I don't think "venting about getting scowled at" connects to the rest of this in any way. Like, imagine that you think people are hazing you, they deny this, and then you start talking about how awful airline food is. Even if we all agree airline food is awful, it's still a complete non-sequitur. And that's honestly a recurring theme here, which is that when you're upset, you'll sort of jump around to other kinds of upset that appear to have nothing in common but your emotional state about them, and that's actually fairly concerning from a medical perspective. Do you have any particular evidence that the PPC people generally engaged in "hazing" as a practice? Do other people discuss it, or say it happened, or anything? Because I didn't see anything that looked like hazing to me, and I think that if you accuse people of hazing you when they genuinely aren't, you're going to get some pretty bad reactions.
There are a bunch of things that can be seen as having some vague ritual purpose similar to hazing, but it's things like... People coming up with gifts to newbies in their (basically mandatory) introduction thread, or the whole permission thing. It is true that the "oldies" are much more respected and listened to, and that's a legit criticism and something that contributed to some drama, but I don't think that really amounts to anything like hazing.
It's feeling for others. It's taken a lot of work for me to block it off before I get overwhelmed and shut down, and to worry about myself when I need to.
I was writing out the message, which their invitation to do so is finally realizing that they need to do the right thing. I need to go through June-July of 2014 again before getting into August, but no one has looked at what amount of the draft I've already done. I wish I had known about Kintsugi in the beginning of 2015 and maybe found someone to mediate the disputes for me back then. Especially since people are getting distracted by my attempts to be heard enough for them to realize that they were not listening to me and instead insisting I was acting in bad faith.
you have a v interesting idea of what a word salad is. amazingly enough, just bc you don't like something, doesn't make it incomprehensible. but if you want a tl;dr version, here: you are the abuser in your situation w/ the ppc. no one gives a shit about what happened before your first ban, bc your behavior afterwards was just that fucking awful. you stalked and harassed an internet forum bc they decided they didn't want to deal w/ your racism and your inability to understand their rules and processes. even if you had a good reason for doing it, and please understand that you really don't, stalking and harassment are never ok your continued attempts to re-litigate the circumstances around your first ban make you look like a illucid narcissist who can't pull their head out of their ass.
greallan, i'd like to point out that thegrimsqueaker post you called "word-salad" got 12 agrees (including one from me), and that i found it very easy to comprehend. it was not word salad. you just disagreed with it, and/or had trouble comprehending it 'cause of your particular language processing difficulties.
I sometimes have difficulty reading things that I strongly disagree with, especially if I’m already anxious, or if it’s a reply directly to me. My eye skips around and I can miss huge chunks of text, and I have to force myself to go back and re-read before replying. It’s why I’m mostly replying here with one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Visually breaking up what I’m reading usually helps me when my eyes start going skippy like that.
In the PPC's case, they were bugging me and yelled at me every time I tried to tell them that they were bugging me, so I did jump to another thing that was bugging me. Here, trying to talk about what the PPC did to me results in "You're bullying innocent people!" and asking people to stop doing specific things that annoy me causes them to just keep doing it and yell that I have no right to tell them to stop. One element that's missing from it being hazing is whether they were being intentional or just subconsciously hitting some of the flags. In my case, there were some extra problems that they weren't prepared to handle. http://ocm.auburn.edu/stop_hazing/recognize/elements.html Hazing is based on power and control. That the oldies are more listened to than newbies is a problem, and the resulting drama was very damaging. In types of hazing, the PPC rituals barely qualify as subtle hazing. Because of my problems, "follow instructions" and "don't complain" turned a small issue into a big one. Most people will go "that's not as bad as it sounded" because things went smoothly. In my case, I was given so many bits of advice that I percieved as instructions that I was too restricted to be able to turn it into a good story. There was also the matter of being told I was wrong when I was right and they wouldn't explain exactly what the problem was. In 2015 I was told that people get rejected just to see how they react, but what they did was way over the line. https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/cny_high_school_club_initiatio.html I didn't get to ask my husband where he was during his first ship's shellbacking, (it would be like him to find something useful to do instead of even watching) but I know that he refused to participate because he viewed it as hazing and he didn't mention any abuse that happened specifically because of his refusal. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-initiation-to-become-a-Shellback-in-the-U-S-Navy/answer/Jeff-Kay This guy talks about how the ceremony got toned down so that the hazing could be viewed as something that they should be able to handle and not get shut down under hazing rules. I'm not up to digging too deep into the Bramandin stuff, but there were some things that I can drag from memory. I purposefully made a character that would cause problems with the prompts to see if they would give advice like maybe creating a replacement character. They weren't fun characters anyway and I didn't write with them before permission even though that became allowed and Desdendell said it was okay. At some point, someone that got permission under the old system came in and said that they probably wouldn't be able to handle the new system of using prompts. I chimed in, but was pretty much ignored. People even said to drop it because it shouldn't matter to him, and it got dropped. After I got permission, I tried to reopen the discussion and the system immediately got adjusted with no discussion. This indicates that maybe people without permission have less status in discussions about it. Alright, I'm having problems with the length of the sentences. The lack of capital letters makes it even harder. If it looks like I'm disagreeing with what they're saying, it's because someone else probably said it clearer, but I can't really work that out.
Okay, this is a thing that keeps cropping up, and the ways you try to come at this issue have been one of the things that got some of your posts wiggled and left others in mod queue limbo while we tried to figure out if it should be approved or not. Again, as many, many people have tried to explain, nobody is questioning whether how the PPC interacted with you hurt you. They acknowledge you were hurt. People are talking about how that interaction doesn't justify you hurting them, and doesn't justify a long-term campaign of sockpuppeting and harassment. People are talking about how the PPC dealt with you at first as context for why those actions weren't justified, because you don't agree with 'harassment is wrong' as sufficient reason. People keep coming back to it, because you keep talking about wanting to engage with the PPC again, despite you being the driving, antagonizing force behind the last few years' worth of interactions. People are passing judgment on how you and the PPC dealt with each other because those interactions are still out there, archived, the original posts, for anyone to go read. There is an archived history. Lots of people have read it. Lots of people have drawn their own conclusions about it. When the people have read the interactions firsthand for themselves, there's very little ground for claiming they shouldn't draw their own conclusions, or share them. You brought up the history and asked for advice, and people's advice has been overwhelmingly to disengage and stay disengaged, which isn't something you want to hear. If you asked for advice, and expected advice to enable outcome A, but people think A is a bad idea and you should pursue B instead, then... that's allowed? People aren't even necessarily saying that you're bullying innocent people. They're saying that you are bullying people, period, and how innocent the other people were isn't really a factor. They're saying that bullying is wrong, and managing to get into a position where you can hurt someone who hurt you doesn't mean that it's justified to hurt them. And this has been bothering me. You've made a number of posts where you claim you shouldn't have to apologize for hurting people, because it was accidental and you didn't realize or mean to do it. I emphatically disagree with that as a hard and fast rule, but let's run with it for a minute. The PPC had an entry process, and people here seem to largely think that while it asked things of the applicants, it didn't escalate to a level that deserved to be called hazing. My definition would include them intentionally, systemically inflicting pain/misery/harm on the people involved, and this is.... not something that would typically qualify as pain/misery/harm. The process still hurt you, specifically. People do agree on that. But people are trying to say to you that while the process might have been annoying for applicants, it wasn't hurting most of them that way. Basic conclusion: Since they didn't know about you and your individual issues, they couldn't target you specifically, and the pain was unintentionally inflicted. It was an accident. But as an accident, by your logic that you've used in multiple threads on here, they didn't mean to do it, so they shouldn't have to apologize.
greallan, i would like to illustrate, based on my personal experience with something similar to the Permission process, why the ppc Permission process isn't hazing. i'm keeping this vague 'cause who the other people involved in this and what roleplay this is - i'm in several roleplays right now - is irrelevant to my point, btw. so, basically, there's this moderated roleplay i play in, with rules and guidelines and requirements and rigorous continuity and rigorous worldbuilding, and to play in it, i have to try my best to respect the continuity of it and take guidance and correction from the mod when necessary. i can't just do whatever i want within that roleplay, and if i'm told that i need to stop doing something in it, i need to stop doing that thing in that roleplay - even if it is a thing i can do in other roleplays. the rules, the guidelines (eg. "if you don't want [thing] to happen, don't have your character do [thing that, within the worldbuilding and continuity of the roleplay universe, is practically guaranteed to cause that thing]"), the continuity, and the worldbuilding are important to making that roleplay what it is and to why i love it. i can't just change it to suit myself, and the mod is not obliged to care about whether it's a game i can handle playing - 'cause, honestly, if the requirements of it ever become too much for me, i can leave it. playing in this roleplay is optional, and the mod has no obligation to cater to every single person who plays in it, may want to play it, or has played in it in the past. it is their roleplay, when it comes down to it, and the players in it are just guests. not all the roleplays i play in are this strict and/or strict in this particular way but that doesn't mean this roleplay shouldn't be allowed to be the way it is. and if i found the rules too strict and mean, and decided to harass the mod for it, i would be in the wrong. it's a fun roleplay but that doesn't mean people are allowed to disregard its requirements and play in it anyway.
So, folks, this is an interesting example of pathology. Narcissistic behaviors are often caused not by thinking you're the best and most important, but by thinking you're the most oppressed, the person in the most pain. And as a corollary, there's often some failures in theory of mind - a failure to recognize that people do and believe things for different reasons, and disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're stupid, crazy, immature, or deliberately trying to mess with you. For instance, here: - I would do this only if I were hazing people and trying to hurt them, and therefore that is what they were doing - I was hurt more than they were, so it was right for me to lash out; hurting them back is the only way they will understand they are wrong - The fact that the PPC does not agree with me means they are deliberately trying to hurt me, and also they are stupid, because there is no way for a reasonable person to disagree with me - The fact that Kintsugi people (pointedly, @thegrimsqueaker above) are disagreeing with me is a sign that they are crazy (implying schizophrenia), or that they are not listening to my explanations, because there is no way for a reasonable person to disagree with me I feel like all the arguing is kinda... missing the fundamental issue, which is that Greallan, you really gotta work on your theory of mind. It is possible for reasonable people to fully understand the situation and still think you're wrong. This is not a sign that they are trying to hurt you or mess with your sense of reality.
yep, exactly! if someone played a steve uchiha in that roleplay, the mod would have words for them and either: a) work with the player to fix the character and the player's behaviour b) kick them or the character out, if they were unwilling to fix the problems with the player's behaviour and the character
That's not debugging, that's editing a single post. The bugs in most of those interactions have been addressed at length: i.e. you behaved badly. What are you confused by such that it needs debugging? You are being heard. You are not being agreed with. There is a difference.
Just goin' on record: I don't think there's any amount of editing or re-wording that is going to make any of us somehow feel your subsequent stalking and over the top "what the actual fuck is wrong with you" level actions were justified or reasonable in any way. So like.. if that's your end goal, to make that happen and have us agree with you on that, heads up that you're prolly not gonna get the fruit you want from that particular tree because it's not just a dead tree it's on fire.
I pissed on the flaming tree and then it blew up because it was a eucalyptus and now our entire field is ablaze.
