+- Eagle Time (https://eagle-time.org)
+-- Forum: Archive (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Forum: BAWK BAWK (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+---- Forum: Hawkspace (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=35)
+---- Thread: A LANDFILL (/showthread.php?tid=861)
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Dalmationer - 10-13-2014
i vote that harrassment & slurs and stuff shouldn't be allowed because we need a modicum of order.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Jacquerel - 10-13-2014
I feel like the forum rules probably still apply, as none of them really seem to violate the spirit of this forum (the only one that could even come close, "Know the territory", includes the caveat that different subforums have different standards)
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - ☆ C.H.W.O.K.A ☆ - 10-14-2014
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »im under the impression the forum rules don't apply. treat this like a separate forum, it's on this forum out of convenience and the other chat forum still exists so this place hasn't superseded that one.(10-13-2014, 09:04 PM)Dalmationer Wrote: »i vote that harrassment & slurs and stuff shouldn't be allowed because we need a modicum of order.I disagree with this alleged "need for order" and would want to keep things as casual as possible. This order is available elsewhere, but it leads to over-conscientiousness, and I haven't seen any harmful 'disorder' as of yet.
Here's a question: Why do people on tumblr use one set of swear words that older generations draw offense from to sound like they're big bad rulebreakers and trendsetters while hawkishly looking out for a new set of words that holds just as much offense to their own generation's sensibilities? (Is it to try to fool themselves that they aren't going to turn out just like their parents?)
The answer is because in the eyes of someone with a middle class habitus, what language is seen as ugly happens to also be lower class language. Filtering out people who use the offensive language is a easy way of filtering out people who don't fit into class conventions (because they do not have time to keep up on all of the updates to class conventions) much like what happened with the person who laughed by saying *laffs*.
If you wanted to make your suggestion a rule, you would have to define 'harassment' and what constitutes a slur - both things which require some subjective judgment and can be used or misused based on the judge's personal taste. I think it's better to let people say what they will. The freedom to say bad things allows people to make mistakes - and when they do, someone else can talk to them patiently about why that certain thing is bad instead of just issuing a command and punishment that makes them wary about saying anything at all in the future. And if they were to just leave after being scared off without changing their attitude, that doesn't mean anything is fixed - they will simply flock toward likeminded people. Then, if you push too hard without offering any humanity to them in return, you might actually invoke spite in other groups who only see your righteous side and assume you to be acting in malice because they see nothing offered from your ilk!
If you want one way to think of how to act when you come across a Wrong Sounding Thing, something that sticks out at you, you can think of it like in those ol mafia werewolf game terms - 'is this scum or dumb?' Then remember that people generally want to be good and a mishap usually comes out of ignorance (only ~1% of the pop is sociopathic), not malice.
We've all been stupid in youth. Most of you would probably spit on a ten-years-younger version of you. But now look at you! You've grown! Because someone gave you a chance. The only way to learn is by other people taking the time to talk to you like a human being and help learn mistakes - not by being hit with a ruler for deviating from an ever-changing catechism. Words and their meanings change, but the basic intents of human beings do not, and you should judge people's posts (which are conveyances of thoughts) based on the intent, not the words themselves. So punch a proven jerk, but talk it out with a fool.
. . . i m h o.
very casual, wheat
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - SeaWyrm - 10-14-2014
Yeah, what Wheat said.
And frankly, if we need rules to stop harassment, we've already lost.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Loather - 10-14-2014
thanks for the mansplanation wheat. i completely agree, theres no malice in dehumanizing and harassing minority groups. i cant wait to stick it to the bourgeoisie and start our very own "trannys will never be accepted like gays" thread
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - SeaWyrm - 10-14-2014
Uh, so, before the two of you go any further, I want you to consider something:
It appears you are starting to have an argument. The manner in which you comport yourselves seems like it will be quite relevant to the issue of whether we need rules, and of what sort. Please bear that in mind.
