Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Log Posting Standards
-
@Pax said in Log Posting Standards:
I get how tempting it is to try to create standards that will encompass every situation. That speaks to the tech product egghead in me. But part of moderation is going with your gut.
It’s less about creating standards to fit and more about wanting to absolutely remove bias and personal opinion from the equation as much as possible. Since bias and personal opinion resulted in the events which caused this board to be formed in the process.
I agree that part of moderation is going with one’s gut; therefore, I think the admin team needs to feel that they’re trusted to make such decisions where the problem is unclear. It’s very easy to ban someone for being a dick when it’s very obvious that they’re being a dick.
The log wasn’t removed because we felt, or at least I felt, that the community didn’t allow me to remove it on my own recognizance. Especially when there was a limited expression of outrage at it.
-
@Pax said in Log Posting Standards:
There’s nothing wrong with walking back a previous decision and saying “sorry guys, we were wrong, turns out that this was in fact a genuine effort to provide clarity and context”.
You’re right. We are going to remove it for now.
-
Referenced by
Tez -
Referenced by Tez
-
we have 10,000 threads
-
I hate it.
In the absence of stated intentions or feelings, we are just ascribing them. So, people have to meet some standard of noble intention to be able to post logs? What standard? What if someone said “I am posting this to show that x was not solely to blame”? That wouldn’t be noble enough if we don’t agree? They have to be willing to engage and actively defend themselves? We decide what is humiliating or not for other people? Only ‘victims’ or gamerunners can post logs? Which is it? What if a gamerunner is posting a log but some of us feel the intention is to humiliate someone? What if the person we think it intends to humiliate is the accused bad actor, is it ok then? Does my opinion on this get weighted more if I say I am ‘very, very upset’?
-
ngl it feels weird to have a log taken down when most of it is still up elsewhere and if we are removing it to “protect the victim “ or whatever how are we accomplishing this goal with most of the log still up?
Hard disagree in removing logs based on ascribed intentions of the poster.
-
How do you guys feel about asking people to provide context for posted logs?
she/they
-
As has already been stated in the other thread, I feel like it was a mistake to take the log down. I don’t like the idea of speaking for someone that didn’t even ask for log to be taken down in the first place. It’s an assumption on a third party’s part that we assume we know what or how they’re feeling about the situation. Personally, I don’t like the idea of speaking in someone’s place unless they’ve given an allowance to do so.
In this case, this didn’t happen. So to me, it seems like anyone can create a reason for a log to be taken down. At the same time I’m not unsympathetic, I get that this is weird situation, but I also think about future situations where something like this could happen again. And thinking about that doesn’t sit well with me.
-
On the topic of logs in general, and perhaps this log in particular, I would want moderation regarding them to be without concern for the contents of the log.
If we are to have serious discussions about abusive, manipulative, or predatory people and their impacts – and to judge their validity – then we need access to evidence and counter-evidence if it is offered, even if the contents of the log are potentially horrifying.I would therefore establish three standards:
- Logs posted must have some context as to their posting if the context is unclear from the thread. It need not be true, noble, or other ideals but must be present.
- Logs containing anything that a television show or a movie would require a rating higher than PG to show must be behind a spoiler tag with trauma/content warnings visible.
- The poster must anonymise the logs as much as is practical without removing context-relevant information. Replacing character names with player monikers, and so forth.
I don’t believe that these standards are arduous, nor subjective, enough to cause problems.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:
How do you guys feel about asking people to provide context for posted logs?
What difference does it make? I’m asking sincerely. Because I think if it were Macha who posted that log (I don’t think it was), and she said “I’m posting this to give context so that people can see my side of things”, that reasoning would be disbelieved and people would still assume her intention.
fr fr
(she/her) -
@Tez I don’t understand how it will help.
Macha coulda just been like “this is here to show how innocent I am” and then it would pass your muster, no?
Regardless, I think retroactively applying a new rule in this instance is a bad look.
edit: quit stealing all my thoughts and saying them better @hellfrog
-
@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:
How do you guys feel about asking people to provide context for posted logs?
I mean, ok but how does that prevent someone from harassing somebody? I can easily make up a context, and again this log has already been posted once already and we have no context as to whether or not the other person involved feels any one way about this. I hope they were asked before the log got posted but I don’t see the need to demand context for posting a log either
-
@hellfrog said in Log Posting Standards:
What difference does it make? I’m asking sincerely.
The main benefit that I can see, and it’s a slim one, is to potentially remove the need for anyone to have to assume intent, context, who it’s from, etc.
