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]

Well, damn. That was pointless.

I guess I'm just running too slow today.

Caravelle, I hope you're not feeling piled on, Literata's post making that exact same point wasn't there when I started typing. Sorry.

[The Board Administration Team]

@Anonymous - while we respect your right to withhold your identity, we are concerned that the handle 'Anonymous' could lead to confusion if another person using the same name joined the conversation. Would you please distinguish your handle somehow - 'Anonymous 1' or 'Anonymous X' or something similar? Otherwise there might be a misunderstanding later, which would be particularly bad in a thread of this kind

[kisekileia]

@Literata, it's not a solution so much as an explanation. I don't really have a perfect solution, just the proposal that TBAT should try to be mindful of their own strength and remember that regulars and trolls are very different :-/. I have to say, I don't envy TBAT's situation. It can't be easy for them to switch gears between dealing with trolls and dealing with regulars, or to figure out borderline cases.

[Literata]

And what makes you think the members of TBAT haven't been doing that already?

Because if they have, then giving them that advice isn't just nonproductive, it's counterproductive. If I were in their shoes, I would be very tempted to conclude that there was no way I could be perceived as acceptable to the board.

[Kirala]

I don't really have a perfect solution, just the proposal that TBAT should try to be mindful of their own strength and remember that regulars and trolls are very different :-/.

Not to mention newbies. Some of whom may be trolls, some of whom have a learning curve that just won't cut it, but some of whom may only need a redirect for FAQs and FNEs.

Incidentally, I understand the dilemma about listing trigger warnings and I have no solution, but adding to the listing side of the ledger, one FAQ is "what is the purpose of ____ trigger warning?" and it might be helpful to have the answer: "It was requested by a member of the community" with the option of an anonymous elaboration by the requester(s) if so desired. As Dragoness just said in another thread, "When I was in Navy boot camp, one of our instructors explained that we should pay attention to safety rules, because every single one of the Navy's safety rules is written in blood." It would be nice to have the reminder that yes, these seemingly-odd trigger warnings really do trigger real people who may in fact read this forum.

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

This thread just did something that should potentially also be considered in the doling out of yellow cards--it flipped over to the next page by several comments in the time it took me to write (and ultimately reject posting) a one paragraph comment. Which could mess up someone who didn't realize there was a moderator admonishment just at the top of next page and posted two comments in a row without refreshing (even though the comments might have seemed far enough in time that they should have seen it).

[Literata]

As for the purpose of trigger warnings, the answer is always the same: not to trigger. If it's not obvious that someone is triggered by it, then the person doesn't understand the purpose of trigger warnings. If the current explanation doesn't get that across, then my explanation of why X triggers me probably isn't going to help, and as I have pointed out, I am tired of explaining.

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

I don't have the spoons to explain my particular triggers over and over, but probably could summon them on a day I have extra for a one time anonymous 'this is why this triggers me' FAQA. I realize that not everyone is able to do this, however.

[Anonymus]

@TBAT. Sure. Everyone: I claim the Anonymus with the latin spelling, and I am the person who left the two anonymous comments on the previous page.

[Literata]

Off topic, but isn't "mus" also the Latin for mouse? I seem to remember that it is, and as a result I was having a very funny image of a mouse wearing sunglasses and a fake mustache.

[Froborr]

I think it's important to distinguish Kit, Mmy, and hapax, the commenters, from TBAT, the mods. I know I struggled to make this distinction early on. It's hard to do!

I think there are lingering upset feelings regarding certain incidents involving certain individuals. I know I have been involved in at least three threads where one of Kit, Mmy, or hapax (not always the same one, and yes I'm deliberately not being more specific) and I strenuously disagreed, to the point that I was seriously upset for hours or days after. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with TBAT or moderation policy; it is purely an interpersonal thing between commenters.

[Kirala]

Eh, I don't want anyone to have to explain trigger warnings. I just think it'd be nice as an option for someone who is tired of explaining and would like, once and for all, to tell all shortsighted people how their imagination is lacking.

@Literata: If it's not obvious that someone is triggered by it, then the person doesn't understand the purpose of trigger warnings. But that is precisely what new posters may not understand. A little extra reminder that one can be triggered by less-than-obvious things would be nice. Patience for those who won't or can't learn is wasted, but patience for those who haven't had the opportunity to learn is a chance to make the world a better place. And IIRC, this site is considered 101 in many ways.

Not that anyone should ever have to explain their triggers or even be identified as "the person who requested this trigger warning". I see too little benefit to requiring the first and none whatsoever to requiring the second.

[lonespark]

I feel like there's a lot of energy being expended on things that A) can't really be changed to something much better because board software, or B)are something the community established after discussion, that might conceivably be subject to review, and possibly change, especially if history had been different...

I really don't want you to leave, Laiima. But I don't want you to stay if that doesn't work.

[Literata]

I'm sorry - I should have said this sooner. I value your participation here, too, Laiima, and would be sad to see you leave.

[Froborr]

Okay, I *really* wish I could edit the previous comment, the second paragraph SUCKS.

I think at various points, different people have had encounters with a member of TBAT that upset them. This is normal; in any community, members of the community have encounters with other members that upset them. [My deliberately vague examples of when this has happened with members of TBAT and me goes here.] However, it's important to keep clear that an interpersonal conflict with one or more members of TBAT, or a grudge, or a memory of that one time when they were really mean, is not relevant to moderation policy or whether TBAT are doing good jobs in their roles as TBAT. Which is a really hard distinction to make, and I know I struggled with it at first, but it's an important distinction.

(Also, there is definitely truth to the big fish little pond effect with forcefulness of argumentation style and academia. By Slacktiverse standards, I am not a particularly distinguished commenter; pretty average in terms of education level, how widely read I am, and so forth. By the standards of another message board I frequent, I am very widely read, highly educated, and academically inclined. And on that board, I pretty frequently get accused of implying that anybody who doesn't agree with me is a bad person.)

[Literata]

But that is precisely what new posters may not understand. A little extra reminder that one can be triggered by less-than-obvious things would be nice.

Which is why FNEs exist, which is what I was saying.

[Froborr]

@Laiima: I don't think I can put it any better than lonespark's last paragraph.

[Kirala]

Which is why FNEs exist, which is what I was saying.

I entirely agree, which is why I was proposing a change to the FAQ (re: specific trigger warnings), though I suppose an edit of the FNE on triggers would also work and possibly better. As it stands, the FNE would not help me in the slightest to understand why certain non-obvious things would be triggering. (I am not here thinking of your overfrequently-discussed trigger, Literata, which I have to Google to even understand the concept! The effort of imagining the concept invites the effort of imagining the objection. But I don't want to list examples of confusing triggers because it might seem like I belittling them rather than picking at random, and that's too likely to be more triggering than illuminating in my own judgment.)

[Literata]

Froborr, I think you've hit the nail on the head. So what do we do about this?

[chris the cynic]

I do think that the fact that the new policy requires a person to be specifically asked to include a trigger warning before they are expected to do so is a good thing. It means that people don't have to distinguish between a trigger warning added by a cautious author and one requested by a member of the community, it means that they don't have to check back through the archives and check every time someone has asked for a trigger warning.

I do have some concern about trolls trying to game this rule by trying to trigger everyone once without getting a single yellow card. (Though I suppose once it became clear that's what they were doing it would fall under g.)

I also understand Deird's concern about the fact that typepad doesn't notify you when someone responds to you so it could be easy to miss someone requesting that you use a trigger warning. And I have sympathy for the person who might simply forget what's been told to zir. I may very well turn out to be that person, we'll see going forward.

I wanted to say that. I don't have any solutions in mind.

[Mike Timonin]

1) Froborr, I think you've hit the nail on the head. So what do we do about this?

Short of asking Mmy, hapax, Kit, and all of the other well educated community members here to argue with one hand tied behind their backs, I don't see that there IS anything we can do about the Big Guy/Small Hockey Players problem. As Kirala says, some newbies simply lack the learning curve to fit in here, and lowering our standards to accommodate them makes this place less valuable for all of us.

2) Can we, as a community, find a middle ground between assumptions of good faith on the part of newbies and protection from trolls? Is it valuable even to try? Have we already attained the middle ground?

3) I think it goes without saying, but perhaps it is better not to assume - Laiima, I would also miss you were you to go away.

[Froborr]

@Literata: Recognize the distinction, make an effort not to blur it, and point out when it seems like other people are doing so?

[Literata]

I think those are all good suggestions.

If anyone has examples of a problematic pattern on the part of TBAT separate from Kit, mmy, and hapax, those need to be discussed. I haven't seen anyone arguing that in any way other than the aforementioned fact that they are strong, intelligent people who are skilled rhetoriticians. And if that's what's going on, we need to stop going after them for that.

Another thing I'd suggest is that if people are having a problem with a conversation, they desperately need to bring it up then if at all possible. I recognize that it isn't always going to be; you may be reading it after the fact, or not have spoons, or whatever. But this vague "I felt like that too sometimes" after the fact without further specifics is creating, not solving, problems.

[Froborr]

@Mike Timonin:

1) Agreed.

2) "Assumption of good faith" is a red herring. Intent is unknowable and therefore irrelevant; you can only respond to how someone behaves. If someone says something nasty, you call them on it. If they apologize and explain they didn't mean to be nasty, you accept it and move on (unless it becomes a pattern from that person). If they double down, you respond accordingly. What else *can* you do?

[Laiima]

FWIW, I don't have any problems with the new moderation policy. None of my comments were in response to that, at all.

I think some of the issues being hashed out here run into additional … hmm, complications perhaps … because some commenters have personalities that are ‘role directive’, and other commenters have personalities that are ‘role informative’. That is, the former group is very comfortable with leadership: they take charge easily, and they expect people who raise problems to offer solutions that everyone should accept. I belong to the latter group. Only under great duress will I tell other people, “you *must* do X”. I may think X. is the Best Idea Ever, but I'm still not going to tell everyone else they should do it. Because I don't tell people what to do.

It will surprise no one, I'm sure, that no one has ever put me in charge of anything. Which is good, because I don't want to be in charge. If I were to be a leader -- and I have tried to imagine it -- it could only be by example. And as far as I can tell, no one has *ever* followed my example in *anything*. So I've never gotten into the habit of coming up with very specific things that people should do, because I said so. Whatever charisma is, I have the negative of it.

I really like this place. I've tried to leave for good when I felt run off, but I like so many people here, and the discussions are so interesting and often insightful, that all I’ve really managed is to comment less often. I, too, have more demands on my time than I used to, and fewer spoons available. So I show up when I can cope with it, and I don't when I can’t. Probably the same as everyone else. :)

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

"Another thing I'd suggest is that if people are having a problem with a conversation, they desperately need to bring it up then if at all possible....But this vague 'I felt like that too sometimes' after the fact without further specifics is creating, not solving, problems."

The few times in the past I tried bringing it up at the time, *I* got piled on, too. So, I stopped doing so. If it helps any, Froborr's aforementioned situations are all times when I stayed out of the discussion and lurked due to discomfort. (Sorry, Froborr)

[Froborr]

I'm very much the same way, Laiima. While my memories of being on the student newspaper at college are mostly good (Time of Your Life, Halcyon Days of Youth sort of good), the six months I spent as Editor-in-Chief were unrelentingly horrible and I consistently felt I was failing spectacularly. (Apparently the general consensus was that I was not one of the Great EICs of Ages Past, but better than the prior and subsequent EIC, but *I* felt like a horrible failure.)

At least, I think I'm very much the same way. According to certain people on that other board I mentioned, I'm extremely judgmental and strict, bordering on bossy, because there is one particular issue on which I feel very strongly that, by the nature of the board, comes up fairly often.

[Literata]

I do understand, cjmr. Maybe I can modify my suggestion: when people feel like there is a TBAT specific issue going on, that needs to be brought up? And it could be brought up in an email to TBAT, I would think. I'm trying to find ways that we can identify this perception about the members of TBAT getting confused with TBAT.

[Kirala]

"Assumption of good faith" is a red herring. Intent is unknowable and therefore irrelevant; you can only respond to how someone behaves. If someone says something nasty, you call them on it. If they apologize and explain they didn't mean to be nasty, you accept it and move on (unless it becomes a pattern from that person). If they double down, you respond accordingly. What else *can* you do?

The terms one uses to call out bad behavior depend very much on presumption of good faith or not. If I'm told that X behavior is unacceptable, I can stop it, have reasonable discussion, or be shown the door. If I'm told I'm a troll because I exhibit X behavior, I may be able to disengage or engage in reasonable discussion, but I'm much more likely to want to flounce or engage in a namecalling contest. Similarly, if I decide someone else has bad intent, I will cease engaging with them to save mental energy for people who care.

Intent is demonstrated by action - imperfectly, but well enough to make judgment calls. Those calls will sometimes be wrong, but it doesn't mean it's not important to try to discern between a person who sins in ignorance and a person who sins unrepentantly.

[Mike Timonin]

If someone says something nasty, you call them on it. If they apologize and explain they didn't mean to be nasty, you accept it and move on (unless it becomes a pattern from that person). If they double down, you respond accordingly. What else *can* you do?

Agreed. I think, though, sometimes, when we call people on what we view as nastiness, we exacerbate the situation. We nuke when appeasing or logic bombing might result in a more positive ending. This has, no doubt, protected us from legitimate trolls. Has it also scared off potential contributing members of the community? And, if so, is this something that needs fine-tuning, or are we happy with our current status quo?

I like the blog. I like the comments. I generally like the level of moderation. I don't know that I would like it more with more people commenting, but I don't know that I wouldn't.

[Literata]

Kirala, that's what the troll equivalent of the Bad Jackie test is for. I don't know that we are in the habit of calling someone a troll based on a single occurrence; I have only ever seen assumptions of bad intent come after calling out and doubling down, which is exactly what Froborr is saying.

[Kirala]

Maybe I can modify my suggestion: when people feel like there is a TBAT specific issue going on, that needs to be brought up? And it could be brought up in an email to TBAT, I would think. I'm trying to find ways that we can identify this perception about the members of TBAT getting confused with TBAT.

Actually, at some point I'd like TBAT to weigh in with how they would like to be approached about this. The only times I've had reservations about TBAT's behavior, it's usually when they're either sorely provoked or overstressed and I don't want to add to that stress. Especially after Kit was harassed by people questioning her ability to make judgments in general, I was hesitant to question her judgment in specific (even in email, since she seemed pretty miserable about it). How would TBAT like us to voice concerns, given that the time when the concern is most relevant may also be the time when the concern is least easy and profitable to discuss?

[Kirala]

Literata, I don't see the community in the habit of actually calling a troll anyone who isn't, but I do see disproportionate response. I see what happened with Dan Audy as disproportionate - not anything as harsh or clear-cut as wrong, but disproportionate. I saw his first post as presuming that Kit knew something he didn't, asking for clarification, while her response seemed to be to a post demanding that she justify herself to his superior rational skills.

And in this case, if I am stepping on TBAT's toes too much, please email me. Because I don't want to be slamming anyone, especially anyone who's sitting out this discussion. But given that specific examples are more helpful than vague accusations and this happened recently, I thought it might be worth mentioning.

[Laiima]

@Froborr, since you mentioned you had been an Editor in Chief, I had stuff I wanted to ask you. I went to both of your blogs, looking for an e-mail address. I found and watched the first seven minutes of your video, Analyzing Anime 101, with my mouth hanging open. Now I have a *lot more* questions.

You are a very engaging and informative speaker! I learned stuff I didn't know I needed to know!

Now, is there some way I can contact you separate from here?

[ZMiles]

...okay then.

I thought for a long time about whether to write this, but I decided to. Because I like this community and want to see it flourish, which means that, when I see it being offensive, I want that to change. Also, I feel that my hurt and offense matters as much as that of other people on this site. Now the mods have said that they'll be using this thread as a sort of feedback, so I feel this is the appropriate place to put it.

[Content warning: this is going to go into my reactions to Froborr's atheism post. I don't see any other way to write this than to call out particular people by name, including members of TBAT. So, fair warning.]

So. Why was that post so offensive? And why did it sour my, at least, view of the community and mods?

1. It was customary on the board, and still is, to not use hurtful language. If you use a slur or make an offensive generalization, you're called on it and told not to do it again. Unless, apparently, you call atheists evil. Atheists were the lone exception, the one group that it was okay to use offensive language to. Numerous atheists said how harmful, hurtful, and offensive calling us evil was, but it didn't matter. Numerous atheists point out that, if they were instead object to a sexist, racist, or homophobic slur, it would be gone quickly, but that atheists were subject to a lower standard of tolerance. That didn't matter either. The mods were fine with this, as were the long-term posters.

2. In context, it was even more absurd, because the 'atheists who want there to be more atheists are evil' side was literally arguing that, "if someone is wrong about something, but it will cause them great distress to convince them of that, give in and let them be wrong." So even if the 'atheists who want there to be more atheists are evil' side was absolutely convinced of their rightness, they could clearly tell that trying to argue it out wasn't working and was hurting and harming people. I seem to recall multiple atheists commentators leaving over that post, in fact. So, by their own logic, that side should have stopped calling us evil [i]even if[/i] they thought we were. That they didn't implied that they either didn't really think that 'not hurting other people' is more important than 'convincing other people,' but were just arguing that to bash atheists, or that they did think that, but also thought that atheists were so loathsome that they were an exception. Neither was good. And I didn't want to think that, because, again, I liked many of the people here, and some people were courteous and respect in the ensuing discussion -- Hapax in particular seemed willing to listen to our concerns -- but I couldn't see any other way around it.

3. The mods put forth a series of increasingly absurd rationalizations for keeping the word 'evil.' Among them were 'it's just once at the end of the post,' 'he said atheists were acting evil, not that they themselves were evil,' and 'he's using evil in some alternate definition where it doesn't mean what you think it means.' Atheist commentators immediately pointed out that these rationalizations would never be used for another slur; if someone used a sexist, racist, or homophobic slur, it wouldn't matter if it had some alternate definition that might also fit; if it was just once at the end of a long diatribe; or if they said that it was people acting like a [SLUR], not being [SLURs]. That was all ignored. This gave the impression that the mods were fully onboard with targeting the board atheists.
There was also the 'well, we don't really agree with it, but it fit the standards for debate in our community' argument by some of TBAT later on. Again, atheists pointed out that a post calling another minority group a slur wouldn't even be considered for debate went unnoticed.

What ground the problem home for me, of atheists (and other board outsiders) being subject to more hostility, both by TBAT and the community were two events that happened soon after. First, FormerConservative popped on the board and defended another poster, saying basically, 'he hasn't said anything misogynistic yet, so why are you assuming he's a misogynist? You're overreacting.' And he was lambasted for it. But, in the atheist threads, members of the board -- including TBAT -- did exactly the same thing to a prominent atheist, Greta Christina. Christina had written something along the lines of, "Whenever a liberal Christian comes up to me and says that they agree with me [regarding the evils of right-wing religion], I know in advance that they don't really agree with me and that, if I talk to them, they'll say something bigoted and offensive.' This opinion was roundly torn apart ('gee,' people said, 'if every time she talks to a liberal religious person they fight, maybe it's her'). So that argument is okay against a prominent atheist, but not against members of the board.

The second thing was a comment made later where Dragoness_E called monopolies evil. Kit flipped out at her. Because calling Kit evil is forbidden, but calling atheists is evil is A-OK. When called on this, Kit said that the comment was not 'phrased as carefully' as Froborr's, as if there was a right way to phrase a slur. (At: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2012/02/d/comments/page/5/#comments). This just reinforced the idea that the hurt of atheists was irrelevent.

So... yeah. That's why I felt that post was hurtful and offensive to atheists, and I don't think I'm alone. I was convinced for a time that the site had been overrun with anti-atheist bigots; part of the reason I stuck around was that I didn't want to let the bigots win and destroy Clark's site. I've since backed off on that theory, and I'm once again here because I like the community and many of the people in it, but it's still painful. And I know that, if I bring up my views on atheism (or writing, or a host of other topics), I will be nuked -- by language that would be perfectly out of line if I'd been the one doing the nuking.

And things haven't changed. In that post on Fred's site, Chris the Cynic just posted how the third post in Froborr's thread was sarcastic, snide, dishonest, in bad faith, evil. Yeah, that was mine. When I honestly explained why Froborr's post was so hurtful, and why people following his advice would have hurt me personally. But I see we atheists still don't get the presumption of good faith by some mebers of the board. I'm hurt, Chris. And that [i]should[/i] matter.

So: what can be done? Honestly, I think a lot of us atheists would like an apology from the mods. A warning should be added to Froborr's post, if it hasn't already, that it contains hurtful language (or, at least, that many atheists find that it contains hurtful language). And, going forward, the mods should use more consistency. If it's inappropriate to call a non-atheist or a member of TBAT evil, it's inappropriate to call an atheist evil. If we don't use certain words because they are sexual or racial slurs, we shouldn't use words that atheists say are slurs or hurtful to them either.

That's all I (and, I think, others) really want. An apology, and some consistency.

[End content warning]

[Literata]

I can't begin to address the entire atheism/Froborr's post issue, but I would like to point out that I see "slurs" and calling some behavior and attitudes "evil" as distinct in ways that matter. Slurs are never okay. But some people and some attitudes are evil, so it's not prima facie wrong to say that.

I will also point out, ZMiles, that as far as I can tell, TBAT did not say anything about Greta Christina. Commenters who are also members of TBAT did. And we absolutely have to keep that distinction separate.

[kisekileia]

ZMiles, are you totally missing the fact that both Froborr and Mmy are themselves atheists? Because it seems like this is something that's been completely ignored by almost all the atheist objections to that post. Criticizing a group of which one is a member and criticizing a group of which one is not a member are not the same thing.

About the TBAT posting as themselves vs. as TBAT thing: As a matter of fact, virtually all of the times I've been uncomfortable with stuff TBAT members posted, it has been when they were not acting in their capacities as TBAT. In that light, I think perhaps the issue of people feeling uncomfortable or like they've been run off the board for disagreeing with community consensus and/or with TBAT members should be considered a community behaviour issue, rather than a moderation issue. TBAT members (Kit especially, Mmy a little bit but in a more straightforward, and therefore more comfortable for me, way) just happen to be the ones who've exerted a lot of social pressure on people who've disagreed with the community consensus.

