My Response to the October 1st Incident

Hi folks, Borb here with an overdue post regarding the incident in the Discord server on October 1st.

Introduction

Since I'm writing this post, I think the way I found out about what happened is as good a place to start as any:

I got home from work and saw I had a DM. I looked, and saw a screencap of a message with one word scribbled out before a user's name. I tracked down the original message, noted that the scribbled word was the user's deadname, and immediately replied to that message with one telling the user to edit it.

The scribbled-out deadname in the screencap was not for the sake of the person being deadnamed; the image wasn't even sent to them. It was scribbled out because seeing someone consciously and intentionally deadnamed is hurtful to anyone who's experienced it themselves or has seen what it's done to their friends who have experienced it.

Why This Is An Issue

Someone who hasn't experienced either of those things wouldn't know that.

They wouldn't know the way your stomach drops, the sick feeling you get knowing you spent years of your life as a version of yourself that wasn't truly you. The feeling that you still can't truly be you in fear of how those around you will react. The hesitation to put your name (birth name, gendered nickname) on anything because it doesn't feel right, the unease when your name is brought up, even in good contexts, for the same reason. They wouldn't understand.

How do you explain when they immediately become defensive and claim "overreaction" when they're called out on it?

Are we obligated to be able to calmly explain this to anybody at any given moment? What's the point if they don't care enough to educate themselves on the matter? If they won't try to educate themselves, who's to say they'll even listen to us?

Someone who has never experienced that, either first-hand or through the reaction of a friend, does not get to have their immediate reaction be "this is a non-issue" or "you're overreacting", because they don't know how it feels.

Addressing A Question

The question of "is this how you would have reacted if someone who didn't know used the deadname?" has come up multiple times, and in my opinion suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

The answer to that question is no.

If someone made an innocent mistake, we would correct them, they would likely say "my bad, didn't know", edit their message or post, and both parties would move on. It becomes a different story when the person using the deadname knows and still chooses to use it rather than saying "[chosen name] (lead dev)" or any number of alternatives that make clear who they're talking about without deadnaming.

Addressing Another Point

We've received threats of losing veteran community members over this situation. If said veteran community members are unwilling to learn the problem with this behavior, I hate to seem unduly harsh, but I struggle to see what we're losing.

If they're willing to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes, they are absolutely welcome back. Admitting when you've made an error in judgment is human. Yes, it would have been more appropriate for me to DM the user who used the deadname. I made mistakes in how I handled this situation and I have to own up to that and try to be better in the future. I expect the same from other people.

Conclusion

I am always willing to discuss moderation matters in DMs, regardless of how I may have reacted initially in the server. If you believe I have acted rashly towards you, do not hesitate to DM me and explain your side and your issues with my behavior. I am sure the same goes for all other staff members. I am always trying to improve myself and I hope all of you can say the same about yourselves.

This is Borb, signing off.

mavis is neat

To add to this, deadnaming is a serious issue. Simply making the effort to use someone's name and avoiding a deadname can literally save people, so please, in the future refrain from using a deadname when referring to any trans person. It might not seem like a big deal, but from experience with friends, it isn't just an "old name", it's an identity they had to fake for years, and saying it can throw away their progress. Trans rights are human rights! We should have DMd the person in question, but we should also remember that this is a simple message edit. If you have issues with this, then you may need to rethink how you view the world.

This just showed up to me, so I apologize for voicing this late. Had I been aware of this post or response before, I may have issued it privately. But for the sake of those who aren't willing to share their opinions because of my forementioned take on this, I will do it publicly.

The education bit as to why it is a problem is greatly appreciated (I did know a good amount of this before, but hearing even more info on it is good to know) and I think that even those members of the community who voiced frustration initially can at least understand why it may affect a decent amount of trans individuals. And if they're a decent human being, they'll use that knowledge and avoid any issues in the future.

While I understand why it is offensive to deadname and wouldn't do it myself, I feel like your response, while it acknowledges the issue at hand doesn't actually take accountability. The education bit here is what is important for preventative measures moving forward, but to reduce the reaction from staff into two or three sentences does not fully show what the problem here is.

I also believe that staff has a clear mischaracterization at the attempted effort to explain this situation by that person. That does not greenlight them to do or say whatever they want with information that may be harmful, however it could have been discussed with said person in private or at least give a reason without sending a demanding and potentially hostile message publicly.

The problem from the subset of community member's who are upset with Donut Team isn't that they think deadnaming is okay, rather its that reaction from staff has been subpar for a long time. I can even take accountability for my part in that as well during my tenure.

This is what needs to be improved on from DT's side and does not reflect my opinion on the situation at hand, but the greater community's opinion on all moderation dealings.

Without actually going into the situation, I feel like this response is more aiming to educate the issue rather than accept any responsibility for the issue growing more out of control. That includes the fact that someone in staff notified the person being discussed and they joined and escalated the issue.

Not every staff member did wrong. I've read the messages about a 100 times and I've talked with many people involved and not involved in this situation. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, and if there's any irony in that, its because I, myself, have many knee-jerk reactions.

The world is changing, these things weren't something we talked about 10-20 years ago. And even now there's a debate on whether we can use things for historical purposes or not. If you head over to Caitlyn Jenner's wikipedia page, you can see this debated and if you dig into Wikipedia's manual, you can see this discussed further.

I have a feeling this response will get me into hotwater, but I felt like voicing this was important. This isn't to say I completely disagree with you or anyone else. Everyone needs to do better.

---

EDIT: Oh wow, what a surprise. Being downvoted for sharing a differing opinion on the matter. I've made it very clear the community members involved were wrong for its part and so were the staff. Bite my ass with your inclusivity bulls***.

EDIT 2: By simply downvoting my message of basically saying that both sides of the coin need to be fixed, you ultimately sit an echo chamber where you think everything is alright. The fact is, a large amount of people disagree with how staff handled this situation, among others.

Jake’s response echoes my thoughts. If you wanna downvote my comment feel free. But I am one of many concerned about the conduct of the moderation team. I have also reached out to them privately and came to an understanding. But yes Mavis was invited by a moderator and instigated more drama.

-Thomas Donofri

Let me put it this way, when my thoughts match with several people that I generally do not agree with on things like this, you know there's something more wrong than just "it's the community's fault" -- this is an issue with the team itself, so either correct it or stand aside.

If you dislike what I have to say, you can ban me

Also for the record the issue community members have is that an issue that should have been handled discretely was public. We have a moderator who invited a community user with the intent of instigating other users. The fact this person is still a moderator is amazing. I was axed from the moderation team in 2018 for not even half this nonsense. If the team wants to continue to paint community members leaving around this time as transphobic go ahead, it’s nonsense. If you want to slander me just know it’s slander. I removed ALLN from this site because I simply did not like the conduct of the moderation staff.

The quoted post is unavailable.

Hi,

I would like to note for the record she was not invited, she was just informed that she was being deadnamed. Thanks!

The quoted post is unavailable.

And then that user instigated more drama…

Either take responsibility or don’t respond.

I know the history, you and Mavis are good friends. Also furthermore Mavis has a history of instigating with me.

I'm gonna add my 2 cents into this conversation. I actually really appreciate that this was handled publicly because this was an unknown issue for some/most and with it being handled how it was, a post was made talking about the issue and warning users not to do it in the future. It also educates others on the issue which is important. Stuff did get out of hand but I feel that the moderation team did a good job in not instigating anything and only took action where it was needed.

Mavis did get included because the discussion was about her. She got deadnamed and had a right to join and see what was going on.

Regardless I think how the moderators handled the situation was quite well, with it being public people know to follow the rule now and why it is such an issue. It's a moderator's job to make sure this community is safe and welcoming for everyone, regardless if you believe in it or not, they did their job by protecting Mavis and all other people who may get deadnamed.

In the future I hope they keep it up, I want this community to be a safe place for all and it's getting much better as time goes on.