(( Relayed reply ))

Subject: (( Relayed reply ))
Author: Bram, via Tomash
Posted on: 2017-09-04 16:13:00 UTC

In regards to "And if this is an issue of mental health, heaps of people have already said that we are clearly not capable of sufficiently providing for Bram," What happened to the plan of putting up guardrails? To clarify this further, http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=199610;article=309758;search_term=guardrails.
In regards to "Bram has not matured and is not ready to rejoin the PPC" I did say that I could do all of the work I could outside of the community. I feel like if you expect things to get better by continuing to do the thing I stated makes it worse, you're just disregarding my point of view entirely.
The other line was tacked on as something that I have done to improve.
As for the "issues that led to her being banned remaining in full force" The issue is that I am not feeling acknowledged as a person by the group. My message that I had forgiven you for your mistakes didn't even get relayed. As for not having fun, the not-fun part was having to keep up the prank I was playing because July told me to. The not-fun part is not being able to talk about my interest in bad writing.
As for a bad idea for the community, I feel that you're setting up the precedent that it's okay to ignore the constitution. Your basis for continuing the ban is discriminating against me for being handicapped.

The entire blame is not on the community, but neither is it on me. I've borne the full punishment and more for it. I feel that the community doesn't even want to acknowledge the mistakes, much less make any sort of gesture towards amends.

"Add to that something that I noticed last night. When talking to you, I have a tendency to ask you to rephrase and clarify. That is something that isn't required in other places." That was directed at Tomash and got directly quoted. For the "other places" part, it is simply a statement of something I noticed, and probably a cultural difference. I'm sorry for the confusion. (Is that what you meant by critiquing explaining skills?)

As far as wanting to rejoin, I haven't found anyplace else were the subject is defeating bad writing with good writing. I also haven't found anywhere else where people are so thorough about wanting writing improved. I also like the universe and like working in it.
(Was Tomash insulted by my pointing out how often I ask for clarification?)

(( Relayer's note: I was not insulted, there was confusion about about what the post should contain
- Tomash ))

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Bramadin's request for unblocking by Tomash on 2017-09-02 05:00:00 UTC Reply

Bramadin would like to be unblocked from the Board and the rest of the PPC, since it's now September and she feels that she's ready to come back and has been for a while. She's willing to work with anyone who volunteers to be a mentor and mediate disputes or tell her to back off. She has made clear that said mentor(s) need to be willing to consider her point of view and attempt to explain how her actions differ from apparently identical actions taken by other Boarders.

Per the terms of the block/ban/what have you, we need to vote on this. For my part, I abstain for lack of an ability to reach a decision.

On the for unblock side, discrimination because of mental illness is bad, and we might just be inching close. The proposal was for an indefiinite-but-temporaly ban, and this is the agreed-on effective minimum term. Bram has thought she's ready to participate again, which is still an important datapoint. And she does seem willing to work with people on social stuff should that come up.

On the against side, I'd cite significant interpretation issues, mainly of [people in the] community's actions and norms. A lot of said extremely atypical interpretations can be found in the thread where ban #2 was formalized in the first place. They're still around, more or less, from what I've heard. This is evidence against the idea that the whole pile of drama that led to this vote won't repeat itself in the future. (See, for example, something of an insistence that a decent amount of what happened on 2014 was somehow provoked by us because we apparently insisted she not use her preferred agent team for Permission requests.) There's also the fact that (to use RFC words) "You SHOULD NOT write large amounts of missions without Permission." just hasn't gotten through. In summary, I'm not quite convinced we aren't about to put ourselves right back where we were a few months ago, although I'm less certain about that than I was a while ago.

- Tomash

zdimensia/Bramandin/Too Purple Permanent Ban by Phobos on 2017-09-09 22:07:00 UTC Reply

The voting is now closed. With 22 of the 26 counted votes, the community overwhelmingly votes to Permanently Ban zdimensia/Bramandin/TooPurple. The ban goes into effect immediately. Functionally, this means that they are banned from all PPC spaces, Permission is revoked, and all stories that they wrote when they had Permission become Out-of-Continuity.

In the interest of record keeping, the final tally is as follows.

Permaban - 22
Votes: Huinesoron, Phobos, Iximaz, Mikelus, Tomash, Matt Cipher, Hardric, World-Jumper, Larfen, KittyEden, PoorCynic, S.M.F., doctorlit, Scapegrace, 1visible, SkarmorySilver, Neshomeh, Delta Juliette, Thoth, The Triumvirate, Granz the Ice Cream Monarch, HerrWozzeck

Unspecified length ban - 3
Votes: Novastorme, Zingenmir, CodeCom

Abstain - 2
Abstentions: Hieronymus Graubart, Akrinor

Ban until December - 1
Votes: Bramandin

-Phobos

My only thoughts on this... by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2017-09-10 06:27:00 UTC Reply

I understand the vote has been decided. But I have a slight problem with this overall. This started with the question of, "Has the time been served?" Which is a fair question. My problem is that the community then decided to go further to deciding "Who wants a Permanent Ban?" Which may well be a valid question.

My issue falls to the fact that this decision was made without giving Bramandin/zdimensia/Too Purple a chance to publicly defend themselves to the community. I know you all don't much care for the term, but you effectively tried them in absentia. This is a problem and sets a very bad precedent, in my opinion.

For record keeping sake, my stance on the original question of continued ban, but chance to return was an Abstention. I do want to go on record as opposing any permanent ban for anyone taken without their direct input. The only real input we had from Bramandin/etc. was third party communications.

I am not opposed to the permanent ban per-se, just in this instance and how it was brought about. This feels to me too much like the Discord Doxxing Fiasco, mob mentality convicting an individual without giving them a chance to really defend themselves. I just think its bad precedent. I also understand the vote's been taken and will not be changed, but now that I actually had time, I felt the need to at least let my opinions known.

Thank you for saying so. by Huinesoron on 2017-09-10 07:16:00 UTC Reply

I mean that. If people aren't willing to disagree (politely) then we really will run into a mob mentality.

A few responses that spring to mind, in no particular order:

-It's very unlikely that this will become a precedent. Most of the people who voted will probably have gone by the time we next have to ban someone, and this whole situation is very unusual anyway - it needed her to not only violate her temp ban, but to do so in a way that made it clear she was behaving even worse than before.

-We did hear a lot from zdimensia during this discussion, including relayed messages from three different people, and one post by herself (which I will repeat was the key in my vote for a permanent ban). She's hardly been tried in absentia.

-We know what she'd say, because the things she's been saying are exactly the same as the things she said on previous occasions where she was up for permaban. She feels she made entirely understandable mistakes and that we're victimising her. That has been a constant theme since, what, 2014? Nothing anyone has said - and the explanations have run the gamut from Neshomesh wordiness to Scapegrace curtness - has ever shaken the idea that she is in the right and doesn't need to change anything.

-If you feel that is is necessary, and if there is no objection, I will remove the blocks to allow zdimensia to make one post, an appeal against her sentence if you will. I would honestly rather not - I'm fed up with thinking about it - but I will if it's important.

hS

I suppose we should by Tomash on 2017-09-10 09:02:00 UTC Reply

For my part, I was conveying TooPurple's words to the thread to allow her to defend herself (well, in this case, she ended up doing rather the opposite of that, but still), but then stopped when the ban evasion, and the contents of that ban evasion, made it rather clear to me (and, given the votes, to just about everyone else) that there was almost no chance at any sort of reform given what had just happened. I will concede that, from a legal point of view, this is a rather terrible argument for (somewhat, since a few other people sort of relayed, but not every potential post) cutting off the defendant.

So, just in case there's good explanations for all this or reasons we should reconsider (because, if there are, I'd like to hear them), lets have one last post. If we do that, we ought to give TooPurple (etc.) time to choose her words carefully. But we'd be agreeing to one post, and not necessarily any more.

- Tomash

I would prefer to have just one last post by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2017-09-10 13:40:00 UTC Reply

For me to feel this is complete, I would prefer just one last chance for Bram/etc. to explain. For me it is not that I disagree with the result, its really just the process. But if you all think they had a sufficient chance to explain/defend then I will not belabor the point.

