Jump to content

Photo

Major Discord Policy Changes


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
120 replies to this topic

#16 Shane

Shane

    💙

  • Moderators
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:South Australia

Posted 12 March 2020 - 11:56 AM

I mean, I joined the discord server and one of the first things I saw was memeing about how TBT is as transphobic as robin.

First of all, you are clearly vieling an obvious jokes as the "state of PureZC" like you did with that stupid Windmill of Harmony, implying I was a Nazi. Frankly, you are not making these arguments in good faith. 
 

I don't really care about the validity of either of those two claims, but if you're gonna get into a discussion about inclusiveness of a community than you need to look past your own perspective.

Yes, you do.
 

If people say something problematic now, they'd get a warning.

Yes, should someone break a one sided conversation, they deserve a warning. Education is one way always.
 

I can not speak for staff, and I don't. But if you ask me, there is a clear choice in what I would rather fill my community with: people who aren't rude against those who are different.

Clearly you've misread the platform like the staff have.
 

Here you go, I took the time to dissect your post and provide some points on what I have a problem with. Furthermore I'd like to point out that just because you are of a marginalized group does not mean you can speak for other marginalized groups, or even others of the same group, since everyone will generally have had their own experiences on matters. Is why listening to others is helpful and important!

Yikes. Not sure if I need to point out what's wrong here.


  • Chris Miller likes this

#17 Avaro

Avaro

    o_o

  • Members
  • Real Name:Robin
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 March 2020 - 11:59 AM

I think you're a bit misguided with the last bit there Lunaria, because the point being made was that PZC was always inclusive. No one is upset about having to be inclusive now. People are upset because they feel like staff is blaming them.


  • Mitsukara and Shane like this

#18 Aevin

Aevin

  • Members
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 12 March 2020 - 12:12 PM

I can understand there's a lot of nervousness and controversy flying around right now. This happens with any big change. There are things we have done in the past that have received a ton of backlash, that I firmly believe improved the community as a whole. One thing I want you to consider is the fact that I, personally, hate controversy. It stresses me out to no end. It damages my health. And yet in this case, I've been so thoroughly committed to this course of action in spite of this, because I firmly believe it's the correct course of action.

 

People keep focusing on this word "inclusiveness," and saying that we already were inclusive. Inclusive to whom? I've heard from no less than ten people one-on-one in private, expressing gratitude for the new policies because they, personally, felt excluded, and that the environment was toxic. Some of these are people I haven't heard from in years. Some of them are people who've left the community, returning because they're encouraged by the new policy. Well before this announcement, over a period of several years, we've heard concerns and big dropbox posts from people leaving because these issues weren't addressed. So to those people, no. PureZC has not always been inclusive. It's important to look beyond one's own comfort level, and consider how policies affect individuals whose experiences are outside your own.

 

To those who are threatening to leave over this, obviously, I wish that you wouldn't. For my part, I certainly value your presence here. And, believe it or not, that applies to everyone, even those most affected by the new policies. However, we aren't going to let protest threats from a few members change course on a policy, particularly when a greater number of people have expressed that they may return because of it. So we have to go with the policy that we most strongly believe in, that we believe most benefits the community as a whole. Why not stick around and see how it goes? I have a feeling you won't find it as disastrous as you think. If you do choose to leave, it is your own choice, but should you decide to return, you are always welcome here.

 

This is not by any means a "knee jerk reaction." It's an important policy change that has been thought about and discussed for years. Backlash was entirely expected, and we would not have gone through with these changes if we weren't prepared to face it. I am entirely convinced that these policies will make the community a better place in the long run. We're going through with these changes, because it's the right thing to do.


  • Rambly, Adem, Mitsukara and 1 other like this

#19 Shane

Shane

    💙

  • Moderators
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:South Australia

Posted 12 March 2020 - 12:16 PM

Enjoy the new PureZC I guess, I'm out.


  • Chris Miller and Deedee like this

#20 Joelmacool

Joelmacool

    Addicted to Overwatch

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Joel
  • Location:Country of Europe

Posted 12 March 2020 - 12:33 PM

People keep focusing on this word "inclusiveness," and saying that we already were inclusive. Inclusive to whom? I've heard from no less than ten people one-on-one in private, expressing gratitude for the new policies because they, personally, felt excluded, and that the environment was toxic. Some of these are people I haven't heard from in years. Some of them are people who've left the community, returning because they're encouraged by the new policy. Well before this announcement, over a period of several years, we've heard concerns and big dropbox posts from people leaving because these issues weren't addressed. So to those people, no. PureZC has not always been inclusive. It's important to look beyond one's own comfort level, and consider how policies affect individuals whose experiences are outside your own.

