So to hell with freedom of speech, you mean?
This is a moderated forum. We already block spam, which can be seen as opposing free speech. We already ban trolls, which can be seen as opposing free speech. We already block pornography, harassment, and threats, which can be seen as opposing free speech.
Freedom of speech isn’t a blanket authorization to say what you want. It means we have to think critically about what deserves protection and what does not. This is the moderators’ responsibility: to make these decisions and to judge fairly. This is why we are discussing a Code of Conduct. We need to decide where we want that line in the sand to be.
And given this is a private forum, we are well within our rights to do this.
Freedom of speech is not, and has never been, the freedom to say whatever you want, wherever and whenever you want. If you can’t say ‘fuck’ in your grandparents’ house, your freedom of speech is not violated. If you can’t evangelise for your faith at work, your freedom of speech is not violated. If mods shut down threads or offer warnings on a forum about computer games, your freedom of speech is not violated.
intfiction.org is not the government. It is not the entire internet. It is not even the entire IF community, by a long shot.
As the person who started this off, it’s time for my third apology. I’m sorry for messing up and bringing us to this point. Thanks to Porpentine for pointing out that the rules of the comp have actually changed, and it’s no longer allowed to 1-vote a game without playing it. I’m sorry for mentioning that without first reading the current rules. If it helps, I haven’t voted in at least the last two comps, and at this point I’m unlikely to vote in this one.
My original post was sincere, not a troll. I now recognize that there were more things wrong with it than I can list, but I meant what I said at the time. I still feel the same way about IF. I will still advocate for parser games, but not by cutting down anyone else’s work. I am not a bad person, and I don’t intentionally do or say any of those bad things that were so easy to read into my comment. I will abide by whatever code of conduct develops here (because I certainly trust this forum), and if I participate in IFComp again I will be sure to follow the rules, both letter and spirit.
“Freedom of speech isn’t a blanket authorization to say what you want. It means we have to think critically about what deserves protection and what does not. This is the moderators’ responsibility: to make these decisions and to judge fairly. This is why we are discussing a Code of Conduct. We need to decide where we want that line in the sand to be.”
Right. But, had we shut down the thread after the first post, we would have never realized the need for a Code of Conduct. Which would have been bad, wouldn’t it? So the discussion was good, wasn’t it? I don’t know anymore.
Neil
Good point. The forum also seems to have survived perfectly fine without a Code of Conduct for the best part of a decade so I’m not sure why it’s felt like we need one now.
Having reviewed the proposed code of conduct (and thank you very much for this, Merk!) - I propose adding the following statement of purpose, either prior to anything else or as part of the first section.
The intfiction.org forums exist as a place to discuss interactive fiction. All interactive fiction authors are welcome here.
(It’s possible that should be expanded to “all interactive fiction authors and players”, but it feels a little more clunky to me that way, and I’ve observed far more hostility directed at authors over the years than at players. If you have a better way to phrase this, that would be great.)
To discuss my reasoning a little:
I believe that our community should be a place where all interactive fiction authors are welcome. It isn’t right now, and that’s a serious problem.
I consider it especially important for this community to become more welcoming to Twine authors, not because we are the best resource for Twine authors - we’re clearly not - but because Twine authors have frequently been the target of hate elsewhere, both as Twine authors and as minorities. We have the opportunity to strengthen and diversify our community by not being part of that hostility.
It’s possible that I’ve misconstrued the nature of this community - that we, collectively, are not a community where all interactive fiction authors are welcome.
But I want us, collectively, to be better than that. And adding a formal statement of intention to our code of conduct will help make that a reality.
“Enthusiasts”? That sounds overly formal, but this isn’t just an authors’ forum and I don’t think anyone thinks it is.
Actually, I think that’s a great way to phrase it.
The intfiction.org forums exist as a place to discuss interactive fiction. All interactive fiction enthusiasts are welcome here.
Yeah, that’s a good mission statement-y sort of thing, but also seems like an important statement to lead with.
I’m going to wait for any additional feedback, especially some of the things I’ve crossed out, changed, and commented on (they show as red). Probably by tomorrow this can be finalized and officially adopted.
