe sometime in the future we'll return" sort of thing? Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough, but I didn't see an indication either way.

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Something I think quite a few people need to remember about both this thread and the one over at Slactivist is that saying "I disagree with you/think you are wrong" is not the same as personal abuse. Saying "I feel intimidated by what you said" is not personal abuse. Criticizing what someone is doing is not necessarily personal abuse. Calling it "personal abuse" is English language abuse.

Beyond a few near-trolls, I didn't find any of the Slactivist thread "hateful"; I found it critical. If anyone finds "I don't think you are doing this right and I felt unwelcome" to be "so hateful as to make me feel sick"... I have to wonder what you are reading, because it wasn't what I was reading.

I agree with Dan Audy; he had a right to defend himself when libeled. It's pure cowardice to say he's not allowed defend *himself* and his reputation because the attacker has unilaterally recused themself from the conversation.

I'll come out and say it: THAT is abuse of power and modly bullying.
I've decided I do not cede the right to critique moderator decisions; bad decisions need to be called out. If it's a crime for me to do so, then this is NOT a safe space for ANYONE.

[kisekileia]

Something I think quite a few people need to remember about both this thread and the one over at Slactivist is that saying "I disagree with you/think you are wrong" is not the same as personal abuse. Saying "I feel intimidated by what you said" is not personal abuse. Criticizing what someone is doing is not necessarily personal abuse.

This. I haven't read the thread over at Slacktivist, but I honestly wouldn't consider anything in this thread to fall into the realm of personal abuse, and I'm not comfortable with it being considered as such. I understand the issues with commenting on the behaviour of members of TBAT when they'd recused themselves, but honestly, I agree that a lot of legitimate criticism of TBAT members' actions, especially in this thread, has been wrongly treated as personal abuse. I speculated above that this is likely a consequence of the amount of trolling that has happened here in the past few months, but regardless of the cause, it looks to me as though TBAT are reacting to most criticism as if it were abuse/trolling, which is a big problem. I'm hoping that if the level of trolling declines, TBAT will be in a better position to cope with non-abusive criticism and dissent, but I'm not sure what the best way to help the site and TBAT get to that point is.

[The Board Administration Team]

Dragoness Eclectic: we remind you that one of agreed-upon new mod rules is that, while couteous emails suggesting that a poster has been unfairly carded will be given due consideration, giving TBAT grief on the board about their rulings gets a yellow card. It was proposed among all the other rules, the rules were discussed, and the consensus passed them.

It is for this reason that Dan Audy was given a yellow card. It's also what your post is doing.

(It may also be worth reminding you that we stated that not everyone would be happy with our every decision. It's for this reason that there's a rule about giving us grief: if there isn't, every decision will become an endless round of grief and the board will crash and burn. Giving the mods grief about their rulings is a pretty common Internet no-no because it just doesn't work otherwise.)

You have expressed concern that you will find it difficult to manage with the new rules and that you tend to make posts you later regret when you're worked up, so for this reason, we are not carding you for your post. However, please take a little time to cool off. If you want to discuss it further, please email us at slackmods@gmail.com.

[The Board Administration Team]

@sarah: May I ask if this--by which I mean hapax, Kit, and mmy not participating individually anymore--is a permanent decision? Or is a "we're taking a step back and maybe sometime in the future we'll return" sort of thing? Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough, but I didn't see an indication either way.

We don't know.

[Kirala]

If it costs me a card to agree with Dragoness Eclectic's most recent post here, I will sacrifice that without fuss. I have no problems with mods reserving the right to take strong steps in extreme cases; that this relatively courteous thread, designated for criticism, has produced so many warnings and near-cardings is a matter of concern for me. I would much prefer outright silencing or the closure of the critique thread to being permitted to speak only on topics which TBAT has not yet considered.

I considered emailing this to avoid any possibility of line-crossing, but I have decided that I want my position to be public - if only so Dragoness Eclectic and kisekileia know they do not stand alone.