If this were the first offense, I would agree with you. by Phobos on 2017-09-10 16:27:00 UTC Reply

Even the second or third offense. But Bram has done ban worthy things at least four times.

1) zdimensia is warned several times and then temporarily banned for harassment and inexplicable racism (during a permission thread?).

2) zdimensia breaks the ban just to harass us some more and tell us how terrible we are. Is permanently banned.

3) Bramandin, who is zdimensia shows up, thus breaking the ban in secret.

4) Bramandin breaks cover to harass us and tell us how terrible we are, is temporarily banned. (I honestly will never understand this one being temporary.)

5) Despite their thoughts and feelings being relayed to the board by several people, TooPurple (who is both Bramandin and zdimensia) breaks the temporary ban again, this time to tell us that they will be setting their own ban terms and when they return they demand that we give them permission with no conditions. They are permanently banned.

Turns out it was 5 times. I don't see any point in letting them address the community again, since the pattern says it will just be to tell us we are terrible people.

I'm sorry that you don't feel good about the process, but we've been hearing zdimensia's side of things for a very long time and I am sick of the abuse.

-Phobos
Eh. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-10 14:20:00 UTC Reply

I understand your concern, but unless you think there's a significant difference between Bram hitting "Post" herself and having Tomash and others do it for her (e.g., if you find the relayers untrustworthy), I don't think it's necessary to reopen this now that it's closed. I believe we have heard what Bram had to say for herself. That input is how we arrived at our decision. I reckon it would have gone better for her if she hadn't said anything at all.

~Neshomeh

Literally, in my case. by Huinesoron on 2017-09-10 14:46:00 UTC Reply

The only reason I changed my vote was because of a) her ban-evading post to the Board and its contents, and b) her email to me.

Since there is disagreement, the Nameless Admin will not be acting unless there is a clear consensus to do so.

hS

Just to check, we're generally agreeing with each other? (nm) by Tomash on 2017-09-10 13:49:00 UTC Reply

Ban also enacted on the Wiki. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-09 23:53:00 UTC Reply

Further, the pages Kelly Stone and September Johnson are now exclusively in the Out of Continuity category, with a note as to why. I've edited the user page for Toopurple to reflect the ban. I've also removed links to the spin-off and agents on various pages, and deleted the page for Dollhouse, since Bramandin's mission there was the only one.

I think that's everything.

~Neshomeh

I'll take charge of the voting, I guess. by Phobos on 2017-09-07 19:07:00 UTC Reply

Currently, we have four groups of votes, though more can be added if need be. Group one has voted in favor of continuing the original ban for an unspecified amount of time. The second group has voted to continue the original ban until December, at which time Bram would be unbanned. The third group has voted for a permanent ban. The fourth group has explicitly abstained from voting.

1) Unspecified length ban - 5
Votes: The Triumvirate, Granz the Ice Cream Monarch, Novastorme, Thoth, CodeCom

2) Ban until December - 1
Votes: Bramandin

3) Permaban - 18
Votes: Huinesoron, Phobos, Iximaz, Mikelus, Tomash, Matt Cipher, Hardric, World-Jumper, Larfen, KittyEden, PoorCynic, S.M.F., doctorlit, Scapegrace, 1visible, SkarmorySilver, Neshomeh, Delta Juliette

4) Abstain - 1
Abstentions: Hieronymus Graubart

I am going to close voting on this exactly 48 hours from the time of this post. If you want to change your vote in that time, you are more than welcome to do that. If you are part of Group 1 and would like to specify a ban length, you are free to do so.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

-Phobos

Updated tally by Phobos on 2017-09-07 21:45:00 UTC Reply

1) Unspecified length ban - 5
Votes: The Triumvirate, Granz the Ice Cream Monarch, Novastorme, Zingenmir, CodeCom

2) Ban until December - 1
Votes: Bramandin

3) Permaban - 19
Votes: Huinesoron, Phobos, Iximaz, Mikelus, Tomash, Matt Cipher, Hardric, World-Jumper, Larfen, KittyEden, PoorCynic, S.M.F., doctorlit, Scapegrace, 1visible, SkarmorySilver, Neshomeh, Delta Juliette, Thoth

4) Abstain - 1
Abstentions: Hieronymus Graubart

I abstain by Akrinor on 2017-09-09 19:19:00 UTC Reply

I do not think that a temporary ban would solve the issue, but I do not feel comfortable voting for a Permaban.

Er. by Zingenmir on 2017-09-07 20:30:00 UTC Reply

That should be six votes in group one. I'm not changing my vote, but I would like it counted.

~Z

Apologies. by Phobos on 2017-09-07 20:32:00 UTC Reply

I must have missed you while I was counting.

-Phobos

No problem. (nm) by Zingenmir on 2017-09-07 20:36:00 UTC Reply

(( One relay. )) by Neshomeh on 2017-09-06 14:57:00 UTC Reply

(( Bramandin contacted me unsolicited with three further responses. I am passing them on because I think the last one in particular is relevant to our decision and grants an opportunity to explain banning and blocking [again] for posterity, but I won't be accepting any more. ~Neshomeh ))

To: O the marvelous things:

One, I don't appreciate your sarcasm, and my beard has had gray hairs in it for years. I would have photograpic proof that it has gray hairs now, but I shaved it off.

It would all be pointless because I believe that you're just going to stick to your own opinion and ignore everything I say. I do consider that other people are correct, and then come to the conclusion that they are wrong. I could say you have no capacity to consider I'm correct because you conclude that I'm wrong. I do compromise at lot, which I guess you can't see because I don't preface it with any sort of statement. I thought I had already covered my mistakes and accepted them, while the community continues to deny that there were any mistakes on their end. I am not unapologetic because I have made apologies. There might be something I've forgotten to apologize for, but if that's the case it's an honest oversight.

I believe that you haven't treated me fairly. In 2014, I didn't see evidence that you had given me the benefit of doubt. I believe you asked me to use a set of characters that I wasn't ready to use and ignored me when I said I didn't want to use them. I believe that right now, you're deciding not to give me another chance after in May people were willing to consider it. I don't understand where I've been given four chances. The reputation is mostly from me being validly angry and people deciding that they hadn't even made a mistake.

I haven't ignored you. I've considered what you said and decided you were wrong.

-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

Reply to Nesh Just a couple things:

I have been tested, and they decided not to diagnose me because "depression can increase the aspie traits" (IIRC, my IQ tests at 137, so I guess average people like you have scores like 190.) I've also tried bringing it up with a doctor, but they choose to focus on the depression. I could try again if my insurance covers it.

Most of my experience with people has been with those do who enjoy causing pain, so it's a reasonable assumption that I could be dealing with people who follow the pattern. A principal once got me to cry and then mocked me for it. The group's deciding to continue something that has been shown to cause me stress is not taking great pains to avoid exacerbating it.

I apologize for thinking that you were enjoying my pain. I'll keep that in mind for next time.

-------------------------------
--------------------------------

Re: Ban evasion:

One, I didn't expect the message to go through. Two, that it did go through meant that I wasn't blocked. If you're accusing me of hacking into the Nameless Admin's account, I didn't.

The banning me for a year because you decided I didn't work on myself when I did is wrong.

I'm sorry, but... *snrt* by Matt Cipher on 2017-09-06 18:02:00 UTC Reply

That IQ of 137 just really got me... Not to bash anyone's intelligence (although at this point of absurd it's hard not to)...

About 50% of Earth's population has an average IQ of 90 to 110.

2.5% is quite gifted. Their IQ is over 130.

0.5% classify as natural geniuses with IQ over 140.

So yeah... I may be wrong in some statistics, but you get the idea.

Bram could be completely correct. by Novastorme on 2017-09-06 18:12:00 UTC Reply

There are many different systems that can be used to calculate IQ, and they all use different numbers. What's always more important to remember is the percentile that you are in. Without more knowledge and context about the system Bram used to calculate their IQ we can't make any comments about it from the number alone.

