I don't think the no rules thing is working

It seems like there are a lot of rules, but I don't know how to find them, and if I break one by accident everyone will get upset, and it will be terrible.

 

Making a written set of rules and/or guidelines somewhere is not "imposing a moral code... and enforc[ing] it with threats." Numerous people have told you they need a list of things that are allowed and not allowed so they can feel safer reporting behavior that makes them uncomfortable, or so they can act within those rules and/or guidelines without fear of stepping on a land mine.

Could you at least try to frame it as a competing need instead of dismissing it as the evil workings of people who want to make nasty threats.

 

Maybe it would help to have an admin statement in the boundary thread, which peeps have been helping me workshop to help new folks with reasonable expectations for using the forum and interacting with other people in a healthy way that's conducive to recovery?
A lot of the time I've observed people asking for 'rules' or 'more guidelines' when it seems what's actually being asked for is details on what kinds of behaviors are healthy and unhealthy, which is a reasonable thing to want more info on given the purpose of the forum. I do agree that this is a competing access need, and that the uncertainty is really distressing.
It is understood that people will not be banned for breaking rules or going against guidelines. And that's fine, I don't have any real issues with that outside of an emergency situation. However there is a lot of conflict on the forum that when traced back comes back to different boundaries and understandings of how to appropriately enforce them in interpersonal relationships in a way that's healthy for both parties.
I've been too ill to super engage in that thread, but I'll try to read over any new stuff today and make updates if needed?

 

I'm glad we agree! But what would be really nice is if Seebs could make an effort to see this as a competing access need rather than dismissing the people that need it as not authentically needing it, and only wanting it for evil ends.

Rather, the users agreeing that people need something doesn't do a whole lot in terms of getting a list of things people can point at and say, "This is how [User] was mistreating me" or "This is how [User] was mistreating others."

Seebs, can you see why a concrete list of things like this may help a forum of abuse survivors identify abusive behaviors they may otherwise feel like they should accept? Can you see why this might be more helpful than "Oh, just report it anyway, and never mind the fellow who was airing the subjects of reports in public to laugh at how no one could possibly be upset by racial slurs, because that's just virtue signaling?"

"Just report it anyway" is clearly insufficient to a bunch of people who think they deserve to be mistreated, or that being mistreated is a fact of life. As for privately and publicly making jabs at users who were hurt and used reports to take this hurt to the mod team, the actions of former mods speak louder than words.

 

the no-rules approach kinda fails the second one person goes "no" when asked to respect persons boundaries, or when people's needs are impossible to reconcile (ie "i have to screenshot the vent threads of people i hate because of memory verification needs" vs "i dont want my vent thread screenshotted because it's inherently personal, private information")

 

Oh I don't dispute that. And also, yeah what leech just said.
I believe at this point it's vital that we have a conversation about community safety and how to handle potentially very dangerous edge cases. I meant to make a thread about this earlier in the month but I've been too ill.
There's clearly a problem, the preliminary votes on the poll would show that even if we didn't have events of the last couple of months to think about. However, I also think it's really important to try and keep the discussion focused on things that can actually be done to help. I'm not saying that's not happening currently. These threads tend to get bogged down super hard in terminology debates, which is totally understandable. Maybe if people posted what they define as a 'rule' vs a 'guideline' vs a 'boundary' that might help cut down on miscommunication?

 

[/saunters in]

Strong disagree. It isn't about healthy vs unhealthy behaviours. Expressing your sexuality (to pick a subject that's been hotly debated 'round the discord chats recently) is generally healthy. Expressing it towards inappropriate people - minors or those who just don't consent to that sort of thing - is not something I would characterize as an "unhealthy behaviour." It doesn't have much of a particular impact, in terms of the "needing to express this is normal and actually expressing it generally improves your mental health," who you express it to.

That doesn't stop expressing those feelings towards nonconsenting parties or minors from being super inappropriate. "Inappropriate behaviour" and "unhealthy behaviour" are not the same thing, and it weakens both terms to the point of meaninglessness to use them interchangeably.