It’s not perfect, but it’s better than having this same conversation again and again.
-
@hellfrog said in Log Posting Standards:
In the absence of stated intentions or feelings, we are just ascribing them.
Yes. People who intend to harass others very rarely preface their forum posts by stating, “FYI, my intention in writing this is to harass one or more people.” We’re kind of stuck inferring intent from method and outcome.
So, people have to meet some standard of noble intention to be able to post logs?
I’d personally settle for not outing someone whose identity was protected in the previously posted, nearly identical version of the log already available. Don’t really care about nobility.
What if someone said “I am posting this to show that x was not solely to blame”?
That would have helped me personally, if it had happened. It didn’t happen, though.
They have to be willing to engage and actively defend themselves?
I may have been skimming but I don’t remember anyone saying that.
We decide what is humiliating or not for other people?
There are quotes on this board of people saying they found it traumatic to read.
Only ‘victims’ or gamerunners can post logs?
I don’t remember anyone suggesting that, either.
What if a gamerunner is posting a log but some of us feel the intention is to humiliate someone?
Then presumably we would look at the evidence to support such a conclusion, and act based on an analysis of that evidence.
What if the person we think it intends to humiliate is the accused bad actor, is it ok then?
Ideally no, but this forum does kind of thrive on naming individuals as the enemy du jour.
Does my opinion on this get weighted more if I say I am ‘very, very upset’?
Why wouldn’t it? Why wouldn’t its effect on you matter?
-
I am a fan of the idea that a log is being posted, context is needed. I do mean more context than ‘This is a scene between X and Y’ Just slapping down the log in a new topic with no info, in my opinion, are ones that should be taken down. Good intentions or not, they are not providing info to people to properly know what is going on in this ‘one off’ scene.
The kind of context that I few as needing to proceed the log is why it is being posted and what it is related too. I’m not counting logs in already started topics where discussion of X topic or X person is already underway but like the one that was just randomly posted with nothing but the log. If Cobalt hadn’t previously posted part of it and added context she knows, we’d all be possibly arguing about the intents of the posts, who’s the victim, etc.
-
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
Then presumably we would look at the evidence to support such a conclusion, and act based on an analysis of that evidence.
but we can’t 'cause the evidence got removed
si/no?
-
My main concern with log posting isn’t really to do with context, people are going to make up whatever intent they like if they’re so minded - as others have already posted.
But it’s clear from the more visceral reactions to this particular log that a level of anonymisation and content warning is absolutely required. So that those who wish to view the log can do so with as much informed consent as is possible on an internet forum.
Lying liars are going to lie, but if I’m to make up my own mind about something I wouldn’t mind being given forewarning about what I’m going to read.
-
@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:
but we can’t 'cause the evidence got removed
si/no?
It was up for fifteen hours. Presumably everyone in this thread saw it. The admins seem to still be able to access the original posts, or at least the edited ones.
-
@GF I actually hadn’t read the whole thing, because it takes me a long time to read anything in logs that isn’t dialogue.
So my question remains: how are we to weigh evidence we aren’t allowed to examine?
-
@Pavel said in Log Posting Standards:
On the topic of logs in general, and perhaps this log in particular, I would want moderation regarding them to be without concern for the contents of the log.
If we are to have serious discussions about abusive, manipulative, or predatory people and their impacts – and to judge their validity – then we need access to evidence and counter-evidence if it is offered, even if the contents of the log are potentially horrifying.I would therefore establish three standards:
- Logs posted must have some context as to their posting if the context is unclear from the thread. It need not be true, noble, or other ideals but must be present.
- Logs containing anything that a television show or a movie would require a rating higher than PG to show must be behind a spoiler tag with trauma/content warnings visible.
- The poster must anonymise the logs as much as is practical without removing context-relevant information. Replacing character names with player monikers, and so forth.
I don’t believe that these standards are arduous, nor subjective, enough to cause problems.
I agree with points one and two, but personally, don’t agree with three. If you are posting a log about a bad actor, you should be able to name-and-shame that actor. Doing so might be relevant to who is posing in the log (or paging).
If we had half a log where one person is anonymized and the other isn’t, like in this example, and then the person did actually come back with a log that showed the anonymized person harassed the other player in the first half of the log, they should be able to post that person’s name.
-
@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:
@GF I actually hadn’t read the whole thing, because it takes me a long time to read anything in logs that isn’t dialogue.
So my question remains: how are we to weigh evidence we aren’t allowed to examine?
We trust the administrators to do their jobs, or we don’t.
