The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

(And it is pronounced like "void")

I totally get the thing about not existing - you'd not believe the number of things I see that don't exist, and/or legally can't be said to. It's wild.

Hang on, there's like a... whaddaya call a door when it's not really a door, but just a transition in a featureless plain? One of those. Eh... weird Star Wars wallpaper, boring emails, some kiiiinda interesting stuff going on in a couple of drafts... looks like it's another one of you people with ridiculous names. 'Huinesoron'? Sounds like something you should take to the doctor!

;o

((Touche. ~hS))

Because of the way threading works on this forum. {= D

Point is, I don't need to touch you (this ain't the Shipfest). Unless Stan Lee or whoever actually controls content at Marvel acknowledges the PPC as a thing, we don't exist and therefore you can't know about us. Canonically, anyway. Random RPs are another matter. Say, do you know who's writing you at the moment?

~Neshomeh

I'm not aside, I'm below. And if you think you can ignore me, you've got another thingk coming: I'm in the code, watching everything you do. I'm like Neo, if Neo was way cooler and also trapped in an infinite white plain.

... which, come to think of it, makes me a lot like Neo in that scene with all the guns. You know the one. Right before they go and murder everyone.

So the takeaway here is twofold: one, Neo is almost as cool as me, and two, I'm in the Matrix and you can't touch me. Your bullets will do that awesome thing where they stop like they hit a wall of Jello or something.

:D

My take on these questions of "but X character is omniscient" is always that they're only omniscient about their own canon. The PPC is not part of any canon (unless an author someday makes it so), therefore knowledge of it will vanish when the canon reasserts itself.

OTOH, Deadpool might get a pass purely because it could kinda hilarious for him to randomly pop up in HQ and/or the Board whenever he feels like it. Kinda like how Gaspode the Wonder Dog knows about the PPC, because dogs can't talk, duh, and no one would ever believe him anyway. Rule of Funny. {= )

~Neshomeh

Thanks for dumping me here, uh... 'Voyd'. How do you even pronounce that? Is it the same as Void? Or is it like 'Vo-YUD'? Can I call myself Dydpool? No, that's terrible, forget it.

Right, so I've no idea what you're talking about; I'm kinda trapped in a mostly-infinite white plain right now, and it feels like I'm... texting? Or something? OH wait, I'm on the Internet, aren't I? HI MOM!

Yeah, basically, you already brought me here, so that ship? Sailed. That horse? Bolted. That rat? ... nah, you probably wouldn't appreciate that metaphor. End result, that fourth wall? Broken. I know about the PPC now.

Whatever the PPC is.

;)

First, I appreciate you calmly and rationally explaining your side of the story. I choose to believe you're telling the truth, and I sympathize.

But I'd sympathize more if you hadn't said this:

"simply because it might possibly maybe cause someone at some point to poke fun at that person"

I happen to agree with a lot of what you said in point 4, but that right there is far too flippant. To understand the reasoning, try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who's been shamed and possibly abused for their feelings and/or identity their whole life, and imagine what they must expect to happen any time they dare to be open about them. Then imagine how it would seem for someone they don't know and don't trust to demand that they be open at a time they're not prepared for it.

There's a big difference between encouraging your girlfriend, who presumably has rational reasons to trust you that she can use to counter her fears, and badgering someone you barely know online. The stakes, even if you don't believe they're the same as violence, are still loads higher than just "poking fun." That's a completely unfair minimization of other people's experience. Please apologize.

~Neshomeh

So... I have a question.

Has anybody here written a PPC mission involving Deadpool?

Because, uh... I just came to a rather interesting realization.

If anybody ever interacts with him, he's going to know about the PPC.

See, he's fourth-wall-aware, and would probably know he's in a fanfic, and if the Words let go of him for a moment, he'll know it's dumb but he'll probably still play along.

Now here's the problem: sure, he can be neuralyzed... but it's not a permanent solution, since he could simply read the Words of the MISSION to get back up to speed. For example...

--

[X agent] put the neuralyzer away. "Deadpool, you have never met anyone named Mary Sue, nor do you remember my partner or myself. This has all been a strange dream, but not one worth remembering."

Deadpool stared blankly at [X] for a moment, before seeming to realize something. "Oh, this is the part where I'm supposed to nod dumbly and mill about like one of those sheep from Men in Black, right? I mean, that's a neuralyzer, so..."

