A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like

[Paris]

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

So I'd hate to see such an open forum used to attack innocent players

She isn't.

[Rook]

Can this be likened to a convicted sexual predator moving into your neighborhood? I think it can be.

I think that game staff, and players, have every right to say, "No nope!" to someone that is a habitual, long-term offender. Period. End of discussion at that point.

[Roz]

The fact of the matter is that at least airing issues in public allows for the opportunity of debate. Airing issues privately in whisper campaigns allows for nothing to get contradicted. Having dealt with both public airing of grievances and whisper campaigns, I'd much rather the former. I also don't think that repeatedly conflating WORA and MSB is at all useful here, because there's a pretty stark difference in how they have/do operate. I think that bringing up the words "witch hunt" whenever multiple people agree on a player being toxic or problematic is actually a pretty harmful silencing tactic for information that could be actively beneficial to the hobby at large.

[Ghost]

@Paris said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

So I'd hate to see such an open forum used to attack innocent players

She isn't.

Well, VASpider is just the first one in the stocks.

[Thenomain]

@Ghost

As a thought: Being accused of shit-talking or participating in a witch-hunt can be insulting when you're being straight-forward, and can quell conversation that might reveal the nature of the problem. I am not saying that you're wrong even if I disagree with you, but the issues of approaching an issue does go every direction. It's why I took your musings as a straight-up and honest question that deserved consideration and answered.

I was going to be sarcastic (because c'mon, look where we are), but because I wasn't your response to it was, "Uh guys, this wasn't my intent." You stepped forward like an adult to discuss things and explain yourself rationally. Respect was shared.

The same goes with this response to @Roz, and kind of answers a few people as well. "Treat everyone like an adult; expect others to behave like an adult." Once this edict starts being used by everyone, this is how we can approach touchy issues without devolving to name-calling.

Like, you know, "crap-flinging" or, to bring it back around, "witch hunt".

I'm not saying I'm innocent of this either (especially to you; sorry about that), which is why I mildly berate myself at the start of this thread, to remind myself to stop doing that.

--

edit:

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Well, VASpider is just the first one in the stocks.

Then it's up to all of us to keep ourselves in check (like adults) so that we don't start down that path. The first step is being able to identify when it's us, and when it's not.

[Paris]

Ghost, you're advocating for a player (edit: AND STAFFER) who, for over a decade, has done to others the kind of bullshit that was done to you. In some cases, she did worse.

[Arkandel]

@Roz said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

I think that bringing up the words "witch hunt" whenever multiple people agree on a player being toxic or problematic is actually a pretty harmful silencing tactic for information that could be actively beneficial to the hobby at large.

That's a common apologist tactic. Look at what happened when Custodius started getting attacked here, not even just for his past but for current actions on Arx; there was a whole campaign launched by people directly benefitting from associating with him, counter-accusing MSB of being negative and bringing everyone down.

In the cacophony of some people saying 'boo' and others going 'yay' it's easy for the truth to be lost. But at least it's still out there - imagine if MSB didn't exist. How would anyone have known about this guy, even if they had reasons to go look? The in-game forums don't allow it, staff isn't taking action, so what's left?

[Ghost]

@Paris said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Ghost, you're advocating for a player (edit: AND STAFFER) who, for over a decade, has done to others the kind of bullshit that was done to you. In some cases, she did worse.

Oh I'm not advocating for HER, Paris. I'm not trying to stop this discussion at all. I'm about to politely bow out of it.

I'm more or less advocating at this point for other people who might not be so deserving of ugly, open displays of he-said-she-said that may follow.

I'm not accusing ANYONE of shit talking or whatever, I'm just being this philosophical little toad in the corner going "...but what are we if not evolved creatures and this method of Socratic turns into mob justice?" LOL. I can totally get it that you guys are like "Okay, fuckoff Ghost, VASpider's earned this".

The floor is yours, folks. I'll stop it with the DVD commentary.

[Seraphim73]

@HelloProject said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

One of my big peeves about games is how staff need players to explicitly break some super well-defined rule in order for something to count as harassment or a big problem. Putting people's emotional well-being behind bureaocratic red tape is something I see as a problem

I'm totally behind the "kick out problem players the moment they become a problem, even if they haven't broken any specific rule" movement. And I fully support the right of game staff to decide what a problem player is.

Does this mean I might be kicked off a game for "nothing?" Yup.

Does this mean that those staffers might lose additional players due to "arbitrary" bans? Yup.

Does this mean that there will be bitchfests on MSB and elsewhere about how evil and wrong those staffers are? Yup.

Do I still think it's better for the hobby/game to do this? Yup.

[Ganymede]

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Well, VASpider is just the first one in the stocks.

The fuck she is.

People have bad-mouthed @Tempest. A lot. Yet she hasn't garnered the same amount of discussion. Why? Because she doesn't have a pattern of bad behavior that can be verified by multiple sources who otherwise do not have anything to do with one another.

