Sues - PPC Posting Board

Subject: Sues
Author: Miah
Posted on: 2012-07-17 05:09:00 UTC

“Additionally, you have a multitude of Sues that you are still writing,”

Please explain why my characters are Sues. This was not brought up last time I requested Permission.

I have now read your fic, "Call Me Katie". I'll be honest with you, if I had come across this fic in a random fic hunt, I would have sporked it. This is one of the most blatant Sues that I have seen in a long time. There is a lengthy Author's Note in the last chapter that says that you wrote most of this in 2010, and you think your writing has improved greatly since then. It makes it clear that this was posted May 31, 2012. No where in that note did you state that you had realized this was a huge Sue, and you were only leaving it up to show your progress, so I consider all decisions in this story as something you currently condone.

First charge: Katie is the uncanonical sister of the Main Character, Coraline.

Second Charge: This is not a new story. This is a rehash of the movie, only with Katie shoehorned in.

Third Charge: Katie steals multiple lines from Coraline and is the one that the doll imitates, until Coraline is only a very minor character in her own canon.

Fourth Charge: Katie's presence drums up drama for no apparent reason other than to make her more important in the story. (The mom's unspecified accident is now Katie's fault, and they spend half a scene arguing over it.)

Fifth Charge: In-line Author's Notes like this one, parenthesis yours. (A/N: this sentence makes me laugh and laugh).)

Sixth charge: Calling the mom by her name throughout (okay, that one might have just fallen under annoying a PPC agent)

Seventh charge: Mothering Coraline

Eighth charge: Changing the mythos of the canon to be able to add your Sue in. There was only one doll. Coraline said so. The doll changes to match the victim. There was no way for a second doll to appear just so you could have your Sue and Coraline enter the Other World.

This is from your Narnia story about Ailena, which is also not labeled as something you have come to regret.

Ailena has cobalt blue eyes, hip length blond hair, ten different names, and an entire paragraph longer than the one I am about to quote explaining how old she is.

Ailena is extremely good with many weapons, seems to turn up at unexpected times and in unexpected places, appears to know some things before they happen, and is particularly close to Aslan. She has been around since before the beginning of Narnia and remains there until the very end. She ages very, very slowly. She is High Queen of Narnia with the Pevensies during the Golden Age, and is never paired with anyone romantically. Never ever ever, through all the years of Narnia. She is also the one who tells C.S. Lewis the stories of Narnia.

Let's take this bit by bit.

Ailena is extremely good with many weapons One of the hallmarks of Sues are that they are good at everything, better than most, with very little effort. You say she's lived a very long time, so maybe she's practiced for thousands of years, but I honestly doubt it.

seems to turn up at unexpected times and in unexpected places, This is a Speshul trait.

appears to know some things before they happen Since this isn't available in canon, this is also a Speshul trait.

, and is particularly close to Aslan. So, she is a personal friend of the canon's deity? Do you see how this is a Sue-ish trait?

She has been around since before the beginning of Narnia and remains there until the very end. She was being shoehorned into a very select group of characters here.

She is High Queen of Narnia with the Pevensies during the Golden Age, and is never paired with anyone romantically. Never ever ever, through all the years of Narnia. This seems to be a recurring theme in your stories, where you retell the canon stories only your versions are better, because they include your characters, who are much better than the canons, and outshine the canons. That is, honestly, the very definition of a Mary Sue.

She is also the one who tells C.S. Lewis the stories of Narnia. This is just. Wow. This character is so important that she told the writer of her world about the world, so he wasn't really writing a story, he was just repeating back what your character told him. The time loop-fourth wall breakage thing here is actually painful. That is a pretty bold claim, and makes this character a huge, huge Mary Sue.

I understand from reading other bits on your LJ that this character is old. I have heard that it is fairly normal to go through a stage of creating Mary Sues (even I can remember back to doing that, I just didn't write them down), but the thing is that you are still writing this character and apparently don't see anything wrong with her. If you can't see anything wrong with this character, then you are not at a mature enough place to write for the PPC, and July was absolutely right in denying you Permission.

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Permission request *crosses fingers* by Jacer on 2012-07-13 23:36:00 UTC Reply

So I was turned down the first time I asked for Permission several months ago, and got some concrit. I now ask again, having almost totally revamped two of my three agents' origins. Methinks they make more sense now. Here we go.

Agent bios: http://ajeckaea.dreamwidth.org/2158.html
Writing sample: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6779632/1/TheRoadIm_On
My Twilight/Narnia crossover that I wish to plug: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8071837/1/Sunshine

Permission denied. by JulyFlame on 2012-07-14 01:55:00 UTC Reply

Your behavior outside of the PPC community and in it has shown that you do not have the best intent in your heart, or the spirit of the PPC in mind.

About a year ago, in a thread about LGBT, you publicly condemned several people for being who they are, and for not believing the same things as you. When someone confronted you in private over it, you proceeded to mock them for differences in religious belief and opinion on others after the fact in your LiveJournal.

This was brought to the awareness of another PPCer, who spoke to you about it.

You didn't delete those entries. You just hid them from public view.

You show off proudly several 'exchanges' where you harass and mock people for writing things they like. Your friend, Antaprate took your side and defended you and accused them of flaming you.

Antaprate has her own fanfiction.net account where she proudly declares she holds grudges against people, and that if people wanted to find her Kat "the fanfic slayer" stories, they could PM her for them.

This goes somewhat against her being an agent, doesn't it? There's nothing in your Dreamwidth there, or on your Tripod site saying you don't own that person or her character. This is very odd behavior, because if Antaprate was a real person, wouldn't you want the people reading those things to know?

You are also using Antaprate's character Kat, who was, as previously noted, was used as a Sue Slayer who was sent on a mission from God with all sorts of powers to eliminate characters you decided were Mary Sues.

Sockpuppeting to try and protect yourself from the people you have belittled and insulted for writing fic you don't agree with goes against the spirit of the community. You have denied that you and Antaprate are the same person elsewhere, but here you are using them as a character.

The PPC does not abide of bullying people, or of harassing them. It does not approve of reposting the works of others in very public places to mock them further, which you have done under your alter ego's name, with that intent stated.

It also doesn't approve of pretending to be someone else to continue harassing and bullying people and to defend yourself.

Additionally, you have a multitude of Sues that you are still writing, and you wrote and posted a PPC piece without permission that was not a permission piece.

Response by Jacer on 2012-07-16 19:09:00 UTC Reply

I had help writing this response. I was too upset.

Regarding your response declining my request for permisson to write for the PPC, you will of course understand my disappointment. That said, however, I have some concerns about your interpretation of some of my in your response, particularly with the thread-from May of last year that addressed LGBT issues.

While I am not noticeably subtle in many of remarks therein, I think they were frequently interpreted by other respondents in a manner not intended by me, and in language at least as vociferous as mine, which impugned the veracity and source of my arguments, even while they – too often – went on to make counter-arguments with assertions that are in error as a matter of historical record. Note that in this regard I do not attribute this to malign intent on their part, just not doing sufficient homework before responding, a common problem in modern discourse.

All in all, I feel like I have labeled the “bad girl”, even while my similarly intense critics have gotten off scot-free.

My question at this point is whether your concern with my remarks is chiefly with the form (i.e., they are not likely to be confused with diplomacy) or with the content (i.e., they are not politically correct). A number of respondents in the thread in question seemed to talk a good game regarding giving my reasons for my position, but when I responded that they derive from my religious convictions, I received a deluge of opprobrium. The typical response indicated that “you can't force your religious beliefs on others”. Well, if they mean I can't create a theocracy, and force them to believe in the divinity of Jesus, as a matter of law, they are of course correct – that is what the Constitution is for.

On the other hand, if my religious beliefs inform me that, e.g., “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are universal truths binding on all people, then I retain the right of free speech to advance those positions, those values, even unto law, – that is also what the Constitution is for – regardless of whether it is part of Catholic teaching, Hindu teaching or Epicurean teaching, because the issue is not “where does this idea come from”, but rather “is it true”. Determining whether it is true is destined to be a matter of much political discussion, of course, but the fundamental idea that those informed by religious convictions have just as much right in the public square to advance their ideas is squarely supported in the Constitution, and the those who hold that they do not are anti-intellectual at best, and anti-religious at worst.

The following addresses your concerns point by point. If you still disagree, please respond by citing the actual text of mine that you are referencing so I can be sure exactly what words you are addressing.

“Your behavior outside of the PPC community and in it has shown that you do not have the best intent in your heart, or the spirit of the PPC in mind.

“About a year ago, in a thread about LGBT, you publicly condemned several people for being who they are, and for not believing the same things as you.”

No. I didn’t. I didn’t condemn anyone. What I did was attempt to defend my position against an onslaught of “you’re wrong, you’re stupid, you’re an idiot, the Bible sux.” I notice you don’t mention all the insults I received then. I was condemned. It is not my job as a Christian to be lukewarm about sin.

“When someone confronted you in private over it, you proceeded to mock them for differences in religious belief and opinion on others after the fact in your LiveJournal.

“This was brought to the awareness of another PPCer, who spoke to you about it.”

I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

“You didn't delete those entries. You just hid them from public view.”

Of course I didn’t delete the exchanges. I don’t delete anything. Old fics I’ve never finished, old versions of fics that I’ve edited, edited character profiles on the LJ, all the papers I got in school for the last eight years....I still have them all. I’m a pack rat. I keep everything. Why is this a problem?

“You show off proudly several 'exchanges' where you harass and mock people for writing things they like.”

I never said I was proud. I suppose you feel the same way about fandom_wank, which does the same thing. This is really not fair. The PPC also mocks people who write things they like, but I get attacked for posting conversations with people who drove me nuts? Even when most of them were privatized last October?

“Your friend, Antaprate took your side and defended you and accused them of flaming you.”

Once. Maybe twice. In February of 2011. Why does this have bearing?

“Antaprate has her own fanfiction.net account where she proudly declares she holds grudges against people,”

I am not going to deny that I am Antaprate. It was the name of a spell I created, and I needed an extra account to post my My Immortal project. The “grudges” part came after certain people (not PPCers) decided that, despite repeated attempts to explain to them, they had the ability to inform me why I wrote things. Which was patently false, and really got on my nerves. The only reason I ever denied being A was for the benefit of one single FF user, and I’m pretty sure she figured it out so it’s a moot point. The only time I ever actively socked with Anta was, as before mentioned, in February 2011.

“and that if people wanted to find her Kat "the fanfic slayer" stories, they could PM her for them.”

Yes. I deleted them from FF.net after the above-mentioned people made me angry. I save everything, so I posted them somewhere else. They’ve been gone for a few months now. Why is this bad?

“This goes somewhat against her being an agent, doesn't it? There's nothing in your Dreamwidth there, or on your Tripod site saying you don't own that person or her character.”

I suppose the more obvious “Girl names agent after friend’s screen name” din’t occur to you.

“You are also using Antaprate's character Kat,”

No. You’re wrong. Kat the Slayer is not Kat the Agent. They happen to share the same nickname, sex, and hair color. That is all. A name does not a character make, as many badfic character replacement writers have yet to learn.

“who was, as previously noted, was used as a Sue Slayer who was sent on a mission from God with all sorts of powers to eliminate characters you decided were Mary Sues.”

Isn’t that exactly what the PPC does? God=Flowers, powers and gadgets=DoSAT gadgets, Mary Sues=Mary Sues. I don’t see why this is a problem.

“Sockpuppeting to try and protect yourself from the people you have belittled and insulted for writing fic you don't agree with goes against the spirit of the community.”

I also have another FF account, which I use to favorite Supernatural fics. Is this also socking? I don’t actively sock. A was originally created as an extra account, not a sock. And don’t we all do this, posting PPC missions on LJ and what not rather than with our FF names? Isn’t the PPC about mocking badfic?

“You have denied that you and Antaprate are the same person elsewhere, but here you are using them as a character.”

I repeat the part about the excuse, and the non-denial.

“The PPC does not abide of bullying people, or of harassing them.”

I don’t bully, any more than the PPC does by writing missions.

“It does not approve of reposting the works of others in very public places to mock them further, which you have done under your alter ego's name, with that intent stated.”

Since when is laughing at intentional trollfics is not allowed? This is news to me.

“It also doesn't approve of pretending to be someone else to continue harassing and bullying people and to defend yourself.”

I didn’t.

“Additionally, you have a multitude of Sues that you are still writing,”

Please explain why my characters are Sues. This was not brought up last time I requested Permission.

“and you wrote and posted a PPC piece without permission that was not a permission piece.”

I fully believed I was allowed to do that, judging from the “non-continuity-affecting” comments on the Permission page. And I quote from my entry: “This is not continuity-affecting whatsoever, so hopefully I'm allowed to post it without Permission. If I'm not, leave a message on my wiki talk page and I'll take it down.” I never got a message, so I left it up.

I am disturbed that in order to prove I am a nasty person, you are citing events that happened from nine to seventeen months ago. Why, if they were a problem, were they not mentioned last time I requested Permission? Why was the supposed Sueness of my OCs not brought up then? You never explain why you think my characters are Sues, either.

Last time it was “Your characters’ backstory doesn’t make sense,” and I fixed that. Why the sudden attack?

I have deliberately not commented on things like that for months. Why am I automatically in the wrong?

Sues by Miah on 2012-07-17 05:09:00 UTC Reply

“Additionally, you have a multitude of Sues that you are still writing,”

Please explain why my characters are Sues. This was not brought up last time I requested Permission.

I have now read your fic, "Call Me Katie". I'll be honest with you, if I had come across this fic in a random fic hunt, I would have sporked it. This is one of the most blatant Sues that I have seen in a long time. There is a lengthy Author's Note in the last chapter that says that you wrote most of this in 2010, and you think your writing has improved greatly since then. It makes it clear that this was posted May 31, 2012. No where in that note did you state that you had realized this was a huge Sue, and you were only leaving it up to show your progress, so I consider all decisions in this story as something you currently condone.

First charge: Katie is the uncanonical sister of the Main Character, Coraline.

Second Charge: This is not a new story. This is a rehash of the movie, only with Katie shoehorned in.

Third Charge: Katie steals multiple lines from Coraline and is the one that the doll imitates, until Coraline is only a very minor character in her own canon.

Fourth Charge: Katie's presence drums up drama for no apparent reason other than to make her more important in the story. (The mom's unspecified accident is now Katie's fault, and they spend half a scene arguing over it.)

Fifth Charge: In-line Author's Notes like this one, parenthesis yours. (A/N: this sentence makes me laugh and laugh).)

Sixth charge: Calling the mom by her name throughout (okay, that one might have just fallen under annoying a PPC agent)

Seventh charge: Mothering Coraline

Eighth charge: Changing the mythos of the canon to be able to add your Sue in. There was only one doll. Coraline said so. The doll changes to match the victim. There was no way for a second doll to appear just so you could have your Sue and Coraline enter the Other World.

This is from your Narnia story about Ailena, which is also not labeled as something you have come to regret.

Ailena has cobalt blue eyes, hip length blond hair, ten different names, and an entire paragraph longer than the one I am about to quote explaining how old she is.

Ailena is extremely good with many weapons, seems to turn up at unexpected times and in unexpected places, appears to know some things before they happen, and is particularly close to Aslan. She has been around since before the beginning of Narnia and remains there until the very end. She ages very, very slowly. She is High Queen of Narnia with the Pevensies during the Golden Age, and is never paired with anyone romantically. Never ever ever, through all the years of Narnia. She is also the one who tells C.S. Lewis the stories of Narnia.

Let's take this bit by bit.

Ailena is extremely good with many weapons One of the hallmarks of Sues are that they are good at everything, better than most, with very little effort. You say she's lived a very long time, so maybe she's practiced for thousands of years, but I honestly doubt it.

seems to turn up at unexpected times and in unexpected places, This is a Speshul trait.

appears to know some things before they happen Since this isn't available in canon, this is also a Speshul trait.

, and is particularly close to Aslan. So, she is a personal friend of the canon's deity? Do you see how this is a Sue-ish trait?

She has been around since before the beginning of Narnia and remains there until the very end. She was being shoehorned into a very select group of characters here.

She is High Queen of Narnia with the Pevensies during the Golden Age, and is never paired with anyone romantically. Never ever ever, through all the years of Narnia. This seems to be a recurring theme in your stories, where you retell the canon stories only your versions are better, because they include your characters, who are much better than the canons, and outshine the canons. That is, honestly, the very definition of a Mary Sue.

She is also the one who tells C.S. Lewis the stories of Narnia. This is just. Wow. This character is so important that she told the writer of her world about the world, so he wasn't really writing a story, he was just repeating back what your character told him. The time loop-fourth wall breakage thing here is actually painful. That is a pretty bold claim, and makes this character a huge, huge Mary Sue.

I understand from reading other bits on your LJ that this character is old. I have heard that it is fairly normal to go through a stage of creating Mary Sues (even I can remember back to doing that, I just didn't write them down), but the thing is that you are still writing this character and apparently don't see anything wrong with her. If you can't see anything wrong with this character, then you are not at a mature enough place to write for the PPC, and July was absolutely right in denying you Permission.
Hm. by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-16 22:53:00 UTC Reply

I find one of your last points very interesting.

I am disturbed that in order to prove I am a nasty person, you are citing events that happened from nine to seventeen months ago. Why, if they were a problem, were they not mentioned last time I requested Permission? Why was the supposed Sueness of my OCs not brought up then? You never explain why you think my characters are Sues, either.

I'm not going to comment on the last one, as perhaps you should look at your characters. However, you seem to think that your actions are excusable because they happened in the past.

That is not correct. I am under the impression that the reason for your actions not being brought up at your last request was to give you a second chance with regards to this.

You have had that second chance, and things have happened since then. And yet, you have never once taken responsibility for your actions. It is always the fault of somebody else - the big mean world out to get you.

It doesn't work like that.

You have made mistakes.

Mistakes like those have consequences.

Your actions are, quite frankly, immature. The way you lay blame instead of taking responsibility is not a positive trait. You are the one who got yourself into this situation.

Learn to take responsibility.
A small response. by doctorlit on 2012-07-16 20:42:00 UTC Reply

I just want to address a couple of your points, slightly out-of-order.

"I also have another FF account, which I use to favorite Supernatural fics. Is this also socking? I don’t actively sock. A was originally created as an extra account, not a sock. And don’t we all do this, posting PPC missions on LJ and what not rather than with our FF names? Isn’t the PPC about mocking badfic?"
"I don’t bully, any more than the PPC does by writing missions."

Posting PPC stories on sites other than the Pit isn't sockpuppeting; it's keeping our shared universe within our little group. This is for two reasons. First, because we don't like getting much attention from the internet-at-large, to avoid becoming the focus of trolls and such. The other reason, and the one I believe you're having trouble understanding, is that we do not want to hurt the feelings of badfic authors. We keep our community on the down-low because we want to entertain each other with jokes created from bad writing, not because we want to smear that bad writing in its authors' faces.

The PPC does not bully. The PPC is about finding humor by mocking badfic, not by mocking badfic authors.

"Isn’t that exactly what the PPC does? God=Flowers . . ."

No. No, no, no. A million times no. There is a huge difference between writing a character who takes orders from a fictional board of giant, sentient, speech-capable psychic talking plants in business suits, and writing a character who carries out the will of the actual, real life God.

Do you see how claiming to be doing the work of God Himself while critiquing a fan fiction is problematic?

No more problematic... by Jacer on 2012-07-16 21:16:00 UTC Reply

...than JealousoftheMoon's Canon Keepers on FF. They do the will of Aslan and Lewis.

For the record-- by Neshomeh on 2012-07-16 21:53:00 UTC Reply

I find claiming to follow the will of a dead man and a fictional lion-deity to be very problematic, seeing as neither of them is actually around to communicate their will to anyone. I have to wonder how much you thought about that comparison before posting it. It's not very favorable to God.

~Neshomeh
As Anna said, by doctorlit on 2012-07-16 21:40:00 UTC Reply

JealousoftheMoon does not write for the PPC. They aren't our responsibility, they don't speak for us, and anything they do can't potentially reflect badly on us.

And no, they don't do the will of C.S. Lewis. Mr. Lewis is a real (dead) person, and Jealous and her characters do not spork badfic in his name, regardless of whether the author says they do or not.
Gah, I hate to get sucked into the flames again... by AnnaBee on 2012-07-16 21:22:00 UTC Reply

That's a different universe from the PPC and plays by different rules.

The Flowers are only equivalent to God if you agree that God has a twisted sense of humour and likes to play Pokemon cards with the universe.

If you don't grasp this, you're missing a lot of the humour of the PPC.

At the risk of sounding like a complete and utter douchbag.. by Anne Nonymous on 2012-07-16 14:27:00 UTC Reply

I say give him another chance. And I say this as an LGBT girl with absolutely no religion at all.

The PPC *is* about second chances. (Well, when it's not about humorously burning fictional locations that should not exist to the ground...)

If he can be a decent, civil human being, let's not shoot him down without hearing what he has to say first. You savvy?

On Second Chances by Huinesoron on 2012-07-16 16:06:00 UTC Reply

Having looked at the original thread (and thank you Tranum for posting the link - it's always better to know what's being referenced) I feel the need to agree with JulyFlame's decision. However, this does not mean Jacer is being denied a second chance. JulyFlame didn't try and demand Jacer leave the PPC, or say 'You will never be able to write for the PPC'; she simply explained the reasons she was making the decision that Jacer would not be given Permission at this time. There has been a further comment (not from JulyFlame) implying that Jacer should leave the community, but in no way was it a demand. The second chance - one wherein Jacer proves her(?)self able to interact with the community in a constructive manner - is and always has been there.

Of course, the situation isn't quite as simple as it seems from JulyFlame's summary (naturally - it's a summary of the reasons Jacer's being turned down, not a reasoned argument seeing both sides and showing her working! Nor should it be, in this context). Holding the opinion that Jacer deserves a second chance - however that is interpreted - is perfectly valid, and definitely not a reason for anyone to call you a 'douchebag'.

And since this isn't a summary, my working:

In Jacer's defence:

1/ The LGBT thread was over a year ago, which is a long time in the Interwebs. I haven't been following Jacer in between times, so I don't know how she(?)'s behaved since.

2/ The explosion originally came about because Jacer stated her(?) opinion and people disagreed vehemently - and some (by no means all) disagreed with her right to express it on the Board. As a rule, saying 'You're wrong' (which both sides did) is going to cause tempers to rise. Saying 'I disagree with your opinion' is far more conducive to polite discussion.

3/ While Jacer did get progressively more vehement in support of views which were being shouted down - possibly to the extent of being deliberately offensive, I haven't read every post so that's a guess - I did see several responses which I would class as flames. One person (I forget who) declares Jacer a 'miscreant', which, er, is a direct insult serving no purpose but to deride the other. So getting increasingly emotional and 'fighting back' would seem only natural.

On the other hand, and causing my opinion to fall out the way it does:

1/ Jacer's original post used not just loaded words - 'disorder', while an accurate statement of belief (I assume), was always going to cause controversy - but also straightforward insulting ones - 'disgusting'. That's also a flame - it may not have been targetted at anyone specific, but it's still a flame.

2/ At certain points in the debate, Jacer said things that were, um, objectively wrong (such as the implication that while Jews and Muslims have immigrated to America, Catholics are native to the country), and refused to retract them. That's not debating in good faith, and it doesn't seem to be mirrored by other participants (again, that I've noticed).

3/ There is the matter of the entire rest of JulyFlame's summary. Without access to the original data I can't comment on the specifics, but I trust JulyFlame to be truthful. And someone who sockpuppets, flames (my word, not hers) and currently writes Mary-Sues is not someone who should be writing PPC missions - regardless of conduct on the Board.

So, two - no, three final points.

1/ Everything I have said above is my opinion and perception of the situation. I may be wrong. I may be mistaken.

2/ I would like to invite Jacer to involve her(? sorry, no one can agree...)self in the PPC community and give people a more positive opinion of him(? hah, changed it around)self by his(?) conduct and presentation.

3/ I'm going to quote my wife, from a post she made about a Board crisis waaaay back in 2003 (the Thalia Incident, specifically):

I've been a regular at the PPC board for a fair few months, not long compared to some people, but a while, and this is the only time I have ever seen flames, except by trolls. Even when there are trolls, we rarely actually flame. The only time I have ever seen regulars get really upset at other regulars, or other 'names'.

*sadly* O, shiny happy PPC board, what have they done to you?

But really, the board has been different lately. It's not just these cute little flames, it's something I've been noticing for a while. We're more likely to correct each other's grammar, and in an annoyed tone, or to get upset during debates. I've been afraid something like this was going to happen, and now . . .

EDIT: Okay. The fighting has calmed, but I have one more thing (just one, I promise) to point out.

hS signed a post to margin, hS, who is hoping not to get an angry response.

-_- No one should feel like that on the board--no one ever has, to the best of my knowledge, before this. The PPC board was/is a sanctuary, and I pray that it stays that way.

I'd been there maybe two months and she thought I shouldn't have to worry about being put down for my opinions. The best part is? I didn't get angry responses. So let's keep the conversation calm here in the future(TM), too.

hS... who is hoping not to get an angry response

This exactly. by VixenMage on 2012-07-17 00:39:00 UTC Reply

I agree with JulyFlame's decision, entirely.

I also agree that "No, we are not giving you permission to add to the PPC continuum" is not equivalent to "No, you are not allowed in the PPC ever again," and the former is correct, while the latter is not. Second chances, because where would any one of us be without them?

A theme that's been brought up here before is growth, and maturity - as writers and as people - and how part of our purpose is to help each other grow and mature. The PPC, I think, is a good place to do that, and a good bunch of people to do it with. It'd be cool to see that continue to be the case.
I'm sorry, but I have to add something. by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-16 17:48:00 UTC Reply

I do not feel safe with Jacer around.

This is for a few reasons, the aforementioned thread being one of them. Another one being an event that happened quite some time later, shortly after I had returned from a brief hiatus.

I'm not going to go into much detail about what happened, because I was really not in a good place when this whole thing went down and I would kind of not like to go back to that.

Jacer made a reply to a thread on the Board on her FFN account (said thread being about Coming Out Day). I found this through a permission request she made around the same time. Several back and forth messages ensued. Throughout the whole thing, it felt like Jacer was belittling those involved for disagreeing with her position. This wound up being a... trigger for the "not a good place" bit I was talking about.

In short, I do not feel comfortable with Jacer's behaviour, nor do I feel safe with her on the Board.
The rest of July's post by Phobos on 2012-07-16 16:47:00 UTC Reply

I am currently working on a post (and have been for the last few hours) giving the context that you are missing. You are right that the situation isn't as simple as it came off in the summary.

Thank you, also, for the bit about not needing to worry about being ridiculed for politely saying that someone deserves a second chance. I cover that in my post, but it can't be said enough, I think.

-Phobos, who is not actually sure if Anne Nonymous is a screen name or a clever use of anonymous.

Okay, I didn't have all the context here and I'm sorry. by Anne Nonymous on 2012-07-16 17:18:00 UTC Reply

Okay. I'm sorry for just saying that without all the context; it *does* sound like this person is not ready to be writing missions.

I just know I have said some things I regretted online, and if my character was to be judged by them, you'd think I was an immature, angry person who has no business writing for the PPC. So... I'm prone to err on the side of mercy, because Dumbledore, I'm not.

Thank you for explaining this. Without the facts, I wasn't entirely sure what was going on, and I know certain PGs can be a bit... harsh. So I just wanted to make sure that justice and mercy were both in the balance here.

Also: Anne Nonymous is a clever use of Anonymous. I didn't quite want to stir up more drama. I know I have a reputation for... butting heads with certain other Boarders, and I didn't want my words to be overshadowed by my screen name.

Fudge, now *I'm* sockpuppeting. Well, I'm done here. Thanks for helping me get what was going on.

D'aww . . . by Kaitlyn on 2012-07-16 16:11:00 UTC Reply

Wasn't I adorably passionate when I was fourteen? Bless my cotton socks . . .

-- Kaitlyn, who avoids reading her years-old blog entries as a general rule. It's safer that way.

*nods sagely* by MAXinsanity (409) on 2012-07-16 03:53:00 UTC Reply

This.
Woah, it can be this harsh? by darklordaakmal on 2012-07-15 07:49:00 UTC Reply

I don't know how serious PPC can get. I kneel before all your professionalism. And sorry for interrupting the judgement.

Harsh may not be the best word. by Tranum on 2012-07-15 21:30:00 UTC Reply

Especially when you weren't there.

For reference, here is the thread that is being referred to: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=199610;article=211150;title=PPC%20Posting%20Board;pagemark=975

Apology to our QUILTBAG members by Miah on 2012-07-17 05:47:00 UTC Reply

on a personal note, want to say that it is not okay to flame people by calling them a disease, a disorder, and/or disgusting. I had basically ignored that discussion from May 2011, and now I wish I hadn't, so I could have told the people hurt by those things that I support them as human beings who should have the same rights as other human beings. I am straight, married with three kids, and a Christian, so I was not a target of that thread, and I am sorry to everyone that I should have spoken up for sooner. I believe you shouldn't be discriminated against and targeted because of your gender or sexuality.

Since I was there during the LGBT spat... by HerrWozzeck on 2012-07-15 17:22:00 UTC Reply

I can tell you with a great amount of certainty that it wasn't pretty. That one spat was enough for me to say to myself "I don't care if his person becomes the next William Shakespeare, I'm still not going to be interested in reading her stuff if that is the attitude she's going to have about other people's opinions".

I don't always agree with July, but I completely believe that she made the right call on this. Further, I also feel she made the right call using the tone she ultimately did: there are some things you can't ignore when putting your foot down, and there are times when people need to be strict.
Well... by desdendelle on 2012-07-15 12:29:00 UTC Reply

I've been linked to... what happened... with Jacer a while back. It wasn't pretty, to say the least, and TBH, that's not someone you want around.
What 'it'? Upholding our integrity? by Fractal Dawn on 2012-07-15 09:35:00 UTC Reply

Just because we don't do what we do for money, but simply for our own enjoyment, does not mean we should be excused from the basics of civil behavior. If anything it means we need to hold ourselves to that standard of our own free will. It's a higher bar, not a lower. July's decision was based on a failure to live up to those standards. Speaking as a long-time lurker, I for one agree with her wholeheartedly.

Treating anyone trying to uphold the community's spirit of integrity with such flippancy is juvenile and disrespectful.

Also, newsflash: We select PGs because we trust their judgment. A PG made one. Don't belittle it.

Ah. So it's fine for you to uphold *your* integrity... by Jacer on 2012-07-16 19:02:00 UTC Reply

...but when I tried to uphold mine I get booted.

It's not that you're standing up for your beliefs, Jacer. by AnnaBee on 2012-07-16 21:11:00 UTC Reply

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how vile it may be. (Note that I am not calling your specific opinion vile.)

What you do not have a right to do is childishly insist that your particular stripe of religion/politics/etc. is the only correct one when people present counter-arguments, without presenting data to back it up.

From what I can see of the thread, that's what you did. And I'm really sorry, but we don't want flame wars in the PPC. You single-handedly started one.

~~~~

On an... unrelated note. I saw some of the things that you posted in the QUILTBAG thread, and... I'd like to try to help you.

I'm bi. I once thought as you do. I.E., that being anything other than hetero/cissexual was something dirty and wrong, to be avoided. I hated myself for having these feelings and wished they'd go away. And then... the girl of my dreams convinced me that I wasn't a bad person for feeling like this.

We've been together for more than a year now, and... I'm happy. I am seriously happier than I ever was when I was being all self-hatred-y.

If you are QUILTBAGish in some way, as you implied, and you're experiencing this... think it over. Pray about it. Find friends that will be supportive.

You can be gay and still be Christian. It does get better, I promise. And the entire Board will be here for you.
*Eyebrow raise* by Maslab on 2012-07-16 20:32:00 UTC Reply

I have to ask if belittling and alienating an entire group of people is really a part of your integrity you're set on upholding.

Re: *Eyebrow raise* by Jacer on 2012-07-16 21:06:00 UTC Reply

There is a difference between saying "You're wrong" and belittling. You don't seem to know that.

Re: *Eyebrow raise* by Maslab on 2012-07-16 22:54:00 UTC Reply

On the contrary, I am very much aware. However, telling someone that what they're doing is a sin is something I very much identify as bullying because of the connotations that come with sin. If you would like me to I can lay out my reasons for such.
Whether there is or not... by Neshomeh on 2012-07-16 21:49:00 UTC Reply

The PPC Constitution has something to say about telling other people they're wrong. It's in the very first rule, in fact. To quote the smallest relevant portion:

"You don’t have to agree with anyone, of course, ... but no telling other people that their opinion is WRONG."

So, saying "You're wrong" and belittling people are the same in that neither one is allowed in the PPC.

~Neshomeh

One small point. by Huinesoron on 2012-07-17 05:06:00 UTC Reply

While Jacer most certainly did exactly that (telling people they're wrong) in the thread last May - so did many other people in reply to her. None of them were called on it in that time and place, and many of them were before she'd started saying it.

As I said above, there are quite a number of factors that make her actions more understandable - but without excusing them.

hS

That last is important. by Neshomeh on 2012-07-17 17:02:00 UTC Reply

Part of my issue with all this has to do with logical fallacies. In this case, just because somebody else last year got away with the same bad behavior doesn't mean that behavior is okay right now, or that we should excuse anyone for it right now, which is the impression I'm getting from Jacer: "How dare you accuse me of bad behavior, because those people did the same thing." That's not actually a relevant argument. While we should perhaps be talking to those people at some point, too, they aren't the ones asking for Permission in this thread, so their behavior doesn't bear on the discussion at all. Bringing them up is, consciously or not, just an attempt to distract us from the actual topic of discussion, which is Jacer's behavior. That's the fallacy.

Anyway... if it were just about one thread that got out of hand last year, I guess I'd be more in favor of lenience, but it isn't. If nothing else, we're seeing a repeat of some of the same issues just in this thread: when confronted with disapproval, Jacer goes "Why are you telling me this? You can't blame me, because I can't be wrong, because I don't agree with you that there's a problem. Look at those other people instead; their behavior is bad." Lots of shifting the blame and refusing to take responsibility for her words and/or actions. Without an intent to change, there can't really be a second chance, however much we'd like to offer one.

~Neshomeh
I'm sorry. by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-17 14:30:00 UTC Reply

You don't seem to get it. At all.

Jacer has hurt people.

The time to be reasonable about this passed roughly halfway through the LGBT thread. That was the point where we should have stepped up and made it clear that she was not welcome.

Instead, we gave her a second chance.

She messed that up too.

We still have allowed her to stay.

This should not have happened. Do you remember DoctorHello? I seem to recall getting rid of them fairly quickly after they offended and scared a number of people. What's so different about Jacer?

I have called the PPC my home for a year now. Right now? I'm honestly not sure I'm comfortable with doing that. We have allowed somebody like Jacer, who has hurt and offended so many people, to stay. And then?

One of our most respected members just seems to... brush it off. Brush off that people have been offended. Brush off that people have been hurt. Brush off that she has continued to do this.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being irrational. But you know what? I'm not a robot.

You want me to be rational about this? You come back and tell me that next time you've put a noose around your neck for dealing with people like her and the shit they do for your entire life.

I do not feel comfortable or safe in the PPC with Jacer around, nor do I feel comfortable or safe with your response to her.

I apologise if I seem to be brushing anything off. by Huinesoron on 2012-07-17 17:30:00 UTC Reply

As I have stated several times, I'm working solely from the information available to me. That information has not - until you posted this - contained any intimation that Jacer had caused any more problems since May of last year. I was not aware that 'she has continued to do this'. As I have also said, I know nothing about Jacer other than what I'm being told here.

(No, sorry, you had already mentioned it in passing. I missed that. I apologise)

The fact that there have been further incidents - major or not - puts a completely different spin on things. Of course it does. Someone who did something once is a completely different case to someone who keeps doing things.

So, again: I'm sorry for appearing to brush things off. I was working from less information than you. I'm sorry.

hS

An addendum to this. by Huinesoron on 2012-07-19 14:20:00 UTC Reply

With the information I now have, that there have been further incidents following the only one mentioned when I made my original post, I would say this:

Someone who has ignored repeated requests to stop doing something offensive - has responded, as seems to be the case, with objections that they were being mistreated by being asked to stop - isn't trying to be an active part of the community any more. They're simply trolling - regardless of how long lies between those incidents. And the PPC does not tolerate trolls. She should leave - as I suspect she has done.

hS

(PS: If you're wondering about the timelapse here - yeah, I was too upset at the responses made in various parts of this thread to post something useful. Now I've calmed down a little. ~hS)

I am about to say a suckitudinous thing. But read this. by AnnaBee on 2012-07-17 14:55:00 UTC Reply

Before I say the sucky thing: I am really really sorry that you felt the need to resort to suicide because of people like that. *hugs* I hope things get better for you. Hate sucks.

...If you ever need to talk, I'm here. Sciencefair200@gmail.com. Email me and I'll listen.

And a quick caveat: I do not agree with Jacer. In any capacity. At all, whatsoever. I am bi and I am agnostic leaning towards atheist, I think Jacer is wrong at best and her opinions, at worst, are dangerous, and I've been on the recieving end of some flak from people like that, too.

Here is the sucky thing: she's not the people who hated you. She's not making the Board unsafe.

I realize that's a hard distinction to make. I mean, she's saying the same kinds of things as they did. But she's a person on the internet. If you don't like what she has to say, you don't have to read it.

It hurts, I know. But the entire Board isn't like that. Most of us love ya (in a completely platonic way, bro/sis, honest) and we just want the best for you.

If you feel like you have to leave 'cos of this, I get it. I'd flee anything that reminded me of something that... awful. But. But but but. We are here for you. No matter what.

*Hugs again*

... No. (NSFW language) by Lilac Lielac on 2012-07-17 17:07:00 UTC Reply

Basically, what Tray said. Triggers do not care that Jacer is 'only' words on a page. Triggers do not care that 'all' Jacer is doing is typing words that happen to form into a pattern that can be deciphered into phonemes that coalesce into words that connect into sentences that are understood to mean "Gays are mentally ill, trans* are mentally ill, they're wrong and against the natural order and will suffer for eternity after they die". Triggers are a reaction to memories that those words bring up, and since Jacer does not say in her subject line "Oh yes I'm saying things that could trigger those who have been bullied for being gay" no one can know that they could be triggered until they are triggered. And by then? By then it's too ...ing late.

I define a trigger, from what I know of them, as when the natural fear/disgust/discomfort with something unpleasant gets to such a point that the triggered person becomes very much unable to function when confronted with the unpleasant material. It brings up thoughts, it brings up memories, that have incredibly powerful and unpleasant emotions attached, and those emotions are overwhelming. If these things aren't warned for? If these things are wherever? They cannot be avoided.

