Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Comic Games Are Still Fun!
-
To give some thoughts, beyond simply dumping logs (sorry 4 formatting!)…
The Chaucer/Shakespeare dichotomy was truly a turd/shit sandwich kind of situation, but the status quo now makes the Chaucer half moot. Shakespeare is what we have left, and she’s basically the anti game-admin, easily one of the least motivated staffers I’ve ever seen. She’s disinterested in her own game to the degree I’m surprised she didn’t just randomly hit @shutdown yet. While she does protect her friends, in an odd way it’s almost not even favoritism, because she won’t take action on anyone for anything. Wade screeching horrific personal attacks is the bar is for catching a ban.
I think its all unsalvageable, and not to encourage Chaucer & co’s GOMO, but I’m absolutely in the place where I’m ready for an alternative game. It just doesn’t seem like there’s another large generalist offering. (I’m aware of Excelsior! but its small roster makes it hard to get a character. Not a criticism, just a reality.)
@renaveleigh re: the Xaviers stuff, this is tricky. I think your frustration is valid but that you’re probably misreading things a little, including the idea that Shakespeare is actively protecting Rogue. My understanding is that they’ve long since fallen out. Shakespeare’s only friends are her ever-shrinking personal RP circle.
I clicked over to the MSB log linked up top and reading myself talking to Ruby about UH is mind-numbing. So I appreciate frustration in dealing with her. But Jean & her alts and Nathan & his alts are among the tiny few players left on the whole damn game running actual comic book stuff with any kind of regularity or quality, and they’ve both seem like shockingly sane, adult people in every interaction I’ve had. It’s notable you give him a pass while turning on her, even though you admit he fundamentally agreed with them.
So it comes across as personal vendetta & hate directed at Rogue/Ruby, and anyone else who dares be friends with her. In this, I urge you to reconsider your zeal, because it’s easy to pick a side in these these fights, stake your hill to die on, and end up not looking much better than the other guy (I used to do this a lot). For instance, that log involves 1) people talking politics, which they’re not supposed to, 2) Rogue asking them to stop, and 3) you sniping back at her instead of stopping when asked. To be clear, that means Rogue’s the one following the rules in the Shakespeare post you supposedly agree with, and you’re the one violating it, right? So are you toxic? Or would you agree with Jean/Nathan that maybe people just sometimes get emotional.
Not to come down too harshly, and to tie it back, I’m going to reiterate that this is all Shakespeare’s fault. Shakes is 100% checked out, and has been for much of the game’s existence. Without knowing all the grudges, I can imagine that there are many valid and real things that you are upset about, that Jean is upset about, that Warren is upset about, etc., but that all of them have been left to fester because Shakespeare will never take action on anything, ever. That’s really something you have to internalize, especially when taking her ‘side’ in that argument. Understand, that post is a nothingburger, and it’s her usual MO of shifting blame to the players rather than taking any responsibility for staff action.
-
@bored said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
@renaveleigh re: the Xaviers stuff, this is tricky. I think your frustration is valid but that you’re probably misreading things a little, including the idea that Shakespeare is actively protecting Rogue.
So, for the record, I don’t have any opinion one way or the other on whether Shakespeare is protecting Rogue. That was Prototart, above me.
My understanding is that they’ve long since fallen out. Shakespeare’s only friends are her ever-shrinking personal RP circle.
I clicked over to the MSB log linked up top and reading myself talking to Ruby about UH is mind-numbing. So I appreciate frustration in dealing with her. But Jean & her alts and Nathan & his alts are among the tiny few players left on the whole damn game running actual comic book stuff with any kind of regularity or quality, and they’ve both seem like shockingly sane, adult people in every interaction I’ve had. It’s notable you give him a pass while turning on her, even though you admit he fundamentally agreed with them.
Thank you for being straight up, first of all. I wanted to try and be as honest as possible about things from my perspective, including the parts that make me look bad, because at this point, I’m old enough to at least attempt to be, like, mildly self-aware about being way less than perfect.
