Subject: Oh. And you already knew it wasn't me.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-04-20 03:44:00 UTC
Sorry for my freak-out just above. I saw my name in a place I didn't put it, and I panicked.
—doctorlit has his own knee-jerk reactions
I've been thinking about leaving for a while now and it's become clear that me sticking around any longer would just result in me making more of a nuisance of myself. I keep stepping on people's toes no matter what I do and me leaving would make everyone a lot happier. There's no point in staying.
It was fun while it lasted, I guess.
Feel free to reclaim My Immortal. I'm not coming back.
Sorry for being such a bitch.
I see anger, stress, and reasons to lash out. Hopefully you'll feel better soon.
I wasn't coming back either, but I have to say something in response to this.
I'm fairly sure I know how you feel. I know I felt like I was stepping on people's toes every which way. But I don't think you leaving will make anyone who knows you happier.
I doubt anybody noticed me vanishing, but for me, seeing you go is as much of a shock as if hS were to declare he was leaving. You're part of what made this community a happy place for me.
In the end, nothing I say can change your mind, so I'll just say this:
Whatever you do now, if you approach it like you have your writing here, will be amazing. Farewell, and good luck.
.
.
.
*a tear wells up in the corner of my eye*
I don't think any of this was your fault. I... thank you for everything, even though I haven't been active.
I hope you don't mind if I send you an email sometime. I know I was never the most active of people, but you've been a good friend.
Good luck, Big Sib.
Dear Iximaz,
I haven't been around long, I know, and I hope that you'll read this. If not - that's alright too. I want this to be out there in case you ever do come back. First off, I respect your choice. I've been in a similar position before, and I understand how it feels. I hate to see you go, Iximaz, but if you truly feel that's the right decision, I will not stop you. Instead, if you're still lurking, I hope that you'll read this. Sure, it's probably not the most interesting, but I want to let you know how much you've influenced the PPC, and on a more personal level, me.
I stumbled across the Protectors of the Plot Continuum in December, after a falling-out with a roleplay forum. That's a long story that I don't want to get into, but it does have a happy ending. I'd been searching for a Mary-Sue test directed towards the Sherlock continuum; Alexis Gilmore popped up as one of the results. Curious, I read the mission "Get That Thing Called Beauty Out of the Detective's Eyes."
I loved it. After tearing through many of the works of Lily Winterwood, I explored the Wikia, as one does. Soon, I stumbled across the Aviator.
I was entranced. Rina and Randa were hilarious, the stories were well written, and the pair of them worked so well together. I read every mission, including the ones whose fandoms I didn't know. (They were a bit confusing, but it was still amusing to watch your protagonists try to keep themselves sane). I giggled; I cringed; I stared at the wall and said, "You've got to be kidding me." The fics were that bad, and your missions were that good.
Zeb was easy to adjust to - yes, I missed Randa, but who wouldn't love the adorable, innocent little Pokémon? Zeb is so sweet, and I enjoy his interactions with Rina. Zeb is innocent, childlike, and it was a fresh contrast to the Rina-Randa dynamic.
Oh, Iximaz. I will be very blunt when I say this: You are the reason I joined the PPC. I was overjoyed when I met you, and loved the Time Lord cosplay you posted. It was an honour to deduce your photos, and I was amazed that someone like you - an oldbie and a Permission Giver to boot! - would even bother looking at anything I'd done. You've inspired me greatly, and I want to take this time to say thank you.
Thank you so much, Iximaz, for everything you've done for this place. Thank you for cracking me up on a bad day. Thank you for tackling some of the worst fics ever. Thank you for making me squeal with delight at the subplots within the Aviator and Zeb's timelines.
This will be the only time I'll say it - please come back. You will be very sorely missed. If you don't, please know how much I admire you, and will continue to admire you. You don't give yourself enough credit.
That is all. Go wherever it is that you need to go; make your own adventure. I know you will, and I know it will be fantastic.
Yours sincerely,
Ivy Matilda Blue
While I would hate for you to think July's behavior is your fault (Considering no less than six other people have left as a direct result of her actions in the past) at the same time, this place is incredibly toxic at its core so I can't blame you for wanting to leave.
Because you clearly have one. Deliberately mentioning the amount of people that left supposedly because of July indicates you want to jump on the flame train and spread some hate of your own.
Also, what a delightful contradiction - you say that the place is toxic, and yet here you are, spreading your wonderful poison on everything.
This is what you deserve right now.
There is History here. What it really boils down to, though, is July is a bully and excellent at gaslighting and playing the victim. I figured she'd maybe calmed down a bit since most of her old targets left and she didn't actively engage me anymore, but I figure if she's gonna start up with old behaviors, why shouldn't I? (Before someone says that I should be the bigger person, nah. I'm all about that petty lifestyle.)
If you are referring to this + previous behavior on my end, I have Problems with how a lot of things are handled around here, and I enjoy agitating for change.
Not in this thread, but in one of its own. Start a thread outlining what problems you see and what you'd like to be done, and we can all have a calm, mature discussion about it.
There was this.
That's an interesting read, though long settled of course. However, he seemed like he had issues with the PPC other than just the permission process, hence me making that invite to start a discussion. I felt it might be better to broach the subject that way than to keep derailing this into the "Data hates July/possibly the PPC" show.
*resumes lurking*
I guess I can. Be probably a better idea than replying to Hardic's post a few threads down. As for the "possibly the PPC" part, I don't hate the PPC I just have some issues with how it is run currently and the general attitudes towards certain things, but I have difficulty putting it into words all at once so I mostly call things out as I see fit.
Hating the PPC would mean I hate the people here, and honestly I'm pretty cool with most of the ones I know. Slightly frustrated because we have a few newbies who assume they know PPC history better than someone who has been here for more than six years, but, y'know, that's always been the case.
We have a core base of oldbies who are so firmly set in the status quo that they refuse to consider alternatives, and a community that has grown up around that core to the point that any attempt to point out flaws is seen as inherently bad. Every time something has changed it has taken massive amounts of effort and/or huge amounts of drama. Not only that, but the reputation of these members is seen by a significant portion of the community as unassailable, to the point that calling them out when they do something wrong, or arguing with them, is akin to blasphemy. And it's not just recent. Other people have seen and commented on this before me.
When we encounter a community issue, people are reluctant to put their foot down, or even tell the person off beyond "go read the constitution", which, by the way, is actually the opposite of what the constitution says to do in article 7. On the IRC we handled things differently. We had mods, and then we had Designated Arbitrators, and once we had those in place, plus some rules of our own, the place was relatively easy to manage until everyone left. Here on the board the very limits of the technology prevent that, so a different sort of attitude has grown up, one of non-engagement. However I can tell you that if someone is determined, or just doesn't see the error of their ways, refusing to engage them is not an actual deterrent from them saying whatever they want.
Not only that but missions that seemed funny once just seem kinda mean now. The whole "going into someone else's story and killing off their characters, then publishing it for all our buddies to sit and laugh at" thing doesn't really sit very well with me anymore, and lord knows I'm not the first person to become disenchanted with the mission structure. I think we've lost more oldbies that way than anything else. Honestly, my time spent away from the semi-insulation of the PPC and out among the rest of fandom-based internet has led me to see all forms of fanfiction that aren't obvious trollfics as a treasure, because someone did their best to write this, and had the courage to put it up online where anyone can see and comment on it. Just because I don't like the story, or even think it's bad, doesn't make it worth mocking.
There's more, but honestly it's late and this is all I've got at the moment.
"Everyone deserves an honest second chance - which means, initially, a chance to stop, explain, and/or apologise. This means that, if you believe that someone is engaged in any violation of the Constitution, but particularly Articles 1-3, it is critical to make sure they understand what they are doing wrong, so that they can make amends. Explain it to them yourself, or ask a third party to do so - but the key word is explain. Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance."
Now, I've been back for about a week, and I'm mostly ignorant to the events of the past six or so months in this community, I'll admit as much upfront and go so far as to say maybe it makes me unqualified to participate in this discussion at all. However, I'm not sure I see where this has been contradicted - in most places where somebody invokes the Constitution in response to somebody else's behaviour, usually I've seen them either link the article in question, or outright quote it, as I have. Furthermore, that "explain" is a key word, and it sounds like the issues people are having with your behaviour have been explained, at length - are you telling me you have absolutely no understanding of why people might have a problem with your actions, in light of what I've read in the post where hS makes his case for a ban? I'm not sure article 7 supports your case as well as you think it does.
The reason I invoked Article 7 is because there haven't been any attempts to explain that I've seen. There's been endless repetitions of "you're breaking the constitution" but nothing explaining why what I was doing constituted an actual violation and not just something people didn't want to see. In fact, when VM defended me, and said that I was not making any of this up and I wasn't breaking the constitution, said repetitions mostly stopped. hS has said that I made personal attacks but I genuinely do not see where that is the case. I brought up history, I was sarcastic and brusque, and definitely more than a little snide, but no where did I engage in an ad hominem attack, because I believe that kind of thing is pointless and only makes the person doing so look bad. I did, admittedly, ignore requests to stop from everyone but hS, but my reasoning was that everyone else asking simply didn't have the proper context for what was going on, and they didn't understand what I was trying to do. The reason I stopped after hS asked me to is because, despite my various grievances with him, he has been around far longer than anyone else involved, and therefore, unless he'd just managed to forget the events of three or four years ago, he definitely had the right context to understand what was going on. Also he pointed out that I was about to make myself a hypocrite.
Well, here I might be out of my depth because I've missed a lot, so anyone who's seen more of all this feel free to step in. I did see the discussion from VM that you point out here, and I do agree with some of the spirit of it - there were points where you were very clearly expressing a concern that current actions were matching up with past patterns of misbehaviour. However, it also seems like you doggedly pursued this long after the matter was settled and everyone else considered it dropped, even despite being asked to at least temporarily let it go. There's also the fact that it's obvious from the way all this talk has gone on that this has been going on much longer than the past couple days. I'll have to do some reading or talk to some of the others to get fully caught up, though.
Of course, with how thoroughly I'm being outvoted, this discussion might unfortunately be moot.
Specifically, I propose that Data Junkie be immediately banned.
Data Junkie has repeatedly condescended to and attacked newer members of the Board for questioning them.
They responded to a polite and neutral request to stop their behaviour with an attack on the person asking, and have in general ignored all such requests, however phrased.
They have misrepresented and downright lied about past events in order to defame, insult, and score points off those they see as their opponents.
They have engaged in repeated personal attacks, and have been quite clear in their belief that the PPC's rules of civility do not apply when they consider themself wronged.
They have engaged in deliberately disruptive behaviour in the past, and have expressed their intention to do so in the future.
They have in this very post expressed their vehement disapproval of both the ethos and spirit of the PPC, and its primary purpose of mission writing.
They have expressed neither remorse nor apology for a single one of these actions, nor any other they have taken, and have shown no recognition that anything they have done is wrong.
For these reasons, I say that Data Junkie should be immediately banned from the PPC in all its aspects, and I look to the Board to decide whether this should be done.
hS
Ban
Permaban: Huinesoron, Neshomeh, Sergio Turbo, Phobos, Scapegrace, Desdendelle, Iximaz, TheShyIon, sjosten (9)
12 month ban: Hieronymus Graubart (1)
6 month ban: Hardric, Storme Hawk, eatpraylove (3)
Unspecificed temporary ban: Seafarer (1)
Voted for banning: 14
Do Not Ban
One last chance: Ekyl, Badger421 (2)
No action, wait a while: Cat-on-the-Keyboard, Delta Juliette, PoorCynic, doctorlit, Alleb (5)
No action: EileenAlphabet, VixenMage (2)
Voted against banning: 9
Other:
Is Data Junkie: Data Junkie (1)
Abstain: Tomash, Matt Cipher, Larfen J. Stocke esq., SkarmorySilver, DawnFire (5)
Vocally abstained: 5
Total:
14/23 in favour of a ban, which are slightly more than 60%. 5 people have abstained. 1 is Data himself. 21 people who have posted in the first page have not said anything yet.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Having thought about things some more, I'm with Delta on this. That is, I'm voting no because I don't like the circumstances of this vote. However, I call on Data to voluntarily take some time off, think things over, and potentially come back and apologize. I think around 3-6 months vacation might be a good idea.
Part of my problem is that Data's post upthread of the call for a ban could be seen as daring the community to go ahead and ban him. Since tensions were rather high with Iximaz leaving and Data's general conduct, hS took the bait and called the vote. I'm also rather unhappy with the fact that a permaban was proposed in this case (IIRC Jacer was banned for a year? for worse conducs).