...okay, you can carry on, now.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - SeaWyrm - 10-14-2014
Oh, sure. I agree it would be a bad idea.
My point was that, if what we have here is a brewing situation where common sense and courtesy will be put to the test, and if that test is failed, then it would suggest that this isn't such a hot policy after all and having a "parent figure" on standby is maybe necessary.
That would be a sad thing.
But I believe in you guys.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Loather - 10-14-2014
sorry i get emotional about issues that directly affect me and people close to me, let me put my vulcan ears on so i can properly debate with someone who thinks harassment and slurs just spice things up a little
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Loather - 10-14-2014
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »im under the impression the forum rules don't apply. treat this like a separate forum, it's on this forum out of convenience and the other chat forum still exists so this place hasn't superseded that one.(10-13-2014, 09:04 PM)Dalmationer Wrote: »i vote that harrassment & slurs and stuff shouldn't be allowed because we need a modicum of order.I disagree with this alleged "need for order" and would want to keep things as casual as possible. This order is available elsewhere, but it leads to over-conscientiousness, and I haven't seen any harmful 'disorder' as of yet.
please, tell me how allowing harassment and slurs would make things more ~casual~, as opposed to shitty and tense
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »Here's a question: Why do people on tumblr use one set of swear words that older generations draw offense from to sound like they're big bad rulebreakers and trendsetters while hawkishly looking out for a new set of words that holds just as much offense to their own generation's sensibilities? (Is it to try to fool themselves that they aren't going to turn out just like their parents?)
slurs are usually swear words, but most swear words aren't slurs
also lmao, "people on tumblr". yeah, you stick it to those sjws!!
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »The answer is because in the eyes of someone with a middle class habitus, what language is seen as ugly happens to also be lower class language. Filtering out people who use the offensive language is a easy way of filtering out people who don't fit into class conventions (because they do not have time to keep up on all of the updates to class conventions) much like what happened with the person who laughed by saying *laffs*.
slurs are used against lower class people. slurs are used primarily against lower class people. the point of a slur is to dehumanize. slurs are very good at dehumanizing. slurs target minority groups, which are largely made up of lower class people
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »If you wanted to make your suggestion a rule, you would have to define 'harassment'
how about repetitive behavior that is threatening, coercive, or intentionally disturbing? its not that hard
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »and what constitutes a slur -
geeze, i dont know, how about words with very clear negative connotations that target minority groups
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »both things which require some subjective judgment and can be used or misused based on the judge's personal taste.
unlike every other rule ever
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »I think it's better to let people say what they will. The freedom to say bad things allows people to make mistakes
mistakes that are far from harmless
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »- and when they do, someone else can talk to them patiently about why that certain thing is bad
you're assuming someone will be there to talk to them. you're assuming they're going to be patient about it.
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »instead of just issuing a command and punishment that makes them wary about saying anything at all in the future.
you're allowing them to take actions that harm other people in the hopes that they'll stop taking those actions that harm other people.
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »And if they were to just leave after being scared off without changing their attitude, that doesn't mean anything is fixed - they will simply flock toward likeminded people. Then, if you push too hard without offering any humanity to them in return, you might actually invoke spite in other groups who only see your righteous side and assume you to be acting in malice because they see nothing offered from your ilk!
i didnt know you were such an avid supporter of respectability politics til now
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »If you want one way to think of how to act when you come across a Wrong Sounding Thing, something that sticks out at you, you can think of it like in those ol mafia werewolf game terms - 'is this scum or dumb?' Then remember that people generally want to be good and a mishap usually comes out of ignorance (only ~1% of the pop is sociopathic), not malice.
Wikipedia Wrote:Washington was tried for murder in Waco, in a courtroom filled with furious locals. He entered a guilty plea and was quickly sentenced to death. After his sentence was pronounced, he was dragged out of the court by observers and lynched in front of Waco's city hall. Over 10,000 spectators, including city officials and police, gathered to watch the attack. There was a celebratory atmosphere at the event, and many children attended during their lunch hour. Members of the mob castrated Washington, cut off his fingers, and hung him over a bonfire.