But you're right, Froborr, that the fact that when they've done this, it's generally been outside of their roles as moderators, makes a difference. It means that this is not a matter of abuse of power. It's a matter of how individual community members, and the community consensus as a whole, should respond to behaviour that disagrees with the community consensus or the community's most skilled rhetoriticians/most respected members. It's about community norms, not moderation.

[Kirala]

It means that this is not a matter of abuse of power. It's a matter of how individual community members, and the community consensus as a whole, should respond to behaviour that disagrees with the community consensus or the community's most skilled rhetoriticians/most respected members. It's about community norms, not moderation.

This. I don't think I've ever seen a mod power abused. TBAT's behavior has always been exemplary, as far as I can tell, when acting as TBAT.

[kisekileia]

Agreed, Kirala.

[Izzy]

Will be absent for a while after this because, I swear to God, I have to get my hair done.

Re: the atheism post, I think that everyone sees things differently. This is what I saw.

1. Froborr posts saying, from what I can interpret "For values of X that are broad and that most people don't agree are bad, saying 'I wish that X didn't exist' is evil."* Clarifies in the comments.

2. A whole bunch of people from elseblog descend talking about how we're all horrible people for calling atheists evil. Which, fine.** Many of these people also talk about how foolish/evil/blah religious people are, to which the response is basically "Um, get stuffed." Which, to me, seems like a reasonable reaction.

3. At some point, someone is told to trigger warn before describing FGM, please and thank you.

4. Said person, and a bunch of other people, descend into LOLLOLTRIGGERWARNINGS. A bunch of *other* other people dance around the whole thing by making comments about evidence and truth and delusions and hey, they're just *saying* is all.

5. One of these "just saying, you're all Sky-Daddy-worshiping morons" people gets flamed.

6. Former Conservative shows up, after an absence of months on the board, to tell us all how unfair and mean we're being, how he's seen the light about loving his enemies, how being harsh will not convince people, and so forth. He hadn't said anything misogynistic; he had said plenty of obnoxious things.

7. I flame the hell out of FC, because I have never particularly liked that argument, and "you guys were always willing to hold my hand before" does not impress me, and whatever.

8. FC left, everything died down for a bit. Trolling was apparently still going on in the background.

But yeah. It sounds like a clusterfuck all around.

Am I sorry for flaming You Pathetic Sheeple Guys and FC? Lord, no. But I am sorry for not doing more, on my part, to make clear that my issues were with those guys and not with atheists in general.

*In the interests of full disclosure, I agree with this. I find "I wish religion didn't exist" a dick statement; I find "I wish the whole world was Christian/pagan/blah" just as dickish.
**It's possible some sort of "I am not saying that atheists are evil, or that GC is, but that this particular action is evil" thing should have been added to the main post about then, but this is me Monday-morning quarterbacking on someone else's writing, so.

[Literata]

And I think that as far as community consensus and conduct goes, if people want to see someone disagreeing with skilled rhetoriticians, if they want to see someone standing back and considering matters calmly and asking others not to rush to judgment, if they think there's a desperate need for people to comment in ways that are calm, cool, and collected, there's only one answer: Go for it.

If people in the community want to see that happen, people in the community need to step up and fill that role. Asking Kit, mmy, hapax, and anybody else who is respected and/or a good debater to "be nice" is not the answer. Telling them not to have feelings and not to act on them is not the answer. Telling them not to make judgment calls on issues and even on personalities is not the answer.

I don't think the community has become so cliquish and insular that no one would listen to a person taking a moderate stance. But that moderate stance, and the intestinal fortitude, disquisitive skill, and finely-honed sense of balance it requires are not going to suddenly appear in the form of a Magical Moderateness Fairy to save us all from ourselves. The mods are moderators of the board in a primarily technical sense. They are not the Designated Spirits of Moderate Thought In All Situations. If we want that, we've got to find it or make it.

[kisekileia]

Also, on the apology thing: Given the extreme level of abuse that this community and most especially TBAT have taken since Froborr's atheism post went up, I think if the atheist community wants an apology for Froborr's post, whoever linked it on the Reddit atheist channel and whoever mods the Reddit atheist channel damn well better apologize first. At this point, the punishment has vastly outweighed any crime that took place.

[Literata]

Given the extreme level of abuse that this community and most especially TBAT have taken since Froborr's atheism post went up, I think if the atheist community wants an apology for Froborr's post, whoever linked it on the Reddit atheist channel and whoever mods the Reddit atheist channel damn well better apologize first. At this point, the punishment has vastly outweighed any crime that took place.

QFT.

[kisekileia]

Trigger Warning: Rape analogy

At this point, asking TBAT and Froborr to apologize for that post is not much better than asking a 14-year-old rape victim to apologize for wearing a miniskirt. As in: whether the post and/or miniskirt-wearing should have happened is immaterial--the rapist/harassers (because "troll" trivializes the magnitude of abuse involved) are responsible for the situations and are the only ones deserving blame or punishment.

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Am I the only one who thinks Izzy is just blunt, and not a nuker? Possibly because Izzy's tone is comparable to what I remember from Usenet kerfluffles, and his/her tone doesn't descend into flinging around graphic obscenities and wishing physical harm on people. Also because they say the things I'm thinking but am too lazy to post.

[Dan Audy]

Okay, despite flouncing mention of this over on Slacktivist has me ignoring my inclination to leave well enough alone and come put in my 2 cents because after spending several years (even though I rarely comment) here I care about this community and it's well being even if it has been made clear that I'm not welcome here. While the recent spat with Kit clarified my feelings on a lot of this the general experience is longstanding and a major factor in why I rarely commented.

This does not feel like a safe community to me but rather like a party which has a core group talking to each other that actively rebuff involvement. The aggression, dogpiling, and nuking of people who are new or stray from the consensus makes me profoundly uncomfortable EVEN when I think that the person's opinion is deeply wrong. I find it intensely (almost triggeringly) reminicent of school and the way that the popular kids clique would 'discipline' the rest of us and their periferal members who somehow upset the top dogs. There is a profound difference between Izzy or chris nuking someone and telling them that they don't belong in the community and TBAT doing so because of the unstated 'and if you don't go voluntarily I can make you' threat.

rot13'd -- for personal abuse of another member of the community, one who explicitly exempted herself previously from defending herself against attacks in this context.

Rkprcg gung V arire ernq na vzcyvpvg guerng va zzl be uncnk'f pbzzragf (V pna'g npghnyyl erzrzore frrvat rvgure bs gurz ahxvat bss unaq rvgure) ohg fbzrguvat nobhg gur Xvg'f qvivat sbe gur guebng grrgu onerq eurgbevpny fglyr znxrf zr srry hafnsr. Jura fur erthyneyl znxrf fjrrcvat ivpvbhf crefbany nggnpxf ba crbcyr jub qvfnterr jvgu ure naq chgf jbeqf va gurve zbhgu gb whfgvsl ure npgvbaf V qba'g rkcrpg ure abg gb nohfr ure cbjre. V'z tynq fur unfa'g naq unf n ybat uvfgbel bs abg qbvat fb juvpu znxrf zr srry onq nobhg vzchavat na hasnve zbgvir ba ure ohg V pna'g funxr gung thg qrrc rkcrpgngvba rirel gvzr fbzrbar pebffrf ure. Npgvat nf GONG V unir arire frra nal bs gurz zvfhfr gurve nhgubevgl ohg Xvg'f cbfgvat cbfvgviryl oevfgyrf jvgu gur rkcrpgngvba gung ab bar qner qvfnterr jvgu ure ba gur onfvf ba ure zbqrengbe cevivyrqtr.

