![[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}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-04 12:55 am (UTC)Eg a lot of men who are all "you're delicate little flowers" about women asking for less sexism get extremely hurt when they're treated as potential rapists or otherwise threatening, because they haven't absorbed that their sexism causes that defensive, justified response in (some) women.
Actions have consequences and that's why you need to take responsibility, you know?
Similarly, I'd like it if: you screw up, or change your mind, you say so. It's another thing that drives me nuts about DDF and the dishonesty of his arguing style. Eg the statistics/high distribution argument on rasfm, where eventually Brian had to come in and say "Aqua is right, David's argument makes no mathematical sense", and DDF just didn't say a peep. I know that's probably shame, but because he always says something when he disagrees with you, always has an opinion, it does give the impression he will not ever say "I was wrong" or "I changed my mind" or "I understand better now" let alone "I apologise for ...".
Maybe that's make a good rule? It's okay to make mistakes, the important thing is acknowledge them and learn from them. "I'm sorry" is not a sign of abject humiliation, particularly if you get into the habit.
responsibility and apologising
Date: 2009-05-04 01:12 am (UTC)So no doubt part of the reason DDF fascinates and infuriates me so much is that he shows me how certain of my own qualities can go really bad and gives me something to work away from. And I'm trying not to make this all about him, but to learn from the experience of interacting with him and the issues it's caused both for myself and for rasfc as a whole, and to pull out some general principles/guidelines for how to act. Even if most of the examples of why I like a rule or what situation I'm trying to avoid, involve DDF.
(or rather, they don't all, there's a bunch of stuff I didn't like that DDF never did, but I talk about that as "some rasfc'ers", like the PC delicate flowers stuff. DDF does things differently enough from the generic "hostile to women" rasfc atmosphere (although I do think he contributes to maintaining it, albeit sideways) that he needs to be treats as a separate case. And I'm not implying that the generic rasfc atmosphere is hostile to women, just that rasfc has a hostile to women atmosphere, which partly consists of JAD nutbaggery, partly DDF academic arrogance, and partly generic sexism, and it's that third bit I was trying to point at.)
I have to nip off and get a blood test, then I'll come back and read through your response to my first substantial comment (and following exchange) in some detail and comment there. I hope this is all the kind of discussion/thought provoking you were after. I also hope it's not too late.
If it's not quite what you're after, just try to tell me more what you're after, and I'll try to focus my energies and ideas in that direction, thanks.
Re: responsibility and apologising
Date: 2009-05-04 06:56 am (UTC)What you write is interesting and I need to read it again and think more. (Same for much stuff elsewhere.)
But commenting before I forget: What I think would be either potentially useful or potentially conducive to people thinking "OMG dictatorial much!" would be (not in a "What this group's for" document of course, or in a set of rules; but a separate resource) a list of modelled dialogues for face-saving conflict resolution. Eg (sloppy sketch, not intended for actual use)<ponders> Oh wait, I forgot an alternative: potentially Made of Fail. Ah well. :-)