Open Discussion Explanation for recent staff events and future staff obligations, criticism & discussion welcome

Make sure that the website is more secure. And learn from our mistakes.

Am I allowed !!

Oh what am I getting myself into. Behave !!

Bye.

And I know nothing about it. We all seem to have to learn now.

However, like I said.

Bye.

Can I be a mod !? See I have enough worries. Secure it down or live with it. Is that wrong ?

fckit bye

Thank you for letting me comment even though I only have a half a brain of what is going on. lool. 🤪

I still feel secure. Somewhat. Rotfl. Please don't close.
 
Because healing doesn't always come before the experience.

Sometimes, the experience is what heals you. :unsure:
~~~~

The website seems nice. I don't get adds. 🙏 So far.

Sorry if I am being weird.

~~~~~~

The website itself, is an awesome one.

So behave. :badumtiss:
 
I wish this whole episode had been handled with more transparency. I realize it's not the kind of thing that could have been broadcast to the masses ahead of time but was it absolutely necessary to flip the switch on a Friday and then leave multiple former staffers hung out to dry over the weekend? Was there no way statements could have been prepared for senior staff ahead of time? Was there no way this could have waited until Monday when everyone on the new admin team (and particularly @Tronica) would have been available to help explain and deal with the fallout?

Based on the posts I'm reading in this thread, some if not all who weren't immediately invited to return to staff were left the entire weekend to ruminate on what must be happening with nothing but the public announcement from the board to go on. Similarly, those who were invited to return were only given a brief explanation via mass DM until after the weekend and even now I've been left with more questions than I know how (or who) to ask. As many of these questions pertain to issues that were being discussed in TPH and SSH prior to the transition I wouldn't be able to begin to broach them here without breaking confidence. So I'll digress.

I can't help but feel that if a few more days had been put into getting all of your collective ducks in a row before pulling the trigger then this transition could have unfolded with far less consternation and heartache. Everything just felt so rushed and I think it's quite telling that this thread wasn't made until 4 days after the fact.

Moving forward I hope we'll be able to begin to foster a new culture of clear and open communication between staff and the community regarding site direction but also among staff at all levels instead of having this tiered system of admins/smods/mods with information slowly trickling down from the top on a need to know basis. If/when I rejoin staff I don't want to feel like I'm operating in the dark with limited information which is exactly how I've felt for the last several weeks.

I guess you can file this under feedback. I'm not seeking direct answers to any of my questionmarks and mainly just wanted to get it off my chest so I can focus on moving forward.

I don't think I'm the only one feeling somewhat let down by how this process has unfolded and I hope that everybody is able to get the closure they need from these discussions and that we'll be able to do better moving forward.
 
Last edited:
Shinji Ikari said:
among staff at all levels instead of having this tiered system of admins/smods/mods with information slowly trickling down from the top on a need to know basis
Click to expand...
I think that this was a big issue that was upheld by certain former admins who really liked to move discussions to higher levels whenever mods/smods were mildly critical of them, or delete and point members for criticizing their behaviour.

This is unfortunately an inherent issue with hierarchical structures, and staff could definitely be restructured to be more democratic and transparent.
When I was on admin, we made certain choices on the Discord (Allowing all mods to get one vote on decisions/new staff instead of having votes at the Smod level, having 95% of our discussions at the base mod level) that prevented a lot of these issues and created a strong emphasis on cooperation and transparency.
These changes could definitely help if brought to the forum team.

Thankfully, the new administration seems far more open to criticism and freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
A suggestion for @deficiT & the other admins:

For the “no volunteer activities whilst significantly impaired”, I would like to see some clearer language indicating that members should show up at baseline rather than with nothing in their system; I presume that showing up at baseline is the intention of this policy.

As we all know - if someone is physically dependent on a substance, showing up to moderate on a reasonable quantity of that substance is going to be far better than them trying to moderate whilst in withdrawals.
The policy for local harm reduction groups I have been apart of - which I adopted on the Discord as well - is “show up at baseline”, since every person’s baseline is going to be different.
That doesn’t mean slam back 8 beers and start moderating, but it shouldn’t mean that you need to get sober to volunteer here either.

Baseline might be ingesting your daily dose of opioids/meth/cannabis/benzos/etc for one person and total sobriety for another, and Bluelight’s policies need to reflect that.
 
arrall said:
If you think that anything I said goes beyond reasonable criticism, you are welcome to PM me and ask me to edit it out and I will gladly do so.
Click to expand...
Nothing more to discuss at the moment. You're welcome to edit your post in the interim.
 
arrall said:
If you think that anything I said goes beyond reasonable criticism, you are welcome to PM me and ask me to edit it out and I will gladly do so.
Click to expand...
Or he could warn you.
Though I really see no reason why.
 
Yeah I mean I tried to be pretty restrained in my comments and made sure they stayed focused on factual statements of things that happened relevant to this thread. And earnest criticisms I tried for well over a week to address privately.

But I realize the vast majority of staff had nothing to do with any of it. I respect Ali and deficit immensely and appreciate their willingness to communicate with me even though they can't really provide me with the answers I seek. I really thank trypta as well for reaching out to me and hearing out so many of my concerns.

Despite everything , I truly wish the best for Bluelight and its future. Whatever happens.
 
arrall said:
A suggestion for @deficiT & the other admins:

For the “no volunteer activities whilst significantly impaired”, I would like to see some clearer language indicating that members should show up at baseline rather than with nothing in their system; I presume that showing up at baseline is the intention of this policy.

As we all know - if someone is physically dependent on a substance, showing up to moderate on a reasonable quantity of that substance is going to be far better than them trying to moderate whilst in withdrawals.
The policy for local harm reduction groups I have been apart of - which I adopted on the Discord as well - is “show up at baseline”, since every person’s baseline is going to be different.
That doesn’t mean slam back 8 beers and start moderating, but it shouldn’t mean that you need to get sober to volunteer here either.

Baseline might be ingesting your daily dose of opioids/meth/cannabis/benzos/etc for one person and total sobriety for another, and Bluelight’s policies need to reflect that.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what we mean. Happy to take that feedback on in terms of using the term 'baseline' in the language of the agreement.
(Note this phrase was all about no drugs on board at all in its first iteration, as it was designed for people working outside of our field!)
 
As a not-Australian not-Commonwealth citizen who lives in a place with much more lax freedom of speech laws, can we get some definition of just what exactly crosses the ‘line’ for you Aussies? I’d really like to know if I can even talk about many of my interests here on BL.

This site has for 11 years been a place where I have made friends and talked bullshit about everything I enjoy in life and mostly have never had to think about what I’m saying. It is my understanding that in commonwealth nations that is no longer an accepted notion.

I recall when I was a part of staff still, and I do realize I had my own life issues going on at the end of that, I was unhappy and discontent with the idea of bringing BL under the veil of a non-profit in Australia. Having a board and all that silly stuff. It still irks me to see this change and I can’t see why it is a necessity. BL used to be a .ru site and it’s weird to think that such an address would be associated with wilder freedoms than in the West today.

I digress. I would just like to know what you Aussies view as illegally offensive vs just in “bad taste” please. And no, the BLUA is not adequate in defining that IMO.
 
I think users must be made aware before signing up that this site operates under Australian law, and explain what that means with regard of their posting behavior.
Other than using common sense and values, what exactly is considered acceptable language and what not?

I think it's unfair to let someone who lives in a country with more lax laws tell their stories or vent or ask questions only to be told by a mod that they are being warned or their thread closed because they wrote this and that unsuitable word.

I know it kept me from returning to bluelight for almost 2 years, and my mistake was only to ask a question about something that had been discussed in other threads.
 
Cream Gravy? said:
As a not-Australian not-Commonwealth citizen who lives in a place with much more lax freedom of speech laws, can we get some definition of just what exactly crosses the ‘line’ for you Aussies? I’d really like to know if I can even talk about many of my interests here on BL.

This site has for 11 years been a place where I have made friends and talked bullshit about everything I enjoy in life and mostly have never had to think about what I’m saying. It is my understanding that in commonwealth nations that is no longer an accepted notion.

I recall when I was a part of staff still, and I do realize I had my own life issues going on at the end of that, I was unhappy and discontent with the idea of bringing BL under the veil of a non-profit in Australia. Having a board and all that silly stuff. It still irks me to see this change and I can’t see why it is a necessity. BL used to be a .ru site and it’s weird to think that such an address would be associated with wilder freedoms than in the West today.

I digress. I would just like to know what you Aussies view as illegally offensive vs just in “bad taste” please. And no, the BLUA is not adequate in defining that IMO.
Click to expand...
If you're not uploading content that is specifically intended to be abusive or derogatory to either other users or general groups of people, or content that promotes or threatens violence, then I really don't think you have a ton to worry about.

I don't really know Australian law like that, but that's basically all it seems to be, from my house. It's the same general standards you are beholden to in most other corners and communities on the Internet.

Defining those standards in specific, better than the BLUA or blase legalese, is something that we're working on.
 
deficiT said:
If you're not uploading content that is specifically intended
Click to expand...
The issue is most of the time it's not intended to be abusive or derogatory but some third party comes in and makes that distinction on behalf of others.
deficiT said:
to be abusive or derogatory to either other users or general groups of people
Click to expand...

deficiT said:
, or content that promotes or threatens violence, then I really don't think you have a ton to worry about.

I don't really know Australian law like that, but that's basically all it seems to be, from my house. It's the same general standards you are beholden to in most other corners and communities on the Internet.

Defining those standards in specific, better than the BLUA or blase legalese, is something that we're working on.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top