Feminist SF Wiki - User contributions [en]

FSFblog communication guidelines

2006-12-24T18:46:39Z

Janet Lafler: /* longer discussions */

This is a working document. It is intended to hone and revise feminist guidelines for effective discussion, debate, and argument.

==Goals==

# Provisionally, these guidelines should enable and facilitate communication, by providing standards relating to listening, respectfully hearing substantive points, and responding respectfully to substantive arguments. Basically, how to engage in conversation usefully.

# However, they also should deal with how to simultaneously engage in meta-analysis of the flow of discussion, so that you can see when inappropriate and nonproductive communication techniques are coming in -- including sexist or racist or elitist language or stances. Basically, how to see when a conversation is being derailed.

# Finally, the guidelines should include information about when and how to redirect a conversation to keep it flowing; or to cut it off. This should include information about when it is appropriate to bring up meta-analysis of the conversation -- not responding to a point, but pointing out some characteristic about how another person is arguing. Also, if not appropriate to engage in meta-analysis, how to direct back to appropriate channels. When is it better to do it "offline" in a private setting, and when is it better to engage a behavior publicly. Basically, how to heal or kill conversations.

''Other Thoughts'': How to protect yourself; how to protect others; how to teach someone else; how to recognize a teaching moment; how to not feel responsible for representing 100% of the time; how to engage in group conversation dynamics; etc.

===Prospective Uses===

* At the least, a guide for discussion on the feministsf.net forums -- blog, forums, wiki, and so on.
* Should be useful as rules for all discussion participants and moderators

==Status==

* Right now this is both redundant and inconsistent! But it needs to be rewritten because some people don't know how to argue.

== Caveat ==

Politeness and good communication and civility and respectfulness all depend on political circumstances. The goal of feminism is not politeness, good communication, civility, or respectfulness, but women's liberation from political, social and economic oppression.

Because the ''[[incumbent]]s'' dictate the nature of civility, there is no such thing as a polite revolution.

This Wiki cannot function as a feminist tool if it is divorced from its cause and wedded to abstacted views of interpersonal relations. Therefore, the guidelines below must '''always''' be considered in a political context.

==Sources==

* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* http://grannyvibe.blogspot.com/2006/07/defensiveness.html Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness" (2006 July 30)
* http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces
* Susan Herring, [http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html Managing Trolling in a Feminist Forum]

==Draft==

'''Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully''' (title)

Communication styles, like everything else, is a feminist issue. Moreover, having clear, respectful communications makes discussions effective & useful for readers and participants alike. So, here are a few tips & no-nos: (preamble)

Guidelines - need to be organized, clarified, rationalized as a system.

* Respond to the substance of the argument, not the speaker's identity and not the speaker's style.

* But if the speaker's identity or style are relevant to a meta-discussion then say so.

* Be aware when you are leaving the original topic and moving into meta-discussion / processing / pissing wars. Sometimes this is good: Seeing sexism or racism in a discussion and addressing it right then, head-on. But sometimes it's bad: Getting into pointless back-and-forth pissing wars about increasingly irrelevant minutiae, misunderstandings, what was said, etc.

* If you see yourself going meta, you should understand why you want to, very clearly. And before posting you should make a conscious decision that it is appropriate; it will further the discussion; it is in keeping with feminist principles of full & effective communications for all.

* Repeat: Self-awareness. Not knee-jerk responses. Anger is good, healthy, strong. Pissiness is annoying. If you have a righteous anger over a wrong that is being committed, express it! Voice your anger. Use strong language if you like or it's appropriate.

* Respect other people. Saying that a statement, an argument, or a worldview is fucked-up or sexist or racist is different from saying that someone is fucked-up or sexist or racist. Attempting to classify someone else is disrespectful to them.

* If someone is being disrespectful then don't tolerate it.

* Engaging in a pissing match with someone who is being disrespectful is not interesting to the rest of the world. Helping them figure out what they're doing wrong is useful. Pointing out to the forum moderators that they are inappropriate is useful.

* Don't engage in pissing wars.

** If your only response is basically "You're a --" or "No I'm not!" then you're not adding anything of substance to the discussion. Are you characterizing / defending / explaining your own statements, or are you talking about the subject of discussion and adding to it?

** If you feel the need to characterize / defend / explain your own statements, then you better understand why they were mischaracterized / attacked / misunderstood. That means understanding how you miscommunicated to begin with.

** If your response is directed to one person only then it's probably not interesting to everyone else even if you want them to hear it. Think about why you want to respond publicly to the comment. Is it because you feel insulted or aggrieved?

** Consider whether your response is going to add anything to the discussion, or just encourage the other person to come back with a "yes you are!"? Look down the long path of the discussion: Is it heading into a place where a reader will learn something?

* A sense of humor is good.

* A sense of humor is good. But if you're talking only sarcastically then there's a good chance you're over-simplifying the other position or engaging in strawman argument.

** If you're using sarcasm are you also adding something substantive to the debate?

* Explain what your point applies to. If your point is about the overall sense or tone then say so. If you agree with part of an argument but disagree with another part, then specify the points of disagreement as well as agreement, before detailing the points of disagreement.

* Effective communicators are generally not just adversarial: They seek to understand what the other person is saying, and why, and seek for the common ground on which there might be legitimate dispute.

* Generally, people represent themselves. They don't represent all of a fandom. They don't represent everyone else in a discussion group. They don't represent everyone in their gender, their ideology, their race, their class, their nationality. Don't try to speak for others and don't assign an individual's statements to other members of a group and don't assign other group members' statements to an individual.

** Don't start talking about "we" think this or "we" said this -- because who is the "we" anyway? And can you really accurately sum them up?

** And if you start out with "we" or "I" don't switch mid-way through.

* Don't mischaracterize what other people say: Don't put words in their mouths, don't suggest that they said something they didn't, don't reduce the complexity of their argument.

* If someone else is mischaracterizing your argument, do call them on it. But don't just call them on it. You should understand and be able to justify your explanation.

==Alternate [shorter, more general] Draft==

:1. Read carefully before you respond to a post or comment. Are you sure you understand what the other person is saying? Are you reading anything into the post or comment that isn’t there? Are you confusing the commenter with someone else in another thread or discussion?
:2. Think before you comment. Are you saying what you mean? Are you saying it clearly? Does your tone match what you’re trying to say? Are you implying anything you don’t want to imply? Are you using language that could be offensive or inflammatory? Remember, no one can hear your tone of voice or see your body language.
:3. Make your comments meaningful. If you disagree with someone, explain why. Name-calling is boring and pointless.
:4. Remember the difference between criticism of a person’s work and criticism of the person. Criticism, as in “literary criticism,” is analysis, not attack. Critically discussing gender in an author’s work is not the same as accusing the author of being a sexist. Pointing out concerns about a work isn’t the same as calling for that work to be banned. Bear this in mind both when you are criticizing and when you feel criticized.
:5. Try to keep to the original topic. If there’s a topic you’d like to see discussed, put it on your own blog and point to it in the comments, or write to one of us and suggest it. Or take the conversation to email.
:6. Take responsibility for keeping discussion civil. Treat others respectfully, even (especially!) if you disagree. Try to be constructive. If a conversation is growing heated, think about what you can to do calm things down. Apologize if you make a mistake.
:7. If you don’t understand the conversation, educate yourself. We have lots of resources about feminism and feminist sf. Please make use of them! They can help you strengthen and refine your own positions.

--[[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==warn once then ban (Dec 2006)==
I agree with Janet's suggestions. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 21:03, 19 December 2006 (PST)

Here is a suggested "warn once, then ban" policy to establish norms of respectful communication:

* No cussing people out directly
* No name-calling
* No racist epithets
* No criticising the person not the ideas in their writing

When this is violated by a blog author or commenter then any blog author can call it to a vote. We vote on the warning and in a second instance vote on a ban (or temporary suspension).

I would like to encourage openness and debate on the list. Maybe we can agree on this as a minimal group standard for responsibility in behavior.

Towards that end I propose voting first on whether to implement this policy or one like it.

--[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 21:02, 19 December 2006 (PST)

===votes & short descriptions===

* I '''VOTE YES''' to implement this one or one like it --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
* I also '''VOTE YES'''. --[[User:JLeland|Therem]] 15:38, 20 December 2006 (PST)
* I "VOTE YES" -- [[User:Debbie]], 21 December 2006
* Yes. [[User:Janet Lafler]], 23 December 2006

===longer discussions===

* Honestly I like all of these. We do need a statement of First Principles (FPs) by which we all operate, I think, so that none of us feel undue frustration. Then, I think there can be different views of the First Principles; different interpretations and applications and spellings out and case studies. So the other versions can also exist and people can be referred to any of them. The FPs are the basic groundrules for process under which we operate. (A fractal system where you can spend more and more time thinking about smaller and smaller pieces, because there's not enough of that on the Internet already. <g>) --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
* Oh - I think one thing that might be good would be if we bloggers each filled in the biography, or wrote a "page" about ourselves; I can link to that for the person's name. We can each explain our take on feminism, SF, communications styles, etc. That doesn't get out of the FPs, but allows us to implement our own interpretations. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
:* Laura, where would you have us put these biographies? -- Debbie
::* Well there are two possible places. One -- on the blog when you log in, if you go to "Users", your profile information contains a space for "About yourself". I have to figure out how to enable that to show up. The second option is to write a "page" about yourself -- when you log in, if you go to "Write" the default is "write post", but there is also an option (at the top, under "write") for "write page"; then you can write something. Probably the "page" is better for longer biographies. People could include links to their other works, their mantras, whatever. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 19:57, 21 December 2006 (PST)
* While I do support the point about "civility" being a tool that those in power can use to silence or shame those out of power, at the same time, I know there are people who cannot function in a space that does not offer some protections. I very much hope that our guidelines will evolve and reshape themselves over time as our community grows more robust, and I also favor starting with ones like these. [Debbie]
* It looks to me like the only way to do this is to have a very minimal basic standard for behavior, and allow individual bloggers to set their own standards. Given the discussion we've had so far, I think it will be impossible to institute what some people feel are minimal protections without making others feel unduly restrained. Maybe we should just accept this. But if we're going to do things this way, we all need to be as clear as possible about it -- we can't ask people to abide by a standard if they don't know what the standard is. [Janet]
* As to the wording of the actual guidelines, I generally prefer to see instructions/directives stated in positive terms ("do this") rather than negatives ("don't do this"); On the other hand, "no namecalling" is clear and concise, and I can't think of a better way of wording it. [Janet]
* Did we drop the idea of having a registration process? If people could register and still use a pseudonym, are people comfortable with that? My suggestion (way back when we started this discussion) of bringing back registration was mainly to make sure that users were required to read and sign communication guidelines, presuming we can ever agree on what those should be.... [Janet]

[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]
[[Category:Communication Guidelines]]

FSFblog communication guidelines

2006-12-24T18:27:49Z

Janet Lafler: /* votes & short descriptions */

This is a working document. It is intended to hone and revise feminist guidelines for effective discussion, debate, and argument.

==Goals==

# Provisionally, these guidelines should enable and facilitate communication, by providing standards relating to listening, respectfully hearing substantive points, and responding respectfully to substantive arguments. Basically, how to engage in conversation usefully.

# However, they also should deal with how to simultaneously engage in meta-analysis of the flow of discussion, so that you can see when inappropriate and nonproductive communication techniques are coming in -- including sexist or racist or elitist language or stances. Basically, how to see when a conversation is being derailed.

# Finally, the guidelines should include information about when and how to redirect a conversation to keep it flowing; or to cut it off. This should include information about when it is appropriate to bring up meta-analysis of the conversation -- not responding to a point, but pointing out some characteristic about how another person is arguing. Also, if not appropriate to engage in meta-analysis, how to direct back to appropriate channels. When is it better to do it "offline" in a private setting, and when is it better to engage a behavior publicly. Basically, how to heal or kill conversations.

''Other Thoughts'': How to protect yourself; how to protect others; how to teach someone else; how to recognize a teaching moment; how to not feel responsible for representing 100% of the time; how to engage in group conversation dynamics; etc.

===Prospective Uses===

* At the least, a guide for discussion on the feministsf.net forums -- blog, forums, wiki, and so on.
* Should be useful as rules for all discussion participants and moderators

==Status==

* Right now this is both redundant and inconsistent! But it needs to be rewritten because some people don't know how to argue.

== Caveat ==

Politeness and good communication and civility and respectfulness all depend on political circumstances. The goal of feminism is not politeness, good communication, civility, or respectfulness, but women's liberation from political, social and economic oppression.

Because the ''[[incumbent]]s'' dictate the nature of civility, there is no such thing as a polite revolution.

This Wiki cannot function as a feminist tool if it is divorced from its cause and wedded to abstacted views of interpersonal relations. Therefore, the guidelines below must '''always''' be considered in a political context.

==Sources==

* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* http://grannyvibe.blogspot.com/2006/07/defensiveness.html Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness" (2006 July 30)
* http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces
* Susan Herring, [http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html Managing Trolling in a Feminist Forum]

==Draft==

'''Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully''' (title)

Communication styles, like everything else, is a feminist issue. Moreover, having clear, respectful communications makes discussions effective & useful for readers and participants alike. So, here are a few tips & no-nos: (preamble)

Guidelines - need to be organized, clarified, rationalized as a system.

* Respond to the substance of the argument, not the speaker's identity and not the speaker's style.

* But if the speaker's identity or style are relevant to a meta-discussion then say so.

* Be aware when you are leaving the original topic and moving into meta-discussion / processing / pissing wars. Sometimes this is good: Seeing sexism or racism in a discussion and addressing it right then, head-on. But sometimes it's bad: Getting into pointless back-and-forth pissing wars about increasingly irrelevant minutiae, misunderstandings, what was said, etc.

* If you see yourself going meta, you should understand why you want to, very clearly. And before posting you should make a conscious decision that it is appropriate; it will further the discussion; it is in keeping with feminist principles of full & effective communications for all.

* Repeat: Self-awareness. Not knee-jerk responses. Anger is good, healthy, strong. Pissiness is annoying. If you have a righteous anger over a wrong that is being committed, express it! Voice your anger. Use strong language if you like or it's appropriate.

* Respect other people. Saying that a statement, an argument, or a worldview is fucked-up or sexist or racist is different from saying that someone is fucked-up or sexist or racist. Attempting to classify someone else is disrespectful to them.

* If someone is being disrespectful then don't tolerate it.

* Engaging in a pissing match with someone who is being disrespectful is not interesting to the rest of the world. Helping them figure out what they're doing wrong is useful. Pointing out to the forum moderators that they are inappropriate is useful.

* Don't engage in pissing wars.

** If your only response is basically "You're a --" or "No I'm not!" then you're not adding anything of substance to the discussion. Are you characterizing / defending / explaining your own statements, or are you talking about the subject of discussion and adding to it?

** If you feel the need to characterize / defend / explain your own statements, then you better understand why they were mischaracterized / attacked / misunderstood. That means understanding how you miscommunicated to begin with.

** If your response is directed to one person only then it's probably not interesting to everyone else even if you want them to hear it. Think about why you want to respond publicly to the comment. Is it because you feel insulted or aggrieved?

** Consider whether your response is going to add anything to the discussion, or just encourage the other person to come back with a "yes you are!"? Look down the long path of the discussion: Is it heading into a place where a reader will learn something?

* A sense of humor is good.

* A sense of humor is good. But if you're talking only sarcastically then there's a good chance you're over-simplifying the other position or engaging in strawman argument.

** If you're using sarcasm are you also adding something substantive to the debate?

* Explain what your point applies to. If your point is about the overall sense or tone then say so. If you agree with part of an argument but disagree with another part, then specify the points of disagreement as well as agreement, before detailing the points of disagreement.

* Effective communicators are generally not just adversarial: They seek to understand what the other person is saying, and why, and seek for the common ground on which there might be legitimate dispute.

* Generally, people represent themselves. They don't represent all of a fandom. They don't represent everyone else in a discussion group. They don't represent everyone in their gender, their ideology, their race, their class, their nationality. Don't try to speak for others and don't assign an individual's statements to other members of a group and don't assign other group members' statements to an individual.

** Don't start talking about "we" think this or "we" said this -- because who is the "we" anyway? And can you really accurately sum them up?

** And if you start out with "we" or "I" don't switch mid-way through.

* Don't mischaracterize what other people say: Don't put words in their mouths, don't suggest that they said something they didn't, don't reduce the complexity of their argument.

* If someone else is mischaracterizing your argument, do call them on it. But don't just call them on it. You should understand and be able to justify your explanation.

==Alternate [shorter, more general] Draft==

:1. Read carefully before you respond to a post or comment. Are you sure you understand what the other person is saying? Are you reading anything into the post or comment that isn’t there? Are you confusing the commenter with someone else in another thread or discussion?
:2. Think before you comment. Are you saying what you mean? Are you saying it clearly? Does your tone match what you’re trying to say? Are you implying anything you don’t want to imply? Are you using language that could be offensive or inflammatory? Remember, no one can hear your tone of voice or see your body language.
:3. Make your comments meaningful. If you disagree with someone, explain why. Name-calling is boring and pointless.
:4. Remember the difference between criticism of a person’s work and criticism of the person. Criticism, as in “literary criticism,” is analysis, not attack. Critically discussing gender in an author’s work is not the same as accusing the author of being a sexist. Pointing out concerns about a work isn’t the same as calling for that work to be banned. Bear this in mind both when you are criticizing and when you feel criticized.
:5. Try to keep to the original topic. If there’s a topic you’d like to see discussed, put it on your own blog and point to it in the comments, or write to one of us and suggest it. Or take the conversation to email.
:6. Take responsibility for keeping discussion civil. Treat others respectfully, even (especially!) if you disagree. Try to be constructive. If a conversation is growing heated, think about what you can to do calm things down. Apologize if you make a mistake.
:7. If you don’t understand the conversation, educate yourself. We have lots of resources about feminism and feminist sf. Please make use of them! They can help you strengthen and refine your own positions.

--[[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==warn once then ban (Dec 2006)==
I agree with Janet's suggestions. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 21:03, 19 December 2006 (PST)

Here is a suggested "warn once, then ban" policy to establish norms of respectful communication:

* No cussing people out directly
* No name-calling
* No racist epithets
* No criticising the person not the ideas in their writing

When this is violated by a blog author or commenter then any blog author can call it to a vote. We vote on the warning and in a second instance vote on a ban (or temporary suspension).

I would like to encourage openness and debate on the list. Maybe we can agree on this as a minimal group standard for responsibility in behavior.

Towards that end I propose voting first on whether to implement this policy or one like it.

--[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 21:02, 19 December 2006 (PST)

===votes & short descriptions===

* I '''VOTE YES''' to implement this one or one like it --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
* I also '''VOTE YES'''. --[[User:JLeland|Therem]] 15:38, 20 December 2006 (PST)
* I "VOTE YES" -- [[User:Debbie]], 21 December 2006
* Yes. [[User:Janet Lafler]], 23 December 2006

===longer discussions===

* Honestly I like all of these. We do need a statement of First Principles (FPs) by which we all operate, I think, so that none of us feel undue frustration. Then, I think there can be different views of the First Principles; different interpretations and applications and spellings out and case studies. So the other versions can also exist and people can be referred to any of them. The FPs are the basic groundrules for process under which we operate. (A fractal system where you can spend more and more time thinking about smaller and smaller pieces, because there's not enough of that on the Internet already. <g>) --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
* Oh - I think one thing that might be good would be if we bloggers each filled in the biography, or wrote a "page" about ourselves; I can link to that for the person's name. We can each explain our take on feminism, SF, communications styles, etc. That doesn't get out of the FPs, but allows us to implement our own interpretations. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 06:55, 20 December 2006 (PST)
:* Laura, where would you have us put these biographies? -- Debbie
::* Well there are two possible places. One -- on the blog when you log in, if you go to "Users", your profile information contains a space for "About yourself". I have to figure out how to enable that to show up. The second option is to write a "page" about yourself -- when you log in, if you go to "Write" the default is "write post", but there is also an option (at the top, under "write") for "write page"; then you can write something. Probably the "page" is better for longer biographies. People could include links to their other works, their mantras, whatever. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 19:57, 21 December 2006 (PST)
* While I do support the point about "civility" being a tool that those in power can use to silence or shame those out of power, at the same time, I know there are people who cannot function in a space that does not offer some protections. I very much hope that our guidelines will evolve and reshape themselves over time as our community grows more robust, and I also favor starting with ones like these. [Debbie]

[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]
[[Category:Communication Guidelines]]

Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog

2006-09-12T17:28:29Z

Janet Lafler: /* Tone, Format, Structure */

==Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?==

One thing that several people came up with was "should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?" rather than identifying a set of problems as "male behaviour" and identifying a set of problems as "non-feminist behaviour". Thoughts? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* I reiterate my opinion that rules are a dangerous substitute for political action. Rules must be universal and indiscriminately applicable to be considered fair. If they require exceptions, those exceptions must be codified, otherwise their enforcers rightfully face charges of hypocrisy. Political action must adapt to the circumstances. For instance, identical treatment of unequals may perpetuate inequality, because the baseline's situation relative to each party may differ. (Taxing the rich and the poor by the same amount still leaves the rich much more money than the poor.) Yet preferential treatment, or favouritism, can either further unbalance the power relationship between people, or rectify it. ''Who'' benefits, in order to achieve one outcome or the other, is a question of politics. Anti-feminists claim that women who favour women are selfish, and that this is ''wrong''. (Unfeminine. Lesbians. Man-haters. Separatists. And so forth.) This tactic discourages and vilifies women's liberation, and it is one of the most important forms of anti-feminist propaganda, because women favouring women jeopardises the fundation of patriarchy, which men's unrecompensed and unreciprocated access to women's time, labour and resources. On a feminist blog, what would be "fair" because it is equally applied to all can prove politically disastrous. (If you establish a rule to ban any poster for flaming someone else, you might keep "polite" anti-feminists and drive away justly infuriated feminists.) Civility is a product of political circumstances. Any change in politics will therefore entail a change in the nature of civility, and the rules of good behaviour have to be rewritten in consequence. The differences in case-by-case politics would make this unworkable, even for a tool as suited to frequent revisions as a Wiki entry. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 07:44, 12 September 2006 (PDT) ''(NB: I started writing this before you outlined the Talk page.)''

: The original problem identified by me, Debbie, Pam, and others is that identifying the category "male", "feminist", "nonfeminist", etc., is difficult and won't necessarily reach the problem that we're trying to reach. For instance, guidelines for men/women references a binary that many feminist/queer activists are actively trying to question. Guidelines for "feminists" are appealing to those of us who adopt the term "feminist" to describe our views, but some people with similar views don't adopt the term "feminist" for various reasons; see, e.g., Alice Walker and "womanist". The "I'm not a feminist but..." information is great for trying to recapture and reclaim the term feminist, but I personally do not want people to segregate themselves based on a label that has come, unfortunately, to be problematic for people of color, young people, and other people for various historical and political reasons.

: Hence, the suggestion that we address behaviors rather than addressing identity labels. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

::: And I'm not suggesting we make decisions based ''only'' on the identity of commenters. I'm saying that their behaviour must be evaluated in light of their political status, otherwise the inter-poster dynamics will be too abstracted for arbitration purposes. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 09:03, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

:: And furthermore, the elaboration of _rules_ tailored for various political categories was '''not''' ''my'' idea, so don't blame me for its failings, ''which I keep pointing out''. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 10:11, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should distinguish between feminist or political rage, or intemperate speech that furthers a useful political point; and hate speech, speech aimed at derailing conversations (trolls), speech unintentionally derailing conversations thru cluelessness, etc. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

:: (Not to get pedantic about this from layperson to lawyer, but...) Properly constructed guidelines can explain what types of behaviour fall under our scrutiny, but distinguishing the nature of a given speech is something people do. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 10:20, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* Really great idea to move the discussion here rather than email.

I liked what Kameron said: "Trolls get deleted; asshats who are just derailing conversations can be reeled in. If they refuse, shut them down. I suppose I'd just assumed this was what everybody was doing in the first place. And again: if you don't
want to engage with somebody, don't." It can't actually be assumed, which is why we're talking about it.

My preference is that trolls don't get deleted; they get left up , and disemvoweled. That way we all know who the trolls are, it serves as a warning, it doesn't erase the publicness of the fact that we got attacked, and it can function as public shaming.

The fuzzy area is "asshats who are just derailing". I tend to act on the side of engaging with them for a bit, before I put in that "just" in front of derailing. I understand there are problems with that. I'm in the middle of a nasty situtaion myself where a hostile divisive guy is targeting me and one of my communities; in fact I have been warned that the guy has made nice to my friends and tried to appear reasonable to them, in order to isolate me. So, if that happens here, we need to be on the alert for it. So that the moderates, or engage-the enemy-more-closely-ites, remember to watch our backs.

I like the idea of emphasizing "feminisms" and the positive slant on things. I am agreeing with Debbie, Pam, Kameron, basically. I think we have Ide and yonmei on the side of heavy moderation and banning. And pretty much the rest of us trying to figure out how to say that if anyone becomes a huge problem, we will deal with it when it comes, and till then we have "guidelines". One problem with that is that we all have different threshholds of "huge problem". For example Debbie's teachable moment person making Ide exasperated. Or -- worse -- putting another of us in the position of being The Unreasonable One. (See the "rewards for placating men" section of Tia's post on unfoggged.) I appreciate Ide's alertness to derailing, etc. and am learning a lot from it. a LOT. (Were we an actual guerrilla movement engaged in revolutionary politics or violence, instead of a blog, I would probably be right behind her. Ide, you are suited to be a feminist Che Guevara.) But I think we can and will outweigh any crap from commenters, by the sheer force of our engagement with ideas and with each other. For me the crucial line in the sand not to cross is not to let men be original posters here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 08:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

:: Does ''nobody'' remember the Pankhursts?! Also: I created a [[FSF Blog Moderation Log]]. By all means, let's keep a public record of offenders and our handling of them. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 10:11, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Disruptive behaviour==

People asking the same-old same-old questions, disrupting an interesting thread by challenging a basic point of feminism: do we want to point them at the guidelines and tell them "go read" or allow them to disrupt the thread further by responding to their points at length? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: Yes, any of us should be able to point someone to those guidelines (rules, readings, whatever) when inspired to do so. That could be out of a spirit of frustration ("you're wasting my time; go read this"), encouragement ("you've got some good ideas or a good point but you're missing some critical analyses; go read this"), or any other reason or combination of reasons. It's not a "do we want" because we are all individuals, ultimately, and if we're engaging in conversations as individuals, we will have our own levels, thresholds, and reasons for referring people to the guidelines. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:19, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Tone, Format, Structure==

Good writing should engage the reader. Ideally, I would think that the "guidelines" would be friendly, humorous, & brief, with links to more pages that include examples, etc. In practice, it might work this way: A conversation on a blog posting is progressing at a fairly high level of analysis with a lot of interesting feminist disagreement. A newbie comes along, and, in a non-hostile but clueless fashion, asks some fairly silly question. One of the bloggers who has been participating in the discussion shakes her head, rolls her eyes, and posts a response that says, "The current discussion is way beyond the issue you raise here. You should start by reading the Guidelines; see particularly #5, and the links that explain in detail." The guidelines are a fairly short rules-of-the-road kind of document that list w/ brief description common problems to avoid, common fallacies, basic behavioral & communication guidelines; whatever. Each includes links to a page with a lot more information. These pages can even have their own discussion threads which could remain open. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:37, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Fuck it, I guess I'm not going to get *any* work done today. What about a structure like:

# Critical thinking / reading / Communications 101
# Feminism 101
# Check Your Privilege
# Common Issues in Feminist SF Criticism: Educate yourself
# No hate speech (this can be outright negative language)

* Most of these can be styled with positive language, not negative language, although I think that the "no hate speech" is fine to do in outright negative language; it *is* a prohibition, a rule.
* Each of these could be a short blurb or paragraph, with sublists of issues where appropriate, and links, always, to pages that have more detailed, discursive guidelines and discussions (if appropriate).

-- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:00, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

How about a section called "We've heard that one before." This is where we could list things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist," and "Sexism hurts men, too," with a discussion of what is wrong (or point-missing) about these statements.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

I have added a set of general "communications 101" guidelines (not specifically feminist) [[http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines#Alternate_.5Bshorter.2C_more_general.5D_Draft|here]]. For easy readability, I think it's important that we keep these short and general.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==Additional resources==

* Guidelines for Participation (FSF Blog) draft - http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=19
* Call for Participants (FSF Blog) http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=18
* Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=33
* Communication Guidelines (FSF wiki) http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines
* Ginmar on invalidating women by telling them they're too angry, too crazy http://ginmar.livejournal.com/873536.html?nc=6
* Unfogged : for men on how to talk about/to feminists http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* How to Repress Discussions of Racism http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html
* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

FSFblog communication guidelines

2006-09-12T17:20:56Z

Janet Lafler: /* Draft */

Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog

2006-09-12T17:04:07Z

Janet Lafler: /* Proposed wording for "hate speech" prohibition */

==Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?==

One thing that several people came up with was "should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?" rather than identifying a set of problems as "male behaviour" and identifying a set of problems as "non-feminist behaviour". Thoughts? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* I reiterate my opinion that rules are a dangerous substitute for political action. Rules must be universal and indiscriminately applicable to be considered fair. If they require exceptions, those exceptions must be codified, otherwise their enforcers rightfully face charges of hypocrisy. Political action must adapt to the circumstances. For instance, identical treatment of unequals may perpetuate inequality, because the baseline's situation relative to each party may differ. (Taxing the rich and the poor by the same amount still leaves the rich much more money than the poor.) Yet preferential treatment, or favouritism, can either further unbalance the power relationship between people, or rectify it. ''Who'' benefits, in order to achieve one outcome or the other, is a question of politics. Anti-feminists claim that women who favour women are selfish, and that this is ''wrong''. (Unfeminine. Lesbians. Man-haters. Separatists. And so forth.) This tactic discourages and vilifies women's liberation, and it is one of the most important forms of anti-feminist propaganda, because women favouring women jeopardises the fundation of patriarchy, which men's unrecompensed and unreciprocated access to women's time, labour and resources. On a feminist blog, what would be "fair" because it is equally applied to all can prove politically disastrous. (If you establish a rule to ban any poster for flaming someone else, you might keep "polite" anti-feminists and drive away justly infuriated feminists.) Civility is a product of political circumstances. Any change in politics will therefore entail a change in the nature of civility, and the rules of good behaviour have to be rewritten in consequence. The differences in case-by-case politics would make this unworkable, even for a tool as suited to frequent revisions as a Wiki entry. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 07:44, 12 September 2006 (PDT) ''(NB: I started writing this before you outlined the Talk page.)''

: The original problem identified by me, Debbie, Pam, and others is that identifying the category "male", "feminist", "nonfeminist", etc., is difficult and won't necessarily reach the problem that we're trying to reach. For instance, guidelines for men/women references a binary that many feminist/queer activists are actively trying to question. Guidelines for "feminists" are appealing to those of us who adopt the term "feminist" to describe our views, but some people with similar views don't adopt the term "feminist" for various reasons; see, e.g., Alice Walker and "womanist". The "I'm not a feminist but..." information is great for trying to recapture and reclaim the term feminist, but I personally do not want people to segregate themselves based on a label that has come, unfortunately, to be problematic for people of color, young people, and other people for various historical and political reasons.

: Hence, the suggestion that we address behaviors rather than addressing identity labels. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

::: And I'm not suggesting we make decisions based ''only'' on the identity of commenters. I'm saying that their behaviour must be evaluated in light of their political status, otherwise the inter-poster dynamics will be too abstracted for arbitration purposes. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 09:03, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should distinguish between feminist or political rage, or intemperate speech that furthers a useful political point; and hate speech, speech aimed at derailing conversations (trolls), speech unintentionally derailing conversations thru cluelessness, etc. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* Really great idea to move the discussion here rather than email.

I liked what Kameron said: "Trolls get deleted; asshats who are just derailing conversations can be reeled in. If they refuse, shut them down. I suppose I'd just assumed this was what everybody was doing in the first place. And again: if you don't
want to engage with somebody, don't." It can't actually be assumed, which is why we're talking about it.

My preference is that trolls don't get deleted; they get left up , and disemvoweled. That way we all know who the trolls are, it serves as a warning, it doesn't erase the publicness of the fact that we got attacked, and it can function as public shaming.

The fuzzy area is "asshats who are just derailing". I tend to act on the side of engaging with them for a bit, before I put in that "just" in front of derailing. I understand there are problems with that. I'm in the middle of a nasty situtaion myself where a hostile divisive guy is targeting me and one of my communities; in fact I have been warned that the guy has made nice to my friends and tried to appear reasonable to them, in order to isolate me. So, if that happens here, we need to be on the alert for it. So that the moderates, or engage-the enemy-more-closely-ites, remember to watch our backs.

I like the idea of emphasizing "feminisms" and the positive slant on things. I am agreeing with Debbie, Pam, Kameron, basically. I think we have Ide and yonmei on the side of heavy moderation and banning. And pretty much the rest of us trying to figure out how to say that if anyone becomes a huge problem, we will deal with it when it comes, and till then we have "guidelines". One problem with that is that we all have different threshholds of "huge problem". For example Debbie's teachable moment person making Ide exasperated. Or -- worse -- putting another of us in the position of being The Unreasonable One. (See the "rewards for placating men" section of Tia's post on unfoggged.) I appreciate Ide's alertness to derailing, etc. and am learning a lot from it. a LOT. (Were we an actual guerrilla movement engaged in revolutionary politics or violence, instead of a blog, I would probably be right behind her. Ide, you are suited to be a feminist Che Guevara.) But I think we can and will outweigh any crap from commenters, by the sheer force of our engagement with ideas and with each other. For me the crucial line in the sand not to cross is not to let men be original posters here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 08:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Disruptive behaviour==

People asking the same-old same-old questions, disrupting an interesting thread by challenging a basic point of feminism: do we want to point them at the guidelines and tell them "go read" or allow them to disrupt the thread further by responding to their points at length? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: Yes, any of us should be able to point someone to those guidelines (rules, readings, whatever) when inspired to do so. That could be out of a spirit of frustration ("you're wasting my time; go read this"), encouragement ("you've got some good ideas or a good point but you're missing some critical analyses; go read this"), or any other reason or combination of reasons. It's not a "do we want" because we are all individuals, ultimately, and if we're engaging in conversations as individuals, we will have our own levels, thresholds, and reasons for referring people to the guidelines. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:19, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Tone, Format, Structure==

Good writing should engage the reader. Ideally, I would think that the "guidelines" would be friendly, humorous, & brief, with links to more pages that include examples, etc. In practice, it might work this way: A conversation on a blog posting is progressing at a fairly high level of analysis with a lot of interesting feminist disagreement. A newbie comes along, and, in a non-hostile but clueless fashion, asks some fairly silly question. One of the bloggers who has been participating in the discussion shakes her head, rolls her eyes, and posts a response that says, "The current discussion is way beyond the issue you raise here. You should start by reading the Guidelines; see particularly #5, and the links that explain in detail." The guidelines are a fairly short rules-of-the-road kind of document that list w/ brief description common problems to avoid, common fallacies, basic behavioral & communication guidelines; whatever. Each includes links to a page with a lot more information. These pages can even have their own discussion threads which could remain open. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:37, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Fuck it, I guess I'm not going to get *any* work done today. What about a structure like:

# Critical thinking / reading / Communications 101
# Feminism 101
# Check Your Privilege
# Common Issues in Feminist SF Criticism: Educate yourself
# No hate speech (this can be outright negative language)

* Most of these can be styled with positive language, not negative language, although I think that the "no hate speech" is fine to do in outright negative language; it *is* a prohibition, a rule.
* Each of these could be a short blurb or paragraph, with sublists of issues where appropriate, and links, always, to pages that have more detailed, discursive guidelines and discussions (if appropriate).

-- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:00, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

How about a section called "We've heard that one before." This is where we could list things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist," and "Sexism hurts men, too," with a discussion of what is wrong (or point-missing) about these statements.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==Additional resources==

* Guidelines for Participation (FSF Blog) draft - http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=19
* Call for Participants (FSF Blog) http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=18
* Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=33
* Communication Guidelines (FSF wiki) http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines
* Ginmar on invalidating women by telling them they're too angry, too crazy http://ginmar.livejournal.com/873536.html?nc=6
* Unfogged : for men on how to talk about/to feminists http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* How to Repress Discussions of Racism http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness" (2006 July 30) http://grannyvibe.blogspot.com/2006/07/defensiveness.html
* 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html
* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog

2006-09-12T17:03:18Z

Janet Lafler: Proposed wording for "hate speech" prohibition

==Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?==

One thing that several people came up with was "should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?" rather than identifying a set of problems as "male behaviour" and identifying a set of problems as "non-feminist behaviour". Thoughts? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* I reiterate my opinion that rules are a dangerous substitute for political action. Rules must be universal and indiscriminately applicable to be considered fair. If they require exceptions, those exceptions must be codified, otherwise their enforcers rightfully face charges of hypocrisy. Political action must adapt to the circumstances. For instance, identical treatment of unequals may perpetuate inequality, because the baseline's situation relative to each party may differ. (Taxing the rich and the poor by the same amount still leaves the rich much more money than the poor.) Yet preferential treatment, or favouritism, can either further unbalance the power relationship between people, or rectify it. ''Who'' benefits, in order to achieve one outcome or the other, is a question of politics. Anti-feminists claim that women who favour women are selfish, and that this is ''wrong''. (Unfeminine. Lesbians. Man-haters. Separatists. And so forth.) This tactic discourages and vilifies women's liberation, and it is one of the most important forms of anti-feminist propaganda, because women favouring women jeopardises the fundation of patriarchy, which men's unrecompensed and unreciprocated access to women's time, labour and resources. On a feminist blog, what would be "fair" because it is equally applied to all can prove politically disastrous. (If you establish a rule to ban any poster for flaming someone else, you might keep "polite" anti-feminists and drive away justly infuriated feminists.) Civility is a product of political circumstances. Any change in politics will therefore entail a change in the nature of civility, and the rules of good behaviour have to be rewritten in consequence. The differences in case-by-case politics would make this unworkable, even for a tool as suited to frequent revisions as a Wiki entry. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 07:44, 12 September 2006 (PDT) ''(NB: I started writing this before you outlined the Talk page.)''

: The original problem identified by me, Debbie, Pam, and others is that identifying the category "male", "feminist", "nonfeminist", etc., is difficult and won't necessarily reach the problem that we're trying to reach. For instance, guidelines for men/women references a binary that many feminist/queer activists are actively trying to question. Guidelines for "feminists" are appealing to those of us who adopt the term "feminist" to describe our views, but some people with similar views don't adopt the term "feminist" for various reasons; see, e.g., Alice Walker and "womanist". The "I'm not a feminist but..." information is great for trying to recapture and reclaim the term feminist, but I personally do not want people to segregate themselves based on a label that has come, unfortunately, to be problematic for people of color, young people, and other people for various historical and political reasons.

: Hence, the suggestion that we address behaviors rather than addressing identity labels. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

::: And I'm not suggesting we make decisions based ''only'' on the identity of commenters. I'm saying that their behaviour must be evaluated in light of their political status, otherwise the inter-poster dynamics will be too abstracted for arbitration purposes. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 09:03, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should distinguish between feminist or political rage, or intemperate speech that furthers a useful political point; and hate speech, speech aimed at derailing conversations (trolls), speech unintentionally derailing conversations thru cluelessness, etc. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* Really great idea to move the discussion here rather than email.

I liked what Kameron said: "Trolls get deleted; asshats who are just derailing conversations can be reeled in. If they refuse, shut them down. I suppose I'd just assumed this was what everybody was doing in the first place. And again: if you don't
want to engage with somebody, don't." It can't actually be assumed, which is why we're talking about it.

My preference is that trolls don't get deleted; they get left up , and disemvoweled. That way we all know who the trolls are, it serves as a warning, it doesn't erase the publicness of the fact that we got attacked, and it can function as public shaming.

The fuzzy area is "asshats who are just derailing". I tend to act on the side of engaging with them for a bit, before I put in that "just" in front of derailing. I understand there are problems with that. I'm in the middle of a nasty situtaion myself where a hostile divisive guy is targeting me and one of my communities; in fact I have been warned that the guy has made nice to my friends and tried to appear reasonable to them, in order to isolate me. So, if that happens here, we need to be on the alert for it. So that the moderates, or engage-the enemy-more-closely-ites, remember to watch our backs.

I like the idea of emphasizing "feminisms" and the positive slant on things. I am agreeing with Debbie, Pam, Kameron, basically. I think we have Ide and yonmei on the side of heavy moderation and banning. And pretty much the rest of us trying to figure out how to say that if anyone becomes a huge problem, we will deal with it when it comes, and till then we have "guidelines". One problem with that is that we all have different threshholds of "huge problem". For example Debbie's teachable moment person making Ide exasperated. Or -- worse -- putting another of us in the position of being The Unreasonable One. (See the "rewards for placating men" section of Tia's post on unfoggged.) I appreciate Ide's alertness to derailing, etc. and am learning a lot from it. a LOT. (Were we an actual guerrilla movement engaged in revolutionary politics or violence, instead of a blog, I would probably be right behind her. Ide, you are suited to be a feminist Che Guevara.) But I think we can and will outweigh any crap from commenters, by the sheer force of our engagement with ideas and with each other. For me the crucial line in the sand not to cross is not to let men be original posters here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 08:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Disruptive behaviour==

People asking the same-old same-old questions, disrupting an interesting thread by challenging a basic point of feminism: do we want to point them at the guidelines and tell them "go read" or allow them to disrupt the thread further by responding to their points at length? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: Yes, any of us should be able to point someone to those guidelines (rules, readings, whatever) when inspired to do so. That could be out of a spirit of frustration ("you're wasting my time; go read this"), encouragement ("you've got some good ideas or a good point but you're missing some critical analyses; go read this"), or any other reason or combination of reasons. It's not a "do we want" because we are all individuals, ultimately, and if we're engaging in conversations as individuals, we will have our own levels, thresholds, and reasons for referring people to the guidelines. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:19, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Tone, Format, Structure==

Good writing should engage the reader. Ideally, I would think that the "guidelines" would be friendly, humorous, & brief, with links to more pages that include examples, etc. In practice, it might work this way: A conversation on a blog posting is progressing at a fairly high level of analysis with a lot of interesting feminist disagreement. A newbie comes along, and, in a non-hostile but clueless fashion, asks some fairly silly question. One of the bloggers who has been participating in the discussion shakes her head, rolls her eyes, and posts a response that says, "The current discussion is way beyond the issue you raise here. You should start by reading the Guidelines; see particularly #5, and the links that explain in detail." The guidelines are a fairly short rules-of-the-road kind of document that list w/ brief description common problems to avoid, common fallacies, basic behavioral & communication guidelines; whatever. Each includes links to a page with a lot more information. These pages can even have their own discussion threads which could remain open. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:37, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Fuck it, I guess I'm not going to get *any* work done today. What about a structure like:

# Critical thinking / reading / Communications 101
# Feminism 101
# Check Your Privilege
# Common Issues in Feminist SF Criticism: Educate yourself
# No hate speech (this can be outright negative language)

* Most of these can be styled with positive language, not negative language, although I think that the "no hate speech" is fine to do in outright negative language; it *is* a prohibition, a rule.
* Each of these could be a short blurb or paragraph, with sublists of issues where appropriate, and links, always, to pages that have more detailed, discursive guidelines and discussions (if appropriate).

-- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:00, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

How about a section called "We've heard that one before." This is where we could list things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist," and "Sexism hurts men, too," with a discussion of what is wrong (or point-missing) about these statements.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==Additional resources==

* Guidelines for Participation (FSF Blog) draft - http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=19
* Call for Participants (FSF Blog) http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=18
* Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=33
* Communication Guidelines (FSF wiki) http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines
* Ginmar on invalidating women by telling them they're too angry, too crazy http://ginmar.livejournal.com/873536.html?nc=6
* Unfogged : for men on how to talk about/to feminists http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* How to Repress Discussions of Racism http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness" (2006 July 30) http://grannyvibe.blogspot.com/2006/07/defensiveness.html
* 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html
* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

== Proposed wording for "hate speech" prohibition ==

Don’t use hate speech. The American Heritage Dictionary defines hate speech as “Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.”. Examples include:
:• Use of epithets based on a person’s sex, race, sexual orientation, class, ethnic group, religion, etc.
:• Speech that threatens or condones violence against a particular group, e.g. “Women who get raped bring it on themselves”; [need another good example of a threat]
:• Speech that perpetuates myths about a particular group of people, e.g “Women can’t do math”; “Jews control the banks and the media.”