I didn’t really focus on Nathan’s part because - while I don’t agree with his POV on things, and do believe that it plays right into the same theme of ignoring the actual, stated issues as the posts that I chose to focus on - Nathan isn’t a leader of the group, as far as I know. My primary point, and the reason that I give any kind of a shit at all about random people not being able to behave themselves, is that the leaders of the group seeing a post from the admin citing recent complaints about the atmosphere and responding by first ignoring it, then turning around and biting at those who speak up about their concerns is, well. Concerning. I was less interested in interrogating every single dissenting opinion than I was in focusing, specifically, on the screwed up attitudes that seemed liable to conflict with my own broader self-interest of having a functional X-Men/Xavier group to interact with. I don’t care if someone’s got a different opinion from me; that’s fine. It’s not something worth worrying about in and of itself, here.
So it comes across as personal vendetta & hate directed at Rogue/Ruby, and anyone else who dares be friends with her. In this, I urge you to reconsider your zeal, because it’s easy to pick a side in these these fights, stake your hill to die on, and end up not looking much better than the other guy (I used to do this a lot). For instance, that log involves 1) people talking politics, which they’re not supposed to, 2) Rogue asking them to stop, and 3) you sniping back at her instead of stopping when asked. To be clear, that means Rogue’s the one following the rules in the Shakespeare post you supposedly agree with, and you’re the one violating it, right? So are you toxic? Or would you agree with Jean/Nathan that maybe people just sometimes get emotional.
I would definitely agree that - objectively speaking - I should not have sniped at her about Alex Jones; that came from a place of genuine bewilderment at the premise that saying he’s a bad person could be offensive, more than any real malice towards her. Not talking about anything political on the channel is a rule that I’m happy to abide by.
And I would also agree that people do get emotional! I broke the post buffer limit here because I got emotional. I’m not an unbiased actor here in the slightest, and I don’t mind copping to that because beyond whatever lingering distrust I might have had for Rogue/Ruby based on past exposure, I have felt uneasy and uncomfortable in the wake of my own hubris earning me a faceful of gaslighting directly from her. I think that multiple things can be true: it’s true that people can be emotional and act rashly because of it; it’s true that more open communication would be a great way to avoid interpersonal issues, because they’re rarely so serious that they should need more than that to resolve them; it’s true that I do not care for Rogue’s player in the slightest; and it’s true that her approach to managing a large group of people is, to say the least, flawed to the point that it’s worth commenting on.
Not to come down too harshly, and to tie it back, I’m going to reiterate that this is all Shakespeare’s fault. Shakes is 100% checked out, and has been for much of the game’s existence. Without knowing all the grudges, I can imagine that there are many valid and real things that you are upset about, that Jean is upset about, that Warren is upset about, etc., but that all of them have been left to fester because Shakespeare will never take action on anything, ever. That’s really something you have to internalize, especially when taking her ‘side’ in that argument. Understand, that post is a nothingburger, and it’s her usual MO of shifting blame to the players rather than taking any responsibility for staff action.
I think that you’re broadly right that this is a lot of energy expended over something that isn’t worth the trouble, and going forward, I’m not going to sweat this stuff. It’s pointless: at the end of the day, all I really want to do is eat hot chips, be magnetic, charge my phone, and compact Purifiers. I reacted so strongly here, I think, because while I saw the initial incident that spurred that post, I wasn’t around while it was happening; it bothered me then, but I let it go. So once it was clear that nobody was going to address any of the various elephants on the room, I got frustrated and started Posting.
Whatever comes of Xavier’s and the X-Men and such as a whole is super not my problem. I hope things keep working out well for them, and am just gonna do my best to play with the people I do vibe with.
-
@renaveleigh said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Not talking about anything political on the channel is a rule that I’m happy to abide by.
The main thing confusing me is, how is Alex Jones a political topic? If he’s politics, then what topic isn’t politics?
-
It confused me in the moment, and it still confuses me now. Making weird comments about there being too many pronouns is NOT politics as far as I’ve seen, mind you, which does help with figuring out where the line is.
I guess politics are in the eye of the beholder.
-
@GF said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
@renaveleigh said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Not talking about anything political on the channel is a rule that I’m happy to abide by.
