seebs, please explain why you're doing the thing

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by unknownanonymous, Mar 6, 2017.

  1. swirlingflight

    swirlingflight inane analysis and story spinning is my passion

    I'm not following. Some of the role-playing in SPR is serious... and some of it is the shitposting orb and bees?. That's the whole point, to be a catch-all thread for things that don't have their own threads.

    If serious rpers have been trying to tell anyone that satire and shitposting have to leave so they can do serious stuff, they're wrong, and I need to tell them so.
     
    • Like x 2
  2. swirlingflight

    swirlingflight inane analysis and story spinning is my passion

    ....But I will do the telling later, when I'm in less of a "i’ll kick anyone’s ass. i’ll kick your ass. i’ll kick your dog’s ass. i’ll kick my own ass." mood.
     
    • Like x 4
  3. cleverThylacine

    cleverThylacine cuddles for the weird and the fierce

    Yeah no that's not what I meant. I was jokingly referring to the time people got upset because I complained that there was too damn much angst in the SPR. :)

    What I meant is that the chain of posts above is not actually roleplaying.

    A bunch of sockpuppets claimed not to be sockpuppets and I posted from Bill's account because the canon quote was relevant and it was easier than trying to find an image macro at too damn early o'clock while I was getting ready for work. Nobody was actually "in character" it was just a joke. When I RP characters they don't just repeat things they said in canon that are relevant to what the real people are talking about.

    anyhow end of derail this has gone on way too long I just don't want you to think there are Problems.
     
    • Like x 1
  4. swirlingflight

    swirlingflight inane analysis and story spinning is my passion

    Ahhh. Okay.

    It looks like the instruction to move, and the confusion about the instruction, came because there's at least two different meanings of "roleplaying" in use here, one where it's "subaccounts that aren't meant to be users of the forum," which is @bees? and @kringlefucker and all, and one where it's "characters for the sake of roleplaying." Rectangles as a larger group than squares kind of thing.

    People asked us to stop subaccounting / rping at the point where the accounts were no longer clearly fake accounts of Seebs. That's where it hit full derail. @kringlefucker wasn't pretending to be one of Seebs' accounts, and was at least the fourth account when there's a general guideline of only doing 1-2 comment derails like that.
     
    • Like x 1
  5. evilas

    evilas Sure, I'll put a custom title here

    Tbh I am still baffled that NOBODY had made an account explicitly named "sockpuppet" before.
     
    • Like x 6
  6. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    fine, two rules, one a complicated and hard-to express thing that expresses the need to respect other people's humanity, the other a precise equation covering the number of permissible sock puppet posts, and how it varies with the degree of shitposting.

    btw one of them wasn't fake, and was my actual sock.
     
    • Like x 10
  7. palindromordnilap

    palindromordnilap Well-Known Member

    Is it @rigorist or @Snitchanon?
     
    • Like x 12
  8. winterykite

    winterykite Non-newtonian genderfluid

    We might also need a definition of "shitposting".

    -ducks and runs-
     
    • Like x 6
  9. Technicality

    Technicality All's fair in love and shitposting

    • Like x 6
  10. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    for reference: the_fake_seebs is an actual subaccount i made way back in early 2015 for testing stuff
     
    • Like x 6
  11. palindromordnilap

    palindromordnilap Well-Known Member

    Make one sockpuppet? I'm mad. Make two sockpuppets? How could you.
     
    • Like x 2
  12. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Impersonate me once, shame on you. Impersonate me twice, shame on me.

    Pretty sure that's the expression. Old saws are weird.
     
    • Like x 4
  13. Technicality

    Technicality All's fair in love and shitposting

    Make 3 sockpuppets? You're officially that guy
     
    • Like x 5
  14. Lizardlicks

    Lizardlicks Friendly Neighborhood Lizard

    Okay wheeeee posting from way the fuck back in the thread and I apologize if this has been addressed or moved on and no one cares anymore.

    I've not been involved in the drama and like most people did not even know it was happening until feathers had been well and truly flying like a turkey plucking on thanksgiving. I have know idea how much weight my opinions carry within the broader community. I don't know how well my thoughts on this will be accepted or if I will be able to articulate then in a useful manner, but it is something that I have had thoughts on for a while now so here goes:
    I want to harken back to the tumblr post Jesse made here about people deserving love, respect sympathy, etc, but that no one person is obligated to give that to you- yes everyone deserves the support of a community, but that does not mean any specific community is obligated to continue to give that support in the case of someone doing repeat harm to that community. Part of preserving a community is protecting it on a broader level, not just with each individual. We are, most if not all of us, people who want to both give AND receive support, and try to help each other improve, but none of us to my knowledge are therapists. We aren't trained for this shit, not even the mods. There gets to be points where someone's damage is beyond what a community of also damaged lay pole can do anything about, for, or with. While I don't think perma bans should be a thing immediately on the table, I do think a three strike system leading to temporary suspension at least, might should maybe be considered. Clear warning of "this behavior is not cool, and you need to knock it off." If if further trespasses occur after suspension has been lifted, then- depending on thing like frequency or severity- how ever much seebs finds the idea distasteful, banning may need to be considered.

