Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion

[Tinuviel]

@Rinel said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

There seem to be a vastly disproportionate number of us Louisianans in the hobby.

Worst. Purchase. Ever.

[Prototart]

@mietze said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

@Pandora my birthdad and brothers live in Houma.

so does swamp thing

[VL_Raptor]

@mietze Did some fieldwork a few years ago based out of Houma. Was very happy to be there during crawdad season.

[Thenomain]

@Tinuviel said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

@Rinel said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

There seem to be a vastly disproportionate number of us Louisianans in the hobby.

Worst. Purchase. Ever.

Are you kidding? Without the purchase you'd have no New Orleans, and far less likely to have Interview With the Vampire and therefore no Vampire RPG or World of Darkness or WoD Mushes or...

...oh god, you're right.

[Thenomain]

Okay, now some serious responses:

@Pandora said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

[Things] that happens outside of a game's in-house systems (mail, pages, messenger) is nearly impossible for staff to police.

Even things on-game are difficult to police. An experienced staffer (or someone who can see the shape of things instead of the literal nature of things) can use the same methods of managing problems based upon on-game behavior as off-game behavior.

We (Emmah, Troy and I) did this on The Reach twice. Once it even stuck.

When this is okay to do is an entirely different question. We're not talking about a game, here; we're talking about behavior to and about "intersectional" issues on a private chat server. I'm imagining Wora For Non-Straights. Its own rules can easily straightjacket its ability to have honest discussion about difficult or contentious issues, or to have discussions with high-strung personalities.

IGU kind of worked, but they did get caught in the loop of defending its own rules against otherwise reasonable, if sometimes snarky, discourse. Not as bad as Electric Soup; that place ate itself in months.

You're now accepting the burden of being yet one more place where vulnerable people are wearing a target on their back without the protection of staff aid should things go pear-shaped

This is a very subtle and interesting point: Kestrel has designed a discussion group around people who see themselves as vulnerable. Some vulnerable people do lash out when they feel attacked, making the pear all on their own.

Personally I think the answer is to say this: "We are here for X reason, and to discuss X in a reasonable manner."

Or as Kanye brought into the Soapbox vernacular a while ago, "We don't do that here." Just with a follow-up as to what we do do here.

Do do.

Scooby dooby doo.

It pains people like me that Soapbox doesn't have a more clear focus than "eh, whatever, just don't burn the place down", but that's Soapbox. IMC (I'm calling it "IMC" now) has a much clearer purpose. I can see, like Surreality and others, that the rules of the community can stop the administration from maintaining it, but we also forget the #1 rule of any private group: My group, my rules.

Which is why Tempest got a million upvotes for questioning Kestrel's personality.

Because no matter the rules, this hobby has proven over and over and over and over again that the rules don't matter compared to the administration enforcing them.

[surreality]

@Thenomain said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

I can see, like Surreality and others, that the rules of the community can stop the administration from maintaining it, but we also forget the #1 rule of any private group: My group, my rules.

Which is why Tempest got a million upvotes for questioning Kestrel's personality.

Because no matter the rules, this hobby has proven over and over and over and over again that the rules don't matter compared to the administration enforcing them.

Bingo.

I have little doubt Kestrel wants to create a positive safe space for the folks she allows into it.

I have absolutely zero doubt that the nanosecond Kestrel's ego comes into conflict with maintaining that safe space, that safe space is going to lose the battle at mind-rending speed.

[Auspice]

@surreality said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

@Thenomain said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

I can see, like Surreality and others, that the rules of the community can stop the administration from maintaining it, but we also forget the #1 rule of any private group: My group, my rules.

Which is why Tempest got a million upvotes for questioning Kestrel's personality.

Because no matter the rules, this hobby has proven over and over and over and over again that the rules don't matter compared to the administration enforcing them.

Bingo.

I have little doubt Kestrel wants to create a positive safe space for the folks she allows into it.

I have absolutely zero doubt that the nanosecond Kestrel's ego comes into conflict with maintaining that safe space, that safe space is going to lose the battle at mind-rending speed.

Well, I mean, I tried to ask a question in good faith as to how they'll judge whether or not someone is a good enough staffer to be able to 'run' their game channel on the Discord and I was wholly ignored.

Because I fear it would be based on personal feelings/opinions and clash of personalities as opposed to 'this person did actually treat people of minorities poorly.' And it'd be shitty if someone who has stood up for those who are marginalized was barred just because they turned down someone's app once or denied a +job. And ignoring the query makes me think that's... exactly how it'd go. Judgement based on personal opinion rather than fact. And the hope that staffers will give people in their community special treatment/benefits to gain favor with their community.

