Jump to content

Photo

Major Discord Policy Changes


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

#1 Aevin

Aevin

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

Posted 10 March 2020 - 03:31 PM

After a great deal of thought and discussion, the staff have decided to make some rather large changes to our policy, particularly as it relates to the Discord server. We are aware these new policies won't sit well with some members, but we consider them important in making sure our server is a comfortable and welcoming place to as many people as possible. The most important changes are as follows:

1. The Current Events channel will be archived on Thursday, March 12th.
2. Controversial or sensitive political and social debates will not be allowed anywhere on the server.
3. PureZC is adopting a clear policy of inclusiveness, particularly with regard to LGBTQ+ members. Any disrespect on the basis of these identities will not be tolerated.
4. Links to and discussing of content that is violent; controversial; mocking of minorities, political, or religious beliefs; or overly negative or upsetting is not allowed.

There are many places online that allow for debate on controversial topics. But such discussions are not in line with our goals for the community here. Our aim is to have a positive, comfortable space that's open to everyone, but in the past, we've seen many members express frustration with the state of the Discord server. Many people have left, and others say they generally avoid discussions here, out of a consistent feeling of nastiness. We've seen discussions both in Current Events and General that are incredibly insensitive and reflect badly on the community as a whole. This created a general atmosphere that many on the staff did not feel comfortable working for and supporting. The staff can't be expected to work hard to support an environment we don't believe in, so for these reasons and more, we have decided to make changes that we hope will foster an environment we can be proud of.

Discussing of a wide range of topics is still allowed, of course, as long as it isn't deemed too upsetting or controversial. We also want to clarify that discussions about or mentions of LGBT experiences are not considered "controversial," but "normal." LGBT folks are allowed to talk about their experience here, and discussions on these topics can take place as long as all parties are comfortable and there is no debate about the "morality" of these identities. An example could be someone who truly doesn't understand gender disphoria asking questions of a trans person, as long as they are comfortable and willing to share. But suggesting in any way that there's something *wrong* with the person is completely off limits. Obviously, we can't stop people from holding certain anti-minority opinions, but we will not allow the expression of them here, much like we wouldn't allow someone to promote a racist ideology.

There will be no more "toe-ing the line" on these kinds of topics, and a lot of things that we've let slide before will be greeted with warnings, and bans if the behavior continues.

Within the next few days, we'll be opening applications for new staff who are excited about helping to reshape the Discord server in line with these goals. In the mean time, we're a little bit short staffed, and would like to ask your help in reporting content that's against the rules. You are welcome to use @staff to report something, but if you prefer to make a report in private, please DM a staff member with a quote of the offending content. We will try to respond as quickly as possible.

If you have any questions, feel free to post here, and we'll answer them to the best of our abilities. Thank you for your understanding and help in making the PureZC community a positive, welcoming, and inclusive place for everyone.


  • Kite, Neppy, Rambly and 10 others like this

#2 Chris Miller

Chris Miller

    The Dark Man

  • Banned
  • Real Name:King George XVII
  • Location:The Dark Chair

Posted 10 March 2020 - 03:41 PM

Oh, well.  'Twas a fun channel once.

 

Anyone who likes a good shitpost knows where to go. :3


Edited by Chris Miller, 10 March 2020 - 03:43 PM.


#3 Mani Kanina

Mani Kanina

    Rabbits!

  • Members

Posted 10 March 2020 - 06:11 PM

These are some good changes, I personally took one look at the discord server after I joined recently and decided it really wasn't worth hanging around.
 

Anyone who likes a good shitpost knows where to go. :3

The fact that you consider these new rules mutually exclusive to shitposting says quite a lot.
  • Rambly, The Satellite, Mitsukara and 4 others like this

#4 Kite

Kite

  • Members

Posted 10 March 2020 - 08:38 PM

I retired from the staff for a variety of reasons (a lot of them stress related and taking that stress out in the wrong ways), but I peaced out of the community entirely because I really felt the Discord server was pretty gross the few times I hopped in to see how things were going or heard tales from other members that'd left. I wasn't very vocal about it because I was legit just drained from everything and dealing with a lot of other stressful things on top of that.

 

Really glad to see these changes!


Edited by Kite, 10 March 2020 - 08:44 PM.

  • ShadowTiger, Rambly, Mani Kanina and 5 others like this

#5 Hergiswi

Hergiswi

    don't look for me, i'm just a story you've been told

  • Members
  • Real Name:chris
  • Location:house

Posted 11 March 2020 - 07:18 AM

people should also be cautious using discord since being in a large group setting puts you at higher risk of coronavirus


  • Chris Miller, Rambly, Nathaniel and 8 others like this

#6 Timelord

Timelord

    The Timelord

  • Banned
  • Location:Prydon Academy

Posted 11 March 2020 - 09:51 AM

So,.... The next time someone posts anti-Brexit, anti-Trump, or Orange Man Bad content, be it serious, or in parody, you're slamming down on them too; right?


  • Chris Miller and Nathaniel like this

#7 Aevin

Aevin

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

Posted 11 March 2020 - 12:30 PM

Yes. Political topics of that nature are best suited for other places. I don't know about "slamming down," but they'd be asked to refrain from posting stuff like that. I don't see how someone could post something like that and not expect the other side to respond it, and the idea is to avoid such political debates altogether.

 

It's worth noting that there's a matter of "degree" involved here. We don't want to be so restrictive that we crack down on the mere mention of political stuff, since it's a rather large part of people's lives. But the basic idea applies across the board, and isn't meant to just shut down one side or another. It's something the staff will have to feel out, and if people feel we're being inconsistent or unfair, of course we welcome feedback.

 

I'm sorry, Zoria, but you won't be able to post your anti-Trump rants here. ;)


  • Mitsukara, Jenny and Deedee like this

#8 Magi_Hero

Magi_Hero

    gubgub

  • Members
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Location:NJ

Posted 12 March 2020 - 03:43 AM

Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[2] Bullying is the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Explain how you run this site any different than the definition of bullying.

Edited by Magi_Hero, 12 March 2020 - 03:51 AM.

  • Anthus likes this

#9 klop422

klop422

    Guess I'm full of monsters and treasure

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

Posted 12 March 2020 - 05:16 AM

Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. [...] Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[2] Bullying is the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Explain how you run this site any different than the definition of bullying.

Emphasis, mine.

 

I don't necessarily agree with what they're doing, but I see no aggression or hostile intent - one of the three minimum criteria in the definition you posted.

 

Overall, I'm not that happy about this (I've had some fairly interesting social/political discussion in #currentevents), but if there's been some bullying going on (which it seems there must have been, given the first post in this thread and some of the responses), then I think it may be fair to crack down on that.


Edited by klop422, 12 March 2020 - 05:17 AM.

  • Rambly and Mitsukara like this

#10 Jenny

Jenny

    braixen

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

Posted 12 March 2020 - 05:25 AM

I suppose I should start off by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with what you say you want to accomplish with these rule changes. Nobody should have to feel excluded or uncomfortable ideally, as hard of a reality that is to make. I know it isn't easy for yous, as the staff, to keep everyone happy. That said, I do have some concerns; not in the changes themselves for the most part, but how it's presented.
 
Firstly: "The Current Events channel will be archived on Thursday, March 12th." 
 
This is something I, personally, have no problem with. Hasn't it been acknowledged multiple times that PureZC and politics (a sizable portion of what the channel was used for) aren't a good match? I'm honestly baffled as to why it was even made with this prior acknowledgement in mind, especially given you yourself acknowledge this in the post.
 
However, announcing the archival of #currentevents alongside the following rule changes I think, could be interpreted the wrong way:
 

3. PureZC is adopting a clear policy of inclusiveness, particularly with regard to LGBTQ+ members. Any disrespect on the basis of these identities will not be tolerated.
4. Links to and discussing of content that is violent; controversial; mocking of minorities, political, or religious beliefs; or overly negative or upsetting is not allowed.

 

Removing a channel and then making a point about being more inclusive towards LGBTQ+ people, (which again, I'm completely fine with), reads to me like this channel was viewed as expressly going against that goal. If that's how anyone feels, I can't help but to disagree. While I'll be the first to acknowledge there have been incidents, the way this is portrayed feels unfair to the other people who did contribute or enjoy that channel. Don't want politics? That's fine, but handling it this way feels like you're saying the channel itself, and thus that bunch of people who contributed to it, were at least in part in the way of these goals... 

 

Which brings me to my next problem: 

 

Our aim is to have a positive, comfortable space that's open to everyone, but in the past, we've seen many members express frustration with the state of the Discord server. Many people have left, and others say they generally avoid discussions here, out of a consistent feeling of nastiness. We've seen discussions both in Current Events and General that are incredibly insensitive and reflect badly on the community as a whole. 

 

It seems pretty obvious to me that people have complained about or have certain problems with other members. I'm not going to immediately assume that people haven't tried talking to the people that made them uncomfortable, or say that they should because I understand that isn't always easy. In the post you don't want discussion on the "morality" of being gay or trans or whatever it may be; that's fine, I agree with that. I don't wan't people to go through the stress of having to feel like they need to "validate" their existence in any way.

 

My problem comes in due to the fact that I feel like these changes, in the way that they may be interpreted, can end up discouraging conversation between people who may otherwise see eye to eye. Were the people contributing to the uncomfortable atmosphere reached out to at all? By either the staff or the people who were made to feel uncomfortable? I believe this is an important question to ask because if they weren't... they're effectively being grouped as problematic without even having had the chance to discuss it; and to me, that sets a scary precedent.

 

You speak of wanting to strive for greater inclusivity in the community... but was that not something the community has already had? Has PureZC not been inclusive in the past? Was it not inclusive currently? We've had plenty of LGBT members over the years (including myself), a gender / sexuality thread which has seemed greatly accepting... and from what I've seen actual cases of homophobia and transphobia that have happened in this community have been shut down pretty quickly. It feels like there's a quite large disconnect in the way people view the site, but a lack of discussion as to why that is.

 

I myself am very openly gay and have been helped greatly by members of this very community in accepting myself when I used to be ashamed of it. Not only that, but despite being very avidly supportive of trans rights now, I haven't always been that way. I'll admit I've said ignorant things in the past, and that's something I'm very ashamed of. However, do you know what allowed me to change from that? People being willing to communicate with me. People in THIS VERY COMMUNITY. It scares me that other people may not get that chance because people would rather immediately write people off than try and talk about it, and this all certainly doesn't help that fear.

 

It all reads like you'd rather disclude a portion of the community through this "better inclusivity" than encourage communication. If that's the case, then count me out. The perceived bunching of people as "problematic" doesn't give me much hope that this isn't the case.

 

I'm one of the LGBT people these changes should appeal to, but I'm uneasy about the implications of them and I can tell you that I'm not the only one that is. If anyone disagrees with something I've said I implore you to tell me why either in this thread or privately. I'm more than willing to hear, even if I might end up not agreeing 100%.


  • ShadowTiger, Chris Miller, Nathaniel and 11 others like this

#11 Nicholas Steel

Nicholas Steel

    Hero of Time

  • Members
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 March 2020 - 06:24 AM

Also notifying us only a single days worth of time in advance of the shut off period is kinda lame.


  • Chris Miller, Rambly, Shane and 1 other like this

#12 Shane

Shane

    💙

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

Posted 12 March 2020 - 06:29 AM

I agree with Yoshi here. And while I already gave a huge wall of thoughts in the Staff Dropbox I want to add that PureZC staff always encouraged using blocks and channel mutes to avoid people and conversations you may not like. And that situations the staff deal with have to have clear antagonists in order to interject. I feel this is just undermining those sensible things, really.


  • Chris Miller, Nicholas Steel and Jenny like this

#13 Timelord

Timelord

    The Timelord

  • Banned
  • Location:Prydon Academy

Posted 12 March 2020 - 08:07 AM


[...]

It all reads like you'd rather disclude a portion of the community through this "better inclusivity" than encourage communication. If that's the case, then count me out. The perceived bunching of people as "problematic" doesn't give me much hope that this isn't the case.

 

I'm one of the LGBT people these changes should appeal to, but I'm uneasy about the implications of them and I can tell you that I'm not the only one that is. If anyone disagrees with something I've said I implore you to tell me why either in this thread or privately. I'm more than willing to hear, even if I might end up not agreeing 100%.

 

 

I agree with this. By its very nature, the concept of special or extra inclusiveness demands an equal amount of exclusion, elsewhere. The site should not need to extend special privileges to any group of people for it to function.

 

Personally, I would have simply closed the channel, stated that it was creating undue stress for the site organisers and moderators, and posted this as the final entry before archiving it.

 

104k49.jpg

 

The nature of how this was handled has turned it into a bins fire of controversy and narcissism, and much as many other fanbases are turning against the franchises that represent them, this is only creating more division and resentment, including from those that it was meant to support, that it warrants deep reflection on the approach that was used.


  • Chris Miller, Anthus, Mitsukara and 2 others like this

#14 Mani Kanina

Mani Kanina

    Rabbits!

  • Members

Posted 12 March 2020 - 11:41 AM

Bullying is the use of force, coercion, or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power. This imbalance distinguishes bullying from conflict.[1] Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three minimum criteria: (1) hostile intent, (2) imbalance of power, and (3) repetition over a period of time.[2] Bullying is the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another individual, physically, mentally, or emotionally.

Explain how you run this site any different than the definition of bullying.

As klop422 already pointed out, this would not fall under the definition of bullying. However, none acceptance of marginalized groups *does* fall under that definition. So if anything, you pointing out the definition of bullying gives even more credence to the need for these rules in order to protect marginalized groups.

Also, if you consider it bullying that you get told not to be an ass to people you don't like, I really don't know what to tell you, if I'm being honest here.

 

Which brings me to my next problem:


It seems pretty obvious to me that people have complained about or have certain problems with other members. I'm not going to immediately assume that people haven't tried talking to the people that made them uncomfortable, or say that they should because I understand that isn't always easy. In the post you don't want discussion on the "morality" of being gay or trans or whatever it may be; that's fine, I agree with that. I don't wan't people to go through the stress of having to feel like they need to "validate" their existence in any way.

My problem comes in due to the fact that I feel like these changes, in the way that they may be interpreted, can end up discouraging conversation between people who may otherwise see eye to eye. Were the people contributing to the uncomfortable atmosphere reached out to at all? By either the staff or the people who were made to feel uncomfortable? I believe this is an important question to ask because if they weren't... they're effectively being grouped as problematic without even having had the chance to discuss it; and to me, that sets a scary precedent.

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.

It's important to note that no one is getting punished here, past actions is not being considered (afaik). Either people accept these new rules and stop doing such things (and staff even mentioned that warnings will be the first go to), or they face the consequences. To me, there is no scary precedent being set here, as proven in the past, this is a private community that sets whatever rules it wants, like it always has.
 

You speak of wanting to strive for greater inclusivity in the community... but was that not something the community has already had? Has PureZC not been inclusive in the past? Was it not inclusive currently? We've had plenty of LGBT members over the years (including myself), a gender / sexuality thread which has seemed greatly accepting... and from what I've seen actual cases of homophobia and transphobia that have happened in this community have been shut down pretty quickly. It feels like there's a quite large disconnect in the way people view the site, but a lack of discussion as to why that is.

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.

Inclusiveness is a much more hot topic currently than it was ten as well as 20 years ago. Back then, trans rights weren't even on the table, most people probably didn't even know it was a thing that existed, and if they did most likely had shitty views on the matter. 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 myself am very openly gay and have been helped greatly by members of this very community in accepting myself when I used to be ashamed of it. Not only that, but despite being very avidly supportive of trans rights now, I haven't always been that way. I'll admit I've said ignorant things in the past, and that's something I'm very ashamed of. However, do you know what allowed me to change from that? People being willing to communicate with me. People in THIS VERY COMMUNITY. It scares me that other people may not get that chance because people would rather immediately write people off than try and talk about it, and this all certainly doesn't help that fear.

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.
 

It all reads like you'd rather disclude a portion of the community through this "better inclusivity" than encourage communication. If that's the case, then count me out. The perceived bunching of people as "problematic" doesn't give me much hope that this isn't the case.

See, this is the thing about being inclusive that some people don't understand: Behavior that exclude others have to be policed in order to provide an inclusive space. A space cannot support both people who shit on other groups, and the groups they shit on. If people are allowed to shit on others, that will drive people of that group away (as well as attract more people of the former group, since it's acceptable behavior). And generally, people who feel strongly about their ability to be rude against others will either find somewhere else to do it, or leave.

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.
 

I'm one of the LGBT people these changes should appeal to, but I'm uneasy about the implications of them and I can tell you that I'm not the only one that is. If anyone disagrees with something I've said I implore you to tell me why either in this thread or privately. I'm more than willing to hear, even if I might end up not agreeing 100%.

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!

 

I agree with this. By its very nature, the concept of special or extra inclusiveness demands an equal amount of exclusion, elsewhere. The site should not need to extend special privileges to any group of people for it to function.
 
Personally, I would have simply closed the channel, stated that it was creating undue stress for the site organisers and moderators, and posted this as the final entry before archiving it.
 
[Image]
 
The nature of how this was handled has turned it into a bins fire of controversy and narcissism, and much as many other fanbases are turning against the franchises that represent them, this is only creating more division and resentment, including from those that it was meant to support, that it warrants deep reflection on the approach that was used.

I'm sure posting a large oversized meme image in a serious discussion will get your point across![sarcmark]

You're absolutely correct in one regard Zoria, for a space to be inclusive to some it has to be excluding in other regards. You just fail to realize that the site before these changes already was by default excluding some and including others.

As for special privileges..., if anything, this rule removes a groups special privilege to be rude against minorities, so if anything you should be supportive of it, right? The site already don't allow general rude behavior, this just extends it include more forms of rude behavior that was not as well covered before.

I don't really see the garbage bin of controversy you're speaking of, I see a few users thinking the matters could have been handled a bit better and voicing their concerns, as well as a small group of users being upset that being rude to minorities is not acceptable anymore.

 


  • ShadowTiger likes this

#15 Aevin

Aevin

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

Posted 12 March 2020 - 11:53 AM

I'm in the process of writing a more substantial reply, but I will say that, while you're welcome to express your thoughts on the new policy, personal attacks against other members are still not allowed here.

 

Badmouth me all you like, but insulting or harassing other members will not be allowed. Please keep the conversation civil.


  • Rambly, Adem and Mitsukara like this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users