For example, I've done a couple of IQ tests in my time. One I came out with around 190 (I think) and another I came out with around 130 (I remember the number because it was more recent). What's more important is that both times I was placed somewhere around the 97th percentile (just outside of the band of IQ required to join Mensa IIRC) but that is irrespective of the numbers I got.

After all as a mathematician I know that numbers, without context, are just numbers. Nothing more, nothing less.

Novastorme

As mentioned in Discord, "Today I've learned..." by Matt Cipher on 2017-09-06 18:23:00 UTC Reply

And as always, my comments are as unnecessary as a towel to a fish... I'll shut up now.

On banning and blocking. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-06 15:13:00 UTC Reply

I know there's been confusion about these terms in the past, so allow me to explain them again.

A ban is a community and/or moderator ruling (as applicable) that an individual is no longer welcome in our spaces. IP blocking (or just "blocking") is a tool that may or may not be used to enforce a ban. A person may be banned with or without technical enforcement by IP blocking. The absence or presence of an IP block does not bear one way or the other on a person's banned status.

We prefer not to use IP blocks, because that may affect people other than the banned person, but we do it in cases where the banned person cannot be relied upon to stay gone of their own free will.

This appears to be the case with Bramandin. This person is banned. The fact that an IP to which Bramandin has access may not have been blocked does not change the fact that she is banned. Attempting to post from any IP while banned is a show of bad faith. Incidentally announcing your intent to continue flouting your ban is a show of even worse faith. Possibly zero faith.

I will be in favor of continuing to enforce the community's decision by whatever means necessary.

~Neshomeh

The following IP addresses have been blocked: by The Nameless Admin on 2017-09-06 15:31:00 UTC Reply

72.215.148.50 (304 messages, all from Bramandin or a known alias)
72.218.246.58 (100 messages, all from Bramandin; this is the IP identified as her home IP)
72.218.175.18 (1 message, the 'TooPurple' one; this maps to the same location as the immediate previous IP)
72.215 (304 messages - precisely matching the first IP)
72.218 (101 messages - precisely matching the second and third IPs)

The first two have been blocked since her temporary ban was enacted. The final three have been put in place over the past 24 hours as a technical measure, to prevent this currently-banned user from continuing to violate said ban.

OT: Are we going to block entire /16s by Tomash on 2017-09-06 15:36:00 UTC Reply

without any mechanism for people mistakenly caught in the blocks to get an exception?

- Tomash

There currently aren't any people in that situation. by Huinesoron on 2017-09-06 15:39:00 UTC Reply

Given that Bramandin has shown herself entirely willing to find a nearby internet connection, make up a fake name, and interact for a year before admitting it - yes, I think this is an acceptable measure. It sucks for the hypothetical PPC fan living in the same town as her, but they haven't existed for the past year and a half, so I say risk it.

The Board header links to both the Wiki and T-Board, where people who are accidentally blocked can go and leave messages.

hS

We might want to add an entry to the Board FAQ by Tomash on 2017-09-06 16:49:00 UTC Reply

covering this situation, just in case. Something along the lines of

Q: I'm blocked from the Board, but I've never even been here before. What gives?
A: Sometimes, to remove spambots or enforce a ban, we have to block certain IP addresses or ranges. This does carry with it the possibility that someone innocent will be blocked as a side effect. If you believe this has happened to you, please [insert method of flagging down someone the community that's likely to get noticed or get brought to the attention of the relevant people here]

I also vote to continue the ban (nm) by CodeCom on 2017-09-05 08:04:00 UTC Reply
Voting to continue the ban by Thoth on 2017-09-04 18:47:00 UTC Reply

I was not here when Bram arrived. However, based upon what I've seen of Bram's behavior in this thread and prior ones, I can in good conscience vote to continue the ban. Bram is, in my judgement, not ready to participate in this community, and as others have stated, unwilling to take responsibility for his or her actions.

Bram, I will put this as kindly as I can: although we try our best, the onus is not on us to understand your meaning implicitly. The onus is upon you to ensure that your meaning can be easily understood. If you are not capable of making yourself easily understood through the medium of text, then you need to practice until you are capable of it. Because you cannot participate in most online communities until you do.

It's not easy participating on online community. It's hard to admit fault, it's hard to get used to the norms of any community, and it's often painful to screw up. I've been there, I've done that, I know. But you have to learn to handle it better.

It's a bit outdated, and not always accurate (be aware of context in the community you're in!), but it's still worth reading some incarnation of one of the USENET guides to netiquette, such as the one viewable

...here. by Thoth on 2017-09-04 18:48:00 UTC Reply

Sorry, the link got cut off: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

Voting to continue the ban by Thoth on 2017-09-04 18:47:00 UTC Reply

I was not here when Bram arrived. However, based upon what I've seen of Bram's behavior in this thread and prior ones, I can in good conscience vote to continue the ban. Bram is, in my judgement, not ready to participate in this community, and as others have stated, unwilling to take responsibility for his or her actions.

Bram, I will put this as kindly as I can: although we try our best, the onus is not on us to understand your meaning implicitly. The onus is upon you to ensure that your meaning can be easily understood. If you are not capable of making yourself easily understood through the medium of text, then you need to practice until you are capable of it. Because you cannot participate in most online communities until you do.

It's not easy participating on online community. It's hard to admit fault, it's hard to get used to the norms of any community, and it's often painful to screw up. I've been there, I've done that, I know. But you have to learn to handle it better.

It's a bit outdated, and not always accurate (be aware of context in the community you're in!), but it's still worth reading some incarnation of one of the USENET guides to netiquette, such as the one viewable
Voting to continue the ban by Thoth on 2017-09-04 18:47:00 UTC Reply

I was not here when Bram arrived. However, based upon what I've seen of Bram's behavior in this thread and prior ones, I can in good conscience vote to continue the ban. Bram is, in my judgement, not ready to participate in this community, and as others have stated, unwilling to take responsibility for his or her actions.

Bram, I will put this as kindly as I can: although we try our best, the onus is not on us to understand your meaning implicitly. The onus is upon you to ensure that your meaning can be easily understood. If you are not capable of making yourself easily understood through the medium of text, then you need to practice until you are capable of it. Because you cannot participate in most online communities until you do.

It's not easy participating on online community. It's hard to admit fault, it's hard to get used to the norms of any community, and it's often painful to screw up. I've been there, I've done that, I know. But you have to learn to handle it better.

It's a bit outdated, and not always accurate (be aware of context in the community you're in!), but it's still worth reading some incarnation of one of the USENET guides to netiquette, such as the one viewable
I vote to continue the ban. by Mikelus on 2017-09-04 17:53:00 UTC Reply

Bram, you need to understand that the community owes you nothing. You can talk about forgiving us or not, but honestly, I haven't lost any sleep over it, and I don't think others will either. You seem unwilling to accept your role in what happens, and for as long as that is the case, you definitely should remain separate from this community.
Yeah, no. by Huinesoron on 2017-09-04 08:11:00 UTC Reply

I was expecting this to be an ambiguous, nuanced situation, where the question was whether what Bramandin had done/claimed to have done was sufficient. That's why I said outright that I wasn't going to be voting.

Instead, Bramandin has continued with the line of 'I have done nothing wrong and need to change nothing, but I will graciously consider forgiving you and gracing you with my presence.' See:

I had forgiven you for your mistakes, but you did nothing to reinforce it, so I'm retracting my forgiveness until you've earned it.

As for functioning in an online community, I've interacted with a couple of different ones. They don't flip out at non-sequiters, but rather understand that the connection makes sense to me.

I vote for the ban to continue.

Bramandin: you don't want to be in the PPC community. You don't like the PPC community. You don't like the people in it, you don't like the rules it has, you don't like the way it treats you, you don't like anything about it. Stop trying to force your way back into a community that you don't like.

The only explanation I can come up with is that you desperately want to write PPC stories, and are aware that getting Permission is part of that. So look, here: on my authority as a Permission Giver, I grant you the right to write as many PPC stories as you please, so long as they are never published online. If you enjoy it so much that you'll keep trying to fling yourself at us to be allowed to do it - go wild.

