What Would it Take to Repair the Community?

[Ghost]

I've thought about this for a while now. I'd been active on the games for close to 20 years and I've been away for a few years now, and it seems like a lot of the prevalent issues still exist. Ultimately, what I see is a pretty much fractured community with a number of social habits/constructs that 1) make the community somewhat uninviting to newcomers 2) shoots itself (the community) in the foot with societal norms that create a baseline of negativity and 3) has decades of bad blood/grudges that will be hard to untangle.

One of the reasons I ultimately decided to stop playing the games was because I asked myself "What would it take to make the environment less negative?" and my only answer was to try to play as incognito as possible and not involve myself in the OOC stuff...which didn't go well (either I was avoided for not giving personal information and thus not proving myself NOT to be one of the numerous boogeymen -or- OOC drama about other players was thrust upon me in pages regardless of asking for it).

So I ask: Really, what would it fucking take to clear the air and make the environment more 'repaired'?

Here's what I came up with in my head:

1. Understand that the Hog Pit was a mistake, that the people who thrived in it are bullies, and to identify/cull bullies from the hobby

This won't be popular, but it's a respectful opinion. YES there are bad/problematic/abusive/stalker roleplayers who have rapey/disturbing/"in some cases illegal" behavior that need to be watched for. HOWEVER, there are also players who (while not as extreme) display very abusive behaviors that need to be culled. A swath of players have gotten on for years by abusing/excluding players for failing to do what they want, toxicly display faux-elitist behaviors to act like being a part of their "clique" is in your best interests, get off on using public forums to belittle other players, their roleplay ability, and their personas, and use staff inclusion and "OOC power in game" to exclude other players who they don't like.

How is this stuff not as bad? I think it's easy to spend years arguing about how bad the super-bad people are (like Cullen or Spider), but while some of those mentioned behaviors are arguable, the end result is that it's negative and breeds an environment of "who's camp you're in" and old school high school "clique" and "mean girls" behavior that doesn't do anyone any good. Whether or not you're popular enough to "sway the mob" should never excuse you from your own bullying, and should never sway the sense of what the true justice is.

If I were running a game, I'd allow any logged bullying behavior from any source (discord, msb, pages) as evidence to warn people about their negative behavior, up to and including the end result of removing them from the game. HOW you behave towards other players, even if it's "shady" or uses some kind of "diagonal attack vector" should matter.

2. Understand that game owners have friends, and that the reality that favoritism happens may never be able to truly be undone and Understanding the motivations behind skewed fairness

I don't know the right answer for this one. The reality is that even staff who are the most impartial will have players they like and dislike. However, (and please read this) SINCE TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAYERS AND STAFF POPULARITY SEEM TO CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ACTUALLY LOG INTO THE GAME, this factor usually controls how staff handle issues.

It's in staff's interest to keep as many players on the game as possible, because this affects whether or not people even try to make a bit at the game. So with this in mind there's a lot of quasi-collective bargaining when it comes to issues. "If I decide this way, will a ton of players leave my game and take my player-base with me?" It's a thing. Some times the end results aren't about fairness. Players tend to ignore certain behaviors they see to "not rock the boat" so a lot of bad behavior goes untouched out of fear of "losing roleplay partners" or "not being welcome anymore".

So a LOT of bad stuff just goes untouched, festers, and gets worse over time because the motivations behind DOING SOMETHING or NOT DOING SOMETHING tend to fall always in line with whether or not it'll affect the game, roleplay, or "popularity currency".

Which is why people like OPP often get culled: It's because they're so universally disliked that it's an easy choice to auto-ban them, but other bullies who have their own clique often go untouched because culling one of them could mean losing 10 other players (even if, in my opinion, they all enable each other and games are better off without all 10 of them, anyway).

[Kestrel]

Is this the part where I take your thread seriously, invest the time and emotional energy to respond in good faith, only to then receive a veiled warning from our new admins, accused of being in a clique with people I don’t even talk to, and told that my choice to answer the very question that was asked in the first place makes my motives suspect?

Fast-forward to the thread lock and paternalistic lecture IMO.

[Ghost]

@Kestrel Or....you could compose an opinion without thrown shade and deliver it respectfully and not have to worry about any of that?

Edit: Really, there's a number of global issues that even people you -like- are probably contributing to. So what do you think would make for a positive/welcoming community where behaviors like this are a thing of the past?

[Kestrel]

lol. lmao.

[Ghost]

@Kestrel Look at it this way.

If what you WANT is to get a stab in at someone who has annoyed you, then obviously your response would be flagged as bullying/inappropriate and could lead to getting put on ice. If that's what you want? Then I advise you 100% NOT to do that, but also that that response really wouldn't be on topic to what I was trying to achieve in the OP. It's not helpful and just contributes to the problem as a whole.

However.