I think it's also telling that the vote hasn't been anywhere near a consensus on this ban, like it usually is. This fits with my view that bans (as opposed to a consensus "you should leave for a while") are either for a long pattern of bad behavior that hasn't been corrected after explanations or for doing something seriously outragous that Is Not Done Here.
Another issue is that we had a troll trying to push the ban, which did not make the vote any less contentious.
I think there's some debate to be had on whether Data's reached the "persistent pattern of bad behavior" lever yet. But holding that discussion in the form of a ban vote was not a good move. I think that, if some of us are still unhappy about all this, we should reopen this topic once, say, this thread gets close to falling off the front page.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=48NA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jacer was permanently banned and had their IP blocked, by me. Y'know, for the record.
hS
It's hard to tell because it's so long, but one new topic is gonna push this one off. Just so you know.
~Neshomeh at work.
I'll do what's been done with the Pokemon tourney threads and just repost the thread when it falls off.
After reviewing both the current evidence and Data's past actions more thoroughly, I will support a 12 month ban.
The more I read about this case, the more I realize that I don't know enough about Data Junkie and their past behavior to understand what would work best to resolve this conflict.
--Key
… and suddenly everything is on fire (or the Internet equivalent thereof). Sheesh, I really can't leave you folks alone.
There's no doubt to me that Data Junkie's posts have been disruptive and mean-spirited. Some of the things said in the April 6 Permission thread set off the first alarm bell in my mind. I didn't say anything then, nor did I say anything in the following threads, because I thought everyone else had things under control. Adding my voice just seemed like jumping onto the dogpile. Then, when things got more heated, I chose to stay out of it because I didn't think I could make it any better (not feeding the trolls, I suppose).
That being said, I'm not sure that a permaban is the solution. I'm not really sure what the solution could be, especially since this troll (which I apparently missed — two days!) has muddied the waters. Juliette's proposal of waiting for heads to cool before creating a new thread to gauge everyone's thoughts properly seems like the ideal way to go.
Otherwise, I suppose I would support a six to twelve-month long ban.
I still don't know how to embed images here.
Yeah, that's how I feel, and I noticed this about 2/3 through the original drama.
Following this one
Unqualified ban: 9
Temporary ban: 5 (+Hieronymus, +eatpraylove?)
One more chance, under threat of banning: 2
No action taken against Data Junkie: 7 (+PoorCynic)
Stated abstentions: 5
Data Junkie: 1
Total is 28. 14 for a ban, 15 against (one way or another). All votes are IP-verified.
hS
But surely isn't the entire point of abstaining to not want your vote counted in any way shape or form in the current poll? And not to have it included under one of the categories anyway. I think it would be a fairer statement that the total is still at 28, with 14 for the ban, 9 against and 5 abstentions (can Data Junkie really vote on a matter specifically involving him? I didn't think so).
Abstentions can also be seen as a vote for whatever the majority turns out to be, which at present is "ban." I.e., "I have no opinion, someone else please decide."
I can just imagine that people would be screaming if hS had gone that way with it, though.
~Neshomeh
This isn't a vote on 'should we change this thing to A or B'. This is a vote on 'should we take this action'. People who choose not to vote are clearly content for the action not to be taken, and therefore should be counted under 'no'.
And Data Junkie is listed separately for just that reason. But until and unless they are banned, they are a member of the PPC community. Would the 9 people who think they should be allowed to stay agree to them not having a vote? I doubt it.
hS
I mean, I'll admit I'm only going off how we run things when we're picking committee members for our Ultimate Frisbee team at Uni, but the person who is being voted for doesn't get a vote, and those who abstain are kept as a third category and not include in whether they want someone in a position or not, otherwise are you saying that if we do not know enough about a person to say that they'd be a good health and safety officer we are actually saying we don't want them as a health and safety officer regardless? It's probably not the best example, but the point I'm trying to make is that people abstain for a reason, they don't abstain to then be included in the 'no' category, they abstain because they want to stay neutral.
The vote is really, at this point, "In Favor" vs everything else. This is actually a way to balance the scales toward the subject of the potential ban. The abstaining votes go toward the default. In this case, "no ban" is the default option, as it should be.
For instance, there are 100 people in a group: 10 vote in favor of a ban. 2 vote against it. 88 abstain from voting. Should the ban happen? There is overwhelming 5-to-1 support, after all. If abstaining works how you say (which is a legitimate thing in many systems) then the ban happens. If abstaining is counted how hS has been doing it, then clearly there is not enough support in the group to ban someone.
It isn't a bug, it's a feature. It keeps too small a pool from getting someone banned.
-Phobos
As far as I'm aware, "abstain" means "I don't think my opinion should count", not "default". Making "abstain" votes default to, well, the default, makes the "abstain" vote a "default" vote in another name. I really don't like this; there's very little point of having two votes for "default" and no vote for "keep me out of this".
It might be a feature, but it's definitely a bad one in my opinion.
TL;DR, I mostly agree with Storme Hawk.
-Des
PS: If hS doesn't want to, I can keep the tally instead of him... once whether "abstain" counts as "no ban" or "abstain" is decided, anyway.
As I've said on another post (I don't know how to link stuff, sorry) if we generally work on 60% support being needed to pass the vote, I believe there are no circumstances in which is there a situation where there is enough support for the vote to ban to pass. I'm more annoyed by the fact that, as Des has said, abstaining is now being taken to be agreeing to the default vote, than caring about whether this (or really any) vote passes or fails.
There are certainly differences between saying
"I want everybody to cool down before there even should be a voting",
"I don’t know enough and thus don’t want to be responsible for this person being banned", and
"no, there aren’t enough reasons to ban this person".
But banning somebody is serious business (so not what we want to do here) and shouldn’t be done lighthearted. In my opinion, it should require a majority of the Boarders who did see the ban request and had a chance to respond, it having been up for a reasonable time. Since determining how many Boarders didn’t come out of lurking mode appears to be impossible, it should at least require a majority of the Boarders who showed up to say anything. And if I remember correctly, it was actually a vast majority for the two bans I have seen.
14 of 29 Boarders who evidently did see the request aren’t a majority.
On the other hand, I didn’t follow the tallying in detail and thus don’t know how many "no, there aren’t enough reasons" Data Junkie actually got. PoorCynic’s (and others?) response was rightfully counted as "No (immediate) action taken", although he clearly stated that, if he had to vote now, it would be a temporary ban. I will not call for another vote just because it’s next week and people supposedly have cooled down, that wouldn’t feel right to me, and also I’m a coward and don’t want to take the hotseat. But if I spot a new reason, this may change.
I guess what we get here, if nobody else speaks up, is the result that got the least votes: "One more chance, under threat of banning".
HG
There have been a couple different questions about the process we're using. I suggest one of you start a new thread to hash it out and put it in writing for the future, so we don't have to worry about errors of process again. (Though I note that this is the first time in over ten years it's been a problem; take that how you will.) This could be a potential addition to the Constitution, even.
But I ain't leading that discussion. It's time somebody else steps up and gets see what it's like in the hotseat.
~Neshomeh
If people want the vote to stay open, someone else can keep the tally, and someone else can close it when they think it's done. I've done the best I could; now I'm just worn out.
I'll keep thwacking Toroll over the head if it shows up again, though.
hS
Even taking into account the things I've said, even if you don't include the people who have abstained there still isn't enough of a majority to give the ban. I don't want the vote to stay open, I'm merely wondering why you are putting people in a category they don't necessarily want to be put into.
I'm sorry for being a pain, but I felt like it had to be said.
I'm sorry for bringing it up at a time where you obviously don't want to talk about it further. I should of seen the signs and in my own bullheadedness I ignored them and tried to get the answers I wanted. I'm sorry.
Storme Hawk
It's not you.
It was the sudden realisation - not then put into words - that a vote to ban had become impossible, whatever the numbers said. The people who are arguing that we need to wait to discuss it would see it as vindicating their views, and dismiss the whole process as Illegitimate.
I'm sorry for growling at you. Not your fault.
hS
I would not see a vote to ban as illegitimate. I know that I would need a wait and more discussion in order to make a good decision, but maybe others wouldn't need that. If the majority of the Board thinks an immediate vote would be best, I will accept that.
Then again, I can be easygoing to a fault and am actually abstaining, so I'm maybe not the best representative of the case.
--Key
It's obvious at this point that there isn't enough support for a ban. 3/5 of the Board have responded, and the votes are split 50:50.
So there you go. Voting's over, do whatever.
hS
*Sigh* I really don’t need this drama.
What happened in the permission rules thread was annoying, because I’ve been there (still a shiny Newbie) when the permission process was changed, and watched the reasons and the effort put into it. But we got a clarification of the rules out of it, so Data Junkie may have achieved something good there. I still believe it could have been done in a less hurtful way.
When Data told Ix that "this place is incredibly toxic at its core", I was tempted to say that I see only one person who doesn’t actively try to make it less toxic. I didn’t, because I’m careful to not post while I’m angry. I spot some posts that imply that Data can be less vitriolic when they try, but I’m afraid that is not enough.
I actually remember the terrible mess that was made in Jacer’s permission thread. It must have been one of the first things I saw on the Board, when I, after reading TOS and OFUM, looked around to see what else might be there. No, it didn’t scare me away; reading everything on The Complete List of PPC Fiction just took another year, before I returned to the Board and joined. Actually, I liked how in the follow-up that resulted in the First Amendment to the Constitution, everybody tried to make the PPC a better place, and that’s one of the reasons why I did join in the end. (Do I see a pattern here? Is it always necessary to hurt people before we improve? Do I actually agree with Data about this? I certainly don’t agree that it’s impossible to argue with the Ancientbies.)
Anyway, I did read through most of this mess again in the archives. (Apparently, it’s impossible to fully read an archived post that is too long to fit the height of my notebook’s widescreen.) As could be expected, real life is a bit more complex than a seven line summary, but hS is much closer to the truth than what Data tried to make us believe.
And then we got this invitation to put our collective foot down.
I can understand people growing out of laughing about half-sane (at best) “contract killers” murdering beloved (by some) OCs. I can even understand them still wanting to keep the PPC as a place to meet friends and talk about everything (except badfic?) we talk about here. But this doesn’t work.
Writing missions is not all the PPC is about. But it is our origin and the toxic (to badfic) core of the PPC. Making the PPC a better place that isn’t the PPC anymore will not happen as long as I have a say on it. And attempts to make the PPC a better place by means that are actually counter-productive must be dealt with.
Still, permanent bans are so permanent. I feel always bad when we have to do this.
I ask Data Junkie to stay away until they changed their attitude. I have no idea how long this may take or if it will ever happen, but since you need a number, I’d say one year.
This is a last chance. It is not an invitation to return just because one year has passed. If need occurs after one year and one day, I will vote for a permanent ban.
HG
Jacer was before my time here, so it's interesting to actually read verbatim what she said.
Apologies that this doesn't exactly fit with the discussion, I just wanted to thank you for enlightening me with the knowledge that this archive exists.
When I said I wouldn't delete anything, I was assuming you weren't going to make it easy for me.
Recordkeeping: Toroll in this subthread posted consistently from two IP addresses, 63.147.70.46 and 77.247.181.165. I don't know if our IP wizards can get anything out of that.
hS
What I can say is this, the IP checker I used traced the second to the Netherlands and found it to be a Tor server, however the first IP address went back to Washington, Seattle and doesn't appear to be a Tor server from what I can see.
Now just before I went to bed yesterday (well technically today) I noticed that Toroll was posting between certain times each day, and from the incidents they were mentioning I gathered that it was becuase they were either still in education or only a year or two out of it, whilst in a job that they probably had to work 9-5 in. Looking at the times they posted I gathered they were American and either on Central time, or West coast time, which I wasn't sure and couldn't confirm without them posting more until they had to go. In fact I was actually going to ask you hS next time I was online if you, or anyone else still did the polls about 5-6 years ago and had anyone answer they were in the age range of 12-17, and lived in central or western america in the hope to narrow it down.
That was as far as I got, but it seems the majority of the situation has been resolved for now, I would however say to keep on the look out, I was looking up stuff about Tor last night and its seems it is notoriusly difficult to fully block people who use its services.
Storme Hawk
... I think some of the hits might be Delta Juliette on admin duty editing posts. The IPs don't match hers, but I think that's the right approximate part of the world for her, and some of the posts I deleted make more sense if you assume they were Nameless Adminned.
hS, not too good at the 'Nameless' part right now
The one re-titled "I continue to troll", and the one in which they said things about they/them pronouns. That would have come from a work exit ip, which I believe resolve by geoIP to Seattle or Portland. My posts last night came from my home box, which is a different provider (and this is my phone, which is yet another.)
