The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

You're right, this is very much not a clear-cut case. If it was, the solution would be obvious. Just to reiterate, I don't think Sprinkles is Bad, or An Abuser, or someone who needs to be shunned- I think he's someone who has trouble seeing how his own behavior hits other people.

I also think that the PPC is likely to have more than one person who fits the anonymous victim's profile- wanting to help and with difficulty saying stop. That's why I'm not comfortable with Sprinkles returning- because I'm afraid that this will happen again, just as badly, without either party knowing how to stop it.

This is a multifaceted issue and I don't know if I can really lay all my support onto a single person here.

Not all the parties involved are talking about this. And it is more people like Nesh who weren't present in this should be speaking up, because though this (the lashout from Sprinkles in the main discord) was somewhat of an isolated event, the more people who can talk about it, the more fleshed out and more understood a situation will be.

I do support that this was a mental issue, being that there was a trigger involved! In the moments directly before the lashout Sprinkles was talking about how his biological brother was harassing and threatening him. This is something that can cause trauma, if it happens often.

I'm also assuming that all the other times where he lashed out to his victim that it was also caused by something.

But even if it was caused by something else does it excuse him lashing out to the chat? I mean, given that he had no control over his emotional and mental state I'd say that it does, but there's always the option of not even looking at the chat at all and not communicating. I was a large part in the discussion and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Sprinkles was going on a downswing and from the way he was talking it sounded very similar to the times in which I myself felt like killing myself, and I tried to draw away from that as much as possible. I suppose if I hadn't been there and kept disagreeing with him and attempting to get him to see the brightness of life and the good that the lashout would have been much shorter. Was it wrong of me in that case to step in? Maybe so, maybe not. I don't know how things would have turned out if I hadn't.

But, this was not the only lashout, and this is why I am having trouble forming a solid opinion. There was a singular person, who tried to handle it all. Who took much more of what Sprinkles said and was not equipped to handle it. I don't believe Sprinkles understood what he was doing to the person. I think that based on the reactions that he's mentioned that he was under the impression that things were going ok, because they were helping him, and he was unaware that he had inadvertently become abusive towards them. The person directly contacted me and asked me to help them out with the downswings. I tried to give as best moral support as I could. They asked me to talk to Sprinkles about this so they wouldn't have to deal with it all by themselves. But I took a stance that if I actually tried to talk to Sprinkles about it that it would destroy his trust in both of ours, something that I didn't want to be lost, because I believed that the damage of me directly talking to him about what he was saying would cause him to turn away from the entire community. In hindsight, I would have taken more responsibility and metaphorically tried to take Sprinkles off them. But everything is clearer in hindsight, and I can't change those events now.

I want Sprinkles and the person to work it out, in a moderated discussion. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I'm still not entirely sure where I stand on this. I'm for Sprinkles staying in the PPC. I'm for the victim speaking about this, whether directly or relayed through Delta (speaking of, Delta, you're incredibly kind and thoughtful for doing so).

... that for at least one person, this was not just a one-time thing. The question as I understand it is whether it can cease to be a thing.

~Neshomeh

If the victim were to be shown to use their situation to manipulate and harm others. Because, as I think you're all aware, being a victim does not preclude also being an abuser.

I don't think this is likely the case here, and we should absolutely not assume that it is. Unless contradictory information comes to light I will stand by my sentiments up-thread. But, having personally seen it happen more than once online and IRL, I thought I should mention it for the sake of awareness.

~Neshomeh, twice-shy.

Having read through all that has been posted on this site regarding this issues as of this moment, I do believe this is the best solution. We don't yet know if this will be a habit, so we should work under the assumption that it is a one time thing. I think that right now, this is the best option, especially given the fact that there appears to be precedent for this happening given what Huinesoron said.

And wanted to be sure to say so, since you're so diligent about reviewing everyone else's work.

I was grinning or chuckling the whole way through. The situation is deliciously off the wall, and just ridiculous enough to stop it from being too dark. I recognized the Pokéball for what it was right away, and I love it. And the escape after the third shake—who doesn't know the pain and anguish? *g*

Nice work!

~Neshomeh

Nice 007 shout-out, too.

Loving Corolla's lines, especially. "Great, we've got two of them now."

/Sends Good Vibes your way!

I'm not the unnamed person. I don't know what the unnamed person has been going through in regards to this. It isn't fair for me to say what I would have done because I have zilch of the facts.

That being said, I don't think I would have done *this*.

A) No. I do not think unnamed person is a bad person for blocking Sprinkles. I think unnamed person is, however, causing them a lot of harm by doing so. I continue to support the position that Sprinkles' outburst was caused by an alternate personality that he cannot control. I don't want to force the unnamed person into continuing communication. I do, however, want them to know what's happening with Sprinkles, and I do feel that some manner of further explanation would be conducive to ending this. However, I'm sorry for trying to force it and I think that unnamed person is completely welcome to their time.

B) I would also like to clarify that yes. I experience mental abuse on a daily basis. I also used to experience physical abuse but that stopped when I grew into late adolescence, probably because of my increased stature. There is such a great difference between my abuser and Sprinkles that I just don't see similarity between these two cases. You're welcome to correct me. I reiterate something I think I've said, though: The person whose thoughts and feelings I think really need to be shared, at this point, is the unnamed person. I feel that without it, we're missing an important piece of this puzzle. Transparency and honesty is our way out of this. I understand if said person is emotionally unable to deal with it right now, but I firmly believe we should hold off on any decision until they have shared.

I do want to throw in my general support for Delta Juliette, Matt Cipher, hS, and basically everyone begging us all to remember the anonymous person and take them seriously. The lone voice daring to speak out against abuse must not be dismissed simply because they are in the minority and the person who has hurt them is otherwise well-respected. As the world at large is coming to realize, that is wrong and cannot continue. Being in the minority and in a position of less power does not make them incorrect.

That said, I get that this is not a simple, clear-cut situation, and I am proud of everyone for not being so blindly committed to one person or the other that they can't see both sides. This is hard, and I think you're all doing an admirable job of navigating through it. I know you'll make the best decision you can.

~Neshomeh

Back when people thought she might still be operating in good faith, she was repeatedly given a message along the lines of: we're sorry you have mental health issues that render you unable to communicate civilly. Since the PPC is aggravating that problem, for your own good you should probably leave.

That's a message I could see being given. But an ultimatum - a gods, your issues are so irritating, get lost - would absolutely not be.

hS

I mostly agree with your positions. That amendment is the sort of attitude we've decided we don't want to have, and so I'm taking it back.

That being said, I'd like your thoughts on something. Suppose hypothetically that the sort of repeated breakdown we're hearing about in this thread were directed at the chat as a whole and not a specific member. Would you support a collective "enough is enough" at some point? (To be clear, I don't think another breakdown would make us hit that point, but I do think such a point exists.)

- Tomash, on mobile

Okay, here's something I do want to make clear:

I do NOT think the person in question should have stayed with Sprinkles if it was hurting them. I do not think they were a bad person for leaving that situation. I feel that a lot of pain on both sides could have been avoided, however, if they had been more upfront about their feelings. I understand why they were not, however, and do not blame them.

As I said previously, I am trying not to assign blame, because this is a complicated issue. I don't think that placing the responsibility entirely on either person involved is acceptable.

I do not see this as the victim's fault. The reason I have been defending Sprinkles so stongly is that I do not see it as entirely his fault either.

Therefore, as an amendment to the previous proposal, Sprinkles needs to also not do the insulting rant thing he did to chat a few days ago, privately or otherwise, probably on pain of temp-boot. (If nothing else, it avoids re-exposing X to that.).

I will remind you that less than a year ago, we had someone post rants to the Board and the Discord while influenced by mental health issues. Do you feel that that person should be booted from the Discord if it happens again? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess not.

There are two (three) entirely separate issues here:

Does having mental-health-issue-induced breakdowns render you ineligible to participate in the PPC?

I would say no.

Is anyone required to put their own mental wellbeing at risk to preserve the wellbeing of another, eg by continuing a relationship that they feel is abusive towards them?

I would say no.

Is 'preserving the utility of the chat' a more important goal than allowing PPC members in good standing access to said chat?

