Discussion of Proposed Code of Conduct for This Group

Please suggest what you might like to see in our code of conduct. Suggestions from all group members are welcome. See here for more information:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/224349

Mutual respect. An understanding of feminism or an honest desire to engage with it respectfully.

This is a group I read almost daily & this week's events have disgusted me. I'm so grateful to all of you thoughtful posters; I learn so much from you.

>2 susanbooks: I like your inclination to keep it clear and simple.

I adapted this from the Feminism 101 Blog comments policy (https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/comments-policy/), which is also a great resource for anyone who's new to feminism and wants to learn the basics:

We seek on-topic, respectful, and constructive discussion about feminism. We expect disagreement to remain civil. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not. Comments should pertain to the thread topic. All commenters are expected to allow space in the discussion for other voices to be heard. Refrain from posting excessively frequent or long comments, which may discourage others from participating. Commenters should not tell other group members how to "do" feminism. Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments are unacceptable.

I like that. I'd been thinking along the lines of needing a very specific and concrete list of dos and don'ts, but this covers the basics. And it is in keeping with the intended spirit of this group.

I would rephrase the last sentence as:

"Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments, whether directed at specific participants or at groups of people, are unacceptable", just to make it 100% clear that it's not just a restatement of the site TOS but that it also covers "All women are...." types of insults.

In this group, I have repeatedly been the recipient or object of posts which objectively qualify as failing to meet the the following (as applies ) positive criteria or which are violations of the following (as applies) negative criteria :

disagreement to remain civil (failed)

Comments should pertain to the thread topic (failed)

Commenters should not tell other group members how to "do" feminism. (failed)

Obnoxious, check ◇

insulting, check ◇

abusive, check ◇

and threatening (*) check ◇

"...are unacceptable."

And yet, in no case and at no time did any participant or observing non-participant member of this group ever openly raise any objection to any of those posts or, as far as I am aware, raise any objection off-thread.

On the contrary, some of the offending posts were approvingly seconded openly.

The clear evidence here shows that:

members don't respect and abide by their own cited rules ---

such rules as these actually are not necessarily respected nor, clearly, Is it considered that they need be --unless and until a participant who is not in the group's favour "violates" them. Then and only then do members raise objections.

-----------

(*) "threat" here does not refer to
a physical threat but a "If you value your ... then you'd better...."

What do you value, Proximity?

I'm pretty certain yet to hear you answer a question in the positive.

>3 sturlington:

Commenters should not tell other group members how to "do" feminism.

I could not agree more. The problem I have with the suggestion in >2 susanbooks: that post(ers) evince an "understanding of feminism" is that we may all have different definitions of what "feminism" means.

>8 lilithcat: I like the honest desire to engage respectfully with feminism part of that sentence. It gets at whether the poster is coming from a position of good faith.

I suggest a look at Teresa Nielsen Hayden's notes on moderating online discussion. Ms. Nielsen Hayden has participated in online communities since the 1980s, and her Making Light blog is among the most interesting I know. Her first point:

There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting that your front yard will automatically turn itself into a garden.

>3 sturlington: We expect disagreement to remain civil. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not.

Here's the thing about "civil" -- I think there is real value in the angry outburst. I wouldn't want people not to swear to blue heaven if that's what they think will get their point across.

So for me, the focus would be some kind of enhanced interpretation ofthe current TOS -- debate the position, not the person.

>10 dukedom_enough: Some very good points there:

5. Over-specific rules are an invitation to people who get off on gaming the system.

6. Civil speech and impassioned speech are not opposed and mutually exclusive sets. Being interesting trumps any amount of conventional politeness.


>11 southernbooklady: How about the second part of the statement? If the purpose is actually disruption, I don't think there's any value to be found there.

>5 lorax: I get your point but then I worry that posts will also be subjected to #notallmen syndrome.

>12 sturlington: Actually, I've bookmarked dukedom_enough 's link, because it is an excellent guide for having a good conversation online, moderator or no. I like that the policy gives the benefit of the doubt to posters, and keeps the big picture in mind instead of getting bogged down in technicalities. Trolling is a little like porn, you know it when you see it.

Thanks for pointing out my seemingly monolithic definition of feminism, lilithcat. Maybe "feminisms" is better. Tho then, of course, Phyllis Schlafly-types could claim to be included in that, as could the poster who inspired this conversation.

Like southernbooklady, I think a lot of useful discussion can come from a good angry post. But you can be angry while repectful, a word I keep using, tho I suppose we should define.

