?

Log in

No account? Create an account

very_vegetarian

Community Guidelines

« previous entry | next entry »
Jul. 24th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
posted by: blueheron in very_vegetarian

Aside from changing the theme (coming soon) and committing to regular posting (I can do my best!), a very important suggestion for drafting our community guidelines has been made.

So, what are some of the things that you would like to see as guidelines here? Don't worry about wording and such, really this is just brainstorming. We can put together the best ideas into a more formal presentation later.

Some suggestions:

1) Community accepted definitions of some of the classic terms we will come across: vegetarian (including: strict vegetarian and variations of ovo-lacto vegetarians), omnivore (including pescetarian) and vegan. Anything else?

2) A rule on "advertisements" (this should include non-commercial advertising). I am not against it (there are some that were rejected out of nice_vegetarian for example that I really liked, when I was going through the mod community). That being said, there is the risk for spam. So, I would suggest that advertisements be kept to text, with images behind a cut. If the text is going to be longer than, say, 3 sentences, the rest should also be behind a cut. It should also be related to vegetarianism. Though?

3) I would like to codify, to some degree, the ideas that I presented in my last post -- specifically, how everyone is equal, everyone should try to be respectful, but how that doesn't mean always agreeing or being happy with the other person's stance. As well, some codification on how warnings and bannings will happen (only with a community poll, maybe in another community? maybe in this community, but behind a cut?), as well how mods, whose jobs should be to follow the wishes of community as expressed in said polls, should be liable for a recall at any moment (say, with a petition of X number of users to initiate a poll).

I am sure that I am missing things. I would love to hear other ideas.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {24}

(Deleted comment)

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 24th, 2010 10:28 pm (UTC)
Link

1) When I suggested omnivorous definitions, I was thinking something general like "If you eat the flesh of animals or slaughter house byproducts, then you consume a omnivorous diet. Some people eschew most animal flesh but still continue to eat fish. This is sometimes called a "pescetarian diet". It is still an omnivorous diet, not a vegetarian diet. Likewise, if you eat the flesh of animals or slaughterhouse byproducts with any regularity, but not with every meal, you would still considered an omnivore, not a vegetarian."

I don't know if that is absolutely necessary, or if it "mean"... but kind of what I had in mind.

2) yeah, I can get behind that addition.

3) The risk with a separate mod community is lack of transparency and lack of participation from the community in the modding practices because not everyone will follow both communities. That is my biggest concern. I am not against using a separate mod community (I have already suggested nice_moderating...), but it is easier to move to a new community rather than merge two communities into 1.

Reply | Parent | Thread

heartless romantic

(no subject)

from: happycycling
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 04:02 am (UTC)
Link

how about vegetarian_mods? or does that comm have too much baggage?

Reply | Parent | Thread

(Deleted comment)

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 02:39 pm (UTC)
Link

I think that very_veg_mod is a good option.

I also think that the maintainers should be different for both communities.

Reply | Parent | Thread

a bag of insecurities

(no subject)

from: bizwac
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 04:23 am (UTC)
Link

I was thinking, you could have a mod comm, but also perhaps a post within the community (which has a helpful tag maybe?) that people can go to if they don't want to go to the mod comm. So they can make their complaints on that entry. All mods can then track that particular entry so they are notified when a new comment is made. I'd suggest screening the comments in case the commenter wants anonymity or if there is sensitive information contained within the comment.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 09:25 am (UTC)
Link

Yes, I am thinking of doing that in this community, as well as in the mod community, because I would like to try and have the mod community with unmoderated posting and unscreened comments by default.

I will set that up today.

(ugh, and tags are next on the list, before we get too many posts!)

I was also thinking of maybe a once a week "recap" post of what when on in the mod community (maybe behind a cut, just to keep it short and simple). Maybe even just a list with links to the various posts.

This way, for people who aren't following the community, if there is something important, like a vote on banning, or a vote on recalling one of the moderators, they can still have a chance to go vote.

Reply | Parent | Thread

a bag of insecurities

(no subject)

from: bizwac
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 11:32 am (UTC)
Link

Yay tags!

The recap idea seems good if there is a lot going on in the mod community, but then if there are just little things, I wonder if members would get upset about 'admin' type stuff clogging their community. I know members in other comms have complained about that kind of thing, saying that if they cared, they would be watching the mod comm. But then you'd have to balance those concerns out with having people be aware of what's going on, and having transparency in the moderating.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 01:38 pm (UTC)
Link

I agree -- there has to be a balance between burdening the community, and soliciting their participation. In a community where we want everyone to be a mod in principal, if not in name, I think that following what is going on in the mod community should be par for the course.

