GMs and Players

[reimesu]

@krmbm If the random stranger on the internet doesn't also deserve the protection you afford your friends, then this isn't actually people being principled, it's people playing favorites. And again, not interested in that game. Been on it before. It's not a lot of fun and doesn't protect the people in the outer circles.

Nothing's been explained to my satisfaction, clearly, and I think that there's been an AWFUL lot of favoritism and bullying masquerading as 'social justice' today. Bullying is bullying, whether you do it in the name of social justice or protecting your friends and no one else or whatever other reason you want to tag it with.

I'm aware this won't change anyone's mind, but that's ok. I have my own takeaway on it.

[krmbm]

@derp Okay.

[Derp]

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

When did I EVER say that we should ban innocent people?

You did, my dude. Right here:

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

Like if someone came to me and said Ruiz was on my game, I wouldn't even blink twice even if I couldn't prove it.

You would ban a person on purely an accusation with no proof whatsoever, whether they were the person or not, regardless of what harm it would do to them or their reputation in the process. You literally do not care whether they are the guilty party, you just boot them anyway.

How is it not clicking for you that the things you're saying run in opposite directions? I mean, really. Do you really think this, and the concept of "of course we would never ban an innocent person" are actually compatible?

[krmbm]

@derp Hey, you know there's a difference between "couldn't prove it" and "no proof," right? Like, they couldn't prove the former president assaulted multiple women, but that doesn't mean there's no proof. Just checking.

[Derp]

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

Hey, you know there's a difference between "couldn't prove it" and "no proof," right?

That's not how proof works. You either have proof of something or you don't.

Are you thinking perhaps of evidence?

[Roz]

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

@bear_necessities Isn't it? Roz is talking about banning innocent people in the name of the greater good.

Go on, you guys explain to me how going all nuclear option on innocent people is the right thing to do. I'm listening. Explain to me how mentally harming innocent people is a good thing.

That's a pretty big misrepresentation of what I've said. I could use that same sort of logic to say, "Explain to me how letting an abusive stalker remain on a game because you don't have 100% incontrovertible evidence of all their action is a good thing." But I don't think anyone is actually saying that. Just like I'm not saying it. But both sides of the argument end up potentially harming someone. That was my point. Both sides do harm when people get it wrong.

It feels like you've taken your situation, mashed it together with a really painful part of your life, and said, "Roz would have been one of the people causing my pain." And yet nowhere have I said that I am in favor of wielding staff power with absolutely no judgment. Your situation as described sounds awful, and I am sorry that you had to go through it. It also sounds fairly different from what I was speaking about. I think whisper campaigns are a really nasty beast, and the one you've described clearly wasn't handled well by the staff of the game you were on.

@faraday said in GMs and Players:

@roz said in GMs and Players:

any bad actor can easily avoid putting their efforts into places that can been directly reported on the games that are on Ares. If these are the only methods of evidence that are acceptable, you will be leaving countless openings for bad actors to exploit.

Channels, mails, pages, and scenes can all be reported in Ares, so I think you're pretty covered? If someone is aware of a gap in the reporting defense I'd love to know about it.

Apologies, I didn't mean gaps in Ares itself. I meant more that people will simply go off-game to pursue manipulation on platforms that are judged to be more easily faked or doctored so that any evidence that comes from it will just be doubted by a game's staff and deemed unactionable if they're only prepared to act on activity that occurs on the game proper.

[faraday]

@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:

Come on now, you know and I know that this isn't at all what we're saying here.

I'm really confused because that is exactly what I see people saying?

I have repeatedly seen people saying they would ban even if they weren't sure it was a stalker, that it's better to accidentally ban an innocent person than to leave a stalker on the game, that "issue a DNC and if they bother you I'll ban them" is an unacceptable and callous response, and so on.

I'm not saying that's what everyone is saying (or you specifically), but it sure seems like a pretty clear message.

[reimesu]

@roz Faraday just said what I was thinking and said it better. I defer to her.

[GreenFlashlight]

If we are going to be serious about defending victims of false accusations here, people who are not stalkers but have been labeled so by evil actors, then let's get serious about it.

