This makes me sound like a troll (I’m not) but, seriously, am I not welcome if my personal beliefs don’t match yours? Being 100% serious.
Well if you are willing to erase certain people’s experiences because they don’t match with yours, then pretty much?
Well, by suppressing discussion from underrepresented groups while hiding means of suppression, it ensures that only their views are heard while underrepresented groups stay underrepresented. In other words, according to Ahmadenijad, there are “no gay people in Iran.” Well, who would refute that?
I’ve already been warned privately not to engage but this really deserves a reply. Saying I don’t believe in privilege in no way means that I want to “erase” anyones experience. I’m happy to hear all voices. I want my voice to be heard to too. Implying that some voices are privileged carries a lot of hidden negative meaning toward the one you imply has the “privilege”. Submitted with all respect.
Just for some context, I just messaged & warned @tr909 directly. They joined lines less than an hour ago, so you can make your own judgments there.
I will say that this discussion is rather off-topic. If this is a discussion that you (we?) want to have, I’d respectfully ask it to be taken to a separate thread.
agreed. didn’t mean to stir anything up.
Understood. Sorry for taking the bait.
I have no problem with that, it’s succinct enough and notes the inclusivity of lines.
I’m ok with this. I am also a bit in the less-words camp, but if this helps in making the core concepts clearer, and present lines as a more open place for people who are not welcome in most other places, then I’m all for it.
It does have the FAQ, available to everyone from the top right menu, adjacent to their profile icon
It’s very relevant to this thread, covers similar ground to the current draft, what’s being discussed here, and what is already practiced on the forum.
On the current topic, it encourages positivity and discourages intolerance and hate speech, rather than listing specific identity groups / variables that are tolerated. I’d vote for something along those lines, which seems more general, more canonical, and a better expression of the spirit / principles behind ideal conduct. At the same time I do see the value in making it concrete that certain people are safe, and like what’s been developed here
While this is a good list, I think ideology need to be considered differently than the rest. It’s simply impossible to respect all ideologies when they often conflict with each other, and with the other points on the list: it’s also common for those accused of intolerance to claim to right to express their intolerance. I think that, if a Code of Conduct is to be useful as a tool for moderation, it needs to address ideology separately, with the proper caveats as to what is welcome and not…
Certain ideologies are to civil society as cancer is to the body.
What is the problem with a negative statement like misogyny racism homophobia transphobia will not be tolerated?
@ubu, that’s a direction worth considering, for sure! i did offer up this version of the closing statement in an edit of my last post, but maybe it’d be good to float again:
i just want to ensure that this terse version still provides a feeling of welcome and protection to those who need it. open to any good middleground.
This post might be helpful:
oh man, an Eilezer Yudkowsky blog on lines! It’s a good day.
I hadn’t read this—it’s an interesting take on Eternal September. I really liked his point that most if not all communities are constituted by exclusion! Even with messages of universal acceptance and goodwill, someone’s left outside the fold. I think this is one of the resonances I hoped bringing up “[people] are smart enough to know when they’re not welcome” would highlight.
I also sympathize with the call for moderators to feel comfortable using their powers for, like, pruning purposes. Certainly it would be a crying shame if we got so gear-focused that we lost people like @zebra.
All of that said, there were a few things that made me stop and think for a bit that I’d like to mention… I hope I don’t get too far afield from talking about a Code of Conduct. I’m struggling to put my finger on a good quote to pull from the post—maybe somewhere near that paragraph with all the maybes? Anyway, he makes the transition from positing that exclusion is fundamental to all good communities to talking about moderators more or less by arguing that therefore the goal is to find (or become) a good archwizard. It’s a little slippery, but maybe you’ll agree that there’s a little taste of “might makes right” there?
I know the whole post is trying to get us to be suspicious of our egalitarian instincts, but I think maybe we shouldn’t put them away too quickly?
There’s definitely a tension there. If you’ve ever lived in an egalitarian community with a consensus governance process, you’re more well aware than most that even in that situation, leaders emerge, and power is still a thing. Such communities are doing well when they’re able to acknowledge this reality and double-down on finding ways to reduce the influence of power and charisma in favor of equality and fairness.
And here is the apparent paradox: it often takes someone (or a group of someones) with considerable power and charisma to make equality and fairness possible.
Fortunately, I feel we are fortunate to have such a group of defenders here. Our mods are just great.
Very much in agreement with this. It does feel to me that the activity has been less about art/music/creation, and more about the gear of late. Not to mention the novice threads spilling over.
I’m sure there are others better positioned to open on this than me, but I think in the context of the code of conduct as it is currently proposed, and with a great bunch of mods, it’s sufficient.
Thanks for that.
This articulates nicely something that has pissed me off about the contrast between Reddit (where I’ve hung out since day 1) and my job at a university, but could never quite articulate.
As a prof, I can ask anyone to leave and they must, or they get charged. Even if they paid tuition. We have absolute power. It is sometimes (but not in my personal experience often) used to shut down debate. But it is there.
As opposed to Reddit or Usenet or…