Space to talk

[pyraxis]

Apologies if I'm out of line here, but I just wanted to create an initial space for people to discuss policy, in an attempt to get debates moved off multiplicity and here into the place that's meant for it. There seem to be a lot of conversations happening on individual journals and it would be good to bring them together.

- Pyraxis

Comments

[pyraxis]

Yeah, I agree it's important for the mods to know about it.

Thanks - I was looking for a way to pick up what I was saying in multiplicity about "I also think it's a mistake for community mods to attempt to control things which happen off the comm, even if they get ugly."

Seems to me the purpose of the new policy is to minimize the amount that harassment spills into the community. I think temp blocking the comments of the people involved in community harassment helps establish that boundary, because it's so easy for things to flare up again with just a few misunderstood words. What disturbed me was hearing that the people blocked were specifically the ones who'd been involved in pluralanon, rather than ones who had been harassing people on the community itself.

- Pyraxis

[groupvoice.livejournal.com]

What disturbed me was hearing that the people blocked were specifically the ones who'd been involved in [info]pluralanon, rather than ones who had been harassing people on the community itself.

But these people are almost always going to essentially be the same people. IF the mods ban the people behind pluralanon (and I have no idea who they banned save for one person, but further than that, the mods really have no idea and no proof of who started pluralanon) they're banning people who are harassing other members of the community. I mean, I think there would be a lot of overlap, potentially. I do get what you're saying, though. It's kind of a rough ground. I hate to criticize the mods because, honestly, I know there is no way I could ever be making these decisions or have any idea what to do and how to go about doing it. :/

[personasystem.livejournal.com]

On the one hand I agree that modding things that happen off the community is a mistake. After all, it's easy to fake evidence or spin things in such a way that makes one side look completely innocent, and it's not the job of the mods to intervene in anyone's personal lives. They aren't kindergarten teachers and they aren't here to hold people's hands and make sure we get along.

But on the other hand I feel like a lot of the harassment going on has been severe enough that it should be used as evidence in conjunction with the events happening in the community itself.

Multiplicity doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I feel it's important for the mods to be aware of outside factors when making decisions. It's all too easy for e-bullies to attack someone through PMs and on other forums, and then to come into multiplicity and make only veiled remarks about the system they've been attacking. And the victim in a situation like that is pretty much screwed, because if they speak up or get hurt or angry it seems like they are the ones starting shit.

I think the temp bans given out are perfectly reasonable, because the mods have evidence that other people aren't privy to. Not to mention, they're temporary, which really isn't that much of a punishment.

Mostly I feel like there's a lot of people who have been dissatisfied with moderation in the past. I don't really have any sympathy for those people. The mods will run the community however they see fit, and if people don't like the regulars or the moderation or the layout or the discussions or anything else, then that's their problem. There are many MANY other multiplicity communities that people can go to if they aren't happy with this one.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely certain if there's a question here at all, but here's my take on it:

It may indeed be a good idea for moderators to know what's going on outside of the community, especially so that they can understand the situation when things spill over into the community.

However, a line does need to be drawn, in order to avoid making the moderators responsible for things they shouldn't be, and here's where I draw it: Things that take place in a community should be reported to the moderators of that community. Things that take place in personal journals or spread across LJ should be reported to LJ abuse. That's standard practice, I think.

There's also the possibility that more information on what's been happening outside the community will only bias the mods--however, that's mainly something for the mods themselves to watch out for.

[myorp.livejournal.com]

This is what we think.

Hopefully, the mods won't be carried away by supposed "proof" that isn't something they can directly verify themselves(which I would think would mostly leave them to things within the comm).

A large agregate tendency from outside the comm might be worthwhile, or it might be an extremely elaborate frame-up job(those things aren't that hard online). This is why I'd prefer if they mostly stuck to stuff within the community and left everything up to the LJabuse team.

~Kent

[tigerweave.livejournal.com]

I would like to see the policy of no trigger-warnings examined. It seemed to me what happened with my cat-macro was most people (I am including people who PMed me about it afterwards too) thought it wasn't anything of concern, but some did, and of those, a few seemed to have been triggered.

I know from my/our experience it is almost impossible to know what is going to trigger you till it has triggered you, and once triggered, you are too busy coping with the stuff it triggered to want to be worried about the way you are coming across to others.

I have always presumed "reader beware" with multiplicity, as even trigger warnings on obvious stuff in other forums don't cover the things that can trigger me.

But... I think it definitely contributed to the initial flare-up. And when people are upset, it is always harder to resolve conflict. I know as a picture it should have been under a cut (my bad.) but it could have as easily been writing that did it.

So yeah... I think that policy needs examining.

