Guidelines: Tell a Story, Ask a Question, and Interpret Generously

[Willem]

Hello GoPlayPDXers!

We've decided to boil down all the forum guidelines for posting and conversation, into three simple criteria.

For every post you make, please pause for a moment before you click "post", and ask three simple questions of it:

1) Did I Tell my Story?

2) or, Did I Ask a Question?

3) Did I Interpret other posts Generously?

What does this mean, more specifically? Every post should either ask a Question, or Tell Your Story.

Asking a Question means sincerely making a request to hear someone else's Story of how they experience the world.

Telling Your Story means doing this for others, speaking from your own experience on what works for you, what doesn't work, what you felt, seen, heard, and what conclusions you've made.


Interpret Generously means interpreting other posts by assuming as much intelligence and compassion as yourself, in the person who wrote it. Of course, if what someone else wrote still doesn't make sense to you, you can always Ask a Question so that you can more fully hear their Story.

We see these guidelines as a kind of self-check for adult conversations. Sometimes we get off track without realizing it; these guidelines exist as much for you to guide your own conversations, as they will for the site Hosts (formerly moderators) to remind you when necessary.

Things that fall squarely outside of these guidelines: unsolicited advice ("you should do this, not try that, think differently,  have this conversation somewhere else, etc."), telling someone else's story ("people will think you're stupid if you do that, you have fear issues, nobody will think that game is fun, etc."), and asking an insincere question ("do you actually think that would work? that sounds terrible, why would anyone play that game? etc.").

If the Hosts see you struggle with incorporating these guidelines into your posting here, we will start out with simple, often public, reminders to help you. If you still struggle we will contact you privately about the next step we need to take.

Please keep in mind these guidelines exist to make this forum a healthy, sane, safe place to have conversations that really matter to our growing community. We will always prioritize this community aspect over other considerations. If you find yourself in conflict with these goals, think deeply about whether or not this particular online community suits your needs.

Along with this, the Hosts see this forum as the cyberspace embodiment of our own living room. Behavior that we would not approve of in our homes, we won't approve of here. You may disagree with decisions we've made, or the guideliness we've described above. We have no plans to change them, but we welcome feedback. Conduct yourself as a guest here, and you'll do fine.

[Travis Brown]

it should also be noted, as I did in another post, that Willem has been added as our fourth site host (moderator) due to the increasing community activity here.

[Julian]

Thanks Willem et al. I can very much get behind these guidelines.

[Joe McDonald]

Cool,

This is like... my favourite part of Knife Fight and Cultures of Play, without my least favourite part.

Favourite: Facilitating a culture of sharing and development.
Not: One thousand pidgeon-holing rules.

So, yes. You have won the internet, and your prize will be this community.

[NPC]

Things that fall squarely outside of these guidelines: unsolicited advice ("you should do this, not try that, think differently,  have this conversation somewhere else, etc."), telling someone else's story ("people will think you're stupid if you do that, you have fear issues, nobody will think that game is fun, etc."), and asking an insincere question ("do you actually think that would work? that sounds terrible, why would anyone play that game? etc.").

...

Is disagreement now prohibited?

I sincerely want to know.  I am quite confused by the very esoteric choices in wording of the original post, and after today's "community" meeting, I'm still confused by this.

[Jake Richmond]

Is disagreement now prohibited?

I sincerely want to know.  I am quite confused by the very esoteric choices in wording of the original post, and after today's "community" meeting, I'm still confused by this.

Disagreement is not prohibited. Of course. I don't think that was implied, but there is confusion over the matter or if you want some clarification, please ask. We asked Willem to post these guidelines because they absolutely represented what we want this forum to be. I've avoided posting site guidelines and rules in the past (Travis did post a few), but these new guidelines are very close to being exactly what I've always wanted and expected for this forum. So this isn't a change, just a clarification.

I think these guideline allow for the kind of rel open and honest conversation that I want to see here without allowing for the negativity that is common on other boards. I feel like this should work well for us.

Jake

[Willem]

Is disagreement now prohibited?

I sincerely want to know.  I am quite confused by the very esoteric choices in wording of the original post, and after today's "community" meeting, I'm still confused by this.