Triggers don't listen to logic, either. Take Jacer. Jacer has said some pretty vile things. Jacer, to those who have read her posts where she posts said pretty vile things, has become associated with pretty vile things. Even if you don't look at what she says, glancing down the board to see the latest posts will find her name if she has posted, and the memories associated with her name are triggering. That is how she makes the Board unsafe, at least in my mind. That and the possibility of her replying to a perfectly safe thread and spoiling the whole thing, because she's a rotten apple, and rot spreads. Everything else is tainted with the unpleasantness, and if the PPC Posting Board is associated with unpleasantness in someone's mind then they will find somewhere not associated with unpleasantness.

Right. Hopefully I haven't put words in anyone's mouth.

Okay, enough's enough. by Neshomeh on 2012-07-17 17:44:00 UTC Reply

Since I'm determined to uphold my own personal integrity here, I've got to tell you to knock it off with the personal insults now. Maybe my sensitivity is increased at the moment, but "she's a rotten apple" seems pretty insulting, given the implication that the very cells that make her up are unsound. Like I said to Tray, please try to contain yourself. You're not helping by descending to this level.

Mayhap this string of comments had better be left alone from now on?

~Neshomeh

I apologize. by Lilac Lielac on 2012-07-17 17:49:00 UTC Reply

I overstepped with that metaphor, and will work to word my thoughts in a way that avoids fallacies. Thank you for pointing out my error.

I also agree entirely on leaving this thread to fall off the front page, and will shut up about this topic now. (I might even see if I can find some cheerful substance to make a new thread about, help this on its way...)

It'd be nice if it worked like that. by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-17 15:09:00 UTC Reply

But it doesn't. At all.

Y'see, there are these things. They are called "triggers". Things that set you off due to past traumatic.

Homophobia of this calibre and how it was presented by Jacer was one of those things for me.

See, just because it's words on the internet that I can choose whether to ignore or not doesn't mean it's not a trigger. It does not make it any better. It does not make it safe.

And you know what? When I think somebody is wrong, I'm going to tell them. I am not going to stand by and let somebody ruin the one place I have ever felt safe and accepted.

So, no.

She is one of the ones who hurt me. She is making the board unsafe. And no, I am not going to ignore that.

You're not helping. by Neshomeh on 2012-07-17 17:32:00 UTC Reply

Specifically, "And you know what? When I think somebody is wrong, I'm going to tell them."

If what you mean by that is "I can tell people their opinions are WRONG if I want to," then I'm going to point you at the PPC Constitution, too, and tell you "No, not here you can't." The fact that you were hurt in the past doesn't give you the right to be disrespectful, and it doesn't give you immunity from the rules. You're still responsible for your own words and actions.

I understand you have strong feelings about this, but try to corral them so you don't inadvertently end up supporting the side you're opposing.

~Neshomeh, advocating personal responsibility for all parties.

Can't tell people their opinions are wrong? by Artell on 2012-07-17 19:57:00 UTC Reply

First off, I feel your post shows an uncharacteristic lack of tact. If you had a problem with Tray, I think it would have been prudent to take it up in private when things have cooled down first. I think Tray would deserve at least that.

Second off, article 2!

'It’s one thing to say "I don’t agree with your opinion" to a person, but entirely inappropriate to say "You’re such a flipping idiot for thinking that, you flipping moron!”'

I will have no qualms about calling a bigot a bigot, and saying their opinions are wrong, wrong and WRONG. I don't care about the Constitution, even if it explicitly barred that, because then the Constitution too would be wrong, wrong, wrong! Not all opinions are equal. This pretense has already killed off the political discourse of an entire country.

I am aghast that we are having such a hard time doing what should amount to a simple "You are wrong, you are a hateful person, and you do not belong here." July's original response was fine, and it should have been left at that, and Jacer and her sockpuppets should have been flailing in the silent wilderness.

But somehow we're at each other's throats, because there's some kind of moral high horse competition going on, where people are tripping over each other to get to be the John Adams for this Boston Massacre. Except this isn't the Boston Massacre; there are no two sides to this coin; there is no grey area; there's just a bigot.

If we tolerate intolerance, tolerance will be destroyed. Paraphrasing Karl Popper.

May I defend myself, or will that just make it worse? by Neshomeh on 2012-07-18 13:53:00 UTC Reply

For now, I'll just say that I will accept if you'd all prefer to be angry at me. I regret what happened, and it was not a result I anticipated or wanted.

~Neshomeh

You don't need my permission. by Artell on 2012-07-18 16:33:00 UTC Reply

I am not angry with you, and my intent was not to attack you or orchestrate one against you. My argument is laid out in my post.

And I did assume you didn't mean for this to be the result. We all have lapses of judgement.

To clarify... by Neshomeh on 2012-07-18 17:24:00 UTC Reply

What I mean is, are the people down here in this bit of thread still interested in my side, or have I been so firmly marked as "defending Jacer" that defending myself will count as defending her, too. I think there's been a massive misunderstanding on that point, so I'd like to be told there's some hope of sorting it out.

~Neshomeh

Re: To clarify... by Maslab on 2012-07-18 17:55:00 UTC Reply

As far as I'm concerned, no, defending yourself will not be seen as defending Jacer. I am highly disappointed in you, but I can understand that. As July already pointed out, it seems you just fell into the same trap that a few other members of the community did.

Correction to my own post: by Artell on 2012-07-17 20:38:00 UTC Reply

Yes, Article 1 does indeed state that:

"You don’t have to agree with anyone, of course, and stating your own opinion is encouraged, but no telling other people that their opinion is WRONG."

I guess I'll have to join Tray and leave, because I will not abstain from calling out a homophobe. I think this narrow interpretation ignores the spirit of the entire Constitution, though, which is meant to be inclusive and protect the PPCers from insults and wrongdoing, and also to be mature.

I consider myself a mature person with a brain, and I won't smile and nod if people spout opinions that are truly and utterly wrong. Mind you I would only reserve this for the most odious kinds of wrong.

Well, this is it. by Astral Void on 2012-07-18 03:46:00 UTC Reply

I stayed out of this mainly because I was painfully aware that if I tried entering the discussion, I'd say the wrong thing and make things worse. I didn't have the full facts, I knew nothing about Jacer, and I didn't feel that jumping in would do anything good- not to mention, I know mine is not exactly a voice that carries weight here. I'm not good at situations like this, especially ones that escalate.

But having read all of this, I've come to a decision: I too will have to leave, because people here are defending a rampant bigot and denying others their right to tell someone 'Your opinion hurts me and I don't want it here because it makes me feel unsafe'.

If this is not remedied, how can I stay? How can I possibly remain in a place where I can't defend myself, my orientation and everyone else who supports, shares and has similar orientations against a homophobe- or against anyone else with a similarly terrible opinion? How can I stay in a place that would give Jacer another chance after she hurt Tray so much?

It's been nice, but I guess it's over now.
All I have to say about this (NSFW language) by HerrWozzeck on 2012-07-18 01:43:00 UTC Reply

...really, hS? Really, VM? Really, Nesh?

Really, guys?

I can barely tell you how utterly dismayed this makes me. Honestly, I thought all three of you were better than this.

At the risk of sounding self-centered, I need to allude to something that happened in the IRC rather recently. And I need to allude to it, because it's a part of what frankly pisses me off about this.

To put it simply, July yelled at me for setting off and not shutting up about a trigger of hers relating to certain acts that will not be mentioned here. She used her right to tell me off with fairly harsh language, to the point where she basically told me 'you don't have the right to comment on X'.

And frankly? In hindsight I'd have to agree with her. Someone told me that I made them feel used during that conversation. I'll not get into specifics here, but... well, if you're feeling used, then that speaks to some kind of being really emotionally hurt, and it's hard to stay rational in a situation like that. This is especially so, since I was also being an uncaring, self-centered, and entirely arrogant douchebag when other people started calling me out on it. I should not have acted the way I did when they were telling me 'drop it, you're triggering stuff', and I definitely shouldn't have brought up the trigger in the first place. Thinking about my behavior now makes me sick, and if I could take back my behavior then I would do it in a heartbeat.

And barely two months after that incident, people are telling a person who is using their god-given right to call people out on their shit not to use that god-given right to call people out when they say things that actually hurt them?

*facepalm*

Because really, what else can I say to that?

I still think July did the right thing. And seeing Jacer's reply to July's post only convinces me further that July made the right call. And now, here's the part where I get brutally honest with certain people:

Jacer, I think you should've left the PPC a long time ago. Frankly, after that thread, I wouldn't have cared if Jay Thorntree and Acacia Byrd themselves gave you permission: I would never have read any of your missions, I would never have agreed to cowrite with you, and I would have refused to have anything to do with you. The things you were saying were that vile. I see you haven't changed one bit since the LGBT thread, since you're still pulling the victim card and still being a bitch about that kind of thing. In other words, I have never liked you. And now, hearing that you had hurt Tray-Gnome in the way you did makes that so much worse. And that seals the deal for me: you have ensured I am never going to like you in any sense of the word ever. I don't care if you cure cancer: I'm never going to like you. You've essentially ruined any chance at likability you might've had, at least from me. And from me, that says a lot.

And frankly, I don't want to be part of any organization in which Jacer's behavior is condoned in any way. My two month sabbatical from writing PPC missions and hanging out on the IRC was meant for me to figure out how I could improve myself for the community exactly because I didn't want to keep doing the same things Jacer here continues to do. It's a shame, then, that I'm extending it to a permanent sabbatical because the PPC has allowed someone like Jacer to stay.

It's been a good run with the Protectors of the Plot Continuum, but this is where it ends for me.
I will leave as well, if it comes down to it. (nm) by JulyFlame on 2012-07-18 00:08:00 UTC Reply
Speaking up, because I really feel I have to. by Cassie on 2012-07-17 23:21:00 UTC Reply

I've been watching this thread explode. And I've avoided saying anything for the most part, because I hate getting caught up in fights, especially on the Board. And my voice does not ring loud in any discussion, I'm quite aware of that, when other more respected and vociferous people are speaking.

But I've read all the stuff that's been said, and I am stunned that PPCers are standing up for Jacer, and defending her. This has clearly alienated a large number of Boarders already, and quite frankly I'm ashamed that people I respected are not respecting clear, strong feelings of others.

If this can't be resolved - preferably with some kind of safeguard for people not to be humiliated and driven to suicide because of their beliefs - I don't think I'll be sticking around. I was driven to the brink of suicide four years ago, and I know how terrible it feels to be mocked and shamed to that point.

And this rips me up, because the PPC made my life a lot better, and saying goodbye will be pretty damn devastating. I hope it won't come to that.

Please, guys, listen to what you are being told.

Agreement by Rilwen Shadowflame on 2012-07-18 09:29:00 UTC Reply

I agree.
The geek social fallacies make people think that you cannot tell someone off for their opinions, no matter how hurtful those opinions are.

And there are people who present "You're not tolerating my intolerance! You're the intolerant ones!" as though that's any kind of reasonable argument.
It isn't.

This kind of thing goes beyond 'hey, we should be nice here.' This place can't let itself become a place that allows that kind of bigotry to flourish in people using our name.

If it's not 'nice' to say so, so be it. I'm a whole lot more concerned with doing the right thing by people who are discriminated against and often treated badly than I am with being nice to someone perpetuating bigotry against them.
Aye by Maslab on 2012-07-17 23:47:00 UTC Reply

It really does show that there is a gross problem in the system when a bigot such as Jacer is defended by people. Not just that, but when someone calls them out on it, they are smacked down. It is only worse when the person doing the calling out has been hurt by that person, driven to the brink of suicide by their words, even moreso when they gain the courage to stand up and shout back.

Therefore, I'm with Cassie and Artell as well. I don't think I'll be sticking around if this is what is allowed.

Yes... by Rilwen Shadowflame on 2012-07-18 09:43:00 UTC Reply

TW: Violent analogy

Telling someone to be nice only goes so far. If that policy of 'be nice' extends into helping to silence the victims of a bigot, it has been taken too far. It has been twisted around into a hollow shell of niceness, ignoring the actual point of 'being nice.'
It is akin to watching someone be stabbed, and telling them that their shouting for help, yelling that they are bleeding, is being a bit too loud - the other person wasn't loud, so they must be in the right!

Speaking up, buecause I really feel I have to. by Cassie on 2012-07-17 23:20:00 UTC Reply

I've been watching this thread explode. And I've avoided saying anything for the most part, because I hate getting caught up in fights, especially on the Board. And my voice does not ring loud in any discussion, I'm quite aware of that, when other more respected and vociferous people are speaking.

But I've read all the stuff that's been said, and I am stunned that PPCers are standing up for Jacer, and defending her. This has clearly alienated a large number of Boarders already, and quite frankly I'm ashamed that people I respected are not respecting clear, strong feelings of others.

If this can't be resolved - preferably with some kind of safeguard for people not to be humiliated and driven to suicide because of their beliefs - I don't think I'll be sticking around. I was driven to the brink of suicide four years ago, and I know how terrible it feels to be mocked and shamed to that point.

And this rips me up, because the PPC made my life a lot better, and saying goodbye will be pretty damn devastating. I hope it won't come to that.

Please, guys, listen to what you are being told.

This was inappropriate. by JulyFlame on 2012-07-17 18:49:00 UTC Reply

Whether you like it or not, you just fell for the same thing as hS, VM, and AnnaBee. You noted outright the logical fallacy in a previous post. "Bringing them up is, consciously or not, just an attempt to distract us from the actual topic of discussion, which is Jacer's behavior. That's the fallacy." Talking to someone about their behavior at some point does not mean chastising about it in public, and certainly not after they've exposed themselves and have made it clear they do not feel safe. Tray has attempted to kill himself because of Jacer. He has alluded to this in this very thread.

Behaving in the 'right manner' only goes so far and can only be maintained so far, especially when the other person makes you feel cornered. If at any point he should be talked to about his behavior, it is not anytime right now with relation to this thread in public.
... by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-17 17:36:00 UTC Reply

So. The one time in my life I stand up for myself. For anything. I'm not allowed to do so.

... this.

... the constitution.

... all of you.

I'm leaving.

I am so, so sorry. by AnnaBee on 2012-07-17 20:34:00 UTC Reply

Tray- I am really sorry. I know that won't make it better at all but I am really really really sorry.

... I didn't know. I wish I had or I wouldn't have said any of the things I'd said.

Please, forgive me.

I'm really sorry. by AnnaBee on 2012-07-17 15:13:00 UTC Reply

...Truly, I am. I don't know what you've been through, I don't know what you're up against, and I. Am. Sorry.

*hugs*

...Okay. Well. Is there anything I can do to help? I can try to auspistice between you two as much as I can.

And just so's you know, we all are standing by you.

You are kind of missing the point. by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-17 15:29:00 UTC Reply

While your sympathy is appreciated, it's not what I'm saying this for.

...I understand. (TRIGGER WARNING: CHILD ABUSE.) by AnnaBee on 2012-07-17 15:37:00 UTC Reply

The problem is...

...I completely get where you're coming from. I get that it's a trigger for you. But what you're saying might be hideously offensive to somone who, say, was molested by someone of the same gender when they were a kid, and can't see for the life of them that All Gay People Aren't Rapist Pedophiles. It might be a trigger for them to even hear about gay people getting married. Would it be fair for them to say that you're not allowed to talk about gay people or be gay, because gayness is a trigger for them?

In order for people to have free speech, you have to allow people to say WHATEVER THEY WANT. And sometimes that means letting them say really terrible things. But truth will win out in the end, okay? Keep your chin up.

Jacer seems to have vanished anyway (knock on wood!) so this might be a moot point.

No. You really don't. by Tray-Gnome on 2012-07-17 15:53:00 UTC Reply

See.

I was "molested by someone of the same gender when I was a kid".

It doesn't work like that.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Drop it. Now.

Dropping it now. by AnnaBee on 2012-07-17 15:56:00 UTC Reply

I am very very sorry. I did not mean to bring that up.

Dropping. RIGHT now.

~~~

.... I wish there was something I could do to help. I guess all I can give you is my good wishes for the future.

Saying "Your're wrong"... by SeaTurtle on 2012-07-16 21:37:00 UTC Reply

...implies you have the higher ground and are backed by something (preferably by the Law).

You can say you disagree with the other's position in matters like this, but never, never say that the other is in the wrong.

Sometimes, yeah. by Techno-Dann on 2012-07-15 09:33:00 UTC Reply

I don't think anyone likes it when it gets this way, but yeah. At the end of the day, permission means that we're giving someone license to say "I am the PPC!" - we're a little bit careful about that one, because it casts a shadow on all PPCers, past, present, and future.