The blasted Vision Statement (being part 4)

[zeborah]

Okay, try this one:

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.

Comments

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I'm reading a lot of dreamwidth "how we organised this and why" and one of the things they keep bringing up is wanting transparent rules and process, and they explain why. I think your desire for this statement is related, and so I support your effort to come up with one, however blasted difficult it's turning out to be. So I was very much along the lines of 'too hard' to come up with a specific statement but I think you're right to want to try to have it.

You might find DW's diversity statement interesting, for inspiration, and because I suspect reading that will be more helpful to you at this point than reading me.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if maybe adding a bit of the "and why" might be useful in this case. If the Vision Statement included something to the effect of "some of the principles of this group are being stated explicitly in reaction to some specific bad experiences the founder(s) had Elsewhere and are trying to pre-empt here" I wonder if it might help readers to be alert to a larger context, rather than leaving them to try to puzzle it all out from the Vision Statement alone. (That is, help them during the period when they're trying to decide whether to invest some time and energy into joining.)

[zeborah]

That's a good point.

My sister was over on Sunday and we noodled and came up with an alternative phrasing/focus, which I've been hesitating about posting here because, while I don't mind constructive criticism and revision after revision, I wasn't sure this method was the most productive way to get anywhere. But hey, if one doesn't try...

So what we came up with was:

3 a) This group is especially for people who have been or felt uncomfortable, unwelcome or excluded from other writers' groups because of prejudice or bias including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, ablism, or intolerance of non-nuclear family structures, of different religions, or of no religion.
b) All other people are also, of course, welcome, provided that they respect the purpose of the group and the experiences of its other members.
c) Members will act as if they assume good will, specifically:
i) if a comment is made that is or could be hurtful, members will not accuse the commenter of being intentionally hurtful;
ii) if a member is told that a comment they've made is or could be hurtful, they therefore need not defend themself; but can, if they wish, seek respectfully to understand the other party's point of view.

---

Except I'm not sure whether or not I'm happy with the specificity of 3c. Further attempts at getting what I mean into words include:

3c) Many members want to learn to recognise stereotypes and biases so as to better control how people will react to both their fiction and their group posts, and assume that other members are similarly desirous of such knowledge. <witter>

3c) Since, in an online community, word choice is the primary vector for making people feel comfortable or uncomfortable, members are encouraged to the extent of their abilities to use inclusive language and to avoid using terms referencing specific groups of people as generic pejoratives. <witter>

3c) Members who unwittingly perpetuate stereotypes or bias about specific groups of people can expect to be informed of the error just like members who make mistakes about horses, guns, or semi-colons. <witter, and recognition that comparing people to animals is not always Optimal>

Obviously I'm not overly happy with any of these either.

---

<ponders more>

I could go with an exact mirror of 2. I started writing it, but then parallelism caused me to type something that looked dodgy so I gave up because I have to phone the tax dept, wash my hair, do dishes, cook dinner, ice cupcakes, and get to bed on time if not early, and it'd be lovely to fit some writing in there.... But anyway it felt like it was going to be a bit too generic, and I think it wouldn't do anything about incluing "and why".

Pondering shall continue; ideas continue to be appreciated.

[zeborah]

Here's another idea I had this morning in the shower (before I caught up with the rest of the thread, fwiw):

3c) We want members to feel safe and comfortable to let us know if anyone says or does anything that makes the group feel less comfortable, welcoming, or inclusive. We will not take it personally, argue with anyone's experience or pain, or defend our right to say hurtful things; [where possible|practical we will modify our behaviour to keep the group comfortable, welcoming, and inclusive].


Stuff in brackets is stuff I anticipate people getting nervous about. If you can find a better way of saying "We won't just smile and nod and carry on doing the icky thing" then go for it.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Ooh, ouch. I already feel excluded by 3a) I personally have never felt uncomfortable, unwelcome or excluded from other writers' groups because of prejudice or... anything else really. It may be generational. I just get on with the conversations I'm interested in, ignore what I don't like, killfile persistent offenders (On rasfc I never read JAD or DFF for instance, and haven't for years.) I try not to offend others and I try not to look in every nook and cranny for offence from others. (If it's there I'll notice it withour seeking it out.)