Also, nostre_stelle, you said to me not to talk to you again, so I am not posting it directly to a comment of yours, but it is here if you want to read it.

I am sorry for what went down. My initial PM to you was basically to try to clarify where I was coming from and try to ask you to clarify where you were coming from as I was really really unclear and your response had upset me.

I sent my PM to the mods as well, as I said I would, and that was an attempt on my part to make sure whatever communication between us happened privately was kinda mediated. I never heard from any mod on it at all, which really annoyed me. But maybe I was presuming a role from them they weren't prepared to take? I don't know.

Anyway, for the record I wasn't around in Nov. I was traveling and barely able to get online and totally missed the kerfuffle on Mutliplicity then, so I had no idea you had been so upset by any conflict etc then and were feeling victimised. I just honestly DIDN'T KNOW.
My PM to you was absolutely and purely about that post and that first comment you made ONLY.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I don't think you did anything wrong except perhaps overreact a little, and forget to put your picture behind a cut. Even if trigger warnings were standard practice in Multiplicity, I doubt cat macros are something that most people would think of putting a trigger warning on.

I am actually surprised, though, that trigger warnings aren't expected on the community. I dunno if I would want them to be mandatory--it is a community for discussion, rather than support, after all--but like putting trigger warnings on your kinky fanfic, it strikes me as being a matter of simple courtesy more than anything else; especially considering that this comm probably has a rather higher percentage of people likely to be triggered than the norm.

[tigerweave.livejournal.com]

Another thing I would like to see addressed is the multi-national nature of the community.

I get this in all the forums I have ever been on. Most are US-dominated. Fine, that is the nature of the beast, like it or lump it.
But... there are other nationalities present, and what one person thinks they are saying can quite literally have a different meaning or nuance when read by someone of another nationality. As a member of a couple of purely Aussie internet communities, I NEVER have the trouble "reading" the underlying meaning of other Aussies' words in the way I can do when communicating with people from the US in particular and elsewhere in general.

I know Canadians and UK people too who have found the same problem. Let alone the trouble in meaning with people whose first language isn't English.

This is important when it comes to conflict resolution because it is basically impossible to sort out differences when one person thinks the other is saying something different from what they are, and vice versa.

There is a simple solution, which is to have within the culture (and preferably the rules of the comm) that it is perfectly ok, and NOT a confrontation or trying to inflame things, to be asking for clarification of meaning.

And for the people in the US to be reminded that it cuts both ways - they may be talking to someone from outside the US, and thus what they think they mean may not be at all what they do mean.
For everyone to ask for clarification of meaning, react to the real meaning once you are sure you have it.

Edited to make sense (been a long day)

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

*jumps over here to address this stuff*

This is just basic good communication, really, no matter where you're from. And even for two people from the same area as each other, misunderstandings are damnably easy on the internet. A good tool to prevent that is "mirroring", wherein you basically repeat what the other person said, in your own words, and ask them if that's what they meant. If it's not, they say "no, I meant...", and you try again. My mother and I do this, and it makes conversations so much easier. I've started doing it with my friends at times as well, especially as a way to defuse heated conversations. Mirroring also has the fortunate effect of making the other person feel like they are being heard and listened to, which can solve a lot of conflicts in and of itself.

But that's all a teensy bit outside of the point. Basically, I think that politely asking people to clarify what they mean is a very good practice, one that should be pretty much ubiquitous. The internet is ambiguous enough without us helping it along by letting misunderstandings grow unchecked.

P.S. Re: my comment above about overreacting--that is how I read the situation at the time. To me you seemed quite upset about it, which I didn't think was necessary, but which would make sense if you were confused about it. However, reading people's emotions through the internet is a notoriously tricky proposition, so I may very well have got it wrong, in which case I apologize. ;) I just wanted to reassure you, since I didn't get a chance to at the time, that I don't think you really did anything wrong. The situation just managed to escalate, that's all.

P.P.S. You're from Australia? I have the craziest urge to make you talk at me so I can hear your accent. :3

[theroyalus.livejournal.com]

I just want to point out that it's a mistake to continue referring to the problems in Multiplicity as "bullying." Bullying implies an aggressor and a victim, and phrasing it in this way reduces the culpability of those who jump into the victim role, when in reality they are just as guilty of harassment as the other party.

This is not a school playground, this is war with complicated factions. I'm sick of seeing members of the community play the victim card and avoid responsibility for their own actions.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. I do think that bullying is what often happens--however, the reality of the situation is far more complicated than that, and allowing one group to be the "aggressor" while the other is the "victim" only allows the one who can pull off being the "victim" to shrug off responsibility for their role in the conflict. The wording doesn't bother me so much as the mindset, and the actions it leads to.

[personasystem.livejournal.com]

Really? There's no bullying going on? I have to disagree with that.

We've never had a significant conflict with anyone in Multiplicity. afaik we've never seriously hurt anyone in a thread or caused them lasting harm. And if we have hurt anyone's feelings I'd love for them to PM us so that we can apologize. But that hasn't made us immune to being mentioned several times in pluralanon by people we've probably never even talked to. That hasn't made us immune to being the target of IM harassment and both threatening and "helpful" PMs. These aren't things we will report to the mods because honestly dragging it out like that is worse than simply deleting the comments and moving on, but it happens. There are people in the community who've targeted us probably solely because of who we're friends with.

And we certainly aren't the only system that's been the target of this. I believe my SO's group has been attacked before, and some of our ex-friends left the community because of the bullying issue a few years ago. And I'm sure plenty of other groups have been attacked both on pluralanon and privately because they are "too weird" or have "too many" soulbonds or whatever other reason certain people can think of.

While I would agree that most of the issues in the community aren't really bullying, the idea that bullying doesn't happen and isn't happening in conjunction with the larger conflict is naive and really very uninformed. Just because it isn't happening to YOU or your f-list does not mean it isn't happening to dozens of other systems.

[jimnightmare.livejournal.com]

I think my suggestion is we maybe need more mods. I think the mods are pretty awesome but we can have good mods and all the good rules in the world and it's not really going to work much if the mods aren't always around. And it seems like kind of a really big and brain-exploding job for only a couple people.

[tigerweave.livejournal.com]

I second this, as a mod in a small local community, it takes almost no effort when everything is smooth-sailing but when it gets a bit hair-raising you really have to keep on top of it *at the time* things are going down.

So we have 2 mods and a backup couple of people who aren't "mods" but are brilliant at pouring oil on troubled waters.

This is all for around 15-20 people max.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

Here's something else I'd like to bring up, prompted by a conversation in the comments above:

There's a bit of a problem when it comes to the question of how a person should react to others. I'll use myself as an example here. Due to past issues, I have serious problems properly handling conflict. More to the point, some things just make me feel angry and threatened, bringing on anxiety attacks, depression, and all kinds of problems. Triggers--most of us have some, and most of the time it's not something straightforward enough to prepare for.

Now, to me it seems that a lot of problems in this community arise from people having difficulty dealing with their triggers. How do you guys think the community at large should deal with it when such things happen? On the one hand, I wouldn't really want somebody in the community to be disturbed by something that we posted. On the other hand, how responsible for their emotions can we really be? And on the third hand, if someone is triggered and begins lashing out and attacking others, how are we to deal with that? Discuss.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

Some things could be trigger-LJcut or trigger-warning labeled, if need be. These include things like abuse, assault, graphic memories, etc. They're (unfortunately) common triggers - or at best, things some people would rather not start accidentally reading before they realize what it is.

Some things are too vague to be the responsibility of the poster or community. Cat macros, for a recent example, is not something a poster would think to trigger-warn against - and with good reason, because it isn't a common trigger. Obviously, a respectful poster who wrote anything ill-received would follow-up immediately with the appropriate reaction, which may be a cut. It's a case by case scenario and hard to make broad assumptions about.

It boils down to lashing out by anyone? Unacceptable. Remove yourself from the situation if you can't politely respond, or accept that your response wasn't accepted by the other party. I took _survivors_ off my default view for this reason. It's as simple as that - removing yourself from the keyboard, or the community from your friend's page for a bit. If someone posts an un-cut picture of gore to enrage us all, that earns a right to be upset. But responsibility ultimately falls on the triggered party, and learning how to cope with the trigger.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

Well, I hope nobody minds this, but I'd rather not have to sort through all the random excess that made its way into the thread above, so I'm going to go ahead and re-start this one.

The question: Triggers are a common problem within the multiplicity community, and they often can pop up without warning. A turn of phrase within a comment; a picture; the mention of a name. We can't always predict what will set us off, that's simply human nature. How, then, should the community at large deal with a situation in which someone is hurt and triggered and lashing out?

Some views have already been put forward in the comments above; feel free to reference and compare. It's a complicated issue and I'm very much interested in finding out what others think.

[pyraxis]

Sounds good to me. Actually I was thinking of starting a new post. Would you mind copying this there?

- Pyraxis

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the new thread.

jimnightmare and us were discussing creating a community specifically for system members who needed practice communicating and learning how to be part of the community at large. Our questions were how to maintain it (keep it from becoming one of the million dead plural comms), and another question - how do you mod a community for people who have trouble communicating? How would you draw the line on "practicing" talking and being outright mean?