Will Shetterly ([info]willshetterly) wrote in [info]sfwa,
@ 2007-04-17 23:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:community management, etiquette, rules, sfwa

a request for civility
This community's info page currently says, "Its purpose is to provide a friendly forum" and "Treat everyone here fairly and with respect." A few folks are falling short. So, here's my current thought:

Treat others with respect, and you will be treated with respect. If you do not, I will ask if you need a cup of tea. This means you seem rather over-excited to me. If you are a SFWAn, it means you are behaving as though you hope to match the most extreme behavior seen in the Forum or within the Lounge. If you are not a SFWAn, it means that you might wish to read John Scalzi's post about Crazy Screechy Monkeys.

The second time you treat others without respect, you will be banned from the group for 24 hours. At that point, you will be readmitted upon request, and the cycle will begin again.

Are people comfortable with that? We are open to other suggestions. It will mean that we'll have to moderate admission and forbid anonymous comments, but if that's the price for civility, so be it.

And, no, this is not an attempt to limit discourse. The English language is remarkably rich. If you cannot make your point without belittling someone, you are more interested in belittling than enlightening.

Also, I'll offer a cup of tea to anyone who disses me, but I won't ban them. I don't like expelling people, so I won't do it for my sake.

Here's a final thought about why you shouldn't try to look like a jerk online: If your principles matter, discuss them civilly. If you do not, many people will assume that only jerks hold your position. Therefore, I'll be more inclined to warn and expel people who share my positions than those who do not, but I'll do my very best to be fair.

I'm a little tempted to propose that SFWAns, who you might expect to have a better handle on tone than less experienced writers, will be banned for twice as long. But SFWA is a group that admits people on the basis of their sales, not the quality of their prose, so SFWAns will be treated the same as anyone else.




(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2007-04-18 07:33 am UTC (link)
Sounds like a good policy, except for disabling Anonymous posts. Can't you first try setting Anons on 'moderate' (as on Jay Lake's LJ), or erase any bad ones and freeze/hide any threads they began? Some people have good reasons for posting Anon; and announcing these policies may be sufficient to solve the problem anyway.

As a bemused outsider and proud Webscab, I'm sort of wishing pax (yes, pax) on both your houses, while quietly cheering the mild-mannered guys in the middle who are getting shot at from both sides. SWFA's membership requirements are massively, toweringly foreboding; but if it's attracted and held people like derrylm and Shetterley and the rest of the peace-makers, then it must be doing something right.

The more I think about Hendrix' ideas, the more I disagree with him. But as to him saying it and whoever posting it ... for God's sake, the fellow was resigning in protest BECAUSE so many SFWAs ARE webbing their work and the office HAS come to include all that wikikicking. He wasn't speaking FOR SWFA, he was ranting AT them. And he did give us on the web side some great terms and rallying points; imo posting it has done a lot of good.

To me there's a big difference between Hendrix' rant and the personal attacks against him (and against y'all). Hendrix's wasn't PERSONAL. He used colorful words and metaphors, but didn't attribute seriously bad motives to anyone, sfair, or make any sort of personal confrontation.


(Reply to this)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-04-18 07:36 am UTC (link)
P.S.

Cream please, no sugar.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]willshetterly
2007-04-18 07:43 am UTC (link)
Moderating anonymous posts could work. Might mean some anonymous folks would have to wait a while for a moderator to get to 'em though. Will think about this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]newroticgirl, 2007-04-18 01:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]magicnoire, 2007-04-18 01:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tanaise, 2007-04-18 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 03:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-04-18 03:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmintz, 2007-04-18 05:32 pm UTC

[info]pnh
2007-04-18 11:33 am UTC (link)
"He used colorful words and metaphors, but didn't attribute seriously bad motives to anyone"

This is simply and obviously untrue.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]buymeaclue, 2007-04-18 11:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cpolk, 2007-04-18 05:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 05:12 pm UTC
(was: Anonymous webscab) - [info]bemusedoutsider, 2007-04-19 08:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 05:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cpolk, 2007-04-18 05:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 06:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bemusedoutsider, 2007-04-20 03:08 am UTC

[info]cpolk
2007-04-18 08:36 am UTC (link)
um, hmm.

is there some kind of deep and serious problem with civility happening in this community that I somehow did not notice, or

are you attempting to enforce in advance?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]pnh
2007-04-18 11:34 am UTC (link)
"is there some kind of deep and serious problem with civility happening in this community"

I was wondering myself. I haven't kept up-to-the-minute with every single comment thread, but...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 03:07 pm UTC

[info]janni
2007-04-18 02:12 pm UTC (link)
My take is that by the standards of the SF community, we're doing pretty well. By the standards of many other communities, the threads I've been skimming do regularly have their dicey moments. I don't know whether any of them want regulating or not I suspect we do look different from outside than within, though.

