120 replies to this topic

[Lüt]

As somebody who doesn't have much stock in the topic of debates or the existence of the current events channel, I have a few general thoughts on the initial announcement and subsequent reactions:

 

- I don't think it inherently qualifies as bullying if a site's administration decides certain topics don't suit the purposes of the site, and acts to remove them if they arise. That can be done in a completely neutral manner. PureZC's foremost purpose is to be "The Ultimate ZC Resource," and anything that might undermine that purpose can fairly be called into question, and dealt with accordingly.

 

- However, I do think the presentation of the announcement directly provoked some of the topics it said it wanted to avoid. As one example, you wrote that you wouldn't allow debates on the morality of LGBT identities or whether gender dysphoria may be a legitimate problem for somebody ("something *wrong* with them"), and it would have been fine if you left it at that. But then you declared a clear position that any expressions concerning the immorality of those identities or suggesting that gender dysphoria may be a legitimate problem are no longer allowed, and even likened such expressions to racism. With that statement, you've not only taken a side in the debate, but followed it up with threats of warnings and bans for the other side if they also make a statement from their position, and that's why people are reading your post as bullying.

 

If you don't want to be host to a debate, don't pick the "correct" side of the debate you don't want to be host to then declare it off-limits - just enforce a total drop of the topic for all sides, and lead by example. That doesn't preclude welcoming community participation from people on every side of a given issue, which brings up the next point.

 

- To the topic of debates in general, this is simply the natural outcome of groups of people gathering in a single place. Modern society is increasingly saturated with widely varied beliefs and values, and this is exponentially true in online communities where people gather from all over the world. The discussion of these numerous and sometimes conflicting faiths or ideologies is inevitable, as are the debates that may follow. I don't think the solution is curbing them, but rather managing them.

 

As a personal example, the very first game site that I became a regular member of started off strictly as a resource for that game, but over a few years it added a comment system for news updates, followed by a full-on forum that was initially strictly dedicated to game discussion, but then expanded to include a religion & politics forum, which later evolved to a general off-topic forum, and eventually the site ended up giving all registered users their own blog pages with a forum-based comment system. It's just how a community develops, and its leaders have to account for this. We're all people behind the resources or help we contribute, and as relations establish and grow, our personalities are going to come through, along with the beliefs and values that shape them. It's best to acknowledge that, and to give such things a space, whether a general allowance or a dedicated area.

 

This, of course, hinges on a person's ability to have mature discussion. That phrase has been thrown around rather vaguely lately, so I'm going to specifically define it as the acknowledgement that we live in pluralistic societies, the expectation of being confronted with alternate and sometimes contrary principles, the acceptance that your own principles may be questioned or challenged, and most of all, the understanding that disagreement or even disapproval is not inherently hateful, oppressive, or a personal attack. By contrast, the insistence that one's way should be the only way, the interpretation of disagreement as oppression or disapproval as hate speech, and the attempt to shut down any manner of dissent or critique by way of name-calling, attacking reputations, and attempting to have people ousted from communities or organizations, if not silenced entirely, are the signs of an infantile mentality. Because the presentation of the announcement came across as pandering to the latter groups, the members capable of mature discussion balked at the new restrictions.

 

Obviously, there are direct personal attacks, and those should be shut down accordingly. I also support thoroughly reviewing each instance of a complaint or report, and seeing if an improvement can be made to the situation, even if it simply amounts to talking things out as individual-to-individual rather than dealing punishments as staff-to-member. But the staff addressing the issue will have to be able to separate ideological discussion from personal attacks, and explain the difference when delivering the decision. You can't help everybody who merely feels uncomfortable about a certain debatable topic. That's an area of personal growth, and it's fine if somebody's not there yet. Some people are also thoroughly dedicated to taking everything in the worst and most oppressive way possible, and as you address complaint after complaint, you'll gradually find out that they're completely unappeasable until every person around them is in full agreement with them. However, with a clear anti-personal-attacks policy in place, you can welcome all sides of a given issue, provided the people taking those sides show they're capable of mature discussion.

 

Because that's a thing that should be optional on a game resource site like this, I think the people suggesting an opt-in channel (or even forum) are presenting the best solution. People who have no interest in the community beyond ZC, or people who find debate topics off-putting or uncomfortable, shouldn't have to worry about being faced with them simply because they wanted to use ZC and get involved with others who use it as well. Then for the members who do opt-in, I would suggest taking the opt-in as that member's personal commitment that they're capable of mature discussion, and holding them accountable if they fail that commitment.

 

That commitment would then have to be furthered by a more specific set of rules or standards, but I understand they're currently being discussed, so I can't comment on that now. However, one thing from the original announcement that may need a more detailed explanation is this: you also mentioned protection for religious beliefs, but since most of the mainstream western religions that would be present among members here have a theology of sexuality and gender identity that's strictly in line with the traditional nuclear family, you should clarify the extent of the interaction between these opposing values that your protection for each one allows.

 

- Lastly, I do understand the decision to close current events being interpreted as an attack by its users, and an uninformed one at that. Like any other online community, a number of people have made an internet home of it, and are upset that it is [or was] going to be demolished - largely as a result of hearsay, at that. Because, if Discord's search function is accurate, then of the 3 current administrators, their history of mild-to-moderate participation in the channel is as such: admin 1, five times late 2017, three times late 2019, two times in the past month; admin 2, three times late 2017, two times late 2018, one time early 2019, two times in the past month; admin 3, two times late 2017, one time early 2020. That's basically total absence, and the harshest of the backlash likely has to do with people who aren't involved with the community making decisions about that community, especially to extinguish it. What reaction other than a fierce defense can be expected? The current administrative staff may technically "own" the server, but you're all outsiders to the community there. Asking what worthwhile discussions have ever taken place in the channel after all this time easily establishes that. (And to address the obvious point, the shitposting flood late yesterday happened because you announced that the channel was getting trashed, so everybody threw their in last bits of garbage. If you decide *not* to close the channel, then yes that should be cleaned up.) But when you're in such a far-removed position, gathering input from people who are actually active in that community is your wisest move, and I see it's being made, so hopefully that quells most of the discontent from this point forward.