My personal feeling is that a once-a-week digest post, behind a cut, shouldn't qualify as "cluttering" the community.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Hooloovoo

(no subject)

from: jesskathand
date: Jul. 24th, 2010 06:41 pm (UTC)
Link

1. Agreed on definitions but also agree with olympia above about not including non-veg stuff unless talking about transitioning to vegness.

2. I don't mind ads as long as they are cut and related to vegness.

3. I think everyone should be respectful but also be able to be truthful about "happy farms", et . I think talking about warnings/bannings should be in another community. Instead of calling it a mod community, maybe a management community?

Reply | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 24th, 2010 10:30 pm (UTC)
Link

We agree on 1 and 2.

I like the suggestions in 3, though given that not everyone is going to want about animal treatment or ethics, perhaps we can request that posts of that nature go behind a cut? Is that asking too much?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Hooloovoo

(no subject)

from: jesskathand
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 03:27 am (UTC)
Link

3 is a touchy topic. I don't think this community should be a place to put down ovo-loctos, who may feel that way if people are saying how horrible eating eggs/dairy/honey is.

But if someone is generally interested in how a "happy farm" is run, then they would appreciate the information.

I don't have an answer.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 10:07 am (UTC)
Link

That is just it... I honestly don't want to see videos of the Ohio Dairy type being posted here (and I don't even consume dairy). Personally, I don't think that treatment videos are good advocacy, they make looking at pages like this difficult to do from work (or at home around my 2 year old) and are just generally unpleasant.

I don't want this to be a place to put down ovo-lactos either, but on the other hand, I don't want to encourage the idea of the magical "happy farm", and really I find it offensive (since that was a word that was thrown around a lot in some other communities, but not one that I was allowed to use) to have constant discussions about "responsible" animal use, etc either.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Hooloovoo

(no subject)

from: jesskathand
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 12:30 pm (UTC)
Link

I agree with you, but I think this place should also welcome people who are not veg for animal rights reasons.

Obviously, if people have different views, they should be able to express it in a polite manner. I guess this is the topic that will need to be watched the most.

I think any treatment videos should be behind a cut. I can't stand watching them, and I also have a 2 year old so I hear you on that!

Reply | Parent | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 02:52 pm (UTC)
Link

I agree with you, but I think this place should also welcome people who are not veg for animal rights reasons.

Absolutely. Finding a balance between the two groups is where the trouble is going to be. :-/

Obviously, if people have different views, they should be able to express it in a polite manner. I guess this is the topic that will need to be watched the most.

So how about this: We come up with a "list of contentious topics" and request that people put them behind a cut with a warning when they post them?

This will apply to both sides of whatever issue it might be.

Then, people who don't want to get involved, can easily avoid it, those who want to get involved will be doing so with the full knowledge that there might be debate/argument/disagreement.

Of course, the list mentioned above would not (and could likely never be) comprehensive, so it should also contain a clause expressing as much as requesting that people use common sense.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Hooloovoo

(no subject)

from: jesskathand
date: Jul. 26th, 2010 12:37 am (UTC)
Link

i think that could work. Maybe a list, and also anything that you feel may be controversial should be behind a cut and a warning.

Reply | Parent | Thread

virtualannette

(no subject)

from: virtualannette
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 02:58 am (UTC)
Link

I added because I like the community name and because I like that it seems like it's aiming at some kind of middle ground (not anti-vegan like the vegetarian comm seems to be, but open to people who are stricter vegetarians than "average" vegetarians as well). Personally I kind of think the hierarchy of vegetarian-ness is getting a bit nuts around these parts, but hey, i'm not here to debate that.

As a vegan I guess I'm just wondering how I would distinguish what I would post in, say, veganpeople, vs. what I would post in very_vegetarian. I mean, my recipes and questions and conversation topics will usually be vegan ones by default, so they could apply to either community. I can't think of anything I've ever posted that would be necessarily better suited to a "strict veg" audience vs. a vegan one.... in most cases either would be fine (maybe that means I shouldn't be a member here, cus I could just as easily use veganpeople?). And, I'm betting that this comm, like most veg*n comms on LJ, will have nearly the same audience of members and maybe even a similar group of mods as the vegan comms.

So I guess I'm just saying, is there anything this comm can be or do that makes it distinct from other veg comms? Can we think about/talk about that? It seems like in order to be "very_veg" instead of vegan or vegetarian, this comm should restrict itself to talking only about life as a strict veg, a vegetarian not living a fully vegan lifestyle... but that seems like a really narrow sphere of topics and really limiting.

I don't know, I'd just like to know what/when to post here rather than in the other gazillion veg*n comms. I'm probably rambling and just thought I'd mention this.

Reply | Thread

heartless romantic

(no subject)

from: happycycling
date: Jul. 25th, 2010 04:14 am (UTC)
Link

It seems like in order to be "very_veg" instead of vegan or vegetarian, this comm should restrict itself to talking only about life as a strict veg, a vegetarian not living a fully vegan lifestyle... but that seems like a really narrow sphere of topics and really limiting.

i basically wanted to create an alternative to vegetarian with a different modding system and stricter rules regarding the discussion of meat and slaughter byproducts. i'd like it to be for anyone with an interest in vegetarianism, not necessarily about strict (but not vegan) vegetarianism, though i'm fine with that if the community evolves in that direction. i wanted the word "vegetarian" in the community name, and with a 15-character limit my choices were kind of numbered :) [i considered something like "vegetarian_w00t" but thought that was a bit too silly]

but that's just me, and i'm definitely not planning to mod this thing alone. we should definitely discuss this more.

Reply | Parent | Thread

heather

(no subject)

from: pinksprinkels
date: Aug. 13th, 2010 08:22 pm (UTC)
Link

lol, i think "actually_vegetarian" would be an appropriate comm name...

I'm totally excited about the possibilities of this community too!

Reply | Parent | Thread

a bag of insecurities

(no subject)

from: bizwac
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 03:57 am (UTC)
Link

I figured this community would pretty much just be like a vegetarian community, but one which actually accepts discussions and vegan points of view, rather than freezing/banning such discussions/members.

I didn't really see this as being a comm for strict vegetarians, but rather one in which vegetarians and vegans can both be comfortable without fear of being banned/censured for their views. I also saw it as being a place in which only vegetarian things are accepted discussion points. In other vegetarian communities, there is often talk of returning to meat, or finding "happy" farms to source their meat, recipes including fish and so on. I, and many others, get really annoyed that these kinds of discussions are tolerated in a vegetarian community. It would be good to have a kind of 'safe space' where such talk was not allowed because, hey, it really doesn't fit with what being a vegetarian is.

This is all just how I kind of read the community's existence, so I could be off.

Reply | Parent | Thread

virtualannette

(no subject)

from: virtualannette
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 04:02 am (UTC)
Link

Ah, ok. I think I read the "very" as meaning like... more vegetarian than other vegetarians. And I thought I read a post or comment somewhere in the drama-logs about making a comm for strict vegs (when someone was explaining to people that she was a strict veg and not a vegan and one commenter kept failing to understand what that meant) and maybe that bit of conversation had nothing to do with this community at all. I guess together with the "very" in the name maybe I mixed up the two.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 09:27 am (UTC)
Link

Well, to a certain degree it does. In this day and age, "vegetarian" to some just means "no red meat". ;)

Reply | Parent | Thread

a bag of insecurities

(no subject)

from: bizwac
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 11:34 am (UTC)
Link

and to others, it can even mean red meat as long as [it's only once a week/is free/is from a happy farm/is in New York on a pizza].

Reply | Parent | Thread

alysonfun

(no subject)

from: alysonfun
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 12:52 pm (UTC)
Link

i totally understand that we don't want to have any discussions about happy-farm meat here, obviously.

but can we discuss "happy-farm" eggs and dairy?

i know that exploitation of animals is regulated by different standards in different countries. It would be good to open up a dialogue about why, say for instance, milk from Canada is exploited less cruelly than milk from the USA... or something like that.

And I use exploited in the definitional sense, not as a sensationalist word loaded with meaning.

also to note: for me, i think the difference between this comm and the vegetarian comm is that people who are actually vegetarians will participate. To paraphrase n_c on "not thoroughly checking labels" - that isn't something an actual vegetarian would do. "Oops! I accidentally ate beef tallow, oh well!" doesn't seem like anything an actual vegetarian would be okay with doing.

Reply | Thread

Blue

(no subject)

from: blueheron
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 01:35 pm (UTC)
Link

Discussions on anything and everything vegetarian are welcome. It is just that contentious issues will go behind a cut.

So we are going to try and compile a list of contentious issues, and the idea of "happy farms", be they for dairy or meat (and they are often one and the same) is most definitely one of these topics.

So in short - yes, discussion of this can and should occur. It should go behind a cut, with a warning, so that people who don't want to get involved don't have to even read it.

Reply | Parent | Thread

alysonfun

(no subject)

from: alysonfun
date: Jul. 27th, 2010 06:29 pm (UTC)
Link

aha. a cut is a good idea.

Reply | Parent | Thread