Wikipedia Wrote:One attendee kept part of Washington's genitalia;[30] a group of children snapped the teeth out of Washington's head to sell as souvenirs. By the time that the fire was extinguished, parts of Washington's arms and legs had been burned off and his torso and head were charred. His body was removed from the tree and dragged behind a horse throughout the town. Washington's remains were transported to Robinson, where they were publicly displayed until a constable obtained the body late in the day and buried it.[24]
"people generally want to be good and a mishap usually comes out of ignorance (only ~1% of the pop is sociopathic), not malice"
the fact that so few people lack empathy is the reason dehumanization is used. without dehumanization, atrocities like that wouldn't be possible. don't downplay it as just ignorance. it is malicious.
slurs are a tool to dehumanize.
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: »We've all been stupid in youth. Most of you would probably spit on a ten-years-younger version of you. But now look at you! You've grown! Because someone gave you a chance. The only way to learn is by other people taking the time to talk to you like a human being and help learn mistakes - not by being hit with a ruler for deviating from an ever-changing catechism. Words and their meanings change, but the basic intents of human beings do not, and you should judge people's posts (which are conveyances of thoughts) based on the intent, not the words themselves. So punch a proven jerk, but talk it out with a fool.
the toxic beliefs i held as a teenager didnt come out of the void. the views i held were constantly reinforced by the people around me. the casual use of slurs against minority groups was a part of that reinforcement.
i didn't grow by learning. i grew by unlearning.
(10-14-2014, 12:56 AM)Wheat Wrote: ». . . i m h o.
you're not humble. this opinion is toxic.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Schazer - 10-14-2014
My 5c, this rambly and nervous because I hate confrontations but I acknowledged this discussion was going to happen sooner or later with this subforum becoming a thing
So like. Selfish desires out of the way first, what do I want out of Eagle Time? I mean let's face it I'm an unabashed nepotist so even when I say "I want a space for non-assholish people to feel safe and chillax" I'm really saying "I want a space for non-assholish extended internet friends to feel safe and chillax." I don't really care about "promoting" the forum beyond word of mouth so its steady growth is not something I'm particularly invested in.
Now, said internet friends have a variety of interests - some people make things, other people want to organise activities/play games together, some people want to shoot the shit and shitpost as a social activity (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense), some people want to talk about media they consume with other media-consumers, some people want to talk about social justice issues and/or how fucked up the current state of things are (mostly because said issues personally affect them and their future as young adults). Most of the people on here want to do two, three, or more of these things, which is cool! A forum is cooler than an IRC channel in that fashion because you can call each other names over your taste in beverages in one thread then switch your tone and debate about colonialism or imperialism or whatever in another.
Backtracking (sorry), basically everyone here knows and interacts with at least one other person on the forum. Someone can always be vouched for as being a real person with a family and aspirations and junk rather than a twelve-year old smirking behind anonymity and tossing slurs around to be edgy. In that kind of community, we don't really need rules like "no slurs". The Eagle Time main forum's rules were assembled when we were migrating off of MSPA and weren't sure who all would make the jump with us, so the rules were made in mind for modly convenience so we (I) didn't have to deal with hypothetical jackoffs saying "it wasn't in the rules so why should I stop" - which never actually happened.
Seguing from that: I'm not actually that great a moderator - at least, not for a small discussion forum of mutual friends-of-friends. I like to think I'm a decent role model, but my inclination to want conflicts to resolve neatly into "Wrong/right" or "aggressor/victim" doesn't really work.
