The Rejected Times

[Zenya]

Nobody really gives a damn about intent these days

[Corvus Corax]

No one who doesn't support the 'aggressive' approach, for example, is proposing actual solutions to the problem. They're all just saying it was a nice/good/well-written/etc article....and then leaving.

That 'aggressive approach' is also limited by the site rules, even in these matters.

What other 'practical' solutions of aggressive approach there actually exist then aggressive use of supportive comments for view points, ideas and desirable goals for better game?

Support something generally good and try rise awareness and there are immediately the army of cynical 'game players' taking it as a gameplay, even the matter is on the spheres beyond the game.

Nobody really gives a damn about intent these days

Sure.

[Zenya]

I wish they Xor would have used names, since it would have made the intent of the article more clear. Just another attack against me.

NS gameplay seems to be hypersensitive.

Nobody got mad over #BringBackOurRainbows or #IStandWithRainbow or #JeSuisRainbow, but a Justin Beiber reference must be so serious and condemned!

[Unibot III]

I wish they Xor would have used names, since it would have made the intent of the article more clear. Just another attack against me.

NS gameplay seems to be hypersensitive.

Nobody got mad over #BringBackOurRainbows or #IStandWithRainbow or #JeSuisRainbow, but a Justin Beiber reference must be so serious and condemned!

Well, prime example there.

You read that entire article (presumably) and didn't realise those hashtags most certainly played a role in the crap that players around you condemned. I wish she had used examples because maybe it wouldn't have gone over your head then.

Second, and most important: NS Gameplay is sensitive about such humour because we as a community care more about making it a safe environment for people who have to survive through things IRL every day than a convenient environment for people who want to make light of their problems; I would imagine nobody needs a daily reminder about a range of such visceral circumstances, just because Zenny and co. like to make off-colour jokes.

Third, humour ought to be subversive. You shouldn't try to use humour to knock people down who are already down. There's nothing particularly funny about rape, harassment, suicide, or depression.

[Xoriet]

Had I cared more about the people who said it than what was said, there might have been more detail involved.

If you're going to declare your own collusion in the aforementioned behavior, apparently you have decided to name yourself. I'd wager that not everyone knows what I was referencing - part of why I didn't add names when I wrote anything.

[KaelThas Quilor]

we as a community care more about making it a safe environment for people who have to survive through things IRL every day

Since when?

[KaelThas Quilor]

No one who doesn't support the 'aggressive' approach, for example, is proposing actual solutions to the problem. They're all just saying it was a nice/good/well-written/etc article....and then leaving.

That 'aggressive approach' is also limited by the site rules, even in these matters.

What other 'practical' solutions of aggressive approach there actually exist then aggressive use of supportive comments for view points, ideas and desirable goals for better game?

Support something generally good and try rise awareness and there are immediately the army of cynical 'game players' taking it as a gameplay, even the matter is on the spheres beyond the game.

This has zilch to do with Gameplay. I think people like this should be shunned and shouted down all over the internet, NS or not.

[Yao]

The problem with this in practice is that some of NS' better players have danced the line before, and if they were called out on it, we'd realize that the status quo isn't going to change in this regard.

It's easy when the player is a nobody: it's harder when they matter and have political ties.

[Cormac Stark]

Even more than Xoriet's article, the problem is the way people are responding to it - namely, by patting themselves on the back, feeling good about the problem because they read an article on it and said it is a great article that should be pinned, and then doing nothing. The real world is full of that phenomenon with every other mobilizational issue, and this will be exactly the same.

This was a well-written article that raised awareness about a problem in NationStates gameplay. I don't think it should be interpreted as trying to solve the problem, but rather to draw attention to it. If the goal was to raise awareness, as I believe was the case, then it succeeded in that goal and can't be construed as a failure because it didn't also solve the problem it called to our attention. It's up to every individual to solve the problem in the way they react to these situations.

