Best posts made by Derp

I guess here's my hot take on this:

I think that the schism from this board did repair the community.

Or, more specifically, I think that this board had very clearly settled into Warring Tribes. I'm definitely not the only one that saw as much, either. It's where a lot of the talk about a specific clique comes from. It's hard to pin down because it's something fluid, and has enough people moving in and out that it's probably best described as a tribe.

And we'd been trying to share a space for entirely too long. Like roommates with incompatible lifestyles and viewpoints, the enmities and vitriol just starting to boil over all the damn time in these little dogpiles and pissing matches.

I think that the split, while being characterized as a wound by a great many people, could just as easily be seen as the beginnings of healing far older wounds by just as many. Or at least giving it the space and air to start to heal, rather than sitting there festering.

People have pointed out that there's now an "us vs. them" mentality because there are two boards. I would like to counter with: there was an us vs. them mentality on this board before the split. Now it's just more visible.

And I think this is probably one of the healthier things that has happened in a good long while.

Since, you know, we're sharing or whatever.

@kanye-qwest said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

If this place got rid of the hog pit and didn't allow the drama and slapfighting that goes on there, this place's traffic would slow down a lot, and it would eventually be mostly the same half dozen people posting gifs and RL gripes and occasionally an ad thread would blow through, like a tumbleweed.

It's not the worst thing in the world. But it seems like it would be a lot of work to maintain a board that could easily be a discord chat.

I don't think it would slow down at much as some people think. I think that more people would post more frequently when some of the louder, more grating voices are gone. Some might leave, sure, but plenty would stay. And the people who want to have their slapfight can have it elsewhere, since they can never seem to keep it contained to the proper areas.

And by the way, that's one of the other issues I think needs to be addressed: There needs to be consequences for violating the 'posting pit material outside of the pit' beyond 'I guess we have to move the thread now'. Because certain people do that A LOT. And just moving the thread does nothing but let them know that it's okay because someone is willing to follow them and try and clean up their mess.

The admins might not think that we should need an adult in the room. That's fair. We probably shouldn't. But should and do are different animals. We shouldn't need one, but we clearly do, and that is the job of the admins.

If they have neither the inclination nor the time to do so, the solution there is also pretty straightforward: give the job to someone who does. If you don't want to do the stuff that is clearly in the job title, then don't take the job. I and respect all three of you, but damn, the 'but we do not want to do the things that we are here to do' arguments make my eye twitch.

@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:

I don't mean to be blunt or mean, but this is simply the case and I think it has to do with our medium; however, it is less about one's social aptitude and more about one's ability to communicate in the written medium.

Here is where I disagree, and I think that this is the crux of the problem.

Up to this point, we've been talking about various ends and ways to achieve them, and what would be reasonable given certain dice rolls, etc.

That's not what this system does, though. At the end of the day, the exact step-by-step process doesn't matter, any more than the exact step-by-step process matters for determining damage in physical combat. We don't make people come up with exacting technical detail about how their characters duck under a person's punch and apply a certain pre-determined amount of force to a specific joint or nerve nexus in order to determine the level of damage, and we don't allow people to make arguments like 'Well my character is double jointed and extremely flexible so clearly that isn't going to have an effect on me'. The outcome is determined by a level of abstraction governed by dice.

Which is exactly how social combat should work as well. In the end, the exact nuances don't matter, because the END RESULTS are determined at some level of abstraction, governed by dice, and the 'how' is frankly a) not really all that important and b) no more relevant than it would be for a physical contest.

Example: If I roll for intimidation against Jane and win, the dice say Jane is intimidated. Full stop. Whether Jane goes into an apoplectic fit of fear and cowers in a corner or does some quick mental math and decides that the odds just aren't in her favor that day, she is still intimidated because the dice determined that she is. How each of us writes that up into a pose has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the mechanical outcome.

But we've been talking about this system as if the onus of explaining 'how you get there' is up to the person doing the intimidating, and not the person being intimidated. It's not. We got there, because the dice, as an abstract system that determines final outcomes, said so. It's up to you to figure out the 'how', if the how is important enough, and we should be holding people accountable to that.

We only allow deviation from these things because that's how they've traditionally played out, so no, that isn't "simply the case," as if it were some universal law that has to be followed.

Ultimately, this comes down to something pretty basic: do we feel that the dice, as a level of abstraction that determines final outcomes, are valid across the board? And if not, where do we draw the line on that?

@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.

@auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@darinelle said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

I understand. Neither of my parents are narcissistic, but both are super conservative Christian and I spend a lot of time trying not to roll my eyes around them and showing them the acceptable parts of my life so we don't just fight for days. It's a problem. I hope it's not as bad as you fear it might be, and that you get to enjoy the visit through the anxiety.

It's difficult. Esp. in the current political climate. You don't want a fight, buuuuut.

When we don't clash, things are A-OK. Outside of religion/politics, I can get along with them alright, but as soon as either enter the stage... oof. So here's hoping.

Step 1: Tell them you are getting more serious about this whole bible thing.

Step 2: Show them your giant, framed poster of the verse Ezekiel 23:20. Say it gave you inspiration.

Step 3: Watch the internal struggle as they try and decide whether a bible verse is inappropriate.

You're welcome.

I think that it’s also important to note that neither of us want to shut down discussions on matters. There’s been a lot of talk and speculation on that line of thought given recent events and the changes to the Code of Conduct, but none of this is meant to shut down questioning, or even disagreement. We’re both open to ideas, and we’re just as capable of being wrong as anyone else is. None of what’s happened in the last few weeks has been intended to stifle discussions on matters.

We’re still willing to engage in good faith with the people who have shown they’re willing to engage us in good faith in turn. Civil discussions are always welcome, even if people don’t agree. But the loud, noisy spectacles aren’t going to get anyone anywhere. They frustrate both sides, and ultimately are a very ineffective way to get us to see that the person advocating those positions is attempting to be reasonable.

We may not agree with you. You might not get the resolution that you’re looking for. But neither of us are trying to hide the ball, either. We both believe in open communication.

But just hurling random insults and vulgarity and insisting that we concede to your demands is absolutely, in no way, going to get you the results you want.

For the most part I enjoy it. I enjoy the RP. I enjoy the games and the stories.

What I don't enjoy is all the extraneous baggage that tends to come with it. At some point people started piling their RL into their games, and we had this weird culture shift where not wanting to deal with all that makes you a monster.

I am all for being supportive of people having issues. I really am. We all have times when we need a shoulder to lean on.

I'm not so much a fan of this growing feeling that a lot of "issues" people have in this hobby are a subtle way to manipulate things in their favor by using cultural expectations to their advantage, and the sheer levels of outrage that come along with it, or how so many people seem to have so many different issues that must always be recognized and accommodated. It's starting to feel improbable. And insincere. And pushing back against the sheer weight of that, and the just mountains of "traumas" going back for decades because of games...

It's exhausting.

@auspice said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

And now they're gone and on the road and I can bitch and stress and go through a week of having all the shit from the past be dredged up to swill around my mind before I drink it back into oblivion again.
(I really need to find a therapist that takes my insurance so I can process the abuse in a healthy way probably.)

Or. OR, and hear me out here:

You could wrap the bodies in digital camo Duck Tape, ensuring they will never be found.

Options.

@rightmeow said in Review of Recent Bans:

It is not good.
It is NOT kind
It is not warranted.

Alright. So what makes you say this? This is a serious question. Other than 'I like all the people that were banned and think they should not have been banned.'

You say it's not good. But the forum has been relatively peaceful since many of the loudest voices were removed, or moved on. We've seen many posters starting to come back since these decisions were made.

You say it's not kind. Well. Ok, maybe it's not. But were they kind in turn? Some of them flung some pretty harsh rhetoric at Ganymede. Many of them said some pretty unkind things about me. Does kindness only go one way? Should we not have expected it in return? Especially when one of the admins, over and over, asked people to stop because it was becoming emotionally damaging for one of the other admins? (Notably, not me.)

I'd say that the actions taken were perfectly warranted. Not only were they warranted, the persons to whom the actions were directed were given multiple warnings and told explicitly what would happen if they continued, and they pressed on anyway, behaving like serious jerks in a lot of cases.

Do you think that it was appropriate to allow the behavior to continue unchecked? Or that it's appropriate to allow people to continue breaking the rules unabated after an admin patiently asks multiple times for them to stop, and then gives them a final warning before actions are taken? Do you think that's a good way to run a forum, or shows a good example to other readers not currently engaging in that activity?

Because it seems to me that it was both good and warranted, and that whether or not it was kind isn't really totally relevant. But we're still discussing the situation. If you have feedback that you feel would be beneficial for us to consider, then by all means share.

@Waller said in MU*, Youth, and LGBT+ Identity:

I played a character one time with the shtick of "law professor woman who wears men's suits 24/7." The Played By was an actress who is known for her forays into men's clothing. In retrospect, this is pretty cringy, so yeah. I'm very sorry about possibly harming LGBTQIA people thinking I was being oh so clever...when I wasn't being clever at all.

There is nothing wrong with this concept. It's not even that cringey. This is very much something that one would have seen in the LGBT community in, say, the 90's or before, and only really started to go out of vogue with the more mainstream acceptance of the lifestyle. You even saw this on pretty much any show on LOGO (remember LOGO, ya'll?).

I know. I was there. I lived it.

People might say "that's not me and my friends," but it sure as hell is somebody, and so long as you're not trying to make a mockery of the character for wearing those suits, it's perfectly respectable.

All characters (every single one of them) are in some fashion a trope. No character perfectly matches the everyday real life experience because a) that would be fucking boring, and b) it's hard to tell stories in that vein.

There is a certain degree of "unrealisticness" that you have to accept in any sort of fiction endeavor. The intention is the more important part, and whether the character is being played as some sort of cringey gag or is legitimately being played to hilite a certain topic. The line there is sometimes blurry, but I assure you, there is a line.

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

This is patently incorrect.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order."
They are not death camps, which seems to be where the confusion arises, but they very much are concentration camps.

People act like concentration camps could never happen here.

Guess what? They already did. Several times.

Let's just be real, you know?

First time that someone mentions penetrating a cervix:

@Ghost said in RL Anger:

...when the person in front of you in line at the coffee house orders 9 different drinks during morning rush.

That person is almost assuredly an intern or a secretary.

For me, I've tried to let PCs run spheres before. I was a very big advocate of players having a say in things.

And then I saw the way that usually went down. The behind-the-scenes backstabbing and vitriol that comes with getting and holding those positions, the OOC politics that go along with it, and the general inactivity and resentment that it breeds.

Never again. I know players will hate it, they want to aspire to the pinnacles of everything, but it's my solid and firm belief that PCs being in positions to actually control other PCs with nobody above them to oversee those actions leads to misery all around, and most of them don't even do the job once their ass in on their respective throne. If they do try to do the job the other PCs just ignore them anyway.

Best to keep the highest echelons to an NPC. Tyrannical? Sure. But also practical.

@Roz

So, once, after high school graduation. I'm still not sure if I want to go to college or not. I have no idea what I want to do. But I know that I need money in the quickness.

This, of course, does not stop me from being, well -- me.

Have a job interview the next day. So where am I? Out drinking with friends for a friend's birthday, naturally. And being young and sort of pretty at the time, and full of booze, a hookup is arranged, as these things happen to go.

It. Was. Terrible. Great person, shining personality. No chemistry. And not even his fault really. It was a combination of inexperience and height differences and about a million other things.

Anyway, we pass out, wake up, realize we've both overslept and are in that just-enough-time-to-get-our-shit-and-run zone. No numbers exchanged. No real intention to on either of our ends.

Get to the interview, sit for a minute.

Yeah. I'm interviewing with this dude.

We both go into his office and just kind of sit awkwardly for a minute before we start in with the very straightforward 'so this is not gonna work, right?' realization, and we both know that we have to make this drag out for some minutes because he has a boss he answers to as well, and we can't just be done. Both of us questioning whether it's been long enough.

In retrospect it was kind of funny, but man, that was two of the most awkward moments of my life, with the same person, in 12 hours. Completely by chance.

@chibichibi

I've always wanted antagonist PCs on games I staff for. Have advocated for it even.

The problem comes in that you have to be almost tyrannical with the PCs in question. Remind them that violence between antagonist factions is actually the exception to the rule.

Otherwise it quickly escalates to Did you bite your thumb at me sir WELL PREPARE TO DIE MOTHERFU**ER! Because obviously that's the way that all adults handle conflict.

It gets even more trivial if you include magic or any kind of superpowers.

So you have to make sure to put a firm boot on that shit or you end up with snipers in towers pretending they can pick off anyone they want with impunity because magic bullets you see?

Probably won't be as funny for those who don't read music --

-- but for those who DO read music ... you're welcome!

@Arkandel said in L&L Options?:

@Ganymede You know what's funny though? A lot of us have said this exact thing, and yet it's yet to be done. At some point the-collective-we need to put our money where our mouths are.

Yeah, you know what really prevents this? Players who say that they want it, and want things to be limited, and then get ten levels of shitty when they don't have complete and total access to everything they want exactly when they think they should get it.

These systems have been tried. For all that a handful of people say that they want things to be limited and scarce and whatever, more (and a few of that exact same handful) will whine never-endingly if you actually try to put any sort of gates in their way.

These systems don't exist not because nobody's bothered to make them, but because people have bothered to make them and found them not worth the effort when the backlash came back.

@silverfox

I mean, here's the thing as I see it:

Everyone is expecting that this is gonna go away when there's a vaccine. That might lessen the danger of the disease, but that doesn't account for the downstream effects.

Luckily, we've got some experience with that too. Polio had a vaccine, but we still had to deal with the physical effects of that after it went away.

It's not a magic bullet, it's a process. It's a process where we learn what damage was done, and we learn new ways to help cope with that. COVID-19 will restructure our society in the same way that polio did as the downstream effects of it become clear, and we create tools to help manage those scars.

It's not a perfect solution. But it's what we have. It's what we know. And there's only so much we can do at any given time. So no, the kids aren't alright. But they might be, eventually, when we learn the cost of what COVID does and start treating it the same way we treated the aftermath of polio, especially as we realize that mental health is as important as physical health.

But there are steps. This is a step. And it's a sucky one, but it's all we can do. You can't worry about what the smoke damage to the house is going to look like while the flames are still burning hot. You have to make sure that there's still a house to have smoke damage.

COVID isn't any different. Right now, it's a fire, and we have to get everyone out of the house. Even if that means that the place they're in is darker and colder than they're comfortable in. We can work on fixing that, later, once the fires go out.

Are they gonna bear scars from this? Yes, of course. The whole world is. But we can't prevent that. All we can do is respond to it when we get the fires out. Twisting yourself into knots about something that you have absolutely no power over and is completely unpreventable sounds like a good way to drive yourself crazy.