that's not my take on it, actually. my take it on is that i know how to approach ct without setting off her "user wants to start a fight with me" alarms 'cause we have similar brainweird, which is a very different thing. she doesn't do that to me, though. i mean, in our arguments about temple, she doesn't change her opinion on temple but i don't need her to. she can think whatever the fuck she wants about temple.
Maybe you're the chosen one! Maybe she hasn't worked up to it yet! Truly, it is a mystery. But that certainly does not change my actual point, which was that she treats other people like shit and they aren't cool with that!
I believe in cT's ability to treat others decently and respect boundaries without others needing to have special knowledge of how to approach her. Her actions are on her, not on the people who supposedly approached her wrong.
i don't need ct to agree with me to be friends with her. and the only thing remotely close to "i'm sorry, i guess" in my interactions with her is "i don't agree with what you're saying but i'll drop the subject." it's hard to avoid going off when those alarms are going off in one's head, and it takes me a lot of effort to keep my cool when i think i'm under attack. i can do it but most of the time, when i feel like i'm being attacked, i either shut down and comply with whatever the person attacking me's saying or respond angrily at them. it takes a lot of trust most of the time for me to manage to do something that's not either of those responses at someone, and i often choose option 1 'cause it's less hurtful. i'm trying to get better at option 3, the middle ground between them, but option 3 is really difficult. and option 1 makes me feel a coward when i use it and i hate it, quite frankly.
Cool cool, cool cool cool. I don't really care about that though. If you'll check the entire like 2 posts I've made you will see I never said you guys had to agree or even thought that I think agreeing on everything makes for a good friendship. I feel the need to remind you we are not about you right now, we are about people who are tired of ct acting like she owns the place and people ct treats like shit, whether she thinks those people are friends or not. If you wanna talk about that some, I'd be happy to do so, but like I said I'm really not interesting in if you 2 are if the same mind on every little thing.
i'm saying all this to give insight into cT's behaviour and why i think she does the things she does 'cause i think you're misrepresenting it and the mods went about this in a way that was guaranteed to make this whole thing blow up into drama. sirsparklepants described this as public shaming and i think that description was very apt.
I am not the ct whisperer so who knows, maybe I am. But given the number of times I've seen her act like an ass and bully people, and also the number of people who have spoken to me personally about how scared of her they are, how annoyed with her they are, I think I'd still put my money on myself were I a betting man. Also maybe it is a little public shamey, but I can't really blame them when I sure as hell wouldn't want to have a private conversation with her. Also I don't really care about public shaming so much as others here. Their points are just as valid, it's just not a point that has much sway with me.
i think part of the reason they are being public is because they find ct creepy and do not want to have private conversations with her, and part of it is because the failure to reach some sort of resolution in public means that they have to perform an involuntary moderation action that was exclusively voluntary in the past, and are trying to be transparent about this change
so does none of the shit i said matter? like, fuck me running, dude, maybe i’m misreading you completely but this is seriously coming off as 1) it’s my fault for being uncomfortable, and my fault for not finding the magic words to make this stop, despite repeatedly saying “stop” in my thread. 2) i am making things up and my discomfort doesn’t real, because you personally haven’t had a problem. that is not cool. i am not misrepresenting anything. i said “when x, y, and z happen, they make me feel a, b, and c, and that sucks, because x, y, and z keep happening” either those things didn’t happen (They Fucking Did, Thanks) or i’m lying about my feelings (for what purpose?!) the intent behind the things is good to know, and i genuinely don’t think cT is some fucking cartoon villain, because like, she’s a person. but the fact of the matter is that her actions, however well intentioned, have been hurting people for a very long time. the mods may have bungled this somewhat, sure, but that doesn't fucking mean that all the people hurt are just doing it wrong. what the hell?
i feel like i'm being shamed for liking ct and being her friend and having pleasant interactions with her, that's what happening. and when she gets a fucking call out thread like wiwaxia did, it feels a lot like the mods are saying she's that level of awful.
what cassikat said had nothing to do with you in any way, and everything to do with cassikat's interactions with ct
DUDE no one is shaming you for anything!!! you legitimately have next to nothing to do with this conversation! it would probably be more productive if you just LEFT calm down, stop assuming everyone is judging you, go rewatch rvb or do something else fun just stop
y’all, i appreciate the support, but i got this, thank you. you don’t gotta step in and defend me. my discomfort is not about you. that post was about me and my issues personally with ct, and frankly i am deeply, deeply uncomfortable with you taking that and making it about you and your relationship. do not put words in my mouth. i don’t care who’s friends with cT, like i said, i like rping with ct! i do! you can be friends with her all you like, that doesn’t mean i can’t also have issues.
A big 'ol agree on that one. Also hey, no one is shaming you for liking ct, just for implying that your experience is more valid than cassikat's.
for clarification, i noticed that ua seemed to be having scrupulosity problems and was attempting to address this, not to shame ua or defend cassikat.
NOTE: ua requested a temp ban from this subforum, so they're not going to see this, but I think their point deserves a response. I don't know what the reasoning is; I'm concerned with the actual behavior which comes out of it, right now. I think your interpretation of the reasoning is plausible. As to the drama thing: I'm not sure what else we should have done. Prior experience with trying to have the conversation in private has left us unwilling to continue attempting it. Since cT specifically requires that we always quote, rather than paraphrase, we need to communicate with her in public if there's any chance of the subject matter of the conversation coming up. Which it will, because she'll paraphrase what we said. We had specifically started a thread in TCHGB for this, which she left and refused to return to. Now go look at her initial response here. It looks to me like it's got a number of materially false claims, and claims which serve to deflect criticism or blame by shifting it to other people. All the discussions about the TCHGB thread and me needing to "butt out", or me having "wiggled" posts, are simply false. I did not post in the thread, at all. I did not wiggle any posts. I went and looked at the mod action history; Chiomi moved her post. My "habit" of removing her posts from public view is also, so far as I know, not a thing. Of the posts by cT in the wiggler, one thread (with two posts in it) was created by me moving posts; in that case, it was because multiple users had reported the posts as distressing and/or inappropriate. I have no idea what arguments she thinks I am falsely ascribing to her. She said: I have no idea what this refers to; I don't see a single post even similar to this from me. Same issue with the thing about thirteen-year-olds; I don't think I said that, either? I can find one post on this site with the word "thirteen" in it that I made, and it wasn't related to cT. The thing about wanting to hear "I" messages comes across, to me, as sort of a deflection when offered in response to specifically having it pointed out that people are afraid to say things. Because of the history of being attacked if they say something critical. "I'm not willing to read everything nasty that some people on this site want to post about me or my character, particularly not the nasty speculations, or apologise without reservation to the people that I have grudges with unless they actually want to work out their shit with me including the parts that are their doing." This is vague, open-ended, and potentially applicable to basically anything. Criticism undesired? It must be a "nasty speculation". Or there's a "grudge" and that makes it okay not to apologize for things. "I'm also not willing to make up with Alix and if you can't figure that one out now, good luck." Okay, but where the fuck did this come from? Where the actual fuck did I say anything about, or pertaining to, Alix, in any way? I was not talking about Alix. I was not thinking about Alix. I did not refer to Alix, or to things Alix posted, or to things Alix did. This has nothing to do with my post, except that if someone read cT's post, and didn't read mine carefully, they might infer that I'd been telling cT to "make up with Alix", and that this was an unreasonable requirement. Well, it certainly would be, but no one proposed anything of the sort. But then cT brings Alix up again. Why? Alix has nothing to do with this. Alix was not a participant in any part of this in any way, so far as I can tell. Is there any reason to bring it up other than to stir up unrelated drama as a smokescreen? What I see here is a response which specifically avoids acknowledging any of the many outstanding issues that have been raised politely and in multiple different ways by multiple people, and just sort of gotten ignored. We have tried many times to find a way to avoid the "blow up into drama" thing while getting even an acknowledgement of the actual complaints people have made, rather than responses to unrelated complaints that weren't the substance of the issue. It hasn't worked. And her post contains a number of unrelated and/or false accusations against me, and extra references to unrelated drama that have no conceivable relevance, unless they're there to maximize the amount of blowing-up-into-drama that happens. It does not contain even an acknowledgement of the many, many, previous attempts to address these issues. Just excuses and deflections. And that is the problem that makes this a thing: That anything less blunt and unresponsive to demands that it go away than this has no effect whatsoever, and does not even get acknowledged. Heck, I could live with things going unacknowledged if the behavior changed. I could live with the behavior still being a thing sometimes if there were actual acknowledgement of it. But the double-whammy of getting no acknowledgement of the detailed and careful statements people have made of their complaints, and the problems continuing, seems like something that merits a response.
i don't think it was ua's intent to imply that their experience was more valid than cassikat's, though it was effectively what they did. they said that they identify as having similar brainweird, so it's not too difficult to make the logical leap of complaints about someone i'm similar to -> direct personal attack on myself
In the future if my direct words are being mentioned I would like a quote or a ping because I feel this is a misrepresentation of what I am saying. In the other thread, I was not in any way shape or form condoning CT's behavior re: boundaries. I have my own issues that I've brought up in the past but I don't have the spoons to engage in that discussion right now. I was solely asking about mod intentions for the future if similar situations came up. I'm going to unwatch this thread after this reply because I don't want to engage in this discussion right now. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions about what I actually said.
