LGBT Room

During her benevolent reign as servant of the LGBT room, Quean Aubses has from time to time had thoughts on best moderation practices, and practical advice, on how best to operate. Here are some of her thoughts.

We really need to try a diversity of tactics with bad/sussy actors in the room. Rather than even immediately calling them out, try laughing and moving on. This accomplished a few things:

1. It shows that their hints at Genuine Concerns aren't going to be taken seriously and doesn't rile us up right away.
2. It lets us gently affirm that we don't need to engage on that point and just want to be cool and hang out and talk about actual issues.
3. If they are a chud, being laughed at will really piss them off / make them uneasy, so our easy and relaxed nature will have incredible optics against their sudden attacks and/or slur usage.

Remember, we do not always owe someone engaging in bad faith an explanation of why they are wrong. Especially if it would escalate or derail the room. While I do encourage we defend ourselves in the political sphere, we need to be sure it is on our terms and not theirs.

While we try to bring intramod shenanigans over to this server whenever possible, Senior mods and student council members absolutely retain the right to mute lower-ranked mods in the case of heightened tensions or misbehavior.

I know the room gets chaotic sometimes, and debates can (and sometimes should!) get heated, within limits. If the room gets BONKERS and no amount of attempts at moderation or priority speak can get things in order, senior+ mods can absolutely go down the chatters and mute everyone for a moment to establish dominance with eye contact before unmuting folks and letting the good times continue. It's unfortunate, and it's a last resort, but these things do happen sometimes on Discord.

Thanks for being rockstars everyone! Please try not to take things too personally if they aren't personal. The room must go on! Have a fabulous day ❤️

You are not required to explain your reasons for moderation. While it is often very useful to give a brief explanation in the side text chat, something like “soAndSo I muted you for a minute for overtalking” or “personB I muted you for 5 minutes for the R-slur after we warned you not to call people that – please do not do it again” so everyone can be aware, including the person and other mods…

You are still not required to give people explanations when they demand them.

There are many people who will fight every single step of the way for an explanation that they find acceptable; if they do not see your moderation as justified in their eyes, they will berate and belittle and undermine. If someone won't stop complaining about moderation after being asked to stop, especially if they start dropping targeted insults, you can ban them.

Saying they don't understand the reason even after you state exactly what the reason was is indicative of bad faith engagement.

I've gotten many DMs from people after they do something abhorrent with messages like “This is how you let your moderators behave?!” or “This is how you run your room?!”

Short answer, yes. Cry harder. They do not feel like they should be moderated for misbehaving if they do not feel like they have misbehaved. This is very human, but we may never see eye to eye with a particular person on what, for example, qualifies as acceptable language to use when referring to queermos. This space is not for them specifically, it is for everyone who is willing to treat us like human beings in good faith – even if we disagree vehemently.

Regarding the proposed inclusion of ableism as a violation of community guidelines on hate speech, and therefore moddable.

I need to be clear about this. While we do encourage moderation of ableism, this policy should still be in line with our other guidelines of moderation.

First, a verbal warning.

• If the warning is resisted and met with hostility, a mute can be warranted to clarify the rule.
• If the warning is accepted, but the mod-able behavior repeats, a mute can be warranted.

Room bans are for TOS violation and for repeated resistance to moderation, or excessive hostility. There is no need to be mod-happy; the best approach is generally to try for the least interventionist method for retaining a healthy conversation environment and maintaining Discord rules.

Dishonest engagement is Discord's modus operandi du jour. You may find yourself in a contentious conversation with an interlocutor, who demonstrates and unwillingness to engage honestly.

They refuse to agree to terms and definitions, even for the sake of conversation. They refuse to acknowledge a presented term and insist on substituting their own, with no defense for it. Even when presented multiple times with our position, they still assumptively substitute their own.

They refuse to accept any evidence presented. When a point is made, or evidence posted, they refuse to read it or acknowledge it, preferring their own feelings without defense. When they are directed back to the evidence, they either restate their refuted initial position without modification, or change the subject.

They will not hear the actual words that you say. If you ask them to mirror your position, so as to demonstrate that they understand what you said, they cannot.

These are tactics also utilized by presuppositional apologists and flat earthers. If they refuse to engage honestly to this degree, so that a conversation of any kind cannot be meaningfully had, I highly recommend disengaging. They have demonstrated that their goal is not to discuss, but to insist on their conclusions as dishonestly as necessary to protect their position.

I am very happy and willing for people to disagree with us. But this is not fruitful in any capacity, and only escalates frustration, and permits what is tantamount to preaching.

Move topics. Do not cow-tow to their dishonesty. Shift the conversation flow away from them. If they belligerently persist, they are now disrupting conversation flow, and can be moderated in accordance with our guideline for gentle escalation.

If disengaging with their dishonesty requires muting, it can indeed require muting.

We like to joke. Sometimes we like to joke with mild insults. With very close friends, sometimes those insults seem harsher, and sometimes they are harsher than is welcome. There is no hard definite line for malice and joking, and we should do our best.

Please check in with each other on how we feel about X Y and Z as it happens, and take inventory of it. It's going to be an ongoing thing that we, as a team, are each going to have to develop a sense for over time. This is our collective responsibility.

That being said, my boundary is that I can call Shay the F slur, don't cross my line. ;)