Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

page 1 of 212next »

Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

SoullessSingularity 28 Dec 2019 01:33

A conversation came up on the chat staff channel that there was not a solid, clear policy regarding the treatment of multiple systems actually written down in clear, concise language. I'm proposing (based on said conversation), and soliciting broad feedback on, the following strategy going forward. This is to be left in this thread in general, such that future chat staff can refer to this thread in the future:

Behaviors that are not acceptable:

1. The repeated changing of nicks within a short period of time (every ~30 minutes being okay, every ~20 minutes pushing it) or posting of a wide variety (i.e. more than 1 or 2) of responses, greetings, goodbyes, etc. (from multiple personas) at the same time to any given conversation will be treated as spam. This follows from our "don't spam" policy.
2. Consistently and exclusively discussing one's own neurodiversity with little engagement as to current conversation or interest in other subjects beyond such

Behaviors which are typically fine:

1. Pronoun usage
2. Discussing multiple systems, engaging with conversation in a way that involves one's plurality, being openly multiple, and answering questions about one's plurality
3. The occasional changing of nicks (over one or more sessions), or usage of single-character prefixes, to indicate different personae. The frequency of nick changes should be equivalent to when a single user may change their nick to update status (MyNick -> MyNick_Lunch) or from more than one client (MyNick vs MyNick_Phone); a good metric is around 30 minutes, with 20 minutes pushing it.

It is to be understood that discipline is not issued to specific personas. If a specific persona performs a behavior that requires discipline, the discipline is applied equally to the system.

(P.S. If a person who does not have posting access to this site has relevant information or feedback of the above proposal, it is recommended to utilize the 'chat with staff' sidebar link. Individuals who do not wish to chat publicly can PM chat staff listed on the chat guide.)

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 29 Dec 2019 07:29 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

rattles 28 Dec 2019 01:52

treatment of multiple systems

multiple systems

Er, what exactly is this referring to? Is it something related to otherkin, dissociative identity disorder, or something?

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

subtletea 28 Dec 2019 03:30

I was under the general impression it's a somewhat blanket term for 'multiple individuals sharing one body', which may include DID but is not exclusive to.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

ManyMeats 28 Dec 2019 03:46

I think the policy outlined here adequately addresses the concerns we've discussed in Op chat, as I understand them, and based on recent events. This provides what I feel is a reasonable vehicle for plural persons (and closely related others) to maintain identity while preserving the integrity of chat management.

Acknowledging that disciplining any member of a system is a disciplinary incident for the entire chat identity is a key sticking point, and I think is worded well as above.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

subtletea 28 Dec 2019 03:54

After lengthy discussion in sssc and more proactive attempts at engaging actual plural people in the creation of the policy, I'm comfortable getting behind this policy again.

(Also please note for the sake of clarity some of the comments below referencing mine are about the first iteration of this post)

Last edited on 29 Dec 2019 14:32 by subtletea Show more

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

OccultistMave 28 Dec 2019 06:36

I fully approve of this line of action.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

The Pighead 28 Dec 2019 10:20

Like Edna, I fully approve what is said here.

I also STRONGLY approve the suggestion of subtletea. I think it could help us greatly if we had feedback by a concerned person.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

RockTeethMothEyes 28 Dec 2019 12:34

Personally, I'm not seeing any issues with this. I feel as though the spam thing should be treated the same way that one would treat excessive plugging of one's works/bot spam, in the sense that every 30 minutes is acceptable, every 20 minutes being near the edge enough for allowance.

I should hope that this also allows for a comfortable amount of room (excuse me if that sounds rude; it's early and I've not slept yet) for those with neurodiversity to be able to converse about such things without it being disruptive, even for plural persons.

