Commentary on the current affairs of The Sietch

Status
Not open for further replies.
CurtisLemay said:
But she has my support because she stepped up and gave us a place to call our own when she didn't have to.
Click to expand...

And what kind of people would we be if we abandon her? Sure we may disagree or even see her problems, doesn't mean we can't see what she's done or is doing
 
CarlManvers2019 said:
Say, what did she have against this "Horton" guy?
Click to expand...
Other than the fact that he is believed to have been the mastermind behind the hack of the PM over on SB that started all this? I have no idea; though he has also been accused by staff over on QQ of stalking behavior, and was permabanned there because of it.



CurtisLemay said:
Say what you like, but she gave us this place.
Click to expand...
For which she has my respect.
 
Unhappy Anchovy said:
snip
Click to expand...

Just want to clarify a few things in your summary.
I received 0 points for the infraction. I still believe it is undeserved (I included PCG's entire post and it literally started with "I'm a fascist" when I posted it), but at least it wasn't worth points.
According to @Battlegrinder here, the post in my quote was edited because the original post was edited, apparently this is a feature in the forum.
"Apparent ignorance" is a good phrase for the reasoning behind my post - I had my suspicions that PCG and @Zoe were the same person, based on them apparently having the same extremely niche political views, but I was not certain. Zoe had posted a thread under her admin account that she had probably intended to post under her PCG account (which now that I go to find the thread seems to have been deleted)
@Harlock, @LTR, and @Spartan303 have either refused to admit their non-admin accounts, if they have any.
@Emperor Tippy's immediate refusal makes me think that other staff might have multiple accounts as well, but that was not answered when I asked.

Finally, @Zoe under her non-admin account made this promise.
The other admins will post their own alts. Not all of them actually exercise the privilege at the moment. Whenever they change a name, they will update it in this thread. I promise 100% transparency about this going forward.
Click to expand...

This promise has not been fulfilled, and the claim that it was intended to be a "royal we" or that it was personal opinion don't hold much water for me.
 
Greengrass said:
Just want to clarify a few things in your summary.
I received 0 points for the infraction. I still believe it is undeserved (I included PCG's entire post and it literally started with "I'm a fascist" when I posted it), but at least it wasn't worth points.
According to @Battlegrinder here, the post in my quote was edited because the original post was edited, apparently this is a feature in the forum.
"Apparent ignorance" is a good phrase for the reasoning behind my post - I had my suspicions that PCG and @Zoe were the same person, based on them apparently having the same extremely niche political views, but I was not certain. Zoe had posted a thread under her admin account that she had probably intended to post under her PCG account (which now that I go to find the thread seems to have been deleted)
@Harlock, @LTR, and @Spartan303 have either refused to admit their non-admin accounts, if they have any.
@Emperor Tippy's immediate refusal makes me think that other staff might have multiple accounts as well, but that was not answered when I asked.

Finally, @Zoe under her non-admin account made this promise.
This promise has not been fulfilled, and the claim that it was intended to be a "royal we" or that it was personal opinion don't hold much water for me.
Click to expand...
As a recent joiner, I have to say this whole admins or moderators having alt accounts is a terrible idea.

if its okay for me to ask, you seem to be not happy here. Why stay if I may ask?
 
Terthna said:
Other than the fact that he is believed to have been the mastermind behind the hack of the PM over on SB that started all this? I have no idea; though he has also been accused by staff over on QQ of stalking behavior, and was permabanned there because of it.
Click to expand...

Saw him post on Digital Wild West, I wouldn't have expected him to possibly be a mastermind
 
LifeisTiresome said:
As a recent joiner, I have to say this whole admins or moderators having alt accounts is a terrible idea.

if its okay for me to ask, you seem to be not happy here. Why stay if I may ask?
Click to expand...
I might end up leaving, but until that time comes I'll keep posting as I see fit. If my efforts can reveal some of what I believe to be mistakes and maybe end up improving the forum, I'll do so.
 
Frankly, I do not give a single damn about how the howler monkeys on SB and SV view this site. Maybe Zoe has some...odd views and could maybe chose better wording.

But the core values of this site, free speech, makes it infinitely better than any of the other SB sisters sites or SB itself.
Unhappy Anchovy said:
This is a post I will probably regret making, but in this case I feel it's necessary. After all, one of the lessons of the PM scandal on SB was that I ought to be more open and direct in speaking up in times of controversy. Should I have been clearer about how and why I participated in that PM? Or clearer about the fact that the vast majority of PM's content was innocuous chat? Yes, to both. So too should I be clear and direct here.

This post is, I hope, going to be one of hard truths. I hope you listen. At the very least, I hope you understand that I say this in good faith, not out of any malice or grudges.

So.

An initial disclaimer: yes, it's true that lots of people don't like the Sietch and would probably like to destroy it. There are real bad-faith actors out there. This is the internet, and there is nothing so infinitely petty and vindictive as internet drama. So I am not saying that there is no one out there who would, if they could, doxx admins, or engage in other forms of harassment. All such actions are unambiguously bad.

That said.

The last few weeks of activity on the Sietch have made me quite pessimistic about its current state, and I see a large number of simple errors or mistakes that might contribute to misunderstanding, and active choices that I think are bad for the community you're trying to build. That is to say, the first category are cases where I see what was intended and think it's defensible, but it was badly handled; and the second category are cases where I just shake my head and disapprove of what I think you (collectively) are trying to build.

Let's recap some of this mess.

Sietch staff are allowed to have multiple accounts, in order to distinguish their normal posting from posting in a staff capacity. The staff were not initially transparent about this: there was no public statement that there are multiple accounts for staff, and no identification of which normal accounts belong to which staff members.

Zoe or Empress_Zoe, an admin, had a normal account called 'Punch Card Girl'. Punch Card Girl made a post which began with the highly controversial phrase "I'm a fascist".

Punch Card Girl also made a topic talking about an early 20th century Futurist manifesto. When I myself criticised that manifesto for being fascistic, another poster, Greengrass, pointed out that Punch Card Girl had just identified as a fascist, and linked the post. Greengrass was infracted for this post.

Shortly afterwards, the Punch Card Girl account was terminated. After that account termination, Punch Card Girl's post identifying as fascist was edited to qualify and soften that statement. Greengrass' infracted post quoting that statement was also edited in order to contain the revised statement.

Greengrass, in apparent ignorance of staff dual accounts, asked Zoe why she was editing other people's posts. Big Steve explained the practice of multiple staff accounts, and Zoe stated that the staff would disclose their accounts. Spartan303 then posted refusing to do this. Emperor Tippy attempted to clarify that Zoe was using the 'royal we' and did not mean that other staff would disclose accounts, even though, as far as I can tell, Zoe's original post seemed to apply to all staff.

In the ensuing chaos, Zoe then posted a long manifesto and appeal claiming that the Sietch was under attack by malicious external actors, and notably accused SpaceBattles staff member Isil'zha of outing her as a transwoman. Her appeal seems to suggest that the previous mess to do with alternate accounts was due to stress under this pressure, and it concludes with an appeal for Sietch members to stand by her and the site in the face of external attacks.

Since then, all staff to my knowledge have disclosed their multiple accounts. Zoe has made a new alternate account, Captain_General, and has posted a long topic attempting to clarify her political views, as well as a discussion topic that looks like a response to that initial self-identification she made as a fascist.

An early request was made for these topics to be open for discussion, and now that discussion thread is here.

So, now that I've tried to describe all that, my responses and thoughts.

I want to note straight off the bat that the most important qualifications for a staff member on a forum, here or anywhere else, are good judgement, patience, maturity, and awareness. I'm sure we've all known bad moderators and good moderators in our forum careers, but regardless of who they are, I hope we can agree on the central importance of judgement. To put it a way Zoe might appreciate, there is a phronesis to being a staff member, a practical wisdom and sense that governs everything you do. I don't claim that as an SB staff member I've always displayed that, and we're all fallible - but it is nonetheless central. In a public-facing role like that of a staff member, you need to be aware of what you say, how you serve as a role model, and how you set the tone for the community you look over. It's a heavy responsibility and a difficult balance to get right.

