Subject: Clarafication request
Author:
Posted on: 2018-01-05 10:28:00 UTC
Is "in PPC group chat" a qualifier there? That is, is the probability of that forced shift of personality something other than "very unlikely" in the context of, say, PMs?
- Tomash
Last night, Mr Sprinkles asked me in PM on Discord whether people would be okay with him returning to the PPC Discord.
To those who do not know, since he joined, Mr Sprinkles was very active on the Discord, and, in my opinion, a great member of the PPC. On New Year's Eve, he had what appears to be a major meltdown, and said several things I'd prefer not to repeat here, that generally boiled down to "You don't matter to me.", "My existence is meaningless.", "You don't know the real me." and "You are lying when you say that you care about me.". The meltdown ended with him leaving the server on his own (He was not kicked as far as I know). After a while, he apparently asked Cal via PM to pass on his apology and that he was feeling slightly better, which she did.
Mr Sprinkles came back a few hours later for a short period of time, to positive reactions from those who were online at the time. He again apologized for what had happened, and left again shortly after, due to needing a break from the PPC after what had happened.
Yesterday evening, he asked me whether I would be willing to poke the server about whether people would be okay with him coming back. I did so, and the initial reaction was positive, until Ix objected, without declaring any reasoon for doing so. After that the chat dissolved into discussion, and due to the issue being serious, and the suggestions of some people in the chat, I'm bringing the issue to the Board.
My personal opinion: In the PMs with me, Sprinkle has apologized multiple times over, and (as far as I can tell) deeply regrets what happened. From what he told me it also transpired that he apparently was not entirely in control of his actions at the time, which he described to me in later PMs as feeling like "a forced shift in personality" and an "alternate personality forcibly taking over".
I'd be happy to have him back anytime.
~Ak
PS: Something important to note is that he was never banned,and that to my knowledge noone even publicly proposed any kind of ban against him.
I was telling an outside friend of mine about this situation, and she shared with me the story of the butterfly's struggle, which I thought was very uplifting. I realize it may not be the right message for everyone at all times, but as we individually and collectively struggle with our various challenges, I hope it's because we're empowering our wings to fly.
There are several versions of the butterfly story out there; this is a link to the one at the top of my Google hits:
http://instructor.mstc.edu/instructor/swallerm/Struggle%20-%20Butterfly.htm
~Neshomeh
I realize this issue is rather moot now, but I still feel this should be added.
Yesterday, I had it pointed out to me that as a result of some circumstances that have/are hurt(ing) him, Sprinkles has been infected with (this is the best verb I can think of here) certain persistent patterns of behavior and conversation style that, in the aggregate, would (in the judgement of the person explaining this) almost surely cause something like this incident to reoccur if Sprinkles came into contact with other vulnerable people similar to X (the victim currently at issue). That is, there is very good reason to believe this issue would not be an isolated incident.
It was further pointed out to me that this was something that would be quite resolvable with some help, but that because of some circumstances Sprinkles is in, he wouldn't be in a position to receive such help at or near this time. This concern for X and other people that would be drawn into similar situations make the person I was talking to uncomfortable with having Sprinkles in the PPC Discord.
I'd like to reiterate that this doesn't make Sprinkles a bad person or anything like that. I hope Sprinkles can get away from the circumstances that are causing and prolonging this issue and get help and healing.
I have somewhat lower estimates of the probability of recurrence than the person who explained this to me did. However, I know basically nothing about this type of issue. In light of this information, I find myself rather unsure that my proposed solution would have actually solved anything. I am also, however, not entirely convinced that making Sprinkles leave under these circumstances would have been a precedent we would want to set.
I just don't know what we should have done anymore. I thought I had a good idea. It turns out that may not have been the case. So, even though we are not deciding on anything anymore, I (entirely symbolically) abstain.
- Tomash
Whether or not this continues, which I sincerely hope it doesn't, I am backing out of it. All of it. Having been involved with both concerned parties for a notable length of time, I am personally shattered that it ever came to this. I think I'm still in denial of what's happening; what I saw during the previous months is so starkly different from what's gone on the past few days, I can scarcely believe this is real. For that matter, I am deeply sorry. I'm sorry that this happened in the first place and I'm sorry for any and all pain I caused during this argument. If I've wronged you in any way, I acknowledge it and I apologize with all the sincerity I can muster. I feel as though I have lost my family over the course of this discussion and nothing about what seems to be the final assessment sits well with me, but it's apparently not my place to say. I'm not in possession of the full facts and I'm honestly not qualified to be here, making judgements. I am sorry for my hurtful words, I am sorry for overstepping my bounds, and I am sorry that I can't agree with most/many of you. I hope that in time, we can all recover from this, and that someday I'll be able to wash the bitter taste from the back of my throat. But for the time being, I need both time and space, so this is my goodbye.
This is doing more harm than good. A lot of hurtful things have been said here, and it's putting everyone through hell.
I'm not trying to gain sympathy points by saying this- Y'all can believe what you want about me, but I don't want more people to get hurt. I just want this fighting to stop. And, if it means I'm not allowed back into the PPC, then that's fine by me.
I make my apologies, and I'll keep my distance.
Goodbye, it was awesome meeting you guys.
Okay, now that I've read everything people have posted, I have to say I don't support the idea of Sprinkles coming back into the chat at this time for a few reasons which I'll lay out. Let me say something that's been said many times before by other people, but bears mentioning again: Sprinkles, I hope you get the support and help you need. I don't think you're a bad person; I just think the best thing for everyone would be to take a break for a while.
Now, as to why.
As I see it, Sprinkles has been abusing at least one person for an extended period of time, and that person reached out to others for help before deciding to block Sprinkles. I don't think Tomash's proposal is realistic precisely *because* it's ideal. People are not ideal. People make mistakes. I think it's likely that some kind of accidental interaction between Sprinkles and Person X will happen, and that that interaction could be harmful to at least one of them, to say nothing of the rest of the community as a whole if it happens outside PMs. Tomash has a good proposal, I just think it's not likely to be followed even if everyone has the very best of intentions (and I'm not saying anyone doesn't).
Now, I haven't been in contact with Sprinkles. I don't know his exact situation or what steps he's taking in real life. I don't know who Person X is, so I can't speak for them. Maybe other people know more and haven't said anything yet that could change my mind, and if that's the case (and people are comfortable sharing), I'd appreciate hearing it. Unless and until that happens, though? The safest option for both Sprinkles and Person X is for Sprinkles to cut contact through the PPC Discord.
What happens in PMs between Sprinkles and other people in the PPC is outside what I'm willing to talk about. I'm only suggesting he be asked politely but firmly to stay off the PPC Discord server for at least a few months... and most importantly, we should defer to Person X as for when (or even if) to let Sprinkles back in.
When I wrote the above post, I only knew Sprinkle's side of the story. I was not aware of the extent of the abuse, to the point where the interactions between Sprinkle and the victim that I was aware of did not even register as abuse to me, or the extent of the distress it caused them. Had I known about it, I would have featured it in the post; however I fully understand the victim's decision not to share it with me. I did attempt to contact the victim; both to try and set up a discussion between them and Sprinkle, and to find out their side of the story. They refused, a decision that I do not blame them for in the slightest. At that time however, I attempted to get their story even after they told me to drop the subject. I have already apologized to them in private, but that happened before I brought the discussion to the Board. Due to what I learned from this discussion, I think a second apology is in order. I am sorry for not respecting the victim's wish not to discuss the matter. I fully understand their decision not to, and should not have pressed the topic.
As to what happened, I do share the opinion that Sprinkle did not intentionally inflict abuse on the victim. I also think that shutting of Sprinkle was a good decision, or at least better than keeping up the abusive relationship. Was it the best option there was? I have honestly no idea. I think things might have turned out better in the aftermath if they had maybe asked someone they trusted to explain the situation to Sprinkle. However, I do not blame them for not doing so, and I am not sure if I would have done it if I had been in their situation.
Maxe's idea of a moderated discussion sounds like a good idea in theory, but, as they admit themselves, it is not practical in this case, and trying force both parties into it would be a horrible idea.
I support Sprinkle being allowed back, however I also think Tomash's proposal, possibly with a few tweaks and clarifications, is a good idea, but I'd be interested in hearing the victim's thoughts on it if they are willing to voice them, either themselves or through Delta.
One final note to everyone: There is something important to learn from this situation for everyone who offers emotional support to others. First, what you're doing is admirable. But you must never forget to take care of yourselves. Back in EMT training, we learned a principle that roughly translates to "Make sure you are safe before attempting to save others." It was mostly meant as a warning to look out for possible dangers and not to take unnecessarily risky actions. I don't want to say"Don't help others if you have mental health Issues yourself", in a lot of cases having experience with mental illnesses can be very helpful. I want to say that your own wellbeing is important as well. (Again, this is *not* intended as an attack on the victim, but as an important warning to others).
~Ak
This is a multifaceted issue and I don't know if I can really lay all my support onto a single person here.
Not all the parties involved are talking about this. And it is more people like Nesh who weren't present in this should be speaking up, because though this (the lashout from Sprinkles in the main discord) was somewhat of an isolated event, the more people who can talk about it, the more fleshed out and more understood a situation will be.
I do support that this was a mental issue, being that there was a trigger involved! In the moments directly before the lashout Sprinkles was talking about how his biological brother was harassing and threatening him. This is something that can cause trauma, if it happens often.
I'm also assuming that all the other times where he lashed out to his victim that it was also caused by something.
But even if it was caused by something else does it excuse him lashing out to the chat? I mean, given that he had no control over his emotional and mental state I'd say that it does, but there's always the option of not even looking at the chat at all and not communicating. I was a large part in the discussion and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Sprinkles was going on a downswing and from the way he was talking it sounded very similar to the times in which I myself felt like killing myself, and I tried to draw away from that as much as possible. I suppose if I hadn't been there and kept disagreeing with him and attempting to get him to see the brightness of life and the good that the lashout would have been much shorter. Was it wrong of me in that case to step in? Maybe so, maybe not. I don't know how things would have turned out if I hadn't.
But, this was not the only lashout, and this is why I am having trouble forming a solid opinion. There was a singular person, who tried to handle it all. Who took much more of what Sprinkles said and was not equipped to handle it. I don't believe Sprinkles understood what he was doing to the person. I think that based on the reactions that he's mentioned that he was under the impression that things were going ok, because they were helping him, and he was unaware that he had inadvertently become abusive towards them. The person directly contacted me and asked me to help them out with the downswings. I tried to give as best moral support as I could. They asked me to talk to Sprinkles about this so they wouldn't have to deal with it all by themselves. But I took a stance that if I actually tried to talk to Sprinkles about it that it would destroy his trust in both of ours, something that I didn't want to be lost, because I believed that the damage of me directly talking to him about what he was saying would cause him to turn away from the entire community. In hindsight, I would have taken more responsibility and metaphorically tried to take Sprinkles off them. But everything is clearer in hindsight, and I can't change those events now.
I want Sprinkles and the person to work it out, in a moderated discussion. I don't see that happening any time soon.
I'm still not entirely sure where I stand on this. I'm for Sprinkles staying in the PPC. I'm for the victim speaking about this, whether directly or relayed through Delta (speaking of, Delta, you're incredibly kind and thoughtful for doing so).
I do want to throw in my general support for Delta Juliette, Matt Cipher, hS, and basically everyone begging us all to remember the anonymous person and take them seriously. The lone voice daring to speak out against abuse must not be dismissed simply because they are in the minority and the person who has hurt them is otherwise well-respected. As the world at large is coming to realize, that is wrong and cannot continue. Being in the minority and in a position of less power does not make them incorrect.
That said, I get that this is not a simple, clear-cut situation, and I am proud of everyone for not being so blindly committed to one person or the other that they can't see both sides. This is hard, and I think you're all doing an admirable job of navigating through it. I know you'll make the best decision you can.
~Neshomeh
It's probably unwise to type this literally minutes before work... Then again, people who are in a rush tend to write what's on their mind, without taking time to sound more neutral or PC. So here goes:
Sprinkles is not a bad guy. That has to be established first. He's a bloke with problems, just like many of us. I have no details about his life situation, but suffice to say it's not easy. He deals with his problems, and I believe that being among the PPC people kinda helped him in that matter. It's no longer a question of whether or not he should be invited back to the Discord, because he was never kicked off of it.
Now, for the bigger issue. Is Sprinkles an abuser? Yes. Yes, he is. HOWEVER, this is not a type of abuse that he chooses to inflict. He does not pick up his victims and pretends to be this poor, unfortunate, soul only to take pleasure in their suffering. He does not do this consciously. If we take into consideration what he claims being "another personality taking over", maybe it's a type of schizophrenia? I have no idea, and I don't know if Sprinkles had done anything to treat it. Nonetheless, it IS an abuse, and nothing that his victims do is their fault.
Once again, I will give you an compilation of what happened that time at Discord. This is but a few of the messages displayed in public. Please look at some of the words. "I'll hurt you". "I'll make you hate me". "Stop lying". Now, who can honestly say that they would be okay with getting things like this? Do you truly believe Sprinkles's victim was FINE with getting borderline THREATS for over a month? And then, after they've finally decided this has to stop, and chose the safest possible way of finishing it, you guys dare saying "Oh, they should've just tell Sprinkles and not make a big fuss about it." NO. Hell to the n, to the o! Why? Because Sprinkles clearly had no control over his abusive self. Telling him to stop wouldn't do anything, because it's not this side of him performing the abuse.
And yes, I said "safest" possible way out was going completely cold. Why? Well, imagine this - you suffer an abuse, from a person you care about and do their absolute best to keep sane. You bottle up all your emotion, so they finally burst like a Mentos+Cola combination. What good would saying "Yeah, he abused me emotionally" do? It would only create a situation of "How dare you accusing him!", "Booo! Attention beggar!", "He has problems! It's your job to help him!". It would definitely turn into a victim blaming scenario. One we don't need here anymore.
Final thoughts? I have no problems with Sprinkles coming to Discord. It seems like he has now a few more people to talk to, maybe this will help him. But he has to respect his victim's wish and now interact with them, until they decide it's okay. Because this was a strained relationship for both of them. They need a break from one another.
So, per downthread:
- Sprinkles has made a person/multiple people uncomfortable by behaving abusively in PMs.
- There is a person, let's call them X, that Sprinkles has been acting abusively towards in PMs for months.
- Because of said behavior, X has, for a good while, been uncomfortable with/afraid to/unwilling to/... with:
a) Sprinkles's behavior
b) Telling Sprinkles to stop
c) Reporting this
- It is unclear whether or not Sprinkles was aware of the impact his behavior was having before the block/this thread.
- Recently (after Sprinkles's rant), X blocked Sprinkles.
- After said block, Sprinkles has been attempting to (directly and/or indirectly) apologize and resume contact with X, in a manner that constitutes harassment.
- X continues to be unwilling to publicize their identity or speak up for themselves, and Delta has been advocating for them.
My thoughts:
It is unclear whether or not Sprinkles's behavior before the block is something we can/should do anything to address in an Official Community Action way. It was, to be clear, a bad thing, though.
However, recent events are (again, if past events were also this, we should be informed, as that changes a lot of things) something that is much less ambiguous: a harassment issue. X does not want to hear from Sprinkles, either ever again or for a good long while, and Sprinkles has been very much not respecting that (or at least, that's been implied downthread). For example, by bugging multiple people to try and get his apologies passed on to X.
This behavior is unambiguously (aka there is not a "Oh I had no idea I was being harassing." defense to this part) Not OK.
The question then arises: what do we do about it?
I have a proposal. I don't know if this is a feasible proposal, and I don't know if it'll work for X.
- Before readmission to chat, Sprinkles needs to stop harassing X (and any other relevant people) and fully apologize for doing so
- Sprinkles needs to respect the spirit of the block once he's back in chat. That is, he should act as if X doesn't exist. No mentioning them, no alluding to them, etc etc. (It'd probably be fine for them to both talk about something, but they should not talk to each other.
- A corollary to this is that X should also avoid interacting with Sprinkles. However, the burden of avoiding interaction is on Sprinkles, not X. It's Sprinkles's job to stay away from X, not the other way around.
- Voip makes this type of restriction complicated, especially since the situation as it stands would have X being unable to join voip if Sprinkles happens to be there. Thoughts?
- Violation of the spirit of the block, is, at the determination of the mods, a kick and some (not permanent the first time around, probably) ban from chat.
- Continued harassment is a nice enforced vacation from the PPC. That's how we've dealt with this before.
Again, I don't know if this is going to help any, because I really don't know much about how abusive situations work or what should be done in response.
I would appreciate comments and feedback on this attempted compromise resolution.
- Tomash
I propose a slightly more relaxed restriction, Tomash. Partly because it solves the VoIP issue, partly because I just think it's a better solution.
-Sprinkles should not try to force a discussion with the individual in question, or seek out contact with them.
-HOWEVER, if that individual is in a discussion that Sprinkles is also in and wishes to join, Sprinkles may respond to their comments in said discussion. The same goes for the individual.
-If, through any means, the topic of discussion becomes the issues between Sprinkles and the individual, then Sprinkles must exit the conversation unless the individual explicitly states otherwise.
-In VoIP, the same rules apply: Sprinkles may join in discussion that involves the individual, but may not seek them out, and may not broach this subject.
Does this seem reasonable? If it doesn't, we can go for Tomash's original, but I do feel this laxer allows both Sprinkles and the individual more flexibility, and a more sane ability operate in a shared space. I have been known to be wrong, however, and if others feel Tomash's proposal seems stronger, I can deal with that.
Having read through all that has been posted on this site regarding this issues as of this moment, I do believe this is the best solution. We don't yet know if this will be a habit, so we should work under the assumption that it is a one time thing. I think that right now, this is the best option, especially given the fact that there appears to be precedent for this happening given what Huinesoron said.
... that for at least one person, this was not just a one-time thing. The question as I understand it is whether it can cease to be a thing.
~Neshomeh
I'm not sure that "the issues between them" is a restriction that will cover anything that's actually a problem. From what I can tell, the issue is Sprinkles going on the sort of rant we saw in chat a few days back, just over and over in PMs, to the point that X (who had been trying to help that whole time) eventually snapped and had enough.
Now, there doesn't seem to be anything in that above paragraph warranting an immediate hurling out the door. However, if we're looking at levels of rant etc. that are objectively unreasonable, that is, Sprinkles should've known that was too much to pin on someone (it's currently unclear if that's the case, for one, no logs), someone should mention this.
Therefore, as an amendment to the previous proposal, Sprinkles needs to also not do the insulting rant thing he did to chat a few days ago, privately or otherwise, probably on pain of temp-boot. (If nothing else, it avoids re-exposing X to that.).
If Sprinkles can't control that behavior ... I don't know. I can very much understand why many people are uncomfortable having someone who'll tend to do that to people in the chat though.
Referring to elsewhere in the thread, I predict that if that kept happening in chat, I'd be feeling really nice/sympathetic/... and likely wouldn't be calling for boots, even though they'd be needed to preserve the utility of the chat for everyone else. I have the feeling this is the position X is in at the moment.
*sighs* This is hard.
- Tomash
Therefore, as an amendment to the previous proposal, Sprinkles needs to also not do the insulting rant thing he did to chat a few days ago, privately or otherwise, probably on pain of temp-boot. (If nothing else, it avoids re-exposing X to that.).
I will remind you that less than a year ago, we had someone post rants to the Board and the Discord while influenced by mental health issues. Do you feel that that person should be booted from the Discord if it happens again? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess not.
There are two (three) entirely separate issues here:
Does having mental-health-issue-induced breakdowns render you ineligible to participate in the PPC?