Maybe it's like porn and the US Supreme Court -- we know it when we see it.

Great minds, southernbooklady!

" Being interesting trumps any amount of conventional politeness."

One of those famous "distinctions without a difference" since, here, any approved opinion, no matter how rudely stated, will be passed while any unwelcome opinion, no matter how politely put, will violate something which the majority's views regard as fundamental to the health and safety of the monothink.

Thus, nothing seriously challenging shall ever be tolerated on the grounds of being deemed "interesting. "

By definition, it couldn't possibly be "interesting" as well as a serious challenge to approved opinion here.

>14 susanbooks:

Tho then, of course, Phyllis Schlafly-types could claim to be included in that

She always annoyed me. She'd go off on lecture tours, taking a break from her law practice, to tell other women that they should stay at home.

>14 susanbooks: & >17 lilithcat:

..."Like southernbooklady, I think a lot of useful discussion can come from a good angry post. But you can be angry while repectful, a word I keep using, tho I suppose we should define.

"Maybe it's like porn and the US Supreme Court -- we know it when we see it..."

Exactly. Anger per se can't be prohibited. Why, if anger were forbidden here, most the posts wouldn't pass and the whole group should have to close shop. It's just the wrong kinds of anger that present the problems--in other words, misdirected anger. Anger at a man, okay. Anger at "men," even better. Anger at women? Only if they're anmoying--like Phyllis Schlafly-types.


Respect is the key. Respect my opinions, you need to say. And agreement is the surest sign of that "respect." Stubborn disagreement is disrespectful and _angry_ stubborn disagreement is the worst kind of disrespect.

>17 lilithcat:

Similarly, you must keep the Schlaflys out. Theirs is not the right kind of feminism and I never liked that woman either, anyway.

>13 southernbooklady: When the trolling has gotten to the point that it's basically shut down all conversation in the group and has forced people to leave, then, well, obvious is obvious.

I also think that's why this group is a good candidate for this experiment where a place like Pro and Con would not. Because women constantly struggle against their voices being silenced, and a group designed to discuss feminist theory should be one place where women can say they won't tolerate efforts to silence them.

Edited to correct all the typos inserted by my tablet.

>17 lilithcat: well you know Schlafly was sacrificing herself so no other woman would ever have to leave her home again. Quite the Joan of Arc.

>10 dukedom_enough:

Nielsen Hayden writes:

"9. If you judge that a post is offensive, upsetting, or just plain unpleasant, it’s important to get rid of it, or at least make it hard to read. Do it as quickly as possible. There’s no more useless advice than to tell people to just ignore such things. We can’t. We automatically read what falls under our eyes."

No where does Ms. Nielsen Hayden bother to take up the matter of recognizing what constitutes an unacceptable post except to say that it's whatever happens to strike the reader /moderator as "offensive, upsetting, or just plain unpleasant."

That's broad enough to cover anything. "We've all thought about it carefully and come to the conclusion that we don't like you. So you're banned."

Nielsen Hayden has the imagination of a shopping-mall security guard. Fortunately, Tim has a great deal more imagination and can see that such a vague concept is nothing short of a recipe for establishing a set of accepted prejudices and then protecting them. He doesn't want to do that but he's not going to stop you lot from doing it.

I'm seeing almost the full panoply of what provokes my distaste for this dominant blinkered "feminism" demonstrated here in this episode.

Now, should anyone ask me about it, I can simply point him or her to this escapade.

l know from personal experience how difficult it is not to read comments from one who is placed on the 'blocked ' feature. But I'm getting the hang of it.

There's no obligation here to read--or even to see--anyone's comments. You can block everyone who expresses the slightest disagreement with you. And, with your prejudice-sharing friends' help, you can even flag those posts that you don't even have to read so that others, more curious, more tolerant than you, have to open the flagged comment to see it.

But none of that is enough for censors. They want "their" views unencumbered by contrary opinion--whether they see or read it or not.

That represents contemporary feminism in spades: a flat intolerance of critical opinion. It's insular and safety-seeking because it's carried on by people who see threats to their opinions and their persons at virtually every turn. They are fear-driven and must have the comfort that only uniform opinion affords. This is the very antithesis of intellectual activity and I have no trouble understanding why Tim and the others don't want to take this level of sensitivity-protection on themselves.

