MU Peeves Thread

[bear_necessities]

I’ve been sitting on this for a few days because I’ve been trying to figure out how to address this peeve or even if I wanted to address it at all. But in light of what I will now call ‘MachaGate’ on The Pack thread, and the fact that this was said:

@Bessarion said in Why is Pack closing?:

Jesus fuck. This person deserves to be named, shamed, and yeeted into the fucking sun. Twice.

@Cobalt, I am so sorry you had to read this again to redact this horrific hell-log.

And the fact that I think people deserve to know who they are dealing with so they can opt in or out of participating with a person they have deemed previously problematic, I am putting this out there. @Bessarion, are you Tek?

[Pavel]

@bear_necessities said in MU Peeves Thread:

And the fact that I think people deserve to know who they are dealing with so they can opt in or out of participating with a person they have deemed previously problematic, I am putting this out there. @Bessarion, are you Tek?

While I agree with the sentiment, in part, if this person is Tek, they’ve done their best to distance themselves from that moniker. (Here, MSB, and through Ares). So if they are Tek, they’re not likely to answer truthfully when called out publicly.

So if you really need to know you can ask them privately, or you can just block/ignore/whatever the function is called.

[KarmaBum]

@Pavel said in MU Peeves Thread:

So if you really need to know you can ask them privately, or you can just block/ignore/whatever the function is called.

I was gonna ask if no one else did. It’s become something of an elephant in the room.

[bear_necessities]

@Pavel See usually I’d agree with you but in this case I’m going to point towards their own policy which states in big bold letters:

Ares Handles
I am not requiring players link their Ares handles. Everyone gets a fair shot here. However, being intentionally misleading about your identity to interact with someone who you know doesn’t want to interact with you falls under fuckery and that is a bannable offense.

So if they want to be intentionally misleading about their identity, that’s fine but I don’t want to interact with her and she’s on more than just BMD.

[Pavel]

@bear_necessities said in MU Peeves Thread:

So if they want to be intentionally misleading about their identity, that’s fine but I don’t want to interact with her and she’s on more than just BMD.

Hell, I don’t care that the question was asked, just pointing out the obvious pitfalls. Have at it, crazy kids.

[bear_necessities]

@Pavel At least if she doesn’t respond it’ll be real telling

[Coin]

That’s 100% Tek, yah.

[Pavel]

@bear_necessities True.

Technically fuckery isn’t against the rules here; otherwise, I’d be right out. So this is, as they say, a civil matter.

[Cobalt]

@bear_necessities Huh. Normally, I’m pretty good at picking up on patterns of behavior (typing, speech, etc) to figure out who people are… but I didn’t see that one coming.

[CuriousGamer]

Maybe a noob question here, but who is Tek?

[Coin]

@CuriousGamer said in MU Peeves Thread:

Maybe a noob question here, but who is Tek?

The inspiration for my signature.

The actual details are too long for me to go into right now but I’m sure someone will fill you in.

[Pavel]

@Coin said in MU Peeves Thread:

@CuriousGamer said in MU Peeves Thread:

Maybe a noob question here, but who is Tek?

The inspiration for my signature.

The actual details are too long for me to go into right now but I’m sure someone will fill you in.

They were one of the names I glanced over at The Other Place on the way to better prey, so I’ll definitely need the story time too.

[Testament]

AFAIK, @foksthery is Tek. Why do I know this? Because I defended them believing it was not Tek. More the shame on me for that.

I am pointedly not getting involved in this one, and stating this much, having learned my lesson.

My only observation is that I don’t believe Tek has done anything lately to be brought up? Unless I’m mistaken on that one. Beyond people having the same axe to grind against her as the last time she was brought up. Which is their right to have and be it far from me to judge otherwise.

But I’d rather not the forum suddenly start accusing a new name handles of being someone else’s sock-puppet without proof of that. Saying that as someone that was already fooled once already.

If that person wants to come out and say who they, that’s on them.

[KarmaBum]

@CuriousGamer This is their handle info on Ares.

They’re not like a marquee crazy person to my knowledge, but definitely someone I prefer to avoid. My run-in with them on SR was low-key, but left a bad taste in my mouth.

The tl;dr is that she wasn’t getting her way. She wanted to have ALL THE PLOT, but all she ever seemed interested in RPing was how super-Jewish her character was (to the point that the game was like walking on eggshells if anyone mentioned Santa Claus where she could read it, 'cause were definitely gonna get a lecture) and the occasional text-scene. She lashed out at someone who did not deserve her ire, called them a bunch of names that were absolutely not true, argued with us about what she thought was happening, refused to play nice, and got @bear_necessities to ban her.

[Roz]

@CuriousGamer Mostly just someone some people don’t care for. There was a bit of drama many months ago re: identities and such when she posted some criticism about a game she’d been removed from while pretending to be someone else.

@Testament said in MU Peeves Thread:

AFAIK, @foksthery is Tek. Why do I know this? Because I defended them believing it was not Tek. More the shame on me for that.

I am pointedly not getting involved in this one, and stating this much, having learned my lesson.

Your post is not really “not getting involved.”

[Narson]

@Pavel said in MU Peeves Thread:

@bear_necessities True.

Technically fuckery isn’t against the rules here; otherwise, I’d be right out. So this is, as they say, a civil matter.

[Testament]

@Roz By ‘getting involved’ I’m not defending people like that again. People can hang themselves with their own rope. Or not, their choice.

Fine, I involved myself to make a comment. But I’m sure as hell not sticking my neck out for someone I thought I knew.

[Pavel]

@Narson said in MU Peeves Thread:

@Pavel said in MU Peeves Thread:

@bear_necessities True.

Technically fuckery isn’t against the rules here; otherwise, I’d be right out. So this is, as they say, a civil matter.

[bear_necessities]

@Testament said in MU Peeves Thread:

My only observation is that I don’t believe Tek has done anything lately to be brought up? Unless I’m mistaken on that one. Beyond people having the same axe to grind against her as the last time she was brought up. Which is their right to have and be it far from me to judge otherwise.
But I’d rather not the forum suddenly start accusing a new name handles of being someone else’s sock-puppet without proof of that. Saying that as someone that was already fooled once already.

The posing style is an exact replica of Tek, along with the more classic characteristics and usage of PBs. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that someone who has ALREADY LIED ABOUT WHO THEY ARE would lie again, especially when @foksthery has not been online since September 2022 and @Bessarion was created January 2023.

But I’m not accusing. I’m asking. @Bessarion are you Tek?

ETA: I absolutely have an axe to grind after she repeatedly lied about a good friend of mine, called them a gaslighter and other nonsense, and then blew the fuck up at me when I asked her to just not interact with this person.

[Narson]

@Testament

@Testament said in MU Peeves Thread:

@Roz By ‘getting involved’ I’m not defending people like that again. People can hang themselves with their own rope. Or not, their choice.

Fine, I involved myself to make a comment. But I’m sure as hell not sticking my neck out for someone I thought I knew.

I think people generally, if they suspect someone is someone with a poor previous reputation, are happy to let it slide and accept the polite fiction if that person has managed to change their behaviour and isn’t repeating those same behaviours that have, in the past, led them down a bad route. A person who did that, who has seemingly taken on board the criticism and lives an OK even if not perfect existence within the community, will get that polite fiction upheld because their action resolves the previous dispute - they have accepted they did a bad and sought to reform. Without that resolution or seeming acceptance of the person that they did a bad and need to be different, the community continues to correctly display that concern. At least, that’s my take on it.