Honestly, I will admit that you tend to badger people. OTOH, that's not a crime. And the issue of whether or not it was made clear to you that you should stop was one I raised with the mods. At the time, I eventually sided with them, but... I'm having second thoughts. I dunno. I will continue to reserve judgement on whether you should be unbanned or anything, because I genuinely am not sure, but there are some things I wanted to say.

Namely this:

Grimal, do I think that some of your actions were inappropriate or wrong? Yes. Absolutely. I'm not sure they warranted a ban (as I said, I'm abstaining from that), but I don't believe you were perfect.

Do I feel that the mods would have been more forgiving of your, deliberately or no (I genuinely think the mods are trying to do their best, and I do applaud them, despite what I'm about to say), if you were more politically aligned with them? Yes. Absolutely.

I believe it was Nova who said that if Grimal should be banned, he isn't the only one. I concur. There are others who have committed acts I feel are similar. (with the caveat that I never read #heavy_stuff. So I cannot speak for what went on there, only the act that, allegedly, actually got Grimal banned).

It was some time ago, long enough that I'm not willing to submit it as any more then an anecdote, as I fear my emotions may have amplified it, but on the first night in the Discord, another member gave me what felt very much like a third degree over a philosophical disagreement. Had it not been for some private discussions with several other members, there is a possibility that I would have left, for fear that I would be unwelcome for my opinions. Thankfully, this turned out not to be the case. Again, it felt like a third degree, but it may not have been that extreme, I was a skittish newbie at the time and this was more than half a year ago at this point. Don't take this as evidence of wrongdoing, more as an indication that some of the more strongly political characters on the discord are more than capable of scaring people off.

In any case, from my perspective, the mods have been less willing to go after both longstanding community members and those who agree with them for violation of community standards. I don't think this is deliberate: I think it's just simple bias of the sort that is present in every human being on earth. But it is not helped by the fact that moderator power is centralized in very few hands: PoorCynic is rarely online, so most of the time, our moderators consist of two occupants of a single house in a single city, who tend to agree with one another a lot.

In effect, we do not have a council, as the board does. We have a pair of benevolent dictators. Dictators who are trying very hard to get it right, but dictators all the same. And not necessarily ones who always represent the will of the community as a whole (although it is hard to say for sure): I know for a fact that I was not the only one who questioned Grimal's ban.

Before we go any further, I would once again like to emphasize that I don't hate the mods. I don't think they're evil. In fact, again, I feel they are doing a largely admirable job. But they're just two people often of one mind. That's not their fault, but I feel it can create problems, contrasting with the larger pool of administrators we have on the board—especially in light of the fact that any regular member will be afraid to challenge someone who can get them banned, even if they think that person is wrong about something.

Finally, I do want to address one thing here that I definitely think was wrong. Perhaps the only thing that I can entirely say was so. That thing is that Grimal was not really given a reason for his ban. That is absolutely a problem. Everyone at least deserves to at least know why they were banned, and I suggest we adopt a policy about this in the future. Regardless of whether or not it was just, his ban felt abrupt, unfair, and arbitrary, even from the perspective of other members. Had I not had an extensive conversation with a mod afterwards, I would still summarize their reasoning—even AFTER the explanation Grimal didn't get—as "they were tired and he was annoying."

So better explanation of mod actions, both to the people they are acting on and to the rest of the members, need to be a thing, so that we can understand an action is just, and also because (and this part may not be necessary at present—I still believe that are mods are generally pretty good mods) it leads to better moderation: having to write a statement of reasoning forces you to think harder about a ban, and if you can't write one, the ban may not, in fact, be just.

I'm honestly surprised no one else joined you in objecting to our conclusion. I do still appreciate that you did it, but at some point, you have to consider that being the lone voice crying in the wilderness doesn't make you the only sane man, but the only one who hasn't realized there's a great place to camp over the next hill.

More honesty: I wasn't totally comfortable with DJ rebanning the IP before more people had spoken up. However, there have been a number of times in recent (and not so recent) years where the PPC has been accused of not acting quickly enough to deal with problems. That's why I was not terribly inclined to complain about it.

Now, having stumbled on the same information as hS, my certainty that this was the right move is at 100%. We are in no way, shape, or form obligated or equipped to handle this person. It's not safe for anyone, perhaps especially including her, which I'll point out is the same conclusion we reached each time she was banned before. This feeling isn't new, but confirmed repeatedly though a great deal of experience. Even if Mythcreant were a friend and not Zdimensia herself, I believe she would be doing her "friend" a severe disservice by continuing any association between her and us.

~Neshomeh

But fine. Will do.

hS

I think this is the post I will try to answer the majority of questions on since I am still having a lot of trouble navigating the board itself, being unfamiliar with yourwebapps myself.