I think it’s important to note that this wasn’t the code of conduct here previously. Or at minimum, without it written up, everybody’s idea of what code we collectively followed may have differed wildly. Moderating was in place since early on, but like mentioned, the main intent was to stop the spam and trolling. It wasn’t to step into the middle of personal disputes, determine which opinions are correct and allowed, and keep people from feeling offended. Maybe it should have been.
I hope that this leads to a better, more welcoming forum. The consensus is that it will. And I appreciate the encouraging and understanding comments regarding my desire to step back into a regular user role that doesn’t involve making and enforcing those decisions.
A couple thoughts on the proposal:
I believe statements like “Because of who you are, you shouldn’t complain about this” do more to make a place unwelcoming than statements like “It’s so easy my grandmother could do it”; if we’re going to have a rule against the latter, we should have a rule against the former. The previous point (“Don’t disrespect any group of people”) arguably covers it, but that could stand to be clarified.
I agree the point needs more discussion. I have doubts that it’s possible to have healthy discussions about art without ever making anyone uncomfortable - some art is designed to produce that feeling, some people get uncomfortable when their work is criticized or a work that bothers them is praised, and this very discussion has already made people uncomfortable.
Has this actually been a problem here, or is it merely prophylactic?
How do we define “hate group”? Would it include groups that have been accused of discriminating against majority demographic groups, or against people with certain hobbies, and if so how would that accusation have to be substantiated? Would it include an IF forum just like this one but without this new code of conduct, formed with the intent of allowing the sort of discourse that the code is meant to prevent?
If we want to promote a broader definition of “interactive fiction”, let’s do that. If we want to invite and encourage more diverse demographics to post here, let’s do that. But I don’t see the need to call out Twine specifically, or to use IF tools/genres as a proxy for demographics, and I would object to the idea of promoting certain types of IF just because they’re associated with certain demographics.
I’m sorry to see you go, but I understand the decision. It’s sad that this issue has escalated to the point of pushing long-time members out of the community.
To be honest, this is the first time in my entire life that I see people actually stating they are happy, and encouraging an admin to step down and leave the place to who-knows-who. Usually, at least formally, people go on the lines of “Oh, I’m so sorry. You will be missed.”
I’m the first to understand your position - I would have done it too - but I expected a far different kind of goodbye message from the people you served all these years.
Anyway: before you commit the irreversible, you may want to be addressed to the belief (maybe personal, maybe universal) that NO DRASTIC DECISION ON ANY MATTER SHOULD BE TAKEN DURING A CRISYS. The times this has happened before, Weimar became a much larger Nation, and the states of former USSR were united under a sole Federation. Not to mention - just to lighten things up a bit - the Old Republic turning into the Dreaded Empire, lead by former Councillor Palpatine.
Closing: if you are looking for feedback, I must note that only a handful of people have answered this post. If you think that those are the champion around which any statistic should be calculated, I’m fine with it (a non-voter is one who accepts the outcome anyway). But you may want to make a poll on this for a far more easy count.
Well, I sent a PM. Some people said, take time to reconsider. And Merk did make it clear he needs time away, and he wants to hand it to someone who has the energy. I’d like to see him stay, but I can’t make him, and I think he’s done a great job of organizing the succession without in-fighting. Overnight, new people are in, ready to keep things rolling. People I respect & whom I think will work well with the old moderators. It’s hard to say “please come back” after that without seeming opposed to the wave of new people who want to do things. How much this had been on Merk’s mind in the recent past is up to him to share. Everything he’s said and done points to him wanting things to work as well in the future, and I really respect that.
No, not like that. Nobody’s encouraging me to give it up. It’s more of encouragement to do what seems best.
Some of the answers have come in private messages. There’s probably a reason that more people haven’t weighed in with opinions by either method, but only they would know those reasons. I also don’t think anybody expects this weekend’s version of the Code to stand for all time. As with anything, I imagine it’ll evolve. Same with the group of volunteer moderators. Some will decide that can’t or won’t do what needs done (me, for instance). But others will step up and take on that role. I hope this isn’t viewed as a crisis. I’m personally not upset at all. If anything, I kind of feel too detached. But that’s part of the problem.
Also – and I should have said this in my post above – but I’m not planning to hand things off to just a random volunteer. It would be great if somebody I’ve known for a while would offer to be host and admin. I realize that’s a lot to ask though; paying for a server, the domain each year and whatever else arises, not to mention in-forum responsibilities. I think it’s fair to give the community a say in where it goes. Also, being server admin doesn’t necessarily mean being forum admin. I can step out of that role even if the site itself hasn’t found a new home. I absolutely won’t just shut it down or anything, even if that part takes longer.