I understand that it's quite difficult, and so I don't mean this to be vindictive or cruel - but the story I've just told seems to me to contain a great many failures of judgement. In brief:
  • The policy of multiple staff accounts should have been open and transparent from day one. This is the case regardless of whether you think it's a good policy at all. Personally I think multiple staff accounts are a bad idea, though I can see the case for them. However, even if the policy is a good idea, it should have been public from the start.
  • The word 'fascist' has a common, publicly-understood meaning: a totalitarian state, militarism, at least ethnic chauvinism and probably racism, dictatorial control, revanchism, war, and atrocity or genocide. If Zoe does not support those things, she should never have identified as fascist at all, especially not in this context, and her choice to do so - even in a qualified way - is a case of spectacularly poor judgement. If she does support those things, then she should never be staff anywhere. I personally believe the former is the case.
  • Greengrass should not have been infracted for saying something immediately relevant and on topic. If I criticise a poster's comments for sounding sympathetic to fascism, then it seems highly relevant whether or not the poster is a fascist.
  • The exercise of staff power to edit Punch Card Girl's posts after the deletion was extremely sketchy. It would have been better to let those posts stand, or for Zoe to edit the first one only after clarifying to all that she is Punch Card Girl.
  • Staff should have discussed the issue of multiple accounts among themselves before making public statements, thus avoiding the embarrassing contradiction of Spartan303 refusing to do something Zoe had just suggested as general policy. Patience and group discussion before acting is very important for a moderation team.
  • Zoe's appeal to the Sietch overall comes off as deflection. It's a dramatic set of allegations that draws attention away from the legitimate issues to do with staff judgement and transparency. If there was going to be a general appeal as regards external users attacking the site, this was not the time.
  • Further, the appeal, it seems to me, promotes a siege or bunker mentality here, and an us-versus-them narrative. It sets a tone for the site - and that tone is one of persecution and fear. This in my opinion is actively detrimental to the goal of supporting a diverse user-base with a wide range of views, and reinforces my growing fear that the Sietch will be a conservative or even far-right ghetto.
  • As far as I'm aware certain statements within the appeal are simply untrue. In particular the accusation against Isil'zha is untrue. I will not comment further here - I don't wish to speak for Isil - but to my knowledge it is, at best, a significant misinterpretation of events.
  • Further long topics by Zoe attempting to clarify her politics and discuss fascism are, to my mind, counterproductive. Clarifying one's views in the wake of a misunderstanding is wise, but it is very striking how much the Athenaeum is dominated by Zoe's essays on her views. I appreciate the desire to make some statement, but brevity is a virtue, and I very much doubt this was the best time for a long essay, especially as her views appear to be - even if non-fascist - quite unconventional and controversial.
So, what should be done?

I am an outsider to this community and am not in a position to make demands. I am not calling for Zoe's resignation or anything like that. Rather, I am offering my sense of what has happened in the hope that Zoe and other staff will consider it and reflect carefully on what they might do going forward.

If I were pressed for a recommendation at this point, it would be: be patient, be careful, don't be impulsive, and talk more as a group before taking actions. I also strongly encourage staff here to consider how they serve as role models, or how they set the tone for the overall community.

This last point is important. You are all clearly aware that there is a perception of the Sietch as fascist, far-right, or alt-right. You can still be honest while also acting to counter that narrative. The appeal in particular concerned me, as it read like a doubling-down on the idea that this would be a right-wing forum and strongly opposed to some of the other sites in this informal 'SpaceBattles network'. In the older topic where I challenged Zoe for posting a fascistic manifesto, I briefly commented on how your choices about your community presents itself serve to include or exclude certain types of members.

I strongly encourage you to consider where you draw those lines of inclusion and exclusion.

As I said, I am quite pessimistic about the state of the Sietch. I reiterate that I offer all of this as good-faith advice, and I bear no one on the staff here any malice. Sometimes honesty and justice require the saying of hard words: but my intent is still to be redemptive, positive, and harmonious.
Click to expand...
For someone who claims he doesn't want to be a 'soldier in a drama war' and 'doesn't see himself as part of the community' you sure do act like a 'soldier in a drama war' and act like a 'part of the community'.
 