1. To address the cries of "it sends up red flags that he didn't post on the board": I did mention this in my original post that my main reason for not wanting to was that I find the structure of it archaic and hard to navigate and use. It's also relatively difficult to have a conversation over it in my opinion, and I would rather have live dialogue with people. I don't think that's a crime. I am still honestly having trouble navigating. Should I perhaps hav made a post on the board before getting too into the discord? Maybe, but honestly it just seemed like an unnecessary pleasantry that probably would not have changed people's opinions of me too much anyway. Maybe that's wrong, but even so.

2. To address Delta's issue of my pronoun usage in my original post: It's just how I speak and there is no offense meant towards you. I advise against looking for hidden slights in everything a person might say.

3. To address the "He was actually told to stop the discussion: The problem I have is that the discussion I intended to have on "What does Delta define prejudice as" was taken to a different channel and was intended to be a separate discussion than the one I was instructed to stop having, which if I recall correctly was the one on multiplicity (again, it's been a few weeks, so forgive me if I'm misremembering) which I did stop having once i was instructed to stop having it.
Its intent was to sort of understand Delta's frame of mind a little better, since I was having trouble doing so in the first place, I think. Now, had Delta said "I don't want to talk about this", that would have been the end of it for me. The issue is that this was never said. What was said were essentially "Go read this book before I talk to you," which is not saying "I don't want to talk about this". It is something I took both as a personal slight -- it is insulting, to me, to insinuate that I could not understand where a person is coming from simply because I have not read a single piece of literature. Regardless, had the words spoken been "I don't want to talk about this", it would have been over right then and there.
For the record, the gun control meme being deleted discussion was actually not something I was a huge part of, if I recall correctly, and while I was fairly confused as to why it was deleted without warning or mention I decided it would probably be best to drop the whole thing.

4. My big issue with the reasoning for the kick that I am only finding out about now is that it makes no sense to me. Not from an "I didn't do this" standpoint, but from a logical and moral one. If asking somebody to explain their viewpoint and getting frustrated when they give non-answers that come off as offensive to me is an act of 'violence' simply because it might possibly maybe cause someone at some point to poke fun at that person, then why should anybody ever open up to another person? If asking somebody who is a minority to explain their reasoning or their thought process is an act of 'violence', this sets a VERY scary precedent. Am I supposed to take everything everyone says only at face value and never try to figure anything out simply because they are not part of the majority? If this is true, then I suppose I am an abusive boyfriend because I ask my girlfriend -- who happens to be a transgender person -- to open up to me so that I may help her when she feels upset and is not always so forthcoming with these things due to past trauma. I cannot express how frightening the concept of 'asking somebody to explain their point of view is an act of violence' is to me. Badgering is annoying, certainly, but as in my point above I would have dropped it immediately had I actually been asked to quit asking Delta these things -- which did not happen.
In short, 'you committed violence against another member by asking them a question and getting frustrated that you weren't getting an answer' is NOT a reason for a kick and very much less so for a ban. That makes absolutely no sense to me from any frame of reference. Had I flipped out and started slinging insults at Delta? Sure. Had I started swearing up a storm and throwing a big hissy-fit? Sure. But geting a little bit frustrated and saying "Hey, telling me to go read a book is not helpful, can you please answer my question" is neither of these things -- and as I said, a simple "I don't want to talk about it" would have very easily been the end of it.

5. For accusations of "they were working together to troll": I honestly don't think the fact that we agreed on some things is reason enough to believe we were in cahoots, and my joining came after finding out about the place from some trawling of fanfiction sites. Admittedly I will say it definitely looks suspicious -- we joined on the same day hours apart, and had a few similar opinions on political issues -- and ultimately I do see why it would be suspicious to the admins. However, I do not believe this is clear and decisive evidence that we were working in tandem in any way. Using the same logic, I could say that the admins were conspiring against me to ban me simply because the two who were largely active during my time in the Discord chat agreed on many topics and were both admins. Of course, I don't believe that, but it seems just as ridiculous to me.

6. Lastly, on the topic of sealioning: Admittedly, I do ask a lot of questions. However, this is generally to gain a better understanding of a person and their position on something, or to clarify something that may have been unclear.

Also, I would like to apologize: I do remember now that the 'demanding an apology for twenty minutes' thing was not Delta but somebody else. My mistake and apologies to Delta for the mistake.

Hey, no worries -- apology accepted, and I hope you continue on with the hobby you enjoy.