Va zl erprag pnfr, fbzrguvat V'z abg cebhq bs, jung pnhfrq gur rfpnyngvba naq 'qbhoyvat qbja' jnf gur snpg gung Xvg npphfrq zr bs orvat n onq crefba jub oryvrirq gung fur qrfreirq nohfr naq oevatvat hc gur fhowrpg va onq snvgu nf cneg bs n pbafcvenpl gb haqrezvar GONG. V'z abg fnlvat gung vg vf Xvg'f snhyg gung V tbg favqr (naq lrnu zl ercuenfvat jnfa'g pbby) ohg jura lbh nggnpx crbcyr snyfryl vg fubhyqa'g pbzr nf n fhecevfr gung gurl srry na boyvtngvba gb qrsraq gurzfryirf. Guvf vfa'g whfg nobhg zr gubhtu, ohg n cnggrea bs crefbany nggnpxf ol Xvg gung qrzrna crbcyr naq qevir gurz bhg bs gur pbzzhavgl. Bire ba gur Fynpxgvivfg cbfgf qvfphffvat guvf nyy gurer jrer guerr cevznel ernfbaf crbcyr yrsg (1) Hapbasbegnoyr yvzvgrq enatr bs 'npprcgnoyr' ivrjcbvagf naq ubj crbcyr ner nggnpxrq sbe rkcerffvat gurz (2) Sebobee'f Ngurvfg cbfg naq GONG'f hajvyyvatarff gb rasbepr gur fnzr fgnaqneqf ba gung fhowrpg nf bguref (3) Xvg znqr qrzrnavat, ivpvbhf crefbany nggnpxf ba gurz. (2) vfa'g fbzrguvat lbh pna qb zhpu nobhg ng guvf cbvag ohg (1) naq (3) ner. Ybgf bs crbcyr unir fcbxra hc gb fnl gung guvatf unir znqr gurz srry hapbzsbegnoyr ohg gurl qvqa'g fcrnx hc orpnhfr gurl jrer nsenvq bs orvat nggnpxrq. Pynvzvat gung nalbar pna oevat hc gurve pbapreaf bcrayl qbrfa'g jbex jura jr frr crbcyr qb fb trg nggnpxrq sbe vg. V qba'g guvax gur pbzzhavgl urer vf jbeguyrff be orlbaq ercnve ohg gur oevqtr oheavat qbar unf orra fb rssrpgvir gung gur vafhynevgl znxrf guvf n irel ubfgvyr raivebazrag gung znxrf oevatvat arj oybbq va irel uneq.

[Literata]

and TBAT doing so because of the unstated 'and if you don't go voluntarily I can make you' threat

THIS is the problem with people saying "TBAT." To my knowledge, TBAT has only banned someone once before the current rules. They bent over backwards to make the current rules clear, to discuss them, and so on. Saying that the members of TBAT argue with the modhammer in their back pocket is nothing other than a degrading insult to the three amazing people who have given so much of themselves to make this place possible.

[The Board Administration Team]

To Dan Audy: You have formally been given a warning for being a jerk to another community member -- one who had explicitly recused hirself from this discussion.

Note: This is one of the rare cases in which TBAT actually had to vote on how to respond to something on the board. Two members thought you should be carded. Kit specifically pleaded that you be given a warning rather than a card or a ban.

[Literata]

And as for your point (1) it's damn hard to sort out how much of that is people bitching because this is a safer space and people bitching because they didn't get their way. Given the kind of moaning and whining about trigger warnings I saw on a quick skim, I'm not inclined to believe that everyone who makes your first argument is arguing in good faith.

[Caravelle]

chris the cynic :

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.

That might be relevant if I were talking about a private apology by email. The fact I brought up how Mary Kaye comments at Patheos and might even lurk here for all we know would suggest that is not in fact what I was talking about.

[The Board Administration Team]

Comments were suddenly closed because the discussion was fast moving and TBAT needed to talk among ourselves before making a final determination.

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. They will be reopened tomorrow.

[chris the cynic]

I thought that the comments were closed, I'm confused.

[The Board Administration Team]

@chris: simple explanation -- TBAT hit the wrong button :)

[The Board Administration Team]

This thread has now been reopened for comments. This, and any other thread which is, or threatens to become, contentious, may be temporarily closed due the fact that the moderators have lives and their full attention cannot always be given to the board.

[Caravelle]

Thank you TBAT for not closing the comments permanently, I would have hated for my last word on this to have been a reply to chris I now regret :)

@Laiima: Aw, I'm so sorry my leaving made you feel like I left you to hang and dry, I didn't in a million years imagine I'd be making someone feel worse by bowing out. I hope you feel better now that so many have said how they wanted you to stay. I'd love to stay just to support you but I really do feel uncomfortable in this situation : being a half-outsider I feel like I have some things I can contribute to the conversation but only to a certain extent, so I've got this narrow path of arguments that I can defend, but if I get carried away and stray from it I'll be saying things I don't mean or that I'll regret. It isn't a "scared of nuking" thing, it's a "my own conscience" thing.
Still, I apparently have a few other things I feel comfortable saying, so not leaving quite yet.

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.

Eh, you think it's worse, I don't think there would be anything wrong with it at all, it really depends on Mary Kaye so I can't say much more about that. Other than I'm admittedly not the best person to talk to on this kind of etiquette.

And so here last night I had this high-larious one-liner, it involved Lex Luthor and used the word "Zounds". Sadly, the comments being closed I had time to sleep on it so now I'll have a serious wall o' text instead.

Literata, I'm not a regular here now but I used to be, for a long time, and most of that time overlapped with yours. I'm sure that my pseudonym at least evokes vague feelings of recognition in you. Maybe this is the day I learn that those feelings are all negative, that you're like "Oh no that unpleasant person is back". If so, fair enough.

But if you did once not dislike me, then what the hell. When have I ever evinced a hatred of Mmy, or Kit, or hapax or anyone else here ? When have I ever shown a desire to see people publicly humiliated ? When have I ever been that vindictive ? I guess you don't follow the posts on Patheos, but all of mine since this brouhaha began have been sickeningly ambivalent - one time defending one side, then the other, a regular weathervane I am, mostly because my actual feelings are that ambivalent. In fact I recall defending the Slacktiverse on Personal Failure's blog the few times I saw them criticizing it, certainly not forcefully enough to anyone's taste but, well, things could be intimidating there too. And ambivalence.

So do you really think that my post came from a deep-seated desire to drag Mmy through the dirt, to see her publicly shamed ? Or did you reply as if you did as a rhetorical tactic ? Neither of those is conducive to a productive conversation. That's if you want a productive conversation of course - your responses would certainly be effective if your aim is to make me angry or for me to shut up.

And yeah, immediate assumptions of bad faith are one of the factors people have brought up for why they feel unsafe and unwelcome here.

And a general thing relative to some responses in this thread... This is something I'd only seen before in contexts of making environments more welcoming to women or minorities, but it does look like a similar pattern here to me : somebody saying they have a problem that makes them feel unwelcome, and the response being to explain that what they're describing isn't a problem at all, challenging them to come up with better reasons why they feel unwelcome or better ways to remedy the situation, and generally putting the whole burden of making the space welcome on them. That's just no. The result is that the poor person who can't really put their finger on why they feel unwelcome or can't think of a perfect solution off the top of their head will eventually leave because who wants to feel like that, and the others will continue feeling confident in their rightness and welcomingness and will just be vaguely confused as to why everyone doesn't see how welcoming they are. If they don't care about the people they're unwittingly excluding it's great. But often they do care.