[victoria]

i have been typing and re-typing a reply to try to express my thoughts in a proper way that will be constructive and that will not get me a warned or flagged, and honestly, it's not worth the spoons. i've wanted to be more active here and in the past few weeks have been venturing back into the comment threads, but i think it's best for me to keep my distance. i really don't like the vibe of things here. yes, a vague thing to say, i know, i honestly don't know how else to say it without running afoul of the new rules.

so let me say i'm largely in agreement with what kisekileia has posted. i am unhappy with how this situation has unfolded. i'll keep this site in my rss feed and possibly check in when i feel able to do so.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Opinions, I have none. It sucks that so many people are upset, and it sucks that the mods have decided to stop posting personally*, but fuck if I know what to do about it.

I hope we survive, and I hope we come out of this in a stronger position.

TRiG.

* Especially since they were appointed as mods precisely because they were excellent in the conversation threads.

[The Board Administration Team]

TBAT has stated that this thread is not 'designated for criticism', but for positive and practical suggestions. We have listened to large amounts of 'criticism of TBAT members' actions.' This is why we have recused ourselves from commenting any more. Since we have taken action in response to those criticisms, further criticism is flogging a dead horse.

We are hoping for constructive and positive ways of moving forward. Changing 'trigger warning' to 'content warning' is a good example. Please focus on what you would like everyone - not just TBAT - to do in future, not issues from the past.

Therefore we have asked that grief about rulings and bringing up past grievances now have to stop if this place is ever going to move into a condition better than endless wrangles between unmoving sides. Every single warning on this thread since the post announcing our recusal has been issued for bringing up past disputes and arguing about moderator rulings.

Once again, if you feel that a particular ruling was unfair (or you believe that a warning should have been issued and was not), we ask that you e-mail the mods instead of bringing it up on the thread, in order to prevent threads descending into the kind of endless arguments and "dogpiling" we've seen in the past.

We can't point to any sort of track record on considering such e-mails because we haven't received any yet. We can only give you our assurances that they will be considered fairly, and we will not make any decision in anger.

Finally, if you have nothing positive to suggest, we solicit your patience. There is always going to be a period of reaction to new rules, after which things will hopefully calm down. If you're concerned about how they will affect the board long term, just carry on as normal, see what happens and try not to form premature conclusions based on the transition period.

[The Board Administration Team]

This thread will be temporarily closed in sixty minutes from time of this posting. This is because it covers issues that are contentious and potentially hurtful, and requires close moderation. The thread will be re-opened at some point tomorrow morning, when TBAT schedules permit.

[The Board Administration Team]

Due to the subject under discussion here this is a thread that needs continuous moderation. Since the mods all have lives and therefore cannot watch the thread continuously we are keeping the comments closed for now. The thread will be reopened tomorrow.

This thread: NRA: Marchons, marchons will close permanently Saturday night (around 9 pm EDT).

[The Board Administration Team]

@CaryB: Your latest comment has been deleted. We direct you to section e of the current policies:


Giving TBAT grief about their rulings = yellow card. If people feel they have been unfairly carded, they should send a private e-mail to TBAT explaining why. If this e-mail is courteous, it will be considered; if it is discourteous, it will get another yellow card and the sender will, consequently, be on at least two yellow cards and find themselves banned. If people feel a third party has been unfairly carded, they should likewise send TBAT a private e-mail; again, it will get a yellow card if it is rude but be considered seriously if it contains good points.

[The Board Administration Team]

All posts are now open to comments, except the "Further Changes" post, which will remain closed. Discussions of present and future community standards, moderation policies, etc., may continue on the "At Patheos: NRA: Marchons, marchons!" thread. As a reminder, comments that focus on re-hashing past conflicts and grievances will be considered de-railing and deleted with a yellow card.

[SMQ]

Delurking after ... years ... because I can't just sit and watch the community you've carved out here fall apart like this. And yes, it's falling apart.

You don't know me--I don't think I've posted since before the split and very rarely even back then--but I've read every post here (and at Patheos) and a good portion of the comments (both places). I've enjoyed the discussions, and have learned so much just by sitting on the sidelines and listening. In some small way or another every one of you has helped to make me a better person than I would have been otherwise. There are a number of special and unique voices here, and I absolutely and without qualification support TBAT's efforts to provide a safe space for you in the continual shitstorm that is the modern internet.