I’ve written and deleted and written and deleted many thousands of words of possible post at this point. I’ll try to keep this to the stuff I feel I really must say; it will still not be short. Apologies.
- I’ve known, in various degrees of closeness, the majority of people in these threads for years. I consider many to be friends; others, respected acquaintances and valued members of the community. I do not see people as belonging to a pair or even a quartet of sides. It guts me to see so much pain in all directions. This is perhaps cheesy and also not really in my usual idiom, but I really like you guys. I have so much respect, affection, and awe for the skill and kindness, the wit and generosity and the willingness to help each other out, that I’ve seen here. The IF community has enriched my life for something like fifteen years now. Thank you for that.
Merk, I’m not going to try to dissuade you from doing what you think best to do, but I appreciate the years you’ve put into this and have great respect.
- Speaking at least for myself, I never said, and never intended to imply, that anyone was a misogynist. Indeed, I tried to make it explicitly clear that I didn’t, but if it wasn’t clear, then I apologize. I try to avoid sticking labels on people, and I understand the distress of those who might feel they’ve been stuck with a label they’re not allowed to contest and which they couldn’t have anticipated.
The most useful thing that has ever been said to me on social awareness was by Squinky Kiai: “I don’t assume I’m going to get it right.” Meaning that, while one should absolutely try, there is never going to be a point where one has ascended to such mastery in the area of human understanding that one never again commits a blunder or hurts a feeling or contributes to systemic injustice.
That fact can inform how we treat other people’s mistakes (explain problem first, assume they meant well until proven otherwise, do not come out swinging with the YOU ARE CLEARLY A TOTAL SEXIST/RACIST/WHATEVERIST) and our own mistakes (listening, apologizing, trying not to cause more problems, but understanding that this is not a referendum on whether we suck as humans, and not fearing, and not needing to fear, that this one event will define our position in the community).
I need such an environment not least for myself. In the past, I have said a ton of things that I am really sorry about saying, about groups I didn’t understand well. I’ve also said things that were aimed at showing people that I had more masculine characteristics as a way to earn their respect because I felt that being more feminine was bad. It’s pretty easy to have screwy feelings about one’s own gender. I’m sure I’ve done numerous other problematic things that I wasn’t aware of at the time. That sucks, I’m sorry, and if I do it, I want to know so I can alter my behavior.
- That said, “listen to someone who says she’s experiencing misogyny” is really, really important (and similar points apply to other forms of marginalization, obviously).
Many, many times, people in marginalized groups get told that their experiences are not valid or even that they did not happen. Often those experiences are hard to show to outsiders. I have belonged to a group (intentionally left vague because reasons) where I observed that the women in the room were repeatedly interrupted and repeatedly ignored, even when discussing topics where their experience level was equal to or greater than the experience level of the interrupters. It was so constant and so pervasive that the women had a sort of quiet secret support group, private meetings to decompress and reassure each other about this thing. We didn’t form it because we’d gone in with the assumption that people would be prejudiced. We formed it becaus we needed it.
To be clear, what I’m describing here is not remotely about people thinking “she is a woman, so I will interrupt freely.” What I am describing is not conscious prejudice or even generic jerkiness. I’m talking about guys that I worked with, thought were decent people, and liked. I’m still friends with some long after the end of the project that brought us together. The problem is that there are social habits about how we interact with different genders that are so deeply ingrained that people often don’t consciously notice them and even women contribute to them. (Here is some evidence to go with my anecdata: newrepublic.com/article/1177 … upted-more ). In some cultures and industries, it seems, that trend becomes more pronounced.
But explaining to anyone with power to change this, “I’ve noticed that this happens a very large amount of the time and that it is hard for women to get their ideas heard” is very difficult, because it can make you seem hard to work with; it can lead to the impression that you’re accusing your coworkers of something, when what you want is more a change of behavior that would make it easier to do the job that you were hired to do, and if you could get that outcome without hurting feelings you would do so in a heartbeat; and because the problem is made of many small, almost unconscious incidents, documenting or pointing out a selection may just come off as ferociously uptight. And so instead I lived in a haze of red anger and I went for lunchtime walks to blow off steam and I tried to intervene in small ways and I tried to support the other women I worked with and in the end I think I pretty much failed.