Now, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and say this: Don't you think this change will make PureZC noninclusive to those who enjoy being political, or enjoy participating in debate? Many of the people who do debate in currentevents were very inclusive, and were simply having discussions on issues related to sensitive topics. Even if some people think they aren't inclusive, I'm very sure they are. They simply realise that they're still able to debate in discussions, while still respecting the other person's viewpoints. In this scenario, you're removing the ability to discuss issues which are important to discuss. You're stopping those who enjoy debating from sharing their views. You're not being inclusive to these people, because you are ignoring them completely. Don't you think that these people will now feel excluded, because of these policies? Even if, in your post, you mention that some people expressed gratitude for the new policies, it is still apparent that you're preventing discussion from being made. You're not allowing people to share their beliefs, and so those who have certain beliefs will feel left out. If these people have radical views, now we won't be able to convince them to have more respectful ones, as debate will never ensue. Ultimately, this policy solves nothing. It only hides these beliefs, and prevents them from changing. A huge factor of currentevents, or political discussion in general, was due to the fact that people were able to have discussions to change the other person's viewpoint. Now that you've banned these debates from happening, we're no longer able to change these views, and these views will only become much more radical.

So ban political discussions, ban currentevents. You can definitely hide from opinions you dislike, but you will never be able to change them. Only when you see the opinion in front of you, can you actually help change their viewpoint.


  • Chris Miller, Nicholas Steel, Shane and 2 others like this

#21 Mani Kanina

Mani Kanina

    Rabbits!

  • Members

Posted 12 March 2020 - 12:41 PM

 

I mean, I joined the discord server and one of the first things I saw was memeing about how TBT is as transphobic as robin.

First of all, you are clearly vieling an obvious jokes as the "state of PureZC" like you did with that stupid Windmill of Harmony, implying I was a Nazi. Frankly, you are not making these arguments in good faith.

 

You're right in that one joke is not a good view stamp of the entire community as a whole. But the fact that this kind of thing is just considered a joke is the entire problem in the first place. Cause it's not a really a joke, that's the point. It's also not the only "joke" of it's kind that have been thrown around and considered acceptable.

I also don't see the point in bringing up that unrelated issue here, I made an error and I apologized for it.
 

 

I don't really care about the validity of either of those two claims, but if you're gonna get into a discussion about inclusiveness of a community than you need to look past your own perspective.

Yes, you do.

 

You can think me that petty if you wish, but I said this because arguing whether or not someone is transphobic is not relevant to the discussion here.
 

 

If people say something problematic now, they'd get a warning.

Yes, should someone break a one sided conversation, they deserve a warning. Education is one way always.

 

One sided conversation? I'm not entirely sure what point it is you're trying to make here.
 

 

I can not speak for staff, and I don't. But if you ask me, there is a clear choice in what I would rather fill my community with: people who aren't rude against those who are different.

Clearly you've misread the platform like the staff have.

 

No, I figured the current userbase of pure is entirely fine with chugging along has it has been, being perfectly fine with being rude towards minorities and such, like I said, it's what direction I would want to take the community. I for one really welcome these rules, I think they have been needed for a long time, and honestly? I'm actually surprised staff is pushing it this direction, it would not be what I would have expected personally.
 

 

Here you go, I took the time to dissect your post and provide some points on what I have a problem with. Furthermore I'd like to point out that just because you are of a marginalized group does not mean you can speak for other marginalized groups, or even others of the same group, since everyone will generally have had their own experiences on matters. Is why listening to others is helpful and important!

Yikes. Not sure if I need to point out what's wrong here.

 

I'd say yikes right back? A gay person would not have the same experience and struggles as a trans person, likewise a transperson would not have the same experience as a gay person. And even two trans people can have vastly different experiences in life, especially in regards to how they are marginalized. Is why having active dialogue and discussion with one and another is so important here. Which is sorta what we are doing here in the first place? Yoshi's perspective is that of someone who feels (from what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong) that pure already was very inclusive, my perspective is that it really isn't.


  • Rambly likes this

#22 klop422

klop422

    Guess I'm full of monsters and treasure

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 12 March 2020 - 12:47 PM

I can't pretend to say that I know everything that's been going on, every controversy that's happened on the site (and in Discord), and everything the staff have to deal with (or how much thought has been put into this decision), but I do have to agree that it does feel disproportionate. I've personally had some incredibly interesting and useful conversations in #currentevents myself, on some of the topics that are to be banned. Obviously, sometimes it can get a bit unproductive, but I have to agree that just ignoring/disallowing certain opinions being voiced (in a respectful way - or as respectfully as possible, considering) does mean that no one who disagrees can attempt to convince them otherwise.