I would say no.

hS

Not feeling able to say anything other than "of course I don't mind you doing this" is a type of not feeling able to stand up for yourself. Implying otherwise is perilously close to saying 'they led Sprinkles on, they should have known better, they brought it on themselves'.

Imagine... oh, imagine a partner who doesn't want you to go out with friends, but insists that you stay home with them every evening. Do you really think that if you say 'of course that's okay, sweetheart' even though you'd actually like to get away from them for a while (and the weeks turn into months, and your friends no longer talk to you...), you're now complicit in their abuse?

Of course not. And when you turn that 'okay' from 'of course I love spending time with you' to 'of course you can say whatever you need to', it doesn't get any more acceptable to pin that on the victim.

hS

IF it's actually the case and Sprinkles was not in his right mind.

I am staying middle ground on whether or not he has a problem and that "alter personality forcing him to spit out abuse" is an actual thing. If it is, this takes a different turn that if it wasn't. Remember the Other!Sprinkles saying "I'm good at pretending"?

My point is, and I would like a clarification from three people here - Calliope, Quincy, and you Thoth -, that right now the general vibe is that the victim is a bad person for not staying with Sprinkles and letting him, or his other self, emotionally abuse them, to which I ask:

Has any of you three ever been subjected to a mental abuse? Do you have any idea how it works? How your brain feels heavy whenever that one person is talking to you? How you get sweaty, dizzy, feel like crying? It is not something that can be solved with a simple "please stop".

Plus, you're once again missing the context, Thoth. The victim said that Sprinkles talking about his problems was okay. How the heck would Other!Sprinkles's abuse be okay? THAT is why the victim blocked any form of contact with Sprinkles. Because, as you've mentioned before you experienced, they felt a shift coming on and wanted to protect themselves from the incoming abuse. And they are now suffering a withdrawal. They're too conflicted to either unblock Sprinkles (because who knows when this happens again), and keep blocking him (because it's not Other!Sprinkles anymore). Please stop seeing this as the victim's fault. It was the only mechanism of self-defense they've had left.

I'm not sure that "the issues between them" is a restriction that will cover anything that's actually a problem. From what I can tell, the issue is Sprinkles going on the sort of rant we saw in chat a few days back, just over and over in PMs, to the point that X (who had been trying to help that whole time) eventually snapped and had enough.

Now, there doesn't seem to be anything in that above paragraph warranting an immediate hurling out the door. However, if we're looking at levels of rant etc. that are objectively unreasonable, that is, Sprinkles should've known that was too much to pin on someone (it's currently unclear if that's the case, for one, no logs), someone should mention this.

Therefore, as an amendment to the previous proposal, Sprinkles needs to also not do the insulting rant thing he did to chat a few days ago, privately or otherwise, probably on pain of temp-boot. (If nothing else, it avoids re-exposing X to that.).

If Sprinkles can't control that behavior ... I don't know. I can very much understand why many people are uncomfortable having someone who'll tend to do that to people in the chat though.

Referring to elsewhere in the thread, I predict that if that kept happening in chat, I'd be feeling really nice/sympathetic/... and likely wouldn't be calling for boots, even though they'd be needed to preserve the utility of the chat for everyone else. I have the feeling this is the position X is in at the moment.

*sighs* This is hard.

- Tomash

Can we then blame Sprinkles entirely?

He was repeatedly sent the message, deliberate or no, that what he did was okay. If you keep getting sent the message that the things you're saying are alright by the person you're talking to, then I can't blame you for thinking that.

I am not saying that Sprinkles bears no responsibility. I am not saying that the other individual is The Problem. I am saying that this is more complex then a simple case of abuse, and that it was a particularly nasty interaction between two flawed human beings, and I don't think we can reasonably simply assign blame to one or the other.

It's probably unwise to type this literally minutes before work... Then again, people who are in a rush tend to write what's on their mind, without taking time to sound more neutral or PC. So here goes:

Sprinkles is not a bad guy. That has to be established first. He's a bloke with problems, just like many of us. I have no details about his life situation, but suffice to say it's not easy. He deals with his problems, and I believe that being among the PPC people kinda helped him in that matter. It's no longer a question of whether or not he should be invited back to the Discord, because he was never kicked off of it.