And stop trying to rejoin the PPC community. There is nothing about it that you like, so just... leave.

hS

I'm changing my vote to 'permanent ban'. by Huinesoron on 2017-09-06 14:14:00 UTC Reply

This post is a direct violation of a ban imposed by the PPC community, and a statement that zdimensia intends to violate that ban again in December. I have also received an email from zdimensia, which I will quote in full at the end of this post, which includes a declaration that she feels entitled to post PPC stories without Permission, again in direct violation of community consensus.

Zdimensia has proved time and again that she is unwilling or unable to accept that she is in the wrong. She has now twice posted in breach of bans laid against her by the PPC community. She has engaged in sockpuppeting, harassment (remember that?), avowed lying and manipulation, and now she has demonstrated that she feels she has the right to ignore any community decisions she disagrees with.

I feel strongly that someone who behaves this way is too much of a disruptive influence for us to keep trying to salvage. This is exactly the sort of situation permabanning is intended for, and I vote that we use it.

hS

The following is the email I received from zdimensia, posted here as evidence. I will not be reposting anything else I might receive from her.

I expect this and your reply to be made public.

I am not insisting I did nothing wrong. I made non-malicious mistakes. If there is something I forgot to apologize for, tell me what it is and then assign a mediator to make sure I'm doing it right.

Don't tell me what I don't like. I'm sure there were plenty of times I enjoyed contributing. I would like the rules if you followed them as well, particularly the golden rule.

As far as your "deal" I was already told that writing for the drawer was fine. As far as renouncing permission, that was because I was told I would be able to get it back. If that person lied, I should get an apology. If you don't give me a chance to go through the process properly, I am under no obligation to not publish. People who are unaware of permission also get to publish.

I want to freely be able to post from home since December 2014. I want the past changed so that no one pushed my buttons in the first place. I want to participate in this year's mailbox thread. I want to comment on other people's stories. I want to clear my reputation and be given a fair shot. I want access to a beta that knows and likes the PPC, and that the stories can be posted to the board and wiki.

Think of an equitable compromise, not you get what you want and I get less than what I had.

As an aside, there was some stuff that Tomash didn't relay before he said he wouldn't.

Didn't vote on the last thing. This time... by HerrWozzeck on 2017-09-08 19:58:00 UTC Reply

...I vote permaban. Because there's no fixing this situation with any amount of excusemongering, let's get that right.
I... have to change mine to a permanent ban as well. by Granz the Ice Cream Monarch on 2017-09-08 03:14:00 UTC Reply

I don't like doing this, and honestly, I ultimately did not decide on this because of the disruptions that Bram has caused. I honestly think this might be the healthiest possible option for them. I feel, if any non-permanent ban was issued again, Bramandin would be waiting for that ban to be over, and would not stop thinking about the point at which they would be allowed back in. This would not be good for them, and I feel like the only way to prevent them from waiting outside of the metaphorical door is to slam it shut and lock it permanently behind them. So, I am sorry, but I am voting for a permanent ban.
My vote also becomes permaban. (nm) by The Triumvirate on 2017-09-08 01:48:00 UTC Reply
Also Changing Vote to Permaban (nm) by Thoth on 2017-09-07 21:41:00 UTC Reply
Also voting for permaban. (nm) by Delta Juliette on 2017-09-07 17:31:00 UTC Reply
I might as well be honest. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-07 16:14:00 UTC Reply

I'm in favor of a permaban. I imagine it's kind of obvious, so I'll make it official and recast my vote as such. I don't like that it's come to this, but I believe a ban is in the best interest of the community.

~Neshomeh
And a permaban vote from me as well. by SkarmorySilver on 2017-09-07 15:19:00 UTC Reply

I was wondering how soon it would be before a ban of any kind would happen ever since her disastrous initial Permission request (granted, I did get in trouble for being uncivil as well, but still). I had hoped that she would learn from the trainwreck that transpired and is apparently still ongoing since then, but no. So a permaban vote it is.

I also wonder, since the permaban is more than likely going to be enacted, if any writing or articles pertaining to the IP of this individual will be removed from the PPC Wiki once it does. I'm debating about that a little internally since on the one hand I feel it'd be unbecoming to remove any PPC records no matter how small or insignificant, but on the other, this person's proven far more trouble than she's worth around these parts. Then again, of course, that isn't exactly my decision...

Re. the Wiki by Neshomeh on 2017-09-07 16:05:00 UTC Reply

We have a category called Out of Continuity for characters and concepts that are removed from PPC canon. There are several reasons this can happen, and their creator being banned would definitely be one of them. ... Though apparently it hasn't happened before, since there's not a bullet for it. First time for everything, alas.

~Neshomeh

Top-of-my-head list of people who've been banned. by Huinesoron on 2017-09-07 16:52:00 UTC Reply

-Zdimensia/Bramandin (temporarily, twice; looks likely to be permanently banned)
-I guess technically Tomash, for three months or whatever.
-Data Junkie (for being Toroll)
-Ammo Guy (whatever his name was - 7.65x54R)
-Jacer
-Fichunter (2008) was apparently (according to Laburnum) reported to the police and taken off the internet. I guess that counts as a ban?
-... um... a bunch of minor incidents, mostly obvious trolls (such as the legendary red wolf the weird).

I know there have been a few people banned from the chats (Jack117, MAXInsanity), but I don't remember if any of them ended up banned from the PPC as a whole.

Anyway, point is, it's not on there because we really don't ban people that often, and historically (pre-Jacer) it's been because they were blatant trolls.

hS

Voting on permanent ban. by 1visible on 2017-09-07 12:23:00 UTC Reply

It has become a recurring theme that Bram (or whatever name you use for them) has refused any attempts to help. Giving them another chance would be, in my opinion, a lost cause.
Voting for a permanent ban as well. (nm) by Scapegrace on 2017-09-07 09:05:00 UTC Reply
I support the permanent ban. (nm) by doctorlit on 2017-09-07 03:25:00 UTC Reply
Haven't been involved before now, but also going w/permaban (nm) by S.M.F. on 2017-09-07 02:57:00 UTC Reply
Adding my support for a permanent ban. by PoorCynic on 2017-09-07 02:14:00 UTC Reply

I haven't said much on this subject, due to a combination of real life and not wanting to rehash things that have already been covered, but I've been quiet long enough. Zdimensia/Bram/TooPurple has repeatedly demonstrated—through Board posts, instant messaging, and emails—that they are unwilling to act as a member of this community. We have been lenient before, and our leniency was rewarded with harassment and disrespect. There has to be a point where we draw the line, and I would argue that this is it.

PC
I wasn't going to get involved, but. I vote for perma-ban. (nm) by KittyEden on 2017-09-06 23:22:00 UTC Reply
Voting for permaban. (nm) by Larfen J. Stocke, esq. on 2017-09-06 22:23:00 UTC Reply
I vote permaban. (nm) by World-Jumper on 2017-09-06 18:41:00 UTC Reply
Changing for a permaban vote too. (nm) by Hardric on 2017-09-06 18:34:00 UTC Reply
I think it's clear it's permaban from me (nm) by Matt Cipher on 2017-09-06 18:02:00 UTC Reply
I vote permaban by Tomash on 2017-09-06 16:40:00 UTC Reply

From what I can tell, TooPurple/Bramadin/zdimensia (let's go with Bram for simplicity) is about as likely to not be a disruptive influence if readmitted as Agent Ix is to send an HQ-wide email coming out as a werewolf (for the reasons set forth by hS and others).

So, if we consider my proposal for the requirements for opening revote ("[Some Boarder has] a good reason to believe [we'll let her back in]"), I believe that almost surely won't happen in the future, at least for me. Therefore, I might as well simply my position on the issue to "permaban", which also takes care of a bunch of potentially confusing clerical issues about what, exactly, the community has decided to do about Bram.

- Tomash
I vote for a permaban. by Mikelus on 2017-09-06 15:22:00 UTC Reply

I would have suggested it earlier, given that this is either the third or fourth time this has been brought up, but I wanted to see the consensus first. Now that Bram has decided to throw this into the mix, I feel that a permaban is the only option.

And Bram? You earning permission again required you following your ban and earning a place in the community again. Just demanding a place is not good enough. If you want, you could consider being let back into the community properly as the first part of permission, in
Which case you applied again and failed.
Permaban is more than fine by me. (nm) by Iximaz on 2017-09-06 14:40:00 UTC Reply
I also change my vote to permanent ban. by Phobos on 2017-09-06 14:37:00 UTC Reply

There is no reason we should have to go through this all again every 3-6 months.

-Phobos

I'll be voting 'no' too. (nm) by Hardric on 2017-09-03 21:00:00 UTC Reply
IÂ’m so sorry by Hieronymus Graubart on 2017-09-03 13:23:00 UTC Reply

I don’t want to hurt anybody, but I can’t promote Bram’s return; I’m too afraid that it might hurt many of us. Also, it’s obvious that Bram cannot fit in without lots of mentoring, and I don’t see who could do that. I know I can’t.

That’s an official abstain.

HG
Voting for the ban. by Larfen J. Stocke, esq. on 2017-09-03 10:22:00 UTC Reply

Bram is arguing that she has matured and is ready to rejoin the PPC. This is the basis her appeal exists on. And within the very thread she raises this argument, she also says this:

'Despite you finding joy in adding to that stress, we survived it.

I had forgiven you for your mistakes, but you did nothing to reinforce it, so I'm retracting my forgiveness until you've earned it.'

Bram has not matured and is not ready to rejoin the PPC, and the very issues that led to her being banned certainly seem to remain in full force, as they have every single other time she's tried rejoining. I really don't know why she wants to join us so much, anyway, if we've wronged her and she still hasn't forgiven us.
But, anyhow, no. I vote against Bram returning. It's a bad idea for this community and for Bram, who clearly isn't having the most fun, on her side, either. And if this is an issue of mental health, heaps of people have already said that we are clearly not capable of sufficiently providing for Bram, nor is it really our responsibility. Healthier for everyone, I'd say, the block.

See you lot the next time Bram decides she's ready to return and we all need to vote on it again.

(( Relay )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-03 20:06:00 UTC Reply

I did say that I could do all of the work I could outside of the community. What happened to the plan of putting up guardrails? I feel like if you expect things to get better by continuing to do the thing I stated makes it worse, you're just disregarding my point of view entirely.

Add to that something that I noticed last night. When talking to you, I have a tendency to ask you to rephrase and clarify. That is something that isn't required in other places.

(( - Tomash ))

Irrelevant. by Larfen J. Stocke, esq. on 2017-09-03 22:55:00 UTC Reply

None of this has anything at all to do with what I said. What I did was point out that you believed you were ready to come back, while proving that you were (in my opinion) not ready to come back.

Nothing you are saying has any bearing on any of that. Expecting you to hold up your promises in the very same thread you raised them is not disregarding your point of view. I have no idea what your points about guardrails and working outside the community even mean, let alone what bearing they have on this conversation. My point still stands.
You seem to still be placing the blame of the entire situation on this community, and the question is raised again: why do you even want to rejoin us if, in your opinion, we are all constantly wronging you and require your forgiveness?

I don't know why you felt the need to critique my explaining skills and compare them to 'other places.' That's irrelevant, too, and it looks like, from where I'm standing, a vague insult. Though, I understand your issues in communication, so I won't push that any further.

(( Relayed reply )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-04 16:13:00 UTC Reply

In regards to "And if this is an issue of mental health, heaps of people have already said that we are clearly not capable of sufficiently providing for Bram," What happened to the plan of putting up guardrails? To clarify this further, http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=199610;article=309758;search_term=guardrails.
In regards to "Bram has not matured and is not ready to rejoin the PPC" I did say that I could do all of the work I could outside of the community. I feel like if you expect things to get better by continuing to do the thing I stated makes it worse, you're just disregarding my point of view entirely.
The other line was tacked on as something that I have done to improve.
As for the "issues that led to her being banned remaining in full force" The issue is that I am not feeling acknowledged as a person by the group. My message that I had forgiven you for your mistakes didn't even get relayed. As for not having fun, the not-fun part was having to keep up the prank I was playing because July told me to. The not-fun part is not being able to talk about my interest in bad writing.
As for a bad idea for the community, I feel that you're setting up the precedent that it's okay to ignore the constitution. Your basis for continuing the ban is discriminating against me for being handicapped.

The entire blame is not on the community, but neither is it on me. I've borne the full punishment and more for it. I feel that the community doesn't even want to acknowledge the mistakes, much less make any sort of gesture towards amends.

"Add to that something that I noticed last night. When talking to you, I have a tendency to ask you to rephrase and clarify. That is something that isn't required in other places." That was directed at Tomash and got directly quoted. For the "other places" part, it is simply a statement of something I noticed, and probably a cultural difference. I'm sorry for the confusion. (Is that what you meant by critiquing explaining skills?)

As far as wanting to rejoin, I haven't found anyplace else were the subject is defeating bad writing with good writing. I also haven't found anywhere else where people are so thorough about wanting writing improved. I also like the universe and like working in it.
(Was Tomash insulted by my pointing out how often I ask for clarification?)

(( Relayer's note: I was not insulted, there was confusion about about what the post should contain
- Tomash ))

O' the marvellous things! by Larfen J. Stocke, esq. on 2017-09-04 23:14:00 UTC Reply

All the marvellous things I wish I could say, right now!
O' how this thread could travel off into the night;
O' how I could discuss and argue for hours and hours and only stop in order to trim my new, greying beard!

But it would all be pointless because, Bram, you have no capacity to consider that somebody else is correct! Why, that is why nobody thinks you're ready to rejoin the community! Notice the phrasing I used? 'Community.' Because the PPC is not a dumping ground in which to toss your written stories and leave them there in the dust, but a writing community, in which you must interact with, respect, and have compromise with! You seem to think you can compromise, boldly claiming 'The entire blame is not on the community,' but you then criticise it for not acknowledging its mistakes and for requiring amends and forgiveness!
Amends for what, Bramandin? Forgiveness for what? Bram, as long as we expect basic decency out of you, you will forever need our amends and forgiveness!
And, why, as you read this you will undoubtedly completely ignore the possibility that perhaps I may have a point, and instead blame it on the community (hey, 'community' again!) and explain that you vaguely improved somehow in some way or another!

In fact, it seems that, where I thought my basis for voting against your return was because I think you have absolutely no respect for anyone here, and because there are friends of mine who have been hurt by you while you remain unapologetic, and because your reputation has become as such that a simple relaying accident led to me reasonably concluding that you were passive aggressively insulting me, and because you have been given four separate chances to improve without changing a single thing beyond your name (in spite of your constant arguments against this), I was actually bigoted!
Why, you had been given another undeserved chance to show that you had improved, and you instead ignored every single thing I said and concluded that my reasoning was worthless because you decided I was being discriminatory!
Who would have guessed that Larfen J. Stocke, esq. was a bigot?
You think you know a guy!

But that's the end of that. This discussion is pointless and over and I regret even starting it, and I am more than happy for this entire situation to end with me a 'bigot' and Bramandin banned.

On re-raising this question by Tomash on 2017-09-03 06:00:00 UTC Reply

If the vote results in a continued ban, I don't plan to ask for another vote unless I have a good reason to believe that the result is likely to be different, and, in any case, don't plan to raise the issue for a long time (that is, at least a year from now in the best case).

My reason for this is that I don't want to put the community through a bunch of ultimately pointless re-votes about Bram, since that's counterproductive and at least a bit harmful for everyone involved in this issue.

I'm going to suggest that other people follow these guidelines about re-votes (or at least the first bit about a likely change in result), but, obviously, I'm not the PPC dictator and people should use their own judgment about if (or when) to bring up this stuff again if we continue the block.

