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: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura
Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina
(Trying to catch up)
I would like to see the original "guacamole" language that we had worked out.
Do you mean this?
1. A user-complainant will try to resolve the complaint on-thread. If unsuccessful,
2. A user-complainant (does not need to be same person) will post in-thread that it's time to meet in Bureaucracy. In Bureaucracy, user-complainant will outline the complaint with linky citations, and request an Action.
3. At least 10 other users in 48 hours second the need for an Action. If 10 other users do not complain within the 48 hour period, no complaint can be made again about that particular incident, unless it is being used to illustrate, with others, a pattern of demon-like behaviour.
4. As soon as the request for action receives 10 seconds, Stompy sets forth Action.
Warnings will be in effect for four months. After four months, the slate is wiped clean.
A Warning will be notified over email, in the thread of incident, and in Bureaucracy. A Suspension will be notified over email and in Bureaucracy. A Ban will be notified by email and in Press.
(From when we voted about it, in [link] )
Also, Glam, the reason I'm asking for the original guacamole language is that it does ask for a community response to an offense. That is, if somebody raises an objection and the original poster does not apologize, the people who are present in-thread have a responsibility to say, "Hey, you need to address this." That there is a community responsibility and accountability when somebody raises an objection.
That is actually the preceding step before warnings. That somebody ignored or did not respond to an objection in good faith.
Do you mean this?
It's actually the stuff that relates to step 1. The "how-to" address complaints in-thread.
Laura, sj did not object to you calling Trump a baby. She objected to the phrase "Diaper Don"
An expression I have
never
used. If I had I would have apologized, as Katie did when it was pointed out. All I said was that I thought the floats and so forth were depicting him as a baby because of his behavior. Assuming all people using the expression interpreted it the same as me was flawed. I didn't suggest that it was a phrase I intended to use, just that I didn't know that some people used it in that manner. I almost never go to Twitter, and the more I know the less I expect to go there. I don't need any more rage. I still expect most people consider the baby depictions to be referring to his behavior, but then again I tend to think the best of people.
I'm sorry I deleted the posts. It was an attempt to defuse. It didn't work.
David, my comments aren't a response to any one comment.
Laura, sj did not object to you calling Trump a baby. She objected to the phrase "Diaper Don" noting that some disabled people needed to use adult diapers to function in the world, and it shouldn't be used as a short-hand for infantilization.
To be fair, I also did object to what I felt was dismissiveness on Laura's part at the time the conversation happened.
And I did not feel that KB's apology was an actual apology.
I apologize if my comments felt dismissive. That was certainly not my intent, as I would never dismiss your feelings and never want you to feel hurt. I was trying to return the thread to being lighthearted and failed quite spectacularly.
Honestly, the refusal to admit you might have accidentally said something harmful is far worse than having accidentally said something harmful in the first place. Laura, why do you think your feelings are more valid than sj's lived experience? I can tell you that it's worse to face micro and macro aggressions multiple times daily than to be called out for mistakenly participating in one. You did not use the offensive term, but your post minimized sj's words and contributed to the idea that it was an okay term to use in the first place. A mistake - a micro-aggression. Doubling down? That's a macro. Making mistakes is not a problem. It's how you handle being told you made a mistake that defines who you are. Why is it more important for you to be right than for sj to be heard and her experience validated?
I never said, or thought, that sj's lived experiences were less valid than my feelings. I had the audacity to suggest that both were valid. I'm sorry, but I have to leave so don't bother to continue to double down on the attacks, because I won't be reading them.
There has been no attack. Just clear communication.
