Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Bannings
-
But hurt and divisions will happen again. And again. And again.
Maybe this is the time to focus on being able to handle that in a healthier way than feeling the need to wedge everyone into one box to preserve other people’s comfort, and allow for some separation that maximizes people’s participation and ability to chat with each other while also allowing some space between personalities that don’t get along.
Unity in coming behind and supporting struggling community members will always be a thing imo no matter if there are six boards. We are great at gossip and word of mouth.
But I don’t know. I’m okay learning to give up the convenience of only logging into one place if it means that all places are less pressure cooker.
-
I’m gonna stop you right there. Never, ever, ever, ever accuse me of thinking. How dare you?
You should count yourself lucky I was being as restrained as I was. Quite frankly, I suspect you of more than just thinking. I believe I have witnessed you reflecting, considering, and even ruminating.
-
@mietze hurt and divisions will happen again and again, sure. tiffs, spats, etc. but i would say /this/, what happened on MSB, doesn’t happen all that often. this situation happened very specifically because of power invested in one person.
but in general, yes, having a few places to login that are less combative is also fine.
-
-
Forked by
Tez
-
Just noting there was a line on admin accountability that went here.
-
@Tez Yeah, I don’t think there’s a real good solution to that. The person who owns the thing, be it a forum or house or business or whatever, has ultimate power and final say in how they want to run and operate it. In the end, they are only beholden to thesmselves and their own whims, altruistic or not.
In those situations, the only real option is voting with your feet or wallet. I don’t shop at Walmart, I don’t go MSB. And since I don’t give MSB my money, my feet are the next best option.
-
I think it depends on context. The fracturing of MSB was in response to an injustice, however trivial that injustice might be in the grand scheme of things. That injustice has not been corrected and is still being perpetuated, which seems to me like it must eventually become a problem for the whole community as resentment and distrust fester.
This whole thing is already the result of quite a lot of resentment being allowed to fester. I don’t have a solution for how to navigate accountability when someone fundamentally does not own their shit, but it might be worth reflecting on how this portion of the community helped contribute to our division beyond simply commenting after we were told not to.
-
-
but i would say /this/, what happened on MSB, doesn’t happen all that often.
I dunno, it used to happen fairly often on games. An abuse, or perceived abuse, of power would happen and people would leave and start their own game.
The main difference is that this has happened to us, so it’s naturally more impactful.
-
@farfalla Okay.
-
Honestly, an apology wouldn’t fix it for me either, at this point - and I wasn’t banned and have only been targeted a tiny bit in the aftermath. I wouldn’t accept it. It’s broken. I don’t care about them being punished, but I’m not interested in reconciliation; there’s nothing the leadership there could do to restore my faith. They are actively embracing abusers of other humans. That’s the choice they’ve made AFTER burning the place down. They can’t fix that.
It’s dead. Bury it or don’t, but it won’t come back. The sooner we stop poking the bear, the sooner it will turn on itself and go away completely.
-
Reconciliation is not the only just way to respond to injustice. I don’t owe anyone forgiveness, ever, and I refuse to let that burden be put on me.
as previously stated, good day.
-
@IoleRae I’m not saying anyone who feels hurt is required to accept an apology and do the work of fixing the relationship. I’m only saying that if fixing the relationship is the goal, then accepting the apology and doing the work is necessary.
-
-
@IoleRae I’m not saying anyone who feels hurt is required to accept an apology and do the work of fixing the relationship. I’m only saying that if fixing the relationship is the goal, then accepting the apology and doing the work is necessary.
Why is fixing this relationship in specific any sort of goal? Who is it a goal for?
the entity previously known as Sunny
-
@helvetica said in Bannings:
it might be worth reflecting on how this portion of the community helped contribute to our division beyond simply commenting after we were told not to.
What are you referring to? Sorry, I’m dumb
-
@GF I agree with that. In such a circumstance, both sides theoretically want to fix things and are ready to genuinely accept apologies and work together. I thought your point was in response to generally how to respond to injustice, not specifically if the goal is reconciliation.
-
Everyone is focused on the apology part, but it does also include:
… and after listening to the grievances and getting their opinions on how to improve the relationship, make changes to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
So assuming good faith, sure. Nobody thinks ‘I will say sorry and do nothing to change’ is acceptable. This all assumes good faith, which is on the person apologizing to prove first.
Edit to add - also, as mentioned, assuming reconciliation is the end goal.
-
@IoleRae I’m not saying anyone who feels hurt is required to accept an apology and do the work of fixing the relationship. I’m only saying that if fixing the relationship is the goal, then accepting the apology and doing the work is necessary.
Why is fixing this relationship in specific any sort of goal? Who is it a goal for?
I think it is in a line of thought springing off of:
Now the community seems fractured. Hopefully it is a problem that will fix itself.
Honestly, I don’t see communities fracturing as a problem that needs fixing. Sure, the way it happens is a bag of suck wrapped in crap coated in a thin layer of “I can’t believe it’s not irony.” But it’s like cell division. We go off and do our thing, they go off and do theirs, and the community grows from it.
I don’t think it’s really a goal of anyone. Maybe a ‘it would be nice if all of my friends got along with each other’. YOU KNOW. One of those classic geek social fallacies.
-
@IoleRae I’m not saying anyone who feels hurt is required to accept an apology and do the work of fixing the relationship. I’m only saying that if fixing the relationship is the goal, then accepting the apology and doing the work is necessary.
Why is fixing this relationship in specific any sort of goal? Who is it a goal for?
In the abstract, fixing the relationship is a goal because that’s how we fix the injustice. People who have been given up on have no incentive to change: if you’ve been damned, then what is there to lose by doubling down? In the hypothetical, fixing it is a goal because they apologized sincerely for their behavior and asked for help to be better, which I think deserves to be given. Victims don’t owe their victimizers emotional labor, but it’s a goal for people who want to create a community where that kind of injustice doesn’t repeat, or at least doesn’t repeat as frequently.
But in the real world where no one has apologized, and staff over there has already doubled down, and people have their own needs and safety to look after, it need not be a goal for anyone. I’m pretty sure I’m on the record on this very forum about not thinking forgiveness is an inherently good and enlightened thing to give. I can dig up a link if someone needs it.