"I'll disconnect myself from the ...ers who motivated this in the first place"? Because it doesn't look like disconnecting to me.
I'll say again what I said the last time we chatted: forget this community and take care of yourself.
—doctorlit has been worried about you, for the record
All their posts are gone, but your reply sounds like they gave an explanation of some kind?
They were gloating about how they used this vote to spread discord and hoped that Data would be accused, blah blah, I'm a supah speshul complotah, blah blah.
You would swear that was a glitterbag saying this.
I was asking Doctorlit specifically about the bit they were quoting and responding to.
...that doc knows or suspects who Toroll is, and is referring to a private conversation between them.
I kind of figured it would leave a [Deleted message] stub. How odd.
hS
((There will be a separate thread regarding name changes going up in a bit.))
I think everyone needs to take a moment and put their drama-llamas back in their respective pens. Multiple threads have spiraled wildly out of control, and I honestly can't tell who is overreacting the most in all of this. (Probably the anonymous troll.)
I strongly object to calling a drumhead court-martial, mid-Drama, with a permaban on the list of options. Not only is it not something we've done before (to my memory, forgive me for not digging through history), it's a pretty much guaranteed way to get a bad result and set a bad precedent. If we want to revisit this topic (and I think we should), we should stop, wait until tempers have cooled, and then consider what actions are appropriate.
I do think that Data is in the wrong here - dredging up old drama doesn't make things better, especially when different people had vastly different interpretations of what was being said and implied at the time. (The one thing that I do remember clearly from some previous drama-fests has been talking with other people afterwards and hearing what they were seeing - I have yet to see a drama-fest where everyone agreed on what was being said, implied, and meant, even with all the posts squarely in front of everyone.)
But. We have only ever permabanned people for incredibly serious reasons, or aggregiously long patterns of misbehavior. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone gets emotional (VM can testify that there have been times that we could hardly type for pent-up anger), and I absolutely object to making anything resembling a permanent judgement while there's this much blood in the water.
I also have concerns with other peoples' behaviors in the last several threads. A lot of people have overreacted and fired off angry, aggressive responses to perceived insults, and along with claims of bad faith flying back and forth, we have a troll openly admitting to acting in it.
If you must, please consider this a vote against the majority, whichever way it goes - I do not believe that consensus is possible at the moment, or that a show of hands mid-Drama is going to make this community a better place.
-Delta Juliette
(Who is, to borrow a term from Seafarer, a fellow victim of Trainwreck Syndrome.)
Changes from this one
Unqualified ban: 9 (-Hardric, -Storme, +TheShyIon, +sjosten)
Temporary ban: 3 (+Hardric, +Storme)
One more chance, under threat of banning: 2
No action taken against Data Junkie: 6 (+Delta Juliette, +doctorlit, +Alleb)
Stated abstentions: 5 (-doctorlit, +DawnFire)
Data Junkie: 1
Total is 26. All votes are IP-verified.
In the event that the nays carry the day (matters are currently at 12 for some kind of ban, 14 against including Data Junkie), please be aware that I will not be gathering evidence or proposing a ban in the future. Someone else can go through the heartache of being told how unreasonable they are for doing that, I can't be bothered facing it again.
hS
My original plan was "personally refuse to talk to Data, avoid them as much as possible," so assuming this falls apart (in which case congrats to the troll, you win this round), I'll be going back to that. I only said anything to start with because I didn't want to leave hS out there by himself.
I fully believe this won't stop with July, hS, and me if no action is taken here. Time will tell; it always does.
~Neshomeh
I feel like we're all mature enough to deal with Data Junkie's behaviour rationally. I agree that a permaban should not be an option, but I don't think that potentially removing from the Board someone who's dragging up bad memories for several people is a bad precedent.
Also: welcome back!
I don't think that people are currently behaving rationally enough to have that discussion - it should be had, and I do think that dredging up old drama is potentially ban-worthy, but I think everyone could use a weekend before we dive into it.
Also: Thanks!
But I'm not sure that you can make that call for other people. I like to think I'm being rational; I haven't seen anyone flaming in the voting section of this thread, and I trust members of this community to know whether they're capable of delivering a reasoned judgement.
I don't think we should abandon this vote. Deferring the end of the vote so that people have a chance to change their mind before it counts, I could possibly get behind. But I don't think it's necessary.
This was supposed to be in response to this post:
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=199610;article=295295;title=PPC%20Posting%20Board
I was sort of curious what was said in the post he was responding to, but I suppose that might be moot now. If doc is inclined to share that's his call of course, be it here or I can always email him.
I was here, and I didn't see anything else from the troll. *shrugs*
I have a few opinions on the matter, most pressingly that it's after midnight and I really should keep this brief...
Most significantly, I don't think that we're going to get a consensus out of this vote. If that happens, we're going to need to have a longer conversation about what is and isn't acceptable, and how we respond to it - or we're just going to sweep everything under the rug and try to ignore it again. I'd rather push us towards the first option.
Secondly, I think that coming to a ban/no-ban decision on the spot pushes towards the under-the-rug option, and I'm not sure how happy I am with that, regardless of the decision that gets made here. I'm not terribly happy with how quickly people have started calling troll, or accusing others of talking in bad faith - while I dislike Data's behavior, I also dislike things that other people have said and done.
And thirdly, you're right, I definitely can't make that call for other people. My opinion (and vote) goes towards more discussion, but that's only a single vote - and a lurker / not-very-involved-in-the-community vote at that.
The proper time to deal with something like this is as it happens. Yes, we don't want to sweep something like this under the rug. The thing is, I believe that delaying action actually contributes to the sweeping, because nobody wants to bring something like this up after people have put it behind them.
Basically, while we agree on basically everything, we're coming to different conclusions on how to avoid the problems you foresee. (For the record, I also think some others were out of line, and that does need to be dealt with.)
(I'm kinda upset that Iximaz's departure thread got so thoroughly derailed, too. And that you had to come back straight into this mess. :-( )
I know I just said I was abstaining from voting before, but . . . Juliette is right. There should be no vote right now. Not only has too much anger been going down lately, but Torollémon has added too much confusion to the mix. We all need to slow down and put things off until we've all calmed. A more civilized thread will give the troll fewer opportunities to take advantage of our feelings, as well.
—doctorlit
Waiting until we can regroup and figure out this mess of umpteen different responses seems wise, not to mention all the trouble the inflamed tempers--mine among them, even though I didn't post--and an active troll have caused. A new, more orderly thread (perhaps moderated; at the very least, more calmly added to) would be a good idea, I think.
We're the PPC: We have our issues, and we're not perfect, but it seems to me that if there's a corner of the internet where decency is more normal than its opposite, this is it. I say we wait until we're more our normal selves than we are at the moment, and then deal with this issue.
-Alleb, who hopes she makes sense, as she's extremely tired at the moment
Or rather, my non-vote: I'm abstaining. If something changes my mind about that, I'll post--and you'll know it's me by the IP and the probable longwindedness--but so far nothing has. And there I'm leaving it, primarily because I'm tired and on mobile and you most likely don't actually need it.
~DF
I'm sure you've seen my post further down this thread, but I wonder if I might get a direct answer instead of an estimate. Why did you impersonate who you did? And why was doctorlit the only person you impersonated whose response was more than just the subject title?
I must say, even though we stand on different sides at the moment, your plan was well executed, besides potentially misjudging when Phobos would be on. Although I wonder if I really should say 'your plan'. For all we know another person may have done it and you're just jumping on the bandwagon and trying to lay claim to it all.
Now the glitterbags and their Z-rated plots are coming directly to this Board rather than staying in their badfic. Fortunately, this is PPC, a madhouse filled to the brim with people expert in deling with that matter...
For someone who thinks so highly of her manipulation skills, your master plan fell to pieces surprisingly quickly. Maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are.
...
Actually, you're definitely not as smart as you think you are. I mean, you're trolling. Honestly.
Your style of writing seems familiar, but I can't place it. In any case, I'm confused: did you expect me to call out the discrepancy only because of my post further up on the page, or because we've interacted before?
-Alleb
So the opposite to what I was thinking. Interesting, interesting indeed.
You're like, the worst gorram supervillain ever. I wouldn't even call you that but you monologue, posture, and preen like one. Only your plans are drek. Look, if the PPC were that easy to break up, it would have happened long ago just from sheer force of the amount of arguments that happened. If you have been around as long as you seem to have been, surely you'd remember that.
(Also, PS your Homestuck reference was stupid.)
Her master plan would have lasted only 40 minutes longer if Phobos hadn't caught her. I noticed the discrepancy in Alleb's IP address at that time, and I would have brought it up.
So, yeah. Boring unoriginal troll is stupid and not worth talking about.
(Though I'd also like an answer to your question)
Turns out I gave her too much credit, too. I guess people who hate will never understand this community.
Whoever said they were a she?
Way down near the bottom in a post that should probably be deleted before Nesh sees it. I'd link it, but I don't remember how. HTML is a pain.
Oops
That this is a former Boarder who was kicked out for be an enormous drama-llama and attacking the people he had asked to beta for him, then returned a couple of months later with a post where he wowed to destroy us all. But unless I'm really mistaken that was a guy.
Also, I highly doubt Ammo Guy would be able to work TOR to this degree.
And informed us at length about how he was going to be the next Tim Schafer and make us all very, very sorry we'd been mean to him.
This was met with exactly the reaction you'd expect.
..that it's Jacer, the big bad herself. Though I also considered zdimensia. I mean, it's clearly someone who hates us, and a former Boarder. And zdimensia threatened vengeance on us just as much as Ammo Guy did.
Eh, why am I even still discussing the lame troll? Who knows? :-(
It's clearly Dr. Doom, come to wreak vengeance on the Nameless Admin for her terrible defeat in issue #43 of Brilliant Board Comics.
Again I post a moment too late!
When last I checked, we acted as a community. We discuss matters as a community, and we most certainly do not "ignor[e] blatant forgery of votes and [go] ahead with [...] ban[s]" simply because we want to be rid of someone. That is not how this community has operated in the past three years--not once, unless I missed something major--and, to my knowledge, it has never acted that way. Whoever you are, you are obviously unaware of how this community currently operates--and, to be clear, I say 'currently' only because I haven't been a Boarder since the very beginning and would prefer that any replies you might make to me fall into what I have personally experienced.
And, ha. As to the results being "sadly predictable"? Seriously, what in the world did you think was going to happen? Apart from your assumption that hS might just ignore everything, that is? We responded. We condemned the forgery. We were rightfully angry at having someone post under our names. What in the world else would we have done--giggled about it and welcomed the impostor to come join us, oh, haha, well done on the prank? Yeah, no.
(I also question your reasoning for choosing Data as a target. If you've been paying attention, for example, you should know that a, not everyone here is mad at them, and b, they have friends here who are, surprise surprise, not voting to ban them. Also? If hS or anyone else running a ban vote ignored "blatant forgery of votes" and went ahead with it? We would have a BIG problem, and it would definitely not end with the vote. Ignoring for a moment that just about everyone who was impersonated came out and said that they had been impersonated and oh, by the way, here's my real vote? If the ban had gone ahead under a vote that everyone knew was falsified--well, I'm pretty sure the next discussion/argument would be about that. And with that, I'm back to my point of--you don't know us. You really, seriously do not know us--or if you do, you most certainly do not appear to understand us or the way we function.)
And one more thing? /slow claps/ Congratulations. Your last little aside is both petty and ensures the continued slipping away of any potential positive feeling anyone might've had towards you. (You might also want to check your history before you insult someone based on using 'they' as a singular pronoun--according to Oxford Dictionaries, it's the revival of a practice that's been around since the 16th century. It just fell out of use somewhere around the turn of the twentieth century, from what I can tell. But really, even without that--I identify as female and present (if I'm using that term correctly?) as female. I don't think I've ever been misgendered in my life, except by someone using a language they don't know very well. And I'm still wincing at your comment attacking someone's choice of pronoun and identification with that pronoun. Just stop. When even a never misgendered ciswoman is wincing, there is a problem here. So, gee, how about you consider apologizing to Data for calling them speshul because of their gender pronouns, and then get lost?)
I really, truly hope that whatever problem you have with the PPC community is one that you can move past. Because this is seriously, seriously ridiculous and, in so many ways, petty. Go out and do something useful and positive with your life, why don't you? I'm positive that there are so many more constructive things you can do with your time than sit around trying to annoy an online community of writers.
And that's it. That's pretty much all I have to say here. I'm going to go do something constructive now myself, and hang out with my friend who wants some company. See ya! (Or not, as the case may hopefully be).