If what you WANT is to actually discuss what you think the community as a whole needs to do to become more welcoming, more positive, and less back-biting, then why not do it? There's ways of doing that without needing to attack or belittle others. This includes clearing up issues that could be causing you to have negative emotions, not feel welcome or safe, etc.

You are capable of having a voice for a reason. You have an opportunity here to use it to try to build something better. You can choose to laugh at it and accept whatever the result will be, or you can choose to contribute to people putting their heads together to try to move the community in a direction you hope it will.

One's decision to laugh at this, ignore this, or contribute to this could say a lot to themself as to what level of happiness they'll get out of the hobby now and in the future, really.

[Ganymede]

@Ghost said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

So I ask: Really, what would it fucking take to clear the air and make the environment more 'repaired'?

If you're referring to the community that once inhabited here and its predecessors, then I would only say "time."

I'm not sure what air needs to be cleared, to be honest. Positions and opinions have been stated and re-stated. I presume that posters, past and present, can make their own decisions. So I presume as well that what can be repaired promptly has been repaired.

These presumptions may not be correct, but I've always believed you cannot force two people who dislike or distrust one another for reasons great or small to decide to mend and move forward, unless they want to.

[Ghost]

@Ganymede said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

@Ghost said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

So I ask: Really, what would it fucking take to clear the air and make the environment more 'repaired'?

If you're referring to the community that once inhabited here and its predecessors, then I would only say "time."

I'm not sure what air needs to be cleared, to be honest. Positions and opinions have been stated and re-stated. I presume that posters, past and present, can make their own decisions. So I presume as well that what can be repaired promptly has been repaired.

These presumptions may not be correct, but I've always believed you cannot force two people who dislike or distrust one another for reasons great or small to decide to mend and move forward, unless they want to.

I'm referring to...well...all of it.

• The page-whispering gossip and badmouthing other players
• Grudges that have existed for years
• Boards of people making fun of other players
• Unfair staffing issues
• Bullying/elitist behavior
• Paranoia of who is who, who they've played, stranger danger

I honestly don't know what the answer is, either. A while back I asked myself if the hobby was making me happy, and obviously the answer was "No". The question in my head though is "What can be done to move the needle in the other direction?" and it just seems to me that in classic risk modeling you either ACCEPT the risk or try to MITIGATE the risk. Shit or get off the pot, right?

Having said that, I think one of the concepts in "World War Z" (The Redeker Plan) kind of applies. You're not going to be able to create a solution to save everyone. IF there's a solution, I feel it may require accepting that certain people aren't interested in a positive environment and it may require to put them at risk of being excluded to either make them go away, create their own games, or guide their behavior to adjust.

[Derp]

@Kestrel said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

lol. lmao.

Knock it off.

Is that an un-veiled-enough warning?

[mietze]

I would echo that the answer is different depending on what community you're talking about.

I also think that Gany is right on the money about time, and letting people sort themselves out how they wish.

The amount of active people on message boards is so very small. The vast majority of folks on games don't learn their lessons from message boards, they just report things after they see the light. It's an experiential thing, which is why it's hard for people to really learn until it happens to them or they have evidence from people who are trusted. So I think everyone is healthier and contributes to a healthier environment if they don't think they are going to be some savior of the community for what they post somewhere, because they're just...not going to be. It's just not how it works in human nature. I do think boards have a good role in helping people feel less alone when they have experienced something and can see other people chime in about theirs. But even then it's double edged because there will and always have been people that scoff and dismiss. Or people who use vagueness or twist the truth a bit to try and turn the critical eye towards people they don't like.

In a wider community, there's always going to be people that don't like each other, that annoy the shit out of each other, that hold grudges, don't trust, listen to their friends or whoever is giving them the best goodies over other people's experiences. There's misinterpretations. Hurt that isn't easily repaired. That's true for PTA groups, individual churches, community orgs, a dorm hall, friends-and-aquaintenaces networks, an office, ect.

Sometimes it's not really something to repair in the sense of making everyone feel at home and comfortable. Sometimes it's just accepting what you can do, what you can't do, and that other people are where they are and it's very possible that there really isn't a "one true way" to do/look at/feel about most things.

[Ganymede]

@Ghost

I don't mean to be flippant or nonchalant, but you are looking for answers which have plagued every community or group since forever.

I remember when we had a huge discussion back five years ago as to whether we should remove the Hog Pit. Discussions were hot and heated back then -- very much so. Warnings were thrown up, and when staff believed that nothing more constructive would come, the discussion ended. After that, activity was tepid until members were comfortable with how and where to engage based on the policies that came out of it.

It takes time and patience, and letting people choose from available options what is best for them.

[Ghost]

@Ganymede said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

I don't mean to be flippant or nonchalant, but you are looking for answers which have plagued every community or group since forever.

And that may be the long and short of it, really. It could be as simple as that.