I know in 3b) you say 'All other people are also, of course, welcome,' but then you qualify it by saying, 'provided that they respect the purpose of the group and the experiences of its other members,'

In other words the purpose of the group is not to discuss writing SF, it seems to be for marginalised people to discuss the writing of SF in a sheltered environment. Where has your inclusivity gone?

I do feel that in trying to be fair to the minority, you are smacking the majority in the face by firstly assuming that they need telling how to behave (most of us do not) and secondly trying to over-legislate for every last little thing you feel might possibly go wrong.

I honestly believe that you should drop all the specifics and just add a caveat that members will be expected to show respect for fellow members regardless of race, creed, gender, physicality, geography or culture. It all boils down to mutual respect in the end. Is it too difficult to keep it simple?

I've written several equal opportunities policies for organisations and keeping the hard specifics out of it is really the trick to covering the widest range of possibilities and making sure that potential transgressions can be dealt with under a broad generality.

I want to support your new group but instead of being totally inclusive, you seem to be excluding people like me. aquaeri says you're oversimplifying. What you're trying to deal with is such a complex subject that I honestly think less is more in this case.

It seems to be turning into a political group set up to deal with _issues_. Eeep! I just want to talk about writing SF.

[zeborah]

The thing is that, if you haven't felt uncomfortable etc on other groups, then you can stay on those groups and be happy, so you've got somewhere to be.

But for those of us who *have* felt uncomfortable etc on other groups, we can't stay on those groups and be happy, so we don't have anywhere else to be, so that's the purpose of this group I'm creating.

I am, in fact, creating this group specifically for people who don't feel comfortable elsewhere, to be (hopefully) comfortable in this group.

Your suggestion of "members will be expected to show respect for fellow members" is not sufficient; it's not specific enough about what it means, which means it can be interpreted any which way anyone likes. Thus rasfc firmly believes that it lives by that creed (eg one "shows respect" by arguing incessantly with people; another complains that other people don't "show respect" to him because not everyone agrees with his batshit insanity) but in practice it's not a comfortable place for many of us. It would be foolish of me to try and get different results without setting up a different premise.

I welcome anyone into the group, but I make no apologies for the fact that in what I'm creating, the needs of those who have no other group come first.

It seems to be turning into a political group set up to deal with _issues_. Eeep! I just want to talk about writing SF.

I want to talk about writing SF too. But on rasfc I can't talk about the kind of SF I want to write without it turning into a flamewar. I want a group where I can, and where people will reply on the same topic instead of telling me I'm being "politically correct" (a term I despise with an icy passion) or casually disparaging my friends and family and getting offended when I ask them to please not do that.

<wail> It's not political to want a space where people don't insult my friends and family! </wail>

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

' It's not political to want a space where people don't insult my friends and family! '

Then we're back to what I said in the first place. It looks as though you're setting up a private party for kids who are willing to play the game to your rules, and while I think that's fine as far as it goes, it means you don't give the impression of wanting to encourage a broad spectrum of healthy debate and disagreement.

I'm just worried that in trying to regulate to exclude all the things you've disliked about rasfc and open the doors to people you feel have been excluded from rasfc (in fact if not in intention) that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I think this is going to have to be my last comment on this because in the end it's up to you. It's your sandpit, you get to say who plays in it and how.

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

It looks as though you're setting up a private party for kids who are willing to play the game to your rules, and while I think that's fine as far as it goes, it means you don't give the impression of wanting to encourage a broad spectrum of healthy debate and disagreement.

I think of it rather the other way around. The party under discussion sounds less my cuppa the more I hear of it; but I think setting it up is a healthier idea than trying to maintain a close 'community' who really all want to go to a bunch of different places. Networks of private spaces/homes with rich connections between are a step forward from stressing about how best to avoid stepping on each other's toes in public, the way I see things. What I chiefly hope is that the friendships and blithe congregations of old stay green.