Good evening, 'Toroll'. Feel free to pick up your sanity at the door on your way out--that is, assuming you ever were a Boarder and left it there on your way in to begin with. If not, just bye. /waves/
Evening to everyone else, too :) Don't know about you, but I believe we can stay a community and not be 'broken apart' by a troll, of all things.
~DF
We won't. We're better than that. :-)
...the last month.
Just, you know. In the interest of clarity and stuff.
~DF
They've already said they're taking time off; I find a ban redundant.
Historically, bans are reserved for people who: harass other members using outside mediums, or use demographic information to attack and harass members, or harass members repeatedly, over a series of repeated incidents, showing a behavior pattern.
I cannot believe we are voting on a permanent ban based on two adjacent threads surrounding one drama issue… which was started by two people who were not Data. They pointed out several things they see as serious, recurring issues in the PPC (I happen to agree with some, but that's neither here nor there) and also pointed out a behavior pattern they perceive as toxic and harmful. Yes, they were rude about it. But our response is perma-ban? I can't get behind that.
Unqualified ban: 9 (-Hardric, -Storme, +TheShyIon, +sjosten)
Temporary ban: 3 (+Hardric, +Storme)
One more chance, under threat of banning: 2
No action taken against Data Junkie: 3 (+VixenMage)
Stated abstentions: 5 (+Larfen, +Skarm)
Data Junkie: 1
Total is 23. All votes are IP-verified.
It would be very helpful if the people advocating a temporary ban would specify what they mean by 'temporary'.
Also, could someone please show me where Data Junkie said they'd take time off? I haven't run into it, and I don't have the heart to read the whole sharding thread again.
hS
I'm not sure if a year is too long, but I think it should be a period that can be described as 'long enough'
I'm in favour of a ban. But really, what's to stop Data Junkie waiting six months and pulling the exact same stunts again? Because time does not seem to be a problem to them.
Bans, in this sense, are meant to be a time for reflection and self-analysis, and I'm not at all convinced Data Junkie will use their time away to do that. Quite the reverse, in fact; it is my firm and fervent belief that they will simply let their darker urges fester.
A twelve-month ban seems adequate to me, but I will urge one thing: that this be Data Junkie's very last chance. This whole thing is entirely down to two people having hated each other several years previously; one has been trying to move on, and one has not. If this happens again, then there have to be more far-reaching consequences.
Data Junkie's on record as saying they want more to be done about the toxicity in the PPC, that toxic members are just left to their own devices and this needs to change. Fine by me.
Let's start with them.
...here. And I seem to remember zdimensia being banned for six months or a year or something? So one of those.
Then she came back under an alias and was banned permanently as consequence, IIRC.
Trainwreck syndrome here. Why do you think this was the thread I came out of exile for?
The Nameless Admin said she was banned until August, and that this was done in the previous year. That means the ban was at least eight months, so I'm guessing it was a full year.
hS
You're okay with this, then? Do you, personally, agree with what that says about me and hS now? I need to know.
~Neshomeh
I remember the Jacer incident, yes. I remember that Tray and a few others attacked Jacer for reasons the rest of us didn't understand, that several of us oldbies (and non-oldbies) told them off for it. Data may have forgotten that I was one of the people who Tray didn't speak to and blew up at for that, but I have not.
I also remember that Tray never apologized to any of us, and held the grudge against hS and you to the point where they did make unbased personal attacks against you both repeatedly and probably should have been banned at that point. (But I don't think Data was around for that bit, due, IIRC, to family priorities taking time.) I also - as someone else has pointed out - acknowledge that memory is malleable and unreliable, even with logs.
Look, what it comes down to for me is this. I remember how July acted on the IRC and Board, I remember her repeatedly bullying people and driving people away who she didn't approve of. I agree with Data that it has been an incredibly toxic behavior, and understand their incredulity that it seemed to be tolerated for so long - even protected by behavior norms (or., "don't rock the boat"). I, unlike Data, am rather still hoping she's grown up (as have we all - ye gods would I hate to meet the person I was in 2012), and isn't continuing it - that this was a one-off problem, not the repeating of a pattern. But I absolutely can't blame them for jumping to that conclusion, not for getting defensive when everyone either called them a liar, or defended July, or both.
And I don't like the precedent this sets.
You said you agreed with some of what Data's saying, and didn't mention what you don't agree with, so I was very worried.
So, what SHOULD hS and I be doing about this unprovoked attack on our character, then? They've said they're not going to take anything back and won't promise they won't make similar "jerky remarks" in the future, so in your opinion, what other recourse do we have?
I guess I just want to make sure you know this isn't only about July. I know you have strong feelings about her, but that's not the only issue here.
~Neshomeh
I honestly don't have a solution. I think Data's right in that there's a sort of institutional complicity about this whole topic (of toxic behavior, etc). I think they were wrong to pin that on "oldbies," especially you and hS specifically. Also, I think it's probably been well and above obvious to most people that I don't care for the Mission format myself, given I've never written a serious one, and haven't read or commented on one in years.
But mostly, I'm utterly sick of drama. Looking down thread, I saw July say something rather uncalled for, others react and/or overreact, and then Data, in a fairly rude manner, point out that they saw it as a behavior pattern. In no particular order, others who haven't been here as long called them a liar; they called the whole 'Board a toxic place and implicated you, hS, other long-standing oldbies, in why; you, hS, others, defended yourself; Data got increasingly frustrated and defensive; a ban was proposed.
Again, a major part of my disagreement here is that I strongly dislike the precedent it sets. This "person said something mean - Permaban" is never how we've done it, and it's deeply alarming.
Basically, as far as I see it — this isn't "person said something mean — Permaban"; in that case, we shoud have proposed to ban July. What we have here is "person tried to use an incident to bash someone they have bad blood with, replied rudely to other people, and said they'll do so in the future", which is a different horse entirely.
I see it as "one person saw someone saying something mean, and took the opportunity to point out that they saw this as a repeating behavior pattern that went back several years."
Operating on the assumption that "several years" goes back to 2012, at least: as far as I remember, July was, em, biting back then and is still biting now. However, I've never seen any malice from her. On the contrary: usually she has a good point in mind.
Further: as soon as July posted this, Data should've backed the hell up. While posting while sleep-deprived is a stupid idea, it's no more than that. Judging someone for their grouchiness (or bluntness, or whatever) when sleep-deprived is really, really harsh. What Data did wasn't "point out a repeating behaviour pattern", it was, pardon my vulgarity, shit-stirring. As far as I'm aware, they didn't post in that thread because they thought July needed calling out, they posted there because there's a lot of bad blood between them and July and they viewed that incident as an opportunity to sling mud at her.
I'm honestly mostly typing here just so hS doesn't see another (nm) post from someone who hasn't shown up in this thread yet and think the identity thief guy found another way in. But yeah, I think a ban of some kind is probably necessary.
Data Junkie's been fighting with... I don't know how many people anymore. For days. They've had plenty of chances to stop, been called out many times, and... I can't see how this *isn't* bad for the community as a whole.
I don't know. I just don't know. It seems like everything has gone wrong, all at once.
But I think this would... help. I certainly don't think it would hurt.
What. The. Flock. Am. I. Staring. At.
With all that being said, I pointedly refused to get involved in all this, especially because almost every single time I tried to have a say in drama got me in trouble. And honestly, I still feel that way, and even though I cannot condone Data Junkie's behavior in any capacity, the inclusion of that Toroll was the point where I decided that none of this makes any sense anymore. I think the community at large will have to have the final day on this one.
So, speaking as the real SkarmorySilver, I abstain from voting.
I wasn't around for the whole incident with previous members of the Board, and even if I were I would need time to know them better, form my own opinion, and then I would have something to say in their case.
I don't know Data that much. Strictly from the way their posts are formed, I would think they are trying to make a change they think is necessary, regardless if the others think so, too. To give you an example, I don't believe the Permission system is in need of a change. About his opinion on the missions? I obviously disagree, since that would shake the entire foundation of the PPC.
Now, about his behavior towards others... I'm not going to say anything that hasn't been said. I consider July a friend, and I choose to believe her over Data, whom I know almost nothing about and who doesn't make a good impression recently.
I do not like to be toyed with, and if we had any proof that Data has any connection to that trolling piece of [BEEP], I would vote in favour of the ban. For now, though, I abstain.
I mean, he's coming off a bit rude, and while I doubt his intentions are 'black-cape-spiky-armour-evil-laugh' bad, I certainly disagree with his methods of getting them sorted.
He attracts some bloody weird people, too, but it doesn't really seem fair to blame that on him.
I just have the barest idea of all the scaffolding on this monolithic drama castle. I know him more than I know you lot by two or so conversations.
And I don't know you lot a lot.
To my mind, the whole question of whether Data Junkie is being malicious or just rude is answered by this exchange:
Huinesoron: Data Junkie, please stop.
Data Junkie: Okay, I'll stop, it wasn't my idea anyway. Oh, and I'd forgotten you're a bunch of bigots.
I can't see answering a request to stop with a line like that (the original, which is linked, not my paraphrase) as being anything other than malicious.
hS
As you've proven: more experience and whatnot than me.
Snarky - yes, rakish - absolutely, bash and impudent - sure, malicious - ehh?
And sure, I could vote in favour after what he said to July, and for stirring this whole excrement storm, and how he mocked the Organization itself ("this place is incredibly toxic at its core"), but I do not judge on a base of one event. You know him better than I, hS.
How accurate is it to judge someone on their perceived personality?
Even if it is just to work alongside their actions (had Data been a tad more mature earlier, he'd have been given greater benefit of a doubt when he pissed people off, et al,) surely that's an incredibly subjective thing?
I suppose deducing that someone won't let go of something because they haven't let go of something isn't too insane, but I think that 'You, individual human, who holds personal bias out of no fault of their own, know him better,' might be a bit dangerous.*
I mean, I'm doing the exact same thing as you are, but that's just because I'm a coward who doesn't trust his own judgement.
*If that wasn't clear enough, I'm not having a go. I swear. I've got biases, you've got biases, they're like opinions and arseholes.
We've all got them, except for elves.
I've had various run-ins with the people they used to hang out with on the IRC, but if Data Junkie was one of the people who attacked me at various times, I haven't bothered to attach their name to the memory.
All I know is what's happened in this incident, and in the one a few weeks back where they decided to discuss the Permission process by calling me - personally - 'lame' and lazy on the basis of their misreading and partial reading of my posts. Which, I admit, did not dispose me to think fondly of them, but I deliberately haven't used their attacks against me personally as an argument here.
hS
Unqualified ban: 9
Temporary ban: 1
One more chance, under threat of banning: 2
No action taken against Data Junkie: 2
Stated abstentions: 3 (Matt Cipher, Tomash, doctorlit)
Data Junkie: 1
There are 50 people who have posted on the current front page (not counting the anon, or Toroll). 18 have currently voted, abstained, or been the person under discussion.
hS, reclaiming sanity by way of spreadsheets
I vote in favor of the ban. Don't think I need to say why.
Normally I'd say give Data another chance. He (they?) certainly didn't get to zdimensia's calibre, or (heh!) Rifle Calibre Guy's. However, Data managed to bring someone impersonating other people into the whole affair, which is definitely a worrying precedent. Further, I find the way they seemingly meant to use the incident Iximaz and I had with July to attack July especially reprehensible.
So no, I don't want him around, and since he kept that grudge against July for so long (without resolving it off-Board), I am inclined to think he is not going to learn, either. I vote for a ban.
After thinking on it, sleeping on and generally mulling it over for so long that I was sure that when I finally got around to post, it would all be over, but then weird stuff happened.
My no is based on something of a technicality. I was around for the whole Jacer incident and it made quite an impression to say the least. On one of the yearly surveys I even commented on it.
What I'm getting at is that I was there to witness it and I do not remember it the way Data described it, but neither do I remember it the way Huinesoron summed it up.
And to people who might suggest that I simply read the archive; that whole clustermess nearly made me quit the PPC and just looking at some of the posts made my stomach tighten. I'm not reading through it again.
So I can't sign off on the idea the Data deliberately misrepresented that thread, simply because they remember it differently from other people, because so do I.
This does no mean that I condone their behaviour in general. I might still have been for a ban, but Cat-on-the-Keyboard's post made me think about things.
Data, if you're reading this "I'm likely to still occasionally make a jerky remark or two if I'm upset because my default setting upset or passionate is "Everyone else has no gorram clue why can't they see things the way I see them" and honestly that's not a very useful setting," is unacceptable.
You don't get to be a jerk just because you've informed us in advance that you're going to be one.
I feel I should clarify my position:
Ban their arse for good.
We do not need people like Data Junkie on the Board or in the community. We do not require them. And most importantly, we do not deserve them. We do not deserve pathetic people coming back to sling mud and hurl insults at people.