The main thing confusing me is, how is Alex Jones a political topic? If he’s politics, then what topic isn’t politics?
When we were adjudicating such things for BMD, we took a sort of Justice Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio approach to deciding what counts as politics: We know it when we see it. To give the maximum benefit of the doubt politics is often, but not always, used as a simple catch-all to describe divisive and/or controversial material.
Were I still staff here, and a conversation about Alex Jones popped up, I’d very likely apply the same rubric to it as I would a conversation about an election.
-
@renaveleigh said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Making weird comments about there being too many pronouns is NOT politics as far as I’ve seen
I didn’t want to go there because I’ve been trying very hard lately to identify and curb my prejudices, but yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought they meant. Being a minority is political, so you mustn’t discuss your life because it will make “normal” people uncomfortable, but “normal” people can chat shit about you because that’s not political.
sigh
-
@GF said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
@renaveleigh said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Not talking about anything political on the channel is a rule that I’m happy to abide by.
The main thing confusing me is, how is Alex Jones a political topic? If he’s politics, then what topic isn’t politics?
I mean, he is inherently political because much of his rhetoric is inherently political, but the only real answer to ‘what topic isn’t politics’ is ‘none’. Everything is politics. But in general ‘politics’ is used as shorthand for ‘discussion issues that are currently socially charged and which might create an argumentative situation’.
In the long run, what constitutes acceptable or inaccpetable political rhetoric/commentary on any one site/game falls under the purview of what the owners/runners identify as not worth the headache, which is fair.
Essentially, if you don’t like where a game runner or site owner draws the line on what political rhetoric is or isn’t acceptable, chances are you’ll be happier elsewhere; but that’s also how we get rhetorical hotboxes of veiled political discourse. I personally try to leave my (very strong, very loud, very intense) political rhetoric as absent in my game’s OOC discussions as I can, which is often not as much as other people wish I would.
But I try, for other people. In places where I’m the only one affected, though, I tend to run a lot wilder.
-
@GF said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
@renaveleigh said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Not talking about anything political on the channel is a rule that I’m happy to abide by.
The main thing confusing me is, how is Alex Jones a political topic? If he’s politics, then what topic isn’t politics?
How is Alex Jones NOT a political topic???
-
Politics rules really aren’t about what is considered politics. They are about what is considered controversial politically, and what is likely to start a fight, and to avoid anything that’s going to start an argument or make someone feel unwelcome.
It is manifestly obvious that Alex Jones is a far right wing extremist and conspiracy theorist. I don’t think anyone could look at him saying Sandy Hook was funded by the Democratic Party and George Soros as a false flag operation and think that is in any way apolitical. But what I think feels off is that he’s so far outside the normal range that condemning him should not be considered controversial politically, anymore than claiming that really hateful ideologies are bad. It’s just too uncomfortable a move of the Overton Window.
-
@Apos said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Politics rules really aren’t about what is considered politics. They are about what is considered controversial politically, and what is likely to start a fight, and to avoid anything that’s going to start an argument or make someone feel unwelcome.
It is manifestly obvious that Alex Jones is a far right wing extremist and conspiracy theorist. I don’t think anyone could look at him saying Sandy Hook was funded by the Democratic Party and George Soros as a false flag operation and think that is in any way apolitical. But what I think feels off is that he’s so far outside the normal range that condemning him should not be considered controversial politically, anymore than claiming that really hateful ideologies are bad. It’s just too uncomfortable a move of the Overton Window.
-
@Apos said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
Politics rules really aren’t about what is considered politics. They are about what is considered controversial politically, and what is likely to start a fight, and to avoid anything that’s going to start an argument or make someone feel unwelcome.
It is manifestly obvious that Alex Jones is a far right wing extremist and conspiracy theorist. I don’t think anyone could look at him saying Sandy Hook was funded by the Democratic Party and George Soros as a false flag operation and think that is in any way apolitical. But what I think feels off is that he’s so far outside the normal range that condemning him should not be considered controversial politically, anymore than claiming that really hateful ideologies are bad. It’s just too uncomfortable a move of the Overton Window.