In many ways it's a cultural problem--what seems civil to one community seems over the top to another--and I'm not sure there's really any solution to that, or even that there should be.

I do remember finding early on that the same style that was more than reasonable when I was hanging around with SF folks was toward the abrasive end of the spectrum when I was hanging around with children's writers. (I felt rather like a bull in a china shop at my first SCBWI conference, a surprise, since I was used to thinking of myself as one of the moderates.)

And there was just a discussion in another community I'm in where everyone seemed to think folks were being too harsh on someone who asked a question, and I still can't figure out where offense was given. It's tricky all around.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]willshetterly
2007-04-18 02:57 pm UTC (link)
I hate anticipating trouble, because that sometimes creates it, but I am seeing some behavior with a few folks on different sides that may require action. So I thought it best to raise the issue now. I really do hate the idea of kicking anyone out, even for a day.

The folks who concern me are SFWAns, so I suppose I could just tell them to take it to the Lounge.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cpolk, 2007-04-18 05:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bemusedoutsider, 2007-04-18 08:59 pm UTC

[info]lauriemann
2007-04-18 10:25 am UTC (link)
Well, there's always ravers in any group. It's always seemed a little worse online. SFWA is not exceptional in this area at all. I've heard what goes on in the private areas described, but it doesn't really sound any worse than I've seen in other areas.

I haven't seen anything that bad here. A little sniping, perhaps, but nothing bad.

I completely agree with the call to be civil. While I've never had any problems with my LJ, I've always had my blog comments on "moderate" because I'd get really over-the-top messages from the ditto-heads out there. I like having reasoned discussions with people I don't agree with, but I don't like to see tirades from trolls.

(Reply to this)


[info]oldcharliebrown
2007-04-18 12:05 pm UTC (link)
My two cents: I really haven't seen anything on this livejournal that would cause anyone to be banned, so I'm not convinced that this approach is warranted. Should the current discussions or arguments get to the point that it's actual flaming (which it hasn't, yet) perhaps the issue can be raised and voted on, but as far as I can tell it seems like one, an misunderstanding of how lj dynamics actually works, and two, this seems like an attempt to adjust lj's dynamics to suit SFWA's own needs.

"A few people are falling short." Whom? Please name names. :-)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]willshetterly
2007-04-18 03:08 pm UTC (link)
When people begin accusing others of lying and don't have proof of lying or proof of their psychic powers, I get concerned.

No names yet. I don't want to take the time to go hunting for old concerns. I'll just hope no new ones arises.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]oldcharliebrown, 2007-04-18 03:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 03:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 04:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 04:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 05:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 06:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-04-18 06:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 07:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]aburt, 2007-04-18 07:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 07:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 09:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 07:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 07:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 07:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 08:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 08:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 09:21 pm UTC

[info]jhetley
2007-04-18 01:05 pm UTC (link)
Is this related to folks getting flamed for not having a LJ account?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]willshetterly
2007-04-18 03:19 pm UTC (link)
I suspect I'm feeling a cumulative effect from a few issues. I don't want to dwell on past ones; I'd rather just see how we go from here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jhetley, 2007-04-18 03:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]velourmane, 2007-04-18 05:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jhetley, 2007-04-18 05:46 pm UTC

[info]haikujaguar
2007-04-18 01:32 pm UTC (link)
Tea is caffeinated, though. Perhaps you should offer decaf. -_-

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]buymeaclue
2007-04-18 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Or sleeping pills.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dolphin__girl
2007-04-18 01:41 pm UTC (link)
This is the standard approach taken on most of the communities I frequent, and those communities tend to be a lot more hospitable (though less likely fodder for Fandom Wank) than the others. I think this is a very good idea.

(Reply to this)


[info]janni
2007-04-18 02:16 pm UTC (link)
I think phrasing it as "no personal attacks" might be less ambiguous, and would achieve the same purpose. This seems to work in other communities.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]willshetterly
2007-04-18 03:29 pm UTC (link)
You're suggesting that for the user info page? I'll happily add it, if so. But surprisingly often, flamers don't understand personal attacks unless something slightly critical is directed at them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]janni, 2007-04-18 03:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 04:43 pm UTC

[info]stillnotbored
2007-04-18 02:19 pm UTC (link)
The only vaguely uncivil comment I've gotten from anyone was an anonymous comment where the person didn't sign his/her name. And in the history of flames, it was minor league. I was very tired when I answered, which tends to make me silly, but even then I more than managed civil.

It was a very near thing, but I did manage to resist signing my response love and kisses. ;) Unsigned comments always have that little kid, hit and run feel to them, where you taunt someone and then don't have to take responsibility for what you've done. It both amuses me and annoys me just for those reasons.

