The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

This is doing more harm than good. A lot of hurtful things have been said here, and it's putting everyone through hell.

I'm not trying to gain sympathy points by saying this- Y'all can believe what you want about me, but I don't want more people to get hurt. I just want this fighting to stop. And, if it means I'm not allowed back into the PPC, then that's fine by me.

I make my apologies, and I'll keep my distance.

Goodbye, it was awesome meeting you guys.

This (and your previous note) are obviously very personal, thank you for sharing them. I know it can't have been easy.

Theoretically speaking, though, the question that has been asked is "are we okay with Sprinkles returning to the Discord?" And a possible answer to that has to be "no, we are not"- if a no is impossible, a yes is meaningless.

Is "no, go away" the right answer? Of course not. I don't think there is a right answer, and the second-chance section of the Constitution is a statement by we-the-community that "no, go away" is the wrong answer.

Thank you again for speaking up- I know someone raised similar concerns when Bram came up, and I appreciate that too.

I still don't know what I think, honestly. This one is hard, there are no good options.

The way I see it, a large part of why we eventually banned Zdimensia for good is that she was stomping on our collective boundaries (insulting a whole lot of people, trying to dictate the terms of her relationship with the community etc etc.) and didn't stop after we'd explained the problem and given her a chance to work on it/stop.

I'm willing to say that Zdimentia was actually trying to participate and ... couldn't. So we had to cut off our relationship with her for our own well-being.

The ultimatum as you phrased it wouldn't be OK, but we're sorry, your issues are making this place unsafe/[are effectively abusive behavior towards the community]/.... and they don't seem to be improving, you'll need to leave is something we've said before (IMO) and that we hopefully won't need to say again. (That being said, some sort of warning between "please stop" and that sort of thing might be a good idea if we somehow end up in that point.)

- Tomash

Okay, now that I've read everything people have posted, I have to say I don't support the idea of Sprinkles coming back into the chat at this time for a few reasons which I'll lay out. Let me say something that's been said many times before by other people, but bears mentioning again: Sprinkles, I hope you get the support and help you need. I don't think you're a bad person; I just think the best thing for everyone would be to take a break for a while.

Now, as to why.

As I see it, Sprinkles has been abusing at least one person for an extended period of time, and that person reached out to others for help before deciding to block Sprinkles. I don't think Tomash's proposal is realistic precisely *because* it's ideal. People are not ideal. People make mistakes. I think it's likely that some kind of accidental interaction between Sprinkles and Person X will happen, and that that interaction could be harmful to at least one of them, to say nothing of the rest of the community as a whole if it happens outside PMs. Tomash has a good proposal, I just think it's not likely to be followed even if everyone has the very best of intentions (and I'm not saying anyone doesn't).

Now, I haven't been in contact with Sprinkles. I don't know his exact situation or what steps he's taking in real life. I don't know who Person X is, so I can't speak for them. Maybe other people know more and haven't said anything yet that could change my mind, and if that's the case (and people are comfortable sharing), I'd appreciate hearing it. Unless and until that happens, though? The safest option for both Sprinkles and Person X is for Sprinkles to cut contact through the PPC Discord.

What happens in PMs between Sprinkles and other people in the PPC is outside what I'm willing to talk about. I'm only suggesting he be asked politely but firmly to stay off the PPC Discord server for at least a few months... and most importantly, we should defer to Person X as for when (or even if) to let Sprinkles back in.

To clarify, I'm writing a Doctor Who fanfic series that will feature the Fifth, and even though I'm currently watching his era to get an idea of how he works, I'm still nervous I could screw his character, dialogue, and reactions to certain scenarios up. What I'm asking is, if someone on here knows the Fifth Doctor's character well enough, or if someone knows someone else who does, would you be willing to beta my story to check and make sure I'm not messing things up? Thanks!

I was not saying that they should be forced to be friends or even to have continued contact. I said that everyone, even Sprinkles, should be given the opportunity to stop and apologize. As in, the section of the PPC's constitution that says people are supposed to get that chance.

This has gone from, "You are fine." To "You are an abuser who will likely be thrown out of the group forever." With no steps in-between.

Do I think this unnamed person should be in charge of telling him this and working it out with him directly at this point? No I don't think they should be forced into that. But as a community do I think we should follow the stop and apologize proceedure? Since no one has said they think Sprinkles was behaving with malevolent intent, Yes. Otherwise what was the point of including that?

I am not blindly supporting Sprinkles behavior. He needs to stop. And if his attempts to directly apologize are making things worse, then that needs to stop as well. He should take a break, cool off, come back in a week or two, and apologize to the community at large. He should probably think of steps he can take to prevent this from happening again and, with a cooler head, outline those steps.

I believe the [i]voluntary[/i] cooling off step is important. Sprinkles is likely in full blown panic mode right now with very high emotions and cannot look at this logically/sensibly.

