Log Posting Standards

Jumpscare

At this point, I can’t tell if people are being sarcastic.

STD

At the risk of just reiterating what others have said, I have to say I very much disagree with removing the log. Trusting individual actors on the board to make their own decisions regarding something by seeing the evidence for themselves is better than just having someone say ‘just trust us, you didn’t want to see it’.

Which wasn’t actually the case here, but the precedent can easily lead to such excuses in the future. The removal of the log might not be a slippery slope, but it sure as hell is a well waxed one.

@Pavel said in Log Posting Standards:

@hellfrog said in Log Posting Standards:

What difference does it make? I’m asking sincerely.

The main benefit that I can see, and it’s a slim one, is to potentially remove the need for anyone to have to assume intent, context, who it’s from, etc.

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than having this same conversation again and again.

But won’t you just be having the same conversation all over again anyway, only now it will be about if the reason the log was posted stated was sufficient for the log to stay up?

While I definitely think providing some kind of reasoning as to why an actor is posting a log is helpful and should be encouraged, I don’t think requiring it helps in any way. It’s just an extra bit one has to tack on. Perhaps not onerous, but it’s just one thing that pointlessly bureaucratizes something that should be easy.

I’m also not sure if requiring anonymizing the log is useful, either. As stated by others, the actors involved in the scene were easily discernible by the scene context and MU* involved. Someone without that context or knowledge of the particular MU* wouldn’t know who these characters are anyway, and those that do would be able to figure it out pretty easily. Again, I don’t know what you get by requiring this other than more pointless bureaucracy.

Pavel

Now that I’m more free to express my opinion, I want to add a more personal note.

Being told that I’m condoning harassment and contributing to the victimisation of someone because I didn’t immediately see things from someone else’s point of view? Utterly disgraceful and condescending, and I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice.

“Admin should be able to make judgements on things” well we did, and you wailed at us because our judgement was different to yours.

I’m not saying you have to agree with every decision being made, but if you demand people see things from your point of view then you need to try your damnedest to see it from theirs.

The whole point of that admin team is that you didn’t really need to trust us. We had really simple rules, and it was really obvious when they were broken. It was basically automatic, that was the whole point.

You don’t get to act agog and aghast when that automation goes against something you want. It’s a despicable double standard.

GF

@Meg hey, I agree. I’m the rabid anarchist who kept trying to propose that this forum (and MSB before it) should be ruled by popular consensus rather than an elevated class of privileged individuals, but I lost that argument; and to be fair, though I’ve disagreed with some of their rulings, I haven’t had reason to lose faith that they’re of good conscience and doing their best. So, hell, if we’re going to give them the job, then at some point we gotta trust them to do it.

KarmaBum

@Pavel said in Log Posting Standards:

Being told that I’m condoning harassment and contributing to the victimisation of someone because I didn’t immediately see things from someone else’s point of view? Utterly disgraceful and condescending, and I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice.

That is pretty shitty.

I don’t agree with taking the log down, but I don’t think you’re bad humans with bad intentions for making that decision.

And I really am sorry if I’m coming on strongly and making things seem personal. It’s really truly seriously not.

I don’t like the SJWs swooping in and saving us all from everything all the time. It’s tedious.

But I don’t think you guys are suxx for doing what you gotta do to keep the peace.

Pavel

@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:

@Pavel said in Log Posting Standards:

Being told that I’m condoning harassment and contributing to the victimisation of someone because I didn’t immediately see things from someone else’s point of view? Utterly disgraceful and condescending, and I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice.

That is pretty shitty.

It’s part of the gig, especially when dealing with strong personalities as we’ve got here. But it’s still a kick in the balls and a slap to the face.

The double standard in behaviour is also stifling. If I, with my admin tag, got worked up, posted in all caps, decrying something or whatever, I’d be chastised for it. There have been numerous occasions where I’d have to pause, sit and chill, and then reply calmly and measuredly. Which is, frankly, right. Calm and measured.

Where’s that same consideration when admins are trying to explain their reasoning? We’re people too. We’re not enlightened beings, we’re not magic. We feel things, but we’re not allowed to tell you to calm the fuck down and act like an adult.

hellfrog

The emotional manipulation can’t be a tipping point on things. I’m actually upset (the irony) that it seems like it was, in this decision. It’s very, very easy to end up on the wrong side of. Then it’s suddenly not decisions we don’t agree with, it’s people being rape apologists and victimizing the innocent and enabling harassers and triggering trauma and what the fuck is wrong with you if you don’t see it that way?

Pavel

@STD said in Log Posting Standards:

But won’t you just be having the same conversation all over again anyway, only now it will be about if the reason the log was posted stated was sufficient for the log to stay up?

Yes and no. With some context given, it’s potentially easier for admin to make a judgement that people will understand if not agree with.

Jumpscare

@Pavel @hellfrog
I’ve voiced my opinion for the log to be taken down, but I don’t feel like I fit into the general characterization made within either of your posts. I’ve tried my best to make my posts as thought-out as possible, and I haven’t attacked anyone for any decision they’ve made.

I’m unable to discern what is serious and what is sarcasm in this thread, so I’m bowing out.

Tez

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

Tez

@Tez FWIW, I lean toward only wanting to consider it in the case of C. And maybe B/D, which is what this temporary removal has been.

Testament

@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

A: No. Deal with it.
B: Contextual, but at least remove names
C : Yes,
D : No

ETA: Thought over my responses a bit more/

bear_necessities

@Tez I think honestly that is a much harder decision that’s going to require a case-by-case evaluation by the admin team. In this situation, I think if the other party involved came and said “hey I didn’t give permission for this log to be posted and it makes me uncomfortable” then I would want to see it removed? But I don’t think we should be regularly removing logs.

I would not want to see logs removed because it made a bystander uncomfortable - we’re all going to have different comfort levels and nobody’s comfort level should dictate the content that someone else can read.

Pavel

@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

I think outright removal should be a last resort. Strip it down to exclude bystanders and identifying info from the victim of the actions. If that doesn’t work then consider removal.

But I also think there’s room for public interest to take some level of priority.

Meg

Honestly, I think of BMD as a one party consent state, if I were relating it to anything. Only one person needs to consent to the log being posted, that was involved in the log.

Roz

@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;

No.

b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;

Anonymize bystander involvement, sure, but no – can you imagine if someone were posting a log of someone being awful to them, and some random person who also happened to be in the scene was like “no please take down this log”? No.

c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;

I’d rather anonymize than remove but if a victim of the actions requested then yeah I’d say it has weight to consider.

d) A bystander

Someone not even involved? No. Not unless it’s people being like – “hey staff someone just posted a log full of porn” where it’s – you know, content that just full stop probably shouldn’t be on the board type of thing.

KarmaBum

a) The person it was posted to call out;
“I wasn’t posting it to call anyone out! I’m just clearing my name!!”

b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
Remove the poses in question. If they’re just bystanders, they probably don’t factor in. Summarize if needed.

c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
“My name is Macha and this log makes me uncomfortable.”

d) A bystander
I think that’s what happened here and it clearly wasn’t universally well-received.

e) Remember where we are
Once upon a time, the Rough & Rowdy (or WORA, or whatever we called it) section of the forum was where the gloves came off. We have definitely tempered our behavior over the years, grown out of slinging racial epithets at each other. But this is still an opt-in aspect of an opt-in hobby.

You’re not required to be here.

You’re not required to read anything.

Logout. Close the window.

Pavel

I’d also say that if the log is publicly available (say an Ares scene, or posted to a wiki, or whatever else) then it’s fair game without the consent of anyone involved.

ETA: Also, use the spoiler tag. I installed it for a reason.

hellfrog

@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

a) no
b) no
c) probably?
d) no

@bear_necessities said in Log Posting Standards:

nobody’s comfort level should dictate the content that someone else can read.

If it isn’t breaking the rules of the forum, it should not be removed unless it’s requested by the victim.

STD

@Tez

I would not support the removal of any logs for any reason, except for spam. If, as Pyrephox has said, someone keeps posting logs to gum up the forum or individual posts, then cutting the spam (and banning the account) seems reasonable. Like most gray areas, there’s no hard and fast rule for what constitutes spam, though, so it’d be up to admin fiat on a case-by-case basis.

I think that’d be better than trying to head off this situation by requiring posted context since it wouldn’t stop it anyway (the spammer would just put in bullshit reasons why they’re posting the logs) and still would require an admin fiat ruling eventually.