GMs and Players
-
@farfalla Ok, but you're also misrepresenting.
Faraday and Derp were making the point of "ask for a DNC, either directly or through staff. The first time it's violated, we can remove them immediately." They're not asking for a 'three strikes, you're out' rule. They're not even asking for "give me logs". And it can be done in such a way that the stalkee never needs to contact the stalker.
How is this a bad thing?
-
I'd like to offer a proposal that we collectively move on because no one is ever going to persuade anyone on this subject. Derp will always champion the alleged abuser vis a vis "easily forged" logs and women randomly discrediting people for some reason, and a large portion of the forum will always choose to throw accused abusive men out with the garbage assuming no value lost.
The only difference that we see here is that we're supposedly in the constructive part of the forum, but I see nothing constructive in continuing to flagellate this particular dead horse.
Surely there's some other expectation management that we can disagree about that won't come back to this old chestnut.
-
@reimesu I'm not misrepresenting anything. One strike is too many, and people being stalked will leave the game if told a DNC is the answer. The stalker wins, the stalked player loses. Game runners can make whatever decisions they want from that fact. If you're fine with that, okay.
-
@derp How do you expect someone to "prove" that someone else is stalking them? I don't even get that, like what evidence would you even need in this situation??? Usually stalkers don't come onto games and page the person they are stalking like yo wuzzup it's me, your stalker, but if you've been stalked by the same person for long enough, you know their mannerisms, how they RP, the kinds of characters they make, etc.
Look, I'm not saying you should always side with your existing players but if they are otherwise reliable narrators, why would you believe they have some nefarious purpose in declaring so-and-so a stalker? And I think that's kind of the crux of what you're saying - you have to have proof becase otherwise you could just be telling lies and honestly that's how you get people like Ruiz, or that Down with OPP guy everyone talks about, and by the time you figure it out it's way too late and it's already tainted your game.
-
@saosmash That is not what @derp has been saying at all. He said "use the in-game tools which are almost impossible to forge," and "we will patrol this place by this standard" and no more. Not leaping all over someone just because someone said so is not championing the abuser.
He/Him
-
@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:
How do you expect someone to "prove" that someone else is stalking them?
My point was that I don't. I don't need you to prove it. Because your out-of-game interpersonal relationships aren't my problem.
I have a set of rules. One of those rules is that someone can ask for no contact for any reason. Period. Once you invoke that, if he contacts you, then we can boot his ass. Easy.
If he doesn't contact you, then it's a moot point.
If you think that there is some other kind of shady shit going on -- he's paging your friends or whatever, or I don't even know -- then that leaves a trail too and likely violates our general "don't be a dick" policy.
@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:
why would you believe they have some nefarious purpose in declaring so-and-so a stalker? And I think that's kind of the crux of what you're saying - you have to have proof becase otherwise you could just be telling lies and honestly that's how you get people like Ruiz, or that Down with OPP guy everyone talks about, and by the time you figure it out it's way too late and it's already tainted your game.
Because doing the opposite of this and just taking everyone at face value is how you get people like Spider, and some of the people at games like The Network right now, just making random accusations and expecting that staff will act on it because they said so, to the detriment of those not in the person's in-group.
That sword cuts two ways, and I prefer to err on the side of the one backed by stronger evidence than someone's deep conviction.
-
@derp said in GMs and Players:
If he doesn't contact you, then it's a moot point.
Not really. Do you honestly think that on a small game, the only way someone can affect you is by contacting you directly?
#FreeFarfalla
-
@meg said in GMs and Players:
Do you honestly think that on a small game, the only way someone can affect you is by contacting you directly?
So you just skipped right on past that 'some other kind of shady shit' sentence to call this one out?
I already answered this question.
-
@devrex said in GMs and Players:
Not leaping all over someone just because someone said so is not championing the abuser.
It's not coming across that way, just so you know.
It's really coming across like @Derp wouldn't believe you if you told him you were being stalked unless you have some kind of "lol hi found you!!!!! stalking you again!" log of the person.
The ones that are good at this are gonna see right through the holes in this policy and manipulate it.
-
@derp ok, would you consider them going to every GM scene shady shit, for example? Or them talking on channels in PA ways that may or may not refer to you? There's a lot of things that can affect you when someone who is stalking you is on the same small game as you, that you might not consider 'shady' and isn't just, page your friends.
#FreeFarfalla
-
@meg said in GMs and Players:
would you consider them going to every GM scene shady shit, for example?
Did you do the DNC thing like was suggested? Because that would include GM scenes. If it becomes some kind of a problem of race conditions, we'll figure out a fair way to get you both into things without you having to be in things together.
Or them talking on channels in PA ways that may or may not refer to you?
Uh. I guess it depends? This one is pretty vague, but I suppose it could fall under the general "don't be a dick" clause? I'd need something more concrete to go off of.
-
@krmbm said in GMs and Players:
It's really coming across like @Derp wouldn't believe you if you told him you were being stalked unless you have some kind of "lol hi found you!!!!! stalking you again!" log of the person.
@derp said in GMs and Players:
I'd need something more concrete to go off of.