To follow up on Jake's comment, I'd also say that disagreement is now kinda besides the point. What is the story behind your disagreement? That's what we want to hear. Disagreeing with what someone sees or feels doesn't tell us what you saw and felt that makes you think differently.

If someone posts something, to which you've had a different experience, just tell us about the experience you've had. "i've had a different experience, it went like this...". That's what we want to hear.

Theoretical objections or disagreements don't really have a place in these guidelines, it's true. We see this as an opportunity to get to the meat of what you have to say, by cutting out the other stuff that prevents us from getting to the meaty bits.

[Travis Brown]

disagreement for the SAKE of disagreement (i.e. just to start an argument) is what we're avoiding with these guidelines. Simply put if you disagree that's fine, if you disagree and want to voice it here, you better be damned well ready to explain WHY you feel a certain way, WHILE taking into account the 3rd rule; assuming the person is being sincere and is intelligent, you make your response in contradiction to them assuming they have the best intentions and bring your own best intentions to the discussion.

The guidelines are very simple, and meant to allow people to self moderate and become reasonable adults (if they aren't already ). This allows us to filter the pointless posts in a topic which are one line responses which don't add anything to the topic. Unless it actually elaborates a point, asks a question, has a new take or spin on it which can get people thinking, it's probably not worthwhile. It's totally fine to post random things occasionally as long as they don't derail the topic, or aim to demean others, or are simply un-elaborated opinions.

Nathanael, are you being resistant to these guidelines because you are personally against regulation and formation in some manner? (this is an example of asking a clear question, when I could have simply said something like "It sounds to me like you are an anarchist who doesn't respect any kind of rules" which would have been presumptuous of me (i.e. telling your story for you) and a bit insulting, so instead you ask the person if they have some personal belief or stance that may be influencing why they feel a certain way.

The reason we went ahead with these 3 guidelines and adding Willem as a site host, are because we saw a need to more clearly establish a few boundaries as the community grew, and did not want to make lists of rules, instead we are setting guidelines which are positive. An example I can give is the "management model" there are primarily 2 kinds of managers; one will enforce rules and write employees up for things and tell them "you can't do this, you must do that" they are constantly knocking their employees to perform a certain way. The second will ask "why did you do things that way" and "what do you think we expect of you?" to get to the bottom of the behavior and thought process, rather than the action itself. They aim to get the employee to become self aware and motivated by making them accountable in a positive way for their performance. The guidelines are like the second type of manager and "rules" are like the first type.

Does this make any more sense?

[vampyrecat]

Re: Tell your own story

I have a difficult time telling my own story. I have chosen a profession in which it is my duty to tell other people's stories on their behalf, and that's often how I operate in social settings. I am worried that I will be in constant violation of the rules; not so much as illustrated in the examples but in the plain language of the rules themselves.  I think perhaps I am not welcome here, and I will honor the rules by not participating if my interpretation of the rules is correct.

I found these rules while I was looking around for rules about creating topics. I was going to try to start a new topic. I was going to specifically ask about and solicit references on other people's game design projects, which is not anything about my story except as tangentially related to my efforts as an inclusionist wikipedia rpg project editor. Several of the policies on wikipedia require that you not tell your own story there, which I disagree with but I try to help by telling other people's stories so they don't get their articles deleted. 

I often tell my husband's story and my kid's stories. I often talk about stories I find while drifting around on the internet.

This rule reminds me of the prohibition on gossip in the Mishpat Ivri / Torah; my understanding is that you are not supposed to talk about anyone else ever, even if it is praise. Perhaps the rule that one must tell one's own story is directed at me and people like me so that people here have complete control over how they are portrayed by others. I suspect that every single post I have made here violates the rule.  I will find it difficult to operate in that mode, so perhaps I should not participate in these forums (aka fora).

Would someone please clarify the "tell your own story" rule?

Tiffany

Edited to add: a friend of mine who knows a lot more about RPG forums than I do said that he thinks that the rule just means "don't put words in other people's mouths" or try to say what someone else is feeling or thinking. He said he doesn't think the rule is a prohibition against talking about other people or literally telling stories about other people's actions. Hopefully he's right and I'm wrong. Help?
 

[Jake Richmond]

I want to answer this, but I'm a little busy at the moment. Until I can, just know that you are totally welcome here.

[Julian]

Hi Tiffany,

Those are really thoughtful questions. Here's how I try to embody the guidelines:

To say, "I have a friend who...", or "When I think about this, what comes up for me is..." or "My husband Brian always says..." is still telling my own story. As inherently social creatures, our stories are usually about others. Also, to say a story is "my story", is not to say I own it; I could've gotten it from someone else. Stories are there to share.

So what does it mean to tell someone else's story? The way I see it, this means that if I tell someone else what they are doing or what they're supposed to be doing, I've trespassed. For example, I strive not to say "should" things like, "Jake, you should design more kid-friendly games," or implied shoulds like "You know it's always better to use diceless mechanics," or to tell you what you're doing, like "You don't get what I mean."

Instead, telling my story means just saying things in a bit of a different way, solidly planted in my own perspective. Like, "Jake, I'd love to see more kid-friendly games with your name on them," or "In my play experience, I've almost always enjoyed diceless mechanics more," or "I don't feel like I'm really being heard in this thread."

Maybe that's how you were reading it already and this isn't a helpful addendum. But, I hope it is, and if you want to talk about it with me further, drop me a line on the facebooks :-).

Further readings on this style of communication:
Marshall Rosenburg's A Language of Life, Nonviolent Communication
Don Miguel Ruiz' Four Agreements and Mastery of Love

[Travis Brown]

I'm really glad that this has come up again, because I think that it may be preventing some of our less vocal people from posting here. Right from day 1 I felt like the language in these rules was far to "Brainy" and existential. I am not even sure I fully understand them, but allow common sense and politeness to try and shape my own posts, so I don't worry about it too much.

As to what you posted in your edit, your friend is very right (as is Julian) it basically means to not assume what other people are thinking, instead ask "Am I understanding you; is this what you were meaning?" Julian's examples are perfect, you can convey any thought or feeling, any idea of reference you might want, just try not to put words in other people's mouths. The rule is not designed to keep full rights of persona with the owners, just prevent needless debate and possible argument, because it's easy for a debate to turn ugly when someone speaks about subjective topics with absolute truth like the "Games are always better with dice less mechanics" which the person could very well mean that he feels they are better, but for the sake of clarity and understanding it's best to say "I feel games are better with dice less mechanics", that way people can understand his mindset without having to guess or respond with the conception that he truly believes them to be better and not just that he prefers dice less to dice'd games, or vice-versa.

In light of this I'd like to pear down the three guidelines and use language and verbiage that is more to the point that doesn't really require people to contemplate them too much. I'll contact Jake and Willem and we can smooth out a altered version.

And just for your reference and anyone else's who is reading. Everyone is welcome to post, even if you do not think you fully understand these three guidelines. If something said is bothering someone, or which is against the essence of the guidelines, someone will give a friendly redirect in the thread, or a moderator will just let you know what was wrong about it or how it should be corrected. We've never had to ban anyone (other than those crappy spammer ad posters) for posting, we've had a couple redirects and misunderstandings, but most came down to personality conflicts and misunderstandings and even if not resolved, were a "agree to disagree" and move on situation. So it's all good tifanny, post away!

[Jake Richmond]

Julian and Travis have the right of it. The guidelines were meant to make it clear that we're here to be part of a community:

-If we're asking questions, we're telling our story by providing context for the questions.

-If we're giving criticism, we're telling our story by providing examples or explanations.

-If we're sharing an idea, we're telling our story by communicating what we want and hope to accomplish.

By doing this arguments and disagreements either become irrelevant or become real communication (and since I like to argue and disagree, that's really handy). By doing this we discourage minimal, non-helpful comment-spam, and encourage well thought out, engaging communication. By doing this we foster a community of people, not a forum of... ehh... assholes.

The important thing is that these are just guidelines, not rules. We ask that everyone read and keep the flavor of these guidelines in their mind as they post. We can't stick to them all of the time. We don't need to. When we do need them, they'll be there.

Please, post away.

Jake