I would say no.
Is anyone required to put their own mental wellbeing at risk to preserve the wellbeing of another, eg by continuing a relationship that they feel is abusive towards them?
I would say no.
Is 'preserving the utility of the chat' a more important goal than allowing PPC members in good standing access to said chat?
I would say no.
hS
I mostly agree with your positions. That amendment is the sort of attitude we've decided we don't want to have, and so I'm taking it back.
That being said, I'd like your thoughts on something. Suppose hypothetically that the sort of repeated breakdown we're hearing about in this thread were directed at the chat as a whole and not a specific member. Would you support a collective "enough is enough" at some point? (To be clear, I don't think another breakdown would make us hit that point, but I do think such a point exists.)
- Tomash, on mobile
Back when people thought she might still be operating in good faith, she was repeatedly given a message along the lines of: we're sorry you have mental health issues that render you unable to communicate civilly. Since the PPC is aggravating that problem, for your own good you should probably leave.
That's a message I could see being given. But an ultimatum - a gods, your issues are so irritating, get lost - would absolutely not be.
hS
The way I see it, a large part of why we eventually banned Zdimensia for good is that she was stomping on our collective boundaries (insulting a whole lot of people, trying to dictate the terms of her relationship with the community etc etc.) and didn't stop after we'd explained the problem and given her a chance to work on it/stop.
I'm willing to say that Zdimentia was actually trying to participate and ... couldn't. So we had to cut off our relationship with her for our own well-being.
The ultimatum as you phrased it wouldn't be OK, but we're sorry, your issues are making this place unsafe/[are effectively abusive behavior towards the community]/.... and they don't seem to be improving, you'll need to leave is something we've said before (IMO) and that we hopefully won't need to say again. (That being said, some sort of warning between "please stop" and that sort of thing might be a good idea if we somehow end up in that point.)
- Tomash
Although I admit my perspective is limited, I would be willing to let him back into the Discord channel.
Firstly, the purely technical. He was not, at any point, actually kicked. He left of his own accord, and in this particular case, I don't feel the situation warrants a ban. While my memory is horribly faulty, I don't recall anything like a warning before the incident that would create reason for what would amount to a ban.
Secondly, since the event, he has been nothing but apologetic, to myself and to others. Given the mental circumstances around the incident, and things I've been told since then, I believe that a repeated occurrence would be unlikely. Therefore, I'd be willing to have him back.
But I do think that he seriously needs to get help with his issues, assuming he hasn't already. (He probably has, but... I don't know. Sprinkles?)
I am writing this from my phone, so please excuse the brevity and inevitable typos- I will spend more time once I have my full keyboard again.
If it was just the New Year's Eve meltdown? I'd be right there with you. He posted in the middle of a meltdown, didn't even attack anyone in particular, and has apologized to at least Akrinor. I'd be cool with a "don't do that again," and probably some talk via pms on how to recognize when he shouldn't be posting.
But.
I've heard from a member of the community who offered to help Sprinkles that he has been throwing significant amounts of abuse at them in PM for multiple months, to the point that they've suffered a lot of distress. I've also heard corroboration from other people- I really trust what I've heard about Sprinkles's behavior.
I'm sorry I'm being vague- some of the people I am talking to are not comfortable being named in this conversation, and I'm trying to respect that. I'm also not sure how much their identities matter- Sprinkles has been taking out his issues on people in painful ways, and I'm not comfortable with that in my community.
At this point, I'd like to ((say something here that I've rightly been called out for. Removed it.))
To add to that- I do not intend to block him from contacting me. But, that does not mean I am comfortable having him in a space where he has already made people uncomfortable speaking up about how he is hurting them.
That the victim of abuse should absolutely forgive and accept Other!Sprinkles (because for me it's evident there is some sort of problem going, and he wishes to call it a "forced shift of personality") back as their friend, here's a little compilation of what went down in the main Discord chat. I only blurted out the names of called-out PPC-ers. Pay attention especially to messages number 2, 6, 7, and 9.
https://imgur.com/a/JWJhQ
Now imagine this being sent to you privately over, and over, and over, and over, and over... and you not saying a single bad word to the abuser about this. I admire the victim for being patient for so long.
Okay, I can't make a judgement about this. I don't know anything. I don't know if the individual in question informed Sprinkles that what he was doing made them uncomfortable (that's important: there's a difference between not knowing that you're bothering someone, and knowing but doing it anyways). I don't even know what he did.
I understand that you cannot reasonably give us that information, but it does mean that I can't do much with what you gave me.
I have to judge Sprinkles on my observations of his behavior, and on what I know. And for the most part, he's been a very good member of the PPC community from what I have seen. I think he has some issues (Sprinkles, I assume you're reading this... Please, get some help if you haven't already. I don't know how capable you are of getting help, but if you can, you need to), but fundamentally, his heart is in the right place, and he's mostly a great guy.
If I knew what happened in PMs, that may change my opinion. I don't know. But a vague charge that he did something in PMs with no indication that there are not other options aside from booting him to mitigate this (like, say, talking to Sprinkles and sorting it out) doesn't change my position. Booting, even from chat, is a fairly extreme action.
Finally, there's something about Delta's post that really bugged me: It's the link to the Missing Stairs post. Delta, I feel that providing that post in the context you did severely overstates Sprinkles' issues. Not only that, but as posted, it seems to indirectly compare Sprinkles to a rapist. Sprinkles is by no means a perfect human being, but the issues we are discussing are not anywhere near that serious. That link makes it seem like you are implying that Sprinkles is Totally Broken, Evil, or both: neither is accurate, in my opinion.
I don't think that's what you meant to do by linking that post, but that is how it came across, to me at least.
That link was inappropriate, and I appreciate being called out on it.
I think I get the gist of what you're trying to say here, but that's a bit much, don't you think? Sprinkles is a good friend of mine and a good person. I along with several other people heavily disapprove of comparing him to a freaking criminal.
No matter what the circumstances, in my mind? That just wasn't okay. On any level.
Yeah, it's more than a bit much. It's a solidly extreme example, and I only linked it because Clif explains it better than I could with half-frozen fingers on a phone keyboard. I am sorry for the implications it raised.
I get that you're on phone and can't keep up otherwise. But still... I think this is a magnitude or more away from rape.
I know who it is that was having this abuse flung at them. And e kept telling Sprinkles he was okay. There is no doubt in my mind that Sprinkles would have stopped if asked to - he's since offered several times with me.
And said person always thinks more of others than about themselves. Of course they would tell Sprinkles everything was okay, even if they were in a burning building. As long as he doesn't come over to burn, too.
