On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof

[Herja]

@farfalla said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Jumpscare And/or to try and figure out who reported them.

Biggest red flag. The minute someone starts trying to fish for info on who reported them, I know they need to go. One of the ‘tactics’ I use for dealing with reports is to go and speak to the person who was reported. I bring up that they have been reported directly to them because most of these people will tell on themselves, whether that is that they try to fish for information on who reported them (I especially love when they will name someone else that did not report them because then I’m like, ah, so you are doing this to multiple people) or get very angry and aggressive with me. Those are the easy bans. The harder ones for me to deal with are the ones that act apologetic and try to subtly gaslight (“Oh, I didn’t mean it like THAT. They must have misunderstood me.”). I find it infuriating because you can see the tactic they are using to harm others.

[hellfrog]

@Herja It’s such a baby mistake, to try to get info immediately on who reported. And yet, so so so many people do it.

[Pavel]

@hellfrog said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Herja It’s such a baby mistake, to try to get info immediately on who reported. And yet, so so so many people do it.

I think it’s also a natural reaction. Not the fishing, but like reacting to confrontation with a sort of defensive curiosity? “Someone said you were doing X” “Yeah, who said that?”

Not helpful, but natural.

[Herja]

@Pavel There is a big difference from a reflexive defensive statement and how some people try to get the name of the reporter and then try to discredit the offense since I won’t ‘name names’ and give specific time stamped proof of the incidents in detail. If it were all just those sort of reflexive statements, it wouldn’t be such a big red flag.

[Pavel]

@Herja Oh, absolutely. I’m mostly just talking to the peanut gallery, since I worry an inordinate amount that natural reactions (specifically my reactions which also happen to be natural ones) will be interpreted as a cause for alarm when it’s simply a natural reflex.

[RightMeow]

@Herja said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

The harder ones for me to deal with are the ones that act apologetic and try to subtly gaslight (“Oh, I didn’t mean it like THAT. They must have misunderstood me.”). I find it infuriating because you can see the tactic they are using to harm others.

But what if I am actually apologetic and truly do think they took something the wrong way? I’m not trying to gaslight, I just have off humor and don’t read my room correctly sometimes. I never want to lessen their truth or experience, but I’d hate to think my genuine oh no I’m so sorry and omg I think they took it wrong – is now a red flag?

Not that I get a lot of complaints, but I would and probably have said those things.

[Roz]

@RightMeow said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Herja said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

The harder ones for me to deal with are the ones that act apologetic and try to subtly gaslight (“Oh, I didn’t mean it like THAT. They must have misunderstood me.”). I find it infuriating because you can see the tactic they are using to harm others.

But what if I am actually apologetic and truly do think they took something the wrong way? I’m not trying to gaslight, I just have off humor and don’t read my room correctly sometimes. I never want to lessen their truth or experience, but I’d hate to think my genuine oh no I’m so sorry and omg I think they took it wrong – is now a red flag?

Not that I get a lot of complaints, but I would and probably have said those things.

I think it comes down to where a person is trying to lay the blame. Note that Herja’s example is centered on the other person – “THEY misunderstood ME” – rather than taking any ownership. I think that most decent sorts, the people who are playing on a game in good faith, are generally willing to take ownership if they’ve made jokes or comments that have made others uncomfortable. Like, people who aren’t trying to push boundaries tend to feel pretty bad, and it tends to sound more like “Omg I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to make anyone uncomfortable, I’ll definitely be more careful with those sorts of jokes.” Because yeah, it’s absolutely possible for totally decent people to just misread a room, make a joke more suitable for their closer friends than their current company, etc. And it’s absolutely possible for those people to definitely not mean anything harmful! But IME people who don’t mean harm will more often center it on their intention – “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean those comments that way” – rather than the recipient’s understanding.

ETA: If you think you’re dealing with a reasonable staffer, and they were shown comments of yours that made someone unhappy, and they pulled you in to chat – then they probably think that the other person’s complaint has some level of merit. Even if you didn’t mean to step on someone’s foot, if you didn’t handle your words well in a situation, that’s on you, not the other person for misunderstanding.

[Jumpscare]

@RightMeow said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

But what if I am actually apologetic and truly do think they took something the wrong way? I’m not trying to gaslight, I just have off humor and don’t read my room correctly sometimes.

I’m seconding Roz. It doesn’t matter that people didn’t see things the intended way; it’s the fact that they got uncomfortable in the first place that matters. Being apologetic is a great start and finish. If you want to pad an apology, you can be proactive by listing a few things you think you were misinterpreted and explain what you meant. But the important part is to be more conscious of what you type.

I’ve made a couple mistakes in my time in this hobby, too. One time it was a comment that came off as rude and snippy when I was intending to be helpful. It happens, and I try to be more conscious of it. Before sending a message, it can be a lot of effort to review and ask myself, “Do you think this message can be misinterpreted?” But it’s worth it.

And, you don’t have to stay. If you feel your writing style doesn’t mesh well with a group, that’s fine. I’ve left games that I didn’t feel were a good fit for me.

[hellfrog]

@Pavel said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@hellfrog said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Herja It’s such a baby mistake, to try to get info immediately on who reported. And yet, so so so many people do it.

I think it’s also a natural reaction. Not the fishing, but like reacting to confrontation with a sort of defensive curiosity? “Someone said you were doing X” “Yeah, who said that?”