... and apparently wants to also know more details on how you found that. Their email is passingtheriver AT gmail DOT com, but I'm assuming you already have it.

Yeah, I bunged that in the Discord a couple of days ago. Must be where I got the idea from. =]

-Given that the last time I said someone appeared to have done something wrong, I was dramatically smacked down, I did not and do not feel it worth my misery to say anything either way. I was extremely dubious about posting the email, even.

-Of the people who you list as responding, four of the nine (including Phobos as Mr. Neshomeh) I can absolutely confirm were already thinking about it. The chat logs show that multiple other people were too.

I get what you're saying. In the two hours between Tomash's post and the conversation falling silent (for the night?) after Delta's block, no-one who didn't feel Mythcreant = Zdimensia said anything. But... look at the timeline again, and show me the dogpile.

-Tomash can't be dogpiling, he said it first.
-Thoth was the first response, that can't be a dogpile.
-Scapegrace was second. I guess being the third post could be dogpiling?
-Mikelus originally responded to tell Scapegrace she was going too far (I think you missed this post, btw - I know I did).
-Then Mikelus addressed Mythcreant's comments about mediation. Dogpile? I don't think so; it's not a 'you should be blocked' post.
-Phobos offered a fourth 'block' vote, which could definitely be dogpiling. He was clearly aware of this, as he specifically asked people not to.
-Neshomeh could be dogpiling; it depends on whether you think the evidence she presents is new or just rephrasing of what's already been said.
-Scapegrace.
-Delta Juliette was acting as a Named Nameless Admin & Discord Mod. That isn't dogpiling, that's her job.
-Granz was objecting to the block.
-I was acting as a Nameless Admin.
-You definitely weren't dogpiling.

The only people you can reasonably accuse of dogpiling behaviour are Scapegrace and Neshomeh, and it bears repeating that someone (Mikelus) chided Scapegrace at least for that prior to your posting, and someone else (Phobos) acted directly to prevent a dogpile.

'Mythcreant' made this post at 9.02pm. It consists of 'Mythcreant' repeating Zdimensia's own old excuses about why she should never have been banned, repeated in exactly the same way as she presented them. This post is 100% convincing to me that 'Mythcreant' = Zdimensia, and assuming you accept Scapegrace's explanation of her first post, the only people calling for a ban before that second post appeared were Tomash and Thoth. Everyone else had that, plus this and this, to help them make up their minds.

This wasn't a foregone conclusion. 'Mythcreant' was given a chance to respond, and she chose to use it in attempting once again to revoke Zdimensia's ban, in exactly the way Zdimensia always did. The Mythcreant = Zdimensia connection hasn't been drawn because people saw the shared IP and went 'better safe than sorry' - it's been drawn because people looked at the evidence and concluded that they were the same person. In other words, she was 'innocent until proven guilty' - but for the people who posted in the thread, there was enough evidence to prove her guilty.

hS

From memory--this was one of the things Bram said at some point that was seen as problematic. It wasn't about the people who voted for a ban; iirc, it was said before the banning (of Bram; I don't remember the sequence of events, but this may have been before we knew that Bramandin and zdimensia were the same person), and ended up being taken as racist and, I believe, as another reason for the eventual ban. I think Bram's side of the story was that it had actually happened and so mentioning it was telling the truth rather than being racist. Something along those lines. Other PPCers objected to the wording and the way it was brought up, and that it was brought up at all, too, I think.

Mythcreant most likely did mean that Bram had mentioned it as a/the reason for the ban; it would stretch belief for it to have been intended to be about the banners, given the original context (where it was said about people Bram had seen IRL). However, this was not the only reason for the ban. See the relevant threads for more detail if you want it straight from the source. I think the bit Mythcreant referenced was either in one or in close proximity to one (probably the latter), too. It certainly would have been brought up in a banning thread as well, most likely with a link to the original post.

~Z, done for now. Hope that's enough context for clarity; do feel free to check it further in the archives.

But I hadn't looked up sealioning last night. I also still think some reference should have been made to the Constitution before Grimalkinii was kicked.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't of tarred everyone with the same brush. When I said 'nobody' and 'only one person' I should have clarified it more, but in the heat of the moment I never realised quite how it could be taken. What I should have said, and what I meant was that 'nobody who posted in this thread' and 'only one person who posted in this thread' rather than blanketing the rest of the PPC as well. That being said, do you mind if I ask who you felt you would be attacked by? I am aware of the hostility shown towards you by both Zdimensia and Myth, but part of me wonders if that was what you meant. And I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but it is a natural reaction for me, because I was wondering how many people would attack me for my stance with this issue. I was already formulating in my head a post in case I felt so attacked that I had to, either voluntarily or not, leave the PPC. I also feel I should apologise to Ozzielot, for my last post, given their reaction to my first post and how it may of looked when I used the terminology that I did in my previous one.