But Cerian is right. The vast majority of people who read the article and are doing the back-patting aren't going to do anything concrete about this. At least one of the people who have positively commented on the article actually engages in the behavior the article condemns, but would never admit it. There are others in the thread calling for aggressive ostracism of those who engage in this type of behavior, but they associate with people who engage in this kind of behavior and either don't recognize it for what it is or are hypocritical in their selective ostracism. The last thing that should happen with behavior this serious is to use it as a political bludgeon to selectively use against political enemies. At that point, those using it in such a manner would be no better than the people they're ostracizing.

[Solorni]

Even more than Xoriet's article, the problem is the way people are responding to it - namely, by patting themselves on the back, feeling good about the problem because they read an article on it and said it is a great article that should be pinned, and then doing nothing. The real world is full of that phenomenon with every other mobilizational issue, and this will be exactly the same.

This was a well-written article that raised awareness about a problem in NationStates gameplay. I don't think it should be interpreted as trying to solve the problem, but rather to draw attention to it. If the goal was to raise awareness, as I believe was the case, then it succeeded in that goal and can't be construed as a failure because it didn't also solve the problem it called to our attention. It's up to every individual to solve the problem in the way they react to these situations.

But Cerian is right. The vast majority of people who read the article and are doing the back-patting aren't going to do anything concrete about this. At least one of the people who have positively commented on the article actually engages in the behavior the article condemns, but would never admit it. There are others in the thread calling for aggressive ostracism of those who engage in this type of behavior, but they associate with people who engage in this kind of behavior and either don't recognize it for what it is or are hypocritical in their selective ostracism. The last thing that should happen with behavior this serious is to use it as a political bludgeon to selectively use against political enemies. At that point, those using it in such a manner would be no better than the people they're ostracizing.

Essentially everyone is a hypocrite and we're all screwed lol

[Yao]

I don't think so. I think there are some players who are exceptionally good about this.

They're the people you usually don't hear participate in this discussion at all, with some exceptions.

---

I personally can't stand it when this issue is used by people as a political tool. It's a serious issue and the best way to handle it is to not play with the people who do it. I avoid it. When we engage them and talk about RL morals and feelgoodism, you cheapen the issue.

For instance, take rape jokes. This is going to sound terrible, but when someone makes a rape joke, why can't we just ban them and not give further it attention? I often see rape jokes responded to with waves of "rape isn't funny bro" and backpatting that, more often than not, beats a dead horse for the sake of making the people shutting it down gain social clout.

When we run crusades against the people who make rape jokes, who are we really helping? Ban the jokers, let them be banned when they do it again. Hopefully they learn.

[Cormac Stark]

Essentially everyone is a hypocrite and we're all screwed lol

I wouldn't say that. I think there are some people who associate with players and genuinely don't recognize that the kind of behavior they engage in goes too far. I think there are also some players who engage in this type of behavior and genuinely don't recognize they're going too far.

I do think the risk with aggressive ostracism, as Glen suggests, is that it will become a political weapon. I've seen both defenders and raiders and folks in between either fail to recognize problematic behavior or refuse to ostracize their own for engaging in it, even while condemning people on the other side who do it. People have a natural tendency to protect their friends and allies, and to fail to see in them what they can so clearly see in others.

[Solorni]

Essentially everyone is a hypocrite and we're all screwed lol

I wouldn't say that. I think there are some people who associate with players and genuinely don't recognize that the kind of behavior they engage in goes too far. I think there are also some players who engage in this type of behavior and genuinely don't recognize they're going too far.

I do think the risk with aggressive ostracism, as Glen suggests, is that it will become a political weapon. I've seen both defenders and raiders and folks in between either fail to recognize problematic behavior or refuse to ostracize their own for engaging in it, even while condemning people on the other side who do it. People have a natural tendency to protect their friends and allies, and to fail to see in them what they can so clearly see in others.

Or they see it but choose to do nothing about it.

[Cormac Stark]

I wouldn't say that. I think there are some people who associate with players and genuinely don't recognize that the kind of behavior they engage in goes too far. I think there are also some players who engage in this type of behavior and genuinely don't recognize they're going too far.

I do think the risk with aggressive ostracism, as Glen suggests, is that it will become a political weapon. I've seen both defenders and raiders and folks in between either fail to recognize problematic behavior or refuse to ostracize their own for engaging in it, even while condemning people on the other side who do it. People have a natural tendency to protect their friends and allies, and to fail to see in them what they can so clearly see in others.

Or they see it but choose to do nothing about it.

Yes, that also happens. But I think it's far more rare than we might assume. I think most people are inclined to ostracize people who engage in genuinely abusive behavior, but there is a tendency with people we're close to not to see their behavior as genuinely abusive. Our positive perceptions of them, perhaps our own experiences of them, lead us to think others who complain about their behavior are exaggerating and what they're doing isn't that bad.

This happens in real life, as well. How many times have we seen the families and friends of criminals in complete denial because the crime their loved one has committed doesn't match their own perceptions of or experiences with that person?

[Yao]

I really stand by my point though.

When we campaign against this, we cheapen the issue. It's best to ban the people doing it and hope they learn. That's it.

[Unibot III]

we as a community care more about making it a safe environment for people who have to survive through things IRL every day

Since when?

I'm an optimist. >_>

[KaelThas Quilor]

Or they see it but choose to do nothing about it.

Yes, that also happens. But I think it's far more rare than we might assume. I think most people are inclined to ostracize people who engage in genuinely abusive behavior, but there is a tendency with people we're close to not to see their behavior as genuinely abusive. Our positive perceptions of them, perhaps our own experiences of them, lead us to think others who complain about their behavior are exaggerating and what they're doing isn't that bad.

This happens in real life, as well. How many times have we seen the families and friends of criminals in complete denial because the crime their loved one has committed doesn't match their own perceptions of or experiences with that person?

Hell, it happens even with lesser offenses. AA in Europeia was there, on and off, for ages. He was a fixture of the region, but a lot of his conduct was very arguably harassment (not sexual harassment, just harassment), trolling, et cetera, but because so many people were used to him, no one condemned him or used the legal means of the region to try him for what he did.

That's one I'm familiar with (and hell, I'm sure some people would say similar things about me, in terms of harassment/objectionable behavior), but I'm sure every region runs into that problem at times.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Since when?

I'm an optimist. >_>

There's optimist and there's blind.

[Anders Blakewood]

Those people you're targeting don't have a better nature.

The types of people Xoriet listed are detestable, but they're still human beings. You've got no right to say this.

I know something I've been a part of, is at least hinted at in Xoriet's article. I think part of the issue are the "types of people" or labelling them as a group to be quickly dismissed. It's too easy to push them aside, anyone, everyone who says or does something they shouldn't do. It takes more time and has a better effect to try to help them to see, or at least explain before ostracism. I did something terrible, something that I'm still coming to terms with. I'd like to think I'm generally an alright person who made a mistake, and not one of those "types of people". I abhor the idea of "types of people", as I don't think there are many people who only say or do bad things, and don't believe most need to be grouped or assigned a "type". People are many shades of grey, therefore any solution can't be an extreme, or a one size fits all "this is what needs to be done in every case".

I do support what Zenny said about intent, it matters little these days, but to counter and be realistic, some bad things have been done under the banner and with good intent. Before publication, I genuinely didn't see the interview I did with Zenya as offensive, maybe we were blinded by hyper-niche-like context and generally angry by how she had been treated, maybe we were just looking for a few quick jokes and not paying attention to what our words may do to others, but many of the things were unacceptable, things said about political rivals and things we said without thinking.

For Cormac's point of ostracism being a political weapon, pretty much everything has been and will be used as a political weapon, I support not only what makes people realize their behavior is not acceptable, but support what makes them realize why it's not acceptable. Something less than full ostracism, but something more thought-out than a knee-jerk reaction or condemnation

Overall, no event in this game or any has affected me so much in RL. I know some are going to cry foul or call bullshit, but as someone who has and is dealing with the aftermath of what I've done and what Xoriet was talking about, I want to go from part of the problem to part of the solution. I may not understand every facet or point levelled at myself, what I wrote and was a part of, but I'm conscious of it and the effect it has had on others.