But reading the threads this last week has been breaking my heart because I honestly don't understand some of TBAT's reactions. As moderators/admins, there's an acknowledged power dynamic at work any time you interact here; it's just a microcosm but in this community you three are acting from a position of privilege. And while it's a privilege you could set aside entirely by stepping down, it's not something you can set aside situationally--the Mod Hat can't be used that way. Hell, you don't need me to tell you that. And you don't need me to tell you how to act graciously from a position of privilege; much of what I understand of that myself I learned here. But your apparent unwillingness to hear from people who feel you've hurt them--however well-intentioned your actions--leaves me baffled. For what little it's worth you can add me to the growing list of people wondering "why the heavy-handedness?". It doesn't seem to fit the tone you otherwise try to set here.

As for specific suggestions:

• I feel the two-yellow-cards policy gives the wrong idea. In practice it's probably reasonable, but in principle it feels like enshrining in policy a sense that "the mods hold a grudge." Allowing for automatic "expiration" after some set time would go a long way to making it clear that's not the intent.
• I think forcing all discussion of grievances with TBAT off-board is harmful. The final arbiter of community standards should be the community, not the mods, and because you're in a position of power sometimes that discussion needs to happen in public. Certainly not every decision should be questionable anywhere, but maybe an occasional "kvetching" thread or something. Maybe only allowing "new business" since the previous kvetching thread to avoid long-running feuds, but even just giving people a recognized place to vent (and where TBAT can expect to be vented at and so approach accordingly) could help.
• There's an inherent tension between making this a safe space for the established community and making it a welcoming space for decent-but-still-learning newcomers (or perhaps returning members) to begin to join in, and several people in the last week have said they felt the community standards here were mostly unwritten and unevenly enforced. I think the FNEs could use some thoughtful expansion. At the very least a list of commonly-expected trigger/content warnings (without needing to say for who or why) would be useful.
• Tying those last two ideas together, it seems to me that questions of the form "why was it across the line when I wrote X but not when Kit/hapax/Froborr/Izzy/cris/whoever wrote Y which reads the same to me" are important to answer as openly and non-defensively as possible, at least when the question appears to be asked honestly. The only way newcomers will learn the finer points of the community standards here (and being a responsible progressive in general) is by asking, and those questions specifically are ones it needs to be OK to ask.
• Finally, Kit, hapax, Mmy, I understand in some way the stress you're under, but it honestly seems to me that this latest direction is the wrong one. If you need a hiatus to recoup and regroup by all means take it, but in the long-ish term I fear your withdrawal from the discussion will only make things worse. This community needs you. Not just to fight trolls but to set the tone. It needs your insight, your understanding, and your compassion; permanently losing your voices will leave it weakened, maybe even too weak to survive.

--SMQ

[Froborr]

@SMQ:

I disagree with your first two bullets. Having a publicly stated expiration date for the yellow cards is tantamount to saying, "You can be as vile as you like, as long as you do it on a schedule." And "no griefing the mods" is a standard rule on many fora, because *every* decision is disagreeable to someone.

I agree with the third and fourth bullets. At least when those questions appear to be in good faith; questions of the form "Oh, it's okay for you to call me a jerk, but I can't call you [insert vile sexist/racist slurs]? Double standard!" should be treated as the nonsense they are.

The last bullet... while I agree, I don't think I or anyone else has a say in the matter. The only person who has any right to decide whether you post is you. If they are not comfortable doing so, we should not ask them to.

[SMQ]

@Froborr:

On yellow card timeout: I was thinking something on the scale of a month or three. Short enough that it's clear there's no grudge being held but long enough to diminish that sort of abuse. Again, I understand the intent, and it will probably work just fine in practice, but it reads like "screw up big enough (or just catch a mod on a bad day) just once and you're on indefinite probation," especially when most yellow-card offenses are judgement calls.

--SMQ

[The Board Administration Team]

Just a reminder: although the normal rhythm of posting has been disrupted this week we will still be posting "This week in the Slacktiverse" this week. Submissions to that post are still being accepted.