>19 sturlington:

Yeah, Pro and Con is exactly the sort of place that's terribly suited for moderators. I suspect that certain current posters to this thread would find it far more to their liking, since it's the sort of place where "all feminists are morons" would not only be accepted but cheered by many.

>21 proximity1: Nielsen Hayden has the imagination of a shopping-mall security guard.

This is an example of something that would be a personal attack and therefore offensive.

>23 southernbooklady:

Also an example of something so mind-bogglingly wrongheaded that it labels the speaker as not worth listening to. I've read Making Light for years, and the level of discourse there, due to careful but gentle moderation and the expectation of civility rather than narrow rules designed to be easy to evade, is second to none.

>22 lorax: ...since it's (Pro and Con) the sort of place where "all feminists are morons" would not only be accepted but cheered by many

I can only think of one poster on Pro and Con who this might fit

>25 jjwilson61:

I'll bow to your expertise, then; since it's by design a "Insults and bigotry welcome!" sort of place, I've never looked in.

It's more of a "Insults and bigotry freely challenged" place.

>27 southernbooklady:

Yes, that's how most of LT operates - people get to say "All gay people are child molesters", and gay people are supposed to smile and say "No we aren't." Or perhaps goad them into individually naming one of us at which point it becomes flaggable. It's a system that works for many people, and I wouldn't want to take that away from them, but it's not one I'm inclined to participate in.

>27 southernbooklady:

Yes. There, "insults and bigotry (may be ) freely challenged. " As, there, there is nothing and no one to shelter them. On the other hand, It would be extremely odd--and alien to all my experience--if "insults and bigotry" did not grow up and flourish wherever they can be protected from criticisms.

With Tim's explanation in mind, then, I leave you now to your own devices. I recommend you throw a big party to celebrate your protected status here. It's a gift but not good for you. So partake immoderately of it.

>28 lorax: Yes, that's how most of LT operates - people get to say "All gay people are child molesters", and gay people are supposed to smile and say "No we aren't."

And, likewise, "Christians are homophobic bigots" to which the Christians may smile and respond "no we aren't."

But one of the reasons I enjoy posting on open forums, despite the heated tone, is the fact that I know in any given forum there are the silent majority of lurkers. I don't expect I'll change the mind of whomever I'm arguing with, but I do appreciate the opportunity to make my case to whomever is listening in.

>30 southernbooklady:

And, likewise, "Christians are homophobic bigots" to which the Christians may smile and respond "no we aren't."


Yes, of course. But I don't think they should have to do that in the Christianity group, if they don't want to.

>21 proximity1: Pretty much anything can be freely said somewhere on the internet. But when a community of people with shared interests and values want to carry on a discussion, that discussion can be derailed by continued interjections from people who don't share those values. Moderation can fix that problem.

>24 lorax: What lorax said.

Making Light seems to have a least half a dozen moderators, with one on-duty at all times; this group might not have enough volunteers to provide that level of coverage?

>32 dukedom_enough: I'm not sure that we would need that level of moderation. In fact, we could add that one of our guiding principles is that moderation is to be used as a last resort.

>33 sturlington: OK. Making Light is a much higher-profile target than feminist theory, I suspect.

It sounds like Tim intends whoever is elected moderator will write the TOS. I don't think this group would elect a "dictator" and I feel pretty sure the moderator would take the discussion on this thread into account. Some thoughts:

Do we want to specify that this is not the place to debate the basic need for feminism itself? It seems to me participating in this group is an acknowledgement that feminism is necessary, and there already exists a group where a debate on whether women should be treated equally is more appropriate.

I feel pretty strongly that whatever else, there should be a statement that members don't tell other members how to do feminism or how to be feminists. People come in here from all sorts of backgrounds and places where they are learning, and I just think this is particularly obnoxious.

Do we want to specify any details on how moderation will work? For example, I think it's reasonable for the moderator to warn a potential offender and give them a chance to change how they participate in the discussion before malleting them.

>35 sturlington: Perhaps it would make sense to adopt some version of the paragraph cited above in >3 sturlington::

We seek on-topic, respectful, and constructive discussion about feminism. We expect disagreement to remain civil. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not. Comments should pertain to the thread topic. All commenters are expected to allow space in the discussion for other voices to be heard. Refrain from posting excessively frequent or long comments, which may discourage others from participating. Commenters should not tell other group members how to "do" feminism. Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments are unacceptable.

and then designate one thread for proposed changes and amendments to the group TOS that could be discussed and voted on. That would basically make the moderator a kind of enforcer, responsible for interpreting and implementing the TOS according to the wishes of the entire group.

