And I myself will be wearing pink taffeta as chenille would not go with my complexion.

Giles ,'Touched'


Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier  

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych


Gandalfe - Apr 12, 2003 7:16:17 am PDT #9354 of 10001
The generation that could change the world is still looking for its car keys.

She has been asked to think about her posts repeatedly, unofficially, and politely. And that hasn't changed a thing.

If this is going to happen (and I'm waffling on it), someone needs to threadsuck and prove this - if you want this step taken so badly, do some legwork on it. Provide links to specific posts where she has been rude/crude/whatever, and to where she's refused to take constructive criticism.


Monique - Apr 12, 2003 7:16:19 am PDT #9355 of 10001

You sound to have more experience of both those sites than I do.

Too much. I really need a new job. Fast.

If this is going to happen (and I'm waffling on it), someone needs to threadsuck and prove this - if you want this step taken so badly, do some legwork on it. Provide links to specific posts where she has been rude/crude/whatever, and to where she's refused to take constructive criticism.

I have a serious issue with this. People have taken it upon themselves to say, "Excuse me, but you were being offensive." She doesn't apologize and makes the situation worse. It happens over and over, so much so that there were 200 posts about her behavior when I came to the board today. People finally bring it up in here, something that Buffistas loathe to do because you're all bending over backwards to appear polite and open to all. And now they're being told to cite and use footnotes and present relevent case histories? People have already linked to specific instances and mentioned the threads in which the flare-ups occurred. If you care so much, go look. I did.

I'm sorry, I just think 200+ posts about a situation makes things worse, and demanding that they have a complete case history isn't going to help because you're probably not going to agree with their interpretation of the escalation of events. I don't understand why everything is blown up into such a mountain around here and why it takes a couple thousand posts, people stomping out of the thread, and in some cases leaving the board out of frustration, before something is done around here. I run a board. It shouldn't be this hard. Really.


Cindy - Apr 12, 2003 7:24:20 am PDT #9356 of 10001
Nobody

See my previous post for context.

Nutshell: There's a gap between incidents in which official action is clearly needed, and those incidents which we are able to address via informal measures.

Some posters who fall into the gap, bounce between all right and offensive, and don't acknowledge our unofficial measures. Some posters fall into the gap, seeming not to understand what we're about, maybe because they're new to the 'net, or maybe because they've had too much exposure to the 'net, and can't believe there's a polite society therein.

t blunt Sometimes people fall into the gap because we don't like them. t /blunt When this happens on an individual basis, it's easy to ignore, because we accept that some people don't click with each other. When a lot of people are having a problem with one poster, it goes beyond chemistry. We know this, because we'll find a really disparate group of posters, and they all see that one poster gazing up at them from the gap.

As I see it, when we encounter this kind of poster in the gap, our choices are:

  • Continue/Start to ignore

Pros: It's the more accepting route; It allows us all not to take this too seriously; It avoids these kinds of conversations; It avoids letting the person in the gap control the community's conversation in one way or another.

Cons: When the problems are persistent and pervasive, people get prickly; People have different levels of tolerance, so while you may be ignoring, you'll have to ignore half the board, because a lot of people aren't ready to ignore; People get driven away from the threads, and/or lose their postiness (paradox with the pro list: in which case, Gap Guy is still controlling the conversation); Some people can't take a hint.

  • Initiate a Notice Without Teeth

*** (BIG meaning changing edit in italics) This notice would NOT have an "or else". Not every problem poster would be entitled to it. It would be reserved for people who do (at least part of the time) seem to try to be part of the community. Liken it to this: If your next door neighbor (who wasn't your best friend, but seemed to like the neighborhood) dented your parked car but didn't offer immediately to have it fixed, you'd probably hint around. If the hints didn't get through to him, you might just present him with an estimate or bill before (and hopefully instead of) filing a police report.

If he takes responsibility for fixing the dent he made, it's over. You might not feel the same about him, because of everything that happened, but your car is fixed and you can co-exist in peace.

