Discussion Index

Of Jean, and Recent Posts

______
1999 Topic Index

Posted by LadyAce on 04/30

Hi all, It's with a little trepidation that I approach this subject, which has evoked so many strong feelings among us. But I feel that it is important that I issue a sort of caution here, and state my opinion. Jean's behavior has violated both the social codes and the administrative rules of LegendMUD. The administrative issues will be dealt with, and so I turn my attention to the social angle. This community has the right to be self-regulating with respect to who it accepts and who it rejects. But as we seek to regulate our social discourse, I ask you to consider carefully the means at your disposal. One of the previous posts suggested a lynch mob against the player. That's over the line, even as a joke. The true punishment that you can impose -- and really, the only one either mortals or immortals can impose, is separation from the community. Exile. I sincerely hope that events do not place me in the position of defending a player who I quite frankly find annoying, and who has broken the rules. I do not say this lightly, but here is a player who I will not fight to keep. I most certainly do not ask you to like him, or to agree with him. The immortal staff will deal with his violations to the extent of its jurisdiction, and I hope that the social community does the same. I do not ask that you make this a place he can live in -- only that you consider the fact that this must be a place in which the rest of us will continue to live. In anger, in annoyance, in frustration, we are still bound to those same administrative rules and social codes which he has violated. -LadyAce

From: Wuss Wednesday, April 28, 01:34PM

Well said, but there is a lot of lynch behavior that is tolerated off-the-boards, for example the attitude toward Arsene or some of the members of the Grendel clan. I personally find it less than optimal that these things do happen, but I also see no point in stemming that reaction. Sure incitement and such is destructive to a community, but I feel there should at least be some leeway in expressing contempt at somebody else's behavior -- like the debate that used to go on between pk and non pk. Most of us here are adults (legally... then again, who knows) and are able to see that most reactions they receive are from their own doing. Not often have I seen players that get exiled and isolated of things that weren't his doing or his responsibility -- and i think 'lynch mob' behavior is just another way of imposing social standards on people without calling admins for every little bickering. Wuss

From: Ton Wednesday, April 28, 02:19PM

Well you certainly can't say this is a common occurance here, have ing so many players speak out against someone, so strongly. Not even with Arsene were the comments all on one side, nor were the opinions voiced so loudly by so many people. To have someone come into "our" game, refuse to try it, and immediately start picking it apart is more than just annoying to me. Its insulting. It is a deliberate attempt to devalue the time I have spent here. I am not sure for me that the spam is the problem, as much as watching someone come here, and start insulting me without provication. By posting here in the manner Jean has, I read it as an attack on the mud, imms, and players. "What we are doing isn't good enough" Etc. Society (even cyber-society) has always felt it had the right to choose who is a member of that society. Be it just or not, we still should be able to choose if that is what we want. In the back of my mind I feel badly for Jean, and ashamed that I would treat someone this way. But my patience is gone, my temper is high, and his attitude is beyond what I think we need to deal with on a daily basis on this mud. The posts alone might not cause this, the attitue alone might not, but when you consider everything together, the insults, the spam, the disregard for other peoples feelings, rules, and opinions, and above all, the "mightier-than-thou" attitude, I am not sure many of us want to deal with something like that during our "fun" time. I can't say that I like that we have done it, but we've taken the only method we have at our disposal for removing someone from this society. (as players) We've posted, and that's where our vote counts and is tallied. Rambling now. Just want to say that doing it over again, I would still vote to be rid of Jean. -shrug- Can't say I am without regrets that it had to be done though.

From: Jean Wednesday, April 28, 05:09PM

LadyAce writes: How so? Nods. That doesnt mean a community is right in their action, but its certainly true. One of the previous posts suggested a lynch mob against the player. That's over the line, even as a joke.> Im glad you atleast agree with me on that. I sincerely hope that events do not place me in the position of defending a player who I quite frankly find annoying, and who has broken the rules.> How have i broken your rules?

From: Darkheart Wednesday, April 28, 08:50PM

We asked you to stop quoting, you still do.

From: LadyAce Thursday, April 29, 08:52AM

Yes, as Darkheart said, you have chosen to defy a direct request of the head of administration. You may not agree with her decision, but you are obliged to bow to it as a citizen here. You can appeal the decision to Kaige (kaige@mud.sig.net) or argue with Sandra about the virtue of her decision, but insisting upon violating a direct request -- quoting someone asking you to knock off the quoting, goodness me -- is just asking to make people upset at you, and less inclined to listen. And I suppose, if you do indeed wish to communicate, you might also consider the wishes of the people you are trying to communicate with. After all, there are two parts to communication, what the speaker may say and what the listeners may hear (not to mention all the perceptions of all those things) -- and if your audience says loudly and clearly, as this one has: "The ->manner<- in which you communicate is interfering with our ability to listen to you and consider what you are saying." then a sincere speaker will modify his or her approach. After all, is not your message currently more important to you than the medium? You may decide that your audience is silly, with their little quirks about how they like to listen, but continuing to berate their express wishes is even sillier. And as for the subject of banning, heaven help us, but you're no where near banning. We've probably banned fewer people than we ought to have, over the years -- and while this liberal attitude towards long-time abusers of the system is on a decline, you simply haven't placed yourself in that category. -LA

From: Jean Thursday, April 29, 02:01PM

in append 4, Darkheart writes: j- d- what, now asking makes rules :-p? when ladyace first posted the beginning of this thread, sandra had only -asked- me to stop. Now unless theres a rule that says that you do everything an admin -asks- you to do, i didnt break a rule there. Now shes -told- me to stop, which is different. Perhaps theres a rule saying that you have to do what an admin tells you to do. Id be less surprised with this as ive seen it before. The funny thing is that a little command could get rid of most of the problem- just putting in a little code allowing people to gag a person while using the read next function.

From: Jean Thursday, April 29, 03:21PM

in append 5, LadyAce writes: I didnt know that defying a direct request from -anyone- was against a rule. Now, when Sandra -told- me to stop quoting, ah, well, then i can see how imms would consider banning me or what not, just because thats the way you people work. You find it too irritating to persuade when a simple ban could supposedly snuff the problem out. Or be banned from posting, or banned from here Id assume. Remember that I, too, have options. I might send her a little mudmail telling her she might want to see whats going on here.. People have been ignoring me for a while now- if a nice little gag would be introduced for read next as wuss has suggested, i think we could solve this problem in a very amicable fashion. I do, but theres only a certain amount i will bend. The people I -most- want to communicate dont mind the quoting much anyways. One of the reasons why i love quoting- when i quote, theres no way i can misinterpret what someone said in a paraphrase because i dont paraphrase. True, i might still misinterpret in my response, but the person might be able to see more clearly where their communication is ambiguous that way and learn for the next time. manner<- in which you communicate is interfering with our ability to listen to you and consider what you are saying." then a sincere speaker will modify his or her approach.> As I said to someone else, if you had to deal with have the insulting posts Ive had to deal with, Id doubt youd be so kind. Nevertheless, I think im still pretty good, despite the numerous opinions to the contrary. Sure. That would be putting it kindly for most of my audience. I find it interesting that you never mention what their wishes are- that i dont quote. One of the silliest wishes ive ever heard. Well, that sounds nice.. but forgive me if i sound sceptical.. ive been banned from 2 muds already for much less. What im dying to know is what exactly would put me in that category- i would like to try to avoid it, despite all appearances.

From: Jean Friday, April 30, 01:05AM

in append 1, Wuss writes: Off the board, people kill each other- its not quite the same thing.. or is it? Either way you answer that question, it wont benefit you :-p. you and others have been expressing your contempt for me for a long time now. nothing was mentioned of that as far as i can see and i think thats fine- after all, i express my contempt for some of the actions you guys do too, he he :-p. Reactions one receives depends on 2 things- (1) ones own method of thinking (2) the methods of thinking of the people reacting. Certainly, most players are exiled for things that theyve done. That doesnt mean, however, that what theyve done is wrong. The whole idea of lynch mobbing is barbaric- the u.s. is ruled by a democracy, but lynching is still illegal because the populace, in its saner moments, realized that lynching is more negative then positive most of the time (there are, ofcourse, lynches that border or are revolutions.. thats something else :-p).

From: Jean Friday, April 30, 01:06AM

(part 2 of 2) in append 2, Ton writes: You certainly dont need to deal with it. You could leave the mud if nothing else. Or not be on the ooc discussion board. Or just ignore my posts. Or get this nice little message gag feature- thats the one im hoping for. Disregard for other peoples feelings? You should talk. Take a look at how people have been treating me; ive been an angel in comparison. Mightier? What might? Im level 6, for crying out loud; just a little one exploring about a bit. I think what you mean is the righter then thou attitude. Pretty much everyone has that attitude, or wed all think alike. the thing is, i like discussing my views, even when people are somewhat abusive to me (im not a glutton for torture, but i come close it seems :-p). id rather have people dissing me to a certain extent then to have no one to discuss things with is perhaps the best way id put it. Like you, I too can stop reading your posts- the difference being that I -want- to be able to defend myself to the world through -words-, not through banning or lynching. Go ahead, vote, and hopefully discuss even more. Thats what I want, thats what you seem to want. Where the problem is i think is that you just want me out of here whereas i have a far more open nature.

From: Vahn Friday, April 30, 04:34AM

Well, as I see it he has broken the rules. Why not just depeate him? he keeps quoteing when told to stop. And as far as I can see he is also abusing the board system. Just look at all his messages! Its seem's to me we have another Strife on the mud buy this guy is MUCH worse. And whats more, he types too fast! >:] Vahn Silverseed

______

1999 Topic Index