What about the people who drive some Star Wars to the ground. Rex/Sovereign? Elsa? None of them have risen to this level, but a lot of people have come out against them.

Custodius doesn't even have this level of infamy here.

Innocent people -- even guilty people -- have not gotten the same treatment.

[Paris]

@Ghost I don't see the point in devil's advocating just to do it. It just becomes concern trolling.

We've both been targets of jerks and their cliques. I agree that using MUsoapbox for that is shitty, as it has been used for that.

This, however, is not that. It's not even arguable because she is, factually, a serial, years-long, predator who uses her staff and PCs to fuck with others, including cockblocking, slagging, and, yes, literal witch hunts (including trying to get other pcs killed for no IC reason).

She's normalised this behavior for her sycophants and has actively cultivated relationships with headstaff so she can behave with impunity. She's normalised this behavior for staff.

She's currently gloating to the people she abused about her ins with FH headstaff.

You're comparing that to what happened to us and to others. It's not remotely the same.

[Tempest]

@Ganymede said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Well, VASpider is just the first one in the stocks.

The fuck she is.

People have bad-mouthed @Tempest. A lot. Yet she hasn't garnered the same amount of discussion. Why? Because she doesn't have a pattern of bad behavior that can be verified by multiple sources who otherwise do not have anything to do with one another.

What about the people who drive some Star Wars to the ground. Rex/Sovereign? Elsa? None of them have risen to this level, but a lot of people have come out against them.

Custodius doesn't even have this level of infamy here.

Innocent people -- even guilty people -- have not gotten the same treatment.

Thanks for the laugh @Ganymede.

You guys have some seriously thin skin and fragile egos around here, if I'm even getting mentioned in the same breath as those people.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

At a certain point, you need to own your shit. These are, for better or worse, social games, and how you treat other players matters. If you consistently manipulate people, emotionally abuse them OOC, cheat, and lie, I am not going to have time for you in my pretendy funtime hobby. I do not see how this is mean. I do not see how this is unfair. I am perfectly willing to give people second chances if they show long-term evidence they have changed and own up to their mistakes. I 100% believe people can change, but I also 100% believe real internal change is about the hardest thing a person can do. It takes brutal emotional inventory that most people do not want to sit down and do. So I'll forgive readily, forget nothing, and take people as I find them, but with the full understanding that sometimes you find very shitty people.

[ThatGuyThere]

My general thoughts on behavior run along the lines of an old saying i heard as a kid.
Once is an accident,
Twice is a coincidence,
Three times is on purpose.
And I would add "and a pattern" the the last one. In general not just mushing or gaming but in life I will forgive almost anyone once, the second time I think about it a bit more but most likely they will get chance number three. If someone does something a third time it becomes what they do and who they are.

[surreality]

@ThatGuyThere Couldn't agree more with this. It's that 'fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me' thing, too, to some extent.

Patterns really are the most relevant thing, though. Pattern recognition is a survival skill for a reason, and when somebody whines on about the past being in the past while demonstrating the same patterns again, it's foolhardy to dismiss it as mere matrixing.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Innocent people -- even guilty people -- have not gotten the same treatment.

Maybe some guilty people should, but this is less treatment and more a movement, building over years. The only other person I can think of who got this treatment is Seanan McGuire, and she went on to become a relatively successful author.

I honestly think that Custodius has hit the tipping point as people have been outing him whenever possible.

[Ganymede]

@Thenomain said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

Maybe some guilty people should, but this is less treatment and more a movement, building over years. The only other person I can think of who got this treatment is Seanan McGuire, and she went on to become a relatively successful author.

Right. And what did she do? She stayed the fuck away from us. For the most part, we left her alone.

VASpider? Crawls back into the community. And then has the nerve to tell us to leave her alone.

Get out of my fucking bar. You're not welcome.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

VASpider? Crawls back into the community. And then has the nerve to tell us to leave her alone.

I can respect someone asking for space to try again. Again, someone who shows willing can show that they are no longer repeating the same patterns. It is the pattern of someone like Spider to use that space to entrench herself, like Custodius and Seanan do/did.

I say this not for you, Gany. You know this already. I say this for people at home so that they know what we're talking about, in part of my "Better Know a Twerp" series of helping people discuss and self-educate.

[Rook]

Here's a question... how does someone like this come back into the community and NOT try to do so, if their intention is pure and honest, anonymously? Doesn't the consideration of that question lend some credence, one way or the other, to understanding intent?

[Paris]

@Rook They could try not doing the thing, and accept that because they chose to do the thing for so long, they blew a lot of trust that might not come back.

If their intent is genuine, they would accept the consequences of their behavior. That's true acknowledgment of abusive behavior: all you can control is your own. If you're a better person, act like one.

In this case, there is no acknowledgment, only gloating at having an in with headstaff and accusing her victims of being creeps.

So imo the question in this case is pointless: there is no honest attempt to be better. The hypothetical is moot.