Posts made by 3543thrh67

I am not a fan of these sort of posts. I find a lot of the time it is people wanting to guilt trip people or get people to beg them to stay. That said:

I am not a fan of how things happened. Everything that has happened in the past couple weeks feels like it goes against the spirit of MSB. I don't believe MSB is the healthiest of environments and has some people who are (some where now) quite set on their views. However, in the culture that MSB cultivates, vitriol responses is part of it. It was (is?) a 'safe place' people can vent about their games, previous games, etc. I put 'safe place' in quotes because there CAN be a lot of piling on someone or over the top attack responses to certain things said. The claims that the dramas of MSB spreads outside the board, of course it does, friends talk with friends who talk with friends. That is the nature of people. However, I do think MSB kept MUSHes in a little better place than a lot of the other counterparts of mu*s because people could 'safely' express their discourse.

Now, I expressed to Gany that I did not think Derp is a good person to have as an admin. He might be the nicest of guys who advocates for the end of kicking innocent little puppies but his behavior and mannerisms have inclined me to think he is not a good leader type. When people were asking questions on his game and he had to repeatedly explain the same things to them he got very dismissive of people's concerns or thoughts very quickly. When people voice disagreement and upset feels about what he says that can be controversial or offensive he doubles down on what he says and insists that he is not saying anything that hurts the feels. His own friends have said he's not the best at social interactions. Which is fine, not everyone is. However, that is not a trait suited to 'leading' a group of people. No matter how hands off people claim to be on here (opposite has been shown for here) the admin/moderators are still the leaders and even if he is suppose to be just for code help (which doesn't seem to be the case any more?) Derp does not present a good face for some of the stuff that everyone here (and formerly here) wants as 'common' unaccepted and accepted stuff. He has more than once made comments that are very offensive and hurtful.

Gany mildly concerns me for if she is doing okay because everything that happened doesn't seem like it is in character for her. I get feelings were out of hand for everyone and it very much likely felt like a dog pile for Gany. More so after she said that Mietze is the one that needs to help solve everything that went down.Which I don't recall ever happening to Gany. I hope she is doing well, however.

With how a lot of the leadership here is I don't feel I can stay. I try not to subject myself to situations I don't feel safe or comfortable in anymore unless I have too. I know, that is a little ironic with how vicious talks in the Hogpit could get. That is expected discomfort and such, one that I accepted. The leadership stuff and the broken trust are not the 'expected discomfort' for me.

So, that is my ado.

jane3_janey#6628 - Let me know who you are after I accept or I'll likely delete you. I'll probably forget but at least I'll know you are not a spammer or scammer.

@prototart said in Hog Pit as read only:

@alzie said in Hog Pit as read only:

What happened here?

narcissistic injury

But who is the injured party?!

Forums like this also allow easier cooling off period than places like Discord or Skype. Skype is instant so the 'You're being an asshole about my friend!' keeps ticking along as people rant. Although, it also allows boiling of tempers. So, double edged sword?

@enoch said in Feet Voting:

@ganymede Accepting responsibility would be stepping down from your position. You fucked this.

I haven't seen anyone clamoring for Gany to step down. More or less just a lot of 'I'm really angry you did this and keep doing it'. And people saying that their trust needs to be earned back. The only one I've heard about asking Gany to step down is Gany.

Both sides are reacting on pretty high emotions. Friends upset about friends being hurt, both sides, and it is causing everyone to get even more upset and chaining it. One person gets upset about their friend then another does, etc.

@jomomomo said in Hog Pit as read only:

It had effects that would go beyond just the message board subscribers. It wasn't like this hidden enclave beyond the view or senses of anyone who "opted out." The amount of manufactured and unnecessary drama that spilled out into the games themselves, discord chats, etc. is incalculable. And yeah - I subscribed because one day I was minding my own business and suddenly started getting paged by all these people asking me about some made-up, misconstrued BS that was emanating from that cess pit.

So.. It spread just like anything people upset about regardless of what game/hobby/whatever it is complaints about? Humans talk and gossip, no matter how much they claim they ignore it and don't do it. Who would have thoughts humans were being humans that were upset about something they perceived as offensive/perceived as a person being awful and that spread out of a single platform. If upset feels didn't spill into other things we would not have constant coverages about celebrities' or political figures.

Doesn't not having the hogpit rather defeat the purpose of what this board was originally created for? A place where people can express their displeasure/rants about games.

Atharia is active, depending on how you define active. If you mean constant RP at any time, we're not that. We're pretty casual and probably more along the lines of table top style.

I can, sometimes, run plots several days in a row or it could be a few weeks in between. A lot of my players have a ton of RL and I don't 'plan' events/scenes. I just nudge them on discord and/or on the game to see who is available for plot things.

That being said, we do have several plots available and as long as the game doesn't suddenly become so huge I can't keep doing it: I'm happy to run personal story plots/scenes for people. Like, if you want a chat with an NPC I control to talk about your day with, I'm game. Or you want to chat with a God I control, I'm happy to pop on. Or, you want to look/create past events for your character. Basically, anything you find of interest that I can do, I'm likely to do. Obviously if Atharia blows up far passed the 10 to 15 players we have, I'll have to rethink how to run plots and stuff. But, atm, I try to gear towards those about and push people to make each other shine over trying to do everything.

@faraday Isn't a character, PC or NPC, suppose to have depth when it is 'named'? Why shouldn't they have IC bias and do something extra for a character they have some sort of relationship? Even if the character is an NPC King.

IT is safe to say, with a detailed NPC, that it has bias in favor of the person they are banging/romancing/being friends with/whatever. It is why people seek out the favor of an NPC in X position or can do X thing. If they were doing the favor on OOC levels for OOC benefits is different. An NPC that doesn't have an agenda/plans/whatever is not generally much more than nameless NPCs people use for canon fodder.

Because I think it should be discussed after seeing it mentioned on the Arx thread: Should staff be able to TS players, NPC or PC?

My thoughts are: It doesn't matter if they do or not. They should get to enjoy the game they created as well. In whatever the method is that they enjoy it. They should do their best not to allow that relationship to influence their decisions but at the end of the day staff are people not machines and it will. I would be surprised if anyone was capable of being bias free. I feel like everyone wants their friends to be good people and believe what they say. So, this can cause gut reactions of 'X is the liar because Y is my friend!'

Note, I am on the side that staff should not be held to a higher standard/treat being staff like it is a job. Staff are people playing in a hobby they are there to have fun in and escape the BS they get from their job/RL. IF they don't like actions X person does? Go for removing that player from their game. I mean if they are to heavy handed with that, they aren't going to have many people wanting/able to play on their game but that is their choice.

Atharia might fit that. We have 'adventure' plots going on but, in general, I try to GM towards the group over 'what I want'. So, if you prefer just chatting with X person, anything I GM will be that. I'm pretty set on no one doing what isn't fun for them. We're also a very casual game.

The thing with Spider and a lot of abusers is that they are not obvious about it. My experience with Spider was that she isolated me from family stuff while acting like she wasn't doing it. She was not happy that I RPed with Dash from The Reach because she didn't like him. I forget the story behind it. There was a lot of 'I don't think you should RP with him but do what you want' while subtly attempting to not include me in stuff. When her lock out attempts didn't work on me she floundered while still trying to do it. It didn't really bother me not to be included in her stuff, I just did my own thing with no cares to what she did. I didn't notice that was what she was attempting to do until someone questioned why I didn't get involved with family stuff and another expressed they felt left out of family stuff. Then someone who dealt with her previously mentioned it was her tactic. I didn't care that she wasatt aattempting to isolate me but someone who does care about that stuff would have fallen victim and 'fell in line' so she would stop.

A lot of the times abuser types find a weakness they can prey on for someone and exploit it on a way it is hard to see while presenting the face of being a good person.

@l-b-heuschkel I think usually they are but mental health issues and other factors could make them forget. So, when deciding someone is 'bad' I think that should be factored in. I'm not on board with the 'X thing excuses their behavior' but I am on board with taking that in as a factor when trying to decide if the person is unintentionally or intentionally doing something. Obviously, no one needs to share stuff wrong with them, expecting them to is dickish to me. But, if you are aware, it should be taken into account.

Note, I'm not talking about the people who are like 'You can't get mad at me for doing X thing! I have Y thing!' I mean the people who genuinely think they are doing things expected and making a joke that is funny without fully getting they are doing the opposite than intended then when corrected, listen, but potentially repeat it. I've seen both of these types. The unintentionals /usually/ stop when made aware. Sure, they might do it again, but rarely do I see them try using their mental health as a full on excuse to get out of trouble. The intentionals, use their issues as a shield against getting in trouble and sometimes people accept that, some don't.

@l-b-heuschkel said in GMs and Players:

@silverfox said in GMs and Players:

I feel like you can make a false accusation without being a bad actor.

If you are triggered by a specific behavior it is really hard to stay calm and in perspective.

I'd be enough of a semantics nitpicker to say that then that is not a fake accusation -- it's a mistake. And mistakes do indeed happen, but they're rarely deliberately malicious.

I would call it more of a knee-jerk reaction. 'X is doing Y stuff that made my experiences on mu* super uncomfortable. It must be the same person doing it to be an unpleasant player!'

