What Would it Take to Repair the Community?

[Seraphim73]

@Ghost Dude, Spider literally ruined someone's RL house and wouldn't accept responsibility. That's not overbearing or unfair. That's just crappy.

Beyond that one example, I have absolutely no wish to provide someone who has demonstrated themselves to be a crappy person with (usually yet) another chance. If they want to demonstrate that they can fix their behaviors through communications with me or through their actions on another game, I might give them another chance. But if I'm already staffing a game, I don't want to put in even more time and energy watching someone like a hawk who I know has demonstrated bad behaviors in the past. I want to spend my time and energy providing a fun game for the players who I know are there to have a good, safe time.

[Derp]

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

Preemptively banning someone is not something I do lightly, but when I do I can assure anyone that asks that I have done my homework. No one has to believe me when I say that, and my word as a person is on somewhat shaky grounds these days -- or so I have been told.

To be clear, that wasn't a dig at you in any way. At least, it was not intended to be. If that's the way it came across, I apologize. You and I have somewhat different standards when it comes to this sort of thing, and we've talked about that before, but I believe that everything you did you did with the best of intentions and with everyone's best interest in mind.

You and I differ on where that line is, is all.

@Seraphim73 said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

You've banned or driven off most of the people you claim were bullies.

I assume this is the general 'you'? Because I didn't actually ban a single person. I voted, with a group, on who should stay and who should come back and who should remain banned, and lest someone think we are a hivemind, the ban votes were not unanimous.

I know that the fun narrative right now is that I made some kind of authoritarian power grab, but I think that the other admins can confirm that we do things by vote, not fiat, and I was then one of three, and then one of five, and then once again one of three.

Other than that, I agree that there are levels of proof, some being better than others. But I wholly disagree that 'the crowd will rise up and defend the innocent of wrongdoing' is a realistic or viable strategy in the face of false accusations, as that doesn't usually mean they are innocent of wrongdoing. Only that they're popular enough to have friends that will speak on their behalf.

The same Spider that you decry above had plenty of people defending those same "false accusations" against her for years.

[Ghost]

@Seraphim73 said in What Would it Take to Repair the Community?:

@Ghost Dude, Spider literally ruined someone's RL house and wouldn't accept responsibility. That's not overbearing or unfair. That's just crappy.

Don't move them into your house then? I'm not here to litigate civil matters between two strangers who claim the other ruined their house. I'm not a court and I'm not some kind of MU Parole Officer.

Reality is that a person's presence on a MU doesn't damage plywood, and regardless of their RL status on whether or not they've paid REAL damages someone else says they owe them, if they're willing to be nice to people and not cheat, their behavior on the game should allow them to play. Players who don't like them will avoid them if they choose. In fact, this is part of the reason why if someone (who doesn't have a history of unsafe/threatening behavior on these games, but somewhat disliked) asked me to keep them anonymous, I probably would.

The person whose home was allegedly ruined by Spider has all of the available resources to take them to court for it and can handle that just fine in the real world. I'm not going to carry someone else's grudge against someone for them in their absence.

[Ghost]

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

But I wholly disagree that 'the crowd will rise up and defend the innocent of wrongdoing'

Agreed.

To be fair, I've seen plenty of innocent people accused by popular people, only to have droves of people who don't want to be retaliated against choose not to speak up on their behalf. There also seems to be "unlimited soup, salad, and breadsticks" in terms of goodwill for a number of "popular" people to mistreat others and punish people over false, word-of-mouth accusations and move on with life without being held accountable for it either because their friends don't keep them in check or people are afraid of being retaliated against.

What I see when I read this "even accusations without proof will have the innocent defended" is something more like "we want the right to public trials without evidence and if our friends are wrongly accused we will make sure they're safe".

Example. @Seraphim73 ? What if I told you that Spider was playing a game and was claiming they were wrongly accused of abusing the system by a friend of yours? No one has a log. No one can prove that Spider was being falsely accused, nor was actually guilty. Your friend goes online, makes accusations without receipts, and 4 pages of making fun of Spider follows.

Can you HONESTLY say you would do your due diligence to ensure that the accused wasn't being mistreated for something they may not have done? If you found out that it was a false accusation would you be willing to tell 4 pages of Hog Pit flaming that Spider was innocent and didn't do anything wrong regardless of the way you would be treated for standing up for them?

Because this is ultimately the "MU community justice system" in a nutshell.

[reimesu]

@Ghost Look. You keep defending Spider, but numerous people brought evidence. They brought logs. They brought anecdotes. The staffers came in and told their tale.

None of that happened in a vacuum. If you need to defend someone, (in my opinion,) pick a better subject. Spider is a lot of the reason why I want evidence before I'm willing to ban someone. I've seen too many people hounded off a game because Spider decided they were doing something wrong and told Spider's in-crowd. (Edited to fix pronouns.)

[Ghost]

@reimesu Oh no, I'm not defending Spider specifically. I have had negative experiences with them, too. Not the biggest fan, personally. I'm just using the word as an example, more or less. An <insert usual suspect> name more than anything.