[chris the cynic]

Honestly, I wish that we had some time between, "These are the proposed rules, what do people think about them?" discussion and the, "Hey, there's new rules, lets talk about them," discussion.

I feel like either all of this should have been said at the announced in advanced discussion of the then-potential policy changes, or there should have been a waiting period to see how the policy changes worked out before discussing them again.

So many problems could be fixed with a time machine.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

But many new problems would be created.

I don't think I have anything for the blogaround this week. Must start writing again, for my actual blog, not just for my links blog. (Actual blog is currently offline while I have a row with my webhost.)

TRiG.

[kisekileia]

I agree with SMQ that forcing all discussion of grievances with TBAT off-board is harmful. For one thing, as zie said, it's important to have things hashed out by the community. For another, I know that personally, I find the idea of approaching forum mods (of any forum) privately with grievances about their actions more intimidating than raising the issue publicly, because privately it's basically my word against theirs, whereas in public it's possible to have a wider community discussion where I can learn what other people think about the issue and where other people might be able to put forward productive ideas for resolving the situation. With all grievances private, any individual forum member has very little way of knowing whether they're totally on their own with their opinions, or whether their concerns are shared widely. It's not that I'm concerned about how TBAT would handle private grievances so much as I feel that public discussion, where community members can share ideas with each other as well as with the mods, is generally more productive than every individual's discussions with mods being completely separate.

I agree with SMQ's third bullet as well. I feel like these days, it's considered okay to make personal attacks on new people who've put their feet in their mouths before figuring out for sure whether they actually meant any harm, whereas in this thread, criticisms of equal or lesser strength against TBAT members have been treated quite strictly. I'm not saying I think that all the criticisms of TBAT members in this thread have been correct, because I don't--but I don't think they're more severe than a lot of what's been levelled at people who have said offensive things but haven't actually trolled. In general, I feel like not enough distinction is being made between people who are putting their feet in their mouths--or even people who are offering civil criticism--and outright trolls. I realize that some people who originally looked like the former have turned into the latter, but in this thread we've gotten into carding of basically civil criticism, and I'm really uncomfortable with that.

I'm concerned that repeated exposure to seriously abusive trolls may have resulted in less abusive stuff seeming threatening to TBAT, which is a pretty normal human response, and is one of the reasons I think outright stopping the abusive trolling has to be a really high priority in order to stop TBAT being run ragged by it.

And SMQ's fourth bullet: YES. I really don't want to pile on TBAT here, but with this thread only being open for a few more hours, I feel like I have to be straightforward. I think discussions like SMQ mentions here are really important, and they have to be public in order to educate newcomers, in order to help established community members feel comfortable with how moderation is being done, and in order to foster a climate where the community can hash out issues honestly and without rancor. I think the ability to hash out issues and constructively criticize each other has been a really positive thing for the community in the past, and I hate to see it going away. Again, I realize TBAT has taken a lot of abuse, but there's a difference between critique and abuse, and we need to find a way to get rid of the latter while allowing the former.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I think discussion of moderation policy in general should be (and is) public. After all, TBAT are entrusted with enforcing "community norms", so we need some discussion of what community norms actually are.

And such discussions are very difficult to have in the abstract. But, really, perhaps they have to be. Because there really can be problems with discussing specific cases onsite. Sometimes the mods know more than we do, and are not at liberty to disclose that information. Even where that's not the case, there are definitely problems with discussing someone who's not here, so where someone's been banned, discussion about that person should cease. And there are plenty of other reasons why discussion of specific mod decisions are very problematic.

And, has been said before, most boards have that rule. And with good reason.

***

The complicating factor with The Slacktiverse perhaps is that it really is set up as a community-driven site, with no explicit definition of who's a member of that community. Somewhere like Shapely Prose could have very clear "I am the boss" (and, later, "We are the bosses") moderation policies. And that worked. I'm not as familiar with Shakesville, but I believe they're similar. And personal blogs, with one person posting and others responding, can of course have a definite dictator, even if there's a community in the comment threads.

Does the Slacktiverse have that? Can the Slacktiverse have that? If the Slacktiverse developed that, would it still be the Slacktiverse?

