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

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

If at least one of the two offended parties can step away, it will help dissolve the conflict - there won't be anything else to argue about. It shouldn't be viewed as "giving up" to leave a conflict, either! No one is 'right' just because they stayed to fight. And if both parties can step away and not hold bad feelings because of a disagreement, there won't be argument.

If opinions between one group and another are SO radically different, the two can agree to avoid each other in order to avoid 'bad feelings', especially if both are prone to being defensive of their standpoint. But that's the thing about a discussion community - it's to take all viewpoints and discuss them without drawing lines in the sand. So if any group feels so strongly about a subject they can't help but be aggressive, they need to step away and let it go.

[pyraxis]

Yeah, that's true, if even one party steps away then it helps.

So if any group feels so strongly about a subject they can't help but be aggressive, they need to step away and let it go.

What gets me here is that it doesn't account for divides within the group. I have things I feel intensely about, but my headmate (gah, I hate that term) Celesty doesn't care one way or the other. For the groups that have one dominant member, how are the less dominant members going to assert their identities except by doing things the dominant member doesn't approve of? In cases like that, it can be difficult for the group to police itself, so it helps to have a community that's open enough to go talk, and make mistakes, and have other members of the community step in, rather than the dominant headmate trying to keep hold of everyone else. I mean heck, I'm getting to the limit of what I have words for here, and I'm probably going to have to get out of the way and let someone else take over.

- Pyraxis

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

Well that opens up a whole other can of beans!

If a group is bad at policing itself, or has one (or more) member(s) prone to... going against the rest of his/her headmates' wishes, then should the group be posting/commenting at all?

It's a fine line to see and to walk. It's rarely clear enough to be obvious - if a member of a group is saying things like YOU'RESTUPIDLOLHATEYOU, the mods - and whoever is receiving that hatred - have a right to react. But it usually seems to be one member arguing and unable to let it go... so what do you do then?

As much as we dislike pluralanon, there was one comment that summed up our opinion:

...whoever else is there didn't do jack shit to stop me. should they? yes cause it reflects back on them. it says "we let our headmate be a dick and that means we think its okay".

it's like shitty parents who let their monster kids terrorize everyone in the grocery store. it's not even an issue of not noticing, just outright ignoring it and letting it happen. only these fcking kids are in the store EVERYTIME I GO THERE.

seriously. if your headmate is a buttmunch then everyone will look at the system and say "wow they LET them be a buttmunch" and the whole opinion of the system goes down.

I think this is very true, and... sort of poignant, in a way. Individuals are responsible for themselves, but a unit composed of more than one individual is also responsible for its actions.

If you (ie: anyone) has a headmate that can't stop being aggressive, perhaps speaking with the mods about it would be a good idea. Or if it's SO bad, allowing the mods to temporarily ban your journal/headmates' journal until they've calmed down or learned to control themselves a bit.

It's another... case by case thing.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

nostre_stelle, unless you have something constructive to say, please don't reply for the sake of starting an argument. This is MULTIpolicy, not VSpolicy - we weren't speaking about or to you. Your hostility and accusations are absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for.

[personasystem.livejournal.com]

You quoted something that was an attack against them and said it summed up your opinion. I think that warrants anger and hostility.

[pyraxis]

*is still watching this whole encounter*

I really appreciate that you guys (and I mean everyone involved in the thread) are making an effort to talk this out.

- Pyraxis

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

The context of the quote was different than its original. It was not in reference to or about nostre_stelle. You may note we cut OUT the beginning that DID reference them as it wasn't relevant.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

If and when we are ready to discuss this with your group, we will. In the meantime, we have asked you repeatedly for space and not to speak to us for a while. We'd really appreciate if you would do that. Thanks.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

She was talking about policy in a policy comm. She pulled the quote from pluralanon because she liked the wording--this wasn't very PC at all, but there was nothing in the opinions she expressed or the words she quoted that either mentioned or incriminated you or your system in any way.

It is a discussion meant to be about policy issues within a community that she is a member of. She has every right to weigh in on it without people immediately assuming that she is talking about them, just as you have that same right--and for all the grudges that people may have against you, no one has done that to you. I would ask you to show the same courtesy.

Neither is it at all appropriate for you to make personal comments or passive-aggressively accuse them of being part of an anonymous community. If you believe they wrote that comment on pluralanon, you should present your evidence to the moderators. But comments like that do not belong here.

I find it very disheartening that we cannot even avoid things like this on our policy community, which unlike the main comm is meant to be a safe place for discussion. Let's get back to the topic I brought up at the beginning of this thread; I would be happy to hear your take on it.

(frozen)

[pyraxis]

Replies frozen.

- Pyraxis

(frozen)

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

In what way is this not my place? I am a member of this community, and this is a public post. Moreover, it is a situation directly related to the one I put forward in the original post in this thread. In fact, situations like this one are exactly why I brought it up. I feel there's a better way for this to be dealt with, and I think it would best benefit the multiplicity comm if we found out what it is.

[jimnightmare.livejournal.com]

It kinda seems like there has to be a line there in a way. I mean if you have somebody in your system who is going around being like flat-out abusive asshole to people then yeah I think that system's got a problem there and they're gonna need to find a way to deal with that.

