Promised to ask this question around a decade ago... though this is a bit esoteric.

[Darkhawk]

That's my main point and issue. You (Darkhawk, Faemon) never asked. It was just decided that it was attempted rape, to what degree, with which biases, what was horrific...and you never even asked for his input on his own attempted rape, coercion, etc. You just told him how it was from your POV.

That doesn't feel right to me.

 
You know, I have never once been talking about his experience?  I believe I said this, explicitly, already?

So please stop falsely claiming that I am.

I have been responding to the bit where he claimed that anyone would be offended to have a man turn them down for sex.  (Especially in a context where "offended" was more thoroughly described as "enraged to the point of cursing someone".)

[SunflowerP]

It's part of board culture to only quote the bits you're actually referring to/relevant?

 

A Reminder:

It is part of TC'S RULES to quote with trackback every post that you are quoting from - as Veggiewolf already issued a reminder for. What no one had spotted at the time Veggie issued the reminder is that you'd not only failed to provide a trackback, you had put together bits from three different posts by AAQ, and quoted them as if they'd come from a single post. While you didn't add any text, that still counts as altering the quote. That's something that, though it doesn't appear in the 'Don't be annoying' section of the rules, we would typically treat as 'rude and annoying'. In this instance, we're not doing so; I know that you had no intent to deceive in doing it, and that you were just trying to separate out the particular lines that you'd noticed. It is still, though, a violation of the requirement to include the relevant quote code that tracks back to each post you are quoting. I'm well aware that, given the structure of your post, it involves some fancy footwork with multiquoting; I had to do it myself in my response. The fact that it is difficult doesn't absolve you from doing it, however. Sunflower TC Forum Staff

[SunflowerP]

That's my main point and issue. You (Darkhawk, Faemon) never asked. It was just decided that it was attempted rape, to what degree, with which biases, what was horrific...and you never even asked for his input on his own attempted rape, coercion, etc. You just told him how it was from your POV.

 
His input was his account of what she did. All my commentary on it has been about what she did.

How AAQ feels about it is AAQ's business; in no way am I attempting to dictate that. I am calling out her horrendous behavior.

I am not saying, 'AAQ, you should feel violated, or at least attemptedly violated!' I am saying that her actions, as described by AAQ (hey, input!) were horrific actions.

Sunflower

[Faemon]

That's my main point and issue. You (Darkhawk, Faemon) never asked. It was just decided that it was attempted rape, to what degree, with which biases, what was horrific...and you never even asked for his input on his own attempted rape, coercion, etc. You just told him how it was from your POV.

(emphasis mine)

...Which I don't consider out of line because I didn't tell what AAQuest what AAQuest's own point of view was. If he wasn't attempting levity, as SunflowerP didn't think so either, I'm open to having misread between the lines. For the actual subject matter, what, was I not supposed to chime in with the same sentiment that six or seven other people were saying better because AAQ got it already sheesh? If so, I get that I should have been more sensitive to the giant wave of replies on one tangential point. But I cannot sincerely apologize for feeling skeeved out that one point and saying so. If I had thrown shade on anybody, I hope it was the credibility of the boon-granter, as AAQ described that person. I throw shade upon that person since my first post on this topic.

What kind of welcoming board are you looking for, where letting people make excuses for sexual predation is totally OK?

 
I'm not looking for a welcoming board. Again, a game of telephone. I said to Faemon that I didn't agree with her argument that the board behavior in this thread was supportive.

It's telephone with impeccable service because what Darkhawk wrote is exactly what I'm wondering, and you're writing right to me. :confused: Maybe I said this wrong.

There's also a difference between meeting somebody where they are, and support/normalization of a premise that actually is gross.

I meant to say:

Meeting somebody where they are = good.
Support of a gross premise = bad.

That this board did not support gross premise = good.

I think it comes down to a difference in priorities-- concepts over individuals?

Good question, probably worthy of its own thread...once I've figured out how to frame it for discussion (or once someone has, so's I can jump in with my half-baked notions of it.)

[Juniperberry]

His input was his account of what she did. All my commentary on it has been about what she did.

How AAQ feels about it is AAQ's business; in no way am I attempting to dictate that. I am calling out her horrendous behavior.

I am not saying, 'AAQ, you should feel violated, or at least attemptedly violated!' I am saying that her actions, as described by AAQ (hey, input!) were horrific actions.

Sunflower

Do you remember one night in chat when I was concerned about some racial issues my seven year old had? I was going over how I should address the common misconceptions I knew of when I had this eureka moment: I should stop concentrating on what I thought needed to be said, and actively listen to her to find out what her real issues and needs were.  

That's similar to how I feel in this thread. I'm not asking you to say you agree with me; I don't necessarily have the same opinion as you in this thread, but as I told HeartShadow, I can understand and accept your guy's perspective. Hopefully you can understand mine.

Also, saying that I think the discussion could have been approached differently has nothing to do with my opinions about the situation and the behavior of those involved.

[Juniperberry]

(emphasis mine)

...Which I don't consider out of line because I didn't tell what AAQuest what AAQuest's own point of view was. If he wasn't attempting levity, as SunflowerP didn't think so either, I'm open to having misread between the lines. For the actual subject matter, what, was I not supposed to chime in with the same sentiment that six or seven other people were saying better because AAQ got it already sheesh? If so, I get that I should have been more sensitive to the giant wave of replies on one tangential point. But I cannot sincerely apologize for feeling skeeved out that one point and saying so. If I had thrown shade on anybody, I hope it was the credibility of the boon-granter, as AAQ described that person. I throw shade upon that person since my first post on this topic.



It's telephone with impeccable service because what Darkhawk wrote is exactly what I'm wondering, and you're writing right to me. :confused: Maybe I said this wrong.



I meant to say:

Meeting somebody where they are = good.
Support of a gross premise = bad.

That this board did not support gross premise = good.


Good question, probably worthy of its own thread...once I've figured out how to frame it for discussion (or once someone has, so's I can jump in with my half-baked notions of it.)

This post is causing a pretty strong emotional reaction in me, so I apologize ahead of time. But its what I'm feeling, so I guess I have a right to share.

Has anyone yet said anything like, "that sounds horrific. I'm sorry"?  

It comes across as completely insensitive and crass observations when people just point out how gross, skeevy, horrific and horrendous it is, without taking the other persons feeling into account. How is that language helpful??? Don't you think there's a possibility that it creates an environment where some victims could feel dirty and ashamed?

I don't know how its asking for a more welcoming kumbayah board to say maybe we shouldn't hash out how gross and horrendous someone's situation is without even acknowledging some sort of sympathetic regard for their feelings.

[Sophia C]

It comes across as completely insensitive and crass observations when people just point out how gross, skeevy, horrific and horrendous it is, without taking the other persons feeling into account. How is that language helpful??? Don't you think there's a possibility that it creates an environment where some victims could feel dirty and ashamed?

I don't know how its asking for a more welcoming kumbayah board to say maybe we shouldn't hash out how gross and horrendous someone's situation is without even acknowledging some sort of sympathetic regard for their feelings.

 
This. I'm still really confused as to why the concept that maybe we could be welcoming to newcomers is causing such an outcry. This, for me, was separate to the issue of dealing with issues around rape. That could have been done a lot more sensitively and the issue could still have been communicated. Better, potentially.

I wouldn't have stayed if I'd been treated the way this person was, after my first post/s. And on some days I have just as many communication difficulties as him.

[Darkhawk]

This. I'm still really confused as to why the concept that maybe we could be welcoming to newcomers is causing such an outcry.

I think I can legitimately disclose that he came into chat (after he was banned from the board!) and started going on about how he had been using us as some kind of experiment without our consent, and that basically he had made up significant portions of the story in order to provoke a reaction, but had not imagined that throwing in the aspect of sexual predation might upset people so his "experiment" was ruined.

[Sophia C]

I think I can legitimately disclose that he came into chat (after he was banned from the board!) and started going on about how he had been using us as some kind of experiment without our consent, and that basically he had made up significant portions of the story in order to provoke a reaction, but had not imagined that throwing in the aspect of sexual predation might upset people so his "experiment" was ruined.

And while that's disturbing, I didn't know that, and nor did most people reading this, no doubt. I don't know how this is meant to help me feel better about the way I perceived a newcomer as being treated (except that once again it seems like I'm a poor judge of character, and perhaps I should try to stop defending people as a result).

[HeartShadow]

This. I'm still really confused as to why the concept that maybe we could be welcoming to newcomers is causing such an outcry. This, for me, was separate to the issue of dealing with issues around rape. That could have been done a lot more sensitively and the issue could still have been communicated. Better, potentially.

I wouldn't have stayed if I'd been treated the way this person was, after my first post/s. And on some days I have just as many communication difficulties as him.

 
I'd like to point out that this page is seven pages long.  It didn't START at unwelcoming.  People tried to reach out, to understand.  It went downhill because it never made sense, we weren't met halfway at trying to understand.  It just became more difficult.

Looking at the end of the thread and going "well I wouldn't want to be treated like that" isn't a fair judgment of the board's welcomingness.  Going on about how we mistreated someone that was BANNED for THEIR behavior is .. honestly disheartening.

I mean, fuck, what are we SUPPOSED to do?  Not notice awfulness?  Not point it out for fear we might be mean?  WHAT?

[Jenett]

And while that's disturbing, I didn't know that, and nor did most people reading this, no doubt. I don't know how this is meant to help me feel better about the way I perceived a newcomer as being treated (except that once again it seems like I'm a poor judge of character, and perhaps I should try to stop defending people as a result).

One of the things that I think is really complicated about the Internet - especially complicated, I mean - is that some people twig to 'there is something not quite right here' in various ways. Some people will, and some people won't, in the same conversations - we all have different experiences, after all.

I know in the case of this thread, there were things that seemed off to me from the initial post. (I could maybe pin it down with some time, but it was something in the combination of phrasing, vagueness, and the framing of the initial post. I've spent a *lot* of time on the Internet, including 18 months dealing with harassment and abuse issues in a substantial way - helping other people with it, I mean - and it's given me some experience in reading subtle tells for this kind of thing.)

I make it a policy in such cases to be careful about how I respond, to keep my posts limited to things that would be useful to other people reading the thread, and to try to get on with my life.

But at the same time, I also know that there are situations where things that feel that kind of 'off' to me have caused *real meaningful harm* to people involved in the same conversations. (And not the original poster!)

People who actually want to have sincere interactions on the board, and who understand they are walking into an existing culture (which has reasons for being like it is, even if they're not always understandable or ideal reasons) usually begin to sort this out fairly quickly. People who are not being sincere and well-meaning, well, don't.

And so, while obeying the board rules obviously matters, I also think it's important for there to be space for people to respond in a variety of ways, including saying "This is really messed up, did you realise that?" No, that's not always a comfortable conversation. No, it's not always friendly. But mandated kindness or niceness (even when someone has said hurtful things) aren't a solution, either.

In an Internet where there are people who fake things, in an Internet where there are people who deliberately troll, in an Internet where there are people who create thought experiments and don't care that it messes other people up ... protective reactions are going to happen. And they are sometimes entirely reasonable and appropriate.

(As in this case, where it is now clear the whole thing was someone trying to play the forum and get reactions of some kind in a way that actively misrepresented themselves and their experiences at the very least.)

[Juniperberry]

And while that's disturbing, I didn't know that, and nor did most people reading this, no doubt. I don't know how this is meant to help me feel better about the way I perceived a newcomer as being treated (except that once again it seems like I'm a poor judge of character, and perhaps I should try to stop defending people as a result).

 
Yeah, the information is upsetting on several levels. I'm embarrassed that I tried to see the best in someone.  I'm upset that now any valid points I may have had are completely erased by this revealed information. I'm feeling uncomfortable with the fact that only a few people were privy to this information, and that we weren't all discussing this on an even playing field. It's hard to distinguish right now any difference in how I feel about  the OP and other posters; both have made me feel humiliated in their own ways.

I don't even have a word for how I'm feeling. Just that a wall has gone up, and that this changes things for me on a deep level.

To use Faemon's wording: This whole thread has left me feeling skeevy. I think the word I was looking for a second ago was violated.

[Jenett]

Yeah, the information is upsetting on several levels. I'm embarrassed that I tried to see the best in someone.  I'm upset that now any valid points I may have had are completely erased by this revealed information.

To be very clear about the timing (in case Darkhawk's post wasn't specific enough.)

The original poster was banned, by Randall, back here (which by my local time was about 8am on 1/5/15). So everything after that is not going to make a difference to that specific person (though ongoing conversation happened after that in this thread.)

Yesterday (i.e. late morning of 1/6/15, Eastern US time), the original poster appeared in chat, it became very clear they had been actively misrepresenting themselves, etc. (I was in chat, with only a couple of other people, but I'd rather leave it up to them to identify themselves if they wish.)

Someone coming onto chat when they've been banned from the forum is also a forum rules issue, so it's the kind of the thing Staff like to know about. (There was at least one staff member logged in, but if by chance there hadn't been, it's the kind of thing I would have kept a log of, let them know about, and sent on request.)  

But beyond that? It's not routine to say "Hey, this happened in chat!" For all sorts of reasons.

(I don't think that should be a surprise to anyone. Nor that those of us on the Cauldron who occasionally see each other face to face don't report our exact conversations. I mean, I've known Darkhawk for approaching 20 years, but I don't think anyone needs  or should expect the full rundown of everything we talk about when we get to see each other in person, even though some of those conversations touch on the forum, Paganism, and other topics of interest to other people here.)

It's also a topic where several people have mentioned they've felt triggered, staff has had to spend some time sorting things out in the background, and there's all the usual 'people have other things in their lives' that mean they may or may not have felt diving into this thread for all sorts of other reasons.

So. You now have some additional info that you might not otherwise have. Me, I generally go "Hey, chance to calibrate my own senses about these kinds of things" with that. You might do something else with it, and that's fine too.

I don't even have a word for how I'm feeling. Just that a wall has gone up, and that this changes things for me on a deep level.

The first time I discovered someone had been actively misrepresenting themselves online to me (and to a lot of other people) was in 1995. At that time, it tore the online space I was in roughly in half, and a lot of friendships and connections never recovered.

But the person who is to blame for that is the person who actively lied about themselves, used other people in the space to bolster their own desires, and who lied about other people when some of us started noticing discrepancies.

Since then, I've come to the conclusion that there are some kinds of behaviours that are annoying in community spaces, and some that are actively destructive. And I have no patience for the latter. Life's too short. This is one of those.

[Darkhawk]

The original poster was banned, by Randall, back here (which by my local time was about 8am on 1/5/15). So everything after that is not going to make a difference to that specific person (though ongoing conversation happened after that in this thread.)

Actually, he was banned before that; Randall posted that because I specifically asked him to make it explicit to the rest of the board that he had done so.  I'm not sure the timing on the formal ban going down, but I believe it was before any conversation followed from the flounce post that provoked it.

[Juniperberry]

But beyond that? It's not routine to say "Hey, this happened in chat!" For all sorts of reasons.

(I don't think that should be a surprise to anyone. Nor that those of us on the Cauldron who occasionally see each other face to face don't report our exact conversations. I mean, I've known Darkhawk for approaching 20 years, but I don't think anyone needs or should expect the full rundown of everything we talk about when we get to see each other in person, even though some of those conversations touch on the forum, Paganism, and other topics of interest to other people here.)

Expecting there to be some form of transparent, and equal ability to access information in a debate and discussion is not the same thing as wanting to know the full details of your private, mundane conversations. It's a ridiculous comparison.  

It's also a topic where several people have mentioned they've felt triggered, staff has had to spend some time sorting things out in the background, and there's all the usual 'people have other things in their lives' that mean they may or may not have felt diving into this thread for all sorts of other reasons.

I would think that a banned poster disclosing relevant information to a discussion that other people are putting their also valuable time and effort into would be a top priority. Something along the lines of "Hey, this banned poster just spoke to a few people in chat, and the integrity of this discussion has been compromised for everyone. Thread is now locked." I don't know, that just seems like a more fair and reasonable response then the one used here of just allowing some people to feel like fools and others to be validated.

 

So. You now have some additional info that you might not otherwise have.

At whose discretion?

Me, I generally go "Hey, chance to calibrate my own senses about these kinds of things" with that. You might do something else with it, and that's fine too.

It's funny how you read my mind. Because my two burning questions were: what would Jenett do, and would she be fine with me choosing a different method?

So, not only do I get to feel humilated and emotionally manipulated by a cruel ''experiment",  I also get the pleasure of feeling patronized by a person who did have access to the information, and whose viewpoint was validated by it.

What a great day on TC.