I really liked hapax's response on that front: more of a "I don't know what the problem is, and you don't seem to be able to put your finger on it either, but I don't want you to feel unwelcome so let's try and work together to figure things out". I honestly don't know whether it's something that can be solved or whether we'll just have to accept that things are as they are, but at least with that kind of response one does feel listened to.

@Chris : don't worry, I don't feel dogpiled at all and even if there were ten people responding to me instead of just you and Literata I'd just not reply to most of them with no qualms. I guess that's one area where having terrible netiquette serves me :)

[Anonymus]

I wanted to say, if it was not clear from the comments that I made yesterday, that I am happy with TBAT and with the job they are doing as moderators. I was trying hard to be charitable to the people who are harder for me to feel charitable towards, and may have accidentally elided the pleasant feelings I have for others here.

I don't have much of an opinion about whether community standards of behaviour should change or stay as they are. I'd say I'm happy enough with the way things are, that is with the current community accepted standards of behaviour, except I must of course say that I'm not happy with the way people like Kit are being treated, which I consider to be out of line with community standards (and basic human decency).

I do believe that if community standards of behaviour are to change, that there should not be different rules for moderators than for regular commenters -- and that neither moderators nor regular commenters should have to dumb down their rhetorical skills or not fight back if attacked.

[Izzy]

TW: Violent language

@Dragoness: Well, thank you. I mean, I guess it depends on graphic, and I guess it depends on what you consider "physical harm". I've certainly told people to fuck off and die on occasion, and I suspect I'll do it again.

The Usenet thing...yeah, that and Heartless Bitches International were where I started as a regular Internet poster.

The thing people over at Patheos seem to be most upset at me for, insofar as I've come up, is using something FC mentioned about his social life when flaming him. Which...for me, that doesn't cross a line. He didn't tell me in confidence; he talked about it repeatedly in a public forum; and to me, not having luck with your preferred gender is not on the death-of-family-member level of off limits stuff.

If community standards are defined such that it is, or that people should keep personal information out of flames, then I'll go along with that. No problem.

[Anonymus]

(and please don't let me mention of Kit in my comment be cause for a debate about what is and isn't acceptable behaviour towards Kit, who has exempted herself from this discussion, or any other individual. I really could not think of anyone else who has been treated as badly and that's why I mentioned her, but if it was wrong of me to mention her anyway, please remove that part of my comment)

[Caravelle]

chris the cynic :

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."

Chris, surely you can see the problem with that. In that very comment Mary Kaye explained how she didn't even want to say anything in the first place but she felt she had to for decency and Laiima's sake, but that she felt really upset and unsafe and that her first priority was to get the hell out of there. In that situation you expect her to write that comment and send personal emails to the TBAT ? This public space is where we talk to each other. Maybe to some of you it's the tip of an iceberg but I've certainly never spoken to anyone here by email. Mary Kaye obviously wasn't in that situation since others had her email address, but I still don't see how it was out of line (and if you do think it was out of line, how it wasn't completely understandable given her state of mind) to say everything she needed to say in a single post.

And she had three words in capital letters. That's less shouting than a very strong form of emphasis. Which is perfectly appropriate when talking about something one feels very strongly about.

But look, at the end of the day, here is the question : do you think that Mary Kaye sincerely thought there was a chance the TBAT would try to contact her by email ? Or do you think she didn't think they'd do that at all but only asked it to insult them ?

If you think she sincerely thought there was a chance they might contact her, then in the context of her saying this was no longer a safe space for her - how is Mmy's response anything other than a dismissal of Mary Kaye's expressed feelings ? You don't think that when someone says "I'm terribly upset, this isn't a safe place for me, I'm leaving" the appropriate response is to take a huuuge step back and de-escalate ?

[Mmy]

@Caravelle: I am decloaking for the purpose of laying part of this conversation to rest.

a) I thought (and still think) MaryKaye's comment was, as I originally stated it "uncalled for."

b) I have never asked that Mary Kaye apologize to me. I am sorry that she had just faced a traumatic event and if she had left and simply told everybody not to bother her I would have said nothing. It was her specific calling out of TBAT I was responding to.

c) I have no intention of ever apologizing to Mary Kaye for making that comment.

Any discussions as to whether, when, where and how are moot.

Please move the discussion on. I am quite aware of how you (and many other people) feel about this subject. Telling me yet again will not change anything.

[Froborr]

So... what exactly are we trying to accomplish by arguing about an incident that occurred months ago between someone who is no longer on this site, and someone who has recused themselves from this thread?

Okay, yes, I'm pointing out that I don't think this is an appropriate circumstance for the discussion, but I also am genuinely asking: What's the end game here? What are the various people arguing trying to accomplish?

A change in official policies? If so, what policy would you like to see?

A change to unofficial community standards? If so, what do you want to change?

A change to the behavior of particular individuals? If so, that's only going to be possible with more recent events as examples, and only while those individuals are present and participating and able to give their side.

[Froborr]

Sorry, cross-posted with Mmy.

[Literata]

Per mmy's request, I will drop that discussion.

[Caravelle]

I'm not talking to you Mmy, I'm talking to Literata and Chris and addressing the specific objections they've made. As I said, that specific incident isnt the issue anyway, and as I also said, I'm not asking for an apology. If you don't think you did anything wrong there or anything that might upset people you don't want to upset, that is fine. But as long as people challenge me on specifics of why that incident was all right, I'll reply with specifics of why I think it wasn't because I think it's the decent thing to do, given I brought it up in the first place as an example of something that might have upset people.

Then again I'm mostly doing those explanations for form's sake - if it isn't obvious to someone why I'm bothered by it I'm not sure explanations can help. So given you've explicitly said you do not welcome such explanations, I've not nothing more to say here.

(not that I can stick a flounce to save my life, so I'll probably change my mind again once somebody else addresses me. Sorry.)

[Literata]

Caravelle, if you're still reading, at the very least you are talking about mmy. She has clearly said that conversation is moot. Therefore I'm going to drop the conversation, and you would be well advised to do the same. If you've stopped reading this thread, there's no issue.

[The Board Administration Team]

Caravelle, you are or should be aware that TBAT are obliged to read everything in this thread carefully, containing as it does a discussion of community standards.

Declaring, in response to mmy's statement of position regarding a very long criticism you have been pursuing against her, that you are 'not talking to' her requires mmy to monitor and support a conversation in which you are explicitly positioning her as an object.

Talking about someone 'behind their back' right in their face is being a jerk. Refusing to drop a subject after mmy's plea to finally move on from this highly stressful and fruitless subject is being a jerk. Consider yourself formally warned.

[Caravelle]

o_O
I see there's a typo in my post, "I've not nothing more to say here" was supposed to be "I've GOT nothing more to say here". Maybe that's what's confusing people ?
But don't worry, I've said my piece, I'm more disappointed in the response than I thought I'd be, seems I actually still did feel a bit invested after all, but thanks, I don't think I'll have a problem sticking the flounce now. I wish you all the best.

[The Board Administration Team]

Caravelle: what caused the impression that your 'agreement' to drop the subject was subject to you changing your mind if you saw fit was the statement 'But as long as people challenge me on specifics of why that incident was all right, I'll reply with specifics of why I think it wasn't.'

