![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zeborahOkay, try this one:
If you're still not happy with it, it would be of great help to me if you could note precisely what you disagree with and/or offer alternative wordings.
But please note that I consider it very important to explicitly include:
a) the groups that have been implicitly sidelined by the sf community in general and rasfc in particular; and
b) the topics which were theoretically allowed on rasfc but which in practise more than one of us was afraid to talk about.
1) We will focus on discussing the process of writing speculative fiction (science-fiction, fantasy, and related genres).
2 a) We know that writers write in various genres, at various lengths, on various topics, in various orders, with various technologies, varyingly planned or unplanned, etc, according to their personal style and needs.
b) We want to share what works for us, and we want other writers to feel free and safe to share what works for them.
c) Therefore we will avoid implying either that any particular technique is obligatory, or that any particular technique is wrong - though there might be times when a particular technique is wrong for a particular author or for a particular story.
3 a) We know that society in general and speculative-fiction in specific contain many stereotypes and biases that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ablist, and/or intolerant of people in non-nuclear family structures, people of different religions or of no religion, and others.
b) We don't want to unwittingly perpetuate such stereotypes and biases in our own fiction. We also don't want to unwittingly perpetuate them in real life and/or hurt a fellow human being.
c) Therefore we want other members to feel free and safe to point out to us if we've said something that accidentally perpetuates stereotypes or biases or is otherwise hurtful; and we will take it as a favour and learn from it if they do.
4) Therefore, on-topic discussions will include but not be limited to:
a) dragon biology, alien speech patterns, how horses differ from motorcycles, ways to show/confuse chronology in time travel stories, etc;
b) outlines, punctuation, use of themes, infodumps, RSI, pen porn, etc;
c) cultural appropriation, sexist language, homophobic tropes, depictions of religion, etc; and
d) pun cascades, cats and chocolate, etc; because frivolity is the mortar that binds together a community.
5) The group will be moderated by a panel in order to keep it friendly and safe for all members.
If you're still not happy with it, it would be of great help to me if you could note precisely what you disagree with and/or offer alternative wordings.
But please note that I consider it very important to explicitly include:
a) the groups that have been implicitly sidelined by the sf community in general and rasfc in particular; and
b) the topics which were theoretically allowed on rasfc but which in practise more than one of us was afraid to talk about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
impartial arbiters
Date: 2009-05-03 07:42 am (UTC)One of the other things that annoys me about DDF that I'd like to get into some sort of rule/guideline form which unfortunately makes moderation about 1000 times harder (but moderation is hard): DDF when he argues is both one side of the argument, and believes he is an impartial arbiter of the argument (and that there is a position which an impartial arbiter can take). And somehow, a large fraction of rasfc agrees with him. I never saw anyone treat me like I was an impartial arbiter in any of my arguments with him (although some people found me persuasive enough that they personally stopped treating DDF as impartial arbiter although they did not scream very loudly for him to back down every time he acted as though he was an impartial arbiter).
In general, as I understand my own privilege and the whole problem around it better, I see more and more clearly that there usually is no impartial arbiter and can't be. And it is a product of white colonialist enlightenment thingy stuff that we even assume that there is an impartial arbiter viewpoint. And the fact that it's male, white, western, enlightenment thinking etc is what makes privilege privilege, or at least a big component. It's the privileged point of view.
Once there is no privileged point of view, who is an impartial arbiter for any given conflict? (Because there will be conflicts at some point). I think you should be very flattered so many people are happy with the idea of you as moderator, because in many respects you're not exactly near the middle of the distribution of views I expect the group will have. But there's a high risk you yourself will be involved in conflict, and you can't be the moderator for those. But how do you get co-moderators you trust? And then how to prevent moderators/ruling clique vs lowly underdog conflicts? Or will we just have to say "tough luck, form your own group if you don't like the rules for this one?"
(I'm thinking about this because my partner was recently the lowly underdog in a moderators vs lowly underdog conflict on a webforum he's on, and the problem with setting up his own group apart from needing the time and money to do it was that the webforum pretty much had a monopoly on that subject matter for australasia. It was made worse in that case in that as far as I could tell, the moderators were not applying rules consistently, and there was a very definite conflict between the interests of a "lowly underdog" participant and the advertisers, which was the basic problem really. But the advertisers of course were who had brought in the money to allow the forum to have the neat features etc that had led to it being the leading forum, and eventual monopoly. This by the way is part of why I'm switching to dreamwidth - no advertisers to get into conflict with.)
Re: impartial arbiters
Date: 2009-05-03 10:11 am (UTC)In terms of moderation for this group, it's tough. Because there need to be rules for choosing the moderators, and who chooses *those* rules? Is it turtles all the way down? I do think that ultimately it *does* come down to "If you don't like these rules then this is not the group for you." I don't see any other option -- not just practically, but logically.
And I want to accommodate as many people as possible with whatever rules are set up, because a group of one would be pretty lonely. But on the other hand, the rules have to above all be something that *I'm* comfortable with. Because it'd be stupid of me to set up a group which, if I wasn't setting it up, I wouldn't join.
Re: impartial arbiters
Date: 2009-05-04 12:43 am (UTC)Just noting, because most of my comments are more about the bits I disagree with, and I don't want to give the impression Oh Noes You're Doin It Rong. I'm focussing on the bits where I think I might be able to help you get something better, both for you and the other participants.
Plus, have some cookies.
Re: impartial arbiters
Date: 2009-05-04 06:30 am (UTC)How do you *do* "non-political" anyway?
Date: 2009-05-08 01:49 am (UTC)But I need to go find something to eat and I hope some of my reaction is hunger and stress off other things interacting badly.
(and did you get to see the feminist cookies? FTW! I'm planning on baking some. Oh, and I just notice now one of the images has been censored/TOSsed by photobucket. That would be the "Not a rapist" cookie image.)