Sylven wrote:Escade wrote: This is what can be expected of the defender community now. An "any means necessary" approach.
Whatever beef you have with particular defenders or defending organizations, it would be appreciated if you kept your criticism to them not "the defender community" at large becuz like. No. Thx. If ur talkin OOC stuff like I think u r that's highkey rude when addressing such a broad smear of people like NS defenders... I certainly don't want any of your words on my face because I don't think they should be there!
Let me know when defenders from this "community" have addressed any of the very real concerns being discussed above by multiple people instead of defending bad behavior through outright support or silence. Here's what I believe - people post about the things that matter to them and so far I've only seen support for and doubling down on the bad behavior. You've chosen to jump into the fray, as it were, do let us know what your thoughts are.
Let me know also Sylven, "how highkey rude" the two reports that have stemmed this discussion are. Let me know when you have more awareness of the internal issues that have cropped up as well.
I'd also like to thank Eumaeus for both of their posts. I'm not familiar with you as a player but these were very well-written and commendable. I'm adding on or responding to some points that you made and also highlighting the sequence from your first to second post which covered I think the entire argument in a equitable way.
Eumaeus wrote:Before I say what I would like to say, there are a few disclaimers I would like to go through.
First, I am posting as individual player and not as a member of the Black Hawks. I’m not personally offended by anything in TGW’s reports and I have not discussed this matter with any members of the Black Hawks. My only interest in this thread is as an individual.
Second, IRL I work on a sexual assault hotline, and I want to make it clear that I do not approach discussions relating to sexual harassment lightly. Which brings me to my next disclaimer…
Third, while this is a discussion relating to sexual harassment, I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that I am not accusing anyone of sexually harassing anyone else. I am also not meaning to imply that the problem I am talking about is an attribute of TGW, but simply something I noticed amongst those defending these reports.
Lastly, while I think her statements were a bit too strongly worded, I think that Escade getting reported for trying to have a serious conversation is ridiculous. That being said, I think that URE’s statements have inflated the issue well beyond its reality and have entered the realm of personal attacks. While I think Roavin's actions are emblematic of the problem with this conversation, I don't think he's done anything as heinous as cyberbullying or harassment.
I have had a lot that I have wanted to say since this issue first popped up, but have held off on posting anything in hopes that the parties involved would be capable of having a productive conversation. It has become clear that this is not the case. This is a topic that is very important to me, and I have put a lot of thought into how this situation is being handled and how it made me feel. This morning I settled on an answer. I’m not angry, and I’m not offended. I’m disappointed.
From what I can tell this started off as a misunderstanding based off of generational differences. Members of the Grey Wardens who are members of an older generation have been using an update report theme for a while now that uses language that to them had no subversive connotations beyond condescendingly portraying themselves in a paternal relationship to the Black Hawks. Members of the Black Hawks, however, who are members of an younger generation have been feeling uncomfortable as a result of these reports, because to their generation the language in the reports was making them immediately think of the “yes, daddy” culture resulting from the sexualization of children and infantilization that our society has for some reason been pushing in the last couple years.
Maybe I’m being naive, especially considering the number of instances I’ve found from the past two years of members of TBH expressing discomfort with this, but I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the people writing these “daddy” themed reports weren’t intending for them to be interpreted as sexual. After all, were I to assume that this was intentionally sexual, then I could not in good conscience describe this as anything but sexual harassment.
I don’t have much of a problem with the fact that TGW posted these reports, but what I am extremely disappointed in has been the reaction to criticism over them. Even if you think that this is a non-issue, the empathetic thing to do in this situation is to simply apologize and cease the behavior. Even if you think that this topic being brought up on a public forum is just an excuse to get bad publicity for TGW, the intelligent response would be to humor those trying to make you look bad, rather than by outright dismissing their concerns. It is an undeniable fact that there are sexual connotations to this language, whether you were aware of this previously or not, and upon learning of them giving a modest apology would be all that was necessary to save face. If someone had simply said “we’re sorry, we did not intend for this to be interpreted sexually, we will stop using this theme for our reports” that would have been the end of the conversation.
I could go through every argument that I have taken issue with in the past week, but I don’t think it would serve any sort of productive purpose. The only argument I have seen that I feel absolutely needs to be addressed is this: “the fact that this bothers TBH is what makes it an attractive theme”. This is not an unjustified argument under a lot of other conditions, but the fact that this scenario has to do with one side interpreting the other’s messages as sexual makes this an extremely questionable way of thinking about things. Again I’m not accusing anyone of actually doing anything wrong, but if you find enjoyment in the negative reaction that someone has to a statement with sexual connotations, and you know that these connotations are why they reacted negatively, then I would very seriously like you to take a moment from reading this and think about what that means about you as a person.
The only specific thing that I would like to call anyone out for is the update report that Roavin posted. You expect us to believe that the use of a word you were specifically asked to stop using in a report that included a condescending mock trigger warning was supposed to be a harmless reference? Even if that was the intention, I'm sure you can understand why it doesn't seem that way. It comes off as disrespectful, not only towards the players who asked you to stop but towards Reppy as well.
The reaction to Souls’ initial complaint can only be described as a hardy “lol, boys will be boys” and I’m appalled at how far people have been willing to stretch, bend over backwards, and dig in their heels to excuse and even encourage behavior that should have been changed the moment someone explained why it made them feel uncomfortable. This is the problem. Behavior like this, that excuses the sexualization of GP politics and dismisses genuine concerns brought up by members of the community as frivolous, makes the gameplay forum seem like a distinctly hostile environment. This is especially disheartening coming from members of the community who are supposed to occupy the moral high ground. I'm not rattling sabers. I believe that the tone of discussion in this thread and the muted response of the leaders of the Grey Wardens to these concerns is hurting this community. The fact that people are going after those who have called out this behavior is a typical quality of a boys’ club, specifically the reporting of Escade. This is especially eyebrow raising considering the fact that the first person to imply that this could be interpreted as “sexual harassment” was a fucking forum administrator. If you were really concerned about the legal consequences then you would change your behavior. If you need to be concerned about the legal consequences then you probably should change your behavior.
I don't expect this post to cause any sort of change. I doubt it will even result in a conversation. All I am asking for is a little introspection. Think about what tolerance of this behavior will teach younger players. Think about the meaning that this has for the female members of our community. Think about the message that this discussion sends to players in vulnerable situations. How can they trust us to handle the serious situations if this is how we handle the lesser ones?
I mean we know why they didn't report Reppy
Eumaeus wrote:Vincent Drake wrote:-snip-
I have thought for a while about how I wanted to respond, especially given that most of the counterpoints you have presented are, by your own admission, events that I cannot reasonably be expected to argue against. That itself is disappointing: that you’ve chosen to interpret my words as arguments.
I have received run downs on the events you are referencing from a few sources, and the details that are not present in your descriptions, whether this be through omission or ignorance, seem to invalidate much of what you are saying. But that is all I have to say on those matters; I will not respond defensively over events I was not a party to or to counter arguments that do not apply to my own words. Thus I will do you the service of pretending that your account of events and their severity is accurate. Even then, when every single one of the Black Hawks’ previous complaints is presumed trivial, your behavior still is not justified.
What I will discuss is your premise, and how you seem gleefully unaware that it is a part of the exact problem I outlined in my initial post. Your argument is that the Black Hawks have been bringing up trivial matters over the course of the past several years, and that the Grey Wardens as an institution have become desensitized to them. Crying wolf, as you say. What concerns me about this situation is how it seems that everyone but the Grey Wardens themselves have realized pretty quickly how serious this incident is. The complaints are not only from the Black Hawks anymore. When a forum administrator describes your behavior as carrying “certain sexual connotations, particularly of the sexual harassment flavoring…”, it is not the shepherd boy crying wolf anymore, but the shepherd’s master. I am not sure which is more concerning, that the villagers in this fable seem to have ignored the shepherd masters’ warning as well or that they could not see the wolf in the pasture to begin with. And this was not a wolf in sheep’s clothing , mind you, this was a wolf that you willfully refused to look for. The earliest instance I have found of someone articulating a sexual connotation to TGW’s use of the word “daddy” is from 2017. That is almost two years of the boy crying wolf for real without the villagers ever looking in his direction.
To put it bluntly, your response is of the same ilk as those who dismiss sexual assault allegations because some people file false claims, despite studies showing that false allegations of this crime are no more prevalent than those for any other crime. You willfully chose to ignore genuine concerns, whether you thought you were justified at the time or not, and are now trying to spin the blame onto those who brought them up in lieu of admitting any sort of institutional responsibility.
And that is what you are trying to do. You are failing to convince me. The concept that the members of a region represent it through their actions and through their words is an intrinsic aspect of Gameplay politics. You adhered to this concept when you clumped my words and actions together with the rest of the Black Hawks’, despite my explicit statement that my membership there was not a factor in my feelings on this matter. Outright denying responsibility for your own soldier’s actions reflects poorly on your leadership.
I am not arguing with you, but confronting you with reality, at least as I experience it. If I were trying to argue then I would address why I think Escade is clearly not making an accusation anymore than Reploid Production is. But I won’t, because my goal is not to convince you of anything. Only you can choose to reevaluate reality as you experience it.
I do not think that you, Roavin, or the Grey Wardens are bad people; in fact, I would like to believe the opposite, and apologize if anything I said in my original post came off as a character attack. I think you made a series of poor decisions, which has now put you in a difficult position. The way out of this position that saves you the most face still involves you losing face, and you are lashing out while fighting to find another way. I empathize with your situation, and wish you the best of luck in resolving it.
I wrote this opinion piece because of a series of different issues however it continues to be applicable here as well because NationStates is NationStates.
Actually I just spoilered my post because TGW will next report me for quoting lengthy quotes or something else ridiculous. Please read Eumaeus' posts for a very equitable way to look at this situation.