Be that as it may, declaring you're 'not talking to' the person you have been talking about at length in the full knowledge she has to read you is being a jerk.

The warning stands

[chris the cynic]

@ZMiles

First, sorry.

When I read your comments the comments for this thread had already been temporally closed the first time and I didn't realize the closing was temporary. Which is why I sent an email to you that you may or may not have gotten. (Thank you to Anonymus and your google skills for finding me the email address.)

Since I don't have any way of knowing if the email got to you, I'll address it in thread here.

I am sorry, very, very sorry. I don't know about how you feel about intent but when I brought up your comment it was to praise it, not to condemn it. It was to offer an example of good faith disagreement, not bad faith disagreement.

When I wrote that the post was sarcastic I meant it because my reading of it was, biting sarcasm as the centerpiece of an epic takedown that provided a massive counterpoint to Froborr's post. When I didn't say that it was snide, dishonest, in bad faith, or evil that's because I believed it to be none of those things.

I thought it was honest, in good faith, personal, and more than that simply good. I thought it was an example of how things should be done, when people strongly disagree they should disagree strongly the way you did, which stands in stark contrast to the way the trolls that came later disagreed (with attacks and misogyny mostly.)

I didn't bring it up to put it down, I brought it up to praise it. I realize that my phrasing* sucked, I think it could be because I was trying to emphasize the amount of disagreement while taking the quality as a given, but still don't understand how I could have fucked up so badly as to deliver the message that it was "snide, dishonest, in bad faith, evil," when I was trying to say the opposite.

I don't know how it happened, but it did happen and I am sorry. I am so very sorry.

I am sorry.

-

I'm hurt, Chris. And that [i]should[/i] matter.

It does matter. I am sorry. If there is something I can do to make things better please tell me what it is. I thought about going to the sites where I'd mentioned you and trying to clarify, but given what happened the last time I tried to say something nice about you, that didn't seem exactly wise.

Is there anything I can do to reduce the hurt? I am sorry that I caused you to be hurt and I don't want you to be hurt.

-

*My actual words, in all their considerable lack of glory.

On one site:
The third post was more than 2000 words sarcastically disagreeing with several of his core premises, and basically amounting to a giant UR RONG!

On the other:
The third comment was more than 2000 words strongly disagreeing with the post by someone who is still a regular commenter, what better signpost of, "This post is not universally agreed with here," could there be?

[lonespark]

I don't really understand people saying they're outsiders here. I mean, I understand feeling like it, but the fact is there is a wide range of levels of participation. If you lurk, or only occasionally read, or only read posts about X, or only read when you have Y number of spoons, or whatever, it's a good idea to let folks know where you're coming from, but since this is a community blog, and you have participated to some extent, and you feel you have something to say about it, how can you be an outsider?

[lonespark]

I had this high-larious one-liner, it involved Lex Luthor and used the word "Zounds".

A tragedy indeed.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Did Dan post his comment rot13ed, or did TBAT do that? I get the impression from the following TBAT post that TBAT changed it, but I'm not sure. If TBAT did change it (and added the section in bold type), I'd appreciate more explicit use of the mod hat. A clear "This post has been edited by a moderator" sign. Or something.

***

Laiima, I enjoy your voice.

TRiG.

[lonespark]

I will say, the main thing these recent flame-ups have done is make it so that I feel completely uncomfortable visiting Fred's site at Patheos. I think there's a pretty big population of us who like to read both places and participate to a certain extent. That's now impossible for me, and I don't know how long that will last. It just makes me feel sick, especially when people from there (and there-and-here, or at least, there-and-formerly-here) come here, toss off a few comments, and then don't stay to interact with the community, or submit posts, or reply in open threads or threads about deconstructing Narnia, or anything...

Then there's more conversation there about how we do things here and we're left with making a large-scale effort to derail Fred's threads to represent our positions, or begging them to come here to discuss it, just to have them flounce again, and again... I have loved what Fred does. I like to recommend his site as one of the better Christian blogs in the internet. I hate that I recently don't feel comfortable there over something that has nothing to do with him. I feel like I want the community there to know, but I know posting something like there will just start a shitstorm. And I know there will be productive and interesting comments, but based on recent history they'll be buried in mockery and passive aggression, and the occasional post name-checking me as one of the acceptable ones. UGH!

[The Board Administration Team]

@TRiG -- the post was modified by TBAT in order to make clear exactly where the problematic statements were. (There had been some question about that.) The bolded part has been changed accordingly.

Apologies for the confusion.

[The Board Administration Team]

@Dan Audy -- you are receiving a yellow card under the policy of "giving TBAT grief about getting a warning."

Dan's comment was removed under our policy of not tolerating commenters bringing up past grievances against us

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I really must reread Froborr's piece on atheism. It's interesting, because, to me, there's a very clear, obvious, and instinctual difference between this person is evil and this action is evil. To me, neither one implies the other. At all.

Yet clearly other people think differently, and think that people saying what I just said above are making up absurd rationalisations.

And that's rather fascinating in itself, quite independent of the actual message of the post. I really must read that post again, and decide what on Earth I think of it.

TRiG.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

TBAT, thanks for the clarification.

TRiG.

[Amaryllis]

@lonespark: I could have written that. I logged in intending to write something like it.

For the record, I've disagreed with at least two of the mods on various occasions, and lived to tell the tale. Oh, and also for the record, I mean Kit and Mmy, the supposed Mean Girls. (I can't, off the top of my head, recall disagreeing with hapax. Just call me hapaxbot.) And I've posted personal information here and not ever had it used against me: does that make me one of the so-called inner circle? I doubt it; even if such a thing exists, I'm not a frequent poster any more, or a regular contributor, or anything like that.

Although, apparently, what I hear in my head as friendly concern gets read as cringing sycophancy, so there's that.

Disagreeing with the mods doesn't make me feel unsafe. What does suddenly make me feel unsafe is the idea that people I used to consider as at least friendly acquaintances are lurking in the background to mock and to store up ammunition against this place.

And obviously there's absolutely nothing that TBAT or any of us can do about that. Except stop reading Slacktivist, and I don't want to do that either.

I just feel sick over the way this has blown up. I don't know what the answer is, either. I'm sorry that people I respect were so seriously unhappy here. I don't want Kit or Mmy to be unable to air their opinions (and I do think that most of the abuse directed at them has a very definite air of "who does she think she is?"). Flame wars make me unhappy. Putting up with deliberately malicious behavior is no way to live. The line between argumentative and malicious is not always clear at the time.

Anyway, there seems to be two things going on here. There are old wounds that apparently haven't healed, and I don't know at this point if it's productive to go on hashing them out. The way people remember and interpret the various moments of contention just seems to be too divergent. No, going back and digging out the actual words doesn't seem to help much either, at this point attitudes have hardened.

And there's the question of how we proceed from here. There seems to be, along with "who does she think she is?" a fair amount of "they haven't done it yet, but they could." It's kind of pointless to blame the mods or anyone else for hypotheticals. Can we maybe just give the new rules a chance to prove themselves?

And I think it might be a good idea to replace "trigger warning" with "content warning." For the reasons that have been discussed here and elsewhere.

[ZMiles]

@ Chris: Went back and reread the thread on the Patheos site, and I can see the sarcastic tone now. I apologize for snapping at you; that was my bad.

[sarah]

Poking my head in to agree with Amaryllis about "content warning." And to say to Laiima, please don't go. I like hearing what you say.