One does have to wonder why someone would bother impersonating me. My personal theory - and forgive my sounding paranoid - is that whoever this is wanted to torpedo the vote and make Data Junkie look like the victim of harassment from outside sources, so they could play the hero and make everyone legitimately calling for a ban look bad. Whoever you are, you do not speak for me. I do. And I'm better at it.
In any event, I was and remain in favour of the ban. Indeed, I'm in favour of a permanent ban, because the last time they went away for years? All that appears to have happened is that they stewed in their own vitriol and waited for a chance to dredge all this BS back up again. A permanent ban will ensure that this level of harassment and hostility will not come out of his mouth again.
Sorry if I sound emotional. I am emotional. They hurt my friend. And I am not going to put up with it any bloody more.
I didn't realize that there had been an incident before when Data Junkie had been temporarily banned. I think I don't understand this situation well enough and probably should abstain.
Especially now that I'm rereading my own proposal. That would not work.
--Key is still a newbie
Data Junkie hasn't been banned before. They just went away from the Board for a long while, then popped back up, and now we're here.
~Neshomeh
Huinesoron: Ban.
Hardric: Ban.
Neshomeh: Ban.
Sergio Turbo: Ban.
Ekyl: One more chance.
Badger421 (possibly): One more chance.
Storm Hawke: Ban.
Phobos: Ban.
Seafarer: Temporary ban.
Cat-on-the-Keyboard: Voluntary temporary departure and mediation.
Everyone except Badger421 is using an IP address they've used previously; Badger's I've explained in a comment to that post.
hS
I hate you for making me go through every single post in this thread to check their IPs so I can wipe your trolling from the face of the Board. But I'm doing it.
This has the added advantage(?) of erasing your lying IP addresses. Good fun.
hS
I would just delete them, but there's a chance someone could post from a public wifi spot or something and come off as a false positive. I'd rather have the ability to revert.
hS
Is Toroll an actual person or just what we're calling whomever did this? Just wondering if someone came forwards and said why they were doing all this or whatever while I was sleeping.
This process is called "blending", since you use two existing words. A coinage usually is when you create a new word that is completely made up, and there's no way of tracing its origin to other words. Need an example? Here's Lewis Caroll:
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
I count at least 11 coinages/neologisms.
And now I shall shut up and suppress my inner picky linguist.
... you should correct your statement that 'there's no way of tracing its origin to other words'. At least one coinage in Jabberwocky, 'beamish' (as in, come to my arms, my _____ boy), has a very clear origin: it comes from Beamish, which is a living open-air museum aka 'historic village'.
Wikipedia (which Neshomeh has already cited) also describes 'cyberspace' as a neologism, despite it being created by blending.
The OED also allows 'to coin' to mean 'esp. in a bad or depreciatory sense: To fabricate, invent, make up (something specious, pretentious, or counterfeit).'. I think Toroll fits all three of those. ^_~
hS
It's actually a compound. An endocentric compound, to be specific; it consists of a head, i.e. the categorical part that contains the basic meaning of the whole compound, and modifiers, which restrict this meaning.
In this case, cyberspace is a compound where space is the head and cyber is the modifier, and is understood as "the notional environment in which communication over computer networks occurs." (Oxford Dictionary)
Yep, I will correct myself on "tracing the origin", since 'Beamish' was an unfamiliar term for me :P
I suspect hS is having you on about "beamish." Speaking of the OED, it apparently contained a definition of the word predating Jabberwocky, but it's nothing to do with a historical village. It's simply "beaming, happy, cheerful," from beam + -ish.
~Neshomeh
I may simply be /wrong/, but that's certainly what I was told when I visited the place years back. Probably decades actually...
hS, too old
I confess, "Carroll made up a word based on a modern tourist attraction" sounded silly to me. Plus, "Jabberwocky" is from 1871 and the original Beamish museum doesn't seem to have been a thing until the late 1900s. Maybe they were having you on? (Or were also just wrong, of course.)
~Neshomeh
Though Beamish the village existed long before that, I assume... yeah, I'unno. I'm pretty bad at spotting when I'm being lied to, so.
hS
It's a portmanteau, wherein the meaning of the two component words is combined as well as their phonemes. Wikipedia also contains a definition of a portmanteau as a kind of blend word that combines the beginning sound of one word (Tor) with the end of another (troll), and that applies here, too. {= )
~Neshomeh
The word is a portmanteau; the process is a blending. Blending produces portmanteaux; coinage produces neologisms. ;-)
:P
Done my research now. Portmanteaux are only one type of blend word, and based on hS's post, blending is a subset of coinage. I'd say blend words still count as new words.
It's all very complicated.
(Also: squeeeee Edgeworth!)
Both blends and coinages are word-formation processes. The typical process of coinage usually involves the extension of a product name from a specific reference to a more general one. For example, think of Kleenex, Xerox, and Kodak.
I'll take an example from an OFU - Hogwarts Fanfiction Academy, to be specific:
"I believe Ron coined the term 'Mini-Aragogs'..."
And this is where 'coinage' is used correctly; Ron used a specific reference - the fact that the HP minis look like Aragog - and coined a new term.
(Also: Franziska > Edgeworth every day!)
So now you've narrowed the definition of coinage to "proper nouns being changed into words"?
Based on every online dictionary I can find, coinage just refers to the creation of a new word or phrase, with no particular requirements as to the origin of said word or phrase.
As for "Mini-Aragog", how is that not a blending? "Miniature" + "Aragog". Taking bits of each word to produce a new word, right?
So, to my understanding, all blends are coinages.
I don't thing a common dictionary would elaborate on a linguistic definition, especially if there is that thing called 'polysemy'.
I'm not saying those processes aren't very closely related, but there are those subtle differences between a compound, a blend, or a coinage. I think this explains it quite nicely.
Electrocute is a combination of electric, and execute?
That's so...
stupid.
Even the article you linked says this: "The earliest blends in English only go back to the 19th century, with wordplay coinages by Lewis Carroll in Jabberwocky." That seems to imply that blends are considered to be "coined", don't you think?
This little gem of lighthearted linguistic nitpicking is the real PPC to me. You guys have all brightened my day. ^_^
~Neshomeh
That was part of my intention - even in this mess, we can still learn from each other and have fun. ^_^
Linguistic nitpicking is best nitpicking. Or historical linguistics. Or anything connected to that.
You learn something new every day. Thanks, Matt!
That makes sense. When I checked the Board and people were suddenly referring to the impersonator by a username I found myself wondering.
I don't blame at least one person for thinking it wasn't, though.
For verification: here's an Ardolindo post with the same IP.
It's my home PC, whereas I usually post from work or (yesterday) a hotel room.
I am not behind the IP-spoofing fake votes.
hS
Cat, do you also post on mobile?
I've got two differents ID for you here
50.0.91.137
76.254.50.1
The true Hardric, hoping he's only paranoid.
I am right now. Yesterday I used two different computers. Oh, and my mobile doesn't have data; I use WiFi, so that might result in lots of IP addresses.
--Key doesn't really know how computer stuff works
Just for what it's worth.
... is doctorlit with "There is something toxic in this community, and it's the person who tried to turn this into a "sides" thing, and fake this b;asted vote." But I'm assuming that's just directed at Toroll and that I'm missing whatever the point of the '"sides" thing' part was.
I hadn't even read that post when I said it; I just figured it was worth saying, since I proposed the ban in the first place.
hS
I guess I let that other post get a little overwrought . . . Just, after my username was used to attack someone else, I felt personally offended that Torolleon had presumed so much about my opinion on the matter, based on my one post defending July which (I don't think?) said much particularly negative towards Data. And then I gave in to my bad habit of psychoanalyzing people, and came to the conclusion that El Torollo was seeing this as a simple black-and-white issue, and assumed no one in the community had a more complex feeling on the matter than "ban nao" or "no banz."
And then I ranted. I absolutely wasn't thinking about you, hS, and I'm sorry I was so unclear. :(
—doctorlit got a little worked up last night, no lie
To represent your actual vote, that is. I think they were throwing as many yes votes as possible into the mix, without bothering to consider how people might actually vote. It was disruption, not an attempt to skew the vote.
And you were right to be worked up. Posting under someone else's name is a violation of the basic rules of decency and trust.
-Phobos
All of the other posts by Toroll just had the subject line filled in, only the one impersonating doctorlit had anything else written in it.
I don't think the choice to impersonate doctorlit was purely one to get as many yes votes as possible, I believe that it may have been either a more personal attack on Data (not that I'm saying they are a victim overall, more that Toroll may have something against them), or it was an attempt to make it seem like the posts were genuine that backfired when they got the pronoun's wrong and thus went back to the simpler sort of posts. If it's the latter it was a bit of poor research and timing for Toroll, if its the former, it's more malicious and perhaps implies that Toroll had a bit more knowledge of the PPC, at least perhaps the older PPC, than we are assuming they have.
Storme Hawk
Who's kind of afraid they're getting a bit too paranoid and becoming too much of a conspiracy theorist.
P.S. That's got me thinking, maybe Toroll is trying to make us all paranoid, it's a good first step if they're trying to pull the PPC apart, i.e it's something I would do if I were to attempt something similar. Although once again, it may just be my paranoia popping up.
I know for a fact the (other) anonymous poster who was posting in the July stuff is not the same person here. I know who that was, and they're someone who mostly just lurks instead of posting now due to issues similar to my own. I'm not gonna out them unless they give me express permission to do so, but at least one other person in this thread is also friends with them and can back me up when I say they wouldn't ever stoop to this, should their identity become known.
I haven't actually seen anyone suspect them, especially since I'm sure anyone who payed attention just thought it was me, but I figured I'd throw that out there.
Thank you for clarifying.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I strongly disapprove of the impersonation of Board members that we have seen in this thread. I hope that this is some outsider troll trying to get a rise out of everyone. The other option means there's a Boarder that felt the need to stoop to vote-rigging to accomplish whatever their plan is. In either case, I'm very disappointed in our Tor-using friend, and I believe they should stopthis . I'm also rather curious as to *why* someone would feel the need to impersonate Boarders.
I don't have an opinion on the vote right now. I either wasn't here for or don't remember the big ball of IRC drama that has been brought up, so I can't comment on that. I read many of Data's recent posts as attempts to stir up drama, which is something that we, as a community, would rather avoid. Whether this all adds up to banworthy conduct, I haven't decided.
I also don't like that someone (who could be suspected of being Data) made several rude or inflamatory posts anonymously. That's Not Done here.
Given the sort of crazy things that've been going on in this thread, I'm cryptographically signing this post (and I plan to sign posts about this topic with the same key). Name's clickable, and it's the email address associated with the key I'm using. Feel free to send GPG mail there to check me on that. Key ID is 2388E924.
- - Tomash, who would be doing the Stern Professor Glare if he weren't just a TA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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Doing the cryptograph stuff is all well and good, but if someone were bent on impersonating you couldn't they just copy paste it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Yay, I get to nerd out about theoretical CS!
So, broadly, I'm using a public-key cryptosystem. In this case, GPG. The idea behind this sort of thing is that I generate a keypair, which contains a public and private key. I tell everyone the public key, and keep the private key secret. If you "apply" one key to some message and then apply the other key to the result of that, the original message comes out. However, undoing an application of one key is extremely computationally difficult[1], so the only way to retrieve a message that's been locked with a private/public key is to use the public/private key to unlock it.
If you want to say something to me secretly, you apply the public key and send me the result of that. Then, since I'm the only one who knows the private key, I'm the only one who can finish the math and read your message. In reality, there's a few other things you have to do to make this more secure, but yeah.
Signatures (which is what I'm using) are the opposite process. I take my message[2] and apply my private key to it to create the signature. Then, anyone can take my public key and apply it to the signature. Then, they check if the message they're seeing is what I've signed. If that happens, that means that I (or at least, someone who has my private key) signed the message.
So, no, they can't copy paste the weird block at the end, unless they plan to repost, bit for bit, the message it was attached to. Otherwise, checking the signature will show that the message was tampered with, because the text it's attached to won't match what was signed.
[1]: The underlying cryptography involves choosing two large primes p and q. Then you take N = p * q, and find e and d such that e * d = 1 (mod (p - 1)(q - 1)). This means that (m^e)^d = (m^d)^e = m (mod N), but given N and e, finding d requires factoring a number that's a product of two primes. So, I tell you N and e, but keep d secret. (Finding d from N and e requires time proportional to (something > 1) to the 4096, in our case.)