Case in point.
-
Meaning "I need a more concrete example of the behavior in question. What is said? About what? Give me an example."
I don't know what "passive aggressive comments on channel that may or may not be about you" means.
-
@derp said in GMs and Players:
Because doing the opposite of this and just taking everyone at face value is how you get people like Spider, and some of the people at games like The Network right now, just making random accusations and expecting that staff will act on it because they said so, to the detriment of those not in the person's in-group.
So I'm definitely not saying take everyone at face value or accept 'random' accusations against people and unilaterally ban without any evidence whatsoever. I'm talking for extreme cases like stalking or people who have been knowingly abusive in the community. 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. If I thought a new character was the person on my no-fly list, who have a HISTORY of being abusive crazy manipulators? There's the door. The risk to my game by banning someone like that is minimal; the risk of keeping them until they 'show' themselves is huge.
And honestly it sounds like you got burnt and that sucks and there are definitely people on games who have their own cliques that cozy up to staff and get rid of people they don't like. It goes back to staff needing to create a safe and collaborative community.
-
@krmbm @meg Look, creating a hostile environment, on channels, no less, is behavior that can (and would) be seen and responded to. It probably wouldn't take too long to pick up on it. People being aggressive or passive-aggressively rude for any reason is enough to get me telling them to cut it out even without DNCs or a history of stalking, and if they keep doing it well now they're violating the "You kept on when someone asked you to stop" policy, and out they go.
I really don't understand why we're turning this whole thing of "setting down rules" and abiding by them into "you terrible abuse enablers."
If we wanted to read some of y'all's arguements in the worst possible light, we could say oh ok, so if I come on your game and am only there a month, minding my own business, and someone thinks I happen to be someone who wronged them ten years ago (I'm not, in fact, or I didn't) or because I don't click with you well enough to become your friend then as soon as someone who has played there three months and who you like okay lobbies the accusation I'm going to find myself with my reputation smeared. No stopping even to get my side of the story, or even to verify if I'm the fellow in question.
But I don't read it that way, because I'm not trying to read you in the worst possible light. I hear you saying you really care about protecting your friends (and others) from abusive behavior and cool, we can agree on that, I really care about that too. I disagree on how to get there and why it's important to go about getting there in a certain way, but I'm not interested in maligning you over that disagreement.
It would be kind if you would stop maligning those of us who follow the other philosophy in your turn.
He/Him
-
@devrex said in GMs and Players:
I really don't understand why we're turning this whole thing of "setting down rules" and abiding by them into "you terrible abuse enablers."
FWIW I think it's worth pointing out that some of these reactions and responses are absolutely driven not just by this particular conversation, but a lot of previous conversations had with Derp centered on the same topic of balancing this particular issue. I wouldn't necessarily take responses to him as also necessarily being aimed at you.
-
@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:
So I'm definitely not saying take everyone at face value or accept 'random' accusations against people and unilaterally ban without any evidence whatsoever. I'm talking for extreme cases like stalking or people who have been knowingly abusive in the community. 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.
The problem is that these two statements are contradictory, because the thing that you said not to do in the first is exactly the thing you're doing in the second. And because of that:
@bear_necessities said in GMs and Players:
The risk to my game by banning someone like that is minimal;
I don't think that this is an accurate statement. I mean, for you, it probably is, but for me, the calculus just falls the other way. Because, I dunno, I'm a crazy misogynist abuse enabler or whatever.
Honestly, I think it's also about what kinds of players do you want to attract. Do you want the ones that care about rules, and process, and transparency, even if it takes time? Or do you want the ones that prefer immediate gut-check judgment calls based on personal beliefs and social opinions? Those are two different kinds of player, and while neither of them is neccessarily inherently wrong -- they both have some positives and negatives -- they're not really compatible viewpoints.
I'm attempting to attract the former. It sounds like you're trying to attract the latter. I'm not sure there's a middle ground there.
Also, weird. My post got cut off and then doubled, so the deleted one down below isn't like, a flounce-off delete of something. Just removing a dupe.
-
This post is deleted! -
@devrex At a point, if this many people are reading what someone is writing in a particular way... doesn't that mean it's probably written that way?
The philosophy I'm maligning really sounds like @Derp needs proof that something happened on the game - because that's what's been said. And I am going to malign that philosophy, because I have personally seen how that can lead to emotional harm.
I don't think it's a good practice. Why should I not tell people that? Especially since I have personal experience with the harm that it caused.
If you don't want to take the advice, don't take it. And if we're all reading this wrong, then please set the record straight.
Cuz right now it just ain't a good look.
-
Also for what it's worth, as a staffer, I burned myself many times clinging to a philosophy of rules and transparency and would have saved myself and my fellow staffers a heck of a lot of sturm and drang if we hadn't stuck to our 3 strikes policy and had just shown some shitheels the door earlier in the process.
I no longer staff anywhere but if I did I feel like I would want to be way more empowered to go "you know what this player is a bad fit can we just tell them to leave". Regardless of written rule or policy. I never want to think about how many strikes a player has ever again.