If a game's policy is that any claim of harassment must be proven with incontrovertible evidence, then that means we are comfortable beginning from the position that people who report abuse cannot be trusted, right? That they are liars or, at least, too mentally incompetent to understand what other players are doing to them. Since such people are so untrustworthy, their reports must be investigated, correct? That's the only reasonable thing to do. No one's saying they're liars, just that they can't be trusted.

So, investigations have to happen. And what happens if an investigation doesn't prove the accuser's allegations? You have to do something about that, right? After all, either the person is either so addicted to drama they'll convince themselves they're being harassed even when they're not, or she's out to hurt some poor innocent man for no reason. You should make a note that she made unsubstantiated claims in case she ever does it again. It can be like a strike against her, except we won't call it a strike. Maybe you should make her sit down with the person she wrongly accused so he can explain to her how it totally wasn't harassment. I'm sure with a staffer in the room to monitor it, nothing could go wrong.

Then, if she was unwilling to reconcile with and/or apologize to the man she wrongfully accused despite having been proven to have misrepresented what happened to her, you could probably form a conclusion from that, right? It means she's too disruptive to allow on your game. Doesn't really matter if she's malicious or mentally unstable; the result is the same either way. You should probably kick her off the game to prevent future drama.

It's the only way to be fair to everyone.

[Derp]

@greenflashlight

[GreenFlashlight]

@derp Do you feel as if I am being unfair to you?

As if I am talking past you without listening to what you're saying?

As if I am allowing my bias to trick me into advocating for something hateful and hurtful while thinking I am advocating for the innocent?

Maybe even as if I am using the specters of some vague group of unnamed victims as human shields in a cynical attempt to make it harder to disagree with my position because anything you say will seem like it's targeting those vague victims rather than my positions or even me?

That must be terrible. It's so unfair that I can't relate.

[reimesu]

@greenflashlight You just manged to accuse someone who just helped defend me from a stalker literally last week of helping stalkers because he wants some kind of evidence. Not even vast amounts of evidence, just...something.

I am aware of Derp's history and I don't condone everything he says. We have our disagreements. But meanwhile, Dev, Faraday and I have all been advocating for the same thing and you're not accusing us of being heinous scumbags.

Again, I have a lot of thoughts, but this is the Mildly Constructive forum, so I'll try to remain mildly constructive and bite my tongue. A lot.

[Devrex]

@greenflashlight I think you are being unfair. I think you took that straight to the most extreme hyperbole possible. It certainly doesn't match up with the reality of how I have seen Derp handle people who need help. If you meant it to be a demonstrative example, or to get your own back somehow, then we've moved far afield of the point. We have gone from a civil discussion about principles and best practices and the pros and cons of two approaches to basically just attacking Derp. Heck, a few folks have said this is now just about attacking Derp for some past threads, and we have now moved so far past "constructive" it's not even funny. I have watched Derp be the first to jump in and defend people who need help.

Since I'm AFAB, and didn't start transitioning into well into my 40s, I hear you when you say, as you seem to be, if I try to give your words their most civil possible reading, that you are concerned that asking people to provide some sort of evidence of wrongdoing is accusing someone who has been hurt of lying, and this is a systemic thing that often happens to women, and that's something that is a societal problem. And I suppose, taken to its worst possible extreme that people could indeed do that...but that does not do anything but say "things taken to their worst possible extremes have bad results."

A measured, careful, moderate, and quiet attempt to discern truth while asking people to hit a report button on a system that literally tracks your pages all the way back to the first page you send and can pull them up and send them on is nothing like that worst extreme. Especially when "hey, this is the way things work around here, please be prepared to at least do that much and this is why" is right on the tin.

This is why isn't BECAUSE ANYONE WHO CLAIMS ABUSE IS A LYING LIAR WHO LIES.

"This is why" is I believe, I believe, because I wrote the policy and asked Derp to help me enforce it, that an evidence-based society is one I want to live in, not a mob rule society.

I believe it having gone through all sorts of the same sort of stuff y'all are talking about, feeling all alone because there was nobody to help me, knowing that, knowing I had nothing, and still believing in that principle. I believe in it strongly. I believe in it to the bottom of my heart. I believe that most of the time, these asshats are just not that clever, that the trail is there if people will just share it.

[Wizz]

@devrex said in GMs and Players:

I believe that most of the time, these asshats are just not that clever, that the trail is there if people will just share it.

Then you are underestimating abusers who have literally had decades to perfect their MO in an extremely specific medium and in the process you are doing an enormous disservice to vulnerable players.

I'm not saying there aren't idiots among them, there obviously are. But in assuming that's somehow the majority you are being arrogant and also showing us a really disappointing contempt for the people they hurt.

[Devrex]

@wizz But doing guesswork based on gut feeling is not equally arrogant, just in the other direction? If the premise is, "manipulators are very good at fooling people" then how do I know the person who flings the accusation isn't trying to manipulate me into kicking someone off my game so as to ensure some evidence they have doesn't get out? If they're really this masterful, then an approach of "Ok, someone said someone else is bad, they gotta go" is just as bad.

We all gotta draw our baselines for how we will protect our communities and if there were a perfect answer there would be no room to have these discussions, but there is not a perfect answer. And again, letting me see the log where the person was being manipulative and giving me the chance to pick up on it doesn't hurt. Sometimes these victims aren't sure if they're being wronged and in fact need someone to say "Hell yes, now let's talk about how we deal with it" and by asking them to submit what the hell went on, we can then have that conversation.

[Wizz]

@devrex said in GMs and Players:

If the premise is, "manipulators are very good at fooling people" then how do I know the person who flings the accusation isn't trying to manipulate me into kicking someone off my game so as to ensure some evidence they have doesn't get out? If they're really this masterful, then an approach of "Ok, someone said someone else is bad, they gotta go" is just as bad.

Yeah, if I started from the base assumption that everyone has an angle and could possibly be manipulating me in that situation, I would have a hard time understanding it too.

But that just comes back again to having more arrogance and contempt than empathy. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[Devrex]

@wizz You don't know me. I have made no attacks on your person. I'll thank you to make none on mine, nor to make assumptions about me. You are welcome to think what you wish of course, but the last feeling I feel is contempt. If you want to engage with the point let's engage with the point. If you just wish to call me names because you do not like my position, then there's no point in continuing. I have in fact engaged in no attacks on anyone's person, other than to say I thought @GreenFlashlight was making an unfair argument. An argument, not stuff about them personally.

[reimesu]

@wizz No, that's coming from experience. Shit, Dev had to convince ME that my particular joyous bundle of creep was, in fact, being predatory. Because that guy weaponized stupidity like it's a damn art form. But because I communicated, it got sorted and fast.

Wanting evidence isn't a crime. It should be the baseline for decency. So should communication. If someone came to me as a staffer and said, "I'm being stalked," the FIRST reaction should be, "Ok, how do you know, what's going on? Talk to me." Next comes "How do you want to handle this? What is it you're looking for."

That "how do you know?" is the request for evidence. The answer could be "They have the same handle as on the other game, I've been having an issue on the other game, I'd like to make it known so that if it happens here, something is done about it." Or maybe "Would you please talk to the headwiz on Other Game and corroborate this?" Or any number of other responses. It's not always logs, it's some form of backing up your assertion.

Now you explain to me how that lacks empathy and is arrogant. Go on. I'm listening.

[Wizz]

@reimesu said in GMs and Players:

@wizz No, that's coming from experience. Shit, Dev had to convince ME that my particular joyous bundle of creep was, in fact, being predatory. Because that guy weaponized stupidity like it's a damn art form. But because I communicated, it got sorted and fast.

I really don't know how to explain to you that your experience is not universal if you honestly think it is. Frankly, you got lucky that someone intervened at that stage. Other people don't and holding what happens next against them if they might not have kept receipts after an extended period of gaslighting and manipulation is just shitty, period.

@devrex

Frankly, after watching you and @derp both go on about this for over five pages now I don't think there is anything that could possibly be productive about anyone continuing this conversation with either of you, no.

[Ganymede]

As someone studying the new Title IX regulations, I can only watch in horror.