Rich is 100% right on this.
Reef2reef sucks and discriminates
- Thread starter Thales
- Start date
Which, if my math is correct, makes him 200% right.
H2OPlayar
Supporting Member
If I third it, is it 200% to the 3rd power?
Mike Yasin
Guest
#4
If we go with #6 can we fight them with a few snappy slaps in the face with a wet fish?
ofzakaria
Guest
Well said!
As usual when 2 rational people are disagreeing about something that people feel strongly about, they are talking about different things.
Rich is saying this particular situation is important to the reefkeeping community, because it has been made important by poor choices of influential people to infringe on ability of LGBTQ reefers to express themselves and feel welcome on an important site. Which is true.
Randy is saying that irrespective of this particular bad situation, the issue of LGBTQ people being able to express themselves and feel welcome is not fundamentally one of reefkeeping. So it isn’t what people generally come to this site and club for. Which is also true.
If R2R was welcoming and accepting and didn’t have a problem with LGBTQ, then we wouldn’t be talking about this. So poof, it wouldn’t be a reefkeeping issue any more. So it isn’t really an issue related to keeping of reefs, but rather the choices of R2R staff and how it affects people. Still important, but not fundamentally a reefkeeping subject.
If R2R was discriminating against and suppressing the expression of Jews or atheists or Republicans or Russians or whatever group, and they were jerky enough about it, they could make it just as much of a problem, and people would be talking about it and pissed off like we are. But still wouldn’t fundamentally be a reefkeeping topic, except to the degree they are forcing it to be. If R2R went down for an extended period from a ransomware attack, it would be important to the hobby and worth talking about, but still not fundamentally a reefkeeping issue.
The fundamental subject matter of the hobby isn’t defined by the ways people are able to screw it up by being jerks.
I’m just saying that this crisis has been forced on the reefkeeping community and is important, but not reefkeeping in the same way as methods to keep and propagate coral, reefkeeping equipment, the chemistry of nutrient cycles, etc. So both of you are correct, but in different ways. Taking sides and throwing out punchy one-liners is good for getting people riled up but doesn’t get anyone closer to understanding or improving.
Rich is saying this particular situation is important to the reefkeeping community, because it has been made important by poor choices of influential people to infringe on ability of LGBTQ reefers to express themselves and feel welcome on an important site. Which is true.
Randy is saying that irrespective of this particular bad situation, the issue of LGBTQ people being able to express themselves and feel welcome is not fundamentally one of reefkeeping. So it isn’t what people generally come to this site and club for. Which is also true.
If R2R was welcoming and accepting and didn’t have a problem with LGBTQ, then we wouldn’t be talking about this. So poof, it wouldn’t be a reefkeeping issue any more. So it isn’t really an issue related to keeping of reefs, but rather the choices of R2R staff and how it affects people. Still important, but not fundamentally a reefkeeping subject.
If R2R was discriminating against and suppressing the expression of Jews or atheists or Republicans or Russians or whatever group, and they were jerky enough about it, they could make it just as much of a problem, and people would be talking about it and pissed off like we are. But still wouldn’t fundamentally be a reefkeeping topic, except to the degree they are forcing it to be. If R2R went down for an extended period from a ransomware attack, it would be important to the hobby and worth talking about, but still not fundamentally a reefkeeping issue.
The fundamental subject matter of the hobby isn’t defined by the ways people are able to screw it up by being jerks.
I’m just saying that this crisis has been forced on the reefkeeping community and is important, but not reefkeeping in the same way as methods to keep and propagate coral, reefkeeping equipment, the chemistry of nutrient cycles, etc. So both of you are correct, but in different ways. Taking sides and throwing out punchy one-liners is good for getting people riled up but doesn’t get anyone closer to understanding or improving.
Thales
Past President
Got it. Thanks. Many posts in the eutrophic zone here are also not about reefkeeping, nor are many topics in the lounge on R2R (notably, the prayer thread, the Mandalorian thread, and the BBQ thread). Not to ask you to put words in his mouth, but was Randy talking about BAR taking action or not because LGBTQ discrimination is not 'fundamentally one of reefkeeping'? The social aspect of reefing sites seems huge and often central to the site.
Maybe kind of, but I don't think so. The initial thread that was deleted was one specifically about the reef tanks of LGBTQ folks.
R2R is discriminating against atheists. They deleted an 'ask the athiest' thread because it went against Davids idea of what the site was for, paraphrasing (I would have to look up the exact quote) - 'r2r exists to spread the word of god through reef keeping'. I agree that it wasn't at all about reefkeeping, but neither are the bulk of the posts in the lounge.
That is arguable, but I'll leave it as per Randy's request.
Got it. I have no problem discussing this stuff without being heated.
I hope that isn't what you thought I was doing. My response to Randy was brief, not to rile people up, but to stay on point. This happens to me sometimes, so if you have ideas of what I could have added to make you feel less like that, I am all ear.
Thanks!
ofzakaria
Guest
I would also like to add, regarding the argument that we should not take action because there are paying users who did not sign up for this. There are paying members who are effected by this and deserve to have their club stand by them the same way a paying member deserve help when he/she is discussing an issue that impacted them personally, even though the issue has nothing to do with reefing.
