Problematic Ships Project @problematicshipsproject - Tumblr Blog

if you n your partner were reading a book together and one of you was way ahead of the other that would be a problematic page gap

spider-shoes

if you were acting in a play together and someone messed up the blocking that would be a problematic stage gap

spider-shoes

in an argument and one of you was way angrier than the other? problematic rage gap

spider-shoes

consider if you were an animal at a zoo and they were an animal in a different enclosure - you might notice a problematic cage gap

spider-shoes

yes 🙂‍↕️ @hallowed-somnolence

spider-shoes

celestial-sadgirl

Trying to paint a room but bought two different shades:

Problematic Beige Gap

whirling-ghost

when one of you has a wonky immune system and the other does not: problematic macrophage gap

#problematic reblog

willgrahamscock

I read one(1) problematic fanfiction and now I endorse all evil things in this world

ellowynthenotking

Reblog to endorse all evil things in this world

#problematic reblog

patzweigz

Please be as detailed as possible when responding to each question. There are no wrong or right answers - this is a survey of opinions, not

In order to satiate my undying curiosity about this subject, I've crafted a survey to ask as unbiased as possible questions about the proship-antiship debate that has been on-going for some years now. There are direct questions about the key topics of the debate-- that is to say, non-con, incest, and depiction of children --but no content relating to any of those topics. No personal information will be recorded and the survey is completely anonymous. I heavily encourage you to respond to this survey even if you have no strong opinions; all responses are relevant. Ideally at least 1,000 responses will be collected to yield a generous sample size, so please share this if you fill it out!

Survey Here!

patzweigz

Chiming in to make an addendum - I'm unashamed to admit I have my own biases, but I earnestly did make the best attempt to pose pertinent but neutral questions in the interest of cultivating a varied set of opinions.I hoped making most of the responses open-ended would abate this but there have been complaints. Should anyone take issue with the wording of the questions as it pertains to fielding information from people that is not negatively or positively influenced by the survey itself, let me know how I can revise the language. It would not serve to satisfy my curiosity if the questionnaire generates animosity, my own personal convictions aside.

TL;DR - I'm no scientist and human to boot. I can make no amendments to the questions without concrete suggestions.

problematicshipsproject

I am taking this at face value as a good-faith request for information! (In other words, if it turns into argument, I won't answer.)

This is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of everything anyone might complain about, it's just a sampling of issues I noticed:

The terms "proship", "comship", "darkship", and "anti-anti" are repeatedly lumped together as if that's all one "faction", discouraging responders from having different responses to different terms.

The phrase "ACAB includes fandom police" is something people might disagree with for two very different reasons: (1) "fandom police are good, actually" and (2) "it's offensive to compare the problems of IRL cops, up to and including IRL murder, to online fandom drama." Having a single "agree-disagree" scale could lead you to conclude that all the people who think (1) actually think (2), or vice versa.

Phrases like "absolve the creator of X" presuppose "X is a sin that the creator requires absolution for in the first place." There's no option for respondents who reject the whole premise of the question.

The two questions with extremely-detailed scenarios about hypothetical sideblogs seem designed to push respondents toward "this action is acceptable." I would've expected a larger group of questions, covering a range of scenarios, to find out where respondents draw the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

Those questions also come off like it's not hypothetical, like there's a specific incident you're thinking of, and you're looking for "judgments on the real-world incident, with all the background and nuance it involves." That's not what you'll get from "judgments on the limited scenario described in the question."

The question "Do you believe that incest is harmful?" doesn't specify whether it's about real-life actions or artistic/fictional material. If respondents answer about one and you take them to be talking about the other, you're going to severely misinterpret some answers.

Outside the survey itself, reblogging your own survey with comments like "I'm getting a lot of response X, please respond if you have response Y" is about as non-neutral as you can get!

patzweigz

Thank you for the feedback! My responses are as follows:

In the interest in not making the survey any longer than it is, and the heavy overlap and similarity in such terms, I included in the same question. I would have done the same for the "antiship" question it's paired with but found no such similes for the term (much to my surprise, frankly).

I agree that this question would be more succinct with a Likert scale upon reflection, with a follow up free answer, instead.

What language would you suggest? "Absolve" was intended more as a synonym for "exempt from" in these cases, not as a marker of moral or spiritual significance.

Not the intention, assuredly; perhaps the language made them seem too similar, but they were meant to illustrate two opposing scenarios.

Do you have a more specific description of what you mean here? I don't follow.

That's a fair enough assessment; the intention was to refer to opinions on real world instances.

My emotionality has most definitely affected the data, and it is for that reason alone I apologize. I will be the first to concede that hosting it in a more neutral environment would have produced less variables affecting the data set.

problematicshipsproject

Miscellaneous responses!

(In general, note that I'm not saying you had evil intentions, I'm just talking about how the results came out.)

Proship/comship/etc: The idea that there's a "heavy overlap and similarity in such terms" in the first place is an assumption you're bringing to the table, not necessarily a thing all respondents will agree with.

"Exempt from" does sound less moralizing than "absolve", but it still frames the question as "there is a natural bad reaction that people in general should face for this; should these specific people be exempt from the natural bad reaction?" Not all respondents will agree that the bad reaction is deserved for anyone in the first place.

I'm not sure how to describe it more specifically, but maybe an example will help? Not a fandom one, a more general one:

For a science fair project, a student surveyed classmates asking if they would vote to ban a specific real-world chemical, describing it with a list of completely-true details, but limited to the ominous and concerning ones. Survey responses overwhelmingly gave the answer he was leading them towards: "yes, we would support a ban on this chemical." He deliberately left out the important background and nuance that would've given them a different reaction.

Final note -- apparently Google lets creators edit surveys while they're already running and getting responses? Yikes. Don't do that! If you're invested enough to start a new survey, go for it, but don't mess up your existing data by changing questions that people have already answered.

#problematic inbox #surveys