But also I don't really like the shitty parents example because... well not counting kids in systems, people here are adults. I know I'd be pissed if I had my headmates looking over my shoulder at every single thing I did like parents making sure it was all approved of by everybody. We maybe did stuff like that in the past (maybe still do sometimes) and I think it was mostly BAD for us, like people have got to have freedom to do their own thing and be their own people, and if nobody is allowed to go out on their own and learn and make mistakes and stuff then how can anybody grow? I think I agree with what Pyraxis said about this. And if people in a system are really having probems then maybe they'd need even more to have a community where they can go talk about this stuff and learn and experiment or get help without getting judged so much for not having all of their shit together. Just maybe the line is between not having shit together and like going around and being abusive to other people and not being open to learning and changing or something? I dunno. Or like the "recreational emotional violence" thing sethrenn said?

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

We totally agree with your "over the shoulder" comment, now that you mention it. We can see how that'd irritate some systems - ours operates like that, and it's hard to remember not everyone is like us, lol.

And if people in a system are really having probems then maybe they'd need even more to have a community where they can go talk about this stuff and learn and experiment or get help without getting judged so much for not having all of their shit together

Making a separate comm is a good idea, but how do we keep it from becoming one of the million dead plural comms on LJ? That's our question... :/ Ideas?

[jimnightmare.livejournal.com]

We totally agree with your "over the shoulder" comment, now that you mention it. We can see how that'd irritate some systems - ours operates like that, and it's hard to remember not everyone is like us, lol.

Yeah. I mean when push comes to shove we got a chain of command thing over here, but lately it's like the more we try and stay out of each other's business except more like a family thing to each other sometimes, the happier we are.

Making a separate comm is a good idea, but how do we keep it from becoming one of the million dead plural comms on LJ? That's our question... :/ Ideas?

I don't know. Like actually I wasn't thinking separate comm when I wrote that, like maybe the comm we have is going to need to be able to have room for this stuff a bit. Not like letting people break the rules or going easy on banning them if they do or anything like that, but people realizing that not everybody is going to 100% have their shit together and try and find good ways to help and give advice and be a little patient with people sometimes if they need it. Wait actually I see there's a new post for talking about this stuff... I will go over there now.

[myorp.livejournal.com]

it makes me wonder if it might be good to setup a separate message board tied to the comm, with boards that maybe had somewhat different posting rules depending on the general topics for them.

i've seen community message boards that did that and it seemed to work, but lj doesn't have that functionality unfortunately. :P

~kat

[personasystem.livejournal.com]

Quoting things from pluralanon is a bad idea. There's no accountability and no credibility, because the journal exists solely to attack people (and primarily to attack people you openly don't like). You could easily be quoting yourself. And really, you're quoting a comment that is specifically targeting a member of this community and expecting people to view it out of that context.

For anyone who's curious here is the original.
http://pluralanon.livejournal.com/1045.html?thread=204309#t204309>here

We talked about this the other day. Your system has done this emotional "lashing out" thing in the past. Many times, in fact. The example linked in our LJ Note for you would have warranted an instant perma-ban from the community if we'd been on the mod team. You aren't immune to this behavior. No one is.

The mods can't stop people from getting upset. They can't stop people from getting into heated debates or whatever else. And asking to be temp banned is just going to throw fuel on the fire most of the time. It's extra cannon fodder for whoever you were arguing with. "So-and-so can't take the heat." "So-and-so got banned."

It's not a viable solution. When someone's triggered or otherwise emotionally involved in a debate they're already going to be combative and defensive. They aren't going to go on the retreat. And it also will directly feed into a lot of the harassment already going on because it's essentially treating multiple individuals as a single entity. My headmates have the right to debate whatever they like. I am not required to share their views or police them so long as they aren't attacking others.

-S

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

We felt the comment contributed to the conversation. We used it, and not in the context of attacking anyone. You may note for example that "you" is used loosely in reference to Pyraxis.

Please don't bring up personal comments about us. We're not talking about you and our opinion of your system - we'd appreciate the same courtesy. Thanks.

The temp ban for someone in-system was just a suggestion. This is a place to discuss ideas, and we definitely don't claim to have any answers. It's definitely case by case in every situation, which makes it hard to set down any rules.

[personasystem.livejournal.com]

There have been many other comments made that were not originally directly attacking someone that you could have quoted. Your intent does not change the fact that you quoted something that was an attack and hurtful and triggering to at least one person in the community as good example of your opinion.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

We can tell you're not going to believe the quotations harmless intent, so we're going to ask Pyraxis to freeze this thread as well.

[hushpiper.livejournal.com]

Just weighing in my view--I didn't know the context of the quote, and I saw nothing worrying at all in the words she quoted. I feel that if Cloud had simply said he wasn't comfortable with the context of the quote, he could have gotten an apology and perhaps an edit of the comment in question, and the conversation would have continued on course. Instead he took it as an excuse to passive aggressively insult R, and now I'm afraid the whole conversation has been pulled off the rails.

Some anger and hurt is understandable, but there are ways to deal with it and ways not to deal with it. That was, iirc, the entire point of my original post in this thread.