You and Karina and Catherine are the people who see everything and are probably the only ones who know what the level of discourse is in general. Do what you feel is right.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]willshetterly
2007-04-18 03:32 pm UTC (link)
Aw, the faith in us is appreciated, and we'll try to live up to it, but I suspect when threads get long, even the four of us miss things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]asterling
2007-04-18 02:24 pm UTC (link)
This refreshed my memory about the Anne Rice incident. It was hard for me to believe, but she did go on Amazon.com and post a response to negative reader reviews. She even put her address, which made me worried something bad would happen to her and inspired me to write her -- and that started up a cool correspondence. She was aware of what she was doing at the time. Maybe later, she thought better of it. The link to Laurell Hamilton's response to her version of the screeching monkeys made me think that Anne's was really much more vivid as these things go. Ya either have a gift, or . . .

As I commented to Karina and Hannah, it's all about respect for others. From time to time, I see things that I think are weird or off-base, or that I just don't understand. I might ask questions. That's all that they are - questions - to better understand others' points of view.

You don't really know me, Will, but you might remember another time I asked questions online. As was recently pointed out with Sanjaya -- "Words can hurt." And on a much more serious note, with the tragedy at Virginia Tech, it's human nature to take it for granted that everything will always be the same, we will always be safe, and we can go about our daily activities in a blind fog. Advising authors not to rant against readers with negative opinions is just good sense. Asking everyone to think twice about what they say or do, and really put it in perspective, is a different matter. It's a difficult thing to ask somebody to back down in the heat of the moment. But I know from personal experience, everything can change in one terrible moment. Just for the sake of argument, I doubt some of these intemperate comments are the last thing people would want others to see or hear of them. Are any of us really "better" or "smarter" than others? Unlikely. And we're all vulnerable to outside forces far beyond our control.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 03:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]asterling, 2007-04-18 05:27 pm UTC

[info]michaelcapo
2007-04-18 03:04 pm UTC (link)
All I can say is that the comments to "explaining LJ to SFWA" reminded me very strongly of the SFWA private area of sff.net, and not in a good way.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 03:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]michaelcapo, 2007-04-18 03:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 03:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]michaelcapo, 2007-04-18 03:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 04:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 05:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 06:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]velourmane, 2007-04-18 07:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 07:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]velourmane, 2007-04-18 08:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duskpeterson, 2007-04-18 03:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]haikujaguar, 2007-04-18 04:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]magicnoire, 2007-04-18 06:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ann_leckie, 2007-04-19 01:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cpolk, 2007-04-18 05:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jamiam, 2007-04-20 12:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jamiam, 2007-04-20 12:40 am UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-20 03:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bemusedoutsider, 2007-04-20 03:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-20 05:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bemusedoutsider, 2007-04-20 09:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 04:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 04:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 04:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 05:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 05:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 06:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 07:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 07:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 07:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 08:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 08:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-04-18 09:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 09:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-04-18 09:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 09:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ksumnersmith, 2007-04-18 09:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bemusedoutsider, 2007-04-22 05:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 09:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]velourmane, 2007-04-18 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]velourmane, 2007-04-18 11:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]swan_tower, 2007-04-18 04:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 05:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2007-04-18 05:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 05:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]asterling, 2007-04-18 05:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2007-04-18 05:56 pm UTC
Enough about me, let's talk about me! - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 06:00 pm UTC
Re: Enough about me, let's talk about me! - [info]cristalia, 2007-04-18 06:01 pm UTC
Re: Enough about me, let's talk about me! - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 06:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]asterling, 2007-04-18 05:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 06:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 06:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ellameena, 2007-04-18 10:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scarypudding, 2007-04-19 11:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-19 02:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]scarypudding, 2007-04-19 03:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-19 03:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 03:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 03:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]willshetterly, 2007-04-18 04:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nihilistic_kid, 2007-04-18 05:02 pm UTC

[info]duskpeterson
2007-04-18 04:04 pm UTC (link)
"It will mean that we'll have to moderate admission and forbid anonymous comments"

I echo Anonymous's suggestion that you continue to allow comments from all non-members but moderate them. Otherwise, we'll miss out on insightful comments by people who don't have LiveJournal accounts. I don't personally see any difference between somebody posting as Anonymous and somebody posting as John, in terms of anonymity. Either way, we don't know who the poster is. A nickname can certainly be helpful in keeping track of who said what, and should be encouraged for that reason.

As a former moderator of one of the flame-ridden communities on the Web, my sympathies are with you in this matter. However, I also have to warn you that banning people causes flame wars in itself. Members spend long, long threads discussing whether the person should have been banned or not. And I'm very sorry to report that some members treat the ban as an act of poking the crazy screechy monkey with a stick and end up blaming the moderator.

So my suggestion would be that you exercise this power with discretion, lest you unintentionally cause greater problems than originally existed. It usually becomes obvious, if you wait a while, which members are recurrent troublemakers and which ones simply lost their temper momentarily in a thread.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]artfulruin, 2007-04-18 04:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duskpeterson, 2007-04-18 05:13 pm UTC
(no subject) -