elf: Subvert (Subvert)
[personal profile] elf posting in [community profile] linkspam
I've been asked (told?) to step down as mod of [community profile] linkspam.
[personal profile] hl is willing to help, but has limited time right now.
[personal profile] haunted has said s/he'd be willing to help, but won't deal with me.

Thats, um, it for volunteers that I know of.

This is either a call for volunteers, or a call for a vote of confidence, or both. If I'm too wanky to do this right, I'll stop. I'm potentially willing to change, but my detractors can verify that I've got weird button issues and I don't take to change smoothly. (Some might say I'm not actually willing to change.)

Available on request: the Lambda links doc I've assembled (in .doc or .rtf format),
a brief description of how I find & format links,
use of the "linkspam" icon (if anyone cares)
a promise that I'll edit the masterpost(s) with other people's updates, if requested.

Not available:
A promise I won't comment on posts I link to,
Changing the name or other details about the comm, and continuing on as I've been doing,
A confession of guilt.

Certainly, there should be more variety here. It shouldn't be all me; I'm biased in a number of directions. The choice, however, may be between short-term linkspammers who hit burnout after one event, or people who are thick-skinned and abrasive enough to not mind putting themselves in the midst of drama.

Now: I'm going to have dinner with my family & friends, and may not be back online tonight. I'll check in in the morning before work, but I don't have access to the journalsphere during the workday.
Page 1 of 2 << [1] [2] >>

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 01:55 am (UTC)
sami: (Default)
From: [personal profile] sami
So, I've been a bit preoccupied and haven't been following this.

Have you actually been picking and choosing what links to post because of your view on the issue in question?

Have people suggested links you've not put up in the roundups?

I don't see what the problem is here if it's just a matter of you disagreeing with people on a contentious issue, if it's not actually changing the content of the posts, since, isn't the idea just to be a roundup of commentary on topics?

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:07 am (UTC)
gloss: (Default)
From: [personal profile] gloss
Here are some links on this; I'm not sure if asking Elf will really get you a useful answer. In reverse chronological order:

unscreened an anonymous personal attack
a call for elf to step down
siding with straight & cis privilege

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] sami - Date: 2009-10-01 02:29 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] gloss - Date: 2009-10-01 02:32 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] sami - Date: 2009-10-01 02:50 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] joudama - Date: 2009-10-01 03:47 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:37 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] sami - Date: 2009-10-01 04:51 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:06 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] sami - Date: 2009-10-01 05:57 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:58 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-10-01 05:54 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] nextian - Date: 2009-10-01 06:48 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 03:25 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:32 am (UTC)
dont_think_twice: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dont_think_twice
Personally, I don't think you should quit. However, I also think that personal attacks shouldn't be tolerated here.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:39 am (UTC)
quinfirefrorefiddle: Sophie from Leverage, in black and white, looking over her shoulder. (Doctor Who: 9 Fantastic)
From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle
Okay, I haven't exactly been following this, so let me see if I have this straight:

A: You volunteer, on your own initiative, to collate groups of links for various wanks and disputes in fandom.
B: You are not getting paid for this.
C: You do not have backers, bosses, or indeed any sort of oversight, because this is *your project*.

And now someone has come in and told you that you should stop because you actually *gasp* comment on these threads, have opinions of your own, and have biases like any normal person? And this is just a wild guess, because I haven't checked, but I'm going out on a limb and supposing that the person who told you to step down hasn't volunteered to step up and do it themselves?

By all means, add another mod if you want, it'll lighten your workload and a variety of opinions is never a bad thing with a project like this. But there's no way to completely avoid bias about stuff like this and no guarantee that mods will always disagree and therefore allow the comm to avoid overall bias.

This has been your gift to fandom. I appreciate it. I hope you continue. But it's your baby, and I really hope you feel free to do what you want with it. Just as your detractors should feel free to start their own linkspam-esque comms.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:44 am (UTC)
starlady: Raven on a MacBook (Default)
From: [personal profile] starlady
I have to agree.

Furthermore, instituting some sort of ideological qualification checklist for mods seems guaranteed to kill the comm in very short order.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:31 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] wildeabandon - Date: 2009-10-01 09:17 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] jalendavi_lady - Date: 2009-10-01 02:52 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] cimorene - Date: 2009-10-01 02:57 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kathmandu - Date: 2009-10-01 03:51 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:34 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle - Date: 2009-10-01 05:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:16 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle - Date: 2009-10-01 06:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle - Date: 2009-10-01 08:32 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 08:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle - Date: 2009-10-01 09:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle - Date: 2009-10-01 09:16 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 09:19 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] quinfirefrorefiddle - Date: 2009-10-01 11:06 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 11:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:29 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
I agree 100% with this comment.
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:53 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:42 am (UTC)
melannen: Commander Valentine of Alpha Squad Seven, a red-haired female Nick Fury in space, smoking contemplatively (Default)
From: [personal profile] melannen
Hi! As someone who a) has been the linkspammer for a huge event; and b) is not straight and disagrees with you about the Lambda awards in a variety of ways: I think you were doing a great job with the linkspam, and providing a really valuable service through a lot of hard work - until you brought [personal profile] keeva's criticisms into the community, and failed to effectively moderate (in either sense of the word) the discussion that followed. At that point, the community started to become a hostile space.

I've seen you around enough to know that you're a very opinionated person, and I often disagree with both your opinions and the way you express them, but I'd actually been admiring the way you had kept your dispassionate linkspam work compartmentalized from your own strong opinions. Until now. I do think that as a result of what's happened in the last post here, and this post you just made, you've lost a great deal of credibility, and there should be changes made to keep the community in the place where it needs to be.

But I do not support any attempt to police the ideology of the posters at linkspam: I can't think of anybody who's never found themselves on the "wrong" side of one of these discussions, and the very nature of them means that who the privileged people are will never be agreed on by everyone. Trying to make sure that the linkspammer is always from the less-privileged side, and to require the community to endorse one viewpoint on every discussion, will only end in badness, and make the community less useful as a clearinghouse for all posts, good and bad. And nobody can really know for sure how they'll react to being in the middle until they have been; we can't pre-screen the posters. What we have to do is continue to try to keep everything but the links themselves away from this community.

Here's what I'd suggest: first, to serve its function, this needs to be a space where people of all opinions & identities are safe, which means the comments need strict policing, and that is very hard to always do right. As it's not really a discussion community, I actually suggest that on link posts from now on, you set all comments to screen, and only unscreen comments that suggest new links, notihng else. This will keep all potential hurtful comments hidden without requiring judgement calls, but still allow people to communicate with the poster, without the linkspammer having to also be a full-time mod. (And keep it a links community rather than a discussion community - discussion is what the posts you link to are for.)

Make changes to the userinfo to make it very clear why you're screening, and how you can still communicate with and criticize the people doing the posts. And if you do need an admin post with comments on, make sure someone who has demonstrated ability to mod a safe space is on tap to check the comments.

Second, you really need to not be the only person compiling links. Not just because of your opinions - because you shouldn't being doing all the work. I thought the original idea of this community was to spread the work around, not dump it all on [personal profile] elf! I suggest getting together a group of volunteers - preferably 6-12, and as diverse as possible - and then when something that needs linkspam happens, choose by (quick) consensus which of your pool is willing to do the work this week and is capable of handling the issue calmly, and assign it to them. And make sure nobody ever gets volunteered twice in a row, and that your volunteers pool has fairly high turnover - ask for new volunteers on every last post.

I'm willing to be one of your pool of volunteers & to help with administration & set-up (though I
don't think I'm the right person to take over this particular linkspam; my opinions on it are too conflicted & there's too much risk of me personally failing.)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 03:03 am (UTC)
sqbr: And yet all I can think is, this will make for a great Dreamwidth entry... (dreamwidth)
From: [personal profile] sqbr
I agree that to me at least elf's behaviour as linkspammer was basically ok...until she started responding to criticisms about her behaviour.

I also like this suggestion re screening comments. Though it does get more ambiguous in situations like this where people want to discuss linkspam itself: I think it would be pretty problematic to screen someone commenting on a roundup to complain about how it's been put together (assuming there was nothing problematic about their comment beyond it not containing any links) And once ONE person comments to complain you're often going to get a discussion about whether or not the criticism is fair, and the linkspammer will defend themselves..etc. If the comm continues long term this is bound to happen a bunch of times, and not just with elf. Look at the flack metafandom gets from time to time about much less controversial topics.

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] melannen - Date: 2009-10-01 03:22 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sqbr - Date: 2009-10-01 06:07 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] cesy - Date: 2009-10-01 10:15 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:29 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sqbr - Date: 2009-10-01 04:45 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:57 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] sqbr - Date: 2009-10-01 06:37 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kaigou - Date: 2009-10-01 03:10 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] melannen - Date: 2009-10-01 03:41 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:24 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] kaigou - Date: 2009-10-01 04:49 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:01 am (UTC) - Expand

Yet more duplicity from elf

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:15 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] guiltyred - Date: 2009-10-01 03:45 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:19 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] melannen - Date: 2009-10-01 05:15 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] inkstone - Date: 2009-10-01 09:24 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] nextian - Date: 2009-10-01 04:49 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] holyschist - Date: 2009-10-02 01:04 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:45 am (UTC)
paradox: closeup of an eye with a shiny, starry pupil (Default)
From: [personal profile] paradox
For me, the point of linkspam is to expose oppression-related issues that might otherwise slide by unnoticed and uncontested, and to archive (some) blog commentary about those issues.

The problem is, the way one finds out about those issues and locates that commentary will always be biased. And given that elf simply lists the links by date rather than grouping them into any sort of categories (due to sheer mass of links and difficulty in creating unbiased categories), some links will be read first. Opinions will form from there. People who keep reading as links are added may find their opinions change - in which case, hurray!

I like seeing different viewpoints & opinions, because it helps me to figure out mine.

Please note: On the Lambda issue, I disagreed with elf. But I was less dismayed by elf's (non-linkspam) posts than I was by the vitriol spewed towards elf by several (understandably impassioned) opponents. And by vitriol, I mean insults & accusations - maybe I'm naive, but I'm a believer in debating the issue not the person. It's possible to point out when someone's privilege is interfering with their understanding of an issue without resorting to insults that serve only to shut down discussion.

So... this is a vote of confidence in elf's abilities as a linkspam mod. I'd like to see more contributors, but since they gotta be volunteers, there isn't much elf can do about rounding more up, other than this thread! I wish I had the time to participate (as a bisexual, genderqueer, non-American) but sadly, my online time is pretty limited these days.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 03:41 am (UTC)
guiltyred: (FSM - Ramen)
From: [personal profile] guiltyred
For me, the point of linkspam is to expose oppression-related issues that might otherwise slide by unnoticed and uncontested, and to archive (some) blog commentary about those issues.

This. It has been my understanding that this community exists to shine a light on the debates, rather than to take a side at all. We know we're here for anti-oppression reasons, but it is not the mod's job to make the arguments neat and tidy and present us with a formed opinion. That's our job, as readers and activists, and by presenting all links that have anything to do with the debate at hand, this community performs a vital service.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:06 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] jalendavi_lady - Date: 2009-10-01 05:13 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:19 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] jalendavi_lady - Date: 2009-10-01 05:36 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:45 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] paradox - Date: 2009-10-01 07:26 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] fanpoodlex - Date: 2009-10-01 12:08 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] paradox - Date: 2009-10-01 07:23 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] guiltyred - Date: 2009-10-01 05:34 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:09 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] paradox - Date: 2009-10-01 07:21 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 07:50 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] inkstone - Date: 2009-10-01 10:22 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] haunted - Date: 2009-10-01 11:34 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] alchemia - Date: 2009-10-01 04:57 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:51 am (UTC)
stoneself: (Default)
From: [personal profile] stoneself
you unscreened a personal attack.

and it suited your bias.

and someone who is ubable to take a privilege check - in your case cisgendered privilege - has little business moderating an anti-oppression group.
Edited Date: 2009-10-01 03:23 am (UTC)

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 03:43 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
I maintain - as I have all along - that elf should not step down, and that other people should step up in addition to elf to take the burden off her shoulders alone.

I also maintain, as I have all along, that elf's biases have indeed affected the way this issue was presented to the community, in a way that reinforces cis, straight behavior. (Yes, elf claims to be queer - but queer people can and do reinforce systems of oppression that work against people like them, especially if it gives them some advantages or if other privileges in their lives means the impact of oppression can be minimized.) My primary example of this is the original post on the topic, which was slanted to specifically list one side's "grievance," out of context, and omitted critical information for understanding the debate.

For example, the supposedly "controversial" passage was cited on linkspam, with the offending section in bold, but the 2009 deadlines, the LLF mission statement, and the section of the guidelines endorsing self-identification did not appear.

These are the largest misconceptions held - "the rules changed mid-contest!" and "the awards are about LGBT characters, not authors!" and "who judges who is LGBT enough??" - that have been in circulation, and they could have been cleared up if, in addition to quoting one section out of context, elf had simply provided those statements as well.

However, as elf herself wrote, she sides the the cis, straight privilege and thus slanted the coverage toward her point of view. In addition, she personally spread these falsehoods on other blogs including her own and those she discovered during her search; that alone may not disqualify her from being a moderator - I don't think it does, myself, and as I said, I don't want her removed - but I do think it calls into question not only her motives (especially in deciding to make this a linkspam issue in the first) and also her own ability to understand the issues. (If she really does think "they changed the rules in the middle of the competition!" as she has posted multiple times on multiple blogs, then she clearly is unaware that entry submissions don't open until tomorrow.)

Ultimately, it's fine with me if she remains and even continues her pro-privilege, cis-privileged agenda (check out her numbered attacks on me a few posts back for classic privileged derailing), but I think the community should at least be honest enough to not call itself "anti-oppression" while elf is in charge.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 05:06 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
elf claims to be queer

Why do you keep saying "claims to be?" Is there some reason to doubt [personal profile] elf's word on the subject?

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:05 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
One more thing:

I also think that elf is milking this for all the attention she can possibly get, including this very post, which is a fucking terrible way to respond to a privilege check of any kind.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:07 am (UTC)
laughingrat: Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka says "Nobody here is getting out alive." (We're all doomed!)
From: [personal profile] laughingrat
Interesting. I come to Linkspam for the links, not the comments on the posts--normally, anyway. I wonder how many people use the community in the same manner, and thus have absolutely no idea what [personal profile] elf's personal opinions are? Because that's the thing, see: you can't tell what they are from the links she shares, at least not about this Lambda thing. I got plenty of links in support of the Lambda decision from these posts, and a few in protest. The mere fact that Linkspam provides access to multiple points of view on a subject is not itself supportive of oppression. If Linkspam only provided links in support of cis/straight/male/white/wealthy/etc. privilege, then sure, it would be obvious that the mod's prejudices are seeping over into what gets posted here.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:14 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
What are your thoughts on the original post, which [personal profile] elf went back and edited once it was pointed out that she was skewing it far too much toward her own point of view by only including the "controversial" part of the rules (with bold to make sure everyone knew what had [personal profile] elf upset), but not the parts of the document that would have shed a little light and less heat on the issue, such as the date entry submissions open, the official rule on "who is LGBT enough?", and the

It's certainly possible to poison the well in subtle ways -- and she did do that here, or tried to, at least.

The problem is that when called on her privilege, she gets defensive, abusive, and dismissive, and wields her privilege like a club against anyone who questions her. That is the big problem. If you're going to run something called an "anti-oppression linkspam community" and have any credibility, then you really should learn how to deal with your own privilege rather than wallowing in it.

And that's why I have proposed, all along, that [personal profile] elf should not step down (as she has repeatedly and annoying offered/threatened), but should simply change the tagline to better reflect the community.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] laughingrat - Date: 2009-10-01 04:38 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 04:53 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] sola - Date: 2009-10-01 10:38 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:21 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] cimorene - Date: 2009-10-01 03:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] sola - Date: 2009-10-01 04:15 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:17 am (UTC)
nicki: (Default)
From: [personal profile] nicki
This is a vote of confidence.

I think a policy that comments should contain links only, however, might go far to keep the linkspam clear of devicive debate that should take place elsewhere as long as links to that debate are honored. I am not sure that the comments should automatically be screened at all times as I suspect it will lead to accusations of links left screened, but would rather any non-link comments be aggressively deleted with a notice of "This comment was discussion. Please keep discussion posts on the appropriate journal sites and leave a comment here linking to them."

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:46 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
Question: So your vote of confidence is in favor of a policy that allows anonymous personal attacks against people on [community profile] linkspam, correct?

Because that is the only matter in which someone -- a single person -- has called for her resignation.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] nicki - Date: 2009-10-01 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:49 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] nicki - Date: 2009-10-01 05:51 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:53 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] nicki - Date: 2009-10-01 06:05 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:19 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] nicki - Date: 2009-10-01 06:39 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:53 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:42 am (UTC)
thistleingrey: (Default)
From: [personal profile] thistleingrey
This is a vote of confidence.

And: I know, for myself, that I don't have time to care equally about and research equally every important issue. My attention doesn't correlate neatly with whether an issue is personally relevant--but also, my lack of attention does not somehow make an issue fundamentally less important. I'm grateful for volunteered time and any individual who gathers links where I can see them because then I know that certain discussions are taking place at all; it helps me to pay attention and learn.

Why would any of us expect that a freely offered resource is absolutely bias-free or that it constitutes a 100% complete and timely record of how events have unfolded? Every piece of information helps us consumers of linkspam undertake further research so that we can educate ourselves better.

+1 probably best generally not to have lengthy discussion and backchat on this comm.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 04:46 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
Question: So your vote of confidence is in favor of a policy that allows anonymous personal attacks against people on [community profile] linkspam, correct?

Because that is the only matter in which someone -- a single person -- has called for her resignation.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] thistleingrey - Date: 2009-10-01 03:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) This isn't about how she chooses the links

Date: 2009-10-01 04:44 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
Also, for those who haven't navigated up in the thread which [personal profile] elf links to -- actually she just links to a single context by [personal profile] stoneself out of context -- the one, single call for her resignation here had nothing to do with if she is posting the links fairly (which is what everyone wants to discuss) but rather her policy that anonymous personal attacks are fair game here.

[personal profile] elf doesn't provide you with the link to give that context -- huh, I wonder why not! -- but here it is:

"I don't screen for offensiveness."

You can even read further up in the thread, in which multiple people question the wisdom of the moderator (elf) in unscreening an anonymous personal attack.

As for the issue of how she chooses the links, no one has questioned her on that and no one has called for her to resign.

As for the issue of how she presents some links, she has been challenged on that and eventually admitted that, yes, she probably did skew the original discussion in favor of her pro-oppression position.

As for what should be done, her critics have overwhelmingly said that she should change the name of the community, and have rejected her repeated attempts to make this into "wah, you think I should QUIT!"

Please read the links I just provided so that you have an idea as to what the single call for her resignation is really based on, and feel free to address that issue, if you have not already.

(frozen) a vote of confidence?

Date: 2009-10-01 04:51 am (UTC)
stoneself: (Default)
From: [personal profile] stoneself
really?

this is a matter of conscience. do the right thing.

a vote of confidence is a popularity contest and a big act of ego stroking.

do you really need people to tell you to do the right thing?

1)
I don't take to change smoothly. (Some might say I'm not actually willing to change.)
this is not a good trait, especially for a moderator in an anti-oppression community.

anti-oppression is all about change.

the change that comes from acknowledging one's own privilege.

if you are only able to change when it's sugar-coated, if you are only able to when you like people's tone, if you are only going to listen when it suit you, then you're a bigger part of the problem than you know.

2)
A confession of guilt.
when your privilege shows, you better own up to it.

when you make a mistake you better own up it.

if you can't do this, then you're a bigger part of the problem than you know.

* * *

just because you may be disprivileged in one are doesn't mean you're not privileged in others.

and in those areas you are part of the problem, but you have a chance to be part of the solution.

if you do not take those chances, you really have no business being the moderator of an anti-oppression community.

(frozen) red herring alert 2

Date: 2009-10-01 04:57 am (UTC)
stoneself: (Default)
From: [personal profile] stoneself
the big red herring is that there's any claim that only one side of the whatever should be linked.

criticizing elf for her bias and misbehavior is not at all the same as saying that only one side should be linked.

(frozen) Re: red herring alert 2

Date: 2009-10-01 12:23 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] fanpoodlex
The claim above, however is that the problem is that she doesn't actually side with the "anti-oppression" position; she reinforces cis, straight privilege, and her whole original post on this topic was intended as not only a set of links, but as a defense of cis, straight privilege.

I don't see it, as a casual visitor - so how is that she does this?

And how should she (in concrete terms) be doing it to better live up to the name of the comm?

Because I gotta say, as a casual visitor, what I see in this thread is a couple of people who've gotten upset at seeing an opinion from the main worker in this comm that dissents from their own, and have launched a pretty personal attack in order to discredit the owner of that opinion.

Re: red herring alert 2

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-10-01 02:33 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) Re: red herring alert 2

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) elf is not a victim here

Date: 2009-10-01 04:58 am (UTC)
stoneself: (Default)
From: [personal profile] stoneself
she's managed to (yet again) create a one-sided presentation that put her side in the better light.

(frozen) the notion that linkspam should be unbiased

Date: 2009-10-01 05:09 am (UTC)
stoneself: (Default)
From: [personal profile] stoneself
nonsense.

the act of linkspam, as started by rydra wong, was clearly biased against positions of privilege.

linkspam should not misrepresent what privileged people are saying in their acts of privilege, but linkspam was created to stand against privilege and the oppression that goes with it.

supporting privileged people over the people they oppress, that is totally counter to the history of linkspam.

buying into the notion of "reverse discrimination" is an act of privilege/oppression on the part of people with privilege, and a sign of internalized oppression on the part of disprivileged people.

the power of the world is slanted very much greatly on the side of people with privilege. if they want to be heard, it's a simple act.

but for disprivileged people, there are very many hurdles to being heard.

linkspam also historically works to lower those hurdles. which is why linkspam is indeed biased toward the anti-oppression side.
Edited Date: 2009-10-01 05:12 am (UTC)

(frozen) Re: the notion that linkspam should be unbiased

Date: 2009-10-01 05:27 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
the act of linkspam, as started by rydra wong, was clearly biased against positions of privilege.

Exactly. One simply has to look at how rydra remarked on Sh*tt*rly posts -- or even refused to link to him -- to see that her linkspams were never intended to stay "neutral" and "present both sides fairly," but were an activism tool designed to level the imbalance that exists when privilege gets thrown around.

Which is why this is an "anti-oppression linkspam community" and not just a linkspam community.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 06:08 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] logophilos
Elf, please step down. Leave who runs the community to those who are criticising you.

You're now so compromised, and I believe you will never regain trust in certain quarters, and this issue is derailing the entire point of the community.

Those who are critical, should find someone they're happy with. They're not happy with you, and never will be.

Walk away. For your sake, and the sake of this project, and for the ideas it was set up to support.

This has gone beyond votes of confidence etc. You're the only one who can end this, and you know it won't end until you leave.

I thought you did a good job, and I think you will do a good job in the future. I have reservations about things I've seen and read, and had I seen your private journal yesterday, I would have been much more critical of you.

That is not to say that I think your critics are behaving entirely fairly, but the history is so obvious between you all, you can't keep doing this job.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] logophilos - Date: 2009-10-01 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] colorblue - Date: 2009-10-01 06:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 06:11 am (UTC)
flamesprite: (Default)
From: [personal profile] flamesprite
If I may give my two cents, I'm a little confused. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are invested in not promoting oppression, which is why you are working on this community. I admire the work you've put into it, I cannot even fathom how you find half the stuff you find. But it seems odd to me that you are willing to commit that much energy and effort to the link collecting and yet your posts about your success regarding not promoting oppression convey a lack of willingness to put in equal effort and energy into yourself.

Some people said, in essence, your ass is showing. From the links you've gathered, I would think you would be familiar with the common reaction people have to being told that, whether it's true or not. And yet you've come really close to making the same responses: making a tone argument in setting the conditions by which you will be convinced your ass is showing, threatening to give up entirely, saying that your biases are who you are and should be accepted, etc.

Is it really so hard to try to figure out how to avoid comments and actions that have upset people to the point that one of them felt your actions/words ran counter to the point of this community? The emphasis not being on getting it right immediately or perfectly, but TRYING. From what I've learned in these oppression debates, most people are really just looking for a willingness to try and to apologize when what we try fails or backfires.

Everyone has biases, this is true. But I think if we believe ourselves responsible adults, one of those responsibilities is to try to rid ourselves of biases that actively hurt other people or condone the actions/words of others that hurt people.

Instead of quitting, why not apologize for the mistakes and then not repeat them? I'm not saying that everyone who thought you did something wrong is correct in every detail, but I think the fact that people spoke up suggests there IS room for improvement and some suggestions exactly how have been made.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 06:12 am (UTC)
angelikitten: Cat with a halo (Default)
From: [personal profile] angelikitten
[personal profile] elf: why do you want to not change the community title?

(Note: this is just a curious neutral question, and I am only asking in order to understand this.)

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] angelikitten - Date: 2009-10-01 07:09 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] rootedinsong - Date: 2009-10-01 11:27 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 06:31 am (UTC)
ellie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ellie
DO you like being mod of linkspam? If the answer is yes, to hell with your detractors. If they don't like the job your doing, they can start their own "linkspam" community. There is no law that says there can be only one. If the answer is no, why the hell are you doing this? Life is to short to waste your time doing something you don't like.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 06:55 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] keeva
If they don't like the job your doing, they can start their own "linkspam" community.

As I have noted before -- yeah, I did that once already.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] logophilos - Date: 2009-10-01 07:32 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 07:52 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] logophilos - Date: 2009-10-01 09:05 am (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:11 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] ellie - Date: 2009-10-01 04:18 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 05:14 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] flamesprite - Date: 2009-10-01 03:09 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] flamesprite - Date: 2009-10-01 03:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] ellie - Date: 2009-10-01 04:38 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] flamesprite - Date: 2009-10-01 04:52 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] flamesprite - Date: 2009-10-01 05:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 09:09 am (UTC)
lexin: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lexin
FWIW, I don't think you should step down.

Collecting this stuff is a thankless task and in this storm you've been criticised by both sides for being insufficiently on their side. Which is a sign you're doing something right.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 01:18 pm (UTC)
gloss: woman saying "you gotta be kidding" (Leila: no bullshit)
From: [personal profile] gloss
in this storm you've been criticised by both sides for being insufficiently on their side.
That's just not true.

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] lexin - Date: 2009-10-01 02:02 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] gloss - Date: 2009-10-01 02:06 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] lexin - Date: 2009-10-01 02:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] lexin - Date: 2009-10-01 07:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 07:37 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 10:37 am (UTC)
haunted: Apollo, by Dustin Nguyen (Default)
From: [personal profile] haunted
This community is supposed to be a tool of anti-oppression; you agree with that and refuse to change the mission statement. When you decided to collect links on the LLA issue you deliberately worded you commentary on the first linkspam post to further your own agenda, i.e. that the LLA were the oppressors in this scenario and linkspam as a tool should be leveraged against them.

You spread lies and misinformation on posts that you proceeded to link to here. You admitted you post things without thinking them through. When called on your privilege you seemed to judge the person bringing up the issue rather than the issue itself. You unscreened an attack against someone calling you on your privilege. You admit you have problems with changing how you do things.

You have turned this supposed anti-oppression community, and this post in particular, into a popularity contest between you and [personal profile] keeva.

I support this community as a whole, but I do not support or have any confidence in you and your agenda.

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 11:23 am (UTC)
sashajwolf: photo of Cally sleeping with caption "we rebels lead such an exciting life" (cally rebels)
From: [personal profile] sashajwolf
For what it's worth, my views on the various issues that have been raised are these:

* This should remain an anti-oppression comm. The purpose of linking to both sides, as I understand it, is not to be neutral between those who are against oppression and those who support it, but to provide enough context for those who are trying to work against oppression to challenge it effectively and, as a small part of that, for those of us with privilege to try to challenge our own oppressive attitudes by learning from the screw-ups of others with privilege. If people who are not trying to work against oppression also use the comm to understand the context of an issue, I don't have a problem with them getting that information, but the comm is not about them and not primarily for them.

* I don't think it's feasible to expect mods not to be involved in the topics they are linkspamming. People who are willing to devote the necessary time to linkspamming are inevitably going to be people who also care enough about oppression to want to post their own views about the topic on their own journals, or to comment on the journals of others. I think they should be able to do so. Beyond that, I think the best approach is probably to have a diverse team of mods who can give each other a privilege-check if required and can take over if one mod becomes so embroiled in an issue that their moderation threatens to derail the discussion of the topic (as has happened in this case) rather than facilitate it. As has been pointed out, a larger mod team would have other benefits as well in terms of reducing the workload on any one person etc.

* Mods are inevitably going to show their asses sometimes. I think that in and of itself should not disqualify them from moderating, provided it doesn't occur with great frequency. However, I think mods do need to be able to take a privilege check without letting it become an occasion for derailment, and again, in this case it seems clear to me that [personal profile] elf's response has led to derailment. So I think it would be a good idea for [personal profile] elf to step down as moderator, at least temporarily, provided one or more other suitable volunteers can be found. I don't think [personal profile] keeva taking the comm back is a viable solution, because as far as I know, her original reasons for preferring to hand it over to someone else are still valid (and she has said that taking it back is not what she wants).

* Personal attacks in comments should not be allowed, but I think that giving a privilege check or discussing whether links have been selected or presented in a manner which inadvertently creates bias in favour of oppression should be allowed, in order for the community to remain effective. So I don't think a "links-only" policy for comments is a good idea. Again, a larger mod team may help to make a less binary approach feasible, if sufficient people can be found.

I appreciate that it may not be possible to find sufficient people for a larger mod team, however. I am not sure what should be done in that case. Unfortunately I am already somewhat struggling with my existing commitments and the stress associated with them, so I am not going to volunteer to be one of the team at this time.

Edited to fix broken HTML only.
Edited Date: 2009-10-01 11:24 am (UTC)

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] dont_think_twice - Date: 2009-10-01 03:06 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] dont_think_twice - Date: 2009-10-01 03:49 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] ellie - Date: 2009-10-01 05:00 pm (UTC) - Expand

(frozen) (no subject)

Date: 2009-10-01 02:45 pm (UTC)
solaciolum: (starry eyed girl)
From: [personal profile] solaciolum
I wouldn't have said you needed to step down before you made this post, honestly, because whatever bias you have towards the topic at hand wasn't affecting the aggregation of links, and when it was suggested that you reword the initial post to remove bias, you did.

But you brought what should have stayed a private dicussion between you and
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<user="keeva">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I wouldn't have said you needed to step down before you made this post, honestly, because whatever bias you have towards the topic at hand wasn't affecting the aggregation of links, and when it was suggested that you reword the initial post to remove bias, you did.

But you brought what should have stayed a private dicussion between you and <user="keeva"> (for values of "private" equal to anywhere but here) into the public space of the community. Asking for a vote of confidence after one person tells you to step down over a point of gross moderation fail just feels like you want to be patted on the back for getting yelled at. At this point, stepping down (not necessarily permanently, but for the rest of the current discussion at least) is probably your best option to keep this from becoming even more wanktastic than it already is.

Clarify the mission statement of the community (because right now the community info looks pretty bare, and it seems like there's some confusion over what constitutes "anti-oppression linkspamming"), institute firm and clearly stated moderation policies that will keep this sort of thing from happening again (if your moderation policy never included screening offensive comments, that information should have been available to the community as a whole), and find someone (or several someones) to take over, at least for the duration of the current discussion.

Of course, it's ultimately up to you whether or not you decide to step down or to keep on keepin' on and just try to avoid making mistakes like this in the future- I do think you've been providing a valuable service by doing the linkspams and your hard work is definitely appreciated. But it seems like things have escalated to the point where everyone needs to step back and reexamine their actions.

I'm not sure I would be able to devote the time and energy to helping out at this point, but I would be curious to know more about how you collect and organize links for the community and how you decide what issues are worth covering (and possibly that sort of information should also be available somewhere on the community itself, both in the interests of transparency and so that prospective contributors can have some idea of what they're getting into if they do want to help).

(frozen) (no subject)

From: [personal profile] keeva - Date: 2009-10-01 06:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
Page 1 of 2 << [1] [2] >>

Profile

linkspam: A chain of links (Default)
Anti-Oppression Linkspam Community

April 2010

S M T W T F S
    123
456789 10
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags