I think it was.

Subject: I think it was.
Author: Matt Cipher
Posted on: 2018-01-01 04:46:00 UTC

For a few reasons:

a) Nord blatantly ignored anything about the issue, despite being individually asked for it four separate times.

b) He only reacted with a vauge "won't happen again" after I posted this on Board.

c) I would like to avoid another issue of "Discord handles their own matters, and turns out the Board knows nothing", if we happen to drop into a major drama. Even if the offense at this time wasn't a big drama. Call me paranoid, but I thought at the moment this was the right thing. I won't bring up every smallest dispute to the Board, but let this be a sort of example to why we should make these cases public.

Also, about Nord assurance, this is all that happened: https://i.imgur.com/1TLOs8I.png

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Legal Case: v. Nord Ronnoc by Matt Cipher on 2017-12-31 22:12:00 UTC Reply

Dearest PPC! Ladies, gentlemen, those who are yet to make up your mind and those who do not wish to do so!

I hate being the bearer of bad news. So before I say anything, I ask all of you to be calm and professional about this. Last thing we need on this last day of the year is another drama to divide us. Once again, I would like all of us to discuss and take appropriate measures in this case, and leave the matter with no negative future consequences.

I, Matt Cipher, would like to file a complaint about the behavior of another member, known as Nord Ronnoc. I am well-aware that a pit between the Board and Discord is vast and treacherous, but let us all gather here, to take care of our members.

Today, that is December 31st, 2017, at 1:24 PM (my time), Nord Ronnoc posted a message in the channel #generic_salt, used to vent mostly about video games and other media. He said as follows:

"People always say 'OMG CARTOONS ARE DYING1!1' or some other form."

During the course of discussion, it was revealed that this was his impression of another member - OpionedAngel - which was ultimately followed by a conclusion of mockery and accusations of stupidity. Without any sort of further comments from the defendant.

Additional comments and messages were delivered, asking Nord Ronnoc to explain his point of view, including one from Moderator Maslab, yet were only met with silence and blissful ignorance, as Nord later on continued participating in the regular chat discussions, pretending nothing has happened.

In absence of any testimony from the defendant, and being given a plenty of time to do so, I wish to make this case public and ask for a case and eventual solution of it. Mockery without explanation is not a major offence, but one that shouldn't be swept under a rug.

Additional Attachments and Evidence:

https://imgur.com/DL201wN

Exhibit A: Initial discussion, Iximaz's plea for explanation.
Exhibit B: Nord's appearance and ignoring the issue despite further pleads.
Exhibit C: Matt Cipher's personal message to Nord, advising him to explain himself. Ignored.

As of this moment, 10:51 PM (my time), not one response was made from Nord.

Thank you for your attention.

Side-topic question, but how many people have been banned? by twistedwindowpane on 2018-01-01 22:59:00 UTC Reply

I mean ever? I only ever hear about Bramandin/zdimensia/Makkara/TooPurple/etc, so is she the only one so far? I've been thinking a lot about how big organizations work, but I'm going to hold my reasons for asking this until my viewing of Star Wars Episode 8 in the movie theater (and with it the "epicness mindset" that I get whenever I watch movies) wears off and I calm down a bit.

-Twistey

Three, maybe four, I think. by Neshomeh on 2018-01-01 23:52:00 UTC Reply

And yes, that's ever. For a long time, the occasional trolls and spots of drama somehow managed to get taken care of through the natural force of social pressure.

The less said about the ones that required more effort to get rid of, the better.

~Neshomeh

Fascinating. by twistedwindowpane on 2018-01-02 20:02:00 UTC Reply

Usually big organizations that don't have to ban a lot of people and are democratic in nature tend to fracture. But this is obviously still here and whole-I-guess? Hmm.

-Twistey

We ain't big? by Tomash on 2018-01-02 20:36:00 UTC Reply

The total headcount is about 50 folks, doing off census responses. And noticable chunks of the 50 wander in and out and aren't super involved.

For example, the "will feel bothered to express an opinion in the rare event of a Drama" count has reliably been 22-ish for a while now.

So democratic consensus-making seems to be working pretty well for us, it feels.

- Tomash

True. But there have been fractures. by Neshomeh on 2018-01-03 14:43:00 UTC Reply

Each spot of drama has resulted in people quitting, not to mention the couple of times people have started ex-PPC or PPC2 type groups. (All related to drama and all failed, AFAIK.)

Unless "fractures" refers to something else? I'm not sure I understand why few bannings plus democracy should add up to fractures.

~Neshomeh

Ah, all of that makes sense. Okay. by twistedwindowpane on 2018-01-06 17:34:00 UTC Reply

Must've gotten lost in the Board's formatting and thought that there were way more people here than there are, haha! Whoops!

And the fracturing also does make sense. I kind of want to take a look at those, just out of curiosity/my "what if there's something funny (long rant about the original PPC, rules that don't make sense/are exactly the same except for one thing, uncreative name that has to do with ours, etc.)?" instinct. Evidently if they were all started by drama and failed, they could have these things, because from my deduction, I can guess that the general idea behind them was "the PPC except not the PPC," and there was no real change to any fundamental concept, making it have no chance against us for people looking to join something like this. I guess.

As for your question about larger organizations, this is what I think I have so far: when there's a huge amount of people and no one real "this is how things are done", a small conflict between a few people can escalate beyond control or compromise, and basically create a bunch of warring factions, some of which may go off on their own and start a different organization. Basically, using internet terms, flame war + no moderator to define the rules and ban those who don't follow them = possibility of fractures. I think. It probably has more nuance than that (I mean, we have our Constitution, so there is some degree of "how it's done" here), but this is what I've figured out so far. (Technically I learned this from a how-to on writing fictitious organizations, but the logic behind it makes sense in the real world. I can send you the link if you wish.)

-Twistey

I think you're confusing democracy with anarchy. by Neshomeh on 2018-01-06 20:07:00 UTC Reply

The difference being that democracy = the people make the rules, and anarchy = no one makes rules.

As you noted, we do have a "how things are done" in our Constitution, and our lack of mods on the Board just means that it's everyone's responsibility to make sure those standards are upheld. Those of us who have been around long enough to have internalized this set the example and instruct as needed, and the newcomers generally either figure out how it works and start helping (even if that's just by passively getting along) or go away.

We're unusual in that we've made this more or less work for so long.

Also, the splinter groups I mentioned were more "we're not doing the PPC anymore but we still want to be in touch with our PPC friends," but it's hard to keep up a relationship with someone when the main thing that you shared isn't there anymore. I think that's why they fizzled.

Though, we did have someone plagiarize the PPC one time, on two wikis. Wikia was very helpful in shutting those down pretty quickly once I showed them the mountain of evidence. That was a nice, simple problem with a nice, simple solution.

~Neshomeh

Well... by twistedwindowpane on 2018-01-06 21:45:00 UTC Reply

Ah. So I guess I was overall wrong for saying it could apply to us, but... eh, this was still a good discussion to figure out how this all works. Thanks for the clarification.

-Twistey

P.S. On a lighter but unrelated note, I just finished Good Omens. Fun book! I didn't know where to tell you guys, so here.

Wait what? by OpinionedAngel on 2018-01-01 00:48:00 UTC Reply

This is the first time I've heard about it. Ought I to be offended?

No seriously.

I don't spend too much time on Discord and tend to miss out on things. (And I admit I might have said some things I regret, but I missed out on a chance to reply and apologize...)
Nord already said it wouldn't happen again (nm) by Ozzielot on 2017-12-31 23:41:00 UTC Reply

In a way that took no responsibility and admitted no wrong? (nm) by Delta Juliette on 2018-01-03 15:19:00 UTC Reply

Clarification: Not an actual RL legal case. by Neshomeh on 2017-12-31 22:24:00 UTC Reply

For future reference, people, please be very careful with this sort of wording. I nearly had a frigging heart attack thinking this was going to be something extremely awful.

Not that it isn't important to deal with lesser stuff, too, but gah.

I'll come back to this in a bit.

~Neshomeh

Okay, now that the adrenaline's worn off... by Neshomeh on 2018-01-01 02:31:00 UTC Reply

I have a couple of questions.

1. Did this need to be brought up here? Shouldn't this have been dealt with by the mods? It seems Maslab was aware of the situation and presumably prepared to do something about it, right? OpinionedAngel didn't even know anyone had a beef with them. Unless there's a bigger problem than this one incident that's been going unresolved for some reason...?

2. Since it HAS been brought up here, I'd like to know if Nord Ronnoc assured anyone who was concerned earlier, or a mod, or anyone besides Ozzielot, that it won't happen again. Also, was there ever any clarification on what he meant? And what about an actual apology, for apparently ignoring people's requests for clarification even if the rest was a misunderstanding?

~Neshomeh

If this wasn't a misunderstanding... by Huinesoron on 2018-01-01 15:49:00 UTC Reply

... then it actually looks pretty bad. Taken at face value, that's a direct flame of another PPCer, not provoked by similar behaviour on their end, and a refusal to apologise there-for. It suggests Nord Ronnoc believes that mocking other PPCers is acceptable - when in fact, a PPCer shouldn't be flaming any real people, PPCer or not.