 

Personally, I'm not leaving - I like ZC, I like the people here, and I don't feel the community will suffer to a massive extent - but thinking about it, it's likely I'll not be in the discord channel quite as much. Not to presume people care that much, since I'm not the most active member there anyway :P. But I can't help feeling there might be a compromise here.


  • Chris Miller, Rambly, Nicholas Steel and 5 others like this

#23 Joelmacool

Joelmacool

    Addicted to Overwatch

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Joel
  • Location:Country of Europe

Posted 12 March 2020 - 01:07 PM

I'd say yikes right back? A gay person would not have the same experience and struggles as a trans person, likewise a transperson would not have the same experience as a gay person. And even two trans people can have vastly different experiences in life, especially in regards to how they are marginalized. Is why having active dialogue and discussion with one and another is so important here. Which is sorta what we are doing here in the first place? Yoshi's perspective is that of someone who feels (from what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong) that pure already was very inclusive, my perspective is that it really isn't.

I know this isn't targeted at me, but do you not see the irony of saying what you have in bold?

You state that active dialogue and discussion is important, yet you wish to ban currentevents. How is this not ironic, and how do you see this as supportive of your own point? Currentevents was the place to discuss viewpoints, and it allowed people to share their own beliefs despite it being a popular (or unpopular) one. It helped people make amends, and even changed the viewpoints of some people.

 

If discussion and dialogue was truly important, as you say it is, we shouldn't get rid of the one place to do exactly that.


  • Chris Miller, Nicholas Steel, Shane and 1 other like this

#24 Mani Kanina

Mani Kanina

    Rabbits!

  • Members

Posted 12 March 2020 - 01:30 PM

I know this isn't targeted at me, but do you not see the irony of saying what you have in bold?

You state that active dialogue and discussion is important, yet you wish to ban currentevents. How is this not ironic, and how do you see this as supportive of your own point? Currentevents was the place to discuss viewpoints, and it allowed people to share their own beliefs despite it being a popular (or unpopular) one. It helped people make amends, and even changed the viewpoints of some people.
 
If discussion and dialogue was truly important, as you say it is, we shouldn't get rid of the one place to do exactly that.

As a none-member of the discord server, the fate of #currentevents is of little relevance to me, my points have been mostly in favour of the rules about inclusiveness. I can't speak much of it since I have not been part of the discord server, I have only heard third party opinions about it (which to be fair does not paint a pretty picture).

Either way, you are, in fact, taking me out of context. But disregarding that for a bit, I feel like you can very well have an active discussion about topics without insulting minorities, that is what it means to have an active and respectful conversation, right? As for the channel itself, pureZC staff has all rights to dictate what topics they want and not want to allow to be discussed on the discord server. Whether or not you have an active dialogue with understanding of one or anther is a completely different matter from whether or not a topic is allowed on the discord server. Hench, the argument you're trying to quote me on and pose is irrelevant to the point I was making in quoted bit.

But to get on the topic you want to discuss, If staff feel the channel itself was a source of toxic behavior (which would, in fact, line up with what I have been told), then it would make sense to remove it. I care little for it either way, but it would make the discord server line up more with the forum platform in terms of content allowed.


  • ShadowTiger and Rambly like this

#25 Deedee

Deedee

    Bug Frog Dragon Girl

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Deedee
  • Pronouns:She / Her, They / Them
  • Location:Canada

Posted 12 March 2020 - 03:21 PM

Inclusive to whom? I've heard from no less than ten people one-on-one in private, expressing gratitude for the new policies because they, personally, felt excluded, and that the environment was toxic. Some of these are people I haven't heard from in years. Some of them are people who've left the community, returning because they're encouraged by the new policy.\

If you mean the people who literally made an anti-pure circlejerk, and singled out and "gatekept" LGBT users by calling them nazis by proxy, and called the entire staff, almost all of which are LGBT, "Nazis", then what can I say but Y I K E S. I'm not gonna namedrop anyone, but I think the people who I'm referring to, will know who I'm referring to.
 

I'm all for an inclusive Pure; but these last few replies have given me the impression that you want to be exclusive not to those who are anti-inclusive, but exclusive to everyone who isn't LGBT. I highly doubt this is what you're going for, but this wording, people in this topic being allowed to call the entire community bigots and not get called out on it, this whole stance of "we've decided privately and we aren't budging cause we think you're a minority in the community", the desire to make the place more friendly to people who were willing to gatekeep LGBT members while being Pure Staff, and this whole attitude of "if you disagree you're part of the problem" that seems to be allowed to slide... All this just makes me worrisome.

The last thing I want from this community, is a community that gatekeeps, that says "you have to be *so and so* in order to truly be gay/trans". If that's the type of community that gets fostered by this decision, then I'm not going to feel included, I'm going to feel excluded. And on that note...

