Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Log Posting Standards
-
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@bear_necessities said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
I don’t understand why this was posted again, someone explain.
Shock and annoyance value, would be my guess.
Um… then why are these posts allowed to still be up with just a name redacted? Doesn’t that mean we’re doing NaderElShammy’s work for them by perpetuating this, and contributing to the narrative that the redacted individual actually asked for it so it’s all their fault?
-
@GF no one is perpetuating that, and in fact everyone who has commented on it has stated they feel the opposite? Let’s not jump to deleting anything we don’t love as a first resort.
fr fr
(she/her) -
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@bear_necessities said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
I don’t understand why this was posted again, someone explain.
Shock and annoyance value, would be my guess.
Um… then why are these posts allowed to still be up with just a name redacted? Doesn’t that mean we’re doing NaderElShammy’s work for them by perpetuating this, and contributing to the narrative that the redacted individual actually asked for it so it’s all their fault?
Do you really want me to decide what things to allow and disallow? No, no, you don’t. We keep our hands off when it comes to moderation unless and until there’s an egregious breach of our limited rules.
-
@hellfrog ty I couldn’t figure out what I was trying to say other than “because it feels like cherry-picking.”
-
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
Do you really want me to decide what things to allow and disallow?
I want to disallow posts that exist only to further harass a victim of harassment by fishing for a debate about whether what they reported as harassment is actually harassment according to a bunch of internet strangers who weren’t there. I really don’t feel like I’m taking a radical position here.
-
@GF forums are, by both definition and tradition, places to fish for debate/discourse. This is also the ‘rough and rowdy’ section. I think you kind of are taking a radical position.
If the person in the log showed up and said they felt victimized or wanted admin to take the log down, that would be a little different! As it stands, we don’t need to assign them roles and feelings.
-
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
Do you really want me to decide what things to allow and disallow?
I want to disallow posts that exist only to further harass a victim of harassment by fishing for a debate about whether what they reported as harassment is actually harassment according to a bunch of internet strangers who weren’t there. I really don’t feel like I’m taking a radical position here.
Well, since that debate isn’t happening, and the poster hasn’t returned to make any claim as to their purpose, I feel that the actions we have taken thus far are enough. If the situation changes, then so will our response.
Our authority on these matters is limited, intentionally so. And will remain so.
-
To me, this board is a continuation of a tradition in the community that is centered on two principles:
- A light hand at moderation
- Encouraging transparency and accountability
As such, unless someone is violating our rules, we will not be engaging as admin. I did make the choice to edit the thread to add a content warning, as I felt the thread needed it, and to remove the other character’s name. However, I do not feel posting this log violates our rules otherwise.
It just makes the poster look stupid.
she/they
-
@Tez said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
I did make the choice to edit the thread to add a content warning
A choice supported by the rest of the team, at that.
-
@hellfrog said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@GF forums are, by both definition and tradition, places to fish for debate/discourse.
I did not say I disapprove of fishing for debate. I said I disapprove of harassing people using fishing for debate as a pretext.
If the person in the log showed up and said they felt victimized or wanted admin to take the log down, that would be a little different! As it stands, we don’t need to assign them roles and feelings.
I did not assign the redacted individual any feelings. I assigned motivations to NaderElShammy. Harassment is determined by the harasser’s behavior, not by the recipient’s response to that behavior.
-
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
Harassment is a determined by the harasser’s behavior, not by the recipient’s response to that behavior.
Both are taken into account, emphasising how the recipient feels more than what the instigator did or intended to do.
-
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
Harassment is a determined by the harasser’s behavior, not by the recipient’s response to that behavior.
Both are taken into account, emphasising how the recipient feels more than what the instigator did or intended to do.
But we know how the recipient feels: they already reported this incident to Cobalt as harassment, and Cobalt already reported that it was so, in her words, obscenely traumatic to read she shut down her game over it. Cobalt, who just announced leaving for an extended period before this log was posted. So that’s funny timing, innit? Funny coincidence.
But I’m just saying, if the recipient’s response is necessary to call a thing harassment, then we got that response five days ago.
-
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
But we know how the recipient feels: they already reported this incident to Cobalt as harassment
No, we know how the recipient feels about the incident in the log, not about the log being posted. The admin team here is only concerned with the latter.
We don’t know who the poster is, or their intentions. And we aren’t going to discourage people from posting logs unless their intention to harass (or otherwise break our few rules) is clear, or the individuals concerned make it clear to us that they feel harassed.
Do I think the poster is foolish for posting these logs without comment? Yes.
Is that against the rules? No.He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
Harassment is a determined by the harasser’s behavior, not by the recipient’s response to that behavior.
Both are taken into account, emphasising how the recipient feels more than what the instigator did or intended to do.
But we know how the recipient feels: they already reported this incident to Cobalt as harassment
I’m not actually sure that they were the one who reported it to Cobalt. Someone else might have. I don’t think Cobalt was 100% clear about that.
-
@Pavel said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
@GF said in Enjoy the Reads!! (Admin: ETA a content warning. It's THE LOG from The Pack thread.):
But we know how the recipient feels: they already reported this incident to Cobalt as harassment
No, we know how the recipient feels about the incident in the log, not about the log being posted. The admin team here is only concerned with the latter.
We don’t know who the poster is, or their intentions. And we aren’t going to discourage people from posting logs unless their intention to harass (or otherwise break our few rules) is clear, or the individuals concerned make it clear to us that they feel harassed.
Do I think the poster is foolish for posting these logs without comment? Yes.
Is that against the rules? No.I’m very disappointed. This log being here is harassment; it is so bad that reading it made Cobalt shut down her game. If people aren’t joking, it’s been triggering people. This is…harassment, this is obviously harassment, and the victim not showing up and going ‘please take it down’ – that’s…I don’t understand the reasoning behind this.
“We have no proof that the abuser intended to harass the victim by posting this, so it’s not harassment.” wtf. What the actual fuck. This isn’t a debate, this isn’t a discussion, nothing helpful or positive or constructive can come out of this log. There’s nothing to talk about, there’s nothing to verify, there’s no function this log serves beyond harassment. Cobalt already posted enough of it.
“We don’t know how the victim feels.” Yeah, but that doesn’t mean we need to enable them to be further victimized using our tools.
“Light moderation” is no excuse for condoning harassment. HARASSMENT is the whole reason we need mods at all.
the entity previously known as Sunny
-
I think there’s a fine balance here and I don’t like the direction that we would take if we removed this log. If I am accused of being a bad actor to someone in a scene, and I come here and post the log of the scene in the entirety, that person accusing me (or their friends) can say I am harassing them by posting the log and get it taken down?
Idk, that worries me. People who have logs should be able to post logs.
-
@IoleRae Without context, I have trouble saying what makes this harassment without knowing who it is that is posting this. There is no context at all, no explanation, and no reasoning.
I do suspect it was not posted with good intentions, but I don’t know that – and I have trouble with admin being the arbiters of what logs are allowed and what logs are not. I tend to believe the text speaks for itself and to let people make their own judgments.
I WOULD like to hear more though about what people think about this, so I am glad that you and @GF HAVE dissented.
she/they
-
I am honestly very, very upset, putting myself in NAMEDELETED’s position. I genuinely do not understand how given the entire context of the situation, ‘hands off’ is the correct approach. Y’all have context. Y’all know this isn’t positive. You “suspect” but…won’t act without that suspicion confirmed. “pick and choose” what is and isn’t against the rules is the role of a moderator.
Somebody is being victimized, and we are perpetuating and providing their abuser a platform to continue.
the entity previously known as Sunny
-
she/they
-
Yes.
