As far as adjectives go, it's a fair one, though I will say that when I'm the one who had to google the word, the 'incoherent' label might have been unfairly applied :p I post very, VERY rarely to the beach, because I'm conscious of my status as a mod, and a mod who's frequently in the thick of fights, and I don't want to make other beachgoers uncomfortable. I have posted VERY occasionally about beverages and that's about it. I have never dragged my own grudge into the beach, or even commented on the thread about how distasteful it was to me when someone else did that. So like... sure? I can stay quiet, which won't be much change, but I won't pretend it's invisible. And apart from the unnecessary dig at how i communicate (something I've mentioned being self-conscious about before, for the record), I don't know what your goal was. I'm not even really insulted, just confused.
I think Rigs considers the cT situation to be Unfair Staff Dogpiling. Whether or not that's the case is not something I'm going to judge.
I had to stick my nose back in here because of other incidents after taking a relaxing break. After hearing seebs boast about "no trouble on the forums" I get to watch Staff assemble probably the shittiest case for discipline ever. To wit, cT posts essentially "I'm not gonna do any more drama with Staff." In reaction, Staff has a fucking shit fit at this defiance of the loving grace and guidance. And the only evidence of the great evil that now warrants the most second most extreme punishment Staff is willing to inflict that isn't from last year is that cT posted too many pictures of some kind of weird cat creature in her own vent threads.
Yeah. And those are valid points. I just think it was unfair to make the personal potshot you did at Spock. I'm a friend of cT, you know, I'm not gonna shove her down the stairs.
Rigs, this business is referenced to specific events pretty heavily, with the exceptions of when there are privacy concerns where like, void posts can't be cited directly. You aren't as out of the loop as you want to act, and there's a thread in tchgb full of still-relevant supporting info that says not a word about fossa pictures. And as wordy as I can be and have been, you're a lawyer, you know how to read long, long things :D
Showing up to gloat about how the community is just as shitty and full of drama as you suspected doesn’t just hit the staff, it has a pretty high risk of splash damage to the rest of us. If there wasn’t drama before, there certainly would be after that.
Erm, excuse me but I have a quick question if I can ask it: Does this include PMs for cT? Being unallowed / moderated?
It shouldn't, at least in my case PMs aren't affected in any way. They can be separately disabled, though.
Default config of "post mod" allows continuing conversations but not starting new ones. I can set up fancier permissions if it's called for.
To clarify, pm's aren't moderated but cT won't be able to start new conversations. Other people can start new conversations with her and she can respond tho.
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that. I'd feel real smart pming someone who couldn't reply, you know? :P
I think one point I really need to clarify, though, is: This is a two-tier problem. Tier 1 is that cT sometimes makes posts people find "creepy" or "intrusive" or whatever. This is not a big problem. It is not a thing that would mandate post moderation (although we'd be happy to do it if someone wanted it). It is not a thing that would need significant commentary, etcetera. Tier 2 is the actual problem, and is that when people express concerns about the Tier 1 posts, the responses to those criticisms are a problem. The responses deflect, diminish, demean, and deride. They involve claiming that people claimed or wanted or did things that verifiably absolutely did not happen. They involve speculation-on-motives. They involve holding grudges for months and making snarky comments about people. And they follow a general pattern in which, even if every single other person involved in a conversation can agree that there was a clear and reasonable boundary which got violated, cT must come up with an explanation of why the behavior was actually okay, and the complaints were invalid and wrong and should not have been made, and the people making them are at fault. That is the problem. People have tried making "I" statements, and have gotten snarked and attacked and dismissed, or simply ignored. And that is abusive behavior, and it is behavior many people here associate with previous experiences with long-term abusers, and that is why people are afraid to say anything, and that is why even very-mildly-annoying behavior produces nightmares and panic attacks. Because there's no way they can ask for the behavior to stop that will actually result in the behavior stopping. Instead, if they ask for it to stop, they will get lectured on why they're not the right person to complain, or their complaint is based on a misunderstanding, or it's based on latent misogyny. So the actual outcome is "the complaint results in personal attacks, but the behavior does not stop." And that is the problem, and this is not new information, it's been stated before many times in many different ways, with concrete examples. And it doesn't matter that the initial behaviors are pretty minor and would generally not in and of themselves be a big deal. What matters is that people are repeatedly being told that they aren't allowed to set a boundary, and they aren't allowed to say "hang on that's concerning this looks bad". And then told "oh, of course you can set boundaries, I am great at respecting boundaries, I'm the best at it, you just have to tell me the boundary, you're imagining things if you think there's a problem." But we know what happens when people try. And it is a problem, and the claim that there's no problem is itself part of the problem. This is a forum heavily populated by people who were being abused, and no one said anything, and if someone had said something, it might have stopped. "People need to not comment unless they're one of the participants" is not a policy that we're going to adopt.
alright well since i’ve been pinged. i think privately informing people about these kinds of things is a good idea, and i’d like to see that in the future. anyway. i have repeatedly told cT, in my thread, when i’m not cool with certain topics of conversation. it doesn't fucking work! i say “stop” and she stops for a day or a week or whatever, but then it comes up again and i have to field more weird sexual stuff or whatever in my vent. or like, vaguing people. i have explicitly said “don’t vague people in here” it’s in my fucking OP for god’s sake, that doesn’t stop the vaguing from keep happening. i like rping with cT, i really do. i don’t fucking like the way she simultaneously treats me like a peer and like a child, depending on what’s most convenient. i don’t like the subtle shaming when i boundary up, the “well if you’re so upset then i guess” tone everything carries. i don’t like the repeated derailing of my thread with shit i don’t care about or don’t want to talk about. i’m not cool with the way she’d use my vent thread as her own before “reclaiming” hers. the list goes on. so the problem is, in order to have my boundaries respected at all, i have to constantly, constantly be restating, reminding, and reinforcing. it is unfair, exhausting, and unreasonable for my boundaries to be respected if and only if i am ready to throw down about them at any given moment.
i have been in conflict/disagreements/arguments with ct before but my experience of it was different than most of the conflicts described here, i think. 1) ct has never badmouthed or vagued me anywhere after we got in a conflict/disagreement/argument 2) ct has respected my boundaries and not kept pushing when i told her to stop 3) ct's backed off on (and deleted stuff) from her interactions with me (one example being an interaction between lissa and temple in the spr in which lissa basically called temple a racist) when i told her that it bothered me a lot (and i wanted it gone so i wouldn't have to engage with it, in the cases in which she's deleted it) 4) we have been able to come to calm resolutions of our conflicts/disagreements/arguments that, though never perfect, have satisfied me just fine
That's good to know, unknownanonymous, thank you. From your example supplied here we know that cT is capable of the things you're saying, but chooses not to do them in what appears to be the vast majority of cases. That's important data to have.
Oh I've seen her back off too! But not without a passive aggressive "Well, I'm sorry I GUESS" to go along with it. Gotta say, I haven't seen her respect boundaries for more than about a day tho. Good for you if you're happy with her responces but a LOT of people are not.