I dunno.

TRiG.

[Wysteria]

I haven't been checking in much recently, but heard that there were new things in the wind. If someone has a moment, where can I find the community discussion of the new rules that went into effect? I'd like to read the decision making process.

I'm a bit alarmed, but I hate judging something before knowing how it was made or what it will be like in effect.

SMQ said, "In this community you three are acting from a position of privilege. And while it's a privilege you could set aside entirely by stepping down, it's not something you can set aside situationally--the Mod Hat can't be used that way." And it saddens me, because the whole reason I suggested the modhat account in the first place, a long time ago, was to try to make that destinction. It doesn't seem to have worked.

I'll save constructive suggestions for after I've caught up on the reading.

[Anonymus]

This is my current understanding of community standards.

I think the current community standard is that it's okay to reply to someone in kind. If someone has said something offensive, it's okay to say "that's a jerky thing to say" or "fuck off". If someone hasn't said anything offensive, it's not okay to say "fuck off." Since messages from the TBAT have been polite, it's against community standards to reply impolitely.

Individual members of the community, including members of the TBAT posting without their mod hats, responding in kind to individuals doesn't count: if Newbie says "Person is a slur" then Person, and other members of the community, and members of the TBAT posting without their mod hats, have the right to say "You're a bigot." or "Fuck off." or "Go away." It matters who started it.

The TBAT collectively (mod hat on) and individually (mod hat off), and many other regulars, regularly follow this rule in responding to people. If you write nicely on the board, everyone treats you nicely. If you hurt somebody, people call you on it. If you don't respond nicely to being called on it, people will be mean to you. People don't start being mean until after someone has been given a chance to appologise and refused. With the new rules, yellow cards are also being handed out.

This is not a double standard. If people want to have a discussion about changing those community standards, or if people want to correct me on the finer points of community standards, that's fine. Discussion is good.

Don't give mods grief about their decisions is a rule on most boards. I agree that there should be room for constructive criticism, but I don't think bringing up old issues is the way to go about it, because there's no solution to "last month you should have done x instead of y" because last month is gone. We need to focus on what to do in the future, and what to do in the present.

(And I agree with Chris that it would be nice if we could be having this discussion in August or September instead of July. The new rules have only been in effect for a few days. We need to let the dust settle a bit. We need to see how the new rules work out in practice.)

[Anonymus]

@Wysteria: Here is where the new moderation policy was proposed and everyone agreed to it happily: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2012/07/moderation-policy-revisited.html

Here is the final decision based on that discussion http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2012/07/new-policies-in-operation.html

Here is a further update to the moderation policy http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2012/07/further-changes.html

[Wysteria]

@Anonymus Thank you! I'd found the latter two but not the first one. *reads*

[chris the cynic]

@Wysteria: Here is where the new moderation policy was proposed and everyone agreed to it happily:

I think that overstates things somewhat. It was more complicated than that, though not by much. Read the thread and you'll see for yourself.

[chris the cynic]

Uh, not to imply that Anonymus didn't read the thread, that last sentence was for the general audience.

[Sokka's Meringue]

Content Warning: Abuse

Like many others, I have been a lurker here for several years, but recent events have moved me to delurk and say something. Also like many others, I think this community has gone downhill and I regret the decision of the moderators to step back from the board. Unlike some, I think I understand why they have done so and I completely support them.

The basic problem is not that members of TBAT cannot cope with disagreement.

The basic problem is that there are a lot of people on this board who cannot cope with members of TBAT disagreeing with them. And that, I think, has worn TBAT down to the point where they just don't feel like getting grief any more.

Take Kit, for example.

I don’t want to bring up past grievances, but Kit is getting knocked in this thread for her style and she consistently attracts more abuse than the other members of TBAT.

It’s hard to avoid the sense that this is because people just plain don’t agree with her or she doesn’t like what they like, but they can’t argue her down or change her mind. I’ve read a lot of Kit’s posts over the years. She consistently makes good points and defends them in clear language when attacked. And she fights fair. She isn’t mean or needlessly abusive – when she tells people she doesn’t think much of them, it’s always because they have been behaving in a pretty terrible way.