I feel like, to good or bad means, people decide someone is the same person because of similar actions/traits. sometimes it is correct, some times it is not.

I think it is unavoidable to sometimes ban an innocent person. There is the falsifiers, the people who instinctively react to bad behavior and remove it, mistaken identity, etc. So many possibilities of a possible mistake even with evidence. This is why I am a fan of the 'Why do you think' and 'What d you expect' questions and 'This is what you do, this is what we will do, and any evidence you have is important'. It's not perfect but it acknowledges the accusers, shows you are aware and have planned actions. It is not flawless but it does give empathy and clear expectations that you have and they should have.

Like, sometimes a person is /certain/ the stuff they are doing is funny and drawing in people. It might come from good intentions or desire to interact but instead it is resulting into people being very upset. I would consider that 'innocent' because there is no malice in the actions. It falls under the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' for me. Obviously there's the people who use the guise of 'opening discussions' by talking about things that offend and not listening when people express they aren't enjoying the way they are doing the conversation. Though it is not always a clear cut distinction you can generally tell, even in text, when someone is doing a thing intentional or not, at least that has been my experience in stuff like that.

@derp said in GMs and Players:

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

He needs to TRY to sound other than condescending.

I don't sound like anything over the internet where there is no sound. What people read into what I write is what they read into it. Not necessarily what I wrote.

Maybe they should try to stick to the substance of the actual argument instead of trying to, what was the phrase used earlier? Tone police?

You phrase a lot in that style. It reads very condescending and dismissive. You might not mean it one way but how you phrase it it comes off the way you don't mean too.

The people who keep returning to places they are not wanted confuse me. I suppose it is a 'you can't stop me and let me prove it to you' situation. But, if someone kicks me off their game on the word of someone else I'll be a little hurt and angry but I am likely to forget that I feel that way and about the game because it 'doesn't want me.'

@reimesu @Derp @Devrex If it does anything to help rephrase things in your files and such (I haven't looked at them closely):

As you guys are presenting it. To me, it comes off as very much like you guys are deciding that the possible abuser is the victim, all the time, not the person bringing their concerns.

The majority of what you guys have said doesn't imply that is your intentions. It is how it keeps coming off to me, though.

I'm aware it is hard to find a 'middle ground' to keeping what you want while also assuring people believe you are well intended.

Somethings I've seen involving abusive/manipulative/stalker/whatever types. Add as you will.

1. Their actions are often subtle that it is not easy to catch too late. Someone who has experienced that with them multiple times, as many have said, can usually see it but can't prove it.
2. They tend to use IC means more than OOC actions to be a dick so they can use the 'but it is IC' excuse.
3. Will gradually try turning peoples friends against them. Well placed words that may or may not be the truth. Rarely in an obvious way. More like 'Haha. X did this thing. Did you know that?' It doesn't SEEM like they are being the devil.
4. They skirt the boundaries people set. Not often going over them but pushing it.
5. They typically present as a 'good person', following the rules, not being obvious about their bad actions. By the time a lot of people who don't realize the person is not a good guy until they have made them seem like the better player to staff.

It is not easy to catch unpleasant people without expressing from another player the stuff they do.

@derp This is one of those situations where those questions I suggest asking comes in handy because it encourages a person to show their proof of the actions.

@derp It is not about changing what you would do. Asking the 'what do you expect' and 'why do you suspect that' questions is about validating their concerns and building their trust in you to feel they can go to you if something /does/ happen. From everything thus far unless a player trusts staff they are not going to start with their proof. Their going to test the waters by displaying their concerns as a request that isn't clear what they want beyond 'letting you know'. To me 'Tell them no contact and let us know if they break it.' is not validating them and their concerns and building their trust. 'What do you expect us to do?' 'Why do you suspect that?' This is what you do and this is what we will do will do and this is what we will do if there is evidence.' are all things, in my opinion, actions to build a players trust in staff. I mean the biggest complaint, staff side and player side, is lack of trust in staff. So, yes you can be 'Do no contact and let us know if they break it.' Adding validation for their concerns opens the doors to trust you when they they don't know who you are. Especially on your policy of treating things with more professionalism than casual. Sure, someone who knows you and is your friend isn't going to hesitate to trust you'll do what you say even if you don't validate them. That is because they are your friend and know what you will do. Someone who isn't your friend or doesn't know you is not going to come in with the same trusting attitude so validating their concerns by questioning what they expect and how they are sure does. It is likely to give you the evidence you want as well because they are going to be like 'Well this is stuff I've seen. I think X person might have had the same experience but you should ask them.'