 

- Anyway, whatever conclusions this thread ultimately leads to, I'm not "out," because my interest in the site has always been in line with its main purpose - a ZC resource. Other topics and features are nice, but extraneous. As for this topic, pointing out ways people may (mis)interpret the announcement isn't my way of saying I lost respect for anybody involved, or that I'm ditching the community. I see another 40+ new replies came in between the time I started writing this and the time I'm posting it, and from briefly skimming them, it seems the fundamental issue behind most of the agitation was miscommunication on a lot of different sides.

 

To respond to one particular concern, Aevin, you wanted people to consider that they've known you well enough for so long, and should have an idea of what you're like by now. But your line "and a lot of things that we've let slide before will be greeted with warnings, and bans if the behavior continues" told us we're getting a new you. At least, as an administrator. And that will filter into non-administrative relations as well. Now it's clear from your follow-up that that's not what you meant, but when it was first said alongside so many other changes, it really sounded like you were gearing up for a complete 180, and I wondered if some people responded negatively to these statements because they liked you the way you've been so far and didn't want to see you change so drastically.

 

Regardless, it looks like everybody's learned that community decisions are best prefaced by community discussions, so hopefully that should make things like this go smoother moving forward.

[Mani Kanina]

I don't really have a huge problem with your posts, but there are some points right at the top I do wish to address and share my thoughts on, so bare with me.
 

But then you declared a clear position that any expressions concerning the immorality of those identities or suggesting that gender dysphoria may be a legitimate problem are no longer allowed, and even likened such expressions to racism.

This bit sticks out to me cause there are several layers of reasoning here that needs a bit of unpacking. The first but most obvious one is that I think it's a pretty ground base level to set that the immorality of identities should not be something up for debate or question, it's general what a person is. It would be the same to debate the notion and question of peoples colour of skin, suggesting that the very notion and core of what they are is immoral at that level is not a genuine discussion of the topic of the matter, it's hard to put that in a frame as anything other than a personal attack. So yes, I do actually think the likeness to racism is more than adequate, it's providing a real life example people have more context of how insulting it actually is, as well as what level those insults operate on. This is not a university where people with anthropology degrees conduct research and mush over the questions of the human being, the discussion is not on that level, which I'd consider pretty important if people want to make wide spread exclamations about what is inherent to a huge group of people.

Secondly, to provide clarity on what gender dysphoria is, which is a medical condition or classification (depending on country). Again, arguing the immorality of someone suffering from it is thoughtless, or arguing that people who have it are mentally insane (which is usually what is meant in the context you posed when phrased as a "legitimate problem") is thoughtlessly rude, and very targeting. Going forward I think staff does well in quelling such notions, cause not only do they not line up with scientific consensus (and before anyone dispute that, I recommend you actually find properly peer reviewed meta-studies to support your claim, or you'll argue in bad faith), they are extremely hurtful.

Furthermore, very few people who have to deal with gender dysphoria would tell you it isn't a problem, not a problem in the sense that was implied here, but rather in general, it's very disruptive towards living a comfortable regular life, that's why transitioning is so helpful for many who have to deal with it. And why societal stigma and in-acceptance of those who suffer from it is so harmful.
 

- However, I do think the presentation of the announcement directly provoked some of the topics it said it wanted to avoid....

....With that statement, you've not only taken a side in the debate, but followed it up with threats of warnings and bans for the other side if they also make a statement from their position, and that's why people are reading your post as bullying.

I don't think being accepting of marginalized group is a topic that should even be up for debate in the first place, personally. I think it should be given that everyone deserves common decency.

Putting up the notion that there is a debate on the matter is rather farce, it's pretty simple in this case, either you're accepting, or you're not. People can obviously make mistakes and whatnot, but that's not really what's argued here. You're proposing the idea that people who say and think "yeah marginalizing others for whom they are is acceptable" should be given the same consideration as people who do literally nothing but be who they are.

It's not bullying to tell people to stuff it and not bully others, this notion is absurd to begin with. The perception that they are being targeted for being told to stop being rude to others may technically be true (not that any individual is being targeted here), that's basically the job of staff. This is again why the comparison to racism is good to contrast, if staff proposed new rules to prevent people from using slurs against black people, of course any people who did that would feel targeted. Staffs job is to deal with problems and problem users, and next to no one would consider such users who did that as being bullied for being told to "stop doing that"; because by and large there is a lot more acceptance today for the struggles of black people. Not to mention that on a base level it's flaming.

There is definitively thoughts and opinions about the specific implementations of these rules that are worth considering, some good considerations by some have already been left in the thread, see Yoshi's post for example. But that should preferably not get bogged down by people who just wanna keep the status quo, without consideration for others.
 

If you don't want to be host to a debate, don't pick the "correct" side of the debate you don't want to be host to then declare it off-limits - just enforce a total drop of the topic for all sides, and lead by example. That doesn't preclude welcoming community participation from people on every side of a given issue, which brings up the next point.

The problem here is the perception that insulting minorities is a matter of debate to being with, arguably the topic is a bit mudded by the announcement of closing of CE on the same time, but the part you are address here is very much not that, from what it seems? Common decency is not a topic of debate, either you follow the rules on the matter, or you get dealt with by staff. That is the nature of this place in order to not have things devolve into flaming.

In the context of users getting flamed or targeted by harassment or toxic culture, staff really only have two choices: allow it, or don't. In that aspect, it is binary, but it's not a debate, almost everyone in this thread seems to have proclaimed they are for being more inclusive (and if not, not expressed any thoughts opposite to the idea); even if we assume it to be a debate it seems the answer is unanimous. I don't think the notion that it should be up for debate whether or targeted harassment is allowed is good, and I would have assumed that is something that most would agree on from an ethical perspective.



Your thoughts on Current Events going forward seems good though, discussion on what the community needs as well as what they want in it is healthy, and I also agree with the notion that it was good staff reconsidered, especially considering, as mentioned, that the discord server needs more looking and activity from staff in general to have a good perspective of the issues.

[Shane]

Hot damn, y'all.

 

I'm a longtime community member. I'm also former staff. I admittedly have some bias in the main discussion, because I fit the bill as someone who hasn't felt super comfortable in Discord.

 

Those things aside, I am absolutely appalled by the petty public callouts, and the blatant degrading of staff in this thread. There is so much work that goes into keeping this place running, and people love the staff until they suddenly don't. I've been on the receiving end of it, and it's ugly. The staff here is so kind, so giving, and so receptive to feedback. Give them some credit where credit is due.

 

If someone wants to make the case that we should keep Current Events, fine. If someone else agrees with the overall decision, but disagrees with how it was reached/communicated, great. Feedback is how the administrative team learns, and it's really helpful. But anyone who results to insults and ultimatums only demonstrates that they lack the emotional intelligence to participate in the discussions for which they are advocating.

 

Please. Remember that there are real people behind these screens. That goes for everyone here, y'all.

 

I'm feeling really disappointed in this community right now. 

I'm also a longtime community member and have been on Pure daily for 11 years, and also former staff and had many 1:1 conversations with staff. From time to time I, too, also felt uncomfortable on Discord. But I think it's kind of unproductive to silently bear these sorts of things and wait for things to fall in your lap. That's my issue here, if people have had a problem, they should communicate it. Some people did, some things got worked out, some things didn't. I was called an aids-spreading freak (among other gay slurs) and I reported that comment and it was rightfully dealt with easily contradicting certain narratives presented here. From what I'm seeing, this thread was made in response to people doing ultimatums and insults in the past because they couldn't bring themselves to voice their uncomfortability, so I think it's pretty silly to look down on people who don't want to be part of this community due to differences and assume bad faith out of that when this is what caused this thread to happen in the first place.

 

I feel the best way to describe this is a party, everyone's invited. But some people don't show up because they didn't feel included or welcomed and instead of opening up they don't rock up or leave. How is the majority of PureZC supposed to know this? Does this mean PureZC is obviously not inclusive as others put it? I feel this is a bit more nuanced than just claiming it's not. For one, I feel PureZC was doing their best to be inclusive as we had nothing else to work off. How are we supposed to do better if almost no one voiced their concern in a public space? Maybe PureZC isn't inclusive, but then I'd argue it was never radical either like what's being implied. Me, Yoshi and others are only promoting the importance of communication, nothing more to it and things like the removal of Current Events seems to be against the idea of communicating differences (not exactly in relation to minorities). And hearing people in the shadows hate PureZC and have not been super vocal about it with others has soured my experience in remaining in this community because I've yet to see clear communication and just gives me bad vibes. Not at all unreasonable as you all have been trying to paint it.

 

If you want to understand my position, this is nothing more than criticism not to the staff, but to everyone. The biggest element of community is communication and it's lacking here and I'm disturbed by it. This isn't for the staff to fully clean up - but them admitting and addressing the burnout and lack of moderation is a step towards the right direction. If you disagree with it, fine, but I wish for your understanding.

 

I know the staff have wanted us to move on from this, prior to the post I'm quoting, but I had to point this out. As I said in private, I love the staff, that should be obvious enough. Yelling at the head of staff once shouldn't give you or anyone a lasting impression otherwise if we're going to be nuanced. But as Eins said this is all passion, and I think communication is better than silently bearing uncomfortability which is why we're now here. And it seems the voicing has worked as we're now striking a compromise.

[NoeL]

I don't use the discord so happy to leave decisions regarding it to those more in the know. But wow, this thread has been a treat to read through. XD

Who is this (alleged) anti-PZC, LGBT-gatekeeping clique? I want names and stories! Someone hit me up via PM, please!

EDIT: And just to throw my two cents in on the tangent: The PZC community is NOT synonymous with the PZC user base. The community only consists of the people that TALK and interact with each other. If you're a lurker, you're still perfectly welcome to join in but I don't consider you a part of the community until then.

To wit, if you want to influence the community, you need to communicate with the community. You can't sit in the shadows, as someone that doesn't engage in discussion, and ask staff to force the community to bend to this, in their view invisible, pressure. That's not fair, and it breeds resentment. You need to make yourself visible - make your views heard.

I get, as Orinthan said, that this is often challenging - for many reasons. But some things in life simply require effort, and there's no getting around it.

Let's suggest a hypothetical: say there's a group - a community - of people that share an interest with you, but happen to be anti-watermelon. They like to sit around a bitch with each other about how awful watermelons are. You want to join this community because of that shared interest, but feel uncomfortable because of all the anti-watermelon rhetoric (you actually like watermelon). You COULD jump in there and make your pro-watermelon case, hopefully changing some minds and ending up with a healthy, pro-watermelon community... but you're scared you'll d attacked for your views. So instead, you pull the admin aside and say "Hey, I want to join but I'm not comfortable with this watermelon-bashing. It makes me feel excluded." To which the admin, with the goal of promoting inclusivity, enacts a ban on anti-watermelon speech.

Sounds great, right? Now you can join in without being attacked for being a watermelon-sympathiser! But not so fast - the anti-watermelon beliefs are still THERE, they've just been repressed. The community is unhappy that they can't express themselves any more. You might say "Who cares? The world is better off if they can't express their bigotry", but if they can't express it it never gets challenged, and if it never gets challenged those beliefs never go away. And if those beliefs never go away, there'll always be a push for policy change to allow people to talk about it again, and we're right back where we stated.

... I kinda rambled way more than I intended to there.

Edited by NoeL, 14 March 2020 - 07:45 AM.