I agree that they specifically are a good lesson learned for getting logs and ensuring logs. I'm a fan of logs. I'm just trying to paint a picture.

[reimesu]

@Ghost Ok, that's fair. I mistook what you wrote, then, thank you for clarifying! I admit, Spider's a hot-button issue for me.

[Ghost]

@reimesu Yeah, I'd seen a number of people chased off a game by their unfair play, so I do understand the complaints against them. I was just trying to think of a name that wasn't like....a sexual harasser or blackmailer.

I suppose logically to me there are tiers of "usual suspects". Not sure WHERE the line is drawn between tiers, but tiers make sense to me.

[TNP]

It's really very simple... This is the internet. Being anonymous is simple. If you fuck up and make yourself unwelcome, regret it, and change your behavior, NO ONE will ever know what you did in the past unless you admit it. Moving on is simple.

These assholes being preemptively banned have never done that. They repeat their behavior to the degree that who they are is obvious even when they try to pretend they're someone else. They've never reformed and just repeat their toxic, predatory, possibly illegal behavior.

The ones who grow up/change their ways? Simple pass as normal players.

[Ganymede]

@TNP

I concur wholly.

I do not regret preemptively banning people for the same reason that I don’t allow some of my exes into my house for a party. I have nothing against them all the time, but I just don’t want to have to deal with them. Some people may think I am being unfair, but it is my house, so I get to make that decision. If they don’t like it, they can go elsewhere.

Similarly, if I know that someone is bound to be a murderhobo in my campaign, I don’t invite them. I don’t care if some of the invitees like the person; my game, my place, my decision. If that means people don’t come over, so be it. I played with Spider; I have been played by Spider; and I have staffed with Spider; so I know exactly why I would not let her on my game.

[Derp]

@TNP

It's really not that simple. That kind of reputational damage can go an awful long way, especially with false accusations. In case you didn't notice, the people in this hobby can hold grudges about the most petty shit for literal decades because folks just turn it over and over in their head until it's blown up in proportion to something greater than it ever was.

That kind of reputational damage can ruin friendships. It obliterates histories you've built up with other people, tarnishes good memories, and you always run the risk of slipping up and having someone come down on you for not outing yourself as someone people already have a grudge against.

So, sure, if you're part of the in-group this seems like a trivial thing because you never managed to cross someone with the power to bring that kind of damage against you. But there are others who have.

And so I strongly disagree that a pre-emptive ban does less damage and is the better course just based on the fact that you can start over. Not to mention the sheer fact that banning based on evidence-less accusation 'just in case' puts the burden of proof on the accused, rather than the accuser, and it's almost impossible to prove that you aren't whatever someone is accusing you of. Proofs based on absence of evidence are a logical fallacy for a reason.

[Ganymede]

@Derp

I think you missed the point of what TNP was implying about internet anonymity.

[Derp]

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

@Derp

I think you missed the point of what TNP was implying about internet anonymity.

Do enlighten me, then. I don't think I did, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

[RightMeow]

@Derp

I could be wrong, but I think that @TNP meant you would not be banned if you just showed up to a game and acted kindly and decent. No one would be the wiser because everyone is a bit anonymous on the internet.

Those that it normally happens to is because they fail to do this. They show their calling cards.

(You in general sense)

[Warma Sheen]

@Derp He's saying that if someone has actually changed, it is easy to get around a preemptive ban. They just come up with a new screen name and can avoid being associated with their previous reputation by just being a decent person / player.

So a free clean slate is easy. In theory. But some people are so crappy that they can't help themselves from repeating the same crappy mistakes of being crappy to other people. Some people are unable or unwilling to be better so they keep doing the same crappy things and whether or not they are associated with their previous identity still end up banned for still being a generally crappy person. These are the people being preemptively banned who continuously do crappy things. And it is better for everyone involved that they and their reputations (and baggage) be left outside.

[Derp]

@Ganymede @RightMeow @Warma-Sheen

Ah. Then no, I didn't miss that. I get that people think that part is easy.

But what it doesn't take into account is that keeping up that level of anonymity even with good behavior is exhausting. It's easy to make slips about anything that happened in the past. Relationships you've built with other people. Good times that you had.

Friendships can be tarnished based on the old identity, and so going into those circles becomes awkward because on the one hand, you like these people, but on the other -- how do you just come out and tell them that you're this other person that has all of this negative baggage associated with them?

We've seen, on this forum, blowups about people 'flying under the radar' even when they haven't done anything recent, just based on prior history and being outed.

So no, I didn't miss that going into a game under a different identity is "easy." I was countering with "it is harder than you think, exhausting, and potentially unfair if based on slim evidence given the way this hobby tends to work."

IMO it is not the lesser of two evils, and I don't condone it.

[hobos]

@Hella

I know. You have never encouraged me to defend you, regardless of what people say or think. You're right; people will believe whatever, and it's okay. There's enough room on the planet and on the internet for everybody.