[2]: Sorry, lied. What I do is run my message through (in this case) SHA256, a function that goes from data to a 256-bit integer in a way that is currently impossible to generate collisions for. That is, if I tell you the SHA356 output (or hash) I want, you have no way to create an input that is different from mine and gives that hash without at least NSA-level computing power. Then, I do the signature thing to the hash, which is close enough to signing the message and avoids some other attacks.
(Let us pray that there is no polytime algorithm for prime factorization, that P != NP, and that quantum computing is impractical)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=d7aR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'd heard of public-key encryption before, but only in the vaguest sense. I don't understand all of what you said, but I think I get the gist.
How do we apply your public key to the signature, though? That seems to be a necessary step in making sure your posts are from you. And is there by chance any simple way that the rest of us could set this up? (Simple= doable by someone who has never taken a course in computer science and has only taken math up to Algebra II, but is willing to do some reading.) I'm not used to researching this sort of topic, so I'm having trouble finding instructions for either process.
--Key signs this message with a meaningless signature
While I definitely did not follow all of that (or perhaps even most of it), I applaud the sheer (perhaps only perceived?) complexity involved, and, in fact, the fact (heh) that you're doing this. It's pretty cool/interesting.
~The Real DawnFire, who is already starting to feel like a Holy Musical B@man! character from that signature. Though I suppose it should be @TheRealDawnFire for accuracy, and I should be complaining about some annoyance named...I'm not sure what having already taken DawnFire, and so now I look like a fake DawnFire...?
Okay, right, probably time to stop following the reference trail. The reference trail from a Starkid musical that most people here probably haven't seen.
(That was fun, though :D Also, I'm now in the company of Superman, at least in reference land, so I'm doing well!)
~DF
PS: If a vote shows up claiming to be from me, and especially does not have a whole lot of text attached, it's very likely not from me. I'm not currently planning to cast a vote, *especially* not in the next, oh, seven hours or so, but if I did suddenly decide to...yeah, it *definitely* wouldn't be very short. As you can probably tell. Good night!
Data Junkie has stated in this thread that they intend to take time off from the PPC even if not banned. As I see it, the main problem with their behavior was that they persisted in an argument that the original disputants had resolved. Taking time off would fix the problem in the short term as well as give them some time to reflect on their behavior, formulate an apology, and reframe their concerns in a less combative way. I am entirely in favor of discussing the purpose of the PPC (why write missions, what counts as a flame, how should disputes be resolved), but I think it would be more productive to do so in a more emotionally detached, philosophical way.
I propose a temporary ban on this topic. Specifically, I propose that everyone refrain from discussing the purpose of the PPC, Boarders' personal histories, and their opinions on the structure and functioning of the Board for a period of. . . a week sounds good. During this week, we will all reflect on this discussion, think about how we could have been more diplomatic, rethink our positions, figure out how true our accusations against other Boarders are, etc. At the end of this week, a designated mediator would start a thread for the re-discussion of the issue, where everyone will apologize and vote on whether or not we need to keep discussing any topics related to this dispute.
The ideal mediator I think would be someone who has followed this discussion but was not heavily involved in it and was present for the past incidents referenced. I match the first two criteria, and am willing to mediate, because I love mediating.
--Key hopes we'll be able to get along
You said everything I wanted to better than I ever could.
You've got my vote for mediator if the Board agrees with your idea.
I don't think that everyone involved in this disagreement was out of line. I do think that if in a week everyone looks over their posts with an eye to figuring out if they were out of line (not if others were out of line), any further discussion will be a lot more civil.
--Key
Do we call this vote off? Recount? Figure out something else?
...to tell the fakers. Particularly now that the real people are noticing. All the (nm) votes, plus "doctorlit". I think we should just keep going.
Namely, someone, maybe multiple someones, is playing shenanigans and pretending to be people in order to influence the vote. Whether it's easy to spot which ones are fake or not, on principle it kind of throws a spanner in the whole thing.
...on whether to restart the vote? Or just wait and see whether hS calls it off? I don't see a point in starting again, since that'd just lead to everyone repeating what they said here anyway.
Not to mention, we have to see what the impersonated people actually choose to vote for - Phobos went with pro-ban, while Cat went with anti-ban, for example.
Originally posted as Alleb: I'm in favor of this. (nm)
Someone has used my name. I never said that, and I'm very angry.
-Alleb
Originally posted as DCCCV: Yes, absolutely (nm)
I have had a bad day already. I am half close to going insane. Can someone give me a good summary to what just happened?
Gadzooks.
There's a vote going on about banning Data Junkie, for reasons which are outlined in hS' initial calling for a ban post. A troll stepped in and posted as several people, including you, who then noticed what was happening (Phobos was the first) and got angry about it. The troll was using Tor to disguise her (she eventually spoke up) IP address, hence hS terming her the Toroll (Tor+Troll), and her posts have now been wiped for the most part. (She stated goals of trying to tear apart the PPC, blah, blah, completely misunderstanding the community, blah, not knowing hS too well either, blah, blah, my post somewhere in this mess titled 'Excuse you?' probably gives a fair idea of some of what she said in her first substantive post). Apart from that...hm. hS has now passed on vote tallying duties, Desdendelle has taken them up, and there's continuing discussion going on as well as a discussion in a different thread on banning procedure. The vote is also still continuing, to my knowledge; feel free to vote or abstain or vote with specifications, etc, etc.
That's the most recent stuff, anyway. Hopefully it's understandable...if not, hopefully someone else can fill you in more clearly. But this should hopefully at least make a good start.
~DF
Probably this is what would happen anyway, but I'm in favour of a temporary soft-ban.
Like hS says, Data has repeatedly been rude, with no apparent understanding of why they're in the wrong. They've misrepresented things, and been condescending.
But they haven't caused the perfect storm that I've seen before, with zdimensia and... others. I think that if we tell Data everything they've done wrong, all laid out neatly, then ask them to leave and cool off, then we've done enough.
And that way, if they come back and do it again, they've been warned, they've had their transgressions explained, and they'll eat a hard ban in about ten seconds.
So, yeah. Ban.
(For the record, I understand how sometimes, people just don't see that what they're doing is hurting others unless it's explained in simple terms, which is why I'm feeling lenient. I'm quite ready to submit to the superior wisdom of others, though.)
Let me be clear: I oppose an IP ban. Nothing Data Junkie has done warrants that. In fact, they've been far more civil than anyone else I've ever seen faced with a ban.
Regardless, they have done some unpleasant things, and I think an apology is in order. If that's not forthcoming, well, see previous post.
The other anon poster, though, who Data has just revealed? Well, anonymous flaming really gets on my nerves. I think looking into an IP ban for that address is probably in order, unless that person wants to come forward and own their statements, like Data has.
... people think an IP ban is something special.
I tried to make this very clear last time: if you are banned from the PPC, you are banned from the PPC (forever, for five minutes, whatever people choose). You get told to leave. Hopefully you do that.
If you don't leave when told to, your IP address gets blocked as a technical enforcement.
If you post from multiple IPs, as the Toroll is doing, you get your messages deleted on sight instead.
They're not different levels of banning. There is one ban, and two ways to enforce that ban if the person doesn't stay away when told.
hS
...I oppose a permaban unless/until Data either breaks a temporary ban or does something really bad.
I feel it's a good balance between my vote of "no ban" and the fact what I've heard of Data's behaviour really does need to be addressed. It's more of a suspension than an outright ban.
You're the one who convinced me not to jump straight to permaban.
Originally posted as Phobos: I'm with Neshomeh, Data needs to be banned. (nm)
IPs are plainly visible on the Board. Did you really think nobody would notice yours doesn't match his?
So I got curious and checked. Roughly half the votes in favor of the ban do not match the posters. Doctorlit, for example, was not Doc. Most, if not all, of the (nm) votes are frauds.
Most of the IPs are from random locations in Europe. I know for a fact Doc is in AZ, and not... Sweden I think the IP checker said it was.
Of course, American cheese is inedible so
—doctorlit likes sharp cheddar best
Which actually sounds good to me.
--Key also likes sharp cheddar best
What my parents have always called swiss cheese is actually made in North America.
Why.
Why.
—doctorlit just Why.
I post from no fewer than five different computers. Two at work, two at home, and my phone. Lots of IP addresses.
-Phobos
...but you are in for a world of trouble right now. Did you actually think that you could vote in my name and I wouldn't notice or care? Did you think Nesh (which is how I actually refer to my wife on the Board, by the way. Know your mark, at least.) wouldn't notice or care? Even if that is the case, I have something very important to say to you:
Kindly ... off.
I do not need you to speak for me. I can make my own decisions and I can cast my own vote.
What were you thinking? Seriously, if you feel like fessing up to this you can email me (baridthetroll @ gmail . com) because I would love to know that you were thinking anything at all. Because this was dumb. Really, think about how dumb this was. Just take a second and look at it. You didn't need my vote. You didn't. The vote is overwhelmingly in favor of a ban. Even if you did need my vote, all you had to do was wait for me to cast it. Or if you were impatient, which you clearly were, then you could have emailed me and asked me to vote. But you didn't do that. You did the stupidest thing you could do in this situation.
Now that we have that out of the way, I will actually cast my vote in favor of the ban.
-Phobos, glad he had time to cool down before he posted.
I'm not worth impersonating, then?
Is that how it is?
My opinion doesn't have enough sway, does it?
That's fine. That's fine.
Why did whoever did this impersonate who they did? Some, like doctorlit, Desdendelle, Phobos I understand, they are relatively big names in the community. But why some of the less well known people as well (no offence meant)?
I mean the obvious answer is to try and act as a smokescreen, but then how did they choose which ones to impersonate, it's obviously not random, or at least it's a small pool to work from if it was random, so there must be some connecting factor between all the people chosen, one that (atm) I can't see (granted it's 3:30 am here, but still, something to ponder).
Just a random stab in the dark admittedly.
But then Alleb and DCCCV haven't posted on any of Data's stuff that I can see, and [EvilAI]UBEROverlord and EileenAlphabet have posted on Data's stuff but haven't been impersonated yet.
The reason I say yet is in case its a bot that's posting the messages instead of a person and it'll simply run until told to stop. I don't think it would be too hard to set up but I don't knoow for sure as i don't really touch that sort of stuff.
I really wouldn't know where to begin on figuring this out, except someone really wants to stack the vote in favour of banning Data - but let's be honest, the case for a ban was already very strong, and this just kind of soiled the whole thing. Whose yes votes do we know for a fact are real? Neshomeh's and Phobos', post-impersonation?
...Hardric's post has his typical grammar problems (due to him being French... I think), and Sergio Turbo's IP at least matches his known location. Plus Storme Hawk. And me.
Well I know I wrote my post. So that's me, Neshomeh, Phobos (post-impersonation), Sergio Turbo, Hardric and Seafarer, or at least all of their IP's seemed to check out.
I wanted to get a headcount of which votes were actually real, just to have it out of the way. Though Seafarer's yes vote seemed to lean more towards a temporary suspension than a permaban.
I can't find it on the Wiki.
...every vote I've seen on the Board has been simple-majority. I don't remember any non-unanimous ban votes, though.
Last time there was a vote for a ban, it was unanimous. Maybe hS is just looking for a clear consensus one way or the other? Counting the votes we know to be real, it looks like thus so far:
Yes: Neshomeh, Phobos, Storme Hawk, Seafarer (soft yes, no permaban), Sergio Turbo, Hardric
No: Ekyl, Cat-on-the-Keyboard, Badger421
Asking for a vote, then deciding on the criteria for winning when everyone sees what the results are sounds. . . corrupt. Like something someone would write a Department Head as doing, as a joke.
Doesn't look like we're at a clear consensus yet: 5.5 to 3.
Look at all the (nm) votes. They've all been posted from IP addresses in various parts of Europe, which makes me suspect that someone is using proxy servers. I don't know if it's Data, but if it is, then I'm changing my vote to quickban, because that is just. Not. On.
DCCCV's and Desdendelle's messages both came from a server in Romania, scapegrace's is from Finland, Phobos' and doctorlit's are from Sweden (and the same company in Stockholm in fact), Cat-on-the-Keyboard's is from France, Alleb's from the Netherlands and Matt Cipher's is from Hungary. Everyone else's seems to check out as far as I can tell.
I may try and get in contact with a friend to see if they can make any more sense of it than I can (or even get further than I can), but I don't know how free they are at the moment.
All of the IP addresses are from 'Tor Exit Router's' from the Tor Anonymity Network. Well, all of them bar one that is. The only one that doesn't send me through to Tor is Alleb's one (91.228.151.52) which doesn't connect to anything. This may just be my internet not working correctly, or it could be from an unprotected router, that could be the perpetrators. I don't know.