The thing is, if they were getting this much abuse and verbal punching every other day, like what we've got in the chat... I can't do anything else but to agree with them. And I personally doubt Sprinkles would stop mid-rant. He had no control over his words last time. Not because he's a bad person, but because that's how it goes.
There's no doubt about him regretting his actions, but... I'd say, for the time being, it's not gonna help. And I know this better than anyone; big wounds and emotional pain takes more than just a day of two and a boatload of apologies. Said person will not forgive him and accept him in an instant, especially not since he's using proxies to convince said person to accept his apologies.
Pure and simple, and this is a message to Sprinkles as well: They don't want to hear from you. Give them time, maybe they'll decide they do. For now, you've caused too much pain to them to recognize you. You've apologized and that's the only thing you can do for now.
Man, that's one juicy hypocrisy coming from me...
Abuse isn't okay just because the victim didn't feel able to stand up for themselves.
And it's making me really uncomfortable that there are now at least three people insisting that it is.
hS
hS, I think you're missing some nuance here...
From what I understand, this wasn't so much Sprinkles abusing someone and them not telling him it wasn't okay, as it was Sprinkles talking and being told, REPEATEDLY, that it WAS OKAY and the person in question didn't mind.
I do not feel it is fair to lay the blame entirely on Sprinkles for that, as I would in a case of simple abuse.
Not feeling able to say anything other than "of course I don't mind you doing this" is a type of not feeling able to stand up for yourself. Implying otherwise is perilously close to saying 'they led Sprinkles on, they should have known better, they brought it on themselves'.
Imagine... oh, imagine a partner who doesn't want you to go out with friends, but insists that you stay home with them every evening. Do you really think that if you say 'of course that's okay, sweetheart' even though you'd actually like to get away from them for a while (and the weeks turn into months, and your friends no longer talk to you...), you're now complicit in their abuse?
Of course not. And when you turn that 'okay' from 'of course I love spending time with you' to 'of course you can say whatever you need to', it doesn't get any more acceptable to pin that on the victim.
hS
From your message, it seems like the victim said that the abuse was okay. No. They've listened to Sprinkles, because they feel responsible for them. Because they care. Because they knew how is it to be in a dangerous family situation. But everything has limits. You were in the chat when the flood of emotion happened, some of which included insults and accusations of falsehood and lies. Getting that send to you over and over would break anyone.
That's how it was perceived: Sprinkles was informed that what he was saying and doing was okay by the individual in question, and that they didn't mind hearing it.
That may not have been the intended message, but that the message it seems Sprinkles got.
A nice and kind person will never tell you to stop talking to them about your problems. They will listen and let you vent and even insult everything (including them), and calmly respond with positive messages. They will be worried that if they say anything other than a reassuring thought, they will make the matter even worse and will be perceived by others as selfish scum. EXACTLY, how the victim in question feels right now.
I know several people who are like this. This is why, if I talk my problems with them, I tend to apologize for rambling and taking their time.
Can we then blame Sprinkles entirely?
He was repeatedly sent the message, deliberate or no, that what he did was okay. If you keep getting sent the message that the things you're saying are alright by the person you're talking to, then I can't blame you for thinking that.
I am not saying that Sprinkles bears no responsibility. I am not saying that the other individual is The Problem. I am saying that this is more complex then a simple case of abuse, and that it was a particularly nasty interaction between two flawed human beings, and I don't think we can reasonably simply assign blame to one or the other.
You're right, this is very much not a clear-cut case. If it was, the solution would be obvious. Just to reiterate, I don't think Sprinkles is Bad, or An Abuser, or someone who needs to be shunned- I think he's someone who has trouble seeing how his own behavior hits other people.
I also think that the PPC is likely to have more than one person who fits the anonymous victim's profile- wanting to help and with difficulty saying stop. That's why I'm not comfortable with Sprinkles returning- because I'm afraid that this will happen again, just as badly, without either party knowing how to stop it.
Delta, believe me, I know more than well how my behaviour can and does hurt other people.
That's why I always make sure the others are okay. That I give them good enough warning (with my triggers and any other issues that come up.)
I really hate it when anyone I know is hurt. It blows even more when it's because of me.
It is entirely possible to respect a victim's desire to cut off all contact, without levelling blame at a person who unintentionally engaged in abusive behaviour.
hS
IF it's actually the case and Sprinkles was not in his right mind.
I am staying middle ground on whether or not he has a problem and that "alter personality forcing him to spit out abuse" is an actual thing. If it is, this takes a different turn that if it wasn't. Remember the Other!Sprinkles saying "I'm good at pretending"?
My point is, and I would like a clarification from three people here - Calliope, Quincy, and you Thoth -, that right now the general vibe is that the victim is a bad person for not staying with Sprinkles and letting him, or his other self, emotionally abuse them, to which I ask:
Has any of you three ever been subjected to a mental abuse? Do you have any idea how it works? How your brain feels heavy whenever that one person is talking to you? How you get sweaty, dizzy, feel like crying? It is not something that can be solved with a simple "please stop".
Plus, you're once again missing the context, Thoth. The victim said that Sprinkles talking about his problems was okay. How the heck would Other!Sprinkles's abuse be okay? THAT is why the victim blocked any form of contact with Sprinkles. Because, as you've mentioned before you experienced, they felt a shift coming on and wanted to protect themselves from the incoming abuse. And they are now suffering a withdrawal. They're too conflicted to either unblock Sprinkles (because who knows when this happens again), and keep blocking him (because it's not Other!Sprinkles anymore). Please stop seeing this as the victim's fault. It was the only mechanism of self-defense they've had left.
A) No. I do not think unnamed person is a bad person for blocking Sprinkles. I think unnamed person is, however, causing them a lot of harm by doing so. I continue to support the position that Sprinkles' outburst was caused by an alternate personality that he cannot control. I don't want to force the unnamed person into continuing communication. I do, however, want them to know what's happening with Sprinkles, and I do feel that some manner of further explanation would be conducive to ending this. However, I'm sorry for trying to force it and I think that unnamed person is completely welcome to their time.
B) I would also like to clarify that yes. I experience mental abuse on a daily basis. I also used to experience physical abuse but that stopped when I grew into late adolescence, probably because of my increased stature. There is such a great difference between my abuser and Sprinkles that I just don't see similarity between these two cases. You're welcome to correct me. I reiterate something I think I've said, though: The person whose thoughts and feelings I think really need to be shared, at this point, is the unnamed person. I feel that without it, we're missing an important piece of this puzzle. Transparency and honesty is our way out of this. I understand if said person is emotionally unable to deal with it right now, but I firmly believe we should hold off on any decision until they have shared.
A) It was never about the outburst in generic_channel. If it was just that? This wouldn't be an issue at all.
A2) I appreciate that you're advocating for Sprinkles, but it really feels like you're overlooking the amount of pain that Sprinkles had unloaded onto the unnamed person. They know what's happening with Sprinkles! They know intimately, because he's been unloading into them for months in ways they were not comfortable with.
B) Again, nobody is saying that Sprinkles is Bad or An Abuser. He fell into an abusive pattern of behavior, made infinitely worse by his counterpart's falling into an abuse-victim pattern of behavior. Neither of them intended it to be an abusive interaction, I'm sure- but that was the pattern they both fell into. I suspect that you've felt that pull too- in a moment of frustration, or anger, or sadness, when the first emotional tool that comes to hand... is one that was used to hurt you.
B2) They're not comfortable speaking up for themselves. I've said this repeatedly. I've also volunteered to advocate for them- and once again, you are trying to insist that they must put themself on the emotional firing line. This is, for the record, one of the reasons I had to work so hard to get their permission to say anything at all- because they were terrified that they would end up hauled before the Inquisition. That this whole mess would become about them, not the situation at large.
So, no. I do not think they are under any obligation to identify themself, nor do I think that we cannot reach a consensus without their direct input. This is why I volunteered to be their advocate- because they were not comfortable speaking for themself.
Okay, here's something I do want to make clear:
I do NOT think the person in question should have stayed with Sprinkles if it was hurting them. I do not think they were a bad person for leaving that situation. I feel that a lot of pain on both sides could have been avoided, however, if they had been more upfront about their feelings. I understand why they were not, however, and do not blame them.
As I said previously, I am trying not to assign blame, because this is a complicated issue. I don't think that placing the responsibility entirely on either person involved is acceptable.
I do not see this as the victim's fault. The reason I have been defending Sprinkles so stongly is that I do not see it as entirely his fault either.
I... suspect that the person in question has been through a reasonable amount of abuse. And a few key tactics of abusers are to A, make sure that their victims know that any sort of resistance will only be met with more abuse, and B, that looking for any sort of outside help will also be met with more abuse.
To make it very clear: I do not believe Sprinkles is an abuser. I do not believe he is Bad, I do not believe he walked into this to hurt people- but people have been hurt nonetheless, and I'm concerned that it will happen again.
I intend to talk with the unnamed person about this once this round of drama is over? But none of this changes the pain that they experienced.
And this is also why I'm continuing to disagree with inviting Sprinkles back into the chat- from my conversation with him, I know he's carrying a lot of pain that he doesn't show all the time. And I know that he's accidentally let it loose and hurt someone deeply without realizing it. And I'm worried that there's nothing that's been discussed that can prevent that from happening again.
I'm not, for the record, making this the hill I'm going to die on. I want to make sure people have at least some insight into all the sides of the story. Sprinkles chose to leave, and has asked for permission to come back- if that's the consensus that is reached, I'll support it. But I want to make sure that that consensus is based on at least something like a full understanding.
The worst part? Is that the people at the heart of this are all in a lot of pain. I hate that, I hate that there isn't a cleaner solution, I hate that I didn't know enough to step in before it all boiled over. I feel like I've failed on this one.
Here's the problem: nobody here's psychic. So we have to go by what people tell us. Sprinkles couldn't know about the other person's issues. Or that they felt uncomfortable.
This isn't necessarily their fault. Maybe they should have spoken up. Maybe Sprinkles should have been more perceptive.
This is a complicated failure state in a relationship, and I can't fix it.
The only thing I can do is to tell everyone: If you are feeling upset, or uncomfortable, or bothered, do not lie and say it's fine, speak up early, speak up often.
If you've been abused, or hurt, I don't think that will fix anything. But maybe hearing this will help you find your voice. Because as someone who did speak up, I can tell you: it gets better.
I don't know if it helps, but I live in hope.
-Thoth
I would be willing to stand behind you on this, but I feel like you are working against yourself. We cant support this person if we don't know who they are, and it sort of just helps this supposed 'abuser' thing along. I just can't get behind your argument as it stands. I know that this person's pain is importent, but since it is an anonymous, faceless, figure at the moment... sorry.
Our response to such a situation should not depend on who the victim is (or who the abuser is). What would knowing who's been abused change here? Would it somehow alter your response to this? (If so, why?)
The "almost always" above is there because, if there is someone here whose claims you'd consider significantly less credible, please do raise that. To be clear, I really don't think there's any such person here, and I would be quite surprised if you did, but I'm raising the possibility because I don't want to fire off overly-broad blanket statements.
- Tomash
If the victim were to be shown to use their situation to manipulate and harm others. Because, as I think you're all aware, being a victim does not preclude also being an abuser.
I don't think this is likely the case here, and we should absolutely not assume that it is. Unless contradictory information comes to light I will stand by my sentiments up-thread. But, having personally seen it happen more than once online and IRL, I thought I should mention it for the sake of awareness.
~Neshomeh, twice-shy.
I'm willing to (and probably have) staked a reasonable amount of my reputation on it not being the case here- as I'd mentioned, I got corroboration from multiple sources, including my own observations, on the people involved before saying anything.
That's really the worst part about abuse, imo- it's so cyclical, it ingrains itself into its victims like a virus, waiting for the wrong moment to take over their actions and spread itself again.
-Delta
I knew this walking into it- and also that I wouldn't be okay without saying what I could.
-Delta
Having been over the past few weeks in communication with Sprinkles via PMs, I would have to agree. Had I, being in a similar situation, asked him to stop, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have stopped. What I've seen of him so far is attuned to the wishes of other people, and tries his best not to bother us with his own issues. Following that statement, I would like to present Sprinkles' point of view on the matter: According to him, Delta's member of the community had told him multiple times that they were okay with his issues, and had generally worked to love and support him through his emotional trials. Following his recent outburst, they completely cut contact with him without offering an explanation, or (to my knowledge) having issued warnings to him about his behavior. My own interactions with him have made it abundantly clear that he is beyond devastated because of this.
From what you all are saying, it seems like better communication between the individuals involved could easily solve the problem without kicking Sprinkles from the Discord. Luckily, this can happen! I implore the person noted here (whoever it is) to get in touch with Sprinkles, and try to explain their side of the story and re-establish good terms with him.
I think it's a sane thing to attempt, at least. What's the harm?
As I'd noted, this has been going on for a while and from their perspective, this has been a really nasty few months- I don't think there is an easy resolution. At the very least, I expect that they will not contact Sprinkles for the forseeable future. (And we really shouldn't attempt to force them to, that's just a terrible idea.)