[Nicholas Steel]

I still think there should've been more than a single days advanced warning before an action was going to be taken (yes that action hasn't been carried out yet but still...). Perhaps things wouldn't have been quite so heated in this topic if there was originally the impression of more time to hash things out.

Edited by Nicholas Steel, 14 March 2020 - 08:54 AM.

[Jenny]

I'd like to reiterate that the main thing I wanted to advocate for in the first place was better communication, as I think a lack of it is a leading cause of what leads to situations like this to begin with.

 

One thing I'd like to go back on a bit was me saying that Pure has always seemed inclusive. I'm not going to act like that wasn't how I personally viewed it, but as has been said elsewhere in this thread it is important to look past your own perspective. Whether I personally felt that way or not is irrelevant to the problem to begin with: There ARE people who feel otherwise and that is what is important here. I'm sorry I said such things that would go as to invalidate other peoples experiences / personal feelings on the matter. Doing so was not, and will not ever be something I intend to do.

 

What WAS the point of me bringing that up, then? To bring to attention the clear disconnect in the way people view our community. That people had problems with the state of PureZC to begin with isn't something that I think would be a huge surprise to some of our more invested members; it's no secret that quite a few particularly prominent members have become less and less present, if not left Pure altogether.

 

That people thought it was in such a state that it would even be necessary for the staff to enact these "new" policies isn't something I think a lot of people would have guessed. I previously thought a lot of what was announced would fall under common courtesy; something that would go without saying for the majority of our users. That fact that enough people were uncomfortable with the state of the community that these rules had to be added at all tells us that, clearly, people felt otherwise.

 

So, how do we go about mending such a disconnect? Certainly not by blaming it on any individual, specific sides or the staff (sincere apologies to you guys, and Aevin particularly for the resentful nature of my post prior to this). Again, as Shane said, I cannot stress enough the importance of communication here. Look, I know it isn't always easy or comfortable, but I'd argue keeping it in can have MUCH worse ramifications for everyone. Where do we find ourselves now, after all?

 

I've seen both communities and friend groups (including one just recently) follow this very trend and end up splitting apart. People feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, they don't visibly voice it and it bottles up to the point that they can't stand being in that community anymore. They leave, staff is at a loss at what to do because you have people on one side who didn't see a problem to begin with and the side that left because of the problems they had. Nothing is resolved. The community splits apart into private sub-groups, the main community eventually dies out. That isn't a reality I wish to see for PureZC, but I did worry that it was already happening prior to the conversation we had here.

 

I just want to say that I don't expect everyone to get along. I've been part of this community for half of my life, joining at 11 and turning 22 this year. Maybe it's cliché to say, but this community has been like a home to me. I've made many great, long lasting friends here and I'm sure what I'm saying here applies to a lot of you as well. Included in those that applies to are likely people who have distanced themselves from the community, and it hurts me to know that they had to do that. It is my hope that we can work together as a community so nobody should have to feel so uncomfortable as to have to leave the place many of us have called a home.

 

In closing, please be respectful of others. The goal of this new policy is something I think we can ALL agree with. I surely wouldn't find myself agreeing with anyone who was against that goal.

Edited by Yoshi, 14 March 2020 - 09:15 AM.

[Nathaniel]

I have been silent in public about this decision until now.  But considering that I was on staff and saw the private conversation that happened starting last Saturday, I definitely spoke my mind on the matter.  While I do have respect for confidentiality, I will at least share my thoughts on this from the staff thread, which shouldn't break the privacy of the rest of the staff's involvement in the conversation.  Also, I don't feel like taking the time to rephrase my thoughts for a public thread.  As you can see, I am no longer a part of the staff team, and this new direction was a large part of that, but not the only part.  Another part I felt was the need for some fresh troops that would be ready to commit to managing this place in the future.  Unfortunately, my ability to commit was also limited, even if it was still existent.  Anyways, here is what I said in the private thread:

 

-------------- (beginning of quote)

When you said some staff aren't going to like this, I had a feeling that you at least had me in mind there.  Well, you are at mostly right on that notion.  I hope I am able to explain myself, at the possible risk of being mischaracterized as some sort of bigot or hateful person (but I hope not), as I have no intention of being such a person.  My standpoint here comes with the freedom to have discussions on almost anything.  This takes the "almost" out of what we currently have.

 

While I get that you want everybody to get along, and most on any staff team would justifyably strive for such a reaching goal, including myself, reality often paints a different picture.  You're never going to get a utopia here, no matter how hard you try.  Not in any other community that is larger than just a small group of friends either.  There is a reason why we have staff in the first place.  One of those is to handle tough situations when they come up.

 

While I agree that ZC is the common shared interest of the community, and that should remain our primary focus, it's not limited to that either.  People make friends and naturally want to talk about other things too, in a community.  Large emphasis on "community".  The more we whittle that sort of thing away, the less and less that place becomes a true community.  Diversity is important, but that also includes diversity of thought, which I feel is being stifled here.  But to get to your points:

 

- Currentevents is the only place where people can talk about certain subject matters.  I get that some people do not want to hear about such discussions, but I feel that people should have the discipline and personal responsibility to look away from such areas if it makes them uncomfortable.  If they are incapable of doing that, they need to grow up.  This is effectively eliminating the only platform in the community to talk about a wide range of topics.  You claim it makes people more hateful, but I feel that almost any topic is capable of being discussed in a civil way.  With that said, I am all for changes to #currentevents, such as hampering down on disrespectful behavior (and NOT expressing certain opinions) or possibly a refocus, but to completely remove a platform for a wide range of discussions (and they are likely wider range than you might think) I am stauchly against.

 

- I am all for respecting the LGBT community and issues, but if we are not allowed to have certain discussions in any capacity, you are simultaneously disrespecting all who are not completely on board with the most widely accepted political views that they tend to hold.  Respect goes in two directions, and I am afraid that we are only focused on one direction here, which is very leftist biased, and simultaneously illiberal.  You may try to deny it, but I can see it from a mile away.

