Community Notice [PLEASE READ!]

I voted no because I do not believe that anyone should be beyond questioning if they are going to make statements or claims here. To me it goes against what this and any forum is about.

I'm sure it will surprise none that I put my vote into the No section of the pole. It's fairly clear that perception seems that I belong to the "interrogator" camp (and for sure it's not in with the kitten groupings, more on this later). However, my reasons for saying no to the new section is two fold (one for each option) - the first being "ask nicely option" which is a good thought in it's nature, but I do not see how it could be practically employed. I make an effort with my posts, whether they be in agreement, asking questions, or making counterpoints - sometimes all three. I know I take time to sit down and think out what I want to say, that I am in the right mood to say what I want to say, and I take time to choose my words to best fit what I mean, what I want to say or ask, to be clear. There are communication/language issues within the occult/otherkin community, because there are no universal definitions, there is not even agreement on what otherkin is, over what a soul is, over what aspect makes us otherkin or not. This is also why I ask many questions when a topic draws my attention, because a single answer is rarely sufficient in explanation - there is context, definitions, thought processes, etc - most of which are personal, or defined by the person's spiritual path, which is again, mostly a personal thing.

Part of the experiences that I have encountered here, and perhaps one that annoys me the most (a mild sort of emotion, please don't misconstrue it as being agitated) is when I take the time and effort to clearly ask a question - which can take up to a paragraph, and the answer is a few words which answers an aspect of the question, but does not give me the context of most of the information that I am looking for, nor the implications of the information. And so the answer is taken, adopted, and more questions are developed to get a better, fuller answer - to which the response I've experienced the most is "I have already answered this question". When there is a definite difference in the previous question, and the next question, but because it's of a similar nature, it's seen as the same. This experience is perhaps indicative that the words as they are written are being taken at more value than the denotations of the questions - that they are being "read" into, and misunderstood in some manner.

And misunderstandings cause problems, especially since trying to clarify one what means, what one's intentions are takes time, effort, potentially more questions, and can be ill received in a discussion, as someone changing their arguments on a whim. This is perhaps why I cannot fathom that there actually has been this divide, this increase in "drama" and rule breaking within the community of OKP. In truth, I have not noticed anything that I would find objectionable or questionable in posts, or in behavior - at least, not to the point that is unexpected or to the point that I feel inclined to report it (yes, someone did say FU to me, but the person was in an emotional state at the time and so it doesn't really bother me. And yes, there have been some humor/jokes/snide remarks placed as answers to questions in discussions, but I just take it as conceding a point and not wanting to admit it). I think it's important to keep in mind what one is saying, rather than what we read it as - the connotations of a word should not overpower the denotations of a word - especially since this is a global community, where different societies, subcultures and cultures interact. Where one word may have one connotation in place X, it may be entirely different in place Y. To give example, there is a definite difference between the wording and post methods that Freetha and I use - they prefer quick and to the point posts, with perhaps more direct language (keep in mind, that English is Freetha's second language) - which is in part a culture thing. Where I'll sit and let a topic spin around my mind for up to a few weeks before I get in the right mind set to post, it's a touch ritualistic in it's nature even. There are times when I will poke Freetha and suggest an alternate word, or phrase, because of the connotations I am aware of, vs the connotations that they are. Part of my education (in the two fields I studied) was in communication and public speaking, so tact is very important to how I post.

But, back to my point about misunderstandings. It's not difficult to tell that what is "nice" to one, may be different to another, what may be nice to me (tactful and emotionless) may be different than nice to Freetha (direct and to the point) may be different to another user, may be different between moderators and the administration. The rule of being polite, I think, should cover it enough - and if you want my opinion, it seems the ones that loudest about it being broken, are those that I find tread the closest to it. I'm not even sure the moderator team would be able to agree on what is "nice" and what is not, let alone all of OKP.

The second option offered; "Do not question me" I feel is counter intuitive of the nature of a "community". To me the community is not one of social interaction, and I do not think that would be a valued goal for the community. Up until a few weeks ago, my posts were under the 20's easily. This is because my interest group is very limited - none in the humor/off topic pieces, because I am not here for that sort of interaction. And up until recently, there were few other topics that tugged at my interests, at my experiences. I think that being more for social interaction than for "truth" or help could be a bad turn for those that want serious discussion. The only pm I had about my behavior has been from another member giving me a thank you because their friend was saying some things they did not agree with, but did not want to put that friendship in jeopardy by disagreeing. I'm not saying that the majority would feel this way, but some, could feel hurt if a friend disagreed very much, or the friend would fear for hurting the other and not say anything. In a venture for truth, pulling questions for the sake of emotions is not productive. And potentially, as I've seen with other otherkin forums, it can lead into "I believe X", "I believe Y", "I believe Z", etc. Where the logic, the methods, the implications behind these beliefs are not questioned, but merely accepted, and another perspective stated. I am not saying that it is our job to prove or disprove what we believe, but rather, as Archer put it perfectly, present possible other perspectives and potential logic holes that may cause one to reconsider their system, or find out more behind it.

And why do I feel this way? What is my perspective behind it. I am all to happy to share my experiences of the otherkin community now that I have moved beyond the shame of it. Years ago, I went on a trip to Europe, in the tour group was the one that introduced me to otherkin. The introduction was a brief thing, giving me the general concept, and then tossing towards a forum. At this point in my life, I was not even aware of magic. And then I was suddenly in unfamiliar waters, on my own (MSNOK, if anyone remembers that place). This, of course, led me to problems of wanting to feel accepted in the community, with those around me, wanting to fit when I felt like I didn't fit. And let's face it, it's easier to listen to someone who says they have all the answers than to go through the painful process of discovering the self. The chat was rather rampant with such, at least as I remember it, and was easily manipulated. It was a long and fast descent into fluffydom. From people "remembering" me, to having my past sensed and told to me, to astral forms, astral pregnancies, astral wars to the "groups of X set to save the world, break the veil, etc, to physical otherkin, physical shifts, to embodiments of concepts that had real magical power. Of course at the time, I did not believe it, deep down. But I wanted to, I wanted to be part of that world that always seemed more exciting than mine, the world were everyone is strong and never doubts themselves. The pint is, I wanted my otherkinness to define me, and I wanted others to tell me what I was. I think I can safely say that was the worse year-two years of my life. On a chance one night, no doubt by chance, and perhaps a little drunk `Archer came in and decided to ask me some hard questions and why I thought what I thought. It did not immediately impact me, rather I got emotional, angry, felt picked on and insulted and may have insulted `Archer for what I perceived as an attack. This event was a small thing, a passing argument that took weeks, maybe months to come to full fruitation. To get me to realize why I got emotional. From there I cut off all my ties to the community and decided to call it all BS. That lasted a year, maybe longer, until I heard of the local meet up. Thankfully there I met some good people that put me back on track - and imagine my surprise when they mentioned someone named Archer in conversation, from there to Other-Haven, Other-haven to Ethereal-Forest and from there to here. Which has been another two years, if not a little more.

It was brought up that the older, more experienced people should feel an obligation to those younger in the community (then contradicted with mention that experience did not add up to a hill of beans), to lift them up instead of bring them down. But, what would be more damaging to one's identity? In my mind, having to answer tough questions now and then keeps one on track. Keeps one from being told who/what they are too much. It has taken me years to get the impact that my experience had on my identity. Years to undo the damage there.

Community is based off of support, part of that support is literal "Help, I can't ground energy" sort, another type of support is "Can you explain to me the mechanics of this ritual, so I can learn from it?" And once more "This process seems illogical to me, can you explain your logic behind it?". I do not think I've ever asked for anything more - I do not need physical or metaphysical proof, I just want to understand the thoughts and logic of X. Partly to learn, partly to assist learning. I have learned a lot from my partner when we debate against one another (it happens often, and can happen for hours at a time, and sound heated), because I understand how she thinks, how logic works for her, how her behaviors is. I know that we can go from a seemingly heated discussion where we're both trying to get more time to talk, to reaching an even ground, then snuggle and kiss. I understand our dynamic, she understands our dynamic. However, this is not the dynamic I use for OKP. Here, I prefer objective/sourced counterpoints, I do not want my emotion in the posts, I do not want my subjective perception in the posts (which do happen from time to time). For the most part, I'm not even saying "I disagree with you" but more "What I know of X, disagrees with you, how do you compromise between X and Y?"

Community is also based off of communication, we are here to communicate with one another, if we say "let's talk, but do not ask me about my beliefs, my otherkiness, my spirituality" - the very things that tie this community together, then I think something is wrong. That may just be me personally, I have friends for friendship, I go to OKP for discussions on Otherkin and otherkin related subjects.

I would like to say that I do feel bad that others are perceiving my questions as some form of attack, that they may be disrespectful, or insulting, or they feel that they're something to leave over. I'm a real soft guy - tall, bald and with facial hair, it takes people all of five minuets around me to feel no sense of intimidation. Because I'm not "that guy", I don't go out of my way to cause harm to feelings, merely speak my mind when I feel the urge to, in hopes of either understanding better, or for another to take a moment to think about it and then prove me wrong. I have nothing wrong with being wrong. Hopefully the label of interrogator will not be taken too seriously (since I've had no complaints about my behavior, and feel confident that I could defend my words if I had to). I do not think anyone has been kicked/suspended yet because of giving questions in a harsh manner. So, what is at error here? The popular theories seem to be 1. the rules are not being followed/broken or 2. the situations are not being reported. Potentially 3. There's misunderstandings over denotations and connotations, and everyone just needs to relax a little bit more. Knowing I am seen in such a negative light, or potentially negative makes the interrogators just as hesitant to speak their mind on subjects. Personally, and entirely personally, I would rather have too many people asking serious questions, than not enough.

*Edit* Because I forgot a point, which seems impossible with the length of the post. When I ask a question of someone, I do not demand an answer for that question. Quite a few times some of my questions/counterpoints have gone unanswered, to which I take it as a concession of the point or a lack of interest to continue on. Which is fine by me, I am not here to take a drill to people's brains, but those that want to share what/who/ they are and what they believe, I wish to understand as fully as I can. To taste it, feel it, see it, know it. And as soon as someone requests that I leave them alone, I do so. One person requested that I leave them alone, and there was no more interaction between that person and I. I do not think ignoring a question, or tell someone to leave one alone is in nature with the community, but everyone has different comfort levels. I'm all for fair trade - when I started asking more questions of people, I put myself up on the Hot Seat thread, making sure it was known that I welcome as much as I give - I "do onto others" if you wish.

I voted "No" because I believe it is unnecessary.

I would like a better definition of the terms "Kitten" and "Interrogator" as used by those who started their use.
I have been informed in another thread the definition I was using for "Kitten" was possibly incorrect.

In any case, I find the whole discussion of "Kittens vs. Interrogators" to be a strawman. I don't really see any instances of kittens starting any problems here (though, my definition is apparently faulty - so, w/e), and the initial problems that were complained about (by me) were in regards to interrogat(ors/ions). Yet somehow we got around to "Well, if you punish some people for being overly rude, you should probably punish other people for being overly nice, too, just to be fair."

Excuse me, but WTF?? What sort of logic is that? That's like saying, "Well, we went to war against the nazis, so we should probably go kick the jews' asses, too. You know...just to be fair."

If group A is causing a problem against group B (and otherwise nuetral parties), and it's complained about, the correct answer is not, "Well...only if we punish group B (and possibly C), too."

The problem seems not to be as clear cut as Group B causing problems for Group A, since there's the flip of Group A potentially just being overly sensitive to the intended neutral actions of Group B.

Ok, so let's go with an example of your scenario.

A group of vegans is offended because a group of people who don't like veggies keeps eating meat.
Unless those vegans start doing something offensive in retaliation, they're not a problem.
However, if the meat-eaters keep bringing their meat and eating it right in front of the vegans, then they're being jerks and should probably cut that out, even though, if they were to eat their meat around someone else, it'd be fine.

So, even if group B is just being over-sensitive, group A needs to back the hell off when asked. And that's best-case scenario in group A's favor.

I see it as more of a problem from A and less from B, but hey, that's just my view on it.


...AND WE STILL NEED DEFINITIONS OF KITTENS AND INTERROGATORS. OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION IS FOLLY.

Xanthus Wrote:...AND WE STILL NEED DEFINITIONS OF KITTENS AND INTERROGATORS. OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION IS FOLLY.

Please calm down Xanthus. There's no need to write in all caps so please, take it easy.

momo Wrote:The interrogators ask questions and are very straightforward, and seem to be a lot more forward than the 'kittens'. The kittens are shyer, look for a place that's warm and cuddly, and may be more shaken by the interrogators' attitudes. Conflict arises when an interrogator questions a kitty; not worrying about blunt words, just as long as the query is understood. The kitty might be shaken by such words, and tries to answer the questions the best it can. However, if the question is not answered fully or if there is an imprecise term, the interrogators push on ahead with their questions. The interrogators feel that they are not being offensive, just asking honest questions, but the kitty feels like the word "fluff!" is being shouted at them. This results in retaliations, and arguing.

That was the original explanation of "kittens" and "interrogators". And please don't forget that if you feel uncomfortable in being questioned, you have the right to not answer! It's as simple as that.

Xanthus Wrote:Ok, so let's go with an example of your scenario.

A group of vegans is offended because a group of people who don't like veggies keeps eating meat.
Unless those vegans start doing something offensive in retaliation, they're not a problem.
However, if the meat-eaters keep bringing their meat and eating it right in front of the vegans, then they're being jerks and should probably cut that out, even though, if they were to eat their meat around someone else, it'd be fine.

I don't really think that compares.

In my opinion on this board, the interrogators annoy the kittens by, as they see it, being insensitive and questioning everything; whereas the kittens annoy the interrogators by, as they see it, being fluffy and taking offence.

Quote:...AND WE STILL NEED DEFINITIONS OF KITTENS AND INTERROGATORS. OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION IS FOLLY.

Is there any need for you to shout?

Archer Wrote:

Xanthus Wrote:Ok, so let's go with an example of your scenario.

A group of vegans is offended because a group of people who don't like veggies keeps eating meat.
Unless those vegans start doing something offensive in retaliation, they're not a problem.
However, if the meat-eaters keep bringing their meat and eating it right in front of the vegans, then they're being jerks and should probably cut that out, even though, if they were to eat their meat around someone else, it'd be fine.

I don't really think that compares.

In my opinion on this board, the interrogators annoy the kittens by, as they see it, being insensitive and questioning everything; whereas the kittens annoy the interrogators by, as they see it, being fluffy and taking offence.

Elinox Wrote:That was the original explanation of "kittens" and "interrogators". And please don't forget that if you feel uncomfortable in being questioned, you have the right to not answer! It's as simple as that.

Actually, I think it directly compares. Let's test:
"In my opinion in that restaurant, the meat eaters annoy the vegans by, as they see it, being insensitive and eating meat everywhere; whereas the vegans annoy the meat eaters by, as they see it, being hippies and taking offence."

Yeah. Yeah, it fits pretty much spot-on.
Though, I actually agree with you and Elinox. If you don't like a question - you don't have to answer it. However, my point wasn't really the questions. However, that both diffuses your own point and doesn't touch mine. Let me explain:

1. The kittens don't need to be punished, contrary to the strawman-arguements here, as the simple solution is just "don't answer". No punishment needed.
2. My point is not questions. Questions are fine. My point is courtesy. If you ask a question, that's fine. If you're a jerk about it, that's not fine. And then if people say, "You are offending me - please cease and desist" and you instead prod them 3x harder in response - you are then officially a jackass, imo. THAT is my point to this whole thing.

Xanthus Wrote:1. The kittens don't need to be punished, contrary to the strawman-arguements here, as the simple solution is just "don't answer". No punishment needed.

At this point no-one that I am aware of has suggested punishing anyone.

Quote:2. My point is not questions. Questions are fine. My point is courtesy. If you ask a question, that's fine. If you're a jerk about it, that's not fine. And then if people say, "You are offending me - please cease and desist" and you instead prod them 3x harder in response - you are then officially a jackass, imo. THAT is my point to this whole thing.

Sure, if a kitten is offended by an interrogator, they can ask the interrogator to stop. But you know I don't think I've seen any complaints about that happening, so really, is it even a problem? Further - if an interrogator is as you say proding three times harder, the kitten can just choose to ignore them.

That's the beauty of it. Rather than getting upset and storming off, the kitten can just choose not to read posts that are likely to annoy them.

Likewise, rather than being annoyed by kittens unwillingness or inability to answer, the interrogators can just stop asking.

It works both ways; I'm not sure someone has good reason to ask that another person change their behaviour when they could prevent the problem by just not reading what annoys them.

In other words - when interrogators get irked by kittens, they can either yell about it or they can ignore the kitten. When kittens get annoyed by interrogators, they can either cry about it or ignore the interrogator. The potential annoyance is mutual, it is not a one-way-street.