Not helpful, but natural.

This would not be the red flag, though. That IS a natural reaction, particularly if you do not feel you were doing X. It’s when someone is trying to get info on who reported them but not asking directly that my spidey senses go off.

Or, like Herja said, when they immediately ask 'oh was this HERJA" when Herja is not who reported them.

It’s a vibe check, mostly. As are almost all calls in RP game player administration.

[Herja]

@RightMeow I can understand this instinct but I am going to second the takes of others. To me, there is a difference between, “Oh, no. I’m so sorry. I didn’t intend to make anyone uncomfortable.” And “So-and-so misinterpreted what I meant. It was just a joke!” This first is what I expect of a generally considerate person. The second is a red flag.

Also, as a second thing that isn’t about you but just a thing that I personally see as a red flag when I am handling a complaint. If you have been the subject of a complaint and either know who the other party is or find out somehow (I don’t name names when speaking to people who have been complained about), DO NOT then approach them afterward to ‘clear the air’. It does not come across the way that most good intentioned people think it does and, to staff like me, that is a big old red flag. If you are the subject of a complaint, don’t approach who you know or think might have lodged a complaint. If they want to talk to you about it, they will approach, but they might want distance afterward, even if you didn’t meant to make them uncomfortable. Just because you step on someone’s foot accidentally doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hurt.

[hellfrog]

@Herja i have seen people say something like 'oh no, do you think i could/should apologize to them?" and that to me always seemed earnest and well intentioned. Even though I always said ‘how about don’t, just be aware of this going forward’.

[Herja]

@hellfrog Yeah, same. I usually say something along the same lines because most of the people in this hobby won’t report anything until they have reached a high level of discomfort. If they have reached that point, I want to give them space to decide if they even want an apology or just left alone. I also think that a rush to approach and apologize is centering the feelings of the person reported who needs to do something with their guilty feelings not the person who has made a report, which could just made that discomfort worse.

[IoleRae]

To throw out there for folks concerned regarding red flags, red flags are NOT condemnation, nor are they proof positive. They’re going to make a good staffer pay more attention to some parts of your behavior, but please don’t be concerned that any of your natural reactions are, in isolation, going to result in the assumption of guilt.

[RightMeow]

I mean. I’m human. I’ve had people take things the wrong way and I have taken things the wrong way. I’ve had a ‘that didn’t hit how you thought’ talk before. I have NEVER approached the other person should I find out who it is. I usually try to avoid and let them come to me (if they do). I normally ask the staff member to convey my apologies and leave it there. Which, maybe also is bad.

[junipersky]

The last time a staff had to talk to me it was a third person reporting for someone else. I felt awful and reached out to apologize and the person in question didn’t have a problem with the interaction (or, since I can’t read their mind, they just didn’t want to talk about it and saying nothing was wrong was the easiest way to get the conversation to). It was an IC interaction too, other than “you guys rping?” And “thanks for letting me join” there wasn’t any ooc.

So I guess it doesn’t quite fit, but this made me remember it so I did.

[JKER]

@Roadspike said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Apos Agreed. Any time that someone asks me to define a term that should be common knowledge, I assume that they are just looking for clearly delineated rules that they can push the envelope on and then claim that they’re not breaking the actual rules.

Everyone should know what “creepy” means, and if they can’t avoid it, then they can’t play on any game I run.

They could also just be neuroatypical. Easiest way to tell the difference is neuroatypical players will usually not be deliberately pushing boundaries or engage in predatory behavior but they can often annoy other players.

[Pavel]

@JKER said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

neuroatypical

Neurodivergent is the more usually accepted word. Neuroatypical has connotations.

ETA: Neurodiverse is also acceptable.

[Roadspike]

@JKER I mean, I’m neurodivergent. I know that I’m not every neurodivergent person (clearly), but I also know that if someone tells me that I’m acting creepy, I don’t ask them to define creepy. I may ask for more details on my behavior, but I don’t ask them to define the term.

And I have dealt with enough creepy people as a staffer to know that nothing good ever comes of someone asking for more details on a rule that should be self-explanatory (like “don’t be creepy”). People who want more specificity in general purpose rules like “don’t be creepy” or “don’t be an asshole” are usually looking for something hard and fast to say “I didn’t break that rule” when they were pushing the envelope or outright breaking the broader rule but the more specific one doesn’t cover every possible case.

[IoleRae]

@JKER said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Roadspike said in On the utility of Logs, Receipts, and Proof:

@Apos Agreed. Any time that someone asks me to define a term that should be common knowledge, I assume that they are just looking for clearly delineated rules that they can push the envelope on and then claim that they’re not breaking the actual rules.

Everyone should know what “creepy” means, and if they can’t avoid it, then they can’t play on any game I run.

They could also just be neuroatypical. Easiest way to tell the difference is neuroatypical players will usually not be deliberately pushing boundaries or engage in predatory behavior but they can often annoy other players.

Annoying other players is one thing. Participating in harassment is something else. “Creepy” isn’t about “neuroatypical” behavior being annoying, it’s about being creepy. Those two things are NOT the same, and being neurodivergent does not make you creepy. Violating boundaries, being a sex pest, refusing to take ‘no’ for an answer – none of these behaviors are related to being neurodivergent.

[hellfrog]

@IoleRae Right! Being annoying also does not make you creepy.