Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

It's not an attack when by name he mentioned someone publicly here had the audacity to declare he was the victim of hate etc and the last posts. And alluded to them to ALL not some random person

What type of atmosphere is ok with you guys?


I've seen people here jump to defend racial slurs TOWARDS others - as well or ignore them entirely but jump to reassure the racist user later--

and excuse people who never apologized for anything let alone something like this .and merely observed this mind you and tried not be confrontational but on occasion pointed it out to the person when I felt it was obscene. not surprised milder or subtler bullying is ok with people.
Can see the distinction.

In any case have asked to be banned by the walrus dude.

This thread has deteriorated into gossip.  It reminds me of a bunch of old church ladies arguing over who is at fault in the Pastor's divorce, when not one of them is related to the Pastor or his soon-to-be ex-wife.

I am not saying that any of you actually is an "old church lady"; but is there really nothing else to discuss?

The current atmosphere is not okay, but the conversation is still ongoing. The forum would be lesser without you blooiejagwa.

Agreed. Also the forum would be lesser without each and every one of you.

Yep. I would miss the avatar, Blooie.....and your perspective, too.

Bump

Excellent comment.

The main problem is not 'racism' or 'tribalism' ~ but the permitted 'attacks' and 'bullying' that are enabled by the codes of conduct here.

A person's narrative or commentary can be for example in part or whole psychologically frameworked into the networks of their physiology, and hence the pain that was felt as being 'really hurtful' when your narrative on 'racism' was as permitted . . . attacked!

If mild attacks remain acceptable as being exemplars for permitted conduct as a primary step, when pushes come to shoves then as have been allowed ~ secondary steps will be more severe attacks, and hence this website is not in principle a support website for vulnerable individuals.

Therefore in principle Wrong Planet is a social website that (during disputes) permits at best attacks on people's narratives and at worst facilitates attacks upon their persons, in concrete factual terms.

The basic problem then seemingly is that by analogy 'limbs' (as representing members) are getting effectively 'amputated' (banned) or left to 'drop-off' (depart); whilst the causative 'infection' (the law for attack) just gets ignored as being the initiatory problem!

Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 27 Aug 2020, 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

@Deepthought 7: When does a difference of opinion become an attack?  If attacks are defined as any expressed difference of opinion between two people, then there is no "safe space", only an "echo chamber" where no disagreements can occur.

Taken further, if attacks are defined as any expressed difference of opinion between two people, then this post would likely be deleted, and I would receive yet another board warning from the mods.

Is that what you want?

Agreed. We need to focus on stopping bullying here. I hadn't realized the full extent of that issue and now see why a lot of people are worried that my guidelines would enable people to bully.

I certainly don't want that to happen and have started thinking about creating another set of guidelines that makes it clear you can't use any rule as justification to attack people or make them feel unsafe. I've been trying to dialogue with a few members one on one to see how we can make that happen but feel free to use this thread to brainstorm ideas about that.

One rule I'd like to see enforced:

Private and confidential information shared in trust between members and moderators, or any two people, should not be referenced or repeated to other members directly or indirectly, as jokes or in any other way, whether to shame the person as a passive-aggressive defamation of their character, as an abuse of power and confidence, or even for fun.

I think such instances should have a zero tolerance policy, especially if it's not the person's first infraction.

An even better idea would be to share nothing in private that you would not share in public.

That is what you imagine I might want, but an 'attack' is more generally defined in the objective sense as being:

1.) To set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.

2.) To begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

3.) to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.

Which is exactly what I do not want at all in the codes of conduct on Wrong Planet ~ as it keeps resulting in peoples feelings getting hurt, and members getting banned or being too frightened to post, or else leaving and finding other websites to frequent. But ~ rather than attacking a persons opinion, one can though 'criticise' it instead as objectively involving:

1.) To censure or find fault with.

2.) To judge or discuss the merits and faults of: to criticize three novels in one review.

Which makes more literal sense in terms of Wrong Planet becoming first and foremost a support website for vulnerable individuals, does it not?

Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 27 Aug 2020, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Glad there has been progress.

Let the changes be fair and kind.

Agreed. Had this happen to me and it really bothered me. And it was not even all that personal, just something I had thought about sharing publicly but ultimately decided not to. Still felt like a violation though.

Definitely!