Code of Conduct / Community Standards

[dfabulich (Dan Fabulich)]

@vaporware

The sort of thing I’m concerned about is exemplified by this comment from earlier in the thread, in which it was asserted that because of his demographics, one poster should have to put up with being made uncomfortable by another’s comments:

You can handle Porpentine’s comments. You have thick skin, you have way more social power, and you don’t have to deal with people misgendering you every day of your life

That was my comment, and I stand by it.

It’s like affirmative action. It’s reverse racism! It’s “obviously” unfair! Why should black kids get an unfair advantage over white kids?

The answer to that question is that reverse racism, reverse sexism, etc. are nowhere near as big a problem as regular (forward?) racism, sexism, etc., especially accidental/unconscious -isms that add up over time. It’s a drop in the bucket to reverse hundreds or even thousands of years of systematic oppression.

I’ve argued earlier in this thread, it has to be OK to make false charges of sexism, in order to make it safe to charge anyone with sexism. (Obviously, it’s better to be right, but it has to be OK to be wrong.) Otherwise, the underprivileged victims/accusers have to go on trial when they call out subtle -isms, and so they censor themselves, and the privileged majority tramples them.

(For the record, I agree with Porpentine, and I really do think this forum has a lot of unconscious sexism to work through. But my point stands even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that Porpentine was 100% wrong.)

Reasonable people can disagree about whether affirmative action is unfair, and I bet we’ll have to disagree about whether it’s “unfair” that it’s not OK to hurt someone’s feelings with sexism, but it is OK to hurt someone’s feelings by calling out sexism incorrectly.

But if your sense of fairness is in conflict with the minimum requirements of the forum being a safe space, then you have to choose for yourself whether you want this forum to be “free and fair” or whether you want this forum to feel safe for underprivileged people, even the “oversensitive” ones.

I say that we should give underprivileged people extra advantages to make the forum feel safe. But it’s not a slam dunk. The privileged majority has developed a moral code under which it’s OK to do things that just happen to make underprivileged people feel unsafe, and that moral code doesn’t sound terrible, at first; it just has terrible effects.

[Dannii]

A ‘safe place’ for everyone will never exist. Still, we’ll try to make it as safe as we can.

[Jamespking (Marco Innocenti)]

@dfabulich

I’ve argued earlier in this thread, it has to be OK to make false charges of sexism, in order to make it safe to charge anyone with sexism. (Obviously, it’s better to be right, but it has to be OK to be wrong.) Otherwise, the underprivileged victims/accusers have to go on trial when they call out subtle -isms, and so they censor themselves, and the privileged majority tramples them.

This is true. We have to HELP harassed people to come out on what’s troubling them; we have to widen the road for them, not thin it down. I’m even against thinking that Inurashii explaining here why she’s so upset by some post is wrong. The first problem of victims is that they fear “telling the world” because they can get further harassment. The worst thing that can happen to a victim (i.e. of rape) is audience asking “what where you wearing?” because that would imply (or say quite explicitly) that she was part of the guilty party.

This said, what I voice for is that the target of those charges has the right to defend him/herself.

This is not to imply that the accusers could be manipulating people, but just because that’s how it works in every one of the most advanced Law systems in the world. “Guilty until proven innocent” can be a viable option to help oppressed people come out. But the defender must be able to defend himself.

I say this because I’m pretty sure one of the options was to silence the alleged aggressor for the sake of the aggressed’s “safeness”. This will eventually lead to more aggressed fearing to come out, but I really can’t see how to avoid this apart from actively promoting the coming out in the forums. Anonymous flaggin, maybe? Don’t know – feel like such a thing will on the other side promote trolling.

I’m open to suggestions.

---

I really think that the victims explain everybody what “has happened” is the only way to have the other, unaware people become aware of the problem. I know it’s hard, really hard. Still, it’s the best way. The most direct one. A day may come when no victim will feel violated twice for the same offense.

