[ SECRET POST #5497 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5497 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #787.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

I'm part of a hobby group. Which is great.
It bills itself as open and inclusive, and is. Which is great.
It's attracted a whole lot of non-neurotypical people who are having fun in it. Which is great.

It's also on the brink of collapsing because all said non-neurotypical people's dysfunctions do not play well with each other. Don't get me wrong: the people are great. But their collective disorders are hitting a critical mass and are starting to be unable to function as a team with each other. There is, in practical truth, a limit to how many people with BPD, PTSD, ASD, anxiety, depression, and so on that you can put into a group without everyone melting each other down into a mess.

Pointing this out would have people call me an ableist, however. And what solution could there be, to close the doors to people with disorders? I wouldn't and couldn't suggest that.

Maybe it's time to quietly find a new group. I know I wouldn't be the only one leaving.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Batten down the hatches, OP. Incoming.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

It kind of sounds like the solution is just... having rules and standards of behaviour and moderators able to enforce them? You can't and don't want to outlaw "being" a thing, but you can absolutely outlaw "doing" a thing if the thing hurts other people. Yes, a lot of time time peoples' bad behaviour (in the world, not just in this hobby group) can be attributed to a diagnosis, dysfunction or trauma that is not their "fault." That doesn't mean being a dick is allowed. And allowing behaviour that would be unacceptable from presumed-neurotypical people because someone has disclosed that they have a particular diagnosis is basically like saying that people with that diagnosis are just assholes and can't help their behaviour. Which is neither true nor fair.

I get that it's hard to be like "well, there were no rules before, but now there are rules and you'll be booted if you break them" all of a sudden, especially when things have been getting out of control for a while with no consequences for anyone. But... maybe something to look for wherever you end up next.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

On the one hand I agree, but I also think that online moderation is really, really hard even under the absolute best circumstances. And implementing rules where (a) there haven't been rules before (b) there's a lot of existing conflict and (c) there's no broad-based consensus for those rules - that's definitely not the best possible circumstances.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

This! Also, if someone is really, really determined to be a dick, they will find a way. Especially if they are convinced that they are in the right, which can be part of their dysfunction.

(Anon who had to deal with this as a mod.)

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Agree. The worst thing that happened to fan groups was reimagining mods as content providers/managers and not rule/behavior enforcers. A bad mod can kill a community, but a good mod (better yet, a good mod team!) can also keep a community healthy.

Mods are there to step in when things are too heated, to remind everyone of the rules and send them to their corners to calm down, and to ban when someone is operating in bad faith. People are people, and there's going to be disagreements. The important thing is everyone knows where the lines are, how to end things before lines get crossed, and how to make nice afterwards.

The other worst thing was a trend where claiming to be part of a certain group means that it's up to everyone else around you to make sure you never feel uncomfy at all costs and that they *have* to indulge you when you want to do things/approach things in a certain way, or give you a free pass for bad behavior. While I'm loathe to reference Big Bang Theory--all the show's jokes towards Sheldon's clear autism was not okay. It made his autism a joke, and they ridiculed him for it. In the same token, his repeated sexism, racism, and classism (which often caused real pain to others, particularly the women around him) was also routinely laughed off as "he's just like that!" and that's also not okay. Both things could be true at the same time, and accommodating him in one way would not be the same as giving him a free pass in others.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Sheldon doesn't have autism. His mother had him tested.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but she never followed up with that specialist in Houston.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

The Schrodinger's Autism.

[(Anonymous)]

I read this in a different way that wasn't about 'being an asshole' at all.

Like for example... someone with ADHD completely forgets about an event. Then people with anxiety who were waiting for them for that event, suffering from anxiety wondering if it's them that caused this and if the person with ADHD just hates them or something. Then that in turn triggering someone else with a trauma and causing them to slide into a depressive swing. The person with ASD is seeing all this happen and trying to calm things down but can't seem to find the right words and everybody else is now already in a mood to read more into what they're saying than they meant, making it even harder. Avoidant people are watching people fight and being quietly upset in a corner... etc.

It doesn't even have to be 'people behaving badly' for one snowball to potentially roll into a snowstorm of issues. None of the things listed above are things that can or should be 'stopped' by mods because none of it was meant to hurt people or anything wrong. You can't solve that kind of thing by wading in and ordering everyone to calm down and banning people who are upset.

When OP stated 'their disorders don't play well with each other' I assumed the above was what they meant, especially since the people themselves are all presumably friends

[(Anonymous)]

This is how I read this secret, as well. I've seen similar things go down in friend groups that have basically fallen apart for this same general reason.

[(Anonymous)]

I have ADHD/Autism, anxiety, and depression. A very unfortunate fourwhammy. My anxiety has gotten a shit load better in recent years though.

I totally and completely agree with OP. It's unfortunate. But it's also sadly the way it plays out often times in communities that mix a bunch of people with entirely different needs together with little or no moderation or rules in place knowledgeable of this fact. It's not ableist or cruel to state this either. These are all different disorders which may have different needs and that's even before you get down to individuals.

I find that mixing with some NTs that you get along well with and/or finding groups which can very specifically cater to you is the most stable. At least in my experience.

[(Anonymous)]

In theory, a good mod team can nip this chain in the bud if they're moderating the event properly, as I would assume a key duty is following up with participants to ensure no one forgets something they previously committed to.

[(Anonymous)]

Or a way of handling unexpected cancellations. If the raid starts at 7 we have everyone meet at 6:45 and base or strategy around who has shown up and don't accept latecomers. If the person bringing the drinks to book club isn't coming we'll drink water and be ok. If the person with a paid zoom account isn't answering emails then guess what: built in bio breaks every 40 minutes.

You dont have to intentionally be a dick to be disruptive and a good organizer can help smooth out disruptions.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

This is why I say gatekeeping is good, actually. The more "inclusive" a group gets, the more likely it is to collapse in drama. Then those still interested in it will congregate in little ring fenced private communities, which will gradually open up as memories fade, until someone agitates for it to be completely open, and the whole cycle of drama will repeat until it reaches the "Chris Chan" threshold again.

Re: Transcript by OP

[feotakahari]

I don’t trust the phrase “gatekeeping,” because it tends to be used less “we won’t allow you onto our forum” and more “if you create or join any forum with the same interests as us, we’ll harass you until you delete your account.”

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Well this community would definitely know about that.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Please cite specific examples of times when people from F!S went into other communities to harass people there

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's probably true, in general, that smaller communities make it easier to moderate and avoid drama. I'm really not comfortable with "gatekeeping" as a solution to this, because IME "gatekeeping" usually just means being an asshole. Often a sexist asshole.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

There's a big difference between "we'll only let you hang out if you agree to abide to this good behavior" and "we're only going to let in people who fit our narrow definition of an in-group, regardless of whether or not they follow the rules."

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Only from the view of the disruptive out group. Sooner or later they will refuse to play nice, or will take over. Then they make you the out group and are ruthless in persecuting you, and change the entire community that you used to love.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Reality can't be divided neatly between the good trustworthy ingroup and the evil scheming invasive outgroup

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Not to be pessimistic but ... yeah. That's kind of how things go? People grow and change, not always for the better. You can cultivate a wonderful community, and it sucks when it falls part, but nothing lasts forever. If you're lucky and it's a community that lasts for years, or even better, decades or generations, then you did really well.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who is multiply diagnosed with Brain Problems, I've long accepted that people are not responsible for my own mental health The only person responsible for my triggers, reactions, intrusive thoughts, etc. is me.

Re: Transcript by OP

[(Anonymous)]

Having watched this go down in real life geek friendship groups several times, you're not wrong nonny. But the people involved tend to learn from it, at least in my experience. Ten years on from those implosion, everyone's much more well rounded and chilled out.