[Arkandel]

@Auspice said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

@surreality said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:
Well, I mean, I tried to ask a question in good faith as to how they'll judge whether or not someone is a good enough staffer to be able to 'run' their game channel on the Discord and I was wholly ignored.

Because I fear it would be based on personal feelings/opinions and clash of personalities as opposed to 'this person did actually treat people of minorities poorly.'

To be fair, the moment you ask a question like "who is a good enough staffer" then of course the answer is going to become really subjective. Unless that person is really horrible at it all you have to work with is anecdotal evidence, hearsay and unreliable third party opinions.

It's not leadership or rules that I suspect will be their biggest challenge, it's the echoing chamber effect.

[Thenomain]

@Auspice said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

Because I fear it would be based on personal feelings/opinions and clash of personalities as opposed to 'this person did actually treat people of minorities poorly.'

I'm taking a wait-and-see approach.

Because I really doubt it will immediately affect anyone who posts here, and almost nobody I know who still Mushes. And also because "my house my rules" is always Rule #1 on anyone's project, so nobody should be chewing their fingernails in fear.

And we well know that even if there's a minor infraction against a Soapbox poster's sensibilities then we will hear how horrible it is, covering up the things that are antithetical to its goal.

@Arkandel said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

It's not leadership or rules that I suspect will be their biggest challenge, it's the echoing chamber effect.

I agree.

.
.
.

[surreality]

@Auspice said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

Judgement based on personal opinion rather than fact.

I think you pretty much nailed this one, though not necessarily because it's hard to get a reasonably objective read on this.

Facts can be proven or disproven; they can be right or wrong. Opinions and feelings "can't be wrong". The inability to admit error is pretty glaring where Kestrel is concerned. Shifting focus to a metric that is more 'vibe/feeling/opinion'-based doesn't surprise me in the least here, as a result.

[Ghost]

@Ghost said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

@Kestrel What happens if for any reason the members of the community wish for you to leave it?

This isn't snark. It's an honest philosophical question.

I didnt get a response, so let me ask this a different way, because I think anytime an exclusive-type ethical organization gets created, an interesting philosophical question comes to light.

Is this a concept that you've created that you intend to turn over to a quorum of like minded individuals to democratically vote/maintain the mission, or is this an organization of your creation that membership and the direction of ultimately comes down to your discretion?

I think this is a very valid question about how this organization will work, but also provide some insight whether or not the need for the space is more relevant than being its owner.

[Thenomain]

@Ghost

I've been struggling with a reply to this for a good ten minutes now, so I'm going to throw this against the wall to see what sticks. I'm aware it's not a well-formed argument, but I find your implied (or inferred!) logic flawed.

What I'm reading here is that a "quorum of like minded individuals" can maintain a space if they have a vote of no-confidence on its current leader.

I would like to counter than a group of individuals, even if having the best interest, can ruin a community as quickly, if not quicker, than an individual leader.

If the question was "will you step down if that's the best thing for the community", fine, but there's a lot of implication in your questions and conclusions that a dictator, even a benevolent one, is worse than a quorum.

[Arkandel]

@Thenomain said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

What I'm reading here is that a "quorum of like minded individuals" can maintain a space if they have a vote of no-confidence on its current leader.

Worse - it can make a moderator depended on the current political climate to continue doing their job. So they'd be at the constant whim of the strongest clique (and there are always cliques) to enforce their policies.

[Thenomain]

@Arkandel said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

@Thenomain said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

What I'm reading here is that a "quorum of like minded individuals" can maintain a space if they have a vote of no-confidence on its current leader.

Worse - it can make a moderator depended on the current political climate to continue doing their job.

I'd assume that the quorum fills in for "the current leader". The Clique Effect is going to happen no matter what; it's a question of if you'd rather people trying to influence a single person with a single ideology, or a number of people with maybe the same and maybe not and may already be arguing with one another about what is best for the community.

Even with a quorum bad mistakes will be made (c.f. Stack Exchange and Wikipedia), making the space less "safe". Sure, people should be wearing their big-girl pants, but the conceit of the Intersectional MU* Community seems to want the place to be safe from attack.

This is IMO its first mistake. Even people with the same goal are going to approach it differently, and these people are going to disagree with one another. Knowing the difference between "disagreement" and "attack" is, well, something that the leadership is going to have to deal with on a pretty regular basis, later if not sooner.

