Posts made by Paris

@Derp said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

I mean, nevermind the fact that some games have rules written in, meant to enforce ethical staffing, that prevents anyone from receiving a scarlet letter based on reputation.

It's ok to amend the constitution when extraordinary circumstances merit change. MUSH rules, which are far less difficult to amend, are amended pretty regularly. Nothing is tying your hands.

And rules have never stopped her misbehavior.

Look at the last 24 hours on this forum and the no-less-than-3 threads that this topic is being talked about currently.

The unusual amount of discussion should indicate the seriousness of things.

But also, you wanted us to discuss it outside of your recruitment thread, so we are.

@surreality said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

There's been... more of that than usual this month thus far, and it is really getting to be a concern, in the sense that it makes me wonder if it's worth sticking around or not. Not something I ever thought I'd be saying, either.

I'd be sad to see you go. You seem like a very empathetic and kind person.

@Coin said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

After what Sovereign did on Reno, I banned him when he came to Eldritch. I didn't wait for him to do something bad on Eldritch, because he's a shitty person I don't want on my game. Spider was pre-banned. These are people, not usernames, and changing their PC, going to a different game won't change that. Only a consistent, protracted, sincere change in attitude will, and even there, no one is under any obligation to give them that chance, especially when it's been given more than often enough, and always ended in calamity.

Your entire point is flawed, because you choose to grant a clean slate to people based on an arbitrary notion like "it's a new game". The action isn't justified by the reason. It's like saying, 'this man is a thief in Illinois, but in Michigan he's not'. No, dude, the guy's a thief, period--he may not have committed theft in Michigan, but that doesn't make him any less of a thief.

I agree with every word here, especially when her taunts on tumblr in response to the threads of today and yesterday have shown no repentance whatsoever and outright mention of her closeness with headstaff. It's not different this time, Derp.

@Derp said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

But you can also catch a lot of heat singling out players for different treatment for any reason, and not treating all players as if they were playing on a level playing field.

There is no middle ground there. You either do treat them all the same, or you don't treat them all the same.

There is a lot of nuance in the conduct of a player. Unrepentant long-term repetition of certain behaviors, vs a one-time incident (like you said, games have their own culture and sometimes shit just happens), is a good tell.

As much as I've said here about VAS, I've been really impressed by many players actively learning from their fuckups (especially new mushers) and becoming genuine assets to a game.

Thst's why I won't give everyone the same chance, and that is also why most games have some kibd of three-strikes policy. Many people fuck up, for many reasons. Most of them try to do better. A very few, despite many chances, don't.

IMO, I think that one-size-fits-all policies, adhered to in all cases without allowance for circumstance, preserves the illusion of fairness. While you should, in good faith, (in most cases) treat everyone the same, and create policies that reflect that, there are some cases where people are not the same.

Willfully choosing to ignore that in service to an unrealistic ideal is why folks like VASpider, Custodius, Elsa, etc, have caused so much damage for years.

They know precisely how important it is for folks to project to their players that they are completely impartial to all players in all circumstances. They know precisely how hard to bend the letter of each rule in order to be excused from culpability.

Sometimes, in the face of all of that, I think it's okay to say 'no'. Even if that might make some folks uncomfortable.

I have banned a player from my game who was stalking another player, and part of the reason for it was multiple skype logs, in addition to page convos.

While that is extreme (two folks arguing in skype is their business, for example), fishing behind people's back for real life details that that person doesn't want given out is serious.

I would also give a warning if I saw a player starting to go after another on a mush community skype channel, or trolling, etc, as imo it's basically an extension of the game. To a point, I feel the platform is irrelevant if it's the same community.

Same for teamspeak, etc. I've been part of mmo guilds where abuse on TS was considered bannable in-game, and agree with it. Death threats are pretty much a deserved instaban.

@Ghost Thank you. You were always wonderful to RP with, and please come to F&L if you ever return to MUing.

Unfortunately I think the rest of us are all on different games, too. :<

@Rook said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

I think my implied question should've been clearer: How do you NOT come to a game like this and make every fucking effort to be different, anonymous and someone new? My point here is - someone who doesn't do this, is either blissfully self-ignorant and in denial of accusations before, or they are (as so many have said) happily arrogant and uncaring for the reputation that precedes them.

Correct, her critics are 'creeps' as of that last post.

@Rook They could try not doing the thing, and accept that because they chose to do the thing for so long, they blew a lot of trust that might not come back.

If their intent is genuine, they would accept the consequences of their behavior. That's true acknowledgment of abusive behavior: all you can control is your own. If you're a better person, act like one.

In this case, there is no acknowledgment, only gloating at having an in with headstaff and accusing her victims of being creeps.

So imo the question in this case is pointless: there is no honest attempt to be better. The hypothetical is moot.

@Ghost I don't see the point in devil's advocating just to do it. It just becomes concern trolling.

We've both been targets of jerks and their cliques. I agree that using MUsoapbox for that is shitty, as it has been used for that.

This, however, is not that. It's not even arguable because she is, factually, a serial, years-long, predator who uses her staff and PCs to fuck with others, including cockblocking, slagging, and, yes, literal witch hunts (including trying to get other pcs killed for no IC reason).

She's normalised this behavior for her sycophants and has actively cultivated relationships with headstaff so she can behave with impunity. She's normalised this behavior for staff.

She's currently gloating to the people she abused about her ins with FH headstaff.

You're comparing that to what happened to us and to others. It's not remotely the same.

Ghost, you're advocating for a player (edit: AND STAFFER) who, for over a decade, has done to others the kind of bullshit that was done to you. In some cases, she did worse.

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

So I'd hate to see such an open forum used to attack innocent players

She isn't.

@Ghost said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:

(i.e. perhaps the better way of dealing with it in the long term might be to encourage her to roleplay openly with everyone knowing who she is, and then watch for the behaviors. If an open statement is made: We don't like the way you manipulate shit, and players make it clear to staff that they won't stay if she is allowed and if those behaviors persist, then staff will have to choose to ignore so many players' stances or adhere to them.

She already knows all this. She's been told all this for years. She doesn't care. At some point, treat people like grownups and accept that they are showing you their true face.

She's not a newbie, she's not naive, and she is not ignorant of any of these things. She has not changed her behavior in over a decade of being told all this. Her most recent post made this pretty clear.

All you are doing is enabling her. Plenty of people have, that's why she's still around.

That too, yep.

@Arkandel You can ban a lot more specifically, fortunately, and thus keep folks in the same city separate.

Abuse thrives in silence.

@Arkandel You can use known IPs and make it clear they are not welcome. If they try to circumvent this, add their current one and yank them off the grid. (IMO, trying to circumvent a ban should put a player on the shitlist.)

If someone thinks they're banned in error, they are always welcome to discuss it with headstaff.

Imo, to avoid blocking out innocent players, that list needs to be as narrow as possible. Edit: that risks the player showing up again, but they usually out themselves eventually with the behavior that earned the initial ban.

@A.-Meowley said in Good writin'.:

So my question is: what tips are there for Players who want to make sure their style is meshing well & inclusive of those gathered?

Offer hooks. Reply to questions if you can, or give an inquiring look or an encouraging question if you can't. Reply to what is said. Ask questions of your own. Include folks if you notice no one is picking up on their poses. If your character is very flashy, make a point of highlighting other characters in the scene. If your character is not, try to find a reason why they might speak up or interact-- even if it's out of their comfort zone.

@Derp I'd rather not one of my stalkers show up with a shovel at my next professional gig. Since I've had to deal with some from RL, MMOs and MU* who were very determined to get my details, I actually do take my safety seriously.

Aside from that, staff have shared emails of players with other games to get those players blacklisted.

For most folks it's no biggie, but people do get burned.

@surreality said in Identifying Major Issues:

@Paris Burner emails are definitely a good idea. Not a single person has suggested otherwise, or that some core or otherwise personally identifying email should ever be used.

I know, I'm adding my agreenent.

I don't think staff should be the ones setting up someone's burner email for them (as was suggested elsewhere). That's more risky, is technically problematic, and is just going too far to coddle paranoia, IMHO, in ways that actually make it less secure rather than more.

I agree.

This means that info is being made available to, typically, a lot more than two headstaffers only. I'm suggesting that people stop sending their email addresses over +jobs for precisely that reason.

We don't use emails to set up our wiki accounts (or anything else), so it's all good. I also agree that contacting an individual staffer is better.

If you are trusting shifty people with access to the God bit on your MUX, you have much bigger problems than email privacy.

Yep!

@surreality pointing out one thing doesn't have anything to do with pointing out another thing (or not). I'm talking about this specific thing.

In the case of wiki logins, we do it by submitting a +job. I'd personally rather not deal with remembering or storing email. But if YOU want to do so, that's fine. That I have not argued with.

My personal experiences with being targeted outside of mushes as well as cross-mush mean that I personally, strongly recommend burner emails (generated by the player obvs). I also don't write about MUSHing anywhere except here, because people with grudges will google and follow you (as happened to folks I know) to other platforms. Many people will never have a bad experience, and that's great, but prevention imo is good.

Edit: Re: players getting emails: all it takes is one staffer to blab, and they have in the past. Considering I directly know victims of staffers blabbing pretty nasty accusations, personal stuff, and outright bullshit, in order to rile up folks against that person, I will continue to be cautious. Even if I like the staff, well, I liked those staffers, too.

@Ghost She is a stalkey type, though.

Granted, there are rapey/stalkey types here who get a pass, but that doesn't change that she is stalkey and has not yet shown a change in behavior or made up for what she did.