I also have reason to suspect that Zeborah's eventual guests may cover a broad and argumentative spectrum enow - even should both of us happen to fall off the ultra-violet edge of it, or such.

I'm just worried that in trying to regulate to exclude all the things you've disliked about rasfc and open the doors to people you feel have been excluded from rasfc (in fact if not in intention) that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm not sure one can always get that choice by explicit regulation -- which, as witness the fate of this discussion, has a way of bringing to a head hypothetical conflicts between good friends and neighbours, which might never even have occurred in practice. My preferred workaround of arbitrary, open-door despotism has also failed here and there, and anyhow isn't for everybody.

I shall be interested to hear how this works out, and what comes of it.

[zeborah]

and open the doors to people you feel have been excluded from rasfc

Note that I said "uncomfortable, unwelcome, or excluded".

And "you feel" really rankles. I didn't leave a community I'd been a part of for a third of my life because of some nebulous feeling; I left because of what people told me (and told rasfc, so it's not just the lurkers in email), and because of what I saw, and because of what I experienced.

People were made uncomfortable. People were made unwelcome. People were ignored and marginalised and, if not expelled (because it's Usenet and one can't physically do that) certainly attacked until they surrendered or retreated. Your 'give no offense, take no offense' strategy made you more or less a neutral party, but the flamewars went on all the same. People suffered, and people have said so in my LJ and on rasfc and many other places.

And it really hurts that either you somehow never noticed all this, or never believed it, or forgot it, or just glossed over it to make a point.


The rest of what you say -- I don't think your metaphors or presuppositions are playing fair, but that's just rhetoric; I know what you mean and, while I disagree with it, I did ask for feedback and that's your feedback.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

You said: 'And it really hurts that either you somehow never noticed all this, or never believed it, or forgot it, or just glossed over it to make a point.'

Don't forget that I have killfiles set on rasfc - probably on the people you got to fighting with - so I missed the flamewars. I make no apologies for remaining neutral. I'm on rasfc to talk about SF writing. I used to get embroiled in far too many political threads and made a decision a couple of years ago to ignore everything that wasn't writing related. I'm not saying flamewars didn't happen, but once a thread strayed into personal sniping of any kind I killed it. I tried - and still try = to keep my rasfc reading to writing-related posts. Life's just too short to read every post. I spend half of my days answering email as it is

I'm still trying to remain neutral - depite rants aimed in my direction.

You asked for opinions, (thanks for asking) and now that you've got mine they seems they offend, so there's not much more I can say.

[zeborah]

I never asked you to apologise for remaining neutral. It's a perfectly valid choice; I'd be a downright git to ask anyone to put themself in the firing line.

You chose to be neutral, to killfile discussions you didn't like, to keep yourself ignorant of what was going on, and that's fine. Whether you did it for your emotional health, or your time, or just because you felt like it, it's your choice. But in choosing to be ignorant of what was happening, you forfeited the right to tell me that my perceptions of what was happening are only something I feel.

If someone buries themself in a bunker throughout a war, no-one should blame them for it; but they don't get to come up after the war's over and say to the survivors, "Your desire to make a safe space for people you feel were shot at is throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Can you really not see how the survivors might feel a little miffed about that?

Your opinion about the group I'm setting up doesn't offend me in the slightest.

But your opinion that I and my friends are only imagining the uncomfortable, unwelcoming, uninclusive things we experienced on rasfc -- *that's* offensive.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Zeborah, we're going to have to end this discussion here and agree to differ while respecting each other's views. I see no advantage in falling out over this, we've known each other too long. Your experience is obviously not mine and vice versa. Good luck with your new writing group.

[zeborah]

I think you don't realise just how very hurtful your words have been; but yeah, since you see the discussion as impinging on our relationship, it will be marginally less painful for me to fall silent than to try again to explain this. Thank you for your good wishes.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Hurt is a two way street. Thanks for agreeing to drop this now.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Yes, this, exactly. Thank you. Putting yourself in a bunker does not give you any right to say anything about the hurt suffered by the people trying to fight the actual war.

