• We will be reinstating the log that was deleted.
• It will be placed behind spoiler tags.

Going forward we would ask that logs – especially logs of SUCH LENGTH – be placed behind spoiler tags with some sort of context or TL;DR so that people know what they are in for if they choose to view.

We will continue to discuss and review when and if we have any situations in need of revisiting this stance.

It’s all logs or no logs.

This is my exact stance. Either we allow logs to be posted or no one can post logs. While I definitely like and trust the admin team of BMD, and this is no slight to them or their work, I think it sets up some pretty untenable situations that could possibly favor the abusers over those who have been abused.

One of the fucked up things about abusers is that addressing it must involve some level of exposure of the victim. We either accept that and do what we can to mitigate it (remove the name of the victim, etc.) or we let it continue unchecked. It is impossible to address a problem if we don’t talk about the problem.

Do you all think I enjoyed having everyone read my DMs with Macha? I sure didn’t!

It’s all logs or no logs.

If it isn’t breaking the rules of the forum, it should not be removed unless it’s requested by the victim.

The problem is who gets to decide who the victim is. Historically, we weigh in on who we think was right or wrong. But if I post a log, and you post the exact same log, and we both claim we were the victim in that log??

Which of us gets to call for its removal?

I would not support the removal of any logs for any reason, except for spam. If, as Pyrephox has said, someone keeps posting logs to gum up the forum or individual posts, then cutting the spam (and banning the account) seems reasonable. Like most gray areas, there’s no hard and fast rule for what constitutes spam, though, so it’d be up to admin fiat on a case-by-case basis.

I think that’d be better than trying to head off this situation by requiring posted context since it wouldn’t stop it anyway (the spammer would just put in bullshit reasons why they’re posting the logs) and still would require an admin fiat ruling eventually.

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

a) no
b) no
c) probably?
d) no

@bear_necessities said in Log Posting Standards:

nobody’s comfort level should dictate the content that someone else can read.

If it isn’t breaking the rules of the forum, it should not be removed unless it’s requested by the victim.

ETA: Also, use the spoiler tag. I installed it for a reason.

b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
Remove the poses in question. If they’re just bystanders, they probably don’t factor in. Summarize if needed.

c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
“My name is Macha and this log makes me uncomfortable.”

d) A bystander
I think that’s what happened here and it clearly wasn’t universally well-received.

e) Remember where we are
Once upon a time, the Rough & Rowdy (or WORA, or whatever we called it) section of the forum was where the gloves came off. We have definitely tempered our behavior over the years, grown out of slinging racial epithets at each other. But this is still an opt-in aspect of an opt-in hobby.

You’re not required to be here.

You’re not required to read anything.

Logout. Close the window.

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;

No.

b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;

Anonymize bystander involvement, sure, but no – can you imagine if someone were posting a log of someone being awful to them, and some random person who also happened to be in the scene was like “no please take down this log”? No.

c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;

I’d rather anonymize than remove but if a victim of the actions requested then yeah I’d say it has weight to consider.

d) A bystander

Someone not even involved? No. Not unless it’s people being like – “hey staff someone just posted a log full of porn” where it’s – you know, content that just full stop probably shouldn’t be on the board type of thing.

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

I think outright removal should be a last resort. Strip it down to exclude bystanders and identifying info from the victim of the actions. If that doesn’t work then consider removal.

But I also think there’s room for public interest to take some level of priority.

I would not want to see logs removed because it made a bystander uncomfortable - we’re all going to have different comfort levels and nobody’s comfort level should dictate the content that someone else can read.

QUESTION FOR THE FORUM:

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

A: No. Deal with it.
B: Contextual, but at least remove names
C : Yes,
D : No

ETA: Thought over my responses a bit more/

How do you feel about removing a log if someone requests it be removed?

a) The person it was posted to call out;
b) Person or persons in the log who are bystanders;
c) A person in the log who was a victim of the actions being called out in the log;
d) A bystander

I’m unable to discern what is serious and what is sarcasm in this thread, so I’m bowing out.

But won’t you just be having the same conversation all over again anyway, only now it will be about if the reason the log was posted stated was sufficient for the log to stay up?

Yes and no. With some context given, it’s potentially easier for admin to make a judgement that people will understand if not agree with.

@Pavel said in Log Posting Standards:

Being told that I’m condoning harassment and contributing to the victimisation of someone because I didn’t immediately see things from someone else’s point of view? Utterly disgraceful and condescending, and I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice.

That is pretty shitty.

It’s part of the gig, especially when dealing with strong personalities as we’ve got here. But it’s still a kick in the balls and a slap to the face.

The double standard in behaviour is also stifling. If I, with my admin tag, got worked up, posted in all caps, decrying something or whatever, I’d be chastised for it. There have been numerous occasions where I’d have to pause, sit and chill, and then reply calmly and measuredly. Which is, frankly, right. Calm and measured.

Where’s that same consideration when admins are trying to explain their reasoning? We’re people too. We’re not enlightened beings, we’re not magic. We feel things, but we’re not allowed to tell you to calm the fuck down and act like an adult.

Being told that I’m condoning harassment and contributing to the victimisation of someone because I didn’t immediately see things from someone else’s point of view? Utterly disgraceful and condescending, and I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice.

That is pretty shitty.

I don’t agree with taking the log down, but I don’t think you’re bad humans with bad intentions for making that decision.

And I really am sorry if I’m coming on strongly and making things seem personal. It’s really truly seriously not.

I don’t like the SJWs swooping in and saving us all from everything all the time. It’s tedious.

But I don’t think you guys are suxx for doing what you gotta do to keep the peace.