[ZMiles]

And also: I appreciate your voice, Laiima, and hope you remain at this board.

As per the moderation post, I'll stop commenting on the atheism post issue.

[Mmy]

@sarah: poking my head up long to say that I think most of our community would prefer moving to "content warning." I personally don't see a problem with that.

[chris the cynic]

chris the cynic has moved his comment on Froborr's post to a thread on Froborr's blog

Froborr has asked that people not discuss my post in a thread where it's been asked not to, since I have no opportunity to respond. If people would like to discuss it, I have created a thread for that person on my blog: http://fluffyiguanacookies.blogspot.com/2012/07/proselytizing-evil-etc-open-thread.html Please

[chris the cynic]

I apologize for snapping at you; that was my bad.

Accepted without hesitation.

As per the moderation post, I'll stop commenting on the atheism post issue.

Apparently I managed to miss or misread that post, hence my previous post. I'll stop talking about it too.

[Froborr]

I would really, really very much prefer people not discuss my post in a thread where it's been asked not to, since I have no opportunity to respond.

If people would like to discuss it, I have created a thread for that person on my blog: http://fluffyiguanacookies.blogspot.com/2012/07/proselytizing-evil-etc-open-thread.html

Please

[Froborr]

Weird, got cut off. Meant to say, "Please note that I am about to leave work and will not be home for a couple of hours, so I will be slow to respond."

[GDwarf]

*Sigh* This may be a bad idea, but let's see.

It just makes me feel sick, especially when people from there (and there-and-here, or at least, there-and-formerly-here) come here, toss off a few comments, and then don't stay to interact with the community, or submit posts, or reply in open threads or threads about deconstructing Narnia, or anything...

[...]

or begging them to come here to discuss it, just to have them flounce again, and again...

Lonespark: Is any of that really surprising? People said why they weren't comfortable here. When asked to elaborate they do so...at which point they are told that providing examples isn't allowed because it's a personal attack on the mods or old members or deals with old stuff. Well, yes, that's what examples are. Many people cited the event that drove them away in the first place, after all.

In short: Some people tried to come back and have a discussion and had *the exact same things that drove them away* happen again. And again.

But I do want to say that I don't see the hate that many of you seem to. I admit, I haven't read every post on this, but barring one, maybe two, posters everyone's been polite and tried to enumerate their specific grievances. As such, I think it's probably safe to say that if you want to have a discussion then you can at the new Slacktivist, since it seems that attempts to have that discussion here aren't going to work. (Though I'd restrict it to the NRA and Ungrateful Jerk threads, I think everyone over there is worried about the discussion spilling into other threads and just derailing things).

I'd also like some clarification from the mod team: Do you want people to say why they didn't feel safe posting here, or do you want people to not talk about that? 'Cause right now your words are saying the former, but your actions are strongly backing the latter.

@Amaryllis:

What does suddenly make me feel unsafe is the idea that people I used to consider as at least friendly acquaintances are lurking in the background to mock and to store up ammunition against this place.

See, this is part of the problem. First, I don't think anyone, save perhaps CaryB, has done that. But we were asked to provide examples of why we didn't feel comfortable here. So we did. This was not some grand conspiracy to mock you all for every mistake you've ever made, this was us providing evidence when asked to.

The posters at the new site don't hate this one or the people here. You could, perhaps, give us the benefit of the doubt.

[GDwarf]

I also want to add: If posts like the above aren't welcome, just lemme know and I'll be gone again. Whether or not I, or the others, agree with things here it's still your space and I'm not trying to change that.

[chris the cynic]

Sorry, Froborr.

I've been having some trouble keeping track of things today. I blame moving a piano for my sister, but it's my fault for commenting when not really up to it. I somehow missed, misinterpreted, or forgot that it had been asked not to be discussed.

Sorry.

[The Board Administration Team]

@chris the cynic: We all have days like that -- I just went over to Froborr's site -- no comments yet on that thread. If you are up to moving the comment there I think it might keep this thread from getting derailed (as always seems to happen when this topic comes up.

[The Board Administration Team]

@Froborr: Thanks for opening that thread on your blog -- do we have your permission to include it on the weekend blogaround?

@chris the cynic: I notice that you have duplicated the comment here "over there" -- do we have your permission to delete it here and replace it with a link to Froborr's thread?

[chris the cynic]

Ok, Looks like I've moved the post ending in "Maybe one just has to accept that such things happen and weather the storm." over there, feel free to delete it here.

My apology to ZMiles also mentioned Froborr's post. I'm less clear on whether that should stay or go.

[Laiima]

@Froborr, OT, when I commented yesterday about looking for an email address to contact you at, I should have specified that it was unrelated to anything going on at Slacktiverse.

Basically, I had questions about editing. Also, since, iirc, you live somewhere in Greater DC, I was wondering if maybe you had any interest in meeting in person sometime? (Awkward to do this publicly, sorry.)

My email is shokiai at yahoo dot com, if you're interested in contacting me.

[The Board Administration Team]

@GDwarf: the conversation on whether and why people have comfort issues here has been going on for a full day now, during which time TBAT was silent. TBAT have read it, we have considered it, we have made substantial changes in response to it.

In order for those changes to do any good, people now have to move forward.

The solution is exactly what we said it is: TBAT individuals will cease to comment as individuals, and in exchange for that sacrificed right of reply, posters will now cease to bring up old grievances. The grievances had a hearing, action was taken, end of story.

As we said, you either accept that or you don't. But that is our decision, and in our new role as moderators we will enforce it as moderators.

Note: practical suggestions, such as changing from trigger to content warnings, are appreciated.

[chris the cynic]

It is my worry that most of the biggest concerns are ones that can't be addressed.

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.

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.

-

I'd love to be proven wrong, if someone has good solutions for such things, please share them.

-

And if they've already shared them, sorry. I have clearly been missing/forgetting things lately.

[lonespark]

So, is this a thread where we can discuss the new board post? Not really discuss, just comment.

I could see that acting as admins/moderators (though only jointly) and as commenters was leading to lots of issues. I hate that this is the resolution. It's not that I don't think TBAT are good moderators. I do. But I feel like there are plenty of people who could do the moderation job. They might not be people whose distinct voices and ideas had contributed so much to the site. I already really missed interacting with hapax, and now her self-imposed vow of silence is official policy for everyone. Boo. (Nobody's fault, particularly, I don't think, but still sad.)

I almost feel like, the way so many people here have other blogs, the (best? because it's inevitable?) fate of this place is to just become a board that draws attention to interesting posts and discussions on other sites. That would still be a valuable thing, although I would miss the original content we do have.

[lonespark]

Content warning is good by me.
It's interesting to me because there's so much tagging now; trigger warnings seem to have come into being on the leading edge of content tagging, and eventually become behind the times? I think.

I really appreciate warnings, but I feel like calling it a trigger warning sometimes leads to people not feeling worthy to request on because they don't have severe problems around the issue.

[lonespark]

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

Yeah. Reminds me of the thing about wolves in sheep's clothing vs. non-existence of sheep.

[chris the cynic]

So, is this a thread where we can discuss the new board post? Not really discuss, just comment.

I hadn't seen that post.

I don't know what to say.

fuck

good god I will miss them all.

I have to be gone now, perhaps tomorrow I can contribute more meaningfully.

[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.

TBAT will continue to read this and all threads, and remains interested in suggestions on moving forward in a way that suits community needs. However, once again, comments that center on resurrecting past conflicts will be considered de-railing and will be deleted with a yellow card.