@faraday I'd only add maybe a way to log mails sent and received as sometimes I get my abuse (not sexual harassment, but still worthy of admin's attention sometimes) via @mail.
I hesitate to post my advice to this thread, as it is salty and involves burning bridges (which is my preferred method, but Assassin's Creed is right over there, looking fancy.)
No one has sexually harassed me online in years and years, so my advice is to be acerbic and unfriendly.
@kanye-qwest But that's just a "challenge" apparently.
@kanye-qwest I actually have never really gotten a lot of it either and I am neither of those things. Some of it is because I spent most of my RP career playing on games that were predominantly female and staffed by, in majority, women. I think some of it is because I play male characters a lot, but I don't really know. I think my current female alt is cutie patootie but she doesn't get a lot of bullshit either.
I'm not complaining but I think it's just one of those luck of the draw things.
That said, it happens to women in my vicinity and I rise up with Cerberus-like hackles so maybe that has been witnessed?
If I can ever find the sign I am apparently wearing that says 'every infamous creeper in the universe, inquire within', I was planning to burn it, but y'all are welcome to borrow it if you want a refresher.
(I highly doubt I would have any takers on that.)
Sovereign is literally the only one I have run across that I ever managed to dodge, and that's because he was just so glaringly obvious, so I kept stonewalling any attempted inquires along the conversational lines that would lead that way. (I only ever dealt with Custodius as staff, not a player, but he still managed to be skeevy then.)
Seriously, I hate this sign. It's worse than 'Kick Me'. 
@tinuviel said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
@kanye-qwest But that's just a "challenge" apparently.
^^^ yes
I just want to say, in light of recent events:
Believe the women.
@ixokai I'd add... to a point.
Assume they're right unless proven otherwise. Never take an accusation at face value, but never discard something because it's "just an accusation."
@tinuviel said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
@ixokai I'd add... to a point.
Assume they're right unless proven otherwise. Never take an accusation at face value, but never discard something because it's "just an accusation."
This is complex.
Moore, a terrible human being, is entitled to due process. He is thus innocent until proven guilty.
And proving most of this is nearly impossible.
If a man gropes a woman 20 years ago, how is it proved?
But, not being proved, are we to assume the woman lied?
That's where society goes. It leans that way.
Or, a subset of society goes that way.
Here's what I know. Moore is 70 years old; when he was in his thirties was fourty years ago. I know that in that time, 'sexual harassment' wasn't a thing prosecuted or accused. It was what happened to women, period. They got grabbed. Groped.
It wasn't really... not normal.
So taking all that in: I can believe the women, or I can think it a political ploy. Well my politics lean towards it benefiting me to believe the women, but I hate how everything is political these days. I believe the women because I see her stand and cry in the shame she feels. Its not proof: I don't think there's proof enough to prosecute.
But the accusation is proof enough to consider who someone votes for, for sure.
But for entirely different reasons I am adamantly opposed to this troll. My opinion may be biased.
@ixokai I'm of... several minds over this. If X person is accused, I generally put myself 'on the side of' the accuser until otherwise proven. Do I think X person should be vilified and hated and sent threats and such? Not at all. Everyone, no matter how heinous their crime, deserves their time in court to plead their case.
It's a situation of trust (in this case the accusor) but verify. Assume people are being honest but also check to make sure.
@Tinuviel There is surely nothing simple about these situations. A key problem is that it often comes down to two people making opposing claims: Who do you believe? There's often nothing like tangible proof.
@ixokai Agreed, but in a MU situation rather than a real-life one I would assume the accusor tells the truth unless proven otherwise. it's complicated, of course it is, but in the case of MU*s it doesn't determine someone's entire life, thus accusations can be taken at face value and punishments inflicted.
@ixokai said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
I just want to say, in light of recent events:
Believe the women.
In most cases it's not even about believing anyone. It's just a matter of taking it seriously the first time around at face value, and acting on it. Simple as that.
In the vast majority of cases the person feeling wronged doesn't first go to staff after shit is already unbearable; they go over with something fairly mild. Maybe someone's been making borderline comments in the OOC room, or is getting a little spammy over pages. Hell, sometimes it's not quite phrased as a complaint per se, but it's more of an FYI thing.
When that happens the correct response by staff is to treat the person coming to them with respect; at that point it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, if they are victims or just maybe misunderstood a humorous comment or... anything. All that matters is that are upset, and they should never walk away from that contact feeling that they were ignored, or - worse! - that their reaching out was unwelcome.
No matter what comes next, regardless of any other factors, if you are staff and you allow your players to read between the lines that you'd rather they hadn't come to you, you've already failed.
It's not until after this encounter that staff get to actually evaluate the case, gather any further information they feel is necessary and take action as appropriate. But that first step is crucial.
I mean, innocent until proven guilty is a great ideal and I work, on a daily basis, to support and promulgate it. But it's an ideal.
You must be treated by the state as innocent until proven guilty by the state and convicted by a jury of your peers. But that's strictly a criminality standard. In a civil case, you're a harasser if a preponderance of the evidence says you are.
For an election, if there's probable cause to believe you've assaulted someone, I ain't voting for you. For an entertainment professional, if there's probable cause to believe you've assaulted someone, I'm sure as fuck not obligated to buy your shit.
To RP with someone on a GAME? Yeah, if there's probable cause to believe you're a dirty harassing creepster, you're off my game. You have no right to be on my game. That's the door. Pack your shit and get out. Context matters; standards of proof change depending on circumstance; we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and I'm not gonna let you play in my game if I wouldn't let you play in my weekend game at my house.
re, logging:
If something is happening to you that is important enought hat a log will be needed for verification, do not present a text log--reduce the font size of your MU client, open it up to full screen if you don't have it already, and then proceed to screenshot the entire conversation, with each image having at its top a verifiably identical section as the bottom of the image before it.
Yes, images can be doctored; no, most people won't think to doctor an image, they will think a text log is enough. It's not. As a staffer, if I am presented with screenshots of something and the other party gives me a text log that is different, the text log isn't going to be worth SHIT.
@coin said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
re, logging:
If something is happening to you that is important enought hat a log will be needed for verification, do not present a text log--reduce the font size of your MU client, open it up to full screen if you don't have it already, and then proceed to screenshot the entire conversation, with each image having at its top a verifiably identical section as the bottom of the image before it.
Yes, images can be doctored; no, most people won't think to doctor an image, they will think a text log is enough. It's not. As a staffer, if I am presented with screenshots of something and the other party gives me a text log that is different, the text log isn't going to be worth SHIT.
I absolutely cringe at this advice.
@ixokai said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
@coin said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
re, logging:
If something is happening to you that is important enought hat a log will be needed for verification, do not present a text log--reduce the font size of your MU client, open it up to full screen if you don't have it already, and then proceed to screenshot the entire conversation, with each image having at its top a verifiably identical section as the bottom of the image before it.
Yes, images can be doctored; no, most people won't think to doctor an image, they will think a text log is enough. It's not. As a staffer, if I am presented with screenshots of something and the other party gives me a text log that is different, the text log isn't going to be worth SHIT.
I absolutely cringe at this advice.
Well, I mean, screenshots are harder to doctor, easy to take.
It's not that I won't take logs at face value unless I have reason not to, but if we´re talking about having the best possible evidence of bad behavior, a screenshot is way better than a text file.
@coin said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
@ixokai said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
@coin said in SunnyJ's Anti-Sexual Harassment Guide:
re, logging:
If something is happening to you that is important enought hat a log will be needed for verification, do not present a text log--reduce the font size of your MU client, open it up to full screen if you don't have it already, and then proceed to screenshot the entire conversation, with each image having at its top a verifiably identical section as the bottom of the image before it.
Yes, images can be doctored; no, most people won't think to doctor an image, they will think a text log is enough. It's not. As a staffer, if I am presented with screenshots of something and the other party gives me a text log that is different, the text log isn't going to be worth SHIT.
I absolutely cringe at this advice.
Well, I mean, screenshots are harder to doctor, easy to take.
It's not that I won't take logs at face value unless I have reason not to, but if we´re talking about having the best possible evidence of bad behavior, a screenshot is way better than a text file.
In my experience, getting people to log is hard. In my experience, the people preyed upon are not the most sophisticated around (though this is not entirely true).
Screenshots are absolutely more likely to not be doctored, but just getting logs is a challenge.
I don't need logs to investigate a claim.
In my experience, 90% of the accused do not deny what happened, and, of them, most claim that they didn't realize they were making the other side uncomfortable.
The other 10% spin around, scoff, and are impossible to deal with, so I have reason to jettison them without having to investigate the matter further.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@ixokai I'm of... several minds over this. If X person is accused, I generally put myself 'on the side of' the accuser until otherwise proven. Do I think X person should be vilified and hated and sent threats and such? Not at all. Everyone, no matter how heinous their crime, deserves their time in court to plead their case.
It's a situation of trust (in this case the accusor) but verify. Assume people are being honest but also check to make sure.