Yeah, criticizing Alex Jones in and of itself is largely not going to be controversial with the vast majority of people. But I still probably wouldn’t bring him up in a setting where folks didn’t want political conversation, because a conversation can start with noncontroversial politics, but then it keeps going, and then it gains steam, and then it does eventually make its way to a fight. (Watch it lead into something like discussion about gun rights, and then you’re into much thornier weeds.)
Caveat that I can’t find the actual context of when and how he was brought up in this specific instance, lol. Just speaking generally at this point, mostly because I was confused at the idea of him not being considered political as a topic. Despite what I’ve just said, I probably wouldn’t fuss over one off-hand joke or comment.
-
@Roz It was in the post that I, uh, deleted after getting enough perspective to feel uncomfortable with dumping a large quantity of barely contained spite directed at one person, in public.
(thank you, @bored!)
I’ll edit this post with that snippet when I’m at a keyboard though. Sorry for the confusion.
-
@Roz “Politics” seems to imply viewpoints that people can disagree about in good faith. Alex Jones is simply an ongoing denial of objective, observable reality who has never spoken in good faith in his life. That it’s “controversial” to say so blows my mind.
-
@GF said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
@Roz “Politics” seems to imply viewpoints that people can disagree about in good faith. Alex Jones is simply an ongoing denial of objective, observable reality who has never spoken in good faith in his life. That it’s “controversial” to say so blows my mind.
Agreed about Alex Jones, however,
@GF said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
I didn’t want to go there because I’ve been trying very hard lately to identify and curb my prejudices, but yeah, that’s pretty much what I thought they meant. Being a minority is political, so you mustn’t discuss your life because it will make “normal” people uncomfortable, but “normal” people can chat shit about you because that’s not political.
I belong to a minority group (that’s a disproportionate target of hate-crimes in the UK & US) where it’s increasingly being castigated as some variation of:
@Apos said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
far right wing extremist and conspiracy theorist
[not by Apos, just borrowing the phrase] to say that I have a right to exist without being killed or raped for my nationality & ethnicity.
I am not right-wing, never have been, and no one who knows me would’ve ever accused me of being right-wing until under a year ago. Not because my values have changed, but because society’s goalposts have.
In an age of rampant disinformation, what’s considered “disagreeable in good faith” is a highly ephemeral standard.
I’m a highly political person, but I would rather have a no politics rule, even knowing how unfairly it’s applied to minority groups including my own, than have to repeatedly bash my head against a wall in a hobby space because someone fell hook-line-and-sinker for some TikTok disinfo and is now convinced that anyone who disagrees with them about it is a right wing conspiracy theorist engaging in bad faith.
This applies especially to historical & geopolitical topics, where education is paramount, and not guaranteed.
-
lmao. yikes.
-
The context for the Alex Jones stuff:
<Xaviers-OOC> Teacher Alex Summers wishes he was a telepath, he’d fix the world.
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Julio Richter says, “I wish I could forget that Alex Jones exists.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Resident Doug Ramsey says, “Eh, well.”
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Julio Richter says, “Anyone for arpee?”
<Xaviers-OOC> Teacher Rogue says, “Probably best to just realize there’s a lot of people in the world you probably would like not to exist.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Resident Doug Ramsey says, “Is it with Alex Jones?”
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Julio Richter says, “Fair enough Rogue.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Resident Talia Wagner says, “I listen to far too much Knowledge Fight, which started out as two comedians tearing down his bs and making jokes and now one of them made a deposition at one of the sandy hook trials and is regarded as the foremost expert on his grift. It’s still hilarious.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Guest Lorna Dane says, “Some people just shouldn’t be allowed to have platforms, alas”
<Xaviers-OOC> Teacher Rogue says, “Lets talk about something else.”
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Julio Richter says, “Dongers?”
<Xaviers-OOC> Resident Doug Ramsey says, “I went to an edible book festival earlier and made myself sick. I got Bookitis :(”
<Xaviers-OOC> Guest Lorna Dane says, “I don’t think ‘people who deny horrific tragedies and encourage others to hate minorities’ is controversial, but sure!”