[Ganymede]

@mietze said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

Sometimes it's not really something to repair in the sense of making everyone feel at home and comfortable. Sometimes it's just accepting what you can do, what you can't do, and that other people are where they are and it's very possible that there really isn't a "one true way" to do/look at/feel about most things.

I really like this way you put it.

I said elsewhere that we live in a society that demands snap judgments and hot takes. People oblige when they've no reason to, and then have to backtrack as facts begin to emerge. Keeping an open mind is difficult when you are pressured to make your mind up immediately, and patience and time sometimes are in short supply.

But when I can, I try to be as patient as possible.

(Not that my damn kids give a shit.)

[Derp]

I guess here's my hot take on this:

I think that the schism from this board did repair the community.

Or, more specifically, I think that this board had very clearly settled into Warring Tribes. I'm definitely not the only one that saw as much, either. It's where a lot of the talk about a specific clique comes from. It's hard to pin down because it's something fluid, and has enough people moving in and out that it's probably best described as a tribe.

And we'd been trying to share a space for entirely too long. Like roommates with incompatible lifestyles and viewpoints, the enmities and vitriol just starting to boil over all the damn time in these little dogpiles and pissing matches.

I think that the split, while being characterized as a wound by a great many people, could just as easily be seen as the beginnings of healing far older wounds by just as many. Or at least giving it the space and air to start to heal, rather than sitting there festering.

People have pointed out that there's now an "us vs. them" mentality because there are two boards. I would like to counter with: there was an us vs. them mentality on this board before the split. Now it's just more visible.

And I think this is probably one of the healthier things that has happened in a good long while.

[Ghost]

@Derp Yanno I think there's great wisdom in what you just wrote.

I agree that there was an existing, festering wound in place for a long time, and this place was really a constant state of "fuck you" and "well fuck you, too". In a way it could be said that there are multiple ideologies in play with the people in the hobby themselves, up to and including people who avoided the Hog Pit altogether.

Clearly, it's obvious which camp I'm in, but I think you're right that a schism/donnybrook/fallout to the point where "if you want this then feel free to create your own space" could actually be the best thing that ever happened to the community because it made it clear that it doesn't always have to be the way it's always been. There IS a problem. Recognize it. Decide what you want to do to make it better OR at least recognize the issue enough to no longer enable it.

Anyway, in the least trolly way I agree that the schism needed to happen, some people needed to be told no, and something absolutely needed to be done about behavior guidelines and the Hog Pit.

[Solstice]

@Derp

I can very clearly see why you'd think that, when this schism was largely along the lines of whether you were suitable to hold power.

Now you do so nearly unilaterally, with two admins racing one another to upvote your every take.

Best possible outcome for you. Thus, healthy.

[Ghost]

@Solstice said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

@Derp

I can very clearly see why you'd think that, when this schism was largely along the lines of whether you were suitable to hold power.

Now you do so nearly unilaterally, with two admins racing one another to upvote your every take.

Best possible outcome for you. Thus, healthy.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

[Solstice]

@Ghost

It's a direct response to a post on the topic.

[Ghost]

This post is deleted!

[Ghost]

Deleted comment. Not going to feed it.

I'd prefer people stick on the topic rather than attack people for their responses to this topic, however.

[ZombieGenesis]

Here's my "hot take" for what it's worth. This is just based on my experiences and certainly may not represent the experiences of others. But...

I don't think the schisms in the MU community can be healed for the most part. It comes down to conflicting personalities, and those bridges will never be mended.

That said, here is a list of stuff I'd love to see be more common in the MU community. Some of these are more peeves than anything else but they are my thoughts on how the community, as a whole, might be a better place.

1. Realize these are just fun-time text-based games. They should be stress relievers, not stress causes.

2. Stop with the "red flags" attacks on new games. I can't count the number of times a new game was added to the advertisement section, and suddenly someone saw something they didn't like or didn't care to RP with, and posts about "red flags" started popping up.

3. Realize that new players are still coming into the community and may not be as good a text-based storyteller as you. That doesn't give you the right to shame them. Several players I know have been chased off games because instead of being given constructive criticism, they were talked down to and made fun of because of how they RPed.

4. Remember that there are actual people on the other end of these usernames. We often take the fact that we can see the actual human for granted and say things to or about them that we would never do in person. I know that's true of the internet, but I think it's especially relevant to here.

5. Just stop being judgy. Period. One of my biggest peeves is when someone does not like something, and they take on the mentality that it shouldn't exist. If you don't like something, ignore it. Don't attack it. Don't try and scare other people away from it.

Obviously, the things we say to friends in private is one thing, but we often take those private thoughts and make them very public, often in the most unkind ways. What I think needs to change most of all is the "If it isn't for me, it isn't for anybody" mentality that some players seem to have in this hobby.

Why is it so hard to be nice and encouraging to each other?