- Tomash

There will be no question by TooPurple on 2017-09-05 17:15:00 UTC Reply

TooPurple, formally known as zdimensia and Bramandin, will be allowed back into the community in December without a vote called.

I was going to stay neutral and abstain. by Novastorme on 2017-09-06 13:34:00 UTC Reply

But this... This is enough for me to change my mind. I vote to continue the ban on TooPurple/zdimensia/Bramandin.
That's it. I'm done. I vote no unblock. My relaying ends. by Tomash on 2017-09-05 22:38:00 UTC Reply

It's a rather basic social rule that demanding positive attention from people who don't want to interact with you is not at all OK. I would've hoped that, after all the explanations last May and the conditional ban, TooPurple would have at least understood this. This post, however, makes it clear to me that she either cannot or will not abide by this rule at this time.

This means, as far as I'm concerned, that if we let TooPurple back in now, it will only be a matter of time before she causes another harassment issue. Whether or not such behavior would be malicious or even intentional, I do not want this community or anyone in it to be subject to such harassment or the harm TooPurple would cause by engaging in it.

And so therefore I vote to continue TooPurple's ban until such time as we are satisfied that she can abide by the norms of interaction in this community.

Furthernore, it has become increasingly obvious to me that there is nothing to be gained, other than increasing frustration on all sides, from more responses by TooPurple being posted in this thread. Therefore, I will not be posting any more of them.

If anyone else wishes to begin posting additional responses from her, but doesn't have TooPurple's contact information, I can get you in contact with her. My email is clickable above.

- Tomash
This IP has been blocked. by The Nameless Admin on 2017-09-05 17:19:00 UTC Reply

IP is confirmed as coming from the same locality as Bramandin; this is therefore a confirmed ban/block-evasion.

Well, I think that should settle it, honestly. by Mikelus on 2017-09-05 18:00:00 UTC Reply

Between actually telling us what to do in a thread where the question of Beam's return is being debated, and now proof that Bram has been evading their ban again, I think that we have plenty of proof that Bram has no interest in changing.

Agreed. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-03 16:19:00 UTC Reply

To be clear, I am abstaining from this vote as I did from the last one, but I agree that if the vote is no, the issue should not be raised again for a year at least. I think the community has been more than reasonable about this matter, and we deserve to be able to move on when the vote is over.

~Neshomeh

I'm... I don't like doing this, but I'm voting no. by Granz the Ice Cream Monarch on 2017-09-03 05:32:00 UTC Reply

I feel like this isn't a matter of mental health. For me, at least, that hasn't ever been part of the equation. The problem is... Honestly? I'm not going to claim to be in any way some kind of authority on the matter, but if I had to say what I think in one sentence, it's that I don't think that Bramandin has a history of improving. It seems that at any point, from writing to working with the community, Bramandin has a history of either not responding to criticism, saying they will work to improve themself but not providing evidence of it, or even spending the time dedicated to that on other things instead, as might be seen in Phobos' post, or stating that the issue is not with them, but with us, and I would point to their first response to Neshomeh for this. None of this is would seem, and I place emphasis upon the word seem, to point to a devoted effort to come to a better place that would lead to a better community experience for all sides. Because of that, I am voting that Bramandin's block be continued.
I vote No by Phobos on 2017-09-03 04:57:00 UTC Reply

I would also like to note an email I got from Bram on June 7, just one week into her ban (enacted May 31), asking to use one of my agents in their permission request.

I have often said that I feel that Bram purposefully tries to get around the rules and around punishment; and it seems to me the "I will ban myself for a short time to work on me" was just another example. I believe it was meant to placate us so that we would allow Bram to have her way. Bram didn't get to work on herself, she got to work on her next permission request while she sat out for the minimum amount of time.

-Phobos

(( Yet more relay )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-03 20:57:00 UTC Reply

The working on my permission request was part of working on myself. I was under the impression that you would give me a fair shot, so working towards that was enforcing that hope. I'm kinda disappointed that you just ignored me instead of talking to me about it. Not working on that between self-reflections would have inspired resentment.

(( - Tomash ))

I vote to continue the ban. by World-Jumper on 2017-09-03 02:34:00 UTC Reply

I'm sorry Bram, but I just don't think you are compatable with this community. I know that you have mental health issues, and I fully respect that fact. You need to find a group of people who you can connect with and share passions with. But it has been proven time and again that we are not equipped to help you. When you are confused, we have problems clarifying to where you can understand. This causes conflict and hurt, for you, and for us. Hurt that I just don't feel is worth it. I truly hope you find a community better at working with you, and can make you happy. But I'm afraid that's not here.
Toroll or Bram (not sure which) probably ban evading by Tomash on 2017-09-02 14:44:00 UTC Reply

in the Discord

Here's the logs, which include the evidence:

Tomash - Today at 8:18 AM
Uh, so, having looked at the online list, @Moderator, I claim that @TooPurple ought be kicked from the chat for the following reason. Either:
1) @TooPurple is Toroll, and is therefore ban evading. Evidence for this is that their underlying username, aghwrg#9161, matches the pattern of usernames used by Toroll, and their server nick is set to a username Bram intends to use, which shows they're trying to stir up drama.; or
2) @TooPurple is Bram, who is still banned, which means that account has been created for ban evasion

Either way, there is strong evidence that someone (even if I don't know who) is evading their ban.
Maslab - Today at 8:19 AM
Hmmm
I agree
They have been kicked, but not banned
IF they wish to dispute that they can come back and message me

- Tomash
Voting in favor of a continued block. by The Triumvirate on 2017-09-02 14:36:00 UTC Reply

I don't know how to phrase this terribly well - thinking is confusing - but I definitely know that I do not want Bram back in here yet.

Last time this came up, I was the one to start the thread, because Bram contacted me and - after a few conversations - asked me to. And I was absolutely, positively terrified the entire time. A big part of it was that I love it here and would have been positively crushed if I had been asked to leave or unofficially shunned for that, but that was most certainly not all of it.

I will not say that Bram was taking advantage of how nice I can be, or how strongly I feel about helping people. I will freely admit to being something of a people-pleaser, but I very highly doubt that that was Bram's intention, and how would e know that it actually physically pains me, to one degree or another, to say the words "I can't help you"?

I gave Bram a chance to reasonably explain eimself to me without having to wade through everything everyone else had to say about eim, and then proceeded to ask other people for their versions of the story, because I believe in getting all sides of a story before passing any kind of judgement. (That belief goes a little ways out the window when I am contacted very late at night by a drunk person, though.)

What's really bothering me, I suppose, is exactly what Scape said: Bram has openly admitted to being manipulative. Now, I will be the first to admit that this is a touch hypocritical coming from me, because I am also a manipulative person-whose-parents-were-never-married. However, the distinction I'm making (and please do correct me if I'm wrong here) is that I know very, very well when to stop messing with people and get serious. I know when it's not okay to be the Chessmistress. And never, never, do I attempt to be manipulative when it's not a game. And I'm not entirely sure the same can be said about Bram - I'm actually fairly certain it can't be, or at least not without a modifier or two.

For the time being, I rest my case.

--Calliope
My one post on the matter. (Includes Nameless Admin stuff) by Huinesoron on 2017-09-02 07:26:00 UTC Reply

At the time of Bramandin's ban, multiple people accepted Tomash's proposal that Bramandin be banned until 'receipt of a request that indicates some (not necessarily massive, but more than tiny, unless that's all that's needed) improvement in Bramandin's ability to interact with the PPC'. To further quote Tomash: 'I'm proposing this modification because, when you have a cast on, you can't take it off just because you feel like your bone isn't broken anymore.'

I feel that this requirement should be borne in mind when considering whether to unblock Bramandin.

On the technical front, the Nameless Admin will enact an unblock under the following circumstances:

1/ At least one week has passed since this thread was posted.
2/ The discussion has clearly ended, with no additional opinions in 48 hours.
3/ At least 60% of those giving an opinion vote for an unblock.

