Inuki Ban Thread

[Third Eye]

At the very least and most sympathetic, to me it’s an indication an environment is exacerbating someone’s issues and they are best removed from it.

It’s not my job to publicly engage in the least sympathetic reading of a person I don’t know and have never interacted with on a game. Prosper in their lands, etc.

[Meg]

i have to admit, i feel like this is a situation where it deserved at least a warning. i get that the behavior was gross. i called it out as gross.

but i think there’s a line where like, idk, i think that it wasn’t a clear cut ‘would i expect to get banned for this if it were me’ in the rules.

of course, i’m not a mod and i don’t make these calls and i understand it can be frustrating to make these calls and no call is going to make everyone happy. that’s my disclaimer. just speaking an opinion, even if it is from the minority.

[Meg]

@Mushling-0 i also don’t find it appropriate to drag in her GMing/game stuff into this thread, tbh. this is discussing her behavior here on the forum.

sorry for double post.

[Tez]

@Meg I appreciate you saying so and being willing TO say so. That’s why these threads exist.

[dvoraen]

@Meg said in Inuki Ban Thread:

i have to admit, i feel like this is a situation where it deserved at least a warning. i get that the behavior was gross. i called it out as gross.

but i think there’s a line where like, idk, i think that it wasn’t a clear cut ‘would i expect to get banned for this if it were me’ in the rules.

of course, i’m not a mod and i don’t make these calls and i understand it can be frustrating to make these calls and no call is going to make everyone happy. that’s my disclaimer. just speaking an opinion, even if it is from the minority.

tbh, I’m of the opinion that this (the ban) was warranted. Much like how some games have banned players for their behavior in other places, that felt applicable here. It was really pretty apparent, from multiple threads, that this person’s behavior has involved multiple questionable decisions and comments at best, with questionable intent attached to them.

There’s jokes in bad taste (I’m certainly guilty of these), and then there’s threats of self-harm and violence, however implied or circumspect. You should never treat the latter lightly, as I see it. Combined with what I’ve read of inuki’s past, receipted behavior, and that was enough for me to agree that they needed to be removed, because inuki struck me as a “can’t stop won’t stop” mindset, even if there were time gaps between events.

[Mushling 0]

I agree with Meg and believe that I shouldn’t have brought things about her game or behavior on her game to this thread.

I emphasize with Meg’s viewpoint on the banning and frankly would rather have her still here to give her voice to the discussion as I have more to say and more receipts. I am not comfortable continuing much further with her being gone and because of her response that included suicide.

I do think it was best she was banned as a safe conversation, debate or argument cannot be had regarding her game or behavior on her game when she drops suicide into the conversation. I don’t think it is safe for her or for anyone debating with her to keep her involved in the conversation any longer.

Another possible reason it is unsafe to keep her around is she hunts down those she dislikes across games and venues. She goes under several difference aliases and identities.

[Roz]

@dvoraen said in Inuki Ban Thread:

@Meg said in Inuki Ban Thread:

i have to admit, i feel like this is a situation where it deserved at least a warning. i get that the behavior was gross. i called it out as gross.

but i think there’s a line where like, idk, i think that it wasn’t a clear cut ‘would i expect to get banned for this if it were me’ in the rules.

of course, i’m not a mod and i don’t make these calls and i understand it can be frustrating to make these calls and no call is going to make everyone happy. that’s my disclaimer. just speaking an opinion, even if it is from the minority.

tbh, I’m of the opinion that this (the ban) was warranted. Much like how some games have banned players for their behavior in other places, that felt applicable here. It was really pretty apparent, from multiple threads, that this person’s behavior has involved multiple questionable decisions and comments at best, with questionable intent attached to them.

Mm, don’t totally agree there. Games do preban, or ban based on behavior on other games, but the forums generally haven’t. I think they’re pretty different venues with different risks.

[Third Eye]

Here’s my take and why was relieved to see this ban come down.

I don’t care what Inuki has done on games. But she sure keeps doing things on games that get talked about in forums like this and that will likely continue to be.

I think dropping something like ‘I see why people want to commit suicide when people say mean things about them online’ (…sourced things and screenshots that were specifically about stuff she did on a game, they didn’t read like personal attacks to me) is a nuclear bomb on a conversation. There is no response to it a decent person can make. You either take it at face value and stop saying…sourced things regarding what a person has done that are relevant and ongoing and what the forum is pretty much designed to air…or don’t, suggest it might be a manipulation tactic designed to nuke a conversation. Except you can’t do that, really, I don’t think, because the 1% chance something like that might be genuine is too disturbing to to give my oxygen to. I don’t feel like there’s a place to go from here.