 

- Prohibition of any sort of sensitive political topics is really the worst part here by far.  I am very disappointed in this.  Define "sensitive".  I have a feeling that it all flows in one direction, heavily in favor of one particular political ideology.  As for the next point in a similar manner, also define what is considered "offensive" and "upsetting".  This can very easily be murky territory, as it's very subjective.  While you are aware that this is opening up a can of worms, it is quite a large one, perhaps more than you realize.  I am not a big fan of the slippery slope argument, but at worst this can lead to banning people for "microaggressions", which is often words that may upset somebody without realizing it.  You are establishing a safe space, for certain groups of people to never have to worry about being challenged on anything, even if done so politely, while others will certainly not get that sort of safety.

 

- I most agree with the last sentiment though.  We do need more staff, especially if you are going to push all of this.  I pray that some of them will last in this role.

 

I agree with us being less wishy-washy and for what I said in chat earlier today, it is mainly geared toward respecting others, but I also feel that this is mostly aimed at people who have viewpoints that are something other than hard leftist.  To me, respect is simple:  Be kind to people.  This new direction greatly stretches what that is supposed to mean, down to what opinions you happen to hold.  And yes, that includes plenty of centrists like myself.  I am all for people trying to get along, but diversity of thought matters too, not just the optics type of diversity.

 

I don't have time to comment on everything, but if we head in the direction of removing such a wide range of discussions on even one subplatform of the site, I will no longer be a part of this staff team.  I am still in favor of containment, so that people have the ability to look away from, provided they at least have a basic level of discipline and responsibility.  I can't enforce policies that I am too largely not on board with.  I think there are better ways of handling problem members, and I highly disagree with such a politically biased approach.  You may not think it is so biased, but trust me, it very much is.  This goes against some of the very tenets about a free society that I advocate.  I know an online community is never going to have true freedom of speech (and I have made that case myself in the past), as sometimes you have to deal with assholes, but I think this is going way too far in that direction.  Sorry but I cannot work with this.  I hope you understand.

 

With that said, if I have to leave the staff team, that does not mean I would be leaving the community.  I have no intention of causing any trouble over such a decision if it takes place.  I choose to be a gentleman about it, and I still respect this team if that is what the majority of you want.  Nevertheless, I just have no interest in helping along something that I don't advocate.

----------------------

(end of quote) - sorry, IPB was not getting this right no matter how much I tried

 

 

To be clear, I do advocate the opt-in direction for discussions that some don't feel comfortable with.  I think that is a resolution that will make most in both parties that are not indifferent to this matter want, with emphasis on people being able to express their beliefs somewhere (even if it's a very small part of the community) while still being respectful toward others.  As for what I shared in the quote, I'm not trying to argue with people, and I know some might quote snippets or even all of it, which is fine, but I share my thoughts with no intention to create a hostile environment.  I also have no ill will toward anybody here who doesn't share my beliefs.  But I also believe that in order to function in the real world, you need to understand that sometimes your beliefs will be challenged, and that in itself is not harassment or bigotry.  It's part of life, and it's part of growing up.  I fully accept that, and for a community to be the best that it can be, I believe that people should generally be accepting of that.

 

To close on a positive note, of which I have fully intended despite the potential risks of speaking one's own mind, I do look forward to the health and well being of PureZC, no matter who is devoting their time to help manage that.  I may have left the staff team, but I haven't departed the community, because there are people here that I enjoy talking to, and my door is certainly open to talk to others here that I haven't yet, or in a while.

[Rambly]

Let's suggest a hypothetical: say there's a group - a community - of people that share an interest with you, but happen to be anti-watermelon. They like to sit around a bitch with each other about how awful watermelons are. You want to join this community because of that shared interest, but feel uncomfortable because of all the anti-watermelon rhetoric (you actually like watermelon). You COULD jump in there and make your pro-watermelon case, hopefully changing some minds and ending up with a healthy, pro-watermelon community... but you're scared you'll d attacked for your views. So instead, you pull the admin aside and say "Hey, I want to join but I'm not comfortable with this watermelon-bashing. It makes me feel excluded." To which the admin, with the goal of promoting inclusivity, enacts a ban on anti-watermelon speech.

This example is a little flawed, I think, for a couple of reasons:

• A watermelon is an inanimate object.  People might have strong feelings on it one way or the other, but the people insulting watermelons and bitching about how bad they are aren't saying anything bad any members of the community.  It might be exhausting and alienating that they complain about watermelons so frequently, but if someone takes that extremely personally, that's something they need to work through, frankly.  In contrast, a gay person or a transgender person is an actual human being and an active member of the community.  Someone saying they broadly don't like the actual people that are participating in the Discord is far, far more likely to cause people to feel unwelcome.  Not just upset or at odds with popular consensus, but unwelcome.
• It's not that black-and-white: As polarized as the times we live in are, it's not all pro-skub and anti-skub.  The truth of the matter is most people don't feel that strongly about LGBTQ+ issues, and changing someone's mind might not even involve making them like gay people, but to simply not hate them.  As a matter of fact, I actively do not want people to blanket like all gay people; there's some genuinely shit gay and trans people out there (I'm not gonna stan for fuckin' Kevin Spacey).  I want them to treat gay and trans people on an individual basis.  You know, the way they should, hopefully, treat everyone else.

Sounds great, right? Now you can join in without being attacked for being a watermelon-sympathiser! But not so fast - the anti-watermelon beliefs are still THERE, they've just been repressed. The community is unhappy that they can't express themselves any more. You might say "Who cares? The world is better off if they can't express their bigotry", but if they can't express it it never gets challenged, and if it never gets challenged those beliefs never go away. And if those beliefs never go away, there'll always be a push for policy change to allow people to talk about it again, and we're right back where we stated.

That's assuming that simply talking with their beliefs about other people is going to change their minds. I think for the vast majority of people, that's probably true. But I think there's a small handful of users who, no matter what happens, are always going to hold the beliefs they are and are always going to try to skirt the lines of what's acceptable. 

 

Having previously been semi-active in the PureZC Discord, there's a couple of people for whom I've tried -- for years -- to get them to see beyond their own hubris and dogma and at the very least reconsider their beliefs, or think about them logically and try to explain what it is that's so foundational for them.  And they refuse, they move the goalposts every time, they change the subject, they abandon logic completely.  Because they have a preconceived notion of what they think is right and they have values that lead to them developing the ideas that they do.  Because not losing an argument is more important to them than learning.  I'd go as far to say that if you're biased against people along the basis of race or religion or gender or LGBTQ+ status or whatever, it almost necessarily has to be true that you don't value learning that much.  Sorry if that's something people don't want to hear, but it's true.  Assuming that everyone will respond positively to having their beliefs challenged isn't just naive, it's demonstrably incorrect.

 

Look, there exist people out there who just hate queer people, just like there's people out there who just hate black people or just hate any other minority. It's naive to assume otherwise.  They are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority, but they exist.  If people can be deeply held and unshakeable in their beliefs that people deserve equality and justice and blah blah blah, then there are people that are unshakeable in their beliefs that some people are just less than human.  And those people should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
 

If someone was going around flaming everyone or constantly griping about how they hate everybody, posting links to content about how stupid and mentally ill Zelda Classic users are, we'd reprimand them.  Why should it be any different for any other group of people?  (I feel like one weakness of the staff's wording here is to single out LGBTQ+ people in particular -- it's everyone, dammit.  Bigotry against any group is bad.)  I'm not calling for special treatment.  I'm calling for even-handed enforcement.

 

________________________________________________________________

 

Nathaniel, I'm not going to respond to your entire post just yet (there is quite a bit to unpack), but I'd like to ask you something:

Diversity is important, but that also includes diversity of thought, which I feel is being stifled here.

What thoughts in particular do you feel are being stifled? What specific points of view (and I'm not talking "being conservative", here) do you feel like can't be expressed under this new ruleset?

Edited by Rambly, 14 March 2020 - 09:37 AM.

[Nathaniel]

Rambly, that was mainly geared toward the direction, as per the OP (basically the same that was expressed by Aevin in the staff thread).  That was part of the main concern I had about where this direction was going.  That in order to be inclusive, certain thoughts could not be expressed, even if they were not generally accepted as being "harmful".  But at this point it may be largely irrelevant with the idea of an opt-in channel.  As for diversity of thought by definition, that means a generally wide range of opinions and beliefs are accepted to be heard, and I felt that the initial direction was largely one-sided.  To me, diversity comes in many forms, which is not limited to how people look, what their lifestyle preferences are, or how they identify themselves.

[ShadowTiger]

I really don't have as much of an attention span as I wish I did, and I'm not the kind of person that wants to pick apart what people are saying to get to some kind of meat of an argument being tossed around that's pro or against something. Everyone here has a lot of great points, and somewhere in them is the ideal solution to people being happy on the internet.

This post is a suggestion for a potentially operable system. If you have your own idea for an operable system, feel free to either post your own complete system with potential pros and cons, or build up or tear down this one to form your own. I would honestly laugh at myself if I wanted to patent the contents of this post. The goal is to make the PZC that we all know and love into the best possible candidate for global enjoyment. I'd like to think that there's nothing stopping all of us from working together on that cause. We all have a list of wants and needs and shouldn't feel as if we're being prevented from naming them while being polite and tactful at the same time. It's not like anyone here is being demanding. .. hopefully.
-----------

For every occasion where I have the chance to say "You can't make everyone happy," I feel like it's not quite right. I do think there's a way for everyone to win, and it mostly involves an opt-in system with a group of staff (Mostly "Chat staff," and not so much forum staff.) watching their respectively assigned Discord channels within an opt-in system to ensure that nothing too awful happens within a set of Discord channels in which they are assigned. This way their naturally enjoyable conversations are always within their purview, and they won't feel as much burn-out from having to moderate conversations they don't enjoy seeing. It's a working hypothesis of functionality.

Our current needs are as follows:

• A place for anyone to talk about most casual matters of gaming, electronics, general stuff, health matters, and so on without fear of reciprocity or being dragged into a debate; a place where people can be themselves and just relax.
• A place to post funny, hopefully non-edgy things. Generally a meme dump, non-serious place, lightly spammy, funny area. That's always a fun place to be.
• A place for serious topics to exist and thrive. Generally the classic debate room.
• A place where peoples' beliefs and opinions can be tested in good standing. It might occupy the same room as the bullet point above.

That said, the opt-in layout system involves having the following.

• If you find serious flaws in this potential template, do please absolutely speak your mind, but also replace them with something that you would find far more functional, and state why it is. I am by no means married to any of this. We're creating a glorified pros and cons list, and I will be grateful for your input! Heck, I've probably left off a bunch of ideas for all I know.
• It has something for everyone.
• It should have more channels than we have now so people can have different "styles" of conversations with each other...
• ... but not so many that it spreads the quantity and qualities of potential conversations too thin. Too many channels and you find fewer conversations being had, and communities die out that way.
• As mentioned earlier, it has representatives from each "group" of levels of conversation that would be willing to represent that group's interests as well as represent the concept of "peace and harmony" that PureZC ought to have, and moderate one or more channels accordingly.
• There is some sort of a bizarre Venn-Diagram of similarity of chatter that these channels will have. I.e. some channels will allow for more intense and thought-provoking discussions than others. While I won't say it should allow an "AGN's General Bitching" style of discussion where absolutely anything (Short of NSFW stuff, maybe) goes, it should allow people to express most varities of thoughts in a way that isn't automatically shut down.
• (Another bullet point just as a thought divider.) It would also have channels that give people a place where their thoughts aren't combatted all the time. This isn't a sanctuary from opinion, but a sanctuary for identity. You can BE whomever you want there, but you should never force others to be someone else due to having opinions on how things should work. This is where the concept of "dont' be a dick" shines the brightest.
• If there is a "debate" channel, be prepared to defend your opinions. If you bring something up, please have sources. If you speak just to share your opinions, be prepared to have those opinions contested. The goal isn't to present your identity there as a shell of invulnerability. Identities shouldn't be presented there as something that needs to be justified. A debate channel is somewhere where you exhibit something to be tested. [/b]But it also shouldn't be somewhere where someone specifically sets out to attack someone else's position on something where it hasn't been brought up within that room in the first place. I.e. no one should find themselves having to defend their ideologies where it hasn't been brought up in the first place.

The functionality would be as follows:

There is a channel near the Welcome channel (Or just part of the welcome channel itself.) that describes the system. It lists a list of roles that people can take on depending on how many channels are added. At the bare minimum, there will be a debate room Role. If you take on that role, you can see and post in the debate channel. If you find yourself debating people in General, you might lose access to General by having a Role added to you that removes access to the General channel. It's possible to have a Role that only grants negative permissions that overlap with others.

If you find yourself being unable to abide by the general atmosphere of any one channel, you can be manually removed from that channel but you can still enjoy the rest of the Discord. Essentially, each channel has its own "negative" Role mask that bars you access to that channel, and all but General also has its own mask that grants it. (Except General, which is on by default.) Roles can be given and taken away by moderators upon request from within an "Opt-In" channel near the top. You post your name and the channels you request access to, and a moderator gives you those roles, then marks you as complete so others know you were interacted with.

[Rambly]

Rambly, that was mainly geared toward the direction, as per the OP (basically the same that was expressed by Aevin in the staff thread).  That was part of the main concern I had about where this direction was going.  That in order to be inclusive, certain thoughts could not be expressed, even if they were not generally accepted as being "harmful".  But at this point it may be largely irrelevant with the idea of an opt-in channel.  As for diversity of thought by definition, that means a generally wide range of opinions and beliefs are accepted to be heard, and I felt that the initial direction was largely one-sided.  To me, diversity comes in many forms, which is not limited to how people look, what their lifestyle preferences are, or how they identify themselves.

That... didn't really answer my question.  I knew what you meant by "diversity of thought", I didn't take issue with that idea.

 

You and several other people who dislike the idea of #currentevents's closure seem to think specific thoughts and opinions are being stifled, as indicated by you using the word "certain" repeatedly.

 

So, I'd really like to know what these certain thoughts are, just for the sake of fostering community engagement, understanding, and discussion.  If we're going to build a community, here, I strongly believe we have to be willing to get to know what each others' values are, just so we can reach a consensus on the type of community we're trying to build.

 

Robin doesn't seem entirely satisfied with the solution that's been reached here, and you and Robin and a few others seem to believe that people being exposed to particular ideas is an important ideal, which goes against the idea of an opt-in channel.  You both in particular seem to think there's some intentional stifling of dissent with what the staff members want going on here, too.  So I'm curious what exactly you guys want out of #currentevents, or what an ideal #currentevents would look like.  My specific question would be, again, "What thoughts and opinions do you feel are being stifled on PureZC under the new arrangement?"

[ShadowTiger]

Robin doesn't seem entirely satisfied with the solution that's been reached here, and you and Robin and a few others seem to believe that people being exposed to particular ideas is an important ideal, which goes against the idea of an opt-in channel.

(Highlight, mine.)  - Well, there might not be one opt-in channel.  Everyone here needs a platform for discussion of some sort, and they don't have to intercept each other.  There will likely be ideas that some people don't want to see or discuss from within both extremes of the population, and being able to block out the other extreme from sight, as well as people who keep potentially stressful discussions and their explosive ramifications out of those channels would be useful.  I know someone mentioned an LGBT+ channel and while I'm not quite sure what the channel would do, (Is it a support channel?  A private chatroom for people that exists away from LGBT+ critics?)  it would be one of those channels that people can opt-in or be forced out of.   I'm sure people won't mind there being a "Safe zone" for certain topics, though there should be an equivalent mirrored area for people with opposing opinions to keep everyone happy and content that their freedoms of opinions aren't being restricted. 

 

My point here is that there are more options than we think there are, and everything is worth looking at, I guess. 

[Aevin]

Perhaps it's a bad idea for me to post again. I want to be open with you all, but I'm tired from this whole ordeal. I feel like a lot of what I say, and my good intentions, are flipped around to reflect the worst as possible. I also find myself repeatedly becoming the avatar of people's hatred, rather than being taken as the person I am. This was not solely my policy. There's people in groups out there pasting my avatar onto Hitler, and saying absolutely vile things, stamping me with stereotypes when they truly have no idea who I even am as a person. And apparently, any time I try to express genuine emotion, I'm "triggered." Why is all of this aimed at me? Because I made the announcement? If I'd had David do it, would he be the one with the big target painted on him who receives all the hate? Anyway, I'm not fishing for sympathy here. I just want to be open and frank about my intentions in this post, and as I do so, I would ask that those who truly care about and have a stake in this community would keep some of that in mind. Please treat me like a normal person and don't tear me to shreds here.

 

Ultimately, what I want is for the Discord server to be a fun place where most people feel welcome. Where people can just hang out and relax, have interesting discussions, and, sure, learn and grow as people. The issue of "debates," is not actually that important to me. What is important is that the daily operations of the server be friendly, positive, and welcoming. I don't care how that happens, I just want it to happen.

 

And there are some people who feel it's already like that, who are totally happy with the current status quo. And I get that. They're comfortable, and to them, mixing things up has a big possibility of just making things worse for them. But there are many people who aren't happy with the current state of things. This includes me, Russ, and some other staff members, some members who have left, and some who have been active members through all of this. I don't think it's cool to imply that these people's feelings don't matter, because they're not active in Discord or the community at large. It's circular. They're not active because of the state of the community, but their opinions are invalid because they left? And, given that some active members felt passionately enough about the state of things to consider leaving, well ... I'd turn that around. These people also felt strongly enough about the community that they'd rather leave than see it become something they hate. I do think that the opinions of these people matter, and should not be invalidated because they haven't been around for awhile. They're members, too, and represent a group with an interest in the welfare of the community, and deserve to be heard.