If at least 60% are voting explicitly for a continued block, the block will continue. Any other result will lead to a request for more opinions. Explicit abstensions (eg, Tomash's post) will be counted as a 'third party vote', ie, they count as part of the 100%, but not as either 60%. Simply not giving an opinion (eg, my post here) does not count as a vote.

The three requirements will be ignored if at least 15 people post in the first 48 hours, with a 60% majority voting for unblock and no votes for a continued block. This will be subject to identity verification by IP, and confirmation that no off-Board collusion was involved.

Any of these rules may be changed by request of at least 6 non-banned Boarders unanimously, or by a 50% majority of Boarders voting on the issue.

I'm sorry to come over all legalistic, but I flat-out refuse to allow any uncertainty in what the Nameless Admin will and won't do here.

hS

Yeah. I'd like to hear... by Neshomeh on 2017-09-02 17:56:00 UTC Reply

What Bram's been doing to improve her ability to function in an online community. Has she sought therapy, for instance? Found a support group of some sort? Gotten on the same page with her husband, at least, who she was apparently falling out with some time back? She says she feels she's ready. Okay. I wanna know what work she's done to arrive at this conclusion, and what she thinks she can do better now than she had done before.

~Neshomeh

(( Relay )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-03 02:01:00 UTC Reply

The husband thing, it's at the point where he can actively hunt for a job, so the stress is less. It was never about us, it was about external forces causing stress. Despite you finding joy in adding to that stress, we survived it.

I had forgiven you for your mistakes, but you did nothing to reinforce it, so I'm retracting my forgiveness until you've earned it.

As for functioning in an online community, I've interacted with a couple of different ones. They don't flip out at non-sequiters, but rather understand that the connection makes sense to me.

The therapy part is impossible because I don't have a diagnosis. I'm loosing my insurance as well.

(( Having gotten clarification, "you" above is the community.

- Tomash ))

Also voting to continue the ban. by Zingenmir on 2017-09-03 11:40:00 UTC Reply

And honestly, I see nothing in this that makes sense of why you (Bramandin) would even *want* to come back, except perhaps for closure (at most). Almost every paragraph of this, including the posted corrections, shows a very low opinion of this community; I accept that perhaps the description of the other online communities might not have been intended to sound so passive-aggressively negative, but it does. I have no understanding of why you'd want to interact with us again--the only reasons I can guess at are closure and liking the concept of PPC HQ--and what's more, as far as I remember those are the only two reasons I can pick out from the thread in May, too (which I've glanced at recently, but have no wish to reread thoroughly).

I'm not here to give you apologies on behalf of the community. If you want your accusation-turned-feeling that PPCers found (find?) joy in adding to your and your husband's stress addressed, then here: to my knowledge, no one here has felt that way, and if they have, then that's on them.

What's more, there have been a lot of stressful events this year. A number of people (a minimum of four, I believe) left; several more went on hiatus. I very nearly did the same myself; the *only* reason I didn't go on hiatus was that I took so long trying to put the post together that I moved in the middle. By now I no longer feel the same need for a hiatus, so I've elected (up until now, I suppose) to leave the dust more or less settled, despite having felt strongly that it ought to be noted that one reason I wasn't as active was because of what happened.

My point, however, is this: pretty much everyone who joined the Board before June of this year and was around in the March through May period was exposed to stress. Even the people who tried to stay on the sidelines. I sincerely hope that nowhere in all of that was someone grinning about adding to others' stress levels; and if there somehow was, then I certainly hope they've had a good long think since and will never do it again. And, to return to Bramandin, *if* anyone was doing that in your case, well, same note. But if anyone was, it's *definitely* not widely known. We are not and have not been sitting around giggling about stressing people out.

I did say I'm not here to apologize. What I will say is that it's regrettable you feel that way, and that you have so low an opinion of us.

I also agree with the other people who have said that the PPC and you do not seem to be a good match--not for you and not for us. And for that reason especially, I am voting to uphold the ban.

I'm glad you've found other online communities that are a better fit. I hope that goes better for you and for them.

~Z
(( Further relay, incl. minor edits )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-03 05:01:00 UTC Reply

(( Bram would like to correct " Despite you finding joy in adding to that stress, we survived it." to "I feel that you find joy in adding to that stress." ))

That no one has denied it (( that we found joy in adding to the stress -Ed )) is a little bit concerning.

More time isn't going to fix things. I've done all that I can outside of the community.

(( - Tomash ))

Just a couple things. by Neshomeh on 2017-09-05 16:53:00 UTC Reply

It probably won't do any good, but I feel a couple points need to be made for posterity.

First, in response to "The therapy part is impossible because I don't have a diagnosis":

That is pure nonsense. Part of getting therapy would involve the doctor seeking for and arriving at a diagnosis, then proceeding from it. You don't go to your GP, tell them you have strep throat, and expect them to treat based on your conclusion; no, you go in, tell them your symptoms, and let them perform tests as needed so they can determine the correct diagnosis and treatment. It's the same with a mental health practitioner.

The lack of insurance is a serious problem, and that sucks, but it doesn't change the process of how diagnosis and treatment works. If you're persistent, you may even find a good, affordable doc that works with the uninsured until you get a new plan.

Second, in response to no one (except Zing) denying that we find joy in adding to Bram's stress:

There's a perfectly good explanation for this. Most of us, through past experience interacting with people in general and the people of this community in specific, know that most people do not find joy in causing others pain. If we notice that anyone around us actually does, we don't keep them around. Nobody in this thread, or past discussions with Bram, has shown even the slightest hint of enjoying Bram's confusion or stress or mental health difficulties. I believe that any reasonable observer from the outside would find it abundantly clear that the truth is quite the opposite: we're all stressed out and confused and really taking great pains not to exacerbate anyone's mental health situation. It really does go without saying.

Bram has previously expressed a need for us to say that "things" aren't true. Well, Zing did, and now I am. However, saying demonstrably outrageous things just to see if we'll deny them comes across as extremely manipulative, and I find it not at all remarkable that hardly anyone has taken the bait. This community does not need anyone to apologize for its behavior, because its behavior in this has been exemplary.

That's my bit; I'm done. Just needed to get that off my chest.

~Neshomeh

I also vote for a continued ban. (nm) by doctorlit on 2017-09-03 03:51:00 UTC Reply
In light of this, I vote no. (nm) by Iximaz on 2017-09-03 02:20:00 UTC Reply

Counting abstensions by Tomash on 2017-09-02 14:32:00 UTC Reply

I think that abstentions shouldn't be added to denominator when computing the percentage of voters for or against something, but that should count towards quorum totals ("at least X people post"). From a quick check of Google and Wikipedia, it appears to be how a lot of places that vote on stuff do it.

The reason for this is that, if we count explicit "meh" votes as their category, we can create some really silly situations. For example, suppose that, on some question that isn't about cats (with the 60% vote threshold to change anything), one person votes "Yes" and everyone else posts "I like kittens (nm)". This makes the vote pass, under the current rules. However, if everyone else instead posted "I abstain (nm)", the vote fails. This feels really weird.

In practice, this means that X unanimous people can be X people who either vote for/against something or explicitly abstain, as long as there's someone in there who actually had an opinion.

- Tomash
Voting in favour of a continued block. by Scapegrace on 2017-09-02 11:35:00 UTC Reply

In my capacity as someone who probably got (and continues to get) more lifelines than they probably should have, I understand how important a second, third, fourth, fifth, and eleventy-squillion-and-sixth chance can be. I also understand how they can feel to the person who gets them; to me, they always felt like a way out of a stupid situation that I'd gotten into because of my comprehensive inability to control either my depression, my anxiety, or my anger. Believe me when I tell you how much I understand the importance of having a community to support you, not as therapists but as friends with a shared interest.

So why on God's green Earth am I still voting for this block?

I don't know Bram all that well, but I remember the fallout from their being here before - both as Bram and as zdimensia (hey, remember that?). I remember Bram saying outright that they manipulate people as a matter of course, and that they did so to Neshomeh in order to be allowed back into the PPC in the first place. That's what rubs me up the wrong way about all this - the history of known manipulation and deceit on Bramandin's part. That's also what gives me pause about Bram's request for a mediator/mentor/parole officer/whathaveyou - it's a good idea in theory, but in practice I doubt its efficacy given Bram's history of self-admitted manipulation.

