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

[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.