People be cray.

[Arkandel]

@Thenomain I think their best bet is to rely on a person - or small group - to provide the forum with a consistent identity.

If they are lucky with leadership they can ride that identity to become a stable community, but the risk is that otherwise playing politics will rear its ugly head... and on online forums that's a damn ugly head.

[Ghost]

@Thenomain said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

there's a lot of implication in your questions and conclusions that a dictator, even a benevolent one, is worse than a quorum.

Not really. It could go either way. In some cases, someone retaining ownership as the final decision maker works really well. There are situations where leaving it to a democracy makes a lot of sense, and others where retaining control as the creator makes a lot of sense, but either way, you simply cannot abstain from choosing, and both choice is interesting in this case.

Take MSB for example. @Arkandel releasing it to some kind of public ownership makes no sense, but what's interesting is that this group is a socio-political movement of sorts based on the importance of such a group to exist to protect people. While Ark has final say on admin level decisions for the space, the decision has been made to let the group decide what it wants itself to be within certain guidelines they feel are reasonable. Ultimately, @Arkandel owns MSB as a space, but does not take the position of leadership/ownership of what is discussed here.

So the choice becomes a philosophical one.

• Does the creator intend to retain sole final vote on all decisions and ultimately decide what the group is or isn't about? Does the owner's definition take higher importance than that of the member? How will the owner behave in a self-appointed role of leadership? If a large number of members feels one way, but the owner of thre space disagrees, then how will the owner react?

In short, on the topic of intersectionality, is it the owner's prerogative to hold final vote on what the group is or isn't about, who can join, who doesn't belong, and if people dont like it they can just leave and create their own? A final say can protect a group from going too far if it loses its way, but can also result in a dictatorship.

OR...

• Does the creator take the approach that a socio-political topic such as intersectionality or a safe space is something that their own opinions or ego shouldn't dominate? Do they take the approach that there is NO leadership and that while ownership of the space itself is singular, the direction of the group as a whole isn't their right to choose?

In short, a person can simply create a space for people to gather without owning the space. The concept of leadership isn't applied and so long as someone feels another person is worthy of joining(example), their own opinions are of less important than that of the whole and in that they may choose to step aside and let the group be what it may.

It's an interesting situation, and all comes down to how the creator views their role in it. Could go good or bad either way with plenty of variables, but how the creator approaches this also tells you something about them.

It's only natural to assume that (like every group based around beliefs: church, politics, activism) differences of opinion, leadership roles, and people wanting things to go the way they think it should go is inevitable. There's no questioning this. This happens.

Best to think about this ahead of time and be prepared to understand the positives and negatives of either approach.

[mietze]

Ark wasn't the creator of this space. The creator did hand it over to him. He has made some changes unilaterally. So I would still say that any given space even looking here as example, it's still largely the owner that makes the decisions. Sometimes the handover works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the handover doesnt happen and a place shuts down. I think usually the users of a space believe themselves to have more power over it than they do. I wish this made all people more grateful for the space while it exists, but...yeeah.

[mietze]

Also. When you open a space whether that is a group, message board, mush, ect I think most people have a vague idea of how they will handle situations in general, but the Law of People means that you are guaranteed to face all the things you did not know were a thing or thought surely never, as well as every single thing you did plan for and warn people about because the people who like to do the things that you warn people not to do tend to not think warnings apply to them and their reasons for doing those things. If they even read them in the first place.

People will abuse your space. They will use it to abuse others. They will probably do it right under your nose and you wont see it always. You will make shitty decisions sometimes. You will give the wrong people several chances and be severe with some people that probably would have learned after a serious discussion.

I do not think you can plan for every contingency nor will crafting the perfect rules mean that you will not unwittingly permit something very bad to happen or a bad actor to use the space in a way that hurts someone else.

But you can as an owner/administrator be as transparent as you can be, you can own your decisions, you can make the best decisions you can. And the participants can choose to stay or not (making their own decisions). Maybe they won't give you any quarter, and maybe they will give you more chances than you deserve.

But ultimately it IS just one space/board/social media group/playspace/whatever. Sometimes I think we build up all these superhuman expectations or frankly inappropriate levels of importance attached to a project (either for ourselves and others) and it really ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy of failure.

[BobGoblin]

You know what the Mu community needs? More stupidity... Oh look, I found it!

[Tinuviel]

@BobGoblin said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:

You know what the Mu community needs? More stupidity... Oh look, I found it!

There's always room for more! We've been far too considerate and caring lately.