Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Log Posting Standards
-
On the topic of logs in general, and perhaps this log in particular, I would want moderation regarding them to be without concern for the contents of the log.
If we are to have serious discussions about abusive, manipulative, or predatory people and their impacts – and to judge their validity – then we need access to evidence and counter-evidence if it is offered, even if the contents of the log are potentially horrifying.I would therefore establish three standards:
- Logs posted must have some context as to their posting if the context is unclear from the thread. It need not be true, noble, or other ideals but must be present.
- Logs containing anything that a television show or a movie would require a rating higher than PG to show must be behind a spoiler tag with trauma/content warnings visible.
- The poster must anonymise the logs as much as is practical without removing context-relevant information. Replacing character names with player monikers, and so forth.
I don’t believe that these standards are arduous, nor subjective, enough to cause problems.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:
How do you guys feel about asking people to provide context for posted logs?
What difference does it make? I’m asking sincerely. Because I think if it were Macha who posted that log (I don’t think it was), and she said “I’m posting this to give context so that people can see my side of things”, that reasoning would be disbelieved and people would still assume her intention.
fr fr
(she/her) -
@Tez I don’t understand how it will help.
Macha coulda just been like “this is here to show how innocent I am” and then it would pass your muster, no?
Regardless, I think retroactively applying a new rule in this instance is a bad look.
edit: quit stealing all my thoughts and saying them better @hellfrog
-
@Tez said in Log Posting Standards:
How do you guys feel about asking people to provide context for posted logs?
I mean, ok but how does that prevent someone from harassing somebody? I can easily make up a context, and again this log has already been posted once already and we have no context as to whether or not the other person involved feels any one way about this. I hope they were asked before the log got posted but I don’t see the need to demand context for posting a log either
-
@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.
-
@hellfrog said in Log Posting Standards:
In the absence of stated intentions or feelings, we are just ascribing them.
Yes. People who intend to harass others very rarely preface their forum posts by stating, “FYI, my intention in writing this is to harass one or more people.” We’re kind of stuck inferring intent from method and outcome.
So, people have to meet some standard of noble intention to be able to post logs?
I’d personally settle for not outing someone whose identity was protected in the previously posted, nearly identical version of the log already available. Don’t really care about nobility.
What if someone said “I am posting this to show that x was not solely to blame”?
That would have helped me personally, if it had happened. It didn’t happen, though.
They have to be willing to engage and actively defend themselves?
I may have been skimming but I don’t remember anyone saying that.
We decide what is humiliating or not for other people?
There are quotes on this board of people saying they found it traumatic to read.
Only ‘victims’ or gamerunners can post logs?
I don’t remember anyone suggesting that, either.
What if a gamerunner is posting a log but some of us feel the intention is to humiliate someone?
Then presumably we would look at the evidence to support such a conclusion, and act based on an analysis of that evidence.
What if the person we think it intends to humiliate is the accused bad actor, is it ok then?
Ideally no, but this forum does kind of thrive on naming individuals as the enemy du jour.
Does my opinion on this get weighted more if I say I am ‘very, very upset’?
Why wouldn’t it? Why wouldn’t its effect on you matter?
-
I am a fan of the idea that a log is being posted, context is needed. I do mean more context than ‘This is a scene between X and Y’ Just slapping down the log in a new topic with no info, in my opinion, are ones that should be taken down. Good intentions or not, they are not providing info to people to properly know what is going on in this ‘one off’ scene.
The kind of context that I few as needing to proceed the log is why it is being posted and what it is related too. I’m not counting logs in already started topics where discussion of X topic or X person is already underway but like the one that was just randomly posted with nothing but the log. If Cobalt hadn’t previously posted part of it and added context she knows, we’d all be possibly arguing about the intents of the posts, who’s the victim, etc.
-
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
Then presumably we would look at the evidence to support such a conclusion, and act based on an analysis of that evidence.
but we can’t 'cause the evidence got removed
si/no?
-
My main concern with log posting isn’t really to do with context, people are going to make up whatever intent they like if they’re so minded - as others have already posted.
But it’s clear from the more visceral reactions to this particular log that a level of anonymisation and content warning is absolutely required. So that those who wish to view the log can do so with as much informed consent as is possible on an internet forum.
Lying liars are going to lie, but if I’m to make up my own mind about something I wouldn’t mind being given forewarning about what I’m going to read.
-
@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:
but we can’t 'cause the evidence got removed
si/no?
It was up for fifteen hours. Presumably everyone in this thread saw it. The admins seem to still be able to access the original posts, or at least the edited ones.
-
@GF I actually hadn’t read the whole thing, because it takes me a long time to read anything in logs that isn’t dialogue.
So my question remains: how are we to weigh evidence we aren’t allowed to examine?
-
@Pavel said in Log Posting Standards:
On the topic of logs in general, and perhaps this log in particular, I would want moderation regarding them to be without concern for the contents of the log.
If we are to have serious discussions about abusive, manipulative, or predatory people and their impacts – and to judge their validity – then we need access to evidence and counter-evidence if it is offered, even if the contents of the log are potentially horrifying.I would therefore establish three standards:
- Logs posted must have some context as to their posting if the context is unclear from the thread. It need not be true, noble, or other ideals but must be present.
