I don't think the no rules thing is working

i am talking about a specific thing. its called the amount of times i was dogpiled on a public discussion thread for having the wrong opinion because my opinion was "triggering" someone

 

I was very confused for a sec because i thought you were saying i said that, and then correctly parsed x3
I think the using of terms that quickly rouse negative sentiment as a tool to shut down conversation is really fucked up and sometimes a means in which people who genuinely mean ill can get away with controlling the flow of conversation in online communities (not saying that's what happened here, i wouldn't know) and therefore should be watched out for and called out when it happens. An anti is a specific thing. A pedophile is a specific thing. A terf is a specific thing. Using terms that mean a thing as a weapon against someone who isn't that thing just reduces the odds of having an actual productive conversation.

I'm sorry that happened.

 

it has, most recent time i can think of is calling people "antis" in the RPing boundaries thread

 

My memory is awful for specific things, thanks. Yeah, that. Like, that's what I would call an 'unhealthy behavior' because it can lead to creation of echo chambers, and creating an echo chamber on a site full on mentally ill people, some with severe scrupulosity and paranoia issues and history of dealing with echo chambers and being ostracized when voicing alternate thoughts is hella dangerous.

 

Short version: My definition of "unhealthy behaviour" is "a behaviour where the person doing it is doing harm to themselves."

Expressing yourself to inappropriate people rarely harms you (except sometimes in terms of social capital). It's inappropriate because it harms the other person.

 

And sometimes doing that will actively hamper their recovery and exacerbate their issue though. Pointing out that the boundary is still unreasonable is super important or else it'll risk getting worse. It wouldn't be a reasonable boundary for me to forbid all discussion of a topic in a thread I did not create, and humoring me if I were to insist on that rather than saying "I'm sorry, but no, that's not okay" would just compact the problem.

eta: that thread linked doesn't really help me understand, I'm sorry, because at the end of it the op says the following:

Like, I'm all for radical inclusivity. I genuinely believe in the ability of almost everyone to get better and improve themselves so they can interact with others in a way that enriches their own lives and the lives of others. I am also incredibly leery of accidentally reinforcing harmful pathologies in the process while also having a stated goal of helping recovery. A community environment in which unhealthy and potentially dangerous behaviors could feasibly be presented as things community members need to accept rather than things that need to be gently called attention too and worked to correct is an unsafe environment. Not only does that not help the person who exhibiting unhealthy behaviors, it can reinforce the trauma of others. So the end result there is that people get less healthy, not more so.

Ahh. Okay there's a difference there I think, because I do consider that to be doing harm to themselves as well, because, well, see above.

 

This isn't even a matter of watching out for something. This was the product of weeks (maybe months? I don't recall.) of sustained begging for something to happen, and has been brought up by me in CV where mods can see it more than once.

It's not a matter of "watch out or you might do it!" It's a matter of "you were asked so many times, and told so many times after the fact, to do something about this. You never did. You dismissed me over and over again, while talking out both sides of your mouth and insisting there would be steps taken to mitigate harm."

 

Perhaps it might help to add more clearly defined guidelines? Such as "please try not to suicide bait" and "please make an effort to respect reasonable boundaries [helpful link to boundary thread to help you decide if it's a reasonable boundary]" and "please consider using a spoiler and/or warning of some sort on things which could be triggering or upsetting." Phrasing to make it sound more like a guideline and less like a hard and fast rule.

 

The post I'm quoting isn't available because it's still in post moderation. Now, I know it might just be a mistake, but it has happened before that some of my posts didn't get published because some mods considered them "controversial".
So, I'm also going to join the people asking for clearer guidelines on which posts are okay and which ones can get wiggled or deleted.

 

Having posted that, I now realize that Chiomi has the last one completely covered in the guidelines thread.

 

Non-sarcastic question: What rules or changes do people want?

Less chance of this thread going in circles if that's a known factor.

 

I have never seen an online forum that didnt have a rule against backseat moderating. But since this no rules thing is clearly never going to change, then perhaps the best you can do is telling people to knock it the fuck off when they begin calling dissenters terfs or antis or aphobes or exclusionists rather than engaging with the meat of the argument, and encourage stepping out rather than trying to force unreasonable-for-public-discussion boundaries on people they dont like

 

That. Yeah that's fair, I think? That's, in fact, moderation as I understand it.

 

Hmm.

OK, here's where I'm at:

As far as I'm concerned, "No bans" is a rule.

It is a rule for moderators, but it is still a rule. It tells us something about what we should expect in the event of conflict.

What I, and I think maybe other people, would like to see, is something that lays out what kind of behavior we can expect from mods in response to community conflicts. A list of things that mods might or might not do, and things mods are not allowed to do.

An appeals process for wiggled posts and some form of transparency around disputed pear wiggles would also be nice.

Cause here's the thing: "No rules" means there's nothing keeping admin from disappearing every piece of content I've ever put on this site. (I mean, other than "I'm pretty sure they wouldn't," but that's because, 1) I know admin, and they probably wouldn't, and, 2) that isn't where my personal brain weasels live.)

Also, among other things- "Harmful behaviors & conflict between users will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with mods working directly with the involved parties to find a solution" is a rule.

"Users will not be placed under full moderation without their consent, except in extreme cases, the definition of 'extreme' being left to mod discretion" is a rule.

I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but... OK, you want to limit mod power and avoid the type of... behavioral edict, I guess? ... that can be weaponized by users against each other during conflicts.

What about a bill of user rights and mod restrictions? Would this be a good compromise between the conflicting needs of restricting administrative power & people needing to know what to expect from admin action?

*edit* As for things like... social consequences of breaking unwritten rules between forum members- gad, I dunno? I can't even figure that shit out IRL, like goddamn. :/