I don't always agree with her, but I completely respect her debating style.

And yet, there are some people out there who talk a lot about how "rhetorically skilled" she is, as if she were somehow winning by cheating.

That just sounds like sour grapes to me. It's disingenuous and it smacks of nothing so much as vanity: a way of saying "I'm too smart to have lost an argument; I'm too smart to be wrong about something that matters to me; I must be losing unfairly."

Whatever the reason, the practical consequence is if you do this, you are basically undermining Kit's right to have an opinion of her own and to defend it. Yeah, she might not agree with you. Tough. The right thing to do is to think about why you still disagree and to respond respectfully, as Hapax does in the recent Lewis post. It isn't to start whining.

And that whining extends to a lot of things beyond people disagreeing with Kit.

At the end of the day, I'm not seeing a lot of loyalty here, and that dismays me. These three women saved this community. Their work underpins it. They have kept it running and made it into somewhere that actually publishes original content. Rather than thank them, rather than defend them when they get attacked over at Patheos, rather than accept that they are doing a difficult job and treat them with a minimum level of respect, there are some posters here who choose to complain.

And complain. And complain.

Always in this "more in sorrow than in anger, I'm just so concerned" tone, but that just masks the very real aggression, the implicit demand: do what I want. Give me what I want. Service my needs. Agree with me. Mother me.

Every time TBAT goes into the comment threads, every time MMY or Kit expresses an opinion that some posters don't like... that nagging, controlling demand comes out. Don't disagree. Obey. Pander to me. Shut up and smile and nod and take it.

It must be exhausting.

Take a look at some of this - from this page alone. Imagine, for a moment, that you are the one expected to deal with it, day in, day out, for no pay.

Also bear in mind that behind every one of these comments is the implicit threat that the poster will throw a temper tantrum if they don't get the response they like. That other people, who already hate you, who enjoy hating on you, who have turned hating on you into a game, will seize on anything that you say in response that isn't pitch perfect polite and dwell on it forever, going on and on about what a horrible person you are...

And yet you have to field patronizing, controlling nonsense like this, endlessly unspooling into your life -

I think what has happened is that TBAT have been so wounded by the horrible abusive comments--which the rest of us generally don't see--that they have become emotionally unable to cope with legitimate criticism.

Emotionally unable. Nice. Or perhaps they have their own opinions about the criticism, like, I don't know, they are independent human beings with minds of their own? No, couldn’t be. If they disagree, they must be “emotionally unable”.

It's pure cowardice to say he's not allowed defend *himself* and his reputation because the attacker has unilaterally recused themself from the conversation.

What? Really? It’s cowardice, to deny someone who hates you the opportunity to rant at length about how terrible you are?

Picture it: you are required to sit there and listen, while someone you know hates you – who has proved himself a dishonest, misogynist creep with a controlling streak – lays into you. And you can’t answer back.

Is that fair?

If you answered “no” – too bad. You don’t get to refuse to martyr yourself for the community.

Someone will be along in a minute to shout at you IN CAPITALS for “cowardice”. For not taking a beating, just to make them feel a little bit safer. And other people will come out of the woodwork to let THAT CAPITALS PERSON know that she doesn’t stand alone.

So brave. So inspiring.

This community needs you. Not just to fight trolls but to set the tone.

Or you could make an effort yourself, rather than trying to get somebody else to do the work for you.

Chris the Cynic, Froborr, Izzy, Literata – they all fight to make this place worthwhile. They don’t seem to think of the mods as a bunch of unpaid servants and therapists, called on to serve as a punching bag for the good of a few endlessly demanding posters who like to describe themselves as the “community”.

Because who is this “community” anyway? Chris, Froborr, Izzy, Literata, MMY, Hapax, Kit – they are all as much the “community” as those who are complaining.

The behavior of some posters basically boils down to pressuring MMY, Hapax and Kit to work very hard to provide a forum for people who dislike them to come and insult them. I also note that the complainers say they that are concerned about the abuse of power – but, again, in practice this boils down to demanding that a bunch of manipulative bullies should always be allowed to have another chance to belittle three over-worked, unpaid women. That’s not especially impressive or heroic or brave, when you think about it.