Our club is filled with threads that discuss issues that are not reefing related, and we always show support and sympathy.
As Rich said, if the thread, topic or matter effect an LGBTQ member here, then it is a reefing related.
Thats what we are discussing here, do we want to take a clear stand to show support and sympathy? What would the users of this club think this stand should be.
If you do not believe there was discrimination in the first place, thats ok, do not support
But If you think there was a discrimination, would you want to stand by your fellow club member?
I still think the best way is to have a poll and do the discussion so its not limited to few members view points. Because I feel there is a wide spectrum of actions that we can do to show inclusion.
From taking clear stand and saying what r2r is doing is wrong, to put a supporting statement that is clear and direct (couple reefing communities and vendors did that already), to invite speakers from the LGBTQ community who can talk about our hobby..am sure there is many more. The question is, do we, as a club, want to do this. Or do we want to move on and biz as usual?
Cheers.
Our club is filled with threads that discuss issues that are not reefing related, and we always show support and sympathy.
As Rich said, if the thread, topic or matter effect an LGBTQ member here, then it is a reefing related.
Thats what we are discussing here, do we want to take a clear stand to show support and sympathy? What would the users of this club think this stand should be.
If you do not believe there was discrimination in the first place, thats ok, do not support
But If you think there was a discrimination, would you want to stand by your fellow club member?
I still think the best way is to have a poll and do the discussion so its not limited to few members view points. Because I feel there is a wide spectrum of actions that we can do to show inclusion.
From taking clear stand and saying what r2r is doing is wrong, to put a supporting statement that is clear and direct (couple reefing communities and vendors did that already), to invite speakers from the LGBTQ community who can talk about our hobby..am sure there is many more. The question is, do we, as a club, want to do this. Or do we want to move on and biz as usual?
Cheers.
Last edited:
Coral reefer
Past President
Anyone can make a poll and arrange for speakers. If you want that make it happen.
ofzakaria
Guest
Are you saying if one of us made a poll, the BOD will follow its end results?
There's another significant part of this that's been overlooked, and is very much of interest to the reefing community. R2R is the largest board in the community, and holds considerable sway. Beyond the discussion of bigotry we have forgotten about that other part of this -- they didn't just delete a post -- they changed one.
Privately owned boards get to do what they want. I understand that, and I understand it's not a free speech issue, etc, but changing posts is terrifying.
Privately owned boards get to do what they want. I understand that, and I understand it's not a free speech issue, etc, but changing posts is terrifying.
Coral reefer
Past President
Not exactly. I’m saying you (or anyone) can make a poll and the bod can and will use it as information to inform any decision we make.
There is no guarantee of action or that we will hands down do whatever any poll suggests, but without such a poll we don’t have concrete information at our disposal so I would personally find it useful.
There seems to be a reasonable amount of interest and engagement on this so I am not quite sure why the board wouldn't put up a poll regarding it to inform their discussions. Is there something I'm missing here?
ofzakaria
Guest
Got it.
Then I think the best course of action is for the BOD to gather information through any mean the BOD chooses. Clearly there is interest both for and against taking a supporting stand. So collecting data thst reflect the will of the members would be the best path.
Last edited:
Coral reefer
Past President
It doesn’t need to be posted by the board. Collect the data for me.
this issue matters to me, but I’m in the middle of moving. Not my priority atm
this issue matters to me, but I’m in the middle of moving. Not my priority atm
Coral reefer
Past President
Make a poll. Doesn’t need to be by the board.
Take action. Create the poll. This is a volunteer club.
If there were a poll, what would the options be? What @rygh posted or something else in mind? Since for the most part people are talking in very general terms, there are bound to be lots of misunderstandings.
No one in BAR so far has defended R2R’s approach towards suppression of LGBTQ so I don’t know why that keeps getting argued again as if there is an argument about that here.
As far as influence goes, Rich is much higher profile and has more influence on R2R and the reefing community in general than BAR as a group does. Plus I think he has or had an official relationship with R2R and personally knows the owner Rev. We don’t.
Why would anyone agree to be bound by a poll for which we don’t even know the options or ramifications? The point is to find out what people think, not force people into things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Could be good information but site polls usually aren’t unless they are carefully worded to be constructive, and have lots of people participating. So if you feel like you can do this, please do.
Also you guys should know the Board is already talking about putting stronger and more direct language into the Bylaws and/or Code of Conduct about how we support inclusion and stand against discrimination. So basically #4 in Mark’s option list.
No one in BAR so far has defended R2R’s approach towards suppression of LGBTQ so I don’t know why that keeps getting argued again as if there is an argument about that here.
As far as influence goes, Rich is much higher profile and has more influence on R2R and the reefing community in general than BAR as a group does. Plus I think he has or had an official relationship with R2R and personally knows the owner Rev. We don’t.
Why would anyone agree to be bound by a poll for which we don’t even know the options or ramifications? The point is to find out what people think, not force people into things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Could be good information but site polls usually aren’t unless they are carefully worded to be constructive, and have lots of people participating. So if you feel like you can do this, please do.
Also you guys should know the Board is already talking about putting stronger and more direct language into the Bylaws and/or Code of Conduct about how we support inclusion and stand against discrimination. So basically #4 in Mark’s option list.