As you can see, I believe Sprinkles has a lot of responsibility to the group in this situation. The group's responsibility is then to give him a legit second chance. (Caveat to all that is if he was found to have had malicious intent or if he doesn't stop harassing or doesn't take a bit to cool down and then apologize from a sensible frame of mind).

What he was doing wasn't healthy. He did not do it in a vacuum, however. The situation was two people behaving in very unhealthy ways and they both have things they need to work on.

Before I get jumped on for saying that, are we going to advocate for person X to continue to be victimized? They need help, too, so that next time they don't feel obligated to tell someone making them feel bad "You are fine." And I am painfully aware that that is easier said than done, but if real life help is available, please take it. Don't end up imprisoned by your fears like I have.

When I wrote the above post, I only knew Sprinkle's side of the story. I was not aware of the extent of the abuse, to the point where the interactions between Sprinkle and the victim that I was aware of did not even register as abuse to me, or the extent of the distress it caused them. Had I known about it, I would have featured it in the post; however I fully understand the victim's decision not to share it with me. I did attempt to contact the victim; both to try and set up a discussion between them and Sprinkle, and to find out their side of the story. They refused, a decision that I do not blame them for in the slightest. At that time however, I attempted to get their story even after they told me to drop the subject. I have already apologized to them in private, but that happened before I brought the discussion to the Board. Due to what I learned from this discussion, I think a second apology is in order. I am sorry for not respecting the victim's wish not to discuss the matter. I fully understand their decision not to, and should not have pressed the topic.

As to what happened, I do share the opinion that Sprinkle did not intentionally inflict abuse on the victim. I also think that shutting of Sprinkle was a good decision, or at least better than keeping up the abusive relationship. Was it the best option there was? I have honestly no idea. I think things might have turned out better in the aftermath if they had maybe asked someone they trusted to explain the situation to Sprinkle. However, I do not blame them for not doing so, and I am not sure if I would have done it if I had been in their situation.

Maxe's idea of a moderated discussion sounds like a good idea in theory, but, as they admit themselves, it is not practical in this case, and trying force both parties into it would be a horrible idea.

I support Sprinkle being allowed back, however I also think Tomash's proposal, possibly with a few tweaks and clarifications, is a good idea, but I'd be interested in hearing the victim's thoughts on it if they are willing to voice them, either themselves or through Delta.

One final note to everyone: There is something important to learn from this situation for everyone who offers emotional support to others. First, what you're doing is admirable. But you must never forget to take care of yourselves. Back in EMT training, we learned a principle that roughly translates to "Make sure you are safe before attempting to save others." It was mostly meant as a warning to look out for possible dangers and not to take unnecessarily risky actions. I don't want to say"Don't help others if you have mental health Issues yourself", in a lot of cases having experience with mental illnesses can be very helpful. I want to say that your own wellbeing is important as well. (Again, this is *not* intended as an attack on the victim, but as an important warning to others).

~Ak

Delta, believe me, I know more than well how my behaviour can and does hurt other people.

That's why I always make sure the others are okay. That I give them good enough warning (with my triggers and any other issues that come up.)

I really hate it when anyone I know is hurt. It blows even more when it's because of me.

A) It was never about the outburst in generic_channel. If it was just that? This wouldn't be an issue at all.

A₂) I appreciate that you're advocating for Sprinkles, but it really feels like you're overlooking the amount of pain that Sprinkles had unloaded onto the unnamed person. They know what's happening with Sprinkles! They know intimately, because he's been unloading into them for months in ways they were not comfortable with.

B) Again, nobody is saying that Sprinkles is Bad or An Abuser. He fell into an abusive pattern of behavior, made infinitely worse by his counterpart's falling into an abuse-victim pattern of behavior. Neither of them intended it to be an abusive interaction, I'm sure- but that was the pattern they both fell into. I suspect that you've felt that pull too- in a moment of frustration, or anger, or sadness, when the first emotional tool that comes to hand... is one that was used to hurt you.

B₂) They're not comfortable speaking up for themselves. I've said this repeatedly. I've also volunteered to advocate for them- and once again, you are trying to insist that they must put themself on the emotional firing line. This is, for the record, one of the reasons I had to work so hard to get their permission to say anything at all- because they were terrified that they would end up hauled before the Inquisition. That this whole mess would become about them, not the situation at large.

So, no. I do not think they are under any obligation to identify themself, nor do I think that we cannot reach a consensus without their direct input. This is why I volunteered to be their advocate- because they were not comfortable speaking for themself.

I'm willing to (and probably have) staked a reasonable amount of my reputation on it not being the case here- as I'd mentioned, I got corroboration from multiple sources, including my own observations, on the people involved before saying anything.

That's really the worst part about abuse, imo- it's so cyclical, it ingrains itself into its victims like a virus, waiting for the wrong moment to take over their actions and spread itself again.

-Delta

It is entirely possible to respect a victim's desire to cut off all contact, without levelling blame at a person who unintentionally engaged in abusive behaviour.

hS

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.