Why should anyone have to nurture their own abusers in that way? And why should MMY, Hapax and Kit always have to nurture you, talk you through your fears – when your fears are veiled insults, calling them bad people, who are going to hurt you? Perhaps you could try treating them as fellow adults, with a demanding job to do, rather than suffocating them with complaints whilst bellowing for reassurance.

If you really want Kit, MMY and Hapax to come back – and who wouldn’t? They are smart and nice and brave and basically created this place when Fred left – then pitch in and help them. Try sympathizing with them for a change, rather than their abusers.

And above all, rather than endlessly demanding that they service your needs, allay your fears, put up with your insults and put your interests first, try having a little compassion and common sense.

[kisekileia]

@Sokka, you're missing the point completely. There is a difference between abuse and constructive criticism. You're doing exactly what I'm concerned about, which is characterizing all criticism as abuse. I have NEVER said that people who are misogynistic, abusive, and controlling should be allowed to tear into TBAT. In fact, I have explicitly said that they should NOT be allowed to tear into TBAT. I'm saying that there's a difference between people like that and people who legitimately disagree with things, and I don't like seeing the latter treated like the former.

[Amaryllis]

it seems to me that questions of the form "why was it across the line when I wrote X but not when Kit/hapax/Froborr/Izzy/cris/whoever wrote Y which reads the same to me" are important to answer as openly and non-defensively as possible, at least when the question appears to be asked honestly.

I agree that open discussion is helpful. Is it possible to have it in an "asked and answered" format, so that discussion doesn't devolve into endless repetition of the same complaints with new and improved flaming?

I don't know if that needs to be a strictly one-answer-per-question rule, but there needs to be a reasonable (there's that word again!) point when enough is enough, we're all just repeating ourselves and getting nowhere, this is the final ruling.

Also hoping that the mods' absences as individuals will be a temporary thing.

[Wysteria]

Tangenting from SMQ and TRiG's comments, while public arguments about specific mod rulings are not something I'll advocate for, a clear policy on how static/flexible the rules are, how often they may be revisited, and how they may be changed, if they're changed at all, would be nice. "We'll look at how these work in October, with a week or two for open discussion on problems or changes," for example, or, "We're not going to change Policies Zebra and Cobra because they keep us sane, but we can revisit/revise Octopus if it doesn't work." I am used to Slacktiverse throwing open group discussions of rules and community norms, tossing things around, then having a vote at the end. Is that going to apply to the new policies going forward, or not, or was this clarified somewhere and I missed it like the little boy who reads too fast?

[Charlie Weierstrass]

So let me understand this. Time to review. We have these mods who didn’t seek the mod position but took it when offered in order to save a community that they valued. They were nominated because of their superlative powers of expression, not to mention widespread knowledge and a range of perspectives. Then for sixteen months they monitor the threads, write entertaining and penetrating posts, and come up with stimulating thread starters. They nurture community writers by editing submissions. They put up the blogaround to encourage other sites operated by community members. They work hard to maintain a self-policing environment and go out of their way not to wield the banhammer. They also insist on maintaining confidentiality. They have listened while people have vented to them, and they have provided spoons to some who are running dangerously low. I wish I had some amazing metaphors or incredible turns of phrase for all of this but I’m not Kit Whitfield. So the mods do all this for nothing while managing the rest of their lives, and apparently they even pay to keep the site going. They also express their opinions using reasoned argument and wonderfully animated energy.

But they are accused from day one of abusing their authority when in fact they are doing the opposite. Later they are accused of being unfairly intelligent, articulate and credentialed. They are finally accused of favoritism and insularity. They make this place safe(r) and are accused of making the place unsafe. They post a range of opinions some of which they clearly don’t always agree with. As we can see from the UTC material, after publishing a “controversial” post the mods are made the targets of sadistic viciousness in a most abusive manner through the use of graphic verbal attacks, and distortions and outright lies about things they’ve said and done. They reply to these unjustified attacks by pointing out the distortions and errors in a professional tone and they eventually ask for a truce. They even admit they were not perfect but all that they did was in aid of a safe haven on the Internet. They continue to be mocked and pilloried for this. They can do nothing right. Then they agree to continue their moderating duties but keep their silence and - guess what? - They are criticized again.