That being said! This is my pretty-much-neurotypical-take on the policy as it is proposed here. I know that my experience in IRC is not going to be disrupted with these rules clarifications. However, like Pighead and tea mention above me, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that these rules will not be impeding the experience of neurodivergent people. I understand that this is something that's been discussed at length in opchat, so I have no concerns that this wasn't already taken into account. Some confirmation would definitely put me at ease, though.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

stormfallen 29 Dec 2019 01:44

Relaying this concern from an anonymous community memberJade Skylar¹: "Having this conversation without actually including any plural persons in it is not really the way you should go about this."

Footnotes

1. Anonymity removed at their request

Last edited on 29 Dec 2019 02:58 by stormfallen Show more

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

DrMagnus 29 Dec 2019 02:09

None of our current staff are plural to my knowledge.

If someone who's an expert in it would like to discuss it with us, I don't think any of us would object.

I'd remind anonymous community members that being plural is not a very common thing, and we can only work with the resources we have.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

subtletea 29 Dec 2019 02:14

I've rescinded my support until we have someone who can weigh in. Speaking as someone who is multiply disabled but not plural, when you're designing guidelines that are meant to be accommodating to people with a specific neurotype, disability, or whatever else, you need to include members of that community in the discussion.

I don't think that there is any intention of ignoring the opinions of plural people in the discussion, as Magnus said we do the best with what we can.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

SoullessSingularity 29 Dec 2019 04:38

I don't actually know any plural persons who are involved in the community who I could reasonably reach out to for feedback on this policy. I'm not about to use my personal plural companions purely for their plurality, and I also am entirely uninterested in barging into plural communities to demand their involvement into another community.

Therefore I'm actively soliciting feedback and opinions from the general community who may see this, since I literally do not know a non-invasive, non-demographically-tokenizing strategy for this.

Furthermore, on existing plurality sites, there is very little covering rate-limiting as to how to treat plurality with respect and consideration documentation.

EDIT: I was able to reach out to someone within my social network who is under this neurodivergence and they mentioned this policy seemed reasonable to them. They're not related to the community, however, so I'm still open to strategies to solicit more data. (I'm also uncomfortable assuming 'my plural friend said its ok!!!' logic).

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 29 Dec 2019 06:02 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

taylor_itkin 29 Dec 2019 04:03

I will be abstaining from this policy discussion as I am on vacation and likely to be until after it is finished.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

OccultistMave 29 Dec 2019 06:30

Posting this at request of NatVoltaic

+ show block

While I'm not plural currently, I have had multiple experiences with plurality in the recent past. I will stress, however, that I *don't* have DID or any related identity disorders. I have also not experienced for any long durations of time. If any systems (with DID or not) voice their thoughts on the matter, *please take their opinions over mine* — they're far more qualified than me to speak on the matter.

With that said, the parts here I take issue with are the time frames stated in reference to changing nicks. These are… Incredibly vague. "Short period of time" is easily interpreted in the context of spammers (in almost all cases it's going to be repetitive and instantaneous), but in the context of identity switches this turns far looser to a degree I'm not comfortable with. Does it only apply to back-to-back sets of rapid nickname changes? Does it apply to spans of say 10 or so minutes? Spans of half an hour? An hour? Would systems be able to deduce the correct interpretations from the phrase alone?

And for this,

The frequency of such should be equivalent to when a single user may change their nick to update status (MyNick -> MyNick_Lunch) or from more than one client (MyNick vs MyNick_Phone).

This is also *extremely* far from being a concrete time interval, and, in the case of plural users joining site19 for the first time, it's going to be far from clear how these status updates normally go. It's not a useful guideline for any system to be expected to follow.

As for solutions beyond "using less vague time frames," well. I'm afraid there's not much I can offer. As I said, I don't consider myself qualified on this compared to actual systems. Anything I'd come up with would be bunk. I do hope that raising these issues helps in any way, though.

Re: Policy Proposal Regarding Multiple System Members

SoullessSingularity 29 Dec 2019 07:37

FTR, I talked with NatVolt and they seemed to approve of revisions. If this is incorrect please correct me!

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

page 1 of 212next »