LifeisTiresome said:
if its okay for me to ask, you seem to be not happy here. Why stay if I may ask?
Click to expand...

That's a good question for a lot of us, really.

And to be frank, for me - insofar as I'm here at all, and I do feel at least somewhat removed from this community - the answer is 1) continue a few PM conversations with people who've left SB, 2) morbid interest, and 3) um, seeing if I can deradicalise people, I guess?

Maybe it's just that I have terrible judgement? :unsure:
 
Zoe said:
This thread was intended to be in NSFW but @Stephanos Morosoktanos misspoke. However in the interests of transparency it will be left here until conversation on the topic is finished.
Click to expand...
Please stop attempting to rewrite history.
@Stephanos Morosoktanos did not misspeak. He posted this under his alt account here, when asked about a place for commentary on these recent issues.
The Community Pub works best (Tippy says the NSFW pub but I'm not sure why it has to be that one).
Click to expand...

He may have been incorrect, but he did not misspeak, he believed that this forum was an acceptable place to put this thread rather than a forum hidden to non-members and people who have not asked for NSFW permissions
 
Last edited:
I don't use an alt, I tend to use a different name on each forum but it's pretty obvious who I am.
 
You know, as far as I know, none of the staff have experience administrating, operating and owning their own forum. It seems to me at a lot of this will just be growing pains.

Will it be a rough transition? Absolutely.

Will there be mistakes? Of course.

We’re all human, and while there have been some speed bumps, I do believe the staff and the population as whole are trying their best to act in good faith.

This forum is far less toxic when it comes to discourse, people can actually speak up with out needing to tip toe around to prevent usual suspects bludgeoning us with slurs.

The forum is still new, give it time to work out the kinks.
 
GooseActual said:
You know, as far as I know, none of the staff have experience administrating, operating and owning their own forum. It seems to me at a lot of this will just be growing pains.

Will it be a rough transition? Absolutely.

Will there be mistakes? Of course.

We’re all human, and while there have been some speed bumps, I do believe the staff and the population as whole are trying their best to act in good faith.

This forum is far less toxic when it comes to discourse, people can actually speak up with out needing to tip toe around to prevent usual suspects bludgeoning us with slurs.

The forum is still new, give it time to work out the kinks.
Click to expand...
A number of the current staff members were staff members on other forums. That said, mistakes are allowable, as long as they get fixed. Part of the process of getting them fixed is pointing out that the issue exists.
 
Beardius Prime said:
What does it even mean to be one?
Click to expand...
Every one that disagrees with the current left is a Nazi or racist or sexist, etc. This should be obvious by now. Even anime/manga fans who just want anime/manga to stay as it currently is are Nazi's cause how dare they not be offended cause fanservice exists or have opinions about best girl or best guy, etc.
 
LifeisTiresome said:
Every one that disagrees with the current left is a Nazi or racist or sexist or whatever. Even anime/manga fans who just want anime/manga to stay as it currently is are Nazi's cause how dare they not be offended cause fanservice exists or have opinions about best girl or best guy, etc.
Click to expand...
I thought it requires at least holocaust denial and acting really anti semetic.
 
The board? I appreciate it's here, I hope to be a positive contribution, and I am indebted to Zoe for creating it.

The current brouhaha? You should be well aware what you're up against. Don't make unforced errors. Honesty and transparency are the best policies, because managing information becomes tons easier. When you've made an error, don't double-down and don't panic.

Admins having multiple accounts? I understand the attraction, but the ultimate effect is confusion for me. It's probably a bad idea unless the name of their normal account is right there in the user description. It creates the perception of shennanagins.

Fascism? I'm not a subscriber, however; There's what it really means, which is not particularly unusual or harmful as far as governing ideologies go (China RIGHT NOW says hi). Then there's what most people think it means, which is the Axis powers (how many times does WW2 Japan get described as fascist?) and Francisco Franco. And THEN there's what the mob thinks it means: Nazism. You might want to use it as an accurate descriptor of your ideas, but by God there were better words to use. Don't give the mob power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top