This is a good "test case" to talk about.
What should have happened? How could we have kept this person on OBOL?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:39 AM George Miller <gmiller1751@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We lost her because someone said the arguments “on both sides” were
equally harmful. To that she responded with “People on both sides?” The
guy said yes, both sides of the #believewomen discussion. She
understandably asked “why wouldn’t you be on the side of women? Am I in the
wrong group? Wow.” I emailed her privately last night to tell her that I
understood her, supported her, that change was coming and to hang in there.
She thanked me but said that she had already removed herself from the
listserv. She wanted to learn about birding to pass the knowledge on to the
children that she teaches. So not only have we lost her, but we might very
well have lost those kids, and that hurts us in the future.
When I read the guy’s comment, it reminded me of Trump’s “good people on
both sides” remarks regarding Charlottesville. Some people are confused
about what’s right and what’s wrong.
Regards,
George Miller
Hillsboro
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:50 Teresa Hertzel <teresa.hertzel@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
OBOL is extraordinarily diverse.
This is, as they say, both a blessing and a curse.
(Is there a rhyme in there somewhere?)
The trick is to make everyone toe the line with respect for others. This
is almost impossible, I have discovered. 2,000 people are never going to
agree about something. If you say the sky is blue, there will be people who
swear it is yellow. We have young new birders mixed in with old experienced
birders and they almost can't help insulting one another. I think the
thing is to be constantly alert and diligent about abuse, but I don't know
how to make newbies feel less intimidated and more welcome. IN FACT, a
young lady subscribed just this morning, and I must admit I don't think she
read the guidelines (most people don't), but she posted one thing ("Why
wouldn’t you be on the side of women? Am I in the wrong group? Wow." --
received a reply that made her feel unwelcome, and promptly unsubscribed.
We lost her already!
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 9:23 AM Lorelle Sherman <
lorelle.sherman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good morning Teresa,
I appreciate this question. I have been an OBOL user since 2015 (so I'm
relatively new in comparison with most). I am part of the academic crowd
that does bird-related research. However, I was a birder first and always
will be. I posted sightings from 2015-2017ish, but was met with an
exclusionary unwelcoming ambience (a whole nother topic that's been
discussed over and over again) that I decided to remove myself from and
transition to passive observation of OBOL emails. The long drawn out
arguments often make me want to unsubscribe, and in fact that's what I
reluctantly did recently. Not because they aren't necessary, but because
the resulting conversation is more often than not... frustrating. This is a
very challenging set of questions, because these issues *need* to be
talked about, but the way they are being talked about does not feel in any
way inclusive or representative, and therefore they do not feel
productive. I'd like to offer my opinion based on limited knowledge of how
OBOL was in its inception up through 2015.
-This is tough. I guess technically it goes against what the OBOL list
Do you think the OBOL guidelines need to be changed?
-Recognizing that moderation is a big job and I'm assuming totally
volunteer-based, is it possible to assign additional moderators whose
job(s) are totally devoted to responding to bullying? Maybe no one wants to
do it and that's the problem? It may help to develop a few lines of text
that demonstrate the policies and response to policies that can easily be
plugged into an e-mail for responses of first- (or second- third-) time
offenders of policies.
Do you think the Board violated their own policies by posting a
statement about violence against women on the birding listserv?
serve is about. However, normalizing support and discussion on this topic
is so so necessary. Possibly it could have just been posted to BOO and to
Instagram? That being said, I was not bothered in any way by their decision
to post it to OBOL, but I completely understand how others could be
bothered by that (just as I've been bothered by other things on OBOL).
How should OBOL handle people who are perceived as bullying others?
-First offence, immediate action internally. Message the person and
express that their behavior does not align with the policies of OBOL.
Second offence, temporary block. Third offence, permanent block.
How can OBOL be more friendly and welcoming?-What if there were intentional posts that welcomed newbies to respond?
Possibly as organized as a monthly "Ask a birder" or "ID help" or "What
excites you most about birding" posts where less frequent users are
*encouraged* to respond? This might help people build courage to
respond otherwise.
-Sometimes it feels as though there's a 'weirdness' between bird
researchers and lifetime birders. I wonder how we could foster the idea
that these two styes of expertise go hand in hand and man, oh man, just
think of what we could learn and understand if we integrated them! Again,
maybe intentional topic-based posts that examine a particular species or
conservation topic intentionally welcoming and encouraging both viewpoints.
- I wonder how actual visual contact between users may influence
thoughtfulness when responding in the future. Is there any interest in
monthly or 4x per year OBOL Zoom gatherings where folks discuss a birding
related topic? Maybe this is not desired for this platform.
OBA has a few hundred members, I think it's right around 300, but I
don't have the exact number. OBOL has almost 2,000, so the vast majority-I've never tightly linked the two entities in my brain. They feel
are not OBA members. Do you think OBOL should be broken off from OBA and no
longer be under their umbrella?
entirely different to me, an outsider. Not sure if that helps.
Many thanks,
Lorelle Sherman
