Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Bailey Fork
-
@KarmaBum LOL no problem I see why it read that way. No my approach was a Fez “I said good day!” moment. Yeah the whole dramatic storm out or leave a conversation/game with some grand announcement tactic is a peeve of mine too.
-
Yeah. I spent a lot of time after what happened with The Pack evaluating what had happened, what I could have done differently, etc. Because yes, I did come to the conclusion that the problem was me.
Part of what I learned was that pre-planning any aspects of a character arc can be problematic. That’s what had really been the crux of the issue in The Pack, whether players later changed their minds about what those decisions were or not. If I do end up diving back into the RP world, I think it’s safer to just let IC be IC, and not OOC plan things. It leads to hurt feelings, and other complications.
I don’t seek out drama. I know that there are some folks in the MU* community who thrive on that; RPing a character isn’t quite enough for them, they kind of RP themselves as players, and they like to wreak havoc. I don’t, I really just try to tell interesting stories. And I think that, with anything else, one just has to be careful who one is telling stories with, and make sure that all want to be telling the same story. (Case in point, as SM indicated above.)
But like I said, the IA situation had nothing to do with any player conduct on the game at all. It literally was because a staffer there asked me to weigh in on Macha’s feud with another player, and said staffer didn’t seem to like/appreciate my belief that both players were at fault. The headwiz there had, previously, come onto Elseverse and engaged in disparaging remarks (including a pretty volatile conversation with, ironically, the other player in that aforementioned Macha conflict on IA), and I think it’s just a case of he and I having different viewpoints on various things. It was incredibly disappointing to me as a player, because you’re right - seeing that I was banned there, held up with the Pack, certainly presents as a pattern.
All that being said, I’m taking SM’s words earnestly to review the RP that is being identified as suggestive (because it was certainly not my intent) so I can be more careful going forward. It’s not my goal to cause anyone discomfort, so more self-evaluation may be wise.
-
ok but like ??? @bailey still didn’t post the log that would exonerate them with OldFlame?
Show me the logs of the bad stuff you’re accused on that exonerate you, not just your recap that could be or couldn’t be lies/massaged ‘truth’ based on what staff decided.
ETA: And I think it is TELLING by the way, bailey. TELLING. That you posted the staff log but not the logs asked for. The staff log says nothing except your side, where you refused to give a log, as accused, and then got banned.
-
My brain is goop:
-
SM had nothing to do with Bailey being banned.
-
Should I have asked multiple times for logs, when you already told me you weren’t comfortable sending them?
-
I probably shouldn’t have started with “You’re not in trouble” but at the start of the convo you weren’t. I was honestly looking for your side to see if it was all a misunderstanding.
Cobalt@Under the Stars
cob.alt@Discord
Cobalt#3811@mas.to -
-
@Cobalt start every conversation with: You’re not in trouble yet.
It has my seal of approval.
-
@Meg said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
ok but like ??? @bailey still didn’t post the log that would exonerate them with OldFlame?
Show me the logs of the bad stuff you’re accused on that exonerate you, not just your recap that could be or couldn’t be lies/massaged ‘truth’ based on what staff decided.
ETA: And I think it is TELLING by the way, bailey. TELLING. That you posted the staff log but not the logs asked for. The staff log says nothing except your side, where you refused to give a log, as accused, and then got banned.
I mean, I could, but I’ve already pretty much admitted here that it’s likely that there I was not communicating as well as I thought I had, so I’m not sure there is a ton of value to that (particularly since it discusses other players who were not involved in this and things that happened on another game) since I am not trying to establish or defend any actions at this point on The Pack.
This happened a few months ago, I made my peace with it, and had moved on. I only climbed back in now because if it this is the sort of thing that is going to keep coming up whenever someone feels like punching at me, I’d rather set the record straight.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to air someone else’s dirty laundry in public if they aren’t involved in the situation, but I would have shared it with Feli if she wanted it to make a decision about her game and what was happening on her game. There’s no reason to now, because she made her decision, I accepted it, and that was that. I truly meant it when I said I didn’t want to cause drama on her game, and was content to leave at that point that I offered it.
And maybe it’s semantics, but what I said was that I felt funny providing alt-revealing things, and then asked if it was being suggested that I did something I shouldn’t have. If I had realized that was the accusation, I might have been quicker to suggest sharing the log with Feli as a wiz, but the impression I got from the conversation was that it wasn’t necessary and wasn’t being further asked for. So I don’t take any of that as being that I “refused”. You could say my reluctance to do so now on here is a “refusal”, and probably more fair, but honestly I don’t think that defending my reputation, such as it is, to people who weren’t involved in the situation outweighs digging up dirt on ANOTHER drama on ANOTHER game that I wasn’t involved with, when none of those players involved are part of this conversation.
If you want to take that as some kind of admission of my guilt, I mean, I can’t really stop you or argue you from that.
-
@Cobalt said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
-
Should I have asked multiple times for logs, when you already told me you weren’t comfortable sending them?
-
I probably shouldn’t have started with “You’re not in trouble” but at the start of the convo you weren’t. I was honestly looking for your side to see if it was all a misunderstanding.
I think you handled it the best way you could, for the sake of your game. As I said when we were chatting, I was already ready to head out just to avoid OOC drama.
I only wish that you hadn’t indicated that I “refused” anything, when I had just stated a preference not to and at the time didn’t think it was anything more than you just trying to establish a timeline. I’d have provided it to you if you had asked after I expressed that, but it’s neither here nor there.
I thought you were running a good game, and I’m sorry that you had repeated drama which led to you closing it. And I apologize that I contributed to that in any way.
-
-
@bailey said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
I mean, I could, but I’ve already pretty much admitted here that it’s likely that there I was not communicating as well as I thought I had, so I’m not sure there is a ton of value to that (particularly since it discusses other players who were not involved in this and things that happened on another game) since I am not trying to establish or defend any actions at this point on The Pack.
Oh ok. So you real guilty then.
Also didn’t you kool-aid man in here trying to defend yourself??? In your first post??? Now you’re gaslighting us like ‘I’m not trying to defend myself’.
Tf??? Go in the bin with macha.
-
@Meg said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
@bailey said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
I mean, I could, but I’ve already pretty much admitted here that it’s likely that there I was not communicating as well as I thought I had, so I’m not sure there is a ton of value to that (particularly since it discusses other players who were not involved in this and things that happened on another game) since I am not trying to establish or defend any actions at this point on The Pack.
Oh ok. So you real guilty then.
Also didn’t you kool-aid man in here trying to defend yourself??? In your first post??? Now you’re gaslighting us like ‘I’m not trying to defend myself’.
Tf??? Go in the bin with macha.
You can decide from that what you wish. I came here in to correct two assertions:
- That I steadfastly refused to provide a Headwiz material logs to resolve an OOC issue with players in her game because I “made it up”.
- That I was banned from Infinite Adventures for player misconduct.
I have explained both of those to my satisfaction. I understand your zeal to know what happened, but I owe you less than I owe the other people involved whose private stories and dramas at another game are included in the discussions with the other player on The Pack, and I’m sure that if I redacted the portions of those conversations from the log I would be accused of hiding something else.
I have 100% confessed that I could have communicated more effectively and decisively with Player A that there was nothing going on with her character, and that my character had moved on fully to Player B. I thought I’d done so, but apparently not. It led to hurt feelings, and that’s not debatable.
If you want to try to suggest that I am as bad as the things that Macha has been accused of in this thread, well, that’s your choice.
-
I’m so confused as to who Bailey is
she/her | playlist
-
@Roz I think Character X? I’m not really sure.
-
Could we get this split to a diff thread, tbh? The Bailey situation has nothing to do with Macha.
And I never said you steadfastedly refused to give logs. I just said you refused to give them. Nor did I say you made up any log?? I’m confused now.
Like, if I ask someone “can you send me logs” and they say “no”, I’m not going to be like “send me logs or you’re banned” – that’s coercion.
Cobalt@Under the Stars
cob.alt@Discord
Cobalt#3811@mas.to -
I thought for a minute things were going to get really interesting but if that person is not Macha what is even happening.
-
@bailey Just a note, I’ve placed your log under a spoiler tag because it was rather long.
Everyone else, please be nice to our eyeballs, and put long logs under a spoiler tag.
Thanks everyone!
-
@icanbeyourmuse said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
@Roz I think Character X? I’m not really sure.
No, I’m not Player X. I have not been a player on The Pack since 1/3. I’m not in any way involved with any of the above regarding Macha (other than being banned from Infinite Adventures at the same time as Macha’s and another player because a staffer at IA asked my opinion on those interactions before they were banned).
-
@junipersky said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
@bailey Just a note, I’ve placed your log under a spoiler tag because it was rather long.
Everyone else, please be nice to our eyeballs, and put long logs under a spoiler tag.
Thanks everyone!
Sorry. I had tried to do that, but I clicked the spoiler button before it, and then that didn’t do it, and then I highlighted all of it and clicked the Spoiler button, and THAT didn’t do it. So then I gave up. My apologies, and thanks for correcting that.
-
@bailey No worries! I had to ask too!
-
@Cobalt said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
Could we get this split to a diff thread, tbh? The Bailey situation has nothing to do with Macha.
Upvoting this.
-
@Cobalt said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
Like, if I ask someone “can you send me logs” and they say “no”, I’m not going to be like “send me logs or you’re banned” – that’s coercion.
Fair point. Like I said at the time, it was less refusal and more “I’d rather not embroil the other players if it’s not a big deal”. It was clearly a bigger deal than I read from the scene.
I was going to PM you, but I don’t want to make an unwanted contact, so I’ll just say it here. 100% accept any response you offer to the below.
I’ve been doing a lot of soul searching since this happened. Both immediately after, and I’ve revisited it again. I 100% believe that communication is paramount, and it’s clear that communication here led to the situation. I don’t want to generate more drama for this, but in terms of my personal exploration of what I can do differently, I was wondering if you would be willing, if I were to send you the log of the conversation at this point (I’d do my best to redact the conversations about other games as much as I could), if you would be willing to look at it, and if you can see where it is that I went wrong in trying to explain the situation, help me to understand it?
I realize that is a big ask, and you certainly owe me nothing. And would totally understand if you say no, you don’t want to deal with this drama at all anymore. But I do want to see how I could have approached it differently, how I could have better articulated where I was, and better acted based around what I’d communicated with the other player.
Either which way, I won’t comment again on this thread (as noted) and I don’t think this really rises to the level of requiring its own thread. I’m not the one who brought me into the Macha thread, and I’m certainly more than happy to see myself out of it.
Apologies to anyone else for the eyeball burn this has caused this morning.
-
@bailey said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
@Cobalt said in Macha Awareness (And Unappreciation) thread:
Either which way, I won’t comment again on this thread (as noted) and I don’t think this really rises to the level of requiring its own thread.It’s not really a matter of something requiring its own thread as much as it’s now a lengthy derail of this particular thread, which it’s off-topic for. That’s almost assuredly why people assumed you were the redacted player in the Macha log, since it was in the Macha thread, and because you didn’t quote wherever you apparently got mentioned up-thread. I definitely couldn’t easily follow what situation you were replying to. (You’ve also caused yourself a bit of the Streisand Effect.)
Anyways, if admin don’t want to make a NEW thread, it could probably go into the existing Pack thread, which it’s at least mildly on-topic for.