I have more thoughts but I have to go help out with speech practice and need to post what I've got so far before I chicken out.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Jacquerel - 10-14-2014
why you'd want to make people feel welcome by not being human garbage in a place I assumed was designed to get people back to posting on this forum is a mystery anyway, like who would do that
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Schazer - 10-14-2014
Look I know it's easy to call Wheat out on pitching a good idea in about as unpalatable a manner as humanely possible, but can you folks who don't like what he's saying disagree with the following?
-Eagle Time is basically an extended group of friends. We don't get new people very often and usually they know at least one person here from prior internet circles.
-Friends do not need to pin their local jurisdiction's bylaws on the door for everyone's perusal.
-If you (the individual reader) of this list think there is another individual on this forum who needs to be escorted off the premises and that decision would make things empirically better for every single person left on the forum, that's something you need to talk through with them. I'm an obnoxiously trepidatious mod, but I know an irredeemable shitheel when I see one.
This subforum chiefly exists because Wheat strongarmed me into it. I'm defending it because honestly, I don't like being in charge, really, at all, beyond the capacity it gives me to do things for people. I personally would like a place where I'm freer to express my opinion without constantly worrying I'm punching down if I express an opinion that isn't positive or neutral. You could misinterpret that as "I want to harass everyone and be freed from my shackles of modminly responsibility", but you won't because you know me and (hopefully) like and trust me as a person. I guess it's kind of a trust exercise, but you do have to remember that rules that make sense on a forum of anonymongers might be conspicuously redundant on a friendcircle like Eagle Time*. IRC also has rules that never get enforced because we talk things out when disagreements happen.
*This is just my estimation of the social dynamics going on here. I know some of you folks butt heads with each other. I butt heads with people. If there were really any truly odious people though I think we would've figured it out as a community? Maybe?
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Jacquerel - 10-14-2014
I don't really care so much about slurs because, while I find the defence of someone's right to use horrible dehumanising language kind of abhorrent, I don't expect wheat or anyone else actually intends to throw around slurs and this is just an unforunate expression of an ethical point he wants to make
what does matter to me is that there's apparently some desire for a space on the forums where our rules don't apply? that there was enough feeling that the tenets of "don't troll", "try not to antagonise people", and "post in the correct subforum" are so restrictive that we need an outlet for everything that doesn't fit under those rules
what is there that doesn't fit under those rules that is worth posting?
As a tiny community of friends and friends-of-friends we naturally don't need a whole lot of rules or governance but that doesn't mean that there's nothing here that can hurt people
do you know what would have had to change so far in this subforum if we had the standard forum rules? literally nothing at all. all the fun we've been having has been completely within the rules as written
I liked this subforum when it was, as far as I was aware, essentially the shitposting topic but as a subforum. We were having fun! Then suddenly I find out that's not necessarily everything its creator had in mind.
a place where we have fun ignoring usual posting conventions as enforced elsewhere on the board is a cool fun time for everyone, that's a good idea for a subforum
a place where we... talk about topics with serious merit, things that you'd usually agree would be inappropriate for a family gathering for instance, but cannot appeal to anyone but ourselves if we feel we have been mistreated, because "there's no rules" is definitely not?
especially if, at the same time, there is shitposting mixed in? and a fun times topic might suddenly become a serious times topic without any warning? (or more dangerous, try to be both at once)
I think that's a huge mistake?
There are two sentiments I can understand wanting to avoid the rules for, one of which I can sympathise with and the other of which I have more problems.
Firstly: It's actually really shitty that Schazer has to end up being essentially the community police. That's really no kind of stress we should be putting on anyone, excepting the fact that... someone still has to do it sometimes. Schazer's done a sterling job keeping everything glued together which is probably not often enough acknowledged and taking some of that off their back so they can chat without worrying about whether executive power is strong-arming people into agreement is nice.
I can see why that would be desirable.
Secondly: Worry that people you are trying to argue with might ask Schazer might strong-arm you into line and leave them alone. If there's no "don't be an ass" rule, then nobody who ""misinterprets"" your well-reasoned points as assholery can reasonably ask a mod to step in and tell you to stop.