    Whether or not that ends up being a perma ban? *shrug* Maybe you'll want to work out some sort of appeals process? IDK Clearly none of us want banning to have to be a thing, but I think that if there is definitely "If/Then" set of explicit guidelines for what will be punished and how it will be punished, members will be much more inclined to try to regulate themselves as well as not feel there's nothing being done when someone else fails to do so.
     
    • Like x 6
  15. context-free anon

    context-free anon Well-Known Member

    impersonate me once, shame on... shame on me

    impersonate me... impersonate me twice... you don't get impersonated again
     
    • Like x 4
  16. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    So, I've seen a lot of N-strike systems and things like them, and I basically hate them. A lot. And that's why I've been focused so much on "how do we make a system that allows us to contain the harm". I don't want to make people leave because they're not good enough at controlling themselves; I want to give them prosthetic emotional regulation so they can practice on developing the thing. At one point, someone on moderation responded to the "this didn't get approved, it's too snarky" comment with "yeah i knew it wouldn't go through but it was really satisfying".

    Without moderation? They'd have said the thing and someone would have been hurt, and there'd have been fighting and an explosion. With moderation? They said the thing, but they stayed calm enough to understand that it wouldn't be a huge explosion right away and things would be okay. And they could work on processing their emotions.

    So, here's the thing: Post moderation isn't a punishment. It's a disability accommodation.

    Because the real problem has never been "person doesn't understand that this is a problem", or "person isn't trying". It's always been "genuine lack of control". And moderation seems to be able to address that. It didn't work great at first, because there were a lot of bugs to be worked out.

    I do not plan to add punishment to the system, ever. Punishment does not do anything but hurt people. It doesn't help them get better. It doesn't make boundaries clearer. It just hurts people, and in some cases, serves as a deterrent... But doesn't actually help people understand why the behavior isn't desired.

    I do plan to have clearer guidance on what kinds of things moderators will take steps to mitigate. But, again, not interested in punishment, only in "reducing the harm to people". Sometimes including the people whose posts are doing the harm; I dunno how many of you are aware, but in general people who have explosions feel horrible about them.
     
    • Like x 14
  17. Lizardlicks

    Lizardlicks Friendly Neighborhood Lizard

    I am very aware of the fact that people who have explosions feel horrible about them. Hmm. I think we might be operating on different definition of punishment or at least maybe I am using the word wrong? I mean to say that laying out a definitely cause and effect of "this kind of action will be responded to with this consequence." Not to imply that the person is bad and deserving of some kind of scorn or retribution, but rather if a person is repeatedly proving incompatible with interaction then the interaction will be removed. Full stop. No judgement value on the person sometime shit can't be helped, but at the same time if one of my kids is throwing a tantrum, the best and most effective way I've found of dealing with that is to simply remove them from the situation and let them rage it out in time out.

    I think there is a point where you have to realize that even with the best moderation possible there is some shit you and the mod team are not emotionally or professionally equip to deal with and continuing to try will end up with bad consequences for everyone involved, including the person doing the harmful outbursts.
     
    • Like x 7
  18. evilas

    evilas Sure, I'll put a custom title here

    That's what post moderation is though? Removing someone from the place and moderating their talking, not letting their messages through until they're preapproved by a mod.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    • Like x 2
  19. VJ Wocky

    VJ Wocky 34 Somnolent Void Seeks Perfection in Dissonance

    i think i am detecting a bit of "talking past each other" going on

    to my understanding lizardlicks is talking about what the course of action would be for dealing with people who know/understand what they are doing is unacceptable, are reliably capable of stopping, but choose to do it anyway

    meanwhile i think seebs is talking about what the course of action would be for dealing with people who know/understand what they are doing is unacceptable, are unable to stop, and the choice part of doing it is currently non-existant

    im thinking thats why seebs is getting "we must punish" instead of "we must have a plan in place for those that are less than willing to work on the issue" and lizard is getting "we can't do anything about this situation" instead of "these things are not as helpful under these circumstance"

    am i correct?

    *edited to hell and back for more clarity*
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    • Like x 8
  20. Lizardlicks

    Lizardlicks Friendly Neighborhood Lizard

    I think that may be happening as well yes. The things i'm thinking of when i say this are things like, we have had a couple of particularly nasty trolls pop up post election debacle, where they may be also mentally ill and in need to access to this kind of community, but they are entirely unwilling to even entertain playing by the rules when they can assert power more easily. Also, I'm thinking of instances where people have made socks specifically to go and antagonize people they were mad at, and that's not an outburst either. Even if it's a bad choice being fueled by brain bugs, that's still a deliberate and malicious attack. that's the kind of rabbit hole shit I'm referring, especially there were users responding by ASKING for the person to be removed and the mod reply was only "no bans".
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2017
    • Like x 3
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice