Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog - Revision history

Lquilter: Protected "Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog": spam ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

2010-02-28T17:41:12Z

Protected "Talk:Commenting Rules for the FSF Blog": spam ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:41, 28 February 2010
(No difference)

Lquilter: Reverted edits by 89.107.104.120 (Talk) to last revision by 208.64.187.190

2010-02-28T17:39:23Z

Reverted edits by 89.107.104.120 (Talk) to last revision by 208.64.187.190

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 28 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~g1m8DC~~ <a ~~href=~~"~~http~~://~~eiccpwfzueav~~.~~com/~~"~~>eiccpwfzueav</~~a>, [~~url=http~~:~~//gmmmjbpmojlf~~.~~com/~~]~~gmmmjbpmojlf~~[~~/url~~], [~~link=http~~:~~//nqjehbdwcqpq~~.~~com/~~]~~nqjehbdwcqpq~~[~~/link~~], ~~http~~:~~//guxuymkzdbcd~~.~~com/~~		==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)

			::: I see that my positioning made it look like that comment related specifically or just to Ide's comment; I saw it more as a response to Yonmei's original comment. I wasn't trying to imply anything about "rules" being Ide's idea. I imagine it was just convenient shorthand phrasing that was put in without much thought as to distinctions between "rules", "guidelines", etc. It was productive because it has given us something to react to. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:58, 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 '''permit their readers to''' 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)

			::: Right on. One amendment (in bold) should make this more accurate ... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:56, 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==		==Disruptive behaviour==

89.107.104.120: /* Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all? */

2010-02-28T16:27:02Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 28 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==Should there be~~ a ~~set of guidelines that apply to all?=~~=		g1m8DC <a href="http://eiccpwfzueav.com/">eiccpwfzueav</a>, [url=http://gmmmjbpmojlf.com/]gmmmjbpmojlf[/url], [link=http://nqjehbdwcqpq.com/]nqjehbdwcqpq[/link], http://guxuymkzdbcd.com/

	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)~~

	~~::: I see that my positioning made it look like that comment related specifically or just to Ide's comment; I saw it more as a response to Yonmei's original comment~~. I wasn't trying to imply anything about "rules" being Ide's idea. I imagine it was just convenient shorthand phrasing that was put in without much thought as to distinctions between "rules", "guidelines", etc. It was productive because it has given us something to react to. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]~~] 14:58, 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 '''permit their readers to''' 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)

	~~::: Right on. One amendment (in bold) should make this more accurate ... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:56, 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==		==Disruptive behaviour==

208.64.187.190: Undo revision 34284 by 79.125.2.118 (Talk)

2010-02-24T04:03:19Z

Undo revision 34284 by 79.125.2.118 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 23 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~ZvryYQ~~ <a ~~href=~~"~~http~~://~~brkvqncukapf~~.~~com/~~"~~>brkvqncukapf</~~a>, [~~url=http~~:~~//yhiylkcsqaqe~~.~~com/~~]~~yhiylkcsqaqe~~[~~/url~~], [~~link=http~~:~~//ofgxfhwzrwxp~~.~~com/~~]~~ofgxfhwzrwxp~~[~~/link~~], ~~http~~:~~//uaksptpssxwa~~.~~com/~~		==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)

			::: I see that my positioning made it look like that comment related specifically or just to Ide's comment; I saw it more as a response to Yonmei's original comment. I wasn't trying to imply anything about "rules" being Ide's idea. I imagine it was just convenient shorthand phrasing that was put in without much thought as to distinctions between "rules", "guidelines", etc. It was productive because it has given us something to react to. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:58, 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 '''permit their readers to''' 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)

			::: Right on. One amendment (in bold) should make this more accurate ... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:56, 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==		==Disruptive behaviour==

79.125.2.118: ZvryYQ brkvqncukapf, [url=http://yhiylkcsqaqe.com/]yhiylkcsqaqe[/url], [link=http://ofgxfhwzrwxp.com/]ofgxfhwzrwxp[/link], http://uaksptpssxwa.com/

2010-02-22T12:38:57Z

ZvryYQ <a href="http://brkvqncukapf.com/">brkvqncukapf</a>, [url=http://yhiylkcsqaqe.com/]yhiylkcsqaqe[/url], [link=http://ofgxfhwzrwxp.com/]ofgxfhwzrwxp[/link], http://uaksptpssxwa.com/

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:38, 22 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==Should there be~~ a ~~set of guidelines that apply to all?=~~=		ZvryYQ <a href="http://brkvqncukapf.com/">brkvqncukapf</a>, [url=http://yhiylkcsqaqe.com/]yhiylkcsqaqe[/url], [link=http://ofgxfhwzrwxp.com/]ofgxfhwzrwxp[/link], http://uaksptpssxwa.com/

	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)~~

	~~::: I see that my positioning made it look like that comment related specifically or just to Ide's comment; I saw it more as a response to Yonmei's original comment~~. I wasn't trying to imply anything about "rules" being Ide's idea. I imagine it was just convenient shorthand phrasing that was put in without much thought as to distinctions between "rules", "guidelines", etc. It was productive because it has given us something to react to. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]~~] 14:58, 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 '''permit their readers to''' 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)

	~~::: Right on. One amendment (in bold) should make this more accurate ... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:56, 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==		==Disruptive behaviour==

Lquilter: /* Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all? */

2006-09-12T21:58:45Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 12 September 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:: 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)		:: 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)

			::: I see that my positioning made it look like that comment related specifically or just to Ide's comment; I saw it more as a response to Yonmei's original comment. I wasn't trying to imply anything about "rules" being Ide's idea. I imagine it was just convenient shorthand phrasing that was put in without much thought as to distinctions between "rules", "guidelines", etc. It was productive because it has given us something to react to. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:58, 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 '''permit their readers to''' 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)		: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should '''permit their readers to''' 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)

Lquilter: /* Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all? */

2006-09-12T21:56:08Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 12 September 2006
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:: 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)		:: 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)		: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should '''permit their readers to''' 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)		:: (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)

			::: Right on. One amendment (in bold) should make this more accurate ... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

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

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

2006-09-12T17:28:29Z

Tone, Format, Structure

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 12 September 2006
Line 54:		Line 54:

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

Yonmei: Removed broken link "* Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness"" This list seems to have been c&p'd in without anyone checking if the links still worked.

2006-09-12T17:22:09Z

Removed broken link "* Granny Gets a Vibrator: "Defensiveness"" This list seems to have been c&p'd in without anyone checking if the links still worked.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 12 September 2006
Line 69:		Line 69:
	* 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 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		* 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		* 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		* Male Privilege Checklist http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html
	* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml		* Yes, You Are (a feminist) essay http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml

Ide Cyan: /* Should there be a set of guidelines that apply to all? */

2006-09-12T17:20:13Z

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 12 September 2006
Line 15:		Line 15:
	: 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)		: 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)

	:: Properly constructed guidelines can explain what ~~kinds~~ of behaviour		:: (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.		* Really great idea to move the discussion here rather than email.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 12 September 2006
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:: 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)		:: 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)

			::: I see that my positioning made it look like that comment related specifically or just to Ide's comment; I saw it more as a response to Yonmei's original comment. I wasn't trying to imply anything about "rules" being Ide's idea. I imagine it was just convenient shorthand phrasing that was put in without much thought as to distinctions between "rules", "guidelines", etc. It was productive because it has given us something to react to. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:58, 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 '''permit their readers to''' 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)		: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should '''permit their readers to''' 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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 12 September 2006
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:: 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)		:: 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)		: As for Ide's comment, I don't disagree; but I would say, let us see where we get. Properly constructed "guidelines" should '''permit their readers to''' 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)		:: (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)

			::: Right on. One amendment (in bold) should make this more accurate ... --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 14:56, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

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