 

To those who are threatening to leave over this, obviously, I wish that you wouldn't. For my part, I certainly value your presence here. And, believe it or not, that applies to everyone, even those most affected by the new policies. However, we aren't going to let protest threats from a few members change course on a policy, particularly when a greater number of people have expressed that they may return because of it. So we have to go with the policy that we most strongly believe in, that we believe most benefits the community as a whole. Why not stick around and see how it goes? I have a feeling you won't find it as disastrous as you think. If you do choose to leave, it is your own choice, but should you decide to return, you are always welcome here.

Enjoy the new PureZC I guess, I'm out.

This better be mended real soon or I'm also out. A community that excludes Shane, is a community that excludes me as well.


  • Chris Miller, Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder, Shane and 5 others like this

#26 Mitsukara

Mitsukara

    Ara?

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jennifer

Posted 12 March 2020 - 03:22 PM

Phew, this was a big thing to catch up on. I'm sorry to hear this has been going down poorly, and I feel through inaction a measure of guilt related to all this, so I'll try to add my own thoughts.

Firstly, I agree with a lot of different things people have said so far, who are disagreeing with each other. I see Aevin's point and I see Zoria's point and I see Yoshi's point and I see some of Mani Kanina's points and more, and it's all a big clusterfelgercarb of people being mostly-sensible about a tricky problem.

I will also say I really, really hope Shane doesn't actually leave. Shane is cool. I strongly hope this fence is mended somehow.

Here is my thinking. I absolutely hate fighting or debating about stuff most of the time. When last I was active in PureZC general, I avoided CurrentEvents, but I had no problem with it existing. I am trans, I am pretty left-leaning in my own political ideology, but I feel no urge to debate or defend that with people, or to tell them how they should feel or to really go out of my way trying to persuade people. Mostly, I would rather hide under a rock. (see also my choice of avatar.)

 

The main reason I haven't been more active on PureZC, be it the forum or the discord, is lack of energy versus the other things I want and need and am able to do with my time.

 

It is true that I stopped hanging around the Discord much after finding one member's joke distasteful and then being pursued in DMs by another member for hours about how I should apologize, and that I blocked those members. But I didn't chalk that up to something wrong with Pure's rules, nor blame Pure as a whole for that- it was just a stupid incident and I moved on with my day. I feel a bit of guilt that I could be considered an example this policy change is meant to help in that regard, since it's really just my own energy limitation that's kept me from being around more. I'm not embittered to the community by the actions of two people, nor do I even write those two people off entirely, I just haven't had the energy in my day to day life, which is 100% on me. I felt like Yoshi brought up a good point in that regard because no, I haven't tried to make amends with those people- I felt no drive to do so, I just shrugged it off. But it wasn't what kept me away.

 

This policy change sadly won't help that hard real life limitation of my own energy, but it doesn't hurt it for me, either. Viewed in a vacuum I'd look at these changes and go "neat" and shrug it off. But when I think about how it affects other people, it's a more difficult subject and I think I see why people on both sides are upset, and it's sad and frustrating to watch. I especially agree with Klopp that it feels like there should be room for some sort of compromise here.

I personally think closing CurrentEvents should maybe have been put to a vote, rather than purely a staff decision. Staff could vote, and if the staff is in agreement that gives their position a head start in the overall vote numbers. But with a vote you can then point to the outcome and say, "Overall this is what more people wanted". I think this is part of what Aevin is trying to say about the people he's heard from who felt the community wasn't LBGT-friendly enough before. But it's hard to weigh that against the people who think this is too much in the other direction now, because there aren't numbers and it wasn't a community-wide decision like with a vote. But I'm not staff, nor have I ever tried to be staff (if nothing else I'm not active enough), so I don't really know their perspective on that.

 

The overall political problem I see is that on one extreme, you have people being actual bigots, and on the opposite extreme you have people who are so upset about bigots that they'll go after anyone who mis-steps slightly and take the fight to the wrong places. And then people give each other extreme impressions from slight actions towards either side- "oh no, this person is worried about exclusivity. Are they going to hypocritcailly jump down my throat while also ranting about Trump?" as Zoria mentions, versus "oh no, this person is worried about people worrying about exclusivity, are they going to hate me because I'm [insert LGBTQ flavor or non-white race here]?", both of which are valid fears.

 

I don't know if anyone's really taken it to those extremes very far on PureZC though- if I had to guess, most people haven't and are much more reasonable and fair.

