Paizo, please recruit a moderation team.

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Rysky wrote:

I'd say lying and inventing a non-existent law as a defense for why a trans woman wasn't allowed to room with a cis woman falls squarely under transphobia.

Making up a nonexistent law seems like a stupid way to make a transphobia point, when it can be fact-checked and proven to me false.

What if they were not “lying”, but were genuinely mistaken and only repeating points that they had heard from others? That sounds like an opportunity to educate, not to ban.

For the record, I support the LGBTQ+ community and have many good friends and family who are members. But I also live in Southern California, and I am aware that a lot of the rest of the country had a lot of catching up to do in terms of education.

So outright and clear bigotry, sure, ban them. But for folks that may just be misinformed, use the opportunity to engage. Not everyone knows they are blowing a dog whistle.

[Rysky]

"Making up a nonexistent law seems like a stupid way to make a transphobia point, when it can be fact-checked and proven to me false."

And yet people ignored that and hung onto the fantasy golden law that let them espouse transphobia.

"What if they were not “lying”, but were genuinely mistaken and only repeating points that they had heard from others? That sounds like an opportunity to educate, not to ban."

EVERY single time it was brought up they were called on it and dug their heels and kept supporting a made up law, spare the "oh you win them over with compassion" tract. If you're repeatedly told something is made up and you keep bringing it up you are lying at that point.

"But for folks that may just be misinformed, use the opportunity to engage."

You've been ignoring the forums these past three months.

"Not everyone knows they are blowing a dog whistle."

If you have multiple tell you are and you choose to double down, there's no defense.

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

See, I thought someone might go to the facts of that specific case and that specific poster to rebut my arguments. Sure, you can be right about your points that that person was a bigot, and I won’t argue with you since I don’t know the facts.

But the point of this thread is about moderation, and my point is that while you may think you know what is going on in someone else’s head, you don’t always do. People can be ignorant and misinformed without being hateful or bigoted.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Ignorance and arrogance and laziness and hate all walk into a room and finds himself alone.

The difference doesn't really matter, because these forums aren't here to facilitate redemption arcs. If you're making the forums unsafe for other posters, your good intentions don't matter much. Sort of like how if you treat a partner abusively without realizing it, they still aren't obligated to stay and help you work through it. These forums are a shared space. The mods don't have to be mind readers to enforce their rules.

Personally, I'm a big believer in arbitary, biased unfair moderation with as much transparency as possible. Ultimately, it's always going to be totally subjective when the mods take action. I don't need them to follow a set of objective, circumventable rules--that just encourages an "I'm not touching you!" attitude from certain posters. I just need to know that they won't let abusive behavior slide just because the abuser knows how to couch their words.

[pauljathome]

Cori Marie wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

keftiu wrote:

There is no need to 'understand the other side' when it comes to matters of trans rights.

While there are very clearly some posts that are racist, transphobic, etc etc there are also lots and lots of posts that are in a grey zone. Some will see them as racist/transphobic/etc, some won't.

The problem here is that a lot of what you feel are a "grey zone" are actually extremely loud dog whistles that have been thrown at those marginalized groups for decades. We've grown accustomed to hearing them, we know exactly what they actually mean a recent example was the poster who repeatedly said their were legal reasons not to allow a man and a woman to room together at a convention, when that wasn't the argument, and the argument was about a trans woman and a cis woman. It was a loud dog whistle that said "no I will never think of a trans woman as anything other than a man" and he posted that argument literally dozens of times over the course of a week.

That indeed is a problem, a multifaceted one.

As I've said before, while I consider myself transfriendly I am personally cis and have no very close trans friends or family. Which means that I am NOT aware of all the dog whistles.

And sometimes the dog whistles may not mean what you think they do. Lets take that exact argument above. When I first saw it I didn't see a dog whistle, I saw a plausible argument. Could have been right, could have been wrong. It still seems possible to me (in isolation, NOT considering other posts the person made) conceivable that the person making it didn't realize it was a dog whistle. That they made the argument in all innocence, perhaps having been fooled by somebody elses dog whistle. The whole PURPOSE of dog whistles is to obfuscate intention, sometimes they succeed at that.

While I understand your point, I'd be very uncomfortable if speaking a dog whistle was considered sufficient to ban

[Kobold Catgirl]

I get where you're coming from, pauljathome, but if they aren't prepared to back down when called out about the dog whistle, that says a lot more than the initial dogwhistle itself.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

This would only work if the team is consistent. In the past they have banned people for calling Paizo out for shenanigans while allowing other posters, it appeared, free reign. These posters came to Paizo's defense routinely.

[thejeff]

pauljathome wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

keftiu wrote:

There is no need to 'understand the other side' when it comes to matters of trans rights.

While there are very clearly some posts that are racist, transphobic, etc etc there are also lots and lots of posts that are in a grey zone. Some will see them as racist/transphobic/etc, some won't.

The problem here is that a lot of what you feel are a "grey zone" are actually extremely loud dog whistles that have been thrown at those marginalized groups for decades. We've grown accustomed to hearing them, we know exactly what they actually mean a recent example was the poster who repeatedly said their were legal reasons not to allow a man and a woman to room together at a convention, when that wasn't the argument, and the argument was about a trans woman and a cis woman. It was a loud dog whistle that said "no I will never think of a trans woman as anything other than a man" and he posted that argument literally dozens of times over the course of a week.

That indeed is a problem, a multifaceted one.

As I've said before, while I consider myself transfriendly I am personally cis and have no very close trans friends or family. Which means that I am NOT aware of all the dog whistles.

And sometimes the dog whistles may not mean what you think they do. Lets take that exact argument above. When I first saw it I didn't see a dog whistle, I saw a plausible argument. Could have been right, could have been wrong. It still seems possible to me (in isolation, NOT considering other posts the person made) conceivable that the person making it didn't realize it was a dog whistle. That they made the argument in all innocence, perhaps having been fooled by somebody elses dog whistle. The whole PURPOSE of dog whistles is to obfuscate intention, sometimes they succeed at that.

While I understand your point, I'd be very uncomfortable if speaking a dog whistle was considered sufficient to ban

Is anyone actually suggesting that a single possible dog whistle should be an auto-ban? I mean the current situation is that we get to argue about it and refute it again and again for a week, with the mods periodically deleting huge chunks of the thread, only for it to start up again. Did that user ever even get banned?

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

When it comes to arguing whether or not people are people, then there is only one side to take.

[pauljathome]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I get where you're coming from, pauljathome, but if they aren't prepared to back down when called out about the dog whistle, that says a lot more than the initial dogwhistle itself.

To be clear, I absolutely 100% agree with that. And, with this specific dog whistle and that individual, there was a heck of a lot more posts than that one.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

There is a difference in being wrong about facts "Columbus sailed in 1998 as opposed to 1492" and an ideology that espouses that people are not people.

[Jeff Morse]

Only through open public discourse are people exposed to all the possible perspectives to make up their own mind. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms and cannot—must not—be used as a justification for censorship. Only by permitting "bad" speech can we expose it for what it is and provide context for the "good" speech. Without the yin-yang you lose the value and context of "good" speech. This is a paramount foundation of public discourse.

how did this turn into the rest of this thread being focused on trans only stuff. this was not what he was talking about at all. if you did your research you would find he has tried to stand up for equality on these forms and in the game. as well as just getting the same rules for all. to call out how he thinks things could be better, BUT because he was a VO, they would ban him BECAUSE YOU CANT SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT US.
please stop putting ideas and words not there. Are there people posting anti this or that yes, BUT I think he was referring to THE GAME more so.
could I be wrong and missed something he posted, not sure.
Paizo is not perfect and has made many mistakes. They too am human and I hope strive to be better. If they dont allow us to discuss there faults on here and help find answers than that is bad. ON the other hand, sometimes they need to be handled in house and not the public. The problem is that the more we think we know the more we may not trust. sometimes people that are good at making games arnt good at managing others. sometimes people are wrong too.

[keftiu]

I don’t get putting a higher value on redeeming the ignorant than the safety of the marginalized. It’s your own job to educate yourself and not hurt people.

[Cori Marie]

pauljathome wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

pauljathome wrote:

keftiu wrote:

There is no need to 'understand the other side' when it comes to matters of trans rights.

While there are very clearly some posts that are racist, transphobic, etc etc there are also lots and lots of posts that are in a grey zone. Some will see them as racist/transphobic/etc, some won't.

The problem here is that a lot of what you feel are a "grey zone" are actually extremely loud dog whistles that have been thrown at those marginalized groups for decades. We've grown accustomed to hearing them, we know exactly what they actually mean a recent example was the poster who repeatedly said their were legal reasons not to allow a man and a woman to room together at a convention, when that wasn't the argument, and the argument was about a trans woman and a cis woman. It was a loud dog whistle that said "no I will never think of a trans woman as anything other than a man" and he posted that argument literally dozens of times over the course of a week.

That indeed is a problem, a multifaceted one.

As I've said before, while I consider myself transfriendly I am personally cis and have no very close trans friends or family. Which means that I am NOT aware of all the dog whistles.

And sometimes the dog whistles may not mean what you think they do. Lets take that exact argument above. When I first saw it I didn't see a dog whistle, I saw a plausible argument. Could have been right, could have been wrong. It still seems possible to me (in isolation, NOT considering other posts the person made) conceivable that the person making it didn't realize it was a dog whistle. That they made the argument in all innocence, perhaps having been fooled by somebody elses dog whistle. The whole PURPOSE of dog whistles is to obfuscate intention, sometimes they succeed at that.

While I understand your point, I'd be very uncomfortable if speaking a dog whistle was considered sufficient to ban

Just because you, the person who is not being targeted by the dog whistle, can't tell it's a dog whistle does not mean it isn't one. Especially when the people targeted repeatedly call out the dog whistle as such. That's the whole point of dog whistles. They're innocuous to the vast majority, while being very loud to both the people that agree with the bigotry espoused by them and the people targeted by them. That's why they are named dog whistles.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Why are all the dogs barking when I
I don't hear anything? What a bunch of oversensitive snowflakes. That guy is clearly just blowing a broken whistle to pass the time!

[Vardoc Bloodstone]

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

There is a difference in being wrong about facts "Columbus sailed in 1998 as opposed to 1492" and an ideology that espouses that people are not people.

I don’t think anybody disagrees with this. Although they may disagree with you about what constitutes espousing an ideology that people are not people.

I can think of a few ideologies that believe in black-and-white morality, right vs wrong, you either agree or you are the enemy. Unfortunately, most of them are not supportive of the LGBTQ+ community.

Anyways, hopefully updated community guidelines and progress by Paizo in addressing the community concerns will make this whole issue moot. I’d rather Paizo spend its payroll budget on more content contributors than community moderators.

[pauljathome]

Cori Marie wrote:

Just because you, the person who is not being targeted by the dog whistle, can't tell it's a dog whistle does not mean it isn't one. Especially when the people targeted repeatedly call out the dog whistle as such. That's the whole point of dog whistles. They're innocuous to the vast majority, while being very loud to both the people that agree with the bigotry espoused by them and the people targeted by them. That's why they are named dog whistles.

Uh, I think we're in violent agreement :-).

The key is that one use of a dog whistle doesn't necessarily mean much. A pattern of dog whistles, denials and other posts DOES mean something.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Perhaps part of the issue is that we are all coming form different operational definitions and hermeneutical presuppositions that in a face to face conversation it would be easier to explain and discuss.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Paizo, please recruit a moderation team.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I wonder if at any point it will occur to those who are so eager to criticize and harass and abuse and insult queer community members for being "abrasive" to wonder what made "abrasiveness" the safest and most viable option for them.

And by the way, by "abrasive", you mean "sharp, blunt, and on the defensive". We don't call people "it". We don't call for doxxing. We don't treat you like an object and refer to you however we like to imply that we get to define what you are. The second a queer person is remotely rude to you, you default to attacking their personhood. The worst Rysky did was call someone childish. It concerns me that you see these things as equal.

I'm generally on the side of "let's all calm down and talk this through", but not today, not about this. Grow up or go away.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I have complicated feelings on the whole "rudeness" issue, and though I'm replying to Vardoc, I'm removing any quoted messages in the hopes of avoiding moderation.

I'm going to, for the sake of communicating clearly, draw a distinction between kindness and niceness. Niceness is being polite, being civil, and in general, treating everyone the way you would want to be treated. Kindness is about reducing harm and helping others, particularly those in pain.

I usually try to be both nice and kind. I think doing so is often both more effective and more healthy. Being nice is also often the same thing as being kind.

But they aren't the same thing. Kindness is pretty much mandatory in being a good person, but niceness ebbs and flows. Kindness often costs you nothing, but niceness can cost a lot more than you have to spare. If someone is punching you in the head, the kindest thing to do is defend yourself, to reduce your own suffering and prevent them from doing something they might regret later. Being nice in that instance is, at best, incredibly difficult, and that's because very few people have the emotional energy to be empathetic and polite to someone trying actively to hurt them.

It's reasonable to expect others to be kind. Expecting them to be nice is a little different. It's sort of like expecting your coworkers to donate to your favorite charities. It costs them, and you don't know the depth of that cost unless you ask. I'm not being nice to people posting abusive transphobic messages at my friends, and expecting me to be nice to them is... it's not kind, dear. Because you're ignoring the circumstances that make being nice untenable for me.

Being nice is often more effective for making friends, for deescalating conflicts. But why is that our job? Why are we obligated to be nice to people who are so incredibly unkind to us? Why do you criticize us for that, and not them?

Sure, I could work harder to deescalate this. I doubt it would work, and it might make my friends feel even more alone, or imply to onlookers that there's nothing incredibly aberrant about how my friends are being treated. It would also represent an enormous emotional weight for me. But maybe I could try harder.

But it is exhausting and humiliating to be as nice as I can, day after day, to people who can in turn be as cruel as they like, because you don't tell them to be nicer, because they don't care about being nice or kind or anything decent to us. Our niceness, our eagerness to deescalate, shouldn't be the main priority for you to enforce. You can't make me donate to the GoFundMe of the coworker who bullies me. Should I? Maybe. It might be the nice thing to do. But that's my decision. Worry about what you can donate instead.

Sometimes, kindness is about taking stock of the situation, recognizing that our lack of sufficient eagerness to problem-solve and deescalate is not as serious an issue as the abuse and harassment we're dealing with, and focusing on lending us a hand.

I try to be nice! I'm often quite nice on here, even when I'm cross with people. But that's not something I owe people.

And if a queer person assumes the worst of someone and is ruder than you think they should be, consider practicing what you preach and, instead of telling them to calm down or judging them as abusive, trying to understand why they might be on edge--or whether there's context you're missing.

EDIT: Also, I said this on another thread, but it got deleted because it quoted bad posts. If civility and kindness matter to you, you really do need to be ready to give trans/queer people a lot of grace right now, even if you think we're a little out of line somewhere. The forums have been unbelievably toxic towards us lately and the Crystal Frasier allegations weigh heavily on all of us. Everyone's exhausted and on the defensive. Even I'm crabbier these days, and I had to take a couple weeks mostly away from the forums after repeatedly considering just deleting everything and calling it for good.

[MadamReshi]

Perhaps marginalised people (in particular members of the LGBTQIA+ community) wouldn't be so abrasive and 'rude' if we had the backing of more straight and cis people who would call out homophobic, biphobic and transphobic behaviour when they see it, and got rid of repeat offenders whos goals are to make us unsafe and unwelcome.

I certainly know, from my experience, so called 'abrasive' trans people tend to be, well, not be abrasive when they're around people who accept them. Almost as if coming under attack for existing is exhausting and draining.

Paizo, please hire a moderator team, or get vetted volunteers. This place is becoming pretty distressing to come to, in the way the subreddit of all things isn't.

[Cori Marie]

At this point I'm almost content to leave the forums behind and just stick to the discords of my favorite actual play podcasts, as those spaces have been actively welcoming.

[Catulle]

Cori Marie wrote:

At this point I'm almost content to leave the forums behind and just stick to the discords of my favorite actual play podcasts, as those spaces have been actively welcoming.

It's like curation works, or something..?

[MadamReshi]

Cori Marie wrote:

At this point I'm almost content to leave the forums behind and just stick to the discords of my favorite actual play podcasts, as those spaces have been actively welcoming.

Off topic but any recommendations, particularly for a community point of view? With Critical Role vods being delayed to Monday and being live-streamed at really unfriendly times for me, I could use another TTRPG podcast / actual play to listen to.

[keftiu]

MadamReshi wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

At this point I'm almost content to leave the forums behind and just stick to the discords of my favorite actual play podcasts, as those spaces have been actively welcoming.

Off topic but any recommendations, particularly for a community point of view? With Critical Role vods being delayed to Monday and being live-streamed at really unfriendly times for me, I could use another TTRPG podcast / actual play to listen to.

Friends at the Table has an incredibly welcoming (and overwhelmingly queer) community, and is my vote for the best Actual Play out there.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Cori Marie wrote:

At this point I'm almost content to leave the forums behind and just stick to the discords of my favorite actual play podcasts, as those spaces have been actively welcoming.

There are so many people here I would miss. It makes me sad.