FWIW a rule about ‘you’ll be given a ban for your own good and the good of other posters if you say a post has made you have suicidal thoughts’ is umm fine.

[GF]

@Third-Eye I mostly disagree about creating a rule regarding mentions of suicide and bans. Suicide is a health problem, and health problems can’t be treated as having a “one size fits all” solution. A rule that anyone who mentions suicide in this or that context may help people who need to take a step back, but it may also harm people who are genuinely reaching out to a group of friends or a community they feel safe mentioning their problems to.

I think these kinds of problems have to be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than with some sweeping policy. But at the same time, I say I mostly disagree because I can see someone arguing that my position puts the forum’s moderators into the position of being de facto health care providers for people experiencing the most harrowing, intractable health problems imaginable, and I’m pretty sure none of them signed up for that job.

[DrQuinn]

I think there’s a real difference between “I am having thoughts of self harm” posts and “if I kill myself its your fault” posts. And I’m fine with the latter being a ban-worthy offense.

[GF]

@DrQuinn Oh, definitely in this case the mods did the right thing. Whether the implied threat was sincere or not, it was still a death threat against a member of this community, and I think that’s unacceptable even if the death threat is against oneself. I’m only putting in my two cents about rules regarding health issues, and hopefully I’m also acknowledging that I can’t and won’t judge if the admins do not choose to accept the responsibility of another person’s continued existence just because they want to keep a board for bitching about make-believe vampire and superhero games relatively civil.

[Warma Sheen]

@DrQuinn said in Inuki Ban Thread:

I think there’s a real difference between “I am having thoughts of self harm” posts and “if I kill myself its your fault” posts. And I’m fine with the latter being a ban-worthy offense.

I agree. But neither of those two things happened here. What was said was, “What I’ve experienced here has given me insight as to why some people have chosen to do ‘this thing’.”

If the experience of someone here is such that it brings them to empathize with people who have taken that drastic action, is the best reaction to boot them?

I think it is obvious that this had more to do with the opinions about Inuki as an individual than the one comment that was made. But rather than just say, “We don’t want you to interact with us anymore,” this was made about mentioning self-harm, which I don’t think was fair to the concept of it or the sensitivity to it.

Cyberbullying is real. The feelings it inspires are real. Perfect example:

@Mushling-0 said in Inuki Ban Thread:

I emphasize with Meg’s viewpoint on the banning and frankly would rather have her still here to give her voice to the discussion as I have more to say and more receipts. I am not comfortable continuing much further with her being gone and because of her response that included suicide.

So even after what was expressed and Inuki being banned, that’s not enough for this person? This person still wants Inuki to be here so they can hammer her with more stuff. Like, what is gonna be enough for this person? What’s the goal beyond emotional domination? Read the boards. Everyone agrees with you. Take the win. Give it up and go home.

Things like that which happen here are emotionally draining and takes a heavy toll on one’s mental health, especially when you hear it in an echo chamber. Is it better for Inuki to not be here? Probably. For her and for everyone else. But don’t make it about that comment.

[hellfrog]

@Warma-Sheen said in Inuki Ban Thread:

If the experience of someone here is such that it brings them to empathize with people who have taken that drastic action, is the best reaction to boot them?

Yeah. It is when the ‘experience here’ is being reminded of their own words and actions, and the sympathy is displayed to make people stop talking about their own words and actions. Go read Thirdeye’s post if this is a real question of yours.

[DrQuinn]

@Warma-Sheen said in Inuki Ban Thread:

What was said was, “What I’ve experienced here has given me insight as to why some people have chosen to do ‘this thing’.”

I feel like that’s an extremely generous interpretation of what she was going for there.

[Meg]

i agree we can get a little echo chamber-y here, but calling this place an echo chamber in a thread where we’re literally disagreeing and arguing with each other is always the funniest thing to me.

i also agree with GF re: mentions of suicide not being an auto-ban. i’d be uncomfortable with that. i get it’s a sensitive topic, but its a thing some of us have struggled with for a long long time and ‘not talking about it’ policies that basically are pervasively silently a rule in real life isn’t great.

[Pavel]

@Meg said in Inuki Ban Thread:

i get it’s a sensitive topic, but its a thing some of us have struggled with for a long long time and ‘not talking about it’ policies that basically are pervasively silently a rule in real life isn’t great.

While I agree, I also think it can get a little burdensome (for lack of a better word) on others if it’s mentioned with any frequency. It is much the same as talking at length about struggles with a disability, illness, etc, etc. We don’t want to alienate or oppress people for whom life is a particularly darker shade of crapsack, but at the same time we don’t necessarily want to encourage too much conversation about it outside of designated areas.

Which, I’ll admit, does sound like the kind of thing a member of a majority says about every minority… but I hope it came across more about nuance than that.

[Third Eye]

@GF said in Inuki Ban Thread:

@Third-Eye I mostly disagree about creating a rule regarding mentions of suicide and bans. Suicide is a health problem, and health problems can’t be treated as having a “one size fits all” solution. A rule that anyone who mentions suicide in this or that context may help people who need to take a step back, but it may also harm people who are genuinely reaching out to a group of friends or a community they feel safe mentioning their problems to.

FWIW I don’t think any kind of ‘rule’ is really the issue here and I don’t think Meg did, either. I’d rather mods just handle this stuff on a case-by-case basis, that toss-off remark at the end was more ‘Well if a lack of specific language is the problem, okey-dokey’. But I don’t actually think that’s what this is about. I read what Inuki wrote and, apart from a visceral and I will admit unkind reaction that is neither here nor there, I didn’t think there was ever going to be a way to engage with that person in this space about their game stuff again. That’s not the reaction other people had, if the decision had been a temp ban or clear talking-to by the mods I might’ve disagreed like some people in this thread disagree with what did happen, but I would’ve understood it.

[Pavel]

@Third-Eye I only marginally disagree with the ban because I worry that permanent banning is the only punishment being meted out. No cooling down periods, no talking tos, etc.

It’s obvious, at least to me, that Inuki wasn’t operating in good faith - which, honestly, would have been a better reason for the ban than suicidal talk - but could that have been changed with a chat?

[Warma Sheen]

@Meg said in Inuki Ban Thread:

i agree we can get a little echo chamber-y here, but calling this place an echo chamber in a thread where we’re literally disagreeing and arguing with each other is always the funniest thing to me.

I didn’t mean the place as a whole is an echo chamber. Like you said, it can get that way some times. This was one of those times. And not in this thread, but the other one. Everyone pretty much agreed in that thread that Inuki=blech…

So to log onto anything, including a thread where everyone is in virtually unanimous agreement of how bad you are can, like you said, get a little echo chamber-y. Especially in a thread that she popped into to say ‘hey, I didn’t bother you guys, please leave me and my game alone’ (not that anyone has to comply with that) But that has to be hard to take for anyone, regardless if its warranted or not.

Again, I didn’t disagree that she shouldn’t be here. Just not for that comment.

@hellfrog said in Inuki Ban Thread:

@Warma-Sheen said in Inuki Ban Thread:

If the experience of someone here is such that it brings them to empathize with people who have taken that drastic action, is the best reaction to boot them?

Yeah. It is when the ‘experience here’ is being reminded of their own words and actions, and the sympathy is displayed to make people stop talking about their own words and actions. Go read Thirdeye’s post if this is a real question of yours.

It was a real question and still is. I don’t completely know for myself what the answer to that is. I did read the post you mentioned. I just didn’t agree that just because the ‘s’ word was mentioned, that it is a nuclear bomb that shuts down conversation or that it can’t be responded to. I think if you really believed that was real, booting them and isolating them is doing way more harm than good. And if you don’t know if its real that’s what having a conversation is good for, even if it is in the form of a warning.

I think people show up to these forums in war paint with weapons drawn, ready to draw blood. That certainly happened here with at least one poster. So no one should be that surprised when blood is spilled. Even the worst of people can crumble under their weight of their own actions.

I think its fine that people get called out on their bad behavior, good if they recognize their mistakes, better if they change it. Everyone seemed to agree that she has a history of bad behavior, so why wouldn’t she start to feel the pressure of it when it all immediately gets thrown back in her face whenever she shows her face? If I had said those things, I would be feeling pretty shitty too.

I think what it comes down to was that I took her comments at face value and others thought it was just a manipulation tactic. I can see it from both sides.

And I recognize the staff had a tough call to make and it could have gone either way. They made the call they did and I’m sure it was the best call they could make with the information that was available to them.

[Pavel]

@Warma-Sheen said in Inuki Ban Thread:

I think if you really believed that was real, booting them and isolating them is doing way more harm than good.

I’m not going to comment on the rest of your post, as it’s late and my reading comprehension turns to dogshit after midnight.

But.

I disagree with this quoted section. It’s not our responsibility, be we admin or shitposter, to be an emotional support for anyone else. It’s a kindness we provide, on occasion, but on this forum it’s not our job.

To that end, when people state or imply that being here or reading things posted here is detrimental to their mental health, the most responsible thing we can do is give them useful resources that we know about, wish them well, and exclude them.

So, not every time someone mentions suicidality, but if it’s implied or stated that we, our words, our forum, etc are causing, impacting, or influencing said suicidality? Then yes.