 

I suspect it's more a question of a few people trolling the line by staying just within the limits of what was allowed to insinuate serious insults, while most people weren't causing any trouble and didn't want any. I bet there were some healthy and productive discussions in #CurrentEvents, but then a few jerks making it awkward by, as Aevin said, "toeing the line". Something to deal with those specific cases makes sense, but this approach does seem a little broad and like it's upsetting people who weren't the actual troublemakers, which is unfortunate and, like I said earlier, like this tragedy of different people who all have good points smushing into each other into a big mess.

I will also say that I think #General shouldn't have allowed ANY political jokes while #CurrentEvents existed. That kind of thing benefits from room to breathe, but it also benefits from being quarantined, and not slipping into casual discussion. I don't really know how useful that observation is now, but that's my hindsight at least.

I don't know how best to make peace with everyone on this subject, but these are my thoughts. I hope everyone can calm down and remain friends about this, and I also hope the way policies are made and enforced can find a way to reach the best compromise for everyone with this kind of thing.


Edited by Mitsukara, 12 March 2020 - 03:25 PM.

  • ShadowTiger, Magi_Hero, Rambly and 8 others like this

#27 Aevin

Aevin

  • Members
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 12 March 2020 - 04:44 PM

Whenever controversial stuff like this comes up that is potentially upsetting for members, I feel the need to remain professional. To present a united front. Backlash does happen, and if we were to cave every time it happened, nothing would ever get done. To a certain extent, the job of the staff is to decide on policy, and then execute it. For example, nobody likes to be warned over rule infractions. With few exceptions, nobody believes what they did was wrong, and will fight and protest and pitch a fit rather than accept a couple numbers on the internet or a few days away. So I do think it's important that the staff be willing to execute actions that are unpopular, and not to cave to pressure.

 

With that said, I'm a person, too, and I'd like to take a less professional approach here. I'll start by saying that I personally find backlash on virtually anything to be incredibly upsetting. It's not like I'm not listening, or that I don't care. I care a lot about people's feelings and opinions. I should also make it clear that, as is often the case, I feel like I'm having to be the sole public face and target of hate for something that is not solely my doing. It's true that I had a big part in shaping this policy, but I'd ask you all to remember that at the end of the day, I'm one person. I am not someone who just goes "This is what I want, so I'm doing it," when it comes to the community. I am always listening to different perspectives, both from the staff team, and everyone else. The vast majority of decisions are things that are discussed among the staff until we reach a consensus. In some cases, I don't even like decisions we've made, but I execute them anyway because sometimes it seems like I'm the only one willing to. So it often gets to me when people hate me because I happen to be the only one posting.

 

Now, I can see that massive amount of people who are against the policy. Let me see here. Shane. Wait, didn't he like my post on the policy? Weird. Hmmm ... Dimi. Didn't he like my post, too? Yoshi liked the post, too. And Avaro. Wait, didn't one of these people express to Russ just the other night how grateful he was for the changes? Didn't one of them tell me he thought I was the best admin in PureZC's history? (Some of these people have since undone their likes, but my notifications still show a record of them.) Why is it that all these people who at first seemed totally on-board with this policy are the very ones protesting it? This is not a case of one person liking the policy, then thinking a bit and going "whoops." So what the hell happened here?

 

And why is it that some of these people are the same ones who have interacted with me regularly in various Discord groups? I would think you all have a pretty good understanding of who I am as a person by now. But all of that flies out the window overnight, apparently, because a policy that you suddenly, inexplicably, are against.

 

People went from liking the policy, to being so utterly opposed that they're willing to leave the community over it? What the hell? Again, you people know me. Why is it that you feel like fleeing the community in a fit of emotion is the better alternative to talking things out? And yes, I realize saying that will hurt some people, but to be frank, it seems like no matter what I say, some people take offense. So I'm calling it what it is. There's a bandwagon effect going on where one person gets really upset and emotional, and because that person is well-liked, everyone else follows. You can't expect the staff to cave to threats like that. If you're unhappy with the policy, and if you genuinely care about the community, stay and discuss it like a mature person, rather than making threats or leaving in a storm. We'd listen to you. We always listen. But we never got proper discussions of this at all. People jumped straight to the ultimatums. This kind of behavior only hurts your case.

 

This idea that we're "excluding anyone who isn't LGBT" is so utterly absurd I don't know where to begin. I've constantly made an effort to be fair in this respect. I've sat back and tolerated jokes, not just at the expense of gay people, but aimed personally at me, because I didn't want to be perceived as being biased. (Let's just say that a certain jerkwad seems weirdly obsessed with what happens with my ass ...) It's just incredibly upsetting that, in spite of years of fostering good will and personally getting to know so many of you, the instant you don't like something about a policy, you jump ship and assume the worst of me. You should know me better than that. If you want to leave, that's on you. I'm not going to sit here and go, "Oh please don't leave! We'll change whatever you want, just don't go!" That's not how this works. If you want to make meaningful contributions to the policy, stay here and talk and communicate, because these threats, as serious about them as I'm sure you are, are just irresponsible.