[caper-est.livejournal.com]

Hi, Zeborah -- Gray here. I wasn't going to stick my oar in, since it didn't look like this was going to be a group I'd be comfortable in either, which rendered my contributions impertinent. But but but...

The thing is that, if you haven't felt uncomfortable etc on other groups, then you can stay on those groups and be happy, so you've got somewhere to be.

Exactly. I have, and I'm also looking to see what can be done with less formal arrangements. You're making this group because you need it, and see wider need for it out there. Why compromise about that, or feel bad about it? The demand you speak of exists. Build the group well, and they will come. Some of us won't, because our needs aren't congruent -- that don't mean we'll vanish into the Outer Dark in every other context!

One thing that really persuaded me that this group could be a Good Idea, when I happened on the discussion, was just how clear the communication was, away from the hissing and smoke of rec.arts.stress.flippin'.central! I learned more about where Aqua was coming from, frex, in ten minutes here than I had in ten months on the newsgroup. That was a bit of an eye-opener.

Your suggestion of "members will be expected to show respect for fellow members" is not sufficient;

I think there's nothing there that couldn't be fixed by a brief explanation of the group's rationale, combined with a reminder of your role as mellow yet unaccountable autarch, in whose domain people hang around because they trust you and enjoy it.

It's not political to want a space where people don't insult my friends and family!

No. But since building a wall which will keep out the rabid polecats is a sine qua non for your purposes, there's no rule that says all the cool cats will necessarily be able to get through it, either. That sucks, but I have no other constructive suggestions there, except my own yet unproven tactic of relying on clouds of linky connectivity for my other cool-kitteh needs.

Fortune favour your project!

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Hi Gray!

One thing that really persuaded me that this group could be a Good Idea, when I happened on the discussion, was just how clear the communication was, away from the hissing and smoke of rec.arts.stress.flippin'.central! I learned more about where Aqua was coming from, frex, in ten minutes here than I had in ten months on the newsgroup. That was a bit of an eye-opener.

Part of that I think is that it's a different space, and also I think my ability to communicate about this has improved in the last few months. In other words, when I began trying to communicate about this on rasfc, I wasn't as good at communicating about it, and of course by the time you turned up (as I remember it anyway) I had given up on a lot of the group, and wasn't devoting much time to persuading others, partly because just dealing with how angry the group would make me on a regular basis was too time consuming for me to then also calm down and return as a kind and patient teacher.

(And as you may have seen in other comments of mine, I get angry when it seems to me I am expected to be a kind and patient teacher, treating other adults as though they were young children who cannot be expected to respect others yet. And mostly, the desire to express that anger overrides any desire to calm down, because I did not join rasfc in order to be the kind and patient teacher of general principles on how to treat other human beings with respect. To a bunch of writers!)

[zeborah]

(Four-lettered words alert)

Really all I want is a place where people consider it Really Bad to call people "cunt", and where if someone says, "Dude, 'twat' means 'cunt'," the dude in question will say "Oh, crap, I didn't realise," and withdraw it, and not say it again.

Except that this is synecdoche.

But "Oh, crap, I didn't realise" fixes lots of things! (Realising before breaking them in the first place fixes even more, but people who can learn to say "Oh, crap, I didn't realise" can generally learn to realise.) And it's really not that onerous, nor stifling to creativity. In fact, coming up with ways to insult an individual that don't accidentally take out an entire group of innocent bystanders with friendly fire is a wonderful exercise for a writer.

...Well, anyway, witter witter. Thank you for your comments; I agree that linky connectivity is a good thing.

Rant, read at own peril.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Zeborah: if this is inappropriate in your journal, feel free to delete. But I am angry on your behalf, and I think it's justified anger.

I try not to offend others and I try not to look in every nook and cranny for offence from others. (If it's there I'll notice it withour seeking it out.)

