there are no rules in kintsugi

So from what I can tell, there are two problems that seebs sees with having guidelines about suicide bating and doxxing and such:

1: seebs and the mod team in general think guidelines merely about post types and post contents won't solve the issue, since mere post type or content alone don't determine whether a given post is a problem.

2: seebs and the mod team in general think that Events are not primarily caused by people with goals and/or emotional states where the guidelines would actually guide their behavior anyway, and hence the actual contents of the guidelines are largely irrelevant.

I have thoughts about both of these statements, but before I rewrite the walls of text that I have since deleted, I just want to be sure.

I also deliberately worded these to be "seebs and the mod team in general" because I would like to know if and to what extent the rest of the mod team is willing to take these assertions as policy, if not factual, since the one primarily communicating these assertions is, in my experience, pretty much just seebs. Are these Official Positions from the administration, or is this seebs-the-individual-mod making statements against which I can prompt the other mods to argue against?

 

As for me, I don't have an opinion right now. I'm trying to get a handle on things before tackling "policy".

 

Rigs still thinks it is possible to herd cats!

 

I don't think we have done a good job of figuring out what the "problem" (probably not the best word, but it's all I have right now) is. And by, "we" I mean everybody. Staff is running around stomping out fires, but we haven't figured out why this shit is on fire all the time.

ETA: Or even is shit on fire is a "problem".

 

I'm not sure you've ever really communicated the kinds of "rules" you are using, regardless of their structure.

 

It's on fire because there are people that like to start fires and get some internal satisfaction from seeing strife.
I won't say they enjoy it because I don't think they do - it just fills a void for them so they continue to light fires and then get offended at every little thing that burns them and then blame "the system" for not protecting them from the flames.
There isn't a fix for that since the whole idea of Kintsugi is that broken people are welcome and can get at least comfort even if we can't actually help.

 

I'm under the impression that this is sometimes why the answers you give aren't direct response to the questions asked, because the questions have some assumption that you don't share and you're demonstrating it. That's how I saw your questions back to fake and gay, even when even I was wincing a little at the probing turnabout of them. Pointing out that the answers would be gigo.

We've got that lovely thread for mods to talk about their modding methods and ideals. Could we do a thread about non-mods' expectations? There's been clashes of expectations, "should" statements re: what mods do, mostly made in meta thread and vent threads in direct aftermath to something upsetting. If this was a demonstration of a way the forum's not functioning up to ideal standards, some explicit discussion of what those standards are, what people want to be done different -- and why, and how that would theoretically work better -- would make this actually serve the apparent point of the demonstration.

 

Given that "don't treat people like trash" is a rule, I think if someone was using the guidelines (distinct from the rules) as a reason to treat someone like trash then we'd have a bigger problem than merely how many guidelines we had.

So, confession time: if it weren't for the fact that I know that people have unreality triggers here, I would happily be editing my posts all the time. I always find things I want to change after I post things, and a lot of what I say ends up being nonsense anyway so I don't particular care what I change them to. Five years ago I wouldn't have even considered that this would be more than a mild annoyance for other people; these were my posts, what would they care that my post about strawberries now instead talks about watermelons and ends in thirty seven "q"s?
But it turns out that there are people here with unreality triggers, a thing I only learned when someone else stepped on a bicycle horn in a place that I saw. And okay, that was a learning experience, but I didn't realize that it was more than a few isolated cases until I saw that bicycle horn get stepped on a bunch more times. Honk honk honk honk.
I don't have a need to delete my posts. I can get along fine without deliberately sowing confusion, or at least without doing it that way. I refrain from even editing my posts too extensively because I don't like triggering people. But it wouldn't have occurred to me.
And I wish I had learned via a list visibly posted somewhere rather than by watching someone else learn it the hard way. I wish that more of what I have learned about people here had been via preventative efforts rather than curative. And maybe it's a sign that I still don't understand people if I believe that non-harmful preventative efforts might be possible here to a greater extent than we have.

Is there any way to get people thinking about the right things? In cases like mine, where I have no real good understanding of what it means to be a person other than platitudes and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is there even any sort of description you can give of what the right things might be? Because I can guarantee that left to my own devices I will think about the wrong sorts of things, and not even the wrong sorts of things that you're thinking of.

That's good to hear. I guess I am trying to get a handle on what is policy and what is opinion, and if policy can't move, can opinion move. What can I expect from the mods, and what can I expect from each mod. If I ask a mod and then ask a different mod, can I get them to disagree, and if so, which mod should I go to first?

I agree that "mods reserve the right to adapt to circumstances" is probably ironclad, and that "not banning people for doing stupid shit" is also solid. Those are good things.
I am trying to get you to relent a bit on the "not really formalizing rules", but without the "formalizing" and without the "rules". I don't want anything too formal or absolute, nothing enforceable or with the implication of such, just a statement of "this bicycle horn has usually been pretty loud." Just a warning about other people's triggers.

 

I was specifically referring to this post:

which implies that you have "rules" of some sort. Maybe not rules in the sense of "if-then" absolutes, but some sort of system or quasi-system, orthogonal to ban-or-don't-ban type rules as it may be.

 

I would like to state, for the record, that I do not derive some strange sense of satisfaction from all this. I feel like this is tiresome but necessary, and even this post is a waste of energy that would be better used being productive elsewhere.

I do not derive satisfaction from defending people who were hurt, but I feel it necessary when they're on their own and vulnerable. The result is that I now deal with what they're against.

I do not derive satisfaction from stating where a problem lies, but I feel it necessary when the same problem comes up. The result is that while a few people may be informed, I am told I am stating the obvious, or requesting the obvious to be stated.

I make my fun where I can. See: My user title being the Phee-Phee Police. But a moment of fun does not satisfaction make. It just makes this bearable because I can glance to the side and see that.

(If someone can make a better joke of my username, do let me know.)

 

Please name these people to me, publicly or privately. To my knowledge, I have interacted directly with yourself, Beldaran, shithead (their username, not my nickname), Michi, and fake. I have indirectly interacted with Lissa, Morven, Spock and pal - that is, I have reacted to things they have said or done, but not spoken to them.

The only ones I believe I came off aggressive to are yourself and Bel, in defense of fake, as you both seemed quite intent on not answering the questions posed, and not apologizing.

Also, I feel this is once again stating that fake's hurt was, well, fake. Which is was not.

For what it's worth, however, I also appreciate Bel's transparency in the steps she would have taken.