this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
16 points (90.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
3179 readers
176 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Had one boss who disclosed a new employee's diagnosis to the rest of the team in order to discredit that employee's ability to do their job. Among many many other things. The tipping point for me was her sending out an email (after the employee had already moved on to another department) which was just titled "EVIDENCE OF BAD [WORK]" trying list a bunch of shit that in her eyes had been done badly. This would be whatever if she was emailing it to her own boss or whatever - no, she cc'd the ENTIRE team and it was very clearly done to try to embarrass the employee, who as I mentioned had already left and couldn't even defend themselves against the bullshit this person was saying.
Also worked at another place where the bullies (who were mental health specialists) bullied a 60-year-old team member so hard that she went home crying. They'd also regularly make 'team plans' in office and have 'team lunches' where they'd very purposefully exclude one or two people but then very loudly chat and comment about all of it in front of those people. Place was toxic as fuck.
Mate that's awful. It's one of the worst I've ever heard of. Using someone's minority group status to discredit them is awful. Disability awareness is often poor, (eg we know we can't assume black people don't speak English but make negative assumptions re Disability) but this is deliberate malice. How did you cope working there?