By the way, if it were left up to me, I'd shorten the above paragraph to:

We seek on-topic, respectful, and constructive discussion about feminism. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not. Comments should pertain to the thread topic. Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments are unacceptable.

The caveat that the goal is constructive discussion about feminism would make anyone posting thinly veiled attacks on the validity of feminism in violation of the TOS by default.

I'd also agree with a one warning policy.

>36 southernbooklady: I would vote for starting with the shortened version. I would prefer to keep it as simple as we possibly can.

The caveat that the goal is constructive discussion about feminism would make anyone posting thinly veiled attacks on the validity of feminism in violation of the TOS by default.

Cool.

So I guess I've been voted moderator. Here's hoping it will be a rarely-invoked role.

But, in the interests of encouraging participation, and especially for those folks who might have lurked but shied away from posting in the past, I'd like to see people post their concerns and goals here, so we can come up with a group tos that everyone feels good about.

SBL: I'm adding features as we speak. But I'm not prioritizing a mode for you to edit the group terms. (There's too much else to do, and there's only one group right now that uses this.) If you have them ready, can you post them here?

Okay, the notice of the moderator, and the terms--currently missing--are now posted to the group page, and to all topic pages.

I'm now working on tools. We never decided what those were. One is clearly the ability to ban a member--prevent them from posting. That might be all. If there were a second, it would be, I think, swatting down a single message.

>39 timspalding: But I'm not prioritizing a mode for you to edit the group terms. (There's too much else to do, and there's only one group right now that uses this.) If you have them ready, can you post them here?

In the interests of moving this along let's vote on the proposed terms:

We seek on-topic, respectful, and constructive discussion about feminism. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not. Comments should pertain to the thread topic. Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments are unacceptable.

ETA: Let's give it until Monday, 6/20 for people to chime in. This does not mean terms cannot be amended in the future, but we have to start somewhere.

ETA#2: See proposed amended paragraph at >47 southernbooklady:. I will count all current votes for this TOS as votes for that one unless someone specifically tells me they object -- which they are welcome to do by private comment if they'd prefer.

So it doesn't actually say in the terms that "Debating whether or not feminism is a good thing is not appropriate". Is that intentional? I certainly don't want to spend all my time in this group butting heads with MRAs about whether or not feminism is a good thing, but if the group consensus is that that's just fine then I think the terms are OK as they stand.

>42 lorax: SBL says in >36 southernbooklady: that she considers constructive discussion of feminism excludes attacks on the validity of feminism. Would you prefer this be made more explicit?

>42 lorax: I think you can exercise a lot of latitude by requiring the discussion be "constructive." Posting about how feminism is bad wouldn't be constructive. But posting about how, mainstream feminism is flawed -- inherently white, or upperclass, or straight in its assumptions -- would be.

>43 sturlington:

If it's not in the official terms I don't think it can be considered to be part of the terms, so yes, I would prefer that it be made explicit.

>45 lorax: I would, too. I'll defer to the decision of this group on that, but I would like that included as well. It saves a lot of time and makes for a more substantial discussion if we don't have to defend our existence now and then.

So something like this:

We seek on-topic, respectful, and constructive discussion about feminism. The validity of feminism is a given. Dissent is acceptable; disruption is not. Comments should pertain to the thread topic. Obnoxious, insulting, abusive, and threatening comments are unacceptable.

ETA:

Äänestys: I support the above terms for the Feminist Theory Group

Äänet tällä hetkellä: Kyllä 18, Ei 0, Epävarma 1

Voting closes at the end of the day on 6/20.

Tell me when done. Other tools nearly ready.

>40 timspalding: I'm now working on tools. We never decided what those were.

So far, the tools mentioned address Group Members (by banning them after they've joined), and individual Posts (in existing threads). Logically I see other options to be tools which address the Group (moderating who or when another LT member can join the group), and Threads (preventing a member from creating a new thread, or possibly blocking an entire thread). The former may exist: do Administrators have the ability to approve or not approve someone joining the group?

But this may be getting ahead of things. I haven't heard there is a need for either, as yet. Still, as in the TOS thread, I think it worth thinking about.

I really wish "admin" was renamed to "creator" instead. LT group "admins" have no control over anything aside of editing the group description page, and the generic privacy settings (is the group open or closed). People join and make groups and think they'll have some control over things because they're called "admins," but no, you can't move threads, delete threads, remove members, etc etc, anything the title seems to imply.

>50 .Monkey.:

So, I think the moderator needs to get control of that stuff too. This group has no currently-active creator, but I don't want or mean to have a distinction between moderation and creation. I did, however, make the moderation data such that we could have multiple moderators.

Anyway, to be ironed out.

>49 elenchus:

In order of need, I think we have:

1. Eject a member from group
2. Kill a message
3. Eject a member from topic

I believe only 1 and 2 will be done soon.

do Administrators have the ability to approve or not approve someone joining the group?

No, we have invitation groups. I don't think I want approval groups at present. Too many options.

If a person can be ejected, can they also be reinstated?

>52 southernbooklady: I should think the moderator would want to have this ability, as well.

>52 southernbooklady:

Yeah, I'll make it like block/unblock.

>51 timspalding: 1. Eject a member from group

That's a little weird for a group that's set up so anybody can join isn't it. That is if you eject a member then they can turn around an rejoin. I think maybe you mean "Block a member from posting" instead. That way they can be blocked and after a period unblocked and they won't have to rejoin the group.

2. Kill a message

Does this mean to completely remove it or to just to hide it behind a click to see link?

I like having the removed messages behind a click-to-see link; if nothing else, it preserves accountability and gives a clear record of what happened that was ban-worthy.

I'd rather have someone barred from posting altogether. I'd want the bar for being banned (either permanently or temporarily to cool down) to be high but as we can already hide posts from specific people, it turns the whole moderator thing into something moot. It was disheartening to see that there were several new posts in a thread, only to find that the same person had posted over and over again, and the other comments were either addressing those comments or trying to talk around them. Having them blocked doesn't do much to keep them from taking over a thread, especially when the person has the aim of doing so - they simply post over and over again until they get the attention they seek.

If those posts are kept elsewhere in some sort of archive, then people suspicious of the moderator could take a look, but the goal is to have threads where a discussion can be maintained.

>57 RidgewayGirl: I think once a person has been blocked from a group then they would no longer be able to post anything to that group. What was being discussed was what happens to their prior posts and I'm strongly opposed to their being completely removed.

I also don't believe posts should be removed. They could be hidden (as with blocked members) by default, but for the sake of transparency among other things, the posts should remain.

Agree that posts should remain but hidden.

One more reminder to everyone in the Feminist Theory Group to vote on the group TOS:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/224406#5618895
http://www.librarything.com/topic/224406#5619215

So far it seems pretty clear that the terms will be adopted, so Tim has already posted them. If people have concerns they don't wish to air publicly, they are more than welcome to contact me by private comment on my profile.

>61 southernbooklady:

Yeah, I posted them as "provisional." Frankly, the moderation code won't work unless there's something there.

>62 timspalding: You've been very accommodating, Tim, and I and I'm sure the other regular FT participants appreciate it. I know it was a big diversion from your regular work flow. I think the solution offers as much of a compromise between flexibility and control as is possible or can be reasonably expected. (Indeed, the only thing I've seen that made me think "I'd change that" is the icon used to mark the TOS. Alas, it reminds me of cryptic Windows error messages :-))

I'll do my best to keep future disputes out of the hair of the collective LT staff.

Yeah, I could see changing the icon. Current one is:


I could see:


And in a whimsical mood I could see


If someone wants to suggest a better way of expressing "moderation" or "terms," pick from http://p.yusukekamiyamane.com

Maybe one of the clipboards, or sticky-notes?

I like the chair and .Monkey.'s suggestions. Perhaps also "broom" or "balloon--exclamation"? I too thought the current icon was a bit jarring/confusing. Makes me think the group has "Combination Issues".

also like the blue navigation symbol—calls attention without looking like a "problem"

"blue navigation symbol" — which?

>68 timspalding: it's the white arrow => in a blue circle just under monitor (navigation-000-frame...)

Yeah, the triangular exclamation mark is used elsewhere on the site to indicate problems, I don't like overloading it in this respect. I'd prefer one of the "information" set (blue with a white letter "i"), maybe "information-shield" with the connotations that this group is in some way protected.

>70 lorax:

Yeah, I think you are right. I'll look at those.

>70 lorax: Yes, I like that one too.

>70 lorax: I'm also a fan of the Information icons. Great suggestion.

Where is this icon?

Ah, never mind. I was looking for it on the main group page.