Given that Nord Ronnoc's name came up in the Conciliatory back in May, it may be worth someone who's able to cope with looking at that thread reading through it to find out whether this is part of a pattern, or just a one-off.

hS

Yes. by Neshomeh on 2018-01-01 16:16:00 UTC Reply

My sense is indeed that this isn't the first time Nord's name has come up in instances of misconduct toward others. However, my memory isn't accurate enough to say exactly when or under what circumstances, or if those incidents were ever resolved.

I did look at that bit of the Conciliatory, though, and it looks like Herr is the only one who offered any kind of apology for any of it (specifically, revealing private information). Nord flat-out refused. The resolution there was that they both agreed to have nothing more to do with each other. That was a pretty extreme deal where neither side was blameless, though, which doesn't seem directly connected to this current discussion.

If anyone knows anything I don't, I encourage them to please speak up.

For now, my feeling is that an apology from Nord is required, for the insult to OpinionedAngel (since he hasn't denied it) and for ignoring multiple attempts to clarify the issue, and if it is not delivered, then the Discord mods should take whatever action they feel is appropriate to censure the behavior.

~Neshomeh

Would it be appropriate... by Miah on 2018-01-02 20:20:00 UTC Reply

to bring something up that I saw recently in a group totally unaffiliated with the PPC?

I'm not sure. by Neshomeh on 2018-01-03 14:46:00 UTC Reply

On the one hand, we're not the behavior police. What people get up to on their own time is not necessarily any of our business.

On the other hand, if it's coming back to bother other PPCers, it may be relevant.

I really don't know. {= / Other thoughts?

~Neshomeh

I didn't parse it that way? by Tomash on 2018-01-03 20:55:00 UTC Reply

What I thought I heard was Miah wanting to bring up something like a similar situation that happened elsewhere and possibly to discuss how it was handled.

- Tomash

I have realized that it is probably not something... by Miah on 2018-01-03 21:15:00 UTC Reply

I should have brought up in the first place. I now believe it would not contribute anything useful. I apologize.

Nord continues to remain silent. (nm) by Iximaz on 2018-01-02 15:48:00 UTC Reply

Okay. Mods? by Neshomeh on 2018-01-02 15:59:00 UTC Reply

Has someone informed Nord of the community's expectations of him? If he is aware and failing to step up, what are you going to do about it?

~Neshomeh

That's us by Delta Juliette on 2018-01-03 03:36:00 UTC Reply

In order, yes, we're still working on the awareness bit, and we will escalate from a "not cool" to a Talking To to stronger options if the situation warrants it.

Thanks. Please continue to update us. by Neshomeh on 2018-01-03 14:36:00 UTC Reply

Given how protracted this is becoming, I think Matt's instinct to make the rest of us aware was right after all.

~Neshomeh

The only pattern I could find... by Matt Cipher on 2018-01-01 16:14:00 UTC Reply

was Nord ignoring his issues and pretending nothing happened, as he did in his previous offense. I don't believe he was DMing something to Angel regarding this behaviour, given her surprise that something like this had happened.

In my opinion, however, this was an intentional flame given the same response to being called out for a guilty incident.

Addition: As of now, 5.11 my time, no response was made from Nord, about Angel asking for apologies. Whether or not they occured in DM, I do not know.

I think it was. by Matt Cipher on 2018-01-01 04:46:00 UTC Reply

For a few reasons:

a) Nord blatantly ignored anything about the issue, despite being individually asked for it four separate times.

b) He only reacted with a vauge "won't happen again" after I posted this on Board.

c) I would like to avoid another issue of "Discord handles their own matters, and turns out the Board knows nothing", if we happen to drop into a major drama. Even if the offense at this time wasn't a big drama. Call me paranoid, but I thought at the moment this was the right thing. I won't bring up every smallest dispute to the Board, but let this be a sort of example to why we should make these cases public.

Also, about Nord assurance, this is all that happened: https://i.imgur.com/1TLOs8I.png
On question 2 by Ozzielot on 2018-01-01 03:48:00 UTC Reply

I worded my message in a vague way about Nord saying he won't do it again and I apologize for that.

He actually posted the message, "It won't happen again." in #generic_salt.
That particular message is the only reassurance I can recall. I have not gotten a private message from him about it.

I took a screenshot that I think the others at discord can confirm in terms of the message itself (the times are going to be different because of timezones):
https://imgur.com/a/KHnNk

So far (11:48 PM my time), there hasn't been a clarification and he hasn't made an apology yet, at least one that's been made in a public chat.

--Ozzielot

*at least not one that's been made in a public chat. (nm) by Ozzielot on 2018-01-01 04:01:00 UTC Reply