Now, for the bigger issue. Is Sprinkles an abuser? Yes. Yes, he is. HOWEVER, this is not a type of abuse that he chooses to inflict. He does not pick up his victims and pretends to be this poor, unfortunate, soul only to take pleasure in their suffering. He does not do this consciously. If we take into consideration what he claims being "another personality taking over", maybe it's a type of schizophrenia? I have no idea, and I don't know if Sprinkles had done anything to treat it. Nonetheless, it IS an abuse, and nothing that his victims do is their fault.

Once again, I will give you an compilation of what happened that time at Discord. This is but a few of the messages displayed in public. Please look at some of the words. "I'll hurt you". "I'll make you hate me". "Stop lying". Now, who can honestly say that they would be okay with getting things like this? Do you truly believe Sprinkles's victim was FINE with getting borderline THREATS for over a month? And then, after they've finally decided this has to stop, and chose the safest possible way of finishing it, you guys dare saying "Oh, they should've just tell Sprinkles and not make a big fuss about it." NO. Hell to the n, to the o! Why? Because Sprinkles clearly had no control over his abusive self. Telling him to stop wouldn't do anything, because it's not this side of him performing the abuse.

And yes, I said "safest" possible way out was going completely cold. Why? Well, imagine this - you suffer an abuse, from a person you care about and do their absolute best to keep sane. You bottle up all your emotion, so they finally burst like a Mentos+Cola combination. What good would saying "Yeah, he abused me emotionally" do? It would only create a situation of "How dare you accusing him!", "Booo! Attention beggar!", "He has problems! It's your job to help him!". It would definitely turn into a victim blaming scenario. One we don't need here anymore.

Final thoughts? I have no problems with Sprinkles coming to Discord. It seems like he has now a few more people to talk to, maybe this will help him. But he has to respect his victim's wish and now interact with them, until they decide it's okay. Because this was a strained relationship for both of them. They need a break from one another.

Having recently conversed with Sprinkles, he said that he's figured out how to control it for the most part. But then a shift came on, so I have witnessed how this works: He warned me that a shift was coming on, told me to stop communicating with him for the duration, and changed his nick and icon rather drastically, as a warning sign to others that he was in A Not Good Place and Should Not Be Contacted.

So I would say that the risk is no greater in PMs, at least based on my personal experience.

A nice and kind person will never tell you to stop talking to them about your problems. They will listen and let you vent and even insult everything (including them), and calmly respond with positive messages. They will be worried that if they say anything other than a reassuring thought, they will make the matter even worse and will be perceived by others as selfish scum. EXACTLY, how the victim in question feels right now.

I know several people who are like this. This is why, if I talk my problems with them, I tend to apologize for rambling and taking their time.

That's how it was perceived: Sprinkles was informed that what he was saying and doing was okay by the individual in question, and that they didn't mind hearing it.

That may not have been the intended message, but that the message it seems Sprinkles got.

I propose a slightly more relaxed restriction, Tomash. Partly because it solves the VoIP issue, partly because I just think it's a better solution.

-Sprinkles should not try to force a discussion with the individual in question, or seek out contact with them.

-HOWEVER, if that individual is in a discussion that Sprinkles is also in and wishes to join, Sprinkles may respond to their comments in said discussion. The same goes for the individual.

-If, through any means, the topic of discussion becomes the issues between Sprinkles and the individual, then Sprinkles must exit the conversation unless the individual explicitly states otherwise.

-In VoIP, the same rules apply: Sprinkles may join in discussion that involves the individual, but may not seek them out, and may not broach this subject.

Does this seem reasonable? If it doesn't, we can go for Tomash's original, but I do feel this laxer allows both Sprinkles and the individual more flexibility, and a more sane ability operate in a shared space. I have been known to be wrong, however, and if others feel Tomash's proposal seems stronger, I can deal with that.

From your message, it seems like the victim said that the abuse was okay. No. They've listened to Sprinkles, because they feel responsible for them. Because they care. Because they knew how is it to be in a dangerous family situation. But everything has limits. You were in the chat when the flood of emotion happened, some of which included insults and accusations of falsehood and lies. Getting that send to you over and over would break anyone.