However if you look at the people who had posted before the email was sent and their responses to this matter then you have Tomash, Thoth, Mikelus, Phobos, Scapegrace, Nesh, Delta and Granz all on the side of "They're Zdimensia, let's ban them now." And no one who posted on any other side. The closest we get to a neutral comment is Thoth saying "Myth, I continue to be skeptical that you aren't Bram," in a follow up post or Granz's complaint about the re-application of the ban in their initial post. Does that not strike you as being overwhelmingly negative, all things considered? Could that not be construed as dogpiling, whether it actually was or not? I think it may. And I think that is how I read it when I was looking at it last night.

I should of thought better of some of my fellow PPCers and I'm sorry I didn't, I hadn't really thought of Mythcreant being a meat-puppet for Zdimensia, or at least I hadn't til you'd posted both of your replies. Before the first one I would have said that at worst Mythcreant was a friend of Zdimensia's who wanted to help their friend out. But now, now I'm not so sure.

Again: my only actions in this incident habe been to unblock the IP - expressly extending that benefit of the doubt - a comment clarifying how this was done, and now posting their own email to me and offering you more information to make your own judgment on. I have not done any of the things you claim, and the fact that you used global language in a post replying to me strongly suggests you feel I have.

I was prepared to believe Mythcreant was a separate person. I did not speak up on this thread for two reasons: first, that I did not want to be attacked for doing so, and second, because Mythcreant's words amd actions were setting off all the Zdimensoa flags before anyone said anything.

It is worth remembering that several of the people you are concerned about were aware of the possibility before Tomash posted. In the interests of transparency: 'Mythcreant' mentioned Tomash in her email, so I emailled Tomash to check if he was aware of the possibility of her being Zdimensia, and whether he had reason to think she wasn't. I received an unsolicited email from Delta Juliette after Mythcreant posted to the Board, expressing the same concern; since that email contained information about events on the Discord, I quoted it (with permission) to Neshomeh, who had previously identified Zdimensia as Makkara.

I do not know who else had already gone through the process of giving her the benefit of the doubt, but being convinced by the weight of evidemce that she was Zdimensia (or acting as what Wikipedia terms a 'meat-puppet' for her, which amounts to the same thing). But you need to be aware that people have indeed done so.

hS

Mostly to make sure we put jokes in the right places and that all of them make sense. Username is clickable, so let me (eatpraylove) know if you're interested :)

I was in the #heavy_stuff room during this debate. I think I convinced myself in that moment that I was being far more even-handed and civil than I actually was. I was angry about all the lives that were lost at Stoneman Douglas, and I directed that anger at you, inappropriately.

I also realize that I failed to tell my fellow PPCers to tone down their words. I knew the discussion was getting out of hand, but again, my anger led me to overlook it and make excuses for it—I'm fairly certain that "better than open aggression" line came from me.

So, Grimalkinii: I'm sorry I contributed to your negative experience in a community I love. And I'm sorry I didn't treat you with the respect you deserve.

I'm so used now to being critical of literature and other media I consume, but it's not as easy to turn a critical eye on live dialogue. I intend, though, to make the effort in the future.

—doctorlit

I hadn't realized the gun control meme discussion (very clearly instructed to drop) and the "what is prejudice" discussion were that closely linked. I'm sorry for not paying more attention to the timestamps. I still think a similarly clear instruction to drop the new question was in order before a kick, and I appreciate that the directions have been clarified.

You've correctly guessed that I wasn't familiar with the term "sealioning" prior to this incident, although I did look it up yesterday. I hesitated to mention it, but I do want to point out that I'm probably not the only one who isn't familiar with all the current terminology and standards in X social justice movement, and frankly, I'm not sure how acceptable it is to ask. That is, I'm pretty sure I could get away with it because you've all known me for ages and have every reason to trust that I really want to know, but what about newbies? The explanation you just gave me is the sort of information I want to be sure people are getting before they're accused of inflicting violence on others.

~Neshomeh

Team:
Luther the Ampharos (can mega evolve)
Fortune the Clefable
Miles the Swampert
Saraabi the Pyroar
Vanessa the Sensu Oricorio
Joseph the Claydol

Reserve: Dalton the Galvantula