There are some who appreciate all that the mods have done, and have supported them at the cost of drawing fire aimed at themselves (and more power to those stalwart supporters). But there are many who have not be supportive and some have been extremely critical and have attempted to undermine the work of the mods. These are people who like small children, lash out when criticized, who revel in hurting and hating, and who also seem to be self-deluded. If you, the non-supporters, have any sense of honor, if you have any ability to see what you’re really doing, then stop. Put the past aside. Appreciate the incredible team you have had working for you, start writing submissions instead of complaining, and get on with it.

Thank you hapax, mmy and Kit.

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

*wonders who all these people who are currently emerging from the woodwork to chide the community as if we are recalcitrant children are*

[chris the cynic]

*wonders who all these people who are currently emerging from the woodwork to chide the community as if we are recalcitrant children are*

I'm inclined to think lurkers, for the most part.

The lurkers always made up a much larger portion of the population than the rest of us.

While I'm kind of suspicious of someone who says, "I've been a lurker here forever but I never spoke up before," in the middle of a usual conversation I'm a lot more willing to believe that a conversation about the board itself will bring out some of the lurkers.

The discussion of the policies before implementation brought out a couple of lurkers to basically say, "I'm leaving now."

I have a feeling that the longer we discuss this, the more lurkers will pop up.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

If we could get some of the lurkers to join in more, it might be no bad thing.

Actually, there's part of me that would just like to change the subject and, as Amaryllis suggested, come back to this in October (or never).

TRiG.

[chris the cynic]

If we could get some of the lurkers to join in more, it might be no bad thing.

Indeed, I had forgotten that St. Jebus was a recently delurked lurker and I've certainly appreciated zir posts. (Though the fact that they've been complimentary to me probably plays a big role in that.)

Actually, there's part of me that would just like to change the subject and, as Amaryllis suggested, come back to this in October (or never).

Look! Here are lovely fruit trees. Let us taste them.

[Andrea]

I want to echo a couple things SMQ said, things that have been on my heart about this place for a long time:
"I've enjoyed the discussions, and have learned so much just by sitting on the sidelines and listening. In some small way or another every one of you has helped to make me a better person than I would have been otherwise. [...] much of what I understand of that [acting from a place of privilege] myself I learned here."

This is true, this is a thing that is Truth. And it's important for me to express here my gratitude for the ways this place has taught me things and changed me for the better. Just listening here these last five years has been one of the best things to ever happen for my own development as a human being.

That's all. I mean this genuinely and hope I haven't made it sound snarky, because I mean it from the heart. SMQ phrased it great and I wanted to take the chance to echo that. Thank you.

[The Board Administration Team]

This thread will be permanently closed in approximately sixty minutes from time of this posting.

[Froborr]

Look! Here are lovely fruit trees. Let us taste them.

You know what's the best thing about that line? Even better than the whole "Whatevs. Hey, FRUIT!" aspect? The referent for "them" isn't fruit, it's trees. Peter is hungry, so he's suggesting eating trees.

[chris the cynic]

I mean this genuinely and hope I haven't made it sound snarky

I'm hardly the most qualified judge of all things tone, but it sounded sincere to me.

[chris the cynic]

@Froborr,

I did not notice that. That is funny.

[The Board Administration Team]

This thread is now closed for comments.

TBAT has read and appreciates all the comments, from long-time community members, first time posters, and visitors alike.

We need some time to digest and discuss these comments. For now, we suggest that the community move forward and see how these new moderation policies work out in the next few weeks and months. If it seems necessary or desirable, policies can always be revised; but it seems ill-advised to do so before we've given them a fair chance to work.

Most of all, we remind everyone that if this is to be a community blog, it requires an active community. Submit articles. Submit links for the blogaround. Suggest topics for open threads. Comment on posts. Visit each other's blogs, and comment there. Support each other. Learn from each other. Watch out for each other. If necessary, guide and correct each other. Above all, enjoy each other.

It isn't any more complicated than that.