Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Feb 22, 2017.
That is a good idea. Thanks.
For the record, the question of 'but won't people freak out and melt down more/harder when they realize there's a group effort to shut them out' was raised pretty immediately in the thread that kicked this off, and I don't think there was much of any response at all given to it. So at least in terms of the current discussion, I don't think there's much that people have put on the table right now about this part of the issue.
Just a quick reminder, since apparently not everyone knew:
Jesse and I are both autistic. Jesse's got massive long-term pain/inflammatory issues that we've been trying to figure out with doctor assistance for several years. To put it in perspective, he got cortisone shots in his spine, and it hurt less than ordinary daily life did. It's a little better now, except that there's still fairly regular flare-ups and we still don't actually know why this is happening, or whether it can ever be gotten better.
No shit we're grumpy sometimes. And the deal is, you get a forum where you are absolutely allowed to argue with the admins, and make suggestions, and debate philosophy of forum administration, and where we have not yet banned a single actual member (spammers don't count) except by their explicit request, but you have to deal with us being ordinary boring humans who sometimes shout at people and sometimes fuck up and don't actually always apologize for it. We try to be good about it, but we do not promise to be perfect, and especially, Jesse is not about to promise to do much of anything until some of the major stressors get dealt with.
there was a response, but it was people specifically viewing palin's "liking" (use of the like button) of that statement as a threat.
I can answer that one from real world past-tense experience: Yes, absolutely. They will also have no motivation to even try to color within the lines anymore, because why should they? Once you've unpersoned them, what exactly are they at risk of losing?
Seebs, could you please apologize for you telling me in, gentle terms, to leave rather than criticize you repeatedly?
I've been watching you go on for a week about how one single user is causing a shitload of problems. That user no longer posts here. After being threatened.
Awesome leveraging of someone else's mental health, there. I am impressed.
I have answered every direct question and request.
*points to the 'mod hat' tag at the top of the thread*
Y'all started using the old terminology. I just continued it.
I only want you to uphold the standards you set for yourself.
Intent isn't magic.
Ah, yeah, the long version of that short story: Alix liked the post where that question was raised. Some people were like AAHHHH THEY'RE THREATENING US. I stepped in to say that I thought it was just them confirming that yes, this was a way that they/their jerkbrain would react (Alix liked that post, so I think I got it right). And then the discussion never really recovered from that derail and got back to the original question, so there were never really any actual answers offered up, and I think even the original person who posed the question wished that they hadn't done the thing, just because of the tangle that happened stemming from it.
I might have misinterpreted Kathy's posts, but I got the impression that Wiwaxia was planning to return in the not-too-distant future. Taking breaks from the forum isn't all that unusual, even among the general userbase.
So, that's sort of the problem with the "but they're all faking, none of them are seriously trying to improve, it's all just serial abusers doing honeymoon periods" thing. That's what gets us things like people jumping to the conclusion that Wildspyer was Alix, and then jumping to the conclusion that HFL's other spare account was Alix. It's what gets people viewing a like of a post as a threat, because it's absolutely unthinkable that someone might think "actually that's a sort of good question" or something.
If you assume that people are definitely compenent and malicious, you will read them hilariously wrong. Consider the time I concluded that CAA's boyfriend was an abuser trying to set him up for horrible outcomes. It simply did not seem plausible that anyone could actually be that bad at defending his boyfriend from criticism. But... I was totally and ridiculously wrong.
Grace and charity are really good ideas, they will do you a lot of good. I can say this with total authority because I really suck at these things.
Seebs, you admitted yourself that the coincidence between Alixs Skype message to me and HFLs sub getting banned from my vent was surprising. Please do not act as though I was being unreasonable.
I'm owed an apology because I broke the fuck down in a chat where seebs was present about this exact thing. I didn't ask for one. I gave you one. I would like one, please, because he is correct. ETA: in this case 'he' for seebs because what the fuck are pronouns
I went into detail at one point about the exact path my own mind would take, and in summary: that.
So far as I know, they were taking a break and were planning to return, and are aware that I don't particularly stand by the "threat".
But you did say it that staff were the people who had driven people from the forum. Do you actually believe that to be the case?
I may not have been sufficiently direct about the questioning, but I've been trying to figure out what you were looking for for ages, and I couldn't. You kept saying "staff" when you meant "jesse".
And why on earth would you do that, given that the terminology is itself pretty harmful? Why not, instead, ask whether the "mod hat" tag was intended to communicate a thing, and if so what, and whether we stood by it?
Dude, you're older and wiser than me. I can't do the indirectly-implicit-Socratic-method thing right now. If you see a thing, try directly stating the actual specific thing, not using indirect things and runarounds. I can't work through from "gosh that's oddly formal language who would do that" to "rigs is commenting on the mod hat tag" without hints.
Well, I think that'd be great, but realistically: I can't. And being yelled at for not doing it makes it harder, and more remote, and makes me less inclined to even keep trying.
So, dude. Help. Cut back on the snark, give advice, and be concrete and specific so I don't have to do as much work to try to untangle things. I love doing that when I've got the time and spoons, but right now, I've got neither.
But when people are afraid of intent, intent is the thing that determines whether or not their fears are ultimately justified. I'm not saying it's unreasonable for people to react with fear, I'm just saying they genuinely don't need to be afraid of the thing.
After some thought, I have this.
Seebs: I am really fucking worried about you. You are freaking out pretty badly about forum bullshit. It's fucking up your life. I'm guessing it's fucking up Jesse's life, too.
I think you are viewing yourself and this forum in a therapeutic way--as something that will make/help people "get better". But you have no training in how that is done. You are an autodidact who has talked to a lot of people. More importantly, you have little to no access to the support actual mental health professionals have to keep them from going nuts themselves. And it is showing.
You are taking on too heavy of a burden here by trying to help too much. You can only run a forum. Do that and do it well.
I don't think that was aimed at you at all, or that drawing that conclusion from available data was unreasonable
It was the Other sub, to which only replied to my vent, in terms of people currently commenting, and I voiced to Seebs privately I thought it was alix. In gentle terms, bull fucking shit that wasn't directed at me.
It's actually not, because he's ignoring it.
Ahh, see, there's the tangle: I discovered, sorta by accident back when I was trying to run üc, that subverting the presumed power structure of forums can have significantly weird effects. So it turns out that running the forum does actually demonstrably help people get better in a way that it can only do if I run it in that surprising way.
Problem is, I genuinely have no clue how to run the forum that way if people want to actively break that because they hate the subverted power structure and want a traditional power structure. Because all the tools I'd otherwise have for defending the forum don't exist.
So either I try to run it this weird way, and I have no clue how to make it survive the attack, or I concede their point, revert to using well-understood tools that I am quite adequately able to use... and lose the thing anyway.
I have great news! I can save Camelot if I just kill Arthur.
@leo i think a thing that might help right now: if you are not tagged in it, or have it clarified shortly after because a thread is moving too quickly that somebody was talking to you, it has generally been the case here that it was not aimed at you.
(universal you, here), particularly when dealing with autistic people. I know I certainly try do not do that thing, because it's confusing as hell and creates misunderstandings.
the response was to raybot, and you are not the only person who has expressed doubt over the circumstances discussed
Kathy, this part.
I will confirm this: If I'm talking to you (general-you), either I'll quote you, or I'll quote no one and try to remember to @ you or something. (I think I spaced on a reply to leo a page or two back, but it was a post with no people quoted). If I quote someone, my response is directed at them. I am not a complicated enough creature to be secretly aiming the response at someone else.
Kintsugi is based on the premise that nothing anyone can do or say makes it okay to treat them like trash. By logging in, you affirm that you understand this to be the foundational premise of the community. More on our community philosophy here.
Separate names with a comma.