 

I want everyone to feel welcome, even those who some consider "problematic." I'm going to name some people here, because everyone will know who I'm talking about anyway, and dodging around it is just silly. Perhaps I'll be saying too much, so I apologize to these people in advance. Chris Miller frequently posts stuff in Current Events that many would find offensive. I personally am not bothered by most of it, but some people are. Recently, Tim posted something in there that was deemed pretty inappropriate. We had people on the staff advocating for immediate perma-bans for both of them. I personally said, "absolutely not." I feel we need to go through a proper escalation and warning process for all members. So we issued a warning and a 3-day ban for Tim. This was apparently the worst thing ever, because it was clearly a joke, and we've overlooked worse stuff than that before. I don't think either of these people are bad people. Heck, I try to see the best in everyone, and there's almost no one I would truly consider a "bad person." But the things they're saying are problematic, and we had no clear policy against them. Taking action against that was received extremely poorly, with a decent amount of backlash.

 

Now, we look to the other side. We have a ton of members who hate the Discord server as it is now. We have members and staff who have left, some out of a loathing for the state of the server, others out of sheer exhaustion of trying to moderate it. I'm so exhausted with the place I barely post in there. The same holds true of our other two admins. There is a problem here. These policy changes are an attempt to resolve those problems. And frankly, I think they would work, if people would calm down long enough to just give them a chance.

 

Now, people are talking about debates on trans stuff as if they're very important to have, in order to convince people and educate them on trans issues. But in my experience, this isn't what's been taking place at all. It's just been spouting of hateful anti-trans memes from people who have no care about debating and learning. Discussions about trans issues are absolutely allowed, as I said in the opening post. This idea that we'll be shutting down any and all discussion of this kind of thing is simply false. I can't help but feel like all this backlash is due to misunderstanding. But if the center of a debate is whether or not a trans person is who they are, or worst yet, whether they have a right to live ... can't you understand how they might feel a tad unwelcome? For some people, this is purely a philosophical debate. But for others, they just want to come into a server and talk about video games and not be greeted with debates over their identity.

 

Personally, I feel that none of this needs to be here. For all the rosy picture people like to paint of good faith debates about trans people where those against them change their minds, it's just not happening. The people against that have no interest in "learning" or changing their minds. It's just creating a harmful atmosphere that alienates many people. And the trans stuff is just one example. At this very moment, people are gleefully dumping all kinds of inappropriate shit in Current Events. Yeah, definitely some productive debate going on in there. Is this really what you guys are defending? What good has really come out of that place? I'd really like to know, because I've seen nothing but problems.

 

Saying that we're inclusive and won't allow disrespect toward LGBT should not be controversial. There are many communities that don't allow sensitive debates, and many other places to have them. And it's not like we're going to be flying rainbow flags all over the place. The intent isn't to create a special high class of LGBT folks who rule over the others, or some shit. But we do have many members who fall under one of those letters, and I think it's important to make them feel welcome. And I don't think that means that other people can't be. At the end of the day, if one group of people feels unwelcome over stuff that they say, they can stop saying it. But the people feeling unwelcome over who they are can't stop being who they are, and they absolutely shouldn't have to.

 

I'll also say that, as someone who hates drama and controversy and hates being the center of attention, there are times when I've considered leaving the community myself. But the fact is, I think the entire place would fall apart without me. I'm not saying this to be egocentric or to overstate my own importance ... but I put a lot of work into managing things that other people don't seem willing to. And it's because I genuinely care about this community. I care about all of you. I'm doing it for you. And stuff like this ... it just tears me up so much that I don't know what to do. I'm supposed to be working today, making money that I need to support myself and my future, and instead I'm occupied with this, and so bent out of shape over it that it's all I'll be thinking about for the entire day.

 

Goddammit, people. I'm doing my best here. And yet people I've known for years are flipping out overnight and threatening to abandon everything. Haven't I earned a little bit of trust after all this time? You guys should know me better than this by now ...

 

Ugh ... I've said too much. But I'm human, and I'm frustrated, and I'm just about beyond the point of caring. So, whatever. Take my honestly and vulnerability and twist it around like you always do.

 

If anyone actually wants to talk about how to make things better, by all means. I'll be open to that, as always.


  • ShadowTiger, Rambly, Adem and 6 others like this

#28 Jenny

Jenny

    braixen

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jennette
  • Pronouns:She / Her

Posted 12 March 2020 - 05:00 PM

I'd to start by saying thanks Aevin and Lunaria for being willing to respond. It's not my intent to come off as standoffish, so if I happen to I do sincerely apologize.
 
I do have issues with both of your responses and I'd like to respectfully explain why that is, but first I feel the need to mention that again, I'm not against the goal these represent, anyone who felt/feels uncomfortable with the state of PureZC, or the staff either. My intention isn't and never will be to target specific people, I simply wish to encourage discussions (like this very one).
 

If someone considers the other individual lesser by extent of who they are and they are fine with marginalizing them, then seeing eye to eye is impossible. Whether or not the group of user have been asked to debate their points is irrelevant, it should be accepted at face value that being rude or making fun of marginalized groups is not acceptable, that's what these rules strive for.

 
These are not the types of situations I'm advocating for talking things out. I agree with you that, as you said, being rude or making fun of marginalized groups isn't acceptable. I'm not against that nor the idea that the rules strive for, simply the execution of it.
 
Conversation IS important because it prevents situations like these where there seems to be a large disconnect in how people perceive the community. What has complaining about it privately solved in all the years that people have felt put-off by the site? For you to call it "irrelevant" is a bit worrying to me.
 
Hateful people don't have a place in the community, and I have no desire for them to. That being said, for the same staff who advocated for talking things out among people who had issues with each other, who said they wouldn't take action unless there was a "clear" aggressor; to now take this stance is rather jarring.
 
Things such as this are where a disconnect becomes apparent, and that is where I advocate for civil, adult discussions. I think if discussions actually happened, people would find the people they have issues with actually agree with the stated goals of this more than they probably thought. Is that not a worthwhile development? Or are we simply supposed to dismiss all discussion that doesn't perfectly align with our own views? I fear for the future of this community if so.
 

I mean, I joined the discord server and one of the first things I saw was memeing about how TBT is as transphobic as robin. I don't really care about the validity of either of those two claims, but if you're gonna get into a discussion about inclusiveness of a community than you need to look past your own perspective.

 
I agree, you do need to look past your own perspective. So why is the staff showing a blatant unwillingness in doing so? That was a big part of my problem to begin with, after all.
 

I don't really feel like I have the authority to speak on what PZC used to be, but if I'd make a guess it would be that the site has always been around the middling ground, supporting what is socially accepted for the era to support, and generally keep everything else under the rug and not talking about it.

 
I'd wager that your assumption that Pure has sat somewhere in the middle is correct. Is this not a good thing? That seems, to me at least, like a reasonably balanced community where other places back then would have been much more hostile. Again as I've said, I'm not denying that problematic behavior has happened or does happen; but for anyone to act like PureZC has EVER fostered or protected problematic views is blatantly wrong. That is not a reality that exists.
 

I really don't see how these new rule changes would go against what you desire. If people say something problematic now, they'd get a warning. And if they are willing to learn why it was a problem and ask about it, I'm sure someone would be happy to explain to them what the issue is. These rules are not perma banning someone for speaking rude once, let's not act like it is.

 
I'm not acting like that and I'll gladly explain my grievances. If you would, allow me to turn the attention towards the things I found notable in Aevin's response.
 

One thing I want you to consider is the fact that I, personally, hate controversy. It stresses me out to no end. It damages my health. And yet in this case, I've been so thoroughly committed to this course of action in spite of this, because I firmly believe it's the correct course of action.
 
People keep focusing on this word "inclusiveness," and saying that we already were inclusive. Inclusive to whom? I've heard from no less than ten people one-on-one in private, expressing gratitude for the new policies because they, personally, felt excluded, and that the environment was toxic. Some of these are people I haven't heard from in years. Some of them are people who've left the community, returning because they're encouraged by the new policy. Well before this announcement, over a period of several years, we've heard concerns and big dropbox posts from people leaving because these issues weren't addressed. So to those people, no. PureZC has not always been inclusive. It's important to look beyond one's own comfort level, and consider how policies affect individuals whose experiences are outside your own.
 
To those who are threatening to leave over this, obviously, I wish that you wouldn't. For my part, I certainly value your presence here. And, believe it or not, that applies to everyone, even those most affected by the new policies. However, we aren't going to let protest threats from a few members change course on a policy, particularly when a greater number of people have expressed that they may return because of it.

 
I'm not one who enjoys confrontation or any type of controversy either. Like you, it also stresses me out. These changes worry me not because I disagree with the goal of it but because, as I said, the precedent I feel like it sets.
 
When I talked about Pure always having seemed inclusive, I should have made it clear that it was from my own point of view. I understand that I don't speak for everyone, and I won't ever try to act like I do. If people felt like their experiences were being invalidated because of what I said, then I apologize deeply.
 
I do, however, take a problem with your seeming unwillingness to even hear me out. I'm effected by these changes too but it feels like you taking a clear stance, or side on this matter so I almost wonder why I even bother. To cater to people who haven't even been an active part of the community over the people you still have around, some like me that have been around for over a decade, some even longer than me.
 
You mention the number of people that have expressed discomfort in the state of the community to you. Well your dismissal of the several people who have made it clear they are uncomfortable with your changes makes it clear you're playing favorites here. You're adamant about these changes and almost undermining the people who don't agree with your changes. As staff, the goal should be to be as unbiased as possible. In that regard, you have failed.
 
People aren't any less valid because they don't see eye to eye. All of this says to me that you'd rather foster a community of people with an "us vs them" mentality than encourage discussion to make amends.
 
I respect you, Aevin. I want what is best for the community and I do feel like you do too, but I'm not feeling mutual respect from you. It hurts as someone who grew up in this very community, who is directly effected by the changes as a gay man to feel like my thoughts are being invalidated simply because I don't agree with you. Sorry Shane and I are not enough of a "victim" for you to give me the time of day. Maybe the two trans people in this thread that have expressed issues will be enough for you to take it seriously?
 
Once more, I'm not against your goals. I love this community. I love people no matter the sexuality, gender identity, whatever it may be. All I have ever wanted to encourage was discussion between people to potentially make amends, to have a chance to see that hey, maybe people aren't against having a comfortable place for EVERYONE.
 
Your actions today go against this, but it seems at one point you were on a similar page to me.

 

The gist of this is that the staff are no longer going to attempt to mediate member disputes. We won't be trying to make judgments about who is "right" in disagreements, or to help people get along. Our only goal is to keep personal drama out of our public spaces so it's not disruptive to others. If you engage in personal squabbles in public, you'll be asked to work it out in private. And if two people absolutely cannot get along, that's what the blocking features are for. Any reports of harassment should be severe, with an obvious antagonist, and clearly supported with logs. If you don't make a strong case, you'll be told we don't have enough information, and if it's mild or an ongoing dispute, you'll be told to work it out yourself.

 


  • Nathaniel, Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder, Shane and 4 others like this

#29 Orithan

Orithan

    Studying Scientist - Commission from Silvixen

  • Members
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 March 2020 - 05:01 PM

This change is a sigh of relief, especially to those who have been a victim of the problems that's been running in Pure's chat like I have been. The general negative atmosphere the chat has had as of late which included but not limited to; outright trolling, frequent insensitive jokes, people actively walking over whoever they disagree with, drama and just being overly negative in general, have made me feel unwelcome... multiple times. Sometimes the whole place feels like an echo chamber with how certain people (not naming names) handle disagreement at times. I have voiced my concern over the state of the community at least twice only to get spat at and mocked over it.

 

I'm not quite sure about closing #CurrentEvents or shutting down political discussion as a whole, but it is clear that political issues have always divided the community. I can understand why with Pure's historically poor handling of politics and how increasingly politics has been dividing not just Pure, but online communities as a whole. More now than ever people have been conflating the political stance of one another with their personal character. On the other hand, politics is a very important topic to discuss because of the implications it has on the world. I do believe Pure and politics are not mutually exclusive, but certain people (again, not naming names) cause much unneeded strife between each other in the community as a result of it.

 

I should mention - Discord's block feature sucks and using the Block feature in general should be a last resort and only if you think the person in question is truly just incompatible with you. It should never be used as a first resort when people disagree with you or just to shut your mind to their trolling or whatever. If you have to block several people because they are regularly pushing the boundary on the rules or if you feel genuinely uncomfortable or unwelcome when they are around, chances are the community is not a healthy one for you.


Edited by Orithan, 12 March 2020 - 05:04 PM.

  • Mani Kanina likes this

#30 Shane

Shane

    💙

  • Moderators
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:South Australia

Posted 12 March 2020 - 05:02 PM

I thought you had good intent, that's why I liked your post. But after you basically tore up my heartfelt passionate post in the staff dropbox, I'm just done. You can have your PureZC, it's going to be something I'm not wanting to be a part of. That's why I unliked, because I realized how utterly insane this all really is. And you can't say a person can't change his mind when new developments arise. Do you have to pursue a crush if you find out they're toxic? Do you stay in a group even though it might have extremist views? Saying changing your mind is disingenuous behaviour is well, disingenuous.

 

Look, I gave what I thought was a sensible list of suggestions, but clearly your stubborn ways is really making me feel like it's a lost cause. So I'll leave you to it to create your fantastical PureZC. If you want to know how I feel, I had a complete mental breakdown all night. But as said by minorities worse off than me, I'm comfortable. Work out those mental gymnastics.


  • Chris Miller, Avaro, Jenny and 1 other like this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users