Kistulot

Hi! Of course, as instructed by a GM, I am very happy to stop this for now. I would however like to ask that you explain what I did wrong when I was following the exact instructions in the quoted section? 😕 If you believe that I am making this a hostile environment instead of attempting to pursue a positive path forward, then I believe I should be made aware of how I am creating this disruptive environment so that I do not recreate these issues in the future. Thank you for all of the work you do for us! 🙂

🙂 I'm not seeing anything in here that allows for what was described! I see that it requests that we listen to Admins and GMs, but I don't see any of them in this thread! Additionally, this is something I would have felt comfortable posting on the original forums! Additionally, my intent has been plainly laid out. Unless my words are taken out of context or misconstrued, I believe it would be very easy to see that I am not attempting to break rules, but instead, I am proceeding in a new path as the previous paths have been sealed 🙂 Thank you for sharing these rules so I can make sure that I continue following them in the future.

Since you're being so helpful, could you please pinpoint the precise section? 🙂

Hello! 🙂 We've recently learned that there are many homecoming policies that are not publicly known but are internally very solid. While I would like to request those being made public--if only so we can know what rakes not to step on--I would additionally suggest that a process by which disagreements with policies might be handled in a manner that allows for actual consideration and debate, not merrily a "no and this is why" that ignores a reasonable rebuttal. Obviously, this can be declined as all suggestions may, but I believe that a formalized process for communication between those in the community and those making decisions would help both sides have a much easier time with interactions! 🙂 NOTE: As the two prior threads have been closed, please do not bring up those topics here. I am not attempting to simply make a new thread for the same exact purpose. As I continue on the forums I started with a request, and then with a critique, and now I believe that the synthesis of those ideas is to pursue this path not in a way that is solely for anything which I may have a problem with, but for all such problems that could possibly exist in the future. Please do not attempt to state that I am angry for being told no. Please do not treat me simply as a troll. This is a sincere subject that I believe has already shown it has reasons to come up. I am not seeking privileged Dev/City Council/GM access. I do not believe that opaque, hidden discussions between one player and the staff is as useful to the health of the game as open, visible discussion, which is a reason why I believe the forums have a value in this and other issues past, present, and future. Any reason from requesting reexamination of policies around a protected class, to changes to game rules based on shifting content or power sets or etc, so on, are all valid reasons why someone may wish to have a discussion that falls within these lines. By seeking to understand a process by which such situations might be navigated in a way that does not result in friction on either side, I believe taking what has already occurred into a count means this is the next logical course of discussion.

Deleting that post with a screenshot with the question of "why would anyone with 7k posts think this was acceptable behavior unless something was wrong" was not software. That was intentional. I'm going to use the most casual english I can. Look up at my posts in this thread. Where's the lie.

Let's take a moment to completely breathe nice and slow, and agree on something here: I respect a lot that you are able to look at what I've said and see where I'm coming from. I realize I may be making that sound dramatic, but the fact that we can agree, even so quickly, even in a situation that feels like more and more of a mess, is a place to build on. I sincerely find that beautiful. You have provoked, and you have been provoked, back and forth since you entered any of the threads I've been a part of. You literally came in just to roll your eyes at someone. I'm personally very okay with agreeing that, yes, it's not just been one sided, but I feel like it's somewhat unfair to claim that it's the same thing to get annoyed at someone and swipe back than it is to roll on in with one liners prepared. I appreciate a willingness to accept questionable conduct. Again, this isn't something just anyone will be willing to do, so I believe it has a lot of value here... ...honestly, if anything, I'm kinda glad at this blatant, brazen pettiness. Without it, I feel like my point would be a lot harder to make.

From my perspective I feel like that's basically a middle finger with no redeeming value to it whatsoever. If you feel another post better draws attention to this issue, please utilize that for a similar point. I don't think saying "but they did it first" absolves anyone of their actions, it can simply at times make them make sense. Explanations are not excuses, and vice versa.

I feel like a visual example here might be helpful. At the top of this section is where the last GM response occurred. At the bottom is a post that literally only exists to say "I know you are but what am I" with a single snarky link. It isn't even a different page. EDITED IN PORTION: If you believe it's Sai who is acting disingenuously, then that post took even less time. I'm inclined to agree with arcane, even if I believe they're making things worse for themselves, and everyone else. If you believe someone is causing a problem by responding, you have to look at both sides. Sometimes someone can be saying "here's some math that proves I'm right" and be abusive with it. It's simply factual that data can be misconstrued. Sometimes, the person who gets angry and reacts should be lightly censured, but the person responsible for causing the frustration requires a heavier, or lighter hand. I don't want to play sides here, as much as it seems one side of the equation has been far more welcoming of someone coming into this forum community with a goal in mind. As much as I think that arcane has caused his own problems in this thread, hey, I'll give someone support when I think they're right. I'm not here to root for a sports team. I'm here because I love this game, and because the issues with this forum make discussions that affect in game far more difficult than they should. If I was a reasonable person, I feel like I would have logged out and thrown up my hands by now... but I'm too invested in this game, and in the community that *isn't* able to log in here all the time and play at old rivalries. The current method is not working. This thread is an example.

It has not been my intentions to be unfair. However, accusing me of attacking when I am instead pinpointing a recurring flaw that is making me feel increasingly demoralized? That feels pretty unfair. If you're saying assets, staff, time, or facility for this thread, then I'm confused. If you're saying it for the other... none of those rationales were given for that situation, so I'm simply confused there. I apologize, but a lack of specificity only makes things more confusing, which I don't think is your intention. I'm very glad that you have a good working relationship with the other members of staff! 🙂 I sincerely am. I'm glad that you respect your fellow GMs. I also believe, very fiercely, that love and effort is put into this game. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be bothering with posting here at all. There's a difference between public lynchings and making it very clear what is and isn't acceptable. It's also been very clear to me in less than a week that people who act "civil" while crapping on other people around them are not seen as a problem. That's certainly a situation where you can feel free to disagree, but I do not believe that the posts that were deleted in this thread came about because people understood, in a public way, what they could or could not be expected to get away with. A lack of transparency, or being opaque, in situations like this is kinda obviously not helping anyone. I didn't create this situation by posting, but I sure did get to roll right into it by showing up. Sentinels are just blasters without the courage to get into melee and blap. Okay, that's a joke (mostly) but sincerely, it's this. Even if something is being done, if the same problem happens again and again and again... Pardon me for saying so, but that means the problem has not been resolved. I respect this. Also I'm not quoting it, but yet another message in bad faith from a person I've had to report multiple times today already who clearly does not believe there are consequences to their actions. TL;DR: It's cool that being a GM has gone well for you, but considering that right after saying things are handled respectfully and behind closed doors, there was yet more open hostility that kinda clearly shows that approach may not be working at all.

Addressing someone without reading all of their points is a waste of your time, and a waste of my time. The thread was explicitly reopened. If the only people with the authority to end the thread close it again, then it will be ended. Thank you for your time.

Instead of responding to things I already have

My apologies, I believe that I misconstrued and took more to be implied than it was 🙂

Since it keeps being assumed, I'm going to be clear: I'm not offended, nor furious, nor any other similar thing about the fact that the memorial was rejected. I have a counter argument to the rationale put forth for why it was. I take issue, as said elsewhere, with the way this has been handled and the way that bad actors who do not explicitly violate rules by calling other people doody heads are treated. Rational discussion of something that was reopened by a GM is not abuse. If you believe anyone is being outright abusive, please use the report function. Attacking each other will not get us anywhere, and nor will changing what's said because that version is easier to argue against.

I don't see anywhere where they said they weren't going to continue the discussion. They could very well be crafting a carefully worded response right now. I don't think you should be speaking for them any more than I should be.

Considering I can no more control what you ultimately do than you can me, it's a suggestion. It's not like I have any authority here.