So on the chance that it may lead to something I put it back into the IP checker and found that the IP belongs to one Paulus M. Hoogsteder trading as Meanie, with this address in the Netherlands: Populierendreef 442, 2272HG Voorburg, NETHERLANDS. So I put this into Google Maps, which shows it as a house in quite a nice area of The Hague.
I'm afraid without more information I can't do much else, but I've potentially found the address and alias of the perpetrator if nothing else.
Storme Hawk
http://i.imgur.com/8HmDiNu.png?1
Linked because I don't know how to embed images on this format.
Matches what I found well enough, although it's interesting that yours implies it's another Tor exit router as well, something that I either missed or didn't pick up on. Still it was worth a shot.
If I wanted to cause havoc like this, I'd sign my name to it. This honestly isn't the first time we have had problems with this. The IRC had to jump servers because we had an issue with name-stealing, and at one point we briefly had people sock-puppeting another boarder (who had actually left weeks prior) to attack someone else, though that was way back in... 2010 or 2011, so it's probably not the same person. Phobos is right, it's probably someone who just wants me gone.
It could just as easily be someone who wants the ban to happen.
-Phobos
I just looked up the IP the Board assigns my posts when I'm posting on my laptop, and it seems to think I'm posting from just outside Wichita, Kansas. Which I'm most assuredly not.
I don't even see an IP for your posts. But if you look at all my posts, they all should have the same IP, unless my service provider switched locations, while someone like, say Alleb, has an IP that definitely does not match the one for their ban vote. Admittedly, I suppose it could be a combo of what you just said plus what Phobos said about posting from a separate location, but usually the continents match up if not the actual location.
You see neither 45.47.170.210 nor 2604:6000:e7c2:b500:84b2:ea81:9c71:c7c2 on my posts? Because I do see IPs for almost everyone who posts. I'm getting more and more inclined to chalk this up to the Board being weird and archaic, but then, SOMEONE just tried to impersonate Phobos so I doubt it's all nothing.
I see 2604:6000:e7c2:b500:84b2:ea81:9c71:c7c2 but I didn't think that was a real IP
An IP tracker tells me it's just outside Wichita, as I noted in a previous post. My IP on the Board seems to keep randomly bouncing between this and my actual IP, which I also supplied.
Well, assuming you're in America. The checker I'm using gives Chicago and Herndon, Virginia as options. I think IPv6 is a bit less accurately traceable.
The other guys are on IPv4, and none of them are in Scandinavia (or France, or Hungary, or Romania), according to the IP addresses they've had before.
That was a bit of a jump. Sorry, Data.
I don't know if it's him, I doubt he'd make up a bunch of votes in favour of his own ban, but either the board's IP stuff is weird or someone is pulling shenanigans.
But I feel like I need to say my share now that a decision point has been reached.
As much as I may not openly admit it, I am a believer in giving people another chance to set things right, I have only got as far as I have today because other people have held that stance about me, and so I honour them by having that stance towards others.
However with that said and done I do not honestly believe another chance will set anything right, the case is too strong, the truth too irrefutable for such a belief to stand up for Data Junkie, they have pushed too far, hurt and potentially alienated too many people I think of, and care for, as friends for me to stand by my normal stance or for me to remain neutral.
With deep regret and a hope that the consequences of these actions affect everyone involved for the better. I say, ban Data Junkie.
Storme Hawk
Seeing as at the time of my original post I was thinking it was either a permanent ban or no ban at all, I voted for the permanent ban. However, I find myself agreeing with Seafarer, that perhaps a better way to resolve this situation would be a temporary ban, especially seeing as Data is saying that they want to leave anyway, I feel that enforcing said leave for a certain amount of time is a better idea than permanently banning them.
Storme Hawk
Whose basically changing their vote from permaban to temporary ban, in a whole lot more words.
For pretty much exactly the reasons stated by Ekyl, I'd prefer they be given one more shot. I'd much prefer to settle this amicably.
I haven't blipped it because 1) its IP matches one of Badger421's fairly closely, and 2) Badger421 has posted elsewhere in this thread and not commented on this.
hS
I just forgot to confirm it.
Not sure why my IP would be different, though. Maybe it's because I post from my phone?
It looks like you're split between various numbers in 172.58, 172.56, and 208.54.86. I thought I saw a 208.56, but might be misremembering.
I'd guess that one of those is your phone... yeah, looks like the 208 one is registered to a mobile company. The others are both in the same city.
Anyhow, glad it's really you. ^_^
hS
I only ever post from this phone, but you're quite right, my IP is all over the place. Something to do with timezones, perhaps? My schedule is somewhat unpredictable.
I don't know. Technology is very much not my area of expertise.
Originally posted as doctorlit: I think it's for the best
He's become a major issue ever since he came back.
Ever since hS proposed this earlier, before I left for work, I was planning to sit out on this vote. I swear, this was not me!
—doctorlit is actually extremely angry over this impersonation
We're trying to figure out who exactly is doing this and why. Definitely an awkward situation all round. Sorry it's happened to you, though.
What I think I was trying to get at was that most of the "yes" votes seemed to be from impersonated members. Though maybe my count is off since there seem to be plenty of yes votes from the real posters.
You hear that, impostor? It turns out, people aren't on-off switches! My post defending July did not mean in any way that I disliked Data! And I had no intention of voting to ban him! And I've stayed in contact with the boarder formerly known as Tray-Gnome ever since that freakign Jacer nearly tore us all apart! Because I DO NOT LET GO OF FRIENDS. EVERYONE here is my friend, EXCEPT YOU, the person who pulled these shenaniganS!
In fact, you just proved Data unquestionably right about ONE THING: There is something toxic in this community, and it's the person who tried to turn this into a "sides" thing, and fake this b;asted vote.
This is a COMMUNITY. We are a TEAM HERE. We work together to MAKE STORIES. SSo frgigging stop trying to turn us against each other and ACT LIKE IT.
(Ekyl, obviously, this isn't aimed at you; it just happens to be the place where this all tumbled out of my head. Sorry 'bout that.)
—doctorlit is way disappointed
...Is you thought I couldn't tell from context you weren't directing any of that at me. ;)
This really is a mess, though. I mean, seriously, this would've been a pretty straightforwards vote without all these shenanigans.
My reaction was, as I mentioned, knee-jerk. You definitely didn't deserve it, especially since this is a fraud post.
Sorry for my freak-out just above. I saw my name in a place I didn't put it, and I panicked.
—doctorlit has his own knee-jerk reactions
I thought we were friends, and you can't even respect my pronouns. Honestly the vote doesn't bother, since I expected it to basically be one-sided, but that does.
But yes, let's remember Data prefers to be identified with gender neutral pronouns (correct?), even if we are discussing banning them. Most here have held to that, I just thought it worth putting up as a reminder since there was this slip here.
Doc is a great guy, I just got a bit knee-jerky. (Also you are correct.)
For got a "me" in there. The vote doesn't bother me.
In so doing I feel a little divided, because I understand your points, and I also understand Data has had plenty of chances to correct their behaviour - but sees said behaviour as not in need of correcting. You make a very strong case for a ban, but in the event there might be any chance, however slight, for amends to be made and for that step to not be necessary, I'd like us to at least try. Perhaps one last chance to avert this course and settle things amicably, and if they mess this up, they're gone?
Because now it has to actually be said.
Kidding, I believe you. It sounded like your position as stated elsewhere, and the fake votes were all pro-ban.
--Key
Originally posted as Desdendelle: I vote yes as well (nm)
I went to bed two hours before that post. This is very, very worrying.
I don't think I need to give reasons - hS, Hardric and Neshome already said everything that was needed to say.
Though I am rather interested in the faker's motivations...
Neshome may looks like her, but that's still a mini.
Definitely not Neshoyou. *g*
~Neshomeh
Everything under my name in this thread is actually me, for the record. Checking my IP should bear it out, I hope.
Not saying any more tonight. Too angry.
~Neshomeh
Just for the record, I never doubted you were, you know, you. If that helps at all. This whole thing is really weird, hope you're feeling better tomorrow. I've fired you an email just to check up.
Originally posted as Scapegrace: Definitely (nm)
Originally posted as Cat-on-the-Keyboard: This seems like a good idea (nm)
Like real!Phobos said, know your mark. I would never cast such an important vote as this because something "seems like a good idea." I would carefully consider the issue and write at least a few sentences about why I made that decision. I'm wordy.
--Key, who is still thinking it over
Originally posted as Matt Cipher: I agree (nm)
I was gonna go with shunning as per article 10.5, but since they've expressed quite clearly that "if someone is determined, or just doesn't see the error of their ways, refusing to engage them is not an actual deterrent from them saying whatever they want," I guess that leaves us with banning as the only option.
But, you know, since I'm one of those core oldbies who are so intolerant of change and all, feel free to not count my vote in the final tally. I'll happily leave it up to this generation to decide whether they want to put up with this dren or not.
~Neshomeh
This seems a little fast to me. I don't know Data Junkie well, but do you know for sure that taking a break from discussion wouldn't lead to either them taking back what they've said, or reformulating their concerns in a way that's more useful and less trollish?
I asked in a neutral manner for them to stop, and they responded by throwing a massively painful past event in my face. Not mentioning anything that can in any way upset them has no effect on their willingness to cause pain.
hS
What I got out of it was them digging up the most painful, degrading experience of my entire time here, for no good reason, and with zero respect for the actual facts of the matter. I do not like me and people I care about being more or less libeled for lulz, and since they've now doubled down and said they won't take any of it back, yes, I am sure. I am 100% disinclined to give them another chance to hurt me or anyone else.
But you are quite free not to take my word for it that keeping this person and their attendant anonymous woodwork-dwellers around is a bad idea. Like I said, I leave it to you lot to work it out for yourselves. I won't stand around and be accused of forcing the PPC to dance on my strings. It's your community, and I'll go along with whatever the community as a whole decides.
~Neshomeh
*puts the salute in a nice walnut display case with the other nice salutes*
*takes a photo and sends it to Salute Collectors' Monthly*
*brevity may be the soul of wit but levity is its heart*
A) Definitely not taking back, no. B) Maybe? Who knows! I'm bad with words and tend to speak out of emotion than logic, so until I can get better there, I'm likely to still occasionally make a jerky remark or two if I'm upset because my default setting upset or passionate is "Everyone else has no gorram clue why can't they see things the way I see them" and honestly that's not a very useful setting, though the arguments that have come out of it have occasionally helped in the past in situations outside of the PPC.
I won't tell anythng about the flames, since I participated to this, but the fact that Data Junkie is hostile to the very concept of mission, and that means being hostile to the very existence of PPC.
While the idea of people having the courage of posting their stories is something I can acknowledge, badfic targeted by the PPC are stories where the faults are so blatant that I won't insult someone by telling that's their best. For instance, speaking of Percy Jackson, the concept of a character being a child of Artemis, or one of the Big Three after WW2, show a disrespect of basic canon whose it's better to laugh than to cry about it. And I'll remember to Data Junkie that missions can also be about trollfics.
If they disapprove the very core of this world and community, why the duck are they sticking around?
Not necessarily a permban. They are going away from their own accord, and... guess that too stern judgement are too easily causing something irreparable.
So 'ban' for now, with letting the possibility for return. Without pardon a community is doomed.
It's perfectly possible to contribute to the PPC without doing missions. Most of the stories I have in the works aren't missions! But I do see most of the points you're making - I suppose I just wanted to head off the potential "if you don't like missions you don't belong in the PPC" argument at the pass. If nobody is saying that, I apologise.
Which I like just as much as missions. It seems to me perfectly possible that someone would want to stick around for the sentient flowers and well-developed OCs from all different canons.
Because let me tell you, July was the one who helped me a few months back when I didn't just step on somebody's toes but I broke their bloody legs. She provided me with all the support I needed, helped me to see that I should let it go and I won't change what happened, and ever since I joined I can't say a bad word about her. Sure, she's snappy sometimes, and definitely agitates easily, but then again who isn't?
What you are doing is not "agitating for change". You're not a bloody revolutionary, who will make a new world out of the old one's ashes. You are rubbing salt on the wounds and helping nobody.
This is the same July that talked me out of suicide twice. However, she's also the person who bullied Bronwyn, Tray Gnome, Digital Socrates and Aster Corbett, among others, until they left the PPC. She's done the same thing in other communities too. Just because someone helps people when they feel like it doesn't mean they don't also have a pattern of lashing out at people over the slightest things. Even some of her own friends and former friends can at least attest to that much.
That was all years ago. We were all younger, and less mature, and not as good at interacting with others. It sucks, it's bad memories, but for goodness' sake, can we please move on? Can we forgive people for things they did half a decade ago, and accept that people change?