I'm offended by your continuing implication, despite both Z and I trying to explain it to you already, that we "look in every nook and cranny for offence". Exactly like you, if offense is there, I'll notice it without seeking it out. I'm just noticing different offensive things than you are, and the fact that you persist in believing that the things you think are offensive really are offensive and the things I think are offensive aren't really offensive; well, it's offensive by my standards. My instruction manual for dealing with the world does not come with a notice saying "when different subjective impressions of reality clash, consult birdsedge for the objective view of reality".

In other words the purpose of the group is not to discuss writing SF, it seems to be for marginalised people to discuss the writing of SF in a sheltered environment. Where has your inclusivity gone?

Whereas my feeling about rasfc is that it is not a group for discussing the writing of SF, but a place for patriarchial self-centred white middle class university-education heterosexual-yet-misogynist men with no social skills to discuss the writing of SF in a sheltered environment.

you are smacking the majority in the face by firstly assuming that they need telling how to behave (most of us do not)

I take that parenthical to refer (at least partly) to your assessment of yourself, and I strongly disagree based on the attitudes that come through very clearly to me in this comment, your other comments nearby, and the fact that as mentioned, you made an offensive judgement about Z and myself a while ago, we both corrected you, and you persist in making that offensive judgement.

You are repeatedly failing to respect Z's self-reports of her experience and I am very surprised she is as tolerant with you as she is. Me, I like to think that the adults I interact with deserve the label "adult" and should not have to be treated like little children, being repeatly, kindly, patiently told not to hit the other children, because it hurts them.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[zeborah]

I don't think it's inappropriate. I wrote a whole lot about why I think that, and about why I didn't respond to those bits myself in the first place, but then I couldn't tell whether it would be helpful to post so it's sitting in a text file instead along with all the other maybe-not-helpful things I've not-posted over the last week.

(Also, a belated thank you for the DW invite, which AYKB I've accepted, and will poke at from time to time.)

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

You see... oh never mind. We're obviously never going to agree about this. I really don't know how to deal with this kind of rant because whatever I do or say I'm in the wrong as far as you're concerned. Well, hello, I'm a working class white woman and I'm guessing that I'm probably a generation older than Z. I'm trying to tell you my experience and you constantly deride it. Well I find that offensive. If Z wants to unfriend me or cut mew out of this discussion at your behest then that's fine. I'm out of here anyway and, like Nicky and Helen, feeling increasingly uncomfortable in this company - more so than I was ever made to feel by the 'patriarchial self-centred white middle class university-education heterosexual-yet-misogynist men with no social skills' in rasfc. I also find it offensive that you take posters to a whole newsgroup and tar them with the same brush as if every single one of the people (yes, they are human beings) is exactly the same in their beliefs and attitudes. If that's not looking for offence then what is?

I'm sorry to lose Zeborah's conversation about writing and SF because I value it tremendously, but some things come with too high a price and being bullied by being told my views have no validity isn't my idea of fun. I try and respect your views and you don't seem to be able to respect mine.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[zeborah]

If Z wants to unfriend me or cut mew out of this discussion at your behest then that's fine.

...What the fuck? <goes away, has a nice shower, calms down just enough to ask two questions>

a) Where did Aqua ask me to do that?
b) Do you really think I would do that?

The rest of your comment... but the thing is that I'm actually trying really hard here to retain your friendship despite all the hurt I feel at what you're saying, and am censoring myself tremendously as a result.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[zeborah]

I meant to add: though I'm bottling down on my fury, if Aqua wants to reply to the accusations you made, she has every right and is most welcome to do it here.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I gave up. I don't understand what I'm actually supposed to have said that leads her to believe either that I'm deriding her experience or that I'm trying to get you to stop being friends with her (see icon).

And since I feel I'm trying to respect her views but she doesn't respect mine, and apparently she feels exactly the same way, I have no clue how to proceed.

[zeborah]

Thanks! Will read; and that actually makes me more interested in DW (though not really possessing of any more time to do anything about that interest :-) ).

And 'helpful' is a very nebulous concept in terms of writing/communicating things, but certainly I very much appreciate everything you've written.