full transparency: i showed the post to the people named in it (Khan, Moogle, Void, etc.) in private before I brought it in here. I chose to bring it in here because I could not stand the thought of having to defend against it by myself, and I could not risk the possibility of it happening again if my trigger/trauma was so conveniently forgotten when it was posted in CV
Fwiw, I'm not sure the Ray thing really qualifies since it's a bit of a different dynamic (warning someone about convos being leaked with prior intention vs this whole debacle). I'm assuming this is a different situation from Moony leaking his convos, since I do seem to recall that being considered fine from almost everyone, plus he didn't have prior intention (I vaguely recall something like what you said happened and most of the thread being like 'plz don't', but yeah. Don't remember the deets.)? I can sorta see where you're coming from, but I think it's a little... eh... unfair. I mean, suppose you say both people are at fault, or whatever synonym for blame there is that encapsulates that concept you're going for. It begs the question of why this 'both people are at fault' thing only comes out in a few cases, like this and in the case of people suicide baiting or sexually harassing other users more directly? Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but I definitely do not remember anything like this 'both parties are at least partially at fault' thing coming out when we were all discussing vent threads and responsibility for people's words, when some people were arguing it was other people's own fault for reading a thread they knew would upset them? And with shit like that autistic guy who used to be fairly high up in Autism Speaks acting as something of a whistleblower of obvious information re: their horrible treatment and attitude towards autistic folks, or with whistleblowers in general? It's consistent in some cases, but in others it seems completely absent, and the times it comes out seems to be almost in order to deflect, at least a little, from yourself or people you feel obligated to defend in some way (maybe due to your mentioned thing with defending people who you see as being dogpiled even if you don't necessarily agree with them or their actions?). I don't know. But mostly it comes off like wanting to displace at least a little of the anger at you elsewhere, especially when you're sort of... not particularly strongly taking responsibility for your own words causing hurt. Like, the post I'm responding to seems to be the strongest example of such (first three sentences in the second paragraph, ftr), and probably would be fine if it was the first thing you were saying, but when it's overshadowed by the previous post about how Maya Needs To Realise She Caused This, combined with some of the stuff in the post in quoting, it makes it sound like you think that either Maya is responsible for most of the hurt caused, or that the (smaller) amount of hurt she caused is the Most Important Thing for people to notice. It doesn't look good.
Sorry, but no. You get to be responsible for your actions, just like I am responsible for my actions. All of them, every time. That is what responsibility is. If you make a choice about whether to go public with a thing, then yes, you are responsible for the effects that has. Good and bad. I am not saying you made the wrong choice. I am saying that it's unreasonable to claim credit for the parts you like and deny responsibility for the parts you don't. I don't like them "as an afterthought" or "only after you show distress" either. I know that people do not like being told that their friends have hurt people or are doing bad things. I know that you have issues with feeling like there's an implied obligation to Fix The Thing. It wasn't "as an afterthought", that was in there way earlier than most of the other material. The interpretation of it "as an afterthought" is not a thing that I did or said.
This strikes me as a massive misreading of my previous claims about how responsibility works. I usually say that both people are at fault in cases where, if either person had acted differently, the thing wouldn't have happened. There are plenty of cases where people acted inappropriately and I did not suggest that any part of that was someone else's fault. But there's also been cases where people specifically and with premeditation went to troll someone to get a reaction from them, and the reaction was bad. (And I know of cases where I have seen the chat logs of people talking about their intent before they made the posts; this is not a question of my ability to judge intent.) And in that case, yes, I think the people trolling for a response are at least partially at fault. You may not recall it, and it may not have been very explicit, but I have on many occasions said that people should consider not going out of their way to read things that they find distressing, and that if people keep doing that, that is on them. Even though saying the distressing things is on the people saying them. But when I'm responding to people who are saying that absolutely 100% of all responsibility for being hurt is on the people who read a thing that hurt them, I don't need to communicate that those people could in some way bear responsibility, because my audience already figured that out. I'm only interested in the new information that there's other possible responsibility too. With whistleblowers in general, I don't think there's any obvious reason to think that their actions caused any harm in the first place. The harm they're reporting on isn't their fault. On the other hand, if a whistleblower gets a company shut down and people end up out of work? Yes, they contributed to that happening. In such cases, that was almost always a better choice than not contributing to it happening, but it still happened. The healthy ones work on that and deal with it. I don't tend to assert things when they're already agreed, and that's caused a lot of problems in the past, but it's still a persistent pattern, and it's especially a persistent pattern in cases in the past, which are a big part of your sample space here. So, let's look at that sentence, in particular, think about why I feel obligated to defend people. Usually it's because I feel that someone is being unfair to them. So yes, I am much more likely to point out that there is more than one kind of fault involved in cases where a lot of people are asserting that one party is 100% exclusively at fault for a thing than I am in cases where people are already discussing ways in which multiple people contributed to a thing going badly. Possibly that's because, in cases where people are trying to assert that one party is 100% exclusively at fault, I am more likely to think "actually there is other fault here" is contributing new information. I have no idea how to evaluate the relative amounts of hurt caused. I think that there's a significant difference between the hurt I reasonably anticipated, which I am fine with owning up to, and the hurt that surprised me. And several people have told me that I should not have been surprised, and I guess that is probably a fair point. But, as noted, sometimes I'm sort of a dumbass, or I think people have different internal logic than they do, and then I make mistakes. I don't know. I'm usually pretty careful to try to avoid setting off social anxiety things as much as I can, and I have post moderation to help with that. But it's never gonna be perfect.
Okay, I've taken time to do some self-care and think, and...this is still reading to me like the best case is that it's a canned response that is not actually paying attention to what was said, just that it was said about that specific issue. Worst case, it's sarcasm. I'm trying to be hopeful and give benefit of the doubt and assume that it was at least intended to be a helpful response, but it still does not feel like a response where someone actually read what was being said. It's especially bizarre, as a response to what Kathy said, because repeating that you can't respond coherently to that thing without disclosing private info not only doesn't actually address any of what she was saying (especially not the quoted part) but what it does do is raise more questions. I mean, Kathy literally just clarified and put into better words the thing I was trying to say: we don't need to know anything about the private info! The private info is not the important part here! The important part is that no one on staff - especially not Seebs, which is really important right now - has said anything that even approximates to the words "the info we have doesn't match Void's experience, we're sorry" and the more this keeps being pointed out and those words keep not getting said, the more it actually does feel like Void is being accused of lying. And I swear to fuck, Beldaran, if you trot out the same damn canned response again, I am just putting you on ignore until this shitstorm is done. It'd be less aggravating to see nothing than to see what might as well be an auto-responder.
The only conclusion I can glean from "we cant reply coherently without disclosing private info" as a response to "the info we have contradicts what void said" is, at this point, a vague implication that void is giving two different answers in public and private and Um. Like how else do you read that answer, aside from so blatantly missing the point of request for acknowledgement the information privately given is different from the stated reason that mods embody this gif
@turtleDove the same answer keeps being given because the same question keeps getting asked (why cant staff share X information about Y thing?). the reason why its the same answer has also already been explained (its private, they don't have permission, and saying anything else would potentially give stuff away one way or another). at this point to get a different response either: the circumstances have to change (i.e. permissions of who gets to look at and share what needs to change from what it is now) the question needs to stop being asked is that frustrating and/or upsetting? absolutely does that change the circumstances? no will rephrasing the question while keeping the core of it is the same help resolve this problem? not while the circumstances are the same @Carnivore ...you just did the very thing used as an example of why they can't tell us anything more. because if we have enough info to piece together the thing then too much private info was leaked. and speculating about such unknowns leads to conclusions that are either incorrect (but still harmful from fueling paranoia and other brain bugs since this IS a mental health forum) or correct (and harmful from being a leak of info). neither of which helps with the core issue of "info was shared that was supposed to be private" maybe reconsider this line of thought?
I will not, as the core request is "Just acknowledge that the two pieces of info are different, you do not have to prostrate why it's different" as explained both by kathy and TD (to which you're doing the same and implying this is not what is being asked but rather "why are the pieces of information different, what are the reasons") And therefore the forced repetition of the answer given no matter how many times it's rephrased to try and explain "All we want is acknowledgement" is either humongous cant read syndrome or that the source of the conflicting information is possibly coming from void, which doesn't make sense to me but I'm giving the mod's credit in that they cant be THAT dense in reading comprehension, can they?
You have to have the same response to all questions! Else you can just play 20 questions and figure out the answer! Spoiler: a demonstration Is it a person? No. Is it a place? No. Is it a thing? I am not at liberty to discuss this information. Is it a mineral? No. Is it a toy? No. Is it a food? I am not at liberty to discuss this information. Is it a meat? No. Is it a sandwich? No. Is it a fruit? I am not at liberty to discuss this information. Is is apples? No. Is it oranges? No. Is it bananas? I am not at liberty to discuss this information. The truth is bananas, but does that make it safe to answer the person/place/thing question? I don't know! I don't know what layer of 20 questions we're on! Neither do you! The more real answers you get the closer you are to solving the puzzle, which is a bad thing!
just acknowledging if the information is different or not is a leak of private information a thing the staff refuses to do you can continue to beat your head bloody against a brick wall all you like but at the end of the day it is your choice to do so and your actions that are causing whatever feelings you may or may not be having regarding it blaming it on the people who refused to tear down the (metaphorical) brick wall (regardless of their reason) is incoherent at best but if that is your choice then there is nothing more i, or anyone else, can do to try to help you
exactly my point. the more the "we can't discuss this without compromising private info" we're spoonfed instead of being told "hey the two pieces of information are different thanks for playing" the more it's either making modteam look like a slapstick team thrown together by the stooges for a bit gag OR the more it's just whittling down the even remotely sensible answers until we get something tangible to work with. THERE IS ALSO THE CHANCE someone or someones wildly misunderstood this "private info" that no one in particular gives a shit about nor are needling the modteam to disclose (again we don't want it as a whole), so both answers are right but also both are wrong and since that info is private, we the community cannot potentially point out the flawed reasoning, the disconnect, etc.
okay wait how. if the information is the same they read and interpreted it wrong, it is not a breach of privacy as void stated the reason why he moved in with wax if it's different then it's different how is this a leak of private information?
It's because it's a definitive answer, that you can then use to narrow down what the secret might be. It brings you down a layer in the 20 questions.
because it answers one of the "20 questions" questions with a "no" instead of a "we are not at liberty to say" (using the example Vez gave above) i.e. it is in and of itself giving us details about private information either that said private info is the same as what was shared publicly, or that it was different that is in and of itself data leaked private data that is why they can't answer even that "simple" a question *minor edit for clarity* *minor edit for shit spelling*
I suppose you guys have sherlockian deductions skills because answering "the information we got is different from the stated OP reason" does not give me ANY direction to go by if that were the answer. I wouldn't know who told them. I wouldn't know why they were told that. I wouldn't know when it was said. I wouldn't know why it was said to them. I wouldn't know how they got this information, and I wouldn't know what the purpose would be to tell them something different.
Exactly! All of those things you wouldn't know are potential questions you can now ask, some of which may lead to the secret.
but you would know if that particular part of private info was/was not different you don't need sherlockian deductive skills to know something that was directly told to you and the mods don't know who, if any of us, may have sherlockian deductive skills and that is why protecting private information is so important it isn't about stopping threats that are known definites, but potential threats ...its like not letting some stranger walk off with your kid. do you know they are a predator? no. do you want to take the risk? not usually. there is also the issue of boundaries and how leaking information that was given in private with the understanding it was to remain private is a violation of them asking someone to violate another's boundaries is kind of shitty all on its own which is prolly at least part of why seebs (and possibly other mods) are getting frustrated/upset about this too
Well my Sherlockian skills are telling me this is such an obviously stupid reach it confirms Void made the claims.
You guys are missing my point and it's late so I'm dropping the conversation as I'm not invested in the results of this thread, having been pissed off at seebs and the moderation team's tactics as a whole for what seems like a year now and am obviously very distrustful of them because of it. Not all the mods get my dissatisfactory sideeye, but it stands to reason that once bitten, twice shy. I would pick it up when more coherent, but I feel like it would be trying to explain why a square is a type of rectangle but not every rectangle is a square and then getting told that i don't know geometry shut the hell your mouth, carnivore
For what it's worth I'm not trying to be hostile, I just like logic puzzles, and I didn't mean to tell you to shut up.