[Aurum Rider]

I think raising attention can solve this problem. Banning and ostracizing people will only make the community more toxic. And as stated, Backpatting and doing nothing about it definitely happens, but if everyone agrees that vicious attacks on character or emotional abuse is not acceptable in the gameplay community, and make that clear, people will think twice about posting with the intent to hurt others. Changing gameplay that way will be much more productive than arguing about whether or not Xoriet's Article (Brilliantly Written, by the way), will bring about sudden change.

[KaelThas Quilor]

They'll think twice, and then do it anyway. Thinking twice isn't the same as not doing something.

[Sedgistan]

This discussion is not going any place good. If anyone thinks that the correct way to deal with inappropriate offsite behaviour is to "call them out" and insult them on the NS forums, they've got entirely the wrong idea.

Ambroscus Koth has earned himself a *** 3 day ban for flaming/baiting/harassment *** with an utterly inappropriate post that has been removed from the thread.

We do not want offsite personal drama brought onto this site.

I'm leaving this thread locked overnight.

[The Rejected Times]

Coffee with Darkesia
An Exclusive Interview with The West Pacific's Delegate
INTERVIEW | UNIBOT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF



Unibot: Hey Darkesia, how are you! Just making some coffee (french press). Would you like some?

Darkesia: Hello! I'm well and I would love some coffee.

Unibot: Good!

Recently, The Rejected Times published an editorial from me titled "Oh the places you'll go, TWP," discussing the new directions that The West Pacific could take; we figured that this interview would be as a good opportunity as ever to let you respond to the article for our readers and discuss where you think TWP is headed. What was your initial impression of the article?

Darkesia: I thought that despite some extreme misrepresentation of TWP history and somewhat biased pigeonholing of "possible outcomes", the ultimate truth of the article was intact : TWP needs to make some decisions about it's future and get it's butt in gear making that future happen. I rather liked seeing TWP's name in any article, truth be told. We could use the exposure.

Unibot: You've expressed your frustration about TWP's slow development at a few points here or there; I guessed why I thought the development/revival had been slow. Why do you think it hasn't caught on as fast it could have?

Darkesia: The short answer is : We like each other. TWP is full of players who genuinely like one another. That is really a good thing. But it also means that we trust one another enough to feel legislative structure is unnecessary. So, slowly over time, we switched from streamlining the constitution and shrinking superfluous departments, to just ignoring the off site government structure. We did things by consensus. Until now we have evolved into a type of anarchy. We've "raised" a generation of nations who don't know how to govern themselves and we spoiled them so they don't feel the need to learn.

And here is where I go OOC... the players behind most of The Guardians have been playing the game for 10 or more years. We're tired of running governments. So,when we asked the next generation to step up, we got blank stares and demands for titles. The previous Delegate, Westwind, ran the government as best he could and did the jobs of those ministers that sat idle. I refused to do that. I appointed people and then told them to get to work. It did not go over so well. They fell idle. I appointed a second round and got the same results. I'm done playing nice delegate

Unibot: I guess I'm wondering is, do TWPers feel as though they don't really have a reason to contribute when the WA Delegate is basically shared between a group of Guardians that isn't looking for new entries? If you were a new player looking to progress in NS, why would you go to TWP, when if you contributed in, say, TNP, you could have a chance at becoming delegate in a year or two of hard work and commitment?

Darkesia: I can't speak to how others feel. But I do know that the desperation of the Guardians is complete. While the off site community will not (and hopefully never will) be given power over the delegate, The next Delegate of TWP will not be some "same old face." TWP learned the very painful lesson of allowing the forum to control the Delegate and that part of it's culture is very deeply ingrained. It won't just go away.

Unibot: Sorry, and I'm being perfectly blunt here - why was the 'off site' government such a failure that it warrants never returning to such a system again, but the 'on site' government was such a success to warrant continuing? What makes you think it isn't the anarchical system that is responsible for the problems that TWP is currently facing?

Darkesia: The off site government wasn't a failure. At least not until recently. TWP has operated quite sucessfully with a vibrant, active community (off site) government in cooperation with the Delegate and the Guardians. That cooperative government did not allow the off site community to abuse the delegate and did not allow the delegate to abuse the community or neglect it's duties.

An early example of the community standing up and taking control of the Delegacy was ROLHEATH. When Eli fell inactive but refused to step down, the community rebelled and organized itself under a new Delegate. The off site government failed when we, as older players, failed to attract enough new players that wanted to be mentored and learn how to run a government. We attracted fun loving good people that would rather just trust one another. So... it was good and bad. And now we are left with some lazy, spoiled, but really fun, region mates.

Unibot: I provided a few different directions where TWP could go in my article; where do you think TWP is headed? A stronger legislature? A changed role for the Guardians? A different kind of executive? Who will be its allies? Who will be its enemies?

Darkesia: I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I want them to figure that out themselves. All I ask is that they keep the spirit of TWP as home of the free spirited and free thinkers. The region of second chances.

Don't get me wrong, I will wail up a storm in the privacy of the Guardians chambers if they choose to be a cookie cutter democracy. But I won't interfere. We can't just appoint or elect people to positions in TWP. The general population of TWP has to figure out what they want. My hope is that they don't have to go thru the same painful split that TWP underwent in the past, but perhaps that is part of the lifecycle of the region....

Unibot: Let's talk about that painful split; were you a member of TWP then?

Darkesia: I was, but my activity in the region didn't become prominent until after Eli and Winnipeg had created the current forum. The region still had an old style government at that time. I remember that when I was approved to enter their senate, it was so controversial that one prominent defender quit the region. How times have changed!

Unibot: How would you describe the split to our readers and what would consider its impact on TWP today?

Darkesia: The split was ultimately the result of breaking away from the ADN. <insert lots of convoluted politics here> But the bottom line was that some members of the region who had always taken the lead, were terribly hurt on a personal level by the split from the ADN. There was so much hard feelings it took years to repair the damage. After the split the raw nerves continued until the Delegacy of The Faeyas. She was treated so poorly by the off site forum and community that Eli couped the Delegacy and removed the government.

I think that was the turning point. TWP purged the people that were generally assholes and was left with people who might disagree but were good to one another. The effect today is that there is very little conflict internally. And maybe we need a little of that back. Wait (!)... that's not to say, we are inviting the assholes of the game. lol

Unibot: Do you believe that this kind of cycle might be intergral to political change in GCRs? It seems like it happens a lot. NPO couldn't work with The Pacific Army; PRL couldn't work with TNI; OFO couldn't work with The Empire etc.

Darkesia: I think that group dynamics are king. Something must happen to bring the community together. Sometimes it's easiest to spark that togetherness and eagerness to help with a bad guy. but it cannot be manufactured. Believe me, we tried that too. lol. A region needs a cause to rally around and it needs at least one personality to be the face of that cause.

Unibot: Finally, how long do you think your reign is going to continue? Are we in for a few more months of erm, darkness, erm scratch that... or a year, or should we anticipate some changes sooner than later?

Darkesia: The traditional reign of a TWP delegate is 1 year. I have options on all the chocolate in the region for the next 5 years. On a serious note: When my term is over, the region had better be ready to stand on it's own, because The Guardians are not coming to the rescue this time. We are pushing the little bird out of the nest!

Unibot: You get chocolate? Christ, I should have bargained for a better contract. Thanks so much for the interview, Darkesia - it's been quite enlightening and a real pleasure. I hope the region goes the way you hope. If you've got any final remarks for our readers - you've got the floor.

Darkesia: Thank you for taking the time to listen to my yammering. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Just remember TWP has only two rules:

1. All your chocolate belongs to Darkesia.
2. Don't be a d!ck.

They aren't as simple as they may seem. Just like TWP.

[New Milograd]

I miss ROLHEATH.

Glad to see this interview. The point about coddling the new generation is entirely on point.

[Consular]

I'm kind of curious as to what Koth posted to warrant that response.

Anyway, an interesting interview!