Sprinkles has had someone he loves very much just completely abandon him without any explanation. Right now, he's absolutely... just... devastated, is the best way I have to describe it. He's wondering, right now, if all of those happy times were a lie... if all the times that person said they cared, said they loved him were just falsehoods. I don't understand this person's motivations for cutting him off, but... Please, if there's any way to offer any sort of explanation... anything would be better than this. He'd say this himself, but he's having trouble talking to me, let alone post publicly.
"Sprinkles is having a meltdown
In the main chat
Now imagine this every other day over PMs
[...] I'm done"
In short, I refuse to pressure them or support pressuring them. They've been pretty badly hurt by all this? Please stop trying to insist that they must do emotional work.
So I understand what this person is getting at here? The thing is, Sprinkles has told me that A) Said person had reassured them multiple times that they were okay with it, and B) The blockage came with no warning. My own personal take on it is that this would have been way better had Sprinkles been spoken with by said person before it escalated into said person needing to cut contact with them. As it is, this has dealt Sprinkles a blow I'm afraid he may not recover from. Said person may do as they wish; I (Quincy) just want them to know the impacts their decisions are having on the people they affect.
You have a person you care about, whom you supported through difficult times in their life, because you know how difficult this situation is. You get invested, because you're a good person and want to help. Then, at various times you get multiple DMs filled with woe, regret, perhaps even verbal abuse like the one we've experienced in the main chat, making you feel like you're a failure. Like you hadn't done anything significant in helping that person. Rinse, repeat.
Now, at one point are you just simply gonna yell out your problems at your "ward" how you're done with hearing all the pestering abuse, and how his behaviour ruins your own psyche? No, of course not. You're gonna pretend everything's fine, telling them you're okay. Because you're a good person who thinks first of other rather than yourself. You just dont' want to deepen the wounds even further.
I'm not the unnamed person. I don't know what the unnamed person has been going through in regards to this. It isn't fair for me to say what I would have done because I have zilch of the facts.
That being said, I don't think I would have done *this*.
Speaking as someone who often does not read social situations very well, who needs things to be clear, who also tries to be a good person and puts up with sometimes inappropriate behavior from others in the name of not upsetting others.
Speaking as that person. I can understand snapping once one has reached the point of "I can't deal with this any longer."
However, speaking also speaking as that person forget being a mind reader. If a person tells me, "I am good with hearing your problems." "I am okay with our relationship as it is." I will always, always take them at face value. Even in person, when the tone of voice or body language would be communicating to an average person "This person is lying. You should shut up now." How much more so in a text based communication with no nuance?
I have been the person multiple times in real life and online that people have said, "You are fine as you are." "I am okay with this relationship as is." Only to suddenly find myself utterly blindsided, completely cut-off and everyone horrendously angry at me, because apparently I wasn't fine as is and they were not okay with me. It is a gut-wrenching feeling. It leaves long-lasting effects. I have internalized deep, deep down that I am an inherently bad person that bothers and hurts people, that I must limit my contact with people and spend every ounce of energy I have in a social setting on being pleasant, and helpful, and never, ever expressing my wants or opinions for fear of that being the thing that causes everyone to turn on me.
I have been involved with a group in real life for over four years of the nicest, most non-judgmental people I have ever met. People who want to be my friend, and you know what? Because of experiences exactly like this I am still unable to accept what they are offering.
I've not actually opened up since the last group did that to me seven years ago. It hurt too much to allow me to risk letting people have that kind of emotional power over me again, and I know that I am missing out on so much of life because I have no real connections outside of immediate family and even with them there are parts of me I keep closely guarded.
I am not a person who enjoys hurting others. I truly do not want to cause anyone else any pain. I have never wanted that. There has never been a time in my life where if someone had said to me, "This thing you are doing, or are about to do, is hurting someone" where I wouldn't have stopped immediately and apologized and probably slunk off into long, long sessions of self-recriminations. I've never been given that chance to stop and apologize.
I'm saying that Sprinkles and every single person deserves that chance. It is unfair to tell someone they are doing good and then blindside them with public shunning, because you chose not to communicate with them.
that I am not talking about Sprinkles and the PPC now. I am talking about Sprinkles and his victim (be it intentional or not, this person is still a victim).
Did Sprinkles knew he was abusive in his behavior? Who know, maybe not. I can only assume neither he nor his victim did not delete the PMs after said abuse was flung there. After he came to his senses he probably had seen what he's done, maybe even apologized, but seeing that much hurt as what we've seen in chat would probably make anyone think "Sheesh, I said some horrible things". So, maybe while not intentional, he might've been aware of his words.
About the 'mind-reader' thing we've seemingly went with... It's not how that works. Yes, you can't read body expressions, voice tone in a text-based interaction. However, there are people (like the victim, and... I guess I can include myself there), who will never tell others they don't want to listen to them. Because they feel like if something happens, it's because of them. Because they want to help, despite all odds. And I remember even before Sprinkles's introduction, how the soon-to-be victim claimed they were so worried about Sprinkles, and his situation. None of that was a lie. And you've voiced the victim's exact thoughts in your fourth paragraph.
I went through similar scenarios on my own. Twice. Twice I said or did something that shouldn't have been done. Twice I lost control. Twice I deeply hurt two separate people. Twice I was blocked, shunned publically and denied any sort of communication. Exactly what the victim did to Sprinkles. And I did exactly the same steps - excessive apologies, asking other to rely messages how sorry I am and how I want to try again. All to no use. And you know what? It helped. It helped me reflecting over what should I change. By letting my victims have their space and peace, one of them find it in themselves to forgive me after a year of silence. We're on very good terms back again. The other? I can only hope, but this one went a bit deeper, so I don't expect it happening anytime sooner or later.
The point is, what took me a year and a bit, Sprinkles is trying to achieve in not even a week. It's simply not possible. Even if he comes back to the PPC, the victim will avoid him, and his attempts to reach them will only make it worse.
In this post, you come across very much as saying that a victim of abuse should try to work things out with the person subjecting them to abusive behaviour - that they need to put that person's wellbeing above their own. I'm sure that's not the message you were trying to give, but it's the one that comes across.
I get that you're trying to see Sprinkles' side of things, but also remember that the other person is a person, too. Having their months (per Delta Juliette) of abuse revealed and then met with 'well, you should've said something sooner, it's unfair to stop talking to him now' has the potential to be incredibly damaging to them.
Stop, step back, think about what you're saying. Please.
hS
I was not saying that they should be forced to be friends or even to have continued contact. I said that everyone, even Sprinkles, should be given the opportunity to stop and apologize. As in, the section of the PPC's constitution that says people are supposed to get that chance.
This has gone from, "You are fine." To "You are an abuser who will likely be thrown out of the group forever." With no steps in-between.
