Posts made by Ganymede

On Netflix, watch Street Food.

You’re welcome.

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

Thread from a Vice reporter on what's happening in court today: https://twitter.com/annamerlan/status/1555200634693230594

Looks like the presumption of competence has been rebutted.

Someone's probably going to lose his license to practice, and I can't say that I'm surprised or concerned.

@faraday

I do not know all the specifics, but it is safe to presume that Alex Jones' attorneys are probably competent.

As I said, just because you give a document to your lawyer does not mean the document is protected by attorney-client privilege. Communications with your attorneys are protected and these communications can include e-mails, letters, and other written correspondence made directly with one's attorneys. In this case, text messages were produced by the attorneys from Mr. Jones' phone. Unless those text messages were exchanged between Mr. Jones and his attorneys (or someone else with whom Mr. Jones may claim a privilege, like his spouse, his priest, or his doctors, or his psychologist), there's a good chance that they are discoverable, which means their production can be compelled. Had the messages been actually privileged there would have been all sorts of motions filed by now.

From what I've read, the text messages reveal that Mr. Jones knew that he was spreading false information, but didn't care. It also showed that Mr. Jones likely perjured himself on the stand. In either case, I am glad this case is moving forward because this is probably the only way to rein in these shock-jock faux-news shills, short of beating the shit out of them publicly.

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

Well, that's some fine lawyerin' there.

Just because documents are produced to your lawyers does not mean those documents are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Sounds to me like those text messages were requested through discovery and properly produced.

I hate the feeling I get staring at a place I would likely be welcome back to, but feeling as if I can't go back.

It's like staring at the picture of your ex. You know the one -- the one where things just didn't work out, and it's no one's fault. You want to believe that if you give it just one more chance --

-- but anyhow, I know I shouldn't, so I won't, and be content wrapping myself up in thing after thing in RL, until I forget.

Also, RimWorld.

@Misadventure said in RL things I love:

Do peeps have air fryer recommendations?

Ninja Foodi 8 qt. two-basket fryer. Runs around $200, but often goes on sale. Having two baskets means being able to cook two dishes at different temperatures.

@faraday

That laundry list of "other" features are the features that I enjoy. Advanced age means that I forget commands and who's playing who on a regular basis. Knowing that my scenes are auto-logged, that I have different commands to do the same thing, and that I can figure out who I like to play with easily really helps the old farts like me.

@Derp

I thought you were cooking children.

My position:

You don’t know how much Ares does until you’re not using it any more.

@Derp

Oh, put a sock in it, dearie.

In my old age, I like FS3’s slow, static advancement best.

I cannot keep up with whippersnappers and their free time. And when I get more of my own, I don’t want to be so far behind as to feel pointless.

@Macha

She will always be Jon Arbuckle’s grandma to me.

@Misadventure

Also, Bill Russell, the winningest basketball player ever.

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

Honest question, can you blame them? Our board - and by our I mean all of the community - had their board basically hijacked out from under us.

What do you mean by "hijacked"?

When Arkandel firmly pulled himself away, administration of this board was left to mietze and I. Between the two of us, we moderated in the manner to which we were accustomed. Neither of us were particularly tech-inclined, but Arkandel still kept us up to date with what was going on. The condition of MSB languished until the infrequent crashes became frequent, and the shutdown periods lasted for days instead of hours.

It was not until the board was literally crashing down that we came up with a solution. Faraday, Roz, and Derp joined me, mietze, Testament, and Arkandel in porting the database over to my Digital Ocean account. Arkandel passed the domain name over at that time as well. These are the facts; I have stated them before; and to my knowledge no one has disputed them.

So, there was no "hijacking," in my opinion, but yours may vary.

It was decided pretty much unilaterally that MSB would be something it never had been in any of its past incarnations. I've been here for all of them going back tot he original WORA before Nymeria got Tasteless Descs shut down.

As you know, I've been here that long as well.

If by "unilaterally," you mean "without consulting the rest of the community," then that would be an accurate conclusion. From my perspective in the room where the decision was made, it was not "unilateral" in the sense of unanimity. Arguments were presented, and a decision was made.

But I would wager that is not why many people left.

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

yes, people are seeking closure that is simply never going to happen. I count myself in that, because I'm stupid. And yet, also human. However, I have seen this play out many times in RL, and also know it's part of the process.

Divorces are messy affairs, and I have seen many of them play out. Sometimes, there is peace; sometimes, there is war; but in every case, time plays a vital role in getting to a situation where hostilities are ceased, even if enmities remain.

I made the conscious decision not to be a member at BMD because I believe in the process and respect BMD's staff. If they want or need to talk to me, they know where to find me, and likewise.

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

Second, refusing to believe a victim is itself an accusation that the victim is a perjurer who must prove herself innocent of the crime.

Between the opposites of honesty and fraud is a gray area, one that I swim in professionally on a daily basis. If an accuser presents an allegation, I can believe that allegation while still desiring or demanding an investigation of the allegation. More often than not, the accuser's belief in the truth is based on their perception of events which an accused admits has occurred, but for which they have a different perception.

If staff undertakes an investigation of an allegation, that is indicative of a belief in the truth of what has been said. If staff demand evidence prior to undertaking that investigation, then that is indicative of their disbelief. As such, my inclination is to investigate every allegation as they come. But just because an investigation results in little or no other evidence, that does not mean the accused is a perjurer. If people are prone and allowed to make mistakes, then misapprehensions should be seen as such.

In the end, my experience is that there is very often little or no evidence available, and investigations are sometimes handcuffed by the need to keep the identities of the accuser anonymous, so as to avoid collateral damage arising from the reporting.

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

Where the GM has the responsibility to adjudicate the rules fairly and to handle problem players. At heart I'm still just a GM, with a slightly different table, and to me adjudicating fairly requires that I know what the heck is actually going on in the first place. And not allowing myself to be manipulated because I can't slow down to do a little due [diligence].

I hear you and understand, but I was not advocating for snap judgments either.

There is a distinction between due diligence and due process. The former involves investigating alleged facts; the latter involves providing equal opportunity to both sides of a dispute before a judgment is made. By all means, staff should do the former before taking an action against a player; however, that does not mean that staff needs to engage in the latter before that action.

... not all game runners are equally talented at all aspects of game running. Or equally principled. Or are even coming from the same places in where they feel they've made mistakes and created bad outcomes in the past.

No truer words have been said.

Briefly, I concur with Kestrel.

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

If someone is acting in a problematic way on a game you're on, you should take it to the game runners.

Recently, I did this.

What happened was something that isn't close to the level of Cullen, et al. It was apparent from the response that the game runner was aware of the issue. Regardless, I brought receipts; however, I know of nothing that was done to address the situation. That lack of action was one of the reasons I lost interest in the game.

This story has occurred many times in my 25+ years.

Going to the game runners is never a guarantee of action and brings with it a threat of exposure because, as Kestrel pointed out, that person may be good friends with staff. And if you want to stay on that game, you are potentially putting yourself in a difficult spot, one that might one day lead to your departure or start a whisper campaign against you.

That's why the original incarnation of this place was created.

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.

To what end?

Due process is meant to guarantee the rights of the accused; however, no player has any cognizable right on any game, save for what is promised by staff. Staff who think they can adequately or properly investigate a situation in a manner that promptly and completely addresses it is kidding themselves or lying to players. Games by design are at best benevolent dictatorships and at worst a god-fantasy out of Black and White. So the only reason anyone would want to follow an investigatory procedure is doing so to protect their own sense of self-righteousness.

If the best one can hope to be is a beloved tyrant, it serves no purpose to pretend to be anything else.

As for the value of speaking here as opposed to game runners:

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

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.

Reporting has value. And a person can report what happened here. It is not difficult to make a report that follows the forum's rules, in my opinion, like so:

The player of Cullen was banned on two other games for his behavior. On Game X, the player, who went by the name "Azazello", approached me by page complementing my PC's played-by photo. He said that he thought the actress was cute and that he always wanted to have sex with them. I stopped communicating with him at that point.

(This is a fictional account.) Even with the rules here, it is simple to report someone's behavior. Stick with what happened. Take quotes if desired. I hope that people will do so moving forward.

@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.

@Derp

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

@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.