Back in the time period you're talking about, July and I would get into some big argument just about every other day in the IRC. It was pointless antagonism, and I still feel embarrassed about it today, but here's the thing: July is, beyond a doubt, my closest PPC friend right now. I am a better person today than I would have been, thanks to her and Vixenmage taking me to task whenever I said something baldly ignorant, and I'm grateful to them for it.
We all have bad days. It sucks, but it happens. I'm just really disappointed, Data, that you've taken advantage of July's bad day to dredge up bad stuff from years in her past to paint her as a bad person.
Data, please: let's all grow up. Let's all move on.
—doctorlit
If you hold a grudge for five years, you have a problem, man. You, not the world.
I believe there are circumstances were it is appropriate to maintain negative feelings towards someone for a very long time, perhaps even until the end of one's life. Without knowing all the facts, maybe this is one of those circumstances. I will agree that five years seems like a long time, but it may be one of those circumstances where it is justified.
Yeah, it's... really not one of those. Don't feed the trolls, lads.
Sorry to butt in, but this whole sorry affair has affected me rather deeply. I can't abide it when my friends fall out, and the only thing worse is watching my friends get pilloried by people who have no business doing so. Yes, July can be prickly and Ix has her own issues. That doesn't give every Tom, Dick and Harry with an axe to grind carte blanche to savage either party's good name.
Yeah. I thought like that at one point too.
Does anyone know how to reboot a Scapegrace?
The only thing I will do is apologise for not using your preferred pronouns (or indeed asking what they were) when talking about you. That was wrong of me and I'm sorry for it; one must, after all, hold to standards of behaviour, regardless of who they're talking to or who is attempting to get a rise out of them.
But no, seriously, let's break it up here folks. Data, if you have some kind of grievance with July, I would say you should probably discuss your differences among each other, in private; I remember some of the details, enough to know you don't like her particularly much, but I don't feel it was necessary to derail this topic into a shot at her. I'm not sure I get where you're coming from with "incredibly toxic at its core" re: the PPC, but this isn't the time or place; email me if you'd like to talk about it, maybe. I just got here, I missed the big kerfluffle, but skimming through posts it does seem to me as if you're going out of your way to stir things up just as they settle down, and that really isn't acceptable. Let's remember what this topic is for, all right?
Everyone else, I think the point is made and your displeasure expressed; there's no need for further piling on. This thread is for wishing Ix good tidings, not tearing into each other, so let's try to pull up from this instead of having two blowups in as many days.
I'm not saying it to get on anybody, I just wanted to ask both sides in this to back off a bit, because the last thing we need is more people at each other's throats.
All you've done since coming back is try to stir up trouble and harass other Boarders. I urge you to read the Constitution and think really, really hard about how much more of this crap the rest of us are willing to take.
I will tell you one last time. Stop. Bloody. Stirring.
Your behavior disgraces you, and mocks the situation. In fact, that's the the most toxic thing I saw until now. This Board is one of the few nice spots on this Web, please stop these attacks.
I'm leaving for my own reasons. Stop trying to make July look like a villain. Now.
I... sound like a broken record, but i cannot believe this is happening Ix. I would wish to understand why, to know if we could do anything to help.
I meant it yesterday and I still mean it now. I might change my mind in the future but right now, I doubt it.
Only reason I came out of hiding was to tell Data he crossed a line.
(By the way, Data, if you think the community is so toxic, you're more than welcome to leave.)
Well I am glad it's not because of July exploding at you a few threads back. As for me leaving, I prefer to stay and see if I can't be an agent of change.
I mean, really, what's she going to do?
What'll be the outcome if your mission doesn't succeed?
What could she possibly do that we can't just... ignore?
I'll be very surprised if she wages an attack on the board with an army of Uruk-hai, is all I'm saying.
Look "my mission" (assuming you mean my desire for change) and my issues with July are completely separate. I am not even certain I comprehend where the rest of your post came from unless you're reading way too much into my posts and seeing what isn't there.
Is it relating to that toxic core you were going on about earlier?
I can't say your current method seems very constructive, but what do I know?
I haven't been here half as long as you.
A couple of weeks ago? I was trying for the overly complicated, unnecessarily restrictive permission process. I failed there, but I did get some folks to agree with me. Next week, who knows?
The "overly complicated, unnecessarily restrictive" task of, er... writing a short piece of writng to a specific brief. Which any reasonably competent author can bang out nae problemo.
You're trolling at this point. Please stop.
Except when it starts drama.
Might want to put it down to Demi-God, at that point.
Take time to think about it. I guess I'll stop pestering you with that. For now.
Please do not make this the last goodbye.
Like, I know I disappeared for a bit, but I just really didn't see this coming. I mean, if you're set on leaving, I don't know if there's really anything I can say to change your mind. Good luck out there. It won't be the same without you.
I know I very rarely post, but I do an awful lot of lurking and you are wonderful both on the Board and as a writer of missions.
I admit, the thread below goes mostly over my head (though I do know JulyFlame, at least), but you've always been the sort to bounce back from things - or at least push through them.
You've been a good sort the whole time I've known you, for sure - if anything, I've had concerns I was annoying you, sometimes!
If you do intend on leaving, and on not writing anymore, then I guess I will just be mad at the world (not you, though - I couldn't be mad at you if I tried).
Dai Stiho, Iximaz. /o
Okay, I admit that you writing faster than I can read sometimes grated on my nerves. You’ve been called out for making the PPC "too dark", there may have been one or two other occasions I don’t remember clearly, and I’m aware that not everything happens on the Board, where I can see it. But this doesn’t outweigh all the good you did here (I don’t need to list this, just look further down). You aren’t a nuisance, you certainly aren’t a bitch, and you will be missed.
HG
Well, obviously, if you're set on leaving and determined that this is for sure what you want to do, nothing I or anyone else can say will convince you to stay. However, should you choose to leave, make sure you're making your decision for the right reasons - make sure it's what you are happy with, not just what other people might or might not want. I'll admit I've obviously missed a lot and have no Earthly idea what might have brought this on, but I do think it's important you reflect on this and make sure any decision you come to is what you feel is best for you. If that is still leaving, then good travels, none of us can stop you, but make sure you won't regret doing so in a week's time, if that makes sense.
Of course, if you've left and don't intend to ever return, there's every possibility you won't even see this post, so maybe I'm talking to air. But I thought it was a point worth making.
So let me just add this:
After five years of watching the Board, the people who have made the biggest impression on me are Huinesoron, Neshomeh, and you. You were the first person to welcome me, you're a wonderful writer, and from everything I've seen, you're a wonderful person too. We won't be better off without you, we'll be sad to see you go. We're a community, and I think it's pretty clear we want you to stay.
I don't know if you'll read any of our messages, but if you do, and you still decide you want to go, then good luck. We'll miss you.
You will always be welcome back here. You are our friend, and we care about you. And you are definitely not a bitch.
—doctorlit is available for talking, if talking is a thing that needs doing!
Then who are we to stop you, right?
Who else deserves control over your decisions other than you?
Not bloody me, that's for certain.
Nobody thinks you're a bitch, and I can guarantee that you're a far better person than you think you are. Everybody is.
Good luck wherever you end up.
...but I can still try. I'm not sure if Iximaz is going to read this, but I know that people consider her to be wonderful. I would know that for a fact, as she would often be the first person to welcome newbies to the board. Heck, she even glomped me. I can somewhat understand why she made this choice, but at the same time, I can't.
If you're reading this, know that:
I will honor this choice of yours.
From what I can tell, you don't step on anyone's toes.
You leaving wouldn't make anyone a lot happier.
Maybe there is no point in staying, but why not?
It was fun while it lasted.
And as for being such a b****, don't be. You weren't.
Good luck, Iximaz, you shall be missed.
I know it may not be easy now, but try to remember some of the good you've done for us, even the smallest of things. Think of all the times you or something you brought to us managed to make even one of our days slightly better.
You have written literal novels-worth of stories that have made people in this community laugh or smile or think.
You helped turn a few silly musings into an awesome, popular tournament which I look forward to participating in each year.
Your activity helps all the time to bring life to this board. Without you, this place wouldn’t be the same.
If you make a mistake or if something you do upsets someone, I can assure you, it will be forgotten in time. Nobody is judging you poorly. No one is keeping a running tally of your mistakes, and I can say with certainty that no one is happy to see you go. If you have any doubts, just look at the outpouring of love that are the responses in this thread.
I would ask that you reconsider leaving us, but if you really feel like it would be better for you if you went, then I at least urge that you consider something less than forever?
I hardly post, and we don't know each other very well, so maybe what I'm saying doesn't carry much weight. It would be wonderful to still have the opportunity to change that, though.
Whatever you decide to do, I earnestly wish you the best. It’ll never be the same without you.
Especially saying such lies as "me leaving would make everyone a lot happier"
You may have done mistakes - who doesn't? - but it's the same with everyone of us.
And you surely have contributed to this community way more than any harm you might have caused (which, in fact, I don't think you have)
Like others have said, I don't think you are a nuisance. I admit to having similar feelings sometimes.
You post content. Good content. I think we all appreciate that. Take a minute to look back on everything you have created for the PPC.
If you are feeling down, maybe try going into lurk mode for a while. Check the Board once in a while, skim through the new missions, just try to stay connected. And if you want to become a full time lurker like me, then please take a seat at the Quasi-Not-Real Tea Party.
Every time you've made a post, it's been positive...I don't recall you being involved in any drama...and your missions are genuinely entertaining.
You've tackled some of the worst fics out there, kept the missions funny and worth reading, and have an original, clever story behind your agents.
If you want to leave, okay, that's your choice, but we'll be sad to see you go.
...There wouldn't have been a Percy Jackson mission that would attract my attention.
...There wouldn't have been 207 pages of two agents going into a canon that I barely know about and keeping me entertained enough to read through the whole 6 parts.
...That I wouldn't have met all of these awesome people that I'm glad I met.
In my opinion, you're one of the greatest authors in our current time. So do what I do, laugh and don't let it get to you.
-Mattman, currently working on his permission request, something he wouldn't have been doing if it wasn't for you.
I wonder why? Oh, I know... because I did exact the same thing. Remember? And the reasons were pretty much the same:
- Making a nuisance of myself: check
- Stepping on people's toes: forget toes, I stepped on whole legs!
- Thinking it will be better without me: triple check
- Feeling like the public enemy #1: I assume check.
Look, the point is, whatever happened between you and some selected people (and I'm not gonna pry about it), it shouldn't affect your interaction with the entire community.
I know, I know, you're probably gonna go with "it's not your business", "stop pestering me about it", etc., but my point is, I've been through this. This exact way of thinking. It's not exactly a thing to be talked about in public, and you probably won't talk about it in private (at least with me), but I don't think this is a good choice you're making. If you need, take a break, even a long one, but don't forsake those two (?) years of fun.
Also, about you calling yourself a bitch... Who says it's always a bad thing?
So take your time to think about it, Iximaz. Running away is not always the best option.
I must have missed something during the last months I read this Board, because I pretty much fail to see how exactly you're a 'nuisance'. You're a great writer, someone who's great ere at the PPC, whatever it is on this Board or during RPGs.
I'm someone pretty insensitive, and I've got many mayhaps on this very Board. I totally fail to see any ocurrence where you behaved that way. And I'm sure I cannot be the only one thinking that you're a great person.
Please, don't leave this Board on an impulse like this. Bad days happen to everyone, and I'm sure you will regret this decision in no times.
And the fun will last as long as you want, you only need to go on and take it.
Please, do not leave. I discovered PPC through the Original series and TV Tropes, but that's your writing who hooked me up for good. It shows how awesmoe you are.
Now, if you think you need some time out, take it. But I'll be damned if that's farewell here and now.
I did not expect Iximaz of all people to say anything like this, and to be honest? Her leaving the community for good would be painful for all of us. And this is coming from someone who had a falling out with her on a personal level a while ago. Regardless of how we feel about each other, though, I love her work, and I look forward to seeing more every time. Her leaving would leave quite a few stories hanging, which means we'll never get to see any closure for her characters. And that's a Very Bad Thing.
Iximaz, you can take a break and lurk at any time. But please come back as soon as possible, and at least think about what you're doing before you unknowingly hurt all of us in the long run.
"Eh, what?" pretty much summed up my reaction to this bolt from the blue. You're one of the most active content posters here at present and have been for quite some time - and I certainly have seen no evidence of your 'being a nuisance'.
Please take some time to think on this, and if you do go, remember you'll be welcome back any time.
Now I have no idea where this notion that you're an awful person came from, but I think you're a great person and a great writer. You accomplished so much and paved the way for those who follow your ambitious path.
I'd rather you not go, but if that is what you wish, I won't protest anymore.