... What do you mean "haven't yet come to a working definition of abuse"? I've stated explicitly that Wiwaxia has engaged in characteristically abusive behavior in the past, and I've posted links and citations. I'm not super interested in repeating it again, but the most unambiguous example would be the "Missing Missing Reasons" (I like Issendai's description of this in the estranged-parent discussions) thing. There's been others. I'll concede that "formal" is the wrong word, but that was absolutely a statement about what other people should do, and what forums should be like. But see spockandawe's post; a public call for shunning is absolutely a thing which affects everyone else whether or not they accept it. Long story short: Wiwaxia has repeatedly made assertions that people with meltdowns are obviously actually in control and could definitely have not done that if they'd wanted to. Gosh, if only we'd had fifty fucking pages of discourse on how organized shunning is devastating to many people, and even the fact that it has been proposed can be terrifying, and how multiple people have fled the community, or chosen not to join it, because a highly visible community member regularly advocates for it. Because it turns out that a group of people doing a thing, collaboratively, has impact that is distinct from what happens if a similar number of people happen to do the same thing. It might help them with their mental health. It endangers other people. Except that I explicitly mentioned two of them. But this particular subthread? Absolutely about the specific goal of getting enough people to shun someone that effects happen to that person. And yet, "get them to go away" was listed as the primary and preferred goal. That's the goal of the behavior; it's aimed at having effects on the people targeted. It's there to have "social consequences", or "get them to go away". I did not miss it. The claim "we're not doing this to Make alix feel a certain way, and we are not responsible for dealing with how they feel as a result of actions we take for our own mental health's sake" is false. The explicitly stated goals are to "make them go away", break the part of the cycle where they feel like a normal and integrated part of the community, and impose social consequences on them. THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL IS FOCUSED ON THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE PEOPLE SHUNNED. Because without that impact, there's no reason for it. "You can ignore people if you want to" is not a new claim. It doesn't need to be introduced with thoughts about how ostracization is vital to the health of the community. The goal of this is to "freeze out" people who are unwanted. By organized group action. This is absolutely and specifically about how it makes the victims feel. I rarely get to use this phrase, but: The "individual action is useless" part gives the lie to that claim. That makes it crystal clear that the goal is entirely about the effects on the bad people, because if it were only about avoidance and personal choices, you would get 100% of the benefit if you personally ignored the person without any regard to what other people do. I have never, ever, claimed that things which are uncontrolled cannot be abuse. They can absolutely be abuse. Except for the links and citations and science pointing out that organized ostracization is devastating to the victims. And the fact that, by talking about shunning people, you have made it impossible for anyone else to individually decide to not engage with someone without their actions being understood in the context of a call for organized shunning. But you know what? It was completely explicit that the goals of this action were to have effects on people. You even quoted a thing supposedly showing that it was about something else, only you quoted the part where it was confirmed that the goal was to have "collective action" to accomplish things. And I don't know why you're trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, but I have zero interest in this bullshit. The goal is "ostracization", not merely "avoidance". It is shunning. It is "freezing out" people who are unwanted. It is to make them "go away", or have "social consequences". That is what was said, and that is what was being discussed, and your attempts to conceal this are offensive. If you were defending that as a valid choice or goal, I would have been happy to argue with you about it, because that is a valid and defensible position that people have advocated for. But you're not. You're trying to convince me that even though you and others have repeatedly used language which focuses exclusively on the impact on the targets of the shunning, actually it was always really about ethics in game journalism personally avoiding abusers. Even though there's no ambiguity, no room for doubt, and hell, even the special cherry-picked quote you used to make it look like maybe there was ambiguity ended up contradicting your claims. So, fuck off. Have the fucking courage of your convictions, or don't. If you're gonna call for shunning, just fucking admit that you're doing that, don't try to play silly buggers and confuse the issue and defend it as being something else. Wiwaxia's post called for ostracization and bullying, but it was at least fucking honest about it. I felt it was reprehensible, it was contrary to the entire point of the forum existing, but it was a true claim about how someone felt, and could be engaged with or discussed. Your posts are just dodging and lying about what was said and what was on the table. There's no "there" there.