Pros: The onus is on the person in the gap; You present the person with certain examples of problematic posting, and point out how the posts dented community standards; People who are Buffistas, will want to fix the dent.

Cons: If the person doesn't really want to be a Buffista, this isn't going to mean shit.

If Con/then Pro: If the above con happens, the community will feel less upset about initiating offical warnings, because we'll feel like notice was a sufficient clue-stick for anyone who is a Buffista.

If Con/then Pro/then other Con: In cases like the one cited immediately above, there are always going to be Buffistas who would never opt for acknowledging and addressing problematic posting behavior, and they're going to think we're still going overboard.

I'm not requesting that we do this (or anything else) in Zoe's case (nor am I necessarily against doing anything).

I am requesting that we enter into a community discussion on whether or not we want some sort of gap bridging procedure or not. I am also requesting that anyone else who has an idea on how to bridge (or just assess) the gap, chime in as well.

*** damn, I was gone all morning and just saw my error. I meant it would not have an or else, but wrote just the opposite. Off to see what happened after I left.


Sophia Brooks - Apr 12, 2003 7:31:30 am PDT #9357 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here

I am dark this weekend, and I have to say that I was just about to post what Cindy posted.

Also, I wished Kat had left her osts, because it is really confusing and I think I agree with her. In fact, it seems like most people agree with her, so I am not sure what is going on...

But-- perhaps instead of a warning, Roberts post could be sent to Zoe.

It is alot easier to ignore an annoying person if there aren't 5 million posts.

And I forgot to friendslock my first few posts on LJ on this subject, sorry!


Anne W. - Apr 12, 2003 7:52:33 am PDT #9358 of 10001
The lost sheep grow teeth, forsake their lambs, and lie with the lions.

A few observations:

  • Whether or not Zoe is deliberately trolling, unable of seeing
why she is offensive, or some combination of the above, she has posted things that have provoked people into uncharacteristic and un-Buffista like behavior. Some of that behavior has clouded the issue.

  • After the whole mieskie thing, we are a bit gun-shy about anything that even touches on the idea of suspension or banning. We learned a lot from that incident, but the wounds aren't quite healed.

  • This would be a hell of a lot easier if we were dealing with an obvious troll. It's the fact that Zoe isn't always annoying that makes this a tricky subject. Still, it should say something that I tend to roll my eyes/cringe/skim when I see her post.

I'm trying to come up with some sort of conclusion, but I have a nasty habit of playing devil's advocate with myself. Although I understand the desire to have a disruption removed from the community, I think it serves the community better in the long run to try to heal the disruption before removing it surgically. This may not always be possible, but I think it is important that we try.

We've already mucked things up a bit by responding in kind to some of Zoe's more outrageous statements. I think that no matter what we decide going forward, we need to self-Doblerize before responding to anything she posts.

I think that ignoring disruptive behavior is a bad idea, as that behavior then becomes entrenched. It also tends to get worse over time. We've also seen that it tends to bring out the worst in ourselves.

I think that we need to tell Zoe when, how, and why her posts are crossing the line. Anyone can and should do this. That person could call for an explanation, an apology, or a toning down of the original post. We've been doing this to some extent, and it doesn't seem to be working. Still, it's partially for our benefit that we continue to do this and to do our best not to repond to her in kind.

Now, however, I think that if she responds rudely to or ignores these requests, the request should be followed by a request to discuss the issue in Bureaucracy--not as a punishment, but in the context of "let's not drag the thread off topic with this discussion."

At that point, if this is met with refusal or rudeness, it would seem clear to me that Zoe has no interest or ability in learning how to play well with others. An official notice would be perfectly appropriate at that point, and might have the sort of sting to get her attention.

By the time we get to that point, I think that if there's a refusal to play nice, then it's fairly clear that a person is not going to make the effort to be a part of the community.

[x-posty with Cindy]


Laura - Apr 12, 2003 8:26:30 am PDT #9359 of 10001
Our wings are not tired.

Well, the good news is the Kat/Laura posting ratio is now skewed to the point where I can post a whole bunch when it is a subject I want to get posty about during my wakeful hours. YaY

Zoe – Put me on the list of board members that have been annoyed and/or confused by her postings. Also put me on the list of board members that have been annoyed and/or confused by the responses to her postings. I am very rarely confrontational and I hope I am never mean. My way is to use my personal MARCIE and it works well - for me.

I personally feel that a formal warning system is less confrontational or mean than sparing in the threads. I also feel a warning is appropriate in this case. My understanding of the warning system is that it is not a trip to the woodshed but rather a polite attempt to explain community standards to posters who appear to not understand them.


Caroma - Apr 12, 2003 8:26:38 am PDT #9360 of 10001
Hello! I must be going.

I'm with Allyson--let's just warn her. If she explains that, as I suspect, she's a high-functioning mentally ill/disabled person, fine, we'll self-MARCIE or engage her as we each see fit. If she reforms, fine. If she says "screw you guys", then ban her. And give her a deadline of a week or so to respond, in case she just ignores the whole process, which is also something she might do. I hate to see good people and longtime posters in such a tizzy about this.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I think this would be a win/win situation, even for Zoe herself.

Edit: If she ignores the deadline totally and refuses to explain herself, I would send her a stronger warning and say if she doesn't respond with an explanation/apology by deadline 2, she's banned.


§ ita § - Apr 12, 2003 9:12:55 am PDT #9361 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

If we have community standards and a method for enforcing them, then we should. If violating the community standards is fine, then let's change them.

As far as I can tell, everyone here is human. Everyone here has limits on their patience. I'm surprised it took this long for Zoe to make it to Bureaucracy. I'm averse to the term "piling on". If I say something that people like, and 15 posts after me go "yay, ita!", it's dead parallel to me pissing folks off and being followed by "god, you suck". Is it piling on for me to express a previously stated negative reaction, but one-true-buffista-lovey-dovey for me to add my cheer?

Why? The key for me is that I want Buffista A to know my reaction to their post. It just so happens that it took me longer to get my point onto the net than other posters, but so be it. Everything I post is open for response from every registered poster. Hell, I think I've had someone REGISTER just so they could disagree with me.

If I didn't know that was a factor, I'd go play in a chat room where my posts are ephemeral.

That having been said, I'm a person of little enough patience, I feel. I don't really care to have to explain "Oh, Buffista A can be as profanely homophobic and jerky as she likes -- she's touched in the head. But you have to be nice, unless you show us a note from the doctor." I can't do that. I can't get past it, sorry. And I'm disappointed I'm being asked to do it.

I don't care about having behaviour explained. "I was pissing people off because of A B and C ..."

Whatever. It is quite apparent that a lot of people are being pissed off and having their posting experience tainted. That's what the community standards are here to prevent.

And it's not a "veterans piling on" thing to me either. If someone who'd been posting 3 days was offended by something, anything, that violates community standards, their opinion is valid. Statistically speaking, those who complain are likely to be vets, because there are more vets posting, and even though it took this long, perhaps vets are more likely to speak up. But should they not, just because they've been posting here since year dot?


Dana - Apr 12, 2003 9:28:08 am PDT #9362 of 10001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

I'd also like to point out that when she's posting, Zoe is nearly every other post in the Angel thread. Makes it difficult to self-MARCIE. For me, at least.


Caroma - Apr 12, 2003 9:28:40 am PDT #9363 of 10001
Hello! I must be going.

I almost entirely agree with ita; my only little quibble is that my mother has a head injury and sometimes she also veers off the tracks, so I know how strange and quirky such things can make a person. If Zoe didn't show signs of that, fine; but she does IMO.

If she didn't, then hell yeah, we got rules, let's enforce them and stop the hand-wringing.