Posts made by reimesu

@mietze ALWAYS take care of you and yours first. We're all worried about you.

@mietze I'm just glad you're taking care of yourself.

You're not a loser, you're realistic and intelligent and that is HELL on a person.

@derp The Last Airbender Avatar. Although, the book covers 5 different eras: Kyoshi, Roku, the Hundred Years War, the Aang era (post show,) and Korra era.

@pyrephox Right there with you. That would be AWESOME.

And I'm going to say, again, an Avatar game. Especially now that Magpie Games is coming out with a system for it.

The thing about VASpider is this: she's friendly, cheerful, personable, charismatic, helpful, kind, and will run lots of plot for you.

That's how she gets her minions. And staff friends.

And she's that way for a good long time, up until one day, someone does something that upsets her or she feels like she's been thwarted or she just feels like overturning the apple cart. And if she doesn't have any visible enemies, she'll turn on one of her own, and get all her minions to do the same. And suddenly, that person is being targeted with no clue why.

Sound familiar to anyone here? All of you people claiming that wanting evidence is evil? You're absolutely wrong. Because Spider had a way of making it so that even asking for the logs was 'mistrusting' her. And if you think other people won't do the same thing...well, I've watched it happen on other games.

"People are complaining," says Staffer A to the headwiz. They don't mention WHICH people. Just people. The headwiz decides to take action and come down hard on the person that "people" are complaining about without ever asking for evidence because Staffer A is trustworthy. Thing is, it's not "people." It's just Staffer A, who's having a bad day or a bad year or a bad life, or isn't getting enough attention that week, whichever. But because that staff is a closed circle and an echo chamber, no outside dissent comes into it.

Always ask for evidence. Trust, but verify. Don't assume that because someone is your friend, they're entirely objective and unbiased.

@mietze He's WHAT?

I am not coping. Fuuuuuuck.

Mazel tov. I'm gonna go freak out the rest of my household with that news, now. Happy birthday to Child Surprise!

@wizz I didn't get lucky, I called it to Dev's attention. I spoke the fuck up. "Hey, I think this is that guy from Other Game and he's pulling that shit that annoys me again." And Dev joined a scene and witnessed it for himself. He's the one who said, "Uh...this is predatory, he's weaponizing stupidity and if you say something, you're not kicking a puppy."

I don't begin to think for a second that my experience is universal. Nor do I hold it against people for not keeping receipts.

But WORA was originally invented to STOP the kind of behavior that y'all are advocating and I don't want to regress to those times.

Trust, but verify. Back up your assertions. Communicate.

Also, @Faraday AGAIN said it better than I did. And there's one more thing: sometimes, people can be wrong. I'm usually pretty bad at spotting people from game to game.

@wizz No, that's coming from experience. Shit, Dev had to convince ME that my particular joyous bundle of creep was, in fact, being predatory. Because that guy weaponized stupidity like it's a damn art form. But because I communicated, it got sorted and fast.

Wanting evidence isn't a crime. It should be the baseline for decency. So should communication. If someone came to me as a staffer and said, "I'm being stalked," the FIRST reaction should be, "Ok, how do you know, what's going on? Talk to me." Next comes "How do you want to handle this? What is it you're looking for."

That "how do you know?" is the request for evidence. The answer could be "They have the same handle as on the other game, I've been having an issue on the other game, I'd like to make it known so that if it happens here, something is done about it." Or maybe "Would you please talk to the headwiz on Other Game and corroborate this?" Or any number of other responses. It's not always logs, it's some form of backing up your assertion.

Now you explain to me how that lacks empathy and is arrogant. Go on. I'm listening.

@greenflashlight You just manged to accuse someone who just helped defend me from a stalker literally last week of helping stalkers because he wants some kind of evidence. Not even vast amounts of evidence, just...something.

I am aware of Derp's history and I don't condone everything he says. We have our disagreements. But meanwhile, Dev, Faraday and I have all been advocating for the same thing and you're not accusing us of being heinous scumbags.

Again, I have a lot of thoughts, but this is the Mildly Constructive forum, so I'll try to remain mildly constructive and bite my tongue. A lot.

@roz Faraday just said what I was thinking and said it better. I defer to her.

@krmbm If the random stranger on the internet doesn't also deserve the protection you afford your friends, then this isn't actually people being principled, it's people playing favorites. And again, not interested in that game. Been on it before. It's not a lot of fun and doesn't protect the people in the outer circles.

Nothing's been explained to my satisfaction, clearly, and I think that there's been an AWFUL lot of favoritism and bullying masquerading as 'social justice' today. Bullying is bullying, whether you do it in the name of social justice or protecting your friends and no one else or whatever other reason you want to tag it with.

I'm aware this won't change anyone's mind, but that's ok. I have my own takeaway on it.

@bear_necessities Isn't it? Roz is talking about banning innocent people in the name of the greater good.

Go on, you guys explain to me how going all nuclear option on innocent people is the right thing to do. I'm listening. Explain to me how mentally harming innocent people is a good thing.

@bear_necessities I had one staffer who was fine with me leaving because it was threatening to turn the entire sphere into a war, and another staffer who didn't want me to come back much later because he'd believed the campaign, even after the person who's started it left, does that count?

@bear_necessities That's why I'm such a fan of some form of evidence. Because all it took with me is one person who got all their friends to hate me. PK attempts, victimization of the people I was RPing with, all kinds of 'fun' harassment, based on what ONE person said about me and the person playing my cousin. (This was on The Reach, btw. Long, long time ago.)

This is why, creepers or not, stalkers or not, I want to be on a game where evidence is required. Because there IS stuff that goes on below the surface, but if I'm on a game that asks for evidence, and most of the people are of similar mindset, then it's less likely this will happen. I don't want a game where one staffer will say "People are complaining" and not explain which people, but the accused still gets disciplined. I don't want a game where people will be able to automatically say that someone's a creep, get rid of them and it happens to innocent people. Give SOMETHING. "Hi, I'm being stalked, this happened on other game, could I ask you to reach out to that staffer on that game and corroborate?"

I don't want to be ruled by mob rule. Even on a game. But I'm absolutely fine with a game that states, "You can ask for a DNC at any time, for any reason at all, and it will be honored or the person will be booted." Because it's a reasonable expectation and a clear violation of trust. And can cover that jerk who gets into all your scenes just to make you uncomfortable. As for people who are passive-aggressive, that's covered by "don't be a dick" rules.

It gives a clear expectation of the required behavior and satisfies my need for ethical behavior from staffers, if there's transparency.

Look, I've been the victim of someone starting a whispering campaign about me on a game and it messed me up for two years, so yes, there is a lot of harm done that way, too. It impacts someone's reputation, which is ongoing harm that lasts for years as well, and no, it's NOT ok to do that to innocent people. So, yes, I do know what it's like to be the innocent person who got victimized on a game because someone had a grudge.

You can't save one person's mental health at the cost of another person's and claim to be righteous.

@icanbeyourmuse I can honestly say that I literally have NO idea where you got that from. I'm not sure you're reading what I'm typing.

@farfalla Ok, but you're also misrepresenting.

Faraday and Derp were making the point of "ask for a DNC, either directly or through staff. The first time it's violated, we can remove them immediately." They're not asking for a 'three strikes, you're out' rule. They're not even asking for "give me logs". And it can be done in such a way that the stalkee never needs to contact the stalker.

How is this a bad thing?

@meg Actually, that wasn't tone-policing. I believe the rhetoric style is mirroring, but there's probably another name for it that I can't remember just now. Tone policing "is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion." Which is not what I was doing when I suggested that @krmbm ask the question. (In fact, part of what I was doing was backing up my earlier comments about clear communication.)

The question was asked, and the appropriate person answered the question with the information I didn't have.

But thanks for thinking I need correction and assuming I'm stupid, while using a phrase incorrectly and missing all of my points. Again.

@meg said in GMs and Players:

yeah, good job pointing out that it was an assumption when krmbm already said 'i assume'. like a label maker!

i would assume if it works differently, someone could correct krmbm.

How kind of you to completely miss my point. Please keep in mind that this is Mildly Constructive. If you want to get snarky, please take it to the Hog Pit where I can tell you exactly what I'm thinking.

On the other hand, krmbm did, in fact, ask the question. Thanks, @krmbm!

@krmbm said in GMs and Players:

I would assume "show me the logs" staff philosophy wouldn't require a pre-banned list, since that would assume guilt without evidence.

Well, that's an assumption. Assumptions preclude actual communication, and are frequently wrong. So, it's a question you'd want to ask.