Now... this is the one I have more problems with.
Because frankly, in pretty much any case that the wrath of the gods have been called down it's because people are making asses of themselves.
I'm not going to beat around the bush, some people here are bull-headed as hell. I'm definitely one of them. Some of us are just louder than other people, we are self-important and make ourselves look more important through whatever grasp of the language we've picked up. We've learned or been socialised to have bigger voices, to expect to be heard and taken seriously as a default, so that it comes across in our words that they are important.
Not everyone has this advantage! Not everyone is allowed to think that their opinion might by default have some kind of merit, and when there are a couple of scarier, "smarter", ""more intellectual"" people trading paragraphs of what could be reasoned debate or might actually just be a comparison of ego sizes then they pretty much just get left out.
I have a problem with this, I've always largely been told by everyone that I am smart and important and valuable and that my words have weight and so I am easily able to put myself across with conviction. To the point where many people have said their first impression of me was intimidation. That is a problem, not an inherent character trait.
The correct response in this situation is not to create an environment where everyone has to deal with me, it is to ensure that if I am intimidating someone into silence that they have ways out.
I should not be content to just run over people with my massive walls of condescending prose, ideally I should be in a situation where people can say to me "Hey you're being kind of an ass, can you cut that out?" or, if they are not confident enough, be able to get someone else to do that for them. Until I am able to converse without making people feel like shit just for holding an opposing opinion.
You are a scary person to disagree with Wheat. You spring essays in the middle of casual conversation and talk down to people constantly. I don't know if you do this consciously or not, but it is not an endearing or desirable trait. I know multiple people who would rather stop talking in a topic or IRC room than have to deal with it, once you get into your flow.
It must be frustrating when what you thought was just a reasoned explanation of your beliefs is met by someone telling you to cut it out because you are making people uneasy, but it is not a problem with them. Not everyone can just say "please stop condescending to me" to your face, and to be honest I'm not sure what the reaction would be if they did.
If there is no phantom of authority, even one that is rarely exercised, there is no baseline for discussion. You do not get a fair representation, you get the strong voices trampling everyone else.
Everyone else is suddenly made to work around the people who are incapable of talking without condescending, or not say anything at all.
People should not have to work around you. If someone thinks you are condescending at them, they should absolutely have an option to get someone to sort you out.
If we have a subforum with no rules and start using it for "political" discussions then what we will not get is a free-willed exchange of ideals but actually these same small group of people riding over the top of everyone else with their loud, sarcastic, patronising walls of text while other people with less socialised confidence in their beliefs are left ignored, intimidated into not posting, or fire out a couple of sentences of anger because it seems like the only way anyone's going to hear them.
And I don't think there should be a place for that on this forum. It does not seem like a thing we should desire to have. "No rules" discussion does not mean everyone ends up talking like adults, and frankly I'd rather just shitpost without worrying that suddenly we're having a "reasoned" discussion about cultural marxism
this is my subforum idea:
can this please just be the shitposting subforum and have nothing to do with venting opinions you think would not be accepted on the rest of the board? please?
can we not just continue to act as if the standard rules apply? none of them forbid shitposting within a designated shitpost area after all, as this whole subforum is
this topic has already turned from fun times into a serious discussion people feel excluded from and already it's not fun any more
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - ☆ C.H.W.O.K.A ☆ - 10-14-2014
i never thought i'd see libertarian attitudes on regulation applied to a situation in which no money changes hands, but well, here we are!
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Loather - 10-14-2014
i'm calling a vote on this
RULE #401, THE RECKONING
(10-13-2014, 09:04 PM)Dalmationer Wrote: »i vote that harrassment & slurs and stuff shouldn't be allowed because we need a modicum of order.