 

I do want to make it clear that there was no effort made to cater to members who left. There was no nefarious bargain or anything along those lines. We discussed and announced what we thought would be a positive policy change. Some members who've been absent liked the new direction, and showed up because it made them feel more welcome.

 

Now, on to my central dilemma here. We have some members who feel encouraged by the new direction, and encouraged by the commitment I've voiced to LGBT inclusion. Now, this point has been beaten to death, but some people feel we've already been plenty inclusive, but others felt unwelcome because this was poorly stated or enforced. This is one of the big remaining things that gets people's hackles up. There's concern about creating some kind of special, favored group, and everyone else is a second-class citizen or something. That is so far from the intent here that I have trouble understanding it. But I'm not here to criticize that viewpoint. Some people feel that way. I care about how people feel, and I need to consider that. The idea of writing something into the rules specifically mentioning LGBT stuff as off-limits for debate or something rubs people the wrong way.

 

On the other side, we've got people who felt very encouraged by this wording. They felt like they'd been overlooked, like we turned our backs on them. I've liked hearing that the new policy announcement made them feel more welcome. I don't believe there's any weird ulterior motive here. They just didn't feel welcome before, and with this, they do. I don't want to be perceived as backpedaling on LGBT policy and telling these people, "Just kidding!" I think there was a problem with the status quo of the server. I don't want to just go back to the same thing. And I think some of the stuff that took place in there was definitely over the line.

 

So the question is, what do we do to make everyone happy? Well, no matter what we do, we can't make everyone happy. So let's aim for most people. And by that, I don't mean "go with what the majority wants." I want compromise. And many people have voiced their thoughts on what that compromise might look like.

 

I think the direction we're currently headed is having an opt-in "serious discussion" channel, combined with more focused rules, and a more active and consistent moderation effort. It sounds like most people are on board with that, and I think that sounds fine. Again, if that accomplishes the goal, I'm completely okay with it.

 

The tricky part has to do with making a set of clear and consistent rules. And specifically, with this LGBT business. Now, I don't want LGBT discussion, or even debates, to be off-limits. But I also feel like there should be a baseline understanding of what is appropriate and what isn't. And the reason I bring this up is not because I want "special treatment" for myself or anyone else, but because we have had problems with this before. I'm singling this group out because it has been a problem. Personally, I have trouble believing a discussion like, "Are gay people immoral?" would be productive. Not that, to my knowledge, we've had much of that. But trans issues have come up, often with the implication that there's something wrong with them, or they don't actually exist. It's a hot-button topic, and one that's likely to offend some of our trans members, who are aren't altogether uncommon in this community. I don't think it's fair to have debates on whether their identity is valid. I don't think these members should be forced to have to justify who they are, even if it's in a "serious discussion" channel. They should be able to participate in serious discussion without having to worry about this, rather than not be a part of the discussion at all.

 

Now, I also don't want to come across as getting up on a podium and defending a group that I'm personally not part of. Maybe some trans people are totally fine with having these kinds of debates, (though I think most people would understand, again, that a baseline of respect is required here). If I'm misrepresenting anything here, I'd love to hear opinions from those folks.

 

So basically, if we have a set of rules that doesn't carve out "exceptions" for groups of people like these and is consistent across the board ... well, I'm totally fine with that, as long as this baseline of respect is understood. And I guess I just feel that certain debate topics, whether they're outright disallowed or not, by their very nature, violate those standards of respect.

 

Someone shared a rule from another Discord server with me, and I thought its phrasing was particularly smart.

No slurs or hate speech. Do not hide hate speech under the pretense of humour. This is a place for people of all backgrounds.

Perhaps something like this could work? I feel like it adequately covers my concerns in a concise way, and doesn't call out any specific groups as special But the key would really be in moderating it appropriately. How do you guys feel about something like this?

 

Jeez, this ended up longer than I was hoping. And probably more poorly-worded than I was hoping. I do think I've expressed my most important thoughts here. I've appreciated the input from people in this thread who truly want to make the community a better place. If nothing else, the fact that people feel so strongly demonstrates how much people are invested in this place. And I'm invested, too. We may disagree on the methods, but in the end, I do believe most of us share a common goal in making PureZC the best it can be.

[Nathaniel]

Without overwhelming people with another essay from me, I'll just say that I think it would be important to have a clear definition of what "hate speech" is if that phrase is utilized, because I have seen this phrase being floated around in a lot of places on the internet, through emails at work, and other areas (much like inclusive).  The words might be simple and sound wonderful at face value, but I have seen many things out there that might be classified as hate speech by some, but not for others, and this being among people of very similar political ideologies too.  Some of it in other places also strive toward a sense of moral purity.  To some, the idea of "hate speech" is as broad as simply saying something that someone doesn't like to hear, no matter what that is.  In some cases, it's as narrow as forms of clear bigotry.  Ultimately, I believe that intent matters the most.

 

And Rambly, I'm sorry I didn't further respond to what you said, but that is out of respect of Aevin and not getting caught up on an original post which is no longer 100% of what is happening.  I think some of what I said was addressed since then, and I feel that a direct response will further derail the current intentions of this topic.  I think Aevin cleared some of that up with his recent post anyway, and it was more of a concern of what it might become if we aren't careful about it.

[Mani Kanina]

I approved of the initial proposal in the thread Aevin, and I also approve of this new wording, really, your intent here to be inclusive and not allowed rampant hatred are the key things, which is why I support it. The form this takes has still not been decided (the shape of the moderation, etc), which is the important bit going forward. But the intent is very much clear and one I think will make the site a more comfortable and less toxic place for everyone, even if you aren't in a marginalized group yourself seeing hatred can be draining.