--[[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog

2006-09-12T16:49:25Z

Janet Lafler: /* Tone, Format, Structure */

==Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?==

One thing that several people came up with was "should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?" rather than identifying a set of problems as "male behaviour" and identifying a set of problems as "non-feminist behaviour". Thoughts? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* I reiterate my opinion that rules are a dangerous substitute for political action. Rules must be universal and indiscriminately applicable to be considered fair. If they require exceptions, those exceptions must be codified, otherwise their enforcers rightfully face charges of hypocrisy. Political action must adapt to the circumstances. For instance, identical treatment of unequals may perpetuate inequality, because the baseline's situation relative to each party may differ. (Taxing the rich and the poor by the same amount still leaves the rich much more money than the poor.) Yet preferential treatment, or favouritism, can either further unbalance the power relationship between people, or rectify it. ''Who'' benefits, in order to achieve one outcome or the other, is a question of politics. Anti-feminists claim that women who favour women are selfish, and that this is ''wrong''. (Unfeminine. Lesbians. Man-haters. Separatists. And so forth.) This tactic discourages and vilifies women's liberation, and it is one of the most important forms of anti-feminist propaganda, because women favouring women jeopardises the fundation of patriarchy, which men's unrecompensed and unreciprocated access to women's time, labour and resources. On a feminist blog, what would be "fair" because it is equally applied to all can prove politically disastrous. (If you establish a rule to ban any poster for flaming someone else, you might keep "polite" anti-feminists and drive away justly infuriated feminists.) Civility is a product of political circumstances. Any change in politics will therefore entail a change in the nature of civility, and the rules of good behaviour have to be rewritten in consequence. The differences in case-by-case politics would make this unworkable, even for a tool as suited to frequent revisions as a Wiki entry. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 07:44, 12 September 2006 (PDT) ''(NB: I started writing this before you outlined the Talk page.)''

: The original problem identified by me, Debbie, Pam, and others is that identifying the category "male", "feminist", "nonfeminist", etc., is difficult and won't necessarily reach the problem that we're trying to reach. For instance, guidelines for men/women references a binary that many feminist/queer activists are actively trying to question. Guidelines for "feminists" are appealing to those of us who adopt the term "feminist" to describe our views, but some people with similar views don't adopt the term "feminist" for various reasons; see, e.g., Alice Walker and "womanist". The "I'm not a feminist but..." information is great for trying to recapture and reclaim the term feminist, but I personally do not want people to segregate themselves based on a label that has come, unfortunately, to be problematic for people of color, young people, and other people for various historical and political reasons.

: Hence, the suggestion that we address behaviors rather than addressing identity labels. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

::: And I'm not suggesting we make decisions based ''only'' on the identity of commenters. I'm saying that their behaviour must be evaluated in light of their political status, otherwise the inter-poster dynamics will be too abstracted for arbitration purposes. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 09:03, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should distinguish between feminist or political rage, or intemperate speech that furthers a useful political point; and hate speech, speech aimed at derailing conversations (trolls), speech unintentionally derailing conversations thru cluelessness, etc. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* Really great idea to move the discussion here rather than email.

I liked what Kameron said: "Trolls get deleted; asshats who are just derailing conversations can be reeled in. If they refuse, shut them down. I suppose I'd just assumed this was what everybody was doing in the first place. And again: if you don't
want to engage with somebody, don't." It can't actually be assumed, which is why we're talking about it.

My preference is that trolls don't get deleted; they get left up , and disemvoweled. That way we all know who the trolls are, it serves as a warning, it doesn't erase the publicness of the fact that we got attacked, and it can function as public shaming.

The fuzzy area is "asshats who are just derailing". I tend to act on the side of engaging with them for a bit, before I put in that "just" in front of derailing. I understand there are problems with that. I'm in the middle of a nasty situtaion myself where a hostile divisive guy is targeting me and one of my communities; in fact I have been warned that the guy has made nice to my friends and tried to appear reasonable to them, in order to isolate me. So, if that happens here, we need to be on the alert for it. So that the moderates, or engage-the enemy-more-closely-ites, remember to watch our backs.

I like the idea of emphasizing "feminisms" and the positive slant on things. I am agreeing with Debbie, Pam, Kameron, basically. I think we have Ide and yonmei on the side of heavy moderation and banning. And pretty much the rest of us trying to figure out how to say that if anyone becomes a huge problem, we will deal with it when it comes, and till then we have "guidelines". One problem with that is that we all have different threshholds of "huge problem". For example Debbie's teachable moment person making Ide exasperated. Or -- worse -- putting another of us in the position of being The Unreasonable One. (See the "rewards for placating men" section of Tia's post on unfoggged.) I appreciate Ide's alertness to derailing, etc. and am learning a lot from it. a LOT. (Were we an actual guerrilla movement engaged in revolutionary politics or violence, instead of a blog, I would probably be right behind her. Ide, you are suited to be a feminist Che Guevara.) But I think we can and will outweigh any crap from commenters, by the sheer force of our engagement with ideas and with each other. For me the crucial line in the sand not to cross is not to let men be original posters here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 08:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Disruptive behaviour==

People asking the same-old same-old questions, disrupting an interesting thread by challenging a basic point of feminism: do we want to point them at the guidelines and tell them "go read" or allow them to disrupt the thread further by responding to their points at length? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: Yes, any of us should be able to point someone to those guidelines (rules, readings, whatever) when inspired to do so. That could be out of a spirit of frustration ("you're wasting my time; go read this"), encouragement ("you've got some good ideas or a good point but you're missing some critical analyses; go read this"), or any other reason or combination of reasons. It's not a "do we want" because we are all individuals, ultimately, and if we're engaging in conversations as individuals, we will have our own levels, thresholds, and reasons for referring people to the guidelines. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:19, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Tone, Format, Structure==

Good writing should engage the reader. Ideally, I would think that the "guidelines" would be friendly, humorous, & brief, with links to more pages that include examples, etc. In practice, it might work this way: A conversation on a blog posting is progressing at a fairly high level of analysis with a lot of interesting feminist disagreement. A newbie comes along, and, in a non-hostile but clueless fashion, asks some fairly silly question. One of the bloggers who has been participating in the discussion shakes her head, rolls her eyes, and posts a response that says, "The current discussion is way beyond the issue you raise here. You should start by reading the Guidelines; see particularly #5, and the links that explain in detail." The guidelines are a fairly short rules-of-the-road kind of document that list w/ brief description common problems to avoid, common fallacies, basic behavioral & communication guidelines; whatever. Each includes links to a page with a lot more information. These pages can even have their own discussion threads which could remain open. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:37, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Fuck it, I guess I'm not going to get *any* work done today. What about a structure like:

# Critical thinking / reading / Communications 101
# Feminism 101
# Check Your Privilege
# Common Issues in Feminist SF Criticism: Educate yourself
# No hate speech (this can be outright negative language)

* Most of these can be styled with positive language, not negative language, although I think that the "no hate speech" is fine to do in outright negative language; it *is* a prohibition, a rule.
* Each of these could be a short blurb or paragraph, with sublists of issues where appropriate, and links, always, to pages that have more detailed, discursive guidelines and discussions (if appropriate).

-- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:00, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

How about a section called "We've heard that one before." This is where we could list things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist," and "Sexism hurts men, too," with a discussion of what is wrong (or point-missing) about these statements.

-- [[User:Janet Lafler|JL]]

==Additional resources==

* Guidelines for Participation (FSF Blog) draft - http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=19
* Call for Participants (FSF Blog) http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=18
* Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=33
* Communication Guidelines (FSF wiki) http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines
* Ginmar on invalidating women by telling them they're too angry, too crazy http://ginmar.livejournal.com/873536.html?nc=6
* Unfogged : for men on how to talk about/to feminists http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* How to Repress Discussions of Racism http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness" (2006 July 30) http://grannyvibe.blogspot.com/2006/07/defensiveness.html
* 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html
* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog

2006-09-12T16:28:48Z

Janet Lafler: /* Tone, Format, Structure */

==Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?==

One thing that several people came up with was "should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all?" rather than identifying a set of problems as "male behaviour" and identifying a set of problems as "non-feminist behaviour". Thoughts? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* I reiterate my opinion that rules are a dangerous substitute for political action. Rules must be universal and indiscriminately applicable to be considered fair. If they require exceptions, those exceptions must be codified, otherwise their enforcers rightfully face charges of hypocrisy. Political action must adapt to the circumstances. For instance, identical treatment of unequals may perpetuate inequality, because the baseline's situation relative to each party may differ. (Taxing the rich and the poor by the same amount still leaves the rich much more money than the poor.) Yet preferential treatment, or favouritism, can either further unbalance the power relationship between people, or rectify it. ''Who'' benefits, in order to achieve one outcome or the other, is a question of politics. Anti-feminists claim that women who favour women are selfish, and that this is ''wrong''. (Unfeminine. Lesbians. Man-haters. Separatists. And so forth.) This tactic discourages and vilifies women's liberation, and it is one of the most important forms of anti-feminist propaganda, because women favouring women jeopardises the fundation of patriarchy, which men's unrecompensed and unreciprocated access to women's time, labour and resources. On a feminist blog, what would be "fair" because it is equally applied to all can prove politically disastrous. (If you establish a rule to ban any poster for flaming someone else, you might keep "polite" anti-feminists and drive away justly infuriated feminists.) Civility is a product of political circumstances. Any change in politics will therefore entail a change in the nature of civility, and the rules of good behaviour have to be rewritten in consequence. The differences in case-by-case politics would make this unworkable, even for a tool as suited to frequent revisions as a Wiki entry. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 07:44, 12 September 2006 (PDT) ''(NB: I started writing this before you outlined the Talk page.)''

: The original problem identified by me, Debbie, Pam, and others is that identifying the category "male", "feminist", "nonfeminist", etc., is difficult and won't necessarily reach the problem that we're trying to reach. For instance, guidelines for men/women references a binary that many feminist/queer activists are actively trying to question. Guidelines for "feminists" are appealing to those of us who adopt the term "feminist" to describe our views, but some people with similar views don't adopt the term "feminist" for various reasons; see, e.g., Alice Walker and "womanist". The "I'm not a feminist but..." information is great for trying to recapture and reclaim the term feminist, but I personally do not want people to segregate themselves based on a label that has come, unfortunately, to be problematic for people of color, young people, and other people for various historical and political reasons.

: Hence, the suggestion that we address behaviors rather than addressing identity labels. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

::: And I'm not suggesting we make decisions based ''only'' on the identity of commenters. I'm saying that their behaviour must be evaluated in light of their political status, otherwise the inter-poster dynamics will be too abstracted for arbitration purposes. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 09:03, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should distinguish between feminist or political rage, or intemperate speech that furthers a useful political point; and hate speech, speech aimed at derailing conversations (trolls), speech unintentionally derailing conversations thru cluelessness, etc. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:31, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

* Really great idea to move the discussion here rather than email.

I liked what Kameron said: "Trolls get deleted; asshats who are just derailing conversations can be reeled in. If they refuse, shut them down. I suppose I'd just assumed this was what everybody was doing in the first place. And again: if you don't
want to engage with somebody, don't." It can't actually be assumed, which is why we're talking about it.

My preference is that trolls don't get deleted; they get left up , and disemvoweled. That way we all know who the trolls are, it serves as a warning, it doesn't erase the publicness of the fact that we got attacked, and it can function as public shaming.

The fuzzy area is "asshats who are just derailing". I tend to act on the side of engaging with them for a bit, before I put in that "just" in front of derailing. I understand there are problems with that. I'm in the middle of a nasty situtaion myself where a hostile divisive guy is targeting me and one of my communities; in fact I have been warned that the guy has made nice to my friends and tried to appear reasonable to them, in order to isolate me. So, if that happens here, we need to be on the alert for it. So that the moderates, or engage-the enemy-more-closely-ites, remember to watch our backs.

I like the idea of emphasizing "feminisms" and the positive slant on things. I am agreeing with Debbie, Pam, Kameron, basically. I think we have Ide and yonmei on the side of heavy moderation and banning. And pretty much the rest of us trying to figure out how to say that if anyone becomes a huge problem, we will deal with it when it comes, and till then we have "guidelines". One problem with that is that we all have different threshholds of "huge problem". For example Debbie's teachable moment person making Ide exasperated. Or -- worse -- putting another of us in the position of being The Unreasonable One. (See the "rewards for placating men" section of Tia's post on unfoggged.) I appreciate Ide's alertness to derailing, etc. and am learning a lot from it. a LOT. (Were we an actual guerrilla movement engaged in revolutionary politics or violence, instead of a blog, I would probably be right behind her. Ide, you are suited to be a feminist Che Guevara.) But I think we can and will outweigh any crap from commenters, by the sheer force of our engagement with ideas and with each other. For me the crucial line in the sand not to cross is not to let men be original posters here. --[[User:Liz Henry|Liz Henry]] 08:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Disruptive behaviour==

People asking the same-old same-old questions, disrupting an interesting thread by challenging a basic point of feminism: do we want to point them at the guidelines and tell them "go read" or allow them to disrupt the thread further by responding to their points at length? [[User:Yonmei|Yonmei]] 06:46, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

: Yes, any of us should be able to point someone to those guidelines (rules, readings, whatever) when inspired to do so. That could be out of a spirit of frustration ("you're wasting my time; go read this"), encouragement ("you've got some good ideas or a good point but you're missing some critical analyses; go read this"), or any other reason or combination of reasons. It's not a "do we want" because we are all individuals, ultimately, and if we're engaging in conversations as individuals, we will have our own levels, thresholds, and reasons for referring people to the guidelines. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:19, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

==Tone, Format, Structure==

Good writing should engage the reader. Ideally, I would think that the "guidelines" would be friendly, humorous, & brief, with links to more pages that include examples, etc. In practice, it might work this way: A conversation on a blog posting is progressing at a fairly high level of analysis with a lot of interesting feminist disagreement. A newbie comes along, and, in a non-hostile but clueless fashion, asks some fairly silly question. One of the bloggers who has been participating in the discussion shakes her head, rolls her eyes, and posts a response that says, "The current discussion is way beyond the issue you raise here. You should start by reading the Guidelines; see particularly #5, and the links that explain in detail." The guidelines are a fairly short rules-of-the-road kind of document that list w/ brief description common problems to avoid, common fallacies, basic behavioral & communication guidelines; whatever. Each includes links to a page with a lot more information. These pages can even have their own discussion threads which could remain open. -- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 08:37, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

Fuck it, I guess I'm not going to get *any* work done today. What about a structure like:

# Critical thinking / reading / Communications 101
# Feminism 101
# Check Your Privilege
# Common Issues in Feminist SF Criticism: Educate yourself
# No hate speech (this can be outright negative language)

* Most of these can be styled with positive language, not negative language, although I think that the "no hate speech" is fine to do in outright negative language; it *is* a prohibition, a rule.
* Each of these could be a short blurb or paragraph, with sublists of issues where appropriate, and links, always, to pages that have more detailed, discursive guidelines and discussions (if appropriate).

-- [[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 09:00, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

How about a section called "We've heard that one before." This is where we could list things like "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist," and "Sexism hurts men, too," with a discussion of what is wrong (or point-missing) about these statements.

==Additional resources==

* Guidelines for Participation (FSF Blog) draft - http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=19
* Call for Participants (FSF Blog) http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=18
* Communications 101: How to Argue Effectively & Respectfully http://blogs.feministsf.net/?page_id=33
* Communication Guidelines (FSF wiki) http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Communication_Guidelines
* Ginmar on invalidating women by telling them they're too angry, too crazy http://ginmar.livejournal.com/873536.html?nc=6
* Unfogged : for men on how to talk about/to feminists http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
* The WisCon moderators' rules might be of use.
* Something to be gleaned from [http://roar-of-comics.blogspot.com/2006/06/flame-on.html this analysis] of weird & inappropriate communications on the part of commenter?
* How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/
* How to Repress Discussions of Racism http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
* Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness" (2006 July 30) http://grannyvibe.blogspot.com/2006/07/defensiveness.html
* 12 Helpful Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces http://community.livejournal.com/feminist/1362470.html
* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml