I might take it down a notch. Also, so refreshing, that this feels like
such a safe bunch of people!
I cannot say I was harassed but a few negative comments from the elites
was enough so that I stopped my posts. So it is on me too that I don't
always resist or stand up for myself. Others may relate to this, that it
is sometimes less uncomfortable to back away than be criticized,
insulted, argued with or be "shouted" at etc
I hate for us to give up on OBOL or start a bunch of additional
formats. Can we perhaps be more specific with rules, less forgiving of
blatant behavior and use all this as a learning opportunity, and all
become more civil? The OBA board has spoken, no racism, can't it also be
absolutely no threatening, sexism, ageism, homophobia, etc allowed on
OBOL. I know email use is fading and will be historical in my
lifetime..but I say keep OBOL. Judy
On 2021-02-26 05:12, Stephen T Bird wrote:t
Joel (and others)'s revelations are shocking and truly disturbing: its unacceptable to be using private messages to harass, the real world postcards rises to the level of reporting to local law enforcement. As a perhaps un-useful digressionside that maybe could lead somewhere, I've never heard problems to this extent on other birding listservs. Its likely I just missed them, but they aren't as apparently commonplace. This difference is either community composition (Oregon vs elsewhere, don't _...think_... that's it... but I don't hear about birders being threatened with guns in California), or long standing community norms (vis-a-vis community rules). If its too expansive to start asking the moderators on the others lists (EBB-sightings, SFBirds, SanDiegoBirdingRegion, pen-birds, etc), we can at least look at them and realize that this doesn't have to be the case. There are constructive forums where new birders can ask for IDing help, and accomplished birders can show off if thats what they're here for.community good."
-Teresa "What can we do about it?" A no harassment/bullying policy. Violaters will be warned and/or temporarily silenced (depending on severity), then removed if violation continues. If it's something like sending people postcards threatening to kill their pets, that gets forwarded to local law enforcement. And policies and multiple routes of communication and remediation for offenders and offended, open communication about standards (to the community) and decisions (for those involved).
Private messages, begun from initial contact or communications through OBOL, are equally the responsibility of OBOL moderators and us as a community as communication directly through the listserv. Sending harmful private messages is no different than sending harmful group message. The bylaws guidelines should state this. Sadly,what should be an implicit community understanding (i.e. "dont harass in public or in private"), is being violated so it must be made explicit. Private communication uses OBOL community resources to get there so it involves the OBOL community; we're responsible for protecting others in our community. Recipients of harassing messages should be reminded to forward such emails to moderators so harassment might be moderated.
Is a non-email community board a better idea? It allows for more moderation, membership, etc. My guess is its too heavy to implement. Listservs work because they're easy.
Alternatively, the option is to just start a new listserv. I would be happy to do this
but am not as active within the Oregon community. In the end a board of reasonable
birders, willing to establish community standards, could make decisions and put things
to community vote. But why do this when the structure is already in place? I think its
perfectly possible to talk about everything from bird ID and rare birds & FOS, to
conservation, politics, and everything else, within the context of OBOL as it is, IF
everyone is expected to stay civil. Its very easy to sit behind a keyboard and fire off
text without feelings of repercussions.Don't feed the trolls; but also you can starve
them on purpose. These community standards would ensure that it was only by people's own
actions that they left the community, rather than feeling forced to because they were
being attacked. Its ultimately just to make it about personal responsibility "if
you want to be part of a good community, keep the
Thanks for all the thoughtful discourse from everyone, Stephen
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:03 PM JILL PUNCHES <punches1@xxxxxxx> wrote: I appreciated your posts, too! And I like Harry Fuller's reports as well.
Take care!
Jill
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 25, 2021, at 6:15 PM, jmeredit@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Boo,
Well it stopped recently because covid stopped group activity but I stopped sending to OBOL before the pandemic. Maybe if we had a rare bird I would share to OBOL.
I said that not to point to me, but if I felt it and heard it, how many others
quit posting or left the list or felt intimidated. I am sometimes fairly
thick-skinned but may lack self confidence. I suspect others may relate.
Perhaps esp females. Judy
On 2021-02-26 01:36, Karen Saxton wrote:
I agree with Linda and darrell. I somehow must have missed where those posters were being given flack, because it seemed the story just stoppd
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 5:02 PM linda phelan thompson <lindaphelanlmt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I'm amazed to learn you got flack for that. I can remember reading those. I enjoy that kind of storytelling. It wasn't that long ago someone gave Harry Fuller a hard time for his longer storytelling. I enjoy those myself. And afterall, if it's not your cup of tea, you don't have to read it.
Linda
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 1:42 PM <jmeredit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I used to send bird lists weekly to OBOL but not any more. I got plenty of negative comments about posting common birds on a list every week, or why did I list participant names etc. I always thought new birders asked great questions and I liked to get their names on the list.
I really appreciate reading about bird arrivals and departures statewide, changes in range, habitat changes statewide etc. It can be about learning, not just chasing rare birds. To me, those are all bird related and appropriate. I would dislike OBOL being only for rare bird reports. I do agree about conservation issues being more and more important but how do we keep politics out of it?
So good to hear the many voices on this. So glad we have Boo. Judy, jmeredit@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 2021-02-25 21:21, Joel Geier wrote:
To draw a finer point here:... about the scope and purpose of OBOL. What is it? It was designed to be about birds in Oregon.
My understanding is that OBOL originally grew out of an informal e-mail chain that was formed to share state-level rare-bird-alerts, with a Slaty-backed Gull as one particularly formative example. So if we go by the "founding fathers' original intent," it should only be about very rare birds.
In the early years (around 1999 or 2000 when I was a relative newbie on the list) there
was at least one individual who took that idea seriously enough to send threatening
anonymous postcards to at least three of us. One woman received a card saying, "Shut
up, you talk too much!" The card that showed up in my mailbox told me to stop
posting about commonbirds. Another woman got a card with a threat to drive to her house
and kill her pet geese if she ever mentioned them on OBOL again.
However, despite such opinions, OBOL quickly became a place for people to talk about non-rare birds and topics more peripheral to birding. By the time I joined, OBOL was already being used for coordination of the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas, which led to many discussions about distribution of species as common as Spotted Towhees, and also personal experiences of birders who volunteered on that project.
Birders also used it to discuss encounters with hostile residents. One particularly memorable discussion in early 2001 concerned a "pizza-box-tossing cul-de-sac resident" who vented his unhappiness at birders who were flocking to a Summer Tanager in Beaverton, which led to a broader discussion/argument about the rights of private residents to control access to public rights-of-way. Impacts vs. benefits of ranching and grass-seed farming were also frequent topics in those years.
Some prominent birders used OBOL as a soapbox to fault the EPA for limiting manure
seepage into Tillamook Bay, on the grounds that this was detrimental to shore-birding
opportunities. ODFW was criticized for letting "scrapes" become vegetated. Even
the OBA board (then called OFO) was a regular target of criticism. One very well-known
birder was fond of discussing the culinary possibilities for waterfowl and other wild
fauna, often provoking a reaction from vegetarians on the list. Another once promoted an
unsuccessful campaign for birders to buy the whole town of Fields when it was up for sale.
There have always been a few voices who objected to these more wide-ranging topics, but -- at least since 1998 -- it would be hard to argue that discussions were strictly confined to just birds in Oregon.
--
Joel Geier Camp Adair area north of Corvallis