I'm also not a fan of some of the phrasing in the request. Bram states explicitly that any potential mentors must "attempt to explain how her actions differ from apparently identical actions taken by other Boarders" should the need arise. Frankly? That sounds like sour grapes. It sounds like someone who still thinks "But Thorin Oakenshield did it" is actually an argument. It sounds like someone who, instead of admitting when they're wrong and apologising, even if they don't necessarily mean it, will dig in their heels and cause yet more enormously derailed threads full of squabbling and discontent.

I don't think we need that any more.

(( Relay )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-03 01:21:00 UTC Reply

I don't see how Scape could remember me saying that I manipulate people as a matter of course when I'm not like that.

(( I've been asked to post this, which seemed like a reasonable enough request given the topic of this thread, so here we are. This is unedited.

- Tomash ))

Because it's a pattern of behaviour. by Scapegrace on 2017-09-04 07:49:00 UTC Reply

Just because you don't see it (or choose not to; I was in that position with my anger and GID for years) doesn't mean it isn't there. You admitted bluntly that you manipulated Nesh into letting you back into the community as Bramandin, and after your subsequent block, you were trying to bend the rules after one poxy week to get back into writing PPC stuff.

To be completely honest with you, I'm surprised that Nesh and Tomash and everyone else haven't blocked your email address out of respect for their own mental health; you demonstrably don't believe that you need to put in any kind of effort to improve, or at the very least moderate your behaviour. Through your continued actions - the passive-aggression, the disregard for community standards of behaviour, the insults - you show that you think it's all on us to walk on eggshells around you, and that because we don't, the rules do not apply to you. It's like Larf said further up the thread; we're going to have to keep doing this ridiculous song and dance until either we're forced to ban you outright or you get what you want, which seems to be carte blanche to do and say and write and make others feel however you choose without any kind of criticism of or consequence to your actions.

I realise I'm ranting. If other members of the community judge that I'm going too far, other members of the PPC will pull me up on it. I will then back down and issue an apology. This is how the community is supposed to work, and how it does work, and how you want it not to work purely and solely in regards to you. You don't want to be a part of the PPC. You want to run the PPC, and run it like an autocrat swaddled in cotton wool by yes-men. That's the only conclusion that I can draw from your continued total disregard for the standards of PPC community conduct.

Get. Help.

Somewhere else.

(( Relayed reply )) by Bram, via Tomash on 2017-09-04 17:05:00 UTC Reply

A one-time prank does not make a pattern of behavior. I wanted to come out a lot sooner, but July told me not to. I didn't like continuing the prank, but I did what I was told.

As for bending the rules, I was told that writing for the drawer is fine, and writing permission prompts has always been in the rules. I did say I was going to do it, and no one clarified anything different. Don't get mad at me after telling me it was alright.

I'm not asking you to walk on eggshells. I'm actually able to put up with a lot. What I do expect is that when I say there is a problem, I am not ignored. In turn, I will do my best to treat you with the same regard. A lot of the not-listening from before was because I felt not-listened-to. I may slip a little, and need leeway for that, but criticism is fine. I've been doing everything I can.

As far as the insults, some things can be worded better, but I feel like you can't take anything that's slightly critical. I did amend my one opinion to include "I feel like you" and I can't tell if anyone has said that isn't the case. It was something that needed to be addressed or else it would have bred resentment. This is one point for a mediator, which is a reasonable accomodation. (Tomash is mainly relaying, not acting as a mediator. We had slightly different expectations here that weren't worked out in the beginning.) Heck, just asking me if I meant it as an insult is already in the constitution. You're the only people who've seen things as passive aggressive, and I believe I've asked for what to do differently. I've read an article, and it says that it's an avoidance of conflict technique, but I feel that if I'm blunt you'd just complain about that. Tell me directly what you expect.

I also feel that you insult me all you want and expect not to be called out for it. You're making statements that are really biased and not at all representative of me. I've been called an asshole, delusional, and then there's your thread which is vitriolic and untrue. I particularly don't want to run the PPC. Suggest improvements, maybe.

The disregard is in the past, and a simple reaction to what was perceived as being dismissive to me. I have worked on that. Anything from 2016 on is a simple communication error. Since I can't remember if I actually apologized for the prank, I will do so in another thread, but I'm going to need some help because I can't remember the formula that makes it a valid apology.

(( For my part, even though I've been staying out of this, I disapprove of the eye-for-an-eye approach alluded to above as far as listening to us, and am not convinced it won't continue if Bram were somehow readmitted at this time

- Tomash ))

Not that I want to spend... by Zingenmir on 2017-09-04 18:21:00 UTC Reply

...more time raising my heart rate with this thread, but I did address your "I feel like you." A response exists.

Also, referring to getting around a ban as a "prank" is... I'm not even sure what to say. Odd, at the very least. I do *kind* of see why you're using the word, but it still feels very mismatched considering that you're talking about deliberately getting around a ban by posting under a new identity with, as far as I remember from the email logs Neshomeh posted, adopting a persona designed to while certain treatment involved. Pranks--at least, the fun, lighthearted kind--don't generally include bans. If anything, this was you trying to prove a point--something which I remember featuring quite heavily in the discussions in May. "Prank"...*really* doesn't fit, or not without diminishing the actual action into something less serious in nature, which... euphemism. That's the word I'm looking for. "Prank" here seems like a euphemism for what actually happened, and that's... the euphemism is very different from the reality, which isn't good in a thread that's trying to look at what was and if something's changed.

And one more thing: in the last few relayed posts, you've been saying that "[you] could do all of the work [you] could outside of the community." (That quote taken from the reply to Larfen's post titled "Irrelevant"). But, as far as I'm aware, you're referring to this post, in which you said the following: "More time isn't going to fix things. I've done all that I can outside of the community."

What I got from that was that you'd done everything you felt you could do outside the PPC community, and what you're telling and showing us now is the result. That nothing else will change beyond whatever we could somehow hypothetically do (and seeing as we're not, say, therapists, I'd expect that to be *very* limited). And that's not what you've been saying in later posts while presumably referencing that one--you've been, as far as I can tell, implying that you could do even more, or else that you could continue doing what you've been doing outside the community...? Honestly, I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but it doesn't immediately seem to match up.

That's all I've got. I'm curious what you meant in that first post and with your more recent wording, but other than that, I'm out again until something really catches my eye to comment on in this thread. If something I've written here is unclear, I apologise for that; it's been a long day and I didn't spend most of it in English.

My vote stands

~Z

It's been brought to my attention by Tomash on 2017-09-02 05:44:00 UTC Reply

that I should link Bram's wiki user page, which contains a lot of her versions of the events of the past few years.

- Tomash

On the Wiki Page... by [EvilAI]UBEROverlord on 2017-09-02 09:02:00 UTC Reply

Can someone with more knowledge of the wiki let me know if there is a way to get timestamps and users who made edits? The second to last paragraph bothers me. Namely the "excuse for a human being" phrase. That's not an okay thing to write.

As for the ban/unban issue I'll come back to it after I think on it for a bit.

Historical record search results by Tomash on 2017-09-02 14:13:00 UTC Reply

Since that text was rather concerning, I went through the edit history to figure out when in was added and by who. It was added in the following edit, which was (barring account takeovers) made by ... Bram. At that link, the left column is the text of the previous version, while the right text is the version introduced by the edit in question (which shows the paragraph under discussion was added in that revision).

- Tomash
Wiki History by Hieronymus Graubart on 2017-09-02 09:39:00 UTC Reply

The "Edit" respective "Edit profile" button at the top of an article is actually a combo box; so, if you cclick on the tiny down-arrow at the right end of the button, you may select "History". It then shows you a list of all changes with date and user name. At the top of this list, there is a button to "Compare selected revisions" which will show you what changed between versions selected in the vertical radio sets.

HG