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Julio Richter says, “Really?”
<Xaviers-OOC> Teacher Rogue says, “Poor Doug.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Guest Lorna Dane says, “*are bad, even.”
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Julio Richter hugs Lorna
<Xaviers-OOC> College S. Patty Sloan says, “>.> This is why books are a nasty habit to get into :p”
<Xaviers-OOC> Teacher Rogue says, “See, Lorna, you turning it in to that, is what I’m trying to avoid.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Guest Lorna Dane just sips on her tea and writes her pose.
<Xaviers-OOC> Teacher Rogue says, “Excellent plan.”
<Xaviers-OOC> Resident Betsy Braddock grins and protecc Lorna with her alt.
<Xaviers-OOC> Resident Betsy Braddock says, “Since apparently Bishop can’t handle Philly girls.”And then, a bit later that day, I made a petty crack in reference to it:
<X-Men-OOC> \/// SNIKT Logan says, “I’m going to this UN thing. Any other X-Men want to pretend we’re part of the world and come with me?”
<X-Men-OOC> GreenPeace Lorna Dane says, “Sorry, I just got done fight Hydra outside. :(”
<X-Men-OOC> GreenPeace Lorna Dane says, “Not to get too political by talking about fighting nazis or anything”Making a remark about it wasn’t really the best choice, I don’t mind owning that. It’s still really strange to me, though, for the reasons outlined by @Apos/the reason I tried to get at: Alex Jones is pretty objectively a shitty, fucked up person. It’s weird that just saying that much is controversial and considered political, because one would think that if someone is now legally proven to be an entertainer/liar who makes shit up to scare people into paying him money, acknowledging it ought to be fair game.
But it’s not my monkey or circus, so, whatever!
-
i would be willing to bet ruby has some opinions on what the wokes are doing to
herthe country -
How about we just don’t let the righties play in any of these games? They shouldn’t be allowed to have fun.
-
@GF said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
@Roz “Politics” seems to imply viewpoints that people can disagree about in good faith. Alex Jones is simply an ongoing denial of objective, observable reality who has never spoken in good faith in his life. That it’s “controversial” to say so blows my mind.
Yeah, it’s not generally controversial to say that, but that wasn’t really my point or implication. I said he’s political, not because he has a worthwhile viewpoint that he argues in good faith, but because he’s engaged with the overall machine of politics, because his (bullshit) commentary is centered on political things.
I probably wouldn’t want to deal with a conversation snowballing from that topic, either.
-
@renaveleigh said in Comic Games Are Still Fun!:
And then, a bit later that day, I made a petty crack in reference to it:
<X-Men-OOC> \/// SNIKT Logan says, “I’m going to this UN thing. Any other X-Men want to pretend we’re part of the world and come with me?”
<X-Men-OOC> GreenPeace Lorna Dane says, “Sorry, I just got done fight Hydra outside. :(”
<X-Men-OOC> GreenPeace Lorna Dane says, “Not to get too political by talking about fighting nazis or anything”Making a remark about it wasn’t really the best choice, I don’t mind owning that. It’s still really strange to me, though, for the reasons outlined by @Apos/the reason I tried to get at: Alex Jones is pretty objectively a shitty, fucked up person. It’s weird that just saying that much is controversial and considered political, because one would think that if someone is now legally proven to be an entertainer/liar who makes shit up to scare people into paying him money, acknowledging it ought to be fair game.
Yeah as Roz mentioned, snowballing is the good faith angle of why I think it’s still probably best practice to avoid talking about extremists and falling under the no politics rule.
The problem with hammering something that’s universally true to drive home why a partisan figure is bad, is that hitting very obvious extremists is used fairly or unfairly as an implicit criticism of anything that could be construed as politically sympathetic to it. And while it starts from a point that’s not controversial, it can very very quickly cross to a point that is pointedly offensive to people that really wouldn’t be inclined to defend an extremist to begin with. And frankly, MUs aren’t exactly great places to have calm, reasonable dialogues with strangers about that kind of thing.