It is pretty weird to see people actually encouraging 'hey, you can just start over at a place and pretend to be someone else' right here right now though.

[Ganymede]

@Derp

If changing was easy, anyone could do it without an ounce of good faith. But it isn’t.

My overarching, overall point is that those who genuinely want to change can and will. The point being, of course, the will. It is the same will used to do what is right, instead of popular.

But I accede that it is difficult, and people who don’t want to do it won’t. And that’s why I am okay with permanent bans, instead of temporary ones, shutting people out of life, and generally carrying on in the wake.

I ain’t got no time for that bulljive.

[Warma Sheen]

@hobos You don't have to pretend to be someone else. You can still be you. You just distance yourself from your past by not announcing yourself as having played X, Y, or Z characters. It isn't that foreign of a concept.

I've done it. It wasn't that difficult for me. People did not like my style of playing when I first started. I changed my views and moved forward without having to worry about the people with the torches and pitchforks who thought I was a horrible human person because I had a different perspective on how funtimes game should be played years and years ago.

But regardless of all that, I definitely prefer an outlet that encourages people to change for the better and grow.

[Kestrel]

@simplications

I'm calling bullshit on all of this. You're a phony. Using the language of the oppressed while siding with the oppressor is textbook fascist baloney, and while the current crop of useful idiots might eat it up, I am not buying any of it.

We can skip past the fact that you have such strong opinions and intimate knowledge of MSB's Hog Pit despite supposedly having only registered an account here after it was done away with. I'm willing to bet that one of the threads you're determined to see expunged is about you, but as that's speculation, let me instead point out the factual inaccuracies:

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

At what point did the forum protect someone? If Jerkface gets banned from the game he's on, it's not because he's somehow been identified as Jerkface without having engaged in bad behavior. The identification requires the bad behavior to occur. The behavior, and the toll it takes on the victimized, has not been prevented.

1. Cullen/Azazello/Surtr was banned from at least two games as a direct result of the thread that started about him in the Hog Pit and was later cross-posted to Reddit. The two games I know of having done this are TI: Legacy and After Earth.

He preyed on players on both games. On TI, from the forum post, I presume that his target either didn't come forward at the time, or that it was an isolated incident and therefore not treated as actionable. With regards to After Earth, I actually know a little more: he made it to the staff team despite rumours of abusive behaviour, was eventually banned by the head dev, and then managed to talk his way out of it and get the ban reversed.

The head dev had doubts about him, but because he's a serial gaslighter and making people doubt their own reality is what he does, he was able to suppress them. Seeing the thread helped corroborate many people's individual experiences as being part on an overarching pattern and realise that no, they're not the jerks for disbelieving him, he is for lying to and manipulating him. He was then rebanned, this time permanently.

Never mind what he did on some stupid game though, because my real issue with him has always been that he uses these games to form real-world relationships with the women on them, and then uses game mechanics to further stalk, harass and control them in their communities. He's driven good players out of this hobby, some of whom never returned, and I for one am sick of it. How does the thread protect people? Because when you're being gaslit in an abusive relationship and asking yourself, 'Is it me, am I the crazy one?' Seeing a bunch of other people screaming from the rooftops, 'No, you're not, get out!' can absolutely make a difference between life and death.

lol I know life and death sounds so dramatic. His criminal record includes a Class B felony, but I think sharing that with the class would be against the rules. Sorry, no receipts.

DWOPP and @ZombieKerouac were also successfully banned from multiple games thanks to identification on MSB, and I for one do not think any of these people deserve any more chances to further poison this hobby or hurt anyone else.

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

In order for that behavior to be reported, it has to have been done to or in the presence of someone that is reporting it. Did they skip reporting it to the game runners and instead came to the forum instead? This doesn't make any sense.

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

I wouldn't want to see any of these as posts. If someone is acting in a problematic way on a game you're on, you should take it to the game runners. They have the opportunity to hear what you have to say, possibly compare it to other reports they may have heard, and get the other side of the story from the accused. This protects all parties.

2. What if the abusive person is staff? As has been the case on Firan, Sindome, and After Earth. Or good friends with staff? As is the case on HavenRPG. Or staff just won't, for whatever reason, do anything about it, as is the case on many games where people don't check their privilege, and plug their ears imagining that since they don't see it and aren't directly affected — and may never be affected, for example because they're men — then it isn't happening or doesn't matter, because IC is IC, and there's surely no way for OOC malice to tarnish that without the victim being to blame.

3. When abusers are banned, there are always people who are like, 'Wow that seems unjust. I happen to know his cat's uncle and he's a great guy. Maybe staff are the real abusers and banned him for no reason?' But when there's a public thread full of people coming out of the woodwork to put their hands up and say, 'This happened to me too,' it's a lot less sus.

But I don't think you care about players at all. I think protecting shitty staff and the abusers they harbour is entirely your goal, and it's a goal served by ... look I need to brush up on my political lingo, and you seem very well educated. What's the phrase about something something silence oppressor?