Do I think this unnamed person should be in charge of telling him this and working it out with him directly at this point? No I don't think they should be forced into that. But as a community do I think we should follow the stop and apologize proceedure? Since no one has said they think Sprinkles was behaving with malevolent intent, Yes. Otherwise what was the point of including that?
I am not blindly supporting Sprinkles behavior. He needs to stop. And if his attempts to directly apologize are making things worse, then that needs to stop as well. He should take a break, cool off, come back in a week or two, and apologize to the community at large. He should probably think of steps he can take to prevent this from happening again and, with a cooler head, outline those steps.
I believe the [i]voluntary[/i] cooling off step is important. Sprinkles is likely in full blown panic mode right now with very high emotions and cannot look at this logically/sensibly.
As you can see, I believe Sprinkles has a lot of responsibility to the group in this situation. The group's responsibility is then to give him a legit second chance. (Caveat to all that is if he was found to have had malicious intent or if he doesn't stop harassing or doesn't take a bit to cool down and then apologize from a sensible frame of mind).
What he was doing wasn't healthy. He did not do it in a vacuum, however. The situation was two people behaving in very unhealthy ways and they both have things they need to work on.
Before I get jumped on for saying that, are we going to advocate for person X to continue to be victimized? They need help, too, so that next time they don't feel obligated to tell someone making them feel bad "You are fine." And I am painfully aware that that is easier said than done, but if real life help is available, please take it. Don't end up imprisoned by your fears like I have.
This (and your previous note) are obviously very personal, thank you for sharing them. I know it can't have been easy.
Theoretically speaking, though, the question that has been asked is "are we okay with Sprinkles returning to the Discord?" And a possible answer to that has to be "no, we are not"- if a no is impossible, a yes is meaningless.
Is "no, go away" the right answer? Of course not. I don't think there is a right answer, and the second-chance section of the Constitution is a statement by we-the-community that "no, go away" is the wrong answer.
Thank you again for speaking up- I know someone raised similar concerns when Bram came up, and I appreciate that too.
I still don't know what I think, honestly. This one is hard, there are no good options.
I'm not going to insist that they do.
But what they did hurt someone (Sprinkles), seemingly about as much as Sprinkles hurt them. Whoever they are, I feel that is something they need to know, because it does matter, and it is important.
This isn't a case of one person hurting another. This is two people hurting each other, deeply and profoundly.
I'd say that talking out the issue would be the best thing. But I'm not involved, and I understand others disagree.
But does this need to impact the rest of the community to this extent? The question is, should Sprinkles be booted from the community (or at least the Discord portion) because of an issue with one member which, AFAICT, could have been resolved simply by asking him to stop?
I say no, personally. But I'm not the only person here.
we don't want to drive the victim out of the community by putting them in a position where they'd have to endure further abuse.
I'd say that'd be a worse resolution than having Sprinkles gone.
I hope it's possible to protect the victim without giving Sprinkles the boot, but if not ... so be it.
- Tomash
Sprinkles has been an amazing friend to me ever since I've known him. He's an amazing guy, both highly supportive and fun to talk to in general. He's expressed to me so many times how deeply sorry he is about his outburst, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that he had control over it in any regard. I also think it's highly unlikely for a meltdown on the gen chat to happen again. I honestly think it's unfair to shut him out for something that essentially wasn't him at all, and I for one would look forward to his return to the chat.
I personally don't have a problem with this, but GEEMA raises a valid point. If this was a re-occurring problem with an individual, I could see the argument, but since as far as I can tell, this was the first time with him, I think it is important that we, as a community, help each other out. Honestly, I was not there when this happened, so I was kind of confused at first, but from what I can tell, it was just someone going through a rough time who couldn't deal with it any more and kind of exploded. Ultimately, I think he should be allowed back.
A forced shift of personality. Very unlikely to happen again in PPC group chat.
Is "in PPC group chat" a qualifier there? That is, is the probability of that forced shift of personality something other than "very unlikely" in the context of, say, PMs?
- Tomash
Having recently conversed with Sprinkles, he said that he's figured out how to control it for the most part. But then a shift came on, so I have witnessed how this works: He warned me that a shift was coming on, told me to stop communicating with him for the duration, and changed his nick and icon rather drastically, as a warning sign to others that he was in A Not Good Place and Should Not Be Contacted.
So I would say that the risk is no greater in PMs, at least based on my personal experience.
Fair enough.
We will be mature and respectful of other people's opinions. You may disagree with some people and that's alright - but you still have to respect their opinions on this topic, as their voice should be heard, regardless of the person.
I am reminding people of this because some people believe that their voice will be silenced due to their previous opinions in debates and arguments completely unrelated to this, and that they would be written off due to their previous sentiments. This should not, and will not be the case here.
This message is meant to be general. There shouldn't be any issue with it, and nitpicking is not useful or wanted. Use as much clarity as you feel will get your message across unfettered and unaltered.
Sprinkles wants to come back because he loves this group and its people. He had no intent of hurting anyone - at the time, he was affected by what we've agreed to call a forced shift of personality.
Physically, he was at the keyboard, yes. Mentally? Not so much.
We've already determined - rightfully so - that mental issues don't excuse people from being plain awful. But they do need to be taken into consideration in cases like this.
Additionally, Iximaz never have a reason for objecting to Sprinkles coming back. I know the reason, at least in general terms, because I've been talking to both of them (though I have talked to Sprinkles much, much more about this), but the fact that he wasn't willing to say why he objected to the group at large speaks volumes to me.
It's also entirely possible that nobody asked and he would have been willing to say why if someone had - which is why I'm asking now, in this discussion, what exactly his reason was. Why, Ix?
--Cal
I'm not asking for detail. I'm not asking for a steaming pile of drama. Just for a quick, concise explanation of what he actually did to make you so mad, because once we know what we're dealing with, we can make a rational, informed decision.
It would be best to solve this quickly and cleanly. Then drama wouldn't be happening - mysteries make for back-stabbing.
It's important to note that a few other people did object to bringing Sprinkles back. As I understand it, nobody thinks that he's a bad person or should be banned in the traditional sense (i.e. for bad behavior). The concern is that it's a huge emotional drain on everyone when someone, anyone, has a meltdown like that--not only because the things said were potentially harmful, but because we're worried about Sprinkles' own well-being.
Speaking for myself, I have no objections to bringing Sprinkles back, but I do want to see him get the kind of support and help that he needs to feel better about himself even at his low points. I'm not sure that we can offer that. Of course we can be friends, but there's only so much a username and some text on the Internet written by a stranger can do for self-esteem.
I realize I'm rambling, so I'll stop. I just wanted to provide a little more context to the situation as I saw it, and anyone can obviously correct me if I misread something.