- Logs containing anything that a television show or a movie would require a rating higher than PG to show must be behind a spoiler tag with trauma/content warnings visible.
- The poster must anonymise the logs as much as is practical without removing context-relevant information. Replacing character names with player monikers, and so forth.
I don’t believe that these standards are arduous, nor subjective, enough to cause problems.
I agree with points one and two, but personally, don’t agree with three. If you are posting a log about a bad actor, you should be able to name-and-shame that actor. Doing so might be relevant to who is posing in the log (or paging).
If we had half a log where one person is anonymized and the other isn’t, like in this example, and then the person did actually come back with a log that showed the anonymized person harassed the other player in the first half of the log, they should be able to post that person’s name.
-
@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:
@GF I actually hadn’t read the whole thing, because it takes me a long time to read anything in logs that isn’t dialogue.
So my question remains: how are we to weigh evidence we aren’t allowed to examine?
We trust the administrators to do their jobs, or we don’t.
-
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:
@GF I actually hadn’t read the whole thing, because it takes me a long time to read anything in logs that isn’t dialogue.
So my question remains: how are we to weigh evidence we aren’t allowed to examine?
We trust the administrators to do their jobs, or we don’t.
I mean, this is a forum founded because another forum’s admin went a little wild and started banning everyone. And that forum was based, at least partially, that admins on games can’t always be trusted to do their job and we needed to collectively call things out.
-
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
@KarmaBum said in Log Posting Standards:
@GF I actually hadn’t read the whole thing, because it takes me a long time to read anything in logs that isn’t dialogue.
So my question remains: how are we to weigh evidence we aren’t allowed to examine?
We trust the administrators to do their jobs, or we don’t.
And yet it seems to me that a vocal minority that pushed against the log being kept up was the large factor in it being taken down And when it was taken down, the majority of the forum seemed to really press against that decision…
-
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
Then presumably we would look at the evidence to support such a conclusion, and act based on an analysis of that evidence.
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
We trust the administrators to do their jobs, or we don’t.
You need to change the first one, then. To say “we let the forum mods look at the evidence.”
You’re abdicating responsibility entirely to them. Which is fine.
It’s not what I’M here for, as @Meg said, 'cause while I trust the mods right now… I also trusted Ganymede and she hired Derp.
-
@GF said in Log Posting Standards:
@hellfrog said in Log Posting Standards:
In the absence of stated intentions or feelings, we are just ascribing them.
Yes. People who intend to harass others very rarely preface their forum posts by stating, “FYI, my intention in writing this is to harass one or more people.” We’re kind of stuck inferring intent from method and outcome.
Is it better to infantalize someone and imply they have no agency than to attempt to humiliate them? What’s the standard for assumptions?
So, people have to meet some standard of noble intention to be able to post logs?
I’d personally settle for not outing someone whose identity was protected in the previously posted, nearly identical version of the log already available. Don’t really care about nobility.
This was corrected, and it wasn’t enough for you. The goalpost kept moving.
We decide what is humiliating or not for other people?
There are quotes on this board of people saying they found it traumatic to read.
None of those people are in the log in question. One of the people who said they found it traumatic also posted the log.
What if a gamerunner is posting a log but some of us feel the intention is to humiliate someone?
Then presumably we would look at the evidence to support such a conclusion, and act based on an analysis of that evidence.
Is it ok to post a humiliating log as long as it’s of someone who is a ‘bad actor’ or accused as such?
What if the person we think it intends to humiliate is the accused bad actor, is it ok then?
Ideally no, but this forum does kind of thrive on naming individuals as the enemy du jour.
Yes, I’m glad you realize what a main purpose of this subsection of the community is and has always been about. You’ve certainly participated in it.
Does my opinion on this get weighted more if I say I am ‘very, very upset’?
Why wouldn’t it? Why wouldn’t its effect on you matter?
Because this is about a roleplaying scene on an internet game. As long as the thing I’m participating in is taking reasonable steps (IE content warnings and protecting personal information), it is up to me and no one but me to regulate my emotional state. If reading something is going to upset me terribly, I should probably not read it.
-
It’s a bit skeevy that this was a log of a private, intimate scene between two people and it was posted as the sole focus of a thread that neither party verifiably is participating in.
-
I think the way it was posted was gross. I can’t ascribe any positive intent behind it, yet there are plenty of indicators that suggest it was done to stoke the fires.
- Posted by a new account without identifying themself
- Posted without explanation or context
- Posted with a wheedling title
- Posted without the victim’s name removed
- No followup response explaining why it was posted.
Taking these indicators into account, and considering the grave nature of the log, I believe it was posted with malicious intent, or at the very least, trolly intent. That’s why I don’t think it’s okay to keep the log up. I don’t believe we should be condoning this behavior by keeping it live.
-
Let’s call a spade a spade here, if the concern is solely about the other person being identified in the 2nd log… welp, hate to say this but it was incredibly easy to figure out who it was from the log posted by Cobalt, too.
Regardless, I don’t think we should be taking logs down on the basis of context vs no context. Remove logs that are about underage beastiality TS tho because that violates a whole other rule imo.
