[Report] Flaming in Security Council

[Syberis]

Yikes.

I am completely against.

This guy has anger issues.


Edit:

We can add self-centered to the list, as well.

Pretty clear-cut to me.

[Queen Yuno]

It's a Commendation thread that was recently reawakened.

I'm not going to just follow along and copy the other sycophants. If a Commendee is about to get commended, I must warn the other voters that they are about to pass a commendation of a very volatile player (and it's true! He literally yelled in a very public nsgp VC for like 20 mins, unprovoked, extremely traumatizing experience. I thought that I was over it, but I still am feeling physical anxiety thinking about these unprofessional behaviors, even now. I can't believe that he did that in a public space. And most people don't bat an eye. Shows how desensitized the Gameplay community really is, because they're too used to enduring toxic behavior. Evil Wolf was there too.) I mean, I really think the public deserves to know what they are about to pass a commend of. If the guy doesn't want any criticism whatsoever, then don't post a Commend thread in a public space to all*? No need to stroke your ego if you don't want to hear any opposing viewpoints.

*Regarding the topic of commends: In 2022, we have a culture where humble players, practically flawless and serene players like GBM who simply say that she disagrees about getting Commended, simply won't get commended, even though a number of people asked if they could commend her, she said no she doesn't want one; and these people agreed not to publish a Commend Thread about her. They said they will only publish a Commend draft of her if she agrees. I witnessed this recently.

So if the guy , Tim Opilis, doesn't want to be subject to criticism, he could've simply said "nah Quebec i don't want a Commend, I don't really deserve one" one whatever, rather than "sure and post this on the forum as well. Everyone will suck up to me and no one except one person will dare criticize me lol."

Edit:
Also due to Syberis's friendship with Tim and unwarranted hatred of me spamming multiple years (including him making public comments over the years), Syberis has been holding a grudge against me and has been looking for things to report. It is not coming from a place of non-bias. I don't think that I should censor myself just for these people though, when I am in the minority to give a fresh perspective, and there are plenty of sycophants who suck up to the guy. I want to say what I really think, or point out the issue, instead of lie and give fake compliments. I believe if you've been on the internet; famous celebrities get criticized all the time. Tim is pretty famous in NS, leader of entire factions.

[Sedgistan]

The post was worth reporting. It is an attack on Tim's person. I don't feel it reaches the level where Moderator intervention is required.

The nature of gameplay is that someone's personal characteristics can be relevant to judging their gameplay history. Things like reliability or trustworthiness, as a couple of examples, are personal characteristics that impact on one's gameplay activities, and could be critiqued when assessing someone's gameplay actions.

I would urge caution in this kind of commentary, as it can quickly and inadvertently cross the line into flaming/baiting/harassment, and especially when there is a history between those players.

[Syberis]

While I understand what you're saying, and on at least some level. I agree with you, can I get a second opinion on this please? I feel like there's a pretty distinct difference between opening a discussion about the players, personality and bearing and whether it actually impacts anything, instead of just dropping by the thread to say someone has "anger issues," which without any additional context given by the poster, reads more as an aspersion on mental health than meaningful discussion about what kind of player we want to have recognized by the SC. Especially with the history between these two players.

Considering there was literally no other meaningful discussion added, it doesn't feel like there is a point to be made, just an attack to be had. I feel like the statement could have been made in a way that didn't bridge the rules, and in a way that encourage discussion of the player's personality, but this reads more like the intent was to come in and flame a person.

ETA:

As an example, there are a few people on this game I think are cowardly. I'd think I'd be expected to go in, cast that discussion and explain why they are and why it's relevant, instead of making my post "They're a coward. Opposed."

[Sedgistan]

Sure, I'll flag this for a second opinion.

[Queen Yuno]

I agree with Sedge and I disagree with Syberis. I held back a lot. People have said worse criticisms about me, and those have gone unchecked. I see here that Syberis is only pushing his grudge hard because of his own personal long history with me, and not because he genuinely believes it. He would be perfectly fine if someone wrote the same post about me, and not report, because Syberis himself also talks exactly the same way about me.

-----

Furthermore, that single frank review wasn't even going to get dragged out.

Nobody replied to my post that criticizes Tim Opilis, so that means that they either 1) know it's true or 2) know it's a thing, and simply moved on to continuing complimenting him or posting new drafts. Either way, that post isn't gonna get dragged out; it's simply just there as a frank review.

For every 1 criticism he gets, he has a faction of 10 compliment-givers to soften the blow, and bury the criticism.

An outsider who doesn't know who this candidate is, would have seen his 10 fans sucking up to him, and think "wow he must be really perfect, no one said anything bad, so I'll cast my votes for him." I don't want the public to be misled about him by lies, and then cast their votes based on propaganda that he is flawless and perfect and nice in general. It is difficult to criticize someone without just being frank. I have learned to refrain from criticizing for as much as possible, outside of Commends or Important Announcements threads where his history is the topic. I rarely criticize him nowadays, maybe like once or twice a year maximum whenever the tide on his side is too one-sided: Once when he announced that he was retiring from NS, and the other times when people are pushing his Commend (Tim Opilis has done the same thing as me and criticized me plenty of times too.)

But when the candidate posts regular reports about his region, I don't even post "you suck." I simply stay out of those threads, and don't say anything, because they're just regular regional reports. I definitely always hold back unless necessary. I agreed with Sedge's point that criticism should be reported to be looked at; and, critiquing someone's person, would be worse if it were a regular player, if it didn't occur in a Commend thread but a regular thread where his gameplay history is not the discussion topic, and if he were less prominent and didn't have 10+ compliment-givers to soften the blow.

So no worries about giving a reality check to preclude a Commedee's hubris from getting overinflated by the others, the reality check being legitimate criticisms that the candidate can, and should, work on, and improve himself; someone has to say it when no one else will (even though they secretly agree, they don't want to say it because of all his defenders.) Giving only compliments to a volatile player and 0 criticisms could make someone think they are perfect, and will prevent the player from changing and improving, and he would only get worse, especially when there's going to be a LOT of compliments since it's Commendation, (and not to mention, AFTER the Commendation gets passed, he'll be getting compliments forever, complimenting his badge, getting more fame looking at the Commend draft.) Honestly, having no pushback whatsoever, would do more harm than good, even if the pushback fails, it's still better than nothing, for those who go through every post to look for any opposing viewpoints and seeing none exist. We shouldn't stroke every candidate's ego (lord knows it will be stroked when the thousands of votes are cast, and then if it passes, continued on), but show that there are flaws.

I'm fine with the original ruling. I'm cautious and stay out of most threads by simply not posting, it's not like it's a frequent thing.

[Queen Yuno]

ETA:

As an example, there are a few people on this game I think are cowardly. I'd think I'd be expected to go in, cast that discussion and explain why they are and why it's relevant, instead of making my post "They're a coward. Opposed."

Did you not read my post?

If I had gone into detail on WHY, then I would have specified that he is volatile off-site and how (I'd have cited all the instances where he misbehaved and mistreated a number of NS players. And I know that the Mods won't want that. I was under the impression that the Mods do not like Offsite being mentioned in general, even in Commendation threads. Why would you want me to go into detail about my review? You're seriously criticizing my lack of detail? If you really wanted details, you could have just replied "Why?" to convey to me that I was lacking in details. Then I'd have GHRed my response why to the mods, and if the mods approved it, I would have posted my answer to you.

I think that mods don't like offsite being mentioned in general much, so how else do you expect me to convey that this candidate is bad? I also feel it's unethical to completely NOT reference a player's offsite personality (if it's bad,) to mislead the Commendation voters. Most people DO base their votes on the candidate's character, not just IC actions only. (Especially when a candidate's character is what leads to many IC events.) People Repeal Security Council commendations based on Character, too.

But I was worried that going in detail about the Specifics would be something the Mods disapprove on, so I simply gave my review short and succinct. However, countless, countless players have been at the end of his wrath, and this is common knowledge, I was just respectful enough to not go into detail on all the names and why. However I genuinely don't think this player should get Commended, it would do more harm than good to the game's culture.

Just think of this like an Amazon review.

[Esternial]

I'm far from a GP denizen and I could only base myself on what is provided here.
Although it wasn't easy to make a decisive ruling here, after reading through all of it I follow Sedge's reasoning.

I would like to repeat his words of caution, however. Try not to let things escalate...

EDIT: Whoops I shouldn't have locked the thread. Sorry.

[Tim-Opolis]

For what it’s worth, I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the continued efforts by a player OOC banned from a fair few major GP communities following me around with fantastical embellished accusations and claims about myself and others as an effort to smear those who were affiliated with the administrative investigations against her.

I didn’t particularly care about the SC comment, but these follow-up rants are getting disturbing.

[Queen Yuno]

For what it’s worth, I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the continued efforts by a player OOC banned from a fair few major GP communities following me around with fantastical embellished accusations and claims about myself and others as an effort to smear those who were affiliated with the administrative investigations against her.

I didn’t particularly care about the SC comment, but these follow-up rants are getting disturbing.

I don't follow you, I have you discord-blocked, and I only criticize you like once per year.

And ONLY because your Commendation was TRENDING, so quite a few NationStates players linked it around often naturally, and even passed me a link. I read, and saw how the entire tide was completely sided with you, and posted why you're not commend-worthy. I don't go out of the way to look at you, this topic only fell on my lap because it was Popular and Trending. Either grow some skin or ask not to have a Commend Thread published.

Also, on his topic of OOC bans, Tim has no business with me: I've only got a tiny number of OOC bans which are due to sexist double standards: Tim gave a free pass to Otaku Stratus (delegate of Japan) for YEARS for "exactly the same thing he reported me for," even though Otaku Stratus didn't amend his mistakes for years. Tim did not give me a free pass, even though I rectified my mistake immediately and never did it again.

[United Calanworie]

Okay, this thread has served its purpose. A second opinion has been had, we don't need to rehash old arguments in this thread now. With the history between you two, you should consider putting each other on ignore and moving on.

With that, locking this thread.