So I do not know any way of addressing these kinds of systemic issues unless people are willing to listen to reports of experience that they themselves have not noticed, and not immediately say “well, I don’t see that, so you’re wrong.”
I don’t want anyone’s feelings to be hurt, but if I have to choose between paying attention to person A’s “I do not care about/want to hear about/believe in systemic injustice” and person B’s “my life sucks because of this systemic injustice”, I have to choose B. The stakes for person A are likely to be much, much lower; the amount that B has to deal with the issue, much much higher. This situation is not symmetrical.
(There’s a lot of other stuff that could go here, about intersectionality and about ways this type of discussion can go wrong and about fear of false accusation and about expecting marginalized people to be the caretakers of the emotions of people in privileged positions and about localized social privilege within small groups. But much of it is better covered on other blogs that are specifically about these issues. Suffice it to say that I am aware that there are many ways in which this generalization can be misapplied or in which nuance could be added to it. But as a first order approximation, that’s my view. It’s a tool, not a bludgeon.)
- Along similar lines, it’s important to consider (as far as we can, not being psychic) the effects of our acts as well as their intent. If an act of community self-definition will have the effect of driving away a particular population, especially a marginalized population, then I think that it is worth giving some serious thought about whether that is in fact the right act to take. Maybe it would still be right, in some circumstances (though I’m not thinking of a good example off the top of my head), but we should at least put that factor into our consideration.
This is one reason why “is it right to make separate parser and CYOA comps now?” is likely to look totally totally different from “was it right to have separate Inform and TADS comps.” Even if the act itself may seem equivalent, the context and implicit messaging and probable results are very unlike.
(For what it’s worth, as I understand it, the comp was actually originally conceived as a way to encourage more samples of Inform, back when Inform was brand new, and TADS entrants were allowed as an addition.)
- My own vision for the IF community involves reaching out to other types of interactive story, and learning and sharing with them as much as possible. That doesn’t have to be everybody’s vision, but I feel like we’ve gained a lot when we’ve done that in the past. Such a community doesn’t require everyone to be equally a fan of every game type, but having remarks marking an entire genre as worthless are also not conducive.
(As I realize Nathan has now understood – thank you, Nathan, for hearing what was said and for apologizing so unreservedly.)
- I also do hear people who are concerned about the possible loss of the parser, and I certainly do not think that people who personally prefer parser games are therefore sexist or misogynist, or that a concern about parser preservation is inherently problematic.
I do want to have a conversation about parser, if we can do that after a bit of healing – ideally a conversation about how we can preserve and improve and celebrate what we care about, rather than how we can isolate it. At least for me, if there is a “decline of the parser” going on, it’s not about a lack of games being made (quite a few still are), but the fact that a lot of what I think of as creative, groundbreaking fervor in IF creation is currently focused on other types of IF. If the parser is going to regain that mojo, or increase its accessibility and audience, then I think its best chance is through creative contact with adjacent disciplines, not from separation.
To end back where I started: a lot of people I’d like to see here don’t feel like they can be here, and that bothers me. I also really value a lot of people who are here already.
With all that in mind, I’d like to see us end up with a statement of intent that affirmed mutual respect, together with a moderation policy that, if possible, functioned most often as – shall we say, as social beta-testing of our messages – rather than as we-don’t-HAVE-those-thoughts-here censorship. Hardcore, unapologetic exclusion is indeed occasionally necessary, especially for genuine trolls, but the vast majority of what has caused so much hurt in the last few days would have been less damaging (might have gone unsaid or been differently phrased by the post author) if someone had been empowered to intervene and say, without blame or pointing fingers attached, “Please reconsider what you’re saying; here’s why it might cause damage.” Metafilter is an online community that in my experience seems to mostly achieve this.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s naive or delusional to think that sweet spot can be obtained here. But I continue to think that we have almost no one here who really wants to cause harm to anyone else, and that we have a long tradition of mutual aid and advice. Maybe we can leverage those facts to our advantage.
1 Like
Listening is important. It’s also important, though, to keep in mind that listening doesn’t have to lead to agreement. It’s OK to hear someone out, understand their perspective, accept their recounting of facts, and still disagree with their interpretation or conclusion.
