collapse

* Recent Posts

Re: Cill Shift Schedule by SunflowerP
[Today at 02:19:18 am]


Re: Pagan Traitor Storms the US Capitol? by Altair
[Yesterday at 09:27:38 am]


Re: Foods of the gods by Ashmire
[January 18, 2021, 07:50:34 pm]


Re: Foods of the gods by Sefiru
[January 18, 2021, 07:44:26 pm]


Re: Foods of the gods by Sefiru
[January 18, 2021, 07:23:41 pm]

Author Topic: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?  (Read 27014 times)

HeartShadow

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 2195
  • Total likes: 3
    • View Profile
    • http://www.flamekeeping.org
Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« on: February 20, 2015, 05:43:34 pm »
It keeps coming up - that social justice issues are somehow an issue in conversation.  That they chill open discussion.  That they're problematic.

So - here's the place.  Where is the problem?  Is it that people use social justice for bullying?  (because let's face it, ANYTHING can be used for bullying, including niceness, social justice .. heck, I'm sure if someone tried hard enough, jumprope could be used for bullying).  Is it that watching language is "hard"?  Is it that we disagree that some of these things should even be issues, and therefore we WANT to denigrate group X because they're actually bad people?

Is it that conversation around the "real issue" keeps getting derailed into why the "real issue" is inherently problematic?  And in that case - isn't the fact that it's problematic part of the issue?

Is there a way to discuss "real issues" in ways that acknowledge the problem while still discussing what the original poster was asking about?  Do we want that?

What's the real problem here, and what are the solutions?

HarpingHawke

  • Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2013
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 15
    • View Profile
  • Religion: shapeshifting, witchery, polytheism. under endless construction.
  • Preferred Pronouns: they/them
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2015, 06:34:34 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171229

So - here's the place.  Where is the problem?  Is it that people use social justice for bullying?  (because let's face it, ANYTHING can be used for bullying, including niceness, social justice .. heck, I'm sure if someone tried hard enough, jumprope could be used for bullying).  Is it that watching language is "hard"?  Is it that we disagree that some of these things should even be issues, and therefore we WANT to denigrate group X because they're actually bad people?



While I can't find them at this moment, I do remember a few threads where social justice was used as a weapon. It was not necessarily enough to count as bullying to me at least (although that may be different from another perspective) and probably not to the person being debated; they always had the option to report, which was made clear, and they did not. It made me a bit uncomfortable--while issues need to be discussed and it's nigh on impossible to let problematic things lie, it was more weaponized than educational. To me, that's regrettable.

I understand why the point is often driven in; it's not necessarily for the problematic poster at some point, it's for people looking on and the guests and the lurkers. I certainly appreciate the attention to detail and to not hurting people with insensitive rhetoric--I think it's great that people at TC can do that. We just maybe need to stop weaponizing our statements until it's proven that the poster is being willful in their...problematicness, for lack of a better term.

 
Quote
Is it that conversation around the "real issue" keeps getting derailed into why the "real issue" is inherently problematic?  And in that case - isn't the fact that it's problematic part of the issue?


I like how you phrased this. :)
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." - Hemingway

Pix

  • Apprentice
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 45
  • Total likes: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2015, 08:04:44 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171229
It keeps coming up - that social justice issues are somehow an issue in conversation.  That they chill open discussion.  That they're problematic.

So - here's the place.  Where is the problem?  Is it that people use social justice for bullying?  (because let's face it, ANYTHING can be used for bullying, including niceness, social justice .. heck, I'm sure if someone tried hard enough, jumprope could be used for bullying).  Is it that watching language is "hard"?  Is it that we disagree that some of these things should even be issues, and therefore we WANT to denigrate group X because they're actually bad people?

Is it that conversation around the "real issue" keeps getting derailed into why the "real issue" is inherently problematic?  And in that case - isn't the fact that it's problematic part of the issue?

Is there a way to discuss "real issues" in ways that acknowledge the problem while still discussing what the original poster was asking about?  Do we want that?

What's the real problem here, and what are the solutions?

 
I have seen it get absurd, though not on this messageboard. I vaguely recall once on this board where someone seemed to jump the gun and assume racism on someone else that didn't seem like it was deserved though the supposed racist comment was sloppy enough I wasn't sure and decided it wasn't up to me to say anything and if the poster called a racist had a previous history of it then it probably was justified. But next time I see something like that I'll speak up, probably asking questions before weighing in whether I think the "social justice criticism" is valid or just premature (or even downright silly) in that case and what I think should be done about it (since you asked).

That said, I do get tired of blatant bigots who try to keep what they say from being challenged by claiming others are reacting in a kneejerk "politically correct" fashion without thought or reason or even try to turn it around (though sometimes I can't help but laugh--at, not with--when I see someone post something like "don't wealthy white males in the United States deserve a break from all the oppression" and MEAN it :whis: ).
"If there is a universal mind, must it be sane?"

--Charles Fort

Faemon

  • Grand Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2012
  • Posts: 1229
  • Total likes: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2015, 08:22:52 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171229
Is it that people use social justice for bullying?


While the kyriarchy model/paradigm isn't perfect and hasn't explored everything, I would have at least had faith in the process of discussion being self-correcting if ever it would veer into morally wrong.

It gives me the skeevies when I read something (can't find the source to cite now, which is annoying) like how academic feminists have a duty to speak for those who can't make a case for themselves due to not being given the intellectual tools to parse this immaterial yet effective and therefore verifiable entity as the imbalance of power and identity politics…even though if there is any power that deserves to be privileged, I would have thought it would be knowledge.

It's been a great point of consternation for me personally about whether I should make the effort to meet somebody where they are in a discussion, or universalise my understanding of this system and educate them on this thing that makes so much sense at the point that we're discussing (because "where they are" is just Bad For Society.)

So, there's that.


And it's not only bullying, either, but manipulation. If we're talking about something that affects people's subjective experiences so profoundly, then one ready "measure" (for lack of better term) that we have for it is to trust in other people's subjective experiences as they express it.

But, it is possible for people to be conditioned against our best interests, to be biased for some unexamined ulterior motive, and even to lie and present that all of those as valid subjective experiences (which of course in the latter case we can only find out when the individual confesses later and then would they be lying about lying? Whatever: keystone broken. I mean that there's only so many times that can happen before I start to think that it's not just bad luck with individuals encountered and interacted with, but taking other people at their word at all that's the wrong thing to do.)

And then there are honest subjective experiences that don't fit the United Front of some social justice narrative or another, and that's where the paradigm quickly shows that dialogue within this paradigm is actually not a self-correcting process but just another power play.

Quote
Is there a way to discuss "real issues" in ways that acknowledge the problem while still discussing what the original poster was asking about? Do we want that?


Expanded and detailed discussion guidelines as a separate page to link to, and then get back to participating in the thread? That's if the conversation isn't moving forward because one participant doesn't know the foundations.

While this sounds awful: I do think there's a way to already be familiar with the foundations or what's popularly a given in this particle of society, to disagree and reject it, and still be a valuable voice. It's just unfortunate that whoever can't take that presence won't know to Ignore (a wonderful function) until damage...hopefully reparable damage but that's just a hope...has already been done.

So, sometimes there's no good way to reconcile one's needs and another's boundaries. There must be some middle ground between a safe space and an echo chamber.
The Codex of Poesy: wishcraft, faelatry, alchemy, and other slight misspellings.
the Otherfaith: Chromatic Genderbending Faery Monarchs of Technology. DeviantArt

Juni

  • Grand Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 1683
  • Total likes: 2
    • View Profile
    • http://thelittleseawitch.net
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2015, 08:28:29 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171229
It keeps coming up - that social justice issues are somehow an issue in conversation.  That they chill open discussion.  That they're problematic.

 
One thing that comes to mind is that for those of us who are at least nominally aware of social justice issues, social justice comments coming up could become tedious. "Oh my god, we're having the 'shaman' discussion again" or what have you. For someone who knows why blanket usage of the word shaman is problematic, it can seem like someone is harping on the issue, intentionally derailing a conversation to gripe about something that's been talked to death.

I think the important thing to remember in these cases is that even if it's come up before, the member being replied to may not have read any of the relevant threads or posts, and even if they have, it needs to be addressed at every turn for the same reason that failure to leave quote codes intact needs to be addressed every time. It's a problem, and every post about it reaches a wider audience than just the active participants in the thread. Even more importantly, only responding to some can lead to people being "called-out" more than others, and then you get issues of "why are you yelling at me, so-and-so said the same thing and you didn't say anything to them."

It can be frustrating and boring to read the same things over and over again. I can only imagine how much more frustrating it is to have to actually deal with some of these issues every day of one's life.
Join the Emboatening Crew over on Kiva! Emboatening the boatless since Opet 2013!

The Little Sea Witch - personal/catch-all blog
MistSeeking - religious blog

random417

  • Journeyman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2014
  • Posts: 237
  • Total likes: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2015, 08:36:28 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171229
What's the real problem here, and what are the solutions?
*** possible language based triggers
Ok, in the interest of being very clear, I'm deliberately NOT going to go out of my way to choose the "correct" word to the SJ people in any of this. If that means that might offend or trigger someone, you have been warned.


Ok, being perfectly blunt, the problem is that words and concepts used in common ways seem to suddenly be a problem when I bring them here.

Being blunt, I'm not interested in changing the world. I will treat people with respect the best that I am able, and yes, that includes basics like checking pronoun fields. What I won't do, is tear apart my post for anything that might offend anyone. I won't drop commonly used phrases because they offend someone else, although I like to think I avoid the worst offenders.

I'm not interested in a discussion about my "privilege", as most SJ warriors (and yes, that's supposed to offend a little, but only a little) have a tendency to assign me privilege I don't actually have.

When I put something I believe in up for discussion, I don't want to have to defend the ethics of the universe. I don't care if my belief means the universe is unfair, if I believe it, I believe I didn't choose it, so the unfairness isn't my issue. It's not my problem, and I can't fix it. It's just the way things work (I'll dig the specific post I'm talking about up here)

In short, SJ issues shove themselves in where they don't need to be, and in my case at least, where they're not wanted. Then I have no recourse, because I can't tell someone how to post, to get the discussion back on track.

You wanted to know the problem, that's how I see it.
"Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that and no other shall say nay. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is in every way perfect."

AL 1:42-44

Jack

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Cascadia
  • Posts: 3181
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 98
    • View Profile
    • Dwarvenpunk
  • Religion: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2015, 08:44:03 pm »
Quote from: random417;171245
Ok, in the interest of being very clear, I'm deliberately NOT going to go out of my way to choose the "correct" word to the SJ people in any of this. If that means that might offend or trigger someone, you have been warned.

 
I just wanted to pull this out and frame it on its own. I am impressed you chose to put your name on that, Random.
Hail Mara, Lady of Good Things!
"The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly." -Madeleine L'Engle

HeartShadow

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 2195
  • Total likes: 3
    • View Profile
    • http://www.flamekeeping.org
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2015, 08:51:30 pm »
Quote from: random417;171245
*** possible language based triggers
Ok, in the interest of being very clear, I'm deliberately NOT going to go out of my way to choose the "correct" word to the SJ people in any of this. If that means that might offend or trigger someone, you have been warned.

 
... okay, for what it's worth, you DO know that putting that as the header is basically the same thing as saying "I'm going to be an asshole now, you've been warned", right?  Is that what you're trying to say?

If you're not interested in making the world a fairer place, then yes, there are going to be issues, because a lot of people here DO have that as a goal.  Many have it as a religious imperative.  (I am one of them).  So "this is irrelevant" is much like saying "your religion is irrelevant here" which .. no, my religion is relevant everywhere I am.  Just as yours is where you are.  They don't come /off/.

So - you state a premise which involves things being inherently unfair.  People argue because they want to MAKE things fair - and .. that's irrelevant?  Or you don't think they SHOULD be fair?  I'm very confused.

Faemon

  • Grand Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2012
  • Posts: 1229
  • Total likes: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2015, 09:22:52 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171248
If you're not interested in making the world a fairer place, then yes, there are going to be issues, because a lot of people here DO have that as a goal.

Just throwing in here something I recently read about postmodern feminism' rejection of grand theory. Global trends are a valuable, I think, observance of systemic oppression…but in a discussion, I'd rather keep it to the interaction. "I come from X, do I understand correctly that you come from Y? And this applies to Z point of issue…" so on, so forth. So, I'm all for personalising the political, but politicising the personal can too easily, I think, turn into a weapon against statements or ideas that are not an attack.

Quote from: random417;171245
In short, SJ issues shove themselves in where they don't need to be, and in my case at least, where they're not wanted. Then I have no recourse, because I can't tell someone how to post, to get the discussion back on track.

You wanted to know the problem, that's how I see it.

Nah, I see it as SJ issues are already there, already everywhere, but we've gotten too used to them being ignored. To point them out might seem like a disruption or distraction of the issue at hand, but I think usually those do need to be addressed and smoothed over so that the very same discussion on the same topic or issue can continue and develop and advance. I hope that would be the goal, but if even one person also in the discussion doesn't conceive of approaching that point, then it's not going to happen, and then it does become a disruption as we argue what the point of even bringing up that pointless point even points to.

If the point of consternation from the social justice viewpoint is truly tangential to the main point and doesn't connect to the event or idea being discussed, then I would think that it's on all of the participants to get back to the main point and keep to that.

I think the true determiner of conversational "dross" is how little attention, response, or address it gets. If the seemingly tangential SJW point comes alive, it…might likely be because it should be?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2015, 09:25:03 pm by Faemon »
The Codex of Poesy: wishcraft, faelatry, alchemy, and other slight misspellings.
the Otherfaith: Chromatic Genderbending Faery Monarchs of Technology. DeviantArt

Jabberwocky

  • Master Member
  • ******
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Posts: 452
  • Total likes: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2015, 09:48:02 pm »
Quote from: HeartShadow;171229


What's the real problem here, and what are the solutions?


Thing is, "Social Justice" is such a general term I don't feel like I can really address the question without more specific detail.

I certainly have criticisms of both identity politics and privilege theory.  I can also pretty heavily critique the concept of being an "activist".

Specific groups, I also have criticisms of.  I think there were some quite big issues with the Occupy movement, for example.  While I'd generalise more, I can even stretch as far about talking about the online social justice movement and how some of its members behave.

But that may or may not be relevant to what you're asking.

Nor is it necessarily applicable to neo-Marxists, the Brazilian Landless Peasant's Movement or someone fighting to save their local library.  Despite the fact that all of those groups fit broadly into the "social justice" category.

Aside from a handful of groups, I think most people would agree that "social justice" is probably a good thing.  But the devil, as always, is in the detail
Your heart is a muscle as big as your fist.

HarpingHawke

  • Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2013
  • *
  • Posts: 1531
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 15
    • View Profile
  • Religion: shapeshifting, witchery, polytheism. under endless construction.
  • Preferred Pronouns: they/them
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2015, 10:10:10 pm »
Quote from: Jabberwocky;171252
Thing is, "Social Justice" is such a general term I don't feel like I can really address the question without more specific detail.

 
That is true. Certainly there are a bunch of different definitions of Social Justice, depending on which groups one is a part of. F'ex, in the conservative/libertarian circles I was raised in, it means that 'everyone has the same [nebulous] Thing, regardless of what they do to better themselves or the people around them.' In other circles, it means equality in a different manner. The kind that's actually sustainable. The kind that means people are given respect and basic dignity.

There are probably other definitions that fall under the term 'Social Justice' that mean different things. I'm just going by the definition implied by its usage on the board itself.
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." - Hemingway

Jack

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Cascadia
  • Posts: 3181
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 98
    • View Profile
    • Dwarvenpunk
  • Religion: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2015, 11:05:37 pm »
Quote from: Jabberwocky;171252
Thing is, "Social Justice" is such a general term I don't feel like I can really address the question without more specific detail.

 
I think that's kind of what this thread was created to address - when people state that there's too much social justice on the board, what do they mean? Because I like this site too much to assume people are upset I don't want to be misgendered, for example. I don't believe people just want the ability to say things without being criticized for it; after all, that's not expected when it comes to other subjects. So there must be more to it than that, right?
Hail Mara, Lady of Good Things!
"The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly." -Madeleine L'Engle

DemeterDelusion

  • Sr. Apprentice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2015
  • Posts: 68
  • Country: 00
  • Total likes: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2015, 01:07:17 am »
Quote from: Jack;171257
I think that's kind of what this thread was created to address - when people state that there's too much social justice on the board, what do they mean? Because I like this site too much to assume people are upset I don't want to be misgendered, for example. I don't believe people just want the ability to say things without being criticized for it; after all, that's not expected when it comes to other subjects. So there must be more to it than that, right?

 
I can't speak for everyone, but there are a lot of interesting discussions going on both here and elsewhere on the web that I won't touch with a ten-foot broomstick, because some people have a tendency to correct small "problematic" things in posts and completely derail the entire discussion to make sure the poster knows their mistake and why it's bad. Even in the best discussions, it's really easy to mistake "you said something bad" to mean "you are a bad person."

So "hey, you misgendered me!" isn't the real issue with the vague SJ hate label, and it's (usually) not about avoiding the responsibility of dealing with criticism either. If anything, it's more like "I feel violated because I'm being confronted on something that I did not invite discussion about." Add in the fact that loudest voices tend to be the most abrasive, and there you have a perfect recipe for backlash against anything remotely related to SJ.

That doesn't mean that talks involving social justice shouldn't happen or that genuinely gross behavior shouldn't be called out, of course, but I think it'd do the social justice movement on the internet in general a world of good if most of the people in it learned to appreciate the power of words. To each their own, though.

Heck, it's not an problem unique to SJ issues, when you get down to it, but that's another tangent entirely.

Jack

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Cascadia
  • Posts: 3181
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 98
    • View Profile
    • Dwarvenpunk
  • Religion: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2015, 01:12:28 am »
Quote from: DemeterDelusion;171259
So "hey, you misgendered me!" isn't the real issue with the vague SJ hate label, and it's (usually) not about avoiding the responsibility of dealing with criticism either. If anything, it's more like "I feel violated because I'm being confronted on something that I did not invite discussion about." Add in the fact that loudest voices tend to be the most abrasive, and there you have a perfect recipe for backlash against anything remotely related to SJ.

That doesn't mean that talks involving social justice shouldn't happen or that genuinely gross behavior shouldn't be called out, of course, but I think it'd do the social justice movement on the internet in general a world of good if most of the people in it learned to appreciate the power of words. To each their own, though.

I dunno, I think it's because I see words as powerful that I want to have the right pronouns used, and will correct people as necessary if they misgender me.

Also I think "people will pick up on something unintended in your post and run with it" can be true of any subject on this board. Why should some of the most personal topics be less protected than pagan topics, politics, or anything else?
Hail Mara, Lady of Good Things!
"The only way to cope with something deadly serious is to try to treat it a little lightly." -Madeleine L'Engle

DemeterDelusion

  • Sr. Apprentice
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2015
  • Posts: 68
  • Country: 00
  • Total likes: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Social Justice Vs. Conversation - Smackdown?
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2015, 02:01:36 am »
Quote from: Jack;171260
I dunno, I think it's because I see words as powerful that I want to have the right pronouns used, and will correct people as necessary if they misgender me.

Also I think "people will pick up on something unintended in your post and run with it" can be true of any subject on this board. Why should some of the most personal topics be less protected than pagan topics, politics, or anything else?

Yeah, the latter part is what I meant when I said that it was hardly behavior unique to SJ discussions. It's way more of a communication problem in general than anything else, and requires a whole lot of people to look beyond themselves to acknowledge that they could have said something hurtful. Since that's not really feasible, it involves a lot of good rules and moderation to keep bad behavior at bay from either side.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that self-expression, orientation, and identity are phenomenally sacred, so they should definitely be just a protected as everything else! But at the same time, that doesn't justify being just as offensive as sexist/homophobic/etc. people in discussions and debates, which unfortunately can and does happen. I hope that makes sense.

To be fair, I'm speaking really broadly here, as the Cauldron is actually really good about keeping the peace. Some other places, like Tumblr for example... eesh.

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
3381 Views
Last post January 02, 2014, 05:43:47 pm
by AthenaiiseSofia
9 Replies
2561 Views
Last post July 05, 2013, 12:01:20 am
by mlr52
10 Replies
12077 Views
Last post March 06, 2018, 08:08:20 am
by Noctua
26 Replies
5597 Views
Last post June 01, 2015, 07:34:44 am
by Ghost235
1 Replies
961 Views
Last post September 13, 2015, 03:23:03 pm
by carillion

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 37
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 1
  • Dot Users Online:

* Please Donate!

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

* Shop & Support TC

The links below are affiliate links. When you click on one of these links you will go to the listed shopping site with The Cauldron's affiliate code. Any purchases you make during your visit will earn TC a tiny percentage of your purchase price at no extra cost to you.

* In Memoriam

Chavi (2006)
Elspeth (2010)
Marilyn (2013)

* Cauldron Staff

Host:
Sunflower

Message Board Staff
Board Coordinator:
Darkhawk

Assistant Board Coordinator:
Aster Breo

Senior Staff:
Aisling, Jenett, Sefiru

Staff:
Allaya, Chatelaine, EclecticWheel, HarpingHawke, Kylara, PerditaPickle, rocquelaire

Discord Chat Staff
Chat Coordinator:
Morag

Cauldron Council:
Bob, Catja, Emma-Eldritch, Fausta, Jubes, Kelly, LyricFox, Phouka, Sperran, Star, Steve, Tana

Site Administrator:
Randall

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal