#this is missing some context of specific posts from other server members that i was referring to / addressing but i made some edits for tha

[hearteyespierce]

on messy redemption arcs (specifically todd brotzman's) and why i think they're a good thing

sharing the following thing i wrote in the dghda server re: todd's character growth in s2 upon the request of another server member!

for context, this is regarding a conversation that sprung up in the dghda server about some people viewing Todd as manipulative/uncaring towards Dirk, vs other people who saw his arc in s2 through a different lens. to be clear, despite various disagreements, the conversation was positive and everyone was respectful which was really nice, considering how bad discourse can get sometimes. but anyway i came in late to the conversation and this was my contribution - clearly, i fall in camp 2:

[About Todd's ups and downs in S2:] growth isn't linear and people can take steps forward and then fall back, but what matters ultimately to me is that they keep trying to take those steps forward even when they make mistakes and I think Todd does do that.

He's spent so much of his life in a prison of his own making, lying to everyone and digging a hole so deep he didn't think he could ever get out of it. And I think he did always care about Amanda at the very least but he did this HUGE fuckup and covering that up led to this avalanche of horrible decisions and now he has to own up to his shit and learn how to care about people again without hiding from his actions.

He definitely gets tunnel vision about Amanda, and I think that makes sense. He’s so desperate to “fix” things and a big part of his story in season 2 is learning that, like Amanda said, some things you can’t just FIX. Sometimes you just have to pick up the pieces you have left and do your best to make something good with them.

Additionally [in regards to previous comments made about Todd ignoring/not caring about the trauma Dirk suffered in his second bout in Blackwing], he doesn’t know the extent of what happened in Blacking, not yet. And he’s taken several steps back by centering all his focus on finding Dirk - Dirk who has always seemed so optimistic and enthusiastic - to “fix” things (because he hasn’t learned his lesson about fixing things yet). And he doesn’t know how to reconcile the Dirk he knew before with the things that this new stint in Blackwing has changed about Dirk.

I don’t think Todd is malicious or not caring about Dirk - I think he has done so much self isolation over the years that he is unused to knowing how to identify what’s going on with other people/doesn’t know how to handle things. He does try to uplift Dirk, even if he doesn’t always do it in the right way, but that doesn’t make him cruel or manipulative. It makes him a human person who is also struggling to learn how to exist in community with others.

I think there’s also something to be said for the black and white ways we can view fictional characters who react to situations in ways that create defensiveness in us based on our own experiences/our own traumas. I think processing that through fiction is such a powerful tool but it can also put blinders on us and view some characters as wholly good “perfect cinnamon rolls” and other characters as “horrible manipulators”, when really, both types of characters have strengths and flaws, and neither exists purely on one end of the spectrum or the other.

tl;dr redemption arcs can and should be messy sometimes because people are messy. none of these characters are inherently good or inherently bad and i think that's what makes them all such compelling characters.

[fiercynn]

otw july 2 board meeting: what the hell was that

so the otw (@transformativeworks) board had their Q2 meeting yesterday, which was highly anticipated given everything that's gone down in the past months:

the @end-otw-racism campaign demanding action from otw on their own commitments made three years ago to better address racist harassment in otw and on ao3 (btw, support end otw racism's current campaign #Vote To End OTW Racism!)

recent revelations about how otw has mistreated its volunteers, regarding azarias and how the org reacted after the CSEM attacks on volunteers last year, as well as how the policy & abuse committee (PAC) is overworked and treated by the legal commitee overall (documented here)...

...and ongoing mistreatment of chinese, chinese diaspora, and chinese-speaking volunteers, particularly regarding an incident last year that put volunteers in mainland china at risk, and the board's recent unilateral decision to close the otw weibo account without input from the weibo account leads or any chinese-speaking volunteers

the AI shit

and probably more that i've missed, honestly. so! this is my summary of the meeting, focusing mostly on the issues related to racism; i have screenshots of the whole meeting but will at this point only share those i find most relevant/interesting! alt text will be included for every screenshot in the image, not below it.

and hold on, because this is going to be LONG!

pre-meeting ableism in #help channel so shit actually started going down the previous day in the otw board discord's help channel where there was a pretty ableist resposne to a person who asked if the board could consider adding the pluralkit bot to the server. i wasn't there, but hojarasca on dreamwidth posted about it, and i believe some other folks who were there will post screenshots soon too.

all of that conversation was deleted from the help channel by today, which is not unusual but did mean that a majority of people at today's meeting might not know what went down.

board meeting starts; immediate chaos the board meeting started at 8pm UTC, and it was clear almost immediately that the board was unprepared. what you have to understand about otw board meetings is that they are not really meetings where the board members discuss anything with each other. basically otw board members show up, share an agenda , give written updates on the items on the agenda, take votes on board decisions (but without any discussion publicly), and take questions. none of the materials like the agenda or relevant documents were shared ahead of time, and the board did not offer a way to submit questions ahead of time specific to the board meeting. (otw does have a contact us form to email their board or committee chairs, but i've never gotten a response lol.)

another weird thing that happened before the meeting started was that board member alex tischer was active answering questions in the help channel up to five minutes before the meeting, but didn't stay for the meeting. i don't think a reason was shared for this. this is relevant because alex has been criticized for racist responses to chinese volunteers, particularly those that ran & interacted with otw's weibo account, both in the past & last month when they closed their weibo account without any notice to the volunteers. this will also come up again later in the q&a section...

anyway. the meeting starts. all of the discussion directly about the meeting is supposed to happen in one discord channel called #public-board-meetings; the #help channel is supposed to be for tech issues etc. there is no separate channel for asking questions to the board - those are supposed to be posted in the main board meeting channel. and as far as we can tell, there are no mods of either of these channels apart from board members.

at the start of the meeting there are at least 209 attendees. for context, the last board meeting in march had 31. i've heard from people who have attended board meetings for the past couple years that there are usually 10-40 attendees per meeting. but again, given what's been going down, it's not surprising that so many people showed up!

and because there are a lot of people who haven't attended these meetings before, attendees immediately start asking questions, both process questions about the meeting and actual questions they want to ask the board. which again is understandable because there haven't been many answers given in the #help channel, and the board immediately muddies things further by giving confusing instructions about when to ask questions. they first say this - that they are going to proceed through their agenda, so people should hold questions that are NOT about any agenda items until the end. they imply that questions that are about agenda items are okay as they go through the agenda, but there will be conflicting instructions about this later...

agenda is posted & actual meeting content begins...kind of here's the meeting agenda that was shared. not...terribly descriptive lol

- Decisions taken since the previous meeting - Strategic Plan vote - Update on OTW's Diversity Work - AOB (Any Other Business) - Time for questions

people immediately start asking questions about various agenda items & also procedure questions. very few of these are answered. the first agenda item is posted - decisions taken since the previous meeting.

the board gives us "a couple minutes to read the above". everything's getting a little muddled already because people keep asking questions (reasonably!) about agenda items. there are several questions about the specific agenda item of "decisions taken since the previous meeting". some of the questions are getting answered by otw volunteers but none by board members at this point.

the board moves on to the next agenda item without answering questions about the "decisions" item. people are asking for a separate channel for questions but none is created. board members tell us they will try to get to all the answers at the end, but that we should send any additional answers to the board through the otw contact us form. many people point out that they've rarely gotten responses that way.

board gives a brief update (that was NOT on the agenda) from the finance committee chair, who was not at the meeting, to say that the 2023 budget was posted earlier this year, and that people can send questions via the contact us form. i'll note here that i sent a message to the finance committee with a question about the 2023 budget two months ago and have not gotten a response.

strategic plan update + question procedure still unclear the board then starts to give an update on the strategic plan, which board members are to vote on today. attendees ask if the full strategic plan draft was shared publicly before this meeting and we are told it was only shared with volunteers, not with members or the public.

they do share an infographic summarizing the strategic plan. hilariously, the first version they upload is so blurry that it's unreadable. they then share a gdoc with alt text. if you are new-ish to otw stuff, this infographic and the jargon in it are probably pretty confusing.

the board keeps giving us "a few minutes to check things out". people ask them to not do that and proceed because we can read while they are typing. questions to the board keep going unanswered and various other people say that we're supposed to hold questions until the end. we again get told conflicting things about how to ask questions. a board member asks us to hold ALL questions until the end, but an otw volunteer points to an earlier statement from a different board member & says that questions on the current agenda item are allowed.

at 45 minutes into the meeting, when most questions are going unanswered (and a lot of only being answered by otw volunteers, not board members), the board disables messages in the main channel so that they can proceed with the agenda. this is not usual board meeting procedure and was unannounced until they did it. people start getting really creative with emoji reactions because they can't ask questions. the board admits that they were unprepared for the number of attendees at this meeting.

attendees then start asking questions in the help channel, which has been put on "slow mode", which means each user can only post every thirty minutes. multiple otw volunteers share in the help channel that they warned the board about preparing for the meeting, and the only change the board made in response was to make it 30 minutes longer than usual.

in the main channel, the board does not have any public discussion on the strategic plan (which has not been shared, only the infographic has), and votes unanimously to approve it.

diversity work update, aka a glorified otw news post the board moves on to the "diversity work update", which is now a standard section of every board meeting. they share two updates - firstly, that caste has been added as a protected class in the code of conduct, and secondly that they've heard the concerns coming from @end-otw-racism supporters and others. both of which were already shared a month ago in this OTW news post from a month ago, which they link to.

seriously, nothing new is shared in this part of the meeting that wasn't in that post. some update!

q&a part one the board asks for emoji reactions again to see how many people are in attendance. unclear why they do this unless they were hoping people might have left? but alas for them, there are still 182 people that emoji react saying they are in the meeting!

the board FINALLY starts answering questions, but they do not yet re-enable messages so that users can ask more questions. they start by addressing the pluralkit issue from yesterday, but they don't give any response about the ableism that was allowed to go unchecked in the channel.

then, BAFFLINGLY, they start with answering questions from someone who wasn't able to make the meeting. how did this person submit those questions beforehand? NO ONE KNOWS. fortunately this person had (imo) good questions, but again, why were their questions given preference? unclear.

okay there were a LOT of questions and responses, so i'm going to stick to sharing the ones that were most important to me, which were about addressing racism within the otw and on ao3. hopefully someone else will summarize other issues!

we finally get our FIRST REAL NEW RESPONSE on a diversity/racism issue! the board says they plan to hire a diversity consultant by the end of the year.

we also hear that changes to otw's terms of service are being proposed to give the policy & abuse committee more tools to address harassment, including "racially-motivated" harassment.

board says the best way for people other than otw volunteers to get involved with anti-racism issues is...to stay up to date on what otw is doing, attend public meetings, and send questions through the comment form. what.

the board does not answer how they have reached out to fans of color in their work to address racism, which i assume means they haven't; they instead say that fans of color are free to provide input/feedback via the contact us form. emoji reactions explode

the board says that the strategic plan has initiatives to combat racism including improving diversity in recruitment (of...who? volunteers, board members? potential future paid staff?), hiring a diversity consultant, & forming "volunteer coalitions"

slight digression from my focus on racism issues because of how many times the board has told us to submit questions via their contact us form: very little clarity on how long it will take for answers to be questions, or how long people spend on responses

the goals for the future diversity consultant are to do an audit of the organization and offer recommendations on how to proceed. couldn't be vaguer lol

otw does not currently have plans to have an internal committee for diversity, equity, and inclusion work, since they're relying on the external consultant, but if the consultant recommends it they'll consider

by the time they've gotten through these responses, there are only five minutes left in the meeting! remember, messaging by attendees has been disabled for the past 40 minutes, so everything the board has answered so far is from people who got their questions in during the first 45 minutes (or, apparently, one person who managed to get in questions before the meeting).

q&a part two at this point, the board FINALLY re-enables messaging for new questions, but clarifies that they will only take them until 9:30pm UTC. which means anyone who did actually wait to ask their questions now only has five minutes to ask them! questions start rolling in immediately. again, going to focus on the ones about racism.

i'm listing questions in chronological order that they are asked, but please note that the corresponding answers from the board are coming WAY later than the questions. the board took until 10:20pm UTC (almost an hour after the meeting was supposed to end) to answer all the questions. mostly i'm telling you this because the emoji reactions on the answers by the board get more limited as people understandably have to leave the meeting lol

the first question of round two is about how chinese & chinese diaspora volunteers have been treated re: the weibo account closure, & board member alex tischer's role in this.

board response is horrifyingly empty, only promising the creation of a new "anonymous form" to receive feedback from chinese and chinese diaspora volunteers on the situation.

an attendee asks for better prioritization of racism & equity issues in the meetings, and better preparation from the board. (note that the addition of "diversity work update" to the agenda is not new, i believe it was instituted late last year)

in response, board admits they were unprepared despite volunteers warning them, says they will take advice from this meeting forward. emoji reactions are out in full force

an attendee asks more details about how the diversity consultant research officer (who is NOT a hired diversity consultant, but an otw volunteer in charge of the hiring process for a consultant) engages with the board & what goals they have for the future consultant

response from board is that they meet weekly, and that the research officer is herself in charge of identifying goals for the future consultant

an attendee points out that "curate your space" tools are not enough to protect users from targeted abuse, including racist abuse, and that asking fans of color to reach out to the board instead of the other way around is bullshit (my words haha)

the board's response to this is to offload that onto the future diversity consultant. SERIOUSLY.

an otw member asks if the diversity consultant will also look at accessibility for disabled users across the otw

board essentially says "yeah, sure" lol

an otw member asks how otw will remove barriers to becoming a voting member and diversifying membership & committee leadership

board's response is that they don't know the demographics of their members or volunteers, which...somehow means they can't remove barriers that would help fans of color or non-western fans from becoming members and volunteers? lmaoooooooo

an attendee asks for accountability in ensuring that the incoming board keeps the current board's promises re: DEI, pointing to improvements made by the 2015 board that were later reversed by a new board make-up

board does not seem to understand this question so answers an entirely different one! (seriously, i double-checked which question they were responding to.)

an otw volunteer asks what the plans are to deal with the "ongoing exclusion and alienation of chinese-speaking volunteers"?

the board repeats that they have opened a feedback form for chinese-speaking volunteers. that's it.

so those are all the questions i saw on racism; as i mentioned, there were TONS more good questions on board transparency and communications, protection of volunteers, moderating board meetings better, lack of feedback collection on the strategic plan, etc.

at PRECISELY 9:30pm UTC, messages are disabled again so that no more questions can be asked. all of the otw board responses that i shared above are from after messages were disabled again.

takeaways this meeting was a complete mess. the process was extremely unclear and made things inaccessible; while the board did (from what i can tell) answer all the questions posted, people were not able to ask all the questions that they'd planned because of the unannounced disabling of messaging.

and then, of course, there's the fact that the majority of the answers are bullshit, which is probably the least surprising thing about this meeting.

it's just ridiculous that they weren't prepared for this. given everything that's gone down in the past months, why on earth wouldn't they assume that people would show up with hard questions? the mismanagement and incompetence is frankly astounding. which i guess is the story of the last few months re: OTW anyway!

so...see you at the next one in a few months, i guess? 🤷🏾‍♀️

[the-hellsing-organisation]

Ordinarily I do not indulge in callout posts, unless a person's mental health might be in serious danger - and it's not a petty lie somebody made up, providing no screenshots, or simple ones taken out of context.

I have received multiple messages now, proving to me that the Hellsing Discord server 'The Hellsing Fanserver' lead by 'Artillery' is unfortunately a place people need to be warned about.

While everyone could assure me they do offer good scans of the Hellsing manga, the members of the server indulged in:

- Purposefully misgendering people

- Making fun of triggers, trans people and people with severe mental illnesses

- Purposefully using triggers against other server members

- Manipulating other people to use the triggers against the person they concern and shifting the blame on them afterwards

- Bringing explicit sexual themes to a server with minors

Afterwards they would celebrate their 'success', making fun of the people they hurt.

The so called 'trolling' (though I wouldn't dare to call such a hurtful behaviour this) was encouraged on the server, so I would deem it an unsafe environment for everyone whose mental health might be affected by such things.

Please be careful if these things concern you and please do not encourage such behaviour.

It's not only hurtful, it is downright cruel.

The invitations, though the links are expired.

Here you see some of the accounts that were directly involved.

Please be careful.

Tumblr Accounts

Discord Accounts

I can only assume alts mean something like alternative accounts he and his friends created in order to do these things, engaging others on the server to do the same.

He then proceeds to share the success of the hurtful behaviour on before mentioned Discord server, commenting such:

^ The “he” they are referring to is a demi girl. And yes, on the other server the pronouns are clearly stated and everyone is asked to respect them.

He is downright admitting openly to have his friends manipulated other people to use the triggers against another person.

(For context: A server members triggers were ‘Borderlands” and ‘Kingdom Hearts’.

He stated this trigger a few hours before and unfortunately the mod, after a sleepless night, was unable to memorise it during that time so ‘Abd’ took advantage of it.

Another mod quickly drew attention to her mistake and of course she apologised to the person she triggered and was forgiven.)

Unfortunately many screenshots - involving the sexual advances and the 'making fun of transgenders' are missing due to the default ban option of the server, but several eye witnesses were able to confirm them.

There was a person pretending to be a transwoman to make fun of transpeople (The person was introducing themselves like: ‘Hello, I am a man, my pronouns are he/him, but I wish to be a woman’ It didn’t sound very genuine to the trans people on the server), people making up all sorts of triggers to make fun of people who have triggers, a person pretending to be a kin, and people, who were trying to spread paedophilic messages with spreading the news that ‘age is just a number’.

And in case people still believe it was an accident:

They deliberately threaten people and plan to hurt them, while making fun of their triggers.

I’m truly lost for words…

For everyone who didn’t know: It is not your place to judge triggers and for the love of God, please don’t make fun of them.

You don’t know the history behind them. It’s good if you have none yourself, it really is, but it shouldn’t make you blind to another person’s suffering.

And you certainly shouldn’t encourage other people to “hunt” people with triggers “down” and “go to war” against them.

Also the owner of server is openly hostility against lgbtq + people - especially trans people - , PoC and antisemitic jokes are the norm there.

They too use nationalist-socialist symbols as emojis in their servers, so people who are triggered by such symbols should be careful.

“Jew Alert”

Blaming one group for the action of singular people should us remind too much of darker parts in history.

I know people with the same experience, that doesnt mean they should actively seek out ot destroy the mental health of all trans people, because one of them hurt them.

Let the submitted texts speak for themselves.

And just in case if anybody believes those are fake:

As soon as Satan saw them, he pmed another person:

Those screenshots are real. They are not fake, like he claims they are and he admits that making fun of trigger and trans people was part of his “troll introductions”.

And just in case anybody is wondering if there are truly toxic trolls on this server? This is a submission I got:

When the original is:

Im sorry.

What they did should speak for itself, but don't try to add lies here. Lies that are obviously having their origin in the server itself.

If you still believe the attacks on this blog didn't come from the server:

This is what Artillery posted as soon as he found this post.

After this the attacks started [as you can see here], so don't tell me your server is not responsible and keep your NSFW implications out of a server with minors and away from this blog!

Also you being an immigrant has nothing to do with the fact, that your server is not safe for minors, lgtbq+ people - especially transpeople - people with trauma and poc.

Even if you claims are real - your and your friends prejudices against the other groups remain.

Satan apologised openly and promised to take better care of people mental health.

The emojis however will remain, though we have been told they have specific channels for offensive jokes.

“In our discussions with the tumblr group, we realized that the situation was far more complicated than we realized. There is a a third party, not associated with us or the tumblr group, who is deliberately spreading false information with the presumed agenda of causing drama and conflict between us. With this in mind, we've agreed the best course of action is to mutually end the escalation of conflict and apologize for what occured. Following that, I want to again make clear that nobody should be going after the tumblr group, their discord server, or anywhere other online spaces. We don't know where the tumblr trolls came from, but we do not support them. Their statements were racist, antisemitic, and violent. What we did in their server was wrong and a mistake. 

I want to personally apologize to a few specific people for what happened. Their server got raided, and during all of it we did not take their mental health into account, causing a lot of people to have panic attacks. Their triggers were invalidated, and people were manipulated. There were also a lot of innapropriate and offensive statements involved. While many things happened without my knowledge, it spiraled out of control because of the initial server raid, and I want to offer my sincerest apologies for that, and for everything else.”

Update:

He lied. He doesn’t regret anything.

Do you remember how he claimed he never ordered an attack on anybody?

Yes.... that was a lie.

He did plan to attack, though one member - the one they would later throw out of the admin team stopped him from attacking more people.

It should have given us red flags they would ban the only member from the team who was actively against the bullying.

And as we see here they did attack the second time as soon as the opportunity arouse when Artillery were sending people after us after saying we should suck his d*.

So he didnt learn a thing. Please survivors stay save.

[balillee]

Hey i saw a post of yours about Niki and i was wondering what's your opinions on the characters in the syndicate

i'm just really interested in different peoples opinions about these things sorry

that's fine, don't worry lol,

(all below is /rp unless stated otherwise)

the syndicate as a whole i think is very ironically oppressive - the four richest individuals on the server, who command power through wealth and fear rather than respect, teaching people that they should live in a system that they believe is free, in which the members of the syndicate would sit at the top of the natural food chain, and the people they're talking to about their ideas of freedom would not thrive (due to a lack of skill, respect, resources etc).

individual members:

techno is very complex, because i'm conflicted as to whether or not i think he's fully aware that he'd sit at the top of the food chain in an anarchist society and knows he'd thrive over others (because of the dog eat dog comment he made to the badlands boys) or if he genuinely believes that anarchy will free everyone. i think overall his perspective as a character is very sheltered, and i don't think he understands the perspectives of others who may want order and believe that institutions, nations and government could be beneficial to their lives. i think he also misses a lot of context, such as how the original l'manberg was a truly special place - not perfect - but it wasn't oppressive (because it wasn't scared of losing it's power), it didn't force anyone to do anything, and it was built on a foundation of trust that only began to fall apart when eret betrayed them (aka when someone intervened.)

phil's another complex one, because his radicalisation is based a lot on grief and past experiences, but again it is still radicalisation, and a lot of it again seems sheltered. once again i think his character could benefit from the context of how l'manberg was before the elections and how beneficial it was for it's members. i also think he'd be the one to benefit the most from knowing how snowchester properly operates and how tubbo is technically it's leader. i think communication between phil and tubbo specifically could really be an eye opener for his character as to how anarchy isn't beneficial for everyone, and how government/nations aren't inherently oppressive. i see phil as a little more empathetic than techno, especially concerning the difference between phil and ranboo's dynamic vs techno and ranboo's dynamic (in which ranboo is still somewhat fearful of techno - still waiting on ranboo's reaction to learning about techno taking tubbo's second life), and so i hope if that conversation ever comes about, phil can be somewhat understanding that tubbo thrives best in nations because people like him and jack are fearful of powerful individuals because all they've done is cause them grief and take from them, and that doomsday taught them not about anarchy, but about how they should fear the powerful.

ranboo as a character, and this might in part be due to how young he is and his memory issues, is extremely naive. his solutions to problems read about as well as 'i think the thing that would help the most is world peace'. he's very well known for his ideas of not picking sides, and cc!ranboo is very open and admits that his character is a hypocrite in the sense that he may not know at some points that he's choosing a side that can hurt his friends. i think he's definitely naive for believing that the syndicate is capable of stopping conflicts, and i want to see if at some point he's thrown between two sides and his ideas of not picking a side and picking the obvious right side (either ideologically, or it's the one that protects his friends/innocent people) conflict. i also would like to see him build trust with other characters, especially with tommy, because i think the two could benefit from helping each other out with their dream trauma specifically, and because i think tommy's the person who best fits the criteria to help ranboo with the fourth book (not exactly the most morally pure but getting better/still somewhat a good person who stands up to bullshit, unaffiliated with any groups, can keep secrets).

niki i've been very openly critical about as a character, mainly because in stories i operate under the idea that if a character can be omitted from a retelling of the overall story, it shouldn't be there, but this is a roleplay series so that fallacy doesn't really work. she doesn't add much to the syndicate other than my annoyance of it to be honest. her views towards new l'manberg are hypocritical and somewhat aggravating, especially since she left it fairly quickly for someone who fought to get it back in pogtopia - she technically left on two occasions when she made her secret city during tubbo's presidency, and when she left with fundy to found drywaters. she had no reason to be mad at l'manberg as she had no affiliations with it. i also don't really like her 'healing arc', because her version of healing is also 'villain niki', which i fucking despise, because it reads as if her version of healing is turning on her friends and dictating how they should live as if she's not entitled and as if she knows better. genuinely, and i know this may sound overly negative, i don't find any redeeming qualities in her character, and cc!niki needs to either decide whether or not her character is angry and vengeful against people who never wronged her, or soft and kind and healing, because to me those two archetypes conflict a lot. she's the one type of traitor that the fandom subconsciously doesn't even recognise as a traitor, and has decided she doesn't need to redeem herself for how she treated tommy and how she treated her friends in l'manberg.

i see the syndicate overall as a villainous group, which, you can argue all day about how 'there are no good or evil people in the dream smp they're all morally grey' all day, but there are, and even the creators acknowledge it. pretty much all cc's acknowledge the alignment charts, people refer to their character's arcs as villain arcs or hero arcs etc. this doesn't mean that i hate the syndicate, it just means that i see them as morally and functionally in the wrong in comparison to groups like snowchester (and honestly, i think rooting for the heroes has become kind of underrated at this point. i'm a sucker for happy worlds that are good; built on compromise and understanding, what can i say?)

sorry if i seem overly critical about them, i don't mean to (so i won't maintag it), but i hope this explains my perspective a little!

[theaceandaroadvocacyproject]

TAAAP’s Response to an Open Letter

We welcome productive conversations between TAAAP and the communities we serve. We value honest critiques and will always strive to correct mistakes we make, and commit to doing good work. However, we do not engage in dishonest dialogue with those who refuse to address our actual stated and acted values, in favor of propping up a false and directly contradictory representation of our positions. We have written this response to address claims that concerns around our December Pride Chats topic were ignored, dismissed, or misunderstood.  This will be our final response to Coyote on this matter. 

Our first email responding to Coyote’s concerns was sent on November 30, and our last correspondence was sent on December 18. We made it clear that it was our last correspondence with: 

“The topic has been decided and it will not be edited further. Like everyone, you will be free to share your thoughts during the December Pride Chats, as long as you follow the guidelines. Since we do not plan on changing the topic from what it is now, we will not be continuing this conversation through email. We have also expressed the core tenets of our stance through previous emails and see no need in reiterating those points, as that would simply be tiresome for all parties involved. We suggest rereading our previous emails for answers already given to your questions on this matter.” - 5th and final email

As the claims in Coyote’s Open Letter make it clear that our emails were either ignored or disregarded, we have chosen to take the route of responding to specific points in Coyote’s Open Letter with quotes from our emails, and adding clarification and emphasis when needed. We also only include quotes from emails sent by us, as we are not interested in publicizing Coyote’s emails without its consent. The block quotes from Coyote are from Coyote’s Open Letter, which was publicly posted on its blog. 

Quotations from Coyote are labelled with an alphabet letter & indented with “blockquote” formatting. Quotations from our previous emails to Coyote, as well as the topic announcement from our website, are only italicized.

A) Because that’s the context from which the term “SAM” itself emerged. That itself is the birthplace of the phrase. You do not “use” “the SAM” any more than a bullseye “uses” an arrow.

In the first sentence, Coyote links to a post claiming this as the origin of the SAM (content warning for aphobia). The post speaks of the Split Attraction Model as a pre-existing concept and does not attempt to coin “SAM” in any way. Due to the difficulty of finding historical posts on Tumblr and forums, no one in the community has offered an earlier post that actually coins the term. Therefore, it cannot be determined what context the SAM actually emerged from. As of that post that is referenced, it was a pre-existing concept. It is a stretch to definitively claim this post as the “source” of the SAM.

We addressed that here:

“Several of us at TAAAP read through and adjusted the wording of this announcement prior to sharing it on the Discord server with the knowledge that while it is possible that the SAM may have been created by exclusionists, its exact origin is unknown and so it has been reclaimed and popularized by the ace and aro communities.” - 1st email

“Several of us at TAAAP read through and adjusted the wording of this announcement prior to sharing it on the Discord server with the knowledge that while it is possible that the SAM may have been created by exclusionists, its exact origin is unknown and so it has been reclaimed and popularized by the ace and aro communities.” - 1st email

We also addressed this in the blog post of our Official Topic Announcement on our website, which was posted on December 19th before the Open Letter was posted:

“If a term may violate our guidelines, due to being rooted in exclusionist or other harmful ideology, do not assume that everyone is aware of its harmful origins or that they espouse those ideas. Many terms have been reclaimed, used without bad intention, or simply used without knowledge of other people using them in harmful ways.”  - Official Topic Announcement on TAAAP Website, emphasis added

B) But you already know that, or so you say. You are comfortable with treating those issues as over and done with, and having personally acclimated yourself to the language, you believe no other issues with the phrase itself remain.

In nearly every email we sent, we described those issues as ongoing. 

“Several of us at TAAAP read through and adjusted the wording of this announcement prior to sharing it on the Discord server with the knowledge that while it is possible that the SAM may have been created by exclusionists, its exact origin is unknown and so it has been reclaimed and popularized by the ace and aro communities.” - 1st email, emphasis added

“The terminology 'the SAM' is popularly used enough that many people have their own varied personal understandings of it, and we recognize that this lack of continuity in what it means can open extra avenues of discussion.” - 3rd email, emphasis added

“While it may not always have a coherent or consistent meaning in these communities, it is still something that is widely referenced and that many people have at least a vague conceptualization of.” - 4th email, emphasis added

“Also, due to the prevalence and often-presumed universality of the SAM, we believe it is important to name it so as to specifically encourage conversation about it. We believe it will be worthwhile for discussion to include it, so that both positive and negative viewpoints of it can be shared, and alternatives can be offered. Many people are on distinctly one side of discussion about the SAM, and some do not even know of the existence of the other side, so engaging in discussion with people who hold different views can be useful in how individuals move forward with their own identities and participation in their communities. “ - 4th email

“The full sentence is ‘We also will require that all participants in the conversation respect others' personal choices and feelings surrounding any particular attraction and orientation model or lack thereof, including people who object to there being a binary of SAM and non-SAM.’ (Emphasis added) While some people do treat SAM and non-SAM as a binary, this is not a view we are interested in spreading.” - 4th email, quotes our prompt, emphasis was present in this email

Regarding the accusation of TAAAP members being personally acclimated to the language, we refer to this:

“These kinds of criticisms are necessary for communities to address issues within themselves, especially when those issues are so common. One motivation behind choosing this topic is to address the far too common issues with the SAM, and offer room to discuss diverse and inclusive perspectives, as many people, including members of TAAAP, have been harmed by those who use the SAM to identity police. Not discussing these topics at all, as we have previously stated, can leave people of the dominant perspective ignorant of other perspectives, allowing divisions to grow without any chances to understand and correct the issue. That being said, and as is written in the month’s topic, we also require respect for how people self identify, including seeing one’s own aromanticism as a subset of their asexuality, and using the SAM. “ -5th and last email, emphasis added

C) You have expressed an investment in opposing identity essentialism, which means the only part that’s missing for you is how one person’s own personal use of a term could be unfair to anybody else.

I will illustrate this with an example.

Hypothetically, say someone in the aro community decided to give a name to a completely legitimate type of aro identity or experience — nothing wrong with that. Hypothetically, say in order to express that identity, they start calling themselves a “pure aro.” Say the identity becomes a popular one, and say there’s also some aros who speak up with objections. Now imagine those aros get told, “That’s okay, you don’t have to use the purity model.”

That would be messed up.

This hypothetical is something I’m assuming we’re on the same page about. If you can recognize that this “pure aro” construct would be a problem, regardless of what “pure aro” was chosen to represent, then you can understand how the language we choose for ourselves — even to represent completely legitimate things — can in fact be unfair to other people. In the same way that it would be wrong to refer to certain aros as “pure aros” or “impure aros,” it is wrong to refer to completely legitimate things as “SAM” or “non-SAM.”

We agree that the language of “pure aro” is inherently bad, in part because it implies an “impure aro” and in part because it assigns a morality to a specific identity, which can also be true with “split” and “non-split”, although to a lesser extent. “Pure” invokes religious oppression and purity culture, with the opposite of “pure” generally being “sinful”. This degree of connotation does not exist for “split”.  We say this not to dismiss the real harm people experience in relation to the SAM, but to highlight the false equivalence in the hypothetical.

In fact, we did at one point address someone in the Pride Chats who used the term “complete aro” by pointing out the potential harm that does to other aro-spectrum people who are just as completely aro as someone who experiences no romantic attraction at all.

We do agree that another issue with the SAM is its perceived universality, which forces labels onto people without their consent. We stated our view of this issue here:

“[S]ome people do understand themselves through use of the SAM - [it does] not work for all, and when that isn’t understood is when identity policing, exclusion, and invalidation can occur. We are open to discussions of the harm done by universalizing identity models in the Pride Chats.” - 5th and final email, some words removed to account for privacy concerns and to avoid quoting Coyote.

Many terms used by LGBTQIA+ individuals were originally coined and used by their oppressors or were slurs. Some terms are sometimes used in harmful and exclusionary ways, and have different meanings for the different individuals that use them. Writing off a term or idea as completely bad and assigning moral value to it is harmful to those who are not aware of its history, have reclaimed it, or find positive aspects of the term with which to identify. We believe it is possible to recognize the harm that occurs from certain community practices while also not attacking people who do not intend to perpetuate that harm. Rather, we should focus on the harmful actions. We do not condone broad condemnation of all who identify with a term, simply because others weaponize or have weaponized that terminology to cause harm. People who have adopted widespread terminology to describe phenomena or identities should not be judged because others weaponize or weaponized that terminology, or for forgiving a potentially negative interpretation/aspect/connotation of said terminology for the comfort they find in using the positive aspects of it to describe themselves.

D) [...] it is wrong to refer to completely legitimate things as “SAM” or “non-SAM.”

This states that people are wrong to use the terms SAM and non-SAM. As shown by our message above, in multiple other messages, and in our Pride Chat guidelines, this is identity policing; it is not allowed in the chats and will not be espoused by TAAAP’s members. It’s not simply the experiences that are legitimate, but also identifying with the SAM or as non-SAM. This is not an acceptance of the SAM, or of a supposed binary of SAM and non-SAM, as a universal model that everyone must or should identify with, but rather an acceptance of some people’s personal identification with the term SAM or non-SAM. We conveyed this idea through email here:

“Also, we do not want to imply that we think using the SAM is not legitimate, as it is a model that many people use and relate to, and do so using that specific term.” - 4th email

E) 1) It’s not split. The word “split,” like the word pure, inherently sets up a contrast. It’s framing these things as only partial, splintered fragments of what they’re normally supposed to be. Categorizing my experiences of attraction as “split” attraction is like referring to me as a “split person” just because I’m not a conjoined twin. I wasn’t split off from anyone. I’m just like this. This is my own whole and natural way of being. “Split” language talks down to me as a lesser fragment of something else. Why should that be recognized as anything less than condescending?

If someone were to talk down to anyone in this way, that would go against our Discord guidelines and they would be warned, “timed out” if they continued, and banned if they continued after the time out, per our rules. Dictating how people can identify, whether by imposing labels on others or by demonizing others for identifying with certain labels, is identity policing. Different identities and conceptualizations of identities resonate for different people, and there is nothing wrong with this. This is also related to the issue of universalization, which we addressed above with the block quote C from Coyote. To be absolutely clear, people with the same or similar experiences are allowed to use different labels and models, likewise, people with differing experiences may resonate with the same labels and models. Additionally, people are never required to identify in opposition to or in relation to any label or model.  

This was addressed here:

“Everyone uses different methods, models, and terminology to understand their own orientations. Some of these may not be ones that you personally agree with or would use, but you must respect others’ right to use the model or method they want. Similarly, you can discuss what you don’t like about any given model, method, or term, but be careful to only apply it to yourself or use “I feel” statements so as not to say what methods others should or should not use. Focus on critiquing the models and not how people make use of them or identify with them. The only models, methods, or terms we do not support are those that are culturally appropriative or violate our guidelines in some other way.

“If a term may violate our guidelines, due to being rooted in exclusionist or other harmful ideology, do not assume that everyone is aware of its harmful origins or that they espouse those ideas. Many terms have been reclaimed, used without bad intention, or simply used without knowledge of other people using them in harmful ways.” - Official Topic Announcement on TAAAP Website, emphasis added

F) It’s not “attraction,” either. Too often I’ve seen people deploying “SAM” or “using the SAM” to misrepresent multi-orientation labeling, which is conflating “attraction” with “orientation.” 

Some people do identify with an orientation based on their attraction. The legitimacy of people who do base their orientation on attraction as well as the various other ways people do not, is recognized in our official topic announcement, the final version of which was sent to Coyote before posting it to our website.

“The topic will be models of attraction and orientation, including the SAM (Split-Attraction Model), as well as understandings and models of orientation that do not center attraction, and any other potential ways of understanding attraction and orientation. We at TAAAP support any person using any kind of model, or no model at all, to identify their attraction or orientation. We also will require that all participants in the conversation respect others' personal choices and feelings surrounding any particular attraction and orientation model or lack thereof, including people who object to there being a binary of SAM and non-SAM. This discussion will explore why people use the SAM, use something else entirely, or use none.” - 3rd email, emphasis added

There are also people who use the SAM to only identify their attractions, and do not use it for their orientation(s). More broadly, we do not agree that it is essentialist or harmful for someone to identify with their own orientation(s) based on their own attraction(s). The harms that are related to self-identifying have been covered above under Quote C. 

G) Frankly? It’s not even a model. It doesn’t model anything. It’s just an extra sticker over multiple preexisting models and concepts, chained together by conflation and essentialism.

The SAM does refer to multiple ideas. Many orientation models and identity terms have a level of ambiguity to them, and this is not unique to the SAM. We addressed the ambiguous nature of the term here:

“We do not strictly define the terms given in the topic, as the ambiguity can allow for segments of discussion that we cannot predict. The terminology 'the SAM' is popularly used enough that many people have their own varied personal understandings of it, and we recognize that this lack of continuity in what it means can open extra avenues of discussion. We know that many people identify with it or refer to it when speaking of their identities, and that others do not identify with it nor wish to use it as a reference point, and we want to leave room for people of all perspectives to talk about it (whatever they believe 'it' is) without correcting them for talking about the ‘wrong' thing.” - 3rd email, emphasis added

H) All this is why I recently had to gently shepherd an aro out of your “opting out of romantic orientation” channel. 

This is elaborated upon later:

I) The TSAMM encourages a conflation between “romantic orientation” and “distinguishing romantic from sexual,” and the popularity of that conflation has so thoroughly undermined conceptual space for folks like me that you can outright name a channel “opting out of romantic orientation” and you’ll get people in there talking about how much they definitely do identify with a romantic orientation. Even in space deliberately set aside for me, the TSAMM renders the distinction incoherent.

As mods, we should have noticed this when it happened and addressed it then. After reading through the exchange, it was clear that this person was questioning and trying to find what term(s) they felt comfortable identifying their orientation with. The channels for different identities are open to people who are questioning, as well as those of other identities who are willing to ask questions and listen respectfully. While in our Pride Chats, it is expected that questioning people are respected and given space to question without being “shepherded” away. 

J) I deserve better than this. Everyone deserves better than this. We deserve to get to have these conversations without the TSAMM getting in the way.

“TAAAP specifically does not feel comfortable avoiding discussing the term Split-Attraction Model, as it is common community terminology and many identify with it in a positive sense. We feel that it would be a greater disservice to beat around the bush than to allow people to discuss it, although we do understand that our wording can better reflect how we encourage discussion about various other orientation models/terminology, and to reflect the fact that participants will be welcome to share criticisms of the term 'SAM' as well.” -1st email, emphasis added

In this first email, we clarified the wording of the December topic to make it clear that the SAM was only one part of the topic, and to encourage discussion of more models and terminology.

“The terminology 'the SAM' is popularly used enough that many people have their own varied personal understandings of it, and we recognize that this lack of continuity in what it means can open extra avenues of discussion. We know that many people identify with it or refer to it when speaking of their identities, and that others do not identify with it nor wish to use it as a reference point, and we want to leave room for people of all perspectives to talk about it (whatever they believe 'it' is) without correcting them for talking about the 'wrong' thing.” - 3rd email, emphasis added

“We chose to name the SAM because of its wide use as an orientation model in the ace and aro communities, and regardless of personal use or opinion, the term contextualizes our topic for those generally unfamiliar with orientation models and theories.” - 4th email , emphasis added

“Not discussing these topics at all, as we have previously stated, can leave people of the dominant perspective ignorant of other perspectives, allowing divisions to grow without any chances to understand and correct the issue. That being said, and as is written in the month’s topic, we also require respect for how people self identify, [including] using the SAM.” - 5th and final email, some words removed to account for privacy concerns and to avoid quoting Coyote.

We would like to refer everyone to our guidelines for the Pride Chats. These will be updated with expectations around identity policing using parts of our Official Topic Announcement. 

Also, we feel it worthwhile to address the overall complications inherent in pushing certain terminology and attempting to erase other terminology. Demanding such specific, unambiguous language makes the conversation inaccessible to some neurodivergent people, some people who speak English as a secondary language, and some people with a more casual or limited understanding of this terminology and the nuances of this intra-community conversation. Ace and aro people already struggle to access knowledge about these identities, and this policing of nuanced terminology provides another barrier to aro and ace people who want to understand and express themselves.

When someone identifies with a term, or wants to discuss a term, in TAAAP’s Discord server or on TAAAP’s Dreamwidth page, a safe space, we require that no one identity polices, attacks, nor harasses this person under the assumption that they should “know better”. Discussion and critiques of terms can be brought forward without assigning a certain morality to the people who use them. Discussion and critique can happen without condemning a person.

To suggest an alternative term or to write the SAM out of discussions does not change that many people are exposed to that terminology, and it has impacted their personal identities. The comments on Coyote’s Open Letter are all part of the discussion we always intended to have, and still will have in our Pride Chats Discord and Dreamwidth. As a reminder, our December 2020 Pride Chats will take place on the 26th and 27th and the topic is “models of attraction and orientation, including the SAM (Split-Attraction Model), as well as understandings and models of orientation that do not center attraction, and any other potential ways of understanding attraction and orientation”.