[vaporware (Tara McGrew)]

@dfabulich

I say that we should give underprivileged people extra advantages to make the forum feel safe.

And yet that proposal has already made people feel unsafe.

You’re entitled to your political views, but they aren’t shared by everyone, and thus I contend they have no place in this forum’s moderation policy or code of conduct.

[David_Whyld1 (David Whyld)]

@dfabulich

I say that we should give underprivileged people extra advantages to make the forum feel safe.

I say that’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard. We’ve gone from treating everyone equally to actually discriminating against people who aren’t in a minority. It’s also another way of saying “Hey, if you’re black, gay or female and want to bash people who aren’t, this is the place to do it”.

[Hannes]

@Merk

It has already been suggested that it needs to cover even more than it already does. In particular, (a) explicitly condemn and prohibit hate group recruitment in the Code of Conduct, and (b) put additional focus on inviting and encouraging Twine authors because this represents minority groups.

Minority groups? It’s pretty obvious from all of these discussions that the people who are not interested in Twine games are a tiny, tiny minority here! Those who speak up about their (negative) preferences (yes, many have done it in a civil way) are immediately called out for being exclusionists (or much worse). Quite honestly: you, Merk, have been one of the major voices of reason in these discussions (yes, others as well, but I don’t want to start an exhaustive list; I think it’s pretty clear whose views I also support by what I’m writing). When I read this…

@Merk

After sleeping on what I said yesterday, I do feel like it’s the right decision to turn over hosting/admin to somebody else. For me personally, this is going way too far in the other direction, rather than the middle ground I hoped it would be. I can totally see myself tripping over some of these policies – unintentionally, but nonetheless – and this is directly opposite of what the forum started out to be. It needs to be in the hands of somebody who is 100% on the same page as the community as a whole.

…it is clear to me that my presence in these circles will be strictly limited in the future. It makes it even more plain than it used to be that this is a very unwelcoming place for people like me.

Or, to use the phrasing suggested earlier: This place makes me feel very unwelcome – more and more as these discussions go on! Not because these discussions exist, but because of the incredibly oppressing direction they’re taking. The suggested Code of Conduct makes me feel very “unsafe”. The attitude of certain “opinion leaders” or at least very vocal people here is something which is very discouraging to me to further participate in this community.

But it doesn’t matter, because I’m not part of a perceived minority (although, that, in itself, does make me part of a minority).

[matt_weiner (matt w)]

I endorse dfabulich’s post above. Every word.

@David Whyld

I say that’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard. We’ve gone from treating everyone equally to actually discriminating against people who aren’t in a minority. It’s also another way of saying “Hey, if you’re black, gay or female and want to bash people who aren’t, this is the place to do it”.

The problem with this forum is not, and never will be, that black, gay, female, or trans) people feel too comfortable “bashing” other people here. That’s obvious just from the demographic makeup of the posters. Any realistic code of conduct, even one that includes some kind of advantage for discriminated against groups (which isn’t the same as minorities; women are the majority of people and still discriminated against), will not make it appealing for some woman/gay person/trans person/person of color to say “Hey! You know what I’m going to do today? I’m going to go to a forum where I’m in the minority and falsely accuse people of subtle -isms!”

@jamespking

This said, what I voice for is that the target of those charges has the right to defend him/herself.

I understand your concerns, I think. It is no fun to get called out when you think you’ve done nothing wrong. And yet when the target immediately leaps in to defend himself, that creates a burden on the member of the less privileged group to explain, carefully and tactfully, why they think the original comment was wrong. And those explanations are really hard to write and create a lot of stress on the person making them–piled on top of the stress that the original commenter made. I don’t want to make myself the Voice of Women here, but Lynnea Glasser posted something in one of these threads about how women are doing you a favor when they take the time to explain what’s wrong with subtle sexism instead of just deciding not to deal with you, and Emily Short mentioned writing and deleting thousands of words.

Speaking for myself, I find it takes much more effort to call out subtle -isms than to avoid them; I put a lot more effort into trying to be tactful in calling out subtle -isms than in not being sexist (it may seem hard to believe, but I really do write and delete a lot of stuff in an effort to be as tactful as possible); yet I usually don’t wind up getting called out for sexism, and just about every time I or anyone else tries to say that a remark (not a poster) is subtly -ist it yields an angry reaction. And if I can avoid this by not calling out subtle -isms (they’re not directed at me), it’s just not fair to put that extra burden on people who are already getting discriminated against everywhere else.

So what’s the solution? Well, Dan already said earlier in the thread that at Choice of Games the moderation for -isms happens in private, through PMs and the like. I think that’s necessary. That way people can discuss what happened without anyone having to feel as though they’ve been accused in public and needing to defend themselves in public, and the person who originally wants to remark the subtle -ism can send a message to a moderator without having to feel like they have to spend an hour composing an explanation of what’s wrong in a way that might not cause an angry reaction.

[Eric_Eve]

I wonder if we aren’t in danger of creating an artificial disagreement by attempts at over-definition here. Presumably we all want an inclusive community in which everyone is treated with courtesy and respect. It seems to me that this is more or less what the latest version of the Code of Conduct (when I just looked at it) provides for.

I’m not entirely sure how useful the language of “subtle -isms” is, mainly because the concept seems a bit unclear. The example given - “this is so simple that even my grandmother could understand it” (or words to that effect) doesn’t look all that subtle to me. What perhaps this is trying to capture is parallel to the notion that harassment occurs if the victim is made to feel threatened, degraded, oppressed, or whatever. This is fine so so long as it is subject to a test of reasonableness e.g. “Behaviour will not amount to harassment if the conduct complained of could not reasonably
be perceived as offensive.” (http://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Policy%20on%20Harassment%20and%20Bullying.pdf). In practice part of such a test would surely include whether or not the person who felt victimized felt so as part of a group who are regularly victimized (e.g., other things being equal women have more reason to feel that they are the target of sexism than men).

@matt w

So what’s the solution? Well, Dan already said earlier in the thread that at Choice of Games the moderation for -isms happens in private, through PMs and the like. I think that’s necessary. That way people can discuss what happened without anyone having to feel as though they’ve been accused in public and needing to defend themselves in public, and the person who originally wants to remark the subtle -ism can send a message to a moderator without having to feel like they have to spend an hour composing an explanation of what’s wrong in a way that might not cause an angry reaction.

This strikes me as potentially a helpful way forward. I would add that what may be more helpful than coming up with a form of wording that enshrines positive discrimination in a way that many people find alienating, is to build a team of moderators that include a number of different backgrounds and points of view so that judgments about what is reasonable are not being made from a single perspective.

[matt_weiner (matt w)]

@Eric Eve

This strikes me as potentially a helpful way forward. I would add that what may be more helpful than coming up with a form of wording that enshrines positive discrimination in a way that many people find alienating, is to build a team of moderators that include a number of different backgrounds and points of view so that judgments about what is reasonable are not being made from a single perspective.

I agree with this. One aspect of diversity here is gender; right now only one moderator is a woman.

OTOH it’s a lot to ask the women in the community to do extra fairly thankless work (one common thing in universities is that every committee, reasonably enough, desires gender diversity, but there are fewer women than men, so the women get asked to be on all the committees, which is a drain on them because they’re very time-consuming and nobody really likes serving on these committees).

[Peter_Piers]

but there are fewer women than men, so the women get asked to be on all the committees, which is a drain on them because they’re very time-consuming and nobody really likes serving on these committees

Which is not fair on the women themselves. This would appear to indicate to me that the solution those committees have found to solve the problem of “gender diversity” might be superficial and less than ideal. To be fair, though, I haven’t seen anyone come up with a better solution, short of educating people to WANT to do certain jobs based purely on their gender - which amounts to a different but recognisable kind of sexism; gender influences your employability.

The paragraph above, unusually succint considering who it’s coming from, explains in a nutshell my discomfort with this whole situation, not just in this forum, not just in the internet, but pretty much everywhere and everywhen. Just thought I’d share; seemed relevant and unambiguously “safe”.

PPears

[matt_weiner (matt w)]

@<blank>

but there are fewer women than men, so the women get asked to be on all the committees, which is a drain on them because they’re very time-consuming and nobody really likes serving on these committees

Which is not fair on the women themselves. This would appear to indicate to me that the solution those committees have found to solve the problem of “gender diversity” might be superficial and less than ideal. To be fair, though, I haven’t seen anyone come up with a better solution, short of educating people to WANT to do certain jobs based purely on their gender - which amounts to a different but recognisable kind of sexism; gender influences your employability.

Yes, exactly. The real solution seems like it’s having enough women around that this isn’t a problem, but that hasn’t happened…

[Jamespking (Marco Innocenti)]

One of the big problems that concerns me (and this is not new: I’d say it’s very old, as Humanity) is that, in this kind of discussion, people trying to defend a statement or a belief are automatically put together with the worst expression of the same belief. In the specific case, the ones defending the rights of minorities are told to be SJWs or, worse, to promote trolls who will use the CoC to silence people; those promoting free speech are, on the other side, clearly said they are supporting (or unwillingly part of) the GG bollocks.

I’m not like that. And I’m sorry if my ethical fight is feeding those extremisms.

[Hatless]

@Jamespking

the ones defending the rights of minorities … those promoting free speech are, on the other side

!

Do you see these things as opposed? Everyone here is (I assume!) pro-free speech and pro-rights of minorities. The whole reason this Code of Conduct thread exists, that we are posting here, is to ensure that everybody feels comfortable posting here – to guarantee free speech.

Believing these two things are opposed to each other just seems self-defeating.

[busterwrites]

@Dannii

A ‘safe place’ for everyone will never exist. Still, we’ll try to make it as safe as we can.

I have to agree with this. I’m sorry to see inurashii, or Hannes, or Peter Pears, or anyone else go. The world is an unsafe place, and the connectivity that the Internet brings is making it harder and harder to find a safe place.

A personal story: Tonight, I am going to visit my family for dinner for my grandpa’s birthday. He’s getting old and we don’t know how much time he has left. We’re all going to get together at a restaurant and eat food and catch up. For those few hours, we’re all going to pretend that I’m not gay. Nobody is going to ask me what’s going on in my life, or ask how my partner of 7 years is doing, or even offer me the opportunity to voice an opinion on anything. My dad is going to talk about the Tea Party rallies he organizes and the “good” they are doing, and I’m not going to argue with any of the points he is inevitably going to bring up.

It’s exhausting.

More and more, I find myself less willing to hang around people with opposing ideologies if I don’t have to. I do it at work. I do it at school. I do it at home. I do it online. So I can completely understand people who want to leave a shared space, because it is just another place to stomach.

We might have to simply acknowledge that this forum is unsafe, but as Dannii said, try to make it as safe as we can.

[craftian]

I think James was pointing out that there isn’t the level of argument and harassment from anyone here that is a worse case scenario. I’ve personally been educated on all of this from watching the videos that caused this turmoil, before ever seeing it spill over into this forum. They made a lot of sense, and these hidden, subtle tropes have influenced me in writing, by making me aware of them. They have also influenced my perception, by helping me see them. Wasn’t that the original intent?

There’s a lot of appalling, juvenile comments across all levels of the Internet, and it’s easy to focus on them. But there’s always the people in the middle, the ones who are trying to understand, and may not fully understand these issues, that can be educated, and influenced through understanding and discussion. It’s the people that can’t be influenced by rational discussion that you have to worry about. And there are plenty of those people on the Internet, where you don’t have to look another person in the eye to make a statement. But are there any of them here, actively posting? Wouldn’t this be what a CoC should protect against? And for those in the middle who unconsciously cross a line, isn’t education the way to change their minds, rather than argument? And for those who have been injured elsewhere by irrational people – isn’t a forum with a majority of its folks in the middle and open-minded a good place to educate? And won’t that education spread outward? Is that really a forum to abandon – for anyone on either “side”?

[Neil]

dfabulic said:
“I say that we should give underprivileged people extra advantages to make the forum feel safe.”

Ouch. My first reaction to this is that I don’t want to be treated differently because I’m blind. Go ahead and disagree with me; give my games bad reviews. Call me a silly goose if I’m acting as such. Don’t pamper me.

On the other hand, some people will want their impairment to be taken into account, and in some cases they would be justified. So how are we to know?

I think that dfabulic is probably right; that is, the second case above is probably safest. I am more likely to stick around if I thought I was being treated over-cautiously and more likely to leave if I continually feel slighted.

I hesitated to bring this up because I didn’t really want to throw yet another consideration – disability – into the mix, and I try not to mention my blindness in any of my posts unless it is relevant. In this case, I thought my opinion may be of some use. To inject some positivity into all of this: I’ve never felt like this community has treated me unfairly and, in fact, has been quite accomodating. I don’t agree with some of what is being said here, but I’ll stick around no matter the result because I think everyone here is trying to do the right thing. As Dannii said, “It will never be a safe place for everyone.” But with a little give-and-take and some understanding we should all feel comfort in knowing that all of us want to see interactive fiction grow, and this forum along with our opinions and reviews are an important component in the process.

Neil

[Hannes]

To be constructive, here is my (serious!) proposal for a sensible “Code of Conduct”:

1. Don’t be an ass.
2. If you spot anyone else being an ass on the forums, don’t be an ass about it. Let them make fools of themselves. If it gets too bad, don’t engange them, but notify the staff.
3. Believe in the good of humanity. Not everybody is a big meanie who is after you.

This is enough to deal with really problematic cases. Anything above is an attempt at regulating people who, in the depth of their hearts, are well-spirited (or whatever the opposite of “mean spirited” is; you see, I belong to an oppressed minority: non-US native speakers), who mean well. People who may slip at times, but that is part of their humanity.

[Admin1 (Old Admin)]

After much re-reading and editing, I have incorporated as many of these suggestions as I can. This wasn’t an easy thing, considering that some ideas are mutually exclusive. For a point of reference, I have kept the earlier draft. (Only one thing differs from the original, and I think it was the removal of a red question bit on a part I don’t remember now, making it stand as in the original CoG version).

The new version removes the entire section about who the moderators are, and has several other revisions, removals, and additions. I am hoping that at this point, we’re down just word choice preferences and minor edits. There are no longer any questions or unknowns, so please read it as if this is the policy.

Previous draft: http://www.intfiction.org/conduct_draft1.html
New draft: http://www.intfiction.org/conduct.html

As for there being only one female moderator, there is another female volunteer who may take on that responsibility if things work out. Beyond that, a lack of diversity in the moderator group reflects a lack of volunteers. I can’t force anybody to be a representative in that group. Anyway, I don’t know what social group a person belongs to unless they identify it; I just see screen names. I respond to people as people, and in fact have gone many months before being made aware that I had mistakenly drawn the wrong conclusion about something as basic as a member’s gender (or no conclusion at all), simply because it was never brought up.

I have more to say at a personal level, but this may be the wrong time, and certainly the wrong thread.

[busterwrites]

@craftian

But there’s always the people in the middle

I don’t believe there is a middle ground on this issue.
If I point out the ways someone is not valuing women, especially if they don’t believe it, they feel unsafe and want to leave.
If I am not allowed to point out the ways someone is not valuing women, especially if they don’t believe it, then I feel unsafe and want to leave.

I see a very clear line.

[busterwrites]

@Merk

New draft: intfiction.org/conduct.html

I see the more contentious points have been left out. I am okay with that, as I don’t see us getting to a consensus. Thank you for your efforts on this Merk.