RULE #404, THE PILEDRIVER
(10-14-2014, 10:25 AM)Jacquerel Wrote: »can we not just continue to act as if the standard rules apply? none of them forbid shitposting within a designated shitpost area after all, as this whole subforum is
RULE #420, THE ETERNAL FLAME
(10-14-2014, 10:25 AM)Jacquerel Wrote: »can this please just be the shitposting subforum and have nothing to do with venting opinions you think would not be accepted on the rest of the board? please?
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - SleepingOrange - 10-14-2014
I agree with the majority of what you're saying from an ethics perspective, Wheat, but by starting this whole thing off by framing the dissenting opinion as "people on tumblr", you're generalizing about and dehumanizing an outgroup (and a very heterogeneous one at that) yourself. That pretty much guaranteed that anyone who disagreed with you would be on the defensive and have no interest in seeing things from your perspective since you just strawmanned them as a bunch of crazy social justice warlocks and set the tone of this conversation as something very ugly.
As for Jac's post, the only thing that feels productive to comment on is the idea of making this a "dedicated shitposting forum": that essentially says "do not let conversations happen organically", or "conversations should only happen the way I enjoy them/want them to happen", or "everybody smile and have fun all the time, la la la, nothing serious here". All of those are I think stifling and toxic results. People should be able to just... talk. Respond to things the way they feel is appropriate. Get policed by the community if it at large thinks there is a problem with that particular person or particular instance, because trying to impose hard rules on what is essentially an extended social circle (especially when those rules are... very vague) has a chilling effect on conversation. What is too serious? How do you know if someone's posting an opinion here because they "think [it] would not be accepted on the rest of the board" as opposed to because no topic or circumstance on the rest of the board would have lead to a reasonable time and place to post it? What is shitposting even, and if we have rules requiring it can people be penalized if an authority figure or group of outspoken people think their posts aren't shitty enough? I don't want to have to think about whether a response I have is too serious or not lighthearted enough to have a place here; I just want to have conversations (mostly pretty goofy ones, if precedent is anything to go by) with people I know. If those conversations end up moving in a more serious direction, I don't think the participants should be forced to end it or deliberately retune it to levity. Just... talk about shit. If someone has a problem with something, they should address it or have someone they trust address it for them; having an authority figure act as a mouthpiece for people who, for whatever reason, cannot or do not want to speak for themselves just ensures that the tenor of the place conforms to whatever that authority figure wants, rather than what individuals or the community as a whole do.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - SeaWyrm - 10-14-2014
I don't think we're in a position to vote.
I'm not voting on "there should be rules!" without a better sense of what those rules might be, how they'll be enforced, and why we need them. That doesn't seem constructive.
Rules are not inherently virtuous - they're something we use to solve problems. Tell me what the problems are - and harassment does not yet look to be one of them - and tell me how you intend to solve them, and then I'll gladly voice support for a vote.
The standard rules, if I'm not misinterpreting what Schazer said, have mostly just amounted to "let's work things out on an ad-hoc basis". Frankly, I think that's what we already have here, right now. The only difference is we aren't pretending otherwise. If it's worked out so far, I expect it to continue to work.
And I'm pretty sure we all agree harassment is bad. Nobody here is endorsing harassment. (No, not even Wheat. Please don't say Wheat is endorsing harassment. Wheat is clearly not endorsing harassment, no matter what other beef you may have with Wheat.) Before we make rules about harassment, let's determine if harassment is going to be a problem - and if so, what are we going to do about it, other than "not allowing" harassment. Simply writing down "Harassment shouldn't be allowed!" somewhere isn't useful. We all know that already.
Jacquerel, you mentioned that you think it's useful to have a "phantom of authority" to appeal to. Maybe so - I'm not convinced. But if it would be constructive to have some mechanism to give the less forceful members some extra, external oomph in their corner somehow, then hey, okay, maybe we can figure out a good way to do that. I'm willing to entertain the notion.
But I doubt just saying "let's have the standard rules" is the best approach.
As far as #420 is concerned, not wanting to mix the serious with the silly, I see where you're coming from on that. I don't entirely agree, though, and so I propose this alternative:
"RULE #420.q, THE ETERNAL FLAME'S COUSIN: If you have a need to vent opinions you think would not be accepted on the rest of the board, please make a separate topic for them with some clear indication in the title what it is you're on about, and then the rest of us can not come near it with a ten foot pole or else jump in and have obnoxious arguments, according to our own personal preferences."
FAKEEDIT: Yes, and what Slorange said on the subject, too.
Do we want some sort of policy for activating move-this-discussion-to-its-own-thread? Because it might be useful right about now. "What Wheat said" seems like a distinct subject from "Should there be rules, and if so, what?"
REALEDIT: Er, actually, we already have a mechanism for this.
PROPOSAL TO SPLIT HAIRS 1: Let's move all the stuff about what Wheat said to its own thread.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Infrared - 10-15-2014
I fully support everyone to do anything they want, i want equality too; i think i'm an okay person yet very often i feel very afraid of saying things because it might hurt other people, i'm also afraid of getting passive aggressive responses if i fuck up. I understand that discrimination is a very sensitive subject, and people will hate me forever for saying this, but i feel like i'm being censored. Not because i want to say slurs, but because i can't absolutely fuck up, not even one time or i will automatically become a terrible person because of my cisness or whatever, i feel like nobody is willing to say "this is hurtful, you should stop" plain and simple - instead i'd receive passive agressiveness and be shooed out of your cliqué.
I'm not saying i'm being discriminated for not being queer or anything stupid like that, i just feel unwelcome, i can understand why (queer people feel unwelcome everywhere) but i feel like it shouldn't be that way since you're not like the rest of society; you're sensitive adults that can understand that people aren't fully educated or have been misguided by society all their lives. You guys are angry and very defensive, which is again, understandable, but your emotions shouldn't guide you all the time.
This most likely is just a bunch of bullshit anxiety in my mind and you guys would forgive me if i fuck up or something but i'm actually genuinely scared of you guys being offended by me or outright losing contact with you all by posting this. I care about this community a lot. I guess this is what y'all meant by this place breeding self-awareness.
Hate me forever for saying this but i think you need to chill out within your group of friends, none of us mean harm and if we unintentionally do so we'll be more than sorry for it, if you're not willing to further discuss something hurtful i'm sure we'd also stop immediately. I agree that Wheat doesn't have the best way of approaching people, i've said it before, i actually think it's terrible at times - but everything he has to say is always followed up by a lot of anger from everyone. Very few individuals are willing to have any discussions that challenge the common opinion within the community. Conversations can't happen if you don't agree because you will fuck up eventually and be shamed out.
As for moderation and such, i don't fucking care, we have no mods. Schaz acts way more professionally than she should, i've also said that before; she just has that position in case something extreme happens. We need no mods, we need no rules because we're friends and care for each other and wouldn't hurt anyone on purpose. We always talk things out, i don't know where the need for professional moderation ™ comes from. We're all too fucking self-aware.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Solaris - 10-15-2014
(10-15-2014, 01:51 AM)Infrared Wrote: »none of us mean harm and if we unintentionally do so we'll be more than sorry for itthis is untrue
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Infrared - 10-15-2014
Please elaborate, i haven't seen it happen myself. I'd also like to know if anyone didn't stop after telling them to stop.
Please don't be vague.
Apologies if i'm being too obnoxious.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Jacquerel - 10-15-2014
If nobody actually intends to use it to be an asshole, then there is no reason to have a forum that does not have the rule "don't be an asshole".
If people do intend to use it to be an asshole we just shouldn't have the subforum.
It helps nobody, and threatens some, to have a subforum where there are no rules, when our rules are already so lenient that "don't be an ass" is literally the only one that would be relevant here.
If this had been proposed in public, rather than just unveiled one day, why would anyone have agreed with it?
There is still nothing in any other topic in this subforum that could not have been posted without breaking the forum rules as they already stand.
If you do not want a subforum where you're allowed to be an ass... what are you arguing for?
There should be a reason presented for not having rules, not the other way around. A formal requirement not to be a piece of shit is normal, having a designated area where that doesn't apply is not, and having that area but continuously assuring people that nobody intends to use it for its only exclusive purpose is bizarre. What other reason is there to have one that I have not covered?
Justify this please.
People can and often will cause harm unintentionally, even friends (and small though we are many people here are connected as friends-of-friends or friends-of-friends-of-friends, rather than necessarily a cohesive shared friend group) and in the heat of the moment while they are doing it will not easily acknowledge that this is what they are doing, or be sorry for it, or stop if the person asking them to stop is the person they are in a disagreement with. Or in fact, for a long time afterwards. This is why sometimes you need to have someone who has the authority to get people to cut it out, or the ability to appeal to one even if it does not end up needing to be used.
Even "groups of friends" fall out, and this is not my group of friends. Many people here are my friends, some people are just people I know who hang out with my friends. We all have different connections to each other and they are not equally close.
It is not guaranteed to be a safe place. It wouldn't necessarily be one even if it was exclusively made up of friends.
People suddenly springing from sentence or paragraphs of jollity to literal essays is not a difficult thing for anyone to be aware of, and it's transparently clear from the fact that it occurs both in other parts of the forum and on IRC, and immediately kills fun conversation and reduces participation whenever it happens, that people no longer want to contribute in that environment. I don't want it to happen here either, I am tired of it, and apparently as proposed this is supposed to be the forum where it's easiest for that to happen.
And that it happening in a place where people are encouraged to be more irreverent than usual is a very very bad idea, because if some people are trying to have a serious conversation at the same time as other people are posting single sentence flippancy, people get justifiably upset. It's even happened already in this topic, this topic is a case study in why this is a bad idea.
We cannot have a place for serious discussion in the middle of the place that has been painted as the place for being casual and irreverent, because everything stops being casual when you start talking about dinner-table-inappropriate topics, and because irreverence is suddenly inappropriate within those arenas. Frankly I can't see why this would be something people would disagree on.
I don't feel the need for a specific "no slurs" rule though because that's already covered by not being an ass, I don't believe anyone would intend to actually exercise their right to throw slurs around, and it is much easier to be an ass without realising it and need someone else to step in than it is hard for people to tell you that a word is unacceptable.
People are assholes unintentionally all the time and creating an arena where they are allowed to get into arguments and there is nothing to actually stop them from being assholes apart from trying to tell them that they are being assholes (something people struggle with, and which there is no guarantee the person who is being an ass will actually acknowledge as true) is a bad plan.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Gatr - 10-15-2014
Jac has been the most true person so far. Not going to write an essay to justify it though.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - Mirdini - 10-15-2014
Might write up some thoughts on this eventually but for the (busy IRL dini) moment I'd like to chime in that I agree with Jacq's posts.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - ICan'tGiveCredit - 10-15-2014
VOTE #13: this thread is moved to the Administration Subforum. This thread will, of course, still be subject to voting for
(10-09-2014, 06:56 AM)pharmdrugs Wrote: »ideas for rules, customs, official tribal tattoos, official song, mascot, cheer routine and more
with respect to HOWKSPASE
As the administration subforum is a place where serious and irreverent things take place.
RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC - SleepingOrange - 10-15-2014
(10-15-2014, 05:33 AM)Solaris Wrote: »(10-15-2014, 01:51 AM)Infrared Wrote: »none of us mean harm and if we unintentionally do so we'll be more than sorry for itthis is untrue
This is EXACTLY the kind of prickly, passive-aggressive, unhelpful attitude that has Ed feeling anxious and unwelcome about posting anything that doesn't agree with the general #eagletime zeitgeist, or that he just isn't sure will be copacetic.