Not sure where else to put this.

Okay. I don't want people quoting or capping my vent thread posts to use them as rhetorical jumping-off points. Should I ask for my thread to be moved to ITA? Why is this only a rule for ITA? Wouldn't equally sensitive information be discussed in Brainbent, XX/XY or the Holler Closet?

 

Arguably, everything I do is informed by my personal abuse history, but I won't split hairs.

You're one of the mods. The fact that you can't give me a concrete answer means there's no consensus between mods regarding what to do in this case. Does that mean, depending on what mod is online, different actions could be taken? Or will whatever harassment is being leveled towards me just have to sit there and wait until everybody wakes up?

 

Thank you for that clarification. I think that still leaves a bit too much to the personal discretion of the mods; at what point is a post highly personal, and why are the mods in charge of deciding what's personal instead of the person making the post? Is it a rule that ITA is for abuse talk only (because if someone violates as guideline and that causes a mod to take action because it's not allowed, that's pretty undeniably a rule.) Why is ITA the only forum people aren't allowed to screencap (which is another rule; if you violate it, mods take action) when equally sensitive information is in practically every other advice forum?

 

(Hope it's ok to respond to this.)

Thank you for this. I'm pretty sure I agree. As far as I can tell, the reason we don't have Official rules is because Seebs doesn't want official rules. The rules still exist, they just aren't clearly stated, which I think does more harm than good, because newcomers or people who haven't been following this drama are gonna get pounced on for breaking a rule they didn't know existed.
I understand the desire to not overregulate things with rules like many forums would have (like no doubleposting, no dragging up old threads, no shittalking, no meanness, etc.) but I can't see anything damaging about having a clearly stated procedure for conflict.

 

I've written really extensive rules for forums in the past. It's something of a fool's errand for two reasons.

First, rules will never be able to prevent objectionable behavior on forums. So if anyone is looking for rules that will prevent , say capping posts, it just will not work. If you post it on the internet, it is going to be out there and read and used, probably by people you don't like.

Second, moderators and administrators will always be able to circumvent or hamper the rules. Or, even if they are perfect, will implement the rules according to their personal interpretation, which will sometimes not match up with yours. The rules will do nothing to stop this.

So, in the end, good forum administration will always be a matter of sound discretion. It will not be a matter of good rules.

 

The answer, if you were wondering, is "because seebs." Seriously. They think any rules, no matter how benign, would be inevitably used to harm members of the forum.

Also they think being asked to leave someone's vent thread to argue elsewhere is silencing, I think? I couldn't parse their last post.

 

Oh, I don't think rules will magically erase conflict on the forums, and I wouldn't really want them to. I think the "no rules" (by which we mean, no clearly stated and easy to find rules) policy is currently doing more harm than good, and that it would be more helpful to plainly lay out expectations of how to deal with conflict.
Doubtless there would still be messy situations with rules in place, but I feel I'm seeing a lot of conflict centered in one person having an expectation that someone else didn't. Unwritten rules sure as hell aren't reducing conflict or harm.

 

I can't even follow the logic of "we can't have rules because rules might hurt people." No Rules is pretty clearly hurting people as well. There is no solution in which no one is hurt ever no matter what.
As far as I can tell, Seebs is saying my refusal to engage with her in this thread was an attempt to shut down discussion of contrary opinions...which doesn't make sense because I am engaging with people who don't like or disagree with me. It is Seebs in particular I can't engage with to talk about forum policy because it's exhausting and unproductive.
And I'm STILL pissed off and skeptical about her assertion that, after I expressed I wasn't interested in that conversation, she chose to quote my post in my thread to criticize my wording with the expectation that other people would be able to explain my meaning, and then was apparently offended that I responded. If you want to talk to people who aren't me, do it out of my thread.

 

@Xavius Cool! I wasn't sure if you wanted responses or not, so thanks for clearing that up.

I really like what you're saying about preventative vs. informative rules, btw.

 

okay but there are multiple personal insults at seebs in this thread and i do think that people have the right to respond when they're being shit-talked?
like i absolutely understand and accept people not liking other people but that doesn't stop them being people with feelings

 

Sure. But Seebs didn't engage with posts I made about Seebs, she engaged with my posts on forum culture, which I am not interested in discussing with her.
I don't think there would be much point in discussing my personal feelings on Seebs with Seebs, because there is no way for her to prove that the way I feel about her isn't true. She's free to disagree with me, or to make a TCHGB thread to discuss my perception of her, but I don't think it would do much good, because my perception is built on my own observations and interactions and I suspect further observations and interactions are going to have the most effect in changing or confirming that.

 

No I mean, the thing I quoted. I wasn't responding about the thread at large, more the idea that it was unreasonable to be upset about mean things being said

 

I don't think @Ana Nimus was meaning to imply Seebs is not allowed to be upset, but since I am not a mindreader I'll let them clarify that themselves.

(Not sure on pronouns for you btw Ana Nimus, let me know if I need to edit.)

 

Seebs (Self-crowned Sperg King of the Internet): I don't see status and I'm impossible to insult.

Forum users: <takes piss out of the Sperg King>

Seebs: WALL OF TEXT

 

Its not unreasonable but it is the third or fourth time in the past few days that she's framed something as being entirely something caused by other people and not at all her. See also: the repeated mentions of "other people can't communicate criticisms effectively to me" when seebs also flat out misunderstands things sometimes. It makes it sound like the communication failure lies entirely with other people and not that seebs sometimes misunderstands things as well.

 

I can understand how it's read that way but I also read it as being aware of difficulty with communication on both ends