[/saunters back out, letting door hit his arse on the way]

 

hm.
So again, that kinda highlights the access needs problem super hard? Because as the boundary thread has demonstrated, there's a lot of confusion over them. What's reasonable, what's unreasonable, what to do if you accidentally cross one or someone is crossing yours, and that then leads into the rules debate I think?
I don't know, I'm just spitballing here because we all keep coming back to this. And the guidelines in the welcome thread were a really good first step I feel like, but the vagueness on the particulars is the sticking point a lot of the time I feel.
There's a difference between 'imposing a moral code' and laying out things that would be unhealthy behaviors and things to watch out for in your own actions/the way people behave toward you.
Imposing a moral code: "Using twitter is awful, and we won't accept twitter users here."
Not imposing a moral code: "Pruning your twitter feed of politics and images of disasters is a good step to take for self-care when you are feeling overwhelmed, and reading the comments on political posts is often an unhealthy behavior that can lead to depressive spirals."
Maybe not the best example, I can't words very good rn.

I'm sorry, I legit cannot parse a lot of this. Expressing sexuality toward minors or people who don't consent is absolutely unhealthy behavior and also deeply inappropriate. I really don't understand :c

especially this part? maybe rephrasing would help..

[eta] added on the quote and after response because it showed up just as i was hitting submit. As said, I really think there needs to be a discussion about community safety.
[further eta] i can only talk about things i see on the forum, i don't take part in the discord chats because previously the skype ones proved hella unhealthy for me.

 

It might be useful to have a couple examples of things that will get your posts wiggled, and an explanation of TCHGB and vent threads. Both to have them written in plain English, and to give a better idea of when and how the mods will intervene in a situation.

Unless I missed something, a lot of the "everyone will get upset" isn't a rules issue.

 

Yeah, that's why I suggested definitions. There's social codes of conduct that kinda will naturally evolve over time as people spend more time around each other and online spaces aren't an exception to that in any way. There's a difference between that and site rules, as in "You cannot do this."

eta: also in case i muddled things up because fever brain, i believe the discussion about community safety and edge cases should happen in a dedicated thread because it's so important? I have been mentally drawing a distinction between unhealthy behaviors like "lifted 15kg when i'm only supposed to lift 5kg" versus "pressing up against consent and doing inappropriate things" because I think trying to discuss both at once will result in frustration, terminology quibbles and lots of good points getting lost, because that kinda tends to happen?

 

As many other people have pointed out, the situation we currently have isn't "Kintsugi doesn't have rules", it's "Kintsugi has rules enforced by both mods and users, they're not written down, no one wants to clarify them, and if you break one you're screwed". Not exactly the best environment for recovery.

 

True in theory? Maybe. True in practice? Nah.

Seebs went off at me a long time ago about an acquaintance of mine behaving inappropriately, and why didn't I stop them? I said there is only so much I can do to talk people out of things, and Seebs expressed frustration with me for not having done more. I don't know how it is possible for me to control others.

Seebs admitted to prioritizing other people's hurt over mine, after I had spent months begging the mods to do anything to stop continued harassment, because I struck him as a "big girl [who] can take it."

I've talked about this in Caring Void. The mods know about it.

If it is routine to sweep users who are perceived as tougher under the rug even as they are asking or begging for moderator assistance, where is their protection against being hurt? Does it exist at all?

 

I'm sorry that happened. I don't have any words or constructed thoughts on how to improve that aside from "assuming that people aren't telling the truth about their feelings and abilities is a thing people, especially in power, should watch out for and correct when they notice it"

 

Something needs to be done about small, vocal groups of people creating and enforcing of their own unspoken rules for how you can behave and express your opinions in public threads on a public forum.

see: people shutting down others with the wrong opinion by whipping out their boundaries that didnt seem to exist until now to control the conversation because "but muh boundaries!"

 

That's not really fair though, because like, what if the boundary did exist and someone wasn't comfortable expressing it? What if the person didn't actually realize it was a reasonable boundary to have until they were told otherwise?

eta: this is largely rhetorical, just, given what khan just said it makes me pretty uncomfortable to characterize a thing like that. I don't know if there's a specific thing being talked about.

 

see: you expressed that you didnt think "dont like dont read" was the end all be all solution to content online and now you sound like an anti and are thus inherently wrong, none of your points matter, and you should just shut up, karen