There will always be people who will search before asking and others who won’t. Searching first is the polite thing to do on every website, and I’ve never seen a website that manages to teach people to do it. So I don’t think the points you suggest would help (though I wish they would!)
How about something like “The intfiction.org forums are a place for all authors and players, enthusiasts and newcomers to discuss the artform they love.”
I agree
It’s been specifically suggested in regards to GamerGate. The points you raise are decent ones… it is a term that could get thrown around. Anyone have any ideas of anything more concrete?
Yeah I don’t think we need to mention Twine specific in the Code of Conduct.
Emily, great post. Thank you for writing it.
This is a good point. I’m not sure if there’s a way to encourage it in the CoC, but it’s definitely something we should all aim for.
Again, a good point.
On the draft:
Your Participation Counts (Not Just Your Posts): I don’t know if it’s worth mentioning replies and edits. That sounds more like editing other people’s posts (like on Stack Exchange) which doesn’t apply here. You can put people on an ignore list, but that’s not the best place in the document to mention it. (if we need to mention it at all)
Linking to Games with Adult Content: I don’t know about this section. I think we’ve been okay without any rules about this so far, and would be happy for the section to be removed.
Keep It Tidy: We don’t need anything about signatures. I don’t think we need the new topic stuff either, it’s already covered elsewhere.
Meet the Moderators: Skip the whole thing. Maybe include one email address for the admin.
Terms of Service: We probably do need one, with the typical non-exclusive copyright granting stuff.
I’m okay with this variant, too, but I still think “interactive fiction” should be in there.
“The intfiction.org forums are a place for all interactive fiction authors and players, enthusiasts and newcomers to discuss the artform they love.”
Or maybe
“The intfiction.org forums are a place for all authors and players, enthusiasts and newcomers to discuss interactive fiction.”
I would define “hate group” for this purpose as an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. (Definition stolen from Wikipedia.)
I would also say, relatedly, that these boards should not be open to any group or person that has advocated or carried out hate speech or violence directed at any member of our community.
Thoughts on the CoC, incorporating what’s been discussed in this thread:
Opening statement - I like what’s been suggested already: The intfiction.org forums are a place for all authors and players, long-time enthusiasts and newcomers to discuss Interactive Fiction.
This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion; Improve the Discussion; Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree - Keep the same, though if possible, we can link directly to the search page when discussing it.
Your Participation Counts (Not Just Your Posts) - I found it largely redundant and the tools part unnecessary, so suggest removing it completely.
If You See a Problem, Flag It - Suggested rewrite:
You may flag an inappropriate post by clicking the red exclamation point in the bottom right-hand corner, which will bring it to a moderator’s attention.
Moderators have special authority; they are responsible for this forum. But so are you. With your help, moderators can be community facilitators, not just janitors or police. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. It encourages the bad behavior by acknowledging it, consumes your energy, and wastes everyone’s time. Just flag it. If enough flags accrue, or the violation of the Code of Conduct is particularly egregious, action will be taken.
In order to maintain our community, moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time. Currently, moderators will only preview the first post of a new account before posting as a deterrent to spam. After this initial approval, moderators do not preview new posts in any way; they take no responsibility for any content posted by the community.
Always Be Civil - Suggested additions to the list:
• Intfiction.org promotes a broad definition of Interactive Fiction. Don’t claim a type or style of game already accepted by the community doesn’t belong. If in doubt, ask questions or see if it has been previously discussed.
• Don’t claim someone can’t disagree with you based on who they are or what group they belong to.
• Don’t advocate or carry out hate speech, or direct violence at any member of our community.
Linking to Games With Adult Content - maybe consider changing to Content Warnings When Linking to Games - Suggested rewrite:
We generally allow links to games that include adult content, though we recommend they are clearly marked as “adult” in some way. This includes games with intense horror themes, graphic descriptions of violence, explicit sexual content/erotica, or rape (explicit or implied). Use your best judgment.
We also recommend providing trigger warnings, which are designed to prevent people who have an extremely strong and damaging emotional response to certain subjects from encountering them unaware. An example could be “Warning: discussion of suicide and self-harm”. Again, use your best